Teachers’ Perceptions of Educational Administers’ Support for Inclusive Education

This paper investigates the perceptions of teachers in Saudi Arabia About educational administers’ support of inclusive education. The goal of this study is to provide a baseline of information for the ministry of education to enhance their professional development plan for administers and teachers to adopting inclusive education for the purpose of increasing the number of students with disabilities in general education settings. The results in this study were almost converged between agreement and disagree with slightly more respondents agreeing that administrator support of inclusive education was present. The inferential results indicated a statistically significant difference between respondent degree area and recognition of administrator support of inclusive education. Significant differences occurred for both school and district administrators. Also, another statistical difference was found between respondent teaching grade and their recognition of administers’ support of inclusive education.

Quantitative data were collected in this study through closed-ended questions that was provided in an electronic survey. The survey that was used in this study was created by Dr. Petherbridge and applied in her study (Petherbridge, 2007). I revised the same survey after obtaining permission from Dr. Petherbridge.
Descriptive statistics began with demographic characteristics, which cover teachers' gender, academic qualifications, years of teaching experience, grade, and area of degree. Then, the percentile scores for administrative support for inclusive education. A series of one-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to find values of significance. MANOVA test whether there are statistically significant differences among groups on multiple dependent variables. Also, it can protect against Type I errors (rejection of a true null hypothesis) (French, Poulsen, & Yu, 2006). SPSS provides different statistic tests based on MANOVA, such as Pillai's Trace statistic, which was used to determine statistical significance at the p < .05 level. When the MANOVA reveals statistically significant differences, then an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to identify the values of significance.

Analysis and Findings
In this section descriptive and inferential statistics will be provided. The descriptive statistics began with the percentile scores for both sections of the survey that cover: school administrative support and district administrative support for inclusive education. The second section covers the inferential statistics used to illustrate the results of MANOVA tests. In this section, significant responses to the questions are examined. Also, other results were identified using ANOVA. Independent t-tests were conducted to decide where differences between groups occur.

Descriptive Statistics
Administrative support for inclusive education was covered in two parts. This question: (a) three sub questions that measured school administrator support for inclusive education and (b) three sub questions that measured the amount support for inclusive education from administrators in the educational districts. A five-point Likert scale was used in this section with each statement anchored from "strongly agree", to "strongly disagree". The results jel.ccsenet.o show an a education.

Inferen
The resea academic recognition education) The indep the grade administra Multivaria qualificatio of adminis for inclusiv

Finding
Pillai's Trace test shows no statistically significant difference between academic qualification teacher their recognition of school and district administrator support for adopting inclusive education. Thus, academic qualification did not influence respondent recognition of school and district administrator support for adopting inclusive education. Therefore, null hypothesis H0 2 was accepted.
H0 3. There are no statistically significant differences in how years of teaching experiences affects teacher recognition of school and district administrator support for adopting inclusive education.

Finding
Pillai's Trace test shows no statistically significant difference between years of teaching experience and teacher recognition of school and district administrator support for adopting inclusive education. Thus, years of teaching experience did not influence respondent recognition of school and district administrator support for adopting inclusive education. Therefore, null hypothesis H0 3 was accepted.
H0 4. There are no statistically significant differences in how teacher degree area affects their recognition of school and district administrator support for adopting inclusive education.

Finding
Pillai's Trace test shows statistically significant difference between degree areas in teacher recognition of school and district administrator supports for adopting inclusive education. Thus, degree area did not influence respondent recognition of school and district administrator support for adopting inclusive education. Therefore, null hypothesis H0 4 was rejected.
ANOVA determined the exact differences between the dependent variables (school administrators and district administrators).  Note. Findings that approach statistically significant depending on the p value: Significant at the p < 0.05 level ANOVA results showed that significant values were found for school administrators (see Table 3). District administrators turned up one significant value (see Table 3). The independent variable, Degree Area, is dichotomous, so a t-test was conducted to compare means among degree areas. Table 4 displays the means of special education and general education teachers in their recognition of school and district administrator supports for adopting inclusive education. The t-test showed that general education teachers tended to agree that administrators support inclusive education, while special education teachers tended to disagree.
H0 5. There are no statistically significant differences in how the grade teachers instruct affects their recognition of school and district administrator support for adopting inclusive education.

Finding
Pillai's Trace test shows statistically significant difference in the relationship between grade teachers instruct and teacher recognition of school and district administrator support for adopting inclusive education. Thus, the grade jel.ccsenet.org

Journal of Education and Learning
Vol. 9, No. 6; 2020 teachers instruct does influence respondent recognition of school and district administrator support for adopting inclusive education. Therefore, null hypothesis H0 5 was rejected.
ANOVA was conducted to determine the exact differences and to find out which dependent variable (school administrators or district administrators) caused the differences. Table 5 displays the significance values of the responses about administrator support based on the grade teachers instruct. The ANOVA results showed significant values for school administrators. The independent variable is dichotomous, so a t-test was conducted to compare means. Table 6 displays the means of teacher responses for first grade through third grade and fourth grade through sixth grade. The t-test result indicated that responses of teachers who taught Fourth through sixth grade tend toward agreeing that School Administers do support inclusive education, but responses of teachers who taught first through third grades felt that the support is insufficient.
In conclusion, the descriptive statistics, the responses almost converged between agreement and disagree with slightly more respondents agreeing that administrator support of inclusive education was present. The MANOVA test results indicated a statistically significant difference between respondent degree area and recognition of administrator support of inclusive education. Significant differences occurred for both school and district administrators. The t-test showed that general education teachers tended to agree that administrators support inclusive education, while special education teachers tended to disagree. Therefore, the null hypothesis H0 4 was rejected.
In addition, in research question two the MANOVA test confirmed another statistical difference between respondent teaching grade and their recognition of administers' support of inclusive education. Based on the t-test the significant was found in just in School Administers. Responses of teachers who taught Fourth through sixth grade tend toward agreeing that School Administers do support inclusive education, but responses of teachers who taught first through third grades felt that the support is insufficient. Therefore, the null hypothesis H0 5 was rejected.

