School achievement of children with intellectual disability: The role of socioeconomic status, placement, and parents’ engagement

Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1615–1625

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Research in Developmental Disabilities

School achievement of children with intellectual disability: The role of socioeconomic status, placement, and parents’ engagement Grzegorz Szumski *, Maciej Karwowski Department of Educational Sciences, Academy of Special Education, Warsaw, Poland

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 5 January 2012 Received in revised form 30 March 2012 Accepted 30 March 2012 Available online 24 April 2012

The objective of this study was to describe the selected conditions for school achievement of students with mild intellectual disabilities from Polish elementary schools. Participants were 605 students with mild disabilities from integrative, regular, and special schools, and their parents (N = 429). It was found that socioeconomic status (SES) was positively associated with child placement in integrative and regular schools rather than special schools, as well as with higher parental engagement in their children’s studies. Parental engagement mediated the positive effects of SES and placement in regular and integrative schools on school achievement. The results are discussed in the context of inclusive education theory. ß 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Academic achievement Access to the general curriculum Inclusive practices

1. Introduction Parents’ social position influences many aspects of their children’s school careers. In special education these influences are partially specific. The higher social position of parents of children with disabilities may make it easier for them to meet expensive rehabilitation needs, as well as to act as their children’s advocates in contacts with educational institutions and to help them in their studies (Heward, 2009). It has also been claimed (Switzer, 1990) that in the case of children with disabilities these influences are even more important than in the education of children without disabilities, although more research is necessary to offer a better understanding of this phenomenon. The present study focuses on two aspects of school education of children with mild intellectual disabilities: placement and school achievement. 1.1. Conditions of placement of children with intellectual disabilities The concept of inclusive education assumes that a regular school close to home should be where children with disabilities study (Porter, 1997; Ryndak & Alper, 2003). Many arguments from a number of fields support this notion and it is therefore appropriate to consider the many theories and discourses of inclusive education (Dyson, 2000). The ethical perspective in particular, so influential among the advocates of inclusive education, shows that segregative solutions violate human rights and the principles of access to education (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997). Attempts undertaken so far to give access to students with disabilities to regular schools and classes have demonstrated the existence of barriers to full inclusion. Many students with disabilities still receive their education outside regular classrooms (including special schools), though these proportions differ across countries (Norwich, 2008; Vislie, 2003).

* Corresponding author at: Department of Educational Sciences, Academy of Special Education, 40 Szczesliwicka St., 02-353 Warsaw, Poland. Tel.: +48 600 405 405. E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Szumski). 0891-4222/$ – see front matter ß 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.03.030

1616

G. Szumski, M. Karwowski / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1615–1625

Hence, a system of multiple options is common practice. Many scholars are convinced that such a solution is even better than full inclusion, as it enables parents to select forms of education which match the specific needs of their children and thus ensure maximum educational benefits (Howe & Welner, 2002). Yet, these needs are primarily dependent on the type and extent of the disability. The principle of the least restrictive environment suggests that students with more severe disabilities who require greater specialist support should receive their education in more segregated conditions than students with milder disabilities (Heward, 2009). But this rule ‘‘is a relative and wholly individualized concept: it is not to be determined by disability category’’ (Heward, 2009, p. 74). The practice of student allocation to individual forms of education is much more complex, however (e.g. Hibel, Farkas, & Morgan, 2010), and is influenced by many distorting factors, which make actual student placement different from the theoretical assumptions (Hyatt & Filler, 2011). On the basis of Marxist theories, the principle of multiple options may be interpreted as an ideology that hides the real interests of privileged groups behind the curtain of principal objectives – as described in sociological theories (Ritzer, 2008). A more rational conviction, however, is that in this case we are dealing with the ‘‘reversion effect,’’ or appearance of uncontrolled (and undesired) consequences of social actions (Boudon, 1977). These consequences arise because those who suggest new ways of solving social problems neglect their adverse side effects and concentrate instead on the desired positive effects. Another frequent practice at this stage is to ignore real contingencies which are going to affect the course and outcomes of the new solutions. When the least restrictive environment is considered, adverse effects may ensue because we are unable to decide whether the chosen form of education is optimal with respect to the needs of particular students. Even when a student has satisfactory educational progress we do not know whether this progress would not have been even better had a different placement been selected. Although there are several models of appropriate use of the least restrictive environment (Rozalski, Stewart, & Miller, 2010), it has been empirically demonstrated that such factors as local educational policy (McNulty, Rogers Connolly, Wilson, & Brewer, 1996), teachers’ beliefs, the solutions already adopted by the school, or simply financial restraints, affect the placement of students with disabilities (Idol, 2006). Parents’ social position exerts considerable influence on the place where students with disabilities learn. It is usually determined by the parents’ SES and in ethnically diverse countries also by their ethnic membership and cultural participation (Klicpera & Gasteiger-Klicpera, 2004; Turner, Alborz, & Gayle, 2008; Valenzuela, Copeland, Huaqing Qi, & Park, 2006). Obviously, membership in ethnic and cultural minority groups is not concurrent with low status, yet in many cases it correlates with it (Skiba, Simmons, Ritter, Kohler, Henderson & Wu, 2006; Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Simmons, Feggins-Azziz, & Chung, 2005; Valenzuela et al., 2006). A whole body of research indicates that these factors already play a substantial role in determining the extent of a child’s disability. Blair and Scott (2002) conclude that approximately one-third of all children identified as learning disabled who come from low-status families do not possess evidence of this disability, but simply score poorly in school achievement tests. Despite attempts to abolish disproportionality in the identification of students from minority groups, this phenomenon still prevails (Zhang & Katsiyannis, 2002). Research shows that among children of parents with low SES the risk of disability assessment increases (Skiba et al., 2005). New comparative studies show that minority group overrepresentation in special education programs is an international phenomenon, largely dependent on how disability is assessed as well as on the organization of special education (Gabel, Curcic, Powell, Khader, & Albee, 2009). The SES of parents, as well as membership in ethnic and cultural minorities, also clearly differentiate the forms of educating students with disabilities, which is demonstrated by research conducted in various school systems. In most cases, students from these groups are overrepresented in the more segregated forms and programs. For example, an Austrian study shows that the education level of parents strongly differentiates the educational paths of their children, though this effect does not apply to all types of disability (Klicpera & Gasteiger-Klicpera, 2004). It was revealed only in the group of students educated in accordance with a typical special school (ASO-Lehrpalan) where students with learning disabilities predominate. Fathers and mothers of students from integrative schools had significantly higher education levels than did the parents of children from special schools. Such differences were not observed in children with mild disabilities who were able to follow a regular educational program, or in students with serious disabilities (at least moderately intellectually disabled). These results are also confirmed by other works, including studies from Poland (Parys & Olszewski, 2003). A German study by Mand (2006), published under the distinctive title Integration fu¨r die Kinder der Mittelschicht und Sonderschulen fu¨r die Kinder der Migranten und Arbeitslosen? [Integration for middle class children: special schools for the children of emigrants and the unemployed?], leads to similar conclusions. Analyzing data from 23 German towns, the author concluded that integrative schools are more frequently created in areas inhabited by more affluent people who have achieved higher levels of education. Thus, in Mand’s opinion one of the mechanisms of access to inclusive schools is simply the different number of places in individual school districts. Similarly, a British study of students with Down’s syndrome demonstrated that mothers’ higher education level was a significant predictor of placing children in mainstream schools (Turner et al., 2008). American research showed statistically significant differences between the frequency of placing Caucasian children and those from ethnic and cultural minorities in basic educational programs. African American, Hispanic and Native American students were significantly more frequently placed in the more segregated programs (60% and more time outside regular classrooms) than their White, Asian, and other counterparts (Valenzuela et al., 2006). Though disproportionality in special education placement as caused by cultural, racial, and social status differences is indicated by much of the research, it is not moving in the same direction in all cases. American research on students with higher-incidence disabilities who are English language learners (ELL) demonstrated that they are overrepresented in classes where they spend between 21% and 60% of their time in segregative forms, but underrepresented in classes where they

