Attitudes to Down syndrome and Inclusion: Cyprus and Ireland

Dr Hugh Gash & Father Christos Michaelides

St Patrick’s College Dublin &

Cyprus

Introduction

This study investigated children’s attitudes towards

children with Down syndrome in two countries, Cyprus and

Ireland. The aim of the study was to assess children’s

attitudes towards children with Down syndrome in the context

of planned inclusion in Cyprus using data collected in

Ireland as a tool for comparison. We are concerned

principally with two types of attitudes in children: one is

about social acceptance and concern, and the other about

acceptance of integration and inclusion. While these two are

not identical, they are closely linked to the context in

which friendships are formed in school. In addition to

these two attitudes of children to their peers in inclusive

situations we have indicators of children’s representations

of their peers with Down Syndrome.

Inclusive practice in Cyprus and Ireland

1

Cyprus and Ireland differ sharply in the emergence of

inclusive practice, though both countries have similarly

positive official policies towards it. Both countries have

adopted the position that except where individual

circumstances make this impracticable, appropriate education

for all children with special educational needs should be

provided in ordinary schools.

In common with many other countries, Cyprus, during the

1980’s, saw a trend toward the integration of children with

special needs into mainstream schools. The initial years saw

a number of problems of a technical, practical and social

nature. By the new millennium a balance began to emerge

between mainstream placement and specialist schools.

However, the practice of integration had no legislative

foundation until 1999 with the balloting of the Law for the

Training and Education of Children with Special Needs. The

State recognizes that all children have a right to an

education appropriate to their needs, an education which

meets their individual needs. Today the majority of children

with special needs attend mainstream schools and follow the

normal curriculum which may be adjusted to suit their

particular needs.

As for Ireland, the Education Act (Ireland, 1998)

provided a legislative basis to the education system of the

2

country. It notes the right of all citizens to receive an

education, and makes specific reference to the rights of

those with disabilities or special educational needs. The

current policy of the Irish Department of Education and

Science is to try to assist the integration of children and

young people with disabilities into mainstream education. In

order to facilitate this process, the Department provides

resource teaching, learning support teaching, special needs

assistants and other resources such as special equipment.

There has been a vigourous campaign to prepare schools

in Cyprus to receive children with special needs and the

details of this system change can be found at:

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/Eurydice/EuryPa

ge?country=CY&lang=EN&fragment=410 (Cyprus 2007/2008). The

data in Cyprus were collected during the first year of

inclusive practice there, whereas in Ireland the data were

collected prior to a legal legislative framework being put

in place. At the time the Irish data were collected, before

the Irish Education Act (Ireland, 1998), inclusion was rare

and children with Down Syndrome were often educated apart

from children in ordinary classes. There was considerable

good will shown by teachers towards children with Down

Syndrome though the provisions made in schools were not

without their critics (Bennett, Gash & O’Reilly, 1998). We

note that the support systems in Ireland have improved

3

immensely since educational rights of children have been put

on a firmer footing.

Attitudes and development

One of the key features of successful inclusive

practice is attitude (Bunch, web reference). Helen Keller is

known to have said that the heaviest burdens of disability

arise from difficulties in social relations and not from the

disability itself. Difficulties in social relations may

arise on account of negative teacher attitudes or negative

pupil attitudes in the class. Teachers sometimes have

difficulties managing inclusive classrooms and in particular

teachers often have more negative attitudes towards

inclusion of children with more severe difficulties

(Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Part of the difficulty is that

there may be obstacles to providing help to teachers in

their preparation for inclusive practices. Part of the

problem is in teacher preparation, and it may be that the

types of complex teaching skills needed to manage excellent

inclusive practice are best provided through continuing

professional development rather than pre-service programmes

(see Gash, 2004).

