Journal of Education and Learning; Vol. 3, No.

4; 2014
ISSN 1927-5250 E-ISSN 1927-5269
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Perceptions of Parents of Young Children with and without

Disabilities Attending Inclusive Preschool Programs
Dana Hilbert1
1
School of Education and Behavioral Sciences, Cameron University, Lawton, Oklahoma, USA
Correspondence: Dana Hilbert, School of Education and Behavioral Sciences, Cameron University, Lawton,
Oklahoma, 73505, USA. Tel: 1-580-581-2384. E-mail: [email protected]

Received: August 20, 2014 Accepted: October 31, 2014 Online Published: November 10, 2014
doi:10.5539/jel.v3n4p49 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jel.v3n4p49

Abstract
This study aimed to identify the characteristics of parents of children with and without disabilities whose young
children attend an inclusive, early childhood education program that influence their perceptions of inclusion and
inclusive preschool programs. Participants included parents of preschool children without disabilities (n=64) and
parents of preschool children with disabilities (n=84) attending inclusive preschool programs. Participants
completed a 120-question survey examining parental characteristics and the impact they have on parent
perceptions regarding inclusion and inclusive preschool programs. In addition, child variables (disability status,
type of disability, severity of the disability and disability category) were examined to determine their
significance regarding parental perception. Analysis revealed that parents of children with disabilities were less
likely to favor an inclusive program that served children with severe disabilities, such as autism and behaviour
disorders.
Keywords: inclusion, perceptions, parents, preschool
1. Introduction
Inclusive early childhood education programming is advocated as a best practice from the experts in early
childhood education and early childhood special education fields (NAEYC-DEC, 2009). However, many public
schools do not offer preschool programs for children without disabilities (Lieber, Hanson, Beckman, Odom,
Sandall, Schwartz et al., 2000). Local education agencies (LEAs) are not required to operate preschool programs
to meet the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA)’s least restrictive environment (LRE)
requirements, but the LEA must explore other local options (Education Law Center, 2010). Guralnick (2001)
explained that community-based early childhood programs vary in program quality and that high-quality
programs can be difficult for parents to locate (Bailey, McWilliam, Buysse, & Wesley, 1998). Head Start is
mandated by federal law to have 10% of its population include children that have an Individual Family Support
Plan (IFSP) or an Individual Education Plan (IEP). Programs that are available in Head Start, private preschools
or targeted preschool programs have long waiting lists, limiting the number of children with disabilities they
serve and the programs themselves can vary tremendously in the quality and the extent of their inclusion
(Rafferty, Boettcher, & Griffin, 2001; Hurley & Horn, 2010). Federal data show that the majority of preschool
children with disabilities are placed in segregated special education classrooms; only 33% of children with
disabilities were educated in typical early childhood settings (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
Characteristics of an inclusive classroom can vary considerably in the areas of the number of students with
disabilities in the class, their disability types and severity, and the characteristics of the personnel in the
classroom (Gandhi, 2007). Because different educational programs had inconsistent definitions for inclusion and
because programs varied in the educational structure and how they provided services, Odom (2000) explained
that it would be very complex to actually label programs into specific types. Bailey, McWilliam, Buysse and
Wesley (1998) described inclusion as, “...the full participation by children with disabilities in programs and
activities for typically developing children.” Odom et al. (1996) explain that this definitional ambiguity “has
important implications for researchers, in that findings on inclusion may be generated from vastly different
program types and contexts” (Odom et al., 1996). While researcher, administrators and practitioners may not be
able to define inclusion in strict terms with a specific definition (Schwartz, Sandall, Odom, Horn, & Beckman,
2002), individual characteristics of inclusive programs/schools in research are necessary to study key elements

49
www.ccsenet.org/jel Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 3, No. 4; 2014

for community, program and child success.

