AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 1

Preliminary Research Plan for Open Science:

Parents’ perceptions of perceived needs, barriers, and opportunities to a PreK-2 afterschool

program for students with diagnosed disabilities

Gretchen A. Jessel

School of Foundations, Leadership, and Administration, Kent State University

SPED 80005: Empirical Investigations

Dr. Nathan A. Stevenson

AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 2

Providing a physically and emotionally safe school environment for students with disabilities and

their typical peers promotes positive educational outcomes. The Office of Special Education Programs

(OSEP) and Office of Civil Rights (OCR) guides educators, highlighting the need for positive school

environments and the legal ramifications of bullying and harassment on students with disabilities.

Students with disabilities have legal rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of

the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), and the IDEA in anti-discrimination legislation (M. L. Yell

et al., 2016). School districts and personnel are responsible for providing a safe environment that

promotes positive social interactions between all students (Klavina & Block, 2008) and in all educational

settings, especially when promoting inclusion in the classroom. According to the Ohio Teacher’s

Licensure Code, “An educator’s responsibility includes nurturing the intellectual, physical, emotional,

social and civic potential of all students and providing a safe environment free from harassment,

intimidation, and criminal activity” (Ohio Department of Education: Office of Professional Conduct,

2019).

Before 1975 educational opportunities for students with disabilities were limited. Limits included

exclusion from the educational system and services that did not meet the students’ needs (M. L. Yell,

2019). In 1975 the federal law Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) was signed. It later

became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990, ensuring the educational rights

of students in states receiving federal funding. Incorporated into the EAHCA and adopted by IDEA is a

mandate known as the least restrictive environment (LRE), requiring the education of students with

disabilities, when appropriate, in settings with students without disabilities (M. L. Yell, 2019). Time spent

in the general education classroom with peers can lead to positive academic and social outcomes. A study

conducted by Barrett, Stevenson, and Burns (2020), found that students with diagnosed disabilities who

spent more time in the general education classroom had higher scores on the state English Language Arts

and Math assessments. Inclusion can foster friendships, provide students with a sense of belonging,

improve communication and social skills, and enhance self-respect (Schoger, 2006). Attending school
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 3

with peer groups in an LRE allows children to learn about themselves and others in a natural classroom

context (K. H. Rubin et al., 2005). However, students may perceive inclusion differently.

In a systematic review of social inclusion by Woodgate, Gonzalez, Demczuk, Snow, Barriage,

and Kirk (2020), students describe their perceptions and experience of inclusive practices. Despite the

best efforts made by advocates for inclusion, students with disabilities report a feeling of loneliness and

exclusion from the world outside their homes (Woodgate et al., 2020). The authors discovered students

describe bullying, harassment, and the use of support services as barriers and obstacles to creating friends

and feeling included (Woodgate et al., 2020). In addition to the perceptions and experiences of students

with disabilities, the review by Woodgate et al. (2020) also provided insight on typically developing

peers’ social interactions with their classmates with disabilities. The study indicates that typically

developing peers spent limited time with students with disabilities outside of the classroom (Woodgate et

al., 2020). The authors conclude the opportunity for social inclusion outside of the academic world seems

to be limited.

Inclusive education is a process that tries to help students with disabilities overcome barriers in

conjunction with a LRE. Inclusion is a right of each child to access to the general education curriculum

with their typically developing peers. Schools and families must negotiate goals and objectives in the best

interest of each child in accordance with the IDEA (Barrett et al., 2020). Inclusive education is special

education where services are brought to the child instead of being removed from the classroom and

receiving services away from peers (Kurth et al., 2020). Kurth et a. (2020) continue by stating, “Inclusive

education is not defined as a place but as an ongoing process and practice grounded in education as an act

of social justice” (p.1). Students with diagnosed disabilities also participate with their peers in other

courses outside their general education classroom. Inclusive participation occurs in the playground,

gymnasium, and core arts classrooms.

Inclusion is not a perfect system. There are barriers and challenges encountered by all students in

inclusive settings. Challenges can include communication, behavioral, social, emotional, and peer social
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 4

relationships, and supports provided by others such as a paraeducator (Woodgate et al., 2020; Ziegler et

al., 2020). In her research on support systems for students with multiple disability,es Trausch (2021)

noted students with multiple disabilities were found to have the least number of active friendships, and

those accepted by their peer group fare better than those who are exclude (Trausch, 2021). As more

students with disabilities participate in the general education classroom, parents and teachers are

challenged to help all children accept the diversity and abilities of those different from themselves (Yu,

2021). In their article, Yu (2021) confirms this thought by writing parents have a perceived impression

teachers need more support in inclusive classrooms to be able to attend to the diverse needs of all

students.

