1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
The Seventh-day Adventist church emerged out of the strict age of the mid-
nineteenth century (McIver, 2018). At that point in time, individuals from various
denominations were ousted for their newly discovered faith in the predicted imminent
return coming of Jesus Christ to the earth. Be that as it may, Christ did not come as
anticipated, and the individuals who remained together after their ‘great disappointment’
kept on studying the sacred texts together. By 1863, the gathering grasped the conviction
that conventional association was needed (Janković, 2018).
The youth denomination of the movement selected the name Seventh-day
Adventist (used interchangeably with Adventist in this document) in view of the two
unmistakable tenets that were at the center of their conviction. They acknowledged the
strict understanding of the fourth statute of the Decalogue as requiring genuine devotion
to “keep” the seventh day of the week sacred as the Sabbath (Janković, 2018). Secondly,
the selection of their name was linked to the fact that the second advent of Jesus Christ,
which was a central coalescing factor of the early believers of this group. During its early
stages, the church created three significant establishments that denoted its work in the
United States as well as throughout the world as its central goal program progressed. That
2
is, the idea was wherever the Seventh-day Adventist church is present, schools, medical
care establishments, and distribution houses will be established (Fuentes et al., 2017).
Adventist schools were, from the start, minuscule, similar to a large number of the
public schools in the nineteenth century. An instructor and a couple of understudy
meetings, meeting some of the time in the home and at other times in a part of the cellar
of the church, was normal. Today, on a global scale, the Seventh-day Adventist church
has schools in 150 countries with 1.5 million students and staffed by approximately
85,000 teachers (2019-2020 School Year Statistics; North American Division [NAD] of
Seventh-day Adventists Office of Education: education@nadadventist.org). Of the
information also disclosed was that in the NAD, there are 77,315 students in 941 schools,
and in the Atlantic Union (www.atlantic-union.org), which is part of the subset of the
NAD, there are 3,346 students who are being tutored in 78 schools. The study was
conducted in New York City, it is a subset of the Atlantic Union, and has 13 schools in its
Greater New York (www.gnyc.org/) and Northeastern (www.northeastern.org)
Conferences. While the schools are worldwide in scope, they are connected by a common
philosophy, a typical regulatory structure, and a typical legacy. In April of 2001, the
General Conference Department of Education held its first International Conference on
the Seventh-day Adventist Philosophy of Education at Andrews University. The actual
philosophy as developed by participants was as follows:
The Seventh-day Adventist philosophy of education is Christ-centered. Adventists
believe that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, God’s character and purposes
can be understood as revealed in nature, the Bible, and Jesus Christ. The
distinctive characteristics of Adventist education—derived from the Bible and the
writings of Ellen G. White—point to the redemptive aim of true education: to
restore human beings into the image of their Maker.
3
Seventh-day Adventists believe that God is infinitely loving, wise, and powerful.
He relates to human beings on a personal level, presenting His character as the
ultimate norm for human conduct and His grace as the means of restoration.
Adventists recognize that human motives, thinking, and behavior have fallen short
of God’s ideal. Education in its broadest sense is a means of restoring human
beings to their original relationship with God. Working together, homes, schools,
and churches cooperate with divine agencies in preparing learners for responsible
citizenship in this world and in the world to come.
Adventist education imparts more than academic knowledge. It fosters a balanced
development of the whole person—spiritually, intellectually, physically, and
socially. Its time dimensions span eternity. It seeks to develop a life of faith in
God and respect for the dignity of all human beings; to build character akin to that
of the Creator; to nurture thinkers rather than mere reflectors of others’ thoughts;
to promote loving service rather than selfish ambition; to ensure maximum
development of each individual’s potential; to embrace all that is true, good, and
beautiful. (Seventh-day Adventist Church, 2015)
Based on this philosophy, the North American Division of Adventist Office of
Education developed the following Mission and Vision:
MISSION
“To enable learners to develop a life of faith in God, and to use their knowledge,
skills, and understandings to serve God and humanity.”
VISION
“For every learner to excel in faith, learning, and service, blending biblical truth
and academic achievement to honor God and bless others.”
Special Needs and Seventh-day Adventist Schools
The New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is a body that disseminates
information regarding Seventh-day Adventist churches and schools in New York. In
2012, the church expressed its commitment to all students, albeit with no specific
statement that would support the inclusion of students with disabilities, and is yet to
practice inclusion in a meaningful way. However, the public schools have implemented
inclusion mainly because of legal requirements laid down in the Individuals with
4
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990. This law states that all children with special
needs are entitled to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Additionally, the
provisions within the subsequent No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and its
successor; Every Student Succeeds Act of (2015), have positively affected inclusion in
public schools. According to the provisions of these pieces of legislation, all public
schools are legislatively bound to establish learning programs that assist students’
academic progression from early childhood through adulthood, both scholastically and
socially (Broido, 2015). As per statistics obtained from Research Alliance for New York
City Schools (2018), public schools in the New York City area have included over
224,000 students with various forms of disabilities. Figure 1 is a graphical representation
of the percentage of students by disability.
Seventh-day Adventist schools in New York City do not have inclusion programs.
This leaves parents to choose between a NYC Department of Education inclusion
program that meets the students’ academic needs, but neglects their religious education,
or keeping the children in the Adventist school, with supplemental services from the
NYC DOE, which is, in some cases insufficient academic support. These support services
include Special Education Teacher Support Services (SETSS) and related services, which
may be provided during school or after school, in a separate facility. For children who
require a greater level of support, the opportunity of a Christian education becomes
unrealistic, and this is in contradiction to the Seventh-day Adventist philosophy, mission,
and vision cited earlier. David R. Williams (2017) implied that the church’s retention rate
of Seventh-day Adventist youth is low due to the lack of Christian education. Why has
5
Figure 1: Percentage of students by type of disability.
the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist church allowed this practice to prevail? Is it
largely because private schools fall outside of the legal mandate to include students with
special needs in the general education setting or is it due to the availability of funds to
establish and maintain such an educational model?
Farrell (2000) suggests that religious schools are often unprepared to address the
special needs of students that are neurological, psychological, behavioral, or cognitive in
nature. However, meeting these needs is critical given that they provide a stable learning
environment for students (Thomas, 2013). Inclusion in the general learning environment
facilitates this, for it is through increased inclusion that both classes of students are
exposed to educational experiences that give raise the awareness of diversity, with the
likelihood that they will be better able to express themselves and nurture interests in
6
alternative areas in which they can excel in life. Adventist youths in the New York City
area should have the opportunity to interact in a classroom with others who share a
common religious philosophy. Therefore, even though private schools fall outside of
legal mandates, the leadership of Adventist schools within the New York area must be
cognizant of the aforementioned benefits and thus equip their schools to meet the needs
of special students (Kaiser, 2015). As such, they should develop strategic plans of action
to accommodate the increasingly diverse needs of students (Popkewitz, 2012).
Public educational institutions in New York City are totally funded by
governments (both local and federal), as such, funds for the continued operation of these
schools will be more available when compared to private schools. The funding for
Adventist schools is quite a crucial issue. The provision of specially trained teachers,
administrators, and the supply of relevant tools within the inclusive classroom is
extremely costly. Therefore, tuition is high and will continue to rise thus rendering a
Christian education unaffordable to most of the membership. Williams (2017) has argued
that the low socioeconomic status of many Adventists households prohibited access to
Christian education.
In support of this argument, Williams (2017) cited 2008 data for the North
American Division and sought to extend it as a representation of the status of Seventh-
day Adventists worldwide. These data revealed that while the median household income
level in the United States was $50,000, 70% of Adventist households in the North
American Division had incomes below that level. Further, 40% of Adventist households
in the same division had incomes that bordered the poverty line of $22,000. But Williams
7
also recognized that there were many ways to accomplish the mission that is designed to
accomplish God’s work.
Tucker (1993) posited a similar argument earlier when responding to Sutton,
Sutton, and Everett (1993) on this issue. The researchers alluded to the fact that the
paucity of funding accounted for the absence of inclusion in parochial schools. However,
Tucker (1993) was adamant that schools based upon Biblical principles should have no
excuse to shirk their responsibilities to students, including those with special needs; and
suggested that they explore the possibilities of sourcing funds to provide an education for
all. Moreover, Kaiser (2015) indicated that special needs students require tailored,
creative programs that address their specific learning needs within Adventist schools.
Adventist schools were particularly strongly positioned to help these students given their
spiritual commitment to the calling of Jesus to reach all people.
IDEA and its requirements to provide students with special needs with an IEP and
educate students in an inclusive environment do not apply to private schools (IDEA,
2019). Kaiser (2015) pointed to recommendations by the Inclusion Commission that all
teachers begin to receive training and resources to help them effectively teach students
with learning disabilities. This would bring Adventist schools into the legal requirements
placed upon public schools, though researchers warned that educational institutions must
be adequately prepared to better serve a diverse population including students with
disabilities (Popkewitz, 2012). The existing challenge is that there are too few trained
professionals in special education to serve, promote, and provide enrichment for an
increased proportion of students with special needs in all schools including the Adventist
schools (Farrell, 2000; Kaiser, 2015).
8
Law and social change over the last 40 years have brought about a more inclusive
environment in public schools, driven by events such as Brown v. Board of Education
(1954), Title IX, and IDEA (Hume, 2006). Adventist schools, in contrast, have failed to
adequately prepare their staff to meet the needs of such students (Farrell, 2000; Kaiser,
2015). A lack of such training, and a failure to appropriately integrate special needs
students into the educational environment, may inadequately prepare special needs
students for modern challenges. Blyth and Milner (2007) stated that the exclusion of
students with special needs from general education classrooms originated in the British
school system and was later adopted into the American system. NCLB (2001) attempted
to remedy this by integrating the two populations within the public schooling
environment, but the inclusion requirement did not include private schools were not
required to do similar. The Inclusion Commission indicated that Adventist schools
needed to be better prepared to achieve similar results as their public counterparts
(Kaiser, 2015). Fortunately, there are more tools available to support the education of
special needs students than has ever been previously available (Taylor, 2005).
Consequently, it may be possible to better equip Adventist teachers to meet the
challenges of integrating special needs students into the general education environment
that were laid out by Farrell (2000).
Inclusion is a public-school mandate though not a private school one (NCLB,
2001). Rather, private schools can set their own standards, and Kaiser (2015)
recommended that Adventist teachers be better prepared to do so. This study examined
inclusion in special-needs services in New York City’s Adventist institutions (Kaiser,
2015; U.S. Department of Education, 2015). It used a qualitative two-part design, chosen,
9
developed, and successfully utilized in a study as exemplified by Hettiarachchi and Das
(2014). The purpose of this study is to better understand the needs of special needs
advocacy. Botts and Owusu (2013) stated that little attention has been given to special-
needs advocacy. Educational communities perceive and implement inclusion differently
from place to place. However, inclusion is generally considered beneficial for all students
(U.S. Department of Education, 2019).
The Practical Problem
The current problem is that special needs students do not receive adequate
services (Farrell, 2000; Kaiser, 2015). Choi, Johnson, and Kriewitz (2013) stress that
social interaction leads to social acceptance, as barriers of ignorance or unawareness of
their commonalities dissipate, and individuals see each other as equals in a cumulative
fashion and accept diversity. This social interaction is not always available to students
with special needs because there is often a lack of accommodations to enable inclusion
with general education populations as physical, mental, or neurological issues make this
difficult. Thus, there is a need to raise awareness among general education populations of
the accommodation requirements of students with special needs to promote a progressive
social functionality.
Students with special needs are a growing minority in the U.S. The population of
special needs students grew from 1.8% of students in 1977 to 5.7% of students in 2006
and 13.0% of students in 2015 (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). This growing
population has an important influence and presence in education. It remains unclear,
however, why the inclusion of this population in general education classrooms has not
been recognized as a proactive benefit by the stakeholders at New York City Adventist
10
schools or at some other private schools either.