Participation in early childhood education programs is voluntary; therefore, inclusive programs are dependent on
parents for the diversity and sustainability of their programs. Parents of preschoolers must not only choose to
participate in an early childhood program, but they must choose for their child to participate in an inclusive
program (Stoneman, 2001). Understanding the perceptions of parents whose children attend inclusive programs
is vital for the ultimate success of the inclusion philosophy (Erwin, Soodak, Winton & Turnbull, 2001;
Garrick-Duhaney, & Salend, 2000). Generally, parents of preschool children with and without disabilities have
positive perceptions concerning inclusion (Miller & Strain, 1992; Bennett, Deluca, & Bruns, 1997; Rafferty &
Griffin, 2005). Parents sited an increased awareness and acceptance of children with disabilities, teacher-child
ratios and extra services as positive components of the inclusive educational setting (Bailey & Winton, 1987;
Guralnick, 1994). However, parents of children with and without disabilities may have concerns regarding the
risks associated with their child attending an inclusive program including the integration of children with more
severe disabilities (Green & Stoneman, 1989; Serry, Davis, & Johnson, 2000; Garrick & Salend, 2000; Peck,
Staub, Gallucci, & Schwartz, 2004, Hewitt-Taylor, 2009). The perception of parents regarding inclusion and the
impact it has on their child is vital to comprehending the overall benefits and drawbacks to the inclusion
experience.
The purpose of this study is to identify parental and child characteristics that impact the perceptions of parents of
children with and without disabilities attending inclusive preschool programs. By understanding the perspectives
of these families, policy makers and professionals can help to implement policies that increase program
participation, increase parent satisfaction, decrease parental stress and meet the needs of families while
maintaining appropriate intervention and education methods. This study also clearly defines the individual
characteristics of the inclusive programs included in this study secondary to the inconsistency of the definition of
inclusive programming in the literature.
2. Method
2.1 Participants
Participants were 149 parents of children with (n=84) and without (n=65) disabilities ages 6 months to 6 years
who attended one of seven inclusive preschool programs in Alabama (1 program), Colorado (1 program),
Oklahoma (1 program) and Texas (4 programs). All of the preschool programs in the study relied on parent
tuition, private donations and fundraising; although Alabama and Oklahoma had partial funding from state
agency contracts (Alabama-Part B, section 619; Oklahoma-State Legislature).
In these programs, children attend the preschool five days a week for six hours a day. Children with disabilities
comprise approximately 60% of classes while 40% of the preschool children do not have disabilities. Each
classroom has a lead teacher with a completed Master’s degree in education, early childhood education or special
education or they must be working toward their Master’s degree. In addition, each classroom has two teacher
assistants. Classrooms have an average of ten to twelve children, depending on the age of the classroom. The
programs in the study did not use any commercially-packaged curriculum. Each program implements a unique
curriculum, based on early childhood education philosophies (constructivism) which are blended with
recommended practices from early childhood special education (DEC). The curriculum emphases each child’s
development in the areas of gross and fine motor skills, independence, cognitive skills, social competence and
emotional growth and communication; this results in specially designed instruction, curricular adaptations and
accommodations that are embedded in the daily activities of the classroom.
Integrated therapy services (Music Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy and Speech-Language
Therapy) were available within the classroom as part of their preschool program for any child identified with
developmental delays. Services were designed around an individualized intervention plan (IFSP/IEP or program
plan, depending on the individual child’s needs and age) consisting of goals and outcomes based on family’s
concerns and the child’s strengths and needs. Two of the schools (Alabama & Dallas) employ a nurse full-time,
while the remaining programs have consultant relationships with medical personnel to meet the medical needs of
the children attending the program.
Eighty-four participants were parents of children with a disability, as determined by IFSP/IEP review and/or
physician diagnosis. Thirty percent of participants were parents of children with a mild disability, 58% were
parents of children with moderate disabilities and 12% were parents of children with severe disabilities. Down
syndrome was the primary disability type reported by parents (n=52). Other Disability (includes genetic
syndromes, global developmental delays and other disabilities not specified) (n=15), Cerebral Palsy (n=7),
Autism (n=4), speech impairment (n=3), spinal bifida (n=1) and hearing impairment (n=1) were also reported.

