International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges [1 ed.] 9781563685132, 9781563685095

Citation preview

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved. International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press, 2011.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

International Practices in Special Education

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved. International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

International Practices in Special Education Debates and Challenges

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Margret A. Winzer and Kas Mazurek, Editors

gallaudet university press washington, dc International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Gallaudet University Press Washington, DC 20002 http://gupress.gallaudet.edu © 2011 by Gallaudet University All rights reserved. Published 2011 Printed in the United States of America

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

International practices in special education : debates and challenges / Margret A. Winzer and Kas Mazurek, editors p. cm. Summary: “Travels the world to examine the world to examine the progress of special education”—Provided by publisher. ISBN-13: 978-1-56368-509-5 (hardback) ISBN-10: 1-56368-509-4 (hardcover) ISBN-13: 978-1-56368-513-2 (e-book) 1. Special education—Cross-cultural studies. 2. Education and state—Cross-cultural studies. I. Winzer, M. A. (Margret A.), 1940-II. Mazurek, Kas. LC3965.I63 2011 371.9—dc23 2011033162 ∞ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Contents Introduction 1 A Comparative Perspective on Special Education Margret A. Winzer and Kas Mazurek Part One: North America—Convictions, Successes, and Challenges 1 A Journey from Awareness and Advocacy to Action: Special Education in the United States 21 Mark P. Mostert 2 Celebrating the Challenges: Tracking the Inclusive Reform in Canada 44 Margret A. Winzer Part Two: Europe—Reforming and Restructuring National Systems

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

3 “Education for All” in the Countries of the United Kingdom 67 Lani Florian, Martyn Rouse, and John Anderson 4 Reform, Restructure, and Renew: Special Education in Poland 87 Jolanta Baran 5 Special Education from an International Perspective: The Case of Germany 103 Olga Graumann and Ulf Algermissen Part Three: Africa—Aspirations and Challenges 6 Special Needs Education in Ethiopia 125 Alemayehu Teklemariam and Temesgen Fereja

v International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

vi

Contents 7 Special Education Contexts, Problems, and Prospects in Nigeria 138 Festus E. Obiakor and Fr. MaxMary Tabugbo Offor Part Four: The Middle East— Innovations and Opportunities 8 One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward: Special Education in Israel 151 Thomas P. Gumpel 9 Opportunities and Challenges for Improving Special Education in the United Arab Emirates Samir Dukmak and Hytham Bany Issa

171

Part Five: South Asia—Diversity, Progress, and Challenges 10 Facing the Challenge of Inclusion in India 193 Maya Kalyanpur and Anjali Misra 11

Making the Invisibles Visible: Special Education in Pakistan 217 Mah Nazir Riaz

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Part Six: The Pacific Rim—Changing Paradigms and New Approaches 12 Special Education in Rising China: Its Developments, Prospects, and Challenges in the Early 21st Century 241 Wing-Wah Law 13 Special Education in South Korea: Overcoming Conflicts for the Realization of Educational Welfare 264 Dae Young, Jung 14

Current Developments in Education Policy for Students With Disabilities in Australia 280 Joseph Zajda

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Contents 15 New Perspectives on Special Needs and Inclusive Education in Japan 295 Naoki Ito, Satoshi Arakawa, Satoshi Nitsu, Fusaji Ando, Seiichi Makino, Tatsuya Toda, and Mitsuyasu Tomita Contributors

309

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Index 315

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

vii

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved. International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Introduction: A Comparative Perspective on Special Education

Margret A. Winzer and Kas Mazurek

Over the past 3 decades, the concepts and practices of special education, and in particular inclusive schooling, have assumed the momentum of a general globalized phenomenon. The ideas have so piqued the interest of educators, legislators, and parents that inclusive schooling is now placed firmly on the social change agenda and has become an international movement. Inclusion is one of the most significant, enduring, popular, and widespread reform movements in contemporary education. But even as a growing number of nations embrace the philosophy and concepts, it is only very recently that scholarly attention has been paid to the realities of implementation in various national and cultural settings. As the inclusion movement emerges more urgently around the world, its processes and practices require scrutiny and examination from a variety of pragmatic and theoretical perspectives. International Practices in Special Education: Debates and Challenges is designed to provide a broad overview of special education and inclusive schooling as conceptualized and practiced in the world today. The text analyzes changes and developments in contemporary special education through the perspectives of national case studies, which provide a rich database and broad international views. Our major goal is not merely to present details of prevalence figures, etiologies, and rehabilitation and special education efforts around the world, important as these in themselves may be. The object is to investigate special education practice within its social context with a particular emphasis on the varied parameters, threads, and challenges involved in the current international movement toward inclusive schooling. In this opening chapter, we begin by introducing the text and the contributing authors. We then examine two core areas—inclusive schooling and comparative studies. Finally, to assist readers in comparing and contrasting the threads that arise, we delineate the main themes that arise from the chapters.

T H E T E X T A N D T H E AU T HOR S International Practices in Special Education: Debates and Challenges was compiled to provide a comprehensive cultural, social, political, demographic, and educational overview of a number of countries that are grappling with the complexities of inclusive schooling. The nations sampled are not simply part of a world journey: As can readily be seen from the table of contents, they encompass a sizable percentage of the world’s population. However, much more important than the absolute number of people our nations represent is why 1

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

2

Introduction the countries in this book were chosen. One criterion was to profile high interest and geopolitically significant nations. Another was to include nations that are illustrative of important dynamics and lessons for understanding the principles, practices, and challenges of special education and inclusive schooling. A critical question in comparative education books employing the case study approach is: Who shall speak for the nations represented? Overwhelmingly, nationals are the authors of the chapters that follow. We invited scholars who are active professionals in a variety of disciplines—education, psychology, sociology, rehabilitation, and educational administration—and who are involved in some way in special education. Our quest was to obtain and convey a truly intimate knowledge of societies and schools; one that only an “insider” can adequately capture.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E I NC LUS I V E AG E N DA The generic term inclusion refers to the social and educational inclusion of persons traditionally marginalized, excluded, or oppressed so as to empower them to determine the trajectory of their own lives through access to the required goods and services needed to realize their potential (Winzer & Mazurek, 2009). Inclusion is defined by an inspiring litany of moral imperatives. Fundamentally, it is a human rights agenda, promoted and advanced on the basis of social policy considerations that address social justice, individual rights, equal access, nondiscrimination, and equity of opportunity. Inclusion is seen as an imperative to social cohesion in increasingly diverse communities, as well the most effective way to combat discriminatory attitudes, create welcoming communities, build an inclusive society, and achieve education for all (UNESCO, 2000, 2003, 2009). Inclusive schooling is a coupling of a social justice agenda, an egalitarian sense of rights, and the responsibility to provide every child with the best possible education. It resides within the conceptual framework of human rights, equity, and diversity, grounded in the belief that education is a fundamental human right, the axis to enjoy other human rights, and the foundation for more just societies (UNESCO, 2003). Inclusion serves to develop and promote respect for a wide range of diversity—culture, gender, race, ethnicity, language, and so on—that increasingly characterizes large, predominantly urban, communities. While inclusive programs are directed at the full scope of disadvantage, they have a specific preoccupation with disability as a particular form of diversity. The overarching aim is to produce a conceptual shift in the way in which individuals with disabilities are perceived in terms of their place in society and how educational rights are provided. As the philosophy and dialogue of inclusive schooling for students with disabilities are increasingly accepted throughout the world, policy makers and educators have adopted the notion that all children have the right to be educated together and have set out to recast the functions, content, processes, and structures of schooling. But how to effectively restructure systems and schools remains professionally and socially controversial and beset by contradictions and contestations. Many different approaches are taken to educating students with disabilities—separate, regular, and special systems; a continuum or cascade of services; and full inclusion in mainstream settings, whether by design or because it is the only available option. In

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Introduction many Western nations, inclusive schooling is an article of unshakeable conviction. The United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, for example, see educating students with disabilities with their typical peers as a basic human right. Policy makers have simply instituted laws and policies that make students with disabilities little different from typically developing students. Other nations see special placements as both feasible and desirable, and retain parallel systems for general and special education. Still other nations have not yet undertaken systemic institutionalization or implementation: A gap looms between philosophical acceptance and actual practice and provision. Yet, even with these varied practices and modes, the sad reality is that most children with disabilities worldwide are not in school at all. It is estimated that anywhere from one quarter to one half of children who are out of school have some form of disability (US Agency, 2002). Put another way, about 98% of children with disabilities in developing countries do not attend school (Winzer & Mazurek, 2008).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E N AT U R E A N D U T I L I T Y OF C OM PA R AT I V E S T U DI E S Comparative and international studies in education is a wide and diverse field that encompasses issues in both pedagogy and the social milieux in which students are educated around the world. From modest beginnings, the field has expanded dramatically in the past 3 decades. Still, comparative studies is not an academic discipline; it is not a qualitatively distinct paradigm. It does not have its own unique theories, methods of inquiry, or distinct subject matter for investigation. Rather, it is a field of study that liberally borrows its theoretical foundations, research methodologies, and the phenomena to be studied from other disciplines. Because of its inherent eclecticism, comparative studies is defined in sometimes fundamentally different ways by its own practitioners (e.g., Altbach & Kelly, 1986; Krugly-Smolska, 1989; Schriewer & Holmes, 1988). In truth, comparative educators devote considerable effort “to establishing the purpose and utility of this field of study, to defining its nature and relationships to other disciplines, and to clarifying its methodological principles and specific procedures” (Schriewer & Holmes, 1988, p. v). In other words, comparative studies are an area of research and scholarship still in the process of inventing itself (Mazurek, 2006). We raise this issue because we do not want to mislead readers into thinking that this text follows—in method, approach, format, or interpretation—universally agreed upon canons of comparative studies. Quite simply, such agreement does not exist (Mazurek, 1990). Nonetheless, comparative studies have much to offer scholars, students, and practitioners of special education. The following highlights the potential benefits of comparative studies in special education.

Comparative Studies Focus on Globalization The necessity of thinking about disability, special education, and inclusive schooling in terms of globalization and a world agenda is critical as countries around the world enhance inclusive schooling or begin to create programs. Yet, of all the challenges to the contemporary inclusive movement perhaps the most severe arise from the powerful and ubiquitous forces of globalization (Winzer & Mazurek, 2009).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

3

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

4

Introduction As a term, globalization is nuanced and confusing. Held (1991) defined globalization as “the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa” (p. 9). Later, Kachur and Harrison (2000) pointed out that, “In a general sense, globalization involves a combination of broad cultural, economic, political, and technological forces that are changing the ground rules for human interaction on a worldwide scale” (p. xvi). Despite its ubiquitous nature, globalization is an opaque and malleable theoretical term and concept. Rizvi and Lingard (2000) warn that it is essentially a “contested term that refers to diverse processes employing political, social, technological, economic, and cultural changes” (p. 419). Still, two aspects are constant. One, globalization speaks to the modern phenomenon of an incredibly shrinking world where powerful cultural, economic, political, and technological forces ignore national and cultural boundaries. Two, even with the difficulties surrounding this particular variety of international interdependence, globalization is clearly here to stay. In today’s world, no society is completely isolated from external influences: Events in one part of the world ripple through the whole. It follows that the significance of globalization in the daily lives of citizens in the world’s diverse countries is profound. And, while global interdependence carries positive changes, it also poses real challenges for future generations and societies. There are inherent contradictions within the phenomenon of globalization itself that strike at the heart of the inclusive philosophy. For example, the ideology of inclusive schooling, firmly rooted in notions of social justice and humanism, is spreading across the globe and demanding national and cultural realignment in accordance with its Weltanschauung. Yet, in virtually all countries today, education policy is conceptualized as a central plank of national economic planning (Rivzi & Lingard, 2000). Investment in education brings individual returns (such as increased mobility), societal returns (such as economic growth, decreased inequality, and enhanced social cohesion), and national returns (an economically more productive labor force, lower unemployment, increased economic competitiveness in the global economy, higher gross domestic product, and lower future expenditures in the areas of crime prevention and punishment, poverty alleviation, and so on) (Mazurek, 2006; Winzer & Mazurek, 2009). However, in a climate where education is viewed as an investment, disability is not an innocuous boundary. Thus, on the one hand, many researchers stress that inclusive education should be viewed as an economic necessity rather than an ideological preference (see Giffard-Lindsay, 2007). The argument is that for economies to prosper, all human capital should be mobilized effectively, not just the human capital that tops a meritocratic hierarchy. On the other hand, notions of an educational marketplace regulated by narrowly framed measures of performance, accountability, quality, and achievement are damaging and inimical to the inclusion of students with disabilities. The more a nation subscribes to the human capital model of schooling, the more it is drawn to classify, sort, and segregate some students and to allow a prejudice to mount against those who might be viewed as a drag on educational productivity. People with disabilities are not viewed as serious building blocks in the construction of economically viable societies. When defined as nonproducers or underproducers, they may be seen as drains on resources or deflecting attention from other needs. In such a scenario, it is likely that arguments

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Introduction based in economic utility will marginalize special learners as they are placed in the territory of nonproductive citizens (Winzer & Mazurek, 2005a, b).

Comparative Education Studies Provide a Worldview By their very nature, comparative studies are cosmopolitan in outlook. Because they are naturally concerned with cross-national analysis, comparative studies enrich understanding, encourage participants to be outward looking, and counter xenophobic and parochial cultural and national tendencies. By providing a basis for dialogue that transcends narrow interpretations, they assist in defining individual positions on issues that require exercising skeptical judgment and help dispel the assumption that developments in one nation are or even should be the international norm (Winzer & Mazurek, 2008).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Comparative Studies Inform and Improve Regional Practices Schooling in all its aspects is conducted in fundamentally different ways around the world. However, no single nation holds a monopoly on excellence and innovation. Comparative educators recognize that there is much to be gained by becoming informed of each other’s work, experiences, successes, and failures. Indeed, the greatest hope and ultimate utility of comparative studies is to help groups and institutions reflect upon their own practices, policies, and theories by bringing to bear relevant information and insights from around the world (Mazurek, 2006). It is to be hoped and expected that ideas and approaches used in one place may be relevant and useful in another. Aspects of successful policy observed in foreign situations might then be “borrowed” (Phillips & Ochs, 2004). Borrowing is a fi xed term in the comparative education literature, described by Phillips and Ochs (2004) as the “conscious adoption in one context of policy observed in another” (p. 776). The widespread and very rapid dissemination of educational ideas is stimulated by globalization, which “has provided an impetus to the borrowing of policies and ‘best practices’ between countries” (Turbin, 2001, p. 96). The notions of learning from other nations and policy borrowing must be bounded by two major caveats. First, there are real and important socio-political-economic idiosyncrasies in the various national milieus in which special education is practiced: There are unique elements to each specific context and unique problems and issues arise that demand tailored solutions. Comparative studies therefore are always cautious about the degree to which global generalizations can be derived from case studies. Second, uplifting as the notion that each nation can learn from the other may be, there is the potential danger of cultural imperialism or hegemony. Conflict theorists have produced a powerful and convincing body of literature arguing that the ideas and practices of some internationally dominant cultures and nations have become so globally preeminent—here the culprits are usually identified as the major Western industrialized democracies—that they are exported to and imposed upon other nations and cultures (Mazurek, 2006). The process can be, and often is, subtle as many recipients develop a fixation with formal Western education practices under the assumption that these truly and objectively represent best practices. The above dangers are reified in the powerful ethnocentrism that permeates calls for inclusive reforms. The implicit and explicit message is that a handful of Western nations

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

5

6

Introduction hold a monopoly on best ideas and approaches for providing special education services and are to be emulated for exemplary practices and enlightened vision. After the current discourses on inclusive schooling and many of special education’s basic concepts developed in individualistic cultures such as the United States, western models, mandates, and putative educational knowledge became exported wholesale around the world. Of course, the notion that policy can simply be transplanted from one national situation to another “is simplistic” (Phillips, 2005, p. 25). Theories and trends from the west, and their attendant policies and practices, cannot simply be transported to the entire world; they do not enjoy easy transitions to other cultures. Social and cultural contexts that are highly different from the western roots of inclusion render direct translations treacherous when exported to qualitatively different nations and cultures. The beliefs that underlie inclusive schooling, such an idea of social justice specific to the western intellectual tradition, may be interpreted so differently in another national culture that the ideas and interventions cannot take root and thrive (Winzer & Mazurek, 2008). With a reform as well established and seasoned as inclusive schooling, nations would be better to selectively borrow bits and pieces, add, adapt, or omit parts of the original design, and reframe a model in domestic or regional contexts. However, while such advice rings true with common sense, this too can bring unanticipated consequences. Continuing engagement with the inclusion agenda has spawned important shifts to the point that inclusive schooling exists in an ongoing state of revision based on new insights from practice and present conditions. Hence, the cautionary tale involves fidelity. That is, once the agenda becomes so plastic and malleable that inclusion means a bit of everything to everybody then it is in danger of becoming a vacuous term. If it loses its traditional conceptual grounding, practice will become what is merely convenient and doable, not what is inclusive.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Comparative Studies Enhance Teacher Knowledge The need for teachers to have a sound awareness of other nations—their social milieus, cultures, customs, political and economic processes, education systems, and so on—is now well understood by professional educators and policy makers. In some cases, the social issues, debates, and problems of distant nations will be alien; more often, they will be eerily familiar and may invoke a sense of déjà vu. Teachers in varied nations living in remarkably different cultures are struggling with the same professional and social issues that concern all teachers. Teachers, in fact, are bonded more by similarities—making do with seemingly always less than sufficient teaching resources, struggling to meet curricular objectives while responding to individual student needs and interests, mediating the demands of parents, administrators, and a myriad of education stakeholders; and so on—than alienated by differences (Mazurek, 2006).

Comparative Studies Provide a Database Before any lessons can be drawn, it is obvious that a body of information must first be developed. Thus, a typical comparative study in education devotes much space to enumerating such things as the structural elements of a nation’s education system, financing, enabling legislation, policies governing schooling, curricula, teacher training,

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Introduction pedagogy, student body characteristics, and enrollment ratios. Clearly, such information is important. But again, caveats must be imposed. In the first place, it is a mistake to conclude that data so gathered are objective or value free in the positivistic sense. After all, data are collected not randomly but within certain parameters and upon specific subjects. Therefore, definitions become crucial and there is a great danger that data will be collected along the preconceived, usually implicit, worldview of the researcher (see Mazurek, 2006). In this regard, special education is particularly vulnerable because what constitutes even the basic subject matter is often elusive. For prevalence rates, multiple definitions exist, the terminology is far from precise and standardized, and understandings of disability vary. Because disability is defined quite differently around the world, the statistics are often inconclusive and susceptible to omissions. When examining policy, the meaning of inclusion is by no means always clear. Flux and mutability are more the norm than the exception and it is difficult to pinpoint accurately the status of the reform agenda. Differing definitions and eligibility criteria create ambiguity and confusion and attempts to make meaningful comparisons among students and the instructional supports and programs provided for them are exceedingly difficult.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Comparative Studies Provide Varied Theoretical Positions The field of comparative studies in education has developed a number of models, theories, and methodological positions. The uses, strengths, and limitations of these are beyond the scope of this introduction. Suffice to say that the varied positions provide starting points from which to view and conceptualize the philosophy and practice of special education. Among these can be found several major interpretations (Mazurek & Winzer, 1994). The functionalist perspective posits special education as inevitably related to and in symbiotic dynamic with the social, political, economic, religious, and other significant structures of a society. One particular version of this view more narrowly sees special education in terms of appropriate mobilization of human capital. As the central tenet holds that usefulness determines the value of a person to society, this explanation places emphasis on the training and socializing functions of schooling and to the value added to individuals’ productive skills and hence to their social value. Another more developmental and evolutionary orientation sees the care and training of persons with disabilities as a mirror of changing social and cultural attitudes. The way in which a society responds to the problems of deviance and disability is regarded as a reflection of continuing public discourse on the obligations of a society to its individual citizens. Humanitarian views permit benevolent and charitable deeds; dependent and disabled persons have a moral, if not a legal, right to charity and education. This prompted churches, philanthropic organizations, and other nongovernment organizations (NGOs) to initiate special schooling. Yet another view holds that the provision of equal access to education and rehabilitation services for all people, exceptionality notwithstanding, is an integral component of civil rights that disallow discrimination on any grounds. The concept of rights is based directly in law, and the law itself is deemed to be an embodiment of a priori notions of social justice. While it embraces the humanistic notion of the intrinsic value of individuals,

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

7

8

Introduction it extends beyond humanism because it insists that individuals exercise some role in determining decisions that affect them.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

C OM PA R AT I V E S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION It is only very recently that comparative studies have emerged in the field of special education and inclusive schooling. The significance to special educators of attention from the field of comparative education is the relational context within which special education around the world is portrayed. Comparative studies offer constructive and telling insights into broader educational and social dynamics. These include the political and cultural dimensions of educational policy making; the cultural, ideological, and economic relationships of schooling, society, and disability; and pragmatic considerations related to critical variables such as legislation, funding, definitions of special needs, teacher training, material and human resources, and the difficulties faced by educational, clinical, and social welfare authorities (Winzer & Mazurek, 2009). Within the broad inclusive agenda, there are central issues that converge in both ideology and practice. Yet, despite convergences at a macro level of analysis, in any nation education reform is filtered through a matrix of variables that set the tone for receptiveness to fundamental change. This renders the undertaking of a comparative study, the utility of such studies, the confidence with which conclusions can be drawn, and the validity of potential lessons that may be learned, complex and complicated. For one thing, as has been previously noted, definitional precision and conceptual clarity are problematic. Perhaps most significant and troublesome within this category of concerns is the fact that inclusion is not an unequivocal term; the complexity of the construct denies a precise or universally accepted language so that inclusion can be and indeed is used in quite different ways to ultimately mean quite different things. Second, inclusive schooling involves multiple concepts, facets, platforms, significant actors, and target audiences and involves many different legal, economic, political, social, and technical issues. As well, because inclusion is a long-lived reform, the agenda has undergone multiple modifications and constant adaptations that bring puzzling ambiguities to cross-national studies; riddle perceived trends with disputes, contradictions, and uncertainties; and render the inconsistencies in the messages emanating from nations addressing the agenda the norm rather than the exception (Winzer & Mazurek, 2011). M A JOR T H E M E S The above complexities notwithstanding, a number of key issues surrounding special education and inclusive schooling clearly emerge from the following chapters. Below, we briefly delineate some central themes to provide a general blueprint to assist in reading and finding meaning in the contained case studies. The purpose of the following listing is not to prioritize; rather, it is to highlight themes that appear in almost every chapter. Therefore, the themes are listed in alphabetical order. Moreover, the use of categories does not imply that these themes are independent. In fact, they are anything but discrete. They are complementary and intimately bound, best viewed as intermeshed and overlapping.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Introduction

Accountability Because nations seek to be competitive in an increasingly global marketplace, a frequent part of education reform worldwide is accountability. At all levels, education systems are increasingly open to rigorous scrutiny by governments, parents, and other stakeholders. Often, this spawns a fiscal agenda that demands returns on the public money invested in schooling. In result, great interest in the measurement of school outcomes using largescale assessments as an index of progress ensues, and this spills over to affect curriculum revisions, pedagogy, and the professional status of teachers. When applied to special education, accountability translates into two sets of forces— the egalitarian and affirming as represented by inclusion and the applied and pragmatic as in the human capital view of schooling. These have never been more pronounced or more in conflict than they are today. A chasm is developing between excellence and equity: Those involved in the inclusive agenda have adopted equity as the conceptual preference; those in general education increasingly adhere to excellence as the priority. The movement that endorses market forms and the accountability dynamic of education is particularly well articulated in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, as some of our authors point out, market-driven systems that measure, compare, and rank students, teachers, and schools on the basis of test results and other so-called performance indicators give rise to a competitive ethos rather than a collaborative one. And, inevitably, narrowly defined measures of success exclude certain students. The incompatibility between standards-based approaches and the reality that included students may never attain such predetermined levels can mean that children with disabilities suffer most. When these children are seen as posing a threat to a school’s or education jurisdiction’s ability to meet high performance level expectations, they end up essentially being treated as academic liabilities.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Cultural Parameters Culture, broadly defined as ways of perceiving, evaluating, and behaving (Goodenough, 1999), includes at the very least historical consciousness and experience, political, social and economic conditions, religion, the education system and its traditions, ideologies, views on equality, beliefs about which inequalities are the most important to address, the manner in which disability is conceptualized, and what facilities and personnel should be available. Culture influences every aspect of education reform and is paramount as nations tailor the philosophies and processes of special education to their unique political, social, and educational realities. As one example, culture is fundamental in shaping attitudes toward disability. Each culture has its own interpretations and explanations, based on its unique forms of knowledge, belief systems, values, language, and religions, as to why some children are born with disabilities; appropriate ways of defining what constitutes a disability; how people with disabilities are to be treated; the learning and occupational potential of persons with disabilities; parental coping mechanisms and the manner of responding to a child’s impairment; and the roles expected of community and society (Winzer & Mazurek, 2005b). Disability is not a neutral term but inevitably value laden, carrying with it whole sets of political and social beliefs depending on its idelogical location. Because definitions and

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

9

10

Introduction understandings of disability are embedded in social situations and cultural contexts, Peters (1993) suggests that “obstacles to education result not from inherent incapacities, but from the physical and attitudinal barriers socially and politically constructed within the environment” (p. 6). The effects of organic and physical disabilities are interwoven with social difference and magnified—often distorted—by cultural views. In many societies, the social landscapes of people with disabilities are pathologized and marginalized, surrounded by labels and oppressive terminology. The resulting prejudices lead to discrimination and exclusion. In India, for example, the traditional societal pattern has been rejection and prejudice or, sometimes, charity. Attributions regarding disabling conditions and the way in which policy makers, teachers, and parents conceptualize the agenda influence the pace and efficacy of education reform. In this sense, inclusion is not an exclusively technical issue that can be fixed by a new ensemble of policy, professionals, and resources: It is the manner by which societies construct and respond to disabilities, gender, race, and cultural differences that determines how inclusive that society can be (Winzer & Mazurek, 2009). The objective criteria and consequences reflect the biases, self interests, and moral evaluations of those in a position to promote inclusion or exclusion (Winzer & Mazurek, 2008).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E DATA B A S E Globally, millions of people are disabled. It appears that around 10% of the world’s population, or 650 million people, live with a disability, making this the world’s largest minority (UN, 2006b). Further, the World Health Organization estimates that 80% of people with disabilities live in developing countries. Even a cursory glance at the numbers and rates shown in the various chapters reveals dramatic differences in prevalence, etiology, and access to schooling. As well, it can be seen that worldwide prevalence rates are increasing although crossnational divergence is striking. Many factors play into the murky prevalence estimates. These include a lack of consensus on definition and identification; unclear categories; different points at which societies make a social or medical judgment that an individual is exceptional, disabled, or different; and the absence of national surveys or epidemological data. The etiologies of disabilities vary between nations. In the West, rates in the normative categories of deaf, blind, and intellectually disabled tend to be small and stable; the bulk of school-aged children identified as disabled are within socially constructed categories that link behavioral and social indices to disability, referred to generically as mild disabilities. In developing nations, the major causes of disabling conditions are those that are largely preventable. Every year, some 500,000 children lose some or all of their vision due to vitamin A deficiencies. Forty percent of the 26,000 people killed or maimed each year by landmines are children; more than 10 million children are traumatized by armed conflicts (Smith-Davis, 2004). Further preventable common etiologies include waterborne blindness, trachoma, measles, tuberculosis, leprosy, and consanguineous marriages.

Education for All The vision of Education for All (EFA) was delineated in 1990 and confirmed at the World Education Conference in Dakar, Senegal, in 2000 (UNESCO, 2000). In an effort

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Introduction to implement the goals of the Dakar Framework, many countries created national education forums in order to draft action plans that accentuate the role of basic education as a crucial element of lifelong learning. Special needs was not a focus of the Dakar outcomes. However, an ensuing document, the Flagship on Education for All and the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Towards Inclusion became a catalyst for ensuring the right to education to individuals with disabilities (Smith-Davis, 2004). Even with the current emphasis on baseline worldwide individual rights to education, the EFA initiative is far from being reached. The reasons why many nations are unable or unwilling to implement the grand plans are varied, but fairly clear. Some are fragile, failing, or failed states (UNESCO, 2007) coping with civil and ethnic conflict, large refugee populations, extreme and prolonged economic hardship, malnutrition, weak governance at high levels, accompanying political instability, and precarious public education systems. In other nations, a multilevel architecture of education is not in place and the struggle is how to provide all children equal access to, and services within, general primary education. Generally, the quest for universal primary schooling overwhelms the training and education of people with disabilities. Limited resources are first directed toward the greatest number, not to the small minority requiring specialized assistance. The disproportionate amount of time, money, and effort needed for each disabled child is disregarded in the effort to provide universal elementary education.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Equality of Access Even where a relatively high level of equality of opportunity to attend educational institutions exists (certainly it never does fully), there is no guarantee that there is equality of access for children. Accessing schooling is mitigated by many factors. Prominent are the number of spaces available; the suitability and relevance of the programs offered; the overall quality and resources of available schools; the existence of services and resources for disabled students; and the type and depth of disability. Thus, equality of access is not to be equated with equality of opportunity. Even on a level playing field, mitigating circumstances make it inevitable that not all children find the most optimal school placement (Mazurek, 2006). For students with disabilities, education provision draws on ideologies of normal/ abnormal, integration, meritocracy, and equity interpreted within local frames. As mentioned, less than 2% of children worldwide with special needs receive any form of special needs services; girls have less access than boys (Ackerman, Thormann, & Huq, 2005; Winzer & Mazurek, 2005b). In industrialized countries, the Organisation for Economic and Co-operative Development (OECD, 2010) reports a range between 1% to 35% of the primary and lower secondary education population across 20 developed nations receiving special needs additional resources. Developing nations present depressing rates of access and attendance. In Pakistan, for example, only well-off families can afford to send the child with a disability to private day cares, kindergartens, and special schools.

Financial Constraints On the world stage, education funding has become leaner and meaner. Systems and schools do not get adequate financial resources even if they agree on what should be

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

11

12

Introduction done in terms of inclusion. In all cases, needs outstrip available resources and there is little indication the situation will improve in the near future.

Gender Issues Although the ideology of inclusion calls for and legitimates equality, reality is characterized by starkly unequal social distribution. In many nations, women with disabilities tend to be perennial outsiders and multiply disadvantaged: They experience exclusion on account of both gender and disability. Schooling, or lack of it, thus becomes entwined with gender ideologies that affect communal and family assessment of the value of investing in education for females (Mazurek & Winzer, 2010).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

International Directives International bodies such as the United Nations, the OECD, and the World Bank have generated a plethora of conventions, declarations, statements, and resolutions relating to disability, inclusion, and special education that declare in favor of the inclusive approach. Collectively and increasingly, these international nongovernment organizations mobilize information, attempt to foster ideological conformity, and work to reengineer systems to locate them within the wider international context. In doing so, they have created a climate that places political pressure on governments and agencies to accede to the notion of special needs as a human rights issue and to promote the legislation and policy that underlies educational intervention. Their advocacy jointly adds up to a growing consensus that all children have the right to be educated together, regardless of type and degree of exceptionality, and that inclusion makes good educational and social sense. The 1981 International Year of the Disabled initially sparked interest in the welfare and the education of people with disabilities around the world. In the following decade, the United Nations generated the World Program of Action Concerning Disabled Persons (1983) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989), which established standards for the realization of children’s civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights and spoke to additional supports required by children with disabilities above and beyond those promised to nondisabled children. The United Nations followed with the World Declaration for Education for All (1990) and the Standard Rules for the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons With Disabilities (1993). Perhaps the most telling agenda emerged when Europeans organized a world conference on special needs education in Salamanca in 1994 that attracted 300 participants representing 92 governments and 25 international organizations. The conference generated the Statement of Principles, Policy, and Practice in Special Needs Education. The accompanying Framework for Action added a further flourish by providing guidelines for action. It stressed the value of education in the general school system for all student populations and prompted the abandonment of special schools and special classes in favor of more inclusive practices when it stated that “those with special educational needs must have access to regular schools which should accommodate them within a childcentered pedagogy capable of meeting their needs.” The “assignment of children to special schools—or special classes or sections within a school on a permanent basis— should be the exception” (UNESCO, 1994a, b).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Introduction The recent UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (UN, 2006a), which entered into force in May 2008, is the first international human rights treaty specifically related to persons with disabilities. It became a reality largely due to the active mobilization of people with disabilities who participated in negotiating the text (Human Rights Watch, 2010). The Convention serves “to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities and to promote respect for their inherent dignity” (Canada News Centre, 2010, p. 1) and reiterates calls for “an inclusive education system at all levels and lifelong learning” (UN, 2006a, p. 16). Article 24 of the Convention is as a significant step in binding governments to a guarantee of free, high quality, and inclusive education systems. This legal obligation, which encompasses inclusive policies, systems, legal remedies, and so on, aims at achieving high quality education, not only for learners with disabilities, but for all learners (UNESCO-IBE, 2009). By ratifying the treaty—that is, signing the Optional Protocol— countries pledge to uphold nondiscrimination and other protections and to provide people with disabilities the services they need to participate fully in society. As of December 2010, the Convention had been ratified by 96 countries, as well as the European Union. While many of the nations represented in this text, such as Canada, Germany, and Ethiopia have ratified the Optional Protocol, others are more wary. Japan, for example signed the Convention on 2009 but is still debating ratification. Nations vary dramatically in their responses to international pressures. For some policy makers, international organizations wield little direct influence. For example, “Disregard for the international dimension in educational policy is perhaps nowhere more obvious than in the United States” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2010, p. 339). In nations such as Germany and Australia, mandates serve as a background to the theory, concepts, and ideas surrounding debate on inclusive schooling. Still other nations show a well-defined susceptibility to the influence of broad policy frames prompted by global pressures and international clarion calls. Following Salamanca, for example, many governments around the world indicated that they acted in the spirit of the rules or were drafting new policies in accordance with the rules; sometimes they translated the Salamanca rules into native languages (de Zaldo, 2000).

Legislation Equality in law is one of the most stringent guides to developing inclusive schooling: only the law can ensure that the necessary conditions for equal opportunity are provided not as sufferance but as a matter of right. Following the Salamanca Statement, the trend of anchoring special education to legislation took on global significance. This is evident from the care that every author to this text takes with detailing and explicating national legislation. In general terms, however, no matter how much detail, it is almost impossible to discover to what extent and how legislative acts are implemented—or not—what kind of impact they have at the grassroots level, and whether the actual treatment provided underwent transformations comparable to that of the legislation. In fact, the national studies discussed lead to a series of disquieting conclusions about the salutary nature and effectiveness of legislation in both industrialized and developing nations.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

13

14

Introduction There often exists a large and almost unbridgable gap between the rhetoric—the democratic dialogue of inclusion and the legislation and policies to facilitate equal access and opportunity for students with disabilities; and the way legislation is disposed of in the actual practice of individual schools and classrooms. Highly industrialized nations such as the United States, Canada, Israel, and South Korea share a common reality: a restricted scope of practical acknowledgment. Schools fail to wholly reflect the law and there are major breaks between legislated intent and pragmatic services. Developing nations present a politically correct façade but myriad structural, cultural, economic, and other factors govern adherence. Inclusive schooling is talked about, possibly celebrated, but little action ensues. Often, mere rhetoric poses as intent as “Government officials in developing countries quickly discover the political and economic benefits of speaking the universal language of education reform” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2010, p. 331). The rhetoric about including children with disabilities is a dutiful response to international mandates but often only superficial linguistic adjustments that are not reflected in policy or programmatic realities (see Mazurek & Winzer, 2010; Singal, 2005; Winzer & Mazurek, 2008).

Literacy Rates Enormous numbers of individuals in developing countries remain illiterate. Rates of illiteracy are far higher among females than among males and far higher in rural as compared to urban areas. In many countries, girls tend to start school later, study less, and drop out earlier than boys—if they go to school at all.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

NGOs NGOs play a major role in stimulating and implementing inclusive programs in many developing nations. Vital as the work may be, it must be recognized that charitable responses to disability offer additional or specialized resources but at the same time often confer stigma and an official status of abnormality. In a parallel vein, a government’s continuing reliance on voluntary organizations takes the matter of disability out of the public domain and places it within a charity framework while simultaneously indicating a lack of ideological commitment to the integrated education of disabled children (see Alur, 2000; McConachie & Zinkin, 1995).

Psychoeducational Assessment Before children can be identified as exceptional or provided special services, medical and psychoeducational assessment is necessary. A number of authors point out the limitations to psychoeducational assessment in such areas as insufficient local norms, reliance on traditional IQ tests, lack of trained personnel, government parsimony, unacceptable wait times, and cultural biases.

Regional Perspectives Regionally variable policies are strikingly apparent in school reform: The inclusive agenda is progressing at different rates with different intensities and change is unevenly apprehended. In Australia and Canada, for example, each state or province approaches inclusive education quite differently so that the momentum and practice differs dramatically.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Introduction In other nations, disparities in service provision fall along urban-rural lines. There are, for example, many innovative projects that are successful in supporting inclusion but these are found chiefly in areas primed for change where people can both afford and appreciate the need for change. Disabled students living in urban centers have ready access to this range of services while geography largely denies the provision of provision of and access to educational, rehabilitative, and health services to rural dwellers.

Research The mechanisms and strategies for evaluating the effects and outcomes of inclusion are complicated and frequently deficient. Although a body of research is providing traction to the issues, there remains an absence of empirical data or qualitative data to show that the reform actually works. Massive research is directed at the processes and outcomes in Western industrialized nations although results show many inconsistencies. Impressionistic data tends to be positive; controlled studies show less optimistic results. There are no coordinating international agencies monitoring global progress in inclusion. Serious difficulties exist in bringing together sensitive and authentic information about the existing situation in developing nations where inclusive education outcomes are a scarcely touched-upon research area (Peters, 2004).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

School Transformation Ultimately, educational inclusion means making a difference in the opportunities and lives of all students, particularly those traditionally marginalized, segregated, or excluded. The social transformation ideals inherent in inclusion promote school structures and pedagogies that are egalitarian, affirming, and play a key role in eliminating social injustices. Inclusion requires general education to fashion fundamental changes in its teaching and learning processes so as to transform itself into a more responsive, resourceful, and humane system. The restructuring that is key to realizing inclusive education forms a potent obstacle founded on a matrix of factors that include passive resistance, vested interests, the attitudes of teachers and other gatekeepers, the traditions of schools, and fear about relinquishing special facilities that were built with so much time and effort. As an example, western European nations have a long and distinct cultural and educational heritage of which they are fiercely proud. German schools have a strong tradition of efficiency and orientation to high production while special education is characterized by a strong and well-established system of special schools and classes. Despite international pressures, ratification of the UN Optional Protocol and European Union policies, Germany maintains two systems with the majority of students with special needs taught in segregated settings.

Teacher Training At the operational level, inclusive schooling translates into great pressure to impose changes on schools and teachers. An inclusive agenda demands, to a greater or lesser degree, that countries forfeit some or all of their pedagogical cultures: All teachers are expected to transform their professional knowledge and their pedagogy in order to be more instructionally diverse with a broader repertoire of effective teaching practices.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

15

16

Introduction The delivery of special education is hindered by a lack of trained teachers. In some countries, teacher training in special education is sparse or unavailable; in other places, the problems revolve around the most efficient manner in which to train regular classroom teachers to respond to the needs of students with disabilities. Around the world, teacher education programs have responded by increasingly introducing courses of study and program components that focus on inclusive schooling. Nevertheless, calls for more adequate and focused teacher education and professional development redound.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

SUMM A RY The chapters presented in this text show major disparities in fundamental approaches to and interpretation of special education and the inclusive agenda. Ideological differences join to legal and structural dissentions to create different trajectories. Rather than a seamless progress from the acknowledgment of disability to the giving of rights to the development of comprehensive policy that recognizes and protects those rights, the inclusive program is marked by significant boundaries and limitations. To a greater or lesser extent, every nation is encountering difficulties in the implementation of educational integration. Debates about the process and practice are still widely prevalent although it is not the goals but the means of achieving the goals that are controversial. Philosophical commitment far outstrips practice and the barriers to successful and universal inclusion remain complex, diverse, and numerous. In one sense, the inclusive agenda seems bleak, negative, and beset by insurmountable obstacles. But, to many proponents, the scenario remains optimistic. In spite of all the issues, dilemmas, and problems facing special education and the inclusive agenda and in spite of the fact that many goals have not been reached, advocates have faith that inclusion has made great political progress and will continue to make progress that will translate into effective programs. Of course, it may require decades before ideological commitment, political will, training, and knowledge meld to allow a comprehensive network of services. And it may require continued tweaking and adaptations of the agenda. By that we imply that if inclusive education is to become a reality, Western blinkers must be abandoned. The implicit and explicit conventions of highly diverse societies must be recognized and solutions must be contextually driven and reflect realistic strategies. Reform cannot be independent of time, place, and culture. Inclusion, equity, access, and the rest have to find their manifestations and resolutions in the particular structures of their individual national and cultural contexts.

R E F E R E NC E S Ackerman, P., Thormann, M., & Huq, S. (2005). Assessment of educational needs of disabled chjldren in Bangladesh. Washington, DC: USAID. Altbach, P. G., & Kelly, G. P. (Eds.) (l986). New approaches to comparative education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Alur, M. (2000). Invisible children: A study of policy education. Paper presented at the International Special Education Congress, Manchester.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Introduction Canada News Centre. (2010). Canada ratifies UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. Retrieved from http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?m=/index&nid=517849. de Zaldo, G. F. (2000). Disability in the developing countries. Paper presented at the International Special Education Congress, Manchester. Giffard-Lindsay, K. (2007, September). Inclusive education in India: Interpretation, implementation, and issues. Create Pathways to Access, Research monograph 15. Sussex, UK: University of Sussex. Goodenough, N. (1999). Multi-culturalism as the normal human experience. In H. Hunt & K. Marshall (Eds.) Exceptional children and youth (2nd ed., pp. 447–478). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Human Rights Watch. (2010, December 6). EU: Way cleared to join human rights treaty. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/12/06/eu-way-cleared-join-human -rights-treaty. Held, D. (1991). Political theory today. California: Stanford University Press. Kachur, J. L., & Harrison, T. W. (2000). Public education, globalization, and democracy: “Whither Alberta?” In T. W. Harrison & J. L. Kachur (Eds.). Contested classrooms: Education, globalization, and democracy in Alberta (pp. xiii-xxxv). Edmonton: University of Alberta Press. Krugly-Smolska, E. T. (1989). Theoretical models in comparative education: An attempt at synthesis. Canadian and International Education. 18 , 54–64. McConachie, H. & Zinkin, P. (1995). Conclusions. In P. Zinkin & H. McConachie (Eds.), Disabled children and developing countries (pp. 219–230). London: MacKeith Press. Mazurek, K. (1990). Multicultural education and comparative education: Notes on theory and method. Journal of Learning About Learning, 2, 53–58. Mazurek, K. (2006). Introduction. In K. Mazurek & M. Winzer, M. (Eds.) Schooling around the world: Challenges, debates, and practices. (pp. 3–27). New York: Allyn and Bacon. Mazurek, K., & Winzer, M. (1994). Comparative studies in special education. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Mazurek, K. & Winzer, M. (2010). Legislation, policy, and the inclusion of students with special needs: National glimpses. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 4, 3–17. OECD. (2010). Education at a glance, 2010: OECD indicators. Paris: Author. Peters, S. (2004). Inclusive education: An EFA strategy for all children. Washington, DC: World Bank. Peters, S. J. (Ed.). (1993). Education and disability in cross-cultural perspectives. London: Garland. Phillips, D. (2005). Policy borrowing in education: Frameworks for analysis. In J. Zajda (Ed.), International handbook on globalization, education, and policy research: Global pedagogies and policies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2004). Researching policy borrowing: Some methodological challenges in comparative education. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 773–784. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2000). Globalization and education: Complexities and contingencies. Educational Theory, 50, 419–426. Schriewer, J., & Holmes, B. (Eds.). (1988). Theories and methods in comparative education. New York: Peter Lang. Singal, N. (2005). Mapping the field of inclusive education: A review of the Indian literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9, 331–350. Smith-Davis, J. (2004, July–August). UNESCO’S flagship initiative. Teaching Exceptional Children, p. 47. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2010). The politics and economics of comparison. Comparative Education Review, 54, 323–342,

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

17

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

18

Introduction Turbin, J. (2001). Policy borrowing: Lessons from European attempts to transfer training practices. International Journal of Training and Development, 5, 96–111. United Nations. (1983). World Program of Action Concerning Disabled Persons. New York: Author. United Nations. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, G. A. Res 44/25, Annex 44, UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc A/44/49. United Nations. (1990). World Declaration for Education for All. New York: Author. United Nations. (1993). UN Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons With Disabilities. New York: Author. United Nations. (2006a). Convention on the Right of Persons With Disabilities and Optional Protocol. New York: Author. United Nations. (2006b). Some facts about persons with disabilities. New York: Author. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1994a). Final report: World conference on special needs education: Access and quality. Salamanca, Spain: Author. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1994b). Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. New York: Author. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1996). Legislation pertaining to special needs education. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0010/001055/105593e.pdf. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2000). The Dakar Framework for Action. Retrieved from http:unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121147.pdf. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2003). Overcoming exclusion through inclusive approaches in education: A challenge and a vision. Geneva: Author. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2007). Education for all by 2015: Will we make it. EFA Global monitoring report. London: University of Oxford Press. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2009). Guidelines for inclusion: Ensuring access to Education for All. Paris: Author. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization–International Bureau of Education. (2009, October 26–November 13). Electronic forum on “From inclusion education to inclusive curricula.” Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/ services/online. United States Agency for International Development. (2002). Educating children with disabilities in developing nations: A roundtable dialogue. Washington, DC: Author. Winzer, M., & Mazurek, K. (2005a). Current reforms in special education: Delusion or solution? In J. Zajda (Ed.), International handbook on globalisation, education and policy research (pp. 643–658). Dordecht, Netherlands: Springer. Winzer, M., & Mazurek, K. (2005b). Global agendas in special education: A critique. Educational Theory and Practice, 27, 7–24. Winzer, M., & Mazurek, K. (2008, April). Views and overviews: A comparative survey of inclusive education for students with special needs. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children Annual Conference, Boston. Winzer, M., & Mazurek, K. (2009). Inclusive schooling: Global ideals and national realities. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 12, 1–10. Winzer, M., & Mazurek, K. (2011). A model to examine inclusive schooling. Unpublished paper, University of Lethbridge.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

North America—Convictions, Successes, and Challenges

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Part One

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved. International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

1 A Journey from Awareness and Advocacy to Action: Special Education in the United States

Mark P. Mostert

The United States of America, a federal constitutional republic of 50 states and 1 federal district, is one of the world’s most diverse and multicultural nations. Originally inhabited by native peoples, including Native Americans and Hawaiians, the United States has  experienced large influxes of immigrants, earlier from European countries and more recently from Latin America and Asia. The United States is one of the five largest countries on earth; it covers more than 9.8 million square kilometers.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E S O C I A L C ON T E X T The U.S. population of more than 311 million ranks third in the world (after China and India) and currently has a positive population growth. Although increasingly diverse, Caucasian Americans still make up the largest percentage of Americans. Other large minority groups (African Americans, Hispanic Americans) continue to grow. The most significant trend is the population increase among Hispanic groups, which are now considered the second largest population group followed by African Americans (Central Intelligence Agency, 2011). The U.S. population breakdown appears in Table 1. The U.S. pretax median household income in 2007 was $49,777 ranging from $32,584 for African American households to $65,469 for Asian American households. Approximately 13% of the U.S. population lives below the poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The vast majority of Americans (82%) reside in urban and suburban areas. Four cities have populations larger than 2 million (New York, Houston, Los Angeles, and Chicago), a major shift from the 18th century when more than 90% of Americans were farmers. Despite recent economic problems, the U.S. economy is still considered the largest in the world, with a 2009 gross domestic product estimated at $14.3 trillion (Bureau of Economic Statistics, 2011). Clearly, all societies embody complex social and cultural forces. In the following, I explain a few major factors that have had lasting and prominent effects on U.S. special education. Poverty. Almost 40% of children and youth in the United States come from low-income families (that is, those with an annual income of below $36,800 for a family of four). This proportion decreased from 1993 to 2000 but began to trend upward again in 2001 (Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2003). The United States continues to focus 21 International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

22

Mark P. Mostert Table 1. U.S. Population and Demographics Vector Age structure

Breakdown 0–14 years: 20.2% 15–64 years: 67.0% ≥65 years: 12.8% (2010 est.)

Male 31,639,127 202,665,043 16,901,232

Female Total 30,305,704 310,232,863 1,031,293,212 (July 2010 est.) 2,571,696

Median age

35.5 years

Literacy School life expectancy Ethnic groups

99% 15 years

38.1 years (2010 est.) 99% 17 years

36.8 years 99% 16 years

Caucasian American 79.96%, African American 12.85%, Asian American 4.43%, Amerindian & Alaska Native 0.97%, Native Hawaiian & other Pacific Islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 est.) Religion Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other/ unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.) Political parties Major: Republican Party, Democrat Party Small third parties (e.g.): Constitution Party, Green Party, Libertarian Party, American Nazi Party, American Reform Party, Communist Party USA

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

on improving all support systems related to child welfare and in meeting contemporary challenges faced by those living below the poverty line and the often related concerns around single-parent families, child abuse, child trafficking, and other factors that increase the population at risk for school failure. Homelessness. The problem of homelessness in the United States has increased with declining economic growth and fewer work opportunities. Establishing accurate numbers is difficult, especially in rural areas (Fitchen, 1991). However, estimates are from 500,000 to more than 2 million. The little research that exists indicates that homeless children and youth are often marginalized and stigmatized, even though many of their problems are not of their own creation. Furthermore, homeless children are more likely to be referred to special education classes and to be labeled as intellectually disabled (ID), learning disabled (LD), or emotionally and behaviorally disturbed (EBD). Homeless children are also more likely to drop out of school by age 16 and appear more hyperactive and less attentive than their peers (Nord & Luloff, 1995). Immigration. The United States continues to be a nation of immigrants. The 2010 U.S. census notes that 20% of children either are immigrants or have immigrant parents, that 25% of immigrant children are classified as poor, and that 75% of immigrant children are U.S. citizens. Significantly, the proportion of immigrant children in the schools has more than doubled since 1980, as has the foreign-born population of the United States, half of whom were born in Latin America (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2011).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

A Journey from Awareness and Advocacy to Action The population of persons illegally entering and living in the United States is estimated at 10 to 20 million. Although these numbers are somewhat unreliable, children of these illegal immigrants must surmount many challenges in order to succeed in school, challenges that are compounded if they have a disability. Substance abuse. Substance abuse among the general population and specifically within the U.S. school system is significant. The Adolescent Substance Abuse Knowledge Base (2007) notes that the latest statistics related to substance abuse indicate that approximately 14 million Americans 12 years or older use illicit drugs. Males have a higher rate of use than females. Among youth 12 to 17 years, almost 10% had used illicit drugs. For alcohol abuse, among those ages 12 or older, almost 6% (more than 12 million people) reported drinking heavily. Alcohol abuse is most problematic during the college years. Among 18- to 22-year-olds, binge and heavy drinking is reported by more than 58% of this college-age population. In 2009, approximately 11% of adults 18 and older reported using illegal substances and abusing prescription medications (U.S. Department of Health, 2009). Violence. Although violent crime in schools has declined over the past decade (Virginia Youth Violence Project, 2011), bullying presents a major challenge as it occurs at every level of schooling and the incidence is on the increase. Of particular concern is the phenomenon of cyber bullying. Nationally, almost 30% of children and youth in schools participate in bullying either as the perpetrator (13%), as victim (10.6%), or both (6.3%), peaking in grades 6 to 8 (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

C U LT U R E A N D DI S A BI L I T Y Historically, people with disabilities in the United States, especially those with visible or more severe IDs, were perceived to be either objects of pity or fear and treated accordingly (Winzer, 1993). However, a number of social reforms in the 18th and 19th centuries, driven primarily by political figures such as Dorothea Dix and religious advocates such as Horace Mann acknowledged that people with disabilities were more than the sum of their “defects.” Although today these initial efforts would be considered crude, by the beginning of the 20th century advances in education, psychology, and medicine allowed a relatively coherent view of persons with disabilities that was primarily embodied by the medical model. This model assumes that any physical or other anomaly resides within the individual and is caused by conditions known or unknown and therefore amenable to treatment or cure. However, the medical model has little regard for other aspects of disability as perceived by society and assumes an unequal relationship between the “expert” and the person with the disability where the expert dictates “treatment” and the client is the (usually) passive recipient of this expertise. Currently, the social model of disability is largely accepted as the state-of-the-art framework around disability issues. Here disability is viewed as a form of social perception rather than pathology. If this perception is negative, it may translate into social,

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

23

24

Mark P. Mostert environmental, and participatory barriers to full social integration. Further, the social model of disability assumes equality and is more likely to empower people with disabilities to self-advocate for social and other changes and to assert their rights to equitable treatment as full members of society. As a result, people with disabilities have become increasingly emancipated and their contributions to the social, economic, and cultural life of their society has increased exponentially.

