Parents’ attitudes towards inclusive education and their perceptions of inclusive teaching practices and resources

ABSTRACT

Inclusive education often refers to a school model wherein students with special needs (SEN) spend most of their school time with students without special needs. According to literature, for the implementation of inclusion, the attitudes towards inclusive education as well as the perception of inclusive teaching practices and resources are important factors. Within this paper, these three aspects are examined from the parents’ view. Data from a representative nationwide German survey (JAKO-O) in which 2000 parents participated was investigated. The data was collected using digitally recorded semi-structured telephone interviews. Descriptive results showed that parents’ attitudes towards the inclusion of a student with a physical disability or learning disability were rather positive, while the attitudes towards students with behavioural disorders or mental disabilities were rather neutral. According to the teaching practices, parents, whose children attend an inclusive class (with at least one student with SEN in the class) perceive more inclusive practices (e.g. teachers recognise the students’ strengths and support them) compared to parents whose children attend a regular class (where not a single student with SEN is included). However, no differences concerning resources are perceived by parents with children attending either inclusive or regular classes. Further, results of regression analysis indicate that the predictors for parents’ attitudes towards inclusive education depend on the specific type of disability.

KEYWORDS:

• Inclusive education
• attitudes towards inclusive education
• students with special needs
• teaching practices
• resources

Introduction

Inclusion is the response to the human rights movement that requested equal rights for all people, independent of their gender, race, socio-economic background and/or disability in all areas of (public) life. The UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD; United Nations, 2006) was one of the starting points for implementing the idea of inclusion into all areas of society worldwide. The UN Convention also puts emphasis on the education system: not only that access to all mainstream schools has to be ensured, but also the promotion of learning and well-being within the classroom, independent of the kind of disability. Inclusive schooling has become a shared policy in European countries, however its implementation varies widely between different countries, and often also within the same country according to legislation, settings of inclusion, financial support, access to inclusive schools and the pedagogical concepts (Schwab 2019; Loreman 2017; UNESCO 2017; Watkins 2017).

In order to reach inclusion, an inclusive education system and inclusive methods of teaching and learning should be established, however, what is defined as ‘inclusive’ has changed within the last decade. The UN Convention rather focussed on students with disabilities, their needs and how to support them in order to include them into mainstream schools. Later policy papers (e.g. the Sustainable Development Goals, see United Nations 2015) encompass all learners (see also Schwab 2019). In this context, a paradigm shift took place, emphasising the organisations, asking how they produce barriers of inclusion themselves and how schools can ensure equality in education for all children (European Parliament 2017; Avramidis and Norwich 2002; Watkins and Meijer 2016).

Inclusive education in Germany

This paper presents data from Germany. First approaches to inclusion, pushed forward mostly by parents, emerged in Germany already in the 1970s when pilot experiments tried to integrate children with disabilities into mainstream classes. However, Germany did not ratify the UN Convention before 2009 (Klemm 2015). Whereas in the beginning some schools developed and experienced different practices voluntarily, after the ratification of the UN Convention the whole educational system was under pressure to implement inclusion. As the 16 Federal States of Germany have sovereignty in cultural and educational affairs, the UN Convention had to be transferred into the domestic Federal State laws. As a result, legislation and understanding of inclusion differ between the Federal States. This becomes evident concerning several dimensions: the settings for inclusion, the financial support for schools and the access to schools including the options of parents to choose a school for their child.

To support inclusion, schools often receive general funding for students with (an official diagnosis of having) special educational needs (SEN) (‘throughput funding’, UNESCO 2017). The amount of these resources and the way to request them differs according to the respective Federal State legislation. Additionally, schools are quite autonomous in how they use the given resources (Klemm 2015).

Although children with SEN have the right to attend regular schools, the choices parents have are more or less limited according to the options they have. Usually they can choose between special schools and regular schools which usually offer regular classes (without any children with disabilities) as well as inclusive classes (with at least one child with SEN) as children with SEN are bundled into just a few classes, due to organisational reasons. Additionally, the rights of parents are limited by the number of places schools offer for children with SEN. Parents have the right to receive a place for their child in an inclusive school, but they cannot choose the school itself. This can be a problem for parents with children with SEN as some schools do not offer places for affected children (Klemm 2015).

Keeping these aspects in mind, the data for all Federal States show that Germany has about 524,000 students with SEN (7.1 percent of all students, Klemm 2018). Within the last decade, the inclusion rate (proportion of students with SEN which attended inclusive classes compared with all students with SEN) has increased from 18.4 percent (2008) to 39.3 percent (2016) (Klemm 2018, using data from the KMK/Kultusministerkonferenz, The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Federal States in the Federal Republic of Germany, 2018). In 2016, 205.811 students with SEN attended inclusive classes (77,215 in primary schools and 102,928 in various forms of secondary schools)¹. When reviewing the inclusion rates between pre-primary, primary and secondary schools, there is a reduction from 67.0 percent (kindergarten) to 46.9 percent (primary schools) and 29.9 percent (secondary schools) (data for school year 2013/14, Klemm 2015)².

