Parental Perspectives on being Empowered or Disempowerment for the Inclusion of their Children with Disabilities Gregory AuhlLevan Lim School of Teacher EducationNational Institute of Education Charles Sturt University Nanyang Technological University Australia Singapore Abstract This study investigated the perspectives of parents in a rural part of Australia on their experiences in seeking the inclusion of their children with disabilities in mainstream settings. Indepth interviews with seven participants (five sets of parents) were conducted and themes within and across participants' experiences were identified. The results revealed both similar and dissimilar themes in how parents perceived situations and experiences which were empowering and disempowering in their search for mainstream placements for their children. Through the identification and analysis of specific themes in the experiences of parents that empower or disempower them in seeking inclusion, implications are discussed in terms of how such findings can help schools understand the process of inclusion as faced by parents and thus work more effectively in creating partnerships that will enhance the inclusion of children with disabilities. Descriptors: Inclusion, parent-professional relations, parents, disability, empowerment Parental Perspectives on being Empowered or Disempowerment for the Inclusion of their Children with Disabilities The inclusion of students with disabilities within regular school settings has been gradually supported and reinforced by changing attitudes and a growing body of research documenting the benefits of inclusive education (e.g., Giangreco, Cloninger, Edelman, & Schattman, 1993; Hollowood, Salisbury, Rainforth, & Palombaro, 1995; Hunt, Farron-Davis, Beckstead, Curtis, Goetz, 1994; Kishi & Meyer, 1994; Sharpe, York, & Knight, 1994). The benefits of integrating and including children with disabilities have focused mainly on the perceptions of school personnel, and relatively little attention has been given to parental perceptions of inclusion (Ryndak, Downing, Jacqueline, & Morrison, 1995). Recently though, studies investigating parental perspectives on inclusion have begun to appear in the research literature (e.g., Erwin & Soodak, 1995; Ryndak et al., 1995, Ryndak, Downing, Morrison, & Williams, 1996). Erwin and Soodak (1995) examined the experiences encountered by nine parents from New York in pursuing inclusive education for their children with moderate or severe disabilities. The findings of this study showed that parents employed a number of strategies to obtain inclusive education such as becoming involved in a committee for special education, seeking out key players in the school district, pursuing legal channels through the courts, seeking media attention, and moving to a new town. Ryndak et al. (1995) reported very positive perceptions on the part of parents after the inclusion of their children with moderate or severe disabilities in regular classrooms. In another study investigating parental perceptions of educational settings, parents demonstrated a clear understanding of the differences between the services received in self-contained and inclusive classroom settings in terms of instructional content, and the location and manner in which services were provided (Ryndak et al., 1996). These emerging research findings on parental perspectives on a variety of issues related to inclusion emphasize the need for school personnel to work with parents by listening to how they perceive services for their children's education and, more importantly, their interactions with school personnel and professionals in their search for inclusive services. It is important that parental views on the inclusion process be honored since the impact of the quality of education received will be felt most by the children and their parents (Ryndak et al., 1995). Ryndak et al.'s (1996) study suggests school personnel and professionals be aware that they can play a significant role in alleviating feelings of frustration, aggravation, and powerlessness on the part of parents in their attempts to advocate for change towards inclusion. These authors also suggest that future research efforts include looking at factors that enhance parent-professional partnerships. One factor alluded to in the recent studies on parental perceptions is the concept of empowerment which is implicit in the parent-professional partnership. Erwin and Soodak (1995) reported that parents underwent a personal transformation as they learned to advocate for their children. By going through personal transformation in terms of learning enabling strategies in the process of pursuing inclusive services, the parents essentially empowered themselves to engage more effectively with elements in the school system that would have otherwise disempowered them. Empowerment has been defined as a process through which individuals and families are able to exercise decision making, problem solving and interact with others to obtain needed resources (Dunst & Trivette, 1987, Hasenfield, 1987). During the empowerment process, service providers or professionals interact with families so that families can acquire or maintain a sense of control over their actions by attributing positive changes to their actions (Dunst & Trivette, 1987). Since many present situations demand that parents interact with school structures and professionals