Attitudes of Slovenian parents towards pre-school inclusion

ABSTRACT

The attitudes of parents involved in the process of inclusion are of paramount importance. The aim of this study was to examine parents’ attitudes towards the constructs associated with pre-school inclusion with two goals, which were related to construct dimensions and differences in parents’ attitudes regarding whether or not they have a child with SEN. Among 296 parents, selected by the cluster sampling technique, 202 parents with children in classrooms in Slovenian Carinthia (85 had a child with SEN) participated in this study. Fifty items were used to measure parents’ attitudes and their openness to the inclusion of children. The results showed that parents of children with SEN are more open to inclusion, perceived positive social effects and benefits for children with and without SEN and had fewer negative feelings about the inclusion effects on children without SEN, than parents of children without SEN. Research results suggest the importance of contributing to parents of children without SEN in achieving successful inclusion.

KEYWORDS:

• Pre-school inclusion
• parents’ attitudes
• children with SEN
• children without SEN

Introduction

The worldwide inclusion movement is evident in many European countries, including Slovenia, especially in the education system that has been introduced in kindergartens and schools. Inclusion is based on human rights and dignity, respecting diversity among all learners, reducing exclusion and celebrating differences (Ainscow 2003; Barton 1997).

Pre-school inclusion refers to the active participation of very young children with and without special needs (SEN) in the same classroom (Sandall et al. 2005). Pre-school inclusion is not only a matter of access and active participation but it is also about all children receiving adequate support. This contributes to their development and learning, allows them to reach their full potential, fully participate in classrooms, develop friendships and be as independent as possible (Sandall et al. 2005).

The results of effective and high-quality inclusive practice lead to the conclusion that inclusive classrooms do not hinder the academic achievement of typical children. It may instead have many social and developmental advantages for children with or without disabilities (Peltier 1997; Rose et al. 2017; Staub and Peck 1995).

In Slovenia, the inclusion of children with special needs (SEN) in the educational system was governed by the Placement of Children and Youth with Special Needs Act (2000). In Slovenia, the term ‘pre-school inclusion’ is not explicitly used in pre-school policy (Kindergarten Act 2005; Placement of Children and Youth with Special Needs Act 2000), but its policy states that all children have a legal right to pre-school education and receive the full support they need. The White paper (2011) included, among other objectives, numerous objectives of the inclusive education of pre-school children with SEN. However, in this paper, we specifically expose a permanent cooperation with parents who have children with SEN, ensuring continuous professional support to the whole family, and their access to different educational programmes and forms of assistance as close to their homes as possible. The commissions for Placing Children and Youth with Special Needs run the procedure of placing pre-school children with SEN into one of the two programmes: the programme for pre-school children with adapted implementation in regular pre-school units and additional professional support (APS), and the adapted programme for pre-school children in special developmental units. (Žgur 2014). Parents have a high degree of autonomy in the process of placement and opportunities to be integrated in all placement procedures (e.g. interviews, counselling, running procedures, possibility of an appeal) (Žgur 2014).

Pre-school children with SEN who attend regular pre-school units are involved in a heterogeneous group of peers without SEN. Pre-school inclusion for children with formal SEN status provides adaptations of the environment and curriculum; materials, aids, planning an individualised programme (IP) and additional professional support (APS). Parents have the legal right for active participation/involvement in the process of designing, implementing, evaluating IP, decision-making and setting goals for learning and growth of their child (Schmidt and Brown 2015). APS is implemented no longer than 3 hours a week in the form of special educational support, speech therapy, occupational and physical therapy. Children with formal SEN status, in inclusive classrooms, have a mild and moderate impairment (Žgur 2014).

The children with moderate/severe, severe disabilities and multiple disabilities are involved in small, homogeneous groups of children, in special developmental units within regular kindergartens. They are provided permanent special resources, special educators and extensive support.

In the last decade, the number of pre-school children with SEN, in inclusive classrooms, has been increasing constantly. In contrast, the number of children with SEN, included in kindergartens with special development units, has decreased, a result of an increase in inclusive processes in our country. The data showed that 739 pre-school children with SEN, in 2013, were included in inclusive classrooms, while, in 2018, the number of pre-school children with SEN increased to 1061. In 2013, special developmental units, within regular kindergartens, included 76 pre-school children with SEN, in 2018, the number of pre-school children with SEN was 160 (Record of Placement procedures data on pre-school children with SEN 2019).

