04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Assessment of Children with Learning Difficulties and Support Classes: Hope or Barrier to Their Future?
Eleni Damianidou, Anastasia Tiliakou
European University Cyprus, Cyprus
Presenting Author: Tiliakou, Anastasia
The Preamble to the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities underlines the importance of equal access to education for all. To this end, according to Articles 8b and 24, states should encourage respect for the rights of children with disabilities, because of their right to equal opportunities in education without discrimination (United Nations, 2008). The education systems in Europe then should be inclusive at all levels and all the time. This means that children with learning difficulties should not be excluded because of having difficulties to learn in the same way or at the same pace as children without learning difficulties (Charitaki, Marasidi & Soulis, 2018). In contrast, they should be supported to learn on an equal basis together with their peers. To this end, there should be provision of reasonable accommodation and individualized support, which should be ensured by the state (Damianidou & Phtiaka, 2018). The promotion of inclusive education is also one of the priority areas set up by the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020, which is supported by the Academic Network of European Disability experts (ANED) (European Commission, 2020).
However, despite the growing interest of European countries regarding the promotion of inclusive education as the hope for a better future in the era of uncertainty, the implementation of international conventions and national legislation at the school level does not always guarantee inclusion (Symeonidou & Mavrou, 2020). For example, the support classes that function in many European schools (e.g. in Greece and Cyprus) and the assessment process with which children are classified as students needing special provision in such classes may actually reproduce discrimination and raise barriers to inclusion (Charitaki, Marasidi & Soulis, 2018). According to Bourdieu (1984), social action takes place in a field, which represents the dominating system of power relations. Social positions in the field are not randomly allocated; in contrast their availability depends on constraints and rules imposed by the most powerful. To this end, the displacement of students with learning difficulties, as not fitting the prevalent ‘normality’ may be easily achieved through the misinterpretations, delays and malpractices that are often observed in the function of support classes (Lindner & Schwab, 2020).
In Greece, for example, the apparent aim of support classes is to promote inclusion by offering personalized support to students that deviate from the norm, such as children with learning difficulties (Charitaki, Marasidi & Soulis, 2018). Since, though, support classes actually represent the two-tier system, by taking students out of their original class, sometimes for the whole day, significant challenges and barriers remain, which may result to the children’s exclusion from social networks of peers and participation in the same learning opportunities as children without learning difficulties (Pappas, Papoutsi & Drigas, 2018). Based on the above, the aim of this study was to explore the system of assessment of children with learning difficulties, the implementation of the support class and the consequences on equal learning opportunities and inclusion of children with learning difficulties. Moreover, the study aimed to formulate recommendations to overcome the barriers to inclusion, offering a useful guide for practitioners and parents.
The main research questions were the following: a) What is the apparent and the underlying purposes of the assessment process regarding children with learning difficulties? b) What is the impact of support classes on learning and inclusion of children with learning difficulties? c) How the displacement of children with learning difficulties that are enrolled in support classes may be prevented?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedSince this research aimed to explore the personal experience and interpretations of prevalent education practices, we decided to employ a qualitative methodology. Our aim was to gain in-depth insights from key informants in order to develop grounded theory. We interpreted our findings within the framework of the medical and social model of disability, which postulate that the restrictions that disabled people have to confront are not a consequence of disability but represent the barriers constructed by the powerful society that values and promotes ‘normality’ on the one hand and condemns deviance on the other, considering it as illness and a source of misery (Oliver, 1996). Hence disability is not a real situation that stems from inside the person, as the medical model postulates, but an externally imposed plasmatic category that serves the reproduction of existing power relationships and the positioning of disabled people in social hierarchy.
