This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Jigyel, Karma, Miller, Judith, Mavropoulou, Sofia, & Berman, Jeanette(2020)Benefits and concerns: parents’ perceptions of inclusive schooling for chil-dren with special educational needs (SEN) in Bhutan.International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(10), pp. 1064-1080.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/120985/

c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1511761

Benefits and concerns: parents’ perceptions of inclusiveschooling for children with special educational needs (SEN)in BhutanKarma Jigyel a, Judith A. Millera, Sofia Mavropouloub and Jeanette Bermana

aSchool of Education, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia; bFaculty of Education, QueenslandUniversity of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

ABSTRACTThis qualitative study explored Bhutanese parents’ perceptions ofthe benefits and their concerns in relation to the inclusiveeducation of their children with special educational needs (SEN).Twenty-six parents (13 fathers and 13 mothers) of children withSEN, either fully or partially included in three pilot schools withSEN programmes located in urban, semi-urban, and rural regionsin Bhutan were individually interviewed. The thematic analysis ofthe interview transcripts revealed that inclusion was associatedwith social benefits for parents of children with developmentaldisabilities, while parents of children with physical disabilitiesperceived the caring and supportive environment as the majorgain from inclusion. For a few parents, the inclusion of their childin the school alleviated some of the burden of daily care. Mostparents were satisfied with their children in the school, despitelimited school resources, although their concerns for behaviouralproblems, bullying and lack of academic learning persisted.Implications for parent advocacy in the school and the need forcounselling both for parents and their children, and training forteachers are discussed.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 22 May 2018Accepted 7 August 2018

KEYWORDSParents; perceptions;benefits; concerns; inclusion;Bhutan

Benefits and concerns: parents’ perceptions of inclusive schooling forchildren with special educational needs in Bhutan

Parents are key stakeholders in their children’s education and possess unique knowledgeregarding their children’s characteristics, strengths, preferences and needs (Berger andRiojas-Cortez 2012). To enable and support parental involvement in the education oftheir children with disabilities, it is important to understand parents’ perspectives con-cerning their children’s education (Swick and Hooks 2005). Previous research has inves-tigated parents’ perceptions of the benefits of inclusion and their concerns for theirchildren, and themselves (Lalvani 2015; Lui, Yang and Sin 2017; Rogers 2007). As inclusiveeducation (IE) has gained momentum in the last decade in Bhutan (Rinchen Dorji 2015;Rinchen Dorji and Schuelka 2016),1 it is timely to understand parents’ perspectives aboutthe inclusion of their children with special education needs (SEN).

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Karma Jigyel kjigyel@myune.edu.au School of Education, University of New England, Armidale, NSW,Australia

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATIONhttps://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1511761

Inclusive education in Bhutan

The concept of IE was introduced in Bhutan during 2011–2012, which is very recent com-pared to other countries and continents (UK, USA, Australia and Europe), where the termstarted to be used in the 1980s to 1990s. With advocacy and awareness on ‘recent policyemphasis upon enabling full access and participation’ (MoE 2017a, 5) for children withSEN, there has been a steady increase in the number of children with SEN enrolled inschools with SEN programmes. Inclusive Education in Bhutan is still in the initial stagewith many challenges impeding the implementation of successful inclusive practices(Dawa Dukpa 2014; Schuelka 2014). Some of the challenges identified include the shortageof trained teachers to support the diverse needs of children with SEN, the application ofinappropriate assessment practices (MoE 2014), the lack of community involvement(Kesang Sherab et al. 2015), the minimal parent-teacher collaboration (Karma Jigyel,Miller, Mavropoulou, and Berman 2018), and the financial constraints (Schuelka 2014).Importantly, the concept of ‘borrowing policy’ (Duke et al. 2016, 908) from othercountries has been problematic since the distinctive socio-cultural context of Bhutanneeds to be accommodated for the smooth transition from special to inclusive education(Rinchen Dorji and Schuelka 2016; Sharma et al. 2013).

Parental involvement in Bhutanese schools has been found to be minimal (Karma Jigyelet al. 2018), particularly in rural Bhutan, with parents often being reluctant to get involved.This can be attributed to parents’ beliefs that teachers in the school are in the best position tomake decisions about teaching and learning (UNICEF 2014). At a deeper level, the Bhuta-nese culture of unquestioning faith for teachers (Phuntsho 2013) may explain the reticenceof parental involvement in schools. Another potential barrier for parental participation ineducation in Bhutan may be that some parents think that it would be considered ungratefulto question anything about the free public education system (UNICEF 2014).

Parental perceptions of benefits and concerns of inclusive education

Parents of children with moderate to severe disabilities have identified academic and socialbenefits for children with disabilities taught in inclusive schools (Lui, Yang, and Sin 2017).Benefits include information shared with parents for: services related to positive familyoutcomes (Davis and Gavidia-Payane 2009); different intervention strategies for their chil-dren (Heiman and Berger 2008); opportunities for collaborative decision-making pro-cesses; and, the development of individualised education programs (Tucker andSchwartz 2013). Contrary to the aforementioned benefits of inclusive education, parentalconcerns include: social isolation; negative attitudes; poor quality of instruction; and,untrained teachers in inclusive classrooms (Leyser and Kirk 2004).

