The analysis shows that parents have knowledge about IE and perceive it as beneficial but have some concerns. It be concluded that age, gender and having a child with SEN or not has no effect on the knowledge parents have, the benefits they perceive of IE and the concerns they have about IE. The educational level of parents was found to have a significant effect on parents’ perceived benefits of IE. The difference was between diploma holders and GCE holders.
From the analysis it can be concluded that the majority of parents’ preference placement for children with SEN was outside the inclusive schools. Males were more favourable to IE than females. While parents with MSLC, GCE or a diploma preferred educational placements outside the inclusive schools for children with SEN, degree holders preferred inclusive placements. Younger parents preferred inclusive placement more than older parents.
The three top PE for their children in inclusive placements were ‘‘ability to read and write’’, ‘‘developing social skills’’ and ‘‘doing well academically’’. The majority 407 (78.3%) of the parents said the inclusive schools were helping to fulfil the expectations they had for their children. Some of the ways the inclusive schools were helping to achieve PE are ‘‘making good use of academic learning time’’, ‘‘involving parents in decision-making’’ and keeping parents informed about their children’s progress.
The study found no relationship between the age-range and gender of parents and the expectations they have for their children in inclusive schools. However, there was an association between the parents’ educational level and the academic expectations they have for their child. Also, there is an association between the parents with and without children with SEN and parental academic and social expectations for their child.
Additionally, the study found that the majority of parents engaged in a range of activities that showed their involvement in IE. Amongst them were taking care of their children’s personal care, attending PTA meetings and providing all the information the school needs about their children.
Furthermore, a one-way ANOVA test conducted found no statistically significant difference of age-range on the parents’ current involvement. The study found that gender and having a child with or without SEN does have an effect on parents’ current involvement in IE. Males and parents without children with SEN report being more currently involved in IE than females and parents with children with SEN. Finally, educational level showed an effect on parents’ current involvement in IE, but the post-hoc test was unable to identify the source of the difference.
The majority of the parents reported that the schools involved them in a number of activities. However, parents wanted to be part of the decision-making process, raise funds or volunteer as a resource person, be involved in the discipline of their children and be given further education on how to help their children among other
things. Twenty parents (7.5%) were of the view that it is the responsibility of the government.
Some facilitators to PI in IE are ‘‘school authorities and teachers respecting parental decisions and views’’, ‘‘a school environment that makes parents feel welcomed’’ and ‘‘schools educating parents on the need of involvement and how to be involved’’. Some inhibitors identified were parents not having time for their children, lack of parental knowledge on how to be involved and on how to help their children. Using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient the study found a positive weak relationship r = .175, n = 520, p < 0.001 between knowledge and parents’ current involvement and r = .152, n = 520, p < 0.001 between benefits and parents’ current involvement. There was however no relationship r = -.015, n = 520, p < .725 between concerns and parents’ current involvement.
Finally, using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient the study established the existence of a significantly strong positive relationship r = .490, n = 520, p < 0.000 between parents’ perceived knowledge and their perceived benefits of IE and a negative relationship r =-.370, n=520, p < 0.003 between parents’ perceived benefits and their concerns about IE. There was also a negative weak relationship r = -.130, n = 520, p < 0.003 between parents’ perceived knowledge and their concerns about IE. Despite the statistically significant results obtained from the correlations I acknowledge that
they only explain a small portion of the
variances in the tests conducted. In realistic terms therefore they may not be
logically significant. The results therefore must be interpreted cautiously.
The next chapter presents the analysis of the interview data.CHAPTER SIX
6 DATA ANALYSIS OF THE INTERVIEWS
6.1
Introduction
Analysis of the questionnaire data were presented in the previous chapter. This chapter presents the analysis of the interview data. The background of the interviewees is presented along with an overview of four of the interviews. The analysis is presented thematically. The PE and PI analysis were based on the responses of 20 and 19 parents respectively as a parent opted out of the interview since he had difficulty expressing himself. The information in this chapter is aimed at answering research questions two and three. Code identities given to parents and some words and phrases are in bold type for emphasis and attention. Also, verbatim responses are in italics and single quotation marks.