50
www.ccsenet.org/jel Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 3, No. 4; 2014

Eighty-four percent of participants identified their ethnicity as being Caucasian, 9% Black/African American, 4%
Asian American, 4% Hispanic/Latino and 1% Native American. Eighty nine percent (n=132) of parents
participants were female while nine percent were male (n=13). Sixty-seven percent of participants report an
income of greater than $75,001 per year and seventy-two percent of participants had earned at least an
associate’s degree.
2.2 Procedure
A 120-question survey was distributed to all families of children with and without disabilities at all seven
participating program sites (N=289). Each envelope contained the survey and an Institutional Review Board
(IRB) information sheet. Envelopes were distributed by the director of each site to each family. Completed
surveys were returned to the director in a sealed manila envelope and mailed back to the researcher. A total of
149 surveys were completed and returned. Participations rates at each individual site varied from 26-75%, with a
52% overall return rate. The overall participation rate was negatively impacted by summer vacation at some
sites.
2.3 Instrumentation
Participants completed a Likert-type survey slightly modified from a questionnaire developed by Rafferty,
Boettcher and Griffin and used in subsequent studies in 2001 and 2005 (Rafferty, Boettcher & Griffin, 2001;
Rafferty & Griffin, 2005). Modifications were limited only to semantics to reflect current terminology in the
education field (inclusion/integration replaced mainstreaming). The survey consisted of six sections: 1)
demographic information of the participant (4 questions); 2) demographic information of the child (6 questions);
3) the 27-item Parental Attitudes Toward Inclusion/Integration Scale; 4) the 4-item Impact of Inclusion on
Typically Developing Children Scale (IITDC); 5) the 6-item Impact of Inclusion on Children with Disabilities
Scale (IICD) and 6) 73-questions concerning program expectations and quality. The Impact of Inclusion on
Typically Developing Children Scale (IITDC) and the Impact of Inclusion on Children with Disabilities Scale
(IICD) were developed “to assess the perceived benefits and risks of inclusion for children with disabilities and
typically developing children” (Rafferty, Boettcher, & Griffin, 2001). The IITDC and IICD scales were based on
items from the Parental Attitudes toward Mainstreaming Scale (Green & Stoneman, 1989) and the Benefits and
Drawbacks of Mainstreaming Scale (Bailey & Winton, 1987). The Parents Attitudes toward Inclusion/Integration,
13-questions scale was created by Rafferty, Boettcher and Griffin (2001) and based on items from the Attitudes
about Integration Opportunities for Children with Special Needs by Miller, Strain, Boyd, Hunsicker, McKinley
and Wu (1992).
According to Rafferty, Boettcher and Griffin (2001), the scales have high internal consistency. The Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients for each scale were reported as follows: Benefits for Children with Disabilities (alpha = .90),
Risks for Children with Disabilities (alpha =.87), Benefits for Typically Developing Children (alpha = .83), and
Risks for Typically Developing Children (alpha = .88) and Parents’ Attitudes toward Inclusion/Integration (alpha
= .94). Rafferty and Griffin (2005) also reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients with high internal consistency.
Perceived Benefits for Children with Disabilities (alpha = .87), Perceived Risks for Children with Disabilities
(alpha = .86), Perceived Risks for Typically Developing Children (alpha = .79) and Parents’ Attitudes toward
Inclusion/Integration scale yield a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .93.
3. Results
Parents in both groups agree with statements that inclusion is beneficial for children with disabilities which is
consistent to the findings of Rafferty and Griffin (2005). The groups also indicate that they disagree that
inclusion would have a negative impact on children with disabilities. Parents believe that inclusive settings help
children with disabilities become prepared for the real world, develop independence and learn from typically
developing peers, similar to the research findings of Guralnick (1994). As with previous research by Seery, Davis
and Johnson (2000) and Guralnick (1994), sixty-three percent of parents of children with a disability did respond
that they believe that in inclusive classrooms, teachers are not likely to be qualified or trained to deal with the
needs of children with disabilities and fifty-one percent agree that children without disabilities might be
frightened by the strange behaviour of some children with disabilities. Twenty-nine percent of parents of children
without disabilities report that they believed that in inclusive classrooms, children with disabilities are more
likely to be rejected or left out by other children (Appendix Table 1).
Parents of children with and without disabilities agree that inclusion is beneficial for children without disabilities
and disagree with most statements indicating that inclusion is a risk for children without disabilities.
Twenty-seven percent of parents of children without disabilities agree that a child with disabilities would present
a number of behaviour problems when integrated with children without a disability. Forty-three percent of the

