Parental involvement is an important contributor to the ‘educational processes and experiences of their children’ (Jeynes, Reference Jeynes2005, p. 245), either in school activities or in school-associated activities at home (Smit, Driessen, Sluiter, & Sleegers, Reference Smit, Driessen, Sluiter and Sleegers2007). Parental involvement for children with special educational needs (SEN) is even more crucial due to the fact that parents have a ‘unique understanding of their child’s needs’ (Lo, Reference Lo2010, p. 405), and therefore are regarded as the best advocates in asserting their children’s rights and making decisions for them. In the case of families who have children with SEN, parental involvement is increasingly being considered to be irreplaceable (Balli, Reference Balli2016; Lo, Reference Lo2010), as it has been found to be strongly related with children’s attendance, academic achievement, and behaviour and social skills (Lendrum, Barlow, & Humphrey Reference Lendrum, Barlow and Humphrey2015; Šukys, Dumčienė, & Lapėnienė Reference Lendrum, Barlow and Humphrey2015). In addition, it has been argued that if parents are deeply involved in the education of their children, their high stress levels for the future of their children will be decreased (Reio & Fornes, Reference Reio and Fornes2011). This need is explicitly reflected in the Bhutanese document Education Sector Strategy: Realizing Vision 2010 Policy and Strategy (Ministry of Health and Education, 2003), which states that ‘maximum participation by parents should be secured in order to achieve partnership in education’ (p. 37). Other local documents such as the Bhutan Education Blueprint 2014–2024 (MoE, 2014) and the Standards for Inclusive Education (MoE, 2017) also emphasise the same point. For example, it is explicit that
schools will ‘collaborate with parents and general public to provide necessary support to children with special educational needs’ (MoE, 2014, p. 27)
there will be an ‘instituted mechanism to ensure involvement of parents and other communities in governing and providing inputs in the operations of schools’ (MoE, 2014, p. 81)
everyone in the ‘school community, including leadership, teachers, parents/guardians, and students, will actively implement inclusive policies’ (MoE, 2017, p. 27)
school leadership ‘actively seeks to involve all families within the community in parenting education opportunities and coordinates with other schools and early childhood care and development (ECCD) centres in the community’. (MoE, 2017, p. 43)
However, despite widespread acknowledgement of the value of parental involvement in schooling, parents of children with SEN experience barriers impeding their participation in their children’s education (Hornby & Lafaele, Reference Hornby and Lafaele2011). Some of these barriers arise from cultural and linguistic diversity, family composition, parents’ educational levels, socioeconomic status, personal constraints such as lack of time, transportation, and child care (Brandon, Reference Brandon2007; Graham-Clay, Reference Graham-Clay2005; Jigyel, Miller, Mavropoulou, & Berman, Reference Jigyel, Miller, Mavropoulou and Berman2018a; LaRocque, Kleiman, & Darling, Reference LaRocque, Kleiman and Darling2011). For example, Lo (Reference Lo2010) reported that Chinese American parents of children with SEN were not involved in the education of their children with SEN due to barriers such as language, inflexible working time, and a lack of transportation and child services, and therefore used a variety of community resources and informal networks in supporting their children at home with the intention of counterbalancing school learning. Similarly, Lithuanian parents of children with SEN who had high educational levels were significantly involved both at home and school (Šukys et al., Reference Šukys, Dumčienė and Lapėnienė2015). The nature of a child’s disability can reduce or increase parental involvement in schooling (Bennett & Hay, Reference Bennett and Hay2007; Benson, Karlof, & Siperstein, Reference Benson, Karlof and Siperstein2008). For example, parents of children with autism spectrum disorder have been found to reduce their involvement in school (Benson et al., Reference Benson, Karlof and Siperstein2008; Lecavalier, Leone, & Wiltz, Reference Lecavalier, Leone and Wiltz2006), whereas parents of children with severe physical disabilities seemed to have increased their participation in school (Bennett & Hay, Reference Bennett and Hay2007; Newman, Reference Newman2005). The need to understand the complexities underpinning parental involvement in the Bhutanese educational context has instigated the focus on parental involvement, particularly in supporting children with SEN both in school and at home.
