An examination of parental opinions regarding the inclusion of disabled students in regular education classes

This study investigated the opinions regarding inclusion of parents of both disabled and nondisabled elementary children from a large suburban county. An opinion survey combining Wilczenski's Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education Scale with additional questions was distributed to 1170 children from 24 schools. Three research questions focused on differences between mean parental responses as they related to the inclusion and disability status of the parent's child. Results from the 270 respondents indicated that parents with disabled children had more favorable opinions about inclusion than did those with nondisabled children. Parents with included children were more favorable toward inclusion than were parents whose children were not included. Parents with included disabled children were more accepting of inclusion than were those with nondisabled children in inclusive settings. Parents' answers differed depending on the type of disability being included. Regardless of their child's disability or inclusion status, the ranking for disability types from most acceptable for inclusion to least acceptable were: social, sensory, motor, academic and behavioral. Results across types of questions, including questions relating to acceptance and general inclusion issues, indicated consistently more favorable opinions of parents with disabled children, included children and disabled children in inclusive classes. Two additional research questions examined parental responses as they related to demographic characteristics of the parents and of the schools their children attended. Analysis of Variance found only one significant main effect for any parental demographic variable. This difference was for the number of parents' elementary children when comparing parents with and without disabled children. The only significant main effects of demographics of schools the parents' children attended were for the area of the county and for schools with differing percentages of severely disabled students when comparing responses of parents with disabled and nondisabled children. For all research questions, tests indicated low effect sizes and moderate to high power levels. These results, and the fact that means for all groups were in the middle range of response choices, indicate that there may be little practical significance to the overall results. Further studies should investigate the trends found in this study. ^

The inclusion of differentially assessed lands in urban growth model calibration: a comparison of two approaches using SLEUTH

This research sought to understand the role that differentially assessed lands (lands in the United States given tax breaks in return for their guarantee to remain in agriculture) play in influencing urban growth. Our method was to calibrate the SLEUTH urban growth model under two different conditions. The first used an excluded layer that ignored such lands, effectively rendering them available for development. The second treated those lands as totally excluded from development. Our hypothesis was that excluding those lands would yield better metrics of fit with past data. Our results validate our hypothesis since two different metrics that evaluate goodness of fit both yielded higher values when differentially assessed lands are treated as excluded. This suggests that, at least in our study area, differential assessment, which protects farm and ranch lands for tenuous periods of time, has indeed allowed farmland to resist urban development. Including differentially assessed lands also yielded very different calibrated coefficients of growth as the model tried to account for the same growth patterns over two very different excluded areas. Excluded layer design can greatly affect model behavior. Since differentially assessed lands are quite common through the United States and are often ignored in urban growth modeling, the findings of this research can assist other urban growth modelers in designing excluded layers that result in more accurate model calibration and thus forecasting.

Secondary school inclusion rates: The relationship between the training and beliefs of school site principals and the implementation of inclusion

Programs require strong support and guidance from those in leadership positions to ensure proper implementation (Fullen, 2001). Consequently, school site principals must rely on the training they have received to support them in making appropriate decisions. It is the school site principal’s leadership that is pivotal in the success of students with disabilities (DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003; Monteith, 2000). In fact, the principal has a moral obligation to provide an environment that supports social justice in schools (Grogan & Andrews, 2002). The inclusion of students with disabilities does just that—it ensures that these students are not segregated to a “separate but equal” education. This study utilized a participant survey to collect data on principals’ beliefs and training in special education. This information was compared to the percentage of time students with disabilities spent with their non-disabled peers in the principals’ respective schools. An analysis was conducted to identify if a linear relationship exists between the selected variables and the inclusion percentages. Open-ended questions were included in the original survey which allowed for a thematic analysis of the responses. These responses were utilized to allow participants to further express their thoughts on the identified variables. Results indicated that there were no statistically significant relationships identified between the beliefs and training of secondary school site principals and the percentage of time that their students in special education spend with their non-disabled peers. Although the original research questions were not supported, further post hoc analysis indicated that the results obtained did support that the principals believed inclusion had a social benefit to students. Additional investigation into the academic benefits of inclusion is still needed. In addition, principals who indicated that they had some type of training in special education indicated a higher percentage that the individual student should be the focal point when making placement decisions. These results support the need for further research in the area of principal preparation programs and their relationships to the daily practice of school site principals.