Inclusive education has been defined as a continuous process, with the main goals being ensuring quality education for all members of society, recognizing and respecting diversity, taking into account each individual’s abilities and needs, and avoiding any kind of discrimination (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2009). Inclusive education of children with special educational needs (SEN) is becoming more popular, but the effectiveness of educating these children in this environment has not yet been proved, mainly because there has been a lack of empirical investigation (Hornby, 2011). Further, Vislie (2003) stated that, apparently, the implementation of efforts to include children with SEN in general education is difficult for teachers and is not always evident. In Lithuania, several models designed for the education of children with SEN have been implemented (Alisauskas, Gerulaitis, & Milteniene, 2011), and it has been found that Lithuanian teachers implementing inclusive education collaborate successfully with special educators and other teachers who do not work with children with SEN, in meeting the special educational needs of students (Milteniene & Venclovaite, 2012). Special educational needs (SEN) in a Lithuanian context are defined as support and service development process needs arising from exceptional personal talent, congenital or acquired disorders, or adverse environmental factors (Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Education and Science, 2011). It is very important for school professionals to work together with parents to help children with SEN reach their educational objectives (Eccleston, 2010). However, Ciuladienė and Pauzienė (2012) maintain that schools in Lithuania are not ready to implement inclusive education. In line with this, it is believed that teachers of children with SEN require special preparation (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2012). Moreover, consensus has not been reached on whether inclusive education or schooling in a special education setting is better for children with SEN (Ford, 2013; Prunty, Dupont, & McDaid, 2012).

Harris (2009) postulated a modern model of nurturing in which parental involvement in education plays a crucial role in a child’s development. On the basis of this assumption, parents should be encouraged to look for specific ways to foster their children’s development. However, according to Reio and Forines (2011), parents of children with SEN experience a high degree of stress with regard to their children’s futures. If parents are deeply involved in the education of their children with SEN, the parents’ stress levels are reduced and their sense of fulfillment and their self-confidence are simultaneously increased (Reio & Forines, 2011).

Teachers and parents should work together to determine the educational objectives of children with SEN, collaborating on choosing and implementing educational strategies (Reio & Forines, 2011). Johnsen and Bele (2013) observed that parents whose children with SEN receive the necessary help at school have better relationships with teachers than do parents of children with SEN who do not receive the help they need. In addition, parents who are receiving help from the school have a stronger perception than other parents have that they can contribute to their child’s education. However, parents of children with SEN must be willing to assess the situation critically and comprehensively, to ask more intelligent questions, evaluate the answers carefully, and, at the same time, pursue solutions that are likely to help their children (Brookman-Frazel & Koegel, 2004). Smit, Driessen, Sluiter, and Sleegers (2007) point out that it is necessary for parents to be aware that their involvement in the education of their child includes being involved at home (e.g., home supervision) and at school (e.g., participation in school activities with their child or in aspects of the school’s organization).

Hill and Taylor (2004) suggest that, ultimately, parental involvement in schooling is related to children’s academic achievement, and that this is attributable to the interaction of increased social capital influenced by the increase in parental skills and knowledge, and increased social education control through the pursuit of a common goal with the school. Pomerantz, Moorman, and Litwack (2007) stated that parental involvement in schooling encourages the development of children’s cognitive and metacognitive skills and fosters their achievements, because parents who are involved in schooling set the example for their children and encourage them to participate actively in school activities. They also observed that parents with higher socioeconomic status and higher levels of education than other parents are more likely to get involved in their children’s education. Parental involvement in education provides a means for parents and teachers to work together to enhance the children’s social functioning and address behavioral problems (El Nokali, Bachman, & Votruba-Drzal, 2010). Şad and Gürbüztürk (2013) advocated for equal parent–teacher partnerships in the education process. Involving parents in their children’s education has been reported to yield positive outcomes for the children that include better academic achievement, fewer behavioral problems, greater self-confidence, more regular student attendance and greater satisfaction at school, better social relationships with peers, and better preconditions for life quality. The likelihood that the child will succeed at school is increased when the work he or she does at school is supported and continued at home (Şad & Gürbüztürk, 2013). Furthermore, it has been observed that parents are more likely to get involved in their children’s education when parent–teacher relationships are equal (Kim et al., 2012).