Although there are some studies on parents’ perceptions and experiences of inclusiveeducation (Hotulainen and Takala 2014; Poon-McBrayer and McBrayer 2013), to ourknowledge there is no published research of Bhutanese parents’ perceptions of inclusiveeducation. Further, the studies conducted in other countries are ‘characterized by amore developed inclusive education system’ (Wong et al. 2015, 88) and their outcomescannot be generalised to the Bhutanese context. Therefore, this study is timely in exploringparents’ perceptions of the benefits and concerns in regard to the inclusion of their chil-dren with SEN in the three pilot schools with SEN programmes in Bhutan.

2 K. JIGYEL ET AL.

Method

Twenty-six parents (13 fathers and 13 mothers) of 13 children with SEN, either fully2 orpartially3 included in three pilot schools with SEN programmes located in urban, semi-urban, and rural regions in Bhutan were individually interviewed (Table 1). Thesegroup of parents’ included farmers, public servants, housewives, businessmen andarmy personnel. The educational levels included university graduates (n = 6), highschool (n = 8) and less than six years of formal schooling or not at all (n = 12). Allparents of children with SEN were recruited via purposive sampling (Cooksey andMcDonald 2011) to obtain maximum and relevant information therefore addressing theresearch questions (Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle 2010).

The interview

Standardised open-ended interviews (Gall, Gall and Borg 2007) were used to seek parents’perceptions of the benefits and concerns related to inclusive schooling for their childrenwith SEN. The following questions about benefits and concerns comprised the interviewguide:

Theme 1. Benefits

Main questionCan you tell me how your child has benefitted by coming to this school?Probing questionsWhat do you think has been the greatest benefit for your child? Why?Main questionHow did these benefits affect you?

Theme 2. Concerns

Main questionWhat are your concerns about your child being included in the school along with other

children?Probing questionsHow did these concerns affect your child?How did these concerns affect you?In what ways do you think that the school could handle the issues that are concerning

you the most?

Table 1. Profile of parent participants by location and school placement.Location/region Level of placement No. of parents

Urban (Thimphu) Full inclusion 6Partial inclusion 4Partial inclusion (without accessto mainstream classroom)

4

Semi-urban (Paro) Full inclusion 4Rural (Samtse) Full inclusion 8

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 3

Positionality statement

Despite the application of meticulous procedures to find solutions for problems, the pro-cesses, purposes, and outcomes of the research projects can be affected by the position andbackground of the researcher (Fernández-Balboa and Brubaker 2012). To this end,‘researchers should acknowledge and disclose their own selves in the research, seekingto understand their part in it, or influence on the research’ informing positionality(Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2013, 225).

Therefore, the primary researcher declared his position as the father of a child with SENat the beginning of every interview, creating a conducive environment for open communi-cation with the participants. The researcher also took reasonable steps in maintainingtrustworthiness and consistency by adhering to standard ethical procedures in data collec-tion and interpretation without bias.

Procedure

Following the ethical approval for the research (Human Research Ethics Committee, Uni-versity A; Ministry of Education in Bhutan), the first author contacted the principals ofthree schools in Bhutan, who arranged meetings with the SEN coordinators (SENCOs).With the assistance of the SENCOs, potential parent participants were identified, and invi-tations to participate, including information sheets and consent forms were sent from theSchool Principals.

The interview guide was prepared in English and Dzongkha and conducted withparents by the first author. The venue of the interview varied according to the parents’ pre-ferences such as, schools, offices, and home. Interviews took approximately 50 minutes,were audio recorded and transcribed.

Data analysis

Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis (Clarke and Braun 2014).Common themes and subthemes were identified during the manual coding, and inter-coder reliability checks were performed independently by the first three authors forthree interview transcripts. Participants received the transcripts for member checking(Creswell 2014) seeking verification of the accuracy of the interview.

Findings

Benefits

The thematic coding of parents’ responses to the interview questions about percep-tions of the benefits and concerns of including their children with SEN in theschools generated themes and sub-themes shown in Figures 1 and 2. These themesaligned with the type of disability and the placement of the children as well as thelocation of the school.

In presenting these themes, the benefits which align with the concerns are combinedwhere appropriate.

4 K. JIGYEL ET AL.

Positive social outcomesIt was predominantly the parents of children with moderate and severe developmentalneeds in the urban region who reported increased social interaction, improved self-careand emerging independence in the child as positive social outcomes. For example, oneparent said: ‘there – she started interacting with friends’ because ‘she gets exposed tomany friends… interacts with other children… and she can see and meet other peopleand parents… ’ (Father 12). Similarly, parents also described their children’s past aggres-sive behaviour as opposed to their current decreased aggression.

Figure 1. Results of thematic coding: Benefits for children.

Figure 2. Results of thematic coding: Parents’ concerns.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 5

Before joining the school, she was afraid of coming out in the crowd, she could not face thecrowd. But now she can face the crowd and she has improved a lot… like she gets along withher friends, but before she used to pull her friends hair and was aggressive. Now she is littlesober (calm). Before she was very hyper. (Mother 5, Urban)

Counter to these positive behavioural outcomes, the parents in the urban (n = 5) andsemi-urban (n = 2) regions were concerned about their children’s anxiety and physicallyaggressive behaviours that contributed to troublesome situations in relation to theirschool peers:

Yes, I am worried so much about him attending the mainstream classroom because all thestudents in that classroom are younger and as he is aged I am worried very much about himbeating other children, tearing books, or if he does something to the teacher. (Mother 2,Urban)

Caring and supportive schoolsAnother emerging theme was ‘caring and supportive schools’ with four sub-themes andrelated concerns around bullying and name calling (Figures 1 and 2). Over half of theparents (n = 15/26) acknowledged the care and support the school community providedfor their children. In this theme, the geographical location of the schools and the needsof the children influenced the sub-themes that emerged. The schools in the urban andsemi-urban regions were accessible for medical and therapy support from hospitals,expatriates, and other non-governmental organisations. Such support was not availablein the rural region, so this was not mentioned by those parents.