A S S I M I L AT ION Historically, the United States has increasingly moved toward greater inclusion of people with disabilities irrespective of severity or debilitating characteristics. In the past 100 years, the concepts of normalization and deinstitutionalization have meant a decrease in the separateness of institutions that essentially warehoused and isolated people with disabilities, with a significant shift to supported community living and employment. Today, people with disabilities are included in society more than ever before. Between federal and state laws, discrimination against people with disabilities has been reduced and equal participation significantly increased. Advocacy groups continue to be a key component in securing and maintaining disability rights in a variety of arenas.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E G E N E R A L S C HO OL S Y S T E M Education in the United States is primarily executed via individual state governments to local school districts. However, the federal Department of Education is the primary funding mechanism for the states and therefore maintains a regulatory role, including addressing how federal legislation shapes policies and practices in state and local districts. A historic gap exists between the amount of federal funding received and the amount required has meant that the states have been responsible for funding the greater share of education budgets as well as their own in-state fiscal obligations. At the state level, funds are usually supplemented from general funds (generated by taxes) to make up the federal shortfall. Given the current economic outlook, this is unlikely to change in the near future. Generally, children are required by law to be enrolled in first grade by the age of 6 or 7. After kindergarten, schooling consists of primary school (grades 1 to 5), junior high school (grades 6 to 8), and high school (grades 9 to 12). Successful completion of these grades results in a high school diploma, usually by the student’s 18th year. Some states allow those 16 years and older to leave school without graduating. For youth who drop out of school prior to 12th grade completion, options exist to study for and pass an equivalency examination. Schools generally are in session August or September through May or June, although several states have experimented with yearround schooling. The vast majority of children and youth (almost 90%) enroll in government-funded (public) schools; most of the remainder attend private schools. A very small but growing minority of children and youth are homeschooled (Wilhelm & Firmin, 2009). Recently, public education has encouraged initiatives around the concept of the charter school

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

A Journey from Awareness and Advocacy to Action (Rhim, Ahearn, & Lange, 2007). Charter schools, although publicly funded, have special dispensations to operate without many or all the regulations applied to a public school. Essentially, the school is contracted by the state government for several years to operate within a specific framework to serve its population. At the end of the contract, and upon reviewing the school’s performance, the contract may be renewed or allowed to lapse (Department of State, 2011). The Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2009) estimated that by the beginning of the 2010 school year approximately 49.4 million students were enrolled in public schools. Of these students, 34.7 million were in kindergarten to the eighth grade, and 14.7 million students were in grades 9 to 12. Approximately another 5.8 million students attended private schools. For the 2010 to 2011 school year, approximately 3,273,000 students should graduate from high school (2,962,000 public; 311,000 private). Obviously, not all students remain in school and graduate at the end of the 12th grade. Dropout rates remain a cause for concern, even though there appears to be a slight decline in dropout rates over the past few years to 8.1% in 2009 (Department of State, 2011). The public education system employs approximately 3.3 million teachers; private education employs approximately 0.5 million teachers. Further, as of 2009, the United States contained about 13,800 public school districts, 99,000 public schools, and 33,700 private schools. For the 2010 to 2011 school year, the Department of Education estimates that $540 billion will be spent on public education, which translates into a per-student average of $10,792 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). In grades K to 12, public education serves approximately 6 million children and youth with disabilities. Although services extend over the typical school ages, students in special education may remain in school until age 21 to complete their graduation requirements. Graduation may be in the form of a regular high school diploma or a school-leaving certificate.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

H I S T OR Y OF S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION Special education in the United States has a long and distinguished, if uneven, history. Building on innovations in Europe, most notably by Jean Marc Itard and his attempts to socialize Victor, the so-called wild boy of Aveyron (Itard, 1962), advocates for people with disabilities have brought their energy and altruism to those considered less fortunate and “abnormal.” Predictably, the first major efforts involved attention to those with visible disabilities, especially the visually and auditorily impaired. Among many others, Dorothea Dix, Samuel Gridley Howe, and Annie Sullivan, Helen Keller’s teacher, were catalysts in making the essential point that persons with disabilities could be accommodated, assisted, and included within the parameters of the normal social fabric (Winzer, 1993). Perhaps the greatest contribution of this early era, along with educational interventions that are still used in special education, was the nascent notion that people with disabilities were not criminals or useless but were capable of at least some level of mainstream functioning away from the traditional segregation of the asylum (Kavale & Mostert, 2004). Although disability was much more understood by the beginning of the 20th century than previously, distinguishing among the varying special needs of distinct special populations was less clear (e.g., mild intellectual disability was thought of as a

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

25

26

Mark P. Mostert form of behavior disorder; new categories were invented constantly from 1910 on). The waves of immigrants to the United States from Europe, many of whom did not speak English or who were considered second-class citizens, complicated the picture. Many immigrant children, therefore, were considered inferior and in need of specialized classes or even separate educational confinement. The most critically important policy decision made at this time was the move to compulsory schooling for all children in the United States, beginning in the 1870s and completed by 1918 (Winzer, 1993). As compulsory schooling developed, the lack of academic performance of children with disabilities was in stark contrast to their nondisabled peers. For several decades thereafter, children with disabilities were placed in separate segregated settings where individualized educational efforts developed, albeit slowly. However, not all children and youth with disabilities were educated in public schools even with the compulsory attendance policy. This state of affairs existed until the late 1950s and early 1960s when a number of educational, parental, and legal advocates fought for better services for disabled children, most significantly in pressing both the states and the federal government to acknowledge and serve this population.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Advocacy By the 1950s, several parents’ organizations, as well as the long-standing Council for Exceptional Children (founded in 1922), together with informal advocacy entities, sought more accessibility and support from public education for children and youth with disabilities. Indeed, along with concerned professionals, it was the press of parent advocacy that resulted in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EHCA). For the general population, these developments have increased awareness of disability issues and fostered a greater level of acceptance of people with disabilities in all strata of society. The impact of people with disabilities being fully included is perhaps best reflected in the appearance in the popular media of persons with disabilities as role models and as people who are no longer marginalized and ignored. In sum, disability advocates, persons with disabilities, and the legal system have collectively advanced the cause immensely. By the 1960s, the federal government had moved toward providing some special education resources and also, in small ways, to forge legislation that would recognize children and youth with disabilities and their need for services. It is generally accepted that the first two public laws directing support for training special educators for children with IDs were the Education of Mentally Retarded Children Act of 1958 and the Indian Affairs Laws and Treaties Act (1959). Other laws soon followed, including the Teachers of the Deaf Act (1961). Perhaps the next milestone was the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) and the State Schools Act (1965), both of which directed financial resources to the states to support the education of children and youth with disabilities. Having firmly established an awareness of the plight of children and youth with disabilities at the primary and secondary levels, legislators then turned their attention to address early childhood education via the Handicapped Children’s Early Education Assistance Act (1968). In addition to these legal statutes, litigation, particularly the cases  of Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

A Journey from Awareness and Advocacy to Action Pennsylvania (1971) and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972), clarified the obligation of the states to pay for special education. Although these legal milestones set the scene for federal and state recognition of people with disabilities, it was perhaps a section of a 1973 law that finally set the stage for comprehensive disability-specific legislation. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 established the right of people with disabilities to accommodations in any workplace that received federal funding. Two years later, in 1975, Congress passed the landmark Education for All Handicapped Children Act. A primary thrust for EHCA was to ensure that children and youth with disabilities, many of whom had previously been denied public education based solely on their disability, be included and served in public schools. EHCA articulated the following fundamental principles: • Zero reject. Public schools are required to educate all children and youth with disabilities, irrespective of the disability’s severity or support cost. • Identification. Procedures and processes to accurately identify the specific disability and relevant category for the delivery of special education services. • Free, appropriate, public education. Public education paid for by the state in an appropriate setting with appropriate educational and supporting services. • Due process. The right of parents or caregivers to redress for any part—or all of the process—at any level. • Parent/guardian surrogate consultation. The right of parents or legal surrogates to be consulted at every phase of the special education process.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• Least restrictive environment. The right of the child, given the child’s unique composite of academic strengths and weaknesses, to be educated in a setting that will allow optimum performance (that is, the least restriction on progress) as close to the general education classroom as possible but as far from the general education class as necessary. • Individualized education program (IEP). A formal, legal document describing all facets of the process from identification to final assessment; the academic roadmap for moving the special education student toward improved academic performance. • Nondiscriminatory evaluation. The right of the child to be evaluated with formal or informal instruments, free of obvious bias. • Confidentiality. The right for children and families to have all information revealed in the special education process kept confidential and on a need-to-know basis only. • Personnel development and in-service training. Developing skills and practices among all involved personnel to better serve children and youth with disabilities in schools. The EHCA (1975) delineated specific disability categories. These were IDs, LDs, emotional and behavioral disorders, communication disorders, deafness and hearing impairment, blindness and visual impairment, physical disabilities and other health impairments, and severe/multiple disabilities.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

27

28

Mark P. Mostert The EHCA was reauthorized and updated in 1986, extending support services to children with disabilities from ages 3 to 5 and encouraging states to provide supports for those from birth to 2 years. This reauthorization also added an early childhood version of the IEP, the Individual Family Service Plan. Further amendments were added in 1990. The name was changed to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Building on the premises and successes of the EHCA, the IDEA focused on problems related to implementing special education policy and practice. It shifted the focus toward higher performance expectations for children and youth with disabilities in schools and provided a legislative understanding that these students had a right to enter fully into society as educated, self-sufficient, and productive citizens. To this end, aside from the traditional IEP, IDEA legislated the individualized transition plan (ITP) that acknowledges the need for support for children and youth with disabilities in transitioning from school to adulthood. IDEA also stipulated the implementation of behavioral plans and added two more categories that would qualify for special services under special education law: autism (now autism spectrum disorders) and traumatic brain injury. It further acknowledged the need to serve children and youth with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, although not as a separate special education category. A reauthorization in 2004 renamed the act the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act. It revised procedures for the identification of LDs, stipulated that special education teachers be highly qualified, and provided for alternative settings for children and youth prone to violence.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

The No Child Left Behind Act A recent federal law that impacts children and youth with disabilities is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001). The NCLB rests on two bedrock components. First, all children and youth in schools, including those with disabilities, are able to learn and these expectations are reflected in teaching and other education practices. Second, the NCLB stipulates that all students be held accountable for their academic performance, as are their teachers, schools, districts, and states. Optimistically, the law also calls for 100% proficiency in reading and mathematics for public school children and youth by 2012.

The Americans With Disabilities Act Although not specifically aimed at K to 12 education, the chief impetus of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 was to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities in the public realm such as in employment, public services, and environmental accommodations. The ADA applies to all businesses that employ 15 or more people, requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities so that they can meet their job performance requirements. The law is clear on two often misunderstood points. First, reasonable accommodations must be made, such as modifying workspace or devices, but not accommodations that are extraordinarily onerous for the employer, such as very expensive or disruptive adjustments. Second, the employee with the disability must be qualified for the job, and the

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

A Journey from Awareness and Advocacy to Action disability cannot be used to excuse inappropriate conduct as defined by the employer for all employees.

C H I L DR E N A N D YOU T H W I T H DI S A BI L I T I E S

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Generally, children and youth with disabilities are considered to be those who require special education as a means of optimally accessing their individual academic and social potential. They require an array of services such as including relatively benign support such as the adaptation of curriculum material. Others may require specific special education teaching interventions such as Direct Instruction, a very specific behavioral technique that uses small-group teaching, probes, and much reinforcement. Or children may need equipment such as walkers or assistive communication devices. A number of students may need specialized facilities such as separate classrooms or day treatment programs, which may require related services that can include medical professionals, psychotherapists, and so on (Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, in press). As a population, children and youth in need of special education are extremely diverse in their characteristics with disabilities ranging from mild to severe and from physical disabilities to cognitive impairments. Overall, Hallahan et al. (in press) note that approximately 10 of every 100 public school children and youth (approximately 6 million students) are served in special education programs. For the last several decades, educators of children and youth with disabilities have acknowledged that interventions and services should be delivered in contexts as close to the general education classroom as possible while simultaneously recognizing that placement needs to be as far from the general education classroom as necessary for optimal academic progress (Mostert, 1999–2000). However, such placement options are for academic endeavors rather than other parts of the school day such as lunchtime and school assemblies when students with disabilities are mainstreamed with their general education peers.

PR E VA L E NC E , OPP ORT U N I T Y, A N D AC C E S S Historically, there have been significant changes in the prevalence in disability categories as definitions have evolved or when special education categories have been changed. For example, after the establishment of LD as a separate category, the incidence of those identified with mild ID decreased with a concomitant increase in the number of children and youth identified as LD. This was also the case when autism, previously included in the emotional/behavior disorder category, was added as a separate federal special education category. Migration to the autism category meant that fewer children and youth were classified as EBD. Because of definitional differences among the states, highly accurate prevalence figures in some special education categories such as LD, ID, and emotional/behavior disorder vary from state to state. Prevalence numbers tend to be firmer in categories that are medically discernable and of low incidence, such as spina bifida, paraplegia, and blindness.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

29

30

Mark P. Mostert Although many children and youth are identified for special education services, significant evidence exists that some categories may be over- or underrepresented. For example, it is generally held that minority students in the United States are overidentified for special education (Blanchett, 2006), whereas the category of EBD is significantly underidentified (Kauffman & Landrum, 2009). This also holds true between male and females. Males are identified in both the EBD and LD categories in overwhelmingly disproportionate numbers to their female counterparts (Share & Silva, 2003). Furthermore, students with disabilities have accounted for a disproportionate number of high school dropouts, a phenomenon that appears to be increasing under the stipulations of the NCLB. Dropout rates among special education populations differ by disability, from roughly 17% for youth with autism and those with visual impairment to 61% of those with EBD. Overall, approximately 51% of students with disabilities graduate with a regular high school diploma (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009).

QUA L I F Y I NG S T U DE N T S F OR S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION Public schools in the United States follow a legally mandated path in identifying and serving children with disabilities. Generally, classroom teachers are first to notice inadequate academic progress and are usually the educational professionals who initiate the process for possible identification of a student in need of special education services. The process for special education placement is outlined below.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Referral. The first step in the process is referral for a comprehensive evaluation of a child’s academic and other strengths and weaknesses. The referral procedure assumes that the classroom teacher has comprehensively attempted to address the student’s academic and related problems and that these interventions have been documented as reflective of further and more specialized intervention. Assessment. Formal assessment is usually conducted by special education teachers and school psychologists. The process includes administering standardized achievement tests, often an IQ test, and formal behavioral evaluations. Informal assessment data such as classroom observations and teacher interviews are collected, along with any relevant family and other contextual information. This provides the most comprehensive picture of the child’s current abilities and, if they are found to exist, disabilities. The assessment must clearly show that progress in the general education classroom without any additional help or support is unrealistic. Disability designation. The comprehensive assessment will reveal the presence and nature of a disability. Based on this information, a determination for eligibility for special education services will be made and the child classified into one of the disability categories mandated under federal and state law. IEP development. The multidisciplinary team developing the IEP consists of many if not  all of the stakeholders involved in the assessment process, usually teachers, the

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

A Journey from Awareness and Advocacy to Action educational psychologist, parents, and legal guardians as well as an administrator and, where appropriate, the student. The participants jointly develop the IEP, effectively laying out interventions and benchmarks for academic and behavioral improvement. The resulting document is legally binding. Special education placement. The details of the IEP determine the special education setting in which the individualized instruction will be executed and can range anywhere from the general education classroom with support and accommodations to homebound or hospital settings, depending on the nature and severity of the disability. Evaluation of progress. Evaluation of progress toward the goals of the IEP consists of both formal and informal curriculum assessments, annual evaluations, and usually a major reevaluation every 3 years. At this time, the IEP may be modified, retained, or discontinued depending on the child’s progress or lack thereof. Aside from this formal process, there are several other important areas that impact the entire referral and placement sequence. The next section outlines these areas.

C ON DUC T A N D DI S C I PL I N E

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Despite their classification, children and youth with disabilities are not immune from criminal and other sanctions for inappropriate behavior. Specifically, the amendments to the IDEA (1997) included provisions disciplining children and youth in the same way as their nondisabled counterparts such as by suspension or a change in educational setting. If the suspension and/or placement change exceeds 10 days, special education law provides for a manifestation determination hearing to determine whether the behavior was caused by the student’s identified disability. If this is found to be the case, adjustments are made to the IEP to address the issue. If the behavior is found not to be a result of the disability, the student is sanctioned in the same way as his or her nondisabled peers.

M U LT IC U LT U R A L A N D BI L I NGUA L S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION Although figures vary, a large group of school-age children come from language-minority homes and therefore have limited English proficiency. These students are primarily concentrated in the southwestern United States and in all heavily urbanized areas. Given the nation’s increasing diversity, bilingual special education has become important in meeting the needs of children who do not speak English as their primary language (U.S. Department of Education, 2011b). The key issue with this group is how to effectively distinguish between the effects of culture and limited English proficiency, as these factors understandably impact education in English and whether those among this population are disabled both in their own language and in terms of educational achievement in schools. Some evidence shows that these issues are at least partially responsible for the chronic problems of disproportionate representations of minority groups in special education, especially for males (Kearns, Ford, & Linney, 2005).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

31

32

Mark P. Mostert Thus, educators must ensure that assessment and interventions are evidence-based, for example, curriculum-based measurement, response to intervention, and Direct Instruction.

T R A N S I T ION A recent area of emphasis has been focused on assuring a smooth transition from school to work or higher education for youth with disabilities. Indeed, IDEA (2004) specifies that all youth in special education by their 14th year be afforded clear and attainable plans for this transition within the IEP. The transition emphasis was the result of more children and youth being included in general education and higher expectations for academic achievement that translated into more high school graduates and therefore meant an increased flow of youth with disabilities into higher education and full-time employment (deFur & Korinek, 2008). Predictably, youth with disabilities tend to transition to employment less successfully than their nondisabled peers (Heward, 2009). They also tend to work more in part-time than full-time positions commensurate with their nondisabled cohorts (Frank & Sitlington, 2000). Although recent trends of employability appear somewhat positive, youth with disabilities as a group still face immense challenges in being included in the workforce as well as in higher education.

C ON T E X T UA L FAC T OR S

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Opportunity and access are also impacted by, but are not limited to, the following: Urban versus rural settings. The majority of special education students live in urban areas, although there is a significant interest in rural special education (Sundeen & Wienke, 2009). In urban schools, educators face a unique set of challenges, including limited English proficiency, student home life instability, and significant student health issues. Urban children are much more likely to live in poverty than their rural counterparts and are also much more likely to receive free or reduced-priced lunches than rural students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). Urban schools generally have higher enrollments, fewer resources, less control of the curriculum, and higher rates of teacher absenteeism and behavior problems than their suburban or rural counterparts. Consequently, educational endeavors are seriously affected, resulting in higher dropout rates and lower levels of academic performance. For rural settings, significant challenges also exist. These relate to recruitment and retention of special educators, lower pay, greater geographical isolation, and generally fewer available resources than in suburban schools (Collins, 2007). Gender differences. Although males are disproportionately represented in many special education categories, it is possible to argue that females may be underserved in special education, especially because they are more likely than males to engage in internally rather than externally inappropriate behaviors such as depression or suicidal ideation instead of physical aggression (Furlong, Morrison, & Jimerson, 2004). Further, although males with disabilities are disproportionally represented, post–high school girls with

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

A Journey from Awareness and Advocacy to Action disabilities fare less well than their male counterparts in both employment and higher education (Mostert & Spaulding, 2011). Aside from the factors mentioned above, Hallahan et al. (in press) note the following as intervening factors that may cause children to develop disabilities or have them exaggerated: Poverty. There is evidence that poverty generally decreases educational and social opportunities and may increase the incidence of disabilities either benignly (e.g., less attention to school readiness) or overtly (e.g., disability cased by poor nutrition or malnutrition). Teenage pregnancy. Although the incidence of teenage pregnancy seems to have stabilized over the last several years, most evidence demonstrates that teenage mothers’ children are at higher risk for disability than their older peers. Poor prenatal care and nutrition. Babies who are born to mothers who have had little or no access to prenatal care as well as mother’s poor nutrition or substance abuse while pregnant tend to raise the probability of a child being born with a disability. Low birth weight. As a group, children born with lower birth weights tend to have more medical problems than those carried to term for obvious medical and developmental reasons.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Environmental hazards. Environmental hazards have long been known to cause some forms of disability; for example, ingestion of lead paint particles causing ID. Also, as infant and toddler populations continue to grow, the proportional number of other environmental hazards such as accidents will likely mean an increase in disability related characteristics for many children. Abuse and violence. Subjecting children to abuse and violence can obviously result in physical or psychological injury that may result in either mild or severe physical and psychological disability. Curbs on social services. The intent of social services is to assist and support families who are the most at risk for disability. Cutting or ending these services likely increases the chances of children developing a disability or having their disabilities exacerbated.

T E AC H I NG A N D L E A R N I NG I N T H E E A R LY Y E A R S A long-established general concept holds that the earlier academic and other problems are identified and attended to, the greater the likelihood of the problem being eradicated or at least not exacerbated. Although conducting research on this group is beset by many ethical and design difficulties, the general consensus is that such intervention is able to minimize or even prevent many disabilities (Heward, 2009). In special education, early intervention targets children from birth to 2 years old and consists of an interrelated set of supports and services such as family, nutrition, and

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

33

34

Mark P. Mostert therapy designed to offset the effects of a disability or to prevent a disability from occurring. Early childhood special education is usually applied to those 3 to 5 years old and provides educational and related services (Heward, 2009). In 2005 to 2006, approximately 294,000 children in the United States were served in this category (Heward, 2009). Early childhood intervention efforts support not only the child with disabilities, but also the family—generally acknowledged as the first line of disability support. Depending on the child and the nature of the disability, services are provided via hospital-, home-, or center-based programs (Hallahan et al., in press). Early childhood special educators are trained as experts in assessment, child-focused interventions, family-based practices, interdisciplinary educational models, and the use and application of technology (Council for Exceptional Children, 2011).

I N S T RUC T ION A L PL AC E M E N T Although federal statutes do not prescribe special education class size, many states have stipulations limiting the size of special education classrooms. Special education classes are almost smaller than general education classes under the assumption that children and youth with disabilities need more intensive and individualized help.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

L E A S T R E S T R IC T I V E E N V I RON M E N T Contrary to popular opinion, a majority of children with disabilities are served in general education settings. However, under the least restrictive environment requirement, children and youth with disabilities must be served as close to the general education classroom as possible but as far from it as necessary given their individual learning and behavioral characteristics. The notion of a continuum of services and placements provides the bedrock of U.S. special education and practice. Educational environments therefore range from placement in the general education classroom along with support, to increasing restrictiveness and finally to residential school settings. Although the least restrictive environment requirement assumes a continuum of services and placements, the mainstreaming and inclusion movements have skewed placement debates in favor of the general education setting over any other, regardless of students’ needs (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010). As a result, while many students with disabilities do well in general education there is little doubt that others, given their specific needs, are inappropriately placed (Zigmond, 2003). Further, this press toward “full” inclusion diminishes and may even cancel out the most fundamental foundation of special education: that each child has different and unique abilities and disabilities and therefore must have an individualized program of education that will in turn determine physical placement. Much of the inclusion debate has focused on the physical placement of children and youth with disabilities, that is, placement in the general education classroom or closest to it, depending on the unique characteristics of the child. Yet, the more important issue is the quality and relevance of instruction and interventions irrespective of physical placement (Kavale & Forness, 2000). Instructional considerations should not be subordinated to settings in which appropriate special instruction might be less likely to occur.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

A Journey from Awareness and Advocacy to Action T EC H NOL O G Y In U.S. classrooms, technical equipment, services, and resources are widely available. Assistive technology helps children and youth with disabilities by harnessing existing technology to support educational and social endeavors (Alper & Raharinirina, 2006). Given the great technological advances of the 20th and early 21st centuries, there is little doubt that people with disabilities in the United States have generally been able to take advantage of these advances (Edyburn, 2007). For example, most sidewalks have ramped corners for wheelchair accessibility, red lights sound prompts for the visually impaired, and text-output telephones are available for those with hearing impairments. The advent of computers and software programs aimed at supporting people with disabilities—such as voice recognition software and screen and font enlargers—has also further ensured communal participation for people with disabilities. The notion of universal design for learning is especially helpful. It holds that by modifying materials, means of transmission, and attention to how humans respond to these designs, educational participation and achievement of children and youth in educational settings will be enhanced (Jiménez, Graf, & Rose, 2007).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

PA R E N T A N D T E AC H E R AT T I T U DE S T O PL AC E M E N T Parent and teacher attitudes toward various placements for children and youth with disabilities are quite varied. Generally, parents tend to favor inclusion in less segregated settings because these settings are thought to provide higher expectations for academic performance, nondisabled students will benefit from being exposed to children with disabilities, and the inclusion of students with disabilities is a morally appropriate thing to do (Palmer, Fuller, & Arora, 2001). However, parents also voice several reservations about more inclusive placements. Concerns include whether the type and severity of disability might not fit the less inclusive setting; the child with a disability might not be accepted socially; some forms of disability such as behavior problems might influence or distract classroom peers; an academic curriculum might not be appropriate based on the disability; and appropriate services and personnel might not be available in the less restrictive setting. These general observations appear to hold true for both parents of children with mild and more severe disabilities (Peck, Staub, Gallucci, & Schwartz, 2004). Overall, teachers’ attitudes toward children and youth with disabilities support these populations being part of the general education classroom. However, there appears to be little support for the general education setting as the only placement option. Another common caveat relates to whether appropriate support is available in the general setting or not. Further, general education teachers seem more optimistic about the achievement predictions of children and youth with disabilities than their special education colleagues do (Swick & Hooks, 2005). T E AC H E R S A N D PE DAG O G Y Special education teacher education certainly existed prior to the landmark EHCA. But the 1975 legislation increased attention to special education teacher education programs for several reasons. First, there was a sudden influx of children and youth with disabilities

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

35

36

Mark P. Mostert into public schools that exponentially increased the demand for special education teachers. Second, general education teachers did not have the skills, nor had they been trained, to teach children with special needs. Third, overnight EHCA implemented an entire set of conditions and requirements for which public education was poorly prepared. The situation today is much different, if not ideal. Colleges and universities offer more than 800 special education programs and special education teacher preparation occurs at the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral levels. Although certification requirements differ from state to state, all states require that special education teachers hold some form of complete or emergency licensure. Some states accredit teachers via bachelor’s programs whereas others require completion of a master’s degree. Generally, special education teachers are licensed to teach children and youth with disabilities from kindergarten through the 12th grade. Some states specify licensure in a particular area such as LD; others require a generic special education credential. As the press to full inclusion had increased, teacher training programs have begun to respond by aligning general and special education teacher education more closely, acknowledging that interprofessional collaboration for students with disabilities is much more likely than in the past. This does not, however, mean that all teacher training programs and licensure requirements are universally integrated. Indeed, completely integrated programs are the exception rather than the norm.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T E AC H E R PR E PA R AT ION There has been a chronic shortage of fully qualified special education teachers for several decades (Billingsley & McLeskey, 2004). The growing disability population further exacerbates these shortages. Consequently, a significant minority of special educators is either unqualified or not fully qualified. Further, shortages in many areas are so great that states rely on “emergency certification,” which requires minimal academic work in special education thereby allowing teachers to fill classroom slots while continuing on the path to full certification (Boe & Cook, 2006). Shortages, however, vary by special education category and location. The most significant shortages are in urban and rural schools and among the high incidence categories of ID, LD, and EBD (Katsiyannis, Zhang, & Conroy, 2003). Attempts to alleviate the shortage include alternative paths to certification, mentorship programs, and online teacher training programs. There are also efforts to access nontraditional populations such as retired military personnel or those seeking a midlife career change for special education teacher training (Boe & Cook, 2006). The retention of special educators within the profession also is of great concern. Many new graduates and novice special education teachers leave within the first several years in the field. Not all disability categories appear to have the same attrition rates, however. Teachers of children and youth with EBD and those who teach groups of students with different disabilities tend to be the shortest-lived professionals (Katsiyannis et al., 2003). Overall, the attrition rate of special educators is consistently higher than that of their general education peers, with higher attrition rates among novice than experienced teachers. Also, there is some evidence that more teachers leave special education than enter the profession each year (U.S. Department of Labor, 2011).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

A Journey from Awareness and Advocacy to Action Aside from teacher shortages and attrition, other challenges exist. For example, the relationship between general and special education continues to raise challenging issues, the division in teacher preparation in these areas notwithstanding. Generally the bifurcated nature of most teacher preparation programs means that general and special educators demonstrate areas of expertise that are sometimes mutually exclusive.

M A JOR C ON T ROV E R S I E S A N D I S S U E S

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

The following section highlights some major issues in special education in the United States. Response to treatment intervention. Perhaps the most dominant trend over the last few years has revolved around the concept of response to treatment or response to intervention ([RTI]; Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert, 2005). RTI has had the most effect on the identification and support for students with LD. Within the traditional model, students suspected of having LD as evidenced by severe underachievement in the general education classroom were referred for formal assessment. Key to identification was the IQ-achievement discrepancy; that is, the significant gap between academic potential as predicted by the IQ score and the student’s actual academic achievement. However, this process has come to be seen as ineffective and detrimental to children and youth with LD for several reasons. First, this meant that children would have a significant level of underachievement and failure prior to the start of the formal identification process. Second, the notion of using IQ as a determinant for LD has become controversial both in terms of the relevancy of the test and a concerted effort to frame the IQ test itself as discriminatory to some groups of students (Kavale et al., 2005). RTI seeks to ameliorate this state of affairs by providing relevant remedial support much earlier in the student’s academic life by continually assessing progress for quicker intervention adjustment, providing progressively intense instruction consummate with the student’s unique academic needs, and using evidence-based teaching practices. Many RTI models exist, but they generally involve three tiers of increasingly concentrated intervention. Tier 1 involves intense instruction in the general education classroom by the classroom teacher. If there is little or no response, students move on to Tier 2, which is regular and intense small group instruction. If the student does not respond in Tier 2, he or she is referred to Tier 3 for a special education evaluation. RTI may appear to be the latest bandwagon in special education. Indeed, there is relatively little empirical research as to its efficacy due to problems in implementation, a range of interpretations about what practices each tier should specifically incorporate, and the long-term impact RTI will have on raising academic achievement (Hallahan et al., in press). Teacher training. In the United States, teacher training for special education usually involves limited overlap with the training of general education teachers. Whereas general educators are trained as curriculum and normal development specialists, special educators are generally trained as behavior management and special instruction professionals. This training gap has persisted and been reinforced by traditionally quite

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

37

38

Mark P. Mostert separate general education and special education classrooms and programs. However, with the trend toward full inclusion and increased collaboration between general and special educators, teacher training institutions are beginning to explore ways of combining general and special education training to better reflect what is happening in the classroom. These efforts, however, are quite limited and far from universal (Boe, Shin, & Cook, 2007). Transition to adulthood. As mentioned previously, emphasis on the transition from school to work and adulthood has received renewed attention with the recognition that youth with disabilities must be integrated into and become contributors to the general society. However, many challenges remain. For example, there is a disconnect between legal supports for children in schools and those covered by other legislation once they leave school and a shift in who is responsible for service access, which becomes the responsibility of the adult and not any other support agency (Mostert & Spaulding, 2011). Disproportionality. Disproportionality of minority students in special education has been chronic over the past 35 years and will continue into the foreseeable future. However, there currently appears to be a great deal of focus on this issue and that may well result in more equitable representation in the future (Artiles, Klingner, & Tate, 2006).

FUTUR E TR ENDS

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

The following provides a useful framework for discussing future trends in special education looking toward the next decade (after Taylor, 2006). Disability incidence. Over the past several decades, patterns of incidence have shifted somewhat due to definitional changes as well as the introduction of new categories of disability (for instance, autism). Further, breakthroughs in medical research are likely to identify an increasing number of medical and genetic disabilities that will need to be addressed in educational settings. Teacher shortages. The chronic shortage of special education teachers is likely to continue and grow. Factors include the retirement of the baby boom generation, prospective teachers seeking employment in higher-paying professions, and the possibility that rigid accountability rules and laws will prove unattractive to some prospective educators. Further, the underrepresentation of minority teachers will need to be addressed to meet the needs of the growing minority school-age population. Issues related to assessment and academic performance. With the advent of NCLB, participation in assessment for academic skill mastery by special education students will continue to be of concern. Further, the match between empirically based best practices and assessment outcomes will continue to be problematic in terms of the “research to practice” gap. These pressures will likely increase as U.S. education seeks to improve academic

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

A Journey from Awareness and Advocacy to Action and graduation rates while simultaneously reducing dropout rates (Zhang , Katsiyannis, & Kortering, 2007). Technology. Special education will come to increasingly utilize technology as a means of educational intervention, especially in terms of interactive technologies and utilization of the Internet, the Web, and so on. As well, technology that helps to enable people with physical or medical disabilities will become increasingly more sophisticated, allowing students greater participation in the educational process. Inclusion. Students with disabilities increasingly will be included in general education and for longer periods of time, and teacher training efforts to ensure that all teachers are able to effectively the needs of all students will continue to evolve. Transition support. Whereas transitions within the public school system are acknowledged and recognized as important, the transition from school to work or higher education is less well developed. Addressing these transitions more comprehensively will ensure a smoother move from school that will be more supportive and less adversarial than is currently generally the case. The family. As patterns of family composition continue to shift, and the importance of the family unit, however defined, is recognized, there will be an increasing need to develop new frameworks for working with those units that fall outside of the traditional definitions of the traditional concept of family.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

THE FUTURE Historically, special education in the United States has moved, albeit unevenly, toward support, care, and inclusion of persons with disabilities. Although imperfect, there is little doubt that people with disabilities in the United States are recognized and participate in society as much, or more, than in any other nation. Advocacy groups, parents, educators, researchers, and legal advocates have succeeded in providing a host of supports and educational and social opportunities. The following are some observations about the future. Standards-based performance. All states will continue to develop and refine assessments to measure annual yearly progress among all students, including those with disabilities. Special attention will need to be paid to students who, in spite of support and repeated interventions, fail to meet benchmarks for progress. Relatedly, renewed attention needs to be directed to whether all students can or will benefit from the general education curriculum or whether other educational configurations may be more relevant and appropriate. Also, special education teachers will increasingly be held accountable for their students’ progress, or lack thereof. The nature of disability. Although there has been general acceptance of the social model of disability, the concept may benefit from more nuanced understandings of the nature and circumstances of disability and the likelihood that no one model can accommodate the

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

39

40

Mark P. Mostert complex individuality and uniqueness of each person’s disability. For example, exclusive application of the social model tends to ignore the real challenges faced by people with medical disabilities in terms of acknowledging the locus of the disability that is internal rather than external. Self-determination. The concept of self-determination—the notion that people, including those with disabilities, must be responsible for the decisions about their own lives rather than have their lives determined by others—will continue to serve as a bedrock for selfadvocacy among those in the disability community. Conversely, the expert model, still in use everywhere, will diminish as people with disabilities take their rightful place as independent and self-determined citizens. Teacher training. There are two major challenges here. First, teacher training programs will need to attract many more students than they are currently doing as a way to meet current and future staffing demands. Second, although teacher education has made some advancement in melding general and special education teacher training, these efforts will need to increase if high levels of interprofessional collaboration are going to optimally benefit children and youth with disabilities.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Interprofessional collaboration. As special education populations continue to flow into general education classrooms, the need for professional collaboration between general educators, special educators, and support staff will need to increase. Although collaboration has been a priority for several decades, challenges remain in training teachers to collaborate given that most teacher education programs are essentially separated into general and special education teacher preparation. Response to intervention. RTI will continue to be implemented despite the paucity of empirical research showing its efficacy. As with many other “bandwagon” issues in special education (Mostert, 1999–2000), it remains unknown whether RTI will prove to have been overrated and implemented too quickly. Early intervention. Although the field acknowledges the importance of early intervention and despite laws supporting the concept, many questions remain. These include the role of parents and families, whether infants and children should necessarily be supported in integrated settings, and the role of the teacher versus that of parents or caregivers. Transition to work and higher education. The press toward including more people with disabilities in the workforce and in higher education will increase as youth with disabilities assert their right to participate in every aspect of society. Although the importance of transitioning is acknowledged, much work needs to be done in fashioning effective transition models and in educating both higher education and the workplace about how to accommodate and support those with disabilities. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (UNCPD, United Nations, 2010). The United Nations and member states have long recognized that a coordinated,

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

A Journey from Awareness and Advocacy to Action international response was necessary to support the approximately 700 million people with disabilities worldwide with a specific human rights convention of their own. In general, the UNCPD lays out a set of obligations for member states so that people with disabilities in their countries can be protected and afforded all the rights and opportunities enjoyed by their fellow nondisabled citizens. The UNCPD, enforced early in 2008, is likely to have a significant impact on special education and disability issues across the globe.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

R E F E R E NC E S Adolescent Substance Abuse Knowledge Base. (2007). National drug statistics summary. Retrieved from http://www.adolescent-substance-abuse.com/national-drug-statistics .html. Alper, S., & Raharinirina, S. (2006). Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21, 47–64. Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 105-17, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. (West 1993). Artiles, A. J., Klingner, J. K., & Tate, W. F. (2006). Theme issue: Representation of minority students in special education: Complicating traditional explanations: Editors’ introduction. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 3–5. Billingsley, B. S., & McLeskey, J. (2004). Critical issues in special education teacher supply and demand: Overview. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 2–4. Blanchett, W. A. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of White privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 24–28. Boe, E., Shin, S., & Cook, L. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in either special or general education? Journal of Special Education, 41, 158–170. Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. H. (2006). The chronic and increasing shortage of fully certified teachers in special and general education. Exceptional Children, 72, 443–460. Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. (2003). Reducing the budget deficit. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org. Central Intelligence Agency. (2011). The world factbook: United States of America. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html. Collins, B. (2007). Issues in rural special education that affect students with severe disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 26, 3–9. Council for Exceptional Children. (2011). The division for early childhood. Retrieved from http://www.dec-sped.org/About_DEC/Recommended_Practices. deFur, S. H., & Korinek, L. (2008). The evolution toward lifelong learning as a critical transition outcome for the 21st century. Exceptionality, 16, 178–191. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1401 et seq. Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Pub. L. No. 99-457 (1986). Education of Mentally Retarded Children Act of 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-926, 72 Stat. 1777 (1958). Edyburn, D. (2007). Understanding the future of special education technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22, 58–59. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-10, 20 U.S.C.A. § 70. Frank, A. R., & Sitlington, P. L. (2000). Young adults with mental disabilities: Does transition planning make a difference? Educational Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 119–134.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

41

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

42

Mark P. Mostert Fitchen, J. (1991). Homelessness in rural places: Perspectives from upstate New York. Urban Anthropology, 20, 177−210. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323. Furlong, M. J., Morrison, G. M., & Jimerson, S. (2004). Externalizing behaviors of aggression and violence and the school context. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & Mathur, S. R. (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders, 243–261. New York: Guilford. Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (in press). Exceptional learners: An introduction to special education. Boston: Prentice-Hall. Handicapped Children’s Early Education Assistance Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-538, 20 U.S.C.A. § 621 et seq. Heward, W. L. (2009). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties Act of 1959, Pub. L. No. 86-158, 73 U.S.C.A. § 339. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1415 et seq. Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-466, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. Itard, J. M. G. (1962). The wild boy of Aveyron. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Jiménez, T., Graf, V., & Rose, E. (2007). Gaining access to general education: The promise of universal design for learning. Issues in Teacher Education, 16, 41–54. Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., & Conroy, M. A. (2003). Availability of special education teachers: Trends and issues. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 246. Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2009). Politics, civil rights, and disproportional identification of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptionality, 17, 177–188. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and don’t say. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 239–256. Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J., & Mostert, M. P. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 1–16. Kavale, K. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2004). The positive side of special education: A history of fads, fancies, and follies. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Kearns, T., Ford, L., & Linney, J. A. (2005). African American student representation in special education programs. The Journal of Negro Education, 74, 297–310. Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia. (1972). 348. F. Supp. 866. Mostert, M. P. (1999–2000). A partial etiology of discriminative disability: Bandwagons and beliefs. Exceptionality, 8, 117–132. Mostert, M. P., & Spaulding, L. (2011). Challenges for adults with learning disabilities. In M. London (Ed.), Oxford handbook of lifelong learning (pp. 424–442). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R., Ruan, W., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2011). The immigrant policy project. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=13146. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-11020, U.S.C.A.§ 70 6301 et seq. Nord, M., & Luloff, A. E. (1995). Homeless children and their families in New Hampshire: A rural perspective. Social Science Review, 463−478. Palmer, D. S., Fuller, K., & Arora, T. (2001). Taking sides: Parent views on inclusion for their children with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67, 467–484.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

A Journey from Awareness and Advocacy to Action Peck, C. A., Staub, D., Gallucci, C., & Schwartz, I. (2004). Parent perception of the impacts of inclusion on their nondisabled child. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 29, 135–143. Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (1971). Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, C.F.R. 104.35(c) § 504, 34. Rhim, L. M., Ahearn, E. M., & Lange, C. M. (2007). Charter school statutes and special education: Policy answers or policy ambiguity? Journal of Special Education, 41, 50–63. Share, D. L., & Silva, P. A. (2003). Gender bias in IQ-discrepancy and post-discrepancydefinitions of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 4–14. State Schools Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-313. Sundeen, T., & Wienke, W. (2009). A model for recruiting and preparing new rural special educators: Mining an untapped potential. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28, 3–10. Swick, K., & Hooks, L. (2005). Parental experiences and beliefs regarding inclusive placements of their special needs children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32, 397–402. Taylor, G. R. (2006). Trends in special education: Projections for the next decade. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. Teachers of the Deaf Act of 1961, Pub. L. No. 87-276, 75 Stat. 575. United Nations. (2010). Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=13&pid=150. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 Census Summary. Retrieved from http://2010.census.gov/ 2010census. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011a). Urban schools: The challenge of location and poverty. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/ web/96184ex.asp. U.S. Department of Education. (2011b). Office of English Language Acquisition. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The digest of education statistics, Table 51. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display .asp?id=59. U.S. Department of Health. (2009). Results from the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Mental health findings. Retrieved from http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/ 2k9NSDUH/MH/2K9MHResults.htm#1.1. U.S. Department of Labor. (2011). Occupational outlook handbook, 2010–11. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos070.htm. U.S. Department of State. (2011). U.S. education. Retrieved from http://www.ait.org.tw/ infousa/enus/education/index.html. U.S. Government. (2011). Jobs, education, and volunteerism. Retrieved from http://www.usa.gov/ Citizen/Topics/Education_Training.shtml. Virginia Youth Violence Project. (2011). Violence in schools. Retrievedfrom http://youthviolence .edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/home.html. Wilhelm, G., & Firmin, M. (2009). Historical and contemporary developments in home school education. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 18, 303–315. Winzer, M. A. (1993). The history of special education: From isolation to integration. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Zhang, D., Katsiyannis, A., & Kortering, L. J. (2007). Performance on exit exams by students with disabilities: A four-year analysis. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 30, 48–57. Zigmond, N. (2003). Where should children with disabilities receive special services? Journal of Special Education, 37, 193–199.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

43

2 Celebrating the Challenges: Tracking the Inclusive Reform in Canada

Margret A. Winzer

Canada, the third largest country in the world, sprawls across more than 9 million square kilometers between the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans. The nation is a federation of 10 provinces and 3 territories: British Columbia, Alberta, and Manitoba comprise Western Canada; Central Canada consists of Ontario and Quebec; the Atlantic provinces are New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island; and Northern Canada is made up of 3 territories—Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut. In 2009, the total population of Canada was 33.6 million. The enormous geographical spaces give rise to significant regionalization and great diversity. Ontario is the most populous province with 13 million inhabitants followed by Quebec with 7.8 million persons. The two smallest provinces are Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island. The average population density is only 3.5 people per square kilometer, but the population is spread unevenly. More than 80% of Canadians lives in urban areas; 45% of the population lives in six metropolitan areas (Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, 2007). Most new immigrants to Canada settle in Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E S O C I A L FA BR IC Canada is a settler nation. With the exception of the Native people, all Canadians are immigrants or descendants of immigrants. The nation has traditionally depended on a large and sustained flow of immigration, and the dominant role of immigration in demographic growth remains potent today. Two-thirds of population growth comes from immigration (Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, 2007). Until the 1970s, the Canadian population was of chiefly European ancestry. During the 1970s and 80s, enormous demographic changes transformed Canada into a multicultural and multiethnic nation with citizens representing more than 200 different ethnic origins, large groups of identifiable racial minorities, the presence of multiple languages, and unique traditions and cultures. According to the 2006 census, 19.8% of the population—more than 6 million people—were foreign born. This accounts for an increase of 13.6% between 2001 and 2006, four times higher than the growth rate for the Canadian-born population in the same period. More than 5 million people identified themselves as members of a visible minority group, accounting for 16.2% of the overall 44 International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Celebrating the Challenges population (Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, 2007). Roughly one out of every five people in Canada, or between 19 and 23% of the nation’s population, could be a member of a visible minority when Canada celebrates its 150th anniversary in 2017 (Statistics Canada, 2005). About 4% of the population identify as one of three Aboriginal groups—North American Indians, Metis, or Inuit. Almost half of the Aboriginal population consists of children and youth aged 24 and under, as compared with 31% of the non-Aboriginal population. About half of Aboriginal people live on reserves. In the year 2008 to 2009, 119,000 elementary and secondary students lived on reserves throughout Canada. The education of Native students on reserves is a treaty right and the obligation of the federal government (Phillips, 2010). Canadians spoke more than 200 languages in 2006. About 58% of the population speaks English as their first language; 22% speak French; and 20% speak another language. Besides languages that have long been associated with immigration— German, Italian, Dutch, Ukrainian, and Polish—an increase in speakers of Chinese languages, Punjabi, Arabic, Urdu, Tagalog, and Tamil (Lessard, n.d.) has occurred.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

G E N E R A L S C HO OL S Y S T E M Canada’s education system is decentralized, complex, and multilevel. There is no federal department of education and no integrated national system of education. Section 93 of the constitutional framework as originally set out in 1867 provided that “[I]n and for each province, the legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education.” The reenacted Constitution Act of Canada of 1982 confers responsibility for all matters relating to education to each province. In the 13 jurisdictions, departments or ministries of education are responsible for the organization, delivery, and assessment of education at the elementary and secondary levels. Postsecondary systems have various degrees of autonomy from provincial and territorial government control. The exception is the education of Native children living on reserves for whom the federal government is constitutionally responsible in terms of general and special education. However, an education act for Native students doesn’t exist; for students who are exceptional, there are policies and guidelines, but no special education law (Phillips, 2010). Within the guaranteed services in the provinces and territories, access to education is protected by legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures to ensure that all children and youth receive a free and appropriate education. Public education is free to all Canadians at primary and secondary levels provided they meet various age and residence requirements. Canada has approximately 15,500 schools with 310,000 teachers (Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, 2007). About 93% of Canadian students attend publicly funded institutions at the primary and secondary levels. Private schools are relatively rare. The independent or private schools vary from one another— some are religion based, others center on a particular philosophy or pedagogy, some focus on cramming, and some are elite. In 1994, the Alberta government offered charter schools— private schools within the public system. There are now about a dozen charter schools in existence (Lessard, n.d.).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

45

46

Margret A. Winzer Canadian jurisdictions set high expectations for student achievement and participate in international exams such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) to benchmark standards. In general, Canadian students perform above Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) averages, although there are pronounced provincial variations. In 2008, Canada ranked sixth highest among members of the OECD in its share of young adults with a high school certificate. Only 8.1% of Canadians in the relevant age groups lacked a certificate as compared with the OECD average of 20% (OECD, 2010). On the other hand, the dropout rate of 8.5% is of concern, particularly in rural areas and small towns. Over the 2007 to 2010 period, the high school dropout rate in large cities averaged 7.9%; outside of these cities, the rate was 15.5%. The male share of the dropout population continues to rise, with five males now dropping out for every three females (Richards, 2011). Provincial education rights are guarded jealously and there exist considerable influential variations. Provinces differ with respect to legislation, policy, curriculum, assessment and accountability practices, compulsory schooling ages, and teachers’ salaries, among other areas. There are 17 provincial and territorial teachers’ associations, of which all but 2 are affiliated with the encompassing Canadian Teacher’s Federation ([CTF]; Rottmann, 2008).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

DE V E L OPM E N T OF S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION In both historical and contemporary terms, Canadian special education has tended to follow the American model. Educational issues—legislative, administrative, curricular, and inclusive—are directly influenced by events, philosophies, research, and pedagogy from the United States. Egerton Ryerson, prominent in both the foundation of Canada’s common schools and special institutions, wrote that it was the United States “to whose example and experience we are so much indebted for the establishment and success of our Canadian School system” (Ryerson, 1868, p. 150). In establishing institutional settings, the provinces “followed the customary practice of borrowing heavily from American experience” (Ontario Inspector of Prisons, Asylums, and Public Charities, 1878, p. 2). By about 1910, segregated classes for students with disabilities, founded on American models, were seriously addressed in the public schools. With special classes in place, the numbers and types of exceptionalities served expanded rapidly. By 1953, seven provinces had incorporated permissive legislation into their school laws authorizing local school systems to establish special classes (Dunn & McNeill, 1953/54). Placement in institutions, special schools, and particularly special classes remained the common mode in the education of students with exceptionalities into the 1960s. But this decade marked the onset of a simmering controversy revolving around the tension between training students with exceptional conditions to fit into so-called normal society and training them separately in special, segregated settings in regard to their unique needs. New professional constructs emerged, supported by varied factors such as parent pressure, legislation, litigation, a series of efficacy studies about special classes,

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Celebrating the Challenges exposés of the deplorable conditions in institutions, and the normalization movement. Integration became a popular item of discussion, if not action (Winzer, 2009). Throughout the 1970s, intense scrutiny of the knowledge and practices of special education continued; simultaneously, discontent with special classes peaked. Prompted by internal pressures and stimulated by the seminal American legislation, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Canadian jurisdictions acted to form the statutory and operational frameworks to define and facilitate special services for students with exceptionalities. The 1980s saw dramatic increases in the number of students mainstreamed into general classrooms. When the term inclusion emerged in the professional literature in 1984, Canadian jurisdictions readily adopted the liberal tones. The philosophical underpinnings of the movement were unequivocally accepted and the inclusion of students with exceptionalities into neighbourhood schools and general classrooms progressed rapidly.