51
www.ccsenet.org/jel Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 3, No. 4; 2014

group agreed that in an inclusive classroom, children without disabilities may copy children with disabilities and
learn negative behaviours from them (Appendix Table 2).
An independent t-test indicated that parents of children without disabilities perceive more risks concerning the
impact of inclusion on child with disabilities than parents of children with disabilities. The study also found that
parents of children without disabilities perceive more risks associated with the impact of inclusion on families of
children without disabilities (Appendix Table 3).
A possible relationship could exist between parent perceptions and a child’s level of disability. Parents of
children with disabilities support of inclusive placements for children with mild disabilities is 45% higher than
for children with severe disabilities. Overall, both groups’ support of inclusive placements for children with
disabilities decreases as the severity of the disability increase (Appendix Table 4).
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean perception scores for parents of children with
mild disabilities and parents of children with moderate disabilities, parents of children with mild disabilities and
parents of children with severe disabilities and parents of children with moderate disabilities to parents of
children with severe disabilities. The test was significant on two variables: the impact of inclusion on children
with disabilities (risks) and impact of inclusion on families of children without disabilities (benefits). Parents of
children with moderate or severe disabilities perceive more risks associated with inclusion on the child with a
disability. Parents of children with a mild or moderate disability identify the impact of inclusion as beneficial on
families of children with disabilities (Appendix Table 5). These findings also suggest that level of disability may
significantly influence parental perceptions of inclusion.
Parents of young children with and without disabilities are more likely to support an inclusive placement for
children with an orthopaedic impairment, speech impairment or visual impairment. They are least likely to
support inclusive placement of a child with autism, emotional/behavioural disorder or a cognitive impairment.
These findings are similar to those of previous researcher concerning the inclusive educational placement for
children with certain disabilities (Appendix Table 6).
4. Summary
As in previous studies, this study found that parents of children with and without disabilities agree, in general,
that inclusion is a positive educational practice for children with and without disabilities. However, parental
optimism decreases when children with challenging behaviours are placed in an inclusive environment. Parents
of children with and without disabilities are not as supportive of inclusion placements for more
moderate-to-severe disabilities, emotional impairments and cognitive impairments. This relationship is critical
because one would assume that a parent of a child with disabilities that supports inclusion for their child would
be supportive of the inclusion of other children with disabilities, but this may not be the case. Just as previous
researchers cautioned against developing a “one-size-fits-all” mentality regarding inclusion (Fuchs and Fuchs,
1994) because of different outcomes for different children, we must also seek to understand the relationship
between parental perceptions and disability, not just draw conclusions. While it appears our quest to increase
inclusive opportunities for children with mild disabilities is experiencing success, we now need to expand our
mission, training and services to meet the changing needs of children with moderate-to-severe disabilities.
5. Discussion
Early childhood professionals need to acknowledge of the perceptions of parents of children with and without
disabilities regarding inclusive early childhood programming. Early childhood program teachers and
administrators should be knowledgeable of the perceptions of parents of children with and without disabilities.
While the benefits of inclusion may draw some parents to enrol their child in such a program, the perceived risks
of an inclusive environment could negatively impact not only enrolment in general, but the diversity of
enrolment. Early childhood programs should collaborate with families to develop effective strategies to address
these concerns.
In addition, understanding the perception of inclusive placements concerning children with more severe
disabilities such as behaviour/emotional disorders and autism is especially important. As the number of children
with autism and other developmental disabilities continue to rise, it is vital that we are prepared to provide
positive, effective inclusive educational opportunities for these children. Early childhood programs should
consider the characteristics of their program, including ratios of students with and without disabilities, staffing
ratios and availability of specialized service providers when planning for quality inclusion. Early intervention is
critical for these populations, though they are less likely to be viewed by some parents of children with and
without disabilities as being appropriate for inclusive preschool settings. Inclusive early childhood programs