In previous work with primary school pupils we have

noticed that the way teachers prepare children to meet and

work with children who are different is crucial and can have

4

a positive effect when it done well and if not - may have a

negative effect. In addition, we have noticed variation in

attitude towards children with learning difficulties based

on age, gender, and whether the classroom is inclusive or

not (Gash, Illán Romeu, & López Pina, 2004). We anticipate

differences in attitudes to children with Down Syndrome

between boys and girls, and between data of the children in

the two countries sampled (Cyprus & Ireland) and between the

children in schools that provide inclusive or integrated

settings and the children in schools without inclusion

(Wolpert, 1996). By analysing attitudes we hope to provide

information that will increase awareness and understanding

of the ideologies that underpin them and that will form a

basis for teachers to work with pupils to promote tolerance

and facilitate positive social interaction. Because

attitudes are related to the social and organisational

context of the school community, understanding them will

enable us to clarify factors that function as obstacles to

the implementation of the principles of inclusion and so

identify ways of modifying school practices.

There are educational advantages for all children in

these inclusive policies. There is evidence that children

with Down Syndrome benefit academically and socially (Bunch,

1999). There are also advantages for the classmates of

children with Down Syndrome who learn to communicate more

5

easily with children who are different and in particular

learn the importance of human diversity (Staub & Peck,

1995).

If we identify differences in attitude between groups

of children - as we anticipate, then there is a need to

focus on the interactions between students in their school

environment, and on the ways in which the social context of

the educational system can be improved to guarantee one of

the most fundamental rights of its citizens: to be educated.

Avoiding social exclusion at this time is critical because

children are building their self-concepts (Harter 1998) and

there is good evidence that difficulties with peers place

children at risk for developing psychological problems

(Harter 1998). Children's expectations about friendship

develop in a stage like manner (Bigelow, 1977). An initial

reward-cost stage (age 6 - 7) includes expectations of

friends offering help, sharing common activities and being

similar. A normative stage (age 8 - 9 ) finds children

expecting friends to admire them, to show commitment and to

have similar attitudes to rules, and in an empathic stage

(age 10 - 11) children expect some self disclosure, and

sharing of common interests and values. We expect that

developmental delays experienced by children with Down

syndrome are likely to cause problems in their gaining peer

6

social acceptance and have some role in negative attitudes

expressed in previous studies cited by Gash and colleagues.

Aim of the study

In the present study we are interested in assessing the

effects of the planned programme of inclusive practice in

Cyprus using a questionnaire that has been used previously

to measure attitudes towards children with Down Syndrome

(Gash, Guardia Gonzales, Pires & Rault, 2000). This method

was used because it was found in previous studies that

comparisons could be made more reliably when researchers

were sure that the target of the questionnaire was readily

identifiable. So, for example, different children might

understand the phrase “a child with intellectual

disabilities” in different ways according to their

experiences of children who can be described in this way.

While we are aware that the population of children with Down

Syndrome is a subset of children with learning disabilities,

by choosing this target group we were more confident that we

could make meaningful comparisons between different groups

of children in their attitudes towards inclusive practice

for an identifiable group of children who are increasingly

included within ordinary classrooms.

The questionnaire

7

Children's understandings of and attitudes to disability

have been studied with methods including projective

techniques, social distance scales, questionnaires,

adjective checklists, interviews and sociometric techniques

(e.g., Katz, 1982; Siperstein, Bak, & O'Keefe, 1988). Gash

and colleagues (e.g., Gash, 1993; Gash, 1996, Gash &

Feerick, 1996; Gash, Illán Romeu, & López Pina, 2004) have

examined primary school children's attitudes towards

different others using an adjective checklist and

questionnaire. The questionnaire used was initially

presented in Gash (1993), except that here references to

Down syndrome replaced references to mental handicap and a

picture was shown to the participants of a child with Down

Syndrome.

There were three parts to the questionnaire which is

included in the Appendix.

A twenty-item attitude scale concerning a child with Down

syndrome: "I would like you to pretend that a new child came

to your class this year. He or she has Down syndrome. Here

are some questions for you to answer." Responses to the

items were either "yes", or "no".

