Email: l.byrnes@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au

This paper presents some preliminary findings from a study that investigated the views of students with disabilities toward their education. Some background information will be given, the design of the study will be described, and lastly, some initial results will be tabled.

In order to ensure equitable educational opportunities for all students with disabilities being educated in government schools, the NSW Department of Education and Training provides a range of settings in which students can be educated: local schools, support classes, and special schools (NSW Department of School Education, 1993). Yet stakeholders concerned with the education of students with disabilities do not equally value these settings.

Supporters of inclusive practices claim that there are academic advantages in such settings (Bursuck, Munk & Olsen, 1999), with students having the potential to develop socialisation (Wilson, 1995) and self-sufficiency skills (Quigley & Kretschmer, 1982), friendships (Habel, Bloom, Ray & Bacon, 1999), and maintain links with siblings and neighbourhood peers (Gregory & Bishop, 1989). Others also argue that peers without disabilities may develop tolerance and benevolence towards their peers with disabilities (Wilson, 1995). However some researchers claim that students being educated in inclusive settings may be at risk of being rejected (Leigh, 1994) or isolated (Foster, 1996), with the potential for mental health issues to develop (Reich, Hambleton & Houldin, 1977).

Advocates of special schools comment that, like highly esteemed private schools, special schools provide smaller classes and more individualised attention (Sandow, 1994). With particular regard to students with hearing losses, supporters note that learning is easier (Emerton, 1996), as students are in an educational environment in which they can access a common language with adults and peers (Silvester, 1995). It is also possible that being congregated with others like themselves may enhance students' development of identity, self-worth, self-esteem and sense of belonging (Baldwin, 1994; Emerton, 1996; Foster, 1996; Searls & Johnston, 1996). However there is also evidence that some specialist educational programs are inadequate and substandard, and result in students being separated both socially and academically from their peers without disabilities (Barnes, 1995).

Yet most of the views about educational settings that are presented, are those of adults, both those with, and those without disabilities, rather than those of students with disabilities actually experiencing inclusive practices. Viewpoints are typically collected from adults with disabilities who are no longer being educated in the school setting, academics, educational administrators, parents, teachers, and, astonishingly, peers without disabilities. It is rare for the views of students with disabilities themselves to be collected. It is therefore important to canvass the views of these students, and incorporate their perspectives into the body of knowledge concerning where students should be educated. Indeed, the paucity of reporting such views demonstrates a significant gap in the knowledge required for educators to confirm or deny best practice for students with disabilities, both at systemic and school levels.

The right of students to have their viewpoints heard and accounted for was ratified by the Australian government in 1990 when they validated the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) (Forlin & Forlin, 1998). Article 12 of this legislation notes that children who are capable of forming viewpoints about circumstances affecting them, have the right to express those views and the right, depending on their age and level of maturity, to have their views taken into account (Osler, 2000). Students with disabilities are indeed able to offer useful observations and opinions about their education (Smith, 1999), including where they would like to be educated (Byrnes & Sigafoos, 2001). Accordingly, the consideration of student viewpoints has potential to benefit both students and educational systems. For students, there is opportunity for empowerment, while for educational systems, the reality of educational settings would become obvious (Habel, Bloom, Ray & Bacon, 1999; Kortering & Braziel, 1999). An observable outcome would then be for the development of educational policies that reflect the viewpoints of those most intimately affected (Roth, 1981), that is, students with disabilities currently within the educational system.

To facilitate the incorporation of students' perspectives, for my PhD studies, I have undertaken a study that considered the notion of inclusion from the viewpoint of students. Thus, the aim of the study was to investigate the views of secondary students with sensory, physical or intellectual (mild) disabilities in government schools in NSW, toward educational provisions and educational life.

Data were gathered from students being educated in mainstream and support classes in secondary government schools in 30 school districts in NSW. There were two phases to the study. In the first phase, students completed a questionnaire, What do you think about school? In the second phase, some of these students participated in a Focus Group.

The questionnaire was constructed using questions defined as being specifically relevant to students within the NSW government educational system, and questions culled from surveys from other researchers interested in the views of students with (Lovitt, Plavins, & Cushing, 1999; Padeliadu, 1995), and students without (The Gatehouse Project, 2002), disabilities. There were seven different versions of the questionnaire. These versions varied according to the students' type of disability and educational setting. Versions differed by the nomenclature used when referring to students, and the questions asked. To accommodate students' learning support needs, the questionnaire was also available in different formats: paper and pencil, large print, audio and braille. The questionnaire used a number of question formats: dichotomous, dichotomous variable, multiple choice, closed, open-ended, and 4- and 5- point Likert-type scale questions. There were 23 questions in Part 1 that probed attitudes towards where students would like to go to school, and 60 in Part 2, that investigated attitudes towards school, classes, peers, teachers, suppport services, decision making and personal goals. No student answered all questions.

