Issues arising from parents perspective regarding special education service provisions

Introduction:

 

A key, and often underemphasized, component of educational decision-making is the perception of parents. Haring, Lovett, and Saren (1991) noted, “The perceptions of parents can be influential in determining the educational opportunities provided for students with disabilities” (p. 6).   Many parents perceive that difficulties in learning can often arise from an unsuitable environment - inappropriate grouping of pupils, inflexible teaching styles, or inaccessible curriculum materials - as much as from individual children's physical, sensory or cognitive impairments.  This review will look at and discuss relevant literature, both new and old, concerning the issues on parents’ perspective about special education service provision.  Furthermore, the review will explore, compare, look at setbacks on issues such as educator training, program of study, lack of appropriate resources, and optimistically produce a stronger result.  It is anticipated that this study will provide an insight into the efforts currently being undertaken to improve and enhance service provision in inclusion settings and spark recommendations for continued initiatives.

 

Special education – defined:

 

Special Education is known to be an educational alternative which gives attention to the teaching of students having academic, health, physical or behavioural needs that cannot sufficiently be met utilising traditional or conventional educational programs or approaches (Turnbull, et. al., 2002).  Stough and Palmer (2004) affirm special education as an important development of education providing adequate and suitable educational approach to meet the needs of the so-called special children.  Moreover, the authors found that independent variables of interest ranges from the curriculum and methods to the competencies, or preparation of teachers, and location of the service. Notwithstanding significant gains in developing a knowledge base of empirically validated practices, measurement problems, and as a result of ethical issues, constraints on implementing experimental designs have kept the issues of “best practices” a much-debated topic (Paul, et. al., 2002; Fabian, 2002; Lanners & Mombaerts, 2000).  Special education has become increasingly complex over the past thirty years (Fabian, 2002).  Nowadays, schools are becoming more diverse, parents are more involved, accountability for the academic gains of students has increased, and the philosophy of service delivery has become a larger purposeful issue for all involved parties.

 

Parents Perspective on Special Education:

 

All parents develop expectation about their child ’s education based on their own experience and information provided by the concerned school, the media and informal networks of parents.  Studies that have explored parents’ expectations of teachers and of the school indicate that parents expect quality of teaching, academic progress and happiness for their child (Turnbull & Turnbull, 2001; Crozier, 1999).  Parents avail the services of special education to ensure that their children will be able to adjust in the environment and to ensure that adequate or enough knowledge are being provided (Brown, 2001).  With these, parents become more critical on identifying different issues concerning the quality of services given in a special education setting (Brown, 2001; Salend, 2001).

 

There are many issues that parents view important for a successful inclusion programme for the sake of their special needs child.  For example the quality of instruction offered in some educational settings, possible loss of special services (lack of funding), and availability of appropriate and sufficient resources (Salend, 2001).  Similarly, Fabian (2002) study found that the most typical parental concerns affecting parents’ satisfaction are inadequate teacher training, lack of personal attention/education and resources, and inadequate time allocated/spent by disable children with able children.  Furthermore, authors such as Galant and Hanline, (1993); Grove and Fisher, (1999); Jenkinson, (1998); Simpson and Myles, (1989) have also identified similar parental concerns, suggesting that a number of important issues associated with inclusion practices have yet to be resolved.  Consequently, such issues will be discussed below:

 

Teacher training:

 

Parents view adequate teacher training as one of the most important components for a special needs child to successfully assimilate in an inclusive programme (Brown, 2001; Leyser & Kirk, 2004; Bennett et al., 1997; Fox & Ysseldyke, 1997; Serry et. al., 2000).  According to Grove and Fisher (1999) many parents of specialist children believe that the level of service provided to their specialist child is not inline with what their expectations are.   The study further revealed that parents perceived ineffective specialist instructions provided to special needs students by some educators are a result of inadequate teacher training.  The parents argument is that no matter what the educational provisions are, teachers must have adequate specialist training prior to teaching special needs students (Jindal-Snape, et. al., 2005).  Moreover, parents put forward (via short answer questionnaire) that if all teachers were appropriately trained, specialist student’s developmental ability no doubt will do extremely well (Jindal-Snape, et. al., 2005).  Therefore, a call for ongoing special needs teacher training is essential and service delivery for a special needs child should only be decided on case-to-case basis due to the diversity in the needs of each specialist child. 

