This article was downloaded by: [University Of Pittsburgh]On: 12 November 2014, At: 13:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Disability,Development and EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd20

Parent Choice in the Education ofStudents with DisabilitiesJosephine C. Jenkinson aa School of Studies in Disability , Deakin University , 221Bur‐wood Highway, Burwood Victoria 3125, AustraliaPublished online: 07 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Josephine C. Jenkinson (1998) Parent Choice in the Education of Studentswith Disabilities, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 45:2,189-202, DOI: 10.1080/1034912980450205

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1034912980450205

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, Vol. 45, No. 2, 1998 189

Parent Choice in the Education ofStudents with DisabilitiesJOSEPHINE C. JENKINSONSchool of Studies in Disability, Deakin University, 221 Bur-wood Highway,Burwood Victoria 3125, Australia

ABSTRACT This study investigated the factors influencing parents of students with disabil-ities in choosing either an integrated setting or a special school for the education of theirchildren. A questionnaire mailed to members of a parent support group in Victoria,Australia, sought responses to questions about current school setting, changes of school,parent preferences for school setting, and parent satisfaction with the current setting. Parentsalso rated 30 factors, including specialist resources, curriculum, socialisation, normalisationaspects, school environment, and professional consultation and advice, for their importancein selecting a school. Responses were received from 193 parents. Some differences wereidentified between parents of students in different settings, with mainstream parents givinghigh ratings to normalisation and academic aspects, and special school parents emphasisingspecial programs, teacher-student ratios, and the child's self-esteem. All parents rated schoolclimate variables as highly important. The majority of parents expressed satisfaction withthe current school setting. However, a trend was noted for students to move from themainstream to special schools as secondary education approached, with the need forcurriculum focusing on independent living skills playing an important part in this decision.

Introduction

The education of students with disabilities in mainstream schools is now widely, butby no means universally, accepted. In the state of Victoria (often regarded as beingat the forefront of policy and legislation for integration of students with disabilitiesin Australia), 54% of students in government schools who have identified specialneeds are now being educated in mainstream schools in regular classes; another 2%are in special units or classes in regular schools (de Lemos, 1994). This proportioncompares favourably with the 45% of students with disabilities in governmentsschools throughout Australia who are being educated in regular classes, and with the32% of students with special needs statements who were being educated in regularclasses in England in 1992 (Norwich, 1994).

Not all parents of students with disabilities choose a mainstream school andsegregated settings remain the preferred option for substantial numbers of studentsin Victoria and elsewhere. Although few would question the philosophical principlesunderlying integration, concerns have been expressed by parents, teachers, and

1034-912X/98/020189-14 © 1998 Carfax Publishing Ltd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 1

3:31

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

190 J. C. Jenkinson

administrators about the feasibility of inclusive schooling for all students. Critics ofmoves to integrate all students into mainstream schools have questioned the capacityof regular education to take on the additional responsibilities of students withdisabilities, to accommodate an increasing diversity of student performance, and toensure that financial or other support for students with special needs is not reduced(O'Shea, O'Shea, & Algozzine, 1989). The focus on national curriculum, standard-ised assessment, competition between schools, and concepts of excellence in school-ing, which are widely interpreted to reflect values placed on high levels of academicperformance, also raises questions about the appropriateness of mainstreameducation for many students.

In Victoria, while there has been a large increase in the number of studentsreceiving special needs support in integrated settings, there has been only a smalldecrease in the numbers attending special schools (Auditor-General, 1992; Picker-ing, Callahan, Laity, & Osier, 1991). Emphasis on the right of students withdisabilities to attend their neighbourhood school has been replaced by an emphasison the provision of options and the right of parents to choose the type of school theyprefer for students with disabilities. The state government has indicated that specialschools will continue to exist so that parents of students with disabilities may choosethe educational setting they would prefer for their son or daughter. Reviewing theintegration program in Victoria, Cullen and Brown (1992, p. 55) recommended

that regular and special school options both be developed to meet thefuture needs of particular students; any assumption that there is one bestapproach for all students with disabilities, irrespective of their particulareducational needs, should be rejected;

and added a further recommendation that alternative schooling options should bedeveloped for students least likely to benefit from an education in the regular school.