in seeking inclusion for their children, the concept of empowerment implicit in parent-school relations needs to be examined within an interactional context from which parents can attribute positive changes towards inclusion to their partnership with schools. One way of examining this concept is by investigating parental perceptions of how people, policies, practices, and attitudes can empower or disempower them in such a context. The value of investigating what parents perceive as empowering or disempowering in their pursuit of inclusive services lies in its contribution towards understanding how parent-school partnerships can facilitate or frustrate the process of inclusion. Through understanding parents' perspectives on what is empowering or disempowering, professionals can engage in the type of parent-school partnership that is sensitive to the needs of these parents. Hence, the purpose of this study was to investigate the perspectives and experiences of parents on how they were empowered or disempowered in the process of seeking inclusive services for their children with disabilities. Method Qualitative research methods were used to gather data of the parents' perspectives and experiences. The purpose of this study required the use of qualitative indepth interviewing to collect "thick", descriptive information about the parents' perceptions of their experiences. This particular method allowed the interaction between participant and researcher to be such that comments made or attitudes expressed were immediately clarified, questioned, and explored in a manner that alternative methods may not allow. This is particularly the case after a good rapport has been established between researcher and participant. The work of Taylor and Bogdan (1984) was used to guide the interview procedure and analyze the data gathered. Participants and Setting The study involved seven participants or five sets of parents: two sets of couples and three mothers. All the participants were parents of Caucasian backgrounds from a rural part of New South Wales, Australia. These parents were selected from an initial pool of twelve parents of children with disabilities who have attempted to access inclusive services for their children. This initial pool of parents was accessed through a local agency serving the needs of families with a member with a disability. Because the intention of the study was to select parents who were representative of families seeking inclusion for their children in rural Australia, an inventory designed to procure a smaller sample of parents more representative of the norm of this initial pool was administered to all the parents. The rationale for the use of this inventory was to get a sample that did not consist of extreme outliers in terms of having access to informal supports, degree of involvement in organizations related to disability, the use of community services, the degree of involvement in decisions/actions affecting the child, understanding of and attitude towards inclusive education, and degree of self-education about inclusive education. Of the six sets of parents initially selected, one set of parents (a couple) withdrew from the interview process. The participants' children consisted of a child who had recently left school to join the workforce, two children of high school age, one of primary school age, and one was due to start primary school the next year. Their ages ranged from 5 to 20 years. This age range allowed a diversity of parental experiences which, in turn, allowed a comparison of past and present perspectives related to inclusive practices. This variation of participants was necessary to "uncover the full range of perspectives held by the people concerned" (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984, p. 83). Data Collection The parents were contacted through telephone on whether they would like to participate in the study. They indicated that they were willing to participate in the study and share their experiences. When asked about where they would like their interviews to take place, all the parents suggested their homes. During data collection, the researcher noted that the parents appeared comfortable expressing and exploring their innermost feelings on the often emotional topics raised. Furthermore, participants were allowed to know that the researcher (the first author) also as a parent of a child with a disability (preschool age). This piece of knowledge apparently helped to establish a more empathetic relationship in which participants may have felt greater freedom to honestly express their feelings. One of the most pressing issues in the selection of participants as informants is that their anonymity be preserved. Taylor and Bogdan (1984, p. 87) describe the risks of publishing people's names as far outweighing an "legitimate research interests". The participants in the study were assured that anonymity was guaranteed and that pseudonyms would be used instead of their actual names. Consent was obtained from all participants for interviews to be tape recorded and later transcribed for data analysis. To avoid creating a mind-set in participants about what the researcher saw as important, the initial use of directive questions was avoided. Rather, the participants were allowed to share what was important without restricting or structuring their responses. A semi-structured interview guide was used