annotated bibliography
hsj
PARENTSPERSPECTIVESONINCLUSIVESCHOOLSFORSTUDENTSWITHDISABILITIESINSAUDIARABIA.pdf
University of Kentucky University of Kentucky
UKnowledge UKnowledge
Theses and Dissertations--Early Childhood, Special Education, and Rehabilitation Counseling
Early Childhood, Special Education, and Rehabilitation Counseling
2018
PARENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS FOR PARENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN SAUDI ARABIA STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN SAUDI ARABIA
Bader Alsulami University of Kentucky, [email protected] Author ORCID IdentiFer:
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4413-1056 Digital Object IdentiFer: https://doi.org/10.13023/etd.2018.459
Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document beneFts you. Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document beneFts you.
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Alsulami, Bader, "PARENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN SAUDI ARABIA" (2018). Theses and Dissertations--Early Childhood, Special Education, and Rehabilitation Counseling. 69. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edsrc_etds/69
This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Early Childhood, Special Education, and Rehabilitation Counseling at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Early Childhood, Special Education, and Rehabilitation Counseling by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected].
STUDENT AGREEMENT: STUDENT AGREEMENT:
I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File.
I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I agree that the document mentioned above may be made available immediately for worldwide access unless an embargo applies.
I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of my work. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of my work. I understand that I am free to register the copyright to my work.
REVIEW, APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE REVIEW, APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE
The document mentioned above has been reviewed and accepted by the student’s advisor, on behalf of the advisory committee, and by the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS), on behalf of the program; we verify that this is the Fnal, approved version of the student’s thesis including all changes required by the advisory committee. The undersigned agree to abide by the statements above.
Bader Alsulami, Student
Dr. Melinda Ault, Major Professor
Dr. Melinda Ault, Director of Graduate Studies
TITLE PAGE
PARENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN SAUDI ARABIA
________________________________________
DISSERTATION ________________________________________
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the
College of Education at the University of Kentucky
By Bader Alsulami
Lexington, Kentucky Director: Dr. Melinda Ault, Professor of Early Childhood, Special Education and
Rehabilitation Counseling Lexington, Kentucky
2018
Copyright © Bader Alsulami 2018 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4413-1056
ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION PARENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS FOR STUDENTS WITH
DISABILITIES IN SAUDI ARABIA
In recent decades, inclusion has gained increasing international currency. In the Gulf region, Saudi Arabia in particular has made a sustained commitment to leadership in the humane, equitable inclusion of individuals with disabilities in its communities and the provision of appropriate, free public education for students with disabilities. Despite these achievements, students with disabilities remain segregated from general education students in separate classrooms, regardless of degree of disability. This study examined the perspectives of parents of students with and without disabilities in Saudi Arabia on placing their children in general education classrooms that are comprised of children with and without disabilities. Prior to this study, there were no quantitative data to indicate to what extent parents of children with and without disabilities in Saudi Arabia are receptive to inclusion. In order to address the gap in the quantitative data, this study used a quantitative, cross-sectional survey designed to examine the perspectives of parents. Knowing parents’ perspectives about inclusive education provides vital information to the public, researchers, and key decision-makers that could lead to advances in inclusive education.
The study used a quantitative, cross-sectional survey to examine parents’ perspectives regarding inclusion in general and across four specific dimensions of inclusive practice, including impact on students with disabilities, impact on students without disabilities, impact on parents and families of students with disabilities, and impact on parents and families of students without disabilities. The study sought to answer questions about differences in parents’ perspectives based on five variables: whether the parent is the parent of a student with disabilities or the parent of a student without disabilities; severity of students’ disabilities; type of students’ disabilities; gender of the child; and academic level of the child. Additionally, the study sought to answer questions about differences in the respective impact of these variables and to determine which variables have the most significant role in shaping perspective toward inclusion. Although the methods of the study were quantitative, it also at times drew upon limited
qualitative analysis of a single open-ended questionnaire item to supplement and explain aspects of the quantitative data.
The findings of the study show that parents in Saudi Arabia hold generally positive perspectives regarding inclusion, but that these perspectives are often dependent on the severity and type of disability, as well as the training and staffing of qualified teachers and accessible school environments. In general, perspectives among both parents of students with and without disabilities were supportive of inclusion, indicating broad support in terms of global perspective, perspective of potential positive impact on students with disabilities, perspective on potential positive impact on students without disabilities, perspective on potential positive impact on families of students with disabilities, and perspective on potential positive impact on families of students without disabilities. Although both parents with and parents without indicated generally supportive global views towards inclusion, parents of students with disabilities tended to agree more strongly with statements supportive of inclusion than parents of students without disabilities. Parents of students with severe disabilities expressed the least agreement with statements supportive of inclusion. Both parents with and without expressed concerns regarding the preparation and provisioning of qualified teachers and paraprofessionals as a key factor in the success of inclusion. Respondents had concerns about the preparedness of teachers to instruct students with disabilities and students without disabilities in an inclusive general education classroom. Perspectives of the current study, however, placed greater and more strenuous emphasis upon concerns related to teacher preparedness, classroom accessibility, and classroom staffing.
According to parents’ perspectives and comments in this study, the Saudi Arabia Ministry of Education must ensure that inclusive classrooms are staffed with qualified paraprofessionals, teaching assistants, and special education teachers for inclusion to be successful. Additionally, the successful implementation of inclusion would require adequate professional development and pedagogical training for classroom teachers, as well as adequate resources and support staff. Given the results of this survey, perhaps the first step in moving educational practices forward in Saudi Arabia will involve an open conversation between the Ministry of Education and parents of students with and without disabilities regarding what they want for their children. Educational policy and curriculum in Saudi Arabia are currently designed from a top-down model. The results of this study, however, show that there are grounds for a partnership between parents and the Ministry that advances educational goals for all students. In addition to continuing to expand opportunities for integration in public schools, experimental inclusive classrooms could be trialed in key regions to gather data and insights into what policies, teaching and instructional models, and models of parent-school collaboration and partnership could best advance classrooms and schools that effectively and humanely include all their members in the academic and social life of Saudi Arabia schools. KEYWORDS: Inclusion, Integration, Mainstreaming, Special Education, Saudi Arabia
Bader Alsulami
12/06/2018
Date
PARENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS FOR STUDENTS
WITH DISABILITIES IN SAUDI ARABIA
By Bader Alsulami
Dr. Melinda Ault Director of Dissertation
Dr. Melinda Ault Director of Graduate Studies
12/06/2018 Date
DEDICATION
To my beautiful wife and daughters, who shared their support with me during my studies
in the USA as an international student, and to the professors and friends who provide support and encouragement while completing my Ph.D.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation would not have been possible without the support and help I
received from many professors and colleagues. I offer my deepest thanks to my
academic supervisor and chair of my dissertation committee, Dr. Melinda Ault. Dr. Ault
has inspired and motivated me through my doctoral studies at the University of
Kentucky. Her guidance, support, and detailed feedback have made all the difference,
not in this dissertation but throughout the years I spent in the Ph.D. program. There are
no words can. I thank Dr. Amy Spriggs for her intensive feedback and support. Her
guidance was highly valuable, improving the dissertation from when it was just an idea.
I owe thanks to Dr. Sharon Brennan for her motivation and inspiring words that kept me
more pushing forward to complete the dissertation. Also, I thank Dr. Brian Bottge for his
interactional discussion and comments which helped me improve the work of the
dissertation. I thank Dr. Kristin Maxwell for serving as my outside examiner and sharing
her expertise and feedback.
Most importantly, deepest thanks for my mother, Hadw, my father, Muteb, my
wife, Shouq, and my two beautiful daughters, Ghazl (4 years old) and Zain (8 months
old). They were all patient and cooperative during my studies. Also, I thank all the
friends who supported me during my studies.
Lastly, I thank the government of Saudi Arabia, which invest in me for seven
years of higher education in the United States of America.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Problem .............................................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 6
2.1 Definition, Benefits, and Challenges of Inclusion .................................................... 7 2.1.1 Definitions.......................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Benefits .............................................................................................................. 9 2.1.3 Challenges .......................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Parental Advocacy .................................................................................................. 11 2.3 History of Special Education in KSA ..................................................................... 13
2.3.1 The Beginnings of Special Education in KSA. ................................................ 14 2.3.2 Gradual Growth, Beginnings to 1987 .............................................................. 15 2.3.3 Accelerating Change and Reforms, 1987 to the Present.................................. 16
2.4 Current State of Special Education in KSA ............................................................ 18 2.4.1 Quantitative Analysis of Recent Positive Trends for SWDs in KSA. ............. 18
2.5 Factors Affecting Special Education Reform in KSA ............................................ 25 2.5.1 RSEPI Legislation. ........................................................................................... 25 2.5.2 Infrastructure, Training Programs, Assistive Technology. .............................. 26 2.5.3 Teachers, Administrators, and Interdisciplinary Teams. ................................. 27 2.5.4 The Role and Perspectives of Parents. ............................................................. 28
2.6 Study Significance .................................................................................................. 29 2.7 Research Questions ................................................................................................. 31
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 32 3.1 Description of the Study ......................................................................................... 32 3.2 Sample Procedures and Target Population ............................................................. 34 3.3 Instrumentation ....................................................................................................... 36
3.3.1 Survey Design .................................................................................................. 36 3.3.2 Validity and Reliability .................................................................................... 38
v
3.4 Pilot Study ............................................................................................................... 39 3.4.1 Pilot Study Results. .......................................................................................... 40 3.5 Survey Distribution ................................................................................................. 42
3.6 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 43 3.6.3 Quantitative Data Analysis .............................................................................. 44 3.6.4 Qualitative Data Analysis ................................................................................ 48
3.7 Summary ................................................................................................................. 49 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS .................................................................................................. 50
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 50 4.2 Quantitative Analysis .............................................................................................. 50
4.2.1 Screening and Cleaning of Response Data ...................................................... 50 4.2.2 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents ................................................. 52 4.2.3 Respondents’ Perspectives ............................................................................... 54 4.2.4 Comparison of Respondents’ Perspectives by Disability of Child .................. 63 4.2.5 Comparison of Perspectives of Respondents by Severity of Disability .......... 64 4.2.6 Comparison of Respondents’ Perspectives by Type of Disability ................... 65 4.2.7 Comparison of Respondents’ Perspectives by Gender of Child ...................... 67 4.2.8 Comparison of Respondents’ Perspectives by Level of Education ................. 68
4.3 Qualitative Analysis ................................................................................................ 69 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 71 5.1 RQ1: What are parents’ perspectives regarding inclusive education of students with
disabilities in KSA? ................................................................................................... 72 5.2 RQ2: Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive
education between parents of students with disabilities and parents of students without disabilities in KSA? ...................................................................................... 74
5.3 RQ3: Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the severity of their child’s disability in KSA? .......................... 77
5.4 RQ4: Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the type of their child’s disability in KSA? ................................ 80
5.5 RQ5: Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the gender of their child in KSA? .............................................. 81
5.6 RQ6: Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the academic level of their child in KSA? ................................. 82
5.7 Limitations: Comparison with PATI ...................................................................... 83 5.8 Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................. 85
vi
5.9 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 86 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 91
APPENDIX 1. PERMISSION TO USE PATI SURVEY ............................................ 92 APPENDIX 2. IRB APPROVAL ................................................................................. 93 APPENDIX 3. MODIFIED PATI SURVEY (ENGLISH VERSION) ........................ 94 APPENDIX 4. MODIFIED PATI SURVEY (ARABIC VERSION) ........................ 141 APPENDIX 5. CONSENT FORM TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH (ENGLISH
VERSION) ............................................................................................................... 168 References ....................................................................................................................... 174 VITA ............................................................................................................................... 182
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Number of Institutions and Integrated Special Education Programs in KSA in
2011. .......................................................................................................................... 21 Table 3.1 Research Questions and Their Hypotheses and Null Hypotheses .................... 33 Table 3.1 Definitions of Independent Variables Used in the Statistical Analysis ............ 44 Table 3.2 Definitions of Dependent Variables Used in the Statistical Analysis .............. 45 Table 4.1 Screening of Duplicate Cases, Empty Surveys, and Incomplete Surveys (N =
478) ............................................................................................................................ 52 Table 4.2 Responses to Questions About the Demographic Characteristics of the
Respondents (N = 225) .............................................................................................. 52 Table 4.3 Types and Severities of Disability (N = 68) ..................................................... 53 Table 4.4 Reliability and Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variables (N = 225) . 54 Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics for Nine Items Used to Measure Attitudes (N = 225) .... 56 Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics for 14 items Used to Measure Global Attitudes based on
Type of Disability (N = 225) ..................................................................................... 56 Table 4.7 Descriptive Statistics for 15 items Used to Measure Impact on Students with
Disabilities (N = 225) ................................................................................................ 58 Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics for 11 items Used to Measure Impact on Students without
Disabilities (N = 225) ................................................................................................ 60 Table 4.9 Descriptive Statistics for Five Items Used to Measure Impact on Parents of
Students with Disabilities (N = 225) ......................................................................... 61 Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistics for 4 items Used to Measure Impact on Parents of
Students without Disabilities (N = 225) .................................................................... 62 Table 4.11 Comparison of Dependent Variables by Disability of Child (N = 222) ......... 63 Table 4.12 Comparison of Dependent Variables by Severity of Disability (N = 225) ..... 65 Table 4.13 Comparison of Dependent Variables by Type of Disability (N = 225) .......... 66 Table 4.14 Comparison of Dependent Variables by Gender of Child (N = 213) ............. 67 Table 4.15 Comparison of Dependent Variables by Level of Education ......................... 68 Table 4.16 Summary of Categorical Analysis .................................................................. 69
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Number of Institutions and Programs.............................................................. 20
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
The last several decades have seen a movement toward progressively inclusive
schooling for students with disabilities (SWDs) in developed countries around the world.
In 2001, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) passed the Regulations of Special
Education Programs and Institutes (RSEPI, 2001), a broad legislative reform modeled
after the United States’ (U.S.) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Alquraini,
2010; IDEA, 1997). IDEA reflects expansions of the special education laws that first
guaranteed the right of SWDs in the U.S. to a “free and appropriate public education” and
codified as law the least restrictive environment mandate. The original legislation first
specified that SWDs be included “to the maximum extent possible” (a) alongside their
typical peers; and (b) in the general education environment (EHA, 1975, §300.114(a)).
The concept of inclusion has grown together with the evolving policy frameworks and
practical implementations of IDEA. At one extreme, full inclusion defines a situation in
which SWDs receive access to the general education curriculum in the general education
classroom for 100% of the school day, regardless of degree of disability (Fuchs & Fuchs,
1994). Most definitions of inclusion, however, strike a balance between classroom access
and evidence-based accommodations, emphasizing placement in the general education
classroom as the rule, not the exception, in keeping with the language of IDEA (Ryndak
& Alper, 2003). The concept of inclusion in schools allows all SWDs to participate in a
general education curriculum and provides services to meet their needs in the general
classroom (Osgood, 2005; Theoharis & Causton, 2014; Westling & Fox, 2004).
2
In recent decades, inclusion has gained increasing international currency. In the
Gulf region, KSA in particular has made a sustained commitment to leadership in the
humane, equitable inclusion of individuals with disabilities in its communities and the
provision of appropriate, free public education of SWDs (Al-Mousa, 2010). In 2001, as
the last in a series of educational reforms designed to modernize the rights, services, and
education available to individuals with disabilities, RSEPI modeled its provisions after
the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) and its later reauthorization
in 1997 as IDEA (Elsheikh & Alqurashi, 2013). Like IDEA, RSEPI framed the legal
definitions and mandates standards for the concept of disability, highly qualified special
education teachers, transition services, and individualized education programs (IEPs).
Article 13 of the legislation specifies that for SWDs, placement in the general education
environment with their typical peers is the “natural environment” (RSEPI, 2001). The
regulation’s language seemed to envision a new phase of inclusive schooling in KSA that
would follow a path at least somewhat similar to IDEA’s movement towards inclusion. It
was a moment of promise when reforms envisioned the full inclusion of individuals with
disabilities in KSA communities and schools.
Almost two decades later there remains “a gap between the framework of these
laws [RSEPI] and the provision of services” (Alquraini, 2011, p. 151). As Alquraini
describes it:
these policies [contained in RESPI] support the equal rights of individuals with
disabilities in obtaining free and appropriate education. However, …they are not
practiced in the real world with students with disabilities. In fact, the lack of the
3
effective implementation has created in a gap between the framework of these
laws and the provision of services… (2011, p. 141).
To note the gap in implementation of RSEPI is not to diminish its achievements. From a
system of special education that might be loosely compared to the U.S. prior to the initial
1975 passage of IDEA (Alquraini, 2013), RSEPI achieved tremendous success by
moving thousands of SWDs out of institutions, providing access to appropriate education
and accommodations in less restrictive environments, and elevating the rights of SWDs
(Al-Mousa, 2010). Despite these achievements, the distance between the practices
envisioned by RSEPI and the current state of special education in KSA affects many
areas. Although students with mild disabilities are largely educated in integrated schools,
students with certain types and severities of disability, for example, continue to be
educated in institutions. A large proportion of students with intellectual disability (ID)
and students with multiple disabilities receive their education in segregated institutions.
The most glaring inconsistency between the inclusive schools envisioned by RSEPI and
the reality of special education in KSA is the continued segregation of SWDs from the
general education classroom. The momentum towards inclusion has brought many SWDs
into the general education school, yet these SWDs remain segregated in separate
classrooms, regardless of degree of disability. Among all SWDs, the only students
included in the general education classroom are students with specific learning
disabilities (LDs). If students with specific LDs require accommodations to the general
curriculum, those are not made in the general education classroom. A student with a
specific LD in math, for example, would be included in the general education classroom
for other subjects, but excluded for math. In other words, no special education services or
4
accommodations for any student occur in the general education classroom (Alnahdi,
2014).
Despite the ambitious policy reforms of RSEPI, the general education classroom
remains out of reach for most SWDs. A body of literature exists addressing the factors
involved in the gap between policy and practice in KSA in the areas of legislation;
infrastructure; and the perspectives of teachers, administrators, and students. What
remains poorly understood is the role and perspectives of parents of students with and
without disabilities regarding inclusive education. Parents played a critical role in the
U.S. in the successful implementation of inclusion, both historically as an issue of civic
and community advocacy and contemporaneously as an issue in successful outcomes for
SWDs (Giangreco, Cloninger, Mueller, Yuan, & Ashworth, 1991; Lipsky & Gartner,
1997; Nietupski, Hamre-Nietupski, Curtin, & Shrikanth, 1997). Growing alongside and
out of the civil rights movements of the 1960s and 70s, parental advocacy sustained
special education reform from the beginning. The advocacy battle took place on both
grassroots and organizational levels, with individual parents and often parent-led groups
such as the American Association of Mental Deficiency (AAMD), now the American
Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), and the
Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC), now named The Arc (Winzer, 2009). The role
of parental advocacy holds true at the level of national policy as well as in the ongoing
adoption, implementation, and success of inclusion at the local level. Soodak (2004)
wrote about the importance of parental advocacy in the U.S., stating that, “parental
advocacy has been responsible for the move toward inclusive education in many schools
throughout the country” (p. 114). Researchers have demonstrated that parental
5
involvement affects the success of inclusion and does so in proportion to their
involvement in the decision-making process (Kozub & Lienert, 2003; Lewis, Chard, &
Scott, 1994). On the other hand, lack of parental involvement or the existence of
ineffective family-school collaborations can be a main factor impairing the inclusion
process (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).
1.1 The Problem
Almost two decades after the ambitious policy reforms of RSEPI, the general
education classroom remains out of reach for SWDs in KSA. On the whole, there is little
research describing the perspectives of KSA parents and families with and without
children with disabilities on inclusive education, and none that quantifies the perspectives
of parents regarding the inclusion of SWDs in the general education classroom. The
purpose of this dissertation was to examine the perspectives of parents (those with and
without a child with disabilities) on placing their children in general education
classrooms that are comprised of children with and without disabilities. In order to
address the gap in the quantitative data, the study used a quantitative, cross-sectional
survey designed to examine the perspectives of parents towards inclusive schooling for
children with disabilities in KSA. Knowing parents’ perspectives about inclusive
education provides vital information to the public, researchers, and key decision-makers
that could lead to advances in inclusive education. This dissertation includes a literature
review of inclusion scholarship, including a full discussion of the definition, benefits, and
challenges of inclusion, as well as a brief history of the evolution of inclusionary services
in the U.S.
6
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Originally named the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA, 1975),
IDEA has passed through continuous phases of strengthening and expanding the least
restrictive environment and free and appropriate public education mandates for SWDs.
The history of implementing and strengthening IDEA reflects both the interpretive
flexibility and ambitious scope of EHA’s original mandates. Prior to the passage of EHA,
almost 200,000 individuals with disabilities were housed in state institutions, and U.S.
public schools educated only one out of every five children with disabilities (Duncan &
Posny, 2010). Signing the bill into law, President Ford characterized the span between the
law and the perceived ability to implement it: “this bill [EHA] promises more than the
Federal Government can deliver” (cited in Moody, 2012). Nonetheless, the initial
achievement of EHA was a largescale movement to deinstitutionalize and integrate
millions of SWDs. Changing interpretations and amendments have since expanded the
range, scope, and implementation of the renamed EHA legislation (IDEA), but many of
the law’s most ambitious provisions occurred in its earliest form: (a) a free and
appropriate public education, along with the supports and services to access it, and (b)
services occurring “to the maximum extent appropriate” in the least restrictive
environment with removal from general education environments occurring only if
“education in regular classes… cannot be achieved satisfactorily” (EHA, 1975,
§300.114(a)). While the extent to which the original EHA legislation envisioned the least
restrictive environment mandate as inclusion in the general education classroom for some
or all SWDs is open to reasonable debate, the law’s practical effect was to begin (a)
7
integrating formerly excluded SWDs into the public education system, and (b)
deinstitutionalizing formerly segregated SWDs.
In its amended and expanded iterations of IDEA, the policy framework has
continued to strengthen the interpretative emphasis of least restrictive environment on the
general education classroom and to narrow the distance between promise and delivery.
The adoption of the inclusion model (IDEA, 1997) committed to “the final goal [of] full
reintegration for these disabled students back into the student population” (Ary, 2017, p.
16) and, “a growing emphasis on the need to educate students with disabilities for
increasing proportions of the school day in general education classrooms” (McLeskey,
Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2012, p. 2). While neither EHA nor IDEA mandates
full inclusion, but rather the development of placement of SWDs on the basis of their
individual needs, continuing revisions to policy and advances in research and practice
have nonetheless led to progressive increases in the number of SWDs included in the
general education classroom and the proportion of time spent there. Recent data suggests
57 % of SWDs in the U.S. spend a majority of their school day (i.e., 80 % or more) in the
general education classroom (Duncan & Posny, 2010), showing that both the
interpretation and the implementation of least restrictive environment have progressively
shifted to include more SWDs.