Based on the above review, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Parents who communicate well with teachers will be more likely to perceive that they are equal partners with the teachers and will be more involved in the education of their children with SEN at home and at school, than will those parents who do not communicate with teachers.
Hypothesis 2: Parents who have a higher level of education will be more involved with the education of their children with SEN than will parents who have a lower level of education.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We used a cluster random sampling method to approach citizens of Caucasian ethnicity living in the Kaunas region of Lithuania. Participants comprised 170 parents of children with SEN aged between 12 and 16 years who were attending mainstream secondary schools and who were enrolled in inclusive classes. Of the parents (M_age = 40.8 years, SD = 10.98), the majority were women (87.1%) and the highest educational qualification was study at university or college level (21.2% of the participants).

Before commencement, we obtained permission to conduct the study from the administrators at the participating schools. Once permission was given, we contacted the target staff of the school to request the contact information of the parents of the children with SEN, in order to make personal contact with these parents. Participation in the study was voluntary and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Parents completed the surveys at home.

Measures

The data were collected using the 18-item Parental Involvement at School Scale (Eccles & Harold, 1993). Items are divided across three subscales and rated using 5-point Likert scales. Seven items are used to measure parent involvement with their child’s schoolwork (e.g., “How often do you engage in the education of children at home?”), with response options of 0 = never, 1 = once a month, 2 = once a week, 3 = a few times a week, and 4 = every day. Six items are used to measure parental involvement with school activities (e.g., “How often do you engage in school activities?”), with response options of 0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, and 4 = very often. Finally, five items are used to measure teacher involvement with the parent (e.g., “How often you have been involved by teachers in your child’s education?”), with response options ranging from 0 = never to 4 = very often.

We adapted the Parental Involvement at School Scale for use with Lithuanian populations using the back-translation procedure described by Hambleton, Merenda, and Spielberger (2005). First, three members of the Language Department of the Lithuanian Sports University, all of whom had previous experience in adapting research instruments, separately translated the original scale from English into Lithuanian. In comparing the three translated versions and using these to construct the final version, the main focus was on equivalency of meaning of all items. Second, a native English speaker translated the text back into English. Finally, the back-translated version and the original version were compared, and no lack of equivalence was found. Next the factor structure of the scale was examined using exploratory factor analysis. We performed a principal components factor analysis with orthogonal (varimax) rotation and Kaiser normalization. Three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.00 and item loadings greater than .50 for each factor emerged. These factors accounted for 57.72% of the total variance (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = .83, p < .001). The scale factors and component statements of the Lithuanian scale version corresponded with the original version of the scale. Estimation of Cronbach’s alphas demonstrated good levels of internal consistency reliability for all three subscales (.89, .78, and .83, respectively).

To determine how many of the parents felt that they were equal partners in dealing with teachers, parents were asked, “Do you feel you communicate with teachers as equal partners?” The four alternatives for response were: Definitely, Partly yes, No, and I cannot answer that. Based on their answers, parents were divided into two groups, as follows: group one consisted of those who perceived that they were definitely communicating with teachers as equal partners or that they were communicating at least partially as equal partners, and group two consisted of those who did not perceive that they were communicating as equal partners or who responded that they could not answer the question.

The parents were also asked to indicate the types of learning problems their children faced at school. The parents then rated their perception of the level of parental involvement in the process of addressing these learning problems from the following three alternatives: Very involved, Occasionally involved, or Not involved. Parents were then asked to indicate how much time they devoted to communication with their child and to give their thoughts on how the school could encourage communication and cooperation among teacher, parent, and child.

The survey also contained social demographic items, including the age and gender of the parents and their child, and parents’ education level. Children were divided into the following two groups according to their age: those aged between 12 and 14 years and those aged 15 and 16 years. Parents were divided into two groups according to their level of education.

Data Analysis

All the analyses were performed using IBM SPSS for Windows software (version 19.0). The analytical procedure included factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, chi square tests, and regression calculations. Statistical significance was set at p < .05 for all tests.

Results

Our results revealed that 68.8% of parents were able to describe the particular types of learning problems their children with SEN were facing at school. Based on a chi-square test, no relationship was found between the educational level of the parents and their knowledge about their children’s learning problems.