Despite problems and challenges in implementing inclusion (not all the organisational and objective conditions have been met to ensure successful inclusion for children with SEN), we have made steps towards greater educational inclusion in schools and kindergartens. Among a visible shift towards enhancing quality and efficiency in inclusion, we should expose participation of kindergartens, schools and special institutions in national and international projects. One of them is an international project entitled Inclusive Early Childhood Education in which several European countries participated, as well as Slovenia. The project showed a good practice in developing integrated early language learning for all children, not just those with SEN, in an innovative way, and presented many good examples of using the culturally responsive approach (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education 2015). The transfer of positive outcomes and good inclusive practices is evident through the project entitled A Network of Professional Institutions to Support Children with SEN and their Families. Based on this extended project, a professional connection between regular schools, kindergartens, and special institutions has been developed in the majority of Slovenian regions (Šoln Vrbinc, Švalj, and Jakič Brezočnik 2016). Many resources, materials, equipment, for children with SEN and innovative teaching approaches have already been formed and put into practice. Additionally, a national project entitled ‘Play with me’ under the supervision of the Janez Levec Centre Ljubljana, took place for several years in different institutions in Slovenia. It encouraged active cooperation between children and youth with SEN and typically – developing peers through workshops, culture events, sport and social games (Centre Janez Levec 2019). What is more, different non-governmental associations (e.g. Down syndrome Association, Association for Inclusion Culture, Association Sožitje and many others) perform the development and promotion of inclusion in Slovenia. They are actively involved in performing projects, workshops, education for parents and professionals, programs for social inclusion and other support activities.

Parents’ attitudes towards pre-school inclusion

The perceptions and attitudes of parents involved in the process of inclusion are of paramount importance. Parents are among those who influence the process of change and the standards of practice in inclusive pre-school education. Parents have unique knowledge about their children’s abilities and are often able to facilitate staffs’ understanding of their child so that education is delivered more effectively (Green et al. 2007; Loreman et al. 2009).

In general, many parents seem to be positive about inclusion as an idea, but have mixed feelings on the practical implementation (Loreman et al. 2009).

According to Soodak and Erwin (2000), parents support inclusion because it promotes acceptance, which is crucial to their children’s social and emotional development. Earlier studies (Giangreco et al. 1993; Peck, Carlson, and Helmstetter 1992; Tafa and Manolitsis 2003) revealed that parents of children without SEN saw benefits in inclusive education (greater awareness of other children’s needs, more responsiveness and helpfulness to the needs of classmates with SEN and greater acceptance of human diversity). For the most part, however, parents of children without SEN support inclusion to the extent that it does not interfere with the learning of other children in the classroom (Hanson et al. 2001; Kniveton 2004). A study (Garrick, Duhaney, and Salend. 2000) also shows that some parents of children without SEN are concerned about the inappropriate behaviours of children with SEN and teachers who are not qualified to support children with SEN.

Parents of children with SEN have myriad feelings on inclusion. They are viewed as wanting their children to be included in educational and social settings (Leyser and Kirk 2004) but have concerns regarding pre-school inclusion. These are related to the availability of qualified staff and support services’ lack of expertise in implementing inclusion. They also fear that their children will be socially rejected (Freeman and Alkin 2000; Garrick, Duhaney, and Salend. 2000). Another study (Dimitrios et al. 2008) reported that most parents of children with disabilities have positive attitudes towards inclusion and support the concept of inclusion. An examination of the responses, to the items expressing benefits, showed that 65% of parents recognised that inclusion aids their children’s adjustment to the real world, giving them a chance to participate (63.9%) and interact with other classmates. A larger percentage of parents (47%) did not agree that special support can help their children with faster skill development compared to traditional practices. The parents appeared more confident about the equal treatment of their children in typical classes and more positive about their children’s acceptance by parents of children without disabilities. Other studies (Garrick, Duhaney, and Salend. 2000; Hilbert 2014) also indicate that parents believe inclusive settings help children with SEN learn from typically-developing peers and help promote acceptance, which is crucial for social and emotional development and developing independence.

Similar to the findings in the literature on pupils’ and teachers’ attitudes, parents’ attitudes were influenced by the type of disability of the included child and seem to be an important factor influencing their attitudes (Loreman et al. 2009; Schwab 2018).