2.1 Definition, Benefits, and Challenges of Inclusion
2.1.1 Definitions.
Throughout the dissertation, I use the terms inclusion, integration, and
mainstreaming to distinguish “levels” of educational access. In its broadest sense,
inclusion, “involves the processes of increasing the participation of students in, and
8
reducing their exclusion from, mainstream curricula, cultures, and communities” (Booth
& Ainscow, 1998, p. 2). Inclusion also has come to have a range of specific meanings
with regards to curricular access and classroom placement of SWDs. The broadest sense
of inclusion as a culture of participation can encompass all the stages in the development
of inclusive education, in the U.S. and internationally, so long as they meaningfully
reduce exclusion and increase participation of SWDs in mainstream communities. The
narrower definitions of inclusion correspond to the most recent stages in the
implementation of IDEA, in which the general education classroom has been successfully
prioritized as the natural place of instruction. Unless otherwise noted, I use the term
inclusion in this sense. Integration can be loosely identified with what in the U.S. were
the first achievements of EHA and the more recent achievements of RSEPI in KSA. I
consistently use integration to refer to the movement away from special schools, in which
SWDs receive their education in a segregated building or institution, and towards
expanded access to education for previously excluded students. Mainstreaming is “the
selective placement of special education students in one or more regular education
classes” (Huston, 2007), and corresponds to what was in the U.S. an intermediate stage
between integration and inclusion. Mainstreaming places SWDs in the general education
classroom; unlike inclusion, the special education classroom tends to be the defining
environment. In mainstreaming, SWDs receive the majority of their education in self-
contained special education classrooms or pull-out programs, where they participate in
the general education classroom for certain subjects or periods of time.
9
2.1.2 Benefits
A relatively well-established body of research supports the benefits of inclusion
for SWDs (Katz, Mirenda, & Auerbach, 2002), including improved academic,
communication, and social skills. For students with severe disabilities, Fisher and Meyer
(2002) found that those with access to general education classrooms demonstrated
significantly higher gains in adaptive behavior and social competence than students with
severe disabilities in self-contained settings. Kleinert et al. (2015) found that students
with significant ID with access to general education classrooms demonstrated better
receptive and expressive language compared with those in special education classrooms.
For students with ID, Wehmeyer, Lattin, Lapp-Rinker and Agran (2003) found those with
access to general education classrooms demonstrated improvements on standardized tests
in reading and math compared with students with ID in more restrictive settings. SWDs
in American schools often show more progress on IEP goals when they are included in
general education classrooms, as compared to students in self-contained settings (Cole,
Waldron, & Majd, 2004). Downing and Peckham-Hardin (2007) also have shown that
parents, teachers, and para-educators perceive the inclusion of students with moderate
and severe disabilities in the general education classroom to benefit students without
disabilities.
2.1.3 Challenges
Although research has shown the many potential benefits of inclusion, it also has
shown that key elements need to be in place to achieve them (Leyser & Kirk, 2011). The
success of inclusion depends on providing enough training for teachers, adapting
educational curriculum, and creating a pleasant inclusion environment for SWDs and
10
students without disabilities (by allocating enough time for smooth, integrated transitions
between general and special educational services; Heiman, 2004). Voltz, Brazil, and Ford
(2001), for example, describe in detail what makes inclusion beneficial for SWDs. The
authors emphasized that well-trained teachers are one of the most important elements for
the success of inclusion. Specifically, they noted the importance of teachers’ ability to
use a range of instructional strategies, because SWDs may not benefit from a single
instructional approach. Moreover, adapting the educational curriculum is significant in
inclusive settings. Since the goal of inclusion is to increase the student’s academic and
social outcomes, relying on evidence-based practices allows teachers to locate strategies
that can be implemented as effective instructional approaches (Farley, Torres, Wailehua,
& Cook, 2012). Finally, creating a pleasant inclusion environment for all students is a
matter in which the school should move beyond the physical placement of SWDs to
considering the quantity and quality of interactions between all students and teachers in
the inclusive setting. This occurs through the active, meaningful participation of SWDs in
the everyday functioning of the classroom (Voltz et al., 2001). McLeskey and Waldron
(2007), for example, describe how an ineffective inclusion environment can result from
disruptive transitions in educational settings when SWDs are pulled from the general
education classroom during instructional time. First, moving to the special classroom
interrupts the student’s routine as well as the general education classroom routine. SWDs
often leave the general education classroom, only to return in the middle of activities,
having missed critical context or important academic tasks.
11
2.2 Parental Advocacy
In the U.S., parental advocacy played an enormous role in the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975, which first established the right of SWDs to receive
their education alongside their typical peers (Winzer, 2009). This role of family-school
collaborations has been progressively reflected in the IDEA legislative framework, as
well (Hess, Molina, & Kozleski, 2006). When parents fight for their children’s rights,
change is possible. Therefore, the perspectives and beliefs of parents regarding inclusion
are central to including SWDs in the general education classroom (Soodak, 2004). In
addition to the crucial role that parents played historically as advocates for the inclusion
of their SWDs in the U. S., studies indicate the centrality of parents to the ongoing
success of inclusion. The impact of parental involvement and family-school
collaborations can offer tremendous benefits, both generally and in the specific context of
inclusive schooling.
Definitions and models of parental involvement vary, but with few provisos,
empirical studies have overwhelmingly supported the common-sense notion that parental
involvement positively impacts student outcomes. As a general factor in educational
outcomes for learners without disabilities, positive family-school collaborations have the
potential to impact grades and test scores, attitudes and behavior, and the success of
programs and schools (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Henderson, 1987; Henley,
Ramsey, & Algozzine, 2002; Sheldon & Epstein, 2002). Empirical studies have
demonstrated that the potential value of parental involvement for students’ academic
success holds true in international contexts, as well (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003; Fan
& Chen, 2001; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Puura et al., 2005). Wilder (2014) conducted a
12
meta-synthesis of nine meta-analyses of the effect of parental involvement on academic
achievement. Although the synthesis notes variances in strength, it finds a consistently
positive relationship between parental involvement and academic achievement across the
differing definitions of parental involvement, measurements of achievement, and subject
populations encompassed.
The question of parental involvement might be particularly crucial in the context
of inclusion. Positive school-family collaborations and parental involvement have been
shown to benefit academic outcomes and the success of inclusion. parental involvement
in early intervention for their preschool and kindergarten children is positively associated
with higher reading achievement and reduced grade retention well into their middle
school years (Miedel & Reynolds, 1999). Beckman, Hanson, and Horn (2002) identified
parent-provider relationships as one of four critical elements in the successful inclusion
of young children with significant disability. The positive effect of parental involvement
and inclusion works both ways. For example, Martinez, Conroy, and Cerreto (2012)
found that inclusion positively affected parents’ post-secondary education goals for their
children with ID. On the other hand, studies have consistently demonstrated that the
negative perspectives and experiences of parents with special education is one of the
primary motivations for advocacy and involvement (Bennett, Deluca, & Bruns, 1997;
Kratochwill, Sladeczek, & Plunge, 1995). In the U.S., studies have found that parents of
children with disabilities tend to overwhelmingly favor inclusion, and parents of children
without disabilities to have more mixed but generally positive perspectives. In segregated
preschool environments in the U.S., such as currently exist in KSA, studies found that
13
parents of children with and without disabilities have positive perspectives regarding
inclusion (Diamond & LeFurgy, 1994; Guralnick, 1994; Miller et al., 1992).
2.3 History of Special Education in KSA
Booth and Ainscow (1998) note that one common “pitfall” of comparative studies
in inclusive education is “the notion that practice can be generalized across countries
without attention to local contexts and meanings” (p. 4). Understanding the barriers to
inclusive education in KSA, therefore, requires attention to the ways in which special
education has developed in the country. This section offers a brief explanation of the
history and current data regarding special education in KSA schools and examines how
placement for SWDs has changed over the past 15 years for students with various
disabilities (e.g., autism spectrum disorder, ID, deafness, LDs). This section provides an
overview of special education services in KSA from their beginnings to the present, and
examines data gathered from the Ministry of Education in KSA and placement trends for
school-aged SWDs between 1994 and 2011.
The history of special education in KSA moves through three broad phases,
beginning with the first services offered to a limited number of students with blindness in
1958. In the next phase, segregated services gradually expanded until 1987, when
educational services were mandated for all students regardless of disability. Finally, this
culminated in broad legislative reforms enacting de-institutionalization, integration, and
the first movements towards mainstreaming services in 2000. In many respects, the
general education system of KSA resembles similar public education systems in other
nations. According to Ministry of Education data (2016), there were over 25,000 schools
14
in the entire county serving exclusively general education students in pre-schools,
elementary schools, and high schools. The curriculum provided in those schools was a
combination of Islamic religious education and academic subjects in different fields,
more or less equivalent to academic curriculum of schools in the U.S. and United
Kingdom (Alquraini, 2010). Students’ schedules throughout the school day are divided
into different subjects (e.g, art, sport, languages, math, science, religious studies), with 9
to 10 months of schooling and a 2 month break during the summer (Alquraini, 2011).
Educational services are provided as a public good for students with and without
disabilities. It is also the Ministry of Education’s responsibility to set curricular
benchmarks, design the curriculum, make decisions about required texts that are used by
all schools (regular and special) and make modifications as needed, build new schools
and maintain old schools, and establish new programs for SWDs within regular education
schools (Ministry of Education, 2008).
2.3.1 The Beginnings of Special Education in KSA.
Special education programs for SWDs did not become a priority in KSA until
1958, when it began establishing services for students with blindness (Al-Mousa, 2010).
Although these changes began specifically for students with blindness, they sprang from
changing attitudes about the meaning of disability and the role of individuals with
disabilities in society. Before this, SWDs received their education and supports from
parents at home or by attending boarding schools in countries that provided special
education services for SWDs (e.g., Egypt, Jordan). This option required the child to stay
in a residential setting in the special school in a different county for most of the school
year (Al-Ajmi, 2006; Alquraini, 2011). However, when KSA started to offer services for
15
SWDs in 1958, these services were available only for male students with blindness and at
special facilities called scientific institutions. These institutions were supported by the
Ministry of Education with skilled special education teachers and a Braille curriculum
(Alquraini, 2011). The institutions provided education for male students with blindness in
elementary, middle, and high school. They used the same academic curriculum as general
education schools, with some modifications and accommodations to meet the needs of
students with visual impartments (Aldabas, 2015). Following this initiative, in 1962 the
Ministry of Education established the Department of Special Education to facilitate
learning and rehabilitation services for students with three different categories of
disabilities: blindness, deafness, and ID (Afeafe, 2000). This movement led to an
increased number of institutions serving SWDs in three different cities: Mecca, Aneaza,
and Alhofouf (Al-Mousa, 2010). In these cities, the population was concentrated enough
and enough government infrastructure existed to make the expansion of education for
SWDs possible for the first time. But this movement was limited to specific types of
disabilities, excluding other types.
2.3.2 Gradual Growth, Beginnings to 1987
Between 1960 and 1971, special education services underwent a gradual process
of expansion in number and scope, while keeping to the segregated, institutional model.
In1960 and 1971, the Ministry of Education expanded special education programs for all
different types of disabilities. The expansion included opening institutions for female
students with deafness and blindness and increasing school days in which SWDs received
full-time services (Aldabas, 2015). With respect to students with ID, in 1971 the Ministry
of Education opened the first institution for students with ID (Al-Ajmi, 2006). This
16
institution provided educational, training, and residential services as after-school
programs for students with severe disabilities (Al Wabli, 1996). The services
concentrated on the development of social, communication, and life skills to increase
students’ independence (Alruwaili, 2016). By 1987, the Ministry of Education had
increased the number of special education schools and institutions to educate students
with deafness, blindness, and ID to 27 throughout the country (Al-Kheraidi, 1989). Thus,
numbers of schools and institutions for SWDs had gradually increased, from one school
that educated only students with blindness in 1960 to 27 schools that educated students
with different types of disabilities. These incremental changes led to systemic policy
reforms in 1987, when KSA passed the first legislation for people with disabilities: the
“Legislation of Disabilities”. The legislation mandated that people with disabilities have
the right to be treated equally to other people in the community. Another component of
this legislation was defining disabilities and describing programs for interventions,
assessment procedures, and diagnoses to determine eligibility for special education
services. Although still under the banner of segregated classrooms, the effect of this law
was to vastly increase the scope of available special education services to SWDs (RSEPI,
2001).
2.3.3 Accelerating Change and Reforms, 1987 to the Present
Between 1987 and 2000, reforms continued to accelerate, shifting special
education to a new phase and culminating in a movement towards deinstitutionalization
and integration in KSA. Due in part to the high numbers of students applying to schools
and institutions across the country, the Ministry of Education made it policy to begin
providing services for students with LDs in regular schools through resource classroom
17
(Al-Mousa, 2010). Moreover, the government’s establishment of Legislation on
Disabilities initiated rehabilitation services and training programs provided by public
organizations to people with disabilities (Alquraini, 2010). In effect, the Legislation of
Disabilities established social services inclusive of but not limited to education for
individuals with disabilities. One of the turning points in the history of special education
in KSA occurred in 2000, when the Ministry of Education changed their vision regarding
special education schools and institutions. After establishing laws regarding the right of
SWDs to receive better special education services, the Ministry of Education declared
education accommodations to be mandatory to obtain high quality educational services
for SWDs (Alnahdi, 2014). Another legislation, established in 2000, was the “Disability
Law”. This law determined that people with disabilities could receive free medical
treatment, as well as psychological, educational, and rehabilitation services in all public
organizations (Alquraini, 2010; King Salman Center for Disability Research, 2004).
Finally, in 2001, KSA passed the RSEPI. This law established the policies that ensure the
right of SWDs to access special education programs in public schools and make it the
Ministry of Education’s responsibility to assess SWDs and ensure they receive special
education services in general schools (RSEPI, 2001). Since this movement, special
education classrooms for students with mild ID, LD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD),
and Hearing Impairment (HI), while special schools (institutions) have decreased. The
new vison of special education services was implemented by designing new classrooms
in regular schools to be used to educate SWDs. Thus, the trend was offering educational
access to previously excluded students and moving the educational placement of SWDs
18
from segregated schools and institutions to public schools (Alnahdi, 2014). The new
vison was moving forward with integrating SWDs.
2.4 Current State of Special Education in KSA
Having examined key moments in the history of special education in KSA, it is
important to assess the current situation of SWDs and speculate on the future of inclusion
in KSA. This section explores the data regarding changing placements of SWDs, trending
towards more integrated schools. It first presents data on the effects of current reform
policy and special education placements, highlighting positive trends and progress. The
second sub-section examines similar data for insights into current deficits and
shortcomings.
2.4.1 Quantitative Analysis of Recent Positive Trends for SWDs in KSA.
The Ministry of Education presented data from 2014-2015 that showed the total
numbers of special educations programs, classrooms, and institutions serving all SWDs
without identifying the specific numbers of special education programs and classrooms
(in which the students receive their education in public schools) and institutions (in which
the students receive their education in special schools). The Ministry of Education
provides data that 28,371 SWDs studied in special education programs, classrooms, and
institutions in 2014-2015. Moreover, numbers of special education programs, classrooms
and institutions was 7491 (Ministry of Education, 2016). Although this most recent data
gives a general sense of the current situation for SWDs, it does not allow comparisons
across years to make claims about progress, or to make distinctions between special
education classrooms in public schools and segregated institutions. Another limitation of
the data includes the classification of students by type of disability. For example, the data
19
group students with deafness and students who are hard of hearing together under the
category of Hearing Impaired (HI) without distinguishing between type of disability.
Nonetheless, the data are instructive and do allow broad insights and reasonable
hypotheses with significance for students with deafness and students with hardness of
hearing. For example, although the numbers do not allow distinctions between students
with deafness and hardness of hearing in the HI category, it is likely that the bulk of new
integrated programs serves students with hardness of hearing. Deafness is automatically
considered a severe disability, while hardness of hearing generally qualifies the SWD for
integration in the general education school as a mild disability. This means that a
majority of institutions most likely remain reserved for students with deafness.
More comprehensive data are available from 2006-2007. These data on the state
of special education services in KSA allows chronological analysis of growth between
1994 and 2007 and shows remarkable strides for SWDs. For example, as shown in Figure
2.1 (Al-Mousa, 2010), special education programs and institutions for male and female
students increased from 66 programs and institutions serving 7725 students in 1994-1995
to 3239 programs and institutions serving 61,986 students in 2006-2007. Although we
might best describe these programs as integrated (with services provided in public
schools alongside the general students, but rarely in the general education classroom)
rather than inclusive, this increase nonetheless represents enormous progress for SWDs.
This impressive change overlaps roughly with the legislative reforms discussed in the last
section and seems their direct result.
20
Figure 2.1 Number of Institutions and Programs Quantitative data of the increased number of special education programs and
institutions in KSA during the time from 1994-1995 to 2006-2007 (Al-Mousa,
2010).
Likewise, the most recent quantitative data offered by the Ministry of Education (see
Table 2.1 below) demonstrate increased numbers of special education classrooms in
public schools for five types of disabilities, including Visual Impairment, Hearing
Impairment, ID, ASD, and multiple disabilities.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
19 94 /
19 95
19 95 /
19 96
19 96 /
19 97
19 97 /
19 98
19 98 /
19 99
19 99 /
20 00
20 00 /
20 01
20 01 /
20 02
20 02 /
20 03
20 04 /
20 05
20 05 /
20 06
20 06 /
20 07
males' institutes 36 36 36 36 38 38 38 38 38 32 32 31 males' programs 12 30 51 109 188 390 615 8801106154220152237 females' institutes 18 21 22 24 24 25 27 28 30 35 38 37 females' programs 0 0 0 14 27 63 107 180 219 269 492 934
N U
M BE
R O
F IN
ST IT
U TI
O N
S AN
D PR
O GR
AM S
males' institutes males' programs
females' institutes females' programs
21
Table 2.1 Number of Institutions and Integrated Special Education Programs in KSA in 2011 (Ministry of Education, 2016).
Gender
VI
HI
ID
ASD
MD
TOTAL
Institutions Integrated special education programs
Male Female Male Female
5 71
54 181
341 171
963 497
704 386
2311 999
40 19
135 61
46 20
92 58
1136 567
3555 1796
________________________________________________________________________
Note. VI= visual impairment; HI= hearing impairment; ID= intellectual disability;
ASD= autism spectrum disorder; MD= multiple disabilities
According to data in Table 2.1, the trend toward special education programs in
public schools has continued to increase at a similar rate since 2005-2006 (Figure 2.1).
Comparing the data from Table 2.1 with the data in Figure 2.1, between 2005-2006 and
2011, special education programs in public schools for males increased from 2237 to
3555, or by a total of 1318 programs, and numbers of special education programs for
females in public schools increased from 954 to 1796, or by a total of 842 programs.
Combined, this is a total increase of 2160 programs over a 5-year period, an average of
over 400 programs per year. Similarly, the numbers show a massive trend towards
integration for students with HI, with 1460 combined male and female integrated
programs for these students compared to only 512 institutions.
At the same time, Table 2.1 shows significant patterns of institutional versus
integrated placement based on type of disability. Specific data on placement by severity
of disability are limited. However, insights into this question can be gained from current
data. While students with LD are not included in Table 2.1, it is clear that, since the Table
accounts for total number of institutions currently serving SWDs in KSA, students with
22
LD do not receive their education in institutions. Likewise, students with some types of
disability seem disproportionately placed in institutions. This is especially true for
students with ID. The 1090 combined male and female institutional settings for students
with ID represent a whopping 64% of total institutions (combined male and female
1703). Institutions for students with ID make up by far the largest proportion of total
institutions. After students with ID, the number of institutions for hearing impaired
students makes up the majority of the remaining institutions, with 512 combined male
and female institutions. This represents roughly 30% of the total of number of institutions
in KSA. This means that there are almost seven times as many segregated institutions for
students with deafness or hardness of hearing as for students with Visual Impairment and
almost nine times as many as for students with ASD. These numbers are particularly
striking when one takes into account that institutionalized students with deafness and
hardness of hearing are often intellectually typical and might otherwise be able to fully
participate in the academic and social life of the general education school and classroom.
These students are clearly being placed in institutional, non-integrated settings in higher
numbers than students with other types of disability, excluding ID. Although comparative
data on placement by severity of disability are hard to come by, the Ministry of Education
indicated 96% of moderate and severe disabilities receive their education in an
institutional setting. According to Alnahdi (2007), 73% of special education programs
and institutions make placement decisions for students with ID based solely or largely on
intelligence tests. Researchers have called into question the suitability of these methods
in a KSA context (Al Wabli, 2006; Alnahdi, 2007).
23
Another pattern of institutional versus integrated placement by type of disability
involves students with deafness. Table 2.1 shows that students with deafness and
hardness of hearing as a group have experienced dramatic gains in response to special
education reforms, experiencing roughly the same proportion of reductions in institutions
and expansion of special education programs as other disability types. On the one hand,
this shows tremendous progress towards the integration of students with hardness of
hearing. On the other hand, and although the data do not allow specific discriminations
between students with deafness and hardness of hearing within the HI category, it is
reasonable to believe that the majority of special schools for hearing impaired students
are devoted to students with deafness, and that the majority of integrated special
education programs are devoted to students with hardness of hearing. This means that the
population of students with deafness, a significant proportion of whom are intellectually
and mentally typical and might otherwise be expected to perform and access a general
education curriculum, are often being relegated to special schools where they are
segregated at rates similar to that for students with severe ID.
2.4.2 Current Deficits in Special Education Services for SWDs in KSA.
Special education services in KSA have changed during the last few years, and
number of programs that deliver care for SWDs has increased. For example, in 2006,
80% of all students with mild disabilities received their education in integrated schools in
KSA (Alnahdi, 2013). The provision of related services and accommodations for various
disabilities (e.g., LDs, deafness, ASD) has substantially improved, and students with mild
disabilities often receive the same curriculum as their typical peers, with modifications.
24
Clearly, KSA’s significant increase in programs and services for SWDs represents
a sustained change in educational policy and practice. Despite this effort, there is still
more to do to improve the educational placement for students with specific types of
disabilities. Perhaps most alarmingly, current data show the progress SWDs have
experienced has benefited certain types of disability more than others, and that students
with ID and students with deafness continue to be disproportionately educated in
institutions. While the current, rapid expansion in special education classrooms in public
schools is certainly a dramatic gain for SWDs, these classrooms cannot be defined as
inclusion classrooms. We might describe them as integrated classrooms with limited
opportunities for mainstreaming, in which SWDs receive educational services alongside
the general student body, but rarely in the general education classroom. SWDs in special
education programs receive their education in public schools, but in separated classrooms
where their only opportunities to interact with typical peers are non-academic. These
programs do offer opportunities for social interaction with typical peers, such as
interacting during non-curricular activities at lunch time. However, these opportunities
are limited and do not include opportunities for academic inclusion. Thus, integrated
SWDs receive inadequate benefit from reforms, even though they were the majority of
students who were integrated into public schools (Al-Ajmi, 2006; Alnahdi, 2014).
The data presented in this section reveal that significant changes have occurred in
placement practices for SWDs between 1994 and 2011. Those changes resulted in many
SWDs being educated in special education classrooms in public schools. This includes a
significant increase in placement is general education schools and a decrease in
placement in institutions. Perhaps the most significant change in placement practices was
25
the increased number of students placed in public schools for most of the school day, but
in separate classrooms. A large portion of this change can likely be explained by growth
and expansion of legislation supporting the right of SWDs to receive the same quality
education as their typical peers. That being said, special education schools still exist for
students with certain types and severities of disability. A large proportion of students with
ID, students with deafness, and students with moderate and severe disability receive their
education in segregated environments. These students have largely been left out of the
integration movement. Even students who benefitted most from RSEPI reforms remain
segregated in separate classroom and have not received the benefits of inclusion.