Of the parent participants, 60.6% were involved in the process of addressing the learning problems of their children. Those parents with a higher level of education than others in the participant group were significantly more involved in the education process of their children (χ²(2, N = 170) = 10.02, p < .01). In addition, the parents in the group who were more highly educated than the others were devoted more time to communicating with their children (χ² = 6.25, df = 2, p < .05). It was also established that parents of older (15 and 16 years old) children were less involved in their children’s education than were parents of younger (between 12 and 14 years old) children (χ² = 9.80, df = 2, p < .01).

Nearly one-third (32.9%) of the parents felt they were truly equal partners when communicating with teachers. Compared to those with a lower level of education, more of the parents with a higher level of education perceived that they were equal partners when communicating with teachers (χ² = 20.37, df = 3, p < .001). Furthermore, compared with the group who did not perceive the relationship with the teacher as an equal partnership, the group of parents who perceived that they were equal partners with teachers were more likely to believe that communication and cooperation can be encouraged by teachers through events organized for families in the classroom (χ² = 6.38, df = 1, p < .01).

Parents of children with SEN perceived a high level of involvement with their child’s schoolwork, less parent–teacher interaction, and a lower level of personal involvement with school activities (see Table 1). Correlational analyses showed that parents’ involvement with the child’s schoolwork was positively correlated with parents’ participating in school-based activities. Further, when parents participated in school-based activities, this was positively correlated with parent– teacher interaction (see Table 1).

Next, we performed regression analyses to examine the effects of the age of the child, the parents’ education level, and parent–teacher partnerships (as independent variables) on parents’ involvement in their child’s education (as the dependent variable; see Table 2). Analyses showed that the first model predicting parents’ involvement with the child’s schoolwork was not significant (F = 1.99, p > .05). For parents’ involvement with school activities, significant impacts of child’s age, parents’ educational level, and parent–teacher partnerships were established (F = 5.55, p < .001). Analysis of the results revealed that parents of the younger group of children, parents with a higher level of education, and parents who perceived that they were more like equal partners when communicating with teachers, were more likely than the other parents were to engage in activities at the school. With regard to teacher involvement with parents, the only variable that had a significant effect was parent–teacher partnerships (F = 4.00, p < .01). Parents who perceived that they were equal partners when communicating with the teacher were more likely to report that the teachers interacted with them.

Discussion

We studied the involvement of parents in the education of their children with SEN at home and at school in an inclusive educational environment, as indicated by the parents’ perception of the quality of the partnership between parents and teachers and the parents’ perceptions of the differences in degree of their involvement according the parents’ level of education. We found differences in both parent–teacher partnership levels and parental education levels.

Kim et al. (2012) observed that parents are more likely to be involved in their children’s education when parents and teachers view their relationship in a similarly positive light. Conversely, when parents and teachers hold disparate views about their relationship, they may be less likely to communicate and share goals for the children, which may impede the children’s functioning. Our survey results revealed that more of the parents chose to be involved in their child’s education at home than chose not to, that most of the parents were rarely involved in their child’s education at school, and that the teachers were more likely to exclude than they were to include parents in the child’s education at school. Our results confirm the view expressed by Oostdam and Hooge (2013) that, sometimes, instead of creating a dialogue with parents, teachers tend to tell parents what they should do or to keep them at a distance.

We found that most parents in the group whose level of education was higher were involved in the education of their children with SEN at home. This is in contrast to the finding of Şad and Gürbüztürk (2013) that there was no significant difference in this regard according to the parents’ educational background. On the other hand, our results support those of Pomerantz et al. (2007), Smit et al. (2007), and Hornby and Lafaele (2011), who all reported that the parents’ educational background is decisive in terms of parental involvement in their children’s education. Parents with lower levels of education may lack the necessary knowledge when it comes to helping their children with their homework. Further, parents with lower levels of education may believe that teachers know more about children’s education than they do and, thus, may tend to doubt their ability to communicate with teachers as equals. In our study, we found that parents in the group with a higher level of education become involved in their children’s education more often than did those with lower levels of education.

We found that parents of the older group of children were less likely than the parents of the younger children to get involved in their children’s education. These results correspond to those of both McDonnall, Cavenaugh, and Giesen (2012) and Şad and Gürbüztürk (2013), who reported finding that parental involvement decreased across successive grades.