The aim of this study is to examine the services and attitudes of inclusive
practices within Seventh-day Adventist New York City schools. See Figure 2 for the
conceptual framework of this study.
The current philosophy among educators in the United States is to be generally
inclusive for all students, irrespective of demographic or economic status, cognitive
capabilities, or neurological impairments (Broido, 2015). In actual practice, public
schools are required by law to implement special intervention reforms in compliance with
NCLB while private schools are not. Private schools, including religious schools, are not
obligated to comply with NCLB (2001). Private schools can establish their own standards
for meeting special needs (NCLB, 2001). As such, there is no universal approach they are
required to follow to improve the academic outcomes of special needs students. A
multifaceted approach, with stipulations for ways in which No Child Left Behind is
adapted to the classroom, is necessary for the instruction of students with diverse
backgrounds and needs (Kaiser, 2015).
Research Questions
1. What are the perceptions of parents of children with special needs concerning
inclusion in Seventh-day Adventist schools in New York City? If this is not happening
how can you measure this?
2. What are the perceptions of parents of children in general education
concerning inclusion in Seventh-day Adventist schools in New York City?
3. What are the perceptions of teachers concerning training for inclusion in
11
Figure 2. Conceptual framework for the current study.
Seventh-day Adventist schools in New York City?
12
4. What are the perceptions of administrators concerning training for inclusion in
Seventh-day Adventist schools in New York City?
Research Design and Methodology
The research methodology employed in this study is a two-part design in a
qualitative research format that examines the inclusion of Special Education Services in
Seventh-day Adventist schools in New York City as an exploratory study. The study is
generalized regarding the template and processes, which can be reproduced and either
extended or altered for related or unrelated studies concerning inclusion. However,
consistent with a qualitative study design, the validity of the findings are limited to the
groups or individuals involved in the study and therefore not generalizable; but the results
may be transferable to a different setting (Anderson, 2010). The validity of the opinions
of these groups lies in their direct interest and connection to students regardless of
whether or not they have special needs. Both aspects are self-evident. Focus groups will
be used because they lead to better and more concise interviews than strictly individual
interviews. More importantly for this study, the results are enhanced by using two or
more different qualitative methods (i.e., triangulation) to study the same phenomenon
(Anderson, 2010). Two Greater New York (GNY) and two Northeastern Conference
(NEC) schools were used in this research project. Parents with children in special
education and without children in special education were invited to participate in the
study. Individuals were contacted after the initial invitation to increase the likelihood of
participation. The focus groups offered a sense of symposium and collective thinking that
reflects the perspectives of a spectrum of stakeholders.
13
The first part of the two-part design was conducted in a focus-group setting in
which questions were asked of a composite group of 6 parents, 6 teachers, and 6
administrators of New York City Adventist schools. I then compared the similarities of
responses from all the stakeholders (parents, administrators, and teachers) with each other
in the category and to all responses. From this comparison I developed a consensus
perspective of the different stakeholders for subsequent comparison of their group
perspectives and opinions on the development of special-needs inclusion in New York
City Adventist schools (Hettiarachchi & Das, 2014).
Study participants were Seventh-day Adventist parents, teachers, and
administrators who were involved (at the time of the query) with Adventist schools from
the Northeastern and Greater New York Conferences, which are part of the Atlantic
Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Officially, there are 60,000 members in the
North Eastern Conference of Seventh-day Adventist; 31,000 in the Greater New York
City Conference; and 120,000 in the Atlantic Union Conference. Focus group sessions
took place in a room at each of the Adventist schools in New York City. In addition to
the focus group, individual interviews were conducted. These individual interviews and
focus groups were confidential with respect to participants, and all identifying
information was excluded from the results.
According to Lester (1999), qualitative research efforts, primarily interviews and
focus groups, are particularly effective because they provide key insights and evidence
that establish significant paradigms specific to the stakeholders' common experiences,
challenges, needs, and aspirations. Lester further states that innovative interpretation can
be effective in formulating the best means of addressing a thesis in as much as the
14
foundation of the ideology remains genuine and transparent to the participants and other
stakeholders. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the opinions of parents,
teachers, and administrators within New York City SDA schools regarding inclusion
practices. This study will also add to the empirical literature regarding special-needs
students' inclusion in New York City Adventist schools. The two-part design efficiently
addresses the depth of inquiry required for generating results that may serve as the
foundation for further related studies (Lester, 1999).
Significance of the Study
This study examined the perceptions of SDA teachers, parents, and administrators
in New York City regarding the inclusion of special needs students in general education
classrooms. The project included parents of special needs students and parents of general
education students. The findings from both groups were compared to deepen the
understanding of the results of the study. Discovering the perspectives of parents will
help to determine if inclusion practices would be welcomed into New York City SDA
schools. Also, as previously discussed, there is a paucity of empirical literature regarding
inclusion programs in New York City SDA schools. This research will add to the
information available about this topic.
Data gathered from this study could eventually be useful in the development of
inclusion programs and policies for Seventh-day Adventist schools in the Northeastern,
Greater New York, and Atlantic Union Conferences. Creating a collaborative, composite
plan of action to supplement the inclusion program of the New York City Adventist
schools may also serve as a template for bringing special-needs and general education
students together not based on legal compliance but on a more fulfilling and beneficial
15
relationship between students of all classifications and their parents. The documentation
of adults' and students' perspectives may facilitate a consensus that enriches the
educational experience of all children (Popkewitz, 2012).
Obstacles and Limitations
The significant obstacles that this study needed to overcome included an
abbreviated timetable to gather data from a substantial portion of the target population to
obtain the best set of objective information. It had been anticipated that further study
would be needed to enhance the amount of literature and studies regarding special needs
inclusion in parochial schools such as New York City’s Adventist Schools.
The perspectives revealed in this study will help enable educators, government
officials, parents, and students to better understand and be aware of the requirements of
all stakeholders if inclusion is implemented in the Adventist schools of New York City.
The expansion of the literature and additional information should lead to improved
leadership capacity and unity among stakeholders, as they see their concerns and values
represented in revised policies concerning special education in New York City Adventist
schools.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions of terms apply as they are utilized in this study:
ADD—Attention Deficit Disorder—a mental health disorder identified in the
DSM-IV diagnosed by a child’s behavior. This is the most commonly-diagnosed mental
health disorder in children.
ADHD—Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder—ADD diagnosed with a
hyperactivity factor included in the diagnosis.
16
Adventist schools—Seventh-day Adventist schools (Kaiser, 2015).
Disabilities—physical, neurological, mental/cognitive, psychological, or
emotionally-challenged classifications in which individuals must receive assistance to
maintain a standard function and resources to maintain a productive and fulfilled life
equal to individuals who do not have documented or observable limitations of function
(IDEA, 2004).
IDEA—The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004—ensures that all
students with disabilities equal opportunity to receive benefit from, and proceed into a
profession based on quality, standard education that addresses cognitive and neurological
or behavioral needs that without consideration undermine the merit and progression of
such individuals throughout their educational experience (IDEA, 2004).
Inclusion—the process by which students with special needs are not just
integrated into general education classrooms, but fully included with accommodations
within the general education curriculum and classes among students with no special
needs.
Parochial schools—private, religious-founded schools such as Catholic, Yeshiva,
Sikh, or Muslim-based schools.
Private schools—any school not supported financially via the public sector
(government).
Special Education—educational programs designed to serve students with
disabilities that are deemed adverse in the pursuit or performance to merit standards
established in general education (IDEA, 2004).
17
Special Needs—any neurological/physical, mental/cognitive, or
psychological/emotional challenge that is recognized as a disability by the federal and/or
state department of education (IDEA, 2004).
Stakeholders—individuals with a vested interest and expectation of the function,
structure, and outcome of a process, institution, company, or movement. Teachers,
administrators (principal, assistant principal, or another school administrator), parents,
and students are stakeholders within a school.
18
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Some concerns exist regarding inclusive special education, which focuses on
access to all educational programs for special needs students, but that has only existed
since 1975 (Esteves & Rao, 2008). In the ensuing years, the practice of inclusion in
public schools in America has been discussed at length in both scholarly and popular
literature, and the positive results of scholarly studies and teaching philosophies have led
to legislation such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA).
The IDEA stipulates that special needs students must be educated in the least restrictive
environment (LRE) possible (Frankenberg, 2011). However, patriarchal schools are not
required to abide by these laws and determine their special education practices by
organization or school. This means that various patriarchal schools, including Seventh-
day Adventist Schools in New York City, have varying policies on special education;
some have adopted inclusion practices, and some have not.
The literature review will establish a framework for understanding the research
questions outlined earlier:
1. What are the perceptions of parents of children with special needs concerning
inclusion in Seventh-day Adventist schools in New York City?
2. What are the perceptions of parents of children in general education
19
concerning inclusion in Seventh-day Adventist schools in New York City?
3. What are the perceptions of teachers concerning training for inclusion in
Seventh-day Adventist schools in New York City?
4. What are the perceptions of administrators concerning training for inclusion in
Seventh-day Adventist schools in New York City?
However, given the limited amount of literature available specifically about the
specialized topic of the practice of inclusion of special needs students within Seventh-day
Adventist Schools in New York City, articles about special needs inclusion in schools as
a whole were also included.
Research databases Elsevier and ERIC were utilized to identify articles for this
literature review. The search terms included Seventh-day Adventist schools, special
education, special education in Seventh-day Adventist schools, special education policies,
and special education legislation. A total of 65 studies concerning inclusion in
parochial/private schools were identified to apply to this research and used in the
literature compilation and analysis. The articles selected were sorted according to their
methodology, and their perspectives: support and opposition of the practice of inclusion
of special-needs students in general education classrooms. The articles were reviewed for
applicability; for example, articles such as Hettiarachchi and Das (2014) and Botts and
Owusu (2014) were cited multiple times by other scholars and contained methodologies
enabling the study to be replicated, that allows for plausible transferability.
History of Special Education
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was the primary starting point where equal
education had been reconsidered since Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). That ruling stated in all
20
aspects of public life that ‘separate but equal’ was an efficient system and ethical to
meeting the needs of a diverse group of people and supported the separating of races.
However, segregation was abolished with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1975, the
Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) was established, which later evolved into
the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990. IDEA has been revised
and currently stands as the IDEA of 2004 with improvements made as recently as 2006,
with further legislation advocacy possible as an increasing number of students with
special needs enter general education schooling (Frankenberg, 2012). IDEA states that all
disabled children are entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), and Part
B stipulates that students must be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE)
possible. That is,
students with disabilities receive their education, to the maximum extent
appropriate, with nondisabled peers and that special education students are not
removed from regular classes unless, even with supplemental aids and services,
education in regular classes cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (Part B, IDEA)
It is this requirement that is the main direction for inclusion in all U.S. public schools.
Cook, Landrum, and Tankersley (2014) defined inclusion to incorporate all
students, no matter their disability or special needs, along with addressing their specific
needs per autonomous group of students with their influence in mind. Mainstreaming is
considered a form of inclusion that does not overtly recognize any difference among
diverse classifications of students yet addresses accommodations necessary for all
students to receive educational and social needs met by a standard curriculum, according
to law. Current federal legislation holds schools accountable for ensuring that all
students, including those with disabilities, make adequate yearly progress on academic
achievement measures, while also including students with disabilities in general
21
education settings whenever possible. Schools are then expected to be both excellent and
equitable in addressing the needs of all students. Evidence has revealed that only a
limited number of schools have been successful in meeting these sometimes-competing
demands for excellence and equity (Cologon, 2014). This investigation addressed these
issues by conducting a case study of highly effective, inclusive elementary schools. The
results revealed several key practices that were important contributors to meeting the
needs of all students in these schools, including regular student assessments, consistent
communication with all stakeholders, and shared lesson planning (McLeskey, Waldron,
& Redd, 2014).
