Inclusive Education: Perceptions of Parents of Children with Special Needs of the Individual Program Planning Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In inclusive education, students with special needs may access the curriculum through adapted or individualistic plans. Parental involvement in developing the individualistic plans is pertinent to the success of both their children’s education and the plan itself. Research from the United States offers insight into how parents perceive the process of developing individualist plans; however, limited research has been conducted with parents of children with special needs in Canada. This current study examines parental perceptions concerning the Individual Program Planning (IPP) process in Nova Scotia, Canada. Eight parents were interviewed using a guided interview format that consisted of 16 questions based on prior research on the subject matter. Qualitative analysis of the eight interviews resulted in the emergence of four key themes: a) Educator-Parent Communication, b) Parental Perception of Educational Climate, c) Parent Knowledge, and d) Improvements to the IPP process. Each category is reviewed here and supported with samples of direct quotations from parent interviewees. Recommendations are then suggested for educators and parents of children with special needs to promote positive and productive Individual Program Planning meetings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".