One area of education that may foster and grow peer relations and social acceptance is physical

education and unstructured recess time. Physical education supports three learning domains for students,

including psychomotor, cognitive, and affective. The America Society of Health & Educators (SHAPE

America) defines physical education as “an academic subject that provides a planned, sequential, K-12

standards-based program of curricula and instruction designed to develop motor skills, knowledge and

behaviors for healthy, active living, physical fitness, sportsmanship, self-efficacy, and emotional

intelligence” (America--Society of Health & Educators, 2015). Additionally, SHAPE America asserts,

“Recess helps students achieve the recommended 60 minutes of physical activity that can improve

strength and endurance; enhance academic achievement; and increase self-esteem for children and

adolescents”(SHAPE America, n.d.). The American Academy of Pediatrics agrees, stating recess is a

crucial part of a child’s development, including cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development

(R. Murray & Ramstetter, 2013).

Physical education and recess have holistic benefits for students, including those with

developmental disabilities, such as positive effects on behavior, attention span, motor skill development,

language development, social interaction, and academic performance (Geslak, 2015; Klein &

Hollingshead, 2015). Opportunities for friendships between children with and without disabilities can be
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 5

fostered during physical education class and unstructured recess. However, children with disabilities

must contend with additional barriers in the ‘play’ settings that require them to be physical activity,

including physical disabilities and limitations, lower levels of fitness, and higher rates of obesity than

children without disabilities (Carbone et al., 2021). In addition, social barriers, including disability

awareness among peers, attitudes of typical peers (Ziegler et al., 2020), and the pragmatic language

development of students with disabilities (Parsons et al., 2020), are associated with inclusion challenges.

Anecdotal notes from a study by Klavina and Block (2008) cite that children without disabilities and

typically developing peers thought students with disabilities could not play or participate in physical

activities. Typically developing peers in the same study stated they were hesitant to ask students with

disabilities to join in activities. Typical peers were afraid of hurting the students with multiple disabilities

or being hurt by them (Klavina & Block, 2008).

Parents and guardians typically express they want what is best for their children's needs and often

can describe barriers associated with play and friendship. In their study, Yssel et al. ( 2007) assert parents

and guardians are primarily supportive of inclusive education because it promotes acceptance of their

child, and acceptance is important to their child’s social and emotional growth. Fox, Vaughn, Dunlap, and

Bucy (1997) write, “the family has a singular expertise regarding the behavior of their family members

and the ecologies in which their family interacts.” The authors continue by stating, “only the family can

judge the fit between a support option and the family values that may be an important contributor to the

usefulness and maintenance of an intervention” (Fox et al., 1997, p. 3). In an article on parent-

professional relationships, the author states, “A parent is a parent for life and has to assume responsibility

for many aspects of their child’s life,” the professional will work with the child for maybe one or two

years (P. Murray, 2010).

Parent participation and contribution are important when making academic and non-academic

decisions, including socialization and play, on behalf of their children with disabilities. Such decisions

include whether or not to allow their children to participate in extracurricular afterschool clubs and
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 6

activities. One benfit toparticpating in afterschool programs for studnets with disabilities is the chance to

work through IEP objectives in different contextual settings. Participation can also provide students

oppurtunities to explore personal interests, make new friends, develop new skills and provide a sence of

belonging (Pence, 2021). Including parents in planning and implementing an afterschool extracurricular

program will help identify common barriers to play and friendship making experienced by their child.

Indeed, under the IDEA, one essential requirement is for parents and guardians to be equal

participants and contributors in developing their student's individualized education program (IEP) (M.

Yell et al., 2013; M. L. Yell, 2019). The IDEA recognizes parent participation as a key to student success

and improved student outcomes (Rossetti et al., 2021). A school setting can be the common ground for

parents of children with and without disabilities. Schools can be a safe place for parents and their children

to engage with diverse peers. The special education process can be difficult and stressful (Katz-Plotkin,

2009). The IDEA requires schools to promote parent participation in the development of the IEP to

strengthen parents’ role in their child’s education (Rossetti et al., 2021). Providing parents with an

opportunity to share their perceptions, challenges, barriers, and needs for an extracurricular program

focused on their child's needs and including typically developing peers and their families may bridge the

gap in friendships for both student groups and their families.