2.5 Factors Affecting Special Education Reform in KSA
A body of literature exists examining the factors involved in the gap between
special education policy and practice in KSA. RSEPI, while it began after the model of
IDEA in the U.S., falls short in specific areas, including: (a) lack of specific provisions in
the language of the legislation itself; (b) mandates that exceed the ability of the existing
infrastructure to implement, such as teacher training programs and access to assistive
technology; and (c) establishment of an inclusive environment that addresses whole
school culture, as reflected in the attitudes and perspectives of teachers, administrators,
and parents, and encourages family-school collaboration.
2.5.1 RSEPI Legislation.
In a comparison of RSEPI to IDEA, Alquraini (2013) notes several areas in which
RSEPI mandates standards for the provisions of services without defining the specific
means to attain those standards. Like IDEA, RSEPI mandates the provision of early
intervention services, but unlike IDEA, RSEPI does not clarify the procedures for early
26
intervention. Alotaibi and Almalki (2016) conducted a study that surveyed the
perspectives of 80 KSA parents of children with ASD between 2 and 6 years. The study
found that parents perceived the available early intervention services as helpful for their
children, but generally perceived a need for greater availability of services, centers, and
specialists. Similarly, RSEPI mandates the role of interdisciplinary teams and highly
qualified special education teachers in the provision of services, but it does not fully
define the requirements and credentials that make a given special education teacher
“highly qualified.” RSEPI defines fewer categories of disability than does IDEA (10
compared to 14), does not fully consider the integration of assistive technology or the
procedures and standards for its integration, and offers no procedural appeals safeguards
to parents and guardians.
2.5.2 Infrastructure, Training Programs, Assistive Technology.
An additional factor in the gap between special education policy and the actual
practice and provision of special education services in KSA is insufficient infrastructure,
such as teacher training programs. Administrators and teachers in KSA might not possess
the required education, training, and skills that would allow them to be effective
instructional leaders and inclusion advocates for SWDs. There are few special education
training programs in the country, and many general education teaching and
administration training programs require minimal special education training courses
(Khalil & Karim, 2016). Until 2003, the only requirement to become a teacher in KSA
was two years of post-secondary education (Al Darwish, Al Amari, & Sadiq, 2003). An
additional area that requires improvement in KSA is the use of technology in the special
education classroom. According to Quinn et al. (2009), assistive technology provides
27
SWDs with “greater access to curricula, instruction, materials, and environments” (p. 1).
It does so in many ways, from independence in the environment (Bottos, Feliciangeli,
Sciuto, Gericke, & Vianello, 2001) to interventions that allow access to specific areas of
the curriculum, such as technology-based interventions in math (Myers, Wang, Brownell,
& Gagnon, 2015) and writing (Sitko, Laine, & Sitko, 2005). Despite the fact that KSA
has made a substantial investment in information technology in special education in
recent years, technology is poorly implemented in KSA special education classrooms
(Rana, Fakrudeen, Miraz, Yousef, & Torqi, 2011).
2.5.3 Teachers, Administrators, and Interdisciplinary Teams.
Increasingly, there is a growing awareness of holistic, whole school approaches to
inclusive education. Programs and initiatives to establish sustainable inclusive practices
are most successful when they first address the cultural context—beliefs, mindsets,
attitudes, and perspectives—that might support or undermine them (Mcmaster, 2013). In
this regard, some attention has been given to the perspectives of KSA teachers and
administrators regarding inclusive education. There is some research on the perspectives
on inclusion of teachers and administrators in KSA. A study conducted by Al-
Abduljabber (1994) examined teachers’ and administrators’ perspectives on inclusive
education for SWDs in KSA schools. The researcher examined their perspectives based
on gender, age, type of degree, years of experience, job position, and school level. The
study found administrators who had more experience had more positive perspectives
regarding inclusive education for SWDs. The opinions and perspectives about inclusion
of teachers and administrators could play a key role in either helping or hindering the
development of inclusive education in KSA. Alqahtani (2017) examined KSA teachers’
28
perspectives towards inclusion of students with LDs with their typical peers in the same
classroom. The study indicated that male teachers had more positive perspectives
regarding inclusion than female teachers and that teachers with more teaching experience
had less positive perspectives, compared with those who had less teaching experience.
Additionally, administrators are key players in creating a successful inclusive
environment for SWDs through collaboration with other staff members in the schools.
Therefore, inclusive services require additional support from administrators.
2.5.4 The Role and Perspectives of Parents.
Although the perspectives of teachers and administrators is a critical element in
the success of inclusion, the perspectives of parents cannot be overlooked. One feature of
IDEA has been the progressive emphasis on the role of family and parental involvement
in the process of inclusive education (Hess et al., 2006). There is some research that
indicates parents in KSA might not participate fully in their children’s education. Al-Herz
(2008), for example, found that parents of SWDs in KSA often do not effectively
participate in IEPs designed by the school to determine their children’s needs. The slight
body of research that exists suggests the need for fuller understanding of parental
involvement and effective family-school partnerships in KSA as a potential factor in the
gap between special education policy and its implementation. Only one study addressing
the perspectives of KSA parents regarding inclusive education was located. Alanazi
(2012) conducted a qualitative study examining the perspectives of parents, teachers, and
administrators. The researcher gathered interview and observation data at five girls’
primary schools. Although it found that parent perspectives regarding inclusion were on
the whole positive, it also noted that “expressed attitudes [did] not necessarily translate
29
into manifest actions and that barriers to inclusion may lie in practicalities as well as
attitudes.”
2.6 Study Significance
Almost two decades after the ambitious policy reforms of RSEPI, the general
education classroom remains out of reach of SWDs. The body of literature addressing the
current state of special education in KSA has interpreted it in several ways. Some have
emphasized the successes of reform and underemphasized the gap between policy and
implementation. While this perspective represents one reasonable evaluation of current
data, some articles that embrace it have demonstrated a troubling tendency to blur the
distinction between mainstreaming or integration and inclusion, or to describe integration
into the general education school as inclusion without discussion of the critical
differences in these terms as they apply to KSA schools (Al-Mousa, 2010). Others have
sometimes emphasized the gap between policy and implementation in ways that fail to
recognize KSA’s remarkable achievements in integrating and expanding special
education. The reforms and plans for reform of the last decades have emerged rapidly, so
that “many changes are being compressed into a relatively short timescale” in “a situation
where new policies are being rolled out before the last ones are fully implemented (or
evaluated)” (Alanazi, 2012, p. 10). RSEPI outlines ambitious reforms modeled after
policies (IDEA) that required decades of sustained development, advocacy, and
legislative action to arrive at their current state. If measured by the same timescale as
RSEPI, IDEA also would have to be described as falling well short of its aspirations. Still
others have seen current special education in KSA by analogy to the U.S., as the early
stages in an ongoing development of educational services and conditions for SWDs
30
similar to the early stages of EHA in the U.S. (Alanazi, 2012; Alquraini, 2013). This last
perspective goes furthest towards capturing the “in-process” status of special education
policy and its implementation in KSA, provided it attends to the complexities of national
context. KSA is not the U.S.: even if one asserted an exact parallel between “stages” of
comparative development, the unique influences of national context, political structure,
religious identity, pedagogical traditions, and culture might still direct the future of
special education to unique ends.
The present study examined the perspectives of parents towards inclusive
schooling for children with disabilities in KSA. Knowing parents’ perspectives about
inclusive education will provide vital information to the public, researchers, and key
decision-makers that could lead to advances in inclusive education. A body of literature
exists addressing the factors involved in the gap between policy and practice in the areas
of legislation, infrastructure, and the perspectives of teachers, administrators, and
students. What remains poorly understood is the role and perspectives of KSA parents of
students with and without disabilities regarding inclusive education. On the whole, there
is little research describing the roles and aspirations of parents and families with and
without children with disabilities on inclusive education. Research data do not exist on
their level of involvement in their child’s education, understanding of their role as
advocates, satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the current placement and services for their
children, or perspectives of the means available to them to appeal decisions and advocate
for their children. Prior to this study, there also were no quantitative data to indicate to
what extent parents of children with and without disabilities are receptive to inclusion.
And yet this area of research is as urgent as it is neglected. The opinions and perspectives
31
towards inclusion of parents could play a key role in either helping or hindering the
development of inclusive education in the KSA.
2.7 Research Questions
The following research questions were designed to guide the study to gather valid
information:
RQ1: What are parents’ perspectives regarding inclusive education of students with
disabilities in KSA?
RQ2: Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive
education between parents of students with disabilities and parents of students without
disabilities in KSA?
RQ3: Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive
education based on the severity of their child’s disability in KSA?
RQ4: Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive
education based on the type of their child’s disability in KSA?
RQ5: Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive
education based on the gender of their child in KSA?
RQ6: Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive
education based on the academic level of their child in KSA?
32
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Description of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of KSA parents (those
with and without a child with disabilities) on placing their children in general education
classrooms that are comprised of children with and without disabilities. The study used a
quantitative, cross-sectional survey to examine parents’ perspectives on inclusion and
look for statistical relationships between independent variables (i.e., child with or without
disability, severity of disability, type of disability, child gender, and child academic level)
and the dependent variable (i.e., attitude toward inclusive education) as it was an
appropriate means for testing statistical significance and making cross-group
comparisons (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2013). The cross-sectional survey design was
appropriate because the researcher sought to investigate statistical relationships between
variables that are quantifiable. This design allowed the researcher to gather data about
parental perspectives on many topics efficiently and quickly so that conclusions could be
drawn about parental perspectives on inclusive schooling, consistent with the objectives
of this analysis (Creswell, 2013). This design was used to answer the six research
questions guiding the study. The researcher relied on qualitative categorical analysis to
analyze the questionnaire’s single open-ended question. Categorical analysis is the
process of identifying categories of response within qualitative data. This method was
appropriate because the study deals with a limited number of open-ended, narrative
responses that are not quantifiable.
Table 3.1 displays each research question guiding the study, its hypothesis and
null hypothesis. Demographic information of parents and their child was collected.
33
Table 3.1 Research Questions and Their Hypotheses and Null Hypotheses Research Question Hypothesis Null Hypothesis
1. What are parents’
perspectives regarding inclusive education of students with disabilities in KSA?
2. Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education between parents of students with disabilities and parents of students without disabilities in KSA?
There are significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education between parents of students with disabilities and parents of students without disabilities in KSA.
There are no significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education between parents of students with disabilities and parents of students without disabilities in KSA.
3. Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the severity of their child’s disability in KSA?
There are significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the severity of their child’s disability in KSA.
There are no significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the severity of their child’s disability in KSA.
4. Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the type of their child’s disability in KSA?
There are significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the type of their child’s disability in KSA.
There are no significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the type of their child’s disability in KSA.
34
Table 3.1 (continued)
5. Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the gender of their child?
There are significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the gender of their child.
There are no significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the gender of their child.
6. Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the academic level of their child in KSA?
There are significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the academic level of their child in KSA.
There are no significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive education based on the academic level of their child in KSA.
Demographics information was divided into parent characteristics (e.g., gender,
educational level) and child characteristics (e.g., disability status, type of disability,
severity of disability). This section covers the present study’s research methodology,
research questions, sampling procedure, target population, and data analysis procedures.
Moreover, it outlines the instrumentation, including the survey instrument, validity and
reliability, and the major data collection and analytical procedures that the study used.
3.2 Sample Procedures and Target Population
The study developed its sampling frame using a stratified sample of parents of
students attending distinct types of schools (public integrated and non-integrated primary
and secondary schools and institutions) in KSA. This method is appropriate because the
researcher was gathering information from several distinct types of schools and wished to
ensure numerous responses from each stratum (Kothari, 2004). The researcher developed
the sampling frame in several steps. First, the researcher contacted the Ministry of
35
Education and formally sought permission to access the Ministry’s databases. The
Ministry of Education in KSA maintains a comprehensive database of student and parent
information, which it permitted the researcher to access, making this sampling method
feasible for the study. The researcher submitted the questionnaire to the Ministry of
Education for review and waited to receive permission. Upon receipt, the researcher was
provided with an access code and accessed the database remotely. The target population
in this study included parents of students attending schools in the cities of Al-Bahah,
Jeddah, Mecca, and Sharqiyyah. Van Voorhis and Morgan (2009) suggested that for
comparing group differences (e.g., using ANOVA) the sample size in each group is
ideally at least 30 to achieve a high level of power (80%). The targeted sample size was
between 200 and 300 participants. The targeted cities are populous urban centers spread
across KSA. In these cities, many SWDs (relative to the rest of the nation) receive their
education in integrated schools (Ministry of Education, 2016). Next, the researcher
searched for schools in these regions and listed them in a spreadsheet, sorting by type of
school (public integrated and non-integrated primary and secondary schools and
institutions). The researcher used a random number table to select a portion of schools
from each school-type category to ensure sufficient responses from each type of school.
Once schools were selected, the researcher returned to the Ministry database and
populated a spreadsheet with relevant information about administrators at the chosen
schools, who were contacted and asked for assistance distributing the anonymous survey
link to parents of children attending their schools. In order to ensure the participants’
protection, all information was treated anonymously and confidentially and was only
used for the purpose of this research.
36
3.3 Instrumentation
3.3.1 Survey Design
This study included a questionnaire to determine parents’ perspectives on
inclusive education practices. Permission was received to use the Parents’ Attitudes
Toward Inclusion/Integration (PATI; see Appendix 1). The survey instrument, PATI, was
designed by Rafferty and Griffin (2005). It was created to investigate parents’
perspectives about the benefits and risks of inclusion for students with and without
disabilities. In addition, the survey aimed to provide information about important issues
that parents think about when considering an inclusive setting for their child. The
instrument was chosen for this particular study for three reasons. First, the Ministry of
Education of KSA has implemented educational models for students with disabilities that
are comparable to other industrialized nations (e.g., the U. S.). Second, the survey length
and questions were appropriate for the current study’s purpose, and third, this survey has
strong validity and reliability, as established in previous studies (Rafferty, Boettcher, &
Griffin, 2001; Rafferty & Griffin, 2005).
Slight modifications were made to the PATI survey in the process of adapting it
for the current study. First, when the researcher contacted the survey author to request
permission for its use, the author herself suggested small changes to the semantics of the
original survey, which the researcher incorporated. For example, the survey author
recommended changing the term “disabled children” to “children with disabilities”,
which the researcher adopted. Also, an additional open-ended question was included to
obtain information pertaining to the research questions. The most significant change to
37
the evaluation tool was its translation into Arabic. This process took place in several
stages. First, the researcher produced an Arabic translation of the English survey
instrument and evaluation tool, followed by an external review during the process of
institutional approval of the pilot study by the University of Kentucky Institutional
Review Board (IRB). As part of seeking approval of the pilot study and instrument for
human subjects (See Appendix 2), the IRB assisted with the accuracy and clarity of the
translations by providing an external reviewer. The reviewer offered feedback and
suggestions for the Arabic translation. These minor changes relating to phrasing of the
Arabic were adopted by the researcher, and IRB approval was received for the pilot
study. The final, modified English version of the evaluation tool is included in Appendix
3, and the final, modified Arabic version of the evaluation tool is included in Appendix 4.
The PATI survey encompasses 51 items separated into five factors, which were
used to measure the dependent variable (i.e., perspective toward inclusive education).
The first factor measured parents’ perspectives on inclusion and consists of 9 items. The
second factor measured parents’ perspectives on the impact of inclusion on SWDs and
consists of 14 items. The third factor measured parents’ perspectives on the impact of
inclusion on students without disabilities and consists of 10 items. The fourth factor
measured parents’ perspectives on the impact of inclusion on parents of SWDs and
consists of 5 items. Finally, the fifth factor measured parents’ perspectives on the impact
of inclusion on parents of students without disabilities and consists of 4 items. The
measures used a Likert scale to assess parents’ perspectives, viewpoints, and feelings
towards inclusive education, with response options including Strongly Disagree,
Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree (Rafferty & Griffin, 2005). The survey also
38
collected demographic variables, such as whether the person is a parent with or without a
child with disabilities, the severity of their child’s disability, child’s disability type, and
education level of the parent.
3.3.2 Validity and Reliability
The PATI survey consists of two scales assessing perceived benefits and risks of
inclusion and one scale assessing global attitudes toward inclusion. Rafferty et al. (2001)
originally developed the Perceived Benefits and Perceived Risks scales from items in
several published measures, including the Benefits and Drawbacks of Mainstreaming
Scale (Bailey & Winton, 1987) and the Parental Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming Scale
(Green & Stoneman, 1989). Rafferty et al. modified items to measure perspectives on
inclusion, rather than on mainstreaming or integration, and independently established the
reliability and consistency of the scales through a number of methods. According to
Rafferty et al. (2001), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients established high internal consistency
of the Perceived Benefits and Perceived Risks subscales. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
measures the average correlation between constructs (perceived risks vs. perceived
benefits, in this case) and the survey items designed to assess them. A Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of .70 or higher generally suggests internal consistency of an instrument and
strong intercorrelation among test items. The study reported the Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients for each subscale as follows: Parents’ attitudes towards inclusion/integration
(alpha = .94), Perceived benefits for students with disabilities (alpha = .90), Perceived
risks for students with disabilities (alpha = .87), Perceived benefits for students without
disabilities (alpha = .83), and Perceived risks for students without disabilities (alpha =
.88). Moreover, Rafferty and Griffin (2005) also reported a high internal consistency of
39
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. This study reported the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients as
follows: Parents’ attitudes toward inclusion/integration (alpha = .93), Perceived benefits
for students with disabilities (alpha = .87), Perceived risks for students with disabilities
(alpha = .84), Perceived benefits for students without disabilities was (alpha = .86), and
Perceived risks for students without disabilities (alpha = .79). Additionally, the
researchers conducted confirmatory factor analyses to test a hypothesized two-factor
structure of risks and benefits. They confirmed strong covariation between the Perceived
Benefits and Perceived Risks subscales (-.48), meaning that higher measures within one
factor generally covaried with lower measures in the other.
3.4 Pilot Study
The researcher first piloted the survey to assess (a) adequacy of the survey
instrument and (b) adequacy of data collection methods (Prescott & Soeken, 1989). The
purpose of the pilot study was to identify questions on the survey that were not clearly
written, find the number of respondents who completed the entire survey or partial survey
once beginning the survey, determine the amount of time respondents took to complete
the survey, and obtain suggestions about questions that should be added or removed from
the survey. The researcher developed a supplementary evaluation tool to answer these
questions and recruited a small sample of 12 KSA parents of students with and without
disabilities to participate in the study. The web-based tool Qualtrics was used to deliver
the survey and evaluation tool, and the researcher analyzed participant responses and
made modifications to the survey instrument as a result. The researcher developed the
sampling frame for the pilot study using a convenience sample. The external pilot study
40
was administered to a small group of participants who were not be included in the final
survey. To locate participants, the researcher contacted a colleague teaching at a public
elementary school in KSA, who assisted in identifying 12 volunteers. Although the
sampling frame was developed to ensure some number of volunteer participants from
each stratum of the final study sampling frame (integrated public schools and non-
integrated institutions), distinctions were not made between parents of children with
different types of disabilities, and the main factor for inclusion in the pilot study was
willingness to participate and provide feedback on the survey instrument. To avoid
contamination of the final study, pilot study participants were flagged in the database and
excluded from participation in the final study. An additional layer of control was added in
regional selection, as pilot study participants lived in a nearby region outside the range of
the final study. Pilot study results were cleared from Qualtrics before delivery of the final
survey.
3.4.1 Pilot Study Results.
Most respondents suggested no or minor changes to the survey. All respondents
indicated that they felt the purpose of the survey was clear. No respondents indicated that
they felt the wording of the survey promoted inclusion, integration, or separate schools.
All respondents reported the time taken to complete the survey as between 10 and 15
min, which was in line with anticipated completion time. As such, the results of the pilot
did not require the research to make modifications to address completion time issues. All
respondents who began the survey completed the entire survey.
Several respondents did suggest minor changes for wording or clarity, which were
incorporated. One substantive change made to the survey due to pilot responses related to
41
the terminology of inclusion and integration. The researcher sought to gather data about
the perspectives of parents regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in the
general education classroom alongside their typical peers, not currently an adopted
practice of the KSA educational system. However, the term “inclusion” in KSA has a
specific meaning distinct from the question the researcher wished to answer. Currently,
the Ministry of Education officially defines “inclusion” as integration, or the
incorporation of special education classrooms in the same building as general education
public schools, but not in the general education classroom. Therefore, the researcher
made additional modifications to the wording and terminology of the Arabic version of
the survey instrument to reflect this distinction. Where the researcher wished to gather
data about “integration,” he adopted the official terminology, calling it “inclusion,” and
where the researcher wished to gather data about “inclusion” specifically as inclusion in
the general education classroom, he replaced instances of “inclusion” with “including
students with disabilities in the general education classroom alongside their typical
peers.” For example, the wording of question 13, which originally read as, “Inclusion of
students with disabilities will promote their social independence” has been modified to
read as, “Including students with disabilities in the general education classroom alongside
their typical peers will promote their social independence.” One respondent flagged an
oversight in question six of the demographics section that did not offer an option for
parents of a child or children without disabilities attending a non-integrated school. This
was a critical oversight that would have significantly affected the outcome of the final
study. The questionnaire was revised to include this option and reviewed for consistency
throughout. Another respondent suggested breaking the Qualtrics presentation of the
42
survey into several sections for ease of navigation. Originally, after the short
demographics section, the majority of survey questions about the perspectives of parents
towards inclusion and integration was presented to participants in a single section. The
researcher adopted this suggestion and separated the section into four subsections
presented on separate pages in Qualtrics. The subsection organization follows the four
question-type subheadings already present in the original survey. Beyond the discussed
changes, the results of the pilot indicated no further modifications to the final survey
instrument.
3.5 Survey Distribution
The researcher used the web-based tool Qualtrics to build and distribute the
survey and evaluation tool, send participants the link to information about the study, and
provide confidentiality information to the target participants. Participants were e-mailed a
link to the Qualtrics survey, along with a cover letter and confidentiality information (See
Appendix 5). Participants were informed their information would be kept confidential
and used only for the purpose of the study. Upon following the link, participants were
again presented with the cover letter describing the pilot study, confidentiality
information, and instructions for completing the survey. At the bottom of this page,
participants were offered the option to click either, “I consent to participate in the survey”
or “I do not consent to participate in the survey” and proceeded to the survey only if they
clicked, “I consent to participate in the survey.” In the survey itself, questions were
divided into four sections. The first three sections consisted of the final survey, including
sections on demographic information, Likert scale questions about parents’ perspectives
43
towards inclusion, and an open-ended question about parents’ perspectives towards
inclusion and integration. Participants were given 20 days to complete the survey. To get
the best response rate, a reminder e-mail was sent by Qualtrics to non-responders (See
Appendix 6) after 5 days of the original e-mail. A final reminder e-mail was sent on day
10, followed by thank you e-mails to all respondents at the close of the survey.