Using the Epstein model of ‘overlapping spheres of influence’ (Epstein, Reference Epstein1992, p. 2) as a theoretical framework, parental involvement at school, at home, and with other parents can be explicitly understood through six types of parental actions in the education of children: parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision-making, and collaborating with the community (Epstein, Reference Epstein1987). In parenting, parents satisfy the basic needs of their children, such as food, clothing, shelter, health, and safety. Similarly, they provide school supplies, help children complete school-related work, and establish home environments that encourage learning and good behaviour in the school. In communicating, Epstein emphasises a two-way communication between the parents and the school with a focus on the child’s progress. The communication channels may involve phone calls, home visits, meetings, and other school programs. Learning at home involves parents providing opportunities at home to develop social and basic daily living skills, helping with homework and school-related activities, and therapeutic support. Volunteering is recruiting and organising parental help and support at school, home, and other locations. In decision-making, parents actively participate in the decision-making processes in the school as a member of the school management committee. Therefore, parents can take ownership of their child’s education and can actively influence policies and decisions. Collaborating with the community focuses on parental involvement with services and resources in the community to support schools, students, and their family practices. It also includes parents’ efforts to communicate with other parents, and share experiences and information for enriching their lives.
The findings presented here represent one aspect of a larger qualitative study that investigated Bhutanese parents’ experiences and perspectives on their children’s education in a context of emerging inclusive education in the nation. In Bhutan, parents of children with SEN perceive considerable benefits in their children attending caring and supportive schools, and those benefits are particularly related to positive social outcomes, physical and speech development, and academic gains for the children, as well as alleviation of the burden of care of children with disabilities, and a sense of satisfaction that the children are included in the education system (Jigyel, Miller, Mavropolou, & Berman, Reference Jigyel, Miller, Mavropoulou and Berman2018b). However, these Bhutanese parents have little two-way communication or collaboration with their children’s schools (Jigyel et al., Reference Jigyel, Miller, Mavropoulou and Berman2018a), and reasons for this include the cultural expectations that frame these relationships for both parents and teachers.
As parental involvement in their children’s education is supported by their interactions with other parents, who provide them with opportunities for gaining greater knowledge about disabilities as well as strategies for their coping and parenting skills (Lo, Reference Lo2010), this was a focus of the study. Moral support and encouragement within these relationships can significantly help parents experience a reduced sense of isolation, loneliness, and guilt, as these interactions are more equal and less discriminatory than others (McCabe, Reference McCabe2008; Shilling et al., Reference Shilling, Morris, Thompson-Coon, Ukoumunne, Rogers and Logan2013). Parents have often felt the need for connections and found benefits when supported by other parents of children with disabilities. For example, Chinese parents of children with autism reported practical benefits of learning from each other, as well as mutual support and emotional benefits that can be gained by those who are similar to them (Lo, Reference Lo2010; McCabe, Reference McCabe2008). This parent-to-parent support can provide parents with opportunities for gaining greater knowledge about disabilities as well as enhancing their coping and parenting skills (Lo, Reference Lo2010).
In Bhutan it is traditional for families to honour the professional expertise of educators; it is not their place to question or contribute to the process of teaching, and there is a need for schools to deliberately empower parents to be a part of their children’s education (Jigyel et al., Reference Jigyel, Miller, Mavropoulou and Berman2018a). The nature of parental involvement was explored in this study using Epstein’s (Reference Epstein1987) framing of the activity that is parental involvement and the circumstances within which parental involvement was evident.
Method
A qualitative research design, based on an open-ended interview (Gall, Gall, & Borg, Reference Gall, Gall and Borg2007), was employed to access the ‘real world experiences’ (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, Reference Cohen, Manion and Morrison2013, p. 21) of parents of 13 children with SEN attending three schools in Bhutan. Twenty-six parents were individually interviewed. In recruiting these parents, purposive sampling (Cooksey & McDonald, Reference Cooksey and McDonald2011) was used upon meeting the following criteria:
All parents had children with disabilities enrolled in one of the three schools in urban, semi-urban, or rural regions for at least two years.