A focus on extra academic support provided by teachers was mentioned by very fewparents in urban (n = 2/14) and semi-urban (n = 1/4) regions. Similarly, a few parentsfrom urban (n = 3/14) and rural (n = 1/8) regions, mainly parents of children fullyincluded, that their children felt more comfortable because the school included other chil-dren with disabilities. They also reported that the students without disabilities were used toevery day interaction with these children with SEN every day and treated them like anyother children.

… students are used to seeing such students and then the way these normal students deal ortreat the SEN children is like anybody because they are used to seeing many SEN children inthe school.… SEN children are treated normal like any other child I think my son is feelingcomfortable. (Mother 7, Urban)

Finally, the role of classmates as peer-supporters was identified particularly by the rural(n = 5/8) and semi-urban (n = 4/4) parents. It was reported that the schools appointedolder students without disabilities as peer supports, who assisted children with SEN inusing the toilet and transporting them from home to school and vice versa. Such practicalsupport has been a huge relief for parents.

Despite parents’ acknowledgment of caring and supportive schools, very few parents ofchildren with full inclusion in the urban (n = 2/14) and rural (n = 2/8) regions reportedconcerns over the effect of their children being bullied by children without disabilities.Calling of names and using derogatory comments such as ‘choelo’ (local term forinsane), ‘zhaw’ (cripple), ‘tshagyem’ (dumb) and ‘bjadu’ (deaf) by the children without dis-abilities were also reported.

6 K. JIGYEL ET AL.

Mobility gain and speech developmentMobility gain and speech development were identified as benefits by over half of theparents (n = 16/26) across all the regions due to therapeutic programs provided byprofessionals such as SEN teachers, physiotherapists and speech therapists. Pro-fessionals such as physiotherapists and speech therapists were available only in theurban region, where they were based in the public hospital and visited the schooloccasionally to support the children and their parents. They also reported thattheir children were made to walk to school along with other normal children4 whoassisted them:

Once she got into the school, she improved a lot. Before she had to be supported from bothsides when walking but now we do not need to support her, she walks on her own. Once shejoined the school her hand also improved a lot. She also walks well on her feet. (Mother 21,Rural)

Academic gainsThere were few parents in the semi-urban (n = 1/4) and rural (n = 3/8) regions whoreported some academic gains for their children. Interestingly the urban parents didnot report on academic gains. This may indicate that academic learning for themajority of parents may be secondary to other perceived needs and the developmentof their child.

However, a few parents (n = 4/26) of children fully included reported about academicconcerns and their doubts over the kind of attention their children get in the classroom interms of academic support. Further they reflected on the development of low morale intheir children and negative attitudes towards academic learning:

… there are huge number of students around forties, she might not get proper attention anddue to which she may not be able to give attention to what the teacher teaches and that’s howshe might lose her interest in studies.… she may feel that she is not able to do similarly toother students, she might lose interest and then gradually she might degrade her studies.That’s my major concern. (Father 8, Urban)

Benefits for parents

Two themes and four sub-themes emerged from the parents regarding how they, them-selves, benefited from their children’s inclusion in school (Figure 3). There were noovert influences by location to these reported benefits for parents.

Alleviating the burden of careAlmost all the parents (n = 25/26) reported that the schooling of their children alleviatedthe burden of looking after their children either in the school or at home whichimproved their living conditions. Notably, parents expressed their past inconvenienceof staying at school for the whole day, assisting their children to the toilet, to thelibrary, to the SEN unit and other places. Such situations affected these parents socially,financially and psychologically in their daily lives. Perhaps unsurprisingly most mothers(n = 10/13) expressed these concerns indicating that care of the child generally, restswith them.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 7

Sense of satisfactionAlmost half of the parents (n = 10/26) reported their satisfaction for having their childrenincluded in these schools. In addressing this theme, varying subthemes emerged (Figure3). The satisfaction of parents was related to the support they received from the schoolsand the engagement of their child. The parents (n = 7/26) acknowledged the supportreceived from schools which varied by region, for medical professionals and therapists,recruiting older students as caregivers, mobility equipment, and monetary support. Fewparents (n = 3/26) expressed their sense of satisfaction for having their child brought tothe school and keeping them engaged. If the children were not engaged in the schooland kept at home, it would have been stressful for parents and boring for the children,not knowing what to do.

How the schools could address parental concerns

Parents perceived that the schools could handle issues of concern and two themes emergedin their responses: the need for awareness and counselling; and, the need for trained SENteachers (Figure 4).

Need for awareness and counsellingFew parents (n = 4/26) suggested that the school could play a role in preventing suchunfortunate incidents of name calling and bullying by advocating and promoting peerawareness in the school and providing counselling to the affected child. As one mother(27, Rural) put it, ‘ … she does not listen to us, the school should provide her withadvice and guide her. Similarly, the school should from time to time remind the other stu-dents of how to deal with such disabled children.’

Figure 3. Results of thematic coding: Benefits for parents.