L EG I S L AT I V E AC T I V I T Y

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

In the Canadian federal arena, interpretation of a solid legal framework of interlocking laws supports the right of children and youth with exceptionalities to be educated with their peers. The federal and supreme law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, overrides all provincial legislation. Under Section 15 of the charter, every individual is “equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection of the law without discrimination and in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.” The Citizenship Act provides that all Canadians, whether by birth or by choice, are entitled to the same rights, powers, and privileges and are subject to the same obligations, duties, and liabilities. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act provides that the: Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards to race, national or ethnic origin, colour or religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and is committed to a policy of multiculturalism designed to preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians while working to achieve the equality of all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural, and political life in Canada. The Canadian Human Rights Act gives effect to the principle that all individuals should have equal opportunities. Discrimination is prohibited on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, and conviction for which a pardon has been granted. Canada’s 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions are all committed to education reform and innovations, to the principles and practices of inclusive education at all levels, and to eliminating the discriminatory aspects of noninclusion. The modernization of jurisdictional legislation and policies to reflect the tenets of inclusive education is ongoing, although it is virtually impossible to pinpoint to what extent each province and territory has progressed. In the year 2000 alone, for example, five provinces undertook comprehensive reviews of special education policies and programs (Valentine, 2001). Several provinces are currently reviewing their policies and funding frameworks in an

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

47

48

Margret A. Winzer effort to better respond to the needs of increasingly diverse populations. For example, Alberta has reviewed its policies (Alberta Education, 2008); Newfoundland and Labrador have undergone a major review (McBride, 2008).

Litigation In Canada, the emphasis on using the power of the courts to settle disputes of an educational nature is less pronounced than in the United States. Nevertheless, recent years have seen a marathon of court cases stimulated by three connected factors—the principles of the inclusion movement, the willingness of advocacy groups to support parents, and interpretations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When parents initiate litigation, they may ask that a school district provide special services or extend the amount of services; alternately, they may view the general classroom as the most appropriate educational setting and disagree with decisions regarding their child’s placement. In both Canada and the United States, increases in autism and the promises of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) have led to mounting litigation by parents (see Nelson & Huefner, 2003).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E I NC LUS I V E AG E N DA Diversity, equality, and inclusion are critical principles in Canadian legislation, policy, and public life. If inclusion is viewed as a subset of the more general mandate to serve all children in Canada’s pluralistic society, almost everyone agrees with the goals in principle. Canada was one of the first countries to sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities in 2007. In March 2010, the federal government, with the support of all the provinces and territories, ratified the convention at the United Nations headquarters in New York and thereby underscored the government’s complete commitment to the goal of full societal participation for persons with disabilities (Canada News, 2010, p. 1). The government claims that, “Canada is committed to promoting and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities and enabling their full participation in society” (Canada News, 2010, p. 1). Further, “Canadians feel that people with disabilities should have the opportunity to participate in life to their fullest potential—that this is part of the ‘Canadian way’ of doing things” (Human Resources and Social Development Canada, 2004, p. 5). A public poll (CTF, 2004) showed that Canadians think students with exceptionalities should be integrated into classrooms and want more support, resources, and experts to help. In the education context, inclusion itself is “no longer an issue” (Alberta Teachers Association [ATA], 2008, p. 11). Indeed, “In Canada, if we choose to teach, we are choosing to teach in inclusive settings” (Hutchinson, 2007, p. xxv). Educators, researchers, and parents advocate that all children be educated in general classrooms that reflect the diversity of Canadian society and its inclusive values (Lupart & Webber, 2002; Porter, 2004). Canadian teachers want students “to work together and to blend and to partake [in] everything as a regular student” (Dyson, 2007, p. 27). In a very general sense, Canada holds to a shared purpose when addressing the inclusion of students with exceptionalities. The term is prominent in provincial and territorial legislation, and educational policies and procedures across the nation make educational inclusion the dominant policy (Hutchinson, 2007). Even though the tendency

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Celebrating the Challenges to consensus on the main issues transcends both constituency and location, it is difficult to make any broad statements about inclusive schooling across the whole of Canada. The two major dimensions of difference are the organizational context—the legislation and policy underlying inclusive schooling and the service delivery models—and plans for bringing together students, teachers, instruction, and learning that are specific to schools (Winzer, 2008). In the absence of a strong national education presence and with local educational autonomy in place, many variations in legislative provisions, policy, and inclusive practice exist. A decentralized education system adds a further complication. School boards and schools, as well as individual officials, teachers, and other staff members, have their own priorities: They make different choices and respond differently to the pressures from parents and students for particular forms of accommodation (Smith, 2007). Provincial and territorial policies are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. Provincial and Territorial Policies on Inclusive Education Province/Territory

Policy

British Columbia

Legislation does not mandate full inclusion but places the expectation on school boards that students will be integrated unless the special needs indicate otherwise. Physical location is not the key; the provision of appropriate services is “the practice of inclusion transcends the idea of physical location, and incorporates basic values that promote participation, friendship and interaction” (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 1995). Permissive legislation makes inclusion in the general classroom the first placement option to be considered in consultation with parents and, when appropriate, the student. Instruction, not setting, is the key to success and “decisions related to the placement of students are best made on an individual basis in a manner that maximizes their opportunity to participate fully in the experience of schooling” (Alberta Learning, 2002, p. 13). Inclusion is broadly defined. The purpose of mandatory special education legislation is to provide appropriate educational opportunities and equitable benefits for all children and youth with exceptional needs. Inclusion is seen as a means of enhancing the well being of every member of the community. Manitoba’s mandatory allinclusive policy expects teachers to “create classroom learning environments that can address a broad range of diverse learning styles and educational needs” (Manitoba Education, Training and Youth, 2002). The integration of exceptional pupils should be the normal practice when such a placement meets the student’s needs and is in accordance with parental wishes. Inclusion is not mandatory: the gamut may range from full inclusion to full withdrawal.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Manitoba

Ontario

continued on next page

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

49

50

Margret A. Winzer Province/Territory Quebec

New Brunswick

Nova Scotia

Newfoundland and Labrador

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Prince Edward Island

Northwest Territories Yukon

Nunavut

Policy All students with disabilities or difficulties are to have access to quality educational services in the most normal environment approach possible. School boards may also set up classes that bring together only students with special needs if that is judged to be the best method of supporting their achievement. Equity for all children is basic to public education. It boasts the strongest inclusive policy in the country. Bill 85, passed into law in 1986, is mandatory inclusion and requires the inclusion of all children with disabilities within general classrooms. (New Brunswick Department of Education, 2002). The school’s function is to do all it can to inspire students with the desire to achieve the highest degree of excellence that possible. Nova Scotia enacted noncategorical inclusion in 1996. The official policy is to “facilitate the membership, participation and learning of all students in school programs and activities.” The general classroom is the first choice, rather than an optional choice, for placement (Nova Scotia Department of Education and Culture, 1996). Schooling is viewed as the means to provide students the opportunity to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to be self-reliant, responsible, caring, and contributing members of society. There are no specific statutes governing special education save the Schools Act of 1997, which appears to be a significant piece of legislation for students with special needs (Edmunds, 2003). Programming is delivered with age peers except where compelling reasons exist. Public education provides for the development of children so that each may take a meaningful place in society. Special education is mandatory and noncategorical although a continuum of services exists. Policy points education based on individual strengths and needs that is relevant and meaningful for each person. This promotes education in the general classroom. The aim is to develop the intellectual, physical, social, emotional, cultural, and aesthetic potential of all students to the limits of their abilities. Mandatory and non-categorical special education is promoted. As far as is practicable, students are educated in the least restrictive and most enabling environment with appropriate program modifications to meet individual needs. A small number of specialized resource programs provide alternative environments for students unable to benefit from general classroom placement. Public education is inclusive and based on Inuit societal values and principles. Those who require additional support are provided with assistance.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Celebrating the Challenges

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

S T U DE N T S W I T H E XC E P T ION A L I T I E S In Canada, the phrase children with exceptionalities is commonly used (rather than the American with disabilities or the European special education needs). Exceptional encompasses both disabilities and giftedness and tends to be the most acceptable wording (see Hastings, Sonuga-Barke, & Remington, 1993). Canada lacks a national registry, which makes it difficult to obtain accurate figures on prevalence rates and the numbers served. Canadian statistics on the population of people with disabilities rely on World Health Organization (WHO) definitions. There are approximately 4.4 million persons with disabilities in Canada, about 14.3% of the population. Statistics Canada (2008) reported that 4.6% of 5- to 14-year-old children had some kind of disability. Supplementary data indicates that approximately 7.7% of all children from birth to 19 years of age have a limitation or a disability (see Valentine, 2001). In the school system, about 12 to 12.5% of students will receive special services at some point in their school careers (Winzer, 2008). Apart from the identified population of students with exceptionalities, various agencies suggest that up to 30 to 40% of children could be deemed at risk of failing and dropping out (Wotherspoon & Schissel, 2001). The category focuses on students who have difficulty proceeding through school at the prescribed rate and includes girls who become pregnant, adolescents involved in drugs and crime, those who have attempted suicide, school dropouts, and large groups for whom English is not a first language (Winzer, 2008). Special education intervention may or may not occur for such learners. Disability is not randomly distributed in the population. Families in poverty and minority families are more likely to have a child with a disability. School-related risks are most heavily concentrated among visible minorities, people who are poor, residents of the inner city and poor rural regions, and individuals who are not fluent in English (Wotherspoon & Schissel, 2001). About 29% of families with disabled children are in the lowest or lower-middle income brackets, as compared to 17% with nondisabled children. Among other factors are the higher costs of raising a child with a disability and ongoing child care that translates into reduced employment opportunities for parents (Roeher Institute, 2000). Research consistently finds that higher income families of children with disabilities have more choices for help and support than do lower income families (Scorgie, Wilgosh, & McDonald, 1998). For example, ABA helps children with autism learn communication, social, daily living, and behavior management skills. The intensive one-on-one treatment can cost between CAD$30,000 and CAD$80,000 annually (Tam, 2010), only fully funded in some provinces. The enrollment in Canada’s schools declined from 5.3 million in 2002 to 5 million in 2008 (Hillsdon, 2011). But with inclusion and the availability of support services, the number of students identified for special services has increased dramatically. For example, from 1998 to 2004, the proportion of exceptional children in Ontario’s schools more than doubled (Urquhart, 2005). In Alberta, the period 1998 to 2003 saw an increase of 64% in identification of students with severe disabilities and an increase of 140% for students with mild/moderate disabilities, compared to a general increase in the school population of 5% (Pyryt, 2003).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

51

52

Margret A. Winzer The four most common disability areas are learning disabilities, speech and language impairments, intellectual disabilities, and behavioral disorders. The least common areas are visual impairments, traumatic brain injury, pervasive developmental disorders, and deaf-blindness (Winzer, 2008). Students with learning disabilities (LD) make up the largest single group: LD affects approximately 17 in every 1,000 children (Canadian Council on Social Development, 1999). Growth in the diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has been staggering, perhaps as high as 1 in every 20 children (Sanghavi, 2005). Once, autism spectrum disorders (ASD) were assumed to be comparatively rare: Today, autism “has moved from being a relatively unrecognized disability to having a position of notoriety” (Simpson, 2004, p. 137). It is estimated that more than 100,000 individuals in Canada are currently diagnosed with ASD. About 3,000 new cases are identified each year so that 1 in every 200 children in Canada has an ASD (Autism Society Canada, 2004). More children also are identified as behaviorally disordered. The rates of behavioral and emotional problems for children aged 4 to 11 are “disturbingly high,” with 1 in 10 children exhibiting behavior consistent with hyperactivity problems, conduct disorder, or an emotional disorder (Canadian Institute of Child Health, 2000).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

I NC LUS ION I N PR AC T IC E More than 90% of Canadian school-aged children and youth attend general classrooms for all or part of the school day. Actual class composition varies across the nation. For example, in 2001, 71% of elementary classrooms across Alberta included students with exceptionalities with an average of 3.4 students with mild to moderate disabilities and an additional 0.7 with severe needs (ATA, 2002). In Ontario, elementary classroom teachers had an average of 5.9 students with special needs; in grades 7 and 8, teachers had 10 students on average (Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario [ETFO], 2002). Although inclusion in the general classroom is celebrated, a range of supports and alternative arrangements still exist. These include residential schools, special schools, special classes, resource rooms, alternate programs offered by school districts for specific groups, and charter schools. When a child is placed in a general classroom setting, the processes closely match those described by Mark Mostert in his chapter on the United States in this volume. We therefore only very briefly outline the cycle of the integration process in Canada. • Identification. Some children arrive at school with an established disability. More often, a lag is discovered when a child meets the complexity of reading and math, which makes classroom teachers the first to refer a child for assessment. • Assessment. The process begins with an IQ measure and includes a battery of other tools as well as archival data. • Eligibility. Based on specific criteria, ministries or departments of education make the decision as to whether a child is eligible for special funding.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Celebrating the Challenges • Individual Education Plan (IEP). The essence of integration is individualization: goals and methods formulated in response to individual needs and documented in an IEP (called many different names across Canada). Each identified child has an IEP written by a team in collaboration with the parents. Students who do not receive funding may, however, also have IEPs. • Classroom accommodations and adaptations. As well as long-term goals and short-term objectives, the IEP contains accommodations (environmental changes) and adaptations (instructional or materials). • Instruction. Teaching focuses on IEP goals and is presented by the teacher, often with the assistance of a paraeducator. • Monitoring and evaluation. Progress toward the attainment of the goals of the IEP are consistently measured and evaluated.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

The Early Years Early identification and early intervention for young children with disabilities is an emerging priority in Canada. However, a hodgepodge of services and types of intervention exist, provided by different people in different settings under different agencies and jurisdictions. Infants and toddlers are often served in center-based (or clinic-based) programs, which are typically specialized with the appropriate services provided by professionals related to a discipline in the child’s area of most significant need. Most programs tend to follow developmental and therapeutic models, either on an individual basis for infants or in small groups for toddlers. The current philosophy of early childhood special education (ECSE) stresses that it should not be separate from general early childhood education—it is not parallel care and education, but care and education embedded in and integral to general early childhood education. The most appropriate settings for young children are comprehensive programs that promote regular contact. Increasing numbers of public school systems are implementing early childhood programs, especially programs for children who are considered to be at risk for school failure or those who have special needs. For example, in Alberta children with severe disabilities are eligible for early childhood services at the age of 2 1/2. From 3 1/2 years of age, children with mild or moderate disabilities are eligible for early education programs (Alberta Learning, 2000).

Teacher Training The pedagogical shift toward inclusive schooling has created new demands on teacher education programs. There is an expectation that pre-service training will instill teacher candidates with positive attitudes toward inclusion and students with exceptionalities as well as equip teachers with the knowledge and skills for working in diverse classrooms. Considerable variation exists among teacher education faculties, even within the same province, as to the extent and depth to which teacher candidates are provided with basic information about special education. Some faculties offer an introductory survey course;

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

53

54

Margret A. Winzer others infuse special education into another course; most provide an elective option dealing with inclusionary issues and practices (McBride, 2008; Roeher Institute, 2004). For specialist qualifications, the approach generally taken by jurisdictions is to encourage rather than require (McBride, 2008). Ontario is the only jurisdiction that currently has legislation with special requirements for teachers working with exceptional students. Pre-service programs alone cannot prepare teachers for inclusive classrooms; practicing teachers require sustained and effective in-service training. Often, teacher associations have stepped into the breach. These organizations have a long and varied history of providing workshops, discussion groups, and training for their members, and their professional development efforts have expanded markedly in recent years (Bascia, 2001, 2005).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Challenges Inclusion is avidly pursued in Canada, and the philosophical ideals have carved out significant improvements for persons who are exceptional. Nevertheless, many aspects of the agenda remain elusive and some groups remain vulnerable to exclusion. These are Aboriginal students; students with physical, emotional, mental, and learning challenges; newly arrived immigrant students; visible minority students; and students from lower socioeconomic groups. Canada’s most serious education gap lies between the 1.2 million persons who identified as Aboriginal in the 2006 census and other Canadians. A genuinely liberating philosophy has not translated facilely into effective operations within contemporary schools. Although most policy makers, teachers, teacher associations, advocacy groups, and parents agree with the goals of inclusion in principle, “few agree about how to achieve it” (Lupart, 1998, p. 256). They cannot decide whether inclusion means fundamental changes in the schools or more incremental modifications. Many observers focus on the lack of a carefully conceptualized blueprint. Canadian researchers speak to the “inclusion confusion” (Winzer, 2001), the “inclusion delusion” (Lupart, 1998), to “a journey without a destination” (Naylor, 2005), and to a path “more easily charted than followed” (MacKay cited in Bach, 2006, p. 2). The practice of inclusive schooling is marked by significant boundaries and limitations. A considerable body of literature identifies 13 areas central to any discussion on the challenges and countervailing forces in the journey toward inclusive schooling in Canada. These are briefly discussed below.

Rhetoric to Reality Gap Governments in Canada contend that their policies on inclusion are consistent, explicit, and mandate inclusive approaches. Legislation or ministerial orders/directives across the nation use the language of “shall” or “must.” Although this implies an obligation to conform to the demands of inclusive schooling, there is a lack of hard data to demonstrate that this occurs. Mounting evidence suggests that inclusive policy is reflected more in documents than in reality (Lupart, 2005; McBride, 2008; Naylor, 2005).

Unclear Policies As a matter of public policy, a government or a school system cannot responsibly adopt inclusion without defining its proposed program (Martin, 1995). Nevertheless, some dubious and ambiguous inferences underpin current policy decisions. The process is

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Celebrating the Challenges often affected without systematic modification of a school’s organization, due regard to teachers’ instructional expertise, or any guarantee of continuing resource provision. In Alberta, for example, critics chided that the ministry “has not developed a systematic, province wide action plan to support regular classroom teachers in assuming the challenge of inclusive practice” (ATA, 2008, p. 14).

Retention of a Dual System Without doubt, the direction across Canada stresses the elimination of a dual system and continuum of services and encourages the placement of all students in neighborhood schools and general classrooms. Despite this leaning, many jurisdictions have implemented inclusive education without fully dismantling the programs and services typical of traditional special education. One result is that inclusive schooling is viewed as a discretionary responsibility rather than a core value of the system. A second consequence is that much of what passes for inclusion today tends to be reduced to a new name for special education.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Confusion Between Philosophy and Practice Often, discussions around inclusion are fueled by political and ideological convictions. Many reformers are so caught up in the ideology that they make equity synonymous with placement in a general classroom. Ideology that divorces itself from the fundamental principles of individualized instructional programming fails to appreciate and reflect the actual educational outcomes of the inclusive endeavor by ignoring important interactions between student needs and instructional processes. Schools have a responsibility to provide a learning environment that encourages growth and development in all domains for each student. Place needs to be kept in perspective. Students need an education calibrated to their learning needs, and the place of instruction should not trump the nature of instruction. Not only does setting have a limited impact on outcomes, but it may be ineffective in systems where the levels of teachers’ training and expertise, classroom conditions and supports, and funding are not adequately realized.

Contextual Features Managing inclusive classrooms requires new kinds of supports or that traditional supports be provided in new ways. Supports include access to specialists, collaborative planning and decision-making, appropriate equipment, individual planning, and the availability of paraeducators (teacher aides). Yet, “the school structures and school support systems of most schools in Canada are hopelessly ill equipped to achieve the educational goal of fostering continuous progress and appropriate educational services for all students” (Lupart, 1999, p. 220). Policy and funding are interdependent: Policy provides the framework for how supports should be provided and funding provides the resources for delivering the supports. Funding—and who should provide it—forms a major roadblock. In recent decades, “education funding has decreased dramatically and the education infrastructure has become leaner and meaner” (Bascia, 2001, p. 2) to the extent that the dynamism of the inclusive movement is circumscribed by the “inadequacy of resource allocation” (Crawford, 2005, p. 20).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

55

56

Margret A. Winzer Cost and economic restraint cause tension between school administrators and parents, disability rights advocates and general educators, and districts and provinces as they try to balance aid for general education and also ensure that exceptional students receive the necessary supports. In some schools, the two systems end up competing for resources. In others, “the supposed autonomy and flexibility allowed to school districts in an environment of stringent accountability requirements facilitate and arguably encourage school districts to shift funding and staffing away from inclusive supports” (Naylor, 2005, p. 25). Some places tweak budgets and funding formulas to afford inclusion.

Teacher Workload Teaching is often a stressful occupation, with demands from administrators, colleagues, students, and parents compounded by work overload, shifting policies, and a lack of recognition for accomplishments (Greenglass & Burke, 2003). While the configurations of the workplace are not all the same, inclusion has meant significant changes in the composition of classrooms. Any typical elementary classroom will contain children who demand the attention, energy, and expertise of the teacher. For many teachers, inclusion increases workload and stress. Inclusion means working longer hours: In British Columbia, three-quarters of special education teachers reported that in 2010 their workload was higher than it was 5 years ago (Naylor & White, 2010). Multiple sources of work intensification exist: the sheer volume of new initiatives, the emergence of numerous expectations, incessant record-keeping, IEP meetings, IEP writing, complying with complicated funding procedures for students who are exceptional, supervising the work of paraeducators, and extracurricular activities. Lack of access to experts is a key stumbling block to the success of inclusive education (O’Connor, 2004). Across the nation, specialist teacher support and the availability of specialists has been sharply reduced. For example, struggling elementary students in Ottawa face up to a 4-year wait for a formal assessment, the first step in a diagnosis (Pearson, 2011).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Teacher Skills Considerable evidence suggests that teachers and administrators “are insufficiently prepared and ill-equipped to effect the multidimensional and complex changes that inclusive education reformers have envisioned” (Lupart & Webber, 2002, p. 18). Many teachers feel under siege. They do not know how to cope with the multiple innovations asked of them; they seem unprepared to comply with the broad array of requirements and cannot meet the challenges they face on a daily basis; they do not have a thorough understanding of the nature and characteristics of students with exceptionalities; they are not well versed in the skills necessary to adapt curriculum for special learners; and they cannot adapt to a variety of learning styles in the classroom (Chang, Early, & Winton, 2005; Farkas, Johnson, & Duffet, 2003; Pudlas, 2001). The signature feature of inclusion is its focus on the individual student as the unit for planning. Yet, preparing an IEP requires knowledge of the format, as well as knowledge about normal and atypical child development, curriculum for a number of grade levels, task analysis, diverse strategies for effective learning, ways to incorporate the skills of support personnel, and effective use of the skills of paraeducators. Many teachers lack the range of skills, and teacher-training institutions are not preparing candidates for the task.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Celebrating the Challenges

Teacher Training Many teachers in the public system “have not had the formal education in working with students with special needs” (Pudlas, 2001, p. 43). One study in Nova Scotia (Edmunds, Halsall, MacMillan, & Edmunds, 2000) found that 80% of respondents felt that they did not have adequate professional training for inclusion. In British Columbia, more than 40% of respondents to a survey felt that they were professionally unprepared to teach students with special needs (Naylor, 2004). Canadian teacher preparation programs have not kept pace with system needs (McBride, 2008). Across the nation, teacher preparation for inclusive schooling is uneven and haphazard (McBride, 2008; Roeher Institute, 2004). No uniform requirements exist in either the training or certification of personnel who work with special students or in the establishment of standards of educational practice relating to these students (McBride, 2008). It is not surprising that at the official provincial or territorial levels, virtually without exception, personnel responsible for special education see the need for improved skills and knowledge among classroom teachers in addressing the education of students with special needs (McBride, 2008). One confounding factor is the lack of an integrative image of shared purpose and values guiding teacher education that can translate into a comprehensive approach to inclusive issues. Jordan (2001) argues that the resources provided by governments for teacher training and in-service training are inadequate to effectively build system capacity to meet diverse students needs. Many practicing teachers feel that their work is jeopardized by a lack of professional training geared toward supporting inclusive schooling. Although teachers are requested to retrain and reform according to the legislated policy of inclusion, ongoing professional development is a challenge. There are many other demands on teacher time while decreased education funding reduces access to professional development.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Assessment Issues A potent theme is the incompatibility between the avowed support for inclusive education and the dogged pursuit of a standards-based approach to accountability (ATA, 2008). Evidence indicates that some school systems exclude students with exceptionalities from large-scale assessments. Fiske and Ladd (2000) speak to the situation in the United Kingdom; Hursch (2005) notes that American states such as Texas and New York have found it “rational to leave the lowest-performing students behind” (p. 614). On the Canadian side, it is not possible to ferret out data relating to provincial standards-based assessments or international cycles such as PISA and TIMMS. Because the design and implementation of large-scale assessments has not effectively factored in the notions of inclusion, the history of including students with disabilities into large-scale assessments has been dismal (Adamowycz, 2008). It appears that many jurisdictions reshape the test pool by excluding students with IEPs from the assessment process altogether (Adamowycz, 2008) so that data matching that generated by the American No Child Left Behind Act (see Hettleman, 2010) is unavailable. While it is important to measure education outcomes in order to determine whether students are improving (Richards, 2011), large-scale system accountability often conflicts with the focus on individual student needs (Naylor, 2005). Schools must avoid the

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

57

58

Margret A. Winzer temptation to overemphasize the importance of standardized outcomes in relation to pre-established targets of content knowledge relying on narrow assessment methods. Options range from providing accommodations that do not alter the target skills tested to providing alternate assessments for students with modifed curricula.

Outcomes The inclusion concept stresses that “[y]oung people with disabilities have an equal right to be in school and to have something meaningful happen once they are inside” (Smith, 1994, p. 7). That is, the inclusive process is understood as the special programs, services, funding, policies, and quality curriculum in teaching and learning that are in place to support students with disabilities and should provide a broad array of improved student outcomes. Prescriptions for placement and instruction are notoriously vague. Often, an individual student’s right to placement is mediated by practicality—the degree to which a placement is feasible or workable. For example, some pupils enrolled in specialized classes may not meet the specific criteria but have been so placed because other specialized classes are full (Pearson, 2011). In some cases, the talk is of inclusion but the evidence is of exclusion. The policy says, “Let’s force the door open” for students who are exceptional, but a steady and increasing flow of problem students are ejected out the back and side doors. In some cases, students are included but poorly served. The IEP is not implemented faithfully, and students are left almost entirely to the ministrations of untrained paraeducators (see Winzer, 2005).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Paraeducators Variously referred to as teachers’ aides, teaching assistants, classroom assistants, childcare workers, paraprofessionals, or paraeducators, this is the fastest growing personnel segment associated with inclusive schooling (Winzer, 2005). Although the use of paraeducators is well established, their lack of training has been highlighted as a major concern in the successful undertaking of a pedagogical role (Lindsay, 2003). Particularly for students with mild disabilities, paraeducators are often untrained in validated instructional protocols or too inexperienced to implement instructional objectives with fidelity.

Parents Parents’ discovery of a child’s disability brings them into a lifelong series of interactions. Many families are plunged into the world of infant stimulation, early intervention, preschools, respite services, and medical intervention. Especially, families have longterm relationships with school systems. Parents, especially parents of children with significant disabilities, have long formed a core constituency for the inclusive agenda. Most parents desire inclusion for their children (Porter, 2004) and appear to have started their connection with the school system when their child entered school with hope and trust. For many, both hope and trust dissipated either rapidly or over time (Naylor, 2005). Many parents hold ambivalent attitudes about inclusion resulting from ambiguous education policy. Nor are they confident that a school will welcome their child or assure them of a quality education presented by well-trained and well-supported teachers.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Celebrating the Challenges Many parents express dissatisfaction with the services offered to their children in the schools. A Statistics Canada survey found that parents of about one-quarter of children with disabilities—about 24.3% of children with disabilities who were attending school— believed that their child’s special educational needs were not being met (The Globe and Mail, 2008). In a British Columbia study, parents felt that relationships with the school were often strained and difficult. Diagnostic testing was often difficult to obtain; reporting practices were problematic and inappropriate; concerns surfaced about the IEP process; and parents felt that they faced a form of systemic resistance to their efforts to address the issues of programming, staffing, and communication (British Columbia Teachers Federation [BCTF], 2002).

Research Findings

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

The scientific evidence on the general advantages of inclusive schooling is elusive and contested. In studies that compare the benefits of inclusion in general settings to instruction in special classrooms, impressionistic data tend to be positive; controlled studies with empirical research show less optimistic results. Research produces mixed results and modest advantages (Canadian Council on Learning, 2009). Overviews, reviews, and metaanalyses have failed “to provide clear evidence for the benefits of inclusion” (Lindsay, 2003, p. 6). Research fails to support the efficacy of inclusion for students with learning disabilities: Eighteen studies from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada concluded that “the best research available on the effects of LD student placement only tentatively favours inclusion” (Canadian Council on Learning, 2009, p. 3). In Canada, the literature and research sources offering national perspectives or empirical data on implementation remain quite limited. Data is not available on a number of critical pragmatic criteria such as achievement of IEP goals, length of time on an IEP, general achievement, time spent out of the general classroom, time spent with a paraeducator, the instructional duties of paraeducators, and whether stigma is associated with paraeducator support. FUTUR E TR ENDS With its widely accepted, and self-proclaimed, value for diversity, it is not surprising that inclusion in Canada is an article of unshakeable conviction and that a broad-based advocacy exists for all children and youth to be educated in ways that reflect the diversity of Canadian society and its inclusive values. There is considerable evidence that the general public, policy makers, parents, teachers’ associations, and general classroom teachers support the philosophy of inclusion. In the past few decades, Canadian society in general has made major gains in its ability to provide sophisticated services for individuals who are exceptional both in the wider social arena and within public education. As schools adopt the tenets, they strive to become learning organizations in which teachers are adapting their pedagogies to the diversity of learning demands presented by individual children. In many ways, the horizons are marked by the possibility for growth. Teachers seem willing to accept and excel at their expanded roles, and many fine examples of inclusive practice exist. At the same time, there is no shortage of issues and constraints in interpretation and implementation, and in inherent and unintended contradictions

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

59

60

Margret A. Winzer in the agenda. Reflecting on the challenges just discussed and the extensive explorations in the literature, a number of points are clear. First, inclusive education in Canada is not yet a reality. Legislative mandates, policy, and public expectations have exceeded not only the technical capacity of professionals to deliver but also in the capacity of systems to respond effectively. Second, reform efforts are piecemeal and fragmented with cosmetic changes outweighing substantive transformation. The process of inclusion remains an intricate and delicate area of educational management with complex and multiple challenges surrounding implementation. Finally, and perhaps most critical, analyses of inclusive schooling repeatedly call for events that do not happen. The matters that continue to generate controversy are familiar concerns and have dogged the inclusive movement since its inception. These are • the amount of, and the suitability of, inclusive education for all exceptional students; • the documentation needed to access funding; • modification of the way that funding is allocated; • the process used to identify and assess potential exceptional needs; • improvement of the integration of services, most particularly at the infant and pre-school levels; • improvement of student access to the curriculum; • modification to the accountability framework to take into account the circumstances of students with exceptionalities; • the knowledge and skills required by teachers; • increasing the viability of teacher training as well as the professional development available to teachers;

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• ensuring that parents are involved; • and undertaking more research. As Bach (2006) and other advocates point out, the comprehensive nature of the solution will require significant changes and investment. It will mean the restructuring of roles of many of the education actors; a massive professional and leadership development strategy; restructuring of funding; new accountability mechanisms; major institutional change within government, districts and schools; new relationships between schools, parents, and communities; and ways to recruit and retain qualified staff, especially in rural and isolated schools. NO T E The past two decades have seen a remarkable commitment to inclusive ideals and the development of policies and practices aimed at meeting the needs of all students. Although closely modeled on the American special education system, the Canadian system has developed a character of its own molded in large part by the celebration

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Celebrating the Challenges of diversity in a multicultural society, the configuration of the education system, the interlocking federal legislation, and the ongoing revisions of provincial and territorial legislation and policies. The resilience and popularity of inclusion have given the ideology and the attendant programs a remarkable reach. All the Canadian provinces and territories have policies that hold inclusion as a goal to which schools must aspire, and inclusive schooling is standard practice across the nation.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

R E F E R E NC E S Adamowycz, R. (2008). Reforming education: Is inclusion in standardization possible? Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 68, 1–23. Alberta Education. (2008, July 10). Alberta’s special education program to be reviewed. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/department/newsroom/news/2008/july/20080710 .aspx. Alberta Learning. (2000, November). Shaping the future for students with special needs: A review of special education in Alberta: Final report. Edmonton, Canada: Author. Alberta Learning. (2002). Standards for special education. Edmonton, Canada: Author. Alberta Teachers Association. (2002). Falling through the cracks: A summary of what we heard about teaching and learning conditions in Alberta schools. Edmonton, Canada: Author. Alberta Teachers Association. (2008). Success for all. Edmonton, Canada: Author. Autism Society Canada. (2004, March). Canadian autism research agenda and Canadian autism strategy: A white paper. Ottawa, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://www .autismsocietycanada.ca/DocsAndMedia/ASC_Internal/finalwhite-eng.pdf. Bach, M. (2006, November). Solidarity forever? What prospects for a movement for inclusive education? Paper presented at the New Brunswick Professional Development Conference on Inclusive Education. Bascia, N. (2001). The other side of the equation: Professional development and the organizational capacity of teacher unions (Working Paper No. 27). Toronto, Canada: OISE, Centre for the Study of Education and Work. Bascia, N. (2005). Triage or tapestry: Teacher unions’ work in an era of systemic reform. In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood, & D. Livingstone (Eds.), International handbook of educational policy (pp. 593–609). London: Springer. British Columbia Ministry of Education. (1995). Special education services: A manual of policies, procedures and guidelines. Victoria, Canada: Author. British Columbia Teachers Federation. (2002). Research project. Retrieved from http://www .bctf.ca/education/InclusiveEd/Research Project. Canada News. (2010). Canada ratifies UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. Retrieved from http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?m=/index&nid=517849. Canadian Council on Learning. (2009, March). Does placement matter? Comparing the academic performance of students with special needs in inclusive and separate settings. Retrieved from http://www.cclca.ca/CCL/Reports/LessonsInLearning/LinL20090318SpecialNeeds .html. Canadian Council on Social Development. (1999). The progress of Canada’s children 1999–2000: Into the millennium. Ottawa, Canada: Author. Canadian Institute of Child Health. (2000). The health of Canada’s children (3rd ed.). Ottawa, Canada: Author. Canadian Teachers’ Federation. (2004). Poll shows. Retrieved from http://www.oecta.on.ca/ agenda/agendas2004/04sept.html#pol.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

61

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

62

Margret A. Winzer Chang, F., Early, D. M., & Winton, P. J. (2005). Early childhood teacher preparation in special education at 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education. Journal of Early Intervention, 27, 110–124. Crawford, C. (2005). Scoping inclusive education for Canadian students with intellectual and other disabilities. Toronto, Canada: Roeher Institute. Dunn, L. M., & McNeill, W. D. D. (1953/54). Special education in Canada as provided by local school systems. Journal of Exceptional Children, 20, 209–215. Dyson, L. (2007). The meaning of social integration in cross-national contexts: A comparison of Canadian and Chinese elementary school teachers’ perspectives. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 10, 23–31. Edmunds, A. L. (2003). The inclusive classroom: Can teachers keep up? A comparison of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador teachers’ perceptions. Exceptionality Education Canada, 13, 29–48. Edmunds, A. L., Halsall, A., MacMillan, R. B., & Edmunds, G.A. (2000). The impact of government funding cuts on education: Report from a teacher survey. Nova Scotia, Canada: Nova Scotia Teachers’ Union. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario. (2002). Fulfilling the promise: Ensuring success for students with special needs. Toronto, Canada: Author. Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and principals talk about what’s needed to fix public schools. Washington, DC: Public Agenda. Fiske, E. B., & Ladd, H. F. (2000). The tomorrow’s schools reforms: An American perspective. (IPS Policy Paper No. 6). Institute of Policy Studies, University of Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://ips.ac.nz/publications/files/0321666586e.pdf. Greenglass, E. R., & Burke, R. J. (2003). Teacher stress. In M. F. Dollard, A. H. Winefield, & H. R. Winefield (Eds.), Occupational stress in the service professions (pp. 213–236). New York: Taylor and Francis. Hastings, R., Sonuga-Barke, E. J., & Remington, B. (1993). An analysis of labels of people with learning disabilities. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 463–465. Hettleman, K. R. (2010, July 4). The illusion and broken promises of special education. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/03/09/26hettleman .h24.html. Hillsdon, P. (2011). The state of education in Canada and BC. Retrieved from http://www .paulhillsdon.com/2011/01/04/the-state-of-education-in-canada-and-bc. Human Resources and Social Development Canada. (2004). Advancing the inclusion of persons with disabilities (Executive summary). Ottawa, Canada: Author. Hursch, D. (2005). The growth of high-stakes testing in the USA: Accountability, markets and the decline in educational quality. British Journal of Educational Research, 31, 604–622. Hutchinson, N. L. (2007). Inclusion of exceptional learners in Canadian schools. Toronto: Pearson Canada. Jordan, A. (2001). Special education in Ontario, Canada; A case study of market-based reforms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31, 349–371. Lessard, C. (with Brassard, A.). (n.d.). Educational governance in Canada: Trends and significance. Montreal, Canada: University of Montreal, Centre for Policy Studies in Higher Education and Training. Lindsay, G. (2003). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/ mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1–24. Lupart, J. (2005, November). Excellence and inclusion: Can Canadian schools achieve both? Building inclusive schools: A search for solutions. Paper presented at the Canadian Teachers’ Federation Conference, Ottawa. Lupart, J., & Webber, C. (2002). Canadian schools in transition: Moving from dual education systems to inclusive schools. Exceptionality Education Canada, 12, 7–52.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Celebrating the Challenges Lupart, J. L. (1998). Setting right the delusion of inclusion: Implications for Canadian schools. Canadian Journal of Education, 23, 251–264. Lupart, J. L. (1999). Inching toward inclusion: The excellence/equity dilemma in our schools. In Y. Lenoir, W. Hunter, D. Hodgkinson, P. de Broucker, & A. Dolbec (Eds.), A panCanadian education research agenda (pp. 215–231). Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Society for Research in Education. Manitoba Education, Training and Youth. (2002). Educational planning. Retrieved from http:/ www.edu.gov.mb.ca/metks4/instruct/specedu/eduplan.html. Martin, E. W. (1995). Case studies on inclusion: Worst fears realized. Journal of Special Education, 29, 192–199. McBride, S. (2008). A cross-Canada review of selected issues in special education. Victoria, Canada: McBride Management. Naylor, C. (2004). Teaching in 2003: Survey report—how teachers in Coquitlam and Nanaimo view special education and ESL services. Retrieved from http://cms.bctf.ca/issues/research .aspx?id=5842. Naylor, C. (2005, November). Inclusion in British Columbia’s public schools: Always a journey, never a destination. Paper presented at the Canadian Teachers’ Federation Conference, Ottawa. Naylor, C., & White, M. (2010). Worklife of BC teachers, 2009. Victoria, Canada: British Columbia Teacher Federation. Nelson, C., & Huefner, D. S. (2003). Young children with autism: Judicial responses to the Lovaas and discrete trial training debates. Journal of Early Intervention, 26, 1–19. New Brunswick Department of Education. (2002). Guidelines and standards: Educational planning for students with exceptionalities. Fredericton, Canada: Author. Nova Scotia Department of Education and Culture. (1996). Special education policy manual. Halifax, Canada: Author. O’Connor, E. (2004, July 8). Not enough resources for special-needs students, says national teacher poll. The Province, p. A27. Ontario Inspector of Prisons, Asylums, and Public Charities. (1878). Tenth Annual Report. Toronto, Canada: Queen’s Printer. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Education at a glance, 2010: OECD indicators. Paris: Author. Pearson, M. (2011, February 17). Four-year wait for special ed assessments. Ottawa Citizen. Phillips, R. (2010, June 7). Forgotten and ignored: Special education in First Nations schools in Canada. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 106, 1–23. Porter, G. L. (2004, Winter). Meeting the challenge: Inclusion and diversity in Canadian schools. Education Canada, 44, 11–13. Pudlas, K. (2001). Educational provisions for children with exceptional needs in British Columbia. Exceptionality Education Canada, 11, 33–54. Pudlas, K. A. (2003). Inclusive educational practices: Perceptions of students and teachers. Exceptionality Education Canada, 13, 49–64. Pyryt, M. C. (2003, summer). Special education on Alberta’s screen. Keeping in Touch, p. 4. Richards, J. (2011, January 6). School dropouts: Who are they and what can be done? [E-brief]. Toronto, Canada: C. D. Howe Institute. Roeher Institute. (2000). Count us in: Overview of childhood disability. Toronto, Canada: Author. Roeher Institute. (2004). Inclusive policy and practice in education: Best practices for students with disabilities. Toronto, Canada: Author. Rottmann, C. (2008). Organized agents: Canadian teacher unions as alternative routes for social justice activism. Canadian Journal of Education, 31, 975–1014. Ryerson, E. A. (1868). Report on institutions for the deaf and dumb and the blind in Europe and in the United States of America with appendices and suggestions for their establishment in the province of Ontario. Toronto, Canada: Daily Telegraph Printing House.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

63

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

64

Margret A. Winzer Sanghavi, D. (2005, April 26). Time to calm down about Ritalin. Boston Globe. Scorgie, K., Wilgosh, L., & McDonald, L. (1998). Stress and coping in families of children with disabilities: An examination of recent literature. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 26, 22–42. Simpson, R. L. (2004). Inclusion of students with behavior disorders in general education settings: Research and measurement issues. Behavioral Disorders, 30, 19–31. Smith, W. J. (1994). Equal educational opportunity for students with disabilities: Legislative action in Canada. Montreal, Canada: McGill University, Office of Research on Educational Policy. Smith, W. J. (2007). Data-based advocacy: Determining reasonable accommodations of special needs in an age of accountability. Education Law Journal, 16, 269–282. Special education comes up short, parents feel. (2008, May 27). The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlety/story/RTGAM.20080527. Statistics Canada. (2005, June 28). Canada’s Aboriginal population in 2017. The Daily. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050628/d050628d.htm. Statistics Canada. (2008). Participation and activity limitation survey of 2006: A profile for education for children with disabilities. Ottawa, Canada: Author. Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2007). Education indicators in Canada: Report of the pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. Retrieved from http://www.cmec.ca/stats/indexe.stm. Tam, P. (2010, December 15). $25M for autism ‘raises a lot of questions.’ The Autism News. Retrieved from http://www.theautismnews.com/2010/12/15/25m-for-autism-raises-a -lot-of-questions. Urquhart, I. (2005, November 9). Special education debate returns to haunt Ontario. Toronto Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com. Valentine, F. (2001). Enabling citizenship: Full inclusion of children with disabilities and their parents. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Public Policy. Winzer, M. (2001). Reform in special education: The inclusion confusion. Humanisierung der Bildung, 1, 91–105. Winzer, M. (2005). The dilemma of support: Paraeducators and the inclusive movement. Exceptionality Education Canada, 15, 101–123. Winzer, M. (2008). Children with exceptionalities in Canadian classrooms (8th ed.). Toronto, Canada: Pearson. Winzer, M. (2009). A history of special education: From integration to inclusion. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Wotherspoon, T., & Schissel, B. (2001). The business of placing Canadian children and youth ‘at-risk.’ Canadian Journal of Education, 26, 321–339.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Europe—Reforming and Restructuring National Systems

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Part Two

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved. International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

3 “Education for All” in the Countries of the United Kingdom

Lani Florian, Martyn Rouse, and John Anderson

Education for All (EFA) refers to the global commitment to provide quality basic education to all children, youth, and adults. While it is usually associated with access to education in the poorest countries of the world, there is a growing appreciation that issues of access, equity, and quality education are important matters for all countries, rich and poor. The term was used deliberately in the title of this chapter, not only to locate the United Kingdom in a broader global context but also because the term special education is not used consistently across all four countries of the United Kingdom.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E U N I T E D K I NG D OM Understanding that the United Kingdom (UK) is made up of four separate but linked countries—England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales—is an important starting point for considering national issues of EFA because each country has its own education system. However, while the strong similarities and links between the different national systems often justify grouping them together for general discussion purposes, this can obscure important differences. The common, but mistaken, use of the term England to refer to the United Kingdom or Britain reinforces the misconception that the island of Britain is one country. This error further compounds confusion about the relationships between Britain and the countries of the United Kingdom. To clarify this situation, some background about the context in which contemporary UK policies have developed and operated is needed. Essentially, the interrelated but distinct nature of the national contexts of the countries of the United Kingdom is historical. The early 18th-century political union of Great Britain brought England, Scotland, and Wales under a single form of government in 1707. In 1800, a further Act of Union added Ireland until it was partitioned in 1921 to become the Irish Free State. However, during this time of political change, Northern Ireland opted to remain a part of the United Kingdom. Hence, today the United Kingdom refers to Great Britain and Northern Ireland, also commonly (although incorrectly) referred to as Britain.

The authors would like to thank our colleague Cliff Warwick, Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (DCELLS), Wales, for information about the changing policy context in Wales. 67 International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

68

Lani Florian, Martyn Rouse, and John Anderson While education in each of the four countries share many common features, Scotland and Northern Ireland have always had separate systems. Historically, Scotland’s education system has served as a distinctive marker of national identity and pride, an aspect of resistance to assimilation with England (Anderson, 2003). In Northern Ireland, for different historical and political reasons and, in part, due to the direct rule by Westminster, educational reforms generally followed developments in England and Wales, which until recently operated a unified system. However, the devolution of political power within the United Kingdom more broadly has led to the emergence of a distinct system of education in Wales since 2007 that is the responsibility of the Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (DCELLS) (Welsh Assembly, 2010). Devolution has also led to further distinctions in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Differences in national contexts have resulted in variations in special education policy (such as the language used) and practices (such as the types of data collected) making some direct comparisons difficult if not impossible. However, the conceptual and philosophical issues and problems of access to, and equity in, education for all children and young people are shared concerns. This chapter discusses the shared concerns that are relevant across all of the countries of the United Kingdom. Differences are identified to make the distinctive nature of each country context explicit. Where data are available, some examples are provided to enable the reader to make comparisons.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E S O C I A L FA BR IC OF T H E U N I T E D K I NG D OM Like other European countries, the United Kingdom has been undergoing rapid economic changes brought about in part by the decline of many traditional industries such as manufacturing and mining. Heavy engineering (for example, iron and steel manufacturing, ship building, and volume car making) has been replaced by high-tech industry and the service sector (tourism and financial services). Together with these major economic changes, Britain is becoming increasingly urban and multicultural (de Blij, 2005). The most recent government statistics estimate the population to be 61.8 million (Office for National Statistics, 2010b). According to the 2001 census, approximately 4.6 million people (7.9% of the population) are from a minority ethnic group (Office for National Statistics, 2010a). However, as shown in Table 1, regional variations are substantial.

Major Forces Shaping the Social Milieu of the United Kingdom: Immigration and Language The United Kingdom has a long history of immigration, and Britain identifies itself as multicultural with a tradition of offering opportunity to others and refuge to those escaping persecution or hardship (Home Office, 2007). After the Second World War, the government welcomed immigrants who were needed to help rebuild Britain. From the 1950s on, immigrants arrived from the former British colonies in the Caribbean and South Asia; this is reflected in the relatively large ethnic minority groups from India and Pakistan. In recent years, the enlargement of the European Union (EU) has resulted in a new wave of immigrants from the accession states of Eastern and Southeastern Europe. Additionally, an increasing number of refugees have sought asylum in the United Kingdom from conflicts elsewhere on the world.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

“Education for All” in the Countries of the United Kingdom Table 1. Regional Variation Across the Countries of the United Kingdom England* Scotland* Wales* Northern Ireland** Population 51 million 5.17 million 2.98 million 1.79 million Minority Indian 1.3 m Irish 50,000 Indian 14,000 Polish 14,000 groups Pakistan 0.9 m Pakistan 31,000 Pakistan 11,000 Slovak 6,000 African 0.7 m Indian 15,000 Philippine 6,000 Caribbean 0.6 m Chinese 16,000 Indian 6,000 Irish 0.6 m Mixed 13,000 Mixed 0.8 m Economic Service industries Service Service Historically activity Financial services industries industries agricultural Tourism Agriculture Manufacturing Large public sector Manufacturing and forestry Agriculture Dependent on UK Public sector Manufacturing and forestry support Education and Financial Fishing health Tourism Agriculture Public sector Education and health Oil and gas

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

*2001 census figures rounded; **2009 data.

In all countries of the United Kingdom, the majority of immigrants tend to be concentrated in urban areas, so while overall numbers of some minority groups may be low, the concentration of groups within particular areas is often high. In addition, recent changes to employment patterns have seen an increase in East European migrants moving to rural areas to work in agriculture and farming. Many schools in these areas are receiving non-English speaking children for the first time, while other schools in urban areas enroll a majority of students for whom English is not a first language. However, this is not the only language issue as different dialects of English are spoken throughout the United Kingdom. Many Welsh and Scottish people speak Welsh or Gaelic; Irish is also spoken in Northern Ireland, as is the dialect Ulster Scots (Home Office, 2007).

Insights Into the Unique Social and Cultural Realities of the United Kingdom After the end of the Second World War, Britain moved to establish a welfare state. This included a new Education Act (Education Act, 1944), which provided secondary education for all, and a National Health Service (NHS) that was free at the point of delivery. More than 60 years after it was established, the NHS remains a crucial element of the social fabric of the United Kingdom and continues to enjoy high levels of public approval. Many of the other policies associated with the welfare state were pro-child and socially progressive. Nevertheless, traditional views of disability as illness, deviance, or personal tragedy remain deeply embedded in the United Kingdom. Barnes and Mercer (2003) noted that since the 1960s disabled people have organized to challenge this orthodoxy so that today there is a greater understanding of disability as a sociopolitical issue rather than an individual medical one. Since the first Disability Act in 1970, antidiscrimination

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

69

70

Lani Florian, Martyn Rouse, and John Anderson legislation has helped to ensure that disabled people are empowered to exercise their rights as full citizens with the same rights and responsibilities that are afforded to others in the society. Nevertheless, according to a recent survey by the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2010), people with disabilities still face discrimination. For example, many young people in Britain today believe that disabled people do not want to work.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E G E N E R A L S C HO OL S Y S T E M The United Kingdom has a long history of universal provision of public education (see Table 2). Children between the ages of 5 and 16 must attend school, and the majority of students remain in education beyond the age of 16. Note that in Northern Ireland the starting age is 4; the leaving age will be raised to 18 by 2015. Education is financed largely through national taxation with funds distributed through local authorities, although some schools are funded directly by the government. Across the United Kingdom, primary schools generally educate both boys and girls, but a small number of secondary schools are single-sex schools. In all four countries of the United Kingdom, faith schools are part of the state-funded education system. Since compulsory school attendance laws were introduced in the 1870s and 1880s, the state education system developed in partnership with the mainstream Christian churches. Today, around a third of maintained schools (schools that are eligible for government funding) in England have a religious character (Church of England, Catholic, with a small numbers of Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim schools; Teachernet, n.d.). In Scotland, the majority of schools are effectively secular and are known as “nondenominational” schools. Northern Ireland has a highly segregated education system with 95% of pupils attending either maintained (mostly Catholic) schools or controlled schools (mostly Protestant). Controlled schools are open to children of all faiths as are Catholic schools. The latter admit some non-Catholic children. In recent years, a number of integrated schools have been established by the voluntary efforts of parents supported by the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE). These schools are also state funded.