Four hundred and forty-two students completed a questionnaire. There was an almost even number of students from both educational settings: 53% were being educated in support classes, and 47% in their local school. Most students (60%) had intellectual (mild) disabilities, 18% had physical disabilities, 17%, hearing losses and 6%, visual disabilities. Two hundred and ninety-eight (67%) of these students had experienced education in both their local school and support classes and were thus able to draw on their educational experiences in both settings when completing the questionnaire. Sixty-nine students (16%) had also been in an special school during some part of their educational career.

After the answers to the questionnaire were analysed, the second phase of the study was conducted. In order to interpret and clarify the data gleaned from the questionnaire, 34 of the students who completed the questionnaire participated in one of seven focus groups. Thirty of these students were from support classes, and four from mainstream classes. Twenty-six students had intellectual (mild) disabilities and eight had physical disabilities. Some students also had additional physical or sensory disabilities.

Five groups were held in the Sydney metropolitan area and two in country NSW. There were between three to eight students in each group. Four of the groups were made up of students from support classes for students with intellectual (mild) disabilities. In one of these groups, there were only girls. Two groups were of students with physical disabilities being educated in support classes. Students in one of these groups, while superficially enrolled in a support class, were fully integrated. The final group was of mainstream students.

Some preliminary analysis has been done on the questionnaire data and these results will now be reported. Results will be reported according to whether the questions are from Part 1 or Part 2 of the questionnaire. Data from the Focus Group will not be reported in this paper.

There were at least four findings of interest from Part 1 of the questionnaire. One, students were asked if they were happy with where they go to school. This question was a 4-point Likert-type scale question with the continuum ranging from 'I really agree' to 'I really do not agree'. The vast majority of students (91%) at least agreed that they were happy with where they go to school.

Two, students were asked to choose where they would like to go to school. This was a multiple-choice question, with three possible options: local school, support class or special school. The majority of students (59%) would choose to be educated in local schools, but a substantial number (41%) would choose support classes or special schools. This result shows that a range of settings is needed to accommodate students' preference for where they want to be educated.

Three, using the same multiple-choice format, students were asked where they thought peers with the same, or a higher, or a lower level of disability, as theirs, should be educated. Many students (66%) choose either support classes or special schools for peers with the same level of disability. Contrast this result with the finding that students would choose local schools for themselves. It is of interest that students would choose a more restricted setting for their peers than they would for themselves. Most students (89%) chose support classes or special schools for students with higher levels of disabilities, and 82% chose local schools for students with lower levels of disabilities. This shows that students consider that certain educational settings are best suited to students with particular levels of disability, with increasing restrictiveness equating to increasing levels of disability.

Four, using the same 4-point Likert-type scale question format as described above, students were also asked if they thought it was OK for students with disabilities to be educated in their local school (when there were no other students with disabilities), a support class or a special school. Most students at least agree with students being educated in support classes (90%) and special schools (66%). A smaller number (59%), agreed with students being educated in local schools. This finding shows that, unlike the views of many adults without disabilities, most students are in agreement with being educated with other students with disabilities. That 41% of students at least disagree with being educated in inclusive settings is noteworthy. Such a finding is in direct contrast to the notion of normalisation as described in the current NSW special Education Policy (1993).

There were at least two findings of interest from Part 2 of the questionnaire.

A number of scales were constructed that used combinations of 17 of the 4-point Likert-type scale questions. One scale measured student's feelings of contentment, acceptance and inclusion. It was found that students with physical disabilities felt more content, accepted and included than did students with intellectual (mild) disabilities. This was a statistically significant difference. Another scale combined questions to do with students' level of commitment to their education and their belief that there were opportunities to succeed in their educational environment. On this scale, girls scored significantly higher than did boys; students living in Sydney scored significantly higher than did students living in country NSW and those with visual disabilities scored significantly higher than did students with intellectual (mild) disabilities or those with hearing losses.