52
www.ccsenet.org/jel Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 3, No. 4; 2014

should actively target parent and community education in order to increase awareness and knowledge of more
severe disabilities as well as decrease misconceptions concerning inclusive education.
5.1 Limitations, Implication, and Future Research
The generalizability of this study is limited secondary to the sample consisting of parents of preschool-age
children. In addition, the use of parent report on the survey instrument is impacted by variables including the
parent’s feelings at the moment they completed the study and the fidelity in which the questions were read and
considered.
Research in the area of inclusion continues to be difficult secondary to inconsistent definitions of what
constitutes an inclusive classroom. Future research should clearly define the severity and type of disabilities
served in the inclusive classrooms. Unrealistic expectations occur when practitioners attempt to generalized data
from studies that targeted populations different than those they are serving. Future research should examine
inclusive programs that serve children with moderate-to-severe disabilities, including children with autism and
behavioural disorders. Research should also examine inclusive programs that successfully serve children with a
true range of disabilities in terms of teacher qualifications/training, family programming and available resources.
Parents of children with and without disabilities have voiced concerns regarding teacher preparation and training
to meet the needs of children with special needs. Early childhood teacher preparation programs should
incorporate positive professional philosophies regarding inclusion and inclusive placements in all aspects of their
programming, not just special education coursework. Strategic planning is needed to incorporate coursework and
high-quality internship experiences throughout the teacher preparation program that focus on meeting the needs
of children with varying types and severity of disabilities at the collegiate level. Early childhood administrators
need a clear understanding of the position statements and recommendations regarding inclusion in order to assist
them in maintaining the fidelity of inclusive education programming. Individuals in leadership positions within
early childhood centres and public school (PK-6) buildings need professional development opportunities to
increase their knowledge and understanding of inclusive educational practices in the early years. Lastly, all
individuals who served children with disabilities and their families would benefit from professional
collaborations with mentors in the community who embrace, practice and advocate for inclusive placement for
all preschool children.
References
Abu-Hamour, B., & Muhaidat, M. (2013). Parents’ attitudes toward inclusion of students with autism in Jordan.
International Journal of Inclusive Education.
Bailey, D. B., Jr., & Winton, P. J. (1987). Stability and change in parents’ expectations about mainstreaming.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 7(1), 73-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/027112148700700107
Bailey, D. B., McWilliam, R. A., Buysse, V., & Wesley, P. W. (1998). Inclusion in the context of competing
values in early childhood education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(1), 27-47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80024-6
Education Law Center. (2010). Including children with disabilities in state pre-k programs. Pre-KPolicy Brief
Series.
Erwin, E., Soodak, L., Winton, P., & Turnbull, A. (2001). “I wish it wouldn’t all depend on me.” Research on
families and early childhood inclusion. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on
change (pp. 127-158). Baltimore: Brookes.
Frazeur, C. A. (2004). Elements of successful inclusion for children with significant disabilities. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 24(3), 169-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02711214040240030401
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform.
Exceptional Children, 60(4), 294-309.
Garrick-Duhaney, L. M., & Salend, S. J. (2000). Parental perceptions of inclusive educational placements.
Remedial and Special Education, 21, 121-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100209
Green, A. L., & Stoneman, Z. (1989). Attitudes of mothers and fathers of non-handicapped children. Journal of
Early Intervention, 13, 292-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105381518901300402
Guralnick, M. J. (2001). Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change. Baltimore: Brookes.
Hewitt-Taylor, J. (2009). Children who have complex health needs: Parents’ experiences of their child’s
education. Child: Care, Health and Development, 35(4), 521-526.