Pre-school inclusion studies show that parents of children with and without SEN have concerns regarding inclusion, when children with behavioural or emotional disorders are enrolled, but have less concern with children who had sensory or physical disabilities (Green and Stoneman 1989; Paseka and Schwab 2019). Parents are more supportive of inclusion for children with mild disabilities as opposed to moderate and severe disabilities (Kasari et al. 1999; Leyser and Kirk 2004; Loreman et al. 2008). Their attitudes are attributed to low confidence in teachers, inadequate resources and previous negative experiences (Forlin 2010; Yan and Sin 2014).

Exploring parents’ perceptions and attitudes shows a major gap in the research towards pre-school inclusion in Slovenia.

Empirical research

The aim of this study was to examine parents’ attitudes towards the constructs associated with pre-school inclusion.

The specific objectives of the study were:

1. to investigate the dimensions of constructs related to the inclusion of children with SEN, i.e. the parents’ willingness to include children with different types of SEN in inclusive classrooms, the negative effects of this inclusion on children without SEN, the inclusion benefits for children, positive social inclusion effects for children; and

2. to investigate whether there are differences in attitudes on the inclusion factors mentioned above among parents of children with and without SEN.

Methodology

Data collection procedure

The target population was composed of parents with pre-school children in inclusive settings in Slovenian Carinthia. In this area, there were 85 public kindergartens with 140 inclusive settings (with approximately 2.800 pre-school children). A cluster sampling method was used to collect the data. We sent a request to 45 randomly selected kindergartens for their permission to conduct the survey. The permit was obtained from 41 kindergartens (91% response rate). Each kindergarten informed us about the number of children with SEN. The overall number received was 148 children (20% of all children with SEN in Slovenia at the time of the survey). Based on the numbers received from each kindergarten, we sent to them 296 questionnaires. Our goal was to get a sample including approximately the same number of responses from two groups of parents.

The survey was conducted with the support of kindergarten counsellors who asked the parents for their participation and gave them the questionnaires. The research assistant visited all kindergarteners included in the survey and provided the counsellors with clear instructions regarding survey completion and the random selection of parents whose children do not have SEN. All participating parents were informed that their participation in our survey was anonymous and voluntary.

Research instrument

Parents’ attitudes were collected using an adapted/modified questionnaire ‘The Parental Attitudes towards Kindergarten Inclusion scale’ (Tafa and Manolitsis 2003).

The survey questionnaire consisted of five sections. The first section included questions on the parent profile, such as gender and education level. The next five sections were developed to assess the respondent’s level of agreement on the inclusion of children with different types of SEN (7 items), negative inclusion effects on children without SEN (14 items), inclusion benefits for children (8 items), and positive social effects of inclusion (3 items). Before data processing, reverse scoring was applied for negatively worded statements. The parent agreement was measured on a 5-point Likert scale.

Research sample

Two hundred and two parents with children in inclusive classrooms within selected kindergartens in Slovenian Carinthia participated in this study. Eighty-five parents had a child with SEN (57.4% response rate) and 117 parents had a child without SEN (79% response rate). Their children were between 4 and 6 years old. Accommodations for children were implemented into regular classrooms and they were provided with additional professional support (APS).

The majority of parents had high school education (93); among them 40 parents had a child with SEN. Among all participants, there were many more mothers (178) than fathers (24); among mothers, there were 70 whose child had SEN; 15 fathers had the child with SEN.

Data processing

The dimensionality of constructs included in the research was investigated with factor analysis. The reliability of factors was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. The hypotheses about differences in parents’ attitudes due to their parenting of a child with SEN or not were tested with t-test for two independent samples after verifying that the dependent variables were approximately normally distributed in all sub-samples. Data were processed with IBM SPSS Statistics 24.

Results

Dimension analysis of the construct ‘the willingness to include children with different types of SEN in inclusive classrooms’

This construct was measured by seven items on the 5-point Likert scale, on which 1 meant completely disagree and 5 completely agree. First, the factorability of these items was examined. The correlation coefficients were higher than .3 and ranged between .31 and .8. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) was .8, which is above the recommended value of .6, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ²(21) = 626.94, p < .001). Considering all these indicators, factor analysis was suitable with all seven items.

Principal component analysis (PCA) was used in order to reveal construct dimensions and compute composite scores for the obtained factors. Two factors had an eigenvalue higher than one and explained 67.9% of total variance. The item ‘Only one child with behaviour disabilities can be included in the inclusion group’ was excluded from further analysis because it had moderate loadings on both factors (smaller than .5). The PCA of the remaining six items, using oblimin rotation, was conducted with two factors explaining 73.6% of the total variance (see Table 1).