Utilizing parents as leaders to address the barriers to play and socialization can improve the

implementation of an afterschool program. Parents have unique views of their children (Yssel et al.,

2007). In their research on social justice leadership, Betrand and Rodela (2018) assert parents are often

overlooked as educational leaders. The authors state that parents take a passive role in maintaining the

school's goals and agenda (Bertrand & Rodela, 2018). Parents traditionally support PTO events, open-

houses, class parties, and parent-teacher conferences. These are examples of traditional parent

involvement. Although a parent might assume a leadership role on a committee, the leadership position

typically involves a set school plan, and a school employee develops the goal.
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 7

Dempsey and Keen (2008) emphasize the importance of the parent-professional relationship to

define and plan for mutually agreed upon goals when discussing the needs of students with disabilities.

The authors argue families, not the professionals, are the constant in the child's life. Families are in a

position to determine what is best for the child. It may also be helpful to address the needs of the family

while also helping the child with disabilities through various programs. Including the family in the

program process and design shows respect and affirms the family's strengths (Dempsey & Keen, 2008). In

their finding, Dempsey and Keen (2008) report that despite a program's mission and intentions, the

mission and intentions may be perceived differently by parents. In other words, families may perceive

programs differently than how the program was intended, designed, or delivered. Thus the design of an

extracurricular elementary program will need to explicitly acknowledge parental goals and programming

and address the resources available in the school setting. Dempsey and Keen conclude, "help-giving by

service providers that incorporates a participatory component is most strongly associated with desirable

family outcomes. That is, for outcomes to be optimized, help-giving needs to do much more than foster a

respectful and empathetic relationship between professionals and parents" (Dempsey & Keen, 2008, p.

50).

Empowering parents to lead does not mean 'giving power' to the parent group (Bertrand &

Rodela, 2018); instead, parents and families assert their leadership power to invoke change. It is my

intention for parents to lead the discussion and help develop a meaningful and relevant program that

addresses the needs of their children. Julie Hornok of parentingspecialneeds.org discusses the importance

of being intentional in cultivating friendships for her child with special needs and the barriers to doing so.

"As parents of special needs kids, we all know that life is not fair. So, it won't come as a surprise to you

that in helping your child make friends, you are going to have to, once again, do all the work" (Hornok,

2017). To promote friendships for her child, Hornok suggested parents 1). Be the inviter, 2). Plan fun

activities, 3). Engage in random acts of kindness, 4). Arrange regular outings, and 5). Show gratitude
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 8

(Hornok, 2017). The suggestions mentioned earlier are strong examples of what parents perceive as

crucial in their child's development.

Bringing families together from the community can break social barriers to friendships, create

space for understanding the needs of children with disabilities, and promote parents to become special

education leaders in the school. "Sometimes other moms don't understand our children's needs, so it is

hard for them to help their children be friends with our children," wrote one mom on play and friendship

(Parent Companion, n.d.). Building a bridge between families of children with and without disabilities is

crucial in formulating a community. In the article Play and Friendship, the mother continued her thoughts,

stating, "I was famous for making excuses about why my daughter and I couldn't participate in activities.

But I quickly found out that when neither my daughter nor I had friends, it was very boring and isolating

for us both" (Parent Companion, n.d.). A regular scheduled extracurricular program may offer parents a

bridge in preventing feelings of isolation. Law, King, and Stewart confirm being part of a group with

similar challenges provides families with a sense of belonging and not feeling alone (Law et al., 2001).

The questions I seek to answer are concerned with parent perceptions of extracurricular activities

available to their students with disabilities, barriers, perceived program needs, and program design.

Research Questions:

 What are parents' perceived needs for access to extracurricular activities for students with

disabilities in a lower elementary school (grades pre-k -2nd)?

 What are parents' perceived barriers for students with disabilities to access extracurricular

activities in lower elementary school (grades pre-k -2nd)?

 What are parents' perceptions of opportunities available for students with disabilities in grades

PK-2?