G. Szumski, M. Karwowski / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1615–1625

1617

spend more than 60% of their time outside the classroom (Sullivan, 2011). In forms where special aid is provided in the classroom or outside it, but to a limited extent (up to 21% of school time), no differences between students with special educational needs (SEN) and without it were found. Also, a study on the placement of students with vision impairment demonstrated that students from families with higher SES are more frequently placed in special than regular schools (Ajuwon & Olu Oyinlade, 2008). 1.2. Parents’ influence on intellectually disabled children’s school achievement The mechanism of parental influence on school achievements of disabled children is relatively poorly examined. Obvious candidates for variables associated with children’s school achievement include parents’ socioeconomic status (education, family income) as well as their engagement and certain psychological characteristics. In qualitative research, Switzer (1990) described four family factors which influence the achievement of students with learning disabilities: parents’ understanding and acceptance of the diagnosis, family engagement in academic behavior, parental discipline methods, and the child’s role in the family (see also Widmer, Kempf-Constantin, Robert-Tissot, Lanzi, & Galli Carminati, 2008). On the other hand, Turner et al. (2008) showed that school achievement of students with Down’s syndrome is influenced by mothers’ higher education level and such personality characteristics as better coping with stress as well as fathers’ sense of internal control (see also Dempsey, Keen, Pennel, O’Reilly, & Neilands, 2009; Paster, Brandwein, & Walsh, 2009). These results may indicate that not only parents’ social position and education level but also their abilities to cope with problems and greater engagement in their children’s lives may be important for the learning progress of children with intellectual disabilities. Recent research (Zhang, Hsu, Kwok, Benz, & Bowman-Perrott, 2011) has demonstrated that talking to children at home and parents’ aspirations for their children to graduate from high school are positive predictors of school achievement. Especially interesting is the aspiration effect, which suggests that when we attempt to explain school achievement of students with disabilities it is worth focusing on parents’ expectations with regard to the future of their children. It has also recently been found that in students with visual impairments parental involvement at home is positively associated with achievements in mathematics (McDonnall, Cavenaugh, & Giesen, 2012). 1.3. Children with disabilities in the Polish school system Three ways of educating students with mild intellectual disabilities operate in Poland: special schools, integrative schools, and regular schools (Table 1). It is therefore a classic multiple option system. These three forms of education are relatively accessible, although special schools predominate (42% of students with disabilities study there). Almost 25% (24%) of students receive their education in integrative schools and 34% in regular ones (GUS, 2010). Integrative classes are a specific solution where able and disabled students are taught together. These classes have fewer students (no more than 15–20) including three to five with classified SEN and two teachers of whom one has training in special education. Class placement is targeted and not limited to the catchment area. Regular schools are district schools where students with disabilities may also study. Usually, there are just one or two students with disabilities per class and they live near the school. In all types of schools the same ‘‘curriculum base’’ is applied. It defines the content of education and the minimal skills each student should be taught. In the case of students with mild intellectual disability, programs are usually restricted to this base; in the case of gifted students the program is expanded. For example, the base assumes that upon completion of class III (the level of students surveyed in our study) students should: read and understand, write, review, add and subtract within the 1000 range, multiply and divide, solve text tasks and perform monetary calculations. Details of the education of students with disabilities are defined by an individual education program (IEP), which must be compatible with the core curriculum. The IEP in schools is based on indications from the child’s diagnosis. The law also regulates the number of lessons, which is the same in all forms of education. In every form of education students with disabilities may also receive support in the form of extra-curricular activities, for example: speech therapy, teaching effective learning techniques, etc. The number of such lessons is highest in special schools and lowest in regular schools, however. There is also a widespread belief, supported by everyday observation, that the teaching in special schools is better suited to the needs of students with intellectual disability than it is in other forms of education, especially in terms of teaching strategies (i.e. it provides opportunities for transfer, shapes task structure, etc.).