Curriculum There is a national curriculum in England, which consists of English, mathematics, science, design and technology, information and communication technology, history, geography, modern foreign languages, music, art and design, physical education, and citizenship. In addition, there are a number of other compulsory courses, such as religious education. Children take national curriculum-based tests at age 7, 11, and 14. Table 2. Number of Schools and Enrollment by Country (rounded up) England and Wales Northern Ireland Scotland

Number of state schools 30,000 1,300 5,000

Enrollment 8.5 m 350,000 830,000

Source: http://www.britishcouncil.org/usa-education-uk-system-k-12-education.htm

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

“Education for All” in the Countries of the United Kingdom The school-level results in England are public and are used to construct league tables of school performance (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 1999). While the national curriculum also initially applied to Wales, a National Curriculum Council has retained oversight of the curriculum and undertakes a 5-year review cycle. From the outset, Welsh has been a core subject in Welsh-speaking schools. In Wales, the national curriculum tests have been replaced by teacher assessments. In 2008, Wales introduced a skills curriculum that emphasizes the acquisition of skills over content knowledge (Warwick, personal communication, 29 November, 2010). Northern Ireland follows a similar framework to the English national curriculum. However, the curriculum was recently revised to better provide access to the skills and competences perceived as relevant to a 21st-century economy in order to provide a rich entitlement and greater choice, and to enable teaching to be adapted more readily to meet pupils’ individual needs and aspirations. The curriculum also includes the study of the Irish language in all maintained schools; Irish is also the language of instruction in a small number of Irishimmersion schools (Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, n.d.). Scotland is currently making the transition to a new Curriculum for Excellence program designed to give teachers and schools more flexibility and greater curricular coherence across the 3 to 18 age range. The purpose of Curriculum for Excellence is encapsulated in what are called the four capacities—to enable each child or young person to be a successful learner, a confident individual, a responsible citizen, and an effective contributor (Learning and Teaching Scotland, n.d.).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Assessment and Examination Currently, after 5 years of secondary education in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the majority of students take examinations in a range of subjects at the level of General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE). The GCSE is a single-subject examination set and marked by independent examination boards. Students usually take up to 10 (there is no upper or lower limit) GCSE examinations in different subjects, including mathematics and English language. After taking the GCSEs, students may leave secondary school, they may choose to stay on at school for 2 more years (years 12 and 13), or they may continue their education at a college where a range of courses are available. Students who are aiming to attend a university normally take A-level (advanced level) examinations. Results on GCSE and A-level examinations are not only important for individual young people; they are also used to compare schools. The assessment and examination arrangements in Scotland are the responsibility of the Scottish Qualification Authority (Scottish Qualifications Authority, 2006). The current tiered system (called the Standard Grade) offers examination papers at three levels (foundation, general, and credit). This system is currently undergoing review and revision in light of the Curriculum for Excellence’s introduction in order to develop a framework for national qualifications. This new examination arrangement is expected to replace Standard Grade with a new national examination in 2014.

National Assessments and Children With Special Educational Needs Ongoing debates concern the extent to which all children, including those identified as having special educational needs, should take part in national assessments

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

71

72

Lani Florian, Martyn Rouse, and John Anderson (McLaughlin & Rouse, 2000) and how their progress might be assessed. In response, the government of England has attempted not only to extend the range of students for whom “reasonable progress” is considered important through the use of more fine-grained alternative measures, but also to widen learning beyond the core academic areas of the curriculum (English, math, and science) to include “broader achievements in terms of personal and social development” (Department for Education and Skills [DfES], 2004a, para. 3.22). Current policy developments in Wales are aiming to design a seamless national system of assessment that includes all students (Warwick, personal communication, November 29, 2010).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Academic Attainment and Selection All UK school systems produce high academic attainment for some pupils, but there is concern in all countries about the long tail of underachievement for the lowest performing 20% (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2007) and the steep rise in the numbers of young people not in education, employment, or training (NEET). The Office for National Statistics has reported 17.6% of 18 to 24 year olds, nearly one million young people, as NEET (Leper, 2010). In England and Wales, the 1988 Education Act introduced a series of school reforms based on the principles of the marketplace, including choice, competition, and decentralization. These reforms radically shifted the control of day-to-day decisions about education from local authorities to schools. Subsequent legislation has strengthened these reforms. It has been argued that children living in poverty and/or those with special educational needs have been made more vulnerable as schools serving areas of deprivation struggle to compete in the education market (Gillborn & Youdell, 2000; McLaughlin & Rouse, 2000). Scotland did not adopt the same market-based reforms as England and continues to have a largely comprehensive system. Variations in achievement are largely a withinschool phenomenon, unlike England, where they are a between-school problem (OECD, 2007). Northern Ireland retains a selective secondary education system in which children are sorted as a result of transfer tests that are no longer regulated by the state because of contentious and unresolved policy changes relating to selective secondary education.

OV E RV I E W OF S PEC I A L N E E D S There is a long-standing tradition of special school provision in the United Kingdom. Many such schools were established during the 20th century to educate children with disabilities. Although the numbers varied in different parts of the United Kingdom, about 2% of children attended special schools. In addition, until the 1970s, a very small number of children were in hospitals or attended junior training centers run by health authorities. The 1970 Education Act in England and Wales, followed by similar legislation in Scotland in 1974 (MacKay & McLarty, 2003), and Northern Ireland in 1986, ended the long-standing practice of classifying a small minority of children as uneducable and put a stop to the arrangements for classifying children suffering from a disability of mind as children unsuitable for education at school. It also took away the power of

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

“Education for All” in the Countries of the United Kingdom health authorities and relocated responsibility to education authorities. For the first time in UK history, 100% of school-age children were entitled to education (Vaughn, 2002). In the 1970s the government established a Committee of Inquiry, chaired by the philosopher (now Baroness) Mary Warnock, commonly referred to as the Warnock Report (Department of Education and Science, 1978). The committee was to undertake a review of special education policy and provision. Further policy developments followed the recommendations of the committee report and its associated Education Acts (1980 in Scotland; 1981 in England and Wales; 1986 in Northern Ireland). These acts, informed by the Warnock Report recommendations, stressed the noncategorical nature of disability and embraced an ecological or interactive view of special needs that suggested that up to 20% of students may have special educational needs (SEN) at some point in their educational careers. However, attempts to leave behind categories of handicap were not without problems because many forms of provision, especially special schools, were themselves categorical. The tension between a noncategorical approach to special education provision and the perceived need to categorize children for educational and accountability purposes is well documented (Wedell, 2008) and remains a current concern and topic of debate among policymakers, professionals, families, and advocates.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Special Educational Needs The idea that up to 20% of all children might experience difficulty in learning at some time in their school careers required a definition of SEN that was flexible and sensitive to the range and type of individual differences that make up the school-age population. Subsequently, children with SEN were defined as having significantly greater difficulty in learning than other children of a similar age, or of having a disability preventing or hindering them from making use of mainstream educational facilities. But the term has been problematic. For example, a student with a medical diagnosis or disability does not necessarily have a SEN unless a special educational provision is needed to access the curriculum. Equally, a child with a SEN does not necessarily have a disability. The original intent of a flexible, noncategorical approach to SEN provision was to enable support to be provided to children experiencing difficulties in learning without the delay and expense of multidisciplinary assessment or the stigma of a label. It shifted the focus of special education away from the comfortable certainty of categorical handicaps toward a consideration of learning needs. But it has also obscured particular learning difficulties and deprived people of a vocabulary to such an extent that in England and Wales subsequent guidance reintroduced the notion of categories by specifying four areas of need: communication and interaction, cognition and learning, behavior, emotional and social development, and sensory or physical need (DfES, 2001b, p. 85). More recently, in response to concerns about the lack of specificity in SEN data, the English government has begun to collect data from schools to include 11 categories of SEN: Specific Learning Disability (SpLD), Moderate Learning Difficulty (MLD), Severe Learning Difficulty (SLD), Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulty (PMLD), Emotional and Behavioral Difficulty (EBD), Speech, Language and Communication Needs (SLCN), Hearing Impairment (HI), Visual Impairment (VI), Multisensory Impairment (MSI), Physical Difficulty (PD), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

73

74

Lani Florian, Martyn Rouse, and John Anderson Other (OTH). However, such data are not collected consistently across the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland and Wales, different categorical data are collected. In Scotland, categorical data are not collected. SEN is the term currently used in policy documents in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, Scotland has attempted to leave the language of special education behind by replacing the term SEN with Additional Support Needs (ASN) in the 2004 Additional Support for Learning Act. This act specifies that any child may need additional support for any reason at any time. However, both SEN and ASN cover an array of problems from those related to particular impairments (thought to represent about 2% of children) to those related to learning and behavioral difficulties experienced by some learners compared with other similar learners (up to 18% of the school population at any given time).

Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Despite the acknowledgment of the interactive nature of SEN, the administrative procedures that have been set out to ensure that children are appropriately supported when they experience difficulty are based on an individual-needs approach to provision. All of the UK countries use a variation of a staged intervention structure that is specified in governmental guidance, called a code of practice. Table 3 outlines the staged assessment process followed in Northern Ireland. England and Wales follow a similar approach but stages of action are simplified and refer to School Action (stages 1 and 2), or School Action Plus (stages 3 and 4), and statement (stage 5). In Scotland, a particular staged intervention model is not specified, but local education authorities are encouraged to use a wide range of approaches that “are built around discrete stages of intervention which seek to resolve difficulties as early as possible and with the least intrusive course of action” (Scottish Government, 2005, p. 25).

Table 3. Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs: Northern Ireland Stage 1 Stage 2

Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Teachers identify and register a child’s special educational needs and, consulting the school’s SEN coordinator, take initial action. The SEN coordinator takes lead responsibility for collecting and recording information and for coordinating the child’s special educational provision, working with the child’s teachers. Teachers and the SEN coordinator are supported by specialists from outside the school. The board considers the need for a statutory assessment and, if appropriate, makes a multidisciplinary assessment. The board considers the need for a statement of special educational needs; if appropriate, it makes a statement and arranges, monitors, and reviews provision.

Source: Department of Education for Northern Ireland. (1998). Code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. Belfast: Author.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

“Education for All” in the Countries of the United Kingdom

Statutory Assessment of Special Educational Needs As can be seen in Table 3, children with complex needs can be referred for what is known in the United Kingdom as statutory assessment by a multiprofessional team. Such an assessment might lead to a statement of special educational needs being issued (except in Scotland, which issues a Coordinated Support Plan, or CSP). Requests for such assessment may be initiated by the school or by the parents. The Statement is reviewed at least annually. As in other countries following an individual needs approach to SEN provision, there are guidelines to ensure that parents’ and children’s views are included in this planning process. The Statement and CSP are statutory documents that specify the educational and other provisions that are required to meet complex needs.

Forms of Provision The relational definition of special needs education as that which is additional to or different from that which is provided to other students of a similar age characterizes the legal definitions of special or additional support needs in the United Kingdom. As a result, there are many forms of provision in mainstream and special schools. Some provision is categorical; some is not. Provision may be made in special schools, special units attached to mainstream schools, or in mainstream classes. Many mainstream schools offer resourced provision or special bases for children with particular difficulties, but the majority of children with special or additional support needs are educated full-time in mainstream classes, bringing in specialist support as required. Schools in Northern Ireland, England, and Wales have a designated SEN coordinator (SENCO) responsible for managing provisions for students with SEN. In Scotland, teachers who provide specialist support are referred to as Support for Learning Coordinators. For comparison purposes, current data from each country is summarized below. These data summaries, taken from government Web sites, reflect the differences in policy perspective and emphasis across the United Kingdom.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

England In January 2009, some 221,670 (or 2.7%) pupils across all schools in England had statements of SEN, a reduction of 1,740 from the previous year. There were some 1,433,940 pupils with SEN, but without statements, representing 17.8% of pupils across all schools. This is an increase of 0.6 percentage points from 2008. More than half (55.6%) of children with statements of SEN were placed in early years settings, mainstream schools, resourced provision in maintained mainstream schools, or SEN units in maintained mainstream schools. This represents a decrease from the previous year. The most prevalent type of primary needs among pupils with statements of SEN in primary schools were speech, language, and communication needs (24%). In secondary schools, it was moderate learning difficulty (21.7%), and in special schools, severe learning difficulty (23.6%) (Department for Children Schools and Families [DCSF], 2009a).

Scotland In Scotland there were 676,740 pupils in 2,692 publicly funded schools (367,146 in 2,128 primary schools; 302,921 in 374 secondary schools; and 6,673 in 190 special schools). The

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

75

76

Lani Florian, Martyn Rouse, and John Anderson proportion of children in special schools is about 1%. In mainstream schools, there were 3,174 pupils with a Coordinated Support Plan (CSP). Of those pupils with ASN, the most prevalent reasons for support were social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties (13.7 pupils per 1,000) and learning disabilities (13.6 pupils per 1,000). Overall, 68% of pupils with additional support needs were boys, a slight decrease from recent years (70%). There were 11,334 pupils assessed or declared as disabled. Nevertheless, there are wide variations in the extent to which pupils with disabilities had been identified by different local authorities, and the information should not be considered as complete (Scottish Government, 2009).

Wales In January 2009, there were 14,832 pupils with a statement of SEN (3.1% of the total, a decrease from 3.4% in 2003). Over two-thirds of these pupils (68.2%) were taught in mainstream schools. Just under half of the pupils with Statements were educated in mainstream classes, and more than a fi fth were taught in special classes or units within ordinary schools. The percentage of pupils with identified additional learning needs educated in mainstream schools varied considerably across LEAs, from 94.4% in Ceredigion (which does not have a special school) to 18.5% in Bridgend (Welsh Assembly, 2009).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Northern Ireland There are two types of special schools in Northern Ireland: those that cater to children who have severe learning difficulties and those that cater to children who have moderate learning difficulties. In 2009/2010, there were 4,444 children attending 41 special schools; 227 pupils were in two hospital schools in Northern Ireland. In addition, there are 170 special units attached to 88 mainstream schools that cater to a wide range of educational needs. The Education and Library Boards also provide outreach support services for pupils with literacy difficulties and behavioral challenges. Estimates in Northern Ireland are that some 15% of school-age learners have some special need. This is equivalent to some 50,000 pupils (Department of Education, 2010).

DI M E N S ION S OF T H E PROV I S ION OF EQUA L AC C E S S As noted earlier, beginning in the 1980s the United Kingdom moved toward a noncategorical, interactive notion of special educational needs. Still, countries varied in the extent to which they moved in this direction, and debates continue about the extent to which categories of special educational needs and disability labels are helpful in planning educational provisions. However, because special education is defined as education that is additional to, or different from, what is normally available in schools (DfES, 2001a), there is a recognition that difficulties in learning can only be understood in the context in which they occur. What is normally available in some schools may not be normally available in others. As a result, there is a “postal-code lottery” of educational provision that produces different ideas about who has special needs and who should get a statement. The result is that across the United Kingdom there is a five-fold variability regarding who gets identified as having special or additional support

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

“Education for All” in the Countries of the United Kingdom needs. The variability in identification of SEN is not only associated with differences in what is ordinarily available in schools; it is also associated with local expectations and traditions. It is recognized that there are disparities in terms of who gets what with respect to educational provision and opportunity (Office for Standards in Education, 2010). Throughout the United Kingdom, children who have SEN are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, are much more likely to be absent or excluded from school, and achieve less than their peers both in terms of attainment at any given age and in terms of their progress over time. After 16 years of age, young people with SEN are one of the groups most likely not to be in education, employment, or training.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

SEN and Broader School Reforms Across the United Kingdom, the education of students identified as having SEN has been influenced by the push toward greater inclusion starting with the Warnock Report and the associated education acts, and more recent pro-inclusion legislation. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 (SENDA) strengthened the right to a mainstream school place for students with disabilities or SEN. These and other developments such as the Department for Education and Skills statutory guidance in England Inclusive Schooling: Children with SEN (DfES, 2001a), the revised Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (DfES, 2001b), and the requirements of the National Curriculum (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 1999) all provided a firm legislative context for further developments in inclusive education in England and Wales. Recently, the government’s strategy for SEN, Removing Barriers to Achievement (DfES, 2004b), reaffirmed a commitment to inclusive education as a model for meeting students with special needs. Developments in Scotland and Northern Ireland have been similar. At the time of writing, Wales is exercising its newly devolved legislative powers to develop new education policy that will strengthen a seamless and unified system of education for all children (Warwick, personal communication, November 29, 2010). In 2003, the government in England introduced a major new initiative, Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003). In Scotland, a similar initiative, Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC) (Scottish Government, 2010) was introduced. These initiatives represented an ambitious approach for improving the well-being of children and young people from birth to age 19. The aim is for all children, whatever their circumstances, to have the support they need to be healthy, happy, and safe, and to make a positive contribution and achieve economic well-being. This approach entails greater coordination of human services, such as education, health, social care, and youth justice, and involves sharing information among these services and working together in new ways to protect children and young people from harm and help them achieve what they want in life (DfES, 2003). However, these developments exist alongside a broader set of educational reforms that have a much different policy intent. The key principles underlying the Education Reform Act 1988 in England and Wales included privatization, increased accountability, greater scrutiny, more choice for parents, and competition between schools. The act introduced a national curriculum—which specified content together with a national assessment that specified standards—and a series of other changes designed to bring the rigor of the

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

77

78

Lani Florian, Martyn Rouse, and John Anderson market place to bear on schools. While developments in Northern Ireland have been similar, Scotland has resisted the more vigorous marketization of education that has prevailed in other parts of the United Kingdom. Thus, within the UK context, and especially in England today, standards-based reforms stress academic excellence and high-stakes accountability for individuals, schools, and local authorities while other legislation has strengthened the protection and support offered to vulnerable children. Often these reforms are in conflict and lead to a series of tensions within schools (Rouse & Florian, 1997) and, in part, has led to the wide betweenschool variation in achievement that can be seen in England (OECD, 2007).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

DI F F E R E NC E S A N D VA R I AT ION S I N OPP ORT U N I T Y A N D I N AC C E S S Although the attempts to differentiate types of learners have been based on professional knowledge and good intention, the lines that are drawn to determine who gets special education and who does not could be argued to be arbitrary distinctions. One needs only to consider the range of definitions and eligibility criteria in different parts of the United Kingdom to understand this point. Eligibility for special education is not fi xed but depends instead on many factors. Patterns of identification of need in all four countries of the United Kingdom are complex, but it is poverty rather than race, language, or disability per se that is associated with lack of success in school (Gillborn & Youdell, 2000). Indeed, in England, white working-class boys are the lowest achieving group and are more likely to be described as having SEN than all others except for Gypsy/Traveller children (DCSF, 2009a). The relationship between achievement in school and the identification of SEN is particularly important because of the relational definition of special needs education as that education that is additional to or different from that provided to others of a similar age. It is only when what is otherwise available is insufficient to meet the educational needs of any given student that he or she is deemed to have SEN (for a discussion, see Florian & Kershner, 2009).

T E AC H I NG A N D L E A R N I NG I N T H E E A R LY Y E A R S The United Kingdom has a long-standing tradition of early years education. For children under age 5, publicly funded nurseries and preschools are available for a limited number of hours each week. Childminders, private day care, voluntary sector playgroups, and local authority nursery classes (in England) all are considered part of early years provision. Care for children under the age of 5 is provided by a wide range of professionals. Providers of early years education vary enormously in terms of their qualifications and training. While trained teachers work in all classes based in school settings (reception and nursery classes), this is unlikely to happen in private day nurseries or voluntary sector playgroups. In these settings, staff are likely to have qualifications relating to the care of young children rather than a teaching qualification. All of the countries of the United Kingdom make provisions for children with disabilities and complex needs from birth. The codes of practice that accompany special education legislation outline a framework for the provision of services to children from

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

“Education for All” in the Countries of the United Kingdom birth through the school years. While the referral for services may be initiated by anyone, in many cases it is the early years practitioners who begin the process of identifying children with special or additional needs. It is common for practitioners to liaise (often through parents/caregivers) with other agencies—particularly medical—if children have been identified with any kind of impairment. In these cases, families may be in receipt of a disability living allowance, and additional funds will be available to settings and families to fund additional support as well as to access specialist provisions such as speech therapy or physiotherapy. Children with Statements of SEN are given privileged access to settings offering specialist provisions that are considered particularly suitable. In some cases, this may mean that children attend a setting outside of the catchment schools their peers would be expected to attend. When this occurs, additional funding for transport is provided.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

E DUC AT ION A L PL AC E M E N T As noted, the United Kingdom has followed international trends in adopting policies of social and educational inclusion. As a model for meeting SEN, inclusive education requires the elimination of barriers to participation in education (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). There has been considerable debate about how this might best be achieved. Some argue that classroom teachers should take responsibility for providing the necessary support to help pupils overcome barriers to learning with specialist input as needed. Others believe that learners who are experiencing difficulty should have direct access to specialists. Still others argue that placement in specialist facilities such as special schools is the best way to educate children who experience difficulties. To date, there has been no satisfactory resolution to this debate, although UK government policy has tended to favor models of inclusive education that promote a process of increasing participation and decreasing the exclusion of vulnerable students from the culture, curricula, and communities of local schools (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). However, as noted earlier, the administrative structures that protect the educational entitlements of children with additional needs are based on an individualized approach that itself can be a barrier to inclusion (Florian, 2010).

T E AC H E R S A N D PE DAG O G Y In 1988, separate training of special education teachers at the preservice level was ended, in part because such training had created a group of teachers who were themselves segregated and were seen as a barrier to inclusion. To replace the expertise that would be lost, further professional development was to be made available for experienced teachers who would take leadership roles in special needs education and inclusion. However, financial support for the training was soon reduced, leading to questions about who should be responsible for teaching children with special needs. The crucial task of preparing and supporting professionals to work in inclusive schools is gaining increasing attention as educational policies designed to encourage greater inclusion are enacted. Two aspects of teacher professional development are of concern: the preparation of all mainstream classroom teachers and the preparation of specialists.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

79

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

80

Lani Florian, Martyn Rouse, and John Anderson A recent report in England (Office for Standards in Education, 2008) was critical of many aspects of existing initial teacher education practice in preparing beginning teachers to work with children who experience difficulties in learning. Currently, it is common for special needs and inclusion courses in initial teacher education to be offered as an optional extra or an elective course available only to some students. Typically, these courses focus on the characteristics of particular kinds of learners, ways they should be identified, specialist teaching strategies, and the prevailing policy context. Cornwall and Graham-Matheson (2008) reported on a project in England designed to strengthen the specialist expertise of teachers. A consortia of five university-based providers developed a set of postgraduate modules (that could lead to a certificate or diploma). These modules were designed to be holistic in order “to encourage teachers to reflect on the links between theory/research, policy and practice and to consider practice in their own and other schools/settings” (p. 13). Rather than attempting to impart specialist knowledge, the modules focus on helping teachers to access specialist knowledge when needed. In Scotland, there is recognition that the content knowledge of specialist courses is often not well integrated into the broader curriculum and pedagogical practices of mainstream settings. Crucially only some, not all, student teachers are able to take such courses, which in turn leads to a belief that they are not capable of teaching special children because they have not done the course. As a result, a debate is taking place about whether the content knowledge contained in optional courses in special needs is suffi cient to improve practice in schools. There is also a growing recognition that Initial Teacher Education may not be preparing beginning teachers sufficiently well to meet the needs of all children in schools that are increasingly diverse (Office for Standards in Education, 2008). The Scottish government has recognized that inclusive education is of high priority and that teachers need to be well prepared and appropriately supported throughout their careers if they are to succeed in developing and sustaining inclusive practice to meet the increasingly diverse needs of Scottish schools. With the support of the government, the Scotland Teacher Education Committee (Scotland Teacher Education Committee, 2009) set up a working group consisting of course directors and inclusion specialists representing all seven universities involved in initial teacher education. The remit of the group was to develop a framework that would identify the values and beliefs, the professional knowledge and understanding, and the skills and abilities to be expected of student teachers and of qualified teachers at whatever stage of their careers. The framework highlights the principles of inclusive practice, social justice, inclusion, and learning and teaching in the context of current policy and legislation (Scotland Teacher Education Committee, 2009). It adopts a broad definition of inclusion covering additional support needs, poverty, culture, and language, and it is informed by relevant aspects of the UK government’s new Equality Bill (Government Equalities Office, 2010). It attempts to promote inclusion as being the responsibility of all teachers in all schools and builds upon existing innovative practice within the universities of Scotland to provide a secure basis for planning courses in teacher education and professional learning.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

“Education for All” in the Countries of the United Kingdom In Northern Ireland there is also a greater clarity about the need for new professional knowledge and skills among teachers. O’Gorman, Durdy, Winter, Smith, & Barry (2009) identified the main professional development needs of special needs coordinators as learning how to liaise with parents, with other teachers, and with the Educational Psychology Service; monitoring the progress of pupils; and applying for concessions in public examinations. As a consequence of the facilitative climate and of incremental revisions to education in recent years, increasingly diverse pupils—such as those with disabilities and specific needs and newcomer pupils from across Europe with alternative language needs—are attending mainstream classes. Teachers in Northern Ireland are mostly concerned with developing a positive school ethos, ensuring the entitlement of their pupils, reviewing and implementing educational plans, drawing effectively on the support of classroom assistants, supporting curriculum differentiation, and preparing curricular materials to match the pupils’ attainments.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

M A JOR C ON T ROV E R S I E S A N D I S S U E S Since the 1990s, the countries of the United Kingdom have been working toward improving access to mainstream education for students with disabilities and others identified as having SEN. While almost all students (99%) are educated in mainstream schools, progress has been slow and uneven. As the recent Lamb Inquiry on Special Educational Needs and Parental Confidence in England has noted, while many children are well supported and making good progress, too many others have a far less positive experience, and securing appropriate educational support can be a battle for some families (DCSF, 2009b). Throughout the period of New Labour (1997–2010), the government promoted a policy of educational inclusion but retained special needs policies that continued to rely on traditional approaches; that is, identification and assessment of individual need and the availability of specialist facilities for those who chose them. Unresolved tensions remain between the need for policies that are responsive to the needs of individuals and the demand for higher standards and greater accountability. An inspection report on inclusion noted that “many schools have difficulty in setting targets and knowing what represents reasonable progress” (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate, 2004, para. 35). Wedell (2005) suggests that there are at least four distinct contexts in which questions about the reasonable progress of students with special needs should be asked. First, teachers need to know whether the method chosen to help a pupil is effective, or whether alternative methods might improve progress. Second, teachers and parents want to know whether teaching is helping their students to make optimum progress. As well, staff performance review procedures for teachers should involve having teachers set targets for the effectiveness of the help they give pupils. Finally, league tables and other comparisons between schools should ask questions about the “value added” services they offer (p. 105). A fundamental tension arises from the way in which content and achievement standards are currently defined. Decisions about what students should know and be able to

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

81

82

Lani Florian, Martyn Rouse, and John Anderson do at any given age arise from expectations about what typically developing students should be able to do at that age. To that extent, they are norm-referenced—governed by the laws of normal distribution even when the standards are described as criterion referenced. Fixed-grade or age-achievement norms are problematic in that they ignore the realities of human difference. Students with SEN present major challenges to current standards-based reform initiatives. If the reforms are to lead to higher standards and are to meet their original intent of closing the achievement gap between the highest and lowest performing groups, then it is essential that systems of assessment be developed that are capable of demonstrating the learning and progress of all students. A fundamental shift in thinking about human ability and potential will be required if systems of assessment are to be developed that will enable all students to demonstrate their learning. .

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

F U T U R E T R E N D S — E FA ? Today, there is a growing recognition that the field of special education must change in response to 21st-century concerns about what it means to provide an education for students identified as having SEN and disabilities (Warnock, Norwich, & Terzi, 2010). New thinking about how pupils who experience difficulty in learning might be assessed is needed. This includes whether these pupils should be and how they might be categorized, how and where they should be taught, and the kind of preparation and qualifications their teachers should have. In the years since the Warnock Report, inclusive education as a model of meeting special educational needs has emerged. This model has not resulted in positive experiences for all children, leading Mary Warnock herself in 2005 to publicly recant some of the arguments put forward in the 1975 report (Warnock et al., 2010). Today, a conflict exists between the protection offered by the individual needs approach to meeting SEN as operationalized by Statements or CSPs and the resources that accompany them, and contemporary views of good practice in educating all students. For example, research on teaching assistants (TAs) (Farrell, Balshaw, & Polat, 1999) urges a shift away from the one-to-one allocation of TAs to individual pupils with Statements in favor of a model where TAs work alongside teachers in support of learning for all pupils. But problems occur when Statements specify resource allocations (such as a fixed number of hours of adult support) that are at odds with good practice. Ironically, the manner by which statements specify resources for children may not support their learning. It is not surprising that there is a conflict between contemporary knowledge of good practice and Statements, a tool developed 20 years ago when a different view of provision prevailed. Statements were designed to ensure that resources followed children. Today’s challenge is to separate the protection offered by the Statement from the means by which that protection is offered. Finally, there is a continued need to address the long-standing dilemmas of access and equity in education that UK systems of special education have yet to resolve. In 1978 Warnock (Department of Education and Science, 1978) noted:

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

“Education for All” in the Countries of the United Kingdom We recognise that our recommendation that statutory categories of handicap should be abolished may give rise to concern about how to safeguard the interests of children with severe, complex and long-term disabilities. We have found ourselves on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand we are aware that any kind of special resource or service for such children runs the risk of emphasising the idea of their separateness, an idea which we are anxious to dispel, or limiting the notion of special education to the provision made for such children. On the other hand, unless an obligation is clearly placed on the local education authorities to provide for the special needs of such children, there is a danger that their requirements for specialist resources will be inadequately met. In order to resolve this difficulty, we have tried to devise a system which, while avoiding the disadvantages inherent in categorisation, will preserve the advantages it confers.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

(pp. 44–45, emphasis added) Yet, as this chapter has shown, the dilemma of the Warnock Committee persists today. There continues to be scope to improve current policies and practices through a clearer conceptual and strategic vision about what teachers need to know and to be able to do; the role of specialist facilities; and the ways in which mainstream education can be improved in order to educate all children. At times, progress seems to be slow. But when one takes the long view, it is clear that many things have changed in the past 20 years. In 1991, the United Kingdom adopted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 23 states the disabled child should have effective access to and receive education that encourages the fullest possible social integration and development. In 1995, the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) provided comprehensible, enforceable civil rights for disabled people. The United Kingdom was among the first countries to sign and ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD). Article 24 of the CRPD calls upon states to ensure that persons with disabilities “can access an inclusive quality and free primary education and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live” (United Nations, 2006). As in other international policy documents, the ideals of inclusive education are seen as key to equality of opportunity for disabled people, but they have proved difficult to implement. The devolution of political power is leading to divergent approaches within the countries of the United Kingdom. This is reflected in different emphases in education policy, different forms of data collected, and different approaches toward teacher professional knowledge. As a result of devolution, the UK policy context is changing rapidly. There is no doubt that further policy developments will continue to mark the distinctive approach each country has adopted. It remains to be seen whether, to what extent, and how these policy options affect outcomes for students with disabilities and other special educational needs (England and Northern Ireland), additional support needs (Scotland), or additional learning needs (Wales).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

83

84

Lani Florian, Martyn Rouse, and John Anderson

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

R E F E R E NC E S Anderson, R. (2003). The history of Scottish education, pre 1880. In T. G. K. Bryce & W. M. Humes (Eds.), Scottish Education (2nd ed., pp. 215–224). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2003). Disability. London: Polity Press. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). The index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools (Rev. ed.). Bristol, UK: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. British Broadcasting Corporation. (2010). Access all areas: Disability survey. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11848338. British Council. (n.d.). UK education systems. Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org /usa-education-uk-system-k-12-education.htm. Cornwall, J., & Graham-Matheson, L. (2008). TDA pilot project: Strengthening the specialist SEN expertise of serving teachers, final report to the teacher development agency. London: Training and Development Agency for Schools. Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment. (n.d.). Curriculum and assessment. Retrieved from http://www.rewardinglearning.org.uk/curriculum. de Blij, H. (2005). Why geography matters. New York: Oxford University Press. Department for Children Schools and Families. (2009a). DCSF: Special educational needs in England: June 2009. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR /s000852/index.shtml. Department for Children Schools and Families. (2009b). Lamb inquiry: Special educational needs and parental confidence. London: DCFS. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk /chi ld rena ndyou ng people/sen/sen/t y pes/a0 0 63735/la mb - inqu ir y - specia l -educational-needs-and-parental-confidence. Department of Education. (2010). Northern Ireland summary data. Retrieved from http://www .deni.gov.uk/index/32-statisticsandresearch_pg/32-statistics_and_research_statis tics_on_education_pg/32_statistics_and_research-numbersofschoolsandpupils_ pg/32_statistics_and_research-northernirelandsummarydata_pg.htm. Department of Education for Northern Ireland. (1998). Code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. Retrieved from http://www.deni.gov.uk/the_code_ of_practice.pdf. Department of Education and Science. (1978). Special educational needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the education of handicapped children and young people (The Warnock Report). London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Department of Education and Skills. (2001a). Inclusive schooling: Children with SEN. London: Author. Department for Education and Skills. (2001b). Special educational needs code of practice (revised). London: Author. Department for Education and Skills. (2003). Every child matters. Cm.5860. London: The Stationery Office. Department for Education and Skills. (2004a). National performance framework for special educational needs. London: Author. Department for Education and Skills. (2004b). Removing barriers to achievement. London: Author. Farrell, P., Balshaw, M., & Polat, F. (1999). The management, role and training of learning support assistants (Research Brief No. 166). London: DfEE Publications. Florian, L. (2010). The concept of inclusive pedagogy. In G. Hallett & F. Hallett (Eds.), Transforming the role of the SENCO (pp. 61–72). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

“Education for All” in the Countries of the United Kingdom Florian, L., & Kershner, R. (2009). Inclusive pedagogy. In H. Daniels, H. Lauder, & J. Porter (Eds.), Knowledge, values and educational policy: A critical perspective (pp. 173–183). Abingdon: Routledge. Gillborn, D., & Youdell, D. (2000). Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform, and equity. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Government Equalities Office. (2010). Equality Act 2010. Retrieved from http://www.equalities .gov.uk/equality_bill.aspx. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate. (2004). Special needs and disability: Towards inclusive schools. London: Author. Home Office. (2007). Life in the United Kingdom: A journey to citizenship. Norwich, UK: The Stationery Office. Learning and Teaching Scotland. (n.d.). What is Curriculum for Excellence? Retrieved from http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/understandingthecurriculum/whatiscurriculumfor excellence/index.asp. Leper, J. (2010). Rising numbers of NEET young people a key issue for coalition government. Retrieved from http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Youth-Work/1003023 /Rising-numbers-Neet-young-people-key-issue-coalition-government. MacKay, G., & McLarty, M. (2003). Educational support for children with disabilities. In T. G. K. Bryce & W. M. Humes (Eds.), Scottish education: Post devolution (2nd ed., pp. 817–826). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. McLaughlin, M., & Rouse, M. (2000). Special education and school reform in Britain and the United States. London: Routledge. Office for National Statistics. (2010a). Ethnicity and identity: Population size. Retrieved from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=455. Office for National Statistics. (2010b). Population estimates. Retrieved from http://www .statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=6. Office for Standards in Education. (2008). How well new teachers are prepared to teach pupils with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. London: Author. Office for Standards in Education. (2010). The special educational needs and disability review. London: Author. O’Gorman, E., Durdy, S., Winter, E., Smith, R., & Barry, M. (2009, October). Professional development for post-primary special educational needs teachers in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Belfast: Scotens. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Quality and equity of schooling in Scotland. Paris: Author. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). The National Curriculum for England. London: Author. Rouse, M., & Florian, L. (1997). Inclusive education in the marketplace. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1, 323–336. Scottish Government. (2005). Supporting children’s learning code of practice. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/08/15105817/58273. Scottish Government. (2009). Statistical bulletin education series: Pupils in Scotland, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/167568/0046177.pdf. Scottish Government. (2010). A guide to implementing Getting It Right for Every Child: Summary for practitioners. Retrieved from www.scotland.gov.uk/Resources/Doc/1141/0100658. Scottish Qualifications Authority. (2006, March). National qualifications: A quick guide. Retrieved from http://www.sqa.org.uk/files_ccc/nq_quick_guide.pdf. Scotland Teacher Education Committee. (2009). National framework for inclusion. Retrieved http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2009/04/26163423.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

85

86

Lani Florian, Martyn Rouse, and John Anderson

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Teachernet. (n.d.). Faith Schools. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/schools /leadership/typesofschools/b0066996/faith-schools. United Nations. (2006). United Nations Convention on the Rights and Dignity of Persons With Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=284. Vaughn, M. (2002). University of the West of England. Milestones on the road to inclusion 1970–2002. Retrieved from http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/inclusionweek/articles /milestones.htm. Warnock, M., Norwich, B., & Terzi, L. (2010). Special educational needs: A new look. London: Continuum. Wedell, K. (2005). What is ‘reasonable’ progress for pupils? British Journal of Special Education, 32, 105. Wedell, K. (2008). Evolving dilemmas about categorization. In L. Florian & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Disability classification in education (pp. 47–68). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Welsh Assembly. (2009). Pupils with statements of special educational needs January 2009. Retrieved from http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2009/090617sdr932009en.pdf. Welsh Assembly. (2010). Education and skills. Retrieved from http://wales.gov.uk/topics /educationandskills/?lang=en.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

4 Reform, Restructure, and Renew: Special Education in Poland

Jolanta Baran

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Poland is a relatively large nation situated in the center of the European continent. It covers 312,679 square kilometres. The country is divided into 16 provinces (voivodships), 379 districts (powiaty), and 2,478 local government communes (gminy). In the year 2009, Poland had a population of 38,167,329. The number of people living in urban areas is increasing; it is now about 61%. The majority of the population is Polish (96.7%). The most numerous minority groups are Germans (152,900), Belarusians (48,700), Ukrainians (31,000), Romani people (12,900), Russians (6,100), Lemkos (5,900), and Lithuanians (5,800). Poland is a democratic parliamentary republic headed by a president elected by direct popular vote for 5 years. The bicameral parliament consists of the 460 members of the lower chamber (Sejm) and 100 members of the senate. Members of the Sejm and the senate are elected by general election for a 4-year term. Jasiewicz (2009) points out that in Poland “faith in God and habitual church attendance has been preserved better than in any other European society” (p. 494). About 89.8% of the population are Roman Catholics (about 75% practicing). Other religions include Eastern Orthodoxies (1.3%), Protestants (0.3%), other (0.3%), and unspecified (8.3%; Central Statistical Office, 2009a).

T H E S O C I A L FA BR IC The long history of Poland and the start of Polish statehood is said to have begun in 996 ad when the prince, Mieszko I of the nation of the Slavs, was baptized and joined medieval Western Christian civilization. In the long intervening centuries, Poland’s history was turbulent— times of great adversity, of many troubles, but also many triumphs. At one time, Poland could have been described as a multicultural community. In 1939, one-third of the total population of 35.1 million inhabitants were of national minorities—17% Ukranians and Belarusians, 10% Jews, 5% Germans, and 1% Russians, Lithuanians, and Czechs. During the Nazi occupation of Poland in World War II, many Poles and a huge number of the country’s minorities were killed. After the war, when the communists took over the government, they made changes in the migration movement of people as well. During that time, minority schools and religious schools were dissolved. In 1989, huge political changes engulfed nations in Eastern and Central Europe and forever changed what was then the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). 87

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

88

Jolanta Baran In Poland and other countries, communism was overthrown. Poland then passed through a difficult, but very promising, era of extensive economic and political change. The process of political change continues to this day and has transformed postcommunist Poland into a fully democratic society with social structures and political institutions that reflect a democratic value system in form, content, and function (Mazurek & Majorek, 2005).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E S C HO OL S Y S T E M Since 1989, education reform has been one of the main vehicles for Poland’s ongoing transformation. Education in Poland is defined as part of “the common welfare of the whole of society” (ADAPT-Europe, 2007, n.p.). It is guided by the principles contained in the Polish constitution and by instructions included in international legislation and conventions (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2010b). Debates and discussions at all levels of the country’s political spectrum affirm education as a priority, and identify how fundamental changes in education are crucial for future social and political change (Mazurek & Mjorek, 2005). After Poland’s initial period of transition the prospect of becoming part of the European Union (EU) was also a prominent factor in formulating education policies. Poland became an EU member on May 1, 2005. The period of political transformation that began in 1989 brought about new legislation that became the basis for changes in education. These multiple reforms modernized the Polish school system and made it similar to the school systems of other European western countries. Together with the implementation of new levels of schooling and new types of schools, the reforms deemed special education to be an integral part of the education system. Hence, the reforms favored early identification and intervention for students with special education needs (SEN), as well as their integration into preschool programs and later schooling.1 The legislative foundations for the functioning of the educational system in Poland are based on acts relating to all levels of schooling, to SEN, and to higher education. Particularly relevant legislation for all levels and for students with SEN is detailed in the following list. • The Education System Act of November 7, 1991, with later amendments, spoke to general schooling and created organizational norms for much broader forms of education for pupils with SEN. The act provided education in all types of 1. Terminology and language remain confusing. Poland is 1 of the 27 member nations of the EU-funded European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2010a), which aims to improve education policy and practice for students with SEN. Therefore, I adopt the European phrase, special education needs in this chapter. People familiar with the inclusive agenda recognize that integration, mainstreaming, and inclusion are similar but not identical terms. The dilemmas contained within these inherent concepts reflect on Polish legislative foundations and also on the concepts used by researchers when examining the reform agenda. Some parties argue that when speaking about all possible levels of integration, it is convenient to use one term nonsegregation education (Szumski, 2006). Others reject this phrase: They see a word that has a root in segregation as inappropriate and not politically correct. For the purposes of this paper, the term integration/inclusion is used.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Reform, Restructure, and Renew schools for students with SEN. Mainstream schools must provide special education, although the act also stated that education can be provided in segregated special schools. • The Implementation of the Education System Reform Act of January 8, 1999, with further amendments, brought the most critically important changes. Mazurek and Mjorek (2005) observe that the scope of the 1999 reform initiative was enormous. It had four major components: It structurally changed the entire education system from the nursery school level up to graduate studies in universities; the administration and supervision of the education system was changed: substantial curricular reforms and changes in teaching methods were undertaken; external assessment and examination policies and procedures were changed; and qualifications for the teaching profession were reviewed (also see Jakubielski, 2002). • The 2004 Poland for Children National Program for 2004–2012 served as the foundation for special education reform. The goal of the implemented changes was to provide equal access to education for each child through the creation of optimal educational conditions with respect to the individual needs and potential of each pupil with SEN.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• The initial 2004 legislation was followed by a Minister of Education decree on January 18, 2005. The decree focused on organizing education; improving the upbringing and care for children and youth with SEN; and the care for socially at-risk children in nursery schools, regular schools, and regular sections or special sections in mainstream schools. It included details on psychological and pedagogical support centers; parental assistance; the integration of persons with special needs into the larger society; preparation of students with SEN for independence as adults; and evaluation of programs in preschools, in primary and secondary education, and in prevention. • The act of July 25, 2005, the Higher Education Law, with later amendments and further laws related to higher education. • An operational plan called the Effective, Friendly and Modern Education Plan started in the 2009 to 2010 school year. It describes program changes, an earlier start of education (beginning with 6-year-olds), and means to improve ways to meet special educational needs compatible with the concept of lifelong learning. • A new law, the Education System Act of March 19, 2009, states that between 2009 and 2012 the school starting age (grade 1) will gradually be lowered from 7 to 6. In line with this, kindergarten (grade 0) will become compulsory from age 5. • A Minister of National Education Decree of February 2, 2009, on organizing early aid of children’s development, was designed to provide the most advantageous conditions for children at risk in the early years. The schools now covered by the Polish educational system are shown in Figure 1. Also shown is the variety of settings and options for students with SEN that encompass special International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

89

90

Jolanta Baran

Age

Master degree high education Continuous master degree high education

Bachelor degree high education

SECONDARY SCHOOL FINALS Postsecondary school*

Post-secondary school*

Post-secondary school* Post-secondary school*

19 Secondary school*

Specialized secondary school*

Technical secondary school*

Supple mentary secondary school*

Supplementary technical secondary school*

Vocational school*

16

Lower secondary school*

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

13

Primary school*

7 Pre-primary school* 6 Nursery school* 3

Figure 1. System of education in Poland including special schools, which are denoted by an asterisk (*). Source: Dostęp osób niepełnosprawnych do edukacji—stan obecny, szanse i bariery (2006, Kwiecień). Warszawa: Ministerstwo Edukacji i Nauki. BIP, p. 18.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Reform, Restructure, and Renew schools and special education centres, special classes (sections) in mainstream schools, and inclusive classes in mainstream schools. As Figure 1 shows, the Polish educational system includes: • Pre-primary education is part of the school system for children aged 3 years until the time when they start primary education. Pre-primary classes are established in nursery schools that are separate establishments or in nursery divisions based at primary schools. • Starting with the 1999 to 2000 school year, the primary school is divided into two stages. Stage 1 is grades 1 to 3 and is called integration (not to be confused with integration for pupils with SEN) because teaching at this stage is designed to ensure a smooth transition from preschool to primary school. Teaching is arranged on an integrated basis. Stage 2, grades 4 to 6, is arranged by subject areas. • Starting with the 1999 to 2000 school year, 3-year compulsory lower secondary schools (which replaced 8-year primary schools). • Starting with the 2002 to 2003 school year, different types of upper secondary schools have been established: 2- to 3-year vocational schools that provide training for lower level employment, such as , 3-year general education secondary schools, 3-year specialized secondary schools, and 4-year technical secondary schools. • Starting with the 2004 to 2005 school year, 2-year supplementary secondary schools and 3-year technical supplementary secondary schools for those who graduate from vocational schools.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• There are also general art schools (art, music, ballet, and so on) at the level of upper secondary schools (leading to secondary school finals and professional certification) and postsecondary schools. For students with SEN, the commonly accepted concept in Poland is for many pathways to special schooling (Gil, 2007). The multifaceted solutions, which fall within the recommendations of the EU (Council of the European Union, 2008), range from special schools to a combination of general and special education to full inclusion in the general classroom. The different types of special education match the types of education for typically developing students as shown in Figure 1. There are: • Mainstream education units. A pupil with SEN in integrated/inclusive education is perceived as an individual who gets some special aid while attending a regular class in a mainstream school. A psychological and pedagogical services center assesses the students’ needs and potentials and then develops individualized programs for them. Individualization includes various forms of support such as therapeutic and compensatory classes, including didactic/compensatory functioning, speech therapy, and social therapy.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

91

92

Jolanta Baran • Special education schools and units at all levels catering to all types of disabilities. During the 2008 to 2009 school year, there were 632 primary special schools, 662 middle special schools, and 65 secondary special schools in urban areas. Far fewer facilities are located in rural Poland chiefly because support agencies such as psychological and pedagogical services tend to be located in cities. In 2008 to 2009, there were only 144 special primary schools, 162 special middle schools, and 8 special secondary schools in rural areas. Most of the special schools follow the mainstream curriculum with the exception of schools for those students who are deaf, blind, and intellectually impaired. • Special vocational education cater mostly to youth with mild intellectual disabilities. • Since the 2004 to 2005 school year, 3-year special job-training schools (SJTS) have been created that are only for persons with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities or those students with multiple disabilities. • Individual education programs at home have been developed for children who, because of a health condition, cannot attend school every day. • Rehabilitation-education centers serve people who need a special program and full daycare because of severe and multiple disabilities. At these centers, teachers work on individual therapeutic/training plans and provide occupational therapy, living and self-care training, and so on. • Special nursery schools are reserved for young children who have severe and profound disabilities and who need special facilities for therapy, motor rehabilitation, and augmentative and alternative communication.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• Special pre-primary schools exist as separate institutions or as part of special education centers, rehabilitation-education centers, and in mainstream primary schools. Compulsory education is in force in Poland and includes students with significant intellectual and physical disabilities. Children enter the first year of formal schooling in the calendar year when they are 7 years of age. Pupils with SEN can continue in preschool until they reach age 10, if necessary. Students must remain in school until they reach the age of 18; students with SEN can stay in school until the age of 21.

PR I VAT E S C HO OL S Another component of the new legislation permitted the development of non-state-run schools, which were previously unknown in Poland. Today, the schools are divided into two sectors: public and nonpublic (civic/social, church, or private). It is possible for students to earn the same state certificates and diplomas in nonpublic schools when those schools implement the minimum program established by the Ministry of National Education and respect its principles in regard to promoting students. Private schools are financed by fees received from parents; they can also obtain money from private

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Reform, Restructure, and Renew enterprises and foundations. Nonpublic schools with the rights of public schools are eligible for a governmental grant calculated according to the number of pupils, which equals 100% of the average cost of educating a pupil in a public school. Children of religious or ethnic/racial minorities may attend a public school run by the state government administration or local administrations. Alternatively, they may enter nonpublic school under the auspices of social organizations and associations, religious groups, and so on (Central Statistical, 2009b). There are no available statistics to specify how many students attend which type of school. The legislation similarly allows for the organization of special education schools and care institutions to be governed by the government and local administrations. Foundations, associations, religious communities, and other groups were given the right to open institutions to provide education, rehabilitation, and psychological and pedagogical support, among other services. Initiatives from associations and social organizations garnered donations that led to the growth of a number of facilities. For example, the number of rehabilitation-education centers is growing because of private initiatives and because many special institutions that were losing residents due to the integration/inclusion movement converted into rehabilitation-education centers.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

H I S T OR Y OF S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION Poland has a long history of special education. Institutions for people with intellectual disabilities were first organized in the 16th century by nuns and brothers of various orders to provide medical treatment and education (Pilecka & Pilecki, 1994). For centuries, monasteries and convents tended to the care of persons with disabilities. At the end of the 18th century, Poland lost its statehood after it was partitioned by Russia, Austria, and Prussia. Education was organized by the invaders with the intent to deprive Polish citizens of their national identity (Gil, 2007). The development of special care also stopped. After Poland regained its independence in 1918, specialized institutions were created (for example, institutions for deaf or blind people). Slowly, thanks to a social and economic movement called “organic work,” more special institutions started operating.2 During the period called the Second Republic following World War I, Maria Grzegorzewska (1888–1967) established the National Special Education Institute in Warsaw in 1921 (today it is the Academy of Special Education). The institute prepared teachers for special schools and other institutions serving persons with disabilities. Aleksander Hulek (1916–1993), who promoted integration of people with disabilities as a rehabilitative tool, proposed that every child with a disability should be provided with optimum conditions for living, growing, and learning in a natural environment (regular school, family, neighborhood, local society) (1992).