 

Over the years, researchers have done many studies to investigate the magnitude of the shortage issue for certified and efficient special educational teachers and the factors that can be attributed to this case (Payne, 2005; Andrews, Evans & Miller, 2002; Gersten, et. al. 2001; Cross & Billingsley, 1994).  According to Payne, (2005) and Andrews, Evans and Miller, (2002) lack of fully certified and adequately trained special education instructors or teachers, which has been regarded as severe and pervasive, affects the quality of education services that special students receive.  Some teachers have substantiated this claim by indicating that they had no prior training in special needs education and that they are not adequately prepared to teach students with disabilities (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Scott, Vitale, & Masten, 1998).  Furthermore, a body of empirical evidence reveals that general education teachers tend to use typical/routine adaptations in their classroom, namely, strategies directed toward the class as a whole and incorporate only minor or no modifications based on students needs (Scott, Vitale, & Masten, 1998).  Thus, teacher training is the most vital component in escalation of special needs developmental ability (Kavale & Forness, 2000).  It is very important that teachers receive appropriate training both at the pre-service and in-service level, aimed at facilitating a better understanding of the perspectives of families of students with disabilities, as well as in strategies that will promote communication and collaboration with parents.

 

Lack of resources:

 

Lack of resources is also a major concern to parents from special education provision.  According to Lindsay (2003) parents worry about lack of appropriate support and resources for their specialist children. As many parents believe that when there is a lack of support, teachers have to share their attention between few students with severe disabilities.  In parents view, this is not acceptable, as such they (parents) contest by threatening to disengage their child from the program (Turnbull, et. al. 2002, Yseldyke, et. al. 1994).  In parents view, schools should only offer inclusive programs when there is a provision of proper facilities, appropriate resources and teacher support; curricular specifically designed to accommodate the special needs child (Yseldyke, et. al., 1994).

 

 Turnbull and Turnbull (2001) study found that many parents seek the help of special education services due to their (parent) perceived notion that the government has enough funding to meet the needs of their children. However, in many instances this is not the case.  Some institutions are not provided adequate funding to support the needs of the special education services and the special needs of the children (Turnbull & Turnbull (2001); Woodrum & Lombardi, 2000).  Such findings clearly reveal that there is a shortage of special education professionals with the expertise required to work with special needs children and also insufficient funds to develop and support programmes to provide specialist students requiring assistance. 

 

According to Palmer, Fuller and Arora (2001) many parents are also concerned with the lack of individual attention that a disabled child may encounter in a general education setting. Such is profusely substantiated by Lindsay (2003), that is, parents feel that many public schools general education classrooms are overcrowded in general.  Parents feel that placing a child with special needs in a normal classroom would be adding too much stress to the classroom environment (Palmer, Fuller & Arora, 2001).  The concern with overcrowding also incorporates a concern that the disabled child may get “lost” in the crowd and not receive enough individual attention as necessary.  Parents that were interviewed about this concern responded by saying, “… she needs a more nurturing environment than a public school teacher with thirty-two students could possibly provide” another parent said, “It is widely recognized that these individuals (disabled students) require greater attention and in a fully inclusive situation this would never be possible, all would suffer” (Palmer, Fuller & Arora, 2001).

 

In Europe, parents view inclusive classrooms as one of the means in which educational interventions are delivered to students with special needs.  European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSNE) (2003) found from their study that the methodology in which service is delivered attributes greatly towards how specialist children react and deal with behavioural, social and/or emotional problems.  For example while a student having an individualised educational programme has the freedom of having teacher support, specialist students without adequate teacher support in many instances has to wait for their turn or miss out.  Many researchers in Europe find this to be the biggest challenge within the area of inclusion of pupils with special education needs (EADSNE, 2003).

 

Social integration:

Parents believe that curricular emphasis found in programs for students with severe disabilities has historically shifted from remedial academic instruction and functional life skill development to the development of friendships or social skills between people with disabilities and their able peers (Katz & Mirenda, 2002; Hamre-Nietupski, Nietupski, & Strathe, 1992), and that those who advocate for the placement of all students into general education classrooms often view such social goals as their primary concern (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994). Empirical data (Palmer et al., 1997) have also shown that parents of children with significant cognitive disabilities are more likely to have positive views of inclusive practices when they place a relatively higher value on the school's role in developing social skills. Furthermore, these parents are relatively positive regarding the social outcomes of general class placements, and relatively apprehensive regarding the impact of such placements on the quality of educational services their children receive.