Methods

Qualitative research, Hott, Brigham, and Peltier (2021) write, “is comprised of a variety of

methodologies providing valuable insights – from what people think, do, know, and can contribute to
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 9

understanding people with disabilities and informing valuable policy and practice in special education”

(p. 217). Stake (2010) asserts qualitative research studies are best at examining actual events, activities,

and the ongoing of persons or organizations. Qualitative studies rely on human perceptions and

understanding (Stake, 2010). The research questions that guide this study are concerned with how parents

perceive access or lack of access to afterschool clubs for their students with developmental disabilities.

Given the nature of the research question, this study will be designed as a narrative inquiry giving voice

to parents’ needs and perceptions associated with locating and attending afterschool clubs for students

with disabilities. Narrative inquiry is a qualitative procedure that allows individuals to tell their own

stories through narrative interviews, journals, diaries, and more (Hott et al., 2021).

Role of the Researcher

At the time of the study, I, the primary researcher, was a first and second-grade physical

education teacher in a suburban city in a Midwest state with a population of 17,239 (2020) (U. S.

Department of Commerce, n.d.). Noticing many young people in my school participating in afterschool

activities, I wondered why I was not seeing students with diagnosed disabilities attending the same clubs.

The clubs were lively, and the children socialized with those outside their primary classrooms, learning

science, art, or sports skills. Afterschool programs seemed to be the perfect venue for children with

disabilities to make new friends and connections. I wanted to understand parents' perceptions of children

with disabilities and their access to elementary afterschool clubs.

The district serves approximately 3,000 students, including 336 (11.2%) students on

Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). There are 162.2 full-time teaching staff and 36.6

paraprofessionals (U.S. Department of Education, 2019-2020). The elementary school she works serves

440 students, female students 54%, and male students, 46% in grades 1-2. The student: teacher ratio of

20:1 is higher than the Ohio state level of 18:1. Minority enrollment is 16% of the student body (majority

Asian and Hispanic), lower than the Ohio state average of 30% (majority Black). The diversity score of

the elementary school is 0.29. This score is less than the diversity at the state average of 0.48. The
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 10

school's diversity has stayed relatively flat over five school years. Six percent of the school population

qualify for free and reduced lunch.

Participant recruitment and ethical considerations

Ethics approval will be obtained from Kent State University Institutional Review Board (IRB). A

formal letter explaining the purpose of the study and the research questions will be made available to all

participants of this study. Signed informed consent will be obtained before the study from all participants.

Signed informed consent forms will be available in print and digitally.

To be eligible for the study, parents must have a child with an IEP or 504 on file with the school.

If families have more than one child with a diagnosed disability who meets the IEP/504 criteria, they can

complete additional questionnaires/surveys. A parent and guardian questionnaire/survey will be used to

determine the need for an afterschool program for PK-2 students with diagnosed disabilities.

Community parks and recreation staff, including the director of parks and recreation, program

coordinator, and sports coordinator, will be contacted by phone to solicit participation in the study. A

description of the study, including the research questions, will be made known, and signed informed

consent will be obtained from those wishing to participate. Parks and recreation staff will be interviewed

at a location and time of their choosing for convenience. The interview will gather information on

program offerings for students at the pre-kindergarten to second-grade academic elementary level and

ascertain barriers to providing programming for students with disabilities.

Phase II –afterschool program implementation

Phase II will be the planning of an afterschool program for students with disabilities.

Additionally, during this phase, I want to identify typically developing peers who may be friends with a

child with diagnosed disabilities. If none are identified, additional families of typically developing peers

will be recruited through the general education teachers including the art, media, music, and physical

education teachers. An information letter will be sent home and emailed to the additional families

explaining the research project and the research question. Signed informed consent will be obtained
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 11

before the study from all participants. Consent forms will be available in print and digitally. To be an

eligible family participant, families will need to have a typically developing child and be willing to

interact with families with children with diagnosed developmental disabilities.

Data Collection

After obtaining IRB approval, parent surveys will be available digitally and sent home with

children on a current IEP or 504 plans. IEP and 504 plans must be on file with the school they attend.

Questions will also include parents’ perceptions of the programs, the child’s willingness to participate in

the program using a Likert scale, and overall satisfaction. Included in the survey will be room for

expanded answers. In the first phase of the study, surveys will be sorted and coded according to those

children that participate in afterschool programs and those that do not. After determining which children

attend afterschool programs, the researcher will invite three (3) families to participate further in the study.