Parents
In theory, parents of students would send their children with special needs to
schools that provide the necessary services, with the choice of schools facilitating the
ability for parents to choose a school that is appropriate for their child. However, this
may not be the case in actual practice. Andersen’s (2008) work drew attention to the fact
that in the United States, there is an erroneous rationale that the charter system will force
schools to improve services for students with special needs. The rationale is that
“institutional arrangements regarding the supply side, school choice theory also rests on
the sometimes more implicit demand-side assumption that either all or the most informed
parents choose schools on educationally sound dimensions” (p. 45). In other words, the
more quality the services that private or charter schools provide for children, the more
often they will be chosen by parents for their children with special needs. This may be a
formula for success in the commercial or private sector, but the same rules do not apply
22
in the service-based private sector such as schools. Regarding this shift in special
education,
We can open to our customers—the people we are serving—and make them a part
of our operation. And we must provide choice to people we are serving. The great
enterprises of the world are providing lots of choices. They are customizing
services. We in education are in the same competitive world. . . . Choice makes
public schools recognize that students will not have to stay if the school is not
meeting their needs. It is the jolt that some schools need to put them on the path to
improvement. (Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2009, p. 206)
Anastasiou and Kauffman (2009) noted that this manner of strategic planning in
accordance with embracing, encouraging, and enabling students with special needs does
not always come to fruition, specifically among private schools. They observed that the
needs of children and the wants of parents may be two different things. Parents often
choose schools that cater to their children’s needs but will take a greater interest in
institutions that feature facilities that specifically accommodate their children in the most
dynamic fashion. Yet, in even more cases, the marketing of services often becomes a
point of interest, even when actual services for such students are not adequately provided.
Therefore, more private schools are ill-equipped but provide enough marketing to attract
parents. This may indicate that more schools are special needs-proficient; but due to a
lack of organizational structure and endeavors rooted in marketing, fail to be known and
thus interact with students and the parents that need them.
Parents Without Children with Special Needs
For over a decade, the response-to-intervention (RTI) policy initiative has been
embraced and supported not only in legislation but as a form of educational social
activism among numerous individuals, educators, and throughout all three levels of
government (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010). RTI is a primary methodology in education
that utilizes interventions rooted in proactive assistance for children who have academic
23
difficulties. Their difficulties are recognized, diagnosed, and then addressed through
classifying the student with learning disabilities, special needs, or as a general education
student with tolerable comprehension and/or performance issues. The point of RTI is
never a means for negative classification, but a method by which to mitigate failure that
some students may encounter if they were not recognized as developmentally challenged
in general education programs. RTI is the basis for future frequent progress assessments.
If difficulties continue with little change and become more complex, the RTI intensifies
to make a beneficial impact to assist the child.
RTI may have several different manifestations, which lead to issues of criticizing
the structure and impact of such interventions and their effectiveness in bettering the
social and academic lives of developmentally challenged children and youth. Fuchs et al.
(2010) argue that those who are advocates or opponents of RTI’s effectiveness truly have
a significant, steadfast plan to educate students with severe cognitive and/or physical
needs. Therefore, there is a need for significant revision based on input by all
stakeholders involved in RTIs and how they are applied in the overall course of edifying
children with special needs, whether they have mild, moderate, or severe developmental
issues.
Many educational programs have yet to fully foster culturally and linguistically
responsive pedagogy (CLRP). The content analysis provided a means of scaling and
analyzing the extent to which schools implement planning to serve inclusion and how
many times the law is represented, but the socialization of students in general and special
education can often be antagonistic. For example, the related stakeholders, such as
general education teachers and administrators, may place students with special needs and
24
their families on the defensive. Educators and administrators need to better understand
the range of stakeholders they have to improve education for all students. The use of an
instrumental case study methodology, implemented within supervisor-student teacher
dyads, yielded applicable information concerning themes concerning CLRP and its use in
inclusion (Hassaram, 2013).
Within a study conducted by Leysera and Kirk (2007), 437 parents discussed their
opinions and attitudes toward inclusion. The participants all lived within the Midwest and
were raising children with mild, moderate, or severe disabilities. They provided their
insights on inclusion via the Opinions Related to Inclusion (ORM) Scale along with
ethnographical responses. Parents gave insights into inclusion as a system that was
proactive in the lives of their children’s academic and overall development. The parents
also sought to extend and expand both the ideological and legislative applications of
greater aspirations of inclusion in schools.
Many parents noted that they were in favor of their special needs children being
educated in an inclusive environment, but that they were fearful for their children because
of potential backlash and bias among both students and teachers concerning their children
because they were classified as special needs. Many parents also feared that their children
would be socially excluded and educationally patronized versus being fully integrated
into the full scholastic and social experience of school (Leysera & Kirk, 2007).
Many of the most proactive attitudes in support of inclusion were among parents
with students that were Pre-K, with mild disabilities versus severe disabilities at ages that
demand more independence, functionality, and socialization rooted in conformity. There
was another proactive supportive group of parents that did not fully know their child’s
25
educational placement at the time of the study; the children had yet to be in school but
had developmental issues. All of the parents who strongly supported the inclusion
process were college educated (Leysera & Kirk, 2007).
Another parental concern that was evident from the responses was the perception
that others have of their children, specifically the teachers, counselors, and administrators
within the school (Leysera & Kirk, 2007). Due to possible prejudice by instructors, the
quality of instructor often can be far below standard because instructors feel either
students with special needs are not capable of learning equal to general education
students or such students are a poor investment of time that could be spent instructing
general education students (Ross-Hill, 2009). Not only does this undermine legislation to
enforce inclusion, but pedagogically, it completely negates the academic sovereignty of
the Individual Educational Program (IEP). In addition to conscious forms of bias against
students with special needs, parents often are concerned about indirect issues such as
instructor ignorance or lack of training when it comes to instructing students with special
needs. Most general education teachers have little to no experience with such students
and even though students can prosper by being treated simply as a normal student, even if
the student has cognitive and/or motor-related issues (Leysera & Kirk, 2007).
Special Needs Students and Bullying
One major concern for parents with children who have special needs is the
potential of their children to be bullied when integrating populations through inclusion.
Rose (2011) indicated that bullying plagues all students, no matter their classification, in
any grade. However, there is a certain impact that takes place on the psyche beyond
physical abuse that is adverse to the overall development of children with special needs
26
psychologically, socially, and cognitively when bullied by general education students.
Children have felt isolated and disenfranchised due to the marginalization of special
needs individuals throughout history; schools are no different (Rose, 2011).
Often, there are instances where both parties have provoked each other
intentionally or indirectly; however, the individual who seems to be the less aggressive,
or the one who loses in the conflict, is deemed the victim. This demands more of
administrators and teachers to differentiate the roles of individuals involved in conflicts,
separating the faults or infringements between them. Sometimes, a special needs student
can be seen as the initiator of a conflict because he may violate another student’s personal
space through touch, behave impulsively, or use inappropriate language that places
another student on the defensive. Other times, students with special needs are keeping to
themselves, respectful, and maintaining a sense of civility with fellow students, teachers,
counselors, and administrators when they are targeted by general education students and
treated as “second-class citizens” (Rose, 2011).
Bullying has been an issue that has been avoided as far as a deeper focus on
mitigating it between students of different pedagogical classifications. Thus, there is a
justification for separating students, even though such practices are counterproductive
and, in many ways lead to further marginalization of the special needs population by
reinforcing social stratification in schools. Bullying has been proven to take place more
between general education students and students with special needs, with the latter being
the victim (Rose, 2011). This fact has brought several concerns to light when considering
the functionality of integrating such students and the causality of negative outcomes of
this union. Rose stated that greater studies into the means to mitigate bullying (i.e.,
27
appropriate school-based interventions for special needs population) are required, as are
efforts to continue integration through inclusion.
Carran and Kellner (2009) noted that social integration is an important point of
the educational experience for children with special needs, and the opportunity to interact
socially with others must be equal to the experience of general education students. Via
inclusion, students with special needs are more likely to overcome key challenges in life.
Inclusion generates areas of learning that are not through direct instruction, but rather
from the sharing of ideas and capabilities among a diverse group of students.
Carran and Kellner (2009) also assessed the impact of bullying and victimization
on children with special needs in a private school environment. The researchers
discovered numerous reports of bullying against these children, whose disabilities ranged
from neurological and physical disabilities; to psychological and behavioral disabilities;
to mental and cognitive disabilities. Within Carran and Kellner’s study, 40% of the
students surveyed recalled that they underwent perpetual bullying. Girls were much more
likely to be bullied than boys within the school environment. Even though many private
schools pride themselves on maintaining a high moral code, students with special needs
in private schools are more likely to suffer from negative social incidents that exacerbate
overcoming challenges, dampen self-perception (self-concept, self-worth, and self-
esteem), and work counterproductively in cognitive and social development than within
public schools. Due to the expectations of parents, which are reflected in their financial
investment, there is a greater impact felt on the part of students with special needs who in
some ways may feel that not only are the administration, teachers, and students are
against them, but they have somehow fallen beneath their parents’ expectations for them
28
to achieve. However, if parents are displeased, they may doubt the administrative
efficacy in managing such behavioral conflicts involving the victimization of their
children.
Teachers’ Opinions on Inclusion
Among teachers, there are many varying viewpoints of inclusion, both supportive
and unsupportive. Ross-Hill (2009) stated that getting teachers to better understand the
benefits of inclusion will generate cohesion. If all teachers supported inclusion, the
transition and experience for students would be far more productive, resulting in
improvement in inclusion programs. With support from teachers, inclusion processes
could provide a positive educational and social environment where students with special
needs adhere to general education classroom behavior and performance standards. They
also are assisted in a respectful and open-minded fashion when interacting with general
education students, teachers, administrations, and others they encounter in school.
Ross-Hill (2009) investigated the difference in teacher attitudes toward inclusion
between special education and general education teachers at both the elementary and
secondary levels using the Scale of Teachers' Attitudes towards Inclusive Classrooms
(STATIC). The participants consisted of 73 teachers from both levels of public
elementary and secondary schools located in rural southeastern areas of the United States.
The participants completed the STATIC. Ross-Hill stated that most teachers in the study
advocated for the concept and action of inclusion within general education classrooms;
however, there was a significant percentage that remained neutral in the matter, leaving
the final results mixed.
29
In another survey of teachers, researchers Hornea and Timmonsa (2009) asked
twenty participants to provide their insights concerning the impact of inclusion in a 62-
item written survey. The survey addressed several ideologies, methodologies, drives, and
questions about the most efficient means by which to embrace inclusion proactively. The
study found that most teachers had several concerns about leading an inclusive
classroom. They were concerned about time management, planning, satisfying student
academic and social needs, and addressing the extent of diversity in the classroom
efficaciously. A greater variety of skill levels could prompt additional effort and planning
on the part of teachers. Rose and Forlin (2010) stated that inclusion required a revision of
the modus operandi under which schools are managed and the addiction of more teachers
or paraprofessionals: “[the] additional pressures of working in inclusive classrooms
where student diversity requires more detailed planning and differentiation on the part of
teachers has led to an increased demand for an increase in classroom support” (p. 310).
Adding support by those who have both pragmatic and innovative experience in the
needed field could help to make the transition to inclusion smooth, feasible, and efficient.
Administrators’ Opinions on Inclusion
Administrator attitudes have political, moral, and social motivations that usually
reflect the attitudes of the overall community. However, as the populations of numerous
districts change as well as the demographics per student classification, administrators
have met appeals for greater amounts of inclusion by advocates, parents, and students
themselves (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010).
Trainor (2010) stated that many administrators have had a marginal, if not
negative view, of inclusion based on what they perceive as not enough parental
30
involvement and/or parental knowledge. Parental involvement in education begins with
communication with, and consideration by, both parents and educators for each other’s
concerns for special needs students. In many cases, parental affluence affords them
access to more time and money to be involved directly with the direction in which
education and related planning go into shaping their child’s education. However,
affluence should not determine this factor, and administrators must seek new means by
which to encourage parents to be more active with the resources they do have.