(1) A thirty four adjective checklist, "If you were

describing him or her to your other friends which of

these words do you think you would use?"; and

8

(2) A section to assess the child's experience of

children with Down syndrome ("Are there any children

with a mental handicap in your school/ class, and do

you know anybody who has Down syndrome?")

Data were analyzed following methods developed in

previous studies (Gash, Illán Romeu & López Pina, 2004).

Four composite variables were constructed: two attitudinal

variables were based on the 20 questions and two additional

variables based on words used to describe children with Down

syndrome, these were positive words and words reflecting a

sad or sensitive image of individuals with Down syndrome.

Attitudinal variables reflect (1) sociability/

unsociability towards children with Down syndrome, and (2)

for/ against total inclusion in school. As in previous

studies ten of the first eleven questions were added to make

a scale of sociability towards, or sociable activities in

relation to, children with Down syndrome. The items

concerned: smiling at (question 1), sitting beside (question

2), chatting at break (question 3), telling secrets

(question 4), making him or her your best friend (question

5), inviting home (question 6), (not) being angry if he or

she breaks rules of a game (question 7), inviting to a party

(question 8), picking for your team (question 9), and being

angry if he or she is teased (question 11). Item seven was

9

recoded (yes = no, no = yes) so as to contribute positively

to this item.

The six items which were summed to create the variable

concerned with schooling were: ability to do the same maths,

reading, and hobbies as other children (questions 12 to 14);

and items about special schooling (questions 16 - 18). Items

17 and 18 were recoded (no = yes; yes = no) to contribute

positively to this variable. These items are about inclusion

so that positive (yes) answers reflect acceptance of the

ability of the child with Down syndrome to enjoy same

hobbies (14) and to cope with same maths (12) and books (13)

as other children, in mainstream classrooms (16), and (not

to) need special classrooms (17), and (not to go to) special

schools (18).

The reliability (internal consistency) of each scale

was checked. Cronbach’s for sociability was 0.70, and

for attitude towards total inclusion was 0.71.

Variables based on children's use of the descriptive

words in the questionnaire have been described previously

(Gash, 1993) and reflect positive, negative, descriptive,

and sensitive orientations towards children with Down

syndrome. In the present study we formed composite variables

using the positive terms: clever, kind, friendly, lovable,

10

and happy. Cronbach’s was 0.65 – and the sad ones: sad,

lonely, and unhappy for which Cronbach’s was 0.64.

Items were summed to create scales indicating the

presence of terms in these categories. Scales show these

dimensions’ salience to pupils thinking about a child with

Down syndrome with high scores on each scale indicate the

dimension’s importance to the pupils’ way of thinking about

a child with Down syndrome.

Translations were prepared professionally and checked

by participating researchers prior to use. Also, photos of

three young people with Down syndrome were taken for use

after permission was obtained from the school board,

families and young people involved in the research.

Sample

Questionnaires were given to 480 children in Cyprus and

Ireland. Comparable schools were selected in each country,

in urban areas that were neither advantaged nor

disadvantaged, in schools with and without

inclusion/integration. As you can see from the table, two

age levels were selected, children aged about nine years old

and children about 11 years old, and two classrooms were

selected at each grade level in each condition in each

country.

11

Insert Table 1 about here

Analysis

Four independent four factor ANCOVAs (country,

grade level, sex, school type (inclusive or not)) were

calculated with sociability, attitude to inclusive

education, and use of positive and sad/sensitive words as

dependent variables. Knowing or not knowing someone with

Down Syndrome was used as a covariate in these analyses

since this was shown to influence responses in previous

studies.

In the case of sociability, there were three

significant main interactions. The Cypriot pupils (M 17.58;

s.d. 2.14) were more sociable than the Irish (M 17.12; s.d.