All parents had children with disabilities attending full inclusion (refers to full placement in a regular classroom) or partial inclusion (refers to a combination of placement in the regular classroom and in a SEN unit, or part-day attendance in a SEN unit) in the schools.
The father and the mother of the same child would be interviewed.
All parents had to be proficient either in Dzongkha (although this is the national language, there are more than 20 different languages spoken, which presents difficulties for all people in Bhutan to communicate) or English.
The children’s disabilities were classified as high, moderate, or low (see Table 1), which resulted in the placement of the children in full inclusion, partial inclusion, and special education class. All children in the rural and semi-urban regions who had low or moderate SEN were fully included, whereas three of the children in the urban region were fully included, two were partially included (with some time in a mainstream class), and two were in a special education class, with integration into the school playground.
Participants by Location, Gender and Age of Child, and Level of SEN
The interview
An open-ended interview guide (Gall et al., Reference Gall, Gall and Borg2007) was developed to explore parents’ experiences and perceptions of their involvement in supporting their children both at school and home. For the aims of this study, the following questions, being part of a more extensive interview guide, were asked.
Theme 1. Parental Involvement in the Schooling of the Child
Primary Question 1
Would you tell me your role in supporting your child attending this school?
Primary Question 2
Would you tell me your role in supporting your child after school?
Theme 2. Interaction With Other Parents of Children With SEN
Primary question
Would you share with me your interaction with other parents of children with disability? A probing question for this theme was: What do you think of having such interaction with other parents regarding your child’s participation in the school?
Positionality
Positionality ‘… reflects the position that the researcher has chosen to adopt within a given research study’ (Savin-Baden & Major, Reference Savin-Baden and Major2013, p. 71). The first author’s parenting experience as a father of a child with autism spectrum disorder, who has been attending one of the participating schools in this study, stimulated his interest in investigating experiences, perspectives, and knowledge of Bhutanese parents of children with SEN attending these pilot inclusive education schools. For this reason, in the beginning of every interview the primary researcher admitted his position as a father of a child with SEN, which created an environment that was conducive and open for the participants to communicate. As will be described in the following sections, standard procedures were adopted for ensuring trustworthiness and consistency in the collection and interpretation of the data.
Procedure
Following ethical approval (granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee, University of New England, and Ministry of Education in Bhutan), the principals of the three schools were contacted and arrangements were made in meeting the SEN coordinators (SENCOs), who assisted in the identification of parents, guided by the inclusion criteria. Information sheets and consent forms were sent, along with invitations, to the potential participants from the school principals.
Individual interviews were conducted using the interview schedule, which was developed both in English and Dzongkha (using a standard translation procedure), and assistance was sought from an interpreter for parents who preferred to speak in their native language, Lhotshamkha. The interview venue varied according to the parent’s preference. These venues included schools, offices, home, and, in one case, a car (the parent had temporary mobility issues). Interviews were completed in approximately 50 minutes. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and, prior to the analysis, transcripts were provided to the respective participant for member checking (Creswell, Reference Creswell2014).
Data Analysis
The interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2006) and Leximancer Version 4.5 (Smith, Reference Smith2000) text mining software. The thematic analysis identified the common themes and subthemes, and the first three authors performed an intercoder reliability check for three full transcripts, which were coded independently. Where differences occurred, all three coders worked together to develop consensus for each code. For the Leximancer analysis, separate analyses were conducted for each interview question. Leximancer is computer software that contains techniques adopted from the areas of computational linguistics, network theory, machine learning, and information science (Smith, Grech, & Horberry, Reference Smith, Grech and Horberry2002). Leximancer mines text automatically by identifying key themes, concepts, and ideas (Leximancer, 2007), and the outputs are presented in concept maps, network clouds, and concept thesauruses (Smith & Humphreys, Reference Smith and Humphreys2006). Leximancer can complement, rather than replace, the human interpretation and analysis of large corpuses of text, thereby providing triangulation that can improve the validity or trustworthiness of the data analysis.