Table 1 Brief characteristics of the Polish elementary school system. Type of school

Number of pupils/class Number of special educators/class Number of students with disabilities/class % of students with disabilities in school system Curriculum

Special

Integrative

Regular

10–16 All All 42% The same base for all students

16–20 1 3–5 24%

25–30 0 1–2 34%

1618

G. Szumski, M. Karwowski / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1615–1625

Placement of students with disabilities in Poland is basically a two-stage process. In the first stage the child is assessed by a team of specialists at the local child guidance clinic. This assessment is always conducted on the parents’ request. Once the child has been diagnosed, the specialists recommend the best form of education for that particular student. The parents have a right to voice their preferences at a special meeting of the assessment team, but their voice is not conclusive. In the second stage the pupil is placed in a given form of education. The local educational authorities must guarantee student placement in the forms indicated by the clinic. However, if parents disagree with this suggestion, they may look for a school according to their preferences, but they cannot force a regular school to adjust to their child’s special needs. Because of this, many parents attempt to place their children in integrative schools, and when this is impossible, they opt for special schools. In these ambiguous and complex conditions, children’s education is influenced by diverse family factors. 1.4. Theoretical model and hypotheses On the basis of current knowledge, we created a theoretical model of the influence of family factors on the education of disabled children within the frame of the multiple options system (Fig. 1). Children from families characterized by higher SES more frequently end up in integrative and regular schools than children from lower status families. Three factors are especially decisive here. First, committees might more frequently recommend placement of higher SES children in regular and integrative schools (Klicpera & Gasteiger-Klicpera, 2004; Skiba et al., 2008). Second, parents more frequently prefer these schools because of concordance with the values held by high SES families (Elkins, van Krayenoord, & Jobling, 2003). There is empirical evidence that students attending these schools have higher school achievements (Freeman & Alkin, 2000; Lindsay, 2007) and better chances of succeeding in adult life (Myklebust & Ba˚tavik, 2009). Such conviction is also expressed in public debate (Connor & Ferri, 2007). As classic sociological works have found, emphasis on achievements is a dominant value in raising children of higher social strata (Harkness & Super, 1995). Third, parents with higher SES have more resources with which to implement their preferences (Kalyanpur, Harry, & Skrtic, 2000). Many studies suggest that parents often feel lost and helpless when contacting school and educational administrators (Hess, Molina, & Kozleski, 2006; Runswick-Cole, 2008). We expect this process to be less applicable to parents with higher SES, however. Because of the above, the first hypothesis is as follows: H1. Family SES is positively associated with attending integrative and regular schools, and negatively associated with attending special schools. Parents from higher social strata are more actively engaged in supporting the development of their children, which contributes to their higher school achievements (Zhang et al., 2011). School achievement plays an important role in their system of educational values (Harkness & Super, 1995), so they especially support children in learning. Parents with low SES have been found to be more submissive and obedient, to have lower social aspirations, and to treat home-school contacts as insubstantial and awkward (Harry, 1992). Hence, two additional hypotheses are posited: H2. The level of engagement of parents in their children’s education is positively associated with their socioeconomic status (SES). H3. Parental engagement in a child’s education has a positive impact on the child’s school achievement. The pressure on achievement reported by parents of children from integrative and regular schools is higher than in special schools (Connor & Ferri, 2007). In order to meet these requirements, students must devote more time to learning, at home as well as in school. Thus:

Fig. 1. Theoretical model of expected relations among socioeconomic status, home engagement, placement and school achievement of children with disabilities.

G. Szumski, M. Karwowski / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1615–1625

1619

H4. Parental engagement in a child’s education is greater in integrative and regular schools than in special schools. Researchers have found that perceived social support is positively correlated to parental sense of competence and potential for personal growth inherent in the stressful daily coping among parents of children with ADHD (Finzi-Dottan, Triwits, & Golubchik, 2011). A similar correlation could also presumably be found for parents with children with MID. Additionally, parents of children with intellectual disability, compared with parents of children with normal intellectual ability, are more likely to cope with stress by seeking social support (Paster et al., 2009), which may be more difficult to find if parents are unconvinced when sending their children to school. Therefore, placement according to parents’ preferences may have a positive effect on regulatory functions (Hess et al., 2006), whereas a non-concordant decision about placement may lead to frustration resulting in withdrawal. This mechanism may translate negatively into achievements, especially in students who are taught in schools other than those their parents would have preferred. This would be especially apparent where students themselves could not count so strongly on special education support, as is the case in regular schools. Therefore: H5. Placement non-concordant with the parents’ plans translates negatively in school achievement, but only in the absence of special aid from the school. 2. Method 2.1. Participants The main sample consisted of 605 participants (N = 605): 355 boys (58.7%) and 250 girls (41.3%). Participants were elementary school students living in different places in Poland. Their ages ranged from 10 to 13, with M = 10.95 and SD = 0.98. All participants were mildly intellectually disabled and were educated in special schools (N = 195; 32.2%), integrative schools (N = 204; 33.7%), and regular schools (N = 206; 34%). Intellectual disability was stated by committees independent of the school. These committees used the ICD-10 criteria in their diagnosis.1 Proportions of girls and boys in the three school types did not differ (x2[df = 2; N = 605] = 2.30; p = 0.32). Participants’ parents were also surveyed (N = 429, with a response rate at 71% of the student sample), but because missing values varied for specific questions degrees of freedom are reported in every case. The response rates were 75% (N = 146) in special schools, 66% (N = 134) in integrative schools, and 72% (N = 149) in regular schools. 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. School achievement The level of school achievement was measured by the Szumski School Achievement Test (SSAT) – a standardized achievement test for children with mild disability, of confirmed validity (Szumski, 2010), and high reliability (Cronbach a = 0.91). The SSAT measures competence in mathematics (Cronbach a = 0.92) and reading (Cronbach a = 0.82). The math part was composed of 38 items and the language part was composed of 26 items. The total achievement score was used in further analyses. 2.2.2. Parents’ home engagement The involvement of parents in working with the child at home was measured with an index specially constructed for the purpose of this study, the Parents’ Home Engagement Index, which consisted of three questions. The first concerned time devoted to working together with the child at home and was measured by asking the parents to estimate the time spent working with the child. For the purpose of conducting multivariate analyses, parental declarations were converted into minutes per day. The second question concerned whether and to what extent children do their homework by themselves, and to what extent they do it with the help of their parents. Parents were asked to respond by choosing one of the following answers: (1) the child does homework independently; (2) sometimes the child works with parents; (3) the child always works with parents. The third question referred to checking the child’s homework, and had two possible answers: (1) check regularly or (2) rarely or never check. Because the specific dimensions of engagement were measured on a nominal scale with a small number of values, scale consistency was tested with Kendall’s W. The construct reliability was acceptable (W = 0.72) and therefore one home engagement index was created by summing up variables, previously standardized to z-scores.