2.09) F(1,458) = 13.14, p<0.001, the younger pupils were

more sociable (M 17.84; s.d. 2.01) than the older (M 16.98;

s.d. 2.13) F(1,458) = 25.63, p<0.001, and the pupils who

were not in inclusive schools were more sociable (M 17.60;

s.d. 2.14) than the pupils in inclusive schools (M 17.14;

s.d. 2.09) F(1,458) = 6.92, p<0.01.

There was a significant difference between Irish pupils

(M 8.84; s.d. 1.72) and Cypriot pupils (M 10.18; s.d. 1.65)

in their attitude towards inclusion F(1,458) = 72.88,

p<0.001, and this should be viewed in the context of a

12

school type by country interaction F(1,458) = 11.04,

p<0.001. This showed that the Irish children were more

optimistic about inclusion whereas the Cypriot children were

much more aware of the difficulties for Down Syndrome

children being educated inclusively and this was even more

so for the Cypriot children in inclusive schools.

Insert Table 2 about here

There were four main effects for frequency of use of

positive words: country F(1,458) = 4.92, p<0.05, sex

F(1,458) = 5.47, p<0.05, grade F(1,458) = 10.26, p<0.001,

and school type F(1,458) = 10.18, p<0.005. These main

effects indicating the Irish children (M 3.09; s.d. 1.53)

use more positive words than the children in Cyprus (M 2.77;

s.d. 1.43), younger children use more positive words (M

3.20; s.d. 1.48) than older children (M 2.74; s.d. 1.46),

the girls (M 3.10; s.d. 1.45) use more positive words than

the boys (M 2.77; s.d. 1.51) and those children in schools

without inclusion (M 3.15; s.d. 1.46) use more positive

words than children in schools with inclusion (M 2.77; s.d.

1.50). These effects should be interpreted in the context of

two interactions shown in Tables 3 and 4 – country by grade

F(1,458) = 6.71, p<0.01, and country by school type F(1,458)

= 6.60, p<0.01. The country by age interaction was due to

the more positive attitudes of the younger Irish children in

comparison to the younger Cypriot children: there was little

13

difference between the older Irish and Cypriot children.

There was little difference between the Irish and Cypriot

children in the inclusive school settings, whereas the Irish

children in the school settings without inclusive programmes

were much more positive.

Insert Tables 3 and 4 about here

The image of sadness defined by combining frequency of

use of the words sad, lonely and unhappy showed significant

differences only for age F(1,458) = 6.08, p<0.05, with

greater use of these words by younger children (M 1.71; s.d.

1.12) than by older children (M 0.88; s.d. 0.98). There were

two interactions shown in Tables 5 and 6: country by grade

F(1,458) = 5.68 p<0.05; and country by school type F(1,458)

= 3.90, p<0.05. The country grade interaction was due to the

much greater use of these words by the younger Irish

children in contrast to the older Irish children and the

Cypriot children. The country school type interaction was

due to the greater use of these words by the Irish children

in inclusive schools.

Insert Tables 5 and 6 about here

Discussion

The Cypriot children and the younger pupils and the

pupils in non-inclusive schools were more sociable towards

14

the children with Down Syndrome in this sample. In thinking

about this, we suggest that this may be due to a charitable

discourse commonly met in Cyprus according to which children

with Down Syndrome are called Angels. In Irish they are

referred to as “Dhuine le Dia” which may be interpreted as

God’s people. However, our experience of the use of these

phrases leads us to suggest that this way of speaking is

more common in Cyprus. This is important for teachers to

know because the social advantages of inclusion for children

with learning difficulties depend on peer interaction

(Hellier, 1988). It is also difficult to interpret the

meaning of national differences, though such differences

give teachers and people in contact with children an idea

about the children’s disposition towards children with Down

Syndrome and a firm basis on which to discuss social issues

surrounding inclusive practices.