8 K. JIGYEL ET AL.

Apart from the need for counselling for the children affected by name calling and bully-ing, parents highlighted the need of counselling for the themselves as well. This indicatesthat parents undergo psychological stress in raising a child with SEN:

I think counselling is very important… not only to the children even to the parents I some-times feel the parents get into depression because when you have such kind of children youknow when they cannot play around, when they cannot do when other children could do.Counselling is very much important. (Father 6, Urban)

Need for trained SEN teachersThe need for trained SEN teachers who have the knowledge and skills to assist childrenwith behavioural problems and intervention was raised by the urban parents (n = 4) ofchildren with these difficulties. For example:

… if there was… trained SEN teachers so that these teachers know about such children anddeal accordingly, then I thought our children would benefit a lot. As of now there is shortageof SEN teachers. There is just one SEN teacher handling all the children with SEN and it isvery difficult for her to handle. (Mother 15, Urban)

These parents also expressed their concerns of scarcity of SEN teachers and thereforemaking it difficult to support and manage children in the SEN unit.

Discussion

The findings from the parental perceptions have highlighted key issues related to theimpact of inclusive education for their children. For students, there were identified positivesocial outcomes, increased care and support in schools, and a focus on mobility and speechdevelopment. For parents, there was a sense of satisfaction paralleled with the alleviationof their constant burden of care. The implications of these findings include: strengtheninginclusive education through an educative program to provide greater social awareness ofthe nature and implications of disability; provision of counselling for students and theirfamilies; and, building teacher expertise.

Figure 4. Results of thematic coding: Parents’ perceptions on how the school could address theconcerns.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 9

Positive social outcomes

Benefits related to positive social outcomes were defined by increased social inter-action, independence, and positive behavioural changes. Predominantly the urbanparents of children with mild to moderate developmental disabilities reported theseoutcomes and they are consistent with the findings of previous research in social par-ticipation (Koster, Pijl, Nakken, and Van Houten 2010). Parents of children withdevelopmental disabilities indicated increased independence in toileting for their chil-dren after inclusion in mainstream schools, which is in agreement with Keen, Bran-nigan, and Cuskelly (2007). However, Schuelka (2015) argued that ‘parents of childrenwith disabilities tend to severely pamper their children and not allow them anyautonomy to develop living skills’ (p.825), which may result to their children beingoverly dependent adult in the future.

In line with positive behavioural outcomes, parents reported decreased aggression andexpansion of interests on a task for their children as had been previously revealed byMcCurdy and Cole (2014). It is also very likely that positive social outcomes werereinforced by ‘natural contingencies’ (Gena 2006) such as being exposed to peerswithout disabilities and imitating their behaviours. The positive implications of childrenwith special education needs being included in the schools provides a positive socialoutcome for their developmental needs.

Parental concerns about including their children with developmental disabilities ininclusive schooling have been raised as a concern aligning with Fish (2008) and Whi-taker (2007). The Bhutanese parents reported their own anxiety of the impact of theirchildren’s challenging behaviours on others and expressed concerns that their childrenwould create a commotion in the classroom and disrupt learning activities, as evidentin other research (Leyser and Kirk 2004; Rogers 2007). Such situations are of concernwhen Bhutanese classrooms have a reported average student-teacher ratio of up to50:1, with students vying for spaces and in physical contact with each other almostconstantly therefore triggering aggression between student with disabilities andstudent without disabilities (Schuelka 2018, 188). Furthermore, the capacity to copeis compounded when teachers have very little inclusive education pedagogical tech-niques (Rinchen Dorji 2017; Rinchen Dorji and Schuelka 2016; MoE 2014, 2017a;Schuelka 2018) and when ‘there is a significant absence of other professionalsworking in the schools besides teachers in terms of specialists, classroom aides, andother educational support staff’ (Schuelka 2018, 7).

Some parents were concerned that their children’s moderate disabilities would beexacerbated upon seeing behaviours of peers with severe disabilities. They were con-cerned that their child would start imitating the inappropriate behaviours of theirpeers with severe disabilities similar to parents evident in a study by Rafferty andGriffin (2005). Similarly, parents of children without disabilities in Bhutan wereapprehensive that their children ‘would contract some aspect of disability’ (MoE2017a, 46). The implications of this finding are the urgent need to address this mis-information and to provide broadly across the community an educative program tothe general population regarding the nature of disability. This remediation wouldallay baseless fears and concerns regarding enrolling children with and withoutspecial needs, in inclusive schools.

10 K. JIGYEL ET AL.

Caring and supportive schools

Caring and supportive schools emerged as a common benefit across the three schools inthis study and the nature of care and support provided by the teachers depended upon thetype of disability in each case similarly linked to the location of the schools. Owing to theavailability of resources and better health care facilities in the urban region, the parents inthis setting had greater advantages as compared to those in the semi-urban and ruralregions. A lack of quality health services, social service and educational opportunities,and transportation in rural regions added hardship to families and children alike, who des-perately require these services similar to a USA study by Beloin and Peterson (2000).Therefore, the less resourced conditions in the rural and semi-urban regions may be afactor in schools not accepting and including children with developmental disabilities.Despite the variations in resourcing, most of the parents described the school as an ‘invalu-able source of support’ (Ludlow, Skelly and Rohleder 2012, 709) which may say moreabout how culturally grateful and unquestioning Bhutanese are than meeting the needsof children with SEN (Karma Phuntsho 2013).