A significant aspect of the shift to an emphasis on choice of school setting hasbeen the introduction of a new funding mechanism to ensure that students withidentified disabilities receive equivalent funding for resources regardless of thesetting in which they are being educated. Students with disabilities whose parentschoose a mainstream school receive support funding at a level determined by theadditional cost of educating a student with similar support needs in a special schoolcompared to a mainstream school. The supports purchased with this funding aredetermined by a Program Support Group, which includes the parents as well asschool personnel, and if desired a parent advocate. Supports may include a teacheraide, equipment, or special programs. This change is designed to remove concernabout the uncertainty and inadequacy of funding in mainstream settings expressedby parents of students in special schools (Pickering & Dickens, 1991).

There is no clear evidence, however, that funding, and the supports it may be usedto purchase, are the only or indeed the major reason for some parents continuing toprefer the special school option. Other reasons have included possible peer rejection,social isolation, and negative teacher attitudes in the mainstream (Pickering &Dickens, 1991), and student characteristics such as severity of the disability, behav-iour or emotional problems, inability to keep up with the mainstream curriculum,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 1

3:31

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Choice of School by Parents 191

and possible loss of self-esteem (McDonnell, 1987; Sandow & Stafford, 1986).However, negative perceptions of integration are not necessarily supported by thereality (McDonnell, 1987), and studies of students with disabilities in mainstreamsettings have generally revealed a high degree of satisfaction with integration(Hegarty & Pocklington, 1981). Indeed, a study by Foreman and Neilands (1991)of parents of children with disabilities in the Hunter Region of New South Walesfound a relatively close correspondence between the child's current school place-ment and the parents' perception of ideal placement. Parents of students withdisabilities in mainstream schools believe that all children should be learningalongside their peers in the local school and that integration promotes greaterindependence as well as improving community attitudes towards disability (Hegarty& Pocklington, 1981; Ryndak, Downing, Morrison, & Williams, 1996).

There has been no attempt to investigate systematically the reasons underlyingchoice of school setting in a context in which funding is based on the assessed needsof the student without regard for educational setting. A limitation of many existingstudies is that they have focused on the preferences of either special school parentsor mainstream parents, but not both. The present study was designed with twomajor aims. First, to identify school characteristics that are most important ininfluencing parent choice of either mainstream or special school setting. Second, toexamine parents' satisfaction with past and current school placement and explorereasons for changing schools, especially if children had moved between mainstreamand segregated settings, and specifically to investigate possible effects of changes inthe funding mechanism on choice of school.

Method

The Questionnaire

A questionnaire was designed to be mailed for completion by parents. The question-naire sought information on the child's age and gender, nature and severity of thedisability, place of residence (metropolitan or rural), type of school attended, and ifmainstream, whether this was full-time in a regular class, or a combination of regularand special setting placement. Parents were asked if the child had changed schoolsat any time, and if so the reasons for the change, to give an estimate of the child'shappiness with their current school placement, and to indicate their own satisfactionwith the placement. Parents were then asked what kind of school setting they wouldchoose for their son or daughter if they were guaranteed equivalent resourcesregardless of setting, and to give a reason for their response.

Finally, parents were asked to rate 30 school characteristics for their degree ofimportance in choosing a school for their child. The 30 characteristics were adaptedin part from a study by Ysseldyke, Lange, and Gorney (1994), who explored anumber of issues important to parents of students with disabilities in choosinga school in open enrolment. These issues included meeting special educationalneeds, frequent communication with parents, personal attention, and attending thesame school as siblings or friends. Other characteristics related to physical character-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 1

3:31

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

192 J. C. Jenkinson

istics of the school, social and academic opportunities, availability of resources, andstaff qualities. Factors relating to normalisation issues identified in studies ofintegrated settings (Hegarty & Pocklington, 1981) were added to the list. Parentswere asked to rate each of these characteristics as Not Important, Desirable, or MostImportant. They were then asked to indicate which 3 of the 30 characteristics listedthey considered to be of greatest importance and to add any other factors theyconsidered important that were not included in the list.

Procedure

The questionnaire was mailed, together with an explanatory letter and a reply-paidenvelope, to all addresses on the mailing list of the Association (formerly ActionGroup) for Children with Disabilities (Victoria). This is a voluntary organisationmade up of individual parents and affiliated parent organisations. Approximately400 questionnaires were distributed to individual parents with the Newsletter of thisgroup.