The Irish children sampled were more accepting of

inclusive practices than the children in Cyprus who were

sampled. We feel that this means they were less aware of the

educational problems and difficulties of the children with

Down Syndrome. We believe that the schools in Cyprus had

undertaken considerably more discussion of the issues

surrounding inclusion of children with Down Syndrome than

was the case in Ireland 10 years ago when the policy was

couched in the context of the Report of the Special

15

Education Review Committee (1993), that favoured as much

integration as feasible and appropriate in Ireland. This

extensive discussion seems to have prepared the children in

Cyprus well in the sense that they understand more about the

educational issues than the Irish children.

It is interesting to contrast the greater use of

positive words by the Irish children, the girls, the pupils

in schools without inclusion and the younger pupils. This

was moderated by two interactions, country by grade and

country by school type. In both the case of the younger

children and the children in schools without inclusion, it

was the Irish children who were more positive than the

children from Cyprus. We believe this is useful information

for teachers to have when they want to prepare children to

meet incoming pupils with learning difficulties, and when

they want to discuss issues relating to inclusive practice.

The image of children with Down Syndrome as sad is

probably related to a child’s feelings of sympathy for these

children. Younger children selected the words (sad, lonely

and unhappy) more often though there was a country by age

and a country by school type interaction. The younger Irish

children used these words far more than the other groups of

children, and the Irish children in inclusive schools used

these words more often. We feel this is significant and

16

important for teachers to be aware of, particularly so in

the case of the children in inclusive schools in Ireland. It

is possible that the older children in Ireland used these

words less because of improved practices, however this can

be probably best assessed by local observation and action

where necessary.

Our main hope in using this type of questionnaire is to

provide a picture of the children’s attitudes that will be

useful to teachers and other observers of the way the

children are thinking. The essential task for schools is to

monitor how inclusion is working and create that sort of

environment where children respect each other and have

opportunities to grow personally and educationally. There

are clear messages here for the schools in Cyprus for whom

the data were collected: the children in Cyprus studied here

would benefit from some more preparation since the pupils in

schools with inclusion were not as positive in some ways

compared to pupils in schools without inclusion. This type

of finding has occurred also in Ireland in previous studies

with this questionnaire.

Bibliography

17

Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teaching attitudes towards integration/inclusion: a review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129-147.

Bennett, J., Gash, H. & O’Reilly, M. (1998) Ireland: Integration as appropriate, segregation where necessary. In From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education. (Eds.) Booth, T & Ainscow, M. London: Routledge.

Bigelow, B.J. (1977). Children’s friendship expectations: A cognitive-developmental study. Child Development, 48, 246-253.

Bunch, G. (1999) Inclusion: how to, essential strategies. Toronto: Inclusion Press.

Bunch, G. (2005) 10 Keys to Successful Inclusion. Retrieved (21.10.08) from http:// www.marshaforest.com/tenkeys.pdf

Cyprus (2007 – 2008). Special Education Support. Retreived (10.11.08) from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/Eurydice/EuryPage?country=CY&lang=EN&fragment=410.

Gash, H. (1993) A constructivist attempt to change attitudestowards children with special needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education 8, 106–25.

Gash, H. (1996) Changing attitudes towards children with special needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 11, 286-297.

Gash, H. (Ed.) (2006) Beginning teachers and diversity in school: A European Study.Braganca, Portugal: Instituto Politéchnica de Bragança.

Gash, H., & Feerick, (1996) A. Promoting quality through changing attitudes towards children with mental handicap. Irish Educational Studies, 15, 237 - 251.

18

Gash, H., Guardia Gonzales, S., Pires, M., & Rault, C. (2000). Attitudes Towards Down Syndrome: A National Comparative Study: France, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain. Irish Journal of Psychology, 21, 203-214.

Gash, H., Illán Romeu, N.,  & López Pina, J-A. (2004) Spanish and Irish images of special needs: Perceptions of inclusion. In Patricia Noonan.Walsh, & Hugh Gash. (Eds.) Lives and Times: Policy, Practice and People with Disability. pp 180-223. Rathdown: Dublin.