2. According to Hagen (1975), organic work is a term denoting a 19th-century Polish philosophy “that the vital powers of the nation be spent on labour rather than fruitless national uprisings [which] meant educating the Polish masses in their national language and history, improving both estate and peasant agriculture through technical education, and encouraging the rise of Polish industry and trade as well as arts and letters” (p. 42).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

93

94

Jolanta Baran Throughout World War II, special schools and the National Special Education Institute were closed. Under the communist regime after the war, a Marxist-Leninist ideology determined treatment for persons with disabilities. The social environment characterized disability as a source of shame and denial; the public environment legitimized the state taking the role of caretaker. Intervention focused on defectology, a Soviet discipline that stressed the causes, aspects, and substance of impairments and their impact on an individual, while emphasizing special education as the best remedial treatment for children with disabilities (United Nations Children’s Fund, 2005). In 1961, legislation sanctioned segregation: It directed students with SEN to attend special preschools, schools, and institutions. Most persons with disabilities were confined to segregated institutions. As part of the political programs of the communist regime, schools and universities were forced to implement communistic ideology into their pedagogy and teaching curricula for pupils with SEN. Currently, the theory and practice of educational integration/inclusion is passing through a long and revolutionary route in Poland. The first visible and significant transition of special education in the 1990s was characterized by legislation, different forms of organizations such as private schools and agencies, varied placement options for students with SEN, and many research initiatives. Modern Polish education has adopted inclusion as the preferred model for serving pupils with SEN although a multitude of different solutions joining elements of mainstream and segregated educational placements are available (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2010a; Gil, 2007). Both legislation and policy provide the possibility for students with SEN to learn in all types of schools and have general access to secondary schools.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

OV E RV I E W OF S PEC I A L N E E D S Approximately 14% of Poland’s population is considered to be disabled. The majority of persons with disabilities are aged 55 and higher; most live in urban areas. Because of the very low population growth, the last decade has seen the number of elderly persons with disabilities overtake the number of school-age children (Central Statistical Office, 2008). According to official figures, 3% of the Polish school-age population has special needs (Poland, 2007). In children, the most prevalent etiologies leading to disabilities are related to acquired origin. Meningitis and other serious inflammatory illnesses cause impairments of the neurological system that appear as intellectual and sensorial disability in babies and very young children. Genetic and other congenital conditions account for a small percentage of causes. About 22% of extremely premature babies show severe developmental deficits: intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, vision impairments, hearing impairments (Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej, 2005). The classification of disabilities used by the Ministry of National Education for statistical reasons does not exactly match the types of special schools and specialist centers detailed in legislative statements. The categories used by the ministry are deaf, hard of hearing, blind, vision impaired, impaired motor skills, intellectual disability (mild, moderate, or severe), autism, multiple disability, socially maladjusted, threatened with social maladjustment, threatened with addiction, behavioral disorders, psychic disorders, and chronically ill.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Reform, Restructure, and Renew Pupils with specific learning disabilities (SLD) are not presented in the classification although it is estimated that approximately 10% of the school-age population exhibits SLD of different intensities. The significant majority of SLD students are in regular schools. Some need a therapeutic school environment. For example, they may receive remedial (psychological and pedagogical) support in school in the therapeutic section, compensatory section, or specialist classes. Depending on an individual’s needs, specialist classes might be corrective-compensatory, speech therapy, or social-therapeutic. The population of boys outnumbers girls in special education nowadays: There are 94 girls for every 100 boys. In children and youth with disabilities, the proportion increases for boys. There are 55 girls in primary and lower secondary schools to every 100 boys at the same level of education (Central Statistical Office, 2009b). In the 2008 to 2009 school year, the total primary school population was 2,294,434 pupils; the total number of the lower secondary school population was 1,393,692. Of these, there were 26,342 students with SEN in special primary schools and 31,439 in lower secondary special schools. Regular schools enrolled 39,877 SEN pupils in the primary grades and 26,848 in lower secondary (Central Statistical, 2009b). More than half of primary school-age children with SEN (59.3%) were in integration/ inclusion; this accounted for 2.8% of the total school population in the 2008 to 2009 school year. Rates were not as high in lower secondary schools; 55.9% of pupils with disabilities are in special education although this is 4.1% of the entire school population (Central Statistical Office, 2009b). The population of pupils with mild intellectual disabilities is the largest among all of those with disabilities in Poland. Most often, these children start education in regular schools. Later, 80.3% of such students learn in special vocational schools. Children with hearing or vision impairments, and those with physical disabilities, are found more often in integration/inclusion than in segregation. In secondary schools, the most numerous groups of youth with disabilities are those physically disabled (23.4%), chronically ill (16.4%), visually disabled and hearing disabled (equally 9.7%), and mildly intellectually disabled (9.4%). Young persons with hearing impairments and those with physical disabilities are more likely than other groups with disabilities to continue education in postsecondary schools (Central Statistical Office, 2009b). The rates in higher education are persons with chronic illness (60%), persons with physical disabilities (25%), those blind and with vision disabilities (8%), and deaf as well as persons with hearing disabilities (6.5%) (Cierpiatowska, 2009).

E A R LY I N T E RV E N T ION Preschool education in Poland comprises children aged 3 to 6. Younger children may attend nursery schools supervised by the Ministry of Health. The forms of organization of nursery schools and pre-primary schools for children with disabilities are similar to the other levels of education. Pre-primary education for children with SEN is not compulsory. However, children of any kind and any level of disability have the right to access services. Early intervention support is aimed at children to stimulate their development and to offer their parents

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

95

96

Jolanta Baran

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

guidance. The support is provided by early support teams that include different specialists such as psychologists, physicians, and speech therapists. In the years between 2005 and 2007, the government launched a pilot program on early intervention. The main goal was to devise an early, multispecialist, comprehensive, coordinated, and continuous method to identify children at risk for disabilities or children with established disabilities, as well as plans to serve the needs of these children and their families at an optimal level (Raport, 2008). The task of coordinating included three departments (health, education, and social politics) and resulted in a universal model of early aid services. As discussed earlier in this chapter, legislative decisions to accompany the research and the educational model have emerged. Both public and private institutions are recommended for early intervention. They can be psychological and pedagogical services centers, specialist centers, special schools and special education centers, rehabilitation-education centers, or at-home programs. The team for early aid includes a special teacher with respect to a kind of disability (specifically intellectual, hearing or vision), a psychologist, a speech therapist, and other specialists adequate to a child’s needs. In the last decade, the overall number of children in nursery schools and pre-primary schools decreased. One reason is that Poland has a negative population growth. In addition, more than half of all families do not take advantage of such institutions. However, the numbers of children with SEN attending preschool institutions is relatively high. Of the total preschool population, there are approximately 1.9% in the age range of 0 to 4 years and 2.8% age 5 to 9 years (Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej, 2004). Nevertheless, many parents do not try to place their disabled child in any preschool institution. Reasons include false information or lack of information and knowledge about their child’s needs and rights, barriers to transportation, and social isolation of the family. The availability and openness of nursery schools and pre-primary schools also remains limited.

A PPROAC H I NG I N T EG R AT ION The number of students in special schools and settings decreases year by year. When compared to special schools and special centers, the past decade has seen an increasing number of pupils enter integration/inclusive education. A group of philosophical and practical reasons underlie the slow and gradual change from segregation to integration/ inclusion. These include: • Many people consider that the costs for inclusion are less than for segregated education. For example, when pupils are in segregated settings, class sizes are kept small depending on the type of disability. Generally, for pupils with multiple disabilities or autism, including Asperger’s syndrome the maximum class size is 4 students; for deaf or hard of hearing pupils and those with moderate or severe intellectual disabilities, the maxium class size is 8; for blind pupils or those with low vision, up to 10; for pupils with physical/motor disabilities, including aphasia, up to 12; for pupils with mild intellectual disability, with social maladjustment, and threatened with social maladjustment, up to 14; for pupils with profound

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Reform, Restructure, and Renew intellectual disability in rehabilitation-education centers, up to 4. Class sizes in special sections in mainstream schools match these. On the other hand, when a child is integrated/included into a regular classroom, the legal regulations say that on each level of education (including nursery schools and in pre-primary schools) the total number of pupils can be up to 20, including 3 to 5 pupils with disabilities. • Central (government) administration entities promote integration/inclusion. For example, the government decided to distribute more money (an education bonus/ voucher) for each student placed in an integrated/inclusive setting and give less for segregated placements. • The pressure on schools to provide integration/inclusion options comes from the parents of children with SEN. Parents are becoming more and more aware of their rights and their power to send their children to special institutions and to obtain specialist treatment for them. Parents create associations, foundations, or solidarity communities that have forced many changes in legislation and led to the provision of better rehabilitation and education facilities. Individual parents fight for their child to have the optimum level of support.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• There is a growing number of books and papers that postulate the ideas of integration/inclusion, give information about the principles, show and explain the paradigms, and discuss effectiveness based on qualitative and quantitative studies (e.g., Dykcik, 2006; Korzon, 2009; Rakowska, 2007). In terms of educational placement, psychological and pedagogical services centers are generally a first step for a child with SEN. Entry into a nursery school or a school of any level is founded upon the opinion of the need for special education written by a judgment team at a psychological and pedagogical services center. The team consists of a group of professionals—the head of the psychological and pedagogical services center, a psychologist, a special education teacher, a physician, and other specialists depending on the child’s needs. The judgment does not mean that the child has to be placed in any specific setting, but it does provide a legal base to ensure that special educational conditions are available in any school. As well as diagnosing a child and writing a judgment on the need for special education, personnel include recommendations helpful for teachers and other school specialists. Once a child is identified as having special needs, local governments supported by federal funding must provide appropriate special education (Gil, 2007). Integration/ inclusion under Polish education legislation is not obligatory for a child with SEN. It is up to the parents to choose what form of education they want for their child. If the parents wish it to be integration/inclusion (which now happens more often), the head of a school has to organize the educational conditions in a proper way to meet the needs of the child. Therefore, when and if mainstream educational experiences are provided to SEN pupils, they are dependent upon the availability of school resources and the predisposition of the school administrator (Gil, 2007). And, because education is decentralized, local administrations have to find enough money to cover the costs of integration in the schools.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

97

98

Jolanta Baran Students with SEN who are integrated/included follow the same curriculum as the other students, if their learning capabilities meet the required standards. If learning difficulties make it impossible for a child to follow the class, then an individual curriculum is provided (Hyzniak, 2008). In the classroom, two teachers work with pupils at the same time during activities. These are referred to as the leading teacher and the supportive teacher. The latter is a special teacher with additional teaching certification such as an early education certificate or any school subject certificate. The role of the support teacher includes making the school syllabus compatible with the capabilities of a child; setting individual learning targets for a child; making decisions about the grades a child receives; corresponding with the child’s parents; and personally assisting children throughout the day (Hyzniak, 2008). It is a rule that the space in a classroom for integration/inclusion has specific arrangements. The distinguished zones include a relaxation zone; an individual work zone for special methods used by the supportive teacher in a one-to-one situation to avoid any disturbances in other pupils’ participating in the lesson process; and special equipment appropriate to an individual’s special education needs.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T E AC H E R S A N D PE DAG O G Y Teachers who work with pupils with SEN need additional qualifications. This is usually a special education certificate, often with a major in intellectually disabled education because pupils with that disability outnumber those with others disabilities, although it may also be in other specializations. Teachers working with young children with SEN are supposed to have at at least a B.A. in pre-primary education. In special nursery schools and in special pre-primary schools, teachers are special educators with respect to the particular type of disability. The Education Development Center (ORE) under the Ministry of National Education is responsible for coordinating the work of regional subagencies and for providing information and training for professionals to understand pupils with SEN. Currently, teachers have wide access to postgraduate studies, professional vocational courses, workshops, and other enriched activities. Universities and colleges offer courses in special education, remedial work, psychological and pedagogical support, and many other offerings at the undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate levels to provide the qualifications needed. However, since Poland is a member of the EU, it must conform to the Bologna System of Education. The Bologna System’s requirements conflict with the present Polish special education training.

M A JOR C ON T ROV E R S I E S A N D I S S U E S Since integration/inclusion in education has become a fact in Poland, discussions about its legitimacy no longer occur (Baran, 2000). Nevertheless, the multidimensionality of the phenomenon brings complex dilemmas that are theoretical, philosophical, pedagogical, and social, as well as economic and legislative.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Reform, Restructure, and Renew Gil (2007) points out that, “The situation for disabled people in Poland appears virtually perfect from a policy perspective; however, from a practical perspective, much work is needed” (p. 45). The following are conclusions based on inquiry and research with teachers and other education specialists about the difficulties in implementing integration/inclusion education reform in Poland. • Theoretical debates abound. Some highly regarded educators argue for more policy to reform mainstream schooling; other equally eminent voices argue for the retention of separate facilities. At the same time, some researchers argue that the principles of integration in the least restrictive environment clash with the ideals of inclusion. For example, if pupils with different abilities and those with SEN participate together in the same lesson, the teacher has to organize the process in a very restrictive and structured way in order to meet the educational needs of all the different pupils. While the process may be good for some pupils, it may not suit others, such as those who are more creative or gifted. • The current legal and policy frameworks in Poland do not provide children with assistance to integrate into society. The potential of the legislation aimed at helping children to participate fully in school life is “typically hypothetical and rarely put into practice” (Gil, 2007, p. 45).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• There are approximately 3 to 4 times fewer available places in integration than are needed (Apanel, 2009). Nor is every school and every teacher ready to organize integrative/inclusive education. • There is a low awareness of SEN among regular school teachers together with a lack of appropriate teacher preparation to work with SEN pupils. For example, a comparative study of changes in the preparation for teachers who work in regular schools with pupils with SEN (Gajdzica, 2006) did not show significant growth when comparing the data of the 1999 to 2000 school year with those of the 2004 to 2005 school year. Ninety percent of teachers claimed that when they teach a regular class they do not spend the time with SEN pupils that is necessary to execute the students’ program requirements and to support their development appropriately. Less then half of the teachers differentiated teaching methods; about the same number favored observation and practical methods. • The contradictory perceptions of inclusion have to be evaluated within a context of reduced budgets for education. The budget is not high enough to respect all expectations in this area and there is a lack of money for the equipment needed in schools. • There are not enough professionals to support integration/inclusion. The lack includes specialists such as speech therapists, remedial teachers, and therapeutic teachers for children in pre-primary schools and for pupils with cerebral palsy, speech disorders, and learning disabilities (Apanel, 2009). • Parents are less satisfied with integrated/inclusive education than are leading teachers and supportive teachers. Parents’ satisfaction is correlated with their

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

99

100

Jolanta Baran children’s feelings about their classmates affinity level and their satisfaction with the supportive teacher. • There are differing expectations. School personnel and parents argue about the range of services promised as opposed to the ones offered by the school. They also argue about the desired or expected outcomes by parents for their child. • Parents of nondisabled students often have negative social attitudes toward students with SEN. • Pupils with SEN often occupy poor social positions in mainstream schools. • SEN children often don’t have sufficient preparation during their preschool period to start primary education.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

FUTUR E TR ENDS The phrase education for all (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 2005) has greatly impacted legislative decisions and initiatives by the Polish government. The optimistic and expected perspective is that integration/inclusion will bring good results for all pupils in all areas of their lives and also in the school system. The Ministry of Education program for the coming years is focused on the activation of such assumptions. To accomplish this, supportive teams will be created in each school to supervise and to aid a teacher’s work. Professionals called methodical advisors (from the Education Development Center local agencies) and leader teachers will play a significant role in giving directions and help. This perspective calls for a new profile of teacher competencies and better teacher preparation in individual work techniques and in special education issues in order to meet the needs of pupils with SEN appropriately. A new model of cooperation between schools, psychological and pedagogical services centers, other agencies, and parents will be devised.

R E F E R E NC E S ADAPT-Europe. (2007). Poland. Retrieved from http://www.adapt-europe.org/poland /education.htm. Apanel, D. (2009). Edukacja integracyjna jako obszar zainteresowania pedagogiki specjalnej [Inclusive education as an area of interest in special education]. In G. Dryżałowska, & H. Żuraw (Eds.). Trwałość i zmiana w pedagogice specjalnej [Persistence and change in special education] (pp. 167–179). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademickie ŻAK. Baran J. (2000). Otwartość i gotowość nauczycieli do zmian systemu edukacji [Teachers’ readiness and willingness to change the education system]. In A. Rakowska & J. Baran (Eds.) Dylematy pedagogiki specjalnej [Dilemmas in special education] (pp. 97–103). Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej. Central Statistical Office (2008). Demographic yearbook of Poland. Warszawa: Zakład Wydawnictw Statystycznych. Central Statistical Office (2009a). Concise statistical yearbook of Poland. Warszawa: Zakład Wydawnictw Statystycznych.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Reform, Restructure, and Renew Central Statistical Office (2009b). Education in 2008/2009 school year. Warszawa: Zakład Wydawnictw Statystycznych. Cierpiatowska T. (2009). Studenci z niepełnosprawnością. Problemy funkcjonowania edukacyjnego i psychospołecznego [Students with disabilities. Educational and psychosocial functioning problems]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego. Council of the European Union. (2008). Resolutions on the situations of persons with disabilities in the European Union. Report 6941/08. Brussels: Author. Dykcik W. (2006). Otwartość pedagogiki specjalnej [The scope of special education]. In C. Kosakowski, A. Krause, & S. Przybyliński (Eds.) Pomiędzy teorią a praktyką. Dyskursy pedagogiki specjalnej t. 5 [Between theory and practice. Discourses in special education vol. 5] (pp. 13–19). Olsztyn: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego. Dostęp osób niepełnosprawnych do edukacji—stan obecny, szanse i bariery [Disabled persons’ access to education—current status, opportunities and barriers]. (2006, Kwiecień). Warszawa: Ministerstwo Edukacji i Nauki. BIP. European Agency for Development in Special Education Needs (EADSEN) (2010a). Retrieved from www.european_agency.org. European Agency for Development in Special Education Needs (2010b). Legal system, Poland. Retrieved from http:// www.european.org/country-information/poland/national. Gajdzica, Z. (2006). O wychowaniu i kształceniu dzieci o specjalnych potrzebach edukacyjnych w szkole ogólnodostępnej [On the upbringing and education of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools]. In J. Wyczesany & Z. Gajdzica (Eds.). Uwarunkowania edukacji i rehabilitacji uczniów o specjalnych potrzebach w rozwoju [Developmental determinants in the education and rehabilitation of students with special needs] (pp. 98–145). Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej. Gil, M. (2007). From segregation to equalization: The Polish perspective on educating children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education, 2, 40–52. Hulek, A. (1992). Ewolucja integracyjnego systemu kształcenia dziecka niepełnosprawnego [The evolution of an inclusive education system for disabled children]. In A. Hulek, & B. Grochmal-Bach (Eds.). Uczeń niepełnosprawny w szkole powszechnej [The disabled student in elementary school] (pp. 13–33). Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe WSP. Hyzniak, A. (2008). Case study: Special education needs children in mainstream education in Poland. Retrieved from http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jan08/stud03/html. Jakubielski, L. (2002). Reform in a changing society: The case of Poland. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/crees/outreach/jakubeilski.htm. Jasiewicz, K. (2009). “The past is never dead:” Identity, class, and voting behavior in contemporary Poland. Eastern European Politics and Society 2, 491–508. Korzon, A. (2009). Kształcenie integracyjne niepełnosprawnych— potrzeba specjalnych kompetencji nauczyciela szkoły ogólnodostępnej [Inclusive education for the disabled— Required competencies for general school teachers]. In T. Żółkowska, & I. RamikMażewska (Eds.). Wielowymiarowość edukacji i rehabilitacji osób z niepełnosprawnośca [The dimensions of educating and rehabilitating persons with disabilities] (pp. 723–729). Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Mazurek, K., & Majorek, C. (2005). Poland: Transformations in society and schooling. In K. Mazurek & M. Winzer (Eds.). Schooling around the world: Debates, challenges, and practices (pp. 264–283). New York: Pearson. Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej. (2005). Wczesna, wielospecjalistyczna, kompleksowa, skoordynowana i ciągła pomoc dziecku zagrożonemu niepełnosprawnością lub niepełnosprawnemu oraz jego rodzinie. Program rządowy—pilotaż 2005–2007. (2005) [Early, multidisciplinary, comprehensive, coordinated and ongoing help for children with disabilities and their families. The government program—A pilot

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

101

102

Jolanta Baran

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

project 2005–2007 (2005)]. Retrieved from http://www.men.gov.pl/index.php?option =com_content&view=article&id=446%3 Aqwczesna-wielospecjalistyczna-kompleksowa -skoordynowana-i-ciga-pomoc-dziecku-zagroonemu-niepenosprawnoci-lub-niepeno sprawnemu-oraz-jego-rodzinieq&catid=118%3Apomoc-psychologiczno-pedagogiczna &Itemid=155. Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej. (2008). Raport z realizacji pilotażu programu rządowego “Wczesna, wielospecjalistyczna, kompleksowa, skoordynowana i ciągła pomoc dziecku zagrożonemu niepełnosprawnością lub niepełnosprawnemu oraz jego rodzinie” (WWKSC) w latach 2005–2007 [Report on the implementation of a government pilot program titled “Early, multidisciplinary, comprehensive, coordinated and ongoing help for children with disabilities and their families” (WWKSC), 2005-2007]. Zespół Roboczy ds. Ewaluacji i Monitoringu Pilotażu Programu WWKSC. Warszawa: Author. Pilecka W., & Pilecki J. (1994). Poland. In M. A. Winzer, & K. Mazurek (Eds.), Comparative studies in special education (pp. 334–349). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Rakowska A. (2007). Dylematy edukacyjne nauczycieli szkół specjalnych [Dilemmas of special education teachers]. In C. Kosakowski, A. Krause, A. Żyta (Eds.) Osoba z niepełnosprawnością w systemie rehabilitacji, edukacji i wsparcia społecznego. Dyskursy pedagogiki specjalnej t. 6 [Rehabilitation, education, and social support for persons with disabilities. Discourses in special education, vol 6] (pp. 59–64). Olsztyn: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego. Szumski, G. (2006). Integracyjne kształcenie niepełnosprawnych. Sens i granice zmiany edukacyjnej [Inclusive education and learning disabilities. Understanding the meanings and boundaries of educational change]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN SA. United Nations International Children’s Fund. (2005). Children and disability in transition in CEE/CIS and Baltic states. Florence, Italy: Author. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2005). Guidelines for inclusion: Ensuring access to education for all. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org /images/0014/001402/140224e.pdf.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

5 Special Education from an International Perspective: The Case of Germany

Olga Graumann and Ulf Algermissen

Germany is a federal state in Central Europe. It has a population of about 80 million people living in an area covering 357,112 square kilometers. The population density is one of the highest in the world. Despite some encouraging figures in January 2010, demographic figures show a serious decline: The most recent fertility rate (the average number of children born per woman in her childbearing years) is now down to 1.36 (as of 2009), one of the lowest rates worldwide. The average age of the population is relatively high at 43 years. In 1918, following the First World War, the monarchy was replaced by a new form of government. The Weimar Republic brought numerous reforms to the world of education that stemmed from nationally and internationally known reform educationalists such as Georg Kerschensteiner, Maria Montessori, and John Dewey. The Weimar Constitution of 1919 also provided, for the first time, a period of 4-year common schooling for children from all social classes and religions in primary schools, from which secondary education was to build. With the seizing of power by Adolf Hitler in 1933, the Third Reich ended these efforts. The threads were taken up again after World War II and have featured prominently in the education scene in Germany until today. At the end of World War II in 1945, Germany was divided into four zones of occupation. In 1949 the three western zones became the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG); the remaining eastern Soviet zone was the German Democratic Republic (GDR). The GDR was separated from the rest of Germany by the so-called “iron curtain,” which in its tangible form ran through the middle of Germany’s largest city, Berlin. This made Berlin an island in Eastern Germany, separating East and West and the zones of occupation. In the late 1980s, changes in the Soviet Union, in particular glasnost and perestroika, made the end of the Cold War possible. Germany was reunified in 1990. The GDR school system, oriented toward the Soviet Union, was adapted to that of Western Germany. According to its constitution, Germany is a federal parliamentary representative democratic republic consisting of 16 Länder (states). One of the founding members of the European Union, Germany together with 16 other EU countries forms a currency union known as the Euro zone. Germany belongs among the most highly developed countries in the world. It is a member of the United Nations (UN), the Organisation of

The authors would like to express their gratitude to David Whybra for his careful and thoughtful translation of this chapter from German into English. 103 International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

104

Olga Graumann and Ulf Algermissen Economic Co-operation and Development, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Organization of Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Council, the G8 group, and the G20 group. With reference to the nominal gross domestic product, Germany has the largest economy in Europe and the fourth largest in the world. In 2009, it was the second largest export nation, and the third largest import nation. In terms of religion, one-third of the German population is Catholic, one-third is Protestant, and one-third has no religious leaning. About 5% of the population originates from a Muslim country, but there are no statistics to say whether they do, in fact, practice Islam. Currently, about 14% of the population—especially the long-term unemployed, immigrants, and single mothers—live near the poverty line. Moreover, the trend is becoming stronger. Nevertheless, one must speak of relative rather than absolute poverty in Germany. In the face of economic problems from reduced economic growth, globalization, demographic developments, the national debt, and unemployment, the point has come where Germany can still be called a social state, but where change in the form of “dismantling the social state” is now prevalent. The number of unemployed (including people in short-term employment, part-time jobs, odd jobs, and on government programs) is increasing and the gap between welfare development and poverty is widening. Germany is heavily in debt, and politicians and employers increasingly call for drastic cuts in state expenditure, particularly in social assistance programs. Like in all societies, low-income families, immigrants, and people with disabilities are especially hit by economic crises and by the reduction of social support. In comparison to numerous other industrial states, Germany is still doing well regarding social assistance, and we remain hopeful that an upturn of the economy will have a positive effect for the marginal people in German society. Since the 1950s, Germany has increasingly become a country of immigration. At the moment, almost 2 million people of Turkish nationality live in Germany. Another 2 million belong to Greek, Italian, Croatian, Serbian, and other ethnicities. Since the end of the 1980s, Germany has also taken in more than 100,000 so-called latecomers each year—that is, ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Union. This means that about 19% of the total population are first-, second-, or third-generation immigrants. These waves of immigration have had sustainable effects on the German education system.

T H E G E R M A N S C HO OL S Y S T E M Each of the 16 federal states has its own ministry of education. Each state enjoys cultural sovereignty and individual ministries determine their own school system. All 16 ministers of education are members of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the States in the Federal Republic (in German, the KMK). As early as 1955, decisions and joint agreements of the KMK created a common framework for their school systems that guaranteed the correspondence or comparability of the curricula, final qualifications, and teacher education and training. The KMK thus enables a high measure of mobility for learners and teachers within Germany. Directives on content in the subjects and areas of learning are issued additionally as recommendations to be accommodated in the curricula of each state.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Special Education from an International Perspective All schools in Germany are public schools: The state and the local authorities are always involved, even if the schools are privately funded. Public responsibility for the individual school is reflected in the educational aims and in matters of administration. Under the Basic Law (Article 6 II), parents have the right to choose the appropriate school type for their child. However, the government may restrict this right for educational reasons. There is also a basic right to free development of personality (Article 2 I). This applies to freedom of worship, for which a place must be found in educational institutions. The government supplies the schools with staff—teachers are paid by the respective federal state. The school-maintaining body or local authority bears the remaining costs for primary schools and secondary schools. As a rule, they are also responsible for schools with special needs, insofar as they are not otherwise maintained by agencies such as church or humanitarian associations like Diakonie, Caritas, or the Lebenshilfe. The material costs borne by the local authority are chiefly constructing school buildings and equipping them with amenities. The local authorities are also responsible for maintaining the buildings; supplying the teaching and learning materials; possibly supervising the children outside of lessons; and paying for miscellaneous nonteaching personnel such as janitors and administrative staff. In general, the primary schools are half-day schools that offer neither lunch nor an afternoon program. The necessity for, and the supervision of, pupils after their lessons has been fiercely discussed in Germany for decades. The numbers of schools with an afternoon program and the numbers of all-day schools have been climbing, but to a different degree in the individual federal state. In these cases, the parents are obliged to contribute to the cost of food and supervision. The German system is described as tripartite. As Figure 1 shows, pupils are selected after 4 years in primary school for the secondary phase. This controversial issue has been discussed for decades. A recent event illustrates the flavor of the debate. When the government of the city-state of Hamburg put forward a draft law in 2010 for the extension of the primary school stage to 6 years, the population rejected this draft in a referendum. Critics still plead for an 8- to 10-year basic education so that individual talents and abilities will be able to develop and not become abruptly suppressed by school decisions made at the age of 10. However, the federal states have been unable to decide on the abolition of early selection: Six-year primary education only exists in two federal states. As mentioned, the general school system is often referred to as the tripartite system. The schools for special needs, or special support schools as they are called today, are often not considered in descriptions or public statistics of the general tripartite school system. In truth, however, the special schools are a fourth part of the school system that selects children during their early primary years according to special needs categories and individual development characteristics. Special schools take a large share of the pupils in urban environments. This can be explained by the urban mix of socioculturally disadvantaged children and young people, whether immigrants or not, who are in need of special learning support. With the exception of placements for children with learning disabilities or language difficulties, special institutions are, as a rule, all-day schools, often combined with a boarding school. This is discussed in greater detail in the following.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

105

106

Olga Graumann and Ulf Algermissen Sonderschule (special school)

Hauptschule (general education secondary school)

Grundschule (primary school)

Berufsbildungsjahr/ Duale Ausbildung (special vocational year/ dual vocational training)

Realschule (middle education secondary school)

Berufsschule/Berufsaufbauschule/Fachoberschule (vocational school/ technical secondary school)

Gymnasium (grammar school)

gymnasiale Oberstufe (senior grammar school) or

Gesamtschule (comprehensive school)

berufliches Gymnasium (vocational high school)

Berufspraxis (vocational practice)

Fachhochschule (university of applied sci.)

Universität (univerisity)

4 Jahre (4 years); 5 bis 6 Jahre (5 to 6 years); 3 Jahre (3 years); 3+2 Jahre (years)

Figure 1. Schulsystem DeutschLand (School System of Germany).

T H E DE V E L OPM E N T O F I N T EG R AT ION I N G E R M A N Y A N D T H E C ON T E X T OF I T S J US T I F IC AT ION

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Legislation One normative definition of disability does not exist. On the contrary, the terms to describe disabilities vary around the world. National legislation means that disabilities are interpreted quite differently in different nations. In general, however, legislation establishes who is entitled to what forms of education or, possibly, who has to be protected. In Germany, the laws in question are the Federal Social Security Law, the Employment Support Law, and the Federal Severely Disabled Law. Health insurance covers medical and complementary services for the indisposed and the disabled regarding rehabilitation. Legally fi xed employment support is for vocational and supplementary purposes. There also exists a certain “right to social indemnification” (Antor & Bleidick, 2001). Article 3(2) in the German Basic Law, added in 1994, is decisive. It states that, “No one is to be disadvantaged on account of a disability.” Nevertheless, the discussion about “equality under public law” continues in Germany.

History of Special Education From the end of the 18th century an obligation for children to attend lessons existed in all the former German states. However, the idea of general education for the people, arising out of the impulses of the Reformation and Enlightenment in the 16th and 17th centuries, did not find any reflection in everyday school practice. For want of money, only half of the children were able to attend lessons. The first attempts to offer schooling to disabled children involved those deaf and blind people who were also members of the nobility and privileged classes. In 1778, the first institution for the deaf and dumb was founded in Leipzig. In 1808, the first school for the

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Special Education from an International Perspective blind was established in Berlin. Seventy years later, the first schools for children with learning difficulties were founded. It was only during the 1960s that a wide expansion of schools for special needs began. Special needs schools were created to cater to 11 groups of disability. The disability groups were: learning, language, mental, hearing, deafness, sight, blindness, physical, behavior, serious multiple disabilities, and illness. The schools for special needs promised, among other things, homogeneous classes, small class size with stronger individualization and differentiation, subject content appropriate to the slower learning speed of disabled children, optimal dovetailing of the pupils’ learning requirements and teaching steps, well-illustrated teaching materials, and specially qualified teachers. One reason for the increase in the number of schools for children needing learning support was the trend to a performance-oriented society and school system. This brought with it the necessity that the learning of typical pupils in general schools would not be disturbed nor endangered by slower pupils (Graumann, 2000). Still, the 1960s also saw moves toward more democracy being called for by the state, which equated with developments in the education system toward equality of opportunity, emancipation, and self-independence. Of course, this encouraged various education policy debates and increasingly strong criticisms of the separation of children with disabilities into schools for special needs. In determining society’s share in the causation and remediation of learning problems, for the first time schooling itself was considered to be the possible cause of failing performance. Some people argued that the separation processes, which go hand in hand with certain types of disability, offer the opportunity to justify specific claims for help and support. Counterarguments claimed that special schools harbor the danger of segregation and labeling, which then causes social disadvantage. With separation and differentiation, special needs education does not succeed in sufficiently achieving its quality standards. Problems then arise involving stigmatization and labeling, poor transferability to general schooling and to working life, a lessening of development opportunities through a reduction of the learning materials and of social contacts, and the cementing of social inequality (Graumann & Rakhkochkine, 2007). School marks and selection procedures were similarly criticized because they drew mainly children from families with a low social profile into the vicious circle of insufficient early conditioning for learning, subsequent bad marks, and finally transfer to special needs education. Nevertheless, even as the legitimate nature of special needs education fell into a crisis both on the educational policy level and on the level of content, special schools continued to expand. At the end of the 1970s, after approval by the school authorities of a number of federal states, the first pilot projects working on integration were set up. In 1975, the Fläming primary school in Berlin (Projektgruppe Integrationsversuch, 1988) became the first school in the state system in the FRG and West Berlin to begin to teach disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged children in one class—a so-called integration class. It thus became a guiding light for all those schools that were prepared to give integration a try. The basic conditions were 15 pupils, of which 3 to 5 children had some special need, and team-teaching—the cooperation of general educational and special needs competences.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

107

108

Olga Graumann and Ulf Algermissen In 1994, the KMK passed a resolution on special needs support in the schools of the FRG. With this recommendation, the work toward inclusive education and common teaching was expressly supported for the first time. The term special school need was replaced by special educational support. Only after the verification of special educational support could “that learning location be chosen, which best meets the support needs of the child or young person” (KMK, 1994). By 2009, the Web site of the KMK stated that:

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

The plurality of support locations, the experience with inclusive teaching of disabled and nondisabled children, educational science thought-provoking impulses from educational science and the focus of educational policy in the federal Lands clearly show that the child-centered, individualizing perspective of special needs support and integrative education have priority over institution-related support. (2010) In almost all federal states, legal regulations are now in place with respect to the integrated education of disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged children. Legally, parents have the opportunity to request integration for their children, but the regulations offer no legal entitlement. A general school may only be chosen as a learning support location if the required material conditions and personnel exist, and if the school authority agrees. Thus, the decision for or against integration primarily depends not on an educational recommendation, but on the goodwill of the state, or town council, to bear the necessary material and personnel costs. Since March 2009, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) has required the federal, state, and town/city authorities in Germany to apply the law for people with disabilities in order for them to achieve self-determination and equal participation in society. In Article 24 of the convention, an inclusive system of education is called for in which children with disabilities are, in general, to be taught together with nondisadvantaged children at general schools. That is, students with disabilities must have the same rights as other children in the community and must receive access to inclusive, high-standard, and free primary and secondary schooling. Following the 2006 UN Convention and its claim for inclusive education systems, no German federal state can abdicate its responsibility for more inclusion. As we shall see, the application of this demand has not been carried very far forward.

DE F I N I T ION OF DI S A BI L I T Y Contrasted with the concept of illness, disability is defined as lasting changes in the physical, mental, or intellectual capacities that deviate from a state of normality whereas illness is seen as a passing disturbance of bodily functions. Models of these explanations can be summarized as follows: • Disability as an individual category. A disability is caused by some damage, or is an individual anomaly. The individual is defined by his or her disability. • Disability as a labeling, conceptual construct. A disability is seen as the result of a process of attribution, oriented toward social or cultural perceptions.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education from an International Perspective • Disability as a socially produced hindrance. A disability is seen in connection with socio-economic disadvantage (equality of opportunity). It is a state of affairs produced by society. • Disability in the perception of a person–environment relationship. This ecological or constructivist perception sees disability as a disturbance of the integration of a person into his or her environmental system; that is, as a construct in a social situation (Metzler & Wacker, 2001). In Germany, these models are seen as interdependent. The classifications of the World Health Organization (WHO) are used to distinguish between impairment, disability, and handicap. However, it is recognized that impairment, disability, and handicap are related in their causes because a limitation leads to reduction of achievement, and this can be the cause of integration problems. At the same time, the concept of disability is under critical reflection. The distinction between normal and deviant is no longer an objective norm: If it is normal to be different, there can no longer be any distinction.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

School Population The group of pupils with learning difficulties is by far the largest group among the pupils with special needs (43.3%). Problems first emerge through an experience of the learner with the school system. The pupil demonstrates a special need that cannot be covered in general schools. A high percentage of pupils from families with a low social profile and/or a background of immigration fall into in this category. Pupils are transferred to special placements from general schools. For example, in 2000 the risk of being transferred to a special needs school for a learning disability for a foreign child was 2.6 times greater than for an ethnic German child (Kornmann & Kornmann, 2003). The distribution of boys and girls with special needs is different according to disability. Special needs are diagnosed far more in boys than in girls—about two-thirds versus one-third. For example, the proportion of girls is distinctly lower in the schools for children with emotional and behavioral difficulties compared with boys. Disability is also institutionally fixed. In particular, boys attend special needs schools for emotional and social development, as well as for delayed language development, much more often than girls. By way of contrast, girls are almost equally represented in schools for children with learning disabilities (Kottmann, 2004).

S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION I N R E L AT ION TO DI F F E R I NG S U PP ORT E M PH A S E S Today, three tendencies for the establishment of a special needs concept can be identified (Sassenroth, 2002). These are total integration; as much integration as possible but retaining special needs schools so that parents of a child with a disability can have a choice between integrative schooling and special needs schooling; and integration through separation.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

109

110

Olga Graumann and Ulf Algermissen

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

There is no majority consensus for total integration in the federal states. In all likelihood, this will not change in the next decade. The second concept is more or less consistently practiced in all the federal states. Still, the idea of integration through separation has not yet disappeared in Germany. In Germany, the best possible provision of support for the children and young people determines the decision on a support location. In 2008, approximately 8 million pupils were being taught in German primary and secondary schools (not including vocational schools). Of those, approximately 500,000 pupils had special needs. About 400,000 pupils were in schools for special needs, and about 100,000 pupils were being supported on an integrative basis in general schools. This is shown in Table 1. In order to establish a demand for special needs education, the individual support requirements of each child has to be established. In a comprehensive, time-intensive process, the special needs teacher isolates the relevant school problems for investigation and subsequently analyzes these in a child. The process includes environmental analysis as well as interactive, multidimensional, informal, and formal screening procedures. The selection of the elements in this procedure is based on the particular problem and on the child’s perceived special needs. The results are used to produce an individual development plan that summarizes the child’s special needs (Eggert, 1997). In a subsequent consultation with the parents (part of the diagnostic process), all parties consider how the special need is to be accommodated in classroom work. Afterward, a suggestion is made to the regional school authority about whether the child is to be given integrative or selective schooling. If no agreement is reached, a support commission can be set up to which further specialists can be invited. Induction into a special support school against the wishes of the parents has not happened for some years now. In Germany, special schools exist for individual types of disability (see Biermann & Goetze, 2005). These include: • Learning disabilities. Pupils are taught in separate schools for special needs, known in many federal states as general support schools. This type of special needs school has been the subject of much criticism in Germany recently (e.g., Klemm, 2009). The pupilteacher ratio of 9 children to 1 teacher is very much better than in general schools (as a rule, 25 children to 1 teacher). However, the size of the learning groups remains too large. Team-teaching is usually not provided, so the heterogeneous school population cannot be taught individually. There is also criticism about the lack of specific subject material and methodology. In addition, these schools are mostly half-day. Not all pupils have help for their homework or afternoon supervision. Empirical studies show many more positive than negative effects of integrative schooling for the students with learning disabilities (Haeberlin, 1999). However, only 18% are integrated in general schools. Outcomes are problematic. Pupils with learning disabilities have poor chances in the job market, even if it is possible for them to do a 10th year after 9 years of special needs schooling to obtain a secondary school leaving certificate (known as a Hauptschule). There are too few apprenticeships. As well, these pupils are more likely to have low motivation: They don’t stick to the rules and have less

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

10.0

6.6

16.6

11.6

5.0

2.1

Language

Physical development

Mental development

Emotional and social development

Special need (not defined)

Ill health 81.6%

2.1

4.9

7.4

15.5

5.2

7.8

2.3

1.1

35.5

Ratio of students in special schools to all students with special needs, %

18.4 %

0.0

0.1

4.2

1.1

1.4

2.2

1.0

0.5

7.8

Ratio of students with special needs integrated in general schools to all other students, %

81.6%

100.0

98.0

64.0

93.0

79.0

78.0

70.0

69.0

82.0

Ratio of students in special schools to total of those receiving specific special support, %

18.4%

0.0

2.0

36.0

7.0

21.0

22.0

30.0

31.0

18.0

Ratio of students integrated in general schools to total those receiving specific special support, %

Approximately 8 million pupils were taught in 2008 in German schools at the primary and secondary levels (excluding vocational schools). Of these, approximately 0.5 million needed special support. Of these, approximately 400,000 were given support in special schools and approximately 100,000 were given support in general schools.

100.0%

3.3

Hearing

Total

1.6

43.3

Total (all pupils with special needs), %

Sight

Learning

Special needs

Table 1. Survey of the Distribution of Pupils in Need of Special Support at Special Schools and Those at Integrative General Schools (Data: KMK, 2010)

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

112

Olga Graumann and Ulf Algermissen staying power than others. To overcome these problems, students can take a basic vocational education year that offers a broad education and a safety net for young people who are not yet ready to start working life. Support courses aimed at young people who cannot cope with the rules of the workplace also exist.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• Mental disabilities. For pupils with mental disabilities, special organization forms have evolved that deviate from the general school system. They have a 1-year preliminary stage, an 8-year lower and middle stage, and a 3-year upper and work stage. School attendance can be extended up to age 25. As well as special needs teachers, a series of vocational groups such as physiotherapists, speech therapists, ergotherapists, caregivers, and psychologists are involved.1 At the primary stage, pupils with mental disabilities are often accepted at a general school in their home area. A transfer to secondary education is, however, difficult to put into practice. Of all pupils with mental disabilities, 93% attend special institutions; only 7% are in general schools. Traditionally, work openings after school were restricted to workshops for the disabled. Currently, there are some new possibilities of work, mainly in hotels, catering firms, and other industries that employ people with mental disabilities. • Emotional and behavior disorders. Pupils with special needs in the area of emotional and social development have a variety of support needs. There are differentiated and conceptually distinct forms of preventive measures: mobile advisory and support services, collective learning and cooperation with general schools, and special needs support centers. Basically, the aim is appropriate intervention within a sliding system of advice and support ensured through flexible organizations so that students can remain in their home-base schools. A comparatively high percentage receives integrative schooling, as shown in Table 1. Special needs support is focused in primary schools, EBD (emotional and behavioral disorder) classes, and special needs institutions that are conceived of as transitory. The inherent aim, independent of the support location, is to boost the student’s ability to build relationships. A clearly ordered life within a reliable and resilient framework gives the pupils some orientation for forming and stabilizing relationships at school age and beyond. Another aim is a return to the primary school at the earliest possible date. Cooperation with external institutions and the network of other regional services is of great importance. Teaching is based on the primary school curriculum. In secondary education, the pupils can, independent of the respective support location, obtain diplomas from the schools they attend. Advice and preparation for the working world are often difficult; such input does not always help in the case of delinquent pupils. A strengthening of the ties between school and commerce/industry is being undertaken, and programs to create apprenticeships for young people are being developed by educators and community agencies.

1. Ergotherapy is a method of treating disease through muscular exercise.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education from an International Perspective

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• Physical disabilities. Pupils with physical disabilities were not, as a rule, provided with any schooling in the past. Since the 1960s, however, schools specifically for the physically disabled have come into being, mostly for children with severe, multiple physical disabilities. The schools for children with physical disabilities are mainly all-day schools, generally located on the edge of towns. Integrative schooling can only be achieved in some cases. Of all pupils with physical disabilities, 79% attend a special institution, and 21% are taught integrated in general schools. It is unfortunately very expensive to equip general schools in a disabled-friendly and barrier-free way. At the moment, work is being undertaken to redesign some physical disability schools into support and advice centers that can offer services in special needs individual support and advice for general schools. Schools for students with physical and motor disabilities follow the same curriculum as the general schools. Modifications to the curriculum are made relative to individual learning abilities and the special needs of the pupils. Some teachers for students with certain disabilities such as cerebral palsy, use basal activation, which creates situations that facilitate actions on a neurophysiological basis, thus improving muscle tension movement coordination. Hardly any industrial apprenticeships are available for physically disabled young people, but there are state-supported opportunities in vocational training centers. These work together with social services and the psychological and medical services. • Hearing impaired. Pupils with hearing impairments are taught in educational institutions for the deaf or hard of hearing, often with boarding facilities attached. There is not one standard type, but rather many different forms exist: schools for the deaf; schools for the hard of hearing; schools or regional centers for pupils with hearing impairments; and schools for pupils with hearing impairments with additional disabilities who require extra specialization in learning, emotional and social development, intellectual development, and vision. All schools offer the customary diplomas in secondary education. In recent years, the educational institutions for students with hearing impairments have progressively become less restricted. Now it is not the support location but the special need that is decisive. The number of boarding schools has decreased in favor of increased integration. The trend is for institutions to merge. Pupils with different levels of hearing loss will be able to attend different classes or be assigned to different language learning groups. Extensive efforts are under way to integrate pupils with hearing impairments into general schools close to their homes (individual case integration). Whether these pupils always find the necessary learning conditions in general schools is questionable and dependent on the help of the state government and the school authority in supplying special needs teachers (for example, co-teachers). At the moment, there are special classes attached to the advisory centers where pupils with other disabilities, such as those with speech and language difficulties, are taught.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

113

114

Olga Graumann and Ulf Algermissen About 30% of pupils receive integrative schooling, mainly children who are hard of hearing. The consequence is that the educational institutions for students with hearing loss have only been accepting children with severe, multiple physical disabilities. For more than 200 years, there has been disagreement about how children with hearing impairments should best be supported in terms of the most appropriate communication mode. In Germany, teaching is most frequently oriented toward the stimulation and use of hearing. The aim is to use any remaining hearing capacity with the help of hearing aids or cochlear implants so that pupils learn spoken language as naturally as possible. Signs are mostly dismissed in the schools as unnecessary. Nevertheless, Deaf adults use German Sign Language (DGS), which is a legally recognized language that has traditionally flourished in the German Deaf community.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• Visually impaired. Pupils with visual impairments, like those with hearing impairments, are taught in different educational institutions. Schools for the blind and schools for the visually impaired follow the same goals as the general schools. Of course, some special needs advice is necessary such as relevant course materials, seating arrangements, and possibly learning braille. The pupils can obtain diplomas as in general schools. In 2008, 7,000 pupils with visual impairments were supported; that is, 1.6% of all pupils with a special need. Approximately one-third of those enjoyed integrative schooling (see Table 1). On-the-job internships help the pupils in their vocational development. There are officially recognized workshops for blind students as well as intra-regional vocational education centers and vocational support centers. Some universities make special provisions for blind students although courses are not specifically planned for them. • Speech and language disabilities. In order for pupils with speech and/or language impairments to develop speech and minimize impairments, a variety of forms and locations are available. These encompass preventive/precautionary measures (medical/surgical; speech therapy); special needs support in general education classes (integration); special needs education with the option to move to general schools; special needs support in cooperation with general schools in which classes with language impairment are integrated; special needs support in the framework of regional or intra-regional special needs support centers that offer prevention, therapeutic intervention in school, and advice; and special needs support in the area of vocational orientation and vocational education. If a child is inducted into a special language class, in some states he or she first attends a remedial class before moving into grade 1 in order to catch up on development deficits in basic areas such as movement, perception, concentration, working, and learning behavior. The aims and support measures are stated in an individual support plan for each pupil. Teaching in grades 1 to 4 is primarily directed toward developing language competence with an aim to maintaining the joy of learning and avoiding failures. The acquisition of written language in connection with music education, with role-play and drama, and through the interplay of movement, action, and language is especially important.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education from an International Perspective There is no agreement on whether children with a language disability would profit from a particular didactic concept with its own methodology. In general, the special schools follow the general schools’ curriculum although the teaching does have to be coupled with speech therapy. The most success has been with teamteaching shared between general school and special language needs teachers. Only 22% of all pupils assigned to the special language need category are given integrative schooling. It must not be forgotten, however, that there are numerous pupils with language and speech difficulties in general schools who remain undiagnosed. To help select a vocation, the schools work closely with vocational advice centers, vocational schools, and industry where visits and internships are valued. Special needs teachers, support centers, or the advice centers for young people with language disabilities support the pupils in the transition to the working world through individual advice and, in some cases, special courses.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• Gifted. As a rule, gifted pupils are not seen as a part of the special schools system, and different support models in the general schools for gifted pupils include acceleration and enrichment. There are also state schools for gifted children, which are often boarding schools. Private schools charge substantial fees. There are some schools in church sponsorship for gifted children with behavioral disabilities. Pilot classes also exist in some states that cater especially to gifted children. Educators do not agree about whether and how far gifted children need special education. Empirical studies have as yet found no advantage vis-à-vis special support in general school classes (Henze, Sandfuchs, & Zumhasch, 2006). Gifted children generally go through school without any problems (Rost, 2000) although additional external support through parents and/or afterschool activities makes a lot of sense. Several foundations such as Friedrich Naumann, Cusanus, the Protestant Church, Hans Böckler, and the German People’s Fund offer university scholarships.