To conform with confidentiality requirements, completion of the questionnairewas entirely anonymous; that is, the researcher did not know the names of people towhom it was being sent, and no name or other information which might identifyeither an individual family or a school was required.

Participants

The analysis is based on 193 completed questionnaires returned within a month ofits being sent—an estimated response rate of about 50%. The mean age of studentsfor whom parents'responses were received was 11.34 years (SD = 3.91). There were93 males (48%) and 100 females; 113 or 58% of the students were at primary level,51, or 26% at secondary level, and two students were attending a TAFE SpecialAccess program. A further 27, or 14%, largely parents of students in specialdevelopmental schools, did not respond to the question about school level. Thestudents represented a wide range in terms of both nature and severity of thedisability. Table I shows the distribution of students by current school setting andthe nature of the disability. Mainstream includes government, Catholic and inde-pendent schools. Special includes day special for mild intellectual disability, specialdevelopmental schools, and category special schools. Partial integration is defined inthis study as at least one day per week in an integrated setting if the child is normallyin a segregated setting, or vice versa. Although the 52% of students in the main-stream and 9% in partial integration are comparable to the 54% in full-timeintegration in Victoria overall (de Lemos, 1994), and 10% estimated by Cullen andBrown (1992) to be partially integrated, no claim is made that the sample isrepresentative of all parents of students with disabilities in Victoria, or indeed of allparents who were sent questionnaires. In fact only 7% of students were reported ashaving a mild disability, with 40% a moderate disability, 43% severe, and 10%profound.

Students with mild or moderate disabilities were most likely to be in a mainstream

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 1

3:31

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Choice of School by Parents 193

TABLE I. Type of school attended by primary disability

Nature of disability

SensoryIntellectualPhysicalAutismMultipleOther (LD, ADD, Emotional-

Behavioural)

Total number%

Mainstream

43840

610

3

10152.3

Type of school

Special Partial

141

24

24

3

7538.9

integration

08306

0

178.8

%

2.6

45.123.3

5.220.7

3.1

193.0100

setting, with 29% of these students in a special or special developmental school.Almost half of all students with severe disabilities were in the mainstream, andanother 13% were in partial integration.

Results

Preferred School

There was a highly significant association between the school currently attended bythe child and the parents' preferred school: x2(4f= 6) = 108.7, p<0.001. As TableII shows, the majority of parents would not change the setting of their child'seducation, even if guaranteed equality of resources regardless of setting. Amongparents of students in the mainstream, 72% would continue to prefer the main-stream setting, and 67% of special school parents would prefer the special school.About one fifth of both mainstream and special school parents would prefer partialintegration, but only one of the 17 parents of students who were partially integratedwould wish to continue that arrangement. A small number of parents of students inboth mainstream and special schools believed that enrolment in a special class or

TABLE II. Preferred school if equivalent resources guaranteed

School attended

MainstreamSpecialPartial integration

Total% (missing = 1)

Mainstream

7285

8544.4

School

Special school

550

6

6131.8

preferred

Partialintegration

1915

1

3518.2

Special classor unit

425

115.7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 1

3:31

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

194 J. C. Jenkinson

unit in a mainstream school, with partial integration into a mainstream class, wouldbe preferable to full-time in either a mainstream or a special setting. Parents whoindicated this preference most often mentioned the benefits of contact with anon-disabled peer group, especially for modelling behaviour and encouraging friend-ships with neighbourhood children, while maintaining the advantages of small classsize, individualised learning programs, and availability of specialist therapy and othersupport services. With some exceptions, for example for hearing impairment, thespecial class or unit is not an option in Victoria.

Reasons given for preferring a mainstream school most often reflected a concernfor the child to be a part of the "real world." Others, particularly parents of studentswhose only disability was physical, were concerned that the child should haveopportunities for more challenging academic curriculum in the mainstream school.The availability of good role models for behavioural development was also animportant concern.

Parents who would continue to choose a special school for their son or daughterwere most often concerned with the child's happiness and self-esteem, which theybelieved could suffer if the child had to compete with "normal" children. Inaddition, parents believed that special school programs were better geared to theindividual child's ability and future prospects. Small classes, availability of paramed-ical support and teacher expertise, a more structured learning environment, and abelief that the child would learn little that was useful in the mainstream were alsofrequently mentioned.