However, that means: about 60 percent of students with SEN still attend special schools. An international comparison makes evident that Germany’s inclusion rate is considered quite moderate compared with many other European countries (average: 52.7 percent) (European Agency Statistics on Inclusive Education 2014). Within Germany, the rate differs between 82.8 percent in the city-state Bremen and 26.3 percent in Bavaria (Klemm 2018).

Criteria for inclusive education³ and its successful implementation

The paradigm shift also influenced the debate on the question of what high quality inclusive education is and how it can be successfully implemented in schools (Ferguson 2008). The current debate is guided by the idea of making inclusive education available for as many students as possible; however, the focus is – at least in Germany – much more on the situation of students with SEN.

Attitudes towards inclusive education: the parents’ perspective

For a successful implementation of inclusion, positive attitudes seem to be a key-issue (e.g. Florian and Spratt 2013). According to Allport (1935) attitudes can be understood as ‘a mental and neural state of readiness, organised through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual’s response to all objects and situations with which it is related’. In the implementation process, various groups of players are involved: students, professionals (class teachers, special needs teachers, psychologists), school-management, external support groups (like social and youth welfare, leisure facilities) and of course parents who have – in many countries – the right to choose a school for their child. However, there are differences between these groups concerning the concrete implementation and the current situation.

Whereas the amount of research on (student) teachers’ and students’ attitudes has become quite large within the last years, parents remained a neglected group. That is astonishing as the Basic Law (1949), Article 6 (2), defines the responsibility for raising children a ‘natural right of parents’. Looking back, parents were a driving group for the inclusion-movement in Germany in the 1990s. Currently, parents in Germany have at least in most Federal States an option to choose a school for their child. So the parents’ attitudes towards a school’s programme, including the implementation of an inclusive education, are important to promote inclusion. Additionally, for a comprehensive assessment, the parents’ perspective seems necessary to gain an external view of the practices in inclusive education. Therefore, the attitudes and perceptions of parents are set out in the middle of this paper.

Outlining research about the attitudes of parents, the main results are: Parents in general have a positive or at least a neutral attitude towards inclusive education. This result is in line with that of the other groups, especially the teachers (de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2010; Bertelsmann Stiftung 2015; Schwab 2018). Furthermore, parents who have children with SEN show ambivalent attitudes, emphasising not only benefits but also risks for their children (Leyser and Kirk 2007; Gasteiger-Klicpera et al. 2013; de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2010; Mann, Cuskelly, and Moni 2016). Nevertheless, parents agree that there are benefits for all children by inclusive education.

The differences between parents in general concern three dimensions: Parents’ attitudes are more positive if they are educated to a higher level and if they had already experienced inclusive education (de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2010). Parents’ attitudes differ dependent on the type of disability: whereas an inclusion of children with physical and sensory disabilities is highly supported, the inclusion of children with behavioural problems and severe cognitive disabilities is considered more sceptical (Avramidis and Norwich 2002; de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2010; Paseka 2017; Schwab 2018). Next to attitudes, teaching practices, as well as the available resources, can be listed as crucial key factors of successful inclusion.

Inclusive teaching practices

Based on the fact that inclusive classes include students with a wide diversity in educational needs, previous research indicated that different teaching practices were needed within inclusive schooling. Summing up the discussion about good instruction and education in school in Germany, Werning and Arndt (2015) name ten criteria: defining aims and criteria for success, dividing tasks into several steps, adapting tasks according to the students’ resources and needs, offering differentiated materials, controlling performance steadily, giving content-based feedback, providing learning strategies, offering exercises and repetition, using interactive forms of cooperation, and giving additional tasks. Tjernberg and Mattson (2014) emphasise that inclusive teaching practices require more personalised instruction, a large variety of differentiation and cooperation to be implemented successfully (for personalisation and differentiation see also Lindner et al. 2019; Schwab, Sharma, and Hoffmann 2019). Personalisation means that teachers are able to see their students as individuals and find ways to get access to them. Indicators are the teachers’ abilities to recognise students’ strengths and support them. Other indicators are to pick up content, which is interesting for them and related to their lives and to be able to cope well with the students’ heterogeneity. Differentiation refers to the knowledge of various methods and the ability to use them according to the needs of their students and the situation. Indicators are the use of alternative methods, raising interest by asking questions or offering interesting material. Cooperation is meant in two directions: one as cooperation with students by establishing a good relationship with them, the other as cooperation within the pedagogical staff, especially between class teachers and special needs teachers and/or psychologists.