In this study phase, the researcher will conduct and digitally record in-depth semi-structured

interviews with parents and guardians to gather perceptions and experiences in locating local afterschool

programs for their children. A qualitative interview allows the researcher to obtain and explore the

perspectives of others, including experiences, motivations, and opinions. Rubin and Rubin (2005) assert

qualitative interviewing can reconstruct events the researcher has never experienced. Semi-structured

topical interviews allow the researcher to prepare a limited number of questions searching for facts and

experiences relevant to the research question.

Rubin and Rubin’s (2005) “responsive interview model” emphasizes the importance of the

relationship between participants and the interviewer. This interviewing model allows for flexibility in

design with an expectation that the interviewer will change questions in response to what they are

learning from participants. According to Rubin and Rubin (2005), the responsive interview model is

gentle, respectful, cooperative, and ethical. Through the responsive interview model, the interviewee is

treated as a partner in the research. This interview model supports the parent-professional relationship. In
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 12

addition, this interview model provides advice on follow-up questions and prompts (H. J. Rubin & Rubin,

2005).

Gathering artifacts or documents is part of my data collection process. Artifacts provide a deeper

understanding of what is being studied and offer contextual clarity (Bhattacharya 2017).

A collection of artifacts can be used to cross-reference accounts described in the interviews and provide

evidence (or not) of assumptions. Pictures, participants’ journals, cataloged events, and policies are

several artifacts I can use to help piece together greater awareness of what is occurring around me in the

context of my study (Bhattacharya 2017).

In addition to parent questionnaires, interviews, and school records, documents and artifacts from

the local parks and recreation department relating to afterschool clubs and activities for elementary

students will be collected. Information will be gathered through the director, program coordinator, and

sports coordinator. Parks and recreation publications will be obtained from the parks and recreation

office by the researcher. Additional information will be sought out from the parks and recreation

department webpage. Criteria for inclusion include the type of activity or club (academic, artistic, sports

other), activity location (elementary school, other), and whether or not support is available or provided for

students with disabilities. Information gleaned from the local parks and recreation department will be

used in conjunction with the parent questionnaire/survey to determine a need for an afterschool program

for PK-2 students with diagnosed disabilities.

Preliminary plan for data analysis

In this proposal, I consider both an inductive and interpretive analysis model to capture parents’

perspectives on barriers and opportunities for afterschool extracurricular programs for their child(ren)

with diagnosed disabilities. Inductive analysis requires the researcher to analyze data in search of patterns.

The patterns formulate meaning that turns into general statements about what is being investigated (Hatch

2002). When conducting inductive analysis, reading the data first and getting a solid sense of the data is

suggested (Hatch, 2002). Hatch (2002) asserts, “Each reading will bring new insight (and often new
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 13

concerns)” (p.162). Hatch (2002) outlines steps in the inductive analysis, including reading the data

repeatedly, coding, recording relationships found, and searching for examples that fit and do not fit. After

inductive analysis, meaning must be applied to the data. This is where the interpretive analysis model will

be used. Hatch (2002) describes interpretive analysis as “making sense of social situations by generating

explanations for what’s going on within them” (p. 180). In this study, parents and guardians find

themselves in social situations when seeking afterschool programs for their children with developmental

disabilities, and their perceptions of the problem are analyzed.

Again, a step-by-step process is provided by Hatch (2002), including reviewing interpretations

with participants. This is an important step and linked to member checks to build trustworthiness in the

study. The data I will have available to me from this study will include interviews, artifacts, transcripts,

and memos, all of which Saldaña (2015) considers information that can be coded. Saldaña (2015)

describes coding as a researcher-generated construct and an interpretive act. Coding will be used to

analyze and synthesize data (Stake 2010).

Thus far, I intend to use what Saldaña (2015) describes as eclectic coding -first impression

phrases (p. 5) and descriptive coding -to summarize the primary topic (p. 4). Both types of coding appear

to pair well with Hatch’s (2002) interpretive analysis. Hatch (2002) provides interpretive analysis steps

such as reading the data for a sense of the whole, reviewing interviews, transcripts, artifacts and,

rereading and coding, and checking interpretations with participants (p. 181). Hatch asserts that data

analysis is a systematic search for meaning. Following the interpretive analysis steps will allow sense to

come forward for me, parents, and parks and recreation staff. Coding is a systematic process in

collaboration with other researchers. Coding in collaboration promotes trustworthiness as themes emerge

and codebooks are created and examined.