Administrators and parents also need to consider other means of raising funds and
making time to volunteer as more active members of their child’s performance in school,
no matter their religious status. However, it is the job of administrators and teachers to
inform parents of the numerous school events and networks available to them.
Voltz and Collins (2010) found that school administrators should consider their
roles in leading schools toward accessible, deep-rooted inclusion, along with
incorporating policies that explain the diversity of cultures within schools. This system’s
challenge is costly and time-consuming, but the problems that have arisen from lackluster
attitudes concerning educational improvement have resulted in numerous failures. New
skills and responsibilities are required among all employees. Voltz and Collins concluded
that regardless of personal feelings on the part of an administrator, they needed to address
all the needs of both students and teachers by conceptualizing their respective schools as
an integrated community versus a congregation of communities.
According to Friend et al. (2010), students with special needs need several
prerequisites to most efficiently serve their cognitive and social needs. Therefore,
inclusion is still relatively new due to the concerns of not only parents of students with
31
special needs, or teachers that would consider classroom management and the behaviors
of certain students creating an adverse learning atmosphere for both general education
students and children with special needs, but administrators that would look at inclusion
as unnecessary. Some administrators see inclusion as disruptive, or simply put a point of
generating conflicts that could lead to legal challenges if children with special needs were
violated verbally or assaulted in some manner or form by other students or employees
unfamiliar with how to most efficiently handle and assist such students. However,
advocacy has grown for inclusion and inclusion for years and has not slowed. Hence,
administrators must proactively embrace, prepare, and support the continued progression
of such integration efforts in public and private education.
Co-teaching as a Solution
According to Friend et al. (2010), co-teaching can be explored by administrators
as a possible solution to the excess workload created by inclusion. However, even though
idealistically, co-teaching is a panacea for inclusion advocates, actual implementation
demands significant improvement to establish a certain fluidity in both classifications of
education in which students with special needs must travel. There must be more
accountability on the part of students with special needs and their performance and
behavior to be fully integrated, yet general education teachers must be aware and
pedagogically respectful of the challenges that often make such students feel or act out of
place in a general education classroom. Yet, most students with special needs who are
cognitively and socially mature possess the dynamics to successfully thrive from co-
teaching and other inclusive experiences.
Friend et al. (2010) also state that when an administration views synergy between
32
special education and general education, they will be more likely to embrace the idea of
co-teaching with more thorough consideration. Co-teaching cannot be just a system of
reaching benchmarks. Co-teachers need to influence students as a part of the class in a
helpful and proactive fashion. This focus will generate better outcomes and success in
students’ merit and sociability, enabling them to be more equipped and prepared to deal
with adult life.
However, there is a need for greater streamlining and standards based on defining,
planning, and implementing teaching, disciplinary, and socially enriching strategies in
conjunction with greater training for general education teachers who need to know how
to teach students with special needs. The burden of educating students of any
classification must be a concerted endeavor of all teachers and administrators. Thus, if
administrators do not have supportive attitudes or seek to better understand how to assist
a population, education for all students will suffer. Reform and greater interaction can
lead to necessary improvements.
A multi-demographic cross-sectional study by Trainor (2010) used five focus
groups for 27 ethnographic interviews to determine the factors that led to active parental
support of inclusion programs within public schools. The interview results were coded
based on similarities that served as standards within the responses provided. The results
established variations in parental involvement based on accessibility to time and/or
finances. The researchers found that access to capital correlates with a greater amount of
time spent supporting inclusion in schools. Families who struggle financially are typically
less actively involved in the school. This phenomenon was both socioeconomic and
racial/ethnic in form. Advocacy was primarily linked to affluence based on the means to
33
influence individual student change and influence for a general system change. Better
quality schooling, which would include a more interactive and conducive special
education program, would be provided for a child if the child’s parents were affluent.
Therefore, administrators must seek to look at resources to better support and establish
parental-sought changes in schools and their children even if they are socioeconomically
challenged.
Inclusion Implementation in Private Schools
In general, the goal of all schools is to provide education that serves to establish
the proficiency needed for its students to excel as they proceed into adulthood. However,
the current evidence suggested that private schools struggle to create an environment in
which special needs students could excel, which had potential implications for Seventh-
day Adventist schools, given their private school nature. Taylor (2005), Carran and
Kellner (2009), Rose and Forlin (2010) all addressed the fact that private schools
continue to face significant challenges in developing and implementing a proficient
educational program that is inclusive of special needs within academic and social
domains. The lack of a proper facility to support and enrich services along with staff and
administration ill-equipped to cater to students with special needs further undermines
progression towards a greater sense of integration and inclusion for the growing number
of special needs students. Also, there is a need for greater means to stop bullying and
ensure safety and security for students with special needs (Swearer et al. 2012). If private
schools fail to significantly recognize and address the needs of students with special
needs through significant educational programs, and facilitate social interaction and
development with general education students, students with special needs and their
34
families will leave, tuitions will be adversely affected, and the fruits of equality that make
all students more agreeable and collaborative members of the community will undergo
high levels of entropy and social underdevelopment.
Inclusion in Schools: Philosophical Practices and Research
When considering the benefit to students with special needs and general education
students, the importance of inclusion is evident to benefit all parties involved. Inclusive
education benefits special needs students by allowing them the same access to
opportunities as general education students, and it benefits general education students by
promoting diversity. Stakeholders in ensuring that inclusion is practiced in all schools,
not just public schools, include the students, teachers, counselors, IEP teams,
administrators, parents, and the community at large (Banks & McGhee Banks, 2019).
Special education is beneficial to all stakeholders involved; however, there has
been somewhat of a backlash in many school systems, specifically private schools, to
embrace and include students with disabilities to the fullest (Brantlinger, 2006). What is
needed in the advocacy of students with special needs is being further integrated into
school systems beyond basic legal compliance through inclusion and general education
programs. Also needed is for students not to feel that there is somehow the proverbial
‘other’ classification of students, but rather students who learn differently or have a
different means to address, develop, and establish the skills needed to make a proactive
transition from youths to adults in formal education.
Mainstreaming vs. Inclusion
Pedagogically speaking, mainstreaming is different from full inclusion, and is
35
only a matter of taking children with special needs from a special education class and
placing them for a few hours (one or two classes on average) among their general
education student contemporaries. This has been an accepted form of integration among
many educational strategists, legislators, and activists. However, many activists that
advocate for children with special needs and their families are pushing beyond
mainstreaming and seeking more opportunities for full inclusion. Inclusion is far different
from mainstreaming in that the student is completely involved in the general courses as a
student with special needs, and no longer is in separate special education classes. Instead,
accommodations are made for the child based on his IEP (individualized education plan).
As long as a child has basic motor skills, communication skills, social skills, and
cognitive abilities to complete tasks, inclusion utilizing a small team of professional
advisors, coaches, and counselors can help students be successful in a general education
classroom following the curriculum and standards of the school district and his IEP goals
(Broido, 2015).
Private Schools on Special Education
The previous section discussed general research on practices on special education
inclusion in most public schools. This next section now examines inclusion issues in
private education, more specifically in Seventh-day Adventist schools. In 1989, the
bicentennial Private School Universe Survey (PSS) for the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) was completed and assessed by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The
nationwide survey included private schools that are not publicly funded. Home schooling
institutions were not represented in the data. With consideration of diverse factors such as
school size, school level, religious orientation, association membership, geographic
36
region, community type, and program emphasis, the 2007-08 PSS data were collected
between October 2007 and May 2008.
The survey revealed that actual inclusion is marginal in its progress. There was
only an increase of .05% of inclusion taking place between the school years of 2006-07 to
2007-08. Inclusion needs to be less sporadically growing in numerous areas and practiced
more effectively and frequently at national levels. This survey reveals how inclusion
remains in many minds as more of an individual school district issue than an issue of
national education (Broughman, Swaim, & Keaton, 2009).
In the early years of the U.S., religious education was funded partially through
government means. In 1874, Senator James G. Blaine of Maine established legislation
that undermined government financial support of sectarian schools in 39 states at the
time. This lasted until the 1960s but was challenged with additional legislation (Wolf,
Komer, & McShane, 2012). By that time, legislation undermined the refusal of
government funds in some fashion to parochial schools and other private schools.
However, it seems that this is obvious with public funds being available for public
schools versus private schools. Yet, such schools could opt for support following
different legislation. Originally, Protestant ideologies shaped public schools versus
Catholic schools. Catholic schools were the target of Blaine’s anti-sectarian support. He
sought to support Protestant education with an agenda to deny Catholic institutions
support. In many respects, this challenge for funding was experienced by Black schools,
schools for women versus children, and special education facilities versus general
education institutions. The Blaine Amendments are still in use in 25 states. This affects
the choice to opt for privately administered scholarship program-funded through tax
37
credit incentives versus government-managed voucher programs. Conservative states
allow Blaine amendments to be used that essentially impede greater inclusion, whereas
liberal states establish that they believe Blaine Amendments undermine equal education
through inclusion for students with special needs (Wolf et al., 2012). The Blaine
Amendments for the most part can be undermined, but it is a matter of politics that have
determined their implementation in disrupting greater inclusion efforts in 25 states.
Stark (2011) asked the question of whether inclusion really is proactive for all
parties involved in a multicultural society. Although Stark stated this in a hypothetical
fashion, the consideration is concrete. Many people still question if diverse groups of
people, whether they have racial, gender, religious, or ability differences, should be
integrated. However, the consideration of ethnic minorities, and the supposed majority,
being separated undermines the concept of democracy and equality in modern society.
Being a minority still holds a certain power because when society is seen as monolithic, it
can easily crumble and collapse. This is evident even in education. General education
students must conform to certain cognitive abilities, physical performance, and even
basic behaviors. Stark also addressed the fact that the majority can proactively influence
the success of the minority based on the number of resources and networks the main
society can provide smaller groups. Yet this is only half of the story. As perceived
throughout history, minorities in many systems have excelled and shaped societies to
where the majority benefitted.
The Allies for Inclusion: Disability and Equity in Higher Education, part of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) Higher Education Report Series,
were designed to promote greater levels of inclusiveness concerning students with special
38
needs. The accounts of actual students, and the means of establishing greater inclusion
among teachers and administrators, provided insights into more conducive and creative
means to develop curriculums that bring student populations of different classifications
together (Broido, 2015).
Inclusion in Seventh-day Adventist Schools
Adventist schools have not historically fully integrated special needs students into
their classrooms (Hale, 2009). They have typically not been required to do so by the law
(NCLB, 2001). Hale (2009) conducted a qualitative study that addressed the impact of
the full inclusion of students with learning disabilities in Seventh-day Adventist schools.
This study did not include other students with special needs such as the neurological,
cognitive, or developmental challenges associated with special needs. Fifteen elementary
Adventist schoolteachers of the Western conference served as the respondents. The
results of the interviews indicated that despite the Adventist educational policy omitting
any supportive efforts to embrace full inclusion of learning disabled (LD) students, the
students are present and thus expected in practice if not recognized proactively by law.
Hale provided a means to approach the issue through strategies that have been used that
are effective in inclusive education, as well as means to improve the experience of
inclusive education for all stakeholders involved (e.g. teachers, students, parents,
administrators, and counselors).
Adversity to Inclusion
Schools continue to lack effectiveness in implementing IEP. Multiple studies
suggested that when schools attempted to implement these programs, they were not as
effective as they could be (Carran & Kellner, 2009; Rose & Forlin, 2010; Taylor, 2005).
39
Multiple perspectives have been presented regarding the importance of inclusion, though
not all have always favored inclusion. Polat (2011) noted that the potential adverse
impact on general education students that may occur as teachers split time trying to
integrate a class may negatively impact general education learners. From a social justice
perspective, this could constitute an infringement on the right to education for general
education students. As such, some arguments against inclusion arose from a demand for a
just education. However, such arguments did not take into account the similar position of
special needs students whose best interests may only be met in an inclusive classroom.
There was an ongoing need to continue addressing the students with special needs
in a comprehensive way that addressed their various educational and social requirements.