Most students are happy with where they go to school. While most students would choose to be educated in their local school, a substantial number would choose a segregated setting. Students consider certain educational settings appropriate for students with different levels of disability. Many students chose one type of educational settings for themselves and another for students with the same level of disability as theirs. The majority of students do not agree with the tenant of separation of students from others like themselves. Instead, they agree with being educated with others like themselves. Of all students, students with intellectual (mild) disabilities have the least feeling of contentment, acceptance and inclusion, and also one of the lowest levels of commitment to their education.

References.

Baldwin, S.C. (1994). Full Inclusion: Reality Versus Idealism. American Annals of the Deaf (139) 2, 164-165.

Barnes, C. (1995). The case for anti-discrimination legislation. In P. Potts, F. Armstrong & M. Masterton (Eds.), Equality and Diversity in Education 2: National and International Contexts. (pp. 66-72). London: Routledge.

Bursuck, W.D., Munk, D.D., & Olson, M.M. (1999). The Fairness of Report Card Grading Adaptations: What do Students With and Without Learning Disabilities Think? Remedial and Special Education, 20, 2, 84-92.

Byrnes, L.J., & Sigafoos, J. (2001). A "consumer" survey of educational provision for deaf and hard of hearing students. American Annals of the Deaf, 146, 5, 409-417.

Emerton, R.G. (1996). Marginality, Biculturalism, and Social Identity of Deaf People. In I. Parasnis (Ed.), Cultural and language diversity and the deaf experience. (pp. 136-145). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Forlin, P., & Forlin, C. (1998). Constitutional and legislative framework for inclusive education in Australia. Australian Journal of Education, 42, 2, 204-217.

Foster, S.B. (1996). Communication experiences of deaf people: An ethnographic account. In I. Parasnis (Ed.), Cultural and language diversity and the deaf experience (pp. 117-135). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Gregory, S., & Bishop, J. (1989). The integration of deaf children into ordinary schools: A research report. Journal of the British Association of Teachers of the Deaf, 13, 1-6.

Habel, J., Bloom, L.A., Ray, M.S., & Bacon, E. (1999). Consumer reports. What students with behaviour disorders say about school. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 2, 93-105.

Kortering, L.J., & Braziel, P.M. (1999). Staying in School. The perspective of ninth-grade students. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 2, 106-113.

Leigh, I.W. (1994). Psychosocial Implications and Full Inclusion for Deaf Children and Adolescents. In R.C. Johnson & O.P. Cohen (Eds.), Implications and Complications for Deaf Students of the Full Inclusion Movement. (pp. 73-77). Gallaudet Research Institute Occasional Paper 94-2 Gallaudet University: Washington DC.

Lovitt, T.C., Plavins, M., & Cushing, S. (1999). What do pupils with disabilities have to say about their experience in high school? Remedial and Special Education, 20, 2, 67-76.

New South Wales Department of School Education (1993). Special Education Policy. Sydney: Government Printer.

Osler, A. (2000). Children's rights, responsibilities and understandings of school discipline. Research Papers in Education, 15, 1, 49-67.

Padeliadu, S. (1995). Preferences of students with learning disabilities for alternative service delivery modes. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 10, 3, 210-226.

Quigley, S., & Kretschmer, R. (1982). The education of deaf children: Issues, theories and practice. London: Arnold.

Reich, C., Hambleton, D., & Houldin, R.K. (1977). The integration of hearing-impaired children in regular classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf, 122, 534-543.

Roth, W (1981). The Handicapped Speak. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland.

Sandow, S. (1994). Whose Special Need? In S. Sandow, S. (Ed). Whose Special Need? (pp. 153-159). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.

Searls, S.C., & Johnston, D.R. (1996). Growing up Deaf in Deaf Families: Two Different Experiences. In I. Parasnis (Ed.), Cultural and language diversity and the deaf experience (pp. 201-224). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Silvester, T. (1995). Managing a non-maintained special school for deaf students. In P. Potts, F. Armstrong & M. Masterton (Eds.), Equality and Diversity in Education 1: Learning, Teaching and Managing in Schools. (pp. 199-208) London: Routledge.

Smith, T. (1999). Introduction to the Special Series. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 2, 66.

The Gatehouse Project. (2001). Year 8 Survey. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne Centre for Adolescent Health.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). UN Doc A/44/25. Adopted on 20 November 1989. Entered into force on 2 September 1990.

Wilson, R. (1995). South and north: special educational provision in New Zealand, Britain and the United States. In P. Potts, F. Armstrong & M. Masterton (Eds.), Equality and Diversity in Education 2: National and International Contexts. (pp. 148-159). London: Routledge.