On the other hand, social integration is an issue for parents. Social integration issue refers to the lack of time spent by disabled children with other peers.  Parents observed this by simply placing children in the same - it did not ensure positive interactions between disable children and their peers (Turnbull & Turnbull, 2001; Guralnick, 2001). Neither did social integration, in itself, foster the goals of cognitive and social growth on the part of the disabled children (Guralnick, 2001). Hence, it can be said that for parents, if this will continue, the purpose of bringing their child to a special education institution will not be met.  Furthermore, handling diversity is the key issue at the classroom level. When dealing with differences in the classroom, class teachers need an extra pair of hands or extra support from either colleagues (or special education teachers) or other professionals (EADSNE, 2003; Katz & Mirenda, 2002).  Basically, it leads to the challenges of co-teaching (classroom level), team teaching and the need for good co-operation between teachers, on the school level and co-ordination with professionals from other support services (EADSNE, 2003).

 

Program of study:

 

The promotion of curriculum standardization is a crucial component to the current education reform movement.  According to Dixon, Drummond, Hart and McIntyre (2002), highlighting curriculum standardisation creates problem for special education because it hampers individualization in special classes (Glass, 2004). This will also affect the satisfaction of parents of those special children. For the parents, there is a tendency that their children would not be able to cope with such standardisation.  Ysseldyke et al. (1994) also stressed that the successful participation of students with cognitive disabilities depends on states developing outcomes, which are wide-ranging and broad enough to be significant for the students. Furthermore, McDonnell, McLaughlin and Morrison (1997) affirm that enough attention should be given to the specific curricular needs of students with disabilities. However, it should be noted that a successful participation of students with disabilities in the standards-based reform is determined based on the degree to which a set of content standards is appropriate to their valued educational outcomes and consistent with proven instructional practices.

 

Mastropieri and Scruggs (2001) found that parents are sceptical when it comes to secondary level inclusions.  Furthermore, it was revealed that many parents believe there is heavy emphasis on content knowledge.  For example to complete high school successfully, students must master a wide variety of content areas.  Many students with disabilities find mastering such a wide domain of content knowledge daunting and overwhelming.  To complicate the situation, many special education teachers are not experts in many of these content domains, which may limit their ability to facilitate student learning (Frase-Blunt, 2000; Bulgren & Lenz, 1996; Sabornie & DeBettencourt, 1997).  Clearly, the complexities of secondary education interact with effective special education in a variety of ways, which are at present not fully stipulated (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000b).  While most classroom adaptations comes under the theme of understanding the learning needs of student with disabilities, the special educator’s expertise can be most critical in this area. 

 

A survey by Learning Disabilities Association of British Columbia Parental Concerns (2002) asked three hundred and fifty parents to indicate their general satisfaction with the public schools program of study and if it was meeting their child’s needs, only 3% indicated the program fully met their needs.  A full 61% felt the system poorly met or failed their child’s needs.  A little more than a third (36%) felt that school adequately met their child’s needs.  A full 77% of parents indicated that they had expressed concern about their child’s lack of progress, lack of services, and/or IEP in the past.   Over half had expressed these concerns to principals or Vice-Principals.  Less than half (47%) were satisfied with the results. Of the 53% who were not satisfied, a full 89% of them were not informed of their right to appeal.  When asked if they had ever filed an appeal only 1% indicated they had.  38% stated they did not know about them, while 19% stated they felt an appeal would not change the outcome or that there would be negative consequences for their child.  The parents believe that the funding provided by the government is woefully inadequate to provide children with special needs the appropriate services they require.  Furthermore, the parents perceive that despite policies, the current system does not address this population's needs. Parents are very dissatisfied with current services, lack of available assessment, lack of appropriate programs, and lack of support, poor teacher knowledge and preparedness, and response to their concerns. As discussed in the report there are many reasons for the above; however, the survey describes the general decline in services to this neglected population in public school system. 

The above findings affirm that there is a presence of considerable variability in parents view toward inclusive programmes service delivery.  The multidimensionality of parent attitudes toward inclusive practices reveals the subjective and phenomenological nature of the reasoning process a parent undergoes when considering educational placement options. This review suggests that parents can be expected to have varying views regarding inclusive placement options based on a broad range of interacting variables rather than on a singular determinant, such as the cognitive profile of their child. 