3.6 Data Analysis
3.6.1 Data Management
The researcher used Microsoft Excel to collect and organize data. After the survey
closed, the researcher exported results to an Excel spreadsheet using a secure, password-
protected computer and a secure internet connection. The researcher clearly defined and
tagged each variable in the spreadsheet, then exported it to the statistical software suite
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for quantitative analysis.
3.6.2 Data Cleaning.
The data were cleaned to ensure accuracy and relevance (Fowler, 2013). First, the
researcher located and deleted duplicate surveys based on their Qualtrics identification
code. Next, empty surveys (those with no data) were located and deleted. Finally, surveys
that were less than 50% completed were located and deleted. The researcher employed
descriptive statistics to define frequency, range, standard deviations, and outliers as an
aid in screening for errors in the data. The results of the cleaning process, including
number of duplicates, empty surveys, incomplete surveys, and non-respondents, were
recorded and presented in Table 4.1 in the body of the results chapter of the dissertation.
44
3.6.3 Quantitative Data Analysis
SPSS vs. 24.0 was used to conduct the statistical analysis of the quantitative data
collected in the survey, using the protocols described by Field (2013). The levels,
functional, and operational definitions of the variables used in the statistical analysis are
summarized in Table 3.2 (independent variables) and Table 3.3 (dependent variables).
Table 3.2 Definitions of Independent Variables Used in the Statistical Analysis Independent variable Level Operational definition Relation of respondent to child Nominal Mother; Father; Other Level of education of the respondent
Ordinal Some high school High school diploma/GED Some college Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree Doctoral Degree Other
Age of the respondent (Years) Ordinal 18-24; 25- 34; 35-44; 45-54; 55-64
Parent of child with disabilities Nominal Yes; No Type of school the child is attending
Nominal Special education Integrated Non-inclusive education Other school
Table 3.2 (continued) Current academic level of the child
Ordinal
Elementary School Middle School High School
Gender of the child Nominal Male; Female Severity of child’s disability Ordinal No disability
Mild disability Moderate disability Severe disability
Type of child’s disability Nominal Autism Spectrum Disorder Learning Disability Intellectual Disability Hearing Impairment Deafness Visual Impairment Other
45
Table 3.3 Definitions of Dependent Variables Used in the Statistical Analysis Dependent variables Level Operational definition
DV1 Global Attitudes Scale Average score for 22 items measured with 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly Disagree)
DV2 Impact on students with disabilities
Scale Average score for 15 items measured with 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly Disagree)
DV3 Impact on students without disabilities
Scale Average score for 11 items measured with 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly Disagree)
DV4 Impact on parents of students with disabilities
Scale Average score for 5 items measured with 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly Disagree)
DV5 Impact on parents of students without disabilities
Scale Average score for 4 items measured with 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly Disagree)
Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 distinguish between the nine independent variables,
representing the demographic categories of the respondents, and the five dependent
variables, measured with 5-point Likert scales, collected with the Parents’ Attitudes
Toward Inclusion/Integration (PATI) survey. The level refers to the measurement level
applied by the SPSS data editor to distinguish between the three measurement levels of
the variables (nominal, ordinal, or scale). The operational definition outlines how each
variable was measured. Because Arabic is read from right to left (rather than from left to
right, as used in English) the Likert scales were answered in reverse (i.e., 1 = Strongly
Agree; 2 = Somewhat Agree; 3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree; 4 = Somewhat Disagree; 5
46
= Strongly Disagree) compared to how they are conventionally answered in English (i.e.,
1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 =Somewhat Disagree; 3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree; 4 =
Somewhat Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree). Therefore, a lower score (< 3) implied
agreement, whereas a higher score (> 3) implied disagreement.
The first research question (What are respondents’ perspectives regarding
inclusive education of students with disabilities?) was answered by use of descriptive
statistics. The mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) was computed for the five
dependent variables listed in Table 3.2 as well as their constituent item scores. Research
questions number two, three, four, five, and six were addressed using Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA).
To address RQ2: (Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives
towards inclusive education between parents of students with disabilities and parents of
students without disabilities?), the mean differences in the five dependent variables with
respect to two groups of respondents (one group had children with disabilities, and the
other group had children without disabilities) was examined.
To address RQ3: (Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives
towards the impact of inclusion on students with disabilities based on the severity of the
disability?), the mean differences in the five dependent variables between four groups of
parents, classified by the severity of their child’s disability (No disability, Mild disability,
Moderate disability, or Severe disability) was examined.
To address RQ4: (Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives
towards the impact of inclusion on students with disabilities based on the type of
disability?), the mean differences in the five dependent variables between seven groups
47
with respect to the type of student disability (Autism Spectrum Disorder, Learning
Disability, Intellectual Disability, Hearing Impairment, Deafness, Visual Impairment or
Other) was examined.
To address RQ5: (Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives
towards the impact of inclusion on students with disabilities based on the gender of the
child?), the mean differences in the five dependent variables with respect to two groups
of respondents, classified by the gender of child (male or female) was examined.
To address RQ6: (Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives
towards the impact of inclusion on students with disabilities based on the level of
education of the child?), the mean differences in the five dependent variables with respect
to the child’s level of education, classified into three groups (Elementary School, Middle
School, or High School) was examined.
The theoretical assumptions of ANOVA (Rutherford, 2001) were tested prior to
the analysis. First, ANOVA is a parametric test, meaning that the dependent variable and
the residuals (the differences between the observed scores and the mean scores) should
theoretically be normally distributed (i.e., the frequency distribution should approximate
a symmetrical bell-shaped curve). However, many studies have shown that deviation of
the dependent variable from normality does not invalidate the results of ANOVA,
assuming the sample size in each group is large enough to provide adequate power to
detect significant differences between the mean values (Glass, Peckham, & Sanders,
1972; Schmeider, Ziegler, Danay, Beyer, & Bühner, 2010). Furthermore, if a dependent
variable is operationalized by averaging a large number of item scores, then the central
limit applies, meaning that the average of the item scores tends toward a normal
48
distribution, even though the constituent item scores may themselves deviate from
normality (Allen & Yen, 2001).
The most important assumption of ANOVA (and all inferential statistical tests)
concerns the sample size. If the sample size is too small, then there is not enough
statistical power to detect a significant difference between the groups and a Type II error
may occur, meaning that the null hypothesis is falsely not rejected. when, in fact, the null
hypothesis should really be rejected. Van Voorhis and Morgan (2009) suggested that for
comparing group differences (e.g., using ANOVA) the sample size in each group should
ideally be at least 30 to achieve high level of power (80%). The group size when using
ANOVA should not be lower than seven (however, lower group size reduces the
statistical power; and a Type II error may still occur).
The null hypothesis of ANOVA (i.e., that there was no significant difference
between the mean scores with respect to each group of respondents) was rejected if p <
.05 for the F-test statistic, which measured the ratio between the variance in the
dependent variable explained by the groups vs. the unexplained (error) variance. If p >
.05 then the null hypothesis was retained.
3.6.4 Qualitative Data Analysis
The last question in the survey was an open-ended question that elicited narrative
answers “As a parent, are there any suggestions or feedback that you would like to put
forward with regards to the education of students with disabilities in public schools,
whether in the same classroom or a separate one?”. Categorical analysis, which is a
widely used method for processing qualitative data collected in educational research
(Maguire & Delahunt, 2017) was conducted to interpret the responses. A category is
49
defined as a unit of meaning identifying a specific issue, concept, perception or lived
experience (Guest, Queen, & Namey, 2012). The categorical analysis was conducted in
MS Excel as described by Meyer and Avery (2009). The researcher repeatedly read
through the responses, making notes about significant and frequent categories of response
as the occurred while reading. On each subsequent pass through the responses, the
researcher revised and adjusted the categories in conversation with the responses
themselves and the relative “fit” of categories to the whole body of responses. Ultimately,
the responses were reviewed and each significant statement (i.e., a response that was
relevant with respect to answering the research questions) was classified into one of five
primary categories. The sort function of Excel was used to aggregate the statements
within each category, and to provide tables of results.
3.7 Summary
This chapter provides a summary of the methodology that was used in the
dissertation. The primary methodology and procedure used was a quantitative, cross-
sectional approach addressing the present study’s research questions and hypothesis. The
chapter also outlines the sampling procedure, target audience, sample size that were
targeted, survey instrumentation, and data management procedures, including data
collection and cleaning. The reliability and validity of the data used in the study are also
provided in this chapter, and the data analysis (descriptive statistics, frequency, and
percentages) methods that were employed are reported.
50
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of the respondents (i.e.,
KSA parents and primary caretakers with and without children with disabilities) on
placing their children in general education classrooms. This chapter presents a descriptive
and inferential statistical analysis of the responses to the Parents’ Attitudes Toward
Inclusion/Integration (PATI) survey designed by Rafferty and Griffin (2005). The chapter
is organized into nine sections as follows: Screening and Cleaning of Response Data,
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents, Respondents’ Perspectives, Respondents’
Perspectives by Disability (With vs. Without), Respondents Perspectives by Severity of
Disability, Respondents Perspectives’ by Type of Disability, Respondents’ Perspectives
by Gender, Respondents’ Perspectives by Level of Education, and Summary.
4.2 Quantitative Analysis
4.2.1 Screening and Cleaning of Response Data
Table 4.1 presents the results of the screening and cleaning of the response data.
A total of 489 surveys were opened from the anonymous distribution link, of which 478,
97.8% included the respondents’ consent to participate (i.e., they answered “Yes” to “I
consent to participate in the survey”). The 11 respondents who did not consent to
participate were redirected to a Thank You page and did not see the questionnaire. The
sampling procedure of the study did not allow calculation of absolute response rates, in
that it relied on school administrators to distribute links to the survey, and therefore does
not have data about the number of parents who actually received the link. Table 4.1
51
shows, that among the 478 respondents who consented to participate, there were no
duplicate cases (i.e., none of the respondents’ Qualtrics identification codes were the
same). The proportion of empty surveys (i.e., with none of the 66 items answered) was
175, 36.6%. The total number of incomplete surveys was 261, including 78 (16.3% of
the respondents who answered 1% to 49%% of the items and 183 (38.3% of the
respondents who answered 50% to 99% of the items). Only 42, 8.8% of the respondents
answered the complete set of 66 questions. All surveys that were less than 50%
completed were excluded. The total number of surveys included in the statistical analysis
to address the research questions was 225 (i.e., all respondents who completed 50% or
more of the items) representing 47.1% of the total number of respondents who originally
consented to participate. The total number of missing values provided by 225 respondents
(not including responses to items that some respondents were not required to answer
(e.g., the type and severity of the disability of a non-disabled child) was 885, representing
5.96% of the answers (out of a maximum possible total of 66 x 225 = 14850 answers).
In order to operationalize the dependent variables by averaging of the 5-point
Likert scales (which could not be done if the missing values were retained) the missing
values within each item were replaced by the serial mean score for the item, using the
“Transform...Replace Missing Values” procedure in SPSS. Although this very commonly
used method of missing value replacement does not change the mean score for the item, it
may influence the results of statistical analysis, by slightly reducing the variance (Enders,
2002).
52
Table 4.1 Screening of Duplicate Cases, Empty Surveys, and Incomplete Surveys (N = 478) Number % of
Total Duplicate cases (by Response ID) 0 0.0% Primary cases (no duplicates) 478 100.0% Empty surveys 175 36.6% Incomplete surveys (1% to 49% completed) 78 16.3% Incomplete surveys (50 % to 99% completed_ 183 38.3% Complete surveys (100% completed) 42 8.8% Surveys included in the statistical analysis 225 47.1%
4.2.2 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Table 4.2 summarizes the demographic characteristics (numbers and percentages
in each specified group) reported by the sample of 225 respondents who answered more
than 50% of the questions. Table 4.3 summarizes the types of disability (numbers and
percentages of each specified type) reported by the 68 respondents who reported that they
had a child with disability.
Table 4.2 Responses to Questions About the Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents (N = 225) Question Group Number % Relation to child of the person completing the questionnaire?
Mother 83 36.9% Father 83 36.9% Primary caretaker 56 24.9% No response 3 1.3%
Level of education of person completing the questionnaire?
Some high school 11 4.9% High school diploma/GED 27 12.0% Some college 16 7.1% Bachelor’s Degree 115 51.1% Master’s Degree 34 15.1% Doctoral Degree 11 4.9% Other 6 2.7% No response 5 2.2%
53
Table 4.2 (continued) Age of person completing the questionnaire?
18 to 24 years old
24
10.7%
25 to 34 years old 76 33.8% 35 to 44 years old 73 32.4% 45 to 54 years old 42 18.7% 55 to 64 years old 6 2.7% No response 4 1.8%
Please specify the current academic level of the child?
Elementary School 146 64.9% Middle School 25 11.1% High School 36 16.0% No response 18 8.0%
Sex of the child?
Male 145 64.4% Female 68 30.2% No response 12 5.3%
What kind of school does the child currently attend?
Special education 26 11.6% Integrated 63 28.0% Non-inclusive education 106 47.1% Other school 17 7.6% No response 13 5.8%
Are you the parent or primary caretaker of a student with disabilities?
Yes 68 30.2% No 154 68.4% No response 3 1.3%
Table 4.3 Types and Severities of Disability (N = 68) Question Type of Disability Number % Please describe the child’s disability
Autism Spectrum Disorder 19 27.9% Learning Disability 8 11.8% Intellectual Disability 20 29.4% Hearing Impairment 7 10.3% Deafness 6 8.8% Visual Impairment 2 2.9% Other 6 8.8%
Based on your own experience and professional reports, is your child’s disability:
Mild 20 29.4% Moderate 38 55.9% Severe 9 13.2% No response 1 1.5%
The proportion of mothers and fathers in the sample were equal (36.9%) with a
lower proportion of other caretakers (24.9%). The highest educational level of over half
54
of the respondents (51.1%) was a Bachelor’s degree. The most frequent age groups of the
respondents were 25 to 34 years old (33.8%) and 35 to 44 years old (32.4%). The current
academic level of most of the children (64.9%) was Elementary School, and the majority
of the children (64.4%) were male. Most of the children attended schools with non-
inclusive education (47.1%) or integrated education (28.0%). In response to the question
“Are you the parent or primary caretaker of a student with disabilities? 68 (30.2%) of the
respondents replied “Yes” while 154 (68.4%) replied “No”. Among the 68 children with
disabilities, a variety of disabilities were reported, of which the most frequent were
Autism Spectrum Disorder (27.9%); Intellectual Disability (29.4%) and Learning
Disability (11.8%). Most of these 68 children (55.9%) were described as having a
moderate severity of disability.
4.2.3 Respondents’ Perspectives
This section presents the statistics to addresses the first research question: What
are respondents’ perspectives regarding inclusive education of students with disabilities
in KSA? Table 4.4 presents the reliability and descriptive statistics for the five dependent
variables that were operationalized by averaging multiple item scores. All of the
dependent variables were reliability measured (Cronbach’s alpha = .767 to .894).
Table 4.4 Reliability and Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variables (N = 225) Dependent variable Number
of Items
Cronbach’s alpha
M SD
DV1 Global Attitudes 22 .894 2.20 0.62 DV2 Impact on students with disabilities 15 .747 2.18 0.43 DV3 Impact on students without disabilities 11 .844 2.49 0.63 DV4 Impact on parents of students with disabilities 5 .791 2.41 0.60 DV5 Impact on parents of student without disabilities 4 .767 2.32 0.57
55
The majority of the respondents endorsed the lower ends of the 5-point Likert
scales. Again, the convention within Arabic survey instruments is to move from right to
left, such that lower numbers indicate stronger agreement and higher number indicate
stronger disagreement. The mean scores (M = 2.18 to 2.49) were consistently < 3.0,
indicating that, on average, the respondents tended to agree with the multiple items that
constituted each variable.
Table 4.5 presents the descriptive statistics for nine of the items used to measure
Attitudes, sorted into order of mean scores. Table 4.6 presents the descriptive statistics
for 14 items that were also used to measure perspectives, in response to the question
“Some children may benefit more from being included in the general education
classroom alongside their typical peers than others. Please indicate how much you
disagree/agree with including children with the following characteristics in the general
education classroom: BASED ON TYPE OF DISABILITY”.
56
Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics for Nine Items Used to Measure Attitudes (N = 225) Item M SD Students with disabilities should have the right to go on a school field trip with their typical peers.
1.61 0.81
Students with disabilities should share one or more classes, such as art or physical education, with their typical peers.
1.61 0.79
All children should be educated with typical peers who are at the same developmental level.
1.81 0.97
I would be satisfied with my child being educated in a general education classroom that includes both students with and students without disabilities.
1.82 0.95
Students with disabilities should eat lunch in the school cafeteria with their typical peers at the same time.
1.88 1.09
Students with disabilities should eat lunch in the school cafeteria with their typical peers at the same table.
1.89 1.01
Classrooms for students with disabilities should be located in the general school building with their typical peers.
1.93 1.09
Separating students with disabilities from the general education classroom violates their rights.
2.11 1.16
Students with disabilities should participate in the same school job responsibilities as their typical peers.
2.65 1.22
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics for 14 items Used to Measure Global Attitudes based on Type of Disability (N = 225) Type of Disability M SD Mild Disability 1.51 0.69 High school students 1.87 1.00 Elementary school students 1.89 0.87 Learning Disability 1.90 0.95 Middle school students 1.91 0.92 Hearing Impairment 1.98 0.95 Preschool age children 2.05 0.97 Moderate Disability 2.16 0.94 Visual Impairment 2.21 1.06 Deafness 2.40 1.03 Autism Spectrum Disorder 2.47 1.10 Intellectual Disability 2.96 1.11 Severe Disability 3.30 1.14
57
The three items in Table 4.5 with the lowest scores (with which the respondents
agreed most strongly) were “Students with disabilities should have the right to go on a
school field trip with their typical peers” (M = 1.61); Students with disabilities should
share one or more classes, such as art or physical education, with their typical peers” (M
= 1.61); and “All children should be educated with typical peers who are at the same
developmental level (M = 1.81). The three items with the highest scores in Table 4.5
(with which the respondents agreed least strongly) were “ Classrooms for students with
disabilities should be located in the general school building with their typical peers (M =
1.93); “Separating students with disabilities from the general education classroom
violates their rights M = 2.11); and “Students with disabilities should participate in the
same school job responsibilities as their typical peers (M = 2.65). The three
items in Table 4.6 with the lowest scores (with which the respondents agreed most
strongly) were “Mild Disability” (M = 1.51); “High school students “(M = 1.87); and
“Elementary school students” (M = 1.89). The items with the highest scores in Table 4.6
(with which the respondents agreed least strongly) were “Autism Spectrum Disorder” (M
= 2.47); “Intellectual Disability” (M = 2.96); and “Severe Disability” (M = 3.30).
Table 4.7 presents the descriptive statistics for the 15 items used to measure the
impact of inclusive education on students with disabilities. The majority of the
respondents tended to agree with all of the items, reflected by mean scores < 3.0.
58
Table 4.7 Descriptive Statistics for 15 items Used to Measure Impact on Students with Disabilities (N = 225) Item M SD The social skills of students with disabilities would be improved due to educating them in the general education classroom alongside typical peers.
1.64 0.72
Inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom would be likely to enhance their acceptance by the community in general.
1.70 0.77
Educating students with disabilities in the general education classroom alongside typical peers would allow them to develop their academic skills.
1.72 0.82
Including students with disabilities in the general education classroom would be likely to have a positive impact on how they feel about themselves.
1.73 0.81
Inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom would provide more opportunities to participate in a variety of school activities.
1.92 0.85
Students with disabilities would have the opportunity to learn more in a classroom including both students with and students without disabilities than in a classroom including only students with disabilities.
1.94 0.95
Including students with disabilities in the general education classroom would be likely to help them achieve their desired outcomes.
1.94 0.90
In classrooms that included both students with and students without disabilities, teachers would not be well-trained or qualified to educate or deal with the needs of students with disabilities.
1.94 1.04
In classrooms that included both students with and students without disabilities, students with disabilities would be less likely to receive enough special help and individualized instruction from their teacher.
2.20 0.99
Inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom would likely reduce the amount of specialized support students with disabilities receive from teachers.
2.41 1.04
Students with disabilities would be more likely to be rejected by typical peers in classrooms that included both students with and students without disabilities.
2.69 1.11
Including students with disabilities in the general education classroom would provide diverse interactions that would lead to greater understanding and acceptance of differences.
2.70 0.75
Inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom would be likely to have a negative effect on their emotional development.
2.71 1.09
Inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom would be likely to have a negative impact on how they view themselves in relation to other children.
2.73 1.11
Including students with disabilities in the general education classroom would promote their social independence.
2.76 0.79
59
The three items in Table 4.7 with the lowest scores (with which the respondents
agreed most strongly) were “The social skills of students with disabilities would be
improved due to educating them in the general education classroom alongside typical
peers “(M = 1.64); “Inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education
classroom would be likely to enhance their acceptance by the community in general” (M
= 1.70); and “Educating students with disabilities in the general education classroom
alongside typical peers would allow them to develop their academic skills (M = 1.72).
The three items with the highest scores in Table 4.7 (with which the respondents
agreed least strongly) were “Inclusion of students with disabilities in the general
education classroom would be likely to have a negative effect on their emotional
development” (M = 2.71); “Inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education
classroom would be likely to have a negative impact on how they view themselves in
relation to other children (M = 2.73); and “Including students with disabilities in the
general education classroom would promote their social independence” (M = 2.76)
Table 4.8 presents the descriptive statistics for the 11 items used to measure the
impact of inclusive education on students without disabilities. The respondents tended to
agree with 10 of the items, reflected by mean scores < 3.0. The three items in Table 4.8
with the lowest scores (with which the respondents agreed most strongly) were
“Including students with disabilities in the general education classroom would have a
positive impact on the understanding and acceptance of differences of students without
disabilities”; (M =1.70); Having regular contact with students with disabilities would be
likely to help students without disabilities develop sensitivity to others (M = 1.75); and
60
“Students without disabilities are likely to benefit from including students with
disabilities in the general education classroom” (M = 2.00).
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics for 11 items Used to Measure Impact on Students without Disabilities (N = 225) Item M SD Including students with disabilities in the general education classroom would have a positive impact on the understanding and acceptance of differences of students without disabilities.
1.70 0.73
Having regular contact with students with disabilities would be likely to help students without disabilities develop sensitivity to others.
1.75 0.76
Students without disabilities are likely to benefit from including students with disabilities in the general education classroom.
2.00 0.96
If included in the general education classroom, the challenging behaviors of some students with disabilities might cause students without disabilities to be afraid.
2.56 1.07
In classrooms that included both students with and students without disabilities, students with disabilities would take up too much of the teacher's time and students without disabilities would not receive enough attention.
2.60 1.07
In classrooms that included both students with and students without disabilities, students without disabilities would not receive enough attention from the teachers because they would spend most of their time focusing on students with disabilities
2.64 1.07
In classrooms that included both students with and students without disabilities, students without disabilities might be overlooked because students with disabilities require more skills and effort.
2.64 1.05
If included in the general education classroom, students with disabilities might do things that caused injuries to students without disabilities.