Taita (2012) stated that there is an overall imperative for schools throughout the world to
provide quality education for students who are disadvantaged, displaced, or historically
disenfranchised. Aligning child-centered education and child development with the
flexibility to address the concerns of all stakeholders involved will allow for unified
success (Charlesworth, 2011). According to Buchner et al. (2014), parents of students
with disabilities often feel their children have been placed in hostile learning
environments in schools, and that schools need to generate more conducive learning and
social environments for all students.
According to Pillay, Dunbar-Krige, and Mostert (2013), a student’s Behavioral,
Emotional, and Social Difficulties (BESD) can be impeding his inclusive education.
Though IEPs and referrals have yielded means for general education candidacy rising
among this population in general education as a point of true inclusion. An interpretivist-
constructivist paradigm was followed as a basis to establish what would be a functional
40
template in reintroducing BESD students into general education classrooms and the
social culture. Parents and teachers provided additional data, reflecting that children
responded to activities and behaviors that were not only rewarding or agreeable, but
allowed for intervention to be applied in a more individualistic fashion.
Adversity towards inclusion remains somewhat like institutional racism or other
forms of bias; such adversity remains hidden for the most part. Many revise adversities
and present it to advocates as the reason why inclusion can go wrong and affect the
student with special needs negatively in both a social and educational fashion. The lack
of support for inclusion in parochial schools is sometimes rooted in the fact that some
schools are simply ineffective at implementing effective inclusive classrooms (Carran &
Kellner, 2009; Rose & Forlin, 2010; Taylor, 2005) while at other times is due to concern
for the rights to a fair education demanded by general education students’ parents (Polat,
2011). Christian culture is based on assisting those who are often less fortunate or in need
of support. However, many parochial schools such as the Adventists of New York City
remain somewhat stagnant in their adoption of inclusion. These schools could be simply
waiting on more legislation or funding, which takes years to develop. Considering the
number of limited government subsidies, as well as non-profit organizations and
philanthropic entities that support education, waiting should not be the solution. Inclusive
education can be successful in New York City Seventh-day Adventist Schools, just as it
is in public schools.
41
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Qualitative interviews were conducted with parents, teachers, and administrators
associated with Seventh-day Adventist schools in New York City, to obtain a greater
understanding of their desires, needs, and concerns. Information was collected about
Seventh-day Adventist schools that implement special education programs. The purpose
of this research was to examine how schools developed special needs programs that were
satisfactory to a variety of stakeholders.
Research Design and Methodology
The research methodology employed in this study is a two-part design in a
qualitative research format that examines the Inclusion of Special Education Services in
Seventh-day Adventist Schools in New York City as an exploratory study. The study is
generalized regarding the template and processes, which can be reproduced and either
extended or altered for related or unrelated studies concerning inclusion. The validity of
the opinions of school stakeholders lies in their direct interest and connection to students
regardless of whether or not they have special needs. Both aspects are self-evident. Focus
groups will be used because they provide more concise interviews than strictly individual
interviews. Two Greater New York (GNY) and two Northeastern Conference (NEC)
schools will be part of the research. The Northeastern Conference includes more than
42
50,000 Seventh-day Adventist believers and is a member of the Atlantic Union. The
Greater New York Conference is a group of Adventist churches located throughout New
York State. Parents with children in special education and without children in special
education will be invited to participate in this study. There will be a follow-up. The
purpose of these groups will be to provide insight into the special education practices of
Adventist schools to derive insights into those practices that stakeholders find most
effective.
The first part of the two-part design will be conducted in a focus-group setting in
which questions are asked of a single composite group of 6 parents, 6 teachers, and 6
administrators of New York City Adventist schools. The responses of the participants
were summarized into short answers (1-2 sentences) and compiled into a chart with the
categories on the left and the type of participant across the top.
I then compared the similarities of responses from all the stakeholders (parents,
administrators, and teachers) with each other in the category and to all responses. From
this comparison I developed a consensus perspective of the different stakeholders for
subsequent comparison of their group perspectives and opinions on the development of
special-needs inclusion in New York City Adventist schools (Hettiarachchi & Das,
2014).
Study participants were Seventh-day Adventist parents, teachers, and
administrators who were involved (at the time of the query) with Adventist schools from
the Northeastern, Greater New York Conferences, which are part of the Atlantic Union
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. The conferences contain the following
populations: The Northeastern Conference serves a population of 60,000, the Atlantic-
43
Union Conference serves a population of 120,000, and the Greater New York City
Conference serves a population of 31,000. Focus-group sessions took place in a room at
each of the Adventist schools in New York City. In addition to the focus group,
individual interviews were conducted as needed. These interviews and focus groups will
be confidential and all identifying information excluded from the results.
According to Lester (1999), qualitative research efforts, primarily interviews and
focus groups, are particularly effective because they provide key insights and evidence
that establish significant paradigms specific to the stakeholders' common experiences,
challenges, needs, and aspirations. Lester further states that innovative interpretation can
be effective in formulating the best means of addressing a thesis in as much as the
foundation of the ideology remains genuine and transparent to the participants and other
stakeholders. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of parents,
teachers, and administrators within New York City Adventist schools regarding inclusion
practices. This study will also add to the academic literature regarding special-needs
students' inclusion in New York City Adventist schools. The two-part design efficiently
addresses the depth of inquiry required for generating results that will serve as the
foundation for further related studies.
Significance of the Study
This research will provide insights into the perceptions of Adventist teachers,
parents, and administrators in New York City regarding the inclusion of special needs
students in general education classrooms. Results from interviews with parents of special
needs and general education students will be compared. Discovering the perspectives of
parents will help to determine if inclusion practices would be welcomed into New York
44
City Adventist schools. Also, as previously discussed, there is a paucity of empirical
literature regarding inclusion programs in New York City Adventist schools. This
research will add to the information available about this topic.
Data gathered from this study could eventually be useful in the development of
inclusion programs and policies for Seventh-day Adventist schools in the Northeastern,
Greater New York, and Atlantic-Union Conferences. Creating a collaborative, composite
plan of action to supplement the inclusion program of the New York City Adventist
schools may also serve as a template for bringing special-needs and general education
students together not based on legal compliance but on a more fulfilling and beneficial
relationship between students of all classifications and their parents. The documentation
of adults' and students' perspectives may facilitate a consensus that enriches the
educational experience of all children (Popkewitz, 2012).
Qualitative Approach
A qualitative methodological approach typically uses an inductive stance as it
seeks to describe, understand and explain the context and content of the experiences of
the participants as compared to a predictive orientation which is more common in a
quantitative design (Creswell, 2013). Qualitative research is especially well suited for
topics that have not been studied extensively, or where little or no empirical research is
available. The use of qualitative inquiry is especially warranted for this dissertation,
given that the literature is very minimal on the integration of special education services in
parochial schools and in New York Seventh-day Adventist schools (Marshall &
Rossman, 2010; Searight & Young 1994). The recent focus on qualitative research does
not reflect the newness of the method, the intellectual tradition can trace its roots as far
45
back as the classical age of Greece (Searight & Young, 1994). Despite its classical roots,
the research method had gained wider acceptance and popularity through the work of
researchers including Strauss and Corbin (1998), Guba and Lincoln (1989), Charmaz
(2007), Denzin, Lincoln, Yvonna, and Giardina (2006), Morgan (1989), and countless
others. The work of Morgan popularized the use of focus groups within the academic
context as a means of gathering qualitative data resulting in a large body of work utilizing
the interview approach.
Focus Groups
Focus groups typically consist of six to ten members who meet for an average of
1½ to 2 hours and are often facilitated by a trained investigator or moderator (Daly, 2007;
Morgan, 1989). The conduct of the facilitator can range from being very flexible, and
exerting very little control over the discussion, to taking a more direct approach,
enforcing strict rules on the content of the discussion and structure of the focus group
(Daly, 2007). Typically, the facilitator has direct control over the content and structure of
the focus group discussion but is open to additions, clarifications, and deletions of
questions that may emerge from the dynamic discussion. In this study I used direct
control by following a specific set of questions (see Appendix A) but was open to, and
encouraging of, the discussion regarding issues related to the general topic that may not
be identified on the protocol.
The participants came from the Northeastern and Greater New York Conferences
of Seventh-day Adventist schools, teachers, administrators, and parents of children, both
with and without special needs, were included. Seven focus groups were conducted: one
with teachers only; one with administrators only; one with parents of children with
46
special needs; one group of parents of children without special needs; one mixed group
with both parents of children with special needs and parents of children without special
needs; one mixed group of teachers and administrators; and, one mixed group of teachers,
administrators, and parents. The number of focus groups in this study was a function of
saturation, which is characterized as the point at which there is a clear detection of the
recurrence of themes and issues (Morgan, 1989). Attention was given to the theoretical
sampling as it was necessary to be mindful of triangulation (Daly, 2007) by the type of
persons that may be relevant to the issue of integration of children with special needs into
general education classrooms in New York City Seventh-day Adventist schools. This
included teachers with little experience in the integration of children with special needs,
teachers with extensive experience, and a similar mix of administrators, and a diversity of
parents.
There are several advantages to using focus groups in empirical research. Focus
groups allow for interviewing multiple individuals in a single session and may provide
insight and information about the topic under discussion that may deepen the
understanding of the issues. As such, researchers may find, and pursue, unanticipated
concerns and ideas (Krueger, 1994). Another important feature of the focus group is that
it allows participants the opportunity to interact with each other as they discuss the topic
selected. The researchers can observe and documents the interactions and their impact or
lack of impact on the data collected (Daly, 2007). Additionally, individuals from the
focus groups were selected for in-depth interviews to provide a greater understanding of
personal experiences of the challenges and opportunities of integrating students with
special needs into the general education classes of Seventh-day Adventist schools in the
47
Northeastern and Greater New York Conferences.
Participant Selection
The parents who participated in this study were from all parts of the economic
spectrum ranging from the socio-economically challenged to the affluent. Also
represented were parents of children with or without special needs attending Seventh-day
Adventist schools. All participants were involved with students in grades K–12 and
ranged in ages from 25 to 50. Race and ethnicity were not domains that were identified as
inclusion (or exclusion) criteria, neither was gender. However, participants in this study
included individuals across the age categories as shown in Table 1 below. Not surprising,
the parents who participated in the study were younger and teachers and administrators
were older.
Data Collection
Members of the previously identified group of teachers, parents, and
administrators were contacted for participation in the current study. The data collection
conducted followed the guidelines that were agreed upon from the Internal Review Board
(IRB) certification process. The purposive convenience sampling method was used in
which the participants were identified and recruited based upon specific and/or unique
shared experiences and characteristics as specified in the inclusion criterion (Daly, 2007).
This required a relatively large group of participants to be in the same place at the same
time as in the case of the focus group design. To a large extent, this may have resulted in
a significant number of no-shows among the participants committed to attend the
sessions.
Table 1
48
Participants by Categories and Age
Participants Ages 25-35 Ages 36-40 Ages 41-50 Ages 51-60 Total
Parents of children with special
needs
2 1 3 0 6
Parents of children without
special needs
4 1 1 0 6
Teachers 0 4 2 6
Administrators 0 0 4 2 6
Total 6 6 10 2 24
To circumvent this likelihood, I over-recruited by 50%, recruiting 15 participants
for the required group of 10 (Daly, 2007; Wilkinson, 2004).
After the identification and recruitment of participants were completed,
participants were contacted and invited to a safe and community friendly location where
the focus group discussion and individual interviews took place. Great care was taken to
schedule the focus groups and in-depth interviews sufficiently in advance to allow the
participants ample time to organize their schedules for the sessions. It was anticipated
that the focus group sessions would last less than two hours, with half an hour allocated
for the welcome, consent procedure, and completion of the demographic sheet, with the
balance of time (one and a half hours) for the focus group session (Daly, 2007). An
exploratory qualitative design was selected for the questions based largely because of the
fact this topic is not known to have been explored empirically in this geographical
context and with this population. As shown in Table 2, this study employed a set of
research questions that sought to explore the attitudes, perceptions, and experiences of
parents, teachers and administrators about the integration/integration of special-needs
children in the educational system of Seventh-day Adventist schools in New York City.