We found that the teachers of children with SEN collaborated with the parents, but Milteniene and Mauriciene (2010) observed that the participation of children with SEN in the examination of the issues related to their education is limited. Carr (2013) found that children with SEN experienced more difficulties in doing homework than their peers did, and that homework tasks were an important factor in improving the achievement of these children. Van Voorhis (2011) argued that doing homework can significantly improve children’s learning outcomes. It has been found that parents’ active involvement has a significant and positive impact on children’s education by creating a stimulating environment at home (Burvyte, Ralys, & Ilguniene, 2012).

Our findings confirm previous findings that problems with education of children with SEN in mainstream schools in Lithuania are similar to those in other countries. According to Vignes et al. (2009), implementation of inclusive education is influenced by many factors, but the key factors are attitudes of teachers, parents, and peers towards children with SEN who are pupils in mainstream schools.

As stated by de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert (2011) and de Boer, Pijl, Post, and Minnaert (2011), there are many obstacles preventing, and uncertainties about, the implementation of the inclusion of children with SEN in mainstream schools. First, teachers hold negative or neutral behavioral intentions towards students with SEN, although the intentions of teachers with less teaching experience are more positive than those of teachers with more experience. Second, teachers experienced in teaching children with SEN hold more positive attitudes towards inclusive education than teachers with little experience do. Third, the success of children with SEN in education is related to environmental influences. Fourth, teachers with long-term training for teaching children with SEN are more positive towards the general philosophy of inclusion. However, as Vislie (2003) pointed out, there have been many doubts expressed about the desirability and success of inclusive education of children, both in the teaching community and among the parents of children with SEN.

In line with the recommendations of the Council of the European Union (2013), inclusive education may be one of the main paths for placement of children with SEN in mainstream educational institutions. Further, this corresponds to the observation of the Network of Experts in Social Sciences of Education and Training (2012) on inclusive education that involvement of parents of children with SEN is a vital factor in promoting inclusive schooling.

Based on our findings in this study, and those of other researchers, we suggest that education leaders should place more emphasis on parental involvement in promoting inclusive education of children with SEN, with a strong focus on those parents with lower levels of education and those who lack the pedagogical knowledge of the specific individual educational needs of children with SEN. Ways to achieve this goal would be for education leaders to promote the establishment by parents of support groups where the parents can share their knowledge and work together to find solutions to providing for the special educational needs of their children, and for education leaders to organize seminars for those parents who lack pedagogical competencies.

Teachers should do more to adjust to the communication difficulties experienced by parents of children with SEN, especially those parents with lower levels of education, so that the parents will feel more like equal partners with the teachers. To this end, teachers and education support professionals should focus more on communication with individual parents of children with SEN, and should accept parents as equal partners. To diversify the exchange of information with parents tools such as an electronic diary, a corresponding workbook, and telephone communication could all be used.

It can be expected that, if educators pursue such activities, more and more parents of children with SEN will understand the need to participate actively in both their children’s education at home and in various school activities. Parents having greater involvement in the education of their children can help facilitate the implementation of inclusive education in schools. In these ways, better educational outcomes for children with SEN may be expected.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The first limitation is that the sample was restricted to children with SEN in schools in the Kaunas region of Lithuania. Thus, it is unknown if the results can be generalized to represent children with SEN in schools in other areas in Lithuania. Further research should be carried out with groups that are more representative of children with SEN at all Lithuanian schools. Second, the variables of interest in this study were restricted to parents’ perceptions about the issues of inclusive education for children with SEN. We did not investigate the opinions of the children themselves with regard to their experiences of inclusive education. In the future, researchers could extend our research design to examine other variables, such as the views of teachers and children on inclusive education of children with SEN and other difficulties for children with SEN in Lithuanian schools, such as bullying and harassment.

Alisauskas, A., Gerulaitis, D., & Milteniene, L. (2011). Realization of educational models to meet the special needs of students in Lithuania [In Lithuanian]. Special Education, 24, 105-116.

Brookman-Frazee, L., & Koegel, R. L. (2004). Using parent/clinician partnerships in parent education programs for children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 195-213. http://doi.org/dpbp63

Burvyte, S., Ralys, K., & Ilguniene, R. (2012). The modern concept of education in the family [In Lithuanian]. Vilnius, Lithuania: Edukologija.

Carr, N. S. (2013). Increasing the effectiveness of homework for all learners in the inclusive classroom. School Community Journal, 23, 169-182.