2.72 1.07
In classrooms that included both students with and students without disabilities, the needs of students with disabilities for special materials and equipment would be so great that the students without disabilities would not get their fair share
2.74 1.09
In classrooms that included both students with and students without disabilities, students without disabilities would copy students with disabilities and learn negative behaviors from them.
2.80 1.08
Including students with disabilities in the general education classroom could slow down learning for students without disabilities.
3.25 1.08
61
The three items with the highest scores in Table 4.8 (with which the respondents
agreed least strongly) were “In classrooms that included both students with and students
without disabilities, the needs of students with disabilities for special materials and
equipment would be so great that the students without disabilities would not get their fair
share” (M = 2.74); “In classrooms that included both students with and students without
disabilities, students without disabilities would copy students with disabilities and learn
negative behaviors from them (M = 2.80); and “Including students with disabilities in the
general education classroom could slow down learning for students without disabilities
(M = 3.25).
Table 4.9 presents the descriptive statistics for five items used to measure the
impact of inclusive education on parents of students with disabilities. Table 4.10 presents
the descriptive statistics for four items used to measure impact on parents of students
without disabilities. The respondents consistently agreed with all of the items (M < 3.0).
Table 4.9 Descriptive Statistics for Five Items Used to Measure Impact on Parents of Students with Disabilities (N = 225) Item M SD If students with disabilities were included in the general education classroom, their families would have to adapt more than the families of students without disabilities.
1.93 0.73
Including students with disabilities in the general education classroom would help families of students with disabilities learn more about normal child development.
1.96 0.82
If students with disabilities were included in the general education classroom, families of students with disabilities would feel misunderstanding or lack of concern from families of students without disabilities.
2.66 0.92
62
Table 4.9 (continued) If students with disabilities were included in the general education classroom, families of students with disabilities would be more likely to notice and be upset by differences between their child and typically developing children.
2.71
0.96
If students with disabilities were included in the general education classroom, the families of students without disabilities would create feelings of exclusion towards their families.
2.77 1.02
Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistics for 4 items Used to Measure Impact on Parents of Students without Disabilities (N = 225) Item M SD Families of students without disabilities in classrooms that included both students with and students without disabilities would be more likely to understand what it is like for families of students with disabilities.
1.84 0.75
Families of students without disabilities in classrooms that included both students with and students without disabilities would be more likely to understand children with disabilities.
1.86 0.74
There would be increased levels of discomfort experienced by families of students without disabilities in classrooms that included both students with and students without disabilities.
2.71 1.02
Families of students without disabilities in classrooms that included both students with and students without disabilities would feel uncomfortable being around families of student with disabilities.
2.88 1.01
The item in Table 4.9 with the lowest score (with which the respondents agreed
most strongly) was “If students with disabilities were included in the general education
classroom, their families would have to adapt more than the families of students without
disabilities” (M = 1.93). The item in Table 4.9 with the highest score (with which the
respondents agreed least strongly) was “If students with disabilities were included in the
general education classroom, the families of students without disabilities would create
feelings of exclusion towards their families” (M = 2.77).
63
The item in Table 4.10 with the lowest score (with which the respondents agreed
most strongly) was “Families of students without disabilities in classrooms that included
both students with and students without disabilities would be more likely to understand
what it is like for families of students “(M = 1.84). The item in Table 4.10 with the
highest score (with which the respondents agreed least strongly) was “Families of
students without disabilities in classrooms that included both students with and students
without disabilities would feel uncomfortable being around families of student with
disabilities (M = 2.88).
4.2.4 Comparison of Respondents’ Perspectives by Disability of Child
This section presents the results of ANOVA to address RQ2: Are there significant
differences in the respondents’ perspectives towards inclusive education between parents
of students with disabilities and parents of students without disabilities? Table 4.11
summarizes the descriptive statistics, F test statistics, and p values. Levene’s tests
indicated that the data did not violate the assumption of equality of variance (p > .05).
Table 4.11 Comparison of Dependent Variables by Disability of Child (N = 222) Group Statistics DV1 DV2 DV3 DV4 DV5 Child with disability M 2.03 2.18 2.65 2.49 2.39 SD 0.67 0.43 0.57 0.58 0.58 Child without disability M 2.27 2.19 2.42 2.37 2.29 SD 0.58 0.44 0.65 0.60 0.56 ANOVA F (1, 221) 7.80 0.01 6.43 2.03 1.51 p 0.006* 0.943 0.012* 0.156 0.220 Levene’s Test p .315 .727 .130 .421 .652 Note * Significant difference between groups (p < 05). DV1 Attitudes; DV2 Impact on
students with disabilities; DV3 Impact on students without disabilities; DV4 Impact on
64
parents of students with disabilities; DV5 Impact on parents of student without
disabilities
The mean scores for Attitudes (DV1) and Impact on students without disabilities
(DV3) were significantly different (p < .05) with respect to the parents of students with
disabilities vs. the parents of respondents of students without disabilities. The parents of
SWDs tended to agree more to the items measuring Global Attitudes (M = 2.03) than the
parents of students without (M = 2.27). In other words, parents who had children with
disabilities tended to agree more that children should be attending classes with students
without disabilities in general. However, on the impact measure on students without
disabilities, the parents of SWDs also tended to agree less (M = 2.65) that inclusion
would have a positive impact on students without disabilities than the parents of students
without disabilities (M = 2.42). In other words, parents of SWDs tended to be more
guarded than parents of students without in their perspectives on the positive impact that
inclusion might have on typically developing students.
4.2.5 Comparison of Perspectives of Respondents by Severity of Disability
This section presents the results of ANOVA to address RQ3: Are there significant
differences in the respondents’ perspectives towards the impact of inclusion on students
with disabilities based on the severity of the disability? Table 4.12 summarizes the
descriptive statistics, F test statistics, and p values. Levene’s test indicated that the
assumption of equality of variance was not violated (p > 0.01).
65
Table 4.12 Comparison of Dependent Variables by Severity of Disability (N = 225) Severity Statistics DV1 DV2 DV3 DV4 DV5 None M 2.28 2.18 2.42 2.36 2.29 SD 0.58 0.44 0.64 0.60 0.56 Mild M 1.98 2.11 2.74 2.44 2.58 SD 0.46 0.47 0.50 0.54 0.35 Moderate M 1.95 2.19 2.65 2.50 2.32 SD 0.66 0.38 0.60 0.64 0.70 Severe M 2.44 2.37 2.55 2.64 2.36 SD 1.00 0.52 0.61 0.42 0.31 ANOVA F (3,221) 4.27 0.75 2.64 1.06 1.53 p .006* .525 .050 .367. .208 Levene’s test .011 .554 .406 .663 .139 Note * Significant difference between groups (p < .05). DV1 Attitudes; DV2 Impact on
students with disabilities; DV3 Impact on students without disabilities; DV4 Impact on
parents of students with disabilities; DV5 Impact on parents of student without
disabilities
The mean score for Attitudes (DV1) was significantly different (p < .05) with
respect to the severity of the students’ disabilities. The parents of students with severe
disabilities tended to agree less strongly to the items (M = 2.44) than the parents of
students with moderate disabilities (M = 1.95) or mild disabilities (M = 1.98). In other
words, parents of students with severe disabilities tended to be more cautious in their
agreement with positive statements about inclusion than parents of students with mild or
moderate disabilities.
4.2.6 Comparison of Respondents’ Perspectives by Type of Disability
This section presents the results of ANOVA to address RQ4: Are there significant
differences in the respondents’ perspectives towards the impact of inclusion on students
with disabilities based on the type of child disability? Table 4.13 summarizes the
66
descriptive statistics, F test statistics, and p values. Levene’s test indicated that one
variable (DV5) violated the assumption of equality of variance (p < .001).
Table 4.13 Comparison of Dependent Variables by Type of Disability (N = 225) Disability Statistics DV1 DV2 DV3 DV4 DV5 None M 2.28 2.18 2.42 2.37 2.29
SD 0.58 0.44 0.65 0.61 0.56 Autism Spectrum Disorder M 1.84 2.01 2.70 2.46 2.41
SD 0.52 0.30 0.48 0.54 0.37 Learning Disability M 2.18 2.01 2.40 2.23 2.31
SD 0.58 0.60 0.45 0.70 0.65 Intellectual Disability M 2.24 2.37 2.54 2.48 2.24
SD 0.82 0.49 0.46 0.36 0.47 Hearing Impairment M 2.19 2.39 2.82 2.74 2.68
SD 0.74 0.21 0.46 0.41 0.28 Deafness M 1.63 2.19 2.94 2.63 2.63
SD 0.57 0.39 1.04 1.22 1.39 Visual Impairment M 2.27 1.87 1.95 2.00 2.00
SD 0.16 0.38 0.45 0.00 0.00 Other M 1.83 2.20 2.98 2.73 2.54
SD 0.59 0.23 0.67 0.45 0.33 ANOVA F (7, 217) 2.45 1.55 2.14 1.10 1.05 p .020* .152 .041* .367 .393 Levene’s Test p .369 .180 .344 .030 <.001 Note * Significant difference between groups (p < 05). DV1 Attitudes; DV2 Impact on
students with disabilities; DV3 Impact on students without disabilities; DV4 Impact on
parents of students with disabilities; DV5 Impact on parents of student without
disabilities
The mean scores for Attitudes (DV1) and Impact on students without disabilities
(DV3) were significantly different (p < .05) with respect to the type of disability. The
parents of students without disabilities and Visual Impairment tended to agree least to the
items measuring Global Attitudes (M = 2.28 and 2.27, respectively). Parents of children
with deafness (M = 1.63) and Autism Spectrum Disorder (M = 1.84); tended to agree
67
least strongly that inclusion would have a positive impact on students without disabilities.
In other words, parents of children with deafness and Autism Spectrum Disorders held
more cautious views about the potential benefits of inclusion for students without
disabilities.
4.2.7 Comparison of Respondents’ Perspectives by Gender of Child
This section presents the results of ANOVA to address RQ5: Are there significant
differences in the respondents’ perspectives towards the impact of inclusion on students
with disabilities based on the gender of the child? Table 4.14 summarizes the descriptive
statistics, F test statistics, and p values. Levene’s test indicated that the assumption of
equality of variance was not violated (p > 0.01).
Table 4.14 Comparison of Dependent Variables by Gender of Child (N = 213) Group Statistics DV1 DV2 DV3 DV4 DV5 Male M 2.23 2.19 2.48 2.42 2.29 SD 0.61 0.42 0.64 0.62 0.59 Female M 2.17 2.16 2.52 2.43 2.40 SD 0.66 0.48 0.64 0.55 0.46 ANOVA F (1, 212) 0.46 0.17 0.27 0.01 1.70 p .495 .682 .604 .910 .193 Levene’s Test .519 .263 .899 .494 .037 Note * Significant difference between groups (p < 05). DV1Attitudes; DV2 Impact on
students with disabilities; DV3 Impact on students without disabilities; DV4 Impact on
parents of students with disabilities; DV5 Impact on parents of student without
disabilities
The mean scores for all of the dependent variables (DV1, DV2, DV3, DV4, and
DV5) were not significantly different (p > .05) with respect to the gender of the child.
68
Therefore, there respondents’ perspectives did not appear to vary according to whether
their child was male or female.
4.2.8 Comparison of Respondents’ Perspectives by Level of Education
This section presents the results of ANOVA to address RQ6: Are there significant
differences in the respondents’ perspectives towards the impact of inclusion on students
with disabilities based on the level of education of the child. Table 4.15 summarizes the
descriptive statistics, F test statistics, and p values. Levene’s test indicated that the
assumption of equality of variance was not violated (p > 0.05).
Table 4.15 Comparison of Dependent Variables by Level of Education Level Statistics DV1 DV2 DV3 DV4 DV5 Elementary school M 2.25 2.19 2.51 2.43 2.34 SD 0.59 0.45 0.63 0.57 0.56 Middle school M 1.91 2.11 2.39 2.34 2.18 SD 0.75 0.45 0.63 0.66 0.61 High school M 2.23 2.19 2.44 2.43 2.39 SD 0.65 0.39 0.67 0.67 0.58 ANOVA F 3.13 0.34 0.55 0.24 1.10 p .046* .712 .578 .787 .337 Levene’s test p .267 .569 .831 .325 .594 Note * Significant difference between groups (p < 05). DV1Attitudes; DV2 Impact on
students with disabilities; DV3 Impact on students without disabilities; DV4 Impact on
parents of students with disabilities; DV5 Impact on parents of student without
disabilities
The mean score for Attitudes (DV1) was significantly different (p < .05) with
respect to the level of education of the children. The parents of students at middle school
tended to agree more strongly to the items (M = 1.91) than the parents of students at
elementary school (M = 2.25) or high school (M = 2.23). This means that parents of
69
middle schoolers held more positive views about potential inclusion than parents of either
elementary or high schoolers.
4.3 Qualitative Analysis
The final section presents the results of the categorical analysis of 56 statements
extracted from responses to the open-ended question “As a parent, are there any
suggestions or feedback that you would like to put forward with regards to the education
of students with disabilities in public schools, whether in the same classroom or a
separate one?” Five emergent categories were identified as summarized in Table 4.16.
Table 4.16 Summary of Categorical Analysis Emergent Category Number of
significant statements
Coverage
1. Support for inclusive education 19 33.9% 2. No support for inclusive education 3 5.4% 3. Depends on each individual case 15 26.8% 4. Special education teachers 15 26.8% 5. Accessible schools 4 7.1%
The first category, support for inclusive education, contained the greatest number
of statements, covering 33.9% of the total. This category was classified as “Support for
Inclusive Schools” because the 19 respondents all endorsed the positive aspects of
inclusive education (corroborating the high level of agreement to the items measured
previously using Likert scales). This theme was exemplified by “I am a mother of a child
with severe disability and I am a strong advocate for him to be included.” Only three
respondents did not support inclusive education for their children, indicated by the
statements classified by Category 2: “I do not support inclusive education.” Category 3,
with 15 statements, represents 26.8% of the total, classified as “Depends on each case.”
70
The 15 respondents suggested that each case must be considered individually, for
example “If the disability is simple, the student studies with his peers”; “I think it
depends on the culture of the teacher and ordinary students and their families on this
subject”; “Inclusion is excellent but for simple situations and not all cases”; and
“Depends on the type and degree of disability. Some cases cannot be integrated and need
[separate] classes”. Category 4, with 15 statements, represents 26.8% of the total,
classified as “Special education teacher”. All these respondents suggested the need for
special education teachers, exemplified by “The provision of assistant teachers within the
classroom (special education specialist)”; “Joining an assistant teacher to the main
teacher will help facilitate the task of teachers, and increase the attention for ordinary
students and those in need of care”; and “Please assign the task of educating people with
disabilities to a specialized teacher”. Category 5, with 4 statements, represents 7.4% of
the total, classified as “Accessible Schools”. These respondents suggested the need for
schools to be configured specifically for SWDs, with respect to buildings, resources, and
infrastructure.
One of the ways the qualitative responses have been used is as a means of
supplementing and understanding quantitative data. A fuller discussion of qualitative
responses is woven through discussion of quantitative data in the treatment of each
research question in the following chapter.
71
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION
The goal of this study was to examine the perspectives of KSA parents of children
with and without disabilities toward inclusion of SWDs using quantitative research
methods. The study examined parents’ perspectives regarding inclusion in general and
across four specific dimensions of inclusive practice, including impact on students
without disabilities, impact on students with disabilities, impact on parents of students
with disabilities, and impact on parents of students without disabilities. The study sought
to answer questions about differences in parents’ perspectives based on five variables:
whether the parent is the parent of a student with disabilities or the parent of a student
without disabilities; severity of students’ disabilities; type of students’ disabilities; gender
of the child; and academic level of the child. Additionally, the study sought to answer
questions about differences in the respective impact of these variables and to determine
which variables have the most significant role in shaping perspective toward inclusion.
Although the methods of the study were quantitative, it also at times has drawn upon
limited qualitative analysis of a single open-ended questionnaire item to supplement and
explain aspects of the quantitative data. This chapter examines the findings of the study at
greater length and in conversation with existing literature, presenting key findings and
implications. The chapter discusses limitations of the study and recommendations based
on its findings.
72
5.1 RQ1: What are parents’ perspectives regarding inclusive education of students with
disabilities in KSA?
This study sought to understand parents’ relative perspectives on including SWDs
in the general education classroom. The first research question was designed to explore
the global perspectives towards inclusion of KSA parents of students with and without
disabilities. The question sought to examine global perspectives both as valuable data in
itself and as a baseline from which to understand divergences between global perspective
and perspectives on the impact of inclusion within specific measures.
Previous studies have shown that parents with generally positive perspectives
regarding inclusion sometimes demonstrate less support on impact scales measuring
perceived benefits for SWDs and typical peers (Sosu & Rydzewska, 2017). In other
words, parents with positive perspectives about inclusion in general sometimes became
more cautious when asked about the specific benefits or challenges inclusion might
present for students with or without disabilities. The current study found similar patterns
of difference between stronger global perspectives on inclusion than within specific
measures of impact, including impact on students without disabilities, impact on parents
of students with disabilities, and impact on parents of students without disabilities.
Interestingly, the current study found that on the measure of impact on students with
disabilities, respondents were slightly more likely to agree that it would have a positive
impact than within the global perspectives measure.
The first findings of the study show that parents hold generally positive
perspectives regarding inclusion, but that these perspectives are often dependent on the
severity and type of disability, as well as the training and staffing of qualified teachers
73
and accessible school environments. In general, perspectives among both parents of
students with and without disabilities were supportive of inclusion, indicating broad
support in terms of global perspective, perspective of potential positive impact on SWDs,
perspective on potential positive impact on students without disabilities, perspective on
potential positive impact on families of SWDs, and perspective on potential positive
impact on families of students without disabilities.
Like previous studies, however, the current study indicates that both parents with
and without SWDs expressed concerns regarding the preparation and provisioning of
qualified teachers and paraprofessionals as a key factor in the success of inclusion
(Stevens & Wurf, 2018). Similarly to published findings of the PATI survey in other
settings (Hilbert, 2009; Rafferty et al., 2001), respondents had concerns about the
preparedness of teachers to instruct SWDs and students without disabilities in an
inclusive general education classroom. Perspectives of the current study, however, placed
greater and more strenuous emphasis upon concerns related to teacher preparedness,
classroom accessibility, and classroom staffing.
One of the ways in which qualitative responses have been used to extend
quantitative data is to understand the process of reasoning behind positions for or against
inclusion, and indeed a majority of responses indicated suggestions for factors that would
need to be in place for inclusion to be successful. The majority of responses, consistent
with quantitative data, reflected attitudes in support of or open to the possibility of
inclusion. Among these, however, few reflected unqualified support for inclusion without
a discussion of supports needs (for inclusion to be successful) or further qualifications in
terms the SWD’s characteristics (such as severity or type of disability). At the same time,
74
the consistency and strength of concerns related to teacher preparedness and whole
school culture must be emphasized. One parent of child with a disability described herself
as “a strong advocate for inclusion,” but wrote, “I would not think of entering my son in
the integrated schools, at least in our current situation. There need to be standards for the
accessibility of integrated buildings and training for principals and teachers.” Another
parent, however, noted intensely negative experiences with a special education school (“I
have suffered with my child when he was in special centers”) as a way to frame the
improvement she has experienced since her child transferred to an integrated school (“I
did not see improvements in his social behavior until after he was studying in a normal
school”).
5.2 RQ2: Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive
education between parents of students with disabilities and parents of students without
disabilities in KSA?
The second research question was designed to explore differences in perspective
towards inclusion between parents of SWDs and parents of students without disabilities.
The question sought to understand to what degree this factor influenced perspectives,
both globally and within specific impact measures. There were significant differences in
perspective between parents of students with and without disabilities in terms of global
perspective towards inclusion and impact on students without disabilities, with no
significant differences in measures of impact on parents and near-equality in terms of
impact on SWDs. Stevens and Wurf (2018) demonstrated that parents both with and
without SWDs held generally positive global attitudes toward inclusion. The results of
75
the present study also demonstrated generally positive global attitudes towards inclusion,
with stronger views held by parents of SWDs, consistent with previous studies.
Some previous studies have demonstrated that parents of children with disabilities
often indicate more mixed attitudes and indecision about whether inclusion is a good
option for their child. A literature review by Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert (2010) found that
parents of SWDs often held more ambivalent views of inclusion, especially in terms of
perspectives regarding impact on SWDs in social dimensions. Although parents of
students without disabilities were likely to have positive perspectives regarding potential
inclusion and in terms of impact across all dimensions, this study found that they were
less likely than parents of SWDs to express strong agreement and more likely to express
tentative or partial agreement with survey items across all measures.
In response to the second research question, the current study found statistically
significant differences between parents of SWDs and parents of students without on
specific measures of perspective. Although both parents with and parents without
indicated generally supportive global views towards inclusion, parents of SWDs tended
to agree more strongly with statements supportive of inclusion than parents of students
without disabilities. Both groups indicated generally positive and roughly equivalent
perspectives regarding the impact of inclusion on SWDs. However, interesting exceptions
appeared on impact on students without disabilities, where parents of SWDs actually held
more guarded views than parents of students without disabilities. Differences in specific
items in the measure allow some speculation as to the reasons for this difference.
Although items explored parents’ perspectives across social and academic dimensions of
impact on students without disabilities, parents of students without disabilities were less
76
likely than parents of SWDs to agree with statements about the potential negative social
impact on students without disabilities and slightly more likely to agree with statements
about potential academic impact. In other words, parents of SWDs were more concerned
about the negative social impact inclusion might have on typical students. Despite the
fact that the measure focuses on the impact on students without disabilities, it is possible
to speculate that the concerns of parents of SWDs about the potential negative social
impact could be a roundabout or defensive means of expressing concerns about the social
acceptance and integration of their own children.
Several of the open-ended responses from parents of SWDs followed this pattern,
in which a parent of an SWD presented concerns or reservations about inclusion in terms
of its potential impact on students without disabilities. One mother of an SWD wrote, “If
they [SWDs] are integrated in the general classroom, the other students [without
disabilities] would acquire bad behaviors they didn’t have before.” Ultimately, however,
the respondent explains her concern for the “bad behaviors” that would be picked up by
students without disabilities in terms of her own experience with her son in an integrated
setting, where “he was exposed to hurtful words that made him despise himself.”
Whereas this parent was concerned with the impact of inclusion on students without
disabilities at least in part based on the eventual impact it might have in terms of the
social rejection of SWDs, several parents of students without disabilities reasoned that
students without disabilities would gain something from helping SWDs: “My suggestion
is that among the benefits of inclusion would be the education of students who help those
with disabilities.”
77
Relative to the original PATI questionnaire, results of the adapted PATI in this
new context bore striking overlaps and similarities with the results of the original, as well
as suggestive differences. The original PATI questionnaire targeted 244 parents of
students with and without disabilities in a specific inclusive preschool program in the
United States. Both samples on average reported positive global perspectives towards
inclusion, perceived positive impacts of inclusion on both SWDs and typical students and
their families. Additionally, while the original study reported no statistically significant
difference between parents of typically developing children and parents of children with
disabilities, the present study found consistent and statistically significant differences
between the parents of students with and students without disabilities across all measures.
5.3 RQ3: Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive
education based on the severity of their child’s disability in KSA?