Table 2
49
Research and Interview Questions and Supporting Literature
Research Questions Interview Questions Analysis Supporting Literature
1. What are the attitudes,
perceptions, and experiences of
parents with and without children
with special needs about
integration/inclusion of this
population in Seventh-day Adventist
K-12 schools in New York City?
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 It reveals the
thoughts and
views of the
parents
Friend, Cook, Hurley-
Chamberlain, &
Shamberger (2010)
2. What are the attitudes,
perceptions, and experiences of
teachers and administrators about
integration/inclusion of children with
special needs in Seventh-day
Adventist K-12 schools in New York
City?
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 It reveals the
thoughts and
views of the
teachers and
administrators
Trainor (2010)
3. What are the differences and
similarities among parents, teachers,
and administrators about the
challenges and benefits of
integration/inclusion of children with
special needs in Seventh-day
Adventist K-12 schools in New York
City?
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 It reveals the
differences and
similarities
amongst parents,
teachers, and
administrators
Leysera & Kirk (2007)
Ruijs & Peetsma (2009)
analytical approaches that included focus-groups after which responses were compared
from among all stakeholders.
Interview Protocol
Interviews took place within the Northeastern and Great New York Conferences
territory. Each interviewee signed a consent form at the beginning of the focus group or
interview (see Appendix B). Data were collected in the form of researcher notes and
audiotape narrative, and subsequent transcriptions were obtained during the focus group
session and personal in-depth interviews. Recruitment was conducted among Adventist
schools. Upon agreeing, parents were informed of their ethical rights and the date of the
focus groups. Focus groups were conducted on the grounds of the school to minimize
travel for the parents. Data were recorded on audio—recorded and transcribed. The
50
original audio recording is stored only on my computer, allowing no one else access to it
given that it is password protected.
Data Analysis
Focus group data were analyzed at two levels including the individual and the
group unit (Morgan, 1996). The analysis used a line-by-line coding protocol, which
resulted in the development of categories that assisted in defining the properties and
dimensions of emerging themes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). To provide a brief overview of
the analysis, coding occurred over six stages. The first stage included getting familiar
with the material followed by the second stage of initial coding. The third stage included
uniting similar codes or splitting up disparate code into smaller codes. The fourth stage of
coding included grouping similar codes to form the larger theme. The fifth stage
consisted of defining these themes while the final stage included the write-up explaining
how these themes answered the research questions.
During the initial stage of analysis, the researcher examined, labeled, and
compared the data, allowing for the creation of codes and then themes. Since the focus
group data included analysis at the individual and group levels, also implemented were
focused and analytical coding to review organize the data at both levels (Charmaz, 2006;
Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). Focused coding provided the
opportunity to delete extraneous information and the rearrangement of categories to
create larger or smaller categories (Charmaz, 2006). This resulted in the ability to
generate comparisons between individuals within and across groups to examine
similarities and differences in the responses. During this phase, repetition of data was
experienced, which allowed for the compilation and connection of themes and categories.
51
Also employed was the use of a grid (Knodel, 1993) that systematically organized the
responses of individuals and groups in terms of the questions asked and the responses
documented. Additionally, the grid approach linked the data and information to the
themes and categories the emerged in the analysis.
As the process unfolded, the researchers reflected on the data and associated
codes, interpretations began, and theoretical explanations emerged. This exercise assisted
in the transition from descriptive to analytical coding, the final step in the coding process
(Charmaz, 2006). At this stage conceptual, categories derived from the voices of the
participants were established, eliciting analysis from other members of the research team.
A similar approach was emulated for the data from the in-depth interviews, giving
attention to areas of divergence between two qualitative approaches. The in-depth
interviews were utilized to gain a greater understanding of the categories developed from
the analysis of the focus group data (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011).
Trustworthiness and Validity
The use of qualitative data facilitated the gaining of insights into the topic under
consideration and sought to increase internal validity (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In this
study the concept of internal validity was applied as described by Miles and Huberman
rather than the standard approach to internal validity. Qualitative research in this
approach was more concerned with the questions, “Do the findings of the study make
sense? Are they credible to the people we study and to our reader? Do we have an
authentic portrait of what we were looking at?” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 278).
Triangulation and Generalizability
52
In this study, the use of a two-stage qualitative design was an important
methodological triangulation approach that is linked to testing and increase confidence in
validity by the convergence of data and perspectives from multiple sources (Patton,
1999). Additionally, in qualitative research, triangulation is identified as “an attempt to
map out and explain fully the richness and complexity of human behavior by studying it
from more than one standpoint” (Cohen & Manion, 1986, p. 254). Overall, the benefits of
triangulation are well established in qualitative research. For example, Thurmond (2001)
summarized the merits of triangulation as “increasing confidence in research data,
creating innovative ways of understanding a phenomenon, revealing unique findings,
challenging or integrating theories, and providing a clearer understanding of the problem”
(p. 254).
This study was intentional in including a two-stage qualitative methods design
that included data from focus groups and in-depth interviews. However, fundamental to
any qualitative design is the realization that the results of the particular study are limited
to the participants who were involved in the study and thereby are not generalizable to
individuals and or groups outside the study (Smith, 2018). Generalizability is often
identified as the “predictive” ability to explain what might happen in given situations
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This approach is dominant in quantitative research design. In
contrast, the qualitative research design posits that generalization across studies has the
potential to misrepresent the richness and depth of information that participants shared in
the interviews (Janesick, 2003). It must be noted that there is an emerging view in
qualitative research to further refine and define this idea of generalizability in terms of
this method. For example, some researchers have postulated the concept of analytical
53
generalization (Kvale, Brinkmann, & Park, 2018). In this approach, the researcher
examines the extent to which the findings of a study may be generalized to another if a
similar theoretical and proximal similarity model provides the framework that allows for
generalizability based on similarities between studies such as time, place, people, and
other social realities (Smith, 2018). At any rate, the issue of generalizability at least from
a quantitative design approach is not appropriate for a qualitative study design.
Sample Size and Saturation in Qualitative Research
The issue of sample size is often linked to quantitative research design largely
because of the important goal of generalizing findings from a sample to the population
from which it is drawn (Nayak, 2010). However, in qualitative research, the question
related to adequate sample size is conceptualized by the construct known as ‘saturation.”
The term saturation was developed by Glaser and Straus (1967) as a means of defining
sample size in their grounded theory approach to qualitative research. Specifically, the
notion of saturation attempts to respond to the issue of the adequacy of a qualitative
sample to meet the goals of the design such as depth and richness of information
provided (Birks & Mills, 2011; Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Saturation is consistently
viewed as “the most frequently touted guarantee of qualitative rigor” (Morse, 2015,
p.587). Simply described, data or thematic saturation occurs when topics and themes
begin to be repeated as data collection and analysis progress (Barbour, 2018; O’Reilly &
Parker, 2012). The redundancy in themes is an indication that the sample size may be
adequate for the purpose of identifying or emerging “thick and rich” description of the
phenomenon under consideration.
54
The number of a focus group rather than the total number of individuals across all
of the groups constitutes the sample size (Guest, Namey, & McKenna, 2017).
Saturation is also defined when no new codes are emerging but more focus groups
were needed to enable a clear understanding of the themes (Hennink, Kaiser, & Weber,
2019). While saturation is based on the particulars of a given study, researchers have
consistently observed that two to three focus groups are typically sufficient for 80% of
themes to emerge; for 90% of the dominant themes to emerge about three to six groups
may be required (Guest et al., 2017). This is especially the case when the population is
homogenous.
The Role of the Researcher
The role and potential impact of the researcher in a qualitative design must be
examined, described, and documented. The connection between the researcher and the
subject being studied should form the basis of this analysis and reflection. Qualitative
researchers have argued that is critical that the interviewer become part of the group and
or interviews by sharing their identities, political agendas, and other areas of interest
(Fine, 1994). According to Fine, Weis, Weseen, and Wong (2000),
Researchers have an [ethical] responsibility to talk about our identities, why we
interrogate what we do, what we chose not to report, how we frame our data, on
whom we shed scholarly gaze, and who is protected and not protected as we do
our work. (p. 123)
Failure to identify and disclose facets limits the effectiveness of the research
process and the findings. Without providing the researcher as a participant in the research
process removes important contextual information that may deepen understanding and
appreciation of the subject matter that is investigated.
55
Charmaz (2006, 2007) posited that while the qualitative researcher does not
intentionally set out to influence the research findings, it is plausible that the researcher
along with societal influences inevitably has a role in the research project. For example,
my professional life, religious affiliation, gender, age, race, socio-economic status, and
other related life experiences may have influenced this study.
I am an administrator at the New York City Board of Education, a lifelong
Seventh-day Adventist, who is active in advocacy work for children and parents with
special needs. I have enjoyed my experience of balancing my life as an educator with
being a wife, and mother, and a doctoral student.
I came to the United States from Jamaica when I was 17 years old, having both a
solid education as well as a love of learning. To support myself, I took a babysitting job,
which I loved. Barbara Shapiro, the matriarch of the house, was employed as a social
worker. She helped families with special needs children. Her mother, Myra Berzoff, ran a
camp for the blind on a college campus and often invited me to spend weeks in the
summer with her. It was while spending time at the camp with Myra that I was first
exposed to the field of special education. I was intrigued by several experiences that
prompted me to ask a lot of questions. On such occasions, Myra would say to me, “You
need to study special education.” The more I learned about the needs and the services
available to the special needs population, the more I wanted to acquire knowledge and
skills to help individuals with special needs. The experience cemented my decision to
pursue a career in the field of special education. I completed undergraduate and graduate
degrees in special education and have spent my entire career in the field of education.
Specifically, I was a classroom teacher and principal at the Herbert G. Birch Special
56
Education Program, funded by the state of New York. Currently, I am a chairperson for
the Committee on Preschool Special Education at the Department of Education in New
York City. Among my many roles, I supervise the Committee on Preschool Special
Education Administrators, and I am a lead administrator for the committee on special
education. I also serve as a faculty member for a special education program that involves
training young women in the field of special education.
While I do not have a child with special needs, I have provided foster care for an
autistic child from Jamaica. I did this for four years with my family’s blessing. As a
family, we provided the child with support and love, and he responded positively to our
intervention. He showed such significant improvement that he was able to return to his
family. It warms my heart that he still calls me “mama” and visits us each summer. Our
house is his second home, and our family is extremely proud of the person he has
become. As I conducted the focus groups and the in-depth interviews, I was constantly
aware of my role in the selection of this topic, the areas that I tended to want to probe
more than others, and the analysis of the data and my proclivity to want to learn (or re-
write the words of the participants) more about some aspects of this study. This
consciousness and the need to ‘check one’s self throughout the research process are
critical factors when conducting a qualitative study.
Timeline, Budget, and Ethical Considerations
The research for the study took place over a five- to seven-month period from the
set-up of interviews, transcription of data, data analysis, and interpretation. A small
budget was utilized to aid in data collection (e.g., snacks for focus group participants) and
transcription of data. The cost for this project is covered through personal funds.
57
Limitations
This was exploratory qualitative research. Generalization is not the goal of
qualitative research given the limited sample size and method of selecting participants;
however, the data may inform the creation of later studies. Additionally, the use of focus
groups may result in the expression of intense emotion, as the participants share their
views and personal opinions regarding the topic under discussion. This could have
potentially impacted the involvement of focus group members and adversely affected the
quality of the data collected. To circumvent this potential outcome, and the deleterious
effect on the focus group data, an abundance of caution was used when managing the
sessions (Castellblanch & Abrahamson, 2003).
Ethics and Internal Review Board (IRB)
This study assured the confidentiality of the informed data as being anonymous,
as well as the responses from the participants in the study groups and in-depth interviews.