to facilitate the flow of sharing along broad key areas related to the purpose of the study. Without being prescriptive, this guide ensured that no information on a particular area was missed and aided in getting the interviews started. Each interview lasted about 45 minutes to 120 minutes. Interviews were tape recorded and in addition, a detailed journal was kept. This journal allowed an outline of topics already discussed to be maintained as well as providing supporting information to assist in later interpretation of data. Issues such as emotional responses to particular events were recorded and assisted in highlighting the importance of some events. The use of the journal also allowed notes to be written of "emerging themes, interpretations, hunches, striking gestures and non-verbal expressions essential to understanding the meaning of a person's words" (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984, p. 104). Several strategies were used to verify the accuracy of the data collected. One was developing an open and honest relationship in which the researcher could be sensitized to possible exaggerations and distortions in participants' stories. With sole parents interviews (i.e., the mothers), information provided was cross checked for any inconsistencies through rephrasing stated comments, asking for feedback on what was said, and triangulating data through repeating and linking reported data across themes and situations. In addition, interviews with the sets of couples were conducted separately and correlations of stories cross checked. Data Analysis The analysis of data in this study took place on an ongoing basis, along with data collection. Interviews with participants were transcribed from audiotapes, and a continual search was conducted for emerging themes and areas of similarity. The pattern of analysis used involved steps suggested by Taylor and Bogdan (1984). Results Summaries of each of the interviews are described in the following. A scatterplot of occurring themes within and across participants is also presented to illustrate common and varied themes. Case Study 1: Maria When Maria was born 14 years ago, Parent 1 described her birth as difficult with some complications. After bring Maria home after spending some time in intensive care, Parent 1 became concerned with Maria's unresponsiveness to any stimuli. When medical authorities were consulted, Parent 1 noted that her concerns were treated derisively. She was told to "take Marie home and love her or put her in an institution", with the insinuation that her concern was the result of paranoia. Parent 1's concern deepened with the continual failure of her daughter to attain any of the normal developmental milestones. Against the advice of the pediatricians she consulted, Parent 1 began taking Marie to an early intervention program. Eventually, she reported how she consulted a new pediatrician who discovered that Marie was suffering severe hearing loss in addition to "some other unidentified condition. After five years of continued investigation, Marie was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome. Maria's education was described as having begun at two years of age with her enrolment in a second year early intervention program (which Parent 1 organised) based in neighborhood preschools. Maria attended this program for several years, allowing her to become familiar with many of the children in her area. At the same time, Parent 1 became involved with a variety of advisory committees and councils in an attempt to secure greater levels of services for parents of children with disabilities. This resulted in a strong sense of "empowerment". Primarily as a result of her participation in the inclusive early intervention program mentioned above, there was "never any question" that Maria would not attend a regular school. Parent 1 recounted that she was not asked to have an interview with the principal prior to Maria starting school. She also remembered that she was asked if there was "anything in particular that the school could do" to assist Maria. When Maria was due to begin Year 3, Parent 1 moved to Bathurst from Sydney after her divorce. It was in Bathurst that she described herself as disempowered. Knowing that there was a support class at a public school , she contacted the school and enrolled her daughter. After Maria's first day of school, Parent 1 described how the class teacher contacted her to inform her that "children like Maria don't go to this school, they go to the special school". During a later interview with the teacher, Parent 1 was informed by the teacher that "he didn't know what happened in Sydney , but in Bathurst, the support class was only for students who were slow learners, who didn't quite get their maths or were poor readers". Parent 1 was informed that it was unrealistic to expect a normal school to cater to Maria's needs. Parent 1 then told the school principal that perhaps the bureaucracy of the education department in Sydney might be able to suggest a reason why standards of education were different in the city to what was apparently available in the country. She reported that this route became unnecessary when the class teacher rang to apologize for his initial brazen summary of Maria. Over the next four years, Maria not only progressed well herself, but helped many other students in the class in their work. Despite the school's acceptance