Ciuladienė, G., & Pauzienė, L. (2012). Challenges for schools: Towards inclusion [In Lithuanian]. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1whr5RB

Council of the European Union. (2010). Council conclusions on the social dimension of education and training. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1AamI9t

de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2011). Regular primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 331-353. http://doi.org/fg7wzh

de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., Post, W., & Minnaert, A. (2011). Which variables relate to the attitudes of teachers, parents and peers towards students with special educational needs in regular education? Educational Studies, 38, 433-448. http://doi.org/bws4m2

Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent-school involvement during the early adolescent years. In R. Takanishi (Ed.), Adolescence in the 1990s (pp. 110-129). New York: Columbia University Press.

Eccleston, S. T. (2010). Successful collaboration: Four essential traits of effective special education specialists. The Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 11, 40-47.

El Nokali, N. E., Bachman, H. J., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2010). Parent involvement and children’s academic and social development in elementary school. Child Development, 81, 988-1005. http://doi.org/dsbkc9

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2012). Teacher education for inclusion (TE41 project): Profile of inclusive teachers. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1pLkYCI

Ford, J. (2013). Educating students with learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 3, 1-21.

Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P., & Spielberger, C. (Eds.). (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harris, J. R. (2009). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s academic achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 161-164. http://doi.org/cgqqt2

Hornby, G. (2011). Inclusive education for children with special educational needs: A critique. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58, 321-329. http://doi.org/dsx3cr

Hornby, G., & Lafaele, R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education: An explanatory model. Educational Review, 63, 37-52. http://doi.org/c35dk4

Johnsen, Å. A., & Bele, I. V. (2013). Parents of students who struggle in school: Are they satisfied with their children’s education and their own involvement? Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 15, 89-107. http://doi.org/xg6

Kim, E., Minke, K., Sheridan, S., Koziol, N., Ryoo, J. H., & Rispoli, K. (2012). Congruence within the parent-teacher relationship: Associations with children’s functioning. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1whBzAu

Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Education and Science. (2011). Republic of Lithuania Law on Education [in Lithuanian]. Vilnius, Lithuania: Author. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1B8Ba31

McDonnall, M. C., Cavenaugh, B. S., & Giesen, J. M. (2012). The relationship between parental involvement and mathematics achievement for students with visual impairments. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 204-215. http://doi.org/fmwf4b

Milteniene, L., & Mauriciene, D. (2010). Teamwork structure and the direction in order to respond to special education (learning) needs at the school [In Lithuanian]. Special Education, 23, 116-126.

Milteniene, L., & Venclovaite, I. (2012). Teacher collaboration in the context of inclusive education [In Lithuanian]. Special Education, 27, 99-110.

Network of Experts in Social Sciences of Education and Training. (2012). Education and disability/ special needs: Policies and practices in education, training and employment for students with disabilities and special educational needs in the EU. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1AatuMt

Oostdam, R., & Hooge, E. (2013). Making the difference with active parenting: Forming educational partnerships between parents and schools. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 337-351. http://doi.org/xg7

Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77, 373-410. http://doi.org/bxprsz

Prunty, A., Dupont, M., & McDaid, R. (2012). Voices of students with special educational needs (SEN): Views on schooling. Support for Learning, 27, 29-36. http://doi.org/xg8

Reio, T. G., Jr., & Forines, S. L. (2011). Learning and adaptation after diagnosis: The role of parent education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 132, 53-61. http://doi.org/cxnptz

Şad, S. N., & Gürbüztürk, O. (2013). Primary school students’ parents’ level of involvement into their children’s education. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13, 1006-1011.

Smit, F., Driessen, G., Sluiter, R., & Sleegers, P. (2007). Types of parents and school strategies aimed at the creation of effective partnerships. International Journal about Parents in Education, 1, 45-52.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2009). Inclusive education: The way of the future. Final report. Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1zrLTre

Van Voorhis, F. L. (2011). Cost and benefits of family involvement in homework. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 220-249. http://doi.org/cstnc8

Vignes, C., Godeau, E., Sentenac, M., Coley, N., Navarro, F., Grandjean, H., & Arnaud, C. (2009). Determinants of students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 51, 473-479. http://doi.org/c4x8fj

Vislie, L. (2003). From integration to inclusion: Focusing global trends and changes in Western European societies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18, 17-35. http://doi.org/bmz2zt

Saulius Šukys, Department of Health, Physical, and Social Education, Lithuanian Sports University, Sporto str. 6, Lt-4421, Kaunas, Lithuania. Email: [email protected]