The third research question sought to understand the relationship between parents’
perspectives regarding inclusion and the severity of disability. In the measure of global
perspectives, parents of students with mild and moderate disabilities held the strongest
views in favor of inclusion, while parents of students without disabilities and parents of
students with severe disabilities held less strongly positive views. Parents of students
with severe disabilities expressed the least agreement with statements supportive of
inclusion.
Several previous studies have shown severity of disability to be a significant
factor influencing perspectives on inclusion, which guided the current study to quantify
whether KSA parents held different perspectives based on severity. Leyser and Kirk
78
(2004)) found that parents holding generally positive perspectives regarding inclusion
held less accepting views of severe and moderate disabilities. Likewise, in a 190-parent
attitude survey by Boer and Munde (2015) found that attitudes towards inclusion scaled
downward with increasing severity of disability, with the most open and positive views
towards mild and the most guarded and negative views towards severe. In a survey of
parents of SWDs, Leyser and Kirk (2004) found that parents in non-inclusive
environments tended to articulate their concerns about possible inclusion in terms of
social isolation, academics and individualized instruction, and stigmatization from
teachers or parents of typically developing peers.
Although the number of open-ended responses from parents with different
severities of disability is too few to use as an interpretive lens for quantitative responses,
these responses are nonetheless striking and instructive. Parents of mild, moderate, and
severe disabilities all tended to focus on supports for inclusion in their open-ended
responses, and yet the difference in tone when moving from mild to severe is striking.
The nine open-ended responses from parents of students with mild disabilities echoed
similar supports-focused content as responses from parents of students with moderate and
severe disabilities, including instructional methods, school culture, social integration,
teacher preparation, and the provision of assistant teachers and paraprofessionals. The
tone of these comments was, however, remarkably different. Two parents of children
with mild disabilities expressed the desire for inclusion to be expanded in hopeful terms
(“I hope to see inclusive schools in every region”; “I hope that disabled people will be
integrated with normal children”). Two parents of student with mild disabilities described
the positive impact specific supports might have on SWDs (“…appoint a student or
79
students to help the person with the disability… and he will feel interested and included
in the community”; “… joining an assistant teacher to the main teacher will help facilitate
the task of teachers and increase attention for both ordinary students and those in need of
care”). Another parent described, “including students who are interested in it with
ordinary students at times or fun, art, and eating.”
Contrast the focus on the positive possibility of inclusion from these responses
with the tone and focus of several comments from parents of students with moderate and
severe disabilities. Where the handful of comments from parents of students with mild
disabilities tended to be hopeful and possibility-focused, even those open-ended
responses from parents with moderate or severe disabilities that expressed qualified
support for inclusion were far more likely to do so in terms of concern, caution, or anger.
One parent “demand[ed]” that “teachers be trained to understand the differences between
slow and learning disabilities.” The mother of a student with a moderate disability
described the need “to develop programs suitable for them” after describing how she,
“suffered with [her] son and stood up to the teachers.” The parent of a student with a
severe disability framed the need for inclusion supports in terms of concern for the safety
of SWDs by saying, “they [the schools] need to increase the number of staff at recess and
other times to make sure they [SWDs] are safe.” Another parent of a student with a
severe disability emphasized the strength of his suggestion with three exclamation points:
“Evaluate every situation!!! Is it possible to include or not?”
The results of this study are consistent with the findings of previous studies,
which have shown that parents tend to more guarded views of inclusion for severe
disabilities and certain types of disability. One possible reason for this is that parents of
80
students with severe disabilities have legitimate concerns about increased needs to
specialized instruction and supports for their child in a general education classroom. They
may also have greater concerns about the social acceptance of their children in general
education classrooms and fear of stigmatization. In more practical terms, the inclusion of
students with severe disabilities, for both parents with and without SWDs, is simply
further from the realm of everyday experience than the inclusion of students with mild
disabilities. Students with mild and moderate disabilities have begun being integrated in
KSA schools. Therefore, the move from integration to inclusion, for these students, is
shorter than for students with severe disabilities in the minds and experiences of these
parents.
5.4 RQ4: Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive
education based on the type of their child’s disability in KSA?
The fourth research question explored the relationship between parents’
perspectives towards inclusion and type of disability. There were significant differences
in parents’ perspectives based on type of disability. Significant differences appeared in
the measure of global perspective. The measure of impact on students without disabilities
also showed differences by type of disability, with parents of students without disabilities
and parents of students with Visual Impairment agreeing least strongly and parents of
students with deafness and parents of students with ASD agreeing most strongly that
inclusion would have a positive impact on students without disabilities.
These findings revealed an interesting split in perspectives on the basis of whether
the variables were conceptualized as pertaining to one’s own child, or the strength of
81
relationship between the type of disability of a parent’s own child and the parent’s
perspectives on inclusion; or conceptualized as pertaining to a hypothetical student of a
given type of disability. The findings both reinforce and complicate what has been found
in other contexts. For example, while parents of students with deafness and ASD agreed
most strongly that inclusion would have a positive impact on students with disabilities,
parents in general responded to the measure of attitudes based on type of disability with
some of the lowest average agreement that inclusion would benefit students with ASD or
deafness. By type of disability, only ID returned a lower average perception of potential
benefit than ASD or deafness.
5.5 RQ5: Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive
education based on the gender of their child in KSA?
Research question five asked if gender was a significant factor in parental
perspective towards inclusion. The study found no significant relationship between the
gender of the child and parent’s perspective on inclusion. This result is more meaningful
than it might first appear. The educational system of KSA is, at least at present, gender
segregated in all its dimensions. Girls attend all-girl schools and study a gender-specific
curriculum under the guidance of female teachers (Alsuwaida, 2016). Therefore, the
finding that parents of both boys and girls share similar average perspectives on inclusive
education is quite significant, in that it demonstrates common ground that bridges the
gender-segregated education gap.
82
5.6 RQ6: Are there significant differences in parents’ perspectives towards inclusive
education based on the academic level of their child in KSA?
The sixth research question examined the relationship of parents’ perspectives
towards inclusion and the academic level of their children. It sought to identify if parents
held more or less positive perspectives of inclusion at the elementary, middle, or high
school levels. Parents of children at different academic levels had different perspectives
on inclusion. These differences were statistically significant in terms of their general
perspectives, but not in terms of how they viewed the potential impact of inclusion on
parents or students with or without disabilities.
Interestingly, parents of children at the middle school level were more likely to
have stronger positive global perspectives, while parents of children at both the
elementary and high school level shared similar average responses. Previous studies have
tended to find stronger positive perspectives of inclusion for parents of younger children
at the elementary level (Leyser & Kirk, 2004). On the one hand, the more positive
perspectives held by parents of middle school children might be explained by another,
overlapping factor, such as school setting or experiences with SWDs.
On the other hand, the open-ended responses contained several rationales for or
against inclusion that touched on the question of academic level. The parent of an
elementary school SWD specifically reasoned against inclusion at the elementary level
for students with deafness, but for it at the middle and high school levels: “What benefit
does inclusion offer deaf students at the elementary level? Developing their sign language
at the elementary level will allow them to benefit from inclusion at the middle and high
school levels.” Another parent of an elementary school child without wrote, “From my
83
point of view, they [students with disabilities] should be separated in the early stages of
their education, because the other children are not aware of their condition. However, the
middle stages must be integrated.” These were, in fact, the only two responses that
rationalized an approach to inclusion that specifically addressed academic level.
Although these qualitative data are far too few to generalize to an understanding
of the quantitative data, nonetheless they are instructive and may allow speculation on
why this finding occurred. In the first case, the parent indicates a negative view of
inclusion at the elementary school level based on a relatively specific and narrow type of
disability. The parent indicates a negative view of inclusion at the elementary level, but in
fact has in mind the specific situation of students with deafness. The second response is
particularly instructive, as it seems to spring from a highly specific conceptualization of
disability. It could be that this parent perceives disability as a medical condition, perhaps
believing that “their condition” is a mature or negative topic that perhaps children should
not be exposed to or have to deal with at a young age.
5.7 Limitations: Comparison with PATI
The original PATI questionnaire targeted a significantly different sample than that
of the adapted questionnaire in this study. Specifically, the original PATI questionnaire
targeted 244 parents of students with and without disabilities in a specific inclusive
preschool program in the United States. The present study’s sampling method ranged
more widely, both in terms of utilizing a random sampling frame rather than relying on
participants in a specific program and in terms of breadth of academic level and
educational setting. This study developed a sample spanning educational levels (i.e.,
elementary, middle, and high school) as well as educational settings (i.e., special
84
education schools, integrated public schools, and non-integrated public schools).
Although the sample size was greater than that of the original PATI survey, the greater
breadth means that the data are both more generalizable while also allowing fewer
insights into the specifics of perspectives related to specific academic levels or
educational settings. Another limitation in relation to the original PATI survey and in
general is the inability of this study to calculate response rate. The researcher relied on
the nature and structure of Ministry of Education databases to reach the intended number
and strata of schools. However, for this reason the researcher had to rely on school
administrators and teachers to distribute links to the Qualtrics survey, making it
impossible to calculate exact response rates. Perhaps the greatest divergence in
application of the PATI survey was the move from quantifying perspectives regarding
inclusion in a setting where it had already been introduced, and therefore respondents had
some lived experience upon which to base their responses, to quantifying perspectives
toward inclusion in non-inclusive settings where respondents were asked about their
perspectives regarding a hypothetical inclusive setting.
A limitation in the generalizability of the study’s findings relates to its
geographical scope. The sample was drawn from Ministry of Education databases, which
provided access to three geographical regions where infrastructure, data, and public
schools are most developed. The study cannot speak to the population in general or the
perspectives of Saudis in rural or underdeveloped areas. Additionally, the study too-
narrowly conceptualized certain aspects of respondent demographics, such as relationship
of respondents to the child, in a way that closed off areas of potential significance. For
example, the question, “Relation to child of the person completing the questionnaire?”
85
offered only the options for Mother, Father, Primary caretaker, or no response. This
conceptualized gender of respondents too narrowly in terms of mother and father, not
allowing it to search for insights into relationship between the gender of respondents and
perspectives on inclusion that cut across the category of primary caretaker, as well. The
study could not distinguish the gender of the 24.9% of respondents who answered,
“Primary caretaker.” Areas for future research include research into rural disability
communities, which may not be initially accessible by means of traditional quantitative
measures; more research into the distinctions between both rates of occurrence, services
for, and perspectives concerning individuals with disabilities in less developed rural
versus more developed urban areas within KSA; research into the role of gender on the
perspectives of parents of SWDs in KSA; and research into the specifically gender-
segregated nature of education in KSA and how this plays out across a multitude of
dimensions impacting the perspectives towards and provision of services for SWDs.
5.8 Recommendations for Future Research
One of the important recommendations for future research could be to include
parents from other cities in KSA, such as Tabuk, Abha, and Jazain to extend the sample
size and compare their perspectives on inclusion for SWDs. Moreover, future research
could use different methodologies, such as qualitative or mixed methods, including
interviews with parents to gain a deeper understanding of the parents’ perspectives in
regard to inclusion for SWDs. Furthermore, future research might look on including
administrators' and teachers' perspective and comparing their opinions regarding
inclusion for SWDs in general classrooms. Finally, future research could emphasize
discovering more details about the parents' perspectives on the impact of inclusion on
86
students with disabilities based on the gender of the child to expand in more details the
results of this study, which showed that the parents’ perspectives did not appear to vary
according to whether their child was male or female, and these findings had no practical
significance.
5.9 Conclusion
In KSA, there is a need to consider the frameworks of understanding with which
parents approach SWDs and their potential. The system of education in KSA has come a
long way toward providing the best possible services for SWDs. This not to say that what
has been done reaches the level of special education services that exists in some more
developed countries around the world, but it does open the door for building on the
elements that have begun to improve the educational system. The dissertation will
conclude by briefly examining factors that could affect whether or not KSA moves to
adopt inclusive schooling, including: differing concepts and frameworks for
understanding disability; opinions and perceptions of KSA parents, administrators, and
teachers about inclusion; and the factors that would need to be in place in order for
inclusive education to be implemented successfully. The opinions and perspectives of
parents could play a key role in either helping or hindering the development of inclusive
education in KSA. The support of teachers, parents, and administrators is needed to move
forward into inclusive education for all SWDs.
If both public opinion and legislative policy supported the move to full inclusion,
its successful implementation would still depend on a number of factors. One such factor
that is difficult to measure but critical to sustainable inclusive practices is school culture.
The whole school environment can be either the greatest obstacle or the greatest support
87
for the successful implementation of inclusion. There is a growing awareness of the
importance of holistic, whole school approaches to organizational change. Research has
shown that programs to establish sustainable inclusive practices are most successful when
they first address the cultural context – beliefs, mindsets, expressions of community and
shared identity – that might support or undermine them (Mcmaster, 2013). Developing
inclusive culture might start with opportunities to evaluate and measure school culture,
teacher and administrator professional development targeting inclusive values, and
opportunities to communally reflect on and shape shared values (Carrington, 1999). What
is true of cultural environment is equally true of physical environment: the buildings,
facilities, and spaces that grant or deny physical access to shared community. Thus,
expanding inclusive settings in KSA would need to first facilitate a school environment
in which SWDs are ensured physical access and the opportunity to receive ideal learning
and social experiences. Without considering these elements, SWDs will face challenges
that prevent them from full participation in inclusive settings (Pivik, McComas, &
Laflamme, 2002).
According to parents’ perspectives and comments in this study, the Ministry of
Education must ensure that inclusive classrooms are staffed with qualified
paraprofessionals, teaching assistants, and special education teachers for inclusion to be
successful. Additionally, the successful implementation of inclusion would require
adequate professional development and pedagogical training for classroom teachers, as
well as adequate resources and support staff. Teachers would need training in evidence-
based accommodations and interventions such as systematic instruction, assistive
technology, peer-mediated strategies, and video modeling (Wong et al., 2015). These
88
interventions have been shown to be effective at increasing learning outcomes in
inclusive classrooms for SWDs (Jackson, Ryndak, & Billingsley, 2000). Not only would
the implementation of full inclusion require additional training for individual teachers, it
would also require training and preparation for a greater number of skilled teachers,
paraprofessionals, and teaching assistants. Co-teaching, for example, has been shown to
be one effective strategy in inclusive classrooms (Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & Mcculley,
2012). Co-teaching focuses on two teachers of equal parity (one with expertise in general
education and one with expertise in special education) working together in the same
physical space to meet the needs of all students with and without disabilities in the
classroom.
There are many models of co-teaching. One alternative model involves the
general education teacher providing instruction for all students in the classroom, while
the special education teacher provides more direct assistance to SWDs. Another variation
on the co-teaching model has the general education teacher teaching the general lesson
and the special education teacher pre-teaching and re-teaching SWDs who need
additional support (Obiakor, Harris, Mutua, Rotatori, & Algozzine, 2012). Either of these
co-teaching strategies would require the training and preparation of additional qualified
teachers. While some of these techniques could be adapted for teaching assistants or
paraprofessionals, even this work-around would require significant investment in training
and preparation programs. Unfortunately, special education teachers in KSA do not have
assistants with them in the classroom. Each special education teacher currently works
alone, teaching a least five SWDs (Alquraini, 2010). Implementing full inclusion and
more thorough deinstitutionalization would only increase the need for qualified teachers
89
and support staff. Providing assistants would be one of the important elements to support
SWDs in accessing inclusive environments. The availability and accessibility of such
training for educators would require support from the Ministry of Education. Indeed, each
of the factors discussed above would require tangible legislative and/or financial support
from government bodies and the Ministry of Education.
If the historical trends of special education in KSA continue to reflect the
movement towards progressive services and integration of SWDs, full inclusion
classrooms could be the next step. The history of special education that has been
presented in this dissertation shows an increased number of programs in which students
receive their education in integrated settings with typical peers. Although this movement
toward integrated schooling has increased for certain types of disabilities, such as visual
impartments, autism spectrum disorder, mild intellectual disability, and Hearing
Impairment, most of these students are in fact placed in special education classrooms
within public schools and have limited access to general education classrooms or
interactions with their typical peers. Moreover, there are still institutions or special
education schools for various types of disabilities. The last legislation in KSA regarding
SWDs passed in 2001, and since that time there have been no updated laws considering
new developments in the field of special education. Thus, there is a great need for
establishing new laws.
IDEA (1997) in the United States is one example of a policy that strives to
accomplish this goal in a different national context. According to this law, SWDs should
be educated with students without disabilities in their least restrictive environment.
Establishing similar policies in KSA could provide SWDs access to general education
90
schools, classrooms, and curriculum. This could, in turn, decrease the number of special
education schools and move forward into inclusive schooling. Thus, there are many
possibilities for the future of inclusive education in the KSA and the ability of its schools
to assist SWDs in receiving their education with typical peers in public schools.
Given the results of this survey, perhaps the first step in moving KSA educational
practices forward will involve an open conversation between the Ministry of Education
and parents of students with and without disabilities regarding what they want for their
children. Educational policy and curriculum in KSA are currently designed from a top-
down model. The results of the current survey, however, show that there are grounds for
a partnership between parents and the Ministry advancing educational goals for all
students. In addition to continuing to expand opportunities for integration in KSA public
schools, experimental inclusive classrooms could be trialed in key regions to gather data
and insights into what policies, teaching and instructional models, and models of parent-
school collaboration and partnership could best advance classrooms and schools that
effectively and humanely include all their members in the academic and social life of
KSA communities.
91
APPENDICES
92
APPENDIX 1. PERMISSION TO USE PATI SURVEY
93
APPENDIX 2. IRB APPROVAL
94
APPENDIX 3. MODIFIED PATI SURVEY (ENGLISH VERSION)
Start of Block: Section I: Demographics
Q1 Relation to child of the person completing the questionnaire:
o Mother (1) o Father (2) o Other (please explain): (3) ________________________________________________
95
Q2 Level of education of person completing the questionnaire:
o Some high school (1) o High school diploma or GED (2) o Some college (3) o Bachelor’s Degree (4) o Master’s Degree (5) o Doctoral Degree (PhD, EdD) (6) o Other (please explain): (7) ________________________________________________
96
Q3 Age of person completing the questionnaire:
o 18-24 years old (1) o 25- 34 years old (3) o 35-44 years old (4) o 45-54 years old (5) o 55-64 years old (6) o 56- 74 years old (7) o 75 years old or older (8)
Q4 Please specify the current academic level of your child.
o Elementary school (1) o Middle school (2) o High school (3)
97
Q5 Sex of your child:
o Male (1) o Female (2)
Q6 What kind of school does your child currently attend?
o Special education school (only students with disabilities attend this school) (1) o Integrated school (both students with and students without disabilities attend the same school) (2)
o Non-inclusive education school (only children without disabilities attend the school) (3)
o Other (please explain): (4) ________________________________________________
98
Q7 Are you the parent or primary caretaker of a student with disabilities?
o Yes (1) o No (2)
Display This Question:
If Are you the parent or primary caretaker of a student with disabilities? = Yes
Q8 Based on your own experience and professional reports, is your child’s disability:
o Mild (1) o Moderate (2) o Severe (3)
Display This Question:
If Are you the parent or primary caretaker of a student with disabilities? = Yes
99
Q9 Please describe your child’s disability (Check all that apply):
o Autism Spectrum Disorder (1) o Learning Disability (2) o Intellectual Disability (3) o Hearing Impairment (4) o Deafness (5) o Visual Impairment (6) o Other: (please explain: ) (7) ________________________________________________
End of Block: Section I: Demographics
Start of Block: Section II: Perspectives on Including Students with Disabilities
100
Q42 Should Students with Disabilities:
Strongly
agree (1)
Somewhat
agree (2)
Neither
agree nor
disagree (3)
Somewhat
disagree (4)
Strongly
disagree (5)
Classrooms
for students
with
disabilities
should be
located in the
general school
building with
their typical
peers. (1)
o o o o o
Students with
disabilities
should eat
lunch in the
school
cafeteria with
their typical
o o o o o
101
peers at the
same time. (2)
Students with
disabilities
should eat
lunch in the
school
cafeteria with
their typical
peers at the
same table. (3)
o o o o o
Students with
disabilities
should have
the right to go
on a school
field trip with
their typical
peers. (4)
o o o o o
Separating
students with o o o o o
102
disabilities
from the
general
education
classroom
violates their
rights. (5)
All children
should be
educated with
typical peers
who are at the
same
developmental
level. (6)
o o o o o
Students with
disabilities
should share
one or more
classes, such
as art or
o o o o o
103
physical
education,
with their
typical peers.
(7)
Students with
disabilities
should
participate in
the same
school job
responsibilities
as their typical
peers. (8)
o o o o o
I would be
satisfied with
my child being
educated in a
general
education
classroom that
o o o o o
104
includes both
students with
and students
without
disabilities. (9)
End of Block: Section II: Perspectives on Including Students with Disabilities
Start of Block: Section III: Perspectives on the Impact of Including Students with Disabilities
105
Q43 Some children may benefit more from being included in the general education
classroom alongside their typical peers than others. Please indicate how much you
disagree/agree with including children with the following characteristics in the general
education classroom:
BASED ON TYPE OF DISABILITY
Strongly
agree (1)
Somewhat
agree (2)
Neither
agree nor
disagree (3)
Somewhat
disagree (4)
Strongly
disagree (5)
Autism
Spectrum
Disorder (1)
o o o o o
Learning
Disability (2) o o o o o
Hearing
Impairment
(3)
o o o o o
Deafness (4) o o o o o
106
Intellectual
Disability (5) o o o o o
Visual
Impairment
(6)
o o o o o
107
Q44 BASED ON AGE OF STUDENT
Strongly
agree (1)
Somewhat
agree (2)
Neither
agree nor
disagree (3)
Somewhat
disagree (4)
Strongly
disagree (5)
Preschool
age children
(1)
o o o o o
Elementary
school
students (2)
o o o o o
Middle
school
students (3)
o o o o o
High school
students (4) o o o o o
108
Q45 BASED ON SEVERITY OF DISABILITY
Strongly
agree (1)
Somewhat
agree (2)
Neither
agree nor
disagree (3)
Somewhat
disagree (4)
Strongly
disagree (5)
Mild
Disability
(1)
o o o o o
Moderate
Disability
(2)
o o o o o
Severe
Disability
(3)
o o o o o
End of Block: Section III: Perspectives on the Impact of Including Students with Disabilities
Start of Block: Section IV: IMPACT OF INCLUDING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
109
Q46 (a) IMPACT ON STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Strongly
agree (1)
Somewhat
agree (2)
Neither
agree nor
disagree (3)
Somewhat
disagree (4)
Strongly
disagree (5)
Educating
students with
disabilities in
the general
education
classroom
alongside
typical peers
would allow
them to
develop their
academic
skills. (1)
o o o o o
The social
skills of
students with
disabilities
o o o o o
110
would be
improved due
to educating
them in the
general
education
classroom
alongside
typical peers.
(2)
Including
students with
disabilities in
the general
education
classroom
would
provide
diverse
interactions
that would
lead to greater
o o o o o
111
understanding
and
acceptance of
differences.
(3)
Including
students with
disabilities in
the general
education
classroom
would
promote their
social
independence.
(4)
o o o o o
Including
students with
disabilities in
the general
education
o o o o o
112
classroom
would be
likely to have
a positive
impact on
how they feel
about
themselves.