Before the commencement of the fieldwork of this research project, the proposed
methods of data gathering were submitted to the IRB of Andrews University to ensure
that the study design and implementation plans are consistent with the University’s
salient ethical standards. The IRB submission included a detailed plan of how the
research was conducted and what safeguards were taken to ensure that all participants
were protected and respected. For example, after the details regarding the research were
presented to potential participants, the researcher reviewed the informed consent form to
ensure clarity and complete understanding of the participant’s rights in the context of the
study. The potential participants were then invited when all questions had been answered
and the Informed Consent form had been fully and properly executed. After the Informed
58
Consent was obtained, the participants were asked to complete a short demographic
questionnaire indicating their gender, age, and role of the participant (i.e., parent of a
child with special needs, parent of a child without special needs, an employee of the
Adventist school system or institution).
Data were only collected after informed consent was given and permission to
make an audio recording of the sessions was obtained. All other data gathered after that
point were stored in a locked safe, clearly identified as confidential information for this
study. The storage cabinets were only accessible to individuals certified granted access
by the IRB protocol. This included the primary investigator and the supervisor of this
study.
All data collected were de-identified by removing any identifying information
about the participants and substituting pseudonyms for identification purposes. Extreme
care was exercised to ensure at all times, while the data were stored, analyzed, and
presented, to ensure that confidentiality was maintained and anonymity preserved.
Additionally, to ensure confidentiality, the audiotapes created of all focus group sessions
and in-depth interviews were destroyed upon completion. Quality control protocol was
followed to assure that the transcription was accurate, complete, and data were verified
reflecting all the relevant information from the focus groups and in-depth interview.
Finally, all researchers were required to execute the informed consent and confidentiality
agreement that guarantees their commitment to protecting the study data obtained and the
participants’ confidentiality.
Summary
A multimethod qualitative design was employed. This approach relied on data
59
from multiple sources including interviews and source documents. Specifically, upon
completion of the analysis of the focus group data, in-depth interviews were conducted
with selected members from the study groups. This triangulation method is desired to
address the issue of internal validity. This is because, through triangulation, it is possible
to establish findings from several different standpoints. In this study, interviews and
documentation contributed to the establishment of triangulation.
It is more appropriate to evaluate the sample size of the focus group by the
number of groups as opposed to the number of participants. This is because focus groups
can include any number of people. This study followed the guidelines as suggested by
Morgan (1989) and had no fewer than six, and no more than ten, participants in each
study group. These guidelines were deemed as ideal to enhance the quality of
participation and interaction with the study group (Carlsen & Glenton, 2010).
When considering the number of individuals in the group, some have argued that
smaller groups, two groups of four instead of a single group of eight, are the preferred
composition of a study group (Fern, 1982). It is also proffered that the ideal study group
should have at least six members and no more than ten members (Daly, 2007; Morgan,
1989).
The participants were informed before the commencement of the focus group
session that the moderator would attempt to keep the discussion focused while allowing
room for in-depth exploration of issues keeping tangential discussions to a minimum. The
moderator also informed the focus group(s) that they were there to facilitate the
discussion but not provide salient input and that it was up to the participants to discuss
alternate ways to define, interpret, and frame the issues being discussed.
60
The qualitative data were then collected from the focus group discussion and in-
depth interviews, for internal validity. The focus group discussions and in-depth
interviews were recorded and transcribed. Following the university’s IRB protocol, each
participant was required informed consent forms and all researchers will be required to
execute non-disclosure agreements, ensuring that the data and participants’ personal
information and identities were kept confidential. The data were coded by the researchers
and grouped according to stakeholder viewpoint.
61
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The objective of this chapter is to present evidence to support the response to the
research questions and discussion presented in Chapter 5. The results of both quantitative
and qualitative data are presented in this chapter. These data were collected from
participants who completed a short demographic survey and in the form of focus group
discussions. Quantitative data collected was largely descriptive, including counts, means,
standard deviation, etc. These data contributed to the development of a robust
understanding of the sample, regarding who they are in terms of gender, age,
race/ethnicity, and religion. The chapter continues with a presentation of the findings
from the qualitative data collected. Four research questions, which formed the basis of
this research, are then presented with data in response to the research questions. The
chapter concludes with a summary of the findings discussed in this chapter and how they
relate to the discussion and conclusions presented in Chapter 5.
Describing the Sample
Table 1 shows the demographics of participants in the focus group. The table
contributes evidence related to the identity of participants in the sample and facilitates a
greater understanding of the demographics of the individuals who participated in the
research. Both males and females participated in the study; however, there was a majority
of female participants. The sample was also mainly participants aged from 31-50, with
62
only 3 of the 24 participants in the focus group falling outside of those constraints. The
race/ethnicity of participants was overwhelmingly Black, as 19 of the 24 participants
identified as Black. The remaining participants were either Hispanic/Latino or Other.
Also, the religion of participants was majority Seventh-day Adventist, with only four
Baptist and two Catholic participants. The demographic information helps in a better
understanding of the responses in the focus groups and the in-depth interviews by
providing a context that highlights the characteristics of the participants in the study. The
participants in the focus group of this study were split with 6 parents with special needs
children, 6 parents without special needs children, 6 teachers, and 6 administrators. Each
group took part in focus groups where they were asked to discuss their feelings related to
inclusion in Seventh-day Adventist schools. Quotes from the discussion were used to
establish common themes among the research questions. These findings support the
establishment of an overall conceptualization of inclusion perceptions.
Research Questions
Special Needs Students in Seventh-day Adventist Schools
The following research question was answered in the interviews:
RQ1. What are the perceptions of parents that have children with special needs
concerning inclusion in Seventh-day Adventist schools, as well as classrooms in New York
City?
Curriculum
Just as participants with special needs children felt there was some benefit in
terms of social learning from the relationships students build with their peers, others felt
that the curriculum itself was where the benefit is for students. Participant 6 noted that:
63
I think that yes, they should use the same curriculum as the children in the general
population. All children have to move from one level to the next level and to do
that, they have to complete a particular curriculum. But the special needs child
learns at a slower pace. They should complete but they should go at a level that is
prepared for them. (Participant 6)
This is an important quote because it expressed the importance of accommodation
for the special needs student. Participant 6’s quote is an expression of the belief that
special needs students should be given the opportunity to learn the same material;
however, in order for the student to develop, the pace of learning must be mediated for
the student. Participant 6 did not focus on the use of tools that could be employed to
further accommodate the learning experience of the student. Tools such as new
communication technologies that support learning are essential for the improvement of
special needs learning. The importance of using effective tools and instructional
approaches was emphasized by Participant 4, who stated that special needs students
“Could learn just the same way as others. Not just because they have a delay or a
deficiency in one area does it mean that they are not intellectual in another area.” Again,
while it was not stated, the use of accommodation rather than separation of many students
would be a more effective solution for their development in the classroom. As such, a
closely related theme to that of the curriculum was the importance of instruction.
The importance of inclusive education, including the development of an
appropriate curriculum, was noted by Boroson (2017). Schools that produce an inclusive,
open teaching environment are the same that develop an inclusive curriculum. This
allows for a greater capacity for schools to include students of all backgrounds. The
curriculum should be equally challenging to that material presented to the general student
body, a finding that was present not only in the current study but also in the literature, as
noted by Boroson (2017).
64
Instruction
Participant 6 went further in their discussion of curriculum, expressing the
importance of curriculum being prepared for special needs students.
The same curriculum, of course, but it is prepared for them. Then there are
children in the general population who learn faster, they can go on ahead, and
they can complete the curriculum. So, based on that, you should have different
teachers in some instances for this type of learning. (Participant 6)
A limitation when it comes to this design of the classroom is the capacity of the
teacher to manage the accommodations that students receive in the class. Another is
transforming the nature of learning in the classroom in such a way that students would be
compelled to accept diversity.
Speaking to the usefulness of tailored interventions, Participant 1 indicated that
her child’s teacher spent more time with her child, her child received an added benefit in
terms of personal development. Participant 5 had similar thoughts related to the role of
inclusion and a teacher spending additional time with students. Participant 5 noted that in
her teacher’s classroom when the teacher spent additional time accommodating the
special needs of students in her class, students would develop at more effective rates.
Participant 5 stated,
In her [child’s] classroom, they separated them according to level of learning, so
you have average, you have the slower ones, then you have the top of the top and
I’ve seen where she was in the average and the teacher identifying her weaknesses
and working with her group, she was able to step up to the top-top level. So, I
think that was very helpful. (Participant 5)
This is an important factor in the development of students in the classroom where
the teacher is facilitating accommodations of the students with special needs and this
results in a positive outcome for the student. This is further evidence that parents believe
that accommodations can work in the classroom rather than separating students based on
65
their classification as either requiring special needs or not requiring special needs.
Participant 2 also supported the establishment of inclusion because it would have the
benefit of supporting learning from peers, stating that “some of the benefits, for my child,
being with the general population, again, he can learn from his peers and he wouldn’t feel
so much that he is different from everybody else because he is among the general
population” (Participant 2).
Further, concerning Title I, parents note that their children have somewhat mixed
feelings about participation in it. One feeling that parents share is that their student
benefits from Title I in terms of their personal development; however, another feeling
that parents have related to Title I is that it continues to make their children feel as though
they are different. Participant 3 noted,
With my sons, I have now notice that they are having this Title I program, where
whatever area that he needs help with, they will pull him from his class. Whether
it’s 30 minutes or 45 minutes, they will work with him and sometimes he feels like
he is different, but then again, he realizes that they are there to help him, and it does
work, it helps. (Participant 3)
Participant 3 indicated that Title I had significant benefits for their child as a
student, but that there are challenges that continue to persist in terms of socialization
which make the program not optimal for the classroom. Participant 6 had similar feelings
as Participant 3, noting the virtues of Title I as contributing to an improvement in the
classroom for their child. Participant 6 stated that “The Title I program works. At my
children’s school, they have it. It is like an enhancement program, it goes along with
whatever is taught in the classroom, it is not like they are doing other things, it is the
same thing but it is at their own level and their pace.”
The current study indicated that participants felt it was important to get an
adequate education, but how this took place may vary, with some parents indicating the
66
value of separating their students and others hoping for a more integrated education. The
lack of consensus on the best way to approach education was mirrored in the literature.
Hardy and Woodcock (2014) noted that debates were ongoing regarding the best way to
approach inclusion, with no single best method of inclusion proposed. This sentiment was
mirrored by Koh and Shin (2017), who also suggested that educators continued to argue
regarding the best approach to educating students with disabilities.
Contributions
Another theme that touches on the issue of limiting classroom access because of a
narrow cross-section of disability was the idea that the classroom could benefit from the
diversity that students with special needs can bring to the class. Participant 3 noted that
students who require some accommodations to participate in the classroom could have
significant contributions in some other areas and that it would be to the benefit of non-
special needs students for there to be the inclusion of these students. Participant 3 stated,
One other thing is that these children can also be even smarter than the other kids
in the classroom. One must not think that because they have special needs that
they do not know things. Sometimes they can be smart in one area, but if it is a
blind child they may even do better than the other kids in the class” (Participant
3).
This quote in conjunction with others revealed a common theme indicating that
accommodation appears to offer significant benefits in the classroom in the scope of
improved student development for both special needs and non-special needs students.
Essentially, parents see an opportunity for their children through inclusion.
Adversity
Bullying and disparaging remarks in the classroom can persuade students to not
participate in the learning environment or to become disengaged. Participant 4 discussed
the benefits of inclusion in the classroom as including student acceptance of other
67
classmates because they would learn that their peers are similar to how they are, but that
they may have special needs. Participant 4 stated that “the benefits would be that they
would not be ostracized or mimicked, bullied. They would be able to communicate with
their friends. Their friends would show empathy to them and compassion. The love that
they need, sometimes they feel they are not getting it because they feel they are
castaways or cast-outs, so that would be a good thing” (Participant 4). This is essentially
an argument for social learning and the development of an understanding of the common
understanding of peers when there is a more inclusive classroom. Bullying may be
limited in the classroom when students with different abilities have disabilities enabled
through accommodations. Again, it is the role of the teacher in the classroom to facilitate
the development of the students, both with special needs and without special needs to
learn how to learn together.