As such, if schools are to meet the challenge of educating increased numbers of children with diverse needs, teachers must be well trained and must embrace instruction and curricula that engage and encourage all students.  The importance should be placed on several interrelated educational strategies: heterogeneous student grouping; developmentally appropriate practice; an inclusive curriculum that emphasizes children's strengths yet accommodates their needs; high expectations for all students; appropriate physical environment and materials; collaboration and instructional teaming with other teachers and professionals; support from administrators, families, and the community, and above all ongoing professional development.

Future Research:

Research that continues to examine parents’ perceptions regarding the service provision in the inclusive settings may ultimately ensure the best possible services for children with disabilities.  Furthermore, before the results of any study can be meaningful, it will be necessary to identify, and control for, variables that are more immediate or substantive than time spent in the general education class. Under these conditions, longitudinal studies that consider both the short and long-term effects of different models of service delivery could provide parents and educators with important information when considering the most appropriate program for a particular child and perhaps transform their (parent and/or educator) concerns positively.

 

Conclusion:

The review has found that majority of parents who place a higher value on the development of their specialist child are not willing to trade off "special education" benefits such as: (a) a specialized curriculum, (b) easier access to ancillary services, and (c) more individualized instruction with anything less alternative.  Parent perceptions of inclusive practices may be largely a function of the value placed on particular curricular skills and beliefs regarding where those skills can best be nurtured.  As such, it is vital that education professionals understand the perspectives of the parents of the children whom they serve (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000a).  The key to this understanding is open communication, effective intervention practices, and service delivery that meet the needs of the child.  Education professionals and parents have a common goal – the best possible education for these children as such the educators, professional agencies and parents need to work collaboratively.  Furthermore, the process of attaining a goal is greatly enhanced when all involved in determining a child inclusive programme to understand each other’s perspectives.  No doubt, these changes are unlikely to happen without a substantial commitment of time, effort and money from all those concerned. 

Words 3,006

 

 

 

Reference

 

Andrews, L., Evans, S., & Miller, N. (2002). How can we prepare and retain effective special education teachers? Academic Exchange Quarterly, (6) 2, 36.

 

Bennett, T., DeLUca, D., & Bruns, D. (1997). Putting incusion into practice: Perspective of teachers and parents. Exceptional Children, 64, 115-131.

 

Brown, K. T. (2001). The Effectiveness of Early Childhood Inclusion (Parents Perspectives). Research paper presented at the Special Education Seminar, Loyola Collge (Baltimore, MD, April 25, 2001 under The US department of Education.

 

Bulgren, J., & Lenz, K. (1996). Strategic instruction in the content areas. In D. D. Deshler, E. Ellis, & K. Lenz (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies and methods (2^nd  ed.). Denver: Love.

Comer, J. (2005). The rewards of parent participation. Educational Leadership, March 2005, 38-42.

Cross, L. H., & Billingsley, B. S. (1994). Testing a model of special educators' intent to stay in teaching. Exceptional Children, 60, 411-421.

Crozier, G. (1999). Parental involvement: who wants it? International Studies in Sociology of Education, 9, 111-130.

 

Dixon, A., Drummond, M.J., Hart, S., & McIntyre D. (2002). Learning without limits,Milton Keynes, Open University Press.

 

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2003). Key Principles for Special Needs Education: Recommendation for Policy Makers. Brussels, Belgium.

Fabian, H. (2002). Children starting school. London: David Fulton.

Fox, N. E., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1997). Implementing inclusion at the middle school level: Lessons from a negative example. Exceptional Children, 64, 81-98.

Frase-Blunt, M. (2000). High stakes testing - A mixed blessing for special students. CEC Today, 7(2), 1, 5, 7,15.

 

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 4, 294-309.

 

Galant, K., & Hanline, M. (1993). Parental attitudes toward mainstreaming young children with disabilities. Childhood Education, 69, 293-297.

 

Gersten, R., Keating, T., Yovanaf, P., & Harniss, M. K. (2001). Working in special education: Factors that enhance special educators’ intent to stay. Exceptional Children, 67(4), 49.

 

Glass, G. V. (2004). Education Policy Analysis Archives. Arizona: Arizona State University, College of Education, 12(16).

 

Grove, K. A., & Fisher, D. (1999). Entrepreneurs of meaning: Parents and the process of incluvie education. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 208-215, 256.

Guralnick, M. J. (2001). Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change. Baltimore, ML: Paul H. Brookes.

Hamre-Nietupski, S., Nietupski, J., & Strathe, M. (1992). Functional life skills, academic skills, and friendship/social relationship development: What do parents of students with moderate/ severe/profound disabilities value? The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17(1), 53-58.