MODE L S OF I N T EG R AT ION Integration is a basic right where people live together in society (Muth, 1984). In education, the aim of all efforts at integration should be the conversion of every general school into an integrated school. Four basic models of integration or inclusion can be listed (see Hinz, Kerner, & Niehoff, 2008). All have advantages and disadvantages. These are: • Extra classes for students for special needs. Here pupils are together only in certain subjects. • General schools with specific special educational support. • Same-aim learning with no special educational support; for example, individual integration in local general schools. • Learning with different aims. In this model, the level of achievement is adjusted to the individual level of performance with the involvement of special educational support competence, such as team-teaching.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

115

116

Olga Graumann and Ulf Algermissen Studies accompanying the different models show that certain conditions must exist if integrated learning is to succeed. The conditions include the proximity of the program to place of residence; sufficient disability-specific support that includes special educational competence; disability-friendly room amenities and facilities; and team-teaching through a combination of general and special needs teachers.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T E AC H I NG A N D L E A R N I NG I N T H E E A R LY Y E A R S There is no right to a place in a kindergarten in Germany. Care in crèches, in kindergartens, and in afterschool care facilities is not seen as part of the educational system but as a social service. There is, however, a whole range of sponsors for preschool and afterschool programs that include town authorities and private bodies such as churches, associations, self-help groups, and private individuals. Since 1974, there has been a right to “therapeutic measures” for children of preschool age. Care is divided into four categories: preventive measures; medical early detection and diagnosis; advice and treatment by a doctor; and therapy prescribed by a doctor. The work can take place in the field, in clinics, in surgeries, and in early support centers. These early support centers have arisen on a broad front. Educators, together with qualified personnel from disparate training programs, attend to the children and their parents. The main fields of activity are diagnostics; support, assistance, and advice for the parents; interdisciplinary cooperation; and sociopolitical lobbying. There are also therapeutic day-care institutions (special needs kindergartens). They care for children with disabilities with delayed development symptoms and/or whose behavioral problems cannot be sufficiently supported in general kindergartens. The group size is between 8 to 12 children. In addition to two caregivers per group, therapeutic intervention is a fi xed item in the educational concept. In most states, the care and education of children with disabilities takes place in these therapeutic day-care centers. Alternatively, children may attend integrative daycare centers or integrative general kindergartens, the number of which has risen in recent years. With the new Children’s Education Law, the care of children with disabilities in day-care centers that work on the integrative principle will be legally assured for the first time. There will be standard financing of the extra educational expenditure resulting from educating and caring for children with and without disabilities under one roof. For every special needs child taking a place in a day-care center, a per-head lump sum will be paid by the government to the day-care center, which is distinctly more than what a child of kindergarten age without a disability gets. For children with physical, language, or mental disabilities attending a special needs kindergarten or an integrative kindergarten, some of the costs can be paid by the government depending on the parents’ income. The Children’s Education Law determines the amount of the parents’ contributions for the integrative kindergartens. The costs for all medical and medical-therapeutic services are usually borne by medical insurance. The following section describes the early support and preventive measures carried out by numerous different organizational forms with regard to the individual disability types.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education from an International Perspective • Children with hearing impairments are registered at a very early stage in the framework of the screening of newborn babies. Early support is vital. This includes preventive examinations and early education measures organized by early needs advice centers beginning at age 1. From age 3, education begins in special needs kindergartens. If the early support institution and the school for children with hearing impairments work well together, the transition from preschool to primary school can succeed. • The case is similar with children who have visual impairments. Early support runs from infancy to 6 years. The parents can choose between general support and specific sight impairment support. • The parents of a child with a mental disability are offered diagnostic, therapeutic, educational, and social rehabilitative services immediately after the birth of the child. There is a whole range of early support and education measures. The focus of early support is generally on alleviation of the severity of the disability and improvement of a child’s quality of life. The Lebenshilfe Federal Association was founded in 1958 on a self-help basis. It supports people with mental disabilities to participate in social life on an equal basis. It has developed an interdisciplinary concept of mobile and externally functioning early support centers and crèches, thereby relieving the burden on the family.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• For the development of the children with physical and motor disabilities, early help is designed to prevent and reduce delays in development and to avoid further complications. Support measures must begin as early as possible. Interdisciplinary cooperation is of preeminent importance. Success depends on the close and trusting cooperation of different specialist competences such as medical, therapeutic, social and psychological services, advisory centers, early support centers, kindergartens, special needs kindergartens, and schools for special needs and children’s homes. • For children with language disabilities, early support measures begin with a thorough investigation of the child’s language development status and an estimation of his or her general development. The whole personality of the child and the environment are taken into account to maximize the development opportunities, increase abilities, and consolidate the strong points of the child and his or her family. There are special needs advisory centers; therapeutic centers; kindergartens; and speech therapy surgeries for the early recognition, treatment, and prevention of language disabilities, difficulties, and impairments. Churches often finance the early support institutions. • Preventive measures for students with emotional or behavioral issues are usually confined to the time before the student enters school and rely on the cooperation between the schools for special needs, special needs support centers, and day-care centers. The support of preschool institutions through special needs teachers has proven to be helpful, especially in the transition to school. Preventive measures include early detection and recognition of problematic issues in the family, information on measures for early support and, above all, addressing

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

117

118

Olga Graumann and Ulf Algermissen the development of children and young people in critical situations as soon as possible. Lacking such measures, the difficulties can become more entrenched and require additional special needs support.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T E AC H E R E DUC AT ION A N D T R A I N I NG General teacher education in Germany is of 3.5 to 5.5 years. However, differences exist among the states. Traditionally, teacher training for special needs education required further education beyond general teacher training. Every special needs teacher had already finished a general teacher education course and worked for a while in a school (KMG, 1994). The specialization and separation of the vocational fields of general teachers and special support teachers brought with it a serious fault-line in the development of educational expertise. At the end of the 1970s, basic courses in special education were introduced into the general teacher training curriculum. With the introduction of basic study courses, mutual discussions between the two professions were infrequent and were reduced to diagnostic considerations. This is shown by statements from teachers in general schools such as, “I couldn’t work with children like that!,” and “I couldn’t work under such conditions!” Currently, calls for greater integration or inclusion require teachers from general schools to willingly work with children with disabilities because all children are supposed to be welcome. In inclusive contexts, teachers are expected to consult with colleagues on relevant diagnostic findings, initiate individualized teaching methodologies, support and assist pupils, and handle classroom management. This leads to a number of critical questions for teacher education. First, can we assume that all teachers can develop the skills to relate to all children under difficult circumstances? Teachers require competences—the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes, accompanied by the ability to use them in certain contexts (see Halinen, & Jaervinen, 2008). Do all teachers possess the competences to succeed? Nothing is gained by pretending that these skills are always at hand. The resilience and potential of personnel do have limits, although there is a certain justification in calling for a general obligation for teachers to update their supportive educational competence in case of need. In fact, one commentator (Preuss-Lausitz, 2010) went so far as to say, “That’s his [teacher’s]) job. If he doesn’t fulfill it, he should be sacked.” A second crucial question becomes: How can teacher education react appropriately to the openness and richness of the variety in school support systems? Initial discussions in Germany on inclusive education pinpoint a number of critical elements. An extended teacher education course can take in the essential elements of inclusion (see Ellinger & Wittrock, 2005; Wittrock, 1997). These encompass, but are not restricted to, the following: • Teacher attitudes. Work on inclusion must begin with a consciously open attitude toward heterogeneity and a perspective that encompasses the contradictory nature of school demands. Teachers must examine their own attitudes and specify their own limits in the face of particular challenges. • Teacher self-knowledge. Reflective cooperation and actions help teachers to relate their own backgrounds to vocational tasks. This makes them better able to match personality and role, and attitude and method (see Reiser, 2005).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education from an International Perspective • Practical aspects. Teachers must be able to conceive and implement practical aspects of integration work, such as being able to estimate specific needs resulting from individual disabilities or impairments. • Advisory facilities. Learning about systemic advisory facilitates cooperation between the stakeholders in school such as leadership teams, teaching staff, parents and pupils, school authorities, social workers, and school psychologists. Teachers are prepared for pupil-teacher interactions, support sessions with parents, and case discussions among the staff. • Child development. An indispensable essential element is the study of the basic structures of human development as described in constructivist theoretical contexts. • Assessment. The active knowledge of implicit, diagnostically relevant contexts is an unconditional component of the didactics of diversity. Teachers should therefore possess a working knowledge of support diagnostics and planning in the form of “individual development plans” for children who are especially challenged in school. These basic qualifications go far beyond the competencies normally taught in teacher education. The assimilation of this suggested content into teacher education study courses and on the form of postgraduate courses are, at the moment, still the object of educational policy deliberations. Nevertheless, the practical execution of these plans will be decisive for the possibilities of establishing a sufficiently “complex educational attitude” appropriate to integrating special needs education into general educational science.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

FUTUR E TR ENDS Future developments in Germany must be considered from two broad perspectives. First is the development of society with regard to special needs. Second is developing trends in special education. According to the German Basic Law, the Federal Republic is a democratic and social federal state. For decades, Germany has had a tight social network of contact points for families with a child or young person with a disability. It has also established a very extensive system of special needs schools. But since at least the 1970s, economic resources have been continuously declining. Access to resources, especially those concerning care and education, is still very good for a small part of society, but most still have to struggle for access to these resources. For people with disabilities, it is a question of direct and indirect grants, of tax relief, and of children’s allowances, as well as kindergarten places, apprenticeships, university places and, last but not least, of jobs. Since the 1970s, the special needs system has developed into its present form. Still, the talk has been of a crisis in special needs education and the change of paradigm that has ensued (Werning, Balgo, Palmowski, & Sassenroth, 2002). The expansion of special needs education is no longer the center of education policy discussions; rather, the focus is on the integration of people with disabilities into school and society. Inclusive education, which is more than the German concept of integrating children with disabilities into general schools, must be given critical consideration. However, although much of the aims of the inclusion concept are desirable, it must not be forgotten

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

119

120

Olga Graumann and Ulf Algermissen that there is a real danger that individual children with disabilities will no longer be the focus of the educational debate, and their needs may no longer be met sufficiently. Special needs education competence remains indispensable and we must not lose sight of that amid all the efforts at inclusion.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

R E F E R E NC E S Antor, G., & Bleidick, U. (Eds.). (2001). Handlexikon der Behindertenpädagogik. Schlüsselbegriffe aus Theorie und Praxis (Hand lexicon of pedagogy for handicapped people). Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer. Biermann, A., & Goetze, H. (2005). Sonderpädagogik. Eine Einführung (Special pedagogy: An introduction). Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer. Bleidick, U., & Ellger-Rüttgardt, S. (Eds.). (1994). Behindertenpädagogik im vereinten DeutschLand. Über die Schwierigkeiten eines Zwiegesprächs zwischen Ost und West (Pedagogy of the handicapped in a unified Germany: On the problems of a dialogue between east and west). Weinheim, Germany: Deutscher Studien Verlag. Ellinger, S., & Wittrock, M. (Eds.). (2005). Sonderpädagogik in der Regelschule. Konzepte— Forschung—Praxis (Special pedagogy in the public school: Concepts— research–practice). Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer. Graumann, O. (2000). Von der Hilfsschule zur Integration—ein Fortschritt in der Schullandschaft? In S. Kirk, J. Köhler, H. Lohrenz, & U. Sandfuchs (Eds.), Schule und Geschichte. Funktionen der Schule in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (School and history: Functions of the school in hte past and present) (pp. 346–373). Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt. Graumann, O., & Rakhkochkine, A. (2007). Steigerung der Unterrichtsqualität durch Integration. In K.-H. Arnold (Ed.), Unterrichtsqualität und Fachdidaktik (Quality of instruction and didactics) (pp. 299–320). Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt. Haeberlin, U. (1999). Die Integration von Lernbehinderten: Versuche, Theorien, Forschungen, Enttäuschungen, Hoffnungen (Beiträge zur Heil- und Sonderpädagogik) (Integration of the learning disabled: Attempts, theories, research, disappointments, hopes [contributions to therapeutic and special pedagogy]). Bern, Switzerland: Haupt. Halinen, J., & Jaervinen, R. (2008). Towards inclusive education: The case of Finland. Prospects. UNESCO-IB, 145, 77–98. Henze, G., Sandfuchs, U., & Zumhasch, C. (Eds.). (2006). Integration hochbegabter Grundschüler (Integration of gifted elementary school students). Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt. Hinz, A., Körner, I., & Niehoff, U. (Eds.). (2008). Von der Integration zur Inklusion. Grundlagen —Perspektiven—Praxis (From integration to inclusion: Basics—perspectives—practice). Marburg, Germany: Lebenshilfe-Verlag. Klemm, K. (2009). Sonderweg Förderschulen: Hoher Einsatz, wenig Perspektiven. Eine Studie zu den Ausgaben und zur Wirksamkeit von Förderschulen in Deutschland (Special supporting schools: High efforts, little perspectives. A study on the expenditures and on the effectiveness of supporting schools in Germany). Retrieved from http://www.bertelsmann -stiftung.de/bst/de/media/xcms_bst_dms_29959_29960_2.pdf. KMK, Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Ed.). (2010). Statistische Veröffentlichungen der Kultusministerkonferenz. Dokumentation Nr. 189—März 2010. Sonderpädagogische Förderung in Schulen 1999 bis 2008 (Stastical publication of the Standing Conference: Special pedagogic support in schools). Berlin, Germany: Author.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Special Education from an International Perspective KMK, Sekretariat der Ständigen Kultusministerkonferenz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Ed.). (1994). Empfehlungen der Kultusministerkonferenz zur Sonderpädagogischen Förderung in den Schulen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bek. d. MK v. 1.9.1994 – 301-8I027 (Recommendations of the Standing Conference for Special Pedagogic Support in Schools of the Federal Republic of Germany). Bonn, Germany: Author. Kornmann, R., & Kornmann, A. (2003). Erneuter Anstieg der Überrepräsentation ausländischer Kinder in Schulen für Lernbehinderte (A new increase in the overrepresentation of foreign children in schools for the learning disabled). Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 54, 286–289. Kottmann, B. (2004). Selektion in die Sonderschule. Das Verfahren zur Feststellung von sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf als Gegenstand empirischer Forschung (Selection into the special school: Diagnostic procedures as a subject of empirical research). Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt. Metzler, H., & Wacker, E. (2001). Behinderung (Disability). In H.-U. Otto & H. Thiersch (Eds.), Handbuch Sozialarbeit Sozialpädagogik (Handbook of social work, social pedagogy) (2nd Rev. ed., pp. 118–139). Aufl. Luchterhand: Neuwied Kriftel. Muth, J. (1984). Zur bildungspolitischen Dimension der Integration (On the educationalpolitical dimensions of integration). In Eberwein: Behinderte und Nichtbehinderte lernen gemeinsam. Handbuch der Integrationspädagogik (Disabled and nondisabled learning together. Handbook of integrative pedagogy) (pp. 17–24). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. Preuss-Lausitz, U. (2010). Das Recht auf Miteinander. Bei: Die Zeit. Retrieved from http://www .lwl.org/lja-download/datei-download-schulen/UN_Konvention_fuer_die_Rechte _von_Menschen_mit_Behinderungen/Inklusive_Beschulung/Stellungnahmen_zur _inklusiven_Beschulung/1271235037_0/2.1.10___Die_Zeit-Streitgespraech.pdf. Projektgruppe Integrationsversuch. (Ed.). (1988). Das Fläming-Modell. Gemeinsamer Unterricht für behinderte und nichtbehinderte Kinder an der Grundschule (Common instruction for disabled and nondisabled children in primary school). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. Reiser, H. (2005). Professionelle Konzepte und das Handlungsfeld (Professional concepts and the sphere of action). In Horster, Hoyningen-Süess et al. (Eds.), Sonderpädagogische Professionalität (Special pedagogy—professionalism) (pp. 133–150). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS. Rost, D. H. (Ed.). (2000). Hochbegabte und hochleistende Jugendliche. Befunde aus dem Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt (Gifted and high performing adolescents. Results from the Marburg project). Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Sassenroth, M. (2002). Verhältnis der Sonderpädagogik zur Allgemeinen Pädagogik (The relationship of special and general pedagogy). In R. Werning, R. Balgo, W. Palmowski, & M. Sassenroth (Eds.), Sonderpädagogik. Lernen, Verhalten, Sprache, Bewegung und Wahrnehmung (Special pedagogy) (pp. 1–14). Munich, Germany: Oldenbourg. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. New York: Author. Werning, R., Balgo, R., Palmowski, W., & Sassenroth, M. (2002). Sonderpädagogik. Lernen, Verhalten, Sprache, Bewegung und Wahrnehmung. Munich, Germany: Oldenbourg. Wittrock, M. (Ed.). (1997). Sonderpädagogischer Förderbedarf und sonderpädagogische Förderung in der Zukunft (Special pedagogical demand and support in the future). Neuwied: Luchterhand.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

121

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved. International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Africa—Aspirations and Challenges

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Part Three

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved. International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

6 Special Needs Education in Ethiopia

Alemayehu Teklemariam and Temesgen Fereja

Ethiopia is situated in east Africa, between latitudes 3 to 18 degrees north and longitudes 33 to 48 degrees east. It covers an area of approximately 1,140,000 square kilometers— roughly the size of France and Spain combined. Ethiopia is bordered by Somalia on the east, Kenya on the south, Eritrea on the north, Sudan from northwest to west, and Djibouti on the northeast. With an abundance of water, fertile soil, and untapped mineral wealth, Ethiopia is a country of vast potential bent on establishing a secure and viable economic and legal environment. About 65% of the land is arable; 15% is presently cultivated, mainly in areas of moderate altitude. Ethiopia’s altitude ranges from about 100 meters below sea level to about 4,000 meters above sea level. The climate varies. The average temperature ranges from 15 degrees centigrade in the high altitudes to 40 degrees centigrade at sea level. There are two seasons: The dry season prevails from October through May; the wet season lasts from June to September. Ethiopia’s proximity to the equator and its large altitude range creates climates varying from continental cold to tropical. As a result, people living in the area are affected with several diseases that could then cause disabilities. The variation in climate is also a cause of drought and poverty for large numbers of the agrarian populace of Ethiopia. The population of Ethiopia was estimated at about 77 million in 2008. About 64.4 million people were living in rural areas; 12.6 million were living in urban areas. The population is growing at an annual rate of 2.9% (Central Statistics Authority, 2009). Agriculture is the backbone of the national economy. About 83% of Ethiopia’s population earn their livings from the land, mainly as farmers. The principal exports from this sector are coffee, oilseeds, legumes, flowers, sugar, vegetables, cattle, and hides and skins. The Ethiopian economy suffers from a lack of technological know-how, the absence of developed infrastructure facilities, rapid population growth, soil erosion, recurrent drought and famine, and unfavorable external terms of trade that result in a shortage of foreign exchange. The agricultural sector, the mainstay of most of the Ethiopian people, is most affected. The economic backwardness affects the living conditions of Ethiopians, particularly their social, psychological, and educational development. In other words, it limits the quality of life of many Ethiopians. The people of Ethiopia are multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual, and followers of various religions. The religious composition of Ethiopia 12 years ago was 50.6% Orthodox Christian, 32.8% Muslim, and 10.2% Protestant. About 4.6% were followers of traditional

125 International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

126

Alemayehu Teklemariam and Temesgen Fereja religions, with the remaining 1.8% were of other or no religion (Central Statistics Authority, 1998). These religions use various languages for preaching and services. More than 83 different languages with 200 dialects are spoken in different regions. Amharic, with its unique alphabet, is the official language. However, other languages such as Afan-Oromo, Tigrigna, Guragna, Kembatigna, Somaligna, Hadiyigna, Welaita, Sidama, Gamo, Afar, and Gumuz are spoken among a significant number of people in this ethnically diverse country. Foreign languages such as Arabic, French, and English are widely spoken among the elite. In addition, different regions have their own languages that are used for official work and instruction for children in primary schools. From personal observations, it is evident that many languages are being used in classrooms; some languages for classroom use are still being developed. This is a good start to meet the educational needs of linguistically diverse Ethiopian children. T H E E DUC AT ION S Y S T E M I N ET H IOPI A

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Primary education in Ethiopia is divided into a lower primary cycle (grades 1 to 4) and an upper primary cycle (grades 5 to 8). General secondary education (grades 9 to 10) is followed by either technical and vocational education and training (TVET) or upper secondary education (grades 11 and 12) in preparation for tertiary education (Transitional Government of Ethiopia, 1994). Five core subjects are taught by one teacher for grades 1 to 4 (this arrangement is referred to as a “self-contained” classroom) with additional subjects taught by specialists. These five subjects are Amharic, English, mathematics, social studies, and aesthetics. Reflecting the linguistic diversity of the country, the lower primary school syllabus includes mother tongue instruction as well. Amharic, the national official language, is taught as a subject to other ethnic groups whose native language is not Amharic. English is increasingly used as a medium of instruction at the upper primary and secondary levels. A recent report by the Ministry of Education of Ethiopia (2009) indicated the following: • For primary school (ages 7 to 14), the net enrollment rate (NER) reached 83.4%; that is, 15,340,786 children were enrolled from a total population of 16,050,075 in 23,354 primary schools (grades 1 to 8). • The NER in 1,087 secondary schools (grades 9 and 10) was 13.8%, which is, 1,501,363 students. • The gross enrollment rate (GER) for university preparatory schooling (grades 11 and 12) was 5.8%. With population expansion, it is likely that the number of primary school enrollments will increase from 15 million to 20 million by 2015. H I S T OR Y OF S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION The modern system of education was established in Ethiopia in 1908, more than 100 years ago. Initially, education was focused mainly on teaching communication skills and the rudiments that were necessary to run the modern bureaucracy that was being established. This was disrupted by the Second World War and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. After the war,

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Needs Education in Ethiopia efforts were made to again prioritize education. A number of schools and institutions of higher learning were opened over the subsequent two to three decades. The main concentration at this time was to produce teachers and administrators for the state machinery. The first school for special needs children was opened in 1917 in Dembidollo, in the western part of the country. It was established by a blind churchman named Reverend Gidada Solan, an Ethiopian taught by Swedish missionaries. His training was mainly in Christian theology and braille (Alemayehu, 2000). Gidada may be considered Ethiopia’s first trained teacher in special needs education; he taught braille to blind children. He was also the father of the former president of the Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Negaso Gidada (1995–2000). After that, special needs schools were launched by European missionaries, particularly from the United States, Sweden, and Finland. In the 1960s, many schools for blind and deaf children were founded by these missionaries, who brought their own teachers and informally trained Ethiopian teachers for short periods. For the existing schools, there was no teacher training except informal short and rudimentary training that took place at the school level, which mainly consisted of sharing experiences. Many teachers of that time took their teaching positions without preservice training in special needs education. Beyond the efforts of the missionaries, governmental efforts to improve special education are very recent.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Attitudes Toward Persons With Disabilities Attitudes toward persons with disabilities vary from place to place in Ethiopia. One study (Tibebeu, 1995) revealed that the attitudes toward all persons with disabilities in aggregate were found to be negative. In some rural communities of Ethiopia, disability is generally attributed to various agents, such as a curse or punishment from God, visitation of the sins of the fathers upon the children, incidents or sights affecting pregnant women, or the work of evil spirits. In Ethiopia, society marginalizes certain groups based variously on their disability, gender, ethnic background, or other historical and traditional reasons. Negative attitudes and a lack of knowledge about the assets of persons with disabilities, coupled with misconceptions of disabling factors and the disability, cause most children with disabilities to be hidden from sight, kept at home, and deprived of education (Tirussew, 2005).

Prevalence The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that persons with disabilities constitute about 10% of the world population. This suggests that the number of persons with disabilities in Ethiopia currently may be about 7.7 million, from the total population of 77 million. However, estimates by the WHO may not include all disabilities such as those associated with learning or social and behavioral difficulties. Complementing the WHO estimates are a number of local surveys conducted in Ethiopia since 1979. Tirussew (Tirussew, 2005; Tirussew, Sovolainen, Agedew, & Daniel, 1995) cited the following results: • In 1979–80, a survey by the Ministry of Agriculture in cooperation with the Rehabilitation Agency for the Disabled and the Central Statistics Office showed that 5.48% of people had disabilities.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

127

128

Alemayehu Teklemariam and Temesgen Fereja • In 1984, a survey conducted in Addis Ababa by the Office of the Population and the Housing Census of Ethiopia disclosed that 3.6% of people had disabilities. • A UNICEF study on women and children in Ethiopia showed that 3.5% of the rural population and 4% of the urban population had disabilities. • A survey carried out by the National Office of Population and the Housing Census of Ethiopia in 1994 showed that the prevalence of disabilities was about 2%.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• Another survey by the Institute of Educational Research (IER) of Addis Ababa University in collaboration with the Support to Special Education Project (SSEP) involved financial support and expertise from the government of Finland. It showed that 3% of the population had disabilities. Researchers estimated that the population had the following disabilities: 41.2% physical disability, 30.4% visual impairment, 14.9% hearing impairment, 6.5% intellectual disability, 2.4% speech and language disorder, 2.4% multiple disabilities, and 2.2% behavioral difficulties. Readers will note that the prevalence of disabilities varies quite significantly across the different surveys, which indicates that data pertaining to persons with disabilities in Ethiopia are fragmented, incomplete, and confusing. This may be because of factors such as the absence of an operational definition of the target population, diversity in the system of classification of disabilities, lack of clarity in conceptualizing disability profiles, omission of some important disability groups, and society’s attitude toward disabilities. Families may not provide census information for their children with disabilities and instead keep them away from the public eye. Some disabilities, such as hearing loss, may not be easily identified by parents. Children also may not disclose their problems because they fear segregation. Because Ethiopia is a country at an early stage of economic and social development, where disabling factors such as malnutrition, war, and periodic episodes of drought and famine are enormous, the figures of people with disabilities might seem very low. In reality, poverty, lack of awareness, war, and drought are among the major causes of disability in the country. The problem is especially aggravated by inadequate nutrition, limited access to healthcare, the absence of quality educational services, and the high prevalence of harmful traditional practices. P OL IC I E S A N D R E L AT E D D O C U M E N TAT ION

The Ethiopian Constitution Article 9(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE, 1994c) states that all international agreements as ratified by Ethiopia are an integral part of the law of the land. These include the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Declaration (UN, 1948), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989), the UN Standard Rules for Persons with Disabilities (UN, 1993), and the Salamanca Framework on Inclusive Education (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 1994). Ethiopia also ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006) on July 7, 2010.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Needs Education in Ethiopia Article 13 of the constitution states that all legislative, executive, and judicial organs have the responsibility to respect and enforce what is embodied under that section and that this should be done in conformity with human rights considerations. The constitution also clearly stipulates the rights of citizens to equal access to publicly funded services and the support that shall be given to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities (FDRE, 1994c, Article 41, 5).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Key Policy Frameworks The Education and Training Policy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE, 1994b) clearly indicates its commitment to address the needs of all children by appreciating the needs of children with disabilities. It further confirms that “special education and training will be provided for people with disabilities” (Educational Structure No. 3.2.9). This policy document also underlines that efforts will be made “to enable both the handicapped and the gifted learn in accordance with their potential and need” (Educational Structure No. 2.2.3). The Developmental and Social Welfare Policy (FDRE, 1997) declares that protecting and ensuring the healthy development of children deserves special attention (Article 5). It states that appropriate and comprehensive care and services shall be extended to children so as to ensure their all-round and harmonious development (Article 5.1.1). Furthermore, in light of the high prevalence of potentially harmful traditional practices in the country, the policy clearly points to the necessity of directing efforts toward their elimination (Article 5.1.4) and educating the public to this end (Article 5.3.4). The document also commits to addressing the problems of children in especially difficult circumstances; this encompasses children with disabilities. With regards to the needs of orphan children, the policy clearly aims to facilitate conditions that will enable orphan and abandoned children to get the assistance they need and to eventually be self- sufficient (Article 5.1.7). Finally, the policy declares that all efforts shall be made to provide protection against child abuse and neglect (Article 5.1.10). The Health Policy (Transitional Government of Ethiopia, 1993) promotes and encourages early utilization of available healthcare facilities for the management of common childhood diseases. The need to provide backup support for the family, particularly for women and children, is stressed. The policy further raises issues specific to healthcare services, such as maternal healthcare (Article 10.1), family planning (Article 10.2), maternal nutrition (Article 10.3), and optimization of access and utilization of immunization services (Article 10.5). It also encourages the active involvement of parents in protecting and maintaining family health (Article 10.8). In subarticle 3.6, the policy specifically points to the participation in the development of community-based facilities for the care of the physically and mentally disabled, the abandoned, street children, and the elderly.

Proclamations The Disability Labor Proclamation (Proclamation No. 101; FDRE, 1994a) aims to protect and promote the right of people with disabilities to appropriate training, employment opportunities, and salary and to prevent any workplace discrimination. Sections 3 and

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

129

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

130

Alemayehu Teklemariam and Temesgen Fereja 4 refer to the promotion of employment opportunities for persons with disabilities in the open labor market. It states that no selection criteria shall refer to the disability of the candidate and that necessary equipment shall be provided to allow persons with disabilities to carry out their duties. Article 6 of the proclamation provides for grievance procedures as follows: “Any disabled person whose rights are affected because of non-compliance with the provisions of this proclamation and regulations and directives issued hereunder, may lodge his grievance to the organ empowered by law to hear the labor dispute.” The Higher Education Proclamation (No. 351; FDRE, 2003) declares that students with disabilities shall, during their stay in their institution, get special support to accommodate their special educational needs. Every higher education institute should open its door for persons with disabilities. It also has the responsibility to provide the necessary material and professional support to meet special educational needs. The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (1999) has prepared the National Program of Action for the Rehabilitation of Persons With Disabilities. The UN Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons With Disabilities (1993) and the Developmental and Social Welfare Policy of Ethiopia (2007) were the basis for preparation of this program. A technical committee composed of representatives from the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, the MOE, the Ministry of Health, the Ethiopian Federation of Persons With Disabilities, and the Community-Based Rehabilitation Network was formed to formulate the National Program of Action. Drafts were enriched by comments from relevant federal and regional government bodies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The focus areas of the program are disability prevention, medical rehabilitation, educational rehabilitation, vocational rehabilitation, employment services, accessibility, awareness raising, and strengthening and expanding disabled persons’ organizations, religion, culture, sport, recreation, and family life. Thus far, no measure has been enacted to ensure the implementation of the National Program of Action for Rehabilitation of Persons With Disabilities in the country. The MOE’s Education Sector Development Plan (ESDP III; MOE, 2006a) has given due consideration to the expansion of educational opportunities to children with special needs. According to this document, the MOE shall provide technical assistance to the regions in the form of guidelines and capacity building. The regional educational bureaus in turn will assist woreda education offices to include special needs education in their action plans, budgets, and reports.1 The document clearly indicates that special needs education is considered an issue to be mainstreamed in general school education as well as TVET. That means the strategy program envisages mainstreaming as starting from early childhood education and going through primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. The ESDP III further stresses the need for the MOE to strengthen cooperation between education offices and development partners to address the increasing demand for the expansion of inclusive education in the country.

1. Woredas are administrative units in Ethiopia equivalent to districts.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Needs Education in Ethiopia Based on the ESDP III (2006a), the MOE has developed a federal special needs education strategy of inclusive education to meet the Millennium Development and Education for All (EFA) goals (MOE, 2006a, 2006b). According to this document, the government’s strategy for improving the provision of educational services for children with special educational needs is based on the principle of inclusion. The special needs education strategy aims at making the education system inclusive by educating teachers and establishing support systems. The three strategic priorities defined in special needs education strategy are including special needs education in national and regional education sector planning and reporting systems; developing guidelines and providing technical assistance to regions; and strengthening the capacity of the education system.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Educational Provision A recent UNESCO report, Global Monitoring Report of Education for All (UNESCO, 2006– 2007) estimated that one-third of children who do not attend school are children with disabilities. The largest numbers of out-of-school children are found in Nigeria, Pakistan, India, and Ethiopia. Children and people with disabilities have traditionally been, and are currently, neglected in all aspects of life in Ethiopia. Poverty, negative social attitudes regarding disability, insufficient school facilities to meet the needs of children with disabilities, and low levels of education are all factors. Despite a substantial increase in the NER of children without disability (83.4%), there are more than 3 million children with disabilities who are still not enrolled in primary schools. Although it is difficult to obtain reliable data on the education of children with disabilities either in regular classrooms or in special classes and special schools, it is reported that among the school-age children with disabilities in the country, only about 35,177 children have access to education (MOE, 2009). That is, the GER of children with disabilities is less than 2% (MOE, 2009). The participation of children with disabilities or those with special educational needs in all the educational structures—that is, in early childhood education, general education (primary and secondary), TVET, and higher education—is an extremely daunting challenge. Special needs education is provided in special schools and special classes to those children who are physically, sensory, or intellectually impaired, but there are only a few special schools and classes. They are mostly found in the capital, Addis Ababa, and in some regional towns. There are few or no special schools or classes in the rural areas of Ethiopia, which are inhabited by more than 83% of Ethiopians. Mainstreaming has long been an unthinkable option in the country’s rural schools, as there are no appropriate provisions and services to meet the needs and potential of children with special educational needs. Schools at all levels do not have assessment procedures and intervention mechanisms are not in place. Those with access to education are largely served by 20 special schools (day and residential schools for children with hearing impairment, visual impairment, and intellectual disabilities), which are run by the MOE, NGOs, and national associations of persons with disabilities. There are also 162 special classes at regular public schools (MOE, 2007). Thus, out of more than 25,000 primary schools in the country, only 162 regular schools are open to serve children with disabilities in special classes. Studies

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

131

132

Alemayehu Teklemariam and Temesgen Fereja (e.g., Ababa, 1996; Alemayehu, 2000) indicate that the special schools as well as special classes are understaffed and ill-equipped as well as having a shortage of instructional materials. The special needs education program is also suffering because of its small budget. Many people in the education sector believe that the education of children with disabilities should have a larger share of the total annual national budget. Some general education experts, however, argue that there is no need to budget separately for children with special needs; they rationalize that because the policy states inclusive education, so should the budget. This kind of thinking could be accepted if the budget helped to meet the needs of children with special needs, but in reality, despite the enactment of the Education and Training Policy in 1994, there are only fragmented efforts. Little has been planned for children with disabilities at the woreda or school level in the past 15 years. Furthermore, the repetition and dropout rate in general or regular education pose quite a serious challenge for the country’s education system. In 2009, the dropout rate was as high as 12.4% at the primary grade level; the repetition rate was 6.2% at the firstgrade level (MOE, 2009). A case study conducted in one of the primary schools in Addis Ababa revealed that among children who academically constitute the bottom 5% of grade 1 students, 17% had some type of hidden and undetected impairment but had no educational support (Tirussew, 2001). This implies that children with disabilities constitute a good share of the students who drop out or repeat in the early years at the regular schools. This can be attributed to the absence of special needs educators at the school level who could create awareness for the school community, assess the needs of the children, and provide support for both children and teachers.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E E A R LY Y E A R S In contrast to the almost exclusive (95%) state provision in the rest of the education sector, early childhood education is very limited, entirely private, and largely urban. The GER for early childhood education (ages 4 to 6) was 3.9% (263,464 children) in 2,740 preschools, from a total population of 7 million children (MOE, 2009).

T E AC H E R T R A I N I NG Upon completion of general education (grade 10), potential teachers undergo teacher training for 1 year for lower primary grades and 3 years for upper primary grades. However, the 1-year duration for lower primary teachers’ education was changed to 3 years as of September 2008. Secondary teachers are trained at the university level for 3 years upon completion of university preparation, that is, grades 11 and 12. Because of the low level of awareness of the field of special education and a shortage of professional educators and institutions, until recently there was not any organized system of special needs teacher training in the country. From our own experiences, we know that the teacher training for special needs education was dependent on intermittently organized short seminars, workshops almost totally based on the support of donors from various voluntary organizations, and scholarships from abroad.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Special Needs Education in Ethiopia There were planned or unplanned short-term preservice and/or in-service programs lacking clear missions and objectives that failed to bring any tangible benefit to the system. As a consequence of these failures, an effort was made to have an organized 6-month program in Nazareth College of Teacher Training Education (later called Adama Teachers Training College) beginning in 1993. A few teachers are educated in Finland at the bachelor’s and master’s levels. Although it does not seem well organized, it is far better than the previous informal practices. However, the program was suspended after 2 short years because of lack of organizational setup and the absence of a governmental budget allocation. Nevertheless, efforts were continued and after another couple of years substantial recognition and due attention was gained from the government to prepare and use support inputs from abroad for special needs education program development. Accordingly, necessary supports were secured from the government of Finland to promote the expansion of the program throughout the country. With the support input, a teacher education program at the undergraduate and master’s levels has continued for special needs education at the University of Joensuu (Finland). A center for special needs teacher education was planned at Sebeta in central Ethiopia for the 1995/96 academic year that would serve the whole country as a resource and assessment center and support the promotion of the development of special needs education program. There have been recent encouraging developments with the initiation of new programs on special needs education in different universities and colleges as well as a mainstream course in special needs education across all teacher education and training institutes in the country. For instance, the launch of special needs education programs at Addis Ababa University (BEd, MA, and PhD), Dila, Haromaya, Gonder, and Bahirdar Universities (BEd), and Kotebe, Debrebirhan, Adwa, Hosana, and Sebeta Colleges of Teacher Education (diploma) are among recent achievements to promote special needs education in the country. These were achieved primarily because of the support from the universities of Jyvaskyla and Joensuu with the financial support of the government of Finland and the University of Oslo (Norway). These three universities, in collaboration with Addis Ababa University, built the capacity of Ethiopian teachers to educate children with special needs, mainly at the graduate level.

C H A L L E NG E S In Ethiopia, policies and the constitution underline the right of persons with disabilities to have access to education, health services, rehabilitation, and social welfare in the country. They also commit to providing the necessary protections and provisions required to promote the well-being of persons with disabilities. During the past 15 years, schools have flourished in all the villages of Ethiopia but have very serious problems and constraints in meeting quality and equity. Some of these include low participation rates of children with special needs, a curriculum that is not adapted to the diverse needs of children, and lack of equitable access to schooling for many children with special needs. The development of provision of special needs education in Ethiopia is insignificant. There is a low student participation rate (less than 3%) at all levels, which is mainly a

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

133

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

134

Alemayehu Teklemariam and Temesgen Fereja reflection of the very low number of schools available. There is also a lack of appropriate and sufficient amount of educational materials, absence of teacher training for special needs, poor financing of the education system and resulting poor support systems for children, and negative attitudes and ignorance about the abilities of children with disabilities. All in all, clear educational provisions in the country that include the placement of children with special educational needs are lacking. The provisions are limited to special schools and special classes only for a few categories of children with disabilities: visual impairment, hearing impairment, and mental retardation. Other disabilities are ignored and children with special needs in regular classes do not have any support. As a result, many children repeat classes and drop out of school. Furthermore, there is a lack of professionals in the area of special needs education who can assess and provide support to all children according to their needs and potential. The shortage of qualified teachers and the inadequacy of budget have been the major problems for all groups of children with disabilities. These indicate that there are many irremovable barriers still within the education system, such as unfavorable attitudes, inaccessible environment, lack of practices, implementing policies, and lack of resources. There are about 26,000 general education (grade 1 to 10) schools in the country at present. Of these 26,000 schools, more than 1,500 schools are secondary. At present, there is a need for approximately 52,000 special needs education teachers, but none of the schools have teachers with the appropriate expertise (knowledge and skills) in special needs education. There are only a limited number of minimally trained teachers (not more than 1,000) for special schools and special classes at the primary level. Furthermore, the new organizational structure and manpower of schools demand two special needs education teachers—one leading teacher and one assistant teacher—to support the education and training of children and youth with special needs in general education. This implies that practical efforts in educating professionals and teachers, advocating, creating awareness, involving parents, providing educational materials, developing guides, and arranging additional supports in different forms for children and youth with special needs are still missing, but it is impossible to satisfy the aforementioned demands and requirements and achieve the goal of universal primary education in 2015 without such practical efforts, which will also save the children and youth with special needs from segregation or isolation. Unless the enormous number of children with special needs is considered and given due attention, Ethiopia cannot declare the success of universal primary education by the year 2015.

FUTUR E TR ENDS Basic education and special needs education are of the utmost importance to meet the needs of people with disabilities in the Ethiopian population. Policies and proclamations have focused on upholding the rights of persons with disabilities to equal access to publicly funded services in the country. These show that the Education and Training Policy has already created favorable conditions for the development of special needs education. It has deliberately and purposefully outlined the principles of special needs education by stating that all children and youth, including those with special needs, should be educated in accordance to their full potential and to meet their needs. This reflects the

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Special Needs Education in Ethiopia worldwide changing concept of special education, the change in phrasing from special education into special needs education, from the narrow scope of the education of the disabled into the education of all children with diverse needs that identifies and addresses barriers to learning and participation. It reflects the current directions in special needs education to meet the diverse needs at schools, to support schools to retain all of its learners, and to decrease the numbers of dropouts and repeaters. The Education and Training Policy and all the prevailing efforts arising from it have been in the direction of creating equal access to primary education for all, expanding primary education equitably, achieving the goal of universal basic or primary education for all, improving instruction through teacher education programs, and developing flexible and meaningful curricular materials. The educational system was recently reorganized on the basis of this policy. For instance, it has created an atmosphere for the community, particularly parents, to participate in educational activities. This is one of the main requirements of a special needs education program. Even in view of these favorable constitutional rights, policy directions, and proclamations, there is still a long way to go to address the needs of persons with disabilities in Ethiopia not only in the education sector but in all areas of life. The challenge is overcoming obstacles such as the public attitudes toward mainstreaming children with disabilities and enforcing the policies in the country at large. Following the implementation of the Education Sector Development Plan (MOE, 2006a), a strategy for special needs education was developed with the assistance of the government of Finland in particular. This strategy is committed to furthering inclusion, developing teacher training, and planning and review. Written in July 2010, a 5-year plan, the Education Sector Development Plan IV (MOE, 2010), emphasizes education of children with special needs, with clear development indicators. Recently, there are new developments in teacher education. The teacher training for secondary school will be 4 years, that is, 3 years academic subject study and 1 year pedagogical study. The subject of special needs education is included as a separate introductory course for all potential teachers with the simple aim of creating awareness about children with disabilities. Teachers, however, need further education and training to provide appropriate support for students with special needs. At least they have to be aware of these special needs for the country to achieve universal primary education. To do their jobs effectively, they have to have some basic understandings about the philosophy and assumptions underpinning inclusive education policies and practices, the national and international policies and legislation on children’s and human rights, the nature of barriers to learning and participation, and the principles underlying different strategies that can be used to address them. Such understanding will enable teachers to create learning environments in which learners challenge the traditional thinking about barriers to learning and participation, analyze barriers to learning and participation in local schooling context, reflect on the extent to which objectives of the learning experience have been achieved, and decide on adaptations where necessary. The Education and Training Policy of Ethiopia (MOE, 1994) calls for special needs teachers to be prepared within the existing teacher education institutes in an integrated manner. The introductory course on special needs education that was developed to meet

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

135

136

Alemayehu Teklemariam and Temesgen Fereja this requirement is not enough. Therefore, courses in special needs education are to be included in all teacher education programs from the beginning of the academic year 2010/11 onward. However, teachers in inclusive schools also need specific skills such as reading and writing braille, mobility training, communication issues, sign language, and the like to work with some of the children and to facilitate inclusion of all needs at schools. Therefore, all student teachers and education officers must take a component on special needs education in all major initial and in-service teacher education programs. The provisions should include supervisory supports with emphasis on the worldwide movement toward organizing schools as inclusive schools and focusing on meeting individual needs in the mainstream classrooms.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

C ONC LU DI NG R E M A R K S Ethiopia is one of the low-income countries that has committed to achieving universal primary education, which is only feasible when all children with disabilities have the opportunity to attend school. The Ethiopian policy frameworks and strategies are good opportunities for responding to the education of children with disabilities in the country, but there are still negative attitudes, barriers, and misconceptions at the family and societal level. Furthermore, a shortage of human and material resources and a lack of coordination among the stakeholders are major obstacles to effective enforcement of policies and proclamations. To address the problems discussed in this chapter and achieve success in the education of people with disabilities in the inclusive settings, serious measures need to be taken. There is a need to plan in advance and develop effective implementation mechanisms for inclusive education on the part of the government to ensure the school enrollment of all children in the country. Above all, the government should be aware that the vast majority of children with disabilities are living below the poverty line in Ethiopia. Unless they are provided with the necessary education and training opportunities, the connection between poverty and disability will not be broken for years to come in the country.

R E F E R E NC E S Ababa, H. (1996). Academic barriers of the hearing-impaired. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Joensuu, Finland. Alemayehu, T. (2000). Communication experiences of deaf students: A case study of four pre-lingual deaf adolescents in Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Oslo. Central Statistics Authority. (1998). National housing and population census. Addis Ababa: C.P.P. Central Statistics Authority. (2009). National housing and population census projection. Addis Ababa: C.P.P. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (1994a). Disability labor proclamation. Addis Ababa: BSPP. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (1994b). Education and training policy. Addis Ababa: BSPP.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Special Needs Education in Ethiopia Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (1994c). Ethiopian constitution. Addis Ababa: BSPP. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2003). Higher education proclamation, no. 351/2003. Addis Ababa: BSPP. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2007). Developmental and social welfare policy. Addis Ababa: Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. Ministry of Education of Ethiopia. (2006a). Education sector development program III, from 2005/06 to 2010/11. Addis Ababa: EMPDA. Ministry of Education of Ethiopia. (2006b). Special needs education program strategy: Emphasizing inclusive education to meet the UPEC and EFA Goals. Addis Ababa: Master Printing Press. Ministry of Education of Ethiopia. (2007). Directory of special needs education services: Equipment and materials. Addis Ababa: Master Printing Press. Ministry of Education of Ethiopia. (2009). Education statistical abstract of academic year 2007/08. Addis Ababa: Educational Management Information System. Ministry of Education of Ethiopia. (2010). Education sector development program IV. Addis Ababa: EMPDA. Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. (1999). National program of action for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. Addis Ababa: Author. Tibebeu, B. (1995). Meaning attached to disability, attitudes towards disabled people, and attitudes towards integration. Jyvaskyla, Finland: University of Jyvaskyla. Tirussew, T. (2001). Preventing learning difficulties and early school drop out. In P. S. Klein (Ed.), Seeds of hope: Twelve years of early intervention experience in Africa. Oslo, Norway: Unipub Forlag. Tirussew, T. (2005). Disability in Ethiopia: Issues, insights, and implications. Addis Abada: Addis Ababa University. Tirussew, T., Sovolainen, H., Agedew, R., & Daniel, D. (1995). Baseline survey on disability in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: IER. Transitional Government of Ethiopia. (1993). Health policy. Addis Ababa: Ministry of Health. Transitional Government of Ethiopia. (1994). Training and education policy. Addis Ababa: EMPDA. United Nations. (1948). Human rights declaration. New York: Author. United Nations. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (G. A. Res 44/25, Annex 44, U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 49 at 167, U.N. Doc A/44/49). New York: Author. United Nations. (1993). United Nations Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons With Disabilities. New York: Author. United Nations (UN). (2006). United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. Article 24. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention /conventionfull.shtml. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (1994). Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. New York: Author. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2006–2007). Global monitoring report. Paris: Author.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

137

7 Special Education Contexts, Problems, and Prospects in Nigeria

Festus E. Obiakor and Fr. MaxMary Tabugbo Offor

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Demographically, Nigeria is the most populous nation in Africa today. The country occupies about 923,768 square kilometers (365,700 square miles), which is roughly the size of California, Nevada, and Arizona put together. The population is the 10th largest in the world (Bureau of African Affairs, 2005). Nigeria gained its independence from Britain on October 1, 1960. Since independence, it has experienced many political and socioeconomic problems that have retarded its progress (Damachi, 1972; Diamond, 1989). For example, the Nigerian government has been unable to eradicate corruption, nepotism, and tribalism, which affect its general and special education advancements. The alternation between civilian and military rules, with more years of military government than civilian government, has perpetuated corruption of some citizens (Obiakor, 1998). As a result, most Nigerians dream of getting a government job or political position where the least amount of labor is needed to acquire wealth (Olatunji, 2010). Sadly, even with Nigeria’s diverse talents and natural resources, its general and special education programs continue to flounder in mediocrity. In fact, its sociopolitical problems are so endemic that they affect all spheres of its education modernization programs. As a consequence, many Nigerian citizens with disabilities are not in programs that will help them maximize their potential. This chapter analyzes special education contexts, problems, and prospects in Nigeria. However, we first discuss precolonial and colonial influences on educational programming in Nigeria. PR EC OL ON I A L E DUC AT ION I N N IG E R I A During the precolonial period, traditional education flourished and the family played critical roles in the generational growth of the individual. The cardinal goals of traditional education were to develop latent physical skills; inculcate respect for elders and those in positions of authority; develop intellectual skills; develop character; impart specific vocational training and a healthy attitude toward honest labor; and promote the understanding and appreciation of the cultural heritage of local communities and the community at large (Fafunwa, 1975; Obiakor, 1998). In the precolonial period, the functions of the family included reproduction, child care, socialization, economic support, collective responsibility, and cultural continuity (Obiakor, 1991, 1998). With traditional education, everyone was involved, and the family 138

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in Nigeria and the extended family system progressed, allowing the body and soul to be developed. Those with more wealth took care of those less fortunate. The family transmitted educational and sociocultural attributes (Obiakor, 2005). Education at this time was not solely academic; it included morality, patriotism, virtues, and all other characteristics that the elders in the community considered to be ideal for community living. Traditional education recognized that all children are not the same and that some are stronger or faster while others are weaker or slower. However, all children were treated with dignity, valued, and educated together for the common good (Ozoji, 2005). Traditional education was taught in social settings, allowing the adults to be role models as they handed down family traditions from one generation to another. This kind of traditional education produced strong and healthy patriotism in each member of the family, helping to create patriotic leadership. With everyone responsible for one another, no one acted in a way that tarnished the reputation of his or her family. Because of the value system taught by traditional education, kinship was handed down from father to son and from one generation to another. However, there was room for earned honor: A servant who served his or her master well by working hard, or the best village wrestler, or a great warrior was allowed to marry the chief or king’s daughter. For instance, a proverbial saying popular among the Igbos in the eastern part of Nigeria is, “When a child washes his/her hands very clean, he/she would be allowed to eat at the King’s table” (Obiakor, 2008). This proverb reveals the true essence of Nigeria’s traditional education as people learn by doing, whether they are doing for themselves or whether they are doing for their community, village, and nation. Clearly, traditional education involved all aspects of citizens’ lives. Community elders acted as jurors and judges and resolved disputes ranging from common domestic quarrels to land disputes and tribal fights. Everyone was responsible for each other, confirming the African proverb “It takes a village to raise a child” (Clinton, 1996; Obiakor, 2008; Obiakor, Grant, & Dooley, 2002).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

British Colonial Influence on Nigeria’s Education The arrival of missionaries and European traders brought what is now known as “formal education.” These missionaries and traders did not come with the intention of educating Nigerian citizens. The original intent of the missionaries was to convert the “pagans” (native peoples) to Christianity. The traders came to sell their own goods and purchase artifacts of the native people very cheaply. In both respects, the intentions were very personal and selfish. Because Nigeria had great wealth in human and natural resources that were yet to be tapped, the missionaries and traders took advantage and made profits for themselves (Castle, 1975; Fafunwa, 1975). The missionaries acted as “little gods” who came to redeem the “ungodly” Nigerians. The traders, on the other hand, amassed tremendous wealth for themselves. In his inaugural address to the Wisconsin Branch of the People’s Democratic Party of Nigeria, Obiakor (2005) noted that the missionaries and traders cleverly befriended the kings or chiefs, elders, and leaders of the communities and fostered self-serving interactions that portrayed the traders as superhuman. To accomplish their goals, European missionaries and traders began a divide-andconquer strategy that hampered unity among Nigerians (Obiakor, 2005). The missionaries,

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

139

140

Festus E. Obiakor and Fr. MaxMary Tabugbo Offor without consideration for Nigeria’s traditional style of education and the values it exemplified, imposed their new religion, Christianity, upon Nigerians’ educational system. While Christianity helped to eradicate some dehumanizing practices such as the killing of twins, it simultaneously imposed some antitraditional values. For instance, the British colonial education produced colonial subordinates and officials who discouraged traditional education. These officials paid little or no attention to consulting with the indigenes and/or showed no consideration to the cultures of Nigerians in educational planning and development (Obiakor, 2005; Obiakor & Maltby, 1989). As Obiakor (2005) noted, colonial officials failed to focus on traditional forms of education and values: They focused on training more subordinate interpreters, clerks, and messengers. Because their objectives were not to educate people to achieve the same status as themselves, they taught only the three Rs: reading, writing, and ’rithmetic. With this type of education, trained Nigerians remained semi-illiterate. A few interpreters were able to translate Sunday services from English to different indigenous languages (in many cases, the interpreters supplemented and/or supplied their own ideas/ meaning). To a large extent, people with disabilities were ignored and not given educational considerations. Based on the half-hearted education by the colonial masters, the ideas Nigerians valued most before the advent of the British education were overlooked and in some situations totally eliminated. Some of the kings or chiefs who were bold enough to disagree with colonial authorities were removed from their thrones using the tactics of divide and conquer. Instead of listening to elders, rulers, and kings or chiefs of the land, colonial masters persuaded the native people into accepting the kind of education that enhanced foreign values. One can conclude that while these colonial masters constantly devised ways through education to meet their selfish ends, they ignored the Nigerian traditional education, which developed the whole person and encouraged vocational skills for self-sustenance (Obiakor, 1998, 2005; Obiakor & Maltby, 1989).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

I N T RODUC I NG S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION TO N IG E R I A N S The beginning of the effort to educate persons with disabilities in Nigeria was started in 1915 by the Sudan United Mission (SUM). The missionaries began educating many children with visual impairments. These children could not be taught with other children even though they were anxious to learn (Abang, 1992, 2005; Jacques, 1979; Ozoji, 2003). These missionaries thought it would be beneficial if they started a school where children with visual impairments could study the braille system of reading and writing. Around the same period, Miss Batu started teaching the braille system in the Hausa language to grade 11. In 1916, she taught braille to three other girls whose sight was so bad that they could not read print materials (Abang, 1992, 2005; Jacques, 1979). On the whole, this system of education was formal, foreign, and organized differently from how the elders and parents educated their children previously. From this new phase of formal education came the introduction of formal and organized special education, which went against the community philosophy that the native people and the extended family system had known and supported all their lives (Bakere, 1992; Ihunnah, 1984; Obiakor, 2005; Obiakor, Maltby, & Ihunnah, 1990; Ozoji, 2003, 2004).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in Nigeria Table 1. Schools and Centers Established by Volunteer Agencies Name of school

Year

Volunteer agency

State

School for Blind Children, Gindiri Special Education Center, Orji River School for the Deaf, Ibadan Wesley School for the Deaf, Surulere Pacelli School for the Blind, Surulere

1953

SUM

Plateau

1958

CMS

Enugu

1963 1957

Mrs. Oyesola Wesley Mission

Oyo Lagos

1962

RCM

Lagos

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Source: Ozoji, E. D. (2003). Special education for beginner professionals (2nd ed.). Jos, Nigeria: Enterprises Publications.