Findings
In this section, the findings of the manual thematic coding and Leximancer will be presented for the two themes: parental involvement in the schooling of the child and interaction with other parents of children with SEN.
Theme 1: Parental Involvement in the Schooling of the Child
All parents were asked to describe their role in supporting their children to attend school and after-school care. The types of supports parents provided for their children to attend school included getting their child ready in the morning, transporting their child, and assisting as caregivers during school hours. Similarly, the parents’ roles after school included transporting their children home, providing academic support, and assisting with home-based activities. In the urban region, both parents were equally involved in supporting their children either in attending the school or in after-school care. In contrast, in the semi-urban and rural regions it was the mothers who supported their children on all occasions as opposed to fathers, who reported that they were heavily preoccupied with their jobs (i.e., farmlands, taxi driving).
Subtheme 1: Support in school attendance
The main support for the children’s attendance, provided by all parents, was preparing their children and transporting them to school. In the urban region, almost all the parents (n = 13/14) were responsible for taking their children to the school. In the semi-urban and rural regions, it was mostly mothers (n = 5/6) who helped their children get ready for school and brought them to school. For example, besides helping her child get ready for school, Mother 19 (semi-urban) reported how in the past she had sat beside her child in the classroom and supported him with writing tasks:
In the past, I did stay inside the special classroom and helped him with some play activities and all. For about a year, I did stay with him in the class and after that he did not want me to stay in the classroom and he chased me away. Similarly, I also accompanied him to the other class.
However, two urban mothers (n = 2/7) reported their role as stay-in-school parents. For example, Mother 2 described her role in assisting her child, who had high support needs, with self-care (i.e., using the toilet and eating lunch) and extending her support by escorting other children from the SEN unit to the mainstream classrooms:
I help him with his toilet needs, during the lunch time I make him eat his lunch, … When he has sessions in the mainstream classroom, since the location is up there I take him up there and not only my child, since I am here in the school whole day, I also help by taking other children whose parents are not here.
The fathers in the semi-urban and rural regions reported not being able to support their child attending the school due to their work and were fully dependent on their wives:
As I am busy with my taxi and I have to travel a lot I am not in a position to support my child every time. Most of the time it is my wife who goes to the school with him and stays with the son all the time. (Father 18, semi-urban)
Subtheme 2: Academic and social support after school hours
Almost all (n = 12/14) parents in the urban region reported that they were involved in providing home-based support for developing their children’s social and academic skills, depending on their needs:
So, when I reach home I do ask her what she has been taught in the school, what did you do today in the school and this is what I talk about to her. Then I also make her practise eye contact and for about half an hour I make it a point that I talk with her. She responds to me using her hands, but I do not let her do that. She does not look at me, so I make her look at me. So, this is what I am doing nowadays. (Mother 5, urban)
Father 6 (urban) talked about helping his child with homework assigned by the school, although he emphasised that he does not force the child too much in doing it. He said, ‘After school at home I guide him and of course I guide him – means I teach him [a] little bit if there [is] homework, but I don’t pressure much; I always keep him independent’.
It was observed that the parents in the semi-urban and rural regions did not seem to provide academic support to their children after school, which could be partially explained by their limited educational background. For example, Father 20 (rural) said, ‘As both of us are not educated and we cannot teach her’. However, a few parents (n = 4/26) reported providing home-based support mainly in the form of physiotherapy exercises. For example, Mother 27 (rural) said, ‘For her at home, what can we do? It is all about her exercise. I help her with exercise. For her, it is all about exercise; other than that, what can she do?’
Leximancer analysis for Theme 1
All the responses of 26 parents for the theme parental involvement in the schooling of the child were further analysed using Leximancer. The feature of tagging categories was incorporated to allow analysis of the data for the parents based on different regions (urban, semi-urban, and rural), as shown on the concept map (see Figure 1).
Concept Map for Parental Role in the Schooling of the Child, Comparison by Regions. Surban = semi-urban.