The other branch refers more to the school as an organisation. Booth and Ainscow (2002) foster three dimensions to implement inclusive schools: (1) an inclusive culture by creating a caring and trustful community with a good climate and by establishing inclusive values; (2) inclusive policies by developing a school for all, organising support for diversity by offering lots of activities; (3) inclusive practices by orchestrating learning and mobilising resources for a barrier-free building, space for learning and relaxing, technical equipment and an acceptable class size. Previous research already pointed out that a higher use of inclusive teaching practices is linked with a more positive attitude by teachers towards inclusive education (e.g. Sharma and Sokal 2016; Tjernberg and Mattson 2014). Currently no research is published about parents’ perception of teaching practices. Based on a study of students’ perceptions, it can be assumed that in inclusive classes teaching practices are more inclusive (e.g. by using more individualised teaching strategies) compared to regular classes (Gebhardt et al. 2014).

Resources as an important influencing factor

According to Schneider et al. (2018) resources in inclusive education can be divided into personnel resources (teaching and non-teaching staff), teaching and learning materials and special resources. Referring to the Index of Inclusion (Booth and Ainscow 2002) the three mentioned aspects (inclusive culture, inclusive policy and inclusive practices) can therefore be seen as resources within inclusive education. Generally, a major barrier to successful inclusion seems to be the lack of resources or that resources are not addressing students’ concrete needs. The European Parliament (2017) underpins that the amount of resources, as well as the flexibility to use available resources, differs a lot in Europe, however, for a successful inclusive education adequate resources are needed. In Germany, schools have the possibility to reject students with SEN with the justification of lack of resources available (Klemm 2015). In the context of attitudes towards inclusive schooling, a link between resources and attitudes has been shown. Avramidis and Norwich (2002) figured out that teachers’ attitudes could become more positive if they are content with the resources and support available, if they work in inclusive classes. In a comparative study, Goldan et al. (2018) analysed the differences between teachers’ and students’ perceptions: students are more satisfied with resources than teachers; however, the opinion of the students varies widely. A study in which the perception of parents is analysed is still missing.

The current study

This study aims to explore the attitudes of parents towards inclusion, perceptions of inclusive teaching practices, perceived resources in regular classes and inclusive classes, looking for predictors for positive or negative attitudes towards inclusive education. Specifically, this survey, undertaken in Germany, addresses the following research questions:

1. To which extent do parents favour inclusion of students with different types of disabilities?

2. Do parents’ perceptions of teaching practices in inclusive and regular classes differ?

3. Do parents whose children attend inclusive classes perceive higher resources compared to parents whose children attend regular classes?

4. Which variable predicts a positive or negative attitude towards inclusive education? The following variables are chosen and correlated with the attitudes of parents: (a) school setting of the child (regular vs. inclusive class), (b) gender of parents, (c) age of parents, (d) parent’s level of education, (e) parent’s monthly income, (f) age of parents’ oldest child, (g) parent’s perception of teaching practices and (h) parents’ perception of resources.

Method

Design and procedure

The present paper is part of the JAKO-O trend survey, carried out 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2017. These representative nationwide German surveys are financed by the company JAKO-O with the aim to give parents a voice by asking them about their attitudes and perceptions of teachers, schooling and education policy as well as their own support for their children and school. For this paper data from 2017 are used. Data was collected using digitally recorded semi-structured telephone interviews. Those parents were chosen for the interview, who had children in compulsory education to make sure that they have current experiences with school. Questions referring to the parents’ children always had to be answered for the oldest child in compulsory education, usually between six and 15 years. The interviews were carried out in January 2017 (Schöppner 2017).

Participants

The sample comprises 2,000 parents (70 percent female, 30 percent male) from all federal states in Germany: 21.1 percent from North-Rhine Westphalia, 16.3 percent from Bavaria, 15,4 percent from Baden-Württemberg, 15 percent from the North-West (Bremen, Hamburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony), 7.8 percent from Hessen, 7.6 percent from the North-East (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg), 7.1 percent of the South-East (Thuringia, Saxony), 6.2 percent from Rhineland-Palatinate, and 3.5 percent from Berlin. The age of the participants varied between 21 and 75 years (M = 42.89, SD = 6.40). The educational level of 23.1 percent of the sample was low, 44.4 percent had a middle educational level and 30.1 percent had a high educational level (for 2.4 percent of the sample this information was missing). The age of their oldest child was between 4 and 16 years (M = 11.98, SD = 2.92). 28 percent of these children attend primary school, 27.6 percent attend secondary schools preparing for tertiary education (‘Gymnasium’), 17.5 percent attend a secondary school which lead to a middle education level (‘Realschule’) and the remaining children attended other or combined school-types. For 3.3 percent of the sample no information about the child’s school type was available. While the oldest child of 1,490 parents was educated in a regular class (where not one single student with SEN was educated), the oldest child of 418 parents was educated in an inclusive class (where at least one student with an official SEN diagnosis was educated). For 92 parents it was unclear whether their oldest child attended a regular class or not.