General Education Students in Seventh-day Adventist Schools
The following research question was also developed to guide the study:
2. What are the perceptions of parents that have children in general education
concerning inclusion in Seventh-day Adventist schools as well as classrooms in New
York City?
Efficiency in the Class
The perceptions of parents with students who do not require accommodations
differed in some respects from those of parents with students who do not require special
needs. A key concern of these parents was the efficiency of learning in the classroom. A
common perception of these parents was that their child’s learning would be stifled
through inclusion. Another belief was that their child learned at a faster pace, and the
68
inclusion of students with special needs in the same classroom as their child would create
barriers to their child’s learning. Essentially, it was essential for the learning environment
that the child was allowed to learn at a faster rate and that they were not slowed. An
example of this was Participant 9, who noted that they were engaged in their child’s
learning and that they believed, “With my child, I am really tuned in and engaged in
education. I think that my child learns at a faster pace, so I would like my child to
continue at that level. So, if it is that he will have to have a different teacher, so be it”
(Participant 9). Essentially, Participant 9 shows support for the establishment of a
separate learning environment if they believe that teaching resources will be taken away
from the development of their child stating that “if a special needs child is going to slow
down my child, I would prefer to have a separate teacher.”
Parents of general needs students (GNS) demonstrated some hesitation at the idea
of inclusion, which was consistent with past research. Researchers noted that the debate
was ongoing regarding how inclusion should be conducted (Hardy & Woodcock, 2014;
Koh & Shin, 2017). Researchers noted that this was partly the result of the ongoing
debate regarding not only what inclusion meant, but also disability (Dudley-Marling &
Burns, 2014). It may be possible to make characterizes a standard classroom
environment. This kind of shift would require that definitions of a normal classroom be
dismissed. Taking this kind of approach may help to encourage others to be more
accepting of a diverse and inclusive approach to education.
Lack of Confidence in Inclusion
Another belief is that the private school system is not structured for the
establishment of inclusion. Participant 8 discussed the problems of inclusion from their
69
perceptions related to the development of students with special needs, noting that it is
important for there to be greater fluidity in the classroom, and that children with special
needs create challenges that are unfair for general population students to cope with.
Participant 8 stated,
In the private schools, I believe that the teachers are not really equipped to deal
with special education children or children with special needs because they are so
used to having children that are from a general population that they just keep
teaching and they have fluidity, but when a child comes that is not of the general
population, they find it hard to really deal with that child because they are not
educated as to dealing with a child with special needs. (Participant 8)
Similar thoughts related to special needs students in the classroom were shared by
Participant 7. Participant 7 discussed special needs students as creating problems in the
classroom where they could become disruptive. The perception is that the special needs
student creates a threat in the classroom that could be challenging for the instructor to
overcome. In addition, the teacher is in a position where they would need to spend
additional time with special needs students rather than spending equal time with all of the
students in the classroom. Participant 7 stated,
Some of the special needs will not be able to grasp things as well as the other
students and also, one observation I have seen is that sometimes, some of these
kids are disruptive. I don’t know if that is the proper term to use here but because
they require special care, the teachers spend more time with them instead of
spending more time teaching the work she should be teaching. (Participant 7)
This is further evidence of a theme that grew where parents with students who do
not require special needs felt that their child required equal time for development in the
classroom and that the resources of the teacher were a key to the success of their student.
Another theme touched on by Participant 7 is the belief that special needs students create
disruptions in the classroom that are difficult for other students in the class to deal with,
and that this creates a problem in the scope of supporting the learning environment. The
70
lack of agreement that special needs students should be included in classrooms was
consistent with previous research that indicated debates surrounding the value of
inclusion were ongoing (Dudley-Marling & Burns, 2014; Hardy & Woodcock, 2014;
Koh & Shin, 2017). The literature suggested that in many instances, people did not find
inclusion to be a valuable goal, with some presuming that inclusion meant that there was
a standard means of holding a classroom into which special needs intruded (Dudley-
Marling & Burns, 2014). The findings of the current study indicated that parents might
feel that this was the case.
Segregation
Participant 9 further supported thoughts related to the continued segregation of
special needs and non-special needs students in the classroom based on there being scarce
learning resources, and that there is a significant challenge which emerges for students
without special needs when teachers must spend additional time with students who have
special needs. A solution supported by Participant 9 is the division of students among
groups of disabilities to support student learning in the classroom. Through the
establishment of a learning environment where there are several different groups, it is
possible for the development of a learning environment where students with different
abilities that require special needs to receive the development they require in the
classroom. Participant 9 stated,
They should have the same curriculum, however, because special needs kids are
slower because of the special needs, like [Participant 8] said earlier, the attention
they require tends to hold back the other students, so I think in a case like that, the
children should be separated into groups depending on their learning ability and
work within each group so that whatever weaknesses this particular group has, the
teacher can focus on that to bring them up to speed with the others. (Participant 9)
71
The proposal that students should be divided into groups based on learning ability
was yet another proposal regarding how to improve inclusion. This was consistent with
previous research that indicated that people continued to debate the best means of
achieving inclusion (Hardy & Woodcock, 2014; Koh & Shin, 2017). As such, the current
study was consistent with the prior literature that indicated that people continued to
debate the best means of achieving inclusion.
Administrator Perceptions
A third and fourth question was developed regarding inclusion and was presented
as the following:
RQ3. What are the perceptions of teachers concerning training for inclusion in
Seventh-day Adventist schools as well as classrooms in New York City?
RQ4. What are the perceptions of administrators concerning training for inclusion
in Seventh-day Adventist schools as well as classrooms in New York City?
Research Questions 3 and 4 are responded to in this chapter in the same section
based on the similarity of findings from interviews of teachers and administrators. The
responses of teachers and administrators were similar to the point that it was the most
cogent decision to make to combine these sections.
Social Benefits
A common theme in the responses was the determination that teachers and
administrators were mostly concerned with the establishment of a classroom setting
where there is a social benefit for the children. Participant 14 discussed the classroom as
a place where students should feel as though they belong in order to create a positive
learning environment. Without experience in the classroom including students who are
72
both non-special needs and special needs, this could create limitations to the development
of students in the classroom. Participant 14 stated that “what is most important for the
children I teach is that they learn what is being taught and they do not feel like they don’t
belong because of pace. So, I would say a sense of belonging.”
Importance of Inclusion
Participant 13 discussed the importance of integration for students to be able to
learn, even if special needs students must learn at a slower pace, in an integrated
classroom. Essentially, this is support for the inclusion of special needs students in the
classroom with non-special needs students. The sense of belonging that they experience
is an element of the learning environment that contributes to the development of a more
effective learning experience for special needs students. Participant 13 stated,
The benefit of integration is the special needs child is able to learn. Even if it is at
a slower pace, they will be able to learn still with the general population, and I think
it will give them a sense of belonging. (Participant 13)
Participant 15 contributed further evidence supporting the inclusion of special
needs students in the classroom. Their rationale was that students should be able to
develop a relationship with both their teachers and their peers. Through the establishment
of this relationship, it would be possible to develop an inclusive classroom. Participant 15
noted that it is also important that if the school cannot accommodate the needs of special
needs students in the classroom that there must be the development of more special
education specialists. By developing more special education specialists, it is possible to
create a learning environment where students can learn from one another and their
teacher. Participant 15 stated that:
Most important is having good education as well as having that one-on-one
relationship with the teacher, as well as with their peers. Being in the classroom
with other children does a whole lot to the child. If it cannot be that the child is in
73
the same class as the general population, then I believe that we should have more
educators that are special education specialists. (Participant 15)
Participant 15 also noted that as parents discover more about special needs, more
students are discovered who require some form of accommodation. Participant 15
essentially supports the establishment of a paradigm in schools where there is a greater
focus on inclusion and accommodating deficiencies that students may have in one area to
facilitate the student’s overall efforts to overcome the challenges in the classroom.
Participant 15 stated that “I believe that would help because more and more we see every
year there are more children with special needs entering classrooms than the general
population. They have deficiencies in one area or the other. I believe it is a good thing to
have more than one” (Participant 15).
The belief that inclusion was important was consistent with the prior literature
that indicated inclusion could help students achieve academically and grow personally.
Researchers noted that inclusion may be important because it would help improve student
performance (Boroson, 2017; Hornby, 2015), though some warned that inclusive
education may in some cases be more rhetoric than reality (Thorius, 2016; Tiwari, Das, &
Sharma, 2015). However, in the instance of the current study, there seemed to be a
genuine concern for improving inclusion and helping students become more academically
successful.
Participants views on themes are summarized in Table 3.
74
Table 3
Participants’ Views on Themes
Theme Parents of Children
Without Special Needs
Parents of Children
With Special Needs
Teachers Administrators
Effectiveness Felt that child will be
kept back
Express that the
learning
environment can be
effective if they are
provided academic
support by trained
professionals
Express that they
can be effective but
they must have the
tools to support,
training, and
resources
Express that
they can be
effective but
they must have
the tools to
support,
training, and
resources
Lack of
Confidence in
Inclusion
Teachers are not
currently equipped to
deal with children with
special needs in SDA
school in NYC
Teachers are not
currently equipped
to deal with
children with
special needs in
SDA school in
NYC
Teachers are not
currently equipped
to deal with children
with special needs in
SDA school in NYC
Teachers are
not currently
equipped to
deal with
children with
special needs
in SDA school
in NYC
Segregation I think my child learns
at a faster pace … He
will have to have a
different teacher.
Children should be
separated into groups
depending on their
learning ability
The feeling that
children will
benefit socially and
academically from
interacting with
children without
special needs
Teasing and
bullying
Children should be
separated into
groups depending
on their learning
ability
Children
should be
separated into
groups
depending on
their learning
ability
Social
Benefits/
Belongingness
Did not express any
thought at the group or
individual level
Concerned with
equality of
treatment which
would eventually
generate a feeling
of belongingness
What is mos
important for
children … is that
they learn what is
being taught and
they feel like they
don’t belong
because of the pace
What is mos
important for
children … is
that they learn
what is being
taught and
they feel like
they don’t
belong
because of the
pace
75
Table 3—Continued.
Theme Parents of Children
Without Special Needs
Parents of Children
With Special Needs
Teachers Administrators
Integration Did not make a
contribution
Were in support of
integration of SDA
schools in NYC
Were in support of
integration of SDA
schools in NYC
Participant 14
expressed that the
student should be
exposed to an
inclusive
environment in
which there are no
limitations to his/her
development; what
is important is that
they learn what is
being taught but not
left back because of
pace
Were in
support of
integration of
SDA schools
in NYC
The benefits of
integration is
the special
needs child is
able to learn
76
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
Discussion, Categorization, and Conceptualization
Special needs students are faced with a variety of issues concerning attaining an
equitable education to general education students in the context of Seventh-day Adventist
schools. Parents of children with special needs are significant stakeholders. They argue
for the inclusion of special needs children and the impact of federal regulation regarding
these children. Thanks to the efforts of such stakeholders, various legislation has been
passed impacting special needs students. Both EAHCA and IDEA arose out of such
advocacy. The EAHCA was the foundation for the establishment of IDEA, as EAHCA is
the law mandated equal access to education for children with disabilities. IDEA is
legislation that facilitates equal access for special needs children. Due to these regulations
and modifications to Federal Code such as 34 CFR 300.133(a)(2)(ii) and 34 CFR
300.145-147, a robust federal framework is in place which requires that schools employ
strategies which facilitate general education for children who are disabled (US
Department of Education, 2015). Despite the legal precedent for equitable education,
administrators often lack the skills necessary for achieving equitable education in the
classrooms for students with impairments (Kaiser, 2015).
The practical problem this study addressed was the inability to achieve equal
inclusion and effective education for all students, even while parochial schools such as