1 In order to evaluate the validity of the certifications of intellectual disability, we selected nearly one-fourth of the participants attending schools in large cities (23%, N = 137; N = 38 special school students, N = 51 integrative school students, and N = 49 regular school students) and examined their intelligence using the Raven Colored Progressive Matrices (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998). No differences in the level of intelligence of students attending special, integrative, and regular schools were found (F[2,135] = 1.61; p = 0.20). However, MANOVA revealed – as was to be expected – that this selected group differed positively from the remaining participants with respect to socio-economic status (F[1,381] = 5.58; p = 0.02; h2 = 0.01) and school achievement (F[1,381] = 21.57; p = 0.0001; h2 = 0.05) and negatively with respect to parental engagement (F[1,381] = 7.73; p = 0.006; h2 = 0.02). Therefore, the lack of difference in intelligence in this group cannot serve as a conclusive argument in our discussion.

1620

G. Szumski, M. Karwowski / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1615–1625

2.2.3. Socioeconomic status (SES) The Socioeconomic Status Index was constructed by conducting a principal components analysis of several variables describing the social and cultural conditions of participant families’ lives. The variables included parental education, number of books in the house and family possessions. The first unrotated factor explained 42% of the latent construct variance and the ensuing index had acceptable reliability (a = 0.77). Recent studies indicate that such aggregated measures of SES work comparatively well or even better than frequently used standardized scales (Callahan & Eyberg, 2010) and arguments in favor of a simplified approach to SES measurement have recently been formulated (Cirino et al., 2002). The utility of similarly constructed SES indices has been demonstrated in disability research (Whitley, 2008). 2.2.4. Placement according to preferences Parents were asked whether they had considered what school they would send their child to and (if the answer was positive) which school was eventually chosen. An index of the accordance of parents’ placement (PAP) choices with plans was created on the basis of the child’s actual place of study. This index assumed a value of zero when the child studied in a different school from that which the parents originally anticipated and a value of 1 when the decision aligned with their preferences. 2.3. Procedure The paper-and-pencil tests were completed individually in two group sessions, lasting approximately 60 min each. The tests were administered by hired female interviewers trained to work with children. The achievement test took 60 min to complete. The children spent the remaining time completing a short questionnaire describing their relations with their school friends and teachers. The teachers were present during the in-class testing but did not participate. Written parental consent was collected before testing and the children themselves were informed that they were free to withdraw altogether or to take a rest if they felt tired. Neither parents nor children were remunerated for their participation. Parents received the questionnaire from the teacher and returned it within a few days.

3. Results The principal goal of the present study was to determine whether socioeconomic status and parental engagement are associated with children’s placement and their school achievement, keeping in mind that the correlational design precludes inferences of causation. Presentation of the results is dictated by the sequence of hypotheses to be tested. First, we present the descriptive statistics and correlations between the study variables (see Table 2), then we present the comparisons between students from the three types of schools (using MANOVA and ANOVA), and finally we present the path analysis model testing the predicted complex relations between variables. Less than half of the children (44%) were placed in accordance with parents’ earlier preferences. Whether or not the placement decision was consistent with the plans did not depend on the parents’ socioeconomic status. SES did, however, correlate with parental engagement in the child’s learning at home and the child’s school achievement. Children’s achievement test scores moderately correlated with parental engagement in learning at home. The data shown in Table 2 ignore the differences between participants on an important dimension: the type of school they attended. In order to examine possible between-school differences, we conducted a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with the school type as a factor, and SES, school achievement, home engagement, and placement according to preferences as dependent variables and a separate one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with school type as a factor and school achievement as a dependent variable.2 Significant differences were found on all four dimensions with low-to-moderate effect sizes (Cohen, 1988). Students attending special schools came from families characterized by significantly lower SES than those attending integrative and regular schools (M = 0.26, SD = 0.80, M = 0.32, SD = 1.02 and M = 0.33, SD = 0.91 respectively, F(2,384) = 17.78; p = 0.0001; h2p ¼ 0:09), which confirms our first hypothesis (H1). They also had lower school achievement (M = 0.20, SD = 0.90) scores than integrative school students (M = 0.32, SD = 1.040) and regular school students (M = 0.23, SD = 1.01) F(2,384) = 10.08; p = 0.0001; h2p ¼ 0:05. As far as relations between type of school and school achievement are concerned, both the MANOVA and the ANOVA revealed similar effects of school type on school achievement (MANOVA: h2p ¼ 0:05, ANOVA: F[2,602] = 11.06; p = 0.0001; h2p ¼ 0:04). Parents of students from special schools were significantly less engaged in learning with their children than parents of students of regular and integrative schools (M = 0.37, SD = 1.01, M = 0.12, SD = 0.89 and M = 0.25, SD = 1.00 respectively, F(2,384) = 14.73; p = 0.0001; h2p ¼ 0:07). This result is in line with our fourth hypothesis (H4). Placement decisions were more concordant with plans in the case of integrative school children (58%) than regular (41%) and special school (34%) children (F(2,203) = 4.54; p = 0.01; h2p ¼ 0:04).