Variables

Attitudes towards inclusive education

In order to assess parents’ attitudes towards inclusive education, parents were asked with which pupils children without disabilities should be educated together. In Germany several special needs areas exist. The majority of children with SEN have learning disabilities (38.8 percent), mental disabilities (16.0 percent), emotional and behavioural disorders (15.2 percent) and language disabilities (11.1 percent) (Klemm 2015). For the survey, four contrasting types were chosen and partly linguistically simplified: physical disability, learning disability, behavioural disorder, mental disabilities. Parents had to choose between ‘no’ and ‘yes’.

Teaching practices

To assess teachers’ teaching practices parents were asked which statements describe the teaching practices of their oldest child’s teachers. According to the criteria for good inclusive teaching and learning, the items cover personalisation (four items), differentiation (three items) and cooperation (two items). The items were developed for the JAKO-O survey (Paseka 2012). All nine statements (see Table 2) had to be answered with either ‘no’ or ‘yes’. The reliability of the total scale with the nine items is acceptable (Cronbach’s Alpha = .77).

Table 2. Parents’ perception of teachers teaching practices.

Item	Parents whose child attend regular classes (n = 1,490)		Parents whose child attend inclusive classes (n = 418)		Significance-test
The teachers of my child …	% of parents who answered with ‘no’	% of parents who answered with ‘yes’	% of parents who answered with ‘no’	% of parents who answered with ‘yes’	χ^2 (df)
Personalisation
… recognise the students’ strengths and support them.	34.9%	65.1%	24.9%	75.1%	χ^2 = 14.76aa
… pick up content that is related to the students’ lives.	34.9%	65.1%	26.5%	73.5%	χ^2 = 10.34aa
… do everything they can to ensure that the weaker students also come along.	38.3%	61.7%	32.8%	67.2%	χ^2 = 4.20a
… can deal with the different financial and social the circumstances of the students’ backgrounds.	22.2%	77.8%	20.1%	79.9%	χ^2 = 0.87
… are able to handle well different linguistic requirements.	37.1%	62.9%	35.3%	64.7%	χ^2 = 0.43
Differentiation
… can arouse the interest of their students.	23.4%	76.6%	16.9%	83.1%	χ^2 = 7.88aa
… use new teaching methods.	44.9%	55.1%	39.1%	60.9%	χ^2 = 4.45a
Cooperation
… work for a good relationship with their students.	19%	81%	12.2%	87.8%	χ^2 = 10.28aa
… coordinate well with each other.	35.9%	64.1%	33.4%	66.6%	χ^2 = 0.91

p < .05, **p < .01;

Resources

Resources have been assessed with different items, according to the index of inclusion. A ‘good class climate’ and ‘hardly any class cancellation’ create a positive culture, giving trust and security for the school day. A good classroom atmosphere refers to positive relations between students and their peers as well as between students and teachers (e.g. Modin and Östberg 2009). It can be seen as a socially and mentally supportive environment and therefore is a resource to prevent e.g. negative psycho-social development. The item ‘varied activities beyond the lessons’ stands for an inclusive policy. To be able to practice inclusion, resources are needed as material resources (‘good technical and spatial equipment’) as well as personal resources to offer ‘acceptable class sizes’. These items were developed for the JAKO-O survey and used in the former surveys as well. Parents were asked how they assess the teaching, learning and educational situation in their child’s school according to these aspects with ‘no’ or ‘yes’.

Background variables

Parents’ educational level

Three levels were differentiated: low education (max. nine years of schooling, partly finishing with a basic certificate), middle education (up to 10 years, finishing with an intermediate certificate) and higher education (minimum 12 years, finishing with the highest certificate at the second level and/or a third level diploma).

Parent’s monthly income

The monthly household income was assed using following answer categories:

1: income less than 1000€ monthly

2: income between 1000€ and 2000€ monthly

3: income between 2000€ and 3000€ monthly

4: income higher than 3000€ monthly

Results

Descriptive results of parents’ attitudes

Table 1 gives an overview of parents’ attitudes towards inclusive education per disability type. According to the distribution of the answers, one can see that the disability type of the child influences the attitudes towards inclusion. While the attitude towards the inclusion of students with physical disability is most positive, followed by the attitude towards students with learning disabilities, the attitudes towards inclusion of student with behavioural disorders or students with mental disabilities is more negative. While the majority of parents whose children attend inclusive classes are holding a rather positive opinion (towards all students), parents whose children attend regular classes have more negative attitudes. In addition, out of the parents who answered the attitudes questions, 27.9 percent of the total sample are against inclusion (indicated by negative attitudes towards students with all four types of disabilities) and only 3.6 percent had fully positive attitudes (indicated by positive attitudes towards all students with disabilities). About 70 percent of the parents differ precisely between the different types of disabilities.