of Maria's enrolment, Parent 1 described a high degree of negative reaction from the school staff. Several teachers had approached her in the school playground to remonstrate about having her daughter "inflicted" upon them. A common concern was that they were not trained to deal with people like that. On approaching the age of transition into high school, Parent 1 reported being again advised that a special school placement would be in Maria's best interests. To secure a placement for Maria in the regular high school, a series of meetings were held with representatives from the public school, the high school, and counsellors, all of whom were described as bringing significant pressure to bear on Parent 1 to accept a special school placement. Eventually, an enrolment at the local high school was made and after a brief transition period, Maria began her secondary education. In this setting, she is in regular classes for some subjects and in a support class for others, depending on her level of mastery. Parent 1 has continued to have regular meetings with the school for the purposes of discussing Maria's progress. She described these meetings as "invasive" with many issues of a sensitive nature being dealt with inappropriately. In closing the interview, Parent 1 expressed fears for Maria's future independent living. She feels a strong sense of being alone in having to continually find or create solutions to an array of problems posed by having a child with disabilities. Of particular concern was a feeling of always having to "construct the parth" for her daughter due to a lack of support, services, and limited options. While expressing her knowledge of other families with adult children still living at home with aging parents, Parent 1 expressed concern that as a parent and carer, she was unsure about continuing to cover Maria's needs into the future. Case Study 2: Sam Sam was born prematurely and was very small. Being so small, he lacked the strength to obtain necessary nourishment and at 10 days stopped breathing for approximately ten minutes. This resulted in some brain damage which has been exhibited in a variety of ways including "mild cerebral palsy, parallel vision, cross laterality and a whole rag-bag of different disabilities)". At approximately three years of age, Parents 2 moved to England where, at normal school age, Sam was enrolled in a mainstream class of a regular school. While described by his parents as being quite happy at this school, little work or achievement was expected of him. His parents then transferred him to another school where there were smaller class sizes and a much greater sensitivity to the needs of children with learning problems. On returning to Australia, Parents 2 reported having to face "a lot of problems". The advice of the Department of Education was a special school placement - an avenue which neither parent saw as a viable option. After enrolling in three or four schools in the district where they were living, none proved satisfactory, Sam's parents described how they enrolled him in a newly built private school with small numbers and a "principal who had commitment to every student". This placement continued, with several repeats of classes, until the end of his primary education when he was 13 or 14. Sam's parents described doing the rounds of the schools again looking for the best possible placement option for his high school education. The desired setting was one in which there was a balance between treating students with special needs sensitively and the reality of "having to cope in the real world". While all principals were described as saying their school catered for the individual needs of all students, there was often little "flexibility or sensitivity" in their offering. Sam was enrolled in Year 7 at a private high school and both parents described this placement as less than satisfactory. The staff of the school showed little in the way of understanding Sam's needs and a lack of willingness to make allowance for them. At the end of Sam's first year in high school, the family moved again, this time settling in the Bathurst district. After doing the rounds again, Sam was enrolled in another private school which both parents described as being far more flexible and sympathetic to his needs. This school ran a special class for students with special needs, and had a policy of integration into those subjects where mastery level allowed. Sam was reported to be very happy in this setting. He learned some useful lifeskills, including playing hockey in which he still participates. An important factor in the willingness of Sam's second high school setting appears to have been the current enrolment of other students with special needs in the school. This coupled with the school's willingness to be flexible with programming for these students, created an atmosphere which the parents found warm and accepting. The school's flexibility, rather than the child having to fit into existing school structures (as encountered in some schools) was another empowering feature. Both parents expressed disappointment at the lack of willingness displayed by principals with regard to adapting existing structures. Both however did stress that they felt significant advances have been made since Sam's earlier school days. While not directly related to issues of educational placement, an important theme arising from this