Trustworthiness and quality

The study's credibility is supported by the use of multiple data collection methods (interviews,

surveys, and document analysis). Using an interview guide suggested by Rubin and Rubin (2005) with all
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 14

participants, memo writing by the researcher, and member checks performed by the participants

(transcript review) will bolster the accuracy of the data analyzed.

A peer review of my codes and coded information will be conducted to ensure the accuracy of

codes and assess the reliability of my coding procedures. According to our coding scheme, a peer

reviewer will be asked to code 10% of randomly selected interviews. Agreement will need to be achieved

for the overarching themes between the researcher and peer reviewer. I will enlist the help of a critical

friend for this purpose.

A critical friendship is suggested as a form of checks and balances. Critical friends are trusted,

colleagues. Critical friends provide support, challenge, and provide validation of the research. Critical

friends introduce new perspectives in understanding and reframing interpretations of the data (Samaras,

2011). My critical friend helps combat research bias and build trustworthiness in this proposal. He can

provoke in-depth discussions, question assumptions, and prompts me into further reflection. “Critical

friends serve as validators who provide feedback while you are shaping your research… they provide

feedback on the quality and legitimacy of your claims” (Samaras 2011, p. 14). Also, a critical friend(s)

will ground me in my ontological understanding and uncovers how my experiences and perceptions may

be interfering with the development of new knowledge. I have enlisted a colleague’s help to act as my

critical friend through my doctorate program and dissertation. Any discrepancies will be recorded and

brought to a third-party reviewer.

The multiple data collections through interviews, artifacts, and questionnaires/surveys also build

this study's trustworthiness. Triangulation occurs by collecting data from various sources and “looking,

again and again, several times” (Stake 2010 p. 123) to ensure accuracy of interpretation. Stake (2010)

defines member check as presenting recorded data or a draft copy of observations, interviews, or other

documents to the participant providing the information, and asking for corrections or comments. Using

member checks to ask the parents and guardians if what I quoted is indeed what they said (Stake 2010)

for triangulation promotes trustworthiness. Allowing parents and guardians to review their stories will
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 15

provide the opportunity to clarify and expand upon themes. “It may make us more confident we have the

meaning right, or it may make us more confident that we need to examine differences to see multiple

important meanings” (Stake 2010, p. 124).

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest for this preliminary proposal.

Description outlining any potential risks for participants

During this study, my goal is to do good and avoid harm (Orb et al., 2001). Reflecting and

examining my own beliefs and values in a notebook will help my interpretations of this study. I have

taken the first steps to pursue the goal of not harming. To begin, I attended an online training course, the

Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI), through Kent State University. The training

reviewed multiple behavioral and social research areas, including risk, ethics, conflicts of interest,

informed consent, and privacy/confidentiality.

No identifying information will be collected. A signed consent form will be kept separate from

study data, and responses will not be linked to participants. Study-related information will be kept

confidential within the limits of the law. Any identifying information will be kept in a secure location,

and only the researchers will have access to the data. Research participants will not be identified in any

publication or presentation of research results; only aggregate data will be used. Research information

may, in certain circumstances, be disclosed to the Institutional Review Board (IRB), which oversees

research at Kent State University, or to certain federal agencies. Confidentiality may not be maintained if

you indicate that you may do harm to yourself or others (Office of Research and Compliance, n.d.).

There are no anticipated risks beyond those encountered in everyday life. Some of the questions

you will be asked are personal and may cause you embarrassment or stress. You may ask to see the

questions before deciding whether or not to participate in the study. Some of the questions we ask may be

upsetting, or you may feel uncomfortable answering them. If you do not wish to answer a question, you

may skip it and go to the next question (Office of Research and Compliance, n.d.).
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 16

Reference

America--Society of Health, S., & Educators, P. (2015). The Essential Components of Physical Education

-SHAPE America. www.shapeamerica.org

Barrett, C. A., Stevenson, N. A., & Burns, M. K. (2020). Relationship between disability category, time

spent in general education and academic achievement. Educational Studies, 46(4), 497–512.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1614433

Bertrand, M., & Rodela, K. C. (2018). A Framework for Rethinking Educational Leadership in the