53
www.ccsenet.org/jel Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 3, No. 4; 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.00965
Hurley, J. J., & Horn, E. M. (2010). Family and professional priorities for inclusive early childhood settings.
Journal of Early Intervention, 32(5), 335-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053815110385650
Lieber, J., Hanson, M., Beckman, P., Odom, S., Sandall, S., Schwartz, I., Horn, E., & Worlery, R. (2000). Key
influence on the initiation and implementation of inclusive preschool program. Exceptional Children, 67,
83-98.
Miller, L. J., Strain, P. S., Boyd, J., Hunsicker, S., McKinley, J., & Wu, A. (1992). Parental attitudes toward
integration. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12(2), 230-246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/027112149201200207
National Association for the Education of Young Children & Division of Early Childhood. (2009). A joint
position statement of the Division for Early Children (DEC) and the National Association for the Education
of Young Children (NAEYC).
Odom, S. (2000). Preschool inclusion: What we know and where we go from here. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 20(1), 20-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/027112140002000104
Odom, S. (2002). Widening the circle: Including children with disabilities in preschool programs. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Odom, S. L., Buysse, V., & Soukakou, E. (2011). Inclusion for young children with disabilities: A quarter
century of research perspectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(4), 344-356.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053815111430094
Odom, S. L., Peck, C. A., Henson, M., Beckman, P. J., Kaiser, A. P., Lieber, J., Brown, W. H., … Schwartz, I. S.
(1996). Inclusion at the preschool level: An ecological systems analysis. Social Policy Report: Society for
Research in Child Development, 10, 18-30.
Peck, C. A., Staub, D., Gallucci, C., & Schwartz, I. (2004). Parent perceptions of the impacts of inclusion on
their nondisabled child. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(2), 135-143.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.29.2.135
Rafferty, Y., & Griffin, K. (2005). Benefits and risks of reverse inclusion for preschoolers with and without
disabilities; perspectives of parents and providers. Journal of Early Intervention, 27(3), 173-192.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105381510502700305
Rafferty, Y., Boettcher, C., & Griffin, K. (2001). Benefits and risks of reverse inclusion for preschoolers with and
without disabilities; parents’ perspectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 24(4), 266-286.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105381510102400403
Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M. I., Smith, B. J., & McLean, M. E. (2005). DEC recommended practices: A
comprehensive guide for practical application in early intervention/early childhood special education. DEC,
Washington, D.C.
Seery, M. E., Davis, P. M., & Johnson, L. J. (2000). Seeing eye-to-eye: Are parents and professionals in
agreement about the benefits of preschool inclusion? Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 268-319.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100504
Stoiber, K. C., Gettinger, M., & Goetz, D. (1998). Exploring factors influencing parents’ and early childhood
practitioners’ beliefs about inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(1), 107-124.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80028-3
Stoneman, Z. (2001). Attitudes and beliefs of parents of typically developing children: Effects on early
childhood inclusion. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 69-100).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2004). Part B, Individuals
withdisabilities in education act, implementation of FAPE requirements.

54
 www.ccsenet.org/jel Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 3, No. 4; 2014

Appendix A
Table A1. Parents of children with (N=84) and without (N=65) disabilities perceptions of the impact of inclusion
of children with disabilities
Statement Parents of
Children w/ Children w/o
Disabilities Disabilities
Inclusion helps children with disabilities become prepared to function in the real 90.5% 93.9%
world (Benefit) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.49 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.45
SD=.814 SD=.622
Children with disabilities in inclusive programs are more likely to develop 92.8% 87.7%
independence in self-help skills (Benefit) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.50 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.57
SD=.753 SD=.847
Children with disabilities in a inclusive setting learn more because they have a 92.8% 93.8%
change to see typically developing children and learn from them (Benefit) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.40 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.42
SD=.713 SD=.610
Inclusion is more likely to make children with disabilities want to try harder 78.6% 87.7%
(Benefit) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.74 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.52
SD=.907 SD=.709
Inclusion is more likely to make children with disabilities feel better about 67.8% 76.9%
themselves. (Benefit) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =2.00 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.78
SD=.892 SD=.800
Inclusion provides children with disabilities with more chances to participate in a 96.4% 87.7%
variety of activities. (Benefit) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.43 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.49
SD=.607 SD=.793
Inclusion promotes acceptance of children with disabilities by the community in 90.5% 93.9%
general. (Benefit) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.54 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.45
SD=.768 SD=.622
Inclusion is likely to have a negative effect on the emotional development of the 4.8% 4.6%
children with a disability. (Risk) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.95 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =4.11
SD=.943 SD=1.017
In an inclusive classroom, children w/disabilities are less likely to receive enough 28.6% 9.2%
help and individualized instruction from their teacher. (Risk) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.19 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.72
SD=1.047 SD=.927
In an inclusive classroom, children with disabilities are less likely to receive 33.3% 9.2%
special services (Risk) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.13 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.72
SD=1.016 SD=.927
Children with disabilities are more likely to be rejected or left out by other 15.5% 24.6%
children. (Risk) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.53 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =4.08
SD=1.170 SD=.872
In inclusion classrooms, children with disabilities are more likely to be rejected 15.5% 29.3%
or left out by other children. (Risk) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.51 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.89
SD=.951 SD=.954
In inclusion classrooms, teachers are not likely to be trained to deal with the 63.1% 23.0%
needs of children with disabilities ‫ݔ‬ҧ =2.77 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.37
SD=1.079 SD=1.054