Table 1. Factor loadings, communalities and descriptive statistics for the construct ‘Willingness to include children with different types of SEN in inclusive classrooms’

Items		Factor 1 loadings	Factor 2 loadings	Commu-nalities
	Parents’ concern regarding the inclusion in their own child’s classroom of a child with.
V10	visual impairment	.94		.85
V11	hearing impairment	.94		.84
V8	physical disability	.71		.63
V6	moderate intellectual disability		.93	.83
V5	severe intellectual disability		.83	.66
V7	mild intellectual disability		.72	.60
Eigen values		3.33	1.09
Per cent of variance explained		55.47	18.10
Cronbach alpha		.85	.78
Mean		4.38	3.81
Standard deviation		0.88	1.06

Extraction method: Principal component analysis; Rotation: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalisation; Loadings smaller than .3 were suppressed.

Factor 1 consisted of three items (V10, V11, and V8), with very high positive loadings ranging from .71 to .94 (see Table 1) and explained 55.47% of variance. Based on the loading pattern, this factor was called ‘willingness to include children with sensory impairments and physical disabilities’. Cronbach alpha was .85 and showed a good internal consistency on the first dimension of this construct.

Three items (V5, V6 and V7) were loaded under Factor 2 (See Table 1). All three loadings were positive and ranged from .72 to .93. This factor explained 18.1% of total variance and it was named ‘willingness to include children with intellectual disabilities’. Cronbach alpha of this factor was .78 and showed a good internal consistency.

Dimension analysis of the construct ‘negative effects of inclusion’

This construct was measured by 14 items on the 5-point Likert scale, on which 1 meant completely disagree and 5 completely agree. All 14 items were negatively worded; before data processing, reverse scoring was applied. All indicators – correlation coefficients with values between .43 and .69, KMO with a value of .94 and a significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ²(105) = 2249.19, p < .001) – confirmed factorability of collected data. All items were loaded on one factor with an eigenvalue higher than one. We found four variables (Children with SEN should be included in special groups together with other children with SEN; I am not willing to include my child in the group of children with SEN; The children with SEN can be confusing to the regular group; and Integration/Inclusion is an advantage only for parents of children with SEN) with communalities less than .5 and they were excluded from further analysis. The result of PCA with 10 variables is presented in Table 2

Table 2. Factor loadings with communalities and descriptive statistics for the construct ‘Negative inclusion impacts on children without SEN’

Items		Factor loadings	Communalities
V35	The teacher will have to give too much attention to children with SEN and my child will suffer	.89	.78
V36	The children without SEN will receive less teacher attention, so my child might receive less attention	.87	.77
V19	The one-to-one instruction required by children with SEN would detract from the instructional attention that my child might receive	.84	.71
V38	Teachers devote too much time to children with SEN	.84	.70
V40	I am not prepared to accept my child being involved in an inclusive classroom	.81	.65
V33	Teacher’s focus on accommodating the learning abilities of a child with SEN would hold back my child’s learning	.79	.63
V32	Children with SEN exhibit delays in academic skills, which would affect negatively the educational progress of all the other children	.78	.61
V34	My child might be frightened by the strange behaviour of a child with SEN	.78	.61
V41	It is difficult for teachers to handle children with SEN and to provide conditions for normal work	.78	.60
V18	Children with SEN may do things that injure my child	.72	.52
Eigen value		6.58
Per cent of variance explained		65.84
Cronbach alpha		.94
Mean		3.92
Standard deviation		1.12

Extraction method: Principal component analysis

All factor loadings are positive and ranged between .72 and .89; 65.84% of variance was explained by this factor and its high reliability was confirmed with Cronbach’s alpha (.94).

Taking into account the highest item loadings the factor was called ‘negative inclusion effects on children without SEN’. Its mean value of 3.92, on a 5-point scale, indicated that, on average, parents didn’t agree that inclusion had negative effects on children without SEN. Higher values of this factor thus mean less perception of negative effects.

Dimension analysis of the construct ‘benefits of inclusion for children’

The construct was measured by eight items on the 5-point Likert scale, on which 1 meant completely disagree and 5 completely agree. All indicators, the correlations (between .28 and .84), a KMO value of .82 and a significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ²(21) = 840.4, p < .001) confirmed the factorability of these items. Two factors with eigenvalues higher than 1 were detected suggesting two dimensions to this construct. We found one variable (I prefer my child to participate in a classroom with children without SEN) with a communality .45 and it was dropped from the analysis.