2 The MANOVA and ANOVA were conducted separately so as not to lose cases for which we had information about type of school and school achievement, but not about SES, engagement, and PAP.

G. Szumski, M. Karwowski / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1615–1625

1621

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations between examined variables. SES SES School achievement Home engagement PAP Descriptive statistics M SD Min Max Reliabilitya N

1

0.13 0.95 2.27 2.42 0.77 387

School achievement **

0.13 1

0.02 1.00 2.64 1.91 0.91 605

Home engagement ***

0.44 0.15** 1

0.00 2.46 5.96 3.83 0.72 370

PAP 0.01 0.10 0.01 1 44% yes – 0 (no) 1 (yes) – 206

Note. N’s in case of correlations vary from N = 206–605 (see last row for corresponding sample size). PAP: placement as preferred was coded 0 if it was different than planned and 1 if coherent with plans. a In case of SES and achievement Cronbach a, in case of home engagement Kendall W. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

In order to test our last hypothesis that placement non-concordant with the parents’ plans translates negatively into school achievement, but only in the absence of special support from the school, we conducted a 2  3 ANOVA: PAP  School Type with school achievement as the dependent variable (Fig. 2). A statistically significant main effect of the School Type on School Achievement (F[2,206] = 4.77; p = 0.009, h2p ¼ 0:05) was found. The PAP effect was not statistically significant (F[1,206] = 1; p = 0.32) and neither was the interaction between these two factors (F[2,206] = 1.56; p = 0.21). However, the role of PAP in terms of achievement differed depending on school type. As expected, in special and integrative schools this factor did not have any effect on achievement, whereas children in regular schools who ended up in those schools although their parents had planned otherwise achieved worse results. In the presented theoretical model, we expected achievements to be determined by the coincidence of several phenomena and circumstances, the most significant being the family’s socioeconomic status and parental engagement in the child’s learning, but also the type of school – especially whether the child could count on special education aid (special schools), and whether the child received limited special education aid (integrative schools) or did not receive any such aid (regular schools). We used the path model to examine the more complex relations (see Fig. 3). The model fits the data very well (x2[df = 1] = 0.70; p = 0.40, x2/df = 0.70, CFI = 1.00, NFI = 0.998, RFI = 0.971, RMSEA = 0.000, 90% CI: 0.000–0.085). The parents’ socioeconomic status predicts what school the child will be referred to. Special schools were treated as the reference category and as parental SES increases so do the chances that the child will be sent to a regular or an integrative school rather than a special school. Hence, the result is consistent with the first hypothesis (H1). Parents’ SES is also the strongest predictor of their engagement in learning with the child at home and this confirms the second hypothesis (H2). This influence is also indirect because parents of students attending integrative and regular schools devote more time to learning with their children than parents of children attending special schools. There is a partial influence of SES, but there is also an independent effect of non-segregated education, connected with the lower extent of special education aid and hence greater necessity for the individual’s own input and that of his/her parents. This finding confirms H4. Socioeconomic status and school type (integrative, regular) explain 24% of the variance of engagement in learning with the child, whereas engagement is the only factor which predicts students’ school achievement, consistently with the third

Fig. 2. Combined effect of the interaction between school type and accordance of parents’ placement choices with plans on student achievements. Note. Standard errors are represented in the figure by error bars.

1622

G. Szumski, M. Karwowski / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1615–1625

Fig. 3. Path model which explains school achievement by means of the factors of status, form of education, and parents’ engagement in learning. Note. Special school students were treated as a reference group. Arrows in bold are statistically significant at p < 0.05 or higher.

hypothesis (H3). Although the percentage of the explained achievement variance is low (2%), it shows that neither school type nor SES strongly differentiate the child’s outcomes – this only happens when these factors go hand in hand with greater personal contribution, effort, and learning together with the child. It also demonstrates that when other factors are controlled, the form of education does not differentiate children’s achievements – neither integrative school students nor regular school students achieved higher results than the reference category (special school students). This suggests that the previously noted differences (MANOVA) resulted from the mediated influence of school type, due to greater engagement in common learning of parents and students from integrative and regular schools. 4. Discussion The principal goal of the present study was to examine whether mildly disabled children’s school achievement and placement are associated with their families’ socioeconomic status and parents’ engagement, keeping in mind that the correlational design precludes inferences of causation. Increased parental role is a characteristic feature of contemporary systems for educating children with disabilities. Popular textbooks highlight the need for schools to cooperate with the children’s parents; it not only increases the effectiveness of education, but (in the United States at least) it is a legally regulated responsibility of the school (Heward, 2009; Turnbull, Turnbull, & Wehmeyer, 2010). This tendency increases the demand for knowledge about mutual relations between families of children with disabilities and schools. Such knowledge is necessary for better understanding of the contemporary education systems for students with disabilities, and for improvement of these systems. Special education textbooks attempt to present school–parent relations in functional categories. These relations cannot be fully understood on functional grounds, however, because they are strongly characterized by tensions which result from the potential structural conflicts of interest between parents and teachers, as well as divergent systems of values and norms (Rogers, 2007; Westling Allodi, 2007). This line of conflict is composed of diverse social positions and cultural patterns of families of children with disabilities, with differently defined educational interests, and the possession of diverse resources for the realization of these interests (Grove & Fisher, 1999). Complex conditions, where the parents of children with disabilities and their schools interact, bring about undesired and uncontrollable phenomena in this area. These phenomena are similar to inversion effects (Boudon, 1977). Some of them were found in our study. The results obtained in this study confirm the majority of formulated hypotheses and indicate that mildly disabled children of parents with higher SES more frequently end up in regular and integrative schools than similar children of parents with lower SES. Hence, we found further confirmation of previous research. This is not just a simple replication of Western European or American studies, however, because our study was conducted in different social and educational conditions. The first integrated schools were created in Poland approximately 20 years ago and their dynamic development happened over the course of the last decade, which may have affected the quality of support provided to children with special educational needs. On the other hand, for many years regular schools used to educate children with SEN owing to lack