Our main research tool was the semi-structured interview. Our questions focused on how children with learning difficulties are affected by the assessment process and their enrolment in support classes. Each interview lasted between one to two hours and was based on the informed consent of the participants. A grounded theory method was employed; thus, the interviews were driven by the participants’ perceptions. We started by asking the participants to tell us their stories of the assessment process of children with learning difficulties and the consequences of the children’s enrolment in support classes, regarding their development and learning opportunities. Then we used prompts and probes to steer the conversation through the following topics: the meaning and the experience of assessment, the effectiveness of the teaching methods used, feelings of being part of a support class, learning opportunities and barriers to inclusion. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
In total, our sample comprised of 15 primary education teachers teaching in support classes and 10 parents with children with learning difficulties that are enrolled in support classes. Brinkmann and Kvale (2015) suggest that five to 25 people represent an adequate sample for qualitative studies. Even though we cannot postulate that we selected a representative sample that reflects the enormous range of the experiences and perspectives of persons involved in the education of children with learning difficulties, we tried to recruit a diverse group of participants with different backgrounds. To this end, we employed a combination of purposive and snowball sampling methods.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe proliferating percentage of children with learning difficulties in contemporary European schools and their right to equal opportunities in education highlight the necessity to implement policies that may dismantle the barriers to inclusion and ensure the participation of all children in schooling and social life (Buchner et al., 2021). To this end, as the participants stated, there are assessment processes in Greece, with which children with learning difficulties may be identified and educated in support classes, according to their needs. However, as the participants revealed, the assessment process does not seem to promote inclusion or facilitate learning, since the delays that are usually observed and the placement of children according to the availability of support classes, and not their needs, seem to indicate an underlying intention to reproduce the social hierarchy instead of satisfying the children’s needs. On the other hand, both the participating teachers and parents highlighted the importance of home-school partnership to maximize the children’s potential and enhance learning. The participating teachers though expressed their disappointment because of the lack of co-operation with the general teachers, which seem to raise barriers to the inclusion of children with learning difficulties, when they attend lessons at the general class. Ironically, both parents and teachers observed children’s decreased confidence and lack of self-efficiency. However, they did not attribute the latter to the shortcomings of the assessment system and the services provided, but on the children, reproducing the medical model of disability and facilitating the placement of children with learning difficulties in the lowest levels of social hierarchy, as not fitting the prevalent ideal of the confident and self-efficient student. It seems then that it is essential to realize the oppression of students with learning difficulties to render the support system a hope for the future (Damianidou, 2021).
ReferencesBourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London, UK: Routledge.
Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Buchner, T., Shevlin, M., Donovan, M. A., Gercke, M., Goll, H., Šiška, J., & Corby, D. (2021). Same progress for all? Inclusive education, the United Nations Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and students with intellectual disability in European countries. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 18(1), 7-22.
Charitaki, G., Marasidi, Y., & Soulis, S. G. (2018). School adjustment: A case of an adolescent diagnosed with specific learning disabilities. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 6(04), 15-23.
Damianidou, E. (2021). Curriculum and the power to ex(in)clude disabled students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2021.1994034.
Damianidou, E., & Phtiaka, H. (2018). Implementing inclusion in disabling settings: The role of teachers’ attitudes and practices. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(10), 1078-1092.
European Commission. (2020). European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 helped to remove barriers. Available from https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=89&furtherNews=yes&newsId=9835&langId=en
Lindner, K. T., & Schwab, S. (2020). Differentiation and individualisation in inclusive education: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2020.1813450.
Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. New York, NY, US: St Martin's Press.
Pappas, M. A., Papoutsi, C., & Drigas, A. S. (2018). Policies, practices, and attitudes toward inclusive education: The case of Greece. Social sciences, 7(6), 90-109.
Symeonidou, S., & Mavrou, K. (2020). Problematising disabling discourses on the assessment and placement of learners with disabilities: can interdependence inform an alternative narrative for inclusion?. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(1), 70-84.
United Nations. (2008). Convention On The Rights Of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD). Availabe from https://social.desa.un.org/issues/disability/crpd/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-crpd
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Inclusive Assessment, Measurement or Diagnostics? The Potential of Systematic Reviews to Create Common Understandings in International Contexts
Katja Beck, Sophia Laux, Dieter Katzenbach, Michael Urban
University Frankfurt, Germany
Presenting Author: Beck, Katja;
Laux, Sophia
As has already been discussed in various publications (e.g., Gasterstädt, 2021, Artiles & Dyson 2005) and in the context of panels at ECER 2023 (e.g., 04 SES 02 D), the fuzzy nature of terms sometimes is an obstacle to the discourse about inclusive education as well as their realisation. On the one hand, the adaptation of inclusion-related concepts, as those set out in international conventions, across different levels of national/ regional education systems leads to (re)contextualisations such as the creation of specific terms in school practice. On the other hand, we experience the same phenomenon in scientific contexts in the form of separate strands of development linked to language-specific terms.