The concept map includes themes and corresponding concepts (shown on the map as dots) clustered within the theme circle. These concepts form the themes as represented by the circles and are heat-mapped to indicate their relative importance. The prominence of the concept in the map is indicated by the size of the dot, so the bigger the dot the more prominent the concept is. The concepts that tend to settle near one another in the concept map and attract one another strongly is as a result of these concepts appearing together in the same pieces of text. As shown in Figure 1, the positions of the themes and concepts can determine the closeness of their ‘semantic relationship’ (Cretchley, Rooney, & Gallios, Reference Cretchley, Rooney and Gallois2010, p. 320; Scott, Masser, & Pachana, Reference Scott, Masser and Pachana2015, p. 2185), and overlapping theme circles illustrate concepts that are common to the same themes. Similarly, if a theme or concept sits close to the geographical regions marked on the map, it is associated with the responses from the parents located in that region. Further, if a theme is centrally located in the map, it is shared across all the marked regions. Interview excerpts are generated as an output linked to these themes and concepts.
In considering the excerpts for the dominant themes, namely school and wear, it is observed that there is consistency with the thematic analysis, which strongly confirms the results for the theme parental involvement in the schooling of the child. As shown in Figure 1, most of the themes and corresponding concepts cluster around the urban region, therefore indicating that, overall, parents in the urban region mentioned that they were more involved in the schooling of their child than the parents in the other regions.
In summary, parental involvement involved transporting their children with SEN to school and providing some home-based intervention, as per the needs of their children. Predominantly, fathers in the urban region supported their children with academic learning after school. It was mothers in the semi-urban and rural regions who took the lead role in supporting their child at home with daily basic needs and were not able to provide them with academic support.
Theme 2: Interaction With Other Parents of Children With SEN
All parents were asked to describe their interaction with other parents of children with SEN. Some parents from urban settings (n = 4/14), predominantly stay-in-school mothers, shared that when their children were engaged in the classrooms and the SEN unit they had opportunities for frequent interactions with other parents. However, half the parents (n = 10/26) had minimal impromptu interaction with other parents either in parent–teacher meetings or outside the school. The remainder of the parents (n = 12/26) across the various regions indicated that they had no interaction with other parents due to their work and other commitments.
Subtheme 1: Sharing information about the child
Half the parents (n = 15/26), mainly the mothers, reported having casual discussions with other parents on issues such as sharing information on the nature of disability, behavioural issues, and the management of their children at home. They appreciated the opportunity to share this knowledge with other parents of children with SEN, and they reported they were able to raise awareness of inclusion and the benefits for some parents who may not have known about it:
Yes, we have to interact with them. Some parents do not put their child in school because they are ashamed, and I told them that my child is also disabled and once I put her in School A [name changed], she does not fear being in the crowd, she mingles with other children, and if you also put your child in the school, there will be some improvement. I do tell the parents if I come across, as they keep their child at home and do not put them in school. (Mother 5, urban)
Subtheme 2: Consolation
Half the parents (n = 8/14) who interacted with other parents expressed their feelings of relief as a result of their conversations with other parents about their children’s disabilities. Furthermore, some parents mentioned that they were able to put into perspective the progress of their own children in comparison with those of other parents:
When we have such discussions, we come to know that it is not only our child with such disability, there are also other children with disability, some even worse. We could also see more progress in our child as compared to some other children, and it makes us feel at ease. (Mother 19, semi-urban)
Subtheme 3: No interaction
Almost half of all parents (n = 12/26) reported that they did not have any interactions with other parents of children with SEN, which they explained as a result of their engagement with daily jobs and lack of opportunities for planned meetings:
I haven’t met, maybe my colleague, but we didn’t talk much because we just happen to know that he has a son almost my daughter’s age. But we happen to meet in [an] odd place, you know, public places where you can’t basically talk properly. So, I would say no. (Father 4, urban)
Leximancer analysis for Theme 2
Next, the responses from all parents for the theme interaction with other parents of children with SEN were further analysed using Leximancer, which generated a map of themes and concepts (see Figure 2) for parent groups from different regions.