G. Szumski, M. Karwowski / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1615–1625

1623

of space in special schools and they provided very limited support to students with disabilities. This is why both of these forms (regular and special) may elicit lower parental trust. To summarize, our findings confirm the thesis that in the process of placing children with disabilities, selection processes based on students’ social origin do take place. Children of parents with higher SES more frequently receive the type of education which was considered better by the parents. However, we do intentionally use the word ‘‘considered’’ as our results show that we are dealing mainly with parents’ perception, not necessarily confirmed by higher school achievement observed in integrative and regular schools. We found that school achievements are more strongly associated with parents’ engagement (in part an epiphenomenon of SES) than with placement per se. Coherent with previous studies is our finding that, as a whole, as demonstrated by a large body of research, parents of children with disabilities generally value inclusive forms more than special schools (Elkins et al., 2003; Gilmore, Campbell, & Cuskelly; Grove & Fisher, 1999). At the same time, they expect the school to ensure relatively wide specialist support for their children (Garrick Duhaney & Salend, 2000). In the Polish system, these conditions are best fulfilled in integrative schools and it is there that the advantage of parents with higher SES is most evident. However, it should be noted that students’ school achievement is only one criterion of school evaluation – an important one, but not the only one. Students’ social and emotional integration with peers and teachers should also be taken into consideration when different forms of education of students with MID are assessed, and in this case special school students usually score higher than regular and integrative school students (Szumski & Karwowski, 2012). Contemporary studies of inclusive education in Poland have demonstrated the existence of social inequality (Szumski, 2012). Children of parents with lower SES are sent more often to special schools even when their parents planned otherwise. In the present study we found no significant relations between SES and placement according to preferences, but we did find clear differences in parental status of children from special schools and their peers in integrated and regular schools. This finding itself discredits the principle of the least restrictive environment concept and hence contributes to the repertoire of arguments against such a solution (Taylor, 1988). The majority of contemporary special education systems use this solution, however, and nothing hints at possible change in the near future (Norwich, 2008; Vislie, 2003). Because of this, research into the mechanisms which create social inequalities in access to inclusive education should be intensified. Our study did not bring about the anticipated results in this area. We hypothesized that the greater preference fulfillment in parents with higher SES may affect the appearance of inequalities in access to integrated and inclusive education. Results show that we should reject this hypothesis. It is, however, worth paying attention to the fact that in integrative schools the extent of accordance of parents’ placement preferences with plans is highest, and that those schools are most frequently chosen by parents with higher SES. This suggests that these schools may be preferred by parents with higher SES, and simultaneously that such parents find it easier to obtain a placement in these schools. Existing studies strengthen this interpretation: e.g. Leyser and Kirk (2004) ascertained that parents with college-level education appreciate the benefits of inclusive education more than parents with high school education. This requires further research, however. The main problem of this study lies not just in the social conditions of placement, but in the influence of parents on school achievement of children with mild intellectual disabilities. The path model showed that the only factor among those explored in this study that explains achievement is the engagement of parents in learning at home. This, on the other hand, is greater in families characterized by higher SES as well as in integrative and regular schools. The finding sheds some light on the mechanisms of the operation of the system of education of children with disabilities. It shows first and foremost that the (quite popular) special educators’ explanations of higher school achievements of students placed in inclusive education rather than special school settings are a simplification of the reality. Hence, the claim that inclusive schools are better at teaching students with disabilities than special schools is only partly true. It is also untrue, differently from what is often supposed nowadays, that in comparison with special school students, higher achievement in regular school students is a result of the former’s better habitus (Bourdieu, 1999), connected with the processes of social selection also revealed in our research. The results obtained indicate that the mechanism which ensures greater effectiveness of inclusive schools is more complex. These schools are more demanding than special schools for students with disabilities – the pressure on achievement is stronger in these schools, as reported by parents (Connor & Ferri, 2007). As Polish research shows, this is so even when education programs for students with particular types and degrees of disability in individual school types are the same, and those students undergo similar external achievement tests (Centralna Komisja Egzaminacyjna, 2010). In order to meet increased requirements, students must devote more time to learning, at home as well as in school. The model promoted by inclusive schools is consistent with the educational values of families characterized by higher SES, which traditionally value achievement resulting from competences gained through effort (Harkness & Super, 1995). Hence, the culture of inclusive schools remains in a symbiotic relationship with the educational values of families characterized by higher SES, and explains the higher achievement of students from inclusive schools. The above mechanism is similar to the one which regulates school achievement of students without disabilities in contemporary schools (Okagaki & Sternberg, 1993). This means – at least in the area which interests us here – that inclusive schools are different from regular ones in that they also accept students with disabilities. This result is not consistent with the normative image of an inclusive school presented in many special education publications as a new type of school, one which is radically different from a traditional regular school (Booth & Ainscow, 2002; Ryndak & Alper, 2003). Moreover, they present it as a ‘‘school for all.’’ Yet, in the light of the data we collected, it is a school for those students with disabilities whose parents primarily want to increase their children’s academic skills by means of learning at home with parental support. The data we collected only relate to Polish schools. It is possible that schools are guided by different mechanisms in countries where inclusive education has longer traditions and is more intensively developed. It is also possible that