Margins: Implications for Social Justice Leadership Preparation. Journal of Research on Leadership

Education, 13(1), 10–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775117739414

Carbone, P. S., Smith, P. J., Lewis, C., & LeBlanc, C. (2021). Promoting the Participation of Children and

Adolescents with Disabilities in Sports, Recreation, and Physical Activity. Pediatrics, 148(6).

https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-054664

Dempsey, I., & Keen, D. (2008). A Review of Processes and Outcomes in Family-Centered Services for

Children With a Disability. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28(1), 42–52.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121408316699

Fox, L., Vaughn, B. J., Dunlap, G., & Bucy, M. (1997). Parent-professional partnership in behavioral

support: A qualitative analysis of one family’s experience. The Journal of the Association for

Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22(4), 198–207.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Esf8_vATIHXhgMEfFooq-kflI1-YxU-kNgZHcPmJpIw/edit

Geslak, D. S. (2015). The Autism Fitness Handbook. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Hatch. (2002). Doing Qualitative research in educational settings.

Hornok, J. (2017). Five Ways to Cultivate Friendships. Parenting Special Needs Magazine.

https://www.parentingspecialneeds.org/article/five-ways-to-cultivate-friendships/

Hott, B. L., Brigham, F. J., & Peltier, C. (2021). Research Methods in Special Education (D. Berlinghoff

(ed.)). SLACK Incorporated.

AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 17

Katz-Plotkin, A. (2009). Parent and student perceptions of special education interventions and outcomes.

Alliant International University.

Klavina, A., & Block, M. E. (2008). The effect of peer tutoring on interaction behaviors in inclusive

physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 25(2), 132–158.

https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.25.2.132

Klein, E., & Hollingshead, A. (2015). Collaboration Between Special and Physical Education: The

Benefits of a Healthy Lifestyle for All Students. Teaching Exception Children, 47(3), 163–171.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914558945

Kurth, J. A., Miller, A. L., & Toews, S. G. (2020). Preparing for and Implementing Effective Inclusive

Education With Participation Plans. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 53(2), 140–149.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920927433

Law, M., King, S., Stewart, D., & King. (2001). The perceived effects of parent-led support groups for

parents of children with disabilities. Physical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics, 21(2/3), 29–

48.

Murray, P. (2010). Disabled Children, Parents and Professionals: Partnership on whose terms? Disability

& Society, 15(4), 683–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590050058251

Murray, R., & Ramstetter, C. (2013). The Crucial Role of Recess in School FROM THE AMERICAN

ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS. PEDIATRICS, 131(1), 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-

2993

Office of Research and Compliance. (n.d.). Research with Human Subjects (IRB) | Kent State University.

Retrieved May 4, 2022, from https://www.kent.edu/research/office-research-compliance/research-

human-subjects-irb

Ohio Department of Education: Office of Professional Conduct. (2019). Licensure Code of Professional

Conduct for Ohio Educators.

https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Teaching/Professional-Conduct/Licensure-Code-
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 18

of-Professional-Conduct/Licensure-Code-of-Professional-Conduct.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US

Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing

Scholarship, 33(1), 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00093.x

Parent Companion. (n.d.). Play and Friendship. Parent Companion. Retrieved February 12, 2022, from

https://www.parentcompanion.org/article/play-and-friendship

Parsons, L., Cordier, R., Munro, N., & Joosten, A. (2020). Peer’s pragmatic language outcomes following

a peer-mediated intervention for children with autism: A randomised controlled trial. Research in

Developmental Disabilities, 99(June 2019), 103591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103591

Pence, A. (2021). Motivation for Participation in Extracurricular School Clubs for Students with Severe

Disabilities. Internatinal Journal of the Whole CHild, 6(1), 26–36.

Rossetti, Z., Burke, M. M., Hughes, O., Schraml-Block, K., Rivera, J. I., Rios, K., Aleman Tovar, J., &

Lee, J. D. (2021). Parent Perceptions of the Advocacy Expectation in Special Education.

Exceptional Children, 87(4), 438–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402921994095

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. SAGE

Publications.

Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R., Chen, X., Buskirk, A. A., & Wojslawowicz, J. C. (2005). Peer relationships in

childhood.

Samaras, A. P. (2011). Self-Study Teacher Researcher: Improving your practice through collaborative

Inquiry. Sage.