 

Haring, K.A., Lovett, D.L., & Saren, D. (1991). Parent perceptions of their adult offspring with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 23(2), 6-10.

 

Jenkinson, J. C. (1998). Parent choice of the education of students with disabilities.  International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 45, 189-202.

 

Jindal-Snape, D., Douglas, W., Topping, K. J., Kerr, C., & Smith, E. F. (2005). Effective education for children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder: perceptions of parents and professionals. The International Journal of Special Education, 20(1).

 

Katz, J., & Mirenda, P. (2002). Including students with developmental disabilities in general education classrooms: Social benefits. International Journal of Special Education, 17 (2), 25-35.

Kavale, A. K., & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric and reality: Analysis of the inclusion debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 279-296.

Lanners, R., & Mombaerts, D. (2000). Evaluation of parents' satisfaction with early intervention services within and among European countries: Construction and application of a new parent satisfaction scale. Infants & Young Children, 12(3), 61-70.

Learning Disabilities Association of British Columbia Parental Concerns (2002). Retrieved April 12, 2006, from http://www.ldac-taac.ca/indepth/advocacy_parents-e.asp

Leyser, Y., & Kirk, R. (2004). Evaluating Inclusion: an examination of parent views and factors including their perspectives. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education.  51(3), 271-28

 

Lindsay, G. (2003). Inclusive education: A critical perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 30, 3-11.

 

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, R. E. (2000a). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective teaching. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.

 

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, R. E. (2000b). Teacher-researcher partnerships to promote success in inclusive high school science and social studies classes. Funded proposal, field-initiated research, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Washington, DC.

 

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E.  (2001). Promoting Inclusion in Secondary Classrooms.  Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(4), 265-74.  Retrieved March 11, 2006 from WilsonSelect Database.

 

McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Palmer, D. S., Fuller, K., Arora, T.  (2001). Taking Sides: Parent View on Inclusion for Their Children with Severe Disabilities.  Exceptional Children, 67(4), 467-484.  Retrieved March, 11, 2006 from WilsonSelect Database.

Paul, J. L., Lavely, C. D., Cranston-Gingras, A., & Taylor, E. L. (2002). Rethinking Professional Issues in Special Education, Ablex Publishing: CT.

 

Payne, R. (2002). Special education teacher shortages: Barriers or lack of preparation? The International Journal of Special Education, 20(1),  88- 91.

 

Sabornie, E.J., & deBettencourt, L.U. (1997).  Teaching students with mild disabilities at the secondary level.  Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Merrill.

 

Salend, S. J. (2001). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective strategies (4^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

 

Scott, B., Vitale, M. R., & Masten, W. G. (1998). Implementing instructional adaptations for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 2, 106–119.

Seery, M. E., Davis, P. M., & Johnson, L. J. (2000). Seeing ey-to-eye: Are parents and professionals in agreement about the benefits of preschool inclusion? Remedial and Special Education, 21, 268-278, 319.

Simpson, R. L., & Myles, B. S. (1989). Parents' mainstreaming modification preferences for children with educable mental handicaps, behavior disorders, and learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 292-301.

 

Stough, L., & Palmer, D. (2003). Special thinking in special settings: A qualitative study of expert special educators. The Journal of Special Education, 36(4), 206-222.

Turnbull, R., Turnbull, A., Shank, M., Smith, S., & Leal, D. (2002). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools (3^rd ed.). Upper Saddle: River, NJ: Merrill.

Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (2001). Families, professionals and exceptionality: Collaborating for empowerment (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., & Geenen, K. (1994). Educational accountability for students with disabilities (Policy Directions No. 3). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [11 April, 2006], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy3.html

Woodrum, D. T. & Lombardi, T. (2000). Challenges of responsible inclusion: attitudes and perceptions of parents, teachers, psychologists and administrators. The Learning Disabilities Association of British Columbia, International Special Education Congress 2000. University of Manchester.

 

 

Get papers by email:
Enter your email address

Delivered by FeedBurner

Your Ad Here

Custom Essay Writing Australia 
Send us your essay instructions. We write it for you.
Only AUD$27 per page.
www.ivythesis.com

Malaysia Essay Writing 
Send us your essay assignment. We write it for you.
Only RM 40/ page.
 www.ivythesis.com

Singapore Essay Assistance 
Have a hard time finishing your assignment.
We write it for you. Only SG$ 25/ page.
 www.ivythesis.com