1624

G. Szumski, M. Karwowski / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1615–1625

something else determines the school achievements of children with disabilities in those schools. This phenomenon is certainly worth examining in other countries as well, because such research brings us closer to answering the question of the extent to which the normative concept of inclusive schools, so important in contemporary social education, is a real reform program or just a beautiful utopia. 4.1. Limitations and future studies As in all empirical research, our study is not without its limitations. The cross-sectional design is probably the most serious one. Longitudinal studies are necessary to confirm the results obtained and deepen our knowledge of the conditions of school achievement of children with mild intellectual disabilities. The study presented focused on structural factors (such as socioeconomic status, placement, etc.), and devoted only limited attention to parent–child interactions, leaving aside the psychological and psychosocial factors which might be of profound importance in children’s achievements. Research on the conditions appertaining to the differential achievements of students from special, integrative, and regular schools, not just in terms of their social and economic composition and differences in parental engagement, but also in terms of the varying degrees of psychosocial integration (i.e. Hardiman, Guerin, & Fitzsimons, 2009; van Nieuwenhuijzen & Vriens, 2012) of those students with the class and the school, would be an especially interesting direction to follow in the future. Several of our measures, especially the SES index and the parental engagement index, may raise some doubts. These limitations should therefore be considered in future studies and we suggest that more complex and standardized measures be adopted. Acknowledgments The first author of this research was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland under grant 1566/H03/2007/32. The authors thank David Mitchell and Anna Firkowska-Mankiewicz for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. References Ajuwon, P. M., & Olu Oyinlade, A. (2008). Educational placement of children who are blind or have low vision in residential and public schools: A national study of parents’ perspectives. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 6, 325–339. Blair, C., & Scott, K. G. (2002). Proportion of LD placements associated with low socioeconomic status: Evidence for a gradient? The Journal of Special Education, 36, 14–22. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index of inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: CSIE. Boudon, R. (1977). Effets Pervers et Ordre Social. Paris: PUF. Bourdieu, P. (1999). Scattered remarks. European Journal of Social Theory, 2, 334–341. Callahan, C. L., & Eyberg, S. M. (2010). Relations between parenting behavior and SES in a clinical sample: Validity of SES measures. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 32, 125–138. Centralna Komisja Egzaminacyjna. (2010). Osia˛gnie˛cia ucznio´w kon´cza˛cych szkołe˛ podstawowa˛. (Central Examination Comission [2010] School achievement of students finishing elementary school). Retrieved from: www.cke.edu.pl/images/stories/001_Sprawdzian_2010/sprawdzian_2010_spr.pdf Cirino, P. T., Chin, C. E., Sevcik, R. A., Wolf, M., Lovett, M., & Morris, R. D. (2002). Measuring socioeconomic status: Reliability and preliminary validity for different approaches. Assessment, 9, 145–155. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Connor, D. J., & Ferri, B. A. (2007). The conflict within: Resistance to inclusion and other paradoxes in special education. Disability & Society, 22, 63–77. Dempsey, I., Keen, D., Pennel, D., O’Reilly, J., & Neilands, J. (2009). Parent stress parenting competence and family-centered support to young children with an intellectual or developmental disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 558–566. Dyson, A. (2000). Inclusion and inclusions: Theories and discourses in inclusive education. In H. Daniels & A. Gartner (Eds.), Inclusive education. World yearbook of education. London: Kogan Page. Elkins, J., van Kraayenoord, C. E., & Jobling, A. (2003). Parents’ attitudes to inclusion of their children with special needs. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 3, 122–129. Finzi-Dottan, R., Triwitz, Y. S., & Golubchik, P. (2011). Predictors of stress-related growth in parents of children with ADHD. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 510–519. Freeman, S. F. N., & Alkin, M. C. (2000). Academic and social attainments of children with mental retardation in general education and special education setting. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 3–18. Gabel, S., Curcic, L., Powell, S., Khader, J. J. W., & Albee, K. L. (2009). Migration and ethnic group disproportionality in special education: An exploratory study. Disability & Society, 24, 625–639. Garrick Duhaney, L. M., & Salend, S. J. (2000). Parental perceptions of inclusive educational placements. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 121–128. Gilmore, L., Campbell, J., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Developmental expectations, personality stereotypes, and attitudes towards inclusive education: Community and teacher views of Down syndrome. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 50, 65–76. Grove, K. A., & Fisher, D. (1999). Entrepreneurs of meaning: Parents and the process of inclusive education. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 208–215. GUS. (2010). Os´wiata i wychowanie w roku szkolnym 2009/2010. Warszawa: Zakład Wydawnictw Statystycznych. Hardiman, S., Guerin, S., & Fitzsimons, E. (2009). A comparison of the social competence of children with moderate intellectual disability in inclusive versus segregative school settings. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 397–407. Harkness, S., & Super, C. (Eds.). (1995). Parents’ cultural belief systems. New York: Guilford Press. Harry, B. (1992). An ethnographic study of cross cultural communication with Puerto Rico-American families in special education system. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 471–494. Hess, R. S., Molina, A. M., & Kozleski, E. B. (2006). Until somebody hears me: Parent voice and advocacy in special educational decision making. British Journal of Special Education, 33, 148–157. Heward, W. L. (2009). Exceptional children. An instruction to special education (ninth edition). New Jersey: Pearson Education. Hibel, J., Farkas, G., & Morgan, P. L. (2010). Who is placed into special education? Sociology of Education, 83, 312–332. Howe, K. P., & Welner, K. G. (2002). School choice and the pressure to perform: De´ja` vu for children with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 212–221.