The first dimension (Factor 1) consisted of four items; their loadings ranged from .76 to .97 and explained 56.64% of total variance (see Table 3). The first three items with very large loadings on factor 1 were taken into account; we named the first dimension ‘the inclusion benefits for children without SEN’. Three items measured the second dimension (Factor 2) of this construct. All three loadings on the second factor were positive and ranged between .76 and .94; factor 2 explains 18.1% of total variance. The second dimension was called ‘the inclusion benefits for children with SEN’. Both factors were reliable; their Cronbach’s alphas were .9 for the first factor and .77 for the second one.

Table 3. Factor loadings with communalities and descriptive statistics for the construct ‘Benefits of inclusion’

Item		Factor 1 loadings	Factor 2 loadings	Communalities
	In an inclusive classroom, children without SEN
V29	are more aware of other children’s needs	.97		.88
V28	are more accepting of the limitations of other children	.91		.79
V30	have fewer prejudices about people with SEN	.85		.77
V31	have learned to be more helpful and supportive to other people with SEN	.76		.67
V26	Inclusion helps children with SEN become prepared to function effectively in the ‘real world’		.94	.84
V27	Inclusion gives children with SEN the opportunity to be around children without SEN so that they can learn from them		.79	.72
V25	The benefits of inclusion outweigh the disadvantages		.76	.57
Eigen values		3.97	1.27
Per cent of variance explained		56.64	18.10
Cronbach’s alpha		.90	.77
Mean		4.33	4.15
Standard deviation		0.88	0.93

Extraction method: Principal component analysis; Rotation: Oblimin with Kaiser normalisation; Loadings smaller than 0.3 were suppressed.

Dimension analysis of the construct positive social effects of inclusion

This construct was measured by three items on the 5-point Likert scale, on which 1 meant completely disagree and 5 completely agree. The collected data were suitable for factor analysis (KMO was .65), Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ²(3) = 0.645, p < .001; and correlations ranged between .4 and .62). All three items were loaded on one factor with communalities higher than .5 (see Table 5).

Table 4. Factor loadings with communalities and descriptive statistics for the construct social effects of inclusion

	Item	Factor loadings	Communalities
V43	In an inclusive classroom children without SEN will learn to accept and understand differences	.86	.73
V46	All children have the right to be educated in regular classes	.85	.72
V42	Many children with SEN behave properly in an inclusive classroom	.72	.51
Eigen value		1.964
Per cent of Variance explained		65.5
Cronbach alpha		.72
Mean		4.39
Standard deviation		0.82

Extraction method: Principal component analysis

Table 5. The results of t-tests of mean differences regarding ‘to have or not a child with SEN’

Hypotheses		Parents	Mean	SD	t	p
H1.1	The parents of children with SEN are more willing to include children with sensory impairments and physical disabilities in regular kindergartens than parents of children without SEN	with SEN	4.57	0.669	2.96	.002
		without SEN	4.24	0.825
H1.2	The parents of children with SEN are more willing to include children with intellectual disabilities in regular kindergartens than parents of children without SEN	with SEN	4.14	0.716	5.74	<.001
		without SEN	3.52	0.917
H1.3	The parents of children with SEN perceived less negative inclusion effects on children without SEN than parents of children without SEN	with SEN	4.36	0.659	4.0	<.001
		without SEN	3.70	0.964
H1.4	The parents of children with SEN are more aware of the inclusion benefits for children with SEN than parents of children without SEN	with SEN	4.61	0.532	5.27	<.001
		without SEN	4.11	0.854
H1.5	The parents of children with SEN are more aware of the inclusion benefits to children without SEN than parents of children without SEN	with SEN	4.35	0.686	4.0	<.001
		without SEN	4.02	0.740
H1.6	The parents of children with SEN are more aware of positive social effects of inclusion than parents of children without SEN	with SEN	4.63	0.464	4.58	<.001
		without SEN	4.24	0.723

One-tailed significance is provided in column p.

The factor was named ‘positive social effects of inclusion’. It explained 65.5% of variance, its internal consistency can be evaluated as good (Cronbach alpha is .72).