Concept Map for Interaction With Other Parents of Children With Disability, Comparison by Regions. Surban = semi-urban.
As shown in Figure 2, the dominant themes, child, problem, talk, and disability are more centrally located in the map than other themes for the different regions (urban, semi-urban, and rural) as tagged. Most of the dominant themes are more salient to the urban region, which indicates that comparatively more parents in the urban region and more responses from mothers than fathers were associated with these themes. Similarly, it also indicates that more parents in the urban region reported interacting with other parents of children with disability compared to parents from other regions.
Overall, the Leximancer results are consistent with the results of thematic manual coding. Therefore, there is a strong confirmation of the results as discussed for the theme interaction with other parents of children with SEN.
In regard to parental interaction with other parents, both methods of data analysis revealed similar findings. It has been confirmed that parents, particularly mothers, in the urban region reported having more informal interaction with other parents of children with disability as compared to parents in other regions. Only a few fathers reported brief interactions either in the school or in other places whenever they came across parents they knew. These parents mainly shared information about their child’s disability and how they supported and managed their children. Parents reported feelings of relief when sharing information about their children and their parenting and also talked about raising awareness for those parents who had limited knowledge of education for children with SEN in mainstream schools. There was no evidence of formal parent-to-parent support to initiate interaction among parents of children with SEN in the participating schools.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the involvement of parents in the education of their children with SEN in Bhutan. In summary, urban parents were more involved than semi-urban or rural parents in supporting the needs of their children both at school and home, and that mainly the mothers in the semi-urban and rural regions were the primary supporters as their husbands were busy in farming or business. These findings are in agreement with other research (Dhingra, Manhas, & Sethi, Reference Dhingra, Manhas and Sethi2007) showing that mothers were involved more than fathers in visiting schools and interacting with teachers. There were a few stay-in-school mothers who had impromptu and informal interactions with each other, and most of the parents either had minimal interaction or no interaction with other parents. In evaluating these parent actions through the lens of Epstein’s model it was found that parental involvement included parenting, volunteering, learning at home, and communicating with the community.
Parenting
Most of the parents in this study were involved in the daily routines of parenting through providing the child with basic needs (e.g., washing, feeding, and dressing) and transporting the child to school, as has been identified in previous research (Newman, Reference Newman2005; Vanderpuye, Reference Vanderpuye2013). This finding may be explained by the severity of the disability that affects the child’s gross motor skills leading to a high level of dependence in relation to self-care needs and transportation to school.
Fathers in semi-urban and rural regions were not as involved in supporting the children either at school or home and were dependent on their wives to fulfil these roles. This evidence confirms recent findings in which fathers’ work commitments, as well as their self-perceptions that they do not have a defined role, impedes their involvement (O’Hehir & Savelsberg, Reference O’Hehir and Savelsberg2014). In addition, the low level of education may have also influenced parental involvement in providing for the educational needs of their children (Afolabi, Reference Afolabi2014; Brandon, Reference Brandon2007; Vanderpuye, Reference Vanderpuye2013). The limited role of fathers (O’Hehir & Savelsberg, Reference O’Hehir and Savelsberg2014; Rogers, Wiener, Marton, & Tannock, Reference Rogers, Wiener, Marton and Tannock2009) is of concern because of its far-reaching effects on their children’s education (Carpenter & Towers, Reference Carpenter and Towers2008; Greif & Greif, Reference Greif and Greif2004), on mothers’ stress levels, and on family cohesion (Flippin & Crais, Reference Flippin and Crais2011). Consequently, there is a critical need to develop national and school policies that put forward parental involvement as an important element for implementing effective inclusive education for children with SEN in response to the expectations from the Ministry of Health and Education (2003) and as made explicit in the much more recent Standards for Inclusive Education (MoE, 2017), which expect schools to establish procedures for communication with families.