Table 1. Parent’s attitudes towards inclusive education per disability type.

	Total Sample (N = 2,000)		Parents whose child attends regular classes (n = 1,490)		Parents whose child attends inclusive classes (n = 418)		Significance-test
Kind of disability	% of parents with negative attitudes	% of parents with positive attitudes	% of parents with negative attitudes	% of parents with positive attitudes	% of parents with negative attitudes	% of parents with positive attitudes	χ^2 (df = 1)
Inclusion of student with physical disability	9.8%	88.6%	10.6%	88%	7.2%	92.2%	χ^2 = 4.67*
Inclusion of student with learning disability	25%	71.2%	27%	69.7%	18.8%	79.1%	χ^2 = 12.41**
Inclusion of student with behavioural disorder	45.6%	49%	48.2%	46.3%	38.4%	58.5%	χ^2 = 16.22**
Inclusion of student with mental disability	53.1%	40.9%	56%	37.8%	44.2%	50.7%	χ^2 = 21.52**

The percentage of parents who did not answer the question or indicated that they cannot decide between no or yes can be calculated by 100% minus the percentage of parents with negative and positive attitudes. *p < .05, **p < .01;

Teaching practices in inclusive and regular classes

In total, parents whose children attend inclusive classes perceive a higher level of inclusive teaching practices. Especially the recognition of students’ individual strengths and the support of these strengths seem to be part of the teaching practices in inclusive classes (see Table 2). Positive relationships with the students seems to be a bigger issue in inclusive classes compared to regular classes. Moreover, the practices in inclusive classes are characterised by a higher connection to the students’ living environment, a stronger focus on students’ interests, the use of new teaching methods and ensuring that weaker pupils also benefit from lessons. However, no difference could be found in the ability to work with different linguistic or financial and social students’ backgrounds between regular class teachers and teachers from inclusive classes. Further, parents from regular and inclusive classes perceive similar coordination between teachers themselves. For the total score of parents’ perception of teaching practices, results of a t-test show that parents whose child attends a regular class (M = 0.68, SD = 0.27) perceive less inclusive practices compared to parents whose child attends an inclusive class (M = 0.73, SD = 0.26; t (1906) = – 3.81, p<,01).

Resources in inclusive and regular classes

Table 3 shows the mean values, standard deviation and t-test results of parents’ perception of resources. According to the mean values, parents generally agree that the resources are acceptable. No group differences were found between parents whose children attended regular or inclusive classes, according to spatial resources, personal resources, material resources or class climate.

Table 3. Parents’ perception of resources.

Item	Parents whose child attends regular classes (n = 1,490)		Parents whose child attends inclusive classes (n = 418)		Significance-test
How do you assess the teaching, learning and educational situation in the school of your child according to …	% of parents who answered with ‘no’	% of parents who answered with ‘yes’	% of parents who answered with ‘no’	% of parents who answered with ‘yes’	χ^2 (df = 1)
… good technical and spatial equipment	25.2%	74.8%	28.2%	71.8%	χ^2 = 1.46
… acceptable class size	21.7%	78.3%	23%	77%	χ^2 = 0.32
… hardly any class cancellations	35.5%	64.5%	33.6%	66.4%	χ^2 = 0.49
… varied activities beyond the lessons	38.3%	61.7%	36.3%	63.7%	χ^2 = 0.54
… good class climate	25.2%	74.8%	28.2%	71.8%	χ^2 = 0.12

No Significance-test result was significant.

Prediction of parents’ attitude towards inclusive education

In order to predict parents’ attitudes towards inclusive education, a separate stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed for the parents’ attitudes towards children with different disabilities. The following variables were entered as predictors in each analysis: the school setting of the child (regular vs. inclusive classes), parents’ gender, parents’ age, parent’s level of education, parent’s monthly income, age of the parents’ oldest child, parent’s perception of teaching practices and parent’s perception of resources. Following Cohen (1988) effect sizes around R² = .02 corresponds to a low (weak) variance elucidation, R² = .13 to a medium (moderate) variance elucidation and R² = .26 to a high (strong) variance elucidation.

For parents’ attitudes towards the inclusive education of students with physical disabilities, two significant models emerged (model 1: Nagelkerkes R² = .018, model 2: Nagelkerkes R² = .027, see Table 4). In the first model, parents’ educational level was a predictor and in the second model, parent’s monthly income was added. The higher the educational level and the monthly income, the more positive the attitude. The final model yielded an overall percentage of 90.4 percent correct assignments.

Table 4. Stepwise logistic regression models (final models) for the prediction of parents’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with physical disabilities.