The intention to continue with the child's current school setting is confirmed bythe fact that most parents rated their children as either "happy" or "very happy" intheir current school setting, and were either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with theirplacement (Table III). This trend was apparent for all school settings, despite the

TABLE III. Parent satisfaction and estimate of child's happiness in current school

Parent satisfactionVery DissatisfiedDissatisfiedUncertainSatisfiedVery Satisfied

Child's happinessVery UnhappyUnhappyUncertainHappyVery Happy

Mainstream

249

41'45

14

103749

School attended

Special

01

102242

018

2640

Partialintegration

02249

103

58

Totalnumber

27

216796

25

216897

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 1

3:31

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Choice of School by Parents 195

fact that most parents of students in partial integration indicated a preference forfull-time enrolment in either a mainstream or special school or a special class or unit.

Change of School

Table IV shows the numbers of students—46% of the sample—who had changedschools. Sixteen percent had moved because of a change of residence. Change ofschool was not related to the parents' estimate of the child's happiness or tosatisfaction with current placement. However, there was a significant relationshipbetween the school currently attended and whether or not the student had changedschools: X2(df= 2) = 14.6, p < 0.01. Of the 47 students who had changed and werecurrently in a special school, 53% had moved from the mainstream. Reasons givenby parents for leaving the mainstream tended to reflect a general disillusionmentwith integration, and included negative attitudes or lack of attention by teachers,large class sizes, lack of availability of funding for teacher aides, and lack of suitableprograms. Some parents referred to the child's specific problems, including be-havioural problems and physical needs, which were not adequately dealt with in themainstream. The child's isolation was also given as a reason for change, and in onecase the presence of an aide was viewed negatively as discouraging interaction withpeers. Others made the change with increasing age as parents perceived a wideninggap between the child and his or her peers, or as the child completed primary schoolbecause they felt that a mainstream secondary school would not cater adequately fortheir child. The provision of appropriate programs at secondary level, and aperceived need for training in life skills, were also regarded as important by specialschool parents.

Only four students had moved from a special school to full-time in the main-stream. The reasons given related to a belief in the educational benefits of inte-gration, and in the wish to have the student mix with local children in theneighbourhood. Two parents also mentioned the lack of emphasis on academic skillsin the special school.

There were a number of moves between mainstream schools, generally related toa dissatisfaction with attitudes in the first school. One parent referred to staffpreoccupation with the school's problems; another suggested that the teacher aidehad assumed the role of a "babysitter" and the child was not being challenged eitherphysically or academically. Others had moved from Catholic mainstream schools to

TABLE IV. Change of school by current setting

School attended

MainstreamSpecialPartial integration

Total number% (missing = 1)

Changed school

3747

5

8946.4

Has not changed school

642712

10353.6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 1

3:31

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

196 J. C. Jenkinson

government mainstream schools in the belief that funding for integration aides orother resources would be more readily available in the government sector.

Ratings of Characteristics Influencing Choice of School

Parents rated 30 school characteristics as either not important, desirable but notessential, and very important in choosing their child's school. Differences betweenmean ratings by mainstream parents and by special school parents were examinedusing r-tests for independent means. Because of the large number of r-tests involved,Bonferroni's correction was used to provide a more conservative level ofsignificance. This correction takes into account the probability of a Type I erroroccurring given the number of comparisons carried out (Howell, 1992). For 30comparisons and df= 174, r = 3.14 is required for an alpha level of 0.05, andt = 3.59 for an alpha level of 0.01. Table V shows characteristics rated significantlyhigher by mainstream compared to special school parents, and those ratedsignificantly higher by special school parents, applying this correction. Mean ratingby parents of students in partial integration are shown in parentheses for compari-son. This group was not included in the analysis because students spent variabletimes in each setting, making parent ratings difficult to interpret in relation to aspecific school. However, visual inspection shows that mean ratings by partialintegration parents more closely resembled those by mainstream parents on charac-teristics rated more important by the latter group, and those of special schoolparents on characteristics which they rated as more important. The characteristicson which mean ratings by parent groups did not differ significantly are also shownin Table V.