Volunteering
Interestingly, there were a few urban mothers who volunteered as stay-in-school mothers to assist in the self-care of their own children with severe developmental disabilities (Jigyel et al., Reference Jigyel, Miller, Mavropoulou and Berman2018a) as well as help other children whose parents could not be present in the school. As such, parent volunteering was an informal process, in response to the absence of caregivers and teacher aides in these schools. Of note, the recent standards and policies (MoE, 2017) in Bhutan have outlined the need for caregivers and teacher aides, but such resources have not been made available in schools.
Learning at Home
Most of the parents in the urban region were involved in supporting the educational and therapeutic needs of their children at home, whereas in the semi-urban and rural regions it was predominantly mothers who performed this role. This type of involvement has been defined by Epstein (Reference Epstein1987) as learning at home, which has been found to be associated with socioeconomic status, meaning that parents of low socioeconomic status have lower levels of involvement in supporting the educational needs of their children (Cooper, Reference Cooper2010; Lee & Bowen, Reference Lee and Bowen2006) than parents in middle-class positions (Lim, Reference Lim2012; López & Stoelting, Reference López, Stoelting, Marsh and Turner-Vorbeck2010). Another factor explaining the level of parental involvement is related to the child’s level of disability: parents of children with severe developmental disabilities are less likely to be involved in supporting their children with homework and other educational tasks (Newman, Reference Newman2005; Vanderpuye, Reference Vanderpuye2013).
Further, while most of the parents in this study were involved in providing therapeutic support, a few urban fathers helped with academic homework tasks, although they did not emphasise this much. This finding suggests that these parents may not have high expectations for academic learning, perhaps due to the severity of their children’s disability or a lack of confidence or time in providing this type of support for their child. Instead, the parents in this study emphasised that functional skills were more beneficial than academic learning for their children with SEN (Jigyel et al., Reference Jigyel, Miller, Mavropoulou and Berman2018a; Kenny, Shevlin, Walsh, & McNeela, Reference Kenny, Shevlin, Walsh and McNeela2005).
Collaborating With the Community
Another finding of this study relates to the interaction between the parents of children with SEN, which aligns with Epstein’s (Reference Epstein1987) type of parental involvement defined as collaborating with the community. During their everyday presence in schools, the stay-in-school mothers in the urban region seemed to have consistent informal interaction with other parents, sharing information about disabilities and inclusive education as well as ideas for coping with their children’s needs (Lo, Reference Lo2010; McCabe, Reference McCabe2008; Shilling et al., Reference Shilling, Morris, Thompson-Coon, Ukoumunne, Rogers and Logan2013). Further, this type of interaction created a strong sense of reciprocity and mutual support for parents, acknowledging that giving support was as important as receiving it (Shilling et al., Reference Shilling, Morris, Thompson-Coon, Ukoumunne, Rogers and Logan2013).
In a similar study, Chinese parents in the United States felt that their interaction with other parents of children with SEN helped them realise that there were other parents with similar issues and some even more challenging than theirs (Lo, Reference Lo2010). Therefore, it can be argued that a ‘shared social identity with other parents’ (Shilling et al., Reference Shilling, Morris, Thompson-Coon, Ukoumunne, Rogers and Logan2013, p. 605) can foster a sense of community, belonging, and empowerment, and alleviate feelings of isolation and guilt (Lo, Reference Lo2010; McCabe, Reference McCabe2008; Shilling et al., Reference Shilling, Morris, Thompson-Coon, Ukoumunne, Rogers and Logan2013). Overall, these findings highlight the positive influence of parent-to-parent support on the wellbeing of the parents of children with SEN as they progress through different life stages in bringing up their children.
As expected, most of the parents either had minimal impromptu interaction or no interaction with other parents of children with SEN due to their personal constraints (e.g., lack of time, lack of transportation, lack of child care; Brandon, Reference Brandon2007; Jigyel et al., Reference Jigyel, Miller, Mavropoulou and Berman2018a; LaRocque, Kleiman, & Darling, Reference LaRocque, Kleiman and Darling2011). It can be also assumed that due to the absence of parent support groups or other similar agencies in Bhutan, the opportunities for parents to meet and discuss issues about their experiences were limited.