(5)
Students with
disabilities
would have
the
opportunity to
learn more in
a classroom
including
both students
with and
students
without
disabilities
o o o o o
113
than in a
classroom
including
only students
with
disabilities.
(6)
Including
students with
disabilities in
the general
education
classroom
would be
likely to help
them achieve
their desired
outcomes. (7)
o o o o o
Inclusion of
students with
disabilities in
o o o o o
114
the general
education
classroom
would be
likely to have
a negative
effect on their
emotional
development.
(8)
In classrooms
that included
both students
with and
students
without
disabilities,
students with
disabilities
would be less
likely to
receive
o o o o o
115
enough
special help
and
individualized
instruction
from their
teacher. (9)
Inclusion of
students with
disabilities in
the general
education
classroom
would
provide more
opportunities
to participate
in a variety of
school
activities.
(10)
o o o o o
116
Inclusion of
students with
disabilities in
the general
education
classroom
would be
likely to
enhance their
acceptance by
the
community in
general. (11)
o o o o o
Inclusion of
students with
disabilities in
the general
education
classroom
would be
likely to have
a negative
o o o o o
117
impact on
how they
view
themselves in
relation to
other
children. (12)
Inclusion of
students with
disabilities in
the general
education
classroom
would likely
reduce the
amount of
specialized
support
students with
disabilities
receive from
teachers. (13)
o o o o o
118
Students with
disabilities
would be
more likely to
be rejected by
typical peers
in classrooms
that included
both students
with and
students
without
disabilities.
(14)
o o o o o
In classrooms
that included
both students
with and
students
without
disabilities,
teachers
o o o o o
119
would not be
well-trained
or qualified to
educate or
deal with the
needs of
students with
disabilities.
(15)
Page Break
120
121
Q47 (b) IMPACT ON STUDENTS WITHOUT DISABILITIES
Strongly
agree (1)
Somewhat
agree (2)
Neither
agree nor
disagree (3)
Somewhat
disagree (4)
Strongly
disagree (5)
Including
students with
disabilities in
the general
education
classroom
would have a
positive
impact on the
understanding
and
acceptance of
differences of
students
without
disabilities.
(1)
o o o o o
122
Students
without
disabilities
are likely to
benefit from
including
students with
disabilities in
the general
education
classroom.
(2)
o o o o o
Having
regular
contact with
students with
disabilities
would be
likely to help
students
without
disabilities
o o o o o
123
develop
sensitivity to
others. (3)
If included in
the general
education
classroom,
students with
disabilities
might do
things that
caused
injuries to
students
without
disabilities.
(4)
o o o o o
If included in
the general
education
classroom,
o o o o o
124
the
challenging
behaviors of
some students
with
disabilities
might cause
students
without
disabilities to
be afraid. (5)
Including
students with
disabilities in
the general
education
classroom
could slow
down
learning for
students
without
o o o o o
125
disabilities.
(6)
In classrooms
that included
both students
with and
students
without
disabilities,
students
without
disabilities
would not
receive
enough
attention
from the
teachers
because they
would spend
most of their
time focusing
o o o o o
126
on students
with
disabilities.
(7)
In
classrooms
that included
both students
with and
students
without
disabilities,
students with
disabilities
would take up
too much of
the teacher's
time and
students
without
disabilities
would not
o o o o o
127
receive
enough
attention. (8)
In classrooms
that included
both students
with and
students
without
disabilities,
students
without
disabilities
might be
overlooked
because
students with
disabilities
require more
skills and
effort. (9)
o o o o o
128
In classrooms
that included
both students
with and
students
without
disabilities,
the needs of
students with
disabilities
for special
materials and
equipment
would be so
great that the
students
without
disabilities
would not get
their fair
share of
resources.
o o o o o
129
(10)
In classrooms
that included
both students
with and
students
without
disabilities,
students
without
disabilities
would copy
students with
disabilities
and learn
negative
behaviors
from them.
(11)
o o o o o
130
Page Break
131
132
Q34 (C) IMPACT ON PARENTS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Strongly
agree (1)
Somewhat
agree (2)
Neither
agree nor
disagree
(3)
Somewhat
disagree (4)
Strongly
disagree
(5)
Including
students with
disabilities in the
general education
classroom would
help families of
students with
disabilities learn
more about
normal child
development. (1)
o o o o o
If students with
disabilities were
included in the
general education
classroom, their
o o o o o
133
families would
have to adapt
more than the
families of
students without
disabilities. (4)
If students with
disabilities were
included in the
general education
classroom, the
families of
students without
disabilities would
create feelings of
exclusion
towards their
families. (5)
o o o o o
If students with
disabilities were
included in the
o o o o o
134
general education
classroom,
families of
students with
disabilities would
feel
misunderstanding
or lack of
concern from
families of
students without
disabilities. (6)
If students with
disabilities were
included in the
general education
classroom,
families of
students with
disabilities would
be more likely to
notice and be
o o o o o
135
upset by
differences
between their
child and
typically
developing
children. (7)
Page Break
136
137
Q49 (D) IMPACT ON PARENTS OF STUDENT WITHOUT DISABILITIES
Strongly
agree (1)
Somewhat
agree (2)
Neither
agree nor
disagree (3)
Somewhat
disagree (4)
Strongly
disagree (5)
Families of
students
without
disabilities in
classrooms
that included
both students
with and
students
without
disabilities
would be
more likely to
understand
what it is like
for families of
students with
disabilities.
o o o o o
138
(1)
Families of
students
without
disabilities in
classrooms
that included
both students
with and
students
without
disabilities
would be
more likely to
understand
children with
disabilities.
(2)
o o o o o
There would
be increased
levels of
o o o o o
139
discomfort
experienced
by families of
students
without
disabilities in
classrooms
that included
both students
with and
students
without
disabilities.
(3)
Families of
students
without
disabilities in
classrooms
that included
both students
with and
o o o o o
140
students
without
disabilities
would feel
uncomfortable
being around
families of
student with
disabilities.
(4)
End of Block: Section IV: IMPACT OF INCLUDING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Start of Block: Section IIV:
Q32 Open-ended question As a parent, are there any suggestions or feedback that you
would like to put forward with regards to the education of students with disabilities in
public schools, whether in the same classroom or a separate one?
________________________________________________________________
End of Block: Section IIV:
141
APPENDIX 4. MODIFIED PATI SURVEY (ARABIC VERSION)
عنوان البحث :اراء ٔاولیاء األمور في مفھوم التعلیم الشامل للطالب ذوي اإلعاقة في المملكة العربیة السعودیة
عزیزي ولي األمر,
استكماال لمتطلبات دراسه الدكتوراه في مجال التربیة الخاصة اعمل حالیا علي دراسة استقصائیة للتعرف على وجھة
نظر ٔاولیاء األمور في مفھوم "التعلیم الشامل "للطالب ذوي اإلعاقة في المملكة العربیة السعودیة .تقدم الدراسة
شدیدة االهمیة معلومات قیمة فیما یتعلق برٔاى ٔاولیاء األمور في مفھوم التعلیم الشامل للطالب ذوي اإلعاقة .ستمثل
ٔاراؤكم محورا مھما لصانعي القرار في هذا المجال ؤاولیاء األمور كذلك .كما ستساعد الدراسة في توضیح معلومات
في غایة األهمیة یمكن االستعانة بھا في الجامعات والمدارس ووزارة التعلیم لتحسین الوضع التربوي للطالب ذوي
اإلعاقة .تم التواصل معك للمشاركة في هذا االستبیان النك ولي أمر طالب یدرس في المدارس السعودیة .اذا لدیك اي
استفسار بشان البحث ارجو التواصل مع الباحث
تستخدم الدراسة مفھوم "التعلیم الشامل ,"ویُقصد به المدارس التي تقدم الخدمات التعلیمیة للطالب ذوي اإلعاقة مع
ٔاقرانھم العادیین تحت سقف واحد
بالطبع ,لدیك الخیار اذا ما كنت ترید استكمال االستبیان او ال ,لكن اذا قررت المشاركة في االستبیان لدیك الخیار في
تخطي اي
سؤال او الخروج من االستبیان متى شئت
142
اذا تفضلتم بالموافقة على المشاركة كل ما علیك فعله هو الضغط علي موافق في االسفل رابط "كولتركس "التالي , ٕ
دقیقه .سیتم واتباع اإلرشادات لإلجابة على ٔاسالة االستبیان .سوف یستغرق المشاركة في هذا االستبیان إلى
االستعانة بمشاركاتكم و اجاباتكم الواردة في هذه الدراسة االستطالعیة في توضیح معلومات قیمه ومفیده فیما یتعلق
بمفھوم التعلیم الشامل بالنسبة للطالب ذوي اإلعاقات في المملكة العربیة السعودیة .وكذلك یمكن االستعانة بھا في
الجامعات والمدارس ووزارة التعلیم لتحسین الوضع التربوي للطالب ذوي اإلعاقة .لذا ستمثل مشاركتكم ٔاحد العوامل
الھامة إلنجاح هذه الدراسة القیمة
نود ان نلفت انتباهكم انه على الرغم من استخدام االستبیان لجمع معلومات هامه عنك مثل الوضع الوظیفي الحالي
والخلفیة األكادیمیة وخبرتك حول مفھوم التعلیم الشامل للطالب ذوي اإلعاقة باإلضافة ٕالى جنسك فان اجاباتك سوف
تكون بسریة تامة
واود ٔان ٔالفت انتباهك الي انه لیس هناك حاجه لكتابة اسمك ,و سیتم االحتفاظ بالبیانات لالستفادة منھا ألغراض
البحث لھذا الیوجد اي مخاطره في المشاركه في هذا االستبیان كما ان االستبیان ال یربط المشارك بالتعرف علي
هویته وسوف تستخدم البیانات للتعرف علي وجھات نظر ٔاولیاء األمور حول مفھوم التعلیم الشامل بالنسبة للطالب
ذوي اإلعاقات في المملكة العربیة السعودیة .كما أنه ال یوجد أي شخص لدیه الصالحیات للدخول على بیانات
االستبیان سوى الباحث .سوف یتم اإلحتفاظ بالبیانات برقم سري في الكمبیوتر الخاص بالباحث لمدة سنوات وبعد
ذلك سوف تمحي كل البیانات المتعلقة بالدراسة .كما انه ال یتطلب منك كتابة أي تقریر كتابي أو شفھي مما یمكنه
التسبب في ربطك بالدراسة .اخیرا اجاباتك على االستبیان سوف لن تربط االي بي للتعرف علیك لذلك ال یوجد أي
صلة یمكنھا التعرف على هویتك .اذا كان لدیك سؤال متعلق بالدراسة ارجو التواصل مع العنوان التالي او اذا ما كان
لدیك أي اقتراحات او شكاوي او سؤال عن حقوقك كمشارك في االستبیان كمتطوع ارجو التواصل مع جامعة كنتاكي
143
من خالل هذا الرابط التالي
https://www.research.uky.edu/office-research-integrity/contact-us.
وفي النھایة ٔاكرر شكري لشخصكم لتخصیص جزء من وقتكم الثمین وٕاسھامكم القیم في هذه البحث المھم
ال تتردد في التواصل معي عند وجود ٔایة استفسارات تتعلق بموضوع الدراسة.
بدر السلمي
Q5
o (1) اوافق علي المشاركة في االستبیان o (2) ال اوافق علي المشاركة في االستبیان
End of Block: Consent Form to Participate in Research (English Version)
144
Start of Block: Section I: Demographics
Q1 :العالقة بالطالب
o (1) ام o (2) اب o ________________________________________________ (3) أخرى ) :یُرجى
( التوضیح
145
Q2 :المستوى التعلیمي لولي األمر
o (1) دراسه جزء من الثانویة العامة o (2) حاصل علي شھاده الثانویة o (3) درجة جامعیة لكن لم یكمھا o (4) درجة البكالوریوس o (5) درجة الماجستیر o (6) درجة الدكتوراة o ________________________________________________ (7) أخرى ) :یُرجى
( التوضیح
146
Q3 العمر) :كم یبلغ عمرك؟(
o (1) - o (3) - o (4) - o (5) - o (6) - o (7) - o (8) اكثر من
Q4 أرجو تحدید المرحلة الحالیة للطالب
o (1) مدرسة ابتدائیة o (2) مدرسة متوسطة o (3) مدرسة ثانویة
147
Q5 :جنس الطالب
o (1) ذكر o (2) أنثى
Q6 ما هو نوع المدرسة التي یذهب إلیھا الطالب او سبق الذهاب الیھا؟
o (1) معھد للتربیة الخاصة o (2) ) مدرسه تعلیم شامل )مدرسة یدرس فیھا الطالب العادیین والطالب ذوي االعاقات o (3) ) مدرسة عادیة)مدرسة یدرس فیھا الطالب العادیین فقط o ________________________________________________ (4) أخرى ) :یُرجى
( التوضیح
148
Q7 هل أنت ولي أمر طالب لدیه إعاقة؟
o (1) نعم o (2) ال
Display This Question:
Are you the parent or primary caretaker of a student with disabilities? = ننن If
Q8 بناءا على تجربتك الخاصة والتقاریر المھنیة ,ما هي درجة اإلعاقة للطالب؟
o (1) بسیطة o (2) متوسطة o (3) شدیدة
Display This Question:
Are you the parent or primary caretaker of a student with disabilities? = ننن If
149
Q9 :یرجى تحدید نوع اإلعاقة للطالبُ
o (1) اضطراب طیف التوحد o (2) صعوبات التعلم o (3) إعاقة فكریة o (4) )إعاقة سمعیة )ضعف سمع o (5) )إعاقة سمعیة )صمم o (6) إعاقة بصریة o ________________________________________________ (7) ➢ أخرى):یُرجى
(:التوضیح
End of Block: Section I: Demographics
Start of Block: Section II: Perspectives on Including Students with Disabilities
Q42 البئیة المناسبة للطالب ذوي االعاقة
ال أوافق (5) أوافق بشدة (1) أوافق (2) محاید (3) ال اوافق (4) بشدة
150
o o o o o یجب أن (1) تكون الفصول
الدراسیة الخاصة بالطالب ذوي اإلعاقة في
المبنى الدراسي العام مع أقرانھم
.العادیین
o o o o o یجب أن (2) یتناول الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة
وجبة الغداء في كافتیریا المدرسة في نفس الوقت
مع أقرانھم .العادیین
o o o o o یجب أن (3) یتناول الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة
وجبة الغداء في كافتیریا المدرسة بصحبة أقرانھم العادیین على .الطاولة نفسھا
o o o o o یجب أن (4) یتمتع الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة
بالحق في الذهاب الي رحالت
میدانیة مدرسیة مع أقرانھم .العادیین
o o o o o
یُعد -4 (5) عزل الطالب
ذوي اإلعاقة من التعلیم في
الفصول الدراسیة العامة )التعلیم
الشامل (شكل من أشكال االنتھاك .لحقوقھم
151
o o o o o یجب أن (6) یتمتع جمیع
الطالب بالحق في التعلیم
بصحبة أقرانھم االعادیین الممثلین لھم في المرحلة
.العمریة
o o o o o یجب أن (7)
یشترك الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة في حصة واحدة أو حصتین مثل
الرسم أو التربیة البدنیة مع
.أقرانھم العادیین
o o o o o یجب أن (8) یقوم الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة بنفس المھام
المدرسیة التي یقوم بھا أقرانھم
.العادیین
o o o o o سوف أكون (9)
راضي عن وجود ابني ضمن
أحد الفصول .الدراسیة الشامله
End of Block: Section II: Perspectives on Including Students with Disabilities
Start of Block: Section III: Perspectives on the Impact of Including Students with Disabilities
قد یستفید بعض األطفال من عملیة الدمج أكثر من غیرهم .یُرجى توضیح مدى قبولك أو رفضك
152
.لعملیة الدمج لألطفال الذین یتمتعون بالخصائص التالیة
Q43 :نوع اإلعاقة
ال اوافق (5) أوافق بشدة (1) أوافق (2) محاید (3) ال اوافق (4) بشدة
o o o o o (1) اضطراب طیف التوحد
o o o o o (2) صعوبات التعلم
o o o o o (3) سمعیة )ضعف إعاقة (السمع
o o o o o (4) إعاقة سمعیة )الصمم(
o o o o o (5) إعاقة فكریة
o o o o o (6) إعاقة بصریة
153
Q44 بناءا علي المرحلة العمریة
ال اوافق (5) أوافق بشدة (1) أوافق (2) محاید (3) ال اوافق (4) بشدة
o o o o o (1) مرحلة ما قبل المدرسة
o o o o o (2) طالب المرحله االبتدائیة
o o o o o (3) المرحله طالب المتوسطة
o o o o o (4) طالب المرحله الثانویة
Q45 بناءا علي شده اإلعاقة
ال اوافق (5) أوافق بشدة (1) أوافق (2) محاید (3) ال اوافق (4) بشدة
154
o o o o o (1) إعاقة بسیطة
o o o o o (2) إعاقة متوسطة
o o o o o (3) إعاقة شدیدة
End of Block: Section III: Perspectives on the Impact of Including Students with Disabilities
Start of Block: Section IV: IMPACT OF INCLUDING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
46Q :1. إلعاقاتا ذوي الطالب على الدمج أثر
ال اوافق (5) أوافق بشدة (1) أوافق (2) محاید (3) ال اوافق (4) بشدة
155
o o o o o سوف تسمح (1)
البیئة الشاملة للطالب ذوي اإلعاقة من
تطویر مھاراتھم .األكادیمیة
o o o o o سیسھم (2) الدمج )التعلیم الشامل (في
تحسین المھارات االجتماعیة
للطالب ذوي .اإلعاقة
o o o o o سیوفر (3)
الدمج )التعلیم الشامل (قدرا
كبیرا من التفاعل بین الطالب ,
والذي سیزید من فرص التفاهم .وقبول الفروقات
o o o o o سیعزز دمج (4) الطالب )التعلیم الشامل (ذوي اإلعاقة من استقاللھم .االجتماعي
o o o o o قد یكون (5) لدمج الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة
)التعلیم الشامل ( أثرا إیجابیا على طریقة انطباعھم
.بأنفسھم
o o o o o ستزداد (6) فرص تعلم
الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة عند وضعھم في
فصول دراسیة شامله بصحبة .أقرانھم العادیین
156
o o o o o من المرجح (7) أن یساعد دمج الطالب ذوي
اإلعاقة )التعلیم الشامل (على
تحقیقھم لنتائجھم .المرجوة
o o o o o قد یكون (8) لعملیة الدمج
)التعلیم الشامل ( أثر سلبي على
التطور االنفعالي للطالب ذي االحتیاجات .الخاصة
o o o o o
في الفصول (9) الدراسیة الشاملة تقل احتماالت
حصول الطالب ذوي االعاقه على القدر الكافي من الرعایة الخاصة والتعلیم الفردي .من معلمیھم
o o o o o
سیتیح (10) دمج الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة
)التعلیم الشامل ( مزیدا من الفرص
للمشاركة في مجموعة متنوعة
من األنشطة .المدرسیة
o o o o o من (11)
المرجح أن یسھم دمج الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة
)التعلیم الشامل ( في تعزیز فرص قبولھم المجتمعي .بوجه عام
157
o o o o o
من (12) المرجح أن یكون
لدمج الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة
)التعلیم الشامل ( أثر سلبي على
شعورهم بأنفسھم نتیجة لوجودهم برفقة أطفال .آخرین
o o o o o
من (13) المرجح أن یؤدي
دمج الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة
)التعلیم الشامل ( إلى تقلیص حجم الدعم المتخصص الذي یتلقونه من
.المعلمین
o o o o o
من (14) المرجح أن یؤدي
دمج الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة
)التعلیم الشامل ( إلى رفضھم قبل أقرانھم العادیین
في الفصول .الشاملة
o o o o o
ال یتمتع (15) المعلمون في
الفصول الشامله بالتدریب
والتأهیل الكافي لتعلیم الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة والتعامل مع .احتیاجاتھم
158
Page Break
159
47Q :(العادیین بالطال على الدمج أثر (٢
ال اوافق (5) أوافق بشدة (1) أوافق (2) محاید (3) ال اوافق (4) بشدة
160
o o o o o من المرجح (1) أن تسھم مشاركة الطالب العادیین
في الفصول الشامله في تعزیز تفھمھم وتقبلھم لالختالفات بین
.الطالب
o o o o o قد یستفید (2)
الطالب العادیین من الدمج )التعلیم
الشامل (مع الطالب ذوي .اإلعاقة
o o o o o یساعد (3)
التعلیم الشامل معرفه الطالب
العادیین بأقرانھم من ذوي اإلعاقة
و تحسین شعورهم .باآلخرین
o o o o o
قد یؤدي (4) الدمج )التعلیم الشامل (بأن یقوم الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة
ببعض التصرفات التي تتسبب في حدوث االذي القرانھم .العادیین
o o o o o قد تتسبب (5)
بعض التصرفات السلوكیة الغیر
مناسبة من بعض الطالب ذوي
اإلعاقة في إثارة المخاوف لدي .الطالب األسویاء
161
o o o o o قد یتسبب (6)
التعلیم الشامل في ضعف المستوى التعلیمي للطالب
.العادیین
o o o o o
لن یتمكن (7) معلمو الفصول
الشاملة من توجیه االهتمام الكافي
بالطالب العادیین ,وذلك النشغالھم في أغلب األحیان بالتركیز على الطالب ذوي .األعاقة
o o o o o
في الفصول (8) الشامله یستھلك الطالب ذوي
اإلعاقة الكثیر من وقت المعلم مما یقلل من فرص الطالب العادیین في الحصول على القدر الكافي من
.االهتمام
o o o o o
في الفصول (9) الشامله قد یتم إغفال الطالب العادیین ,وذلك لحاجة الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة
لمزید من الجھد والمھارات .لتعلیمھم
o o o o o عند الدمج (10) ) التعلیم الشامل ( ستكون احتیاجات
األطفال ذوي االعاقات للمواد
واألجھزة الخاصة كبیرة
162
جدا بالقدر الذي سیقلل من حق
الطالب األسویاء في الحصول على نصیبھم العادل .من المصادر
o o o o o
في (11) الفصول الشامله , قد یقوم بعض
الطالب العادیین بتقلید بعض الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة وتعلم
سلوكیاتھم الغیر .مناسبة
Page Break
163
34Q (اإلعاقة ذوي الطالب أمور أولیاء على الدمج أثر (٣
ال اوافق (5) أوافق بشدة (1) أوافق (2) محاید (3) ال اوافق (4) بشدة
164
o o o o o یساعد (1)
الدمج )التعلیم الشامل (أسر الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة على
معرفة المزید عن نمو األطفال .العادیین
o o o o o
عند تطبیق (4) الدمج )التعلیم الشامل ,(تحتاج أسر الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة للتكیف مع
الوضع الجدید بشكل اكبر
مقارنة مع أسر .الطالب العادیین
o o o o o
عند تطبیق (5) الدمج )التعلیم الشامل ,(من
الممكن أن تتبنى أسر الطالب
العادیین حالة من النفور تجاه أسر الطالب ذوي .اإلعاقة
o o o o o في البیئات (6) الشامله ,یتولد
لدى أسر الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة
شعور ببعدم الفھم والقلق من أسر .الطالب العادیین
o o o o o في البرامج (7)
الشاملة من المرجح أن
تضطرب أسر الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة لما تلحظه من
اختالف بین
165
أبنائھم وبین األطفال الذین ینمون بشكل .طبیعي
Page Break
166
49Q (العادیین الطالب أمور أولیاء على الدمج أثر (٤
ال اوافق (5) أوافق بشدة (1) أوافق (2) محاید (3) ال اوافق (4) بشدة
o o o o o في البیئة (1) الشاملة ,تزداد
فرص تفھم أسر الطالب العادیین للمشاعر التي تمر بھا أسر الطالب ذوي .اإلعاقة
o o o o o في البیئة (2) الشاملة ,تزداد
فرص تفھم أسر الطالب العادیین للطالب ذوي .اإلعاقة
o o o o o
في البرامج (3) الشامله تزداد معدالت عدم االرتیاح التي تشعر بھا أسر
الطالب العادیین عند وجود ابنائھم بین الطالب ذوي
.االعاقة
o o o o o في البرامج (4) الشامله تشعر أسر الطالب العادیین بعدم
االرتیاح لوجودها بین أسر الطالب .ذوي اإلعاقة
167
End of Block: Section IV: IMPACT OF INCLUDING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Start of Block: Section IIV:
سؤال مفتوح باعتبارك أحد أولیاء األمور، هل هناك أیة اقتراحات أو تعلیقات ترغب في طرحھا
فیما یتعلق بتعلیم الطالب ذوي اإلعاقة في المدارس العامة سواء في نفس الفصل )التعلیم الشامل(، أو في فصل
Q32 مستقل؟
________________________________________________________________
End of Block: Section IIV:
168
APPENDIX 5. CONSENT FORM TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH (ENGLISH
VERSION)
Title of the research: Parents’ Perspectives on Inclusive Schools for Students with
Disabilities in Saudi Arabia
Dear Parent,
As part of my doctoral dissertation in Special Education at the University of
Kentucky, I am conducting a survey to examine the perspective of parents about the
integration and inclusion of students with disabilities in general education schools and
classrooms. You have been contacted to participate in this survey because you are the
parent of a child attending school in Saudi Arabia. If at any time you have questions
about your participation, please contact the researcher at [email protected].