As might be expected, factors rated more highly by mainstream compared tospecial school parents reflect opportunities for socialisation and learning of academicskills. Those rated more highly by special school parents reflect a concern for thetypes of programs offered in special schools and the higher teacher-student ratiofound in these schools. Many of the characteristics on which parents did not differwere rated highly by all groups—these tend to reflect a concern with meeting thechild's needs through the provision of a safe and caring environment. This concernis most strongly reflected in the characteristics that were most frequently mentionedas among the three most important (Table VI).

It is important to note that Table V indicates how parents rated each character-istic, whereas inclusion in Table VI means that a large proportion of parents thoughtthat this was one of the three most important characteristics.

Discussion

This study sought the views of parents of children with disabilities in both main-stream and special school settings about a number of issues related to choice ofschool. The study showed that parents of students with disabilities in both main-stream and special settings have many priorities in common. For all parents, concernfor the child's welfare was paramount, with emphasis on understanding and meeting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 1

3:31

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Choice of School by Parents 197

TABLE V. Mean ratings of importance of school characteristics by mainstream parents compared tospecial school parents, and by parents of students in partial integration

Special (PartialMainstream school integration) ta

Rated more important by mainstreamcompared to special school parents

3. School attended by siblings4. Child's friends attend school

14. Child learns academic skills19. Friends with children without disability20. Copy behaviour of children without

disability21. School develops positive attitude

Rated more important by special schoolcompared to mainstream parents

6. Smaller class sizes12. Better qualified teachers16. Programs in independent living17. Community-based learning18. With others with similar disability23. Meets child's special education needs28. Has special facilities for child

No significant difference in ratings1. Close to home2. Close to my or my spouse's job5. Safe environment7. Good student discipline8. Attractive physical environment9. Larger with more students

10. Gave child a fresh start11. Close personal attention13. More varied curriculum15. Many extra-curricular activities22. Caring attitude of staff24. Good parent-teacher communication25. Good understanding/child needs26. Treats all children equally27. One-to-one support for child29. Provides adequate supervision30. Encourages child's independence

a Comparison of mainstream and special school parents using Bonferroni's correction.**p<0.01 *p<0.05

the child's needs, the school's concern for the child, and, most important, the schoolclimate reflected in staff attitudes and good parent-teacher communication. Thesefactors were rated as important regardless of the chosen school, and suggest that theconcerns of parents of students with disabilities about what makes a good school are

1.992.092.502.64

2.562.88

2.302.312.031.931.412.782.36

2.221.402.812.582.011.111.612.622.351.182.912.922.932.892.432.742.84

1.311.571.991.77

1.912.56

2.772.732.562.292.032.972.77

1.971.322.812.492.211.191.932.842.512.212.912.932.932.812.652.882.72

(1.76)(1.65)(2.29)(2.65)

(2.94)(2.82)

(2.29)(2.65)(2.53)(1.82)(1.71)(2.82)(2.59)

(2.06)(1.41)(2.88)(2.35)(2.12)(1.24)(1.88)(2.94)(2.59)(2.00)(2.94)(2.94)(3.00)(2.94)(2.88)(2.82)(2.71)

5.89**4.45**4.58**8.86**

5.96**4.14**

5.82**4.56**4.47**3.55*5.65**3.17*4.50**

2.700.880.021.101.971.172.632.711.592.800.100.310.071.292.392.201.58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 1

3:31

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

198 J. C.Jenkinson

TABLE VI. Five school characteristics receiving most nominations by parent groups for importancein choosing a school

Mainstream parents

1.

2.3.

4.

5.

Good parent-teachercommunication.Caring attitude of staff.Good understanding ofchild's needs.Encourages my child'sindependence.Can be friends withchildren who do not havea disability.

Special school parents

1.

2.3.

4.

5.

Meets child's specialeducational needs.Caring attitude of staff.Treats all childrenequally.Good parent-teachercommunication.Good understanding ofchild's needs.

Partial integration parents

1.

2.3.

4.

5.

Meets child's specialeducational needs.Safe environment.Treats all childrenequally.Good parent-teachercommunication.Good understanding ofchild's needs.

no different from those expressed by parents in general about school effectiveness(McGaw, Piper, Banks, & Evans, 1993).

However, the view expressed by advocates of inclusive education that the main-stream is the preferred setting for all students with disabilities, and can provide forthe special educational needs of all students, was not endorsed unanimously by theparents in this study.