Responses to the questions in this study revealed that parents were using these four types of involvement, namely parenting, volunteering, supporting learning at home, and collaborating with the community, although there was little evidence related to the other two types, communicating and decision-making. However, responses to questions in the wider study have provided evidence related to communicating. Specifically, the majority of parents (n = 22/26) had minimal or no communication with the teachers and other school personnel, with one-way communication from teachers to parents being predominant, although there were a few stay-in-school mothers who had consistent communication with teachers (Jigyel et al., Reference Jigyel, Miller, Mavropoulou and Berman2018a). Similarly, it was revealed that all parents were not involved in decision-making concerning the framing of policies and legislations for inclusive education of children with SEN both at school and at the national level (Jigyel et al., Reference Jigyel, Miller, Mavropoulou and Berman2018a).
Limitations
This study has methodological challenges that need to be acknowledged and raises further questions to be researched. First, there were a few participants who belonged to a group of parents of children with SEN who were partially included. All resided in the urban region, as this was an option in that setting. It was beyond the researchers’ control to include an equal number of parents of children with partial inclusion and full inclusion as intended, because the schools in rural and semi-urban regions provided only full inclusion placements. It is not possible to draw conclusions about urban, semi-urban, and rural experiences without considering other significant aspects such as the nature of the disabilities of the children and the resourcing available in each setting. The data in this study suggest considerable differences in experiences based on these regions, but there is a need for further exploration of the complexity of this situation. Including more parents of children with partial inclusion may have provided further insights regarding involvement in the schooling of their children and their interaction with other parents. Another challenge is derived from the medium of language in interviewing these parents. Although this study intended to interview parents either in Dzongkha or English, finding parents to satisfy this criterion in the rural and semi-urban regions posed a major challenge. For this purpose, the assistance of an interpreter was sought for parents who wished to be interviewed in their local dialect. Although considered initially as a limitation, it was fortunate that the first author spoke many languages and could accommodate this variation.
Implications
The findings of the present study have implications for all levels of influence, including enacting existing policy, resourcing schools so that the children’s daily living and education needs are professionally supported, providing education for families about therapeutic and learning intervention, and facilitating parent support groups so that these families can support each other.
Most of the parents in the study placed major emphasis on their roles in parenting and learning at home, highlighting their need for access to opportunities for their own learning about these vital roles in their children’s lives. Specifically, although Bhutan acknowledges the vital role of parents in the education of their children (Ministry of Health and Education, 2003) and has set an expectation that schools will facilitate that involvement (MoE, 2017), there was little evidence of schools doing this, or of parents expecting it. It is up to schools and communities to be active in strengthening the connections between families and schools, and optimising the involvement of parents of children with SEN. As well, teachers and other school personnel need to be provided with training to increase their competence in working with parents so that they can facilitate parental involvement in the schools.
The involvement of some mothers as informal assistants in classrooms points to a gap in resourcing that needs to be filled by professional educators and carers. As inclusive education becomes more established in Bhutan, this will be a challenge for the system to resource effectively so that inclusive education is not depending on the goodwill of parents to provide daily care and education for children at school.
The parents here have also highlighted a need for parenting education programs and parent support groups to further improve parenting skills in providing learning opportunities both at home and school for their children with SEN. This need for parenting education programs to support inclusion is explicitly acknowledged in section 3.5 of the Standards for Inclusive Education (MoE, 2017), with a responsibility placed on school leadership to actively provide opportunities for their families. More importantly, parents in the rural and semi-urban regions should be provided with opportunities that may particularly motivate and allow more involvement for fathers. The minimal interaction between parents themselves, which was informal and impromptu, highlights the need for schools to provide planned opportunities for parent support meetings that would allow and encourage parents to learn from each other and better support the successful inclusive schooling of their children.
It is expected that with the responses to these needs at all levels, from policy to community, and the formation of parent support groups across the country, there will be opportunities for raising awareness of education for children with SEN in Bhutan, which in turn will inform and support parental involvement to meet the needs of children both at home and at the school.