Testing differences between factor means due to a parenting of child with SEN or not

Many researchers (Leyser and Kirk 2004; Peltier 1997; Staub and Peck 1995) have found that parents of children with SEN are viewed as wanting their children to be included in inclusive and social settings. Studies (Swick and Hooks 2005; Dimitrios et al. 2008) highlighted that parents of children with SEN demonstrated devotion to their children’s development and expressed the need for their children to socialise with their peers appropriately. They also saw more advantages to preparing their children’s adjustment to the real world in comparison to their peers who were educated in more segregated settings.

Considering all these findings we hypothesised:

H1.1.The parents of children with SEN are more willing to include the children with sensory impairments and physical disabilities in regular kindergarteners than parents of children without SEN.

H1.2.The parents of children with SEN are more willing to include the children with intellectual disabilities in regular kindergarteners than parents of children without SEN.

H2.The parents of children with SEN perceived less negative inclusion effects on the children without SEN than parents of children without SEN.

H3.1.The parents of children with SEN are more aware of the inclusion benefits for children without SEN than parents of children without SEN.

H3.2.The parents of children with SEN are more aware of the inclusion benefits for children with SEN than parents of children without SEN.

H4.The parents of children with SEN are more aware of positive social effects of inclusion than parents of children without SEN.

The composite scores for factors obtained by EFA were computed and the sample was split into two groups (sub-samples). Parents of children with SEN were in one group (n = 85), and parents of children without SEN were in the other (n = 117). We ran t-tests for two independent samples after verifying that the dependent variable met t-test assumptions in both sub-samples. The factors were dependent variables. As we can see from Table 5 all mean differences are significant at p = .002 or p < .001 and the factor mean values are higher for parents of children with SEN than for parents of children without SEN.

Therefore, we confirmed all hypotheses and concluded that Slovenian parents of children with SEN are more open to inclusion, perceived more positive social effects and benefits and less negative inclusion effects than parents of children without SEN.

Discussion

Four constructs were investigated in this research: the openness to include children with different types of SEN in inclusive classrooms, negative effects of inclusion, benefits of inclusion for children, and positive social effects of inclusion. These constructs were chosen with the aim being to investigate their dimensionality, importance and differences in parents’ perception due to their parenting of a child with SEN. Factor analysis showed that two of the investigated constructs had more than one dimension. The construct willingness to include children with different types of SEN in inclusive classrooms had two dimensions; the first one was the willingness to include children with sensory impairments and physical disabilities and the second one was the willingness to include children with intellectual disabilities. The construct inclusion benefits for children was also two-dimensional; the first dimension was the benefits of inclusion for children without SEN and the second the benefits of inclusion for children with SEN.

The means of the majority of the investigated dimensions were higher than 4 on the 5-point scale and ranged between 4.15 and 4.39 except the means of ‘the willingness to include children with intellectual disabilities’ (mean = 3.81) and ‘negative effects of inclusion’ (mean = 3.92). Considering their means, we can conclude that Slovenian parents of pre-school children showed a high level of openness to inclusion of children with SEN in inclusive classrooms, perceived that inclusion has benefits and recognised the positive social effects for children with and without SEN. Recognising that it has been 19 years since the ‘Placement of Children and Youth with SEN Act’ in Slovenia was passed and implemented, we have made steps towards greater educational inclusion in schools and kindergartens (despite problems and challenges). This has provided every child/pupil with the right to equal opportunity in education (White Paper on Education in the Republic of Slovenia 2011). Under the current legislation and policies, children with SEN are increasingly being educated with their peers in regular settings and can obtain accommodations within classrooms. More and more non-governmental associations (e.g. Association for Down syndrome, Association for Inclusive Culture and many others), parents and professionals advocate the inclusion of children with SEN. Many projects were implemented to promote the inclusion of children with SEN in primary schools, kindergartens and special institutions (e.g. Inclusive Early Childhood Education, A Network of Professional Institutions to Support Children with SEN and their Families). They resulted in new experiences, skills, knowledge of teachers, professionals and parents and created more optimism in the work with children with SEN in inclusive classrooms. Successful project implementation has a major impact on reducing prejudices, stereotypes and negative attitudes towards the inclusion of children with SEN in regular classes and in wider society and also encourages the culture of inclusion and tolerance (Forlin 2010; Rose et al. 2017). In recent years, support centres have begun to emerge and help pre-school children with SEN, teachers and parents.

We found that attitudes of Slovenian parents of pre-school children differed very much, due to the parenting of children with or without SEN.