The fact that most parents would prefer to keep their child in the current setting,even if equivalent resources were guaranteed regardless of setting, confirms aconclusion that resources and special programs, although important, are not theonly factor to be considered in choosing a school. Parents perceive differencesbetween settings that are important for individual choices. It is also interesting tonote that while the majority of parents with children in partial integration wouldchoose full-time either in the mainstream or in a special school, a number of thosewith children full-time in either setting would prefer partial integration. Someparents clearly wanted both options, with opportunities to be in the "normal" settingof the mainstream while gaining the benefits of small classes and one-to-oneattention offered by the special school. A small number would prefer a special classor unit in a mainstream school, but this is not an option that is generally availablein Victoria. For those already in partial integration, this is not perceived as an idealoption. Some parents reported that the child was happy in one setting but not in theother, had difficulty in making the transition between schools each week, or did notclearly identify with either school. The potential benefits of partial integrationtherefore need to be weighed against the disruption to school life that can occur withthis arrangement. Overall, though, there was a high level of satisfaction expressed byparents with the chosen option.

When considered in relation to current school placement, characteristics rated byparents as being important in choosing their child's school were largely predictableand are consistent with previous research. Parents with children in mainstreamschools favoured opportunities to mix with non-disabled children and to acquire

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 1

3:31

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Choice of School by Parents 199

academic skills, the presence of "normal" behavioural models, and encouragementof positive attitudes to disability in the community. Parents of students in specialschools favoured smaller class sizes, more one-to-one attention from special-trainedteachers, and availability of appropriate instructional programs.

The responses of special school parents, but also of several mainstream parents,suggest a number of issues that need to be addressed if schools are to become trulyinclusive. Clearly these parents do not see equivalence of funding in both settings asresolving all of these issues. A cause for concern is the number of students who hadbeen enrolled in mainstream schools and who had subsequently moved to a specialschool. Other parents whose children were in a mainstream primary setting ex-pressed concern about the child's secondary education and indicated a likely returnto a special education setting when the time came. While mainstream education isperceived as working well in the early primary years, parents are increasinglyquestioning its appropriateness in later primary and secondary years. Social as wellas academic gaps are perceived to widen as children grow older.

The major concerns reflected in characteristics endorsed as more important byspecial school compared to mainstream parents are the amount of attention the childreceives, curriculum issues, and the child's self-esteem. Attitudes of school staff alsoemerged as crucial. The special school is chosen for its small classes and specialtrained teachers who are able to offer a great deal more one-to-one attention thanis possible in the mainstream. The ratio of teachers to students in special schools inAustralia is one teacher to just under five students (de Lemos, 1994). Apart from theprovision of building modifications and equipment to meet the needs of studentswith physical disabilities, special needs funding in mainstream schools in Victoriahas largely been directed to the provision of integration aides who are not usuallyqualified teachers. The role of the teacher aide is not well defined and not alwayswell understood by class teachers. Although many positive comments were made byparents about the assistance their children received from integration aides, there wasalso some concern that the presence of an aide could reinforce a child's isolationfrom the rest of the class and that aides were not a substitute for expert individu-alised teaching. While some mainstream schools have successfully resolved this issuewith flexible programs that allow judicious withdrawal of students on a one-to-oneor small group basis, others have adopted a more rigid view of inclusion. Clearlygreater flexibility both in the allocation of resources and in balancing the child'sindividual needs with the philosophical principles of inclusion is needed.

Secondly, the issue of curriculum is one that becomes increasingly important asthe student moves from primary to secondary school. Many parents see the main-stream curriculum as having little to offer at secondary level where there is greateremphasis on individual subject teaching, especially to students with moderate orsevere intellectual disability. The extent of adaptations to standard curriculum forstudents with severe disabilities may be so great that what is actually taught bearsvery little resemblance to the original. More important, the acquisition of academicskills is unlikely to be a priority for these students. In a pilot survey by Hamre-Nietupski, Nietupski, and Strathe (1992) parents of students with moderate disabil-ities rated functional life skills as having the highest curricular priority, followed by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 1

3:31

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

200 J. C. Jenkinson

academic skills and the development of friendships and social relationships. Parentsof students with severe disabilities gave highest priority to friendship and socialrelationship development, and lowest priority to academic skills. The acquisition ofindependent living skills was an important reason for parents choosing specialschools in the present study and for parents foreshadowing a move from primary tospecial school as the student reached secondary school age. Many of these skillscannot be taught effectively in the traditional classroom, but must be acquired in thecommunity setting in which they will ultimately be used. There is a need for carefulreconsideration of curriculum issues at secondary level and in particular a need toexplore more flexible curriculum options that will enable students with disabilities toremain in the mainstream to complete their schooling.