Gottlieb, J., & Siperstein, G. N. (1976). Attitudes towards mentally disabled persons: Effects of attitude referent specificity. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86(6), 376-386.

Harter, S. (1998) The development of self-representations. In W. Damon (gen. ed.) and N. Eisenberg (vol. ed.), Handbookof child psychology. Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality development (5th edn), 553–618. New York. Wiley.

Hellier, C. (1988) Integration, A need for positive experience. Educational Psychology in Practice, 4, 75-79.

Ireland (1998). The Education Act, 1998. Retrieved (13.11.2008) from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0051/index.html

Katz, P.A. (1982). "Development of Children’s Racial Awareness and Intergroup Attitudes.". In Katz, L.C. (Ed), Current Topics in Early Childhood Education., 4. Worwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.,

Siperstein, G. N., Parker, R. C., Bardon, J. N., Widaman, K.F. (2007) A national study of youth attitudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 73, 4, 435-455.

19

Staub, D., & Peck, C.A. (1995) What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership, 52 (4), 36-40.

Wolpert, G. (1996). The educational challenges inclusion study. Springfield: Resources in Education.

20

Table 1

Country by sex by grade level by school type (n)

treatment grouped grade

sexTotalmale female

Control 3 and 4 Cyprus 16 19 35Ireland 30 28 58

Total 46 47 935 and 6 Cyprus 32 28 60

Ireland 32 28 60

Total 64 56 120Inclusive 3 and 4 Cyprus 20 20 40

Ireland 36 33 69

Total 56 53 1095 and 6 Cyprus 47 48 95

Ireland 28 35 63

Total 75 83 158

21

Table 2

Attitude to inclusion by country and school type (means andstandard deviations)

Country treatment Mean N

Std.Deviation

Cyprus control 8.6632 95 1.54100inclusive 8.9704 135 1.83230Total 8.8435 230 1.72113

Ireland

control 10.5424 118 1.64158inclusive 9.8561 132 1.60216Total 10.1800 250 1.65364

Total control 9.7042 213 1.84846inclusive 9.4082 267 1.77546Total 9.5396 480 1.81230

22

Table 3

Total positive words by country and grade level (means andstandard deviations)

grouped grade Mean N

Std.Deviation

Cyprus 3 and 4 2.7867 75 1.417015 and 6 2.7613 155 1.44637Total 2.7696 230 1.43382

Ireland

3 and 4 3.4488 127 1.462275 and 6 2.7236 123 1.51658Total 3.0920 250 1.53000

Total 3 and 4 3.2030 202 1.477325 and 6 2.7446 278 1.47527Total 2.9375 480 1.49189

23

Table 4

Total positive words by country and school type (means andstandard deviations)

treatment Mean NStd.

DeviationCyprus control 2.7684 95 1.39492

inclusive 2.7704 135 1.46573Total 2.7696 230 1.43382

Ireland

control 3.4492 118 1.44173inclusive 2.7727 132 1.54124Total 3.0920 250 1.53000

Total control 3.1455 213 1.45772inclusive 2.7715 267 1.50071Total 2.9375 480 1.49189

24

Table 5

Use of sensitive words by country and grade level

grouped grade Mean N

Std.Deviation

Cyprus 3 and 4 .9333 75 1.094625 and 6 .9097 155 1.00884Total .9174 230 1.03525

Ireland

3 and 4 1.3228 127 1.111855 and 6 .8455 123 .94983Total 1.0880 250 1.06054

Total 3 and 4 1.1782 202 1.118785 and 6 .8813 278 .98194Total 1.0063 480 1.05088

25

Table 6

Use of sensitive words by country and school type

treatment Mean NStd.