G. Szumski, M. Karwowski / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1615–1625

1625

Hyatt, K. J., & Filler, J. (2011). LRE re-examined: Misinterpretations and unintended consequences. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 1031–1045. Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 77–94. Kalyanpur, M., Harry, B., & Skrtic, T. (2000). Equity and advocacy expectations of culturally diverse families’ participation in special education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 47, 119–136. Klicpera, C., & Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (2004). Einfluss individueller und familia¨rer Merkmale von Schu¨lern mit sondrpa¨dagogischem Fo¨rderbedarf auf den Besuch einer Sondrschule bzw. Integrationsklasse. Sonderpa¨dagogik, 34, 3–21. Leyser, Y., & Kirk, R. (2004). Evaluating inclusion: An examination of parent views and factors influencing their perspectives. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51, 271–285. Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1–24. Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion, school restructuring and the remaking of American society. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 762–796. Mand, J. (2006). Integration fu¨r die Kinder der Mittelschicht und Sonderschulen fu¨r die Kinder der Migranten und Arbeitslosen? Zeitschrift fu¨r Heilpa¨dagogik, 4, 109–115. McDonnall, M. C., Cavenaugh, B. S., & Giesen, J. M. (2012). The relationship between parental involvement and mathematics achievement for students with visual impairments. Journal of Special Education, 45, 204–215. McNulty, B. E., Rogers Connolly, T., Wilson, P. G., & Brewer, R. D. (1996). LRE Policy. The leadership challenge. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 158–167. Myklebust, J., & Ba˚tavik, O. F. O. (2009). Earning a living for former students with special educational needs. Does class placement matter? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24, 203–212. Norwich, B. (2008). Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability: International perspectives on placement. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23, 287–304. Okagaki, L., & Sternberg, R. (1993). Parental beliefs and children’s school performance. Child Development, 64, 36–56. Parys, K., & Olszewski, S. (2003). Dla kogo integracja? [For whom integration?]. In E. Go´rniewicz & A. Krause (Eds.), Dyskursy pedagogiki specjalnej. Konteksty teoretyczne. Discourses of special education. Theoretical contextsOlsztyn: UWM. Paster, A., Brandwein, D., & Walsh, J. (2009). A comparison of coping strategies used by parents of children with disabilities and parents of children without disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1337–1342. Porter, G. (1997). Critical elements for inclusive schools. In S. J. Pijl, W. Meijer, & S. Hegarty (Eds.), Inclusive education. A global agenda. London–New York: Routledge. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Section 2: The colored progressive matrices. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment. Ritzer, G. (2008). Classical sociological theory (fifth edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. Rogers, C. (2007). Experiencing an ‘inclusive’ education: Parents and their children with ‘special educational needs’. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28, 55– 68. Rozalski, M., Stewart, A., & Miller, J. (2010). How to determine the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities. Exceptionality, 18, 151–163. Runswick-Cole, K. (2008). Between a rock and a hard place: Parents’ attitudes to the inclusion of children with special educational needs in mainstream and special schools. British Journal of Special Education, 35, 174–180. Ryndak, D. L., & Alper, S. (2003). Curriculum and instruction for students with significant disabilities in inclusive setting (second edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Skiba, R., Simmons, J., Ritter, A. B., Gibb, S., Rausch, A. C., Cuadrado, M. K., et al. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74, 264–288. Skiba, R., Simmons, J., Ritter, A., Kohler, S., Henderson, K., & Wu, M. T. (2006). The context of minority disproportionality: Practitioner perspectives on special education referral. Teachers College Record, 108, 1424–1459. Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Simmons, A. B., Feggins-Azziz, R., & Chung, Ch. G. (2005). Unproven links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education? The Journal of Special Education, 39, 130–144. Sullivan, S. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77, 317–334. Switzer, L. S. (1990). Family factors associated with academic progress for children with learning disabilities. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 24, 200– 206. Szumski, G. (2010). Woko´ł edukacji wła˛czaja˛cej. Around inclusive education]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo APS. Szumski, G. (2012). Efekt skupienia. W jaki sposo´b s´wiatła zasada przyczynia sie˛ do edukacyjnego wykluczenia? [The Cluster Effect. How an Enlightened Principle Can Lead to Educational Exclusion?]. Chowanna, 38, 69–81. Szumski, G., & Karwowski, M. (2012). The psychosocial functioning and school achievement of children with mild intellectual disability in Polish special, integrative and mainstream schools. Manuscript submitted for publication. Taylor, S. J. (1988). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 41–53. Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2010). Exceptional lives special education in today’s schools (sixth edition). New Jersey: Pearson Education. Turner, S., Alborz, A., & Gayle, V. (2008). Predictors of academic attainments of young people with Down’s syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52, 380–392. Valenzuela, J. S., Copeland, S. R., Huaqing Qi, C., & Park, M. (2006). Examining educational equality: Revising the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Exceptional Children, 72, 425–441. van Nieuwenhuijzen, M., & Vriens, A. (2012). (Social) Cognitive skills and social information processing in children with mild to borderline intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 426–434. Vislie, L. (2003). From integration to inclusion: Focusing global trends and changes in the Western European societies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18, 17–35. Westling Allodi, M. (2007). Children with cognitive disabilities in a Swedish educational context: Reflections from a case study. Disability & Society, 22, 639–653. Whitley, J. (2008). A model of general self-concept for students with learning disabilities: Does class placement play a role? Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 36, 106–134. Widmer, E. D., Kempf-Constantin, N., Robert-Tissot, C., Lanzi, F., & Galli Carminati, G. (2008). How central and connected am I in my family? Family-based social capital of individuals with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29, 176–187. Zhang, D., Hsu, H.-Y., Kwok, O., Benz, M., & Bowman-Perrott, L. (2011). The Impact of basic-level parent engagements on student achievement: Patterns associated with race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES). Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 1–12. Zhang, D., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Minority representation in special education. A persistent challenge. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 180–187.