With the so-called meta-projects, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in Germany has introduced a so far internationally little-known organisation type between project sponsors and funded third-party projects, which is intended to promote the networking of the projects assigned to them in a non-hierarchical manner as well as promoting the utilisation of their results. One of the aims of the ‘Meta-project inclusive education’ (MInkBi), based at Goethe University Frankfurt from 2017-2026, is to analyse the state of research in the academic discourse on an international level in order to situate the results of the 66 funded projects within it. In the form of a systematic review, the meta-project is working on relating the concept of “förderbezogene Diagnostik“ (support-related diagnostics), which is specific to the German-speaking community, to the English-speaking dominating debates internationally. By trying to (re)connect terminology and concepts behind it we aim to open up research efforts from all over Germany to the global community. The difficulty here is that these terms cannot simply be translated literally into English, nor can they be understood detached from their specific local and language-bound context.
In the DACH countries of the 1960s, originally medical diagnostic procedures were linked to learning processes, and the term "pädagogische Diagnostik” (pedagogical diagnostics) was coined by Ingenkamp (Ingenkamp & Lissmann, 2008). Over the course of time, a large number of different categorisations and subcategories emerged, for example, the distinction between educational diagnostics in the narrow vs. broad sense, assignment, learning process, status, and support diagnostics (Beck 2023). The currently evolving review is an attempt to place the phenomenon of “förderbezogene Diagnostik“ (support-related diagnostics) in an international context and to identify what is known about comparable issues. To this end, an endeavour is made to answer the following questions:
- What empirical research results and conceptual or theoretical approaches are available internationally as an equivalent to the subject of ‘support-related diagnostics’ in the German-speaking discourse?
- How are comparable approaches researched and defined internationally?
It can be assumed that similar challenges arise anywhere when it comes to developing more inclusive education systems and practices as well as when conducting research on this topic, which is why the discourse about international parallels and differences promises valuable synergies. With this paper, we would like to provide an insight into the method and conceptual design of the systematic review. We hope that our contribution will lead to an exchange on potentials and limitations of the approach presented and that we will receive valuable feedback by opening up the discussion within network four.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe term systematic review refers to a large number of scientific studies that, despite sometimes differing approaches, all endeavour to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge, guided by a research question or a specific topic. They therefore have the collection, assessment and presentation of available research findings (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005) in common. The component of these procedures referred to as systematic is the methodological approach, which must be presented in a comprehensible manner on the basis of generally recognised methodology in order to withstand criticism with regard to quality issues such as plausibility and bias (Pati & Lorusso, 2018).
The structure of this review is based on the SALSA method according to Grant & Booth (2009), which as an acronym describes the four consecutive work steps: Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis. The process was also orientated on the basis of the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021). The search was conducted using ProQuest and EBSChost to to identify peer reviewed literature in English across seven databases: PSYNDEX Literature with PSYNDEX Tests, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, ERIC, ASSIA, IBSS, LLBA. In order to avoid unintentionally limiting the field of research in advance due to bias, the following key words as English counterparts of ‘support-related diagnostics’ were developed from conversations with colleagues from different countries: inclusive diagnostics/ assessment/ measurement. In order to make the search as comprehensive as possible, three individual keyword searches were carried out in each of the two databases:
1. ‘assessment’ AND ‘inclusi*’
2. ‘diagnos*’ AND ‘inclusi*’
3. ‘measurement’ AND ‘inclusi*’
As the UNCRPD was adopted in December 2006, the preliminary period chosen for the publication dates of papers was 2007 until the time of the search run in July 2023. In total, this resulted in 1.236 search hits, which were imported into a literature management programme. After duplicates were removed (n = 126) the sample was reduced to 1.110 records. Records are currently being screened for ‘reference to formal (pre-/school) education’ and subsequent screening steps and coding procedures are being discussed within the research team. Therefore next steps are the selection in reference to appropriate types of literature, a focus on diagnostics/ assessment/ measurement and a target perspective on (social) inclusion/ integration. In accordance with our research objectives, we aspire to develop a review of ‘configurative’ nature (Gough et al., 2012), drawing in particular on the thematic synthesis according to Thomas & Harden (2008).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOne of the main aims of the project MInkBi is to conduct a systematic review that brings together research findings from around the world in the form of a synthesis which promises the possibility of situating the construct of ‘support-related diagnostics’ shaped by the German discourse. The initial results of our work reflect the need for extensive research, communication and translation efforts, which are essential for drawing connections between concepts of different origins on an international level. We have realised that certain strands of argumentation are also represented in educational research publications in English from around the world and that different conceptualisations are associated with the individual terms assessment, measurement and diagnostics, which we aim to identify with our forthcoming work. So far we can describe our perception that a distinction is being drawn internationally between more medically oriented concepts, which seem to be often characterised by the term diagnostics, and more learning-oriented measures, which tend to be associated with the term assessment. Since the German-language discourse deals with a dimension of diagnostics in relation to the performance of pupils and international comparative studies also concern the aspect of performance measurement, it can be assumed that this aspect might also be reflected to a certain extent in the researched studies. At this point in time, it is unfortunately only possible to draw up expected outcomes in the sense of assumptions, but we are confident that we will be able to present our final findings and synthesis in August 2024.