Schoger, K. D. (2006). Reverse Inclusion: Providing Peer Social Interaction Opportunities to Students

Placed in Self-Contained Special Education Classrooms. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus,

2(6).

https://proxy.library.kent.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eri

c&AN=EJ967111&site=ehost-live

SHAPE America. (n.d.). Strategies for Recess in Schools. Retrieved May 5, 2022, from
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 19

https://www.shapeamerica.org/standards/guidelines/strategies_for_recess_in_schools.aspx

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work. The Guilford Press.

Trausch, K. J. (2021). Effects of a Teacher Training Paraprofessionals to Support and Implement Peer

Support Arrangements for Elementary Students with Multiple Disabilities. The Ohio State

University.

U. S. Department of Commerce. (n.d.). U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts. Retrieved May 4, 2022, from

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/auroracityohio

Woodgate, R. L., Gonzalez, M., Demczuk, L., Snow, W. M., Barriage, S., & Kirk, S. (2020). How do

peers promote social inclusion of children with disabilities?A mixed-methods systematic review.

Disability and Rehabilitation, 42(18), 2553–2579. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1561955

Yell, M., Katsiyannis, A., Ennis, R. P., & Losinski, M. (2013). Avoiding Procedural Errors in

Individualized Education Program Development. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46(1), 56–64.

https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991304600107

Yell, M. L. (2019). The Law and Special Education (Fifth Edit). Pearson Education: New York, NY.

Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., Rose, C. A., & Houchins, D. E. (2016). Bullying and Harassment of

Students With Disabilities in Schools: Legal Considerations and Policy Formation. Remedial and

Special Education, 37(5), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932515614967

Yssel, N., Engelbrecht, P., Oswald, M. M., Eloff, I., & Swart, E. (2007). Views of inclusion a

comparative study of parents’ perceptions in South Africa and the United States. Remedial and

Special Education, 28(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325070280060501

Yu, S. (2021). What parents say about inclusion and disabilites implications for young children’s attitude

development toward peers with disabilites. Early Childhood Development and Care, 191(11), 1825–

1837.

Ziegler, M., Matthews, A., Mayberry, M., Owen-DeSchryver, J., & Carter, E. W. (2020). From Barriers

to Belonging: Promoting Inclusion and Relationships Through the Peer to Peer Program. Teaching
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 20

Exceptional Children, 52(6), 426–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920906519

Proposed Data & Purpose

Parent Survey and Questionnaire Ascertain information on child participation in

afterschool programs
Local parks and recreation catalog Artifact of programs offered and program
descriptions
Interview of Parks and Recreation staff Provide details of programs, obtain information on
barriers to providing programs to students with
diagnosed disabilities
Interview of parents with children with diagnosed Obtain parents' perspectives on their children
disabilities participating in after school programs
Perspective on local parks and recreation programs
offered to elementary students
Perspective on afterschool sponsored clubs and
activities
Researcher’s journal or notebook Document what is happening or what is noticed
related to afterschool clubs and activities. Record
‘in-passing’ interviews with parents
Trustworthiness
Member checks
Peer review of the coded interview data
Cross reference artifacts and interviews
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 21

Proposed Preliminary Parent Questionnaire

Does your child have a current IEP or 504 Plan on file with the school?

 Yes

 No

Does your child attend programs, clubs, or activities outside of school?

 Yes

 No

If yes, what types of clubs or activities does your child participate in, and who sponsors the

programming? (Example: youth group = church, swimming = Goldfish swim school)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Does your child require support or other accommodations to attend these activities?

 Yes (Please describe)__________________________________________________

AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIE 22

 No

Does your child participate in afterschool activities sponsored by

 The school district

 The local parks and recreation department

 No, my child does not participate in either such programing

If your child participates in programs offered by the school district or local parks department, does your

child need additional support to participate in the programs?

 Yes (Please describe)__________________________________________________

 No

Is participation contingent on locating and providing support for your child?

 Yes (Please describe)__________________________________________________

 No

Proposed Preliminary Parks and Recreation Staff Interview Questions

1. Describe your youth programming—mission statement.

2. Have you encountered youth (PK-2) with developmental disabilities/physical disabilities attending

parks and rec programs?

3. Are there concerns or barriers to offering PK-2 students with developmental disabilities programs?

4. Is there community interest in such programs?

5. Is there staffing for inclusive programming?