55
 www.ccsenet.org/jel Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 3, No. 4; 2014

Table A2. Percentage of parents of children with (N=84) and without (N=65) disabilities who agreed with
statements regarding the perceptions of the impact of inclusion on children without disabilities
Statement Parents of
Children Children w/o
w/ Disabilities
Disabilities
Children without disabilities would better understand and accept differences in 96.4% 93.8%
people as a result of his/her participation in an inclusive program (Benefit) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.40 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.34
SD=.604 SD=.594
Children without disabilities benefit when children with disabilities are 94.0% 92.4%
integrated. (Benefit) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.50 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.42
SD=.685 SD=.635
Children without disabilities learn to develop sensitivity to others by having the 96.5% 95.4%
opportunity to know children with disabilities (Benefit) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.38 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.38
SD=.599 SD=.578
In inclusive programs, children w/o disabilities become more aware and 67.9% 84.6%
accepting of their own strengths and weaknesses. (Benefits) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.96 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.69
SD=.903 SD=.769
Children w/disabilities may do things that injure children w/o disabilities. (Risk) 46.5% 13.9%
‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.55 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.65
SD=.999 SD=1.052
Children w/o disabilities might be frightened by the strange behavior of some 51.2% 26.1%
children with disabilities. (Risk) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =2.76 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.42
SD=1.013 SD=1.102
Children with disabilities hold back children without disabilities and slow down 21.4% 3.0%
their learning. (Risk) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =4.07 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =4.12
SD=.733 SD=.857
In inclusion, children with disabilities will take up too much of the teachers’ 25.0% 23.1%
time and children without disabilities will not receive enough attention. (Risk) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.95 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =4.00
SD=.710 SD=.771
Children w/o disabilities might be overlooked in an inclusive classroom because 28.6% 23.1%
children w/disabilities are so demanding. (Risk) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.80 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.95
SD=.875 SD=.926
In inclusion, the needs of the children with a disability for special materials and 17.9% 12.3%
equipment will be so great that the children without disabilities won’t get their ‫ݔ‬ҧ =4.07 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =4.23
fair share of the resources. (Risk)
SD=.757 SD=.745
A child w/disabilities would present a number of behavior problems when 26.2% 27.7%
integrated with children w/o a disability. (Risk) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.89 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.95
SD=.712 SD=.799
It is difficult to maintain order in a preschool classroom that contains a child 11.9% 6.1%
with a disability. (Risk) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =4.30 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =4.43
SD=.708 SD=.847
In inclusion classrooms, children w/o disabilities may copy children 9.5% 43.1%
w/disabilities and learn negative behaviors from them. (Risk) ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.86 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =3.68
SD=.933 SD=1.091

56
www.ccsenet.org/jel Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 3, No. 4; 2014