ReferencesArksey, H. & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Artiles, A.; Dyson, A. (2005). Inclusive education in the globalization age: The promise of comparative cultural-historical analysis. In: David Mitchell (Ed.): Contextualizing Inclusive Education: Routledge, 37–62.
Beck, K. (2023). Inklusion zum Systemerhalt – die widersprüchliche Steuerungsfunktion sonderpädagogischer Diagnostik im Rahmen der inklusiven Bildungsreform in Baden-Württemberg. In: Robert Kruschel und Kerstin Merz-Atalik (Eds.), Steuerung von Inklusion!?, Educational Governance 52. Wiesbaden: Springer, 253-269.
Gasterstädt, J. (2021). Same same but different – Ein Vergleich der Entwicklung inklusiver Strukturen in zwei Bundesländern in Deutschland. In: Andreas Köpfer, Justin J. W. Powell und Raphael Zahnd (Eds.): Handbuch Inklusion international. Globale, nationale und lokale Perspektiven auf Inklusive Bildung = International handbook of inclusive education: global, national and local perspectives. Opladen, Berlin, Toronto: Verlag Barbara Budrich, 179–196.
Gough, D., Thomas, J. & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic reviews, 1, 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-28
Grant, M. J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information and libraries journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Ingenkamp, K.; Lissmann, U. (2008). Lehrbuch der pädagogischen Diagnostik (6. Auf.). Beltz Pädagogik.
Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . McKenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 372, n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
Pati, D. & Lorusso, L. N. (2018). How to Write a Systematic Review of the Literature. HERD, 11(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586717747384
Thomas, J. & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Counseling Parents/guardians During the Assessment Process for Special Educational Needs (SEN) in Austria - the Perspective of the Involved Experts.
Sabrina Temel1,2, Andrea Kogler1,2, Barbara Gasteiger-Klicpera1,2
1University of Graz (Austria), Inclusive Education Unit, Institute of Education Research and Teacher Education; 2University of Graz (Austria), Research Center for Inclusive Education
Presenting Author: Kogler, Andrea
In Austria, children with disabilities are assigned with the label “special educational needs (SEN)” in order to provide appropriate educational support for them. The guidelines for the organization and implementation of SEN in Austria are summarized in Circular No. 7/2019 of the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBF [Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung]) and are valid nationwide. Students should be assigned with SEN if they are unable to follow lessons without special educational support due to a disability. The application for the assignment of SEN is usually submitted by the parents/guardians. During the SEN assessment process the parents/guardians have several rights. Among others they have the right to select the school for their child which means they should be able to choose between a general and a special school (BMBWF, 2019). Although this right exists, the decision between different schools often is very difficult for parents/guardians. On the one hand, families usually prefer a general school for their child. But they often have to fight for it (Hausmanns & Wingerter, 2013; Lalvani & Hale, 2015; Pinetz, 2019).
Many families opt for a special school because they are better adapted and offer more flexibility and more possibilities for their child (Kalcher & Gasteiger-Klicpera, 2021; Kobelt Neuhaus, 2017). Some families have no other choice (Thoms, 2023). However, rather privileged parents/guardians with academic qualifications and a higher-class affiliation (Lalvani & Hale, 2015; Sasse, 2004) or parents/guardians who are more assertive (Klicpera, 2005) can be credited with getting through this "fight" (Lalvani & Hale, 2015). This results in significant disadvantages for families with social disadvantages and/or a migration background. In addition, existing language barriers makes it difficult to obtain the necessary information. However, this is essential to be able to assert the rights of parents/guardians and children (Pinetz, 2019).