interview was that of sibling relationships. Sam's siblings were described as being highly supportive of him and aware of his needs. This was particularly so for his elder sister who lives and works in Sydney. Sam makes regular weekend trips to her where he participates actively in all her activities. Up to the end of his school life, Sam has mixed freely within both school and wider society, having never experienced a segregated setting. Having had this experience caused another issue to emerge when employment options were explored. Sam completed some sessions of work experience in a sheltered workshop setting, a setting in which he has described as having expressed discomfort. By his own choice, he is currently employed part-time in open employment, an option which appears to suit his needs and preference. Case Study 3: Damian Parents 3's recollections of Damians first year center around going to assessments, therapists and doctors, and continually discovering something new which "painted a grimmer and grimmer picture as the months went past". The mother reported a feeling of isolation and abandonment by friends which, with the benefit of hindsight, she feels was more because of her withdrawal from the workforce. Within this continual round of medical consultation was the expectation that various professionals would be responsible for providing therapies which would, at least to some degree, reduce Damian's problems. To visit these professionals only to find that they, as parents, would be responsible for the implementation of therapeutic programs came as a shock to them. Both parents reported a feeling that they had "no control over the roundabout of consultation and work". The mother described how she felt particularly responsible for Damian's therapy, when her husband went to work. Though returning herself to work for a short time, she eventually resigned due to the pressure she felt was being placed on the family by therapists. While acknowledging that her interpretation of their instructions at the time may not have been what they intended to convey, Parents 3 described feeling as if they were pseudo-therapists first and parents second. Damian's mother reported that she resented the fact that the therapists never gave them a licence to enjoy Damian as their child. With Damian due to begin school the following year, a whole "new era of fear and trepidation" was described. Both parents portray how, at some stage, they had come to love Damian as he is - they had stopped looking for explanations to why "he was like that". Parents 3 had two interviews with the principal of their local neighborhood school. Having expected some difficulties with Damian's enrolment, both parents reported a feeling of relief at the positive response and personal warmth of the principal. The mother had expected that Damian's enrolment may have been made conditional on the receipt of appropriate resources and funding. She was pleasantly surprised at being given an unconditional yes to their enrolment request. At meetings discussing support needs, both parents felt their input was welcomed and valued. Both parents felt that extra time was needed to help the school get to know Damian and his needs. In approaching the school, several behaviors of the principal were described as making the parents feel more comfortable and accepted. A "lack of barriers" was described as an essential ingredient in ensuring parental relaxation. No professional distance was felt by the parents. They felt that their views were respected and that they were not looked down on. A further important consideration was the principal's desire to know what Damian could do and what he liked rather than concentrating on the nature of his disability. Parents 3 described the principal's overall attitude to accepting Damian's enrolment as being the most important behavior that made them feel valued. Rather than simply saying "yes, we will accept your son", this principal was described as expressing delight at the prospect of having Damian in the school. In addition, they reported they had good support, particularly from their families, in the pursuit of their goal. Parents 3 both articulated what they perceived as the importance of the status and education of parents in the enrolment process. They described schools as putting in place structures which are frightening to those parents who do not really understand them. The ability to articulate (described as often the result of education) was seen by both parents as being vital. Case Study 4: Lyndall Parents 4 are the parents of nine year old Lyndall, currently in Year 3 at their neighborhood school. During the interview, these parents vehemently expressed a recurrent theme that arose due to an ongoing lack of consultation, collaboration and communication both within the school and with parents. Having realized that their second (of three girls) daughter was developmentally slower than her older sister, her parents thought she "was just a bit slow" like many kids. Lyndall was enrolled in her local school at the appropriate age. Her early teachers detected what they considered to be significant difficulties in a variety of areas and as a result, Lyndall was referred for assessment (without parental consent) and was begun on a withdrawal program (again without parental consent) to develop gross-motor and fine motor skills. At the end of the year, the school