DeviationCyprus control .9368 95 .97643

inclusive .9037 135 1.07810Total .9174 230 1.03525

Ireland

control .8898 118 .96772inclusive 1.2652 132 1.11108Total 1.0880 250 1.06054

Total control .9108 213 .96960inclusive 1.0824 267 1.10737Total 1.0063 480 1.05088

26

27

Appendix.

RESPONDENT'S DETAILS (To be completed by the teacher)

School address:

School Grade/Class:

Gender: Male Female

Date of Birth:

Date questionnaire administered:

SECTION 1

I would like you to pretend that a new child will come toyour class soon. He/She has Down's Syndrome. We have aphotograph of a boy and a girl who have Down's Syndrome whichthe teacher will show you. Here are some questions for you toanswer.

28

This is not a test, and your answers will be kept private.Here are a few practise questions. Circle the answer youchoose.

Are you a boy? Yes NoDo you like Ice-cream Yes No

Good now we can begin the questions about the child who hasDown's Syndrome.

29

1. Would you smile at him/her on the first day?Yes No

2. Would you ask him/her to sit beside you?Yes No

3. Would you chat to him/her at break time?Yes No

4. Later on, would you tell him/her secretsthat you usually keep for your friends?

Yes No

5. Would you make him/her your best friend?Yes No

6. Would you invite him/her to your house to play in theevenings? Yes No

7. Would you feel angry if he/she did not keepthe rules of your games at play time?Yes No

8. Would you invite him/her to your birthdayparty with your other friends?Yes No

9. Would you pick him/her on your team in a competition? Yes No

10. Would you ask him/her questions about themselves?Yes No

11. Would you care if other children made fun of the child with Down's Syndrome? Yes No

12. Do you think the child with Down's Syndrome could do the same maths as you? YesNo

13. Do you think that he/she could read the same books as you? Yes No

30

14. Do you think that he/she would have the same hobbies as the other children in the class?

Yes No

15. Would you feel afraid of him/her because they had Down'sSyndrome? Yes No

16. Do you think children with Down's Syndrome should betaught in the same classroom as you?Yes No

17. Should children with Down's Syndrome have their ownspecial classroom in your school? YesNo

18. Should children with Down's Syndrome have their ownspecial school where all the children have Down's Syndrome?

Yes No

19. Do children with Down's Syndrome prefer other children with Down's Syndrome as friends? YesNo

20. Can you tell if a child has Down's Syndrome by looking at his/her face?Yes No

31

SECTION 2Let's practiseIf you were describing cars which of these words would youuse?Circle them.

Fast Dear PowerfulNoisy Cheap

If you leave some out, or if you don't understand some of thewords, that's o.k. Just circle the ones you would use.

Now, let's go back to our "pretend" new boy or girl who hasDown's Syndrome. If you were describing him or her to yourother friends which of these words do you think you woulduse? Remember, if you don't understand some of them or if youdon't like some of the words, just skip them. Circle only theones you would use.

1. Clever. 10. Different. 19. Shy. 27.Lonely.

2. Kind. 11. Special. 20. Simple. 28.Happy.

3. Neat. 12. Rough. 21. Scary. 29. Ashamed.

4. Dirty. 13. Friendly. 22. Dork. 30.Unhappy.

5. Stupid. 14. Lovable. 23. Retarded. 31.Freak.

6. Careful. 15. Spa. 24. Moron. 32. Idiot.

7. Untidy. 16. Crazy. 25. Twit. 33. Nerd.

8. Bold. 17. Geek. 26. Sad. 34. Sloppy.

32

9. Dumb. 18. Thick.

SECTION 3 (Please circle yes or no)

1 Are there any children with Down's Syndrome in yourschool? Yes No

2 Are there any children with Down's Syndrome in yourclassroom?Yes No

3 Do you know anybody who has Down's Syndrome?Yes No

Thank you for helping me. The teacher will now collect thisquestionnaire.

Paper presented at the European Educational Research Association Meeting, Dublin September 2005.

33