In order to support all parents/guardians in their decision, adequate counseling is required (Kalcher & Gasteiger-Klicpera, 2021; Klicpera, 2005, 2007). However, Kalcher and Wohlhart (2021) found that the majority of respondents had no or only limited professional counseling. Furthermore, the decision for a particular school was often not based on a choice from several options (Gasteiger-Klicpera, Klicpera, Gebhardt & Schwab, 2013; Klicpera, 2005, 2007; Pinetz, 2019; Thoms, 2023). The advice was often focused on the existing resources (Hausmanns & Wingerter, 2013) or interests of the counseling persons (Klicpera, 2005). Although this problem is well known and the legal regulations prescribe the obligation to offer counselling for parents/guadians, this still is not sufficiently implemented. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the counselling processes and align it more closely to the needs of the parents/guardians.
The aim of this study was to examine the counselling and support of parents/guardians during the SEN assessment process from different perspectives, that of the parents/guardians, teachers, head teachers and diversity managers. The study aimed to identify challenges and critical aspects and to discover opportunities for improvement and consequences for further development of this process of accompanying the parents during this difficult decision process.
The following research question should be answered:
- How are parents/guardians informed and supported from the different involved groups during the SEN assesment process?
The steps in the process consist of (1) justification and application, i.e. informing the parents/guardians about the importance of the SEN, explaining why SEN is necessary and explaining what this means for the child's future career, (2) choosing the right school, deciding on curriculum allocation and support measures and (3) decision and communication about the outcome of the SEN assessment process.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study was part of the project "Evaluation of the assessment process for SEN in Austria", which was carried out from 2022 to 2023 on behalf of the BMBWF (Gasteiger-Klicpera et al., 2023). The central aim of this study was to obtain a detailed overview of the current SEN assessment process.
As part of this study, a quantitative survey and a qualitative interview study were conducted with all expert groups involved in the entire process.
For the quantitative survey four target group-specific questionnaires were designed, with questions about child-specific data, the procedure and individual perceptions, the outcome and consequences, satisfaction with the procedure and confidence in the child's future, problems and suggestions for improvement, criteria for allocating resources and socio-demographic data of the participants. A total of 293 persons took part in the survey. This sample consisted of 52 parents/guardians (female 86.5 %, male 13.5 %), 67 teachers (female 88.1 %, male 10.4 %, diverse 1.5 %), 72 head teachers (female 76.4 %, male 23.6 %) and 102 diversity managers (female 83.3 %, male 11.8 %, diverse 4.9 %). This involved 293 SEN assessment processes between January 2022 and May 2023. The procedures evaluated refer to 293 children with SEN (female 37.5 %, male 62.5 %) with an average age of 9.97 years (SD = 2.30, R = 5-17, n = 265).
The interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide with four blocks of questions: (1) procedure and documentation of the procedure, (2) significance and impact of the circular nr. 7/2019, (3) information and openness towards the diagnosis of "disability" and (4) suggestions for optimizing the procedure. The interview study was conducted with experts who were involved in the SEN assessment process, i. e. school quality managers, diversity managers, head teachers, teachers and parents/guardians. The interviews took place between September and December 2022 in all federal states of Austria. A total of 31 people took part in the interview study.
The evaluation was based on descriptive statistics (SPSS) and content analysis (MaxQDA).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis study shows that counseling plays a crucial role in the SEN assessment process. All groups of experts emphasized the importance and significance of counselling and support for parents. However, the participants reported different perceptions regarding the continuity of the counseling process. While some parents/guardians considered the counseling opportunities to be too limited, the other participating experts pointed out that they had given the parents/guardians comprehensive advice. It also emerged that parents/guardians were satisfied with their decision for a specific school for their child. This could indicate that the responsible persons involved have mostly succeeded in establishing a trustful relationship with the parents/guardians. However, it may also indicate that parents/guardians feel dependent on the school, so that they avoid criticism out of concern for their child.