We assumed and confirmed that the Slovenian parents of children with SEN expressed higher openness to the inclusion of children with different types of SEN in regular classrooms, perceived less negative inclusion effects on children without SEN, and were more aware of the benefits and social effects of inclusion for children with and without SEN. This finding is consistent with some past studies (see Dimitrios et al. 2008; Elzein 2009; Garrick, Duhaney, and Salend. 2000; Hilbert 2014). Parents of children with SEN are often more personally involved in their child’s education and have concerns about their child’s progress (Elzein 2009). It is important to recognise the unique knowledge parents have about their child’s abilities, needs and their desire to attain the best education possible (Bacon and Causton-Theoharis 2013; Loreman et al. 2008). We predict that parents’ opinions on inclusion within regular classrooms are that it has multiple benefits compared to segregated classrooms, which have shown less educational and social benefits. Parents may have felt more confident in the equal treatment of their children provided by teachers in inclusive classes and perceived their children to be less stigmatised and isolated (Swick and Hooks 2005; Dimitrios et al. 2008).

In light of these research results, it is important to reveal that pre-school inclusion can be successful for children, with and without SEN, if a harmonious environment is created where children with SEN are fully accepted, where all children receive attention and support, and learn to accept and enjoy other children (Rose et al. 2017; Sandall et al. 2005). Kindergarten teachers and professionals should be knowledgeable about parents’ perceptions of children with and without SEN, in regards to inclusion. In addition, parents understanding of the needs of children in inclusive education is especially important, as the number of children with SEN continues to rise (Hilbert 2014). Above all, kindergarten staff should respect that parents of children without SEN can directly affect the inclusion of the child through their choice of inclusive programme and through socialisationthe of their children. The actions that they take can often be traced back to their attitudes towards the inclusion (Stoneman 2001; Vlachou, Karadimou, and Koutsogeorgou 2016). On the basis of the research findings, we would like to highlight the fact that inclusive kindergarten programmes should actively target parents of children without SEN, in order to increase awareness and knowledge of disabilities as well as decrease misconceptions concerning inclusive education (Hilbert 2014; Stoneman 2001). It is necessary to ensure that parents feel assured that the needs of their children will be fully addressed and that, within inclusive classes, their children will achieve successful social and learning outcomes (Garrick, Duhaney, and Salend. 2000; Green and Stoneman 1989; Rose et al. 2017). Including parents in a truly mutual cooperation with kindergarten teachers and professionals should bring greater insight and accessibility to pre-school inclusion, for children with and without SEN (Glenn-Applegate, Pentimonti, and Justice 2011). Kindergarten teachers and special educators need to be able to show parents how social and academic outcomes contribute to their child’s participation in different daily activities (Peck et al. 2004) and involve them in discussing educational and social matters with their children (Paseka and Schwab 2019; Vlachou, Karadimou, and Koutsogeorgou 2016).

From a qualitative aspect of pre-school inclusion, kindergartens should consider the ratio of children with and without SEN, staffing ratios, teacher preparation and training, peer interactions and availability of specialised services, when planning good-quality and responsible inclusion (Hilbert 2014; Sandall et al. 2005). In future, kindergartens should focus their attention on ongoing processes of evaluation of inclusive education, with an emphasis on developing ethos, attitudes (all directly involving parents of children with and without SEN) and practices. Kindergartens should be aware that the contribution of parents without SEN is very important to achieving successful inclusion (Vlachou, Karadimou, and Koutsogeorgou 2016).

It is necessary to note that we used the cluster sampling method and limited ourselves on Slovenian Carinthia. This sampling method helped us to manage our available resources.

Future research should therefore methodologically employ both qualitative and quantitative research and examine a wide range of aspects, focusing on the quality of inclusion (i.e. cooperation with kindergarten teachers, effective adaptations, relationships between parents of children with and without SEN).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Majda Schmidt

Majda Schmidt, PhD, is a professor in  Special Education at the Faculty of Education and Faculty of Arts, University of Maribor. Her research interests include education of children/youth with SEN both in inclusive classes and special classes. Her research studies are also focused on quality of life of families who have children with intellectual disabilities and other developmental disabilities.

Katja Krivec

Katja Krivec, is a shool counsellor and teacher in a primary school Koroški jeklarji, Ravne na Koroškem. Her main research focuses on teaching pre-school children with SEN in kindergartens.

Majda Bastič

Majda Bastič, PhD, is a professor of Operations Research and Research Methodology at University of Maribor. Her research is focused on research methods applied in social sciences.