	Model 1	Model 2
Variable	B	b	SE(b)	Exb (b)
Parents’ educational level	.424**	.381**	.112	1.463
Parent’s monthly income		.132**	.049	1.141
Model χ^2	15.22**	23.61**
Df	1	2

**p < .01

For parents’ attitudes towards inclusive education of students with learning disabilities five models emerged (model 1: Nagelkerkes R² = .010, model 2: Nagelkerkes R² = .016, model 3: Nagelkerkes R² = .023, model 4: Nagelkerkes R² = .028, model 5: Nagelkerkes R² = .033, see Table 5). The child’s school setting (inclusive class), more inclusive teaching practices, higher educational level, being female and a higher monthly income predicted parents’ positive attitudes. The percentage of correct assignments in the final model was 74 percent.

Table 5. Stepwise logistic regression models (final models) for the prediction of parents’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with learning disabilities.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Variable	B	b	B	b	B	SE(b)	Exb (b)
School setting of the child	.496**	.433**	.441**	.455**	.483**	.141	1.621
Teaching practices		.560**	.582**	.591**	.558**	.200	1.748
Parents’ educational level			−.213**	−.219**	−.243**	.076	0.784
Parents’ gender				.303**	.327**	.117	1.387
Parent’s monthly income					.077*	.031	1.080
Model χ^2	12.06**	19.98**	28.19**	34.91**	41.47**
Df	1	2	3	4	5

*p < .05, **p < .01

Parents’ attitudes towards students with behavioural disorders were predicted with three stepwise models (model 1: Nagelkerkes R² = .011, model 2: Nagelkerkes R² = .016, model 3: Nagelkerkes R² = .019, see Table 6). In the first model, the school setting of the child (inclusive education) appeared as a significant predictor, in the second model, class cancellations were added, and in the third model, parents’ age was added as a significant predictor. The inclusive school setting of the child, hardly any class cancellations and a lower age, predicted parents’ positive attitudes. The final model yielded an overall percentage of only 54 percent correct assignments.

Table 6. Stepwise logistic regression models (final models) for the prediction of parents’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with behavioural disorders.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Variable	B	b	b	SE(b)	Exb (b)
School setting of the children	.448**	.447**	.443**	.116	1.557
Class cancellation		.245*	.218*	.101	1.243
Parents’ age			−.016*	.008	0.985
Model χ^2	15.26**	21.23**	25.49**
Df	1	2	3

*p < .05, **p < .01

Parents’ attitudes towards inclusion of students with mental disabilities was predicted within three models (model 1: Nagelkerkes R² = .015, model 2: Nagelkerkes R² = .027, model 3: Nagelkerkes R² = .032, see Table 7). The child’s school setting (being educated in inclusive classes), parents’ age (lower age) and gender (being female) predicted positive attitudes. However, only 57.7 percent of the assignments were correctly estimated.

Table 7. Stepwise logistic regression models (final models) for the prediction of parents’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with mental disabilities.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Variable	B	B	b	SE(b)	Exb (b)
Parents’ age	−.033**	−.033**	−.031**	.008	.0970
School setting of the child		.458**	.472**	.116	1.603
Parents’ gender			.293**	.109	1.340
Model χ^2	19.73**	35.38**	42.70**
Df	1	2	3

**p < .01

Discussion

Inclusive education is on the agenda in many countries worldwide, including Germany. Since the UN Convention was ratified in 2009, inclusion was on the agenda of all Federal States of Germany. Although special schools still exist and are partly demanded by parents, teachers, as well as politicians, inclusive schooling has been implemented, however, with different efforts and resources. This paper investigated parents’ attitudes towards inclusive education, as well as their perception of teaching practices and available resources using data from a representative survey.

The first research question refers to the extent, to which parents favour the inclusion of students with different types of disabilities. In line with previous research of parents’ attitudes (e.g. de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2010) as well as teachers’ attitudes (Avramidis and Norwich 2002; de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2011), the descriptive results clearly indicated that the type of disability matters. Compared with former data from the JAKO-O survey, this trend has been stable over the last five years (Paseka 2017). Parents consider the inclusion of children with physical disabilities most easily. In addition, the acceptance for the inclusion of children with learning disabilities is quite high. Quite the opposite, a very problematic group from the perspective of parents, seem to be children with behavioural disorders. A current study carried out in the city-state of Hamburg verified this assumption. Children with such a disorder are assessed as being very challenging for teachers, when concerned with their social integration and their willingness to work hard. Obviously, schools have not been very successful in supporting this group of students with adequate support (Schuck and Rauer 2018). Similarly, the consent for the inclusion of mentally disabled children is low. According to Leyser and Kirk (2007), this group needs much more assistance and parents fear that their own children and their learning outcomes will suffer.

Summing up, only a very small minority of parents accepts the inclusion of all children, making no differences between types of disabilities. Furthermore, descriptive results also made evident, that the experience with inclusive education correlates with more acceptance of inclusion. Independent of the type of disability, parents with children attending inclusive classes more often accept inclusive education for children with SEN. However, we do not know whether such positive attitudes derive by having one’s own child in an inclusive class or whether such an attitude already existed earlier and therefore one’s own child was consciously sent into an inclusive class.