administration decided, without inviting parental input, that Lyndall should repeat. Parents 4 refused to allow this and secured the backing of their family doctor in their bid to have her progress with her peers. On entering Year 1, Lyndall's mother reported a similar program being designed for Lyndall, again without parental input. While attending meetings, she reported feeling annoyed and upset at some of the assumptions and suggestions made by people who had little or no experience of her daughter. The school appeared to act slowly to address Lyndall's needs. For example, Parents 4 had repeatedly informed the school that Lyndall had vision problems and therefore asked that adaptations be made. This request was honored after the parents threatened to follow up through legal channels. One of the mother's major concern was the apparent lack of instruction given to Lyndall in basic numeracy and literacy skills. She described the schools as constantly underestimating her daughter and spending far too much time teaching her other, less important areas. When she approached the school about her concerns, she felt her input was not valued. She reported feeling resentful of the constant battle to obtain resources to meet Lyndall's needs in the school. She described herself as having little in the way of support within the school, but however, alluded to two teachers upon whom she felt she would rely upon. The main supports she received were from other parents who agree with Lyndall's right to be educated in her neighborhood school. The principal of the school was described by the mother as having a clearly negative attitude to students with disabilities, having told her that he "prefer to never have students with physical or mental disabilities at this school". She reported that this principal was well known in his community for advocating the special school as the rightful place for students with special needs. Despite her negative comments, Lyndall's mother became quite supportive of the teaching staff at the school, stating that the problems encountered were the result of the system allocating too little time and funds to cater for the needs of all students. The Department of School Education became the target for her expressions of frustration. In concluding this interview, Mrs. Smith was asked to summarise what she expected from the school for her family. Her response distilled down to her desire to see her daughter and all other children be given the right to participate as valued members of the school community , without parents having to constantly battle to obtain any tangible results. Case Study 5: Luke Parent 5 described her experience of disability as being very different to that with which most people would be familiar. She described her son, Luke, as having been normal in every respect until he contacted meningitis at age 11, and as a result was left with a degree of medium to long term physical disability, including a level of speech difficulty. When the time came for Luke to return to school, a series of meetings were held to discuss this continued enrolment and strategies which could be used to assist him in his school work. Comprised of professionals from various agencies, these meetings did not always create an atmosphere where the parents felt they had a valued role and input into the decision making process. Parent 5 described walking out of one meeting having been effectively ignored and "feeling as if we were stupid". Despite this, some progress was made, with the school agreeing to obtain a laptop for Luke to assist the writing process and some allocation of aide time. Having been taught touch typing by both the rehabilitation center and his mother, it was hoped that this would allow him to more readily maintain the pace of work necessary to keep up with his class. While having received the laptop, a term passed without any allocation of the aide time promised. Parent 5 approached the school and strongly reminded them of their prior commitment as well as warning that she intended to take the issue further. Having followed this course of action and networked with contacts in Sydney, she found that some attention was given to her son's situation within half a day. Parent 5 strongly believes that having "towed the line" and given one term for something to be organised, was sufficient time to wait. She stated that had she not sought external intervention, she "would still be waiting for help". After having received a degree of support for Luke, Parent 5 described her treatment at the school as having changed noticeably. She perceived the school as treating her more carefully than had previously been the case with much more regular and unsolicited requests for input to her son's education during her regular visits to the school. Prior to this, she felt as if the staff, including the administrative staff, had a tendency to avoid her and when a meeting was forced, were very tactless and insensitive with their comments. An issue which Parent 5 felt strongly about was a suggestion by the principal that a special school placement may better serve Luke's needs. Parent 5 described her incredulity at this suggestion, particularly given that her son had been in the school since kindergarten. Particular frustration was experienced as a result of Luke's previous success in the school. During this time, Parent 5 received strong support from other parents