Responses to inclusion have attracted a protective or charitable response. Opponents against inclusion perceive disabled students as subjects to charity or asylum, who are incapable of leading ordinary lives. Equally, a majority of general education teachers say that inclusion cannot work because teachers in general classrooms are not adequately prepared in certain areas related to the students with disabilities. These teachers feel fearful and unqualified to work with students with disabilities, and thus tend to display resentment, frustration, and negative attitude toward inclusive education as they believe it may result to lower academic standards (Voltz and Collins 71). .
Consequently, these beliefs and attitudes opposing inclusion suggest that teachers do not regard learners with disabilities as belonging to general education classrooms, and thus would prefer segregating these students in existing special schools. However, advocates for inclusion endeavor at fighting stigmatization allied to disability, thus endorsing opportunities for all in education. For instance, Idol conducted a study to determine the attitudes of elementary school administrators toward inclusion (80). Findings portrayed that the administrators, being in favor of inclusion, declares that the program works efficiently. Their attitudes toward students with disabilities were supportive, and they considered themselves excellent collaborators who worked effectively with the teachers. Besides, Houck and Roger acknowledge that stigmatization remains immense with segregation of the disabled students into special schools (435). Hence, inclusion is allied to reduced stigma associated with segregated programs.
Support and financing of educational services for learners with special needs is a chief concern despite of the available resources. Antagonists to inclusion establish that provision of quality education for special needs students within the general classroom demands the necessary resources for both teachers and students (Lamport 65).