A number of parents felt that mainstream placement was detrimental to thechild's self-esteem as children realised that they were unable to keep up with otherstudents. Intuitively we might expect students with disabilities to have reducedself-esteem in settings in which they can compare their performance with that ofstudents without disabilities. On the other hand, attending a school that is alsoattended by the majority of children in the local community may enhance self-esteem. The literature in this area is equivocal and raises questions about the use ofself-report measures and the accuracy of self-evaluations of people with intellectualdisability. Widaman, MacMillan, Hensley, Little, and Balow (1992) found theacademic self-concept of students in regular classes to be higher compared to thatof students in self-contained classes, but their results were confounded by differ-ences in level of academic achievement. Concerns expressed by parents in thepresent study about students' isolation in the mainstream and the need to providestudents with educational programs that are within their capacity and enhance theirself-esteem through a sense of achievement need to be heeded.

Reports of negative attitudes within some mainstream schools were not frequent,but those that did occur indicate a need for further efforts to promote a positive viewtowards the inclusion of students with disabilities. Generally attitudes to integrationin Victoria have become more positive as teachers have become accustomed to theinclusion of students with mild disabilities in mainstream classes (Harvey, 1989).The reported experiences of some students in the present study suggest thatacceptance is not universal, and may reflect the disproportionate number of studentswith moderate and severe disabilities in the sample who present a greater challengeto class teachers. Few parents will want their children to remain in a setting in whichthey are not readily accepted. In some cases, lack of acceptance, or indifference, mayreflect a more general malaise within a school that has more to do with broadeducational policies than it has specifically with disability.

A limitation of the present study is that it focused on school characteristics ratherthan on expected long-term outcomes. The extent of parental satisfaction withspecial education evident in many studies may be an indication of a limited concernwith long-term outcomes, and indeed a limited understanding of short-term goals(Green & Shinn, 1994). Many expectations of education, regardless of setting, areexpressed in vague or abstract terms, such as "maximum independence,""normalisation," or "being part of the real world" which provide few concrete

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 1

3:31

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Choice of School by Parents 201

objectives towards which to strive. The consequences of various educational optionsin relation to meeting specific objectives are not always thought through. Parentsmay integrate their children into mainstream schools at primary level, then changetheir goals at the end of primary school as they begin to confront the reality that fullparticipation will not necessarily achieve the alternative goal of independent living.This lack of initial concern with long-term outcomes was evident in the presentstudy, but may not be very different from the more immediate priorities of parentsin general. One of the difficulties faced by both parents and administrators is todemonstrate links between outcomes and specific settings, when in reality outcomesmay be determined as much by individual circumstances as by the setting in whicheducation takes place (Jenkinson, 1997).

A further limitation of the study arises from the problem which characterises allattempts at comparisons between mainstream and special education settings: stu-dents are not randomly allocated to settings, and their enrolment in one or othersetting, whether or not the result of parent choice, is likely to be based on studentcharacteristics as well as on other factors Qenkinson, 1997). In the present study, thetype of school attended appeared to depend on both the nature of the disability, andto a smaller extent on the severity of the disability. Consideration of their child'sindividual needs undoubtedly influenced parents' responses. For example, parentsof students whose primary disability is physical or sensory, and who were predomi-nantly located in the mainstream in the present study, would be more likely toemphasise academic aspects than parents of students with moderate or severeintellectual disability.