and from Luke's schoolmates. Other informal supports came from Luke's scout leaders, soccer coach and team-mates. Support from staff of the school was described as non-existent. With Luke having begun high school this year, Parent 5 described the school's acceptance of her son's disability as being totally different to that experienced at primary level. Luke is in regular classes for all his subjects and he is described as doing well in all ways, particularly with the support he receives from his friends. Parent 5's experience has strongly convinced her that all children have the right to attend their local schools and has instilled in her a greater willingness to advocate for these rights. She stated that she felt strongly that the personality of the principal is vital in determining the outcome of a placement decision and that, had she been in a different school with a more accommodating principal, many of the problems faced experienced would probably not have happened. Discussion Perspectives on how parents perceived they were empowered or disempowered in seeking inclusion for their children with disabilities within mainstream settings were presented in this study. The parents who participated in this study lived in a rural part of Australia and varied in terms of socioeconomic status, education, and intrafamily supports. The mainstream settings where their children were placed ranged from preschool to postschool environments. As mentioned before, there is currently only a small research literature base examining parental perspectives on seeking inclusive services. There are a number of similarities and differences between this study and the limited research literature. One similarity lies in the use of similar research methods to investigate this topic, i.e., the use of qualitative indepth interviews to obtain first-hand information. There is also similarity in a number of the findings, e.g., parents refusing schools' recommendation of special school placement and the right of students with disabilities to access regular school settings. Considering the differences in the samples of parents of the studies, e.g., Erwin and Soodak's (1995) study examined parents (including minority parents) from an urban city in America (New York) while parents in this study were from a rural part of Australia, some of the findings have remarkable similarities. In examining the scatterplot, themes 1 to 14 can be classified as disempowering themes. Themes 15 to 24 can be classified as empowering themes. Themes 25 to 29 can work either way in that they could either be empowering or disempowering. For example, parental involvement in schools was seen by most parents as essential to facilitating inclusion and hence can be empowering. However, too much parental involvement, e.g., too much time spent implementing therapeutic programs can be disempowering as in the case of Parents 3 who wanted to simply enjoy their child. The scatterplot showed that there were more disempowering themes than empowering themes uncovered in the interviews with the parents. Within the 14 disempowering themes, there were seven themes which occurred across three of the five sets of participants. These themes are: parents felt their input was devalued; special school placement was strongly recommended; there were different criteria for enrolment; rigid departmental and school structures; poor resourcing of enrolment; negative interactions; and lack of or loss of formal/informal supports. Within the 10 empowering themes, there were four themes which occurred across three of the five sets of participants. These themes are: positive interactions; informal/formal supports available; increased tolerance and understanding; and right of child to enrol. Among the themes that could be empowering or disempowering, a key person identified as significant in creating an inclusive or non-inclusive atmosphere in schools was the principal. Principals who empowered parents were those who created a non-threatening atmosphere where parents felt that their contributions had validity and were valued. Rather then concentrating on the difficulties involved with individual enrolments, these administrators were willing to give consideration to the individual gifts and talents of a child and what they could contribute to the school community. Principals who created situations of disempowerment for parents were those who exhibited little concern for the parental situation. Such principals characteristically were negative about the role of mainstream schools in the education of children with disabilities, preferring to recommend special school placement rather than face the challenges presented to them. Parents were disempowered by principals who predominantly see the disability rather than the child, and who create obstacles rather than search for solutions. It was fortunate that the majority of the parents were empowered by their own beliefs of inclusion and strongly emphasized the right of their child to attend regular school and the benefits that their child would bring to regular classrooms (such as teaching acceptance and understanding of disability to peers). Several factors exist which can be considered as possible limitations of this study. First, the sample size was small. All parents interviewed were from a geographically isolated rural area. Within this area, a small but active parent group exists which is