The second research question concerns teaching practices in inclusive regular classes from the parents’ perspectives. Generally, both groups, parents with children who attend inclusive classes as well as parents with children who attend regular classes, experience a rather high level of inclusive teaching practices. What becomes obvious is that parents with children attending inclusive classes experience an even higher level of inclusive teaching practices. However, for some details we have to take a closer look. Looking at the items of personalisation, parents assume teachers in inclusive classes to be more qualified in recognising strengths and weaknesses of their students and are therefore more able to support the needs of individual students. Parents perceive teachers as able to pick up content related to their students’ lives and personalise their teaching according to the individual students’ needs. According to the parents’ views, teachers, especially those from inclusive classes, are very engaged as they try to ensure that all students, especially the ‘weaker ones’, have success and learn a lot (Florian and Spratt 2013; Tjernberg and Mattson 2014). However, according to parents’ ratings there are no differences between inclusive and regular classes in dealing with the students’ socio-economic background. Perhaps different views on inclusive education might be a part of the explanation of the lacking effect. Inclusive education often refers to the needs of students with SEN (see Piezunka, Schaffus, and Grosche 2017) and not to the needs of all learners. Likewise, the present study also uses a narrow understanding of inclusion as a basis for examining the attitudes of parents and to distinguish between inclusive and non-inclusive classes.

Looking closer at items focusing on differentiation, teachers in inclusive classes seem to have more skills to grasp the interests of their students: by having a good knowledge-based didactic concept and/or by using various methods to motivate them in different ways (Florian and Spratt 2013; Tjernberg and Mattson 2014). This result goes in line with that fact that parents perceive newer teaching methods that they perhaps do not know from their own educational biography in school. However, coping with multi-linguistic challenges in class is independent of whether it is a regular or an inclusive class.

In the area of cooperation two items were formulated which led to different results. Whereas the item to assess cooperation with children differs significantly between the two groups of parents, in the item about cooperation between teachers, no such differences were found. However, this is in line with former results of the JAKO-O survey (Paseka 2012). Also, data from earlier years show that coordination with other teachers in general was assessed as quite weak by parents.

The third research question focused on the resources parents perceive. The result is quite astonishing as no significant differences can be found in the parents’ perceptions with children in regular and inclusive classes. Nevertheless, inclusive classes receive more resources than regular ones, but the amount can differ enormously between the 16 Federal States in Germany (Klemm 2015). So perhaps this can explain the finding, at least partly. Another explanation might be that parents are not aware of such resources and that is the reason for not assessing them more positively. There are also findings that parents trust teachers quite well, although the answers of parents with handicapped children show that they have less confidence concerning some aspects and that they feel much more often exhausted (Paseka 2017). However, perhaps the work of teachers is seen as much more important than resources. As no objective questions were asked about resources, it might also be an explanation that the specific assessment method (assessing resources in a subjective way) led to this outcome. Perhaps parents from inclusive classes perceive more resources but are also aware of the fact that inclusive schooling requires these resources. Therefore, they assume a higher need for resources and for this reason parents from inclusive classes did not rate the subjective resources higher than parents from children from regular classes.

The last research question focused on the predictors of parents’ attitudes towards inclusive schooling. Generally, the predictors varied by using attitudes towards different kinds of SEN as variable outcomes and the effect sizes for all analysis showed only weak variance elucidation (see Cohen 1988). This indicates that predictors cannot be interpreted as general, and the overall predictors of parents’ attitudes, and that identifying predictors of attitudes is a complex task. For instance, a positive effect of the school setting was found for parents’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with learning disabilities, behavioural disorders and mental disabilities. Parents whose children attend inclusive classes tend to hold a more positive attitude compared to parents whose children attend regular classes. A reason that this outcome could not be found for students with physical disabilities might be explained by the fact that parents’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with physical disabilities were relatively positive anyway. Only less than 10 percent of the sample holds a negative attitude towards the inclusion of students with physical disabilities.

Moreover, mothers in comparison to fathers had a more positive attitude towards the inclusion of students with learning disabilities and mental disabilities. However, for the inclusion of students with physical disabilities and behavioural disorders no such gender effect occurred. Also in the parents’ age inconsistent effects were found. A lower age related with a more positive attitude towards the inclusion of students with behavioural disorders and mental disabilities, but not for students with physical disabilities or learning disabilities.