The most surprising outcome identified, in relation to caring and supportive schools, inthe rural and semi-urban schools was the use of peer support for the children with physicaldisabilities. Such enabling conditions may be attributed to the dominant Buddhist cultureof compassion and interconnectedness of all sentient beings, thus accommodating aperson with disability with dignity in the society (King 2009). This finding also highlightsthe absence of fulltime caregivers in the schools to manage mobility and self-care needs.However, peer support provisions are emerging as an effective alternative to the overreliance on adult caregivers for intervention in middle and high schools elsewhere(Carter and Kennedy 2006; Downing 2006). Encouragingly, the provisions of paraprofes-sionals and caregivers was recently recognised for the first time in the Standards for Inclus-ive Education in Bhutan (MoE 2017b).

Children’s feelings of being included were identified as another aspect of caring andsupportive schools. It was reported that their children had feelings of acceptance andcomfort upon seeing other children with SEN in the school and they recognised thepeers without disabilities becoming more accepting and sensitive to individual differencessimilar to research findings of parental research in the USA by Leyser and Kirk (2004).This finding could be attributed to the accommodating environment and effective aware-ness of individual differences in the school community. However, it can be argued that thismay not be always the case since children who have behavioural difficulties are oftenrejected and not liked by their peers without disabilities (Ališauskas et al. 2011; Fernán-dez-Alcántara et al. 2017).

Paradoxically, although parents reported the support and care provided by the schoolsfor their children, these parents also shared concerns for name calling and bullying asconfirmed in other studies in Bhutan (MoE 2017a; Schuelka 2015). Schuelka (2015)reports similar name calling ‘used both as a term of endearment and as a negativename to call a person with disability’ (825), which pre-exists as socio-cultural construc-tions of disability. Parents’ feelings were hurt, and the victimised children felt rejectedand isolated and they expressed frustration with teasing and bullying as evident insome studies (Ališauskas et al. 2011; Chmiliar 2009), contributing to developing negativeattitudes towards attending school. For parents of children with limited communication

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 11

ability, these concerns are exacerbated. Therefore, it is important that monitoring of vic-timisation is conducted regularly rather than relying on self-report. Appropriate infor-mation may be sought from peers without disabilities apart from teachers. Consistentadvocacy by SENCOs, teachers and other members of the schools, including childrenwould also prove beneficial. Including more professional school counsellors in theschools is contextually more of an imperative given these findings. Counsellors canserve as advocates for both parents and their children with SEN.

Mobility gain and speech development

Rural parents of children with mobility issues reported that their children were able towalk independently to school, after being included in the mainstream schools. Theseparents believed that the therapeutic support provided at home was critical in making itpossible for their children to walk.

The majority of the parents reported positive speech development in their children.Parents in the urban region attributed these gains to the support from the speech therapistand the SEN teachers. Language and communication skills rarely improve by chance. SENteachers and other professionals are encouraged to ensure a learning environment that isconducive to the development of language and communication skills (Allen and Cowdery2012). The implication of this finding positively validates the effectiveness of partnershipstyle efforts at both school and home with collaborative effort from parents, therapists andthe SEN teachers.

Academic gains

There were very few parents of children with physical disabilities who identified academicgains for their children. This finding emphasises that despite few academic supports fromthese parents to their children at home, reasonable gains in academic learning are evident,similar to other studies (Lindsay 2007; Ruijs and Peetsma 2009). This finding also adds tothe previous empirical evidence that there is a greater level of academic achievement forchildren with SEN when their parents are involved more (Carter et al. 2007).

Although none of the parents in the urban region reported academic gains, the parentswere more highly educated which is counter to the literature (Šukys, Dumčienė, and Lapė-nienė 2015). This finding may indicate that educational level, regional location, type of dis-ability for the students and concerns of these parents are confounded in this study. Theparents in this study emphasised functional skills as more beneficial than academic learn-ing for their children as has been found in previous research (Kenney et al. 2005).

Rural parents indicated that they had few concerns of including their children withphysical disabilities in the mainstream school along with children without disabilities.Parents had minimal involvement in their child’s education and no collaboration withthe school teachers similar to findings by Karma Jigyel et al. (2018), which was due totheir low educational level, socioeconomic status and personal constraints. Theseparents reported they were content with the school’s support and care extended to theirchildren and were thankful to the Government. Again, the implications of thesefindings further reinforce the need for parents to be partners in their children’s education.Similarly, for parents to understand their rights and responsibilities and act as an advocate

12 K. JIGYEL ET AL.

for their children. Given the cultural deference to teachers in Bhutan, this may be anunrealistic expectation.

Benefits for parentsThe mothers of children with physical disabilities were relieved from the substantialburden of caring for their children. With their children placed in schools, these parentsreported greater opportunities to attend to domestic work, look after siblings, work forextra income, and run a business. However, the parents of children with severe develop-mental disabilities reported their satisfaction similar to a study reported by Ališauskaset al. (2011), which reported despite moderate or little gains in academic learning, therewere positive shifts in behaviours and social skills. Overwhelmingly, the parents in thisstudy maintained that their child had more constructive engagements in the schoolthan at home.

How schools can address parental concernsStrategies for strengthening inclusive education have been identified by these parents.They include the need for: an educative program on the nature of disability; counsellingfor students and their families; and increased preservice and in-service development ofexpertise for teaching students with SEN.