The results of this study are further limited by being based on a relatively smallsample which included a disproportionate number of parents of children with severedisabilities, all of whom were members of a parent support group. With only aroughly 50% response rate, the sample could have been further biased by returnsfrom more concerned or articulate parents who saw the questionnaire as an oppor-tunity to express their opinions. A number of respondents expressed appreciationthat their views were being sought and several were prepared to sacrifice anonymityto telephone the researcher to discuss the project, or provided their name andaddress to receive a copy of the results. Nevertheless, the findings, although limitedby the sample size and lack of representativeness of the parents surveyed, supportthe need for a policy of choice and suggest that many parents will continue to prefera special school setting for their son or daughter who has a disability. The reasonsare complex, and clearly not entirely related to resource issues. Further research isneeded to clarify educational and other needs related to school choice, supported byin-depth qualitative studies to document the progress of individual students indifferent settings. Finally, if inclusive schooling is to be truly successful, a moreflexible approach may be needed in which a range of provisions within the main-stream school may better serve the needs of many students with disabilities.

References

AUDITOR-GENERAL, VICTORIA. (1992). Special Report No. 17: Integrated education for children withdisabilities. Melbourne: Government Printer.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 1

3:31

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

202 J. C. Jenkinson

CULLEN, R.B. & BROWN, N.F. (1992). Integration and special education in Victorian schools:A program effectiveness review. Melbourne: Department of School Education.

DELEMOS, M.M. (1994). Schooling for students with disabilities. Canberra: Australian GovernmentPublishing Service.

FOREMAN, P.J. & NEILANDS, J. (1991). Parental perceptions of services to children with intellec-tual disability. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 17, 249-258.

GREEN, S.K. & SHINN, M.R. (1994). Parent attitudes about special education and reintegration:What is the role of student outcomes? Exceptional Children, 61, 269-282.

HAMRE-NIETUPSKI, S., NIETUPSKI, J. & STRATHE, M. (1992). Functional life skills, academicskills, and friendship/social relationship development: What do parents of students withmoderate/severe/profound disabilities value? Journal of The Association of Persons with SevereHandicaps, 17, 553-558.

HARVEY, D.H.P. (1989). Integration in Victoria: Teachers' attitudes after six years of a no-choicepolicy. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 39, 33-45.

HEGARTY, S. (1993). Meeting special needs in ordinary schools (2nd ed.). London: Cassell.HEGARTY, S. & POCKLINGTON, K. (1981). Educating pupils with special needs in the ordinary school.

Windsor, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.HOWELL, D.C. (1992). Statistical methods for psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent.JENKINSON, J.C. (1997). Mainstream or special? Educating students with disabilities. London:

Routledge.MCDONNELL, J. (1987). The integration of students with severe handicaps into regular public

schools: An analysis of parents' perceptions of potential outcomes. Education and Trainingin Mental Retardation, 22, 98-111.

M C G A W , B., PIPER, K., BANKS, D. & EVANS, B. (1993). Making schools more effective. Hawthorn,Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

NORWICH, B. (1994). Segregation and inclusion: English LEA statistics 1988-92. Bristol: Centre forStudies on Inclusive Education.

O'SHEA, L.J., O'SHEA, D.J. & ALGOZZINE, B. (1989). The regular education initiative in the U.S.:What is its relevance to the integration movement in Australia? International Journal ofDisability, Development and Education, 36, 5-14.

PICKERING, D., CALLAHAN, J., LAITY, C. & OSLER, M. (1991). Considerations in the formulation of

special education policy. Unpublished manuscript, Victoria College, Burwood, Victoria,Australia.

PICKERING, D. & DICKENS, E. (1991). Special schools: Students, parents, teachers. Burwood,Victoria: Victoria College Press.

RYNDAK, D.L., DOWNING, J.E., MORRISON, A.P. & WILLIAMS, LJ . (1996). Parents' perceptions

of educational settings and services for children with moderate or severe disabilities.Remedial and Special Education, 17, 106-118.

SANDOW, S. & STAFFORD, P. (1986). Parental perceptions and the 1981 Education Act. BritishJournal of Special Education, 13, 19-21.

WIDAMAN, K.F., MACMILLAN, D.L., HENSLEY, R.P., LITTLE, T.D. & BALOW, I.H. (1992).

Differences in adolescents' self-concept as a function of academic level, ethnicity, andgender. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, 387-403.

YSSELDYKE, J.E., LANGE, C.M. & GORNEY, D.J. (1994). Parents of students with disabilities andopen enrolment: Characteristics and reasons for transfer. Exceptional Children, 60, 359-372.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 1

3:31

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14