Table A3. Total parental perception scores of parents of children with and without disabilities
Statements Parents of Mean SD Significance
Children
Impact of inclusion on child w/disability (Benefits) without 1.5253 .61710 .535
disability
w/disability 1.5850 .55422
Impact of inclusion on child w/disability (Risks) without 3.8333 .74768 .000*#
disability
w/disability 3.3574 .76559
Impact of inclusion on child w/o disability. (Benefits) without 1.4577 .57209 .255
disability
w/disability 1.5663 .57393
Impact of inclusion on child w/o disability. (Risks) without 3.9368 .62143 .174
disability
w/disability 3.8056 .54838
Impact of inclusion on families of child w/disabilities without 1.8615 .69320 .082
(Benefits) disability
w/disability 2.0952 .88657
Impact of inclusion on families of child w/disabilities without 3.3846 .88657 .025*
(Risks) disability
w/disability 3.0774 .83160
Impact of inclusion on families of child w/o disabilities. without 1.9239 .81123 .278
(Benefits) disability
w/disability 2.0833 .80286
Impact of inclusion on families of child w/o disabilities without 4.1923 .69985 .000*#
(Risks) disability
w/disability 3.5357 .84947
Parental Global Perceptions regarding inclusion in without 1.5609 .51615 .457
general disability
w/disability 1.6355 .66538
*indicates a significance at the <.05 level #indicates a significance at the <.005 level

57
 www.ccsenet.org/jel Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 3, No. 4; 2014

Table A4. Percentage of parents of children with disabilities (N=84) and without disabilities (N=64) who agreed
with inclusion based on the severity of the disability
Severity of Disability Parents of
Children Children
w/ w/o
Disabilities Disabilities
Mild Disability 95.2% 95.4%
‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.33 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.37
SD=.665 SD=.327
Moderate Disability 88.1% 83.1%
‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.65 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.71
SD=.829 SD=.861
Severe Disability 50.0% 60.0%
‫ݔ‬ҧ =2.46 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =2.23
SD=1.039 SD=.972

Table A5. Parental perceptions of inclusion by severity of disability

Perception Score Parents of child Parents of child Parents of child
with mild with moderate with severe
disabilities disabilities (N=48) disabilities
(N=25) (N=10)
Parents Perceptions Toward Inclusion score 1.4985 1.6651 1.8692
Impact of inclusion on child w/disability score 1.4971 1.6220 1.6571
(Benefits)
Impact of inclusion on child w/disability score (Risks) 3.3133 3.4965* 2.8500*
Impact of inclusion on child w/o disability score. 1.5100 1.5798 1.6500
(Benefits)
Impact of inclusion on child w/o disability score. 3.8267 3.8280 3.5444
(Risks)
Impact of inclusion on families of child w/disabilities 2.1400 2.1458 1.800
score (Benefits)
Impact of inclusion on families of child w/disabilities 3.1200 3.0781 2.9000
score (Risks)
Impact of inclusion on families of child w/o disabilities 1.7800* 2.2188* 2.2000
score. (Benefits)
Impact of inclusion on families of child w/o disabilities 3.4800 3.5417 3.7500
score(Risks)
*indicates a significance at the <.05 level

58
 www.ccsenet.org/jel Journal of Education and Learning Vol. 3, No. 4; 2014

Table A6. Percentage of parents of children with disabilities (N=84) who agreed with inclusion based on the type
of disability
Statement Parents of
Children w/ Children w/o
Disabilities Disabilities
Autistic 65.5% 66.2%
‫ݔ‬ҧ =2.17 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =2.16
SD=.933 SD=.859
Emotional/Behavior Disorder 48.8% 59.0%
‫ݔ‬ҧ =2.48 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =2.34
SD=1.021 SD=.877
Hearing Impairment 85.7% 87.6%
‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.68 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.59
SD=.887 SD=.771
Learning Disability 83.4% 81.5%
‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.78 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.67
SD=.889 SD=.874
Cognitive Impairment 78.6% 76.9%
‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.87 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.78
SD=.857 SD=.934
Orthopedic/Physical Impairment 90.5% 89.2%
‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.54 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.45
SD=.757 SD=.711
Other Health Impairment (Medical) 83.3% 86.2%
‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.70 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.66
SD=.796 SD=.695
Speech Impairment 88.1% 92.3%
‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.60 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.44
SD=.814 SD=.664
Visual Impairment 88.1% 86.1%
‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.67 ‫ݔ‬ҧ =1.66
SD=.802 SD=.859

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

59