well supported by local advocacy groups and some staff at the local university. This group has the inclusion of children with special needs as its primary focus and has presented several well attended workshops aimed at educating service providers and the local community. This has resulted in a greater awareness of disability issues than may normally be expected both by parents and community members. Within the normal variety of educational options available in the area is one school setting which has been publicly described by its principal as an "inclusive school". This setting, where diversity is welcomed within the school community, may have contributed to some uncharacteristically positive parental responses. A wide variety of issues emerged from this study which can be further researched. With this study as a pilot, specific strategies aimed at empowering parents for particular themes could be implemented and evaluated. Particular themes, such interactions with school personnel or understanding family stress, could be further investigated with the purpose of developing strategies that might empower parents and professionals to work more effectively with each other. Many of the themes identified in this study are worthy of individual study in their potential to improve and enrich the parent-professional partnership which would eventually translate into more inclusive services for students. In conclusion, this study makes explicit through first-hand information from parental perspectives the factors that block or enhance their search for inclusive services for their children with disabilities. Such information can be used to inform schools that encounter inclusive efforts so that school members can be sensitized to a variety of issues and hence engage in parent-professional partnerships that can facilitate the attainment of inclusive services. Through understanding what empowers or disempowers parents in their search for inclusive services, professionals can empower themselves in becoming more sensitive to the needs of parents and work together towards changes. References Erwin, E. J. (1995). I never knew I could stand up to the system: Families' perspectives on pursuing inclusive education. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 136-146. Dunst, C. L., & Trivette, C. M. (1987). Enabling and empowering families: Conceptual and intervention issues. School Psychology Review, 16, 443-456. Giangreco, M., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S., Schattman, R. (1993). I've counted Jon: Transformational experiences of teachers educating students with disabilities". Exceptional Children, 59, 359-371. Hansenfield, Y. (1987). Power in social work practice. Social Service Review, 61, 467-483. Hollowood, T. M., Salisbury, C. L., Rainforth, B., & Palombaro, M. M. (1994). Use of instructional time in classrooms serving students with and without severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 242-253. Hunt, P., Farron-Davis, F., Beckstead, S., Curtis, D., & Goetz, L. (1994). Evaluating the effects of placement of students with severe disabilities in general education versus special classes. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 200-214. Kishi, G. S., & Meyer, L. H. (1994). What children report and remember: A six-year follow-up of the effects of social contact between peers with and without severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 277-289. Ryndak, D. L., Downing, J. E., Jacqueline, L. R., & Morrison, A. P. (1995). Parents' perceptions after inclusion of their children with moderate or severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 147-157. Ryndak, D. L., Downing, J. E., Morrison, A. P., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Parents' perceptions of educational settings and services for children with moderate or severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 106-118. Sharpe, M. N., York, J. L., & Knight, J. (1994). Effects of inclusion on the academic performance of classmates without disabilities: A preliminary study. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 281-287. Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Parents Themes 1 2 3 4 5 1. Input devalued xxx x xxxxxxx xx 2. Special school placement strongly recommended xxxxx x x x 3. Different criteria for enrolment xx x x x 4. Poor communication and lack of collaboration x xxxxxxxxxxx 5. Lack of flexibility within schools xx x 6. Rigid departmental and school structures x x xx 7. Poor resourcing of enrolment x x xx 8. Negative interactions xxxx xxx x xxxxxxxxxxxxx x 9. Lack or loss of formal/informal supports xxxxxxxxx xx x 10. Underestimation of child's abilities xxx xxxx 11. Excessive demands by professionals x 12. Parental concern/fear xxxx xxx 13. Family stresses not understood x 14.Lack of peer friends x x 15. Other children with special needs present xx 16. Positive interactions xxxxxxx xx xxxxxx x xxx 17. Informal/formal supports available xxxx xx xx xxx 18. Good communication xxx xx 19. Extra programs outside school xx 20. Good resourcing of enrolment x 21. Increased tolerance and understanding x x xxx x 22. Sibling support xx x 23. Early appropriate placement xx 24. Right of child to enrol x x x xx 25. Attitude and personality of principal x xxx x x 26. Parent involvement x xxx x x 27. Status of parent x x 28. Regular meetings necessary x x xx x 29. Need for sensitivity xxx xx