Other missions quickly copied what the SUM did with Miss Batu. They opened their own schools, using their places of worship as classrooms. Following the trend, a special education school opened in 1953 at Gindiri Plateau State of Nigeria (Ozoji, 2003, 2005). The missionaries formalized their curriculum and instructions. Through the formal special education program that they instituted, they were able to assist persons with disabilities to obtain diplomas, just like anyone who completed the regular education course of studies. This new form of education was inclusive, similar to the traditional form of education practiced before the colonial era. Ozoji (2003) noted the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind in London was instrumental in stabilizing this inclusive educational placement. Slowly, the efforts of voluntary agencies found home in the hearts of the Nigerians; as a result, they consolidated their place in the nation, especially because of the laissezfaire attitude of the government toward education in general. The missionaries’ great quest for the evangelization of all people, especially persons with disabilities, became more evident. Through the process of evangelization, intertwined with teaching in a formal manner, persons with disabilities were introduced to the Western form of education (Abang, 2005; Ozoji, 2003). This is shown in Table 1.

Expansion of Special Education in Nigeria Though the educational system in Nigeria continues to struggle, it has come a long way from what it used to be before the British colonists introduced their system of education to Nigerians. Along with this system of education came what is known today as special education for children, youth, and adults. The traditional form of education in place before the advent of the British system was given no consideration when the curriculum and pedagogical methodologies were planned (Obiakor, 2005; Obiakor & Maltby, 1989; Ogunsanya, 2010). Nonetheless, Nigeria has to move forward to expand general and special education services for all its citizens (Federal Ministry of Education, 1977, 2004; Universal Basic Education Commission, 2008). It is common knowledge that no policy on education can be formulated without first identifying the overall philosophy and goals of the nation. These goals must reflect the needs of the nation’s citizenry, including those citizens with disabilities. According to the

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

141

142

Festus E. Obiakor and Fr. MaxMary Tabugbo Offor National Policy on Education (Federal Ministry of Education, 2004; Universal Basic Education Commission, 2008), • Education is an instrument for nation development; to this end, the formation of ideas, their integration for national development and the interaction of persons and ideas are all aspects of education. • Education fosters worth and development for the individual’s sake, and for the general development of the society. • Every Nigerian child shall have a right to equal educational opportunities irrespective of any real or imagined disabilities each according to his/her ability. • There is need for functional education for the promotion of a progressive, united Nigeria; to this end, school programs need to be relevant, practical and comprehensive while interest and ability should determine the individual’s direction in education. (pp. 6–7) Based on the aforementioned policy, the overall aim of education appears focused on educating children in a comprehensive manner to the extent that those with disabilities will find something at their skill level for self-sustenance. Central to the National Policy on Education is

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

the inculcation of national consciousness and national unity, the inculcation of the right type of values and attitudes for the survival of the individual and the Nigerian society, the training of the mind in understanding of the world around and the acquisition of appropriate skills and the development of mental, physical, and social abilities and competencies as equipment for the individual to live and contribute to the development of the society. (p. 8) There is no doubt that the government of Nigeria arrived late to the scene of special education. While it appears that the government was coerced, dragged, and forced into developing special education for its citizenry, it has been in partnership with foreign volunteer agencies since the inception of special education (Onwuegbu, 1977; Ozoji, 2003). For example, over the years it approved the schemes meant for special education, awarded grants to the agencies, approved certificates of occupancy, and provided other forms of moral support (Eleweke, 1999; Obiakor, 1998; Ozoji, 2003, 2005). In addition, it supported the establishment of special education by making provisions for its existence, at least in theory. Enabling legislation includes the 1948 Education Ordinance, the 1954 Education Law, and the 1962 Northern Nigeria Education Law. It was not long after these laws that Nigerians began to experience political and tribal crises that led to unrest and military coups. As a consequence, from 1967 to 1970, the Nigerian government was involved in a devastating civil war (the Nigerian–Biafran war) and the impact of that war is still felt today. With the end of the Nigerian–Biafran civil war in 1970, the Nigerian government became more aggressively involved in providing special education and rehabilitation services for the veterans of the civil war. Many schools for students with disabilities began to spring up, as shown in Table 2.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in Nigeria Table 2. Special Education Schools Established by the Nigerian Government Name of school

Year

State

Kwara State School for the Handicapped, Ilorin Special Education School for the Handicapped, Abeokuta Special Education Center, Orlu Plateau State School for the Deaf, Jos Special Education School for the Deaf, Kaduna Benin Special Education School for the Deaf Special Education Center Tudun Maliki Special Education School for the Handicapped, Shagamu Ondo State Special Education School for the Blind Special Education Center, Jada

1974 1976 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977–78 1981

Kwara Ogun Imo Plateau Kaduna Edo Kano Ogun Ondo Adamawa

Special Education Center for the Exceptional Children, Calabar Niger State Special Education for the Handicapped, Minna Special Education School for the Handicapped, Sokoto Special Education Center, Bauchi Special Education School for the Blind, Umuahia Special Education School for the Visually Impaired, Zuba Special Education for the Hard of Hearing, Kuje

1981 1983 1984 1984 1985 1991 1992

Cross River Niger Sokoto Bauchi Abia Abuja Abuja

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Source: Ozoji, E. D. (2003). Special education for beginner professionals (2nd ed.). Jos, Nigeria: Enterprises Publications.

Educational policies after the Nigerian civil war revealed some improvements regarding special education programming and the treatment of citizens with disabilities (Abang, 2005; Obiakor, 1998; Ozoji, 2003). The inference could be drawn from the provisions of the Third National Development Plan (1975–80), which included some benchmarks for special education (Federal Ministry of Education, 1977). The philosophy, objectives, and provisions of this plan especially favored the operation of special education. Targeted actions in the national plan for special education included the following: • Establishing an efficient system of special education institutions throughout the federation. • Establishing the National Council on Special Education to carry out a national census of persons with disabilities and identify their needs. • Establishing the cooperation of the Ministry of Education in training special educators. • Providing free education at all levels for persons with disabilities. • Publicizing the National Policy on Education, which in particular ways elaborated the provisions and operations of special education.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

143

144

Festus E. Obiakor and Fr. MaxMary Tabugbo Offor • Including elements of special education in teacher education. • Introducing a 6-3-3-4 system of education (6 years of elementary school, 3 years of middle school, 3 years of secondary school, and 4 years of tertiary school).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

The Federal Ministry of Education (1977) instituted Section 8 of the National Policy on Education to buttress the provision of special education programs to all Nigerians. Around this period, the nation’s first Federal College for Special Education Program was established at Oyo, Oyo State, Nigeria. Since its inception, the college has graduated many students in the various aspects of special education. To show that the federal government was determined to make special education work well for its citizens, elements of special education courses were introduced into teacher education programs and other higher institutions of learning (Abang, 2005; Fabunmi, 2005; Ogunsanya, 2010). The government continued its efforts to accelerate the proper functioning of special education by creating the Department of Special Education at the University of Ibadan, one of the nation’s oldest universities, with Dr. Mba as its first department head. In 1980, a similar department was established at the University of Jos with Sister Theresa Abang, PhD, as its pioneering department head. Today, there are about 105 special education schools that are located all over the nation. The latest school is the Ganaka International School of Special Education, established on September 29, 2005 (Abang, 2005; Ogunsanya, 2010; Universal Basic Education Commission, 2008). Earlier, Obiakor (1998) argued that applying the phrase “treat everyone equally” is not very appropriate or even applicable in all situations in Nigeria. Rather, he concluded that it is our moral obligation to treat every one with justice and equity. Though the government of Nigeria attempts to provide education for all its citizens, it has not been done equitably. There continues to be deficiency in technology. Even many of the schools using lowtechnology materials such as pencil grips, soft-bottomed scissors, and calculators find it difficult to procure them.

BU I L DI NG C U LT U R A L BR I D G E S TO E N H A NC E S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION S E RV IC E S It is evident that Nigerians can never be completely separated from their traditional cultures and values. However, it is also clear that Nigerians must embrace some foreign cultures to advance the education of those with disabilities. Put another way, Nigeria must face its 21st-century challenges to advance special education services to all its citizens. For example, there are new paradigms, technologies, methodologies, and techniques that Nigerians must value and incorporate into their traditional practice to foster special education. How Nigeria can build cultural bridges that value traditional and European cultures to enhance special education? Rather than see persons with disabilities as abnormal or “evil” people, Nigerians must see them as normal people who can live normal lives. They must shift their cultural paradigms and powers in this regard. In other words, whether people have cognitive disabilities or emotional/behavioral disorders, they must never be subjected to subhuman treatments or living conditions.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Special Education in Nigeria This normalization idea is now called inclusive intervention (Garuba, 2003; Ozoji, 2003, 2005). It is critical to see special education not as a service for some people but essentially as a service for everybody. The thinking underlying this view is that everybody has unique needs. When individualized attention is directed toward those needs, what is being truly provided is special education (Abang, 2005; Garuba, 2003; Ozoji, 2003, 2005). Not surprisingly, the lack of mandatory legislation buttresses the abnormality mentality because if someone is “abnormal,” he or she cannot be protected by law. The inability of the Nigerian government to pass laws to support persons with disabilities has continued to create ongoing myths about causes of disabilities (Abang, 2005; Fabunmi, 2005; Obiakor, 1991; Ozoji, 1991, 2003; Yaksat & Hill, 1982). Attitudes toward people with disabilities have a very significant influence on special education in many developing countries. Though these attitudes might be culturally relevant to Nigerians, they might be retrogressive when people fail to use all necessary means to help educate people with disabilities. Because how people act and what people do varies from people to people and culture to culture, educational progress might be difficult to achieve without changing attitudes about disability. It must be understood that Nigeria is a multiethnic nation with each tribe teaching and living its own culture to influence the attitude of tribal members regarding persons with disabilities. There is no homogenous “Nigerian cultural attitude” toward anything, and in today’s Nigeria there is an apparent intrusion of the European culture in all aspects of activities. How do we build cultural bridges between the Nigerian cultural values and those of the Europeans? These bridges will be difficult to build, especially because Nigerians see disability in varied ways. Disability may be a curse on the family or the wider community for offenses against God or the gods; anger of the ancestors or ancestral gods for neglect or breach of promises; a punishment of the child for offenses committed in the previous incarnation; a punishment for a parent’s misdemeanor; a way to know a potential evil person curtailed by the gods; a punishment for offenses against the laws of the land or breaches of custom; or a wicked act of witches and wizards (Obani, 2002; Obiakor, 1991; Ogbue, 1995). In the light of these beliefs, it is hardly surprising that attitudes toward persons with disabilities in Nigeria are generally negative. The consequence of such negativism is a lack of parental involvement in the education of their children. Many parents are insufficiently informed and therefore unaware of the role of special education in equalizing educational opportunities for their children with disabilities (Galadima, n.d.; Obiakor, 2005; Ozoji, 2003; Yaksat & Hill, 1982). To build cultural bridges, literacy must be increased through innovative educational programming. Educated parents must form powerful parental organizations that advocate for improvement of services, better educational environment and facilities, and quality education. Because special education is an expensive enterprise, efforts must be made to provide the technological equipment needed to equalize opportunities. Unless the government is willing to spend a good amount of money, it will be impossible to provide good special education programing to the Nigerian citizenry. In the face of continued dwindling of revenue and earnings from oil, Nigeria must develop creative ways to fund educational programs and understand that insufficient funding may adversely mar the progress of special education (Obiakor, 1998; Olatunji, 2010; Ozoji, 2003).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

145

146

Festus E. Obiakor and Fr. MaxMary Tabugbo Offor There is no doubt that the Nigerian government has recognized the importance of special education for its citizens with disabilities. For example, it has published very laudable policies for special education (Universal Basic Education Commission, 2008). To build cultural bridges, the government must be willing to provide the necessary funding that will make implementation of the ideas a reality. Sadly, there is no funded mandate in the form of legislation passed to guide the implementation of special education in Nigeria. The reason for this may be a lack of funding from the government to those expected to implement the bills and a lack of political awareness of those whose rights are being protected. To bridge this gap, a good solution may be to show Nigerians why they should value their rights and, when denied their rights, how to initiate due process and legal action (Anderson, 2004). There is an urgent need for legislation to help increase awareness and growth rate of special education in Nigeria (Eleweke, 1999; Eleweke, Olaniyan, & Okeke, 1993; Obiakor, 1998; Ozoji, 2003). To solidify cultural bridges, there must be coordinated efforts by either the federal government, state governments, or local governments to educate the public regarding special education and the different disabilities that some Nigerian citizens might have. Therefore, instituting a national commission for persons with disabilities and public enlightenment will be a major task (see Ozoji, 2005). In addition, the private sector must be involved in organizing volunteers to help destroy the myth that the government is responsible for doing everything for its citizenry. Through volunteer works, graduates who have learned how to advocate can help organize the community, the society, and even the private sectors to engage in volunteer work for students with special needs (Abang, 2005; Ozoji, 2003).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

C ONC LUS ION In this chapter, we have analyzed the contexts, problems, and prospects of special education in Nigeria. To buttress our analyses, we have discussed the impacts of traditional education, colonial education, and postcolonial educational efforts. With traditional education, morality, patriotism, obedience, honor, respect, and other virtues flourished. For instance, people were responsible for their neighbors and recognized that all children are not the same. During the colonial period, traditional education was dismantled and formal education was introduced. In addition, voluntary agencies began to formally and informally educate individuals with disabilities. During the postcolonial period after independence, Nigeria began to design programs to educate all its citizens, including those with disabilities. In the 1970s, the government became involved in programs to rehabilitate the nation’s civil war veterans. Even then, there was no concrete action until 1977 and the promulgation of Section 8 of the National Policy on Education. However, while this government’s effort seemed laudable, there are traditional sociocultural values and beliefs that impede progress. In addition, there is no mandatory law that guides the provision of special education services. This could be attributed partly to the lack of funding, lack of educational philosophy, high illiteracy rate, and lack of political will.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in Nigeria We believe the Nigerian government needs to enact laws and policies to guide the proper implementation of special education. We also conclude that individuals and the private sector must be encouraged to educate parents and the public about different disabilities and what they entail. In the end, we feel strongly that through education, public attitudes toward persons with disabilities will be changed.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

R E F E R E NC E S Abang, T. B. (1992). Special education in Nigeria. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 39, 13–18. Abang, T. B. (2005). The exceptional child: Handbook of special education. Jos, Nigeria: Fab Aniieh Press. Anderson, D. W. (2004, November). Human rights and persons with disabilities in developing nations of Africa. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Lilly Fellows Program National Research Conference, Birmingham, AL. Bakere, C. A. (1992). Integration in education: The case of education for the handicapped children in Nigeria. International Journal of Special Education, 7, 225–260. Bureau of African Affairs. (2005). A sub-division of U.S. Department of State for sub-Sahara Africa. Washington, DC: Author. Castle, E. B. (1975). Principles of education for teachers in Africa. London: Oxford University Press. Clinton, H. R. (1996). It takes a village and other lessons children teach us. New York: Simon & Schuster. Damachi, U. G. (1972). Nigerian modernization. New York: Third Press. Diamond, L. (1989, November). Nigeria’s transition trap: Is there a way out? African Commentary, 1, 28–30. Eleweke, C. J. (1999). The need for mandatory legislations to enhance services to people with disabilities in Nigeria. Disability & Society, 14, 227–237. Eleweke, C. J., Olaniyan, S. O., & Okeke, B. (1993). The importance of legislation in ensuring education for all exceptional children by the year 2000 A.D. In E. D. Ozoji & I. A. Nwazuoke (Eds.), Educating exceptional children in the 21st century: Tasks and strategies (pp. 41–46). Jos, Nigeria: Ehindero. Fabunmi, M. (2005). Historical analysis of educational policy formulation in Nigeria: Implications for educational planning and policy. International Journal of African and American Studies, 4, 1–6. Fafunwa, A. B. (1975). History of education in Nigeria. London: George Allen & Company. Federal Ministry of Education. (1977). National policy on education, section 8. Lagos, Nigeria: Author. Federal Ministry of Education. (2004). National policy on education. Lagos, Nigeria: Author. Galadima, M. (n.d.). Overcoming the skeptical attitudes of regular teachers towards inclusive education approaches in Sokoto State, Nigeria. Sokoto, Nigeria: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from www.afri.can.org/Ghana/Mamuda.doc. Garuba, A. (2003). Inclusive education in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities for Nigerians. Asian Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal, 14, 191–198. Ihunnah, A. C. (1984). The status of special education in a developing country: Nigeria. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Jaques, B. J. (1979). Educational provision for the visually handicapped in Nigeria. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

147

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

148

Festus E. Obiakor and Fr. MaxMary Tabugbo Offor Obani, T. (2002). The development of concepts of handicap in adolescents: A cross cultural study. International Journal of Educational Development, 4, 285–291. Obiakor, F. E. (1991). Cultural and socio-economic factors affecting special education policies in Nigeria. International Journal of Special Education, 6, 271–278. Obiakor, F. E. (1998). Special education reform in Nigeria: Prospects and challenges. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 13, 57–71. Obiakor, F. E. (2005, September). Building patriotic African leadership through African-centered education. Paper presented at the Inauguration of the Wisconsin Branch of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) of Nigeria, Milwaukee, WI. Obiakor, F. E. (2008). One hundred multicultural proverbs: Inspirational affirmations for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Obiakor, F. E., Grant, P. A., & Dooley, E.A. (2002). Educating all learners: Refocusing the comprehensive support model. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Obiakor, F. E., & Maltby, G. P. (1989). Pragmatism and education in Africa: Handbook for educators and development planners. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Obiakor, F. E., Maltby, G. P., & Ihunnah, A. C. (1990, April). Special education policies in Nigeria: Cultural, socio-economic and political issues. Paper presented at the 68th Annual International Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Toronto, Canada. Ogbue, R. M. (1995). A survey of special education facilities in Nigeria. Lagos, Nigeria: Federal Ministry of Education. Ogunsanya, A. (2010). Federal College of Education (Special) Oyo State, Nigeria. Retrieved from http://directory-nigeria.org/federal-college-of-education-special-oyo. Olatunji, B. (2010). Nigeria: FG set to implement education roadmap. Retrieved from http:// allafrica.com/stories/201002100394.html. Onwuegbu, O. L. (1977). The Nigeria culture: Its perception and treatment of the handicapped. Unpublished manuscript, Federal Advanced Teachers’ College for Special Education, Oyo, Oyo State, Nigeria. Ozoji, E. D. (1991). Attitudinizing the special education teachers. Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation, 2, 18–26. Ozoji, E. D. (2003). Special education: For beginner professionals (2nd ed.). Jos, Nigeria: Enterprises Publications. Ozoji, E. D. (2004). Attitudinizing the special education teachers. Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation, 3, 21–25. Ozoji, E. D. (2005). Special education for general studies purposes. Jos, Nigeria: Enterprises Publications. Universal Basic Education Commission. (2008). The development of educational report of Nigeria. Abuja, Nigeria: Federal Ministry of Education. Yaksat, B. L., & Hill, K. E. (1982). Strategies for involving parents of visually impaired children, professionals and the wider community as partners in achieving full access to education for these children. Paper presented at the Annual Conference at Gindiri Material Center for the Handicapped, Gindiri, Plateau State, Nigeria.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

The Middle East—Innovations and Opportunities

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Part Four

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved. International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

8 One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward: Special Education in Israel

Thomas P. Gumpel

The Israeli education system in general and the special education system in particular face enormous challenges. Israel is a highly complex society, fractured into different sectors where each sector unabashedly pushes its own agenda and tries to dictate government policy. Israel is also an immigrant country with a large indigenous population and is engaged in an ongoing political, national, and military conflict with enemies without and competing national narratives within. It would be inconceivable that these monumental stresses would not impact on society’s greatest instrument of socialization, social control, and homogenization: the education system. The provision of special services to children with special educational needs is a civil and human rights issue, and so these fractures in Israeli society are amplified in the special education system. All national education systems, Israel included, develop through the interplay between larger sociohistorical, national, demographic, and bureaucratic requirements (Gumpel & Awartani, 2003; Gumpel & Nir, 2005). Of course, this is also true if we examine challenges and the structure and future trajectories of special education in Israel. As we shall see, this small country faces a series of challenges that are unique to the Israeli context, as well as other challenges that are common to other ethnically diverse nations. As a country facing both real and perceived existential threats, while simultaneously occupying the Palestinian Territories, the Israeli education system faces additional challenges. Some of these issues relate to professional and bureaucratic aspects of the system; however, other challenges stem from the ongoing ethnic and national conflicts. Let us first examine some social and cultural issues shaping the current Israeli education system by (very) briefly exploring their historical and political roots. From there, we will examine recent changes in the education and treatment of children with special educational needs, focusing on the move toward the provision of services in general education settings and personnel preparation. As an example of the convergence of national, ethnic, and political considerations, and how they can influence both general and special educational policy, we will specifically examine the special education system in Jerusalem, which is arguably the most complicated city in the world. A N I S R A E L I PR I M E R The State of Israel is a small country (20,770 square kilometers) with a primarily industrial and service-oriented economy (96.5%). The population of 7.5 million is composed of two primary ethnic groups: 75.5% Jewish and 20.4% Israeli-Palestinians 151

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

152

Thomas P. Gumpel (also called Israeli-Arabs) who are either Muslims or Christians (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2009a). Druze and Bedouins are two ethnic groups subsumed within the Arab sector. There are four primary religions represented in the country: Jewish (75.5%); Muslim (17% predominately Sunni Muslim); Christian (2%); and Druze (1.7%) (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2009b). Despite the fact that Israeli-Arabs comprise 20.4% of the entire population, they account for 24.75% of the school-aged population (Ministry of Education, 2005), implying a young population, a higher birth rate, and future demographic changes in the state’s ethnic mix. Israel has five major cities: Jerusalem (the capital), Tel Aviv, Haifa, Umm El Fahem, and Beer Sheva. Jerusalem and Haifa are mixed cities with both Jewish and Arab populations. Tel Aviv and Beer Sheva are predominately Jewish, and Umm El Fahem is Arab. Most towns in Israel have a Jewish majority and are located within a relatively small geographic area (from south of Tel Aviv to Haifa in the north). On the other hand, Israeli-Arabs are dispersed in four primary geographical areas: Arab towns and cities, mixed Jewish and Jewish-Arab cities, villages, and unrecognized settlements, with different demographic groups inhabiting different types of settlements. The Druze population lives almost exclusively in villages in the northern part of the country. The oncenomadic Bedouin population lives primarily in unofficial and unrecognized villages in the southern part of the country. In this rich ethnic mosaic, the Jewish population can be roughly divided into four groups: secular; traditional (keeps some sort of Jewish traditions and holidays and would be considered “reform” or “conservative” Judaism in North America); religious (would be considered “orthodox” Judaism in North America: Men are noticeably visible by the knitted yarmulke); and the ultraorthodox (who live in separate communities, often known as Hasidic Jews in North America: Men are noticeably visible by their black suits, hats, and beards). The Jewish population is also divided into Ashkenazi Jews (of European descent) and Sephardic Jews (also called Mizrahim and are of Middle Eastern descent). The ultraorthodox are divided into countless subgroups, some Ashkenazi and some Sephardic. Thus, a salient aspect of Israeli life is its countless divisions and subdivisions. Each division is heavily associated with a certain political and social outlook and is evident in everyday life in Israel: Street signs and products in stores are in Hebrew, Arabic, English, Russian, and sometimes Amharic. Any Israeli (Jew or Arab) can quickly classify anyone he or she meets by both ethnicity and their related political views; more so, neighborhoods, villages, towns, and sometimes even cities are known by their ethnic or linguistic distinctiveness. All Israelis group themselves by religious and political affi liation. Religious affiliation and political parties cater to specific constituencies, where in Israel political representation is not based on geographical location but rather solely by ideological identification. For example, Tel Aviv (a secular city) is viewed as liberal and progressive whereas Jerusalem (a religious city) is very conservative. Settlements in the West Bank are predominately religious, conservative, hawkish, and right-wing. In the Arab sector, Muslims from villages tend to be more conservative than their counterparts in the cities. Arab Christians tend to be more liberal; Arabs in Jerusalem (predominately Muslim) tend to be religious and conservative. This list of schisms can go on, with each small group being divided into smaller subgroups. In all, however, a common thread throughout this fragmented society is that each group tends to be associated primarily with its own members, often via geographic isolation.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Some History To understand how this fragmentation came about, we must examine its historical roots. The State of Israel was founded in 1948 based on the Zionist movement founded by Theodor Herzl (1860–1904). Disheartened by continuing European anti-Semitism, Herzl wrote that despite their attempts at assimilation into the fabric of 19th-century European culture, Jews would always be outsiders and subject to continuing anti-Semitism. In this national movement, Zionism called for the establishment of a Jewish national and religious homeland in the biblical Land of Israel. Only in their own land, Herzl wrote, could Jews ever hope to be free from the 2,000-year-old yoke of European anti-Semitism. As Herzl’s views on the imperative for a Jewish state in Palestine took hold, Zionist policy became part of British foreign policy intent on dismantling the ailing Ottoman Empire. This was in keeping with the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence (secret correspondence of 1915–1916 between Sir Henry McMahon the British High Commissioner in Egypt and the Sharif of Mecca, Hussein ibn Ali, regarding the future distribution of lands of the Ottoman Empire) and the Sykes–Picot Agreement (which was between Sir Mark Sykes and François George-Picot) in 1916 that divided the Ottoman Empire into British- and French-controlled areas following its defeat in World War I. After the Armistice of 1918, Palestine was ceded to the United Kingdom as per the secret Sykes–Picot Agreement, and an active period of settlement of Palestine by European Jews began. With many stops and starts, and by overcoming political and military attempts by the indigenous Arab population to thwart their mass migration, the Jewish and European colonial hold in Palestine grew steadily from 1904 until 1948, when the British Mandate in Palestine drew to a close with the formation of the State of Israel. Independence was declared and a “Jewish democracy” was established in 1948 following the United Nations (UN) division of the area into two states: Israel and Palestine. The UN Partition Plan for Palestine was approved by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947. It was accepted by Israel yet rejected by the indigenous Arabs and the entire Arab League who launched a war in order to destroy the nascent Jewish state. The definition of Israel as an ethnic democracy, however, engendered a myriad of problems for the indigenous non-Jewish population of the state. Any examination of modern Israel will reveal tensions inherent in an ethnically based democracy where approximately 20% of the population is not part of the group possessing legally granted and ensured political hegemony. Thus, infrastructure and educational services have been consistently underfunded over the last 62 years for the non-Jewish parts of Israel.

Wars and Strife in Israel Since its inception, Israel has been plagued by seven wars and ongoing terrorism based on the continuous rejections of Israel’s legitimacy and of the UN Partition of 1947 as well as the nationalist aspirations of the indigenous Arab people. The state was born during the first of these wars, the War of Independence of 1948. Victory in 1948 was accompanied by massive land confiscations and the demolishing of indigenous Arab villages, as well as the forced expulsion of 700,000 residents from those villages (Morris, 1988, 2004). Currently, the number of these refugees has grown to approximately 4 million individuals and remains one of the major obstacles to Middle East peace (Morris, 2004). The 1967 Six Day War created another major challenge as Israel conquered massive

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

153

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

154

Thomas P. Gumpel tracts of land (Brams & Togman, 1998), increasing its population by a factor of four. However, as this population boost was solely Arab due to the absorption of occupied Arab lands, ethnic tensions were exacerbated. The Arab population in Israel today is referred to by two different terms: ’48 Arabs and ’67 Arabs, with ’48 Arabs residing primarily in the north of the country and ’67 Arabs residing solely in the newly Occupied Palestinian Territories (including Jerusalem). As we have seen, two major factors influence this minority’s status in the country. On the one hand, the Arab minority lives in an ethnic democracy guaranteeing the rights and privileges of the Jewish majority. On the other, it is part of the Arab world, which has historically rejected the State of Israel’s legitimacy. During the early years of the state, the Arab minority was subject to martial law, which included administrative detentions, curfews, travel permits, and expulsions (Segev & Cohen, 2008). Martial law and overtly discriminatory laws were revoked in 1966, giving Arab citizens of the state equal protection under the law. Arabs living in East Jerusalem, occupied and administered by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967, are a special case. They became “permanent residents” of Israel shortly after the war. Although they hold Israeli ID cards, few have applied for Israeli citizenship, to which they are entitled, and most maintain close ties with the West Bank and Jordan (most retain Jordanian citizenship). As permanent residents, they are eligible to vote in Jerusalem’s municipal elections, although only a small percentage takes advantage of this right (United Nations, 2010). Thus, as residents of Jerusalem, Arabs in the city live both “in” and “out” of Israel. Since the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980, however, they reside in the half of the city occupied by Israel in 1967 and hence fall under the protection of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (“Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,” Article 50) guaranteeing the education and treatment of civilians in occupied territories under international law. Despite protections delineated in the Israeli Declaration of Independence, Arab citizens of Israel continue to experience discrimination in different realms (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 2007; Or, 2003). Israel also has a number of salient social problems. Despite having the 15th highest Human Development Index ([HDI]; United Nations Development Programme, 2010), Israel suffers from an increasing poverty level as well as income inequality. Poverty is becoming rampant (Gazit, 2010; Latet, 2010). According to the most recent report released by an Israeli nongovernmental organization (NGO; Latet, 2010), despite the high HDI index compared with other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, the percentage of children living under the poverty line is 36.3% (vs. 11% for other OECD nations). Combined with a high and increasing (approximately 5% yearly) GINI (global distribution of family income) rank of 39.2 (World Bank, 2010) pointing to a high level of inequality of income distribution between the wealthiest and poorest citizens, Israelis face many hardships.

T H E E DUC AT ION S Y S T E M To understand the provision of education to children with special educational needs, we must first understand the general education system and we must always remember that both systems sit in the highly fragmented Israeli society where competition between and

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward within each ethnic sector is omnipresent. The system is controlled by a strong central bureaucracy located in Jerusalem and is run by the Ministry of Education (MOE) and a director general who are administratively and politically responsible for the enactment of laws, the development of regulations, and the operation of the education system. The MOE sets national goals; tightly controls inputs and the allocation of budgets; monitors and controls student achievements through national performance evaluation tests; determines the national curriculum; and is responsible for employing teachers and the construction of new schools (Glasman, 1986). All MOE policies are in sync with national policies and priorities. The education system is divided geographically into six districts that supervise and monitor the educational processes conducted by schools to ensure the compatibility of these processes with central policies (Zucker, 1985). Jewish Israel is a nation of immigrants where the education system has always been charged as the primary vehicle for diminishing the differences among immigrants and between immigrants and vatikim (Hebrew for old-timers) and ensuring social, political, cultural, and economic mobility. This process has repeatedly been tested through waves of immigration, the most recent of which coincided with the fall and breakup of the former Soviet Union. Between 1989 and 1991, Israel was deluged with waves of immigration of Soviet Jews. The educational and social support systems were called upon to acculturate approximately 376,000 new citizens (an increase in the population of about 7.8% in 2 years; Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1998). Israel is also a nation with a large indigenous Arab minority. This linguistic and religious minority has struggled to achieve parity with the Jewish majority despite living in a Jewish ethnic democracy where all political power has de jure been kept in the hands of the Jewish majority. During the 2009 to 2010 school year, the Israeli education system included 3,652 schools (including schools for children with special needs; Central Bureau of Statistics, 2001; Zionit, Berman, & Ben-Arie, 2009) and 2,468,700 children (32.7% of the entire population). Of these children, 69.4% were Jewish, 24.1% were Muslim, 1.7% were Christian, and 1.9% were Druze. The only growing demographic group of these 4 was the group of Muslim children (which increased from 20.2% in 1995; Zionit, Berman, & Ben-Arie, 2009). The state-run bureaucratic system is divided into two main sectors: the Jewish education division and the non-Jewish system. Each system is then subdivided once again (Jewish secular, Jewish religious, Jewish ultraorthodox, Arab, Druze) (Gumpel & Nir, 2005; Gumpel & Sharoni, 2007). The system faces constant growth; the number of pupils enrolled in the education system increased by more than 16.5 fold over a period of 50 years, from 108,131 pupils in 1948 to close to 2.5 million pupils in 2010. The number of immigrant pupils is also increasing (about 1.5% in 1991 to approximately 11% in 1996; Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport, 1996), as is the number of immigrant teachers (1,950 teachers in 1992 to 5 150 in 1996). The annual dropout rate for pupils in uppersecondary education is about 4.8% in Jewish education and 11.8% in Arab education (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2001). Israel boasts a high literacy rate of 91.8% among those over the age of 15 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2008). National expenditure on education places Israel among the highest investing countries in public education in comparison with other OECD countries.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

155

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

156

Thomas P. Gumpel However, perennial problems exist. Severe difficulties result from Israel’s complicated multiple streams at both the primary and secondary levels; mandatory military conscription immediately following high school; problematic educational attainments in the face of rapid population growth; increased demands on the education system; and reduced funding of public education (Nir & Nafcha, 2007). Educational attainments for high school students are low, with a high percentage demonstrating poor basic skills (OECD, 2009). Further, as in the socioeconomic spheres, large gaps exist between Israeli-Arabs and the rest of the population (OECD, 2009, 2010). Israeli children significantly underperform in reading, mathematics, and science as compared to children in other OECD countries as measured by the Programme for International Student Assessment ([PISA]; OECD, 2010). Additionally, teachers in Israel are paid significantly less than their OECD counterparts (Nir & Nafcha, 2007). School violence is higher than most OECD countries (Zionit, Berman, & Ben-Arie, 2009), burnout among teachers remains high and stable (Friedman & Lotan, 1985), and class size is above the OECD average (Zionit, Berman, & Ben-Arie, 2009). Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the education system is how to deal with the disparity between educational achievement and enfranchisement for different sectors of Israeli society. Since achieving independence, the country’s leaders have repeatedly declared that a primary goal of the education system has been to reduce the socioeconomic gaps between different segments of the population on an inter-ethnic level (that is, Jewish vs. Arab allocations in education) and an intra-ethnic (Ashkenazim vs. Mizrahim, religious vs. secular) level. These “gaps” exist on a myriad of economic, cultural, and legal levels. Disparity in educational performance exists between the primary Jewish groups (Gumpel & Nir, 2005) and between Jews and Arabs (OECD, 2009). These gaps are visible between different socioeconomic groups, between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim, between old-timers and new immigrants, and between different towns, cities, and villages (National Taskforce for the Advancement of Education in Israel, 2004). In 2009, 68% of all Jewish high schools students were eligible for their high school matriculation diploma, as compared to a 49.2% rate for Arab high school students, 46.6% of Muslims, and approximately 60% of Christian and Druze youth. These numbers have remained fairly stable since 1995.

T H E S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION S Y S T E M In the 2008 to 2009 academic year, 109,511 children (5.76%) were identified as having special educational needs. Of these, 16.97% studied in segregated schools. Another 22.42% studied in general education schools, with 56.99% of these studying for the majority of the school day in special day classes (50.9%; Zionit, Berman, & Ben-Arie, 2009). All of the problems and challenges facing the general education system in Israel confront the special education system as well. Indeed, we can make that claim that as the special education system tries to integrate itself into in the general education system (as in a time of increased inclusion) it will become more vulnerable to the inadequacies of the larger system. Despite the fact that discussion of integration and inclusion began during the 1950s, it only began to gain momentum following legislation of the Special

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward Education Law of 1988 (SEL) and the implementation of the law in the early 1990s. At that period, many children who had previously received services in segregated settings began to receive services within the general education framework (Avishar & Layser, 2000; Comptroller’s Office, 2001; Margalit, 1999). Like much of Israeli society, special education procedures prior to the passage of the Special Education Law of 4758 (SEL, 1988) were based on an informal and personal form of negotiations between the education system, the child’s family, and the MOE. Services were provided under the more general auspices of the Compulsory Education Law of 1949 and the State Education Law of 1953. The foundation for understanding Israeli special education is the SEL. The law was intended to mark a turning point in the provision of special education services to children and adolescents with special needs. It passed with wide multiparty support in 1988 with hopes that it would create procedural certainty and codify guidelines where none had previously existed (Gumpel, 1996). Examination of the legislative intent of the Israeli parliament (the unicameral Knesset) reveals a basic conceptualization of disability among Israeli lawmakers at the time as it advocated for a segregationist and categorical organization of service provision. The special education system has been historically dominated in Israel by neurologists, neuropsychologists, pediatricians, and psychologists and based on a medical and pathology-based model of impairment; all children receiving special education services are divided into 12 different eligibility categories based on their primary disability (Gumpel, 1999b). The law defines the exceptional child as any “person between the ages of 3 and 21 who, as a result of faulty development of his physical, intellectual, mental or behavioral skills, has restricted ability in adaptive behavior and requires special education” (SEL, 1988, p. 2930). The law consists of five subsections: Definitions of Terms, Free Special Education, Diagnosis and Placement, Education in a Special Education Institution, and Miscellaneous. It differs from much Western special education legislation in that it does not specifically and clearly mandate education in a least restrictive environment (LRE). According to the law, special education includes “all teaching, instruction and systematic treatment that are given to exceptional children … including physical therapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy and treatments from other professional disciplines which are to be ancillary services, all of which are provided according to the exceptional child’s needs” (SEL, 1988, p. 2930). From the opening lines that define the scope of the law, the MOE repeatedly claimed that the law mandates separate education of all children with special educational needs, including those children with diagnosed learning disabilities (Gumpel, 1999a). This opening section provides operational definitions and begins with the definition of “the handicapped child” and “special education.” These two definitions provide an interesting tautology: the “handicapped child” is defined as “A person aged three to twenty-one, whose capacity for adaptive behaviors is limited, due to faulty physical, mental, psychological or behavioral development, and is in need of special education” (SEL, 1988, p. 2930). On the other hand, “special education” is defined as “methodological teaching, learning, and treatment granted by law to the handicapped child” (p. 2930). These circular definitions exemplify the confusion regarding exclusionary versus

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

157

158

Thomas P. Gumpel inclusionary special services. For a child to be defined as “handicapped,” he or she must be taught in a “special education” framework, which is then defined as a learning environment provided only to children with handicaps. In other words, in order to be defined as a person with a handicap, one needed to be enrolled in a segregated special education system. Being enrolled outside of a segregated system, according to the ministry, means that one is no longer “handicapped” and therefore no longer entitled, or in need of, financial support from the MOE’s Department of Special Education. Indeed, from 1988 to 2002, virtually all children undergoing a placement committee hearing were placed in some sort of restrictive environment.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

The Battle for Inclusion Ambiguity regarding the parliament’s intent regarding the inclusion of children with special educational needs and the lack of a clear and mandatory focus on the LRE was widespread. Despite the original law’s emphasis on placement in inclusive settings, parents had great difficulties in actually having their children placed in general education settings. The MOE refused to financially support placement in inclusive settings based on its narrow reading of the law and the definition of special educational needs as being anchored in segregated settings. The MOE’s claim stemmed from the fact that the law empowered the Placement Committee to “recommend” ancillary services. The MOE claimed that “recommendations” are not “requirements” and hence not legally mandated. This claim led to the underplacement of children in inclusive settings. When the High Court of Justice reviewed these issues while reviewing petitions in order to force the MOE to support inclusive placements, the MOE routinely came to an agreement with the petitioning party, thus preempting the court’s potential precedent-setting judgment by a panel of judges (Ziv, 2004). A blue-ribbon commission convened in 2000 by the Minister of Education found in its report that despite the legal emphasis on inclusion, once a child has been placed in a general education framework, he or she lost the legal protection of the SEL and its concomitant provision of ancillary services. The commission also stated that without the provision of specific fiscal resources, inclusionary special education was impossible. A report by the state comptroller in 2002 revealed that the budget allocated to inclusionary education by the Department of Special Education in the MOE was much smaller than that allocated to supporting the provision of special educational services in segregated settings (Israel State Comptroller, 2002). In a landmark case, a group of parents of children with disabilities (incidentally, or not, the same parents’ organization that sponsored the original SEL) petitioned the High Court of Justice to force adequate financing and support inclusive education (High Court of Justice, 2002). Incidentally, or not, this was the same DPO who sponsored the original SEL. In 2002, the Special Education Law of 1988 was revised following a series of court cases by DPOs who argued that the law was restrictive in allowing only for education of children with special needs in segregated settings. The 2002 revisions to the SEL (Instructions to Chapter D1 for Special Education Law, 4763 [Correction number 7 for Special Education Law, 1988]) changed the wording in the law from a handicapped child to an included child. As well, a statutory forum was developed in every school with the authority to determine the eligibility for all children with special educational needs in the school

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward and for assistance and inclusionary support. Such support could include different types of pull-out programs, support services to improve written and spoken expression, psychological, and other types of assistance, and the development of individualized educational plans. Guidance from the MOE’s director general further highlighted the importance of inclusionary practices. It noted that “most students with special needs can be included into a regular classroom with the aid of an inclusion plan and can derive great academic and social-emotional benefit from such inclusion” (Director General, Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport, 2003, p. 1). Nevertheless, the new SEL of 2002 remained ambiguous regarding inclusionary special education. For example, the ambiguity manifested itself in the use of the two different terms: handicapped child and included child. Interested parties questioned whether the law intended to draw a clear distinction between these two statuses. The new law also stipulated that each general education school would create an Inclusion Committee in order to decide whether the inclusion of a child was possible on a case-by-case basis. And, despite a clearer mandate from Parliament and the courts (High Court of Justice, 2001; “Instructions Chapter D1 for Special Education Law, 4763 [Correction number 7 for Special Education Law, 1988],” 2002), inadequate appropriations of fiscal resources continued to deny inclusionary placement to children with special educational needs (Dorner et al., 2009). Another blue-ribbon commission in 2007 was charged with recommending governmental policy for supporting the special education system as it moved toward greater inclusion (Dorner et al., 2009). This commission examined and made concrete recommendations. These included enabling parental participation in educational placements wherever they are; creating a “money-follows child” methodology to fiscally support inclusive placements; and clearly stating that “the child with special needs has a right to be included, as partial realization of his rights to an education” (p. 55). Despite much legal and legislative movement over the last 2 decades, the question remains as to how much the policy of inclusion has trickled down from the decision makers in Parliament and the courts to the school system and the actual inclusion of children with special educational needs. Figure 1 presents a breakdown of the current state (2008–2009 academic year) regarding the placement of children with special educational needs for elementary school children. (Secondary schools mirror the figures.) The figure shows that inclusionary practices may be available to different groups of children. In reality, however, general education placements are implemented primarily among children with learning disabilities ([LDs]; Central Bureau of Statistics, 2010). Regardless of legal requirements to include children with special needs in general education classrooms, this has not occurred. Only a small percentage of children are actually included in the general education system. Most children continue to be served in segregated schools or special day classes. It appears that this is not changing. The only group consistently included in the general education system is students with diagnosed LDs. How, then, are inclusionary practices implemented for children with LDs? This issue was examined by another blue-ribbon panel (the so-called Margalit Commission). The Margalit Report called for, among other things, the desegregation of children with LDs from their non-LD peers and the increased training of professionals working with such

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

159

160

Thomas P. Gumpel National Inclusionary Practices - Elementary Education 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0

ng

La

De

ve

lo

pm

en ta l ua ge del ay Le di so ar Be ni r de ha ng rs Su vi di o sp sa ra lD ic bi io lit is n y tu of rb In a B nc te lle ord e M c e t rli ild M io M n ul n I e al nt tip od el er Di IQ le le at sa di c tu bi ag e In Se lit al n t v y e os er Di C l l ec er e/ sa i s eb pr -In tu b ilit of a ra te ou y lP lle l Di nd sa ct al sy ua bi I n /S l D lity te ev lle is er ab ct eua i l D lity ph ys is ab ic al ilit ha y nd i ca Ps ps yc hi Au at tis ric De m af di ne so Ra ss rd er /h Bl s ea re d in is dn rin ea g es se im s/ s vi pa si i r on m en im t pa irm en t

0.0

Inclusion

Special Day Class

Segregated School

Figure 1. National inclusionary practices for elementary education (academic year 2009–2010). Note: Disability categories represented are mandated by the Ministry of Education for data collection purposes.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, 2010.

children and youth (Margalit, 1997), especially in the Israeli-Arab sector. An important by-product of the Margalit Report was the de facto removal of LD as one of the 12 categories under the direct responsibility of the Department of Special Education in the MOE. Instead, a new division was formed within the Psychological and Counseling Services Department called the Division of Learning Disabilities to deal with LD issues. This bureaucratic shift symbolizes, among other things, a change in priorities from a segregated to an inclusive philosophy for children and youth with LDs. There has been a marked increase in the identification of youth with LDs. A primary force behind this increased identification has been for the allowance of examination accommodations (Zionit, Berman, & Ben-Arie, 2009). So, what is the current status of the diagnosis and treatment of LDs in Israel? In the governmental commission to examine the implementation of the SEL, the Israeli focus on a highly categorical method of service provision was questioned (Margalit et al., 1997) and specific focus on children with learning disabilities was recommended. However, despite the increase in the number of children being identified as having learning disabilities, in order to better understand the two-decade official push for inclusion, an examination of the trends over the last decade shows a different picture (see Figure 2). If we examine these trends, we can clearly see that not only are inclusionary placements not increasing since the passage of the correction to the SEL, they appear to be decreasing.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward Decisions of Placement Committee General Education Kindergarten or Classroom

49.20%

Special Day Class

Segregated SPED School

51.02%

50.42%

50.90%

48.22%

46.09%

45.06% 43.06%

42.81% 40.39%

43.11%

Percemt

40.12%

11.09%

10.41%

9.47% 6.71%

1999/2000

2002/2003

2003/2004

2004/2005

5.92%

2005/2006

5.99%

2006/2007

Academic Year

Figure 2. Changes in inclusionary practices over time.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Source: Zionit, Berman, & Ben-Arie, 2009.

Inclusive education in Israel is on the decline. Placement in special day classes in the general education system and placement in segregated special education schools both remain stable over time. We can see that the Israeli school system reflects Israeli society as a whole along with its historical and cultural legacies. The education system has developed in a number of different areas for the small number of children being included (5.99% in 2006 to 2007). One of these areas has been the development of the special education specialist (Mitchell, 2004). The second chapter of the Margalit Report dealt with pre- and in-service training and recommended the development of interdisciplinary college- and university-level programs to train professionals in the area of LD and specifically recommended the development of the LD specialist (‫מת“ל‬, the Hebrew acronym—Matal) and the development of a bureaucratic structure to promote inclusion (‫מת׳“א‬, the Hebrew acronym for Matya) (Margalit et al., 1997). Matal—Educational performance diagnostician. The Matal position encompasses two primary foci on both a micro and a macro level. On the micro level, the Matal professional has an individual focus that deals mostly with the pupil, his or her parents and teachers, and an organizational focus that deals mostly with school-wide issues. On an individual level, the Matal teacher spends most of his or her time evaluating and developing treatment plans for children experiencing difficulties in academic skills, developing individual inclusion plans, assisting students to develop learning strategies (either individually or in group work), or engaging in discussions with general education teachers regarding possible allowances and appropriate accommodations.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

161

162

Thomas P. Gumpel Matya—Organizational resources. Matyas are organizations in each city and community by which educational, and specifically inclusion-oriented, resources are organized. The Matya structure allows for the funding of school-based and itinerant professionals specializing in a wide variety of specialized skills, from behavioral specialists and consultants, to diagnosticians, to other ancillary services.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E C U R IOUS C A S E OF J E RUS A L E M Jerusalem, the conflicted city, is in constant turmoil. As a 4,000-year-old city, Jerusalem has its earliest roots in distant antiquity. Jerusalem is the Holy or Noble City to the three Abrahamic religions and has been besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times (Cline, 2004). It is the central focal point of ancient Jewish tradition and became the first monotheistic city during the time of David and Solomon. Featured at its center is the Holy of Holies: the First and Second Temple built on the Temple Mount. Jerusalem has been coveted and conquered by the Israelites, the Greeks, the Romans (who renamed it Aelia Capitalina), the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Persians, the Crusaders, the Arabs again, the Mamelukes, the Turks, the British, the Jordanians, and now the Israelis. The central point in Jerusalem is the ancient Jewish Solomonic Temple (built in 957 bc and destroyed in 586 bc by the Babylonians) and the Second Temple, also called Herod’s Temple, built and renovated by Herod in 19 bc and destroyed by the Romans in 70 ad. By the first century ad, Jerusalem achieved significance for a wider community: the Holy City was now home to both Jews and early Christians. From the time of the advent of Islam, Jerusalem once again became a Holy City: The Prophet Mohammad visited Jerusalem during his night journey and ascension to Heaven. Judaism and Christianity both view it as the place where Adam was formed; where Adam, Cain, Abel, and Noah offered sacrifices to God; where Abraham showed his willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac; and where Jacob had his dream. On this small parcel of land (35 acres or 141,610 square meters), the Muslim Ummayad Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan constructed the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aksa mosques (built in 691 ad and 705 ad, respectively). Jews call this area the Temple Mount and Muslims refer to it as the Hara mesh-Sharif (The Noble Sanctuary). In 1947, Jerusalem was declared an international (Corpus Separatum) city by the UN according to the 1947 UN Partition Plan, later reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 194 in 1948. These partition plans, however, were never implemented as they were rejected by the Arab population and the Arab world, and so Israel annexed West Jerusalem and Transjordan annexed East Jerusalem. Between 1948 (the Israeli War of Independence) and 1967 (The Six Day War), Jerusalem was divided into two discrete sections: the Israeli (western) part of Jerusalem and the Jordanian (eastern) part of Jerusalem. Following the 1967 conflict, the border that ran through Jerusalem was removed and Jerusalem became a united city under Israeli sovereignty with military occupation of the eastern part of the city. In 1980, the Knesset passed the “Jerusalem Law” formally annexing East Jerusalem. The UN Security Council 478 and the entire international community condemned the annexation; it has never been recognized by any country other than

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward Israel. The Palestinian National Authority has consistently stated that East Jerusalem is the site of the capital of the future Palestinian state. Hence, Jerusalem remains a central issue in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. As the perennial flashpoint in the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians, it is worth studying the education system in general, and the special education system, in particular. Jerusalem, as a case study, further exemplifies the splintered aspects of Israeli society, while also focusing on the never-ending competition of the two separate national narratives— that of the dominant and powerful Israeli national policy toward Arab citizens of the city vis-à-vis their fellow Jewish Jerusalemites. We begin by examining the difficult conditions under which the education system in East Jerusalem operates. We can and must examine Jerusalem through a demographic lens as the political battle being waged in the city is geared to maintaining the demographic advantage of one group. Indeed, when looking at the population increase in Arab East Jerusalem, we see that the birth rate among this population is higher than for the Jewish secular population. The municipality of Jerusalem has changed its border frequently in order to maintain a Jewish majority in the city. The last episode in this fight for Jewish demographics was headed by the “Separation Fence,” which blocked different communities from being included in East Jerusalem through the construction of an up to 8-meterhigh concrete wall. The population of the city has been increasing steadily since 1922 (the beginning of modern record-keeping), with both Jewish and Palestinian populations increasing steadily although the number of Jews in Jerusalem has increased at an accelerated rate (Choshen, 2010). Despite the fact that the Palestinian population of Jerusalem is increasing at a slower rate, the number of Palestinian children enrolled in schools in Jerusalem has been increasing steadily over the years (Wargen, 2006). There are eight different school systems in the city (see Figure 3). The principal Israeli government school system is called the Jerusalem Educational Authority (JEA). It is divided into three semi-autonomous sections: JEA Jewish Ultra-Orthodox, JEA Arab, and JEA Jewish. Other school systems in East Jerusalem include “recognized and unofficial” schools that are private schools receiving limited funds and limited state supervision. There are also “unrecognized and unofficial schools” that do not receive any state support but are privately owned and financed, usually under the auspices of some sort of Christian organization. The Waqf schools are under the authority of the Muslim religious trust of Jerusalem. United Nations Relief Work Agency schools are under the control of the UN and operate primarily in refugee camps. The only Palestinian refugee camp inside of Israel is in Shu’afat, a Palestinian neighborhood in northern Jerusalem and inside the city’s municipal boundaries. Approximately 30,000 residents live in the camp and its satellite communities. Within the city’s municipal boundaries, 56% of the children are Jewish and 44% are Palestinian (Gumpel, 2010). However, according to JEA data, aside from the large number of Ultra-Orthodox school children in Jerusalem, the city school system is composed of more Palestinian children than Jewish children (Jerusalem Municipality, 2010). Herein, we examine only JEA schools as they are completely under the Israeli government. According to a report issued by the Israeli Parliament, the education system in East Jerusalem suffers from a number of challenges. The number of children in East

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

163

164

Thomas P. Gumpel Who Are the Children in Jerusalem? 92579

62273 57273

20603 13955

RW A

3741

co

un

te

d

Ch

ild

W aq

f

re n

5520

Un

JE

A-

Je

wi sh R of ec fic o ial gn -P ize ale d st in ian Un Unr of ec fic og ial ni Sc zed ho ol s Pr iva te Sc ho ol s

Ar AJE

Un

JE

A-

Ul

tra

-O

rth

od

ox

ab

6408

UN

16116

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Figure 3. Jerusalem’s schoolchildren.