Of course, you have a choice about whether or not to complete the
survey/questionnaire, but if you do participate, you are free to skip any questions or
discontinue at any time. If you agree to participate in this study, you will follow the link
below to complete the survey on Qualtrics, then follow the directions to answer survey
questions. Trials of the survey indicate that it will take between 10 and 15 minutes to
complete. You will be asked to complete questions about your perspectives on the
integration/inclusion of students with disabilities. You will also be asked to answer
questions regarding vital demographic information, such as your current employment
status, academic background, experience with regards to inclusion, and gender. Survey
169
participation is voluntary. If you choose to participate, you may exit the survey at any
time by closing the browser.
There are no risks associated with participating in the survey. If you decide to
complete the survey, your participation will be completely anonymous. Survey answers
will not be associated with the identities of individual respondents, and data obtained
through the survey will be used in aggregate to gain insights into parent perspectives
about inclusion. No one will have access to the information other than the researcher.
Data will be stored securely on the researcher’s computers and personal Qualtrics account
for six years after the study has been completed, then destroyed. You will not be required
to write your name on the survey. Your responses will be kept anonymous and shall
solely be used for the purpose of this study. No reference will be made in oral or written
reports, which could link you to the study. Your responses will NOT be linked to your IP
address so that no one can match your identity to the answers you provide.
It is expected that the data obtained from the survey will provide considerable
knowledge regarding the perspective of parents in regard to schooling for students with
disabilities. The study also will help uncover important information that will be of
relevance to universities, schools, and the Ministry of Education in understanding and
developing relevant policies regarding the educational placement of students with
disabilities.
The insights obtained from your responses will be of vital importance to decision-
makers and parents. Once again, I thank you for taking out valuable time to contribute to
this cause.
170
If you have questions about the study, please feel free to ask; my contact
information is given below. If you have complaints, suggestions, or questions about your
rights as a research volunteer, contact the staff in the University of Kentucky Office of
Research Integrity through its contact page at https://www.research.uky.edu/office-
research-integrity/contact-us
Sincerely,
Bader Alsulami, MA
PhD Candidate
Department of Early Childhood, Special Education, and Rehabilitation Counseling
University of Kentucky
171
APPENDIX 6. REMINDER EMAIL TO NON-RESPONDENTS (ENGLISH VERSION)
Title of the research: Parents’ Perspectives on Inclusive Schools for Students with
Disabilities in Saudi Arabia
Reminder Email to Non-Respondents
Dear Parent,
_____ days ago, you received a survey on parent perspectives on the integration
and inclusion of students with disabilities in general education schools and classrooms.
At the time the current email was sent, your response has not yet been received.
Although survey participation is voluntary, your responses are invaluable to the
current study, which will help uncover important information that will be of relevance to
universities, schools, and the Ministry of Education in understanding and developing
relevant policies regarding the educational placement of students with disabilities. If you
agree to participate in this study, you will follow the link below to complete the survey
on Qualtrics, then follow the directions to answer survey questions. Trials of the survey
indicate that it will take between 10 and 15 minutes to complete. You will be asked to
complete questions about your perspectives on the integration/inclusion of students with
disabilities. You will also be asked to answer questions regarding vital demographic
information, such as your current employment status, academic background, experience
with regards to inclusion, and gender. Of course, you have a choice about whether or not
to complete the survey/questionnaire, but if you do participate, you are free to skip any
questions or discontinue at any time.
172
The survey closes on ___________ (date). Please take a moment to complete the
survey.
There are no risks associated with participating in the survey. If you decide to
complete the survey, your participation will be completely anonymous. Survey answers
will not be associated with the identities of individual respondents, and data obtained
through the survey will be used in aggregate to gain insights into parent perspectives
about inclusion. No one will have access to the information other than the researcher.
Data will be stored securely on the researcher’s computers and personal Qualtrics account
for six years after the study has been completed, then destroyed. You will not be required
to write your name on the survey. Your responses will be kept anonymous and shall
solely be used for the purpose of this study. No reference will be made in oral or written
reports, which could link you to the study. Your responses will NOT be linked to your IP
address so that no one can match your identity to the answers you provide.
Thank you for taking out valuable time to contribute to this cause.
If you have questions about the study, please feel free to ask; my contact
information is given below. If you have complaints, suggestions, or questions about your
rights as a research volunteer, contact the staff in the University of Kentucky Office of
Research Integrity through its contact page at https://www.research.uky.edu/office-
research-integrity/contact-us.
Sincerely,
Bader Alsulami, MA PhD Candidate
173
Department of Early Childhood, Special Education, and Rehabilitation Counseling University of Kentucky [email protected]
174
References Afeafe, M. (2000). Special education in Saudi Arabia (Doctoral dissertation). King Saud
University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Al-Abduljabber, A. M. (1994). Administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of inclusive
schooling in Saudi Arabia. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(7), 950–953. Al-Ajmi, N. S. (2006). The kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Administrators' and special
education teachers' perceptions regarding the use of functional behavior assessment for students with mental retardation (Doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin, WI, Madison.
Al-Herz, M. M. (2008). Achievement of goals of the individualized education program (IEP) for students with mental retardation and related difficulties. (Unpublished master‘s thesis). King Saud University, Saudi Arabia, Riyadh.
Al-Kheraigi, F. S. (1989). Special education development in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from 1958 to 1987.(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Syracuse University, NY, Syracuse.
Al-Mousa, N. (2010). The experience of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in mainstreaming students with special educational needs in public schools. Riyadh: The Arab Bureau of Education for the Gulf States. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001916/191663e.pdf
Al Darwish, A., Al Amari, B., & Sadiq, H. M. (2003). Administration perspectives on special education programs. The Journal Educational Science, College of Education, University of Qatar, 20(1), 6-19.
Al Wabli, A. M. (1996). Related services that are provided for students with intellectual disabilities in special education institutes in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Education, 20(2), 191–123.
Al Wabli, A. M. (2006). The importance of applying certain procedures to identify students with mental retardation and their individual education programs in Saudi Arabia. The Education Journal, 20(3), 191-232.
Alanazi, M. (2012). Teachers' and parents' attitudes towards inclusion in inclusive schools in Saudi Arabia (Doctoral dissertation). University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Aldabas, R. A. (2015). Special education in Saudi Arabia: History and areas for reform. Creative Education, 6(11), 1158–1167. doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.611114
Allen, M.J., & Yen, W. M. (2002). Introduction to measurement theory. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Alnahdi, G. H. (2007). The application of the procedures and standards of assessment and diagnosis in mental education institutes and programs as regards regulatory principles of special education institutes and programs in Saudi Arabia (Unpublished Master’s thesis). King Saud University, Saudi Arabia, Riyadh.
Alnahdi, G. H. (2013). Transition services for students with mild intellectual in Saudi Arabia. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48(4), 531–544.
Alnahdi, G. H. (2014). Special education programs for students with intellectual disability in Saudi Arabia: Issues and recommendations. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15(1), 83–91.
175
Alotaibi, F., & Almalki, N. (2016). Parents’ perceptions of early interventions and related services for children with autism spectrum disorder in Saudi Arabia. International Education Studies, 9(10), 128-140. doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n10p128
Alqahtani, M. (2017). Teacher perspectivs on full inclusion of students with learning disabilities in Saudi Arabia high schools (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Indiana State University, Indiana.
Alquraini, T. (2010). Special education in Saudi Arabia: Challenges, perspectives, future possibilities. International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 139–147.
Alquraini, T. (2011). Teachers’ perspectives of inclusion of students with disabilities in elementary schools in Saudi Arabia (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Ohio University,Ohio.
Alquraini, T. (2013). Legislative rules for students with disabilities in the United States and Saudi Arabia: A comparative study. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 2(6), 601–614.
Alruwaili, H. R. (2016). Obstacles of special education services for students with intellectual disabilities in Saudi Arabia: Future directions. American Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(1), 1–5.
Alsuwaida, N. (2016). Women’s education in Saudi Arabia. Journal of International Education Research, 12(4), 111–118.
Ary, S. L. (2017). Parents’ perceptions of a school-based inclusion program for their children with Autism (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8616.2008.00521.x Malik,
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147. doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056
Bailey Jr, D. B., & Winton, P. J. (1987). Stability and change in parents' expectations about mainstreaming. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 7(1), 73-88.
Beckman, P. J., Hanson, M. J., & Horn, E. (2002). Family perceptions of inclusion. In P. J. Beckman (Ed.), Widening the circle: Including children with disabilities in preschool programs (pp. 98–108). New York: Teachers College Press.
Bennett, T., Deluca, D., & Bruns, D. (1997). Putting inclusion into practice: Perspectives of teachers and parents. Exceptional Children, 64(1), 115–131. doi.org/10.1177/001440299706400108
Boer, A. A., & Munde, V. S. (2015). Parental attitudes toward the inclusion of children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities in general primary education in the Netherlands. The Journal of Special Education, 49(3), 179–187. doi.org/10.1177/0022466914554297
De Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2010). Attitudes of parents towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(2), 165-181.
Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (1998) From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education. London: Routledge.
Bottos, M., Feliciangeli, A., Sciuto, L., Gericke, C., & Vianello, A. (2001). Functional status of adults with cerebral palsy and implications for treatment of children. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 43(8), 516–528.
176
doi.org/10.1017/S0012162201000950 Carrington, S. (1999). Inclusion needs a different school culture. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 3(3), 257–268. doi.org/10.1080/136031199285039 Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). School and families: Creating essential
connections for learning. New York: Guilford Press. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. London:
Routledge. Cole, C. M., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across
inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42(2), 136–144. doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(2004)42<136:APOSAI>2.0.CO
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievements and adjustment: A literature review (Vol. 433). Nottingham, London: DfES publications.
Diamond, K. E., & LeFurgy, W. G. (1994). Attitudes of parents of preschool children toward integration. Early Education and Development, 5(1), 69–77. doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed0501_6
Downing, J. E., & Peckham-Hardin, K. D. (2007). Inclusive education: What makes it a good education for students with moderate to severe disabilities? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 16-30.
Duncan, A., & Posny, A. (2010, Nov). Thirty-five years of educating children with disabilities through IDEA. Retrieved from ED.gov: www2.ed.gov.print/about/offices/list.osers/idea35/history/index.html
EHA. Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975). Elsheikh, A. S., & Alqurashi, A. M. (2013). Disabled future in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 16(1), 68– 71.
Enders, C. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guildford Press. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement:
A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–22. Farley, C., Torres, C., Wailehua, C. T., & Cook, L. (2012). Evidence-based practices for
students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Improving academic achievement. Beyond Bahavior, 21(2), 37–43.
Ferguson, C.F. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 532-538.
Field, A.P. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fisher, M., & Meyer, L. H. (2002). Development and social competence after two years for students enrolled in inclusive and self-contained educational programs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27(3), 165–174. doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.27.3.165
Fowler Jr, F. J. (2013). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of
special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60(4), 294–309.
177
doi.org/10.1177/001440299406000402 Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., Mueller, P. H., Yuan, S., & Ashworth, S. (1991).
Perspectives of parents whose children have dual sensory impairments. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16(1), 14–24. doi.org/10.1177/154079699101600103
Glass, G.V., P.D. Peckham, & Sanders, J.R. (1972). Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Reviews in Educational Research, 42(2), 237-288.
Green, A. L., & Stoneman, Z. (1989). Attitudes of mothers and fathers of nonhandicapped children. Journal of Early Intervention, 13(4), 292-304.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K., & Namey, E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guralnick, M. J. (1994). Mothers’ perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of early childhood mainstreaming. Journal of Early Intervention, 18(2), 168–183. doi.org/10.1177/105381519401800205
Heiman, T. (2004). Teachers coping with changes: Including students with disabilities in mainstream classes: An international view. International Journal of Special Education, 19(2), 91–103.
Henderson, A. (1987). The evidence continues to grow: Parent involvement improves student achievement. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Henley, M., Ramsey, R. S., & Algozzine, R. F. (2002). Characteristics and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hess, R. S., Molina, A. M., & Kozleski, E. B. (2006). Until somebody hears me: Parent voice and advocacy in special educational decision making. British Journal of Special Education, 33(3), 148-157.
Hilbert, D. (2009). Perceptions of parents of preschool children with and without disabilities regarding inclusion (Doctoral dissertation). University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
Huston, J. (2007). Special Education Inclusion. Retrieved April 5, 2018, from http://weac.org/articles/specialedinc/
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. 108-446 U.S.C. (1997). Jackson, L., Ryndak, D. L., & Billingsley, F. (2000). Useful practices in inclusive
education: A preliminary view of what experts in moderate to severe disabilities are saying. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 25(3), 129–141. doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.25.3.129
Katz, J., Mirenda, P., & Auerbach, S. (2002). Instructional strategies and educational outcomes for students with developmental disabilities in inclusive multiple intelligences and typical inclusive classrooms. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27(4), 227–238. doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.27.4.227
Khalil, D., & Karim, M. (2016). Saudi Arabia: School leadership in Saudi Arabia. In a decade of research on school principals (pp. 503–520). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
178
King Salman Center for Disability Research. (2004). Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provision code for persons with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.kscdr.org.sa/en/
Kirk, R.E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(1), 746-759.
Kleinert, H., Towles-Reeves, E., Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., Fluegge, L., Weseman, L., & Kerbel, A. (2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught: Implications for general curriculum access. Exceptional Children, 81(3), 312-328. doi.org/10.1177/0014402914563697
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology methods and techniques (second revised edtion), New Delhi: New Age International.
Kozub, F. M., & Lienert, C. (2003). Attitudes toward teaching children with disabilities: review of literatureand research paradigm. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20(4), 323–346. doi.org/10.1123/apaq.20.4.323
Kratochwill, T. R., Sladeczek, I., & Plunge, M. (1995). The evolution of behavior consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 6(2), 145– 157. doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc0602_4
Lewis, T. J., Chard, D., & Scott, T. M. (1994). Full inclusion and the education of children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 19(4), 277–293. doi.org/10.1177/019874299401900404
Leyser, Y., & Kirk, R. (2004). Evaluating inclusion: An examination of parent views and factors influencing their perspectives. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51(3), 271–285. doi.org/10.1080/1034912042000259233
Leyser, Y., & Kirk, R. (2011). Parents’ perspectives on inclusion and schooling of students with angelman syndrome: Suggestions for educators. International Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 79–91.
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform : Transforming America’s classrooms. Baltimore, Maryland: Brookes Publishing Co.
Maguire, M. & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 9(3), 335- 365.
Martinez, D. C., Conroy, J. W., & Cerreto, M. C. (2012). Parent involvement in the transition process of children with intellectual disabilities: The influence of inclusion on parent desires and expectations for postsecondary education. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(4), 279–288. doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12000
McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? Journal of Special Education, 46(3), 131–140. doi.org/10.1177/0022466910376670
Mcleskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2007). Making differences ordinary in inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(3), 162–168. doi.org/10.1177/10534512070420030501
Mcmaster, C. (2013). Building inclusion from the ground up: A review of whole school re- culturing programmes for sustaining inclusive change. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 9(2), 1–24. doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Meyer, D. Z. & Avery, L. M. (2009). Excel as a qualitative data analysis tool. Field
179
Methods, 21(1), 91-112. Miedel, W. T., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent involvement in early intervention for
disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37(4), 379– 402. doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(99)00023-0
Miller, L. J., Strain, P. S., Boyd, K., Hunsicker, S., Mckinley, J., & Wu, A. (1992). Parental attitudes toward integration. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12(2), 230–246. doi.org/10.1177/027112149201200207
Ministry of Education. (2008). Development of education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, Riyadh: Al-Frazdak Printing Press.
Ministry of Education. (2016). Statistical manual of institutes and special education programs for the academic year 2015/2016. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sa/en/Pages/default.aspx.
Moody, A. (2012). The education for all handicapped children act: A faltering step towards integration: Retrieved from EDU 300: Education Reform, Past and Present: http://commons.trincoll.edu/edreform/2012/05/the-education-for-all-handicapped- children-act-a-faltering-step-towards-integration/
Myers, J., Wang, J., Brownell, M., & Gagnon, C. (2015). Mathematics interventions for students with learning disabilities (LD) in secondary school: A review of the literature. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 13(2), 207–235.
Nietupski, J., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Curtin, S., & Shrikanth, K. (1997). A review of curricular research in severe disabilities from 1976 to 1995 in six selected journals. The Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 36–55. doi.org/10.1177/002246699703100104
Obiakor, F. E., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Algozzine, B. (2012). Making inclusion work in general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(3), 477–490. doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0020
Osgood, R. (2005). The history of inclusion in United States. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press
P. J., Hanson, M. J., & Horn, E. (2002). Family perceptions of inclusion. In S. L. Odom (Ed.), Widening the circle: Including children with disabilities in preschool programs (pp. 98–108). New York, NY: Teachers College Press
Pivik, J., McComas, J., & Laflamme, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education. Exceptional Children, 69(1), 97–107. doi.org/10.1177/001440290206900107
Prescott, P. A., & Soeken, K. L. (1989). The potential uses of pilot work. Nursing Research, 38(1), 60-64. doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198901000-00015
Vizacou, S. (2005). The european early promotion project: Description of the service and evaluation study. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 7(1), 17–31. doi.org/10.1080/14623730.2005.9721947
Quinn, B. S., Behrmann, M., Mastropieri, M., Chung, Y., Bausch, M. E., & Ault, M. J. (2009). Who is using assistive technology in schools?. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(1), 1-13.
Rafferty, Y., Boettcher, C., & Griffin, K. W. (2001). Benefits and risks of reverse inclusion for preschoolers with and without disabilities: Parents’ perspectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 24(4), 266–286.
180
Rafferty, Y., & Griffin, K. W. (2005). Benefits and risks of reverse inclusion for preschoolers with and without disabilities: Perspectives of parents and providers. Journal of Early Intervention, 27(3), 173–192. doi.org/10.1177/105381510502700305
Rana, M.M., Fakrudeen, M., Miraz, M.H. Yousef, S., & Torqi, A.A. (2011). Information and communication technology (ICT) and special education system in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A case study. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 174, 534-538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22095-1_107
RSEPI. Regulations of Special Education Programs and Institutes (2001). Rutherford, A. (2001). Introducing ANOVA and ANCOVA: A GLM approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Press. Ryndak, D. L., & Alper, S. (2003). Curriculum and instruction for students with significant
disabilities in inclusive settings (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon Schmieder, E., Ziegler, M., Danay, E., Beyer, L., & Bühner, M. (2010). Is it really robust?
Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution assumption. European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6(1), 147-151.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and school discipline with family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35(1), 4– 26. doi.org/10.1177/001312402237212
Sitko, M. C., Laine, C. J., & Sitko, C. J. (2005). Writing tools: Technology & strategies for struggling writers. In D. L. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education research and practice (pp. 571- 598). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & Mcculley, L. (2012). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 498–510. doi.org/10.1002/pits.21606
Soodak, L. C.-. (2004). Parents and inclusive schooling: Advocating for and participating in the reform of special education. In S. Danforth & S. D. Taff (Eds.), Crucial readings in special education (pp. 260–273). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearlson Education.
Sosu, E. M., & Rydzewska, E. (2017). “Are all beliefs equal?” investigating the nature and determinants of parental attitudinal beliefs towards educational inclusion. Educational Studies, 43(5), 516–532. doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2017.1312286
Stevens, L., & Wurf, G. (2018). Perceptions of inclusive education: A mixed methods investigation of parental attitudes in three Australian primary schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 1–15. doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1464068
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55.
Theoharis, G., & Causton, J. (2014). Leading inclusive reform for students with disabilities: A school- and systemwide approach. Theory Into Practice, 53(2), 82–97. doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.885808
VanVoorhis, C. W., & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43-50.
Voltz, D. L., Brazil, N., & Ford, A. (2001). What matters most in inclusive education.
181
Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(1), 23–30. doi.org/10.1177/105345120103700105
Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D. L., Lapp-Rincker, G., & Agran, M. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24(5), 262–272.
Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2004). Philosophy and best practices for educating students with severe disabilities. In teaching students with severe disabilities (3rd ed., pp. 30– 58). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: A meta- synthesis. Educational Review, 66(3), 377–397. doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.780009
Winzer, M. A. (2009). From integration to inclusion: A history of special education in the 20th century. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K. A., Cox, A. W., Fettig, A., Kucharczyk, S., Schultz, T. R. (2015). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder: A comprehensive review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(7), 1951–1966. doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2351-z
182
VITA
Bader Muteb Alsulami
Education
• University of Akron, Ohio 2014
• King Abdul-Aziz University, Saudi Arabia 2011
Professional Experience
• Majmaah University, Saudi Arabia 2011
Lecture, instructor
• Saudi Arabia Ministry of education 2010
Special education Teacher
Honors and Awards
• Awarded a Certificate of Academic Excellence from King Abdul-Aziz University
2008
• Awarded a Full Scholarship from Saudi Arabia Government 2011
