Conclusions

The aim of this research is to explore parental attitudes and experiences of inclusion in the early years and to identify the factors that influence their experience. The study capitalises on the experience that the UK possesses around the practice of inclusion with opportunities to be enhanced over the years, and the fact that policies and the implementation of inclusive practices are still in their infancy in Singapore relative to the UK. Another objective of this paper is to examine and compare the findings of parental experiences on including their child with SEN from the UK and Singapore cross-culturally, to identify practices that parents find supportive to inform future practice in either country.

The quantitative findings from the PATI questionnaire revealed some overall differences between the attitudes of parents in the UK and Singapore on inclusion. On average, the responses of participants from the UK were higher than that of participants from Singapore, showing that they held more

positive attitudes towards inclusion. Semi-structured interviews were

conducted with a group of three participants from each context, and analysed separately using IPA. Through this piece of mixed methods research, the qualitative and quantitative findings were triangulated, serving to complement, develop and expand the scope of the research. Taken together, the findings substantiate some of the available literature on inclusion as well as

supplement current knowledge around the influences on parental experiences of inclusion.

One of the most salient things that parents’ narratives have illuminated in this study is the complexity involved in this notion of ‘inclusion’. Parents have developed their own interpretations of what it means to include their child in preschool, clearly making sense of their experiences in relation to the context within which they live. Although both countries are at different stages of thinking about inclusive education, parents’ accounts engage along several systemic levels that have highlighted the value of support from schools, external agencies, the government and the wider community. More

importantly, these levels are inextricable from each other within each context, and are closely interrelated as parents’ lived experiences have shown. The parental experience of inclusion demonstrates that that it is indeed socially constructed within different communities (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).

Drawing back to the philosophical underpinnings of the inclusion, there remains some vagueness in both contexts on what inclusion truly implies. There seems to be a critical need for clarity around the government’s definition and stance towards inclusion, given the relationship between educational policies and inclusive practices. Interestingly, after several years contending for inclusion, Mary Warnock called for the need to re-think

inclusion sharing her immense concern that statements were instead barriers to ‘good’ inclusion, urging the need for specialist provisions (Warnock, 2005). However, she continued to advocate inclusion where the child’s well-being and sense of belonging can be addressed to enable productive learning. Thus, politically motivated or not, it remains a key issue to develop a well-

grounded system that applies good practice and principles for inclusion to be implemented, as it is insufficient to rely on an idealistic philosophy.

A theme that parents in the UK and Singapore shared was their support and concern for their child, as they begin and embark on a journey through educational life with their child beginning at preschool. Recognising a range of emotions that they experience around their child’s SEN, they continue to be strong advocates for their children in ensuring that their child receives the support that they require. With some variation in their definitions of ‘inclusion’, parents were consistently in favour of a mainstream education for their child, even if it was just to be given that opportunity or ‘permission’ to. It should be recognised, however, that this could be an implication of selecting

interviewees based on their ranking of scores on the PATI from the most positive in attitudes. The UK parents grasped parental choice in educational placement, but the Singapore interviewees seemed to rely on the outcome of a pre-entry assessment by the psychologist at the hospitals.

Parents in both settings valued an open two-way communication with the school. The UK interviewees exemplified how communication can develop positive and stronger relationships between parents and the school. This in turn, makes a difference in how parents perceived other forms of support, such as their child’s acceptance in school, provision of differentiated and targeted work, and sharing of information around statutory and/or local authority processes. While parents in the UK experienced differentiation to cater to their child’s needs, parents in Singapore cope with a different system of provision when their child has an SEN. On top of attending a mainstream preschool, children with SEN in Singapore receive additional support from

external intervention services and programmes that complements their education in a mainstream setting. In addition, there was little evidence for accommodations or target setting experienced by Singapore parents, but this could be in fact related to their constructions of inclusion, not wanting their child to receive “special attention”. Both groups of parents contended that more available manpower in school would be useful to cater to their child’s SEN. As parents from both contexts view mainstream settings as a social environment for children, the acceptance and treatment from peers and teachers in school was another noteworthy theme arising from this study.

Conceivably a product of the different healthcare and education systems, parents in Singapore reported higher financial costs incurred in their

experiences of supporting their child with SEN, although they also mentioned receiving subsidies. Statutory processes in the UK seek to ensure that

children’s education, health and social care needs are being provided for and met, and can be seen as a facilitation of resource allocation. However,

schools have to play an active role in communicating the various responsibilities of the school and local authority to parents.

Finally, participants from both contexts recognised the importance of parental and educators’ influence in children’s awareness and acceptance of

individual differences. By beginning with education within schools, children and young people can take their understanding and attitudes towards inclusion into the community. In turn, parents’ experiences and feelings of judgement from others will become less of a strain, and their child may experience quality inclusion within schools and in society.