Need for awareness and counselling. A recent large-scale study (MoE 2017a) revealedextremely limited knowledge and awareness about disability by people in Bhutan. Misin-formation can be ameliorated by educative programs and this study has identified this asan important need in Bhutan. Parents identified that schools could support their childrenin instances of name calling and bullying, with increased awareness of their children’s dis-abilities within the school community. In addition, counselling is a need for all students,with additional imperatives for advocacy of counsellors for students who are non-verbal.

The parents of children with severe developmental disabilities in urban schools empha-sised the need for counselling support from the school for both themselves and their chil-dren. These parents emphasised their own needs, such as experiencing psychologicaldepression while caring for their children with SEN. This evidence confirms thefindings reported by previous research by Taub (2006) in which the parents emphasisedthe need for intervention of professional school counsellors and their role is increasinglyimportant. It is also timely that the Program Standards of SEN have emphasised eliminat-ing discrimination and bullying of children in the schools and the need of counsellingsupport for those affected (MoE 2017b).

Need for trained SEN teachers. Parents reported that Bhutanese teachers lacked expertisein handling children with SEN in mainstream classrooms and the SEN units. This findingis evident as reported by Kamenopoulou and Dawa Drukpa (2017) that formal teacherpreparation in Bhutan for inclusive education is ‘almost non-existent’ (4). This issue ofthe level of expertise of teachers for inclusive education has been the focus of considerableinternational research by Ahsan, Sharma, and Deppeler 2012; Symeonidou and Phtiaka2014, and underpins the call for greater development of training programs in inclusiveeducation for initial teacher education as well as in-service education for practising tea-chers (Rinchen Dorji 2015; Kamenopoulou and Dawa Dukpa 2017) and most recently

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 13

for teacher standards of SEN (MoE 2017b). Shuelka (2018) identifies the under resourcedand undertrained teachers in his observations (192).

Recommendations from this study for schools, professionals, policymakers and otherstakeholders are particularly concerned with the dearth of trained teachers for childrenwith SEN. It is therefore recommended that the Ministry of Education and the Royal Uni-versity of Bhutan make provisions as a priority and implement without delay. The pro-vision of caregivers and paraprofessionals to assist students with SEN in schools wouldease the burden of the under resourced teachers and the burdened stay-in-schoolmothers. Aligned with this recommendation is the need for respite care, which is longoverdue especially for parents who care for their children with high needs – oftenwithout relief the whole day.

Furthermore, the Government and concerned agencies are urged to provide pro-fessional and therapy services in the rural regions to meet the needs of the children andtheir parents. Finally, this study highlighted the need for advocacy and educative programsensuring more accurate awareness of the implications of including children with SEN, andthe need for counselling services both for the children and their parents.

Notes

1. All the Bhutanese authors are listed with cultural alignment, which is contrary to the ChicagoAuthor-Date (16th ed.) convention. This is being enacted, considering the cultural appropri-ateness of Bhutanese names, where the majority are addressed with one or two given names.Bhutanese names do not adopt surnames. These authors are referenced in the Bhutanese cul-tural convention and may, in some cases, deviate from their original published form.

2. Full inclusion refers to full placement in a regular classroom.3. Partial inclusion refers to a combination of placement in the regular classroom and in a SEN

unit, or attendance in a SEN unit for part of the day.4. Walking to school, as transport, is the norm in Bhutan. There are few taxis or buses to reg-

ularly collect students to school as is the practice in Western countries. Lack of mobility ornot being able to be carried to school by siblings or parents has been a major barrier to Edu-cation for many.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Mr. Karma Jigyel is currently a PhD candidate in Inclusive Education at the School of Education inthe University of New England. Prior to his PhD study, Karma taught for ten years as a lecturer inParo College of Education at the Royal University of Bhutan. His research interests are in the areasof inclusive education, assessment in primary schools, and mathematics education (secondary andprimary level).

Associate Professor Judith A. Miller has been actively contributing to pre-service teacher educationteaching and research for over two decades at the University of New England. Judith has contrib-uted to both collaborative research and curriculum development in Bhutan, most recently cham-pioning study programs for young Australian teachers to experience educational experiences inBhutan through the New Colombo Plan Scholarships.

14 K. JIGYEL ET AL.

Dr Sofia Mavropoulou is currently a Senior Lecturer at the School of Early Childhood & InclusiveEducation and Study Area Coordinator for the area of Inclusive Education (Master of Education) inthe Faculty of Education at QUT. Her research projects are focused in the area of autism with aparticular interest in the delivery of educational interventions in inclusive contexts and in parentingexperiences and social inequalities.

Jeanette Berman is an Associate Professor of Inclusive Education at the University of New England.Her professional career in school psychology complements an academic career in teacher and psy-chologist education in Australia and New Zealand. Research interests include student voice,dynamic assessment, and learning intervention for students experiencing learning difficulties.

ORCID

Karma Jigyel http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8182-7549

References

Ahsan, M. T., U. Sharma, and J. M. Deppeler. 2012. “Challenges to Prepare Pre-Service Teachers forInclusive Education in Bangladesh: Beliefs of Higher Educational Institutional Heads.” AsiaPacific Journal of Education 32 (2): 241–257.

Ališauskas, A., I. Kaffemanienė, R. Melienė, and L. Miltenienė. 2011. “Parents Point of ViewTowards Inclusive and Special Education.” Specialusis Ugdymas 2 (25): 128–142.