In summary, it was shown that the teachers, head teachers and diversity managers endeavor to provide parents/guardians with sound advice and guidance, but it is not clear enough whose re-sponsibility it is to continuously support parents/guardians in this process. Sometimes it is the diversity management and sometimes it is the school that takes on parts of the communication. This confirms that the responsibility for this process has not been clarified. It should also be considered that one-off information for parents/guardians is not enough. It would be essential to provide regular, reciprocal information in the sense of a symmetrical exchange based on partnership (Schürer & Lintorf, 2023), which focuses on well-founded support of the child from both perspectives, the parents/guardians and the school.
ReferencesBMBWF [Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung]. (2019). Rundschreiben Nr. 7/2019: Richtlinien zur Organisation und Umsetzung der sonderpädagogischen Förderung. Bun-desministerium Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung. https://rundschreiben.bmbwf.gv.at/rundschreiben/?id=808
Gasteiger-Klicpera, B., Buchner, T., Frank, E., Grubich, R., Hawelka, V., Hecht, P., Hoffmann, M., Hoffmann, T., Holzinger, A., Hölzl, C., Kahr, S., Kreilinger, M., Lüke, T., Proyer, M., Raich, K., Rümmele, K., Schuster, S., Steiner, M., Prammer, W., . . . Wohlhart, D. (Eds.). (2023). Evaluierung der Vergabepraxis des sonderpädagogischen Förderbedarfs (SPF) in Österreich: Abschlussbericht, September 2023. Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung.
Gasteiger-Klicpera, B., Klicpera, C., Gebhardt, M., & Schwab, S. (2013). Attitudes and experiences of parents regarding inclusive and special school education for children with learning and intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(7), 663–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.706321
Hausmanns, S., & Wingerter, E. K. (2013). Unabhängige Beratung als Qualitätsmerkmal. In V. Moser (Ed.), Die inklusive Schule. Standards für die Umsetzung (2. Auflage, pp. 223–235). Kohlhammer.
Kalcher, M., & Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (2021). Herausforderungen für Eltern von Kindern mit Behinderungen, die Regelschulen besuchen. Eine Interviewstudie. Vierteljahresschrift Für Heilpädagogik Und Ihre Nachbargebiete, 90, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2378/vhn2021.art13d
Kalcher, M., & Wohlhart, E. (2021). Beratung und Unterstützung von Familien mit Kindern mit Be-hinderung: Erfahrungen von Eltern aus Österreich. Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Heilpädagogik, 27(12), 16–23.
Klicpera, C. (2005). Elternerfahrung mit Sonderschulen und Integrationsklassen. Eine qualitative Interviewstudie zur Schulwahlentscheidung und zur schulischen Betreuung in drei österreichischen Bundesländern. Integrations- und Heilpädagogik: Bd. 1. LIT Verlag.
Klicpera, C. (2007). Erfahrungen von Eltern und Schulaufsicht mit dem Elternwahlrecht in der Ent-scheidung über den Unterrichtsort. Integrations- und Heilpädagogik: Bd. 2. LIT Verlag.
Lalvani, P., & Hale, C. (2015). Squeaky Wheels, Mothers from Hell, and CEOs of the IEP: Parents, Privilege, and the “Fight” for Inclusive Education. Understanding & Dismantling Privilege, 5(2), 21–41.
Pinetz, P. (2019). Schulische Integration ist für uns Eltern ein langer Kampf.: Ein Beitrag aus Elternsicht. In E. Feyerer & W. Prammer (Eds.), Inklusion konkret. Verstehen und Handeln (pp. 33–45). BZIB.
Schürer, S., & Lintorf, K. (2023). Erziehungs- und Bildungspartnerschaften mit Eltern von Kindern mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf. Ein einlösbarer Anspruch am Grundschulübergang? In M. Haider, R. Böhme, S. Gebauer, C. Gößinger, M. Munser-Kiefer, & A. Rank (Eds.), Nachhaltige Bildung in der Grundschule (pp. 158–164). Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:27739
Thoms, E.‑M. (2023). Reden wir über das Elternwahlrecht. Eine für alle - Die inklusive Schule für die Demokratie (Schriftenreihe). Heft 8. https://eine-fuer-alle.schule/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Heft8Igstadt-Thomsf.Web_.pdf
|