Conclusion and Discussion
For teacher recognition of administrative support (administrators in schools and district administrators) for inclusive education, responses converged between agreement and disagreement, with slightly more respondents agreeing that administrators supported inclusive education.
The one-way MANOVA test results indicated a statistically significant difference between respondent degree area and recognition of administrative support of inclusive education (p = .001). Significant differences occurred for both school and district administrators. The t-test showed that general education teachers tended to agree that administrators support inclusive education, while special education teachers tended to disagree.
The one-way MANOVA test confirmed a statistical difference between respondent teaching grade and recognition of administrative support of inclusive education (p = .028).
Based on the t-test, a significant difference was found for school administrators. Teachers of fourth through sixth grade tend to agree that school administrators do support inclusive education, but teachers of first through third grades felt that the support is insufficient.
There was statistically significant difference between degree area and grade instructed in teacher recognition of school and district administrative support for adopting inclusive education.
In this study, the results on teacher recognition of administrative support for inclusive education were almost evenly divided between agreement and disagreement, with agreement having a slight edge in recognizing administrative support of inclusive education. Among teachers, 37.3% agreed that school administrators support inclusive education, while 37% found the support insufficient. Nearly 40% recognized the support of district administrators for inclusive education, while 30% did not.
The study's inferential statistics proved that special education teachers tended to find the administrators support of inclusive education insufficient (M = 2.8), while general education teachers tended to have no opinion about administrator support of inclusive education (M = 3).
According to previous research (Andrews & Lupart, 2000;Bauer & Brown, 2001;Loreman, 2001;Raymond & Loreman, 2005;Loreman, 2007), school or district administrators are very important to creating inclusive schools, but without clear legislation that supports inclusive education, they will have difficulty in enhancing inclusive education. Having policies and/or legislation that clearly supports inclusive education is useful in encouraging inclusive education and gaining support from schools and district administrators (Kennedy & Fisher, 2001;Loreman, 2007).
Students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia have the right by law to have free educational services in all levels of education. In examining the Saudi Disability Welfare Law (2000), I found it lacked clear support for inclusive education. The Saudi Disability Welfare Law article 2 (Educational Aspects) states, "Provide educational services in all levels of education from preschool, general education, technical education, and higher education in the way that meets the abilities and needs of the disabled. Facilitate the enrollment and continued evaluation of the curriculum and the provided educational services" (The Ministry of Labor and Social Development, 2000, p. 2).
In Saudi Arabia, the extent of the needs and challenges of the disabled cannot be accurately tracked because a clear definition of disability does not exist, and the country lacks a standardized and unified database of people with disabilities. Also, the awareness is lacking for issues related to working with and educating people with disabilities, as well as the obstacles they face. Furthermore, most work environments do not have accommodations for people with disabilities (Transformation Program Vision 2030, 2016).
Saudi Arabia is now moving toward a more inclusive vision known as Vision 2030 that aims to create a vibrant society, thriving economy, and ambitious nation (Vision 2030(Vision , 2016. Therefore, the government of Saudi Arabia created a National Transformation Program (Vision 2030(Vision , 2016. According to the National Transformation Program for Vision 2030 (2016), this vision "was adopted as a methodology and roadmap for economic and developmental action in the KSA" (p. 7). In Vision 2030 the government focuses on 8 objectives related to education reform: 1) Provide education services for all student levels.
2) Improve recruitment, training, and development of teachers.
3) Improve the learning environment to stimulate creativity and innovation. 4) Improve curricula and teaching methods. 5) Improve students' values and core skills. 6) Enhance the educational system's capability to address national development requirements and to meet labor market demands. 7) Develop creative financing methods and improve the educational system's financial efficiency. Also, this program under theme number six (Labor Market Accessibility & Attractiveness), the second strategic objective is to integrate people with disabilities into the labor force. This objective aims to "remove obstacles that hinder people with disabilities from integrating into the labor market by providing opportunities, establishing infrastructure, and developing their professional and social skills" (Transformation Program for Vision 2030, 2016, p. 80). One strategy that the Saudi government included to achieve this objective is improving and supporting legislation, policies, and classifications by establishing the Authority of Caring for Disabled People to provide necessary services to the disabled (Transformation Program Vision 2030, 2016.
Thus, the support of administrators in schools or districts will be sufficient if current special education's legislation clearly supports inclusive education. School leaders will need to do more to encourage inclusive education, understand the workload, and organize collaboration between special and general educators. Also, school and district leaders can help develop support systems by connecting school communities with other organizations that advocate for the rights of the disabled to create an inclusive culture in schools and society. Vision 2030 promises improvement for the disabled, especially in legislation and policies for educating students with disabilities.