Allen, E., and G. E. Cowdery. 2012. The Exceptional Child: Inclusion in Early Childhood Education.USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Beloin, K., andM. Peterson. 2000. “For Richer or Poorer: Building Inclusive Schools in Poor Urban andRural Communities.” International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 47 (1): 15–24.

Berger, E. H., and M. R. Riojas-Cortez. 2012. Parents as Partners in Education: Families and SchoolsWorking Together. 8th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Carter, E. W., and C. H. Kennedy. 2006. “Promoting Access to the General Curriculum Using PeerSupport Strategies.” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 31 (4): 284–292.

Carter, E. W., L. G. Sisco, M. A. Melekoglu, and C. Kurkowski. 2007. “Peer Supports as anAlternative to Individually Assigned Paraprofessionals in Inclusive High School Classrooms.”Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 32(4): 213–227.

Chmiliar, L. 2009. “Perspectives on Inclusion: Students With LD, Their Parents, and theirTeachers.” Exceptionality Education International 19(1): 72–88.

Clarke, V, and V. Braun. 2014. “Thematic Analysis.” In Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, 1947–1952. New York: Springer.

Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2013. Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.Cooksey, R. W., and G. M. McDonald. 2011. Surviving and Thriving in Postgraduate Research.

Prahran, VIC: Tilde University Press.Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.

4th ed. London: Sage Publications Inc.Davis, K., and S. Gavidia-Payne. 2009. “The Impact of Child, Family, and Professional Support

Characteristics on the Quality of Life in Families of Young Children with Disabilities.” Journalof Intellectual and Developmental Disability 34(2): 153–162.

Dawa Dukpa. 2014. “Inclusion and Disability: Bhutanese Teachers” Perspective.” Master’s Thesis,University of Roehampton, London.

Downing, J. E. 2006. “On Peer Support, Universal Design, and Access to the Core Curriculum forStudents with Severe Disabilities: A Personnel Preparation Perspective.” Research and Practicefor Persons with Severe Disabilities 31: 327–330.

Duke, J., H. Pillay, M. Tones, J. Nickerson, S. Carrington, and A. Ioelu. 2016. “A Case for RethinkingInclusive Education Policy Creation in Developing Countries.” Compare: A Journal ofComparative and International Education 46 (6): 906–928.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 15

Fernández-Alcántara, M., C. Correa-Delgado, Á. Muñoz, M. T. Salvatierra, T. Fuentes- Hélices, andC. Laynez-Rubio. 2017. “Parenting a Child with a Learning Disability: A Qualitative Approach.”International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 64 (5): 526–543.

Fernández-Balboa, J., and N. Brubaker. 2012. “Positioning Yourself as a Researcher: FourDimensions for Self-Reflection.” Research Methods in Physical Education and Youth Sport 29–39.

Fish, W. W. 2008. “The IEP Meeting: Perceptions of Parents of Students who Receive SpecialEducation Services.” Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth53 (1): 8–14.

Gall, M. D., J. P. Gall, and W. R. Borg. 2007. “Collecting Research Data with Questionnaires andInterviews.” Educational Research: An Introduction 227–261.

Gena, A. 2006. “The Effects of Prompting and Social Reinforcement on Establishing SocialInteractions with Peers During the Inclusion of Four Children with Autism in Preschool.”International Journal of Psychology 41 (6): 541–554.

Heiman, T., and O. Berger. 2008. “Parents of Children with Asperger Syndrome or with LearningDisabilities: Family Environment and Social Support.” Research in Developmental Disabilities 29(4): 289–300.

Hotulainen, R., and M. Takala. 2014. “Parents” Views on the Success of Integration of Students withSpecial Education Needs.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 18 (2): 140–154.

Kamenopoulou, L., and Dawa Dukpa. 2017. "Karma and Human rights: Bhutanese Teachers”Perspectives on Inclusion and Disability." International Journal of Inclusive Education 22 (3):323–338.

Karma Jigyel, J. Miller, S. Mavropoulou, and J. Berman. 2018. "Parental Communication andCollaboration in Schools with Special Educational Needs Programmes in Bhutan."International Journal of Inclusive Education 1–18. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1426053.

Karma Phuntsho. 2013. The History of Bhutan. Haryana, India: Random House.Keen, D., K. L. Brannigan, and M. Cuskelly. 2007. “Toilet Training for Children with Autism: The

Effects of Video Modelling.” Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 19 (4): 291–303.Kenny, M., M. Shevlin, P. N. Walsh, and E. McNeela. 2005. “Accessing Mainstream: Examining the

Struggle for Parents of Children Who Have Learning Difficulties.” Journal of Research in SpecialEducational Needs 5(1): 11–19.

Kesang Sherab, Kinley Dorji, Dawa Dukpa, Karma Lhamo, Ramesh Thapa, and Sherab Tshomo.2015. “Opportunities and Challenges of Implementing Inclusive Education in BhutaneseSchools: A case study.” Retrieved from ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303661279_Title_Opportunities_and_Challenges_of_Implementing_Inclusive_Education_in_Bhutanese_Schools_A_Case_Study

King, S. B. 2009. Socially Engaged Buddhism. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Koster, M., S. J. Pijl, H. Nakken, and E. Van Houten. 2010. “Social Participation of Students with

Special Needs in Regular Primary Education in the Netherlands.” International Journal ofDisability, Development and Education 57(1): 59–75.

Lalvani, P. 2015. “Disability, Stigma and Otherness: Perspectives of Parents and Teachers.”International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 62 (4): 379–393.