Jerusalem is growing, with 44% of the student population in Jerusalem attending state schools (Wargen, 2006). Combined with a shortage of classrooms, many children in East Jerusalem are studying in overcrowded schools or are being denied enrollment due to lack of space (Wargen, 2006). The Jerusalem JEA has built classrooms and schools in a disproportionate manner favoring the Jewish children of Jerusalem over their Arab peers over the last 2 decades (Jerusalem Municipality, 2010). Indeed, in the 2005 to 2006 school year, East Jerusalem was short 1,354 classrooms. In the 2 decades from 1989 to 2009, the number of classrooms built in the JEA Jewish part of the city exceeded those of the classrooms built in the Arab part of the city despite the fact that there are more children studying in JEA Arab schools than JEA Jewish schools. Overcrowding and a lack of resources may be a salient factor contributing to the higher dropout rate in East Jerusalem schools vis-à-vis West Jerusalem schools (50% vs. 4.7%; Wargen, 2006). With an average of 35 pupils per classroom (often as high as 45 pupils per classroom despite the MOE limiting the number of class size in all schools to 36), approximately 47,000 children study today in an inappropriate environment, often in storage rooms and bomb shelters (Medzini, 2010b). This situation was brought to the court’s attention in a motion submitted to the Supreme Court, which sits as the High Court of Justice. As a result of two class action appeals to the High Court of Justice (High Court of Justice, 2001), the Municipality of Jerusalem promised to build 245 classrooms in Jerusalem; however, this guarantee was never fulfilled and in August of 2006 suits were refiled with the court (High Court of Justice, 2008). This issue was once again revisited in 2011 when the High Court of Justice

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward reviewed a case brought by several East Jerusalem families who claimed that the lack of adequate space and classrooms meant that they had to privately fund their children’s education in private schools. The court leveled serious criticism at the MOE and the JEA and demanded that the lack of resources be corrected within 5 years (Glickman, 2011). The lack of adequate infrastructure has two primary outcomes. First, approximately 10,000 pupils in East Jerusalem are not being served in any educational framework because of lack of space (Wargen, 2006). Second, the dropout rate is disproportionately high in East Jerusalem. Wargen (2006) found that the education system in East Jerusalem is chronically underfunded. In 2006, the city’s educational funding for East Jerusalem was only 29% of the JEA budget, despite East Jerusalem children comprising 56% of the JEA children. (JEA Ultra-Orthodox education is funded separately.) In a report released by the city’s legal advisor, children in West Jerusalem are funded at the rate of 408 New Israeli shekels (NIS) per pupil, whereas children in East Jerusalem are funded at the rate of 214 NIS per pupil (US$108 vs. US$57; Medzini, 2010a). Because of these perennial problems and the grave discrepancy between the wealthier and better endowed education system in the western part of the city and the poorer eastern part of the city and because of the chronic shortage of schools and classrooms in East Jerusalem, many parents in East Jerusalem opt out of the underfunded and overcrowded state schools. Instead, they elect to send their children to any one of the four types of private or semi-private schools. Private schools can range from state-recognized and official schools where the state can fund up to 85% of the budget and may impose its fiscal and curricular control on the school, to unrecognized and unofficial schools in which the state has no stake or control, to schools run by the Muslim religious trust: the Waqf. This myriad of alternative placements exists only in East Jerusalem, and is often the option of choice for those families with the fiscal means to allow them to take advantage of these private schools. From 2009 to 2010, approximately 51% of children in East Jerusalem attended schools administered by the JEA (Ir Amim, 2010). The remainder attended any one of the other options available to Palestinian residents of the city.

Special Education in East Jerusalem The vast problems affecting the general education system in East Jerusalem will also have a detrimental effect on the provision of special education in the city. Most children with special needs attend JEA schools, since their resources appear to be greater than the other three options available (Recognized Unofficial: 24.75%; Waqf: 7.7%; and Private and United Nations Relief Work Agency: 16.77%; Ir Amim, 2010). Some parents of children with special educational needs in East Jerusalem have attempted to transfer their children to more endowed schools in West Jerusalem despite the accompanying language and cultural differences. Official city policy has forbidden this process and the current mayor has directed his offices to bar ethnically mixing schools in the city (personal communication, 2010). Inequality of service is endemic to the JEA. As we have seen, there is little correlation between the number of children represented by each of the three demographic groups in the JEA (Jewish, Arab, and Jewish Ultra-Orthodox) and the number of special needs

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

165

166

Thomas P. Gumpel kindergartens or schools for each group. The JEA allocates most resources to the smallest demographic group in the city (JEA Jewish). More schools translates into greater resources for including children in the general education framework. Schools in the JEA Arab sector are more crowded than their West Jerusalem counterparts. The lack of classrooms and schools also affects the special education system in East Jerusalem. It is short 240 classrooms and schools are overcrowded and are unable to adequately serve children with special needs (Ir Amim, 2010; Israel State Comptroller, 2008). It is not uncommon to see schools housed in rented apartments throughout the eastern part of the city. These rented apartments are modified homes and were not intended to be schools and are often inaccessible for children with mobility problems. The JEA has claimed that there are no public lands on which to build schools in East Jerusalem—a claim disputed by local NGOs and the courts (Ir Amim, 2010) who say that the city has the land to build schools yet has declined to do so. The lack of classrooms is only one aspect of the poor infrastructure of the special education systems in East Jerusalem (Ir Amim, 2010). Concomitant overcrowding and a lack of resources are widespread in the system.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

C ONC LUS ION Anyone who has ever watched the news about Israel and the Middle East will agree that Israel is a complex country. Competing constituencies, demographics, cultures, linguistic traditions, nationalistic aspirations, and educational needs all coalesce to form a complex mix where service provision and professional preparation become complex and interconnected. These interrelated groups have always lived side-by-side in Israel, and Israeli culture and society is built around a de facto recognition of this cultural appreciation of separateness in all aspects of Israeli life. The SEL, as written, is a highly categorical and segregative law, reflecting a highly categorical and segregative society. As we have seen, recent attempts to create a more inclusive education system have failed. As Israel retains a highly categorical special education system, a reliance on a strict medical model of disability will inevitably lead to a high categorical system of service provision. Special education policy reflects cultural mores and does not create them, and this is evident in the Israeli context as well. The general and special education systems reflect this societal fragmentation and segregation. Inclusion of children with special educational needs in the general education system is not being implemented for all children. This is clearly a reflection of the splintered nature of Israeli life. When there is no integration anywhere in the country, it is illogical to assume that only the education system would be integrated. Indeed, we have seen that the education system based on segregation, is becoming more segregated. One must reexamine the complex changes taking place in the delivery of services to children and youth with special needs in Israel. At least regarding policy for children with learning disabilities, new procedures designed to keep the identification and treatment of children with LD in the child’s neighborhood school are evident. However, this cannot be said for other disability groups.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward Linkages between educational policy and national policy are evident in all aspects of Israeli policy in East Jerusalem. Education policy reflects the greater political will and power of the enfranchised majority; namely, the almost unilateral allocation of resources to the Jewish majority while neglecting the indigenous population in the rest of the city. In almost all parameters, East Jerusalem and its special education system are lacking in vital resources as compared to Jewish West Jerusalem. These resources are vital in order to adequately serve the large Arab population with special educational needs. As interested observers conducting a “deep analysis” of the linkage between educational and special educational policy and larger sociohistorical trends, we must ask ourselves how the long-term discrimination against East Jerusalem schools and their families reflects and serves social trends. In its 63 years of existence, Israel has expelled Palestinians from their land in two primary waves: during the war of 1948 and through the creation of settlements on occupied Palestinian land and the concomitant evacuation and expulsion of the indigenous populations living on those expropriated lands. It appears that in the 21st century, further expulsions are impossible and would not be accepted in the international arena. Hence, it appears that creating areas with tremendous financial and social hardships is the method of choice. Through the direct discrimination of residents of East Jerusalem, it appears that the ultimate goal is to entice the indigenous population to leave the area, thus maintaining the demographic advantage for the Israeli Jewish presence in Jerusalem. This situation is unfortunate. If Israel annexed East Jerusalem, one can think of no reason for the decades-old underfunding of education and special education in East Jerusalem. If one does not accept the unilateral annexation of occupied territories, then Israel appears to be in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Either way, the situation saddens us. In any nation, educational policy is a result of national policies, both de jure and de facto. In Israel, these manifest themselves as separation and inequality. On March 3, 2007, Israel signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. With its emphasis on human rights and inclusive education for all, it is clear why its ratification has been so long in coming.

R E F E R E NC E S Avishar, G., & Layser, Y. (2000). Evaluating values in special education as change in education. Halacha veMa’ashe b’Tichnun Limudim, 15, 97–124. Brams, S. J., & Togman, J. M. (1998). Camp David: Was the agreement fair? In P. F. Diehl (Ed.), A road map to war: Territorial dimensions of international conflict. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. (2007). Israel and the occupied territories. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100597 .htm. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2001). Statistical abstract of Israel 2001. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2009a). Selected data from the New Israel statistical abstract No. 61—2010. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/newhodaot/hodaa_template .html?hodaa=201011207.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

167

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

168

Thomas P. Gumpel Central Bureau of Statistics. (2009b). Sources of population growth, by district, population group and religion. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.gov.il/shnaton61/st02_04.pdf. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Students with special needs in secondary education by type of disability and type of setting, 2007/08. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader /shnaton/templ_shnaton.html?num_tab=st08_29&CYear=2010. Choshen, M. (Ed.). (2010). Statistical yearbook of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Studies Institute. Cline, E. H. (2004). Jerusalem besieged: From ancient Canaan to modern Israel. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Comptroller’s Office. (2001). State comptroller’s annual report. Jerusalem: Government Press. Director General, Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport. (2003, June). Director general’s regulations: Inclusion plan in regular education and the treatment of children with special needs in regular and special education classrooms. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Science Press. Dorner, D., Penn, R., Sovel, R., Shlimof-Rechtman, S., Kosto-Shefi, A., Malka, S., et al. (2009). ‫( לארשיב דחומה ךוניחה תכרמ תניחבל תירביצה הדעווה‬The public commission to examine the special education system in Israel). Jerusalem: State of Israel. Friedman, I. A., & Lotan, E. (1985). ‫( לארשיב םירומ תקיחש‬Burnout in teachers in Israel). Jerusalem: Henrietta Szold. Gazit, Y. (2010). Report on the state of poverty in Israel. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. Glasman, N. S. (1986). Funding and control linkages in education. In E. Ben-Baruch & Y. Newman (Eds.), Educational administration and policy making: the case of Israel. Tel Aviv: Unipress. Glickman, A. (2011, February 7). ‫ךוניחה דרשמל ץ”גב‬: ‫י חרזממ םידימלתל וגאד‬-‫( ם‬High Court of Justice to the Ministry of Education: Take care of East Jerusalem children), Yediot Ahronot. Retrieved from http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4024671,00.html. Gumpel, T. (1996). Special education law in Israel. Journal of Special Education, 29, 457–468. Gumpel, T. P. (1999a). Special education in Israel. In C. R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education (Vol. 2, pp. 995–998). New York: Wiley. Gumpel, T. P. (1999b). ‫ תונש תארקל לארשיב דחוימה ךוניחה‬2000: ‫( ?םירתוח ונא ןאלו ונאב ןיאמ‬Special education toward the second millennium: Where have we come from and where are we going?). Issues in Special Education and Rehabilitation, 14, 71–82. Gumpel, T. P. (2010). The law says inclusion but the people say exclusion: An examination of inclusion policy in Jerusalem, the most complicated city in the world. Paper presented at the Embracing Inclusive Approaches for Children with Special Educational Needs Conference, Riga, Latvia. Gumpel, T. P., & Awartani, S. (2003). A comparison of special education in Israel and Palestine: Surface and deep structures. Journal of Special Education, 37, 33–48. Gumpel, T. P., & Nir, A. E. (2006). The Israeli education system: Blending dreams with constraints. In K. Mazurek & M. A. Winzer (Eds.), Schooling around the world: Debates, challenges and practices (pp. 149–167). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gumpel, T. P., & Sharoni, V. (2007). Current best practices in learning disabilities in Israel. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 202–209. High Court of Justice. (2001). Fadi Beriya (minor) and 911 others v. Municipality of Jerusalem, No. 5185/01 77 (2001). NGO Yated for parents of children with down syndrome v. Ministry of Education, No. 2599/00, PD. (5) 834, 839 834, b (2002). High Court of Justice. (2008). Muhamad Hamdan and 27 others v. Municipality of Jerusalem, No. 17 July, 2008, 3834/02 (2008). Instructions Chapter D1 for Special Education Law, 4763 (Correction No. 7 for Special Education Law, 1988), Knesset (2002).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward Ir Amim. (2010). A sorry state: The state of education in East Jerusalem 2010. Jerusalem: Author. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (1998, December 24). Population of Israel: General trends and indicators. Retrieved from http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Communiques/1998 /POPULATION+OF+ISRAEL-+GENERAL+TRENDS+AND+INDICATOR.htm. Israel State Comptroller. (2002). Annual state comptroller’s report 59B for the year 2001 (pp. 230–233). Jerusalem: Author. Israel State Comptroller. (2008). Annual state comptroller’s report 59B for the year 2008 (pp. 615–660). Jerusalem: Author. Jerusalem Municipality. (2010). Yearbook of the JEA. Retrieved from http://www.jerusalem .muni.il/jer_main/defaultnew.asp?lng=1. Latet. (2010). ‫( יביטנרטלאה ינועה ח”וד‬Alternative poverty report). Tel Aviv: Latet, Israeli Humanitarian Aid. Margalit, M. (1997). Report on the actualization of the abilities of students with learning disabilities. Jerusalem: Minister of Education and Science. Margalit, M. (1999). Report on the actualization of the abilities of students with learning disabilities. Jerusalem: Minister of Education and Science. Margalit, M., Ortolengi, R., Or-Noy, A., Breznitx, Z., Deklo, M., Harel, S., et al. (1997). ‫ח”וד‬ ‫( הדימל ייוקיל םע םידימלת לש םתלוכי יוצימ תניחבל הדעווה‬Report of the Committee to examine the fulfillment of the potential of students with learning disabilities). Jerusalem: Ministry of Education. Medzini, R. (2010a, August 18). Pupils in east Jerusalem get half funding of those in west. Yediot Ahronot. Retrieved from http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3876882,00 .html. Medzini, R. (2010b, August 18). ‫תורסח תותיכ תואמ‬, ‫י חרזמבו‬-‫( םיטלקמב ודמלי ם‬Hundreds of classrooms lacking, and in East Jerusalem children will study in bomb shelters). Yediot Ahronot. Retrieved from http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3938401,00.html. Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport. (1996). The education system by the numbers. Jerusalem: Author. Ministry of Education. (2005). ‫( םירפסמה יפע ךוניח‬The education system by the numbers). Jerusalem: Author. Mitchell, D. (Ed.). (2004). Special educational needs and inclusive education. London: Routledge Palmer. Morris, B. (1988). The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem 1947–1949. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morris, B. (2004). The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. National Taskforce for the Advancement of Education in Israel. (2004). The National Plan for Education, Part I. Jerusalem: Government Printing Office. Nir, A. E., & Nafcha, M. (2007). Teachers’ salaries in public education: Between myth and facts. International Journal of Educational Management, 21, 315–328. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). OECD economic surveys: Israel 2009 (Vol. 2009). Paris: Author. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do—student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol. 1). Paris: Author. Or, T. (2003). Government Commission to investigate the conflict between the security services and Israeli citizens. Jerusalem: Ministry of Justice. Retrieved from http://elyon1.court.gov.il /heb/veadot/or/inside_index.htm. Segev, T., & Cohen, J. (2008). 1967: Israel, the war, and the year that transformed the Middle East. Henry Holt and Co.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

169

170

Thomas P. Gumpel

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Special Education Law of 4758, Knesset. (1988). UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2008). UIS statistics in brief. Retrieved from http:// st at s.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.a spx?Report Id=121&IF _Language=eng&BR_Country=7160&BR_Region=40540. United Nations. (2010). The question of Palestine. Retrieved from http://unispal.un.org /unispal.nsf/home.htm. United Nations Development Programme. (2010). Human development report 2010. New York: Author. Wargen, Y. (2006). Education in East Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Knesset Center for Research and Information. World Bank. (2010). World development indicators. Washington, DC: Author. Zionit, Y., Berman, T., & Ben-Arie, A. (2009). ‫ לארשיב םידלי‬2009 (Children in Israel 2009). Jerusalem: The Israel National Council for the Child. Ziv, N. (2004). ‫ תויולבגומ םע םישנא‬- ‫( םיימויק םיכרצל תויתרבח תויוכז ןיב‬People with disabilities: Between social rights and existential needs). In Y. Rabin & Y. Shani (Eds.), Social, economic and cultural rights in Israel (Vol. 813). Zucker, D. (1985). The Israeli education system: Structure, organization, financing and patterns of action. In W. Ackerman, A. Carmon, & D. Zucker (Eds.), Education in an evolving society: Schooling in Israel. Jerusalem: The Van Leer Institute.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

9 Opportunities and Challenges for Improving Special Education in the United Arab Emirates

Samir Dukmak and Hytham Bany Issa

This chapter provides an overview of special education and related programs and services in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The framework the authors employ is adopted from the UAE Ministry of Education document School for All: General Rules for the Provision of Special Education Programs and Services (Public & Private Schools; United Arab Emirates Ministry of Education, 2010). The elements in this significant document identify opportunities for a commitment to the improvement of special education services in the country. The chapter closes with suggestions for further improvements and research in special education.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E UA E: A N OV E RV I E W Situated in the Arabian Gulf, geographically east of Saudi Arabia and north of Oman, the UAE is a federation of seven semiautonomous Emirates established in 1971. In accordance with the 1971 Constitution, the Federal Supreme Council is the highest legislative and executive body and is comprised of the rulers of the seven Emirates. The country has a free-market economy based on oil and gas production, trade, and light manufacturing. Citizens enjoy a high per capita income, but the economy is heavily dependent on skilled and unskilled foreign workers. While the total estimated resident population is 4.5 million, only 21% are citizens. Citizens employed by the government are eligible to receive aid from the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare for sons and daughters who are under the age of 18, unmarried, or have disabilities (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 2003). The UAE is a multicultural society in which many different nationalities live and form the country’s workforce. The official languages of the country are Arabic and English, but Pakistanis, Indians, and other nationalities speak other languages such as Urdu and Hindi. Islam is both the religion of UAE nationals and the main religion in the country. However, other religions, such as Christianity and Hinduism, are found among expatriates (Crabtree, 2010). While marriage in the UAE is still arranged and starts at an early age for women (Crabtree, 2010), the influence of women in the economic world is significant. Women represent most primary- and secondary-school teachers and healthcare workers, and make up almost half of all government workers. In recent years, economic opportunities for women have grown in government services, education, public relations, private business, and health services (Al-Jenaibi, 2010; Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour, 2003). 171 International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

172

Samir Dukmak and Hytham Bany Issa Today, more and more women are participating in higher education. It is estimated that 70% of university graduates are female (Salloum, 2003). The government encourages both men and women to continue their education, and pays their education expenses. Both men and women receive scholarships, despite an admitted limitation in the number of jobs available to women (Al-Jenaibi, 2010). There is a continuing increase in the number of specializations available to Emirati women, including medicine, commerce, teaching, and social welfare (Crabtree, 2010). S C HO OL I NG In comparison to other countries, the education system of the UAE is relatively new. Primary education is compulsory for all nationals throughout the UAE, and secondary education is available in all Emirates. Expatriates have developed self-funded private schools to meet their religious, cultural, and educational needs. Curricula in the UAE vary among the Emirates, with most influenced by school curricula in the United Kingdom, Canada, United States, and India (Bradshaw, Tennant, & Lydiatt, 2004). The UAE offers comprehensive education to all male and female students from kindergarten to university, with free education for the country’s citizens at all levels. Schools in the public system are gender-segregated. The existing education structure, established in the early 1970s, is a four-tier system encompassing 14 years of education—kindergarten (4–5 year olds), primary (6 –12 year olds), preparatory (12–15 year olds) and secondary (15–18 year olds). Primary school education is compulsory for all UAE citizens. Government policy is to provide staff/student ratios of 1:20 at kindergarten and primary levels, and 1:15 at intermediate and secondary levels. The existing staff/ student ratio is well within this proposed range (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour, 2006).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

L EGI S L AT I V E F R A M E WOR K OF S PEC I A L N E E D S E DUC AT ION In 2009, the UAE ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (United Nations, 2006). Prior to that, in November 2006, the government passed Federal Law No. 29/2006 In Respect of the Rights of People With Special Needs (UAE, 2006). This very significant law stipulates that persons with disabilities enjoy an inherent right to life on an equal basis with others; recognizes that all persons are equal before the law; prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability; and ensures their right to own and inherit property, control financial affairs, and protects their physical and mental integrity (Emirates News Agency, WAM, 2008). Law No. 29/2006 is directed toward ending discrimination in employment, education, the provision of other state services, and beyond. For example, the majority of public buildings provide access to people with disabilities; however, this new law also requires that people with special needs be provided with equitable access and related facilities in all new property development projects (Al Roumi, 2008). UAE Federal Law No. 29/2006 In Respect of the Rights of People With Special Needs (UAE, 2006) is the key legal imperative affecting special needs populations generally, and regulating special needs education in particular. There are four key articles regarding

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Improving Special Education in the United Arab Emirates education for individuals with special needs. Article 12 ensures that individuals with special needs should have equal opportunities for obtaining education in all academic institutions and vocational training centers as part of regular classes or in special classes. This article also requires that the curriculum be provided in a form that is appropriate for the individual with special needs; for example using the braille system or sign language. Article 13 commits the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research to providing educational diagnoses, curricula, and pedagogical assistance for teaching individuals with special needs. This should be carried out in cooperation with the concerned parties and other relevant state authorities. The article also speaks to providing individuals with special needs with alternative communication methods and alternative strategies for learning and accessing physical environments. Article 14 addresses the need for skilled personnel. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research are charged with establishing academic disciplines and spearheading training program, and instruction for professionals and staff working with special needs children and their families. Trained professionals are needed who are knowledgeable in the areas of diagnosis and early detection, and in educational, social, psychological, medical, and vocational rehabilitation. Article 15 provides the general terms of reference for the Specialized Committee in the Education of People With Special Needs that was established by a resolution of the Council of Ministers. This committee assumes the following duties: 1. Ensuring that, from early childhood, individuals with special needs receive equal opportunities for education in all educational institutions in regular classes or specialized units.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

2. Developing a structure for educational programs and preparing educational plans for individuals with special needs, taking into consideration their developmental and psychological features. 3. Arranging and organizing all tasks related to the education of individuals with special needs such as programs, procedures, methods, conditions of enrollment in regular classes, and examinations. 4. Establishing policies for training staff. 5. Providing advice and technical and educational assistance to all educational institutions and considering their funding requests for equipment and technologies. OV E RV I E W OF S PEC I A L N E E D S E DUC AT ION Reliable surveys to determine either the number of individuals with disabilities in the UAE population or percentages in each disability category have not been undertaken. However, according to Bradshaw et al. (2004), the percentage of people with disabilities in the UAE appears similar to the worldwide average; that is, 8–10% of the population. At the present time, a specific categorical system for identifying and supporting students with disabilities does not formally exist.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

173

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

174

Samir Dukmak and Hytham Bany Issa The UAE Ministry of Education provides special education services for students with special needs from kindergarten to grade 9. Information regarding enrollment and due dates for students with special needs in school is made available to parents and community members by the end of the first semester of the academic year. The initial enrollment for a student with special needs is made after the completion of a multidisciplinary evaluation and the creation of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Reenrollment for ongoing services for a new academic year is determined after carrying out an evaluation of the student during the last 3 months of the current academic year. This reenrollment process also applies to students with special needs who are transferred from another school or education institution where they previously received special education services. Demographic data on students with special needs who intend to enroll in any public school in the UAE in an upcoming academic year are sent to the appropriate Education Zone (i.e., one of the nine education jurisdictions or districts), the Special Education Department, the Department of Examination and Assessment, and other relevant departments in the Ministry of Education by the end of the current school year. There, the necessary preparations for examination and the provision of assistive technologies begin. With regard to grade- and age-level determination, students with special needs are enrolled in a grade that is commensurate with their age according to Ministry of Education guidelines. These guidelines are also applied to students who have not previously been enrolled in any school. However, promotion of students with special needs to the next grade is automatic, even if those students have not achieved their IEP goals. In such cases, the objectives and goals may be changed during the review process. Retaining or failing students with special needs in a grade is not permitted. Special education services within the UAE public school system currently focus on early intervention—an important point that the authors will return to and elaborate upon later in this chapter. Special needs students in kindergarten and grade 1 are usually identified through a school-based team process, then assessed by an educational psychologist and/or speech-language pathologist, and finally accepted for extra support. Identified students are then assigned to either a special education classroom or to resource room support (Bradshaw, et al., 2004). There is a maximum of 12 students in a special education classroom, and a maximum of 5 students in a resource room, at any given time. The above support system in special education classrooms operates up to about the grade 4 level. After that, all students with mild and moderate special needs are integrated into general education classrooms. Children with severe disabilities are usually cared for by the family because the UAE culture, in general, does not allow families to send their children to institutions (Swadi & Eapen, 2000). Thus, cultural considerations are an important dimension for understanding the nature and scope of special education provisions in the UAE—a topic to which the authors return in the closing section of this chapter.

ORG A N I Z AT ION A L S T RUC T U R E OF S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION Special education services and programs for in the UAE are administered at three levels: centrally through the Ministry of Education, regionally through Education Zones, and locally through schools. At all levels and in all cases, the guiding principle is that programs for students with special needs must be established “taking into account their individual needs under the provisions of Federal Law No. 29/2006 regarding the rights of

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Improving Special Education in the United Arab Emirates students with special needs, and under the principles and general rules for the provision of special education programs and services” (UAE Ministry of Education, 2010, p. 53). At the central level, the Special Education Department within the Ministry of Education administers special education services throughout the UAE. The director is assisted by various staff members, including senior supervisory special education professionals and consultants who provide direct and indirect supervision and consultation for school personnel in the Education Zones and in local schools. The primary duties and responsibilities of this department include monitoring the implementation of laws and regulations regarding the rights of individuals with special needs in schools, providing assistance to schools, supporting school efforts in developing programs for students with special needs, and providing professional development for administrative personnel who provide special education services. In this manner, the UAE Ministry of Education supports the design and implementation of all special education programs in the UAE, whether in general schools or special schools and institutes. At the Education Zone level, there is a Special Education Department in each zone. The head of that department is responsible for the administration and provision of special education programs and services delivered in that zone. The head is assisted by special education professionals and specialists who provide direct and indirect supervision and support to all school personnel to meet the needs of students with special needs that are enrolled in the schools of that zone. At the school level, the principal maintains responsibility for the administration and provision of special education programs and services and is assisted by special education professionals and specialists. The school principal, with his or her team, provides direct and indirect supervision of and support for all school personnel to facilitate the delivery of high-quality education programs and services to meet the needs of students with special needs enrolled in the school. Schools are subject to an annual evaluation by the Ministry of Education to ensure their compliance with all regulations and conditions required to offer such programs. It is worth noting that, before implementing any special education program in a school, approval is required both from the zone, through its Department of Special Education, as well as the Director of Special Education in the Ministry of Education. Schools are also required to make necessary architectural structural changes to the school building, as well as undertake any other required school modifications to allow students with special needs to access the school. These requirements are deemed to be very important for the issuance of licenses for special education programs in all schools.

S TA F F I NG A N D QUA L I F IC AT ION S The current proposal is that there be at least one special education teacher assigned to each school in the UAE. Additionally, there should be more than one special education teacher assigned to schools that provide direct service to a large number of students with special needs. The preferred qualification is for special education teachers to have a bachelor degree in special education from a university recognized by the Ministry of Higher Education. To teach in special schools or institutes in the UAE usually involves a thorough evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications. Candidates must pass a written examination and an interview under the supervision of the Director of Special Education in the Education Zone where they will work.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

175

176

Samir Dukmak and Hytham Bany Issa In the case of assistant teachers who do not have a bachelor degree, then a specialist diploma or a secondary school certificate with specialized training courses may be accepted by the Ministry of Education. Once hired, engagement in ongoing professional activities such as completing training programs and attending workshops and conferences is expected.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

DI M E N S ION S OF T H E PROV I S ION OF EQUA L AC C E S S Special education services in the UAE have been developed and expanded since 1979 to include a wider variety of categories for students in different grade levels. The term special education in the UAE has come to include gifted and talented individuals whose abilities, talents, and educational objectives have to be met by special education services in general education classrooms. In 2006, special education services in the UAE were further expanded to serve students with special needs up to the 9th grade (UAE Ministry of Education, 2010). This is a break from the past, when special educational services and programs for students with intellectual disabilities were offered by the Ministry of Education in communityor center-based education programs. On the other hand, students with visual, hearing, and physical disabilities have long received their education in general education classrooms, supported by regular and special education teachers. Recently, with the introduction of the aforementioned Federal Law No. 29 in 2006, all students with disabilities in public and private education institutions have access to equal education opportunities and thus the number of students with intellectual disabilities being included in general education schools is increasing (UAE Ministry of Education, 2010). The organizational structures and guidelines for the provision of special education in the UAE as outlined above serve as a framework for what is a “work in progress.” The underlying thrust and emphasis is that educators, other professionals, parents, and all individuals involved with special education in the UAE “must undertake to ensure that we strive to achieve best practices in the process of inclusion” (UAE Ministry of Education, 2010, p. 13). This vision and mission for special education stresses an inclusive educational perspective, which emphasizes that students with special needs should have the opportunity to participate in educational programs and services in the least restrictive environments commensurate with their individual strengths and needs. While regular education classrooms often provide the least restrictive environments, it is recognized that this is not the case all the time nor for all special needs student (UAE Ministry of Education, 2010).

Educational Considerations for Students With Special Needs In accordance with the above vision and mission, the Ministry of Education in the UAE emphasizes various educational considerations in teaching and caring for students with special needs. Major considerations include (but are not limited to): 1. Accepting the philosophy of inclusion for students with special needs in the general education system. 2. Providing students with special needs with necessary assistive technology. 3. Emphasizing the importance of IEPs for students with special needs.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Improving Special Education in the United Arab Emirates 4. Recognizing the importance of classroom accessibility. 5. Treating all special needs students with dignity and respect but not sympathy. 6. Promoting awareness in schools about using respectful language toward students with special needs. 7. Maintaining effective communication with parents of special needs children about their child’s progress.

Prereferral Services According to the UAE Ministry of Education School for All (2010) document, students in general or regular schools whose performance exceeds or does not meet expectations compared to their peers should be referred to the School Support Team (SST). The purpose of this action, as was noted earlier in the chapter, is to develop intervention plans for students before a referral is made to determine their eligibility for special education programs and services.

Strategies to Evaluate the Progress of Students With Special Needs

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

There are various strategies and tools used to evaluate special needs students’ progress, such as performance assessment and achievement tests that have to be conducted in an appropriate place with minimum distractions. The selection of an assessment strategy is based on the student’s needs and nature of disability. The level of performance, goals, and objectives as stated in the IEP are the bases for assessment. Depending on the student’s needs, assessment tests may be conducted individually or in group settings on specified dates and times with full coordination with the school administration. Parents should be informed that these tests will be taking place, and a written approval should be obtained when necessary. Extra time to complete exams can be given when needed, and any materials required for the exams, such as material printed in braille for students with visual impairment, should be provided by the school.

Rights, Duties, and Responsibilities of Parents Collaboration between parents, schools, and teachers is deemed to be very important. Such collaboration can be through ongoing exchanges of information, periodic reports, and setting educational goals. In the process of education for children with special needs, parents have certain rights as well as various duties and responsibilities. Examples of parents’ rights related to their children with disabilities in the UAE include: 1. Parents have the right of full access to all school information regarding programs provided for their children. 2. Schools must establish positive relationships with parents based on mutual interest and effective communication. 3. Schools must provide parents with periodic reports on the progress of students in achieving the goals set for them in education plans.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

177

178

Samir Dukmak and Hytham Bany Issa 4. Parents have the right to be informed of all dates of meetings and assessments that are related to their children’s education. 5. Parents have the right to be informed of any formal evaluations of their children, and notified before any changes in placement. 6. Parents have the right to participate and volunteer in any activities related to their children or to the school their children attend. 7. The school should encourage parents in all the above. In addition to enjoying the above rights, parents of children with special needs also have duties and responsibilities. These may include (but are not limited to) the following: 1. Parents should attend all meeting and assessments related to their children’s education. 2. Parents should maintain effective communication and correspondence with the school administration. 3. Parents should accept a role in the implementation of education plans for their children. 4. Parents are required to provide relevant information related to their children. 5. Parents are required to communicate with the district or school in case of an emergency.

DI F F E R E NC E S A N D VA R I AT ION S I N OPP ORT U N I T Y A N D I N AC C E S S

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Mild Verses Severe Disabilities The authors underscore that the most appropriate placement for the majority of students with special needs is the regular/mainstream school. However, it seems that education authorities in a number of countries believe that inclusion of all children in regular classrooms is the way forward in providing equal opportunities for children. While such a general rule applies for students with mild disabilities, and may even also apply for some students with moderate disabilities, all children are not born equal and some require more than one educational approach in order to reach their potential. For example, children with some severe disabilities will not be able to participate in academic programs in mainstream schools and therefore require special programs in order to have their needs met and their independence increased. It is difficult for the teacher simultaneously to meet the needs of the student with a severe disability and the typically developed child. In such a situation, both students will be discriminated against; the typically developing student will not get the attention he or she requires, and the student with the severe disability will be neglected. On the other hand, the nature of the disability that a student has, considered within the context of resources available, most certainly influences the consideration of inclusion in a mainstream school. For example, a student who has a physical disability and normal

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Improving Special Education in the United Arab Emirates intellectual abilities can be included in the mainstream school if he/she has necessary aids and equipment available, is supported by properly trained school staff, has access to trained professionals such as occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech therapists, and so on. If this is his/her school environment, we have a formula for positive outcomes. In the UAE, many students with low academic achievement and mild disabilities are included in regular classrooms in mainstream schools. However, many others are transferred from regular classrooms to special education classrooms in the same schools. A third group of students regularly visit a school resource room for instruction in specific academic skills. All of these students were enrolled in their schools before it was known that they had a disability, or are at risk of having a disability or low academic achievement. Unfortunately, students who are diagnosed as having a disability before enrolling to study in mainstream schools are not accepted. Furthermore, no students with severe disabilities have ever been accepted to study in the mainstream schools in the country.

I DE N T I F IC AT ION, A S S E S S M E N T, PL AC E M E N T A N D I M PL E M E N TAT ION A student in a regular education classroom whose performance does not meet expectations compared to his/her peers should be referred to the School Support Team (SST), who will create an intervention plan to improve performance. However, if performance does not improve, eligibility for a special education program is considered. The Ministry of Education (2010) document identifies specific procedures for identifying students with disabilities and provides guidelines for deciding upon the best education placement. There are six steps in the process:

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Step One: Referral A student who is experiencing learning problems and who is not making satisfactory progress is referred to the SST by means of a written referral. The SST is usually formed by the school principal and normally consists of the school principal, the student’s teacher, a special education teacher, a social worker, a speech and language therapist, and a psychologist. The SST meets on a weekly basis to discuss the academic performance of referred students, reviews medical histories, and conducts a classroom observation on the areas of concern. On these bases, recommendations for pre-referral intervention to overcome students’ learning problems are made. After a maximum of 4 weeks of intervention, the intervention may be discontinued if progress is adequate. On the other hand, if a student’s progress is not adequate, the student is referred to the Zone Coordinator of the Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team (MET) for a comprehensive evaluation and determination of eligibility for special education and related services.

Step Two: Assessment, Evaluation, and Eligibility Determination The referred student undergoes a comprehensive assessment by the MET, which consists of a special education teacher, the student’s teacher, the student’s parent, the school principal, a psychologist, a social worker, and other specialists who may be deemed necessary. The team members assess the student’s strengths, needs, academic level, and

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

179

180

Samir Dukmak and Hytham Bany Issa social functioning. The MET should complete its assessment within 30 days of receiving a referral from the SST. Next, a full assessment report on the student is written and sent to the Zone Coordinator. The coordinator schedules a meeting with the MET members to discuss the student’s case and to determine the student’s eligibility for and need of a special education program and related services.

Step Three: IEP Development If the MET decides that the student is eligible to receive special education, the MET develops an IEP. The goals and objectives, accommodations, and modifications are the most important elements of the IEP. Accommodations and modifications in teaching methods, learning materials, and/or learning environment may be necessary to meet the individual needs of the student and should be specified in the IEP. Accommodations are changes that do not alter what is being taught, but include alterations of environment, curriculum format, or equipment that allow a student with a disability to gain access to content and/ or complete assigned tasks. Such accommodations may include, but are not limited to, sign language, text-to-speech interpreters, text-to-speech computer-based systems, large-print books, and so on. Modifications are also specified in the IEP and may take the form of reducing the number of assignments or modifying them significantly.

Step Four: IEP Implementation Written approval for the IEP is obtained from the parents, and implementation should start within a 2-week period. Placement decisions are made taking many factors into consideration such as identification of required services, what the least restrictive environment would be, the location of special education services, what behavior intervention plans are required, the need for an assistant teacher to facilitate the process of inclusion, support services that may be required, and so on.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Step Five: Monitor, Review, and Revise IEP The IEP implementation process should be reviewed regularly, and the progress of the student should be monitored. At the end of academic year, an IEP annual review report is prepared by the special education teacher. Accordingly, recommendations for the next school year are made.

Step Six: Certificate of Grade Completion Upon completion of a grade level, a student with special needs will receive a certificate indicating that he or she has a disability and has received special education services. In other words, students’ certificates include the category of disability they have, assistive technology they need, and the areas or subjects in which they excelled.

E DUC AT ION PL AC E M E N T As has been repeatedly noted, an important consideration in the UAE is providing students with disabilities an education in the least restrictive environment. Students should be educated with age-appropriate peers who do not have disabilities whenever

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Improving Special Education in the United Arab Emirates the regular classroom is deemed to be the best option for students who are eligible for special education services. For example, a student with special needs may be involved in a regular classroom and receive special education services only from a community-service provider, or may receive classroom-based or school-based special education programs and support services. Conversely, students with severe disabilities usually participate in a community- or center-based education program because they are unable to benefit fully from participation in a regular education school setting (UAE Ministry of Education, 2010). Students with learning problems that are primarily the result of factors related to environment, language, or economic status, or who simply experience academic failure, do not qualify for special education placements. These students are usually referred to the SST for intervention and support services (UAE Ministry of Education, 2010). In the case of gifted and talented students, regular schools provide advanced education programs to supplement the general education curriculum and provide a high level of enrichment activities. Enrichment activities may include independent studies and vocational guides that are detailed in a written document referred to as an Advanced Learning Plan (ALP). ALPs are developed by specialized teams to meet the needs, interests, and creativity of gifted and talented students. Procedures parallel the six-step process for referral and development of IEPs outlined previously.

M A JOR I S S U E S Several major issues in relation to special education in the UAE can be identified and require attention. These include the following areas: preparation and support for inclusive education, research into national and social readiness, integration with other school reforms, professional qualifications in special education, and assessment and diagnosis.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Preparation and Support for Inclusive Education As previously noted, the Ministry of Education is adopting the inclusive education policy in the UAE. However, implementation requires proper preparation—simply adopting the policy does not automatically lead to successful inclusive education programs. According to Kauffman (1993), at least three factors contribute to successful inclusion programs: preparation by administrators, teamwork between educators, and professional inputs. Disability type and severity are other factors to consider for successful inclusion. Florian (1998, p. 22) suggests a set of conditions that must be in place for successful implementation of inclusive education policies: 1. An opportunity for student participation in the decision-making process. 2. A positive attitude about the learning abilities of all students. 3. Teachers’ knowledge about learning difficulties. 4. Skilled application of specific instructional methods. 5. Parent and teacher support.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

181

182

Samir Dukmak and Hytham Bany Issa Successful inclusion also requires adequate support and assistance for teachers (Downing & Williams, 1997; Minke & Bear, 1996) and a restructuring of schools and classrooms within schools (Phillips & Sapona, 1995) so that properly planned, inclusive arrangements benefit all children (Leyden & Miler, 1998). Providing adequate support may be a prodigious undertaking (Minke & Bear, 1996).

Research Into National and Social Readiness In its General Rules for the Provision of Special Education Programs and Services (2010), the UAE Ministry of Education identifies many interesting current issues in the provision of special education for students with special educational needs. However, one important element that is not mentioned is the need for significant amounts of further research. Most obviously, research to identify the needs, obstacles, difficulties, and problems that stand in the way of implementing the policy of inclusion in the UAE is needed. Such research includes study of the efficacy of both regular and special education teachers. The results will provide the scientific basis needed to successfully implement policies, programs, and distribution of services. One related area that such research must also address is attitudes toward inclusive education. Investigation into what extent UAE society is at this point ready to adopt and implement an inclusive policy and orientation is crucial. The planning and implementation process of inclusive education cannot be undertaken without reference to the attitudes of all who will be involved in and affected by the inclusion process. In other words, the Ministry of Education needs to take the initiative to study and investigate public and professional attitudes toward, and readiness for, inclusive education in the UAE.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

School Reform When reforms of school systems are undertaken, it is imperative that the place of special education within the context of the reforms, and the implications for students with special needs, are considered before implementation. This principle needs to be recognized and adhered to; however, that is not always the case. While a discussion of school reforms in the UAE is well beyond the scope of this chapter, this important point nonetheless can be very briefly illustrated by noting two developments in the UAE. Over the last few years the Ministry of Education and the Abu Dhabi Education Council have created new forms of schooling in the country, including “partnership schools” (Emirates News Agency, WAM, 2006) and the “future schools” program (Afshan, 2010). The former seeks to improve public schools in Abu Dhabi by bringing together the public and private sectors in partnership to sponsor education and engaging private education providers. The latter, initially started in 2008 in the first three grades and recently extended to grade 4, was created for the purpose of developing bilingual UAE nationals. Certainly, such a brief description greatly and inexcusably simplifies the complexities of these new school initiatives and the purposes they serve. However, for the purposes of a discussion on the implications of these new schools and programs for special education, we may note the following threads binding both: First, in both the medium of instruction is English, while the students are non-English native speakers. Second, many native English speakers are brought in from abroad to teach. Third, the authors believe that teachers and other employees who are brought in from

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Improving Special Education in the United Arab Emirates overseas do not understand the culture of the UAE and are likely to encounter difficulties in adapting to the UAE culture. Finally, from the authors’ perspective, because of cultural differences between students and their teachers, students will experience difficulties adapting to their teachers. Different as the two programs and schools are, and notwithstanding their welldeserved successes in many areas, the fact remains that the school reform represented by “partnership schools” and “future schools” does not mention anything in relation to special education. What is the situation of special education in this school reform? Is English the medium of instruction also for students with special needs who are learning in special education classrooms, resource rooms, or regular classrooms in these schools? Do special needs students have different arrangements? Does having foreign teachers on staff present unique challenges for students with special needs? Such basic questions must be asked and resolutions effected in the context of any school reform when it is proposed.

Professional Qualifications in Special Education The majority of special education teachers in the UAE are specifically trained in the field of special education, but many other teachers work as special education teachers without any specialized training. Additionally, the country lacks professionals in many specializations such as speech therapy, audiology, hearing impairment, emotional and behavioral difficulties, evaluation and measurement, and so on. The majority of those who are qualified special educators have qualifications in general special education or in mild and moderate disabilities. However, it is almost impossible to find a person who is qualified in evaluation and measurement, or has professional qualifications in behavior modification. This lack of qualified personnel makes it difficult to provide effective special education for individuals with special needs.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Assessment and Diagnosis The assessment and diagnosis of individuals with special needs is a very important process required for planning education programs; assessment and diagnostic procedures have to be reliable and valid. Furthermore, tests have to be culturally unbiased. However, the UAE does not have proper culturally unbiased assessment tools such as UAE standardized IQ tests and adaptive behavior scales. According to Al-Hilawani, Koch, and Braaten (2008), the current assessment instruments used in the Gulf region do not reflect the culture. It is therefore not clear how children with special needs are classified or regrouped. Children’s intellectual disabilities or learning disabilities cannot be properly or accurately diagnosed unless culturally unbiased diagnostic tests such as IQ tests, adaptive behavior scales, and visual and auditory perception tests are available.

E M E RG I NG PR IOR I T I E S This closing section identifies four dimensions of special education in the UAE that particularly warrant attention and need to be improved. Three will be briefly highlighted; the fourth will be developed more fully.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

183

184

Samir Dukmak and Hytham Bany Issa

Enhanced Implementation of Inclusive Education One of the future trends for special education in the UAE is that children with special needs will be included and taught in the country’s regular/public school system. The UAE Ministry of Education document School for All: General Rules for the Provision of Special Education Programs and Services (Public & Private Schools; United Arab Emirates Ministry of Education, 2010) is a comprehensive and carefully crafted document that organizes and provides special education services for children with special needs. This document should be fully implemented and there should be a law against any violation of this document. Such legislation should cover issues related to vocational training for students with special needs or at least a plan to prepare students for vocations.

Professional Staffing Second, it is important for the future of special education in the UAE to have qualified personnel in the fields of evaluation and measurement in special education, emotional and behavioral difficulties, speech pathology, deaf education, and other tracks in special education. The UAE Ministry of Education is currently initiating serious efforts to cooperate with academic institutions in the country to train personnel in these specializations.

Developing Appropriate Instruments Third, for the reasons noted in the preceding section, serious efforts need to be undertaken in the UAE to construct culturally unbiased assessment and diagnostic tools such as IQ tests, adaptive behavior scales, and visual perception and auditory perception tests.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Developing a Framework for Understanding Fourth and finally, much more consideration of and research into the social context of special needs education is urgent. It is important to understand more deeply than is the case now how culture and social environment play critical roles in the perception and treatment of individuals with special needs. Cultures, customs, traditions, and societal values influence attitudes toward disabilities. Understanding attitudes toward individuals with special needs is very important as, ultimately, attitudes influence the provision of rehabilitation and education services (Dukmak, 2002). Unfortunately, in spite of an extensive search of the literature, the authors were unable to locate any studies that specifically investigated attitudes toward individuals with special needs in the UAE. That specific point is important to emphasize. Nonetheless, it is possible to make some general observations and draw limited conclusions on correlations between religion, culture, sociopolitical variables, and attitudes toward disability and persons with special needs that are relevant for this chapter.

Disability, Religion, and Attitudes There is a relationship between the attitudes of people toward individuals with special needs and religion. Fitzgerald (1997) and Miles (1995, 1997) underscore the important role religion plays in defining and confining the lives of people with special needs. Understanding the correlation is complex, however. On one hand, it is argued that the Islamic religion sees disability as a punishment from God resulting from a committed sin, “evil eye,” or a result of arbitrary consequences of divine will (Hamza, 1964).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Improving Special Education in the United Arab Emirates According to Miles (1997), there is no implication in Islam that disability must result from wrongdoing, but such an opinion is not uncommon among Muslims. Yet, a study carried out in the UAE (Crabtree, 2007) suggested that religion was seen to have an important influence over family life as religious interpretations by parents were positive forces that made them accept their child’s disability. Even as families often believed that the birth of a child with a disability was a curse or punishment from God for wrongdoing, strict adherence to Islamic values likely promoted a greater understanding and tolerance of disability. Social stigma of disabled children and their mothers was “ameliorated by the influences of religion” (Crabtree, 2007, p. 49). Additionally, attitudes toward individuals with disabilities might not only relate to the religions of people but also to what extent people are religious. For example, some studies (Feldman, 1976; Florian, 1977) found that Muslims and Jews who perceived themselves as nonreligious had more positive attitudes toward people with physical disabilities than people who perceived themselves as religious. Accordingly, the complex nexus of religion, disability, and attitudes warrants continuing investigation.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Disability, Gender, and Religion Various sectors of populations, including individuals with disabilities, are influenced by social prejudice. The disability rights movement plays a major role in modifying pervasive social prejudice toward individuals with disabilities, but the movement often fails to address the agendas of women with disabilities. Commensurate with this it may be observed that, internationally, disability rights movements are generally dominated by men (Abu-Habib, 1997). Women and children with disabilities, therefore, are considered the most marginalized groups in society (Brett, 2002). With regard to religion and gender, one study proposes that the position of men and women in Muslim families is polarized and subject to hierarchical distinction, although men and women are viewed as complementary (Stang Dahl, 1997). Consequently, in Muslim societies, gender norms and roles are clearly defined, particularly in relation to early child-rearing issues, which are virtually the exclusive domain of mothers as are educational concerns and the inculcation of spiritual and cultural values (Bouhdiba, 1997). Consequently, the responsibility for bringing a child with a disability into the world falls on the mother, with some serious consequences attached. This situation is not restricted to families in Gulf countries and other countries of the Middle East, but also to many other Muslim families in other parts of the world such as in Pakistan and Bangladesh (Fazil, Bywaters, Ali, Wallace, & Singh, 2002). Although there is a lack of literature on families and disabilities in the Middle East, the published work shows that social stigma is common