Parents’ educational and (socio)economic background affected their attitudes towards the inclusion of students with physical and learning disabilities. The higher the educational level and income the more positive were parents’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with physical disabilities. For attitudes towards students with learning disabilities, a paradox effect was found. Parents from lower educational levels seem to have a more positive attitude towards the inclusion of students with learning disabilities compared to parents with higher educational levels. Also worth mentioning, inclusive teaching practices predict parents’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with learning disabilities. In this context, a limitation of this study needs to be addressed: The operationalisation of teaching practices in this study is geared more towards a general approach to heterogeneity in the classroom than specifically towards the promotion of children with SEN. Therefore, the prediction of attitudes towards inclusive schooling, understood as inclusion of children with special educational needs by using a rather general approach to heterogeneity in teaching practices, might lead to an underestimation of the effect. Further, perceived resources (class cancellation) influence parents’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with behavioural problems. This indicates that parents argue that the inclusion of students with behavioural problems seems to be difficult if there are not enough staff members to minimise the dropping of lessons and instruction time.

However, the age of parents’ oldest child was not a significant influence for parents’ attitudes towards inclusive education. This lack of effect is astonishing as for instance Avramidis and Norwich (2002) clearly pointed out that primary school teachers have a more positive attitude towards inclusive education compared with secondary school teachers. Additionally, the lack effect is contrary to the fact that inclusion is stronger implemented in primary schools than in secondary schools in Germany as the percentage of primary school students with SEN is higher compared to the secondary graders with SEN.

Limitations

The current study has several general limitations; most importantly the quality of data is low as only dichotomous answer formats were used. This is common practice, as rating scales are more difficult to use in telephone interviews. However, the dichotomous answer format limited the possibilities of statistical analyses. Furthermore, parents’ subjective perspectives might be biased. Additionally it must be assumed that it might be difficult for parents to judge some of the statements, which describe the situation in the classroom and the endeavours of teachers, for example the statement whether teachers are able to deal with different financial and social circumstances of the students. This statement was assessed very highly in both groups of parents and it was not possible to differentiate between the two groups. In future research there is a need for reformulating some of the items and including more perspectives (e.g. also observational data, students’ ratings or teachers’ ratings) to validate the overlap between the parents’ view and the situation in the classroom. As a consequence, future studies would need to address variables in a broader context and from several perspectives to get clearer answers why inclusion still seems to be a matter of ‘who should be included’, instead of providing equality in educational development for all children. Generally, inclusion is a challenge for future research, not only because there are local and situational factors influencing attitudes and perceptions towards inclusive education, which cannot be captured by just asking the involved actors in the field. Even if different research approaches are used, researchers have to reflect critically what they want to focus on in the highly normative and political debate about inclusive practices and what they (re)construct by doing so.

Conclusion

For implementing inclusion in schools various players are involved: teachers, students, parents and external groups, such as psychologists or leisure trainers. All of them have been considered as important and influencing variables for successful inclusion over the years. This paper focused on parents and examined their attitudes towards inclusive education and perceptions about essential key issues for implementing inclusive schooling: inclusive teaching practices and adequate resources. The results show that there is still work to be done as such teaching practices are a challenge for teaching as they go beyond traditional ways of instruction. Therefore, teachers who want to implement inclusion have to reflect their teaching practice and the constraints they usually experience by using parents as critical friends to get an external perspective on their endeavours to meet the needs of their students. Inclusion is a challenge for schools as they have to rethink the organisational restraints they produce and focus more on the options for change. The index of inclusion gives hints to reflect different dimensions, which might not only help students with SEN, but all children with their individual strengths and weaknesses as well as their parents, so that inclusion becomes a matter of fact and not an extraordinary situation, which schools have to master. For implementing inclusive practice parents might be strong partners in the community but also in the political arena. Existing studies make evident that parents who experience inclusion gain a more positive idea about it (de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2010). Having that in mind schools could be more pro-active to get parents more involved in the practices of their schools to make them aware of what works and what needs improvement. Starting a dialogue with parents can help to change their attitudes towards inclusion and make them aware of the chances of inclusive practice for all children, but can also help to make them strong partners in joint endeavours to improve the pre-conditions for a successful implementation of inclusion.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Angelika Paseka

Angelika Paseka, is a full Professor at the Faculty of Education, University of Hamburg, Germany. Focus of research: parental involvement, coping with uncertainty in educational settings, inquiry-based learning in teacher education.

Susanne Schwab

Susanne Schwab is a full professor at the Centre for Teacher Education, University of Vienna, Austria, and Extraordinary professor at the Research Focus Area Optentia, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa. Her research specifically focusses on inclusive education, as well as teacher education and training.

Notes

1. The remaining students can be found in pre-schools, free schools or schools not differentiating between primary and secondary level as well as vocational schools. There is no differentiated information given in the KMK-document about vocational schools and trainings.

2. Klemm uses data from several sources, e.g. the German Federal Statistical Office and the KMK (see detailed information in Klemm 2015).

3. Keeping in mind that inclusive schooling is rather a question of implementing high quality education, which ensures equal education opportunities for all students within the present paper we refer to inclusive classes as classes who include at least one students with SEN. Regular classes will be referred as classes with no single student with SEN. This operationalisation is widely used within quantitative research in inclusive education in Germany.