Leyser, Y., and R. Kirk. 2004. “Evaluating Inclusion: An Examination of Parent Views and FactorsInfluencing their Perspectives.” International Journal of Disability, Development and Education51 (3): 271–285.

Lindsay, G. 2007. “Educational Psychology and the Effectiveness of Inclusive Education/Mainstreaming.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 77 (1): 1–24.

Lodico, M. G, D. T Spaulding, and K. H Voegtle. 2010. Methods in educational research: Fromtheory to practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Ludlow, A., C. Skelly, and P. Rohleder. 2012. “Challenges Faced by Parents of Children Diagnosedwith Autism Spectrum Disorder.” Journal of Health Psychology 17 (5): 702–711.

Lui, M., L. Yang, and K. F. Sin. 2017. “Parents’ Perspective of the Impact of School Practices on theFunctioning of Students with Special Educational Needs.” International Journal of Disability,Development and Education 64 (6): 624–643.

16 K. JIGYEL ET AL.

McCurdy, E. E., and C. L. Cole. 2014. “Use of a Peer Support Intervention for Promoting AcademicEngagement of Students with Autism in General Education Settings.” Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 44(4): 883–893.

MoE. 2014. Bhutan Education Blueprint 2014–2024: Rethinking Education. Thimphu, Bhutan:Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.bt.

MoE. 2017a. Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices on Children with Disabilities. Thimphu: Ministry ofEducation.

MoE. 2017b. Standards for Inclusive Education. Thimphu: Ministry of Education.Poon-McBrayer, K. F., and P. A. McBrayer. 2013. “Parental Account of Support for Specific

Learning Difficulties in Hong Kong.” British Journal of Special Education 40 (2): 65–71.Rafferty, Y., and Griffin, K. W. 2005. “Benefits and Risks of Reverse Inclusion for Pre- Schoolers

With and Without Disabilities: Perspectives of Parents and Providers.” Journal of EarlyIntervention 27 (3): 173–192.

Rinchen Dorji. 2015. "Exploring “Disability” and “Inclusive Education” in the Context of BhutaneseEducation." Bhutan Journal of Research and Development 4 (1): 1–16.

Rinchen Dorji. 2017. “An Investigation of Attitudes and Experiences of Implementing InclusiveEducation in Bhutan: Perspectives of Teachers, Principals and Past Students.” PhD diss.,University of New England, Armidale

Rinchen Dorji, and M.J. Schuelka. 2016. “Children with Disabilities in Bhutan: Transitioning FromSpecial Educational Needs to Inclusive Education.” In Education in Bhutan, edited by M. J.Schuelka and T. W. Maxwell, 181–198. Singapore: Springer.

Rogers, C. 2007. “Experiencing an “Inclusive” Education: Parents and Their Children with “SpecialEducational Needs’.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 28(1): 55–68.

Ruijs, N. M., and T. T. Peetsma. 2009. “Effects of Inclusion on Students With and Without SpecialEducational Needs Reviewed.” Educational Research Review 4(2): 67–79.

Schuelka, M. J. 2014. “Constructing Disability in Bhutan: Schools, Structures, Policies, and GlobalDiscourses.” Accessed June 21, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/162690.

Schuelka, M. J. 2015. “The Evolving Construction and Conceptualisation of “Disability” in Bhutan.”Disability & Society 30 (6): 820–833.

Schuelka, M. J. 2018. “The Cultural Production of the “Disabled” Person: Constructing Differencein Bhutanese Schools.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 49(2): 183–200.

Sharma, U., C. Forlin, J. Deppeler, and G. Yang. 2013. “Reforming Teacher Education for Inclusion inDeveloping Countries in the Asia Pacific Region.” Asian Journal of Inclusive Education 1 (1): 3–16.

Šukys, S., Dumčienė, A., and D. Lapėnienė. 2015. “Parental Involvement in Inclusive Education ofChildren with Special Educational Needs.” Social Behavior and Personality: An InternationalJournal 43 (2): 327–338.

Swick, K. J., and L. Hooks. 2005. “Parental Experiences and Beliefs Regarding Inclusive Placementsof their Special Needs Children.” Early Childhood Education Journal 32(6): 397–402.

Symeonidou, S., and H. Phtiaka. 2014. “‘My Colleagues Wear Blinkers… If They Were Trained,They Would Understand Better’.” Reflections on Teacher Education on Inclusion in Cyprus.Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 14(2): 110–119.

Taub, D. J. 2006. “Understanding the Concerns of Parents of Students with Disabilities: Challengesand Roles for School Counsellors.” Professional School Counselling 10: 52–57.

Tucker, V., and I. Schwartz. 2013. “Parents” Perspectives of Collaboration with SchoolProfessionals: Barriers and Facilitators to Successful Partnerships in Planning for Studentswith ASD.” School Mental Health 5(1): 3–14.

UNICEF. 2014. Meeting the Educational Needs of Children with Disabilities in South Asia: A GapAnalysis Covering Bhutan and the Maldives. Kathmandu: UNICEF Regional office of SouthAsia (ROSA).

Whitaker, P. 2007. “Provision for Youngsters with Autistic Spectrum Disorders in MainstreamSchools: What Parents Say and What Parents Want.” British Journal of Special Education 34(3): 170–178.

Wong, M. E., K. K. Poon, S. Kaur, and Z. J. Ng. 2015. “Parental Perspectives and Challenges inInclusive Education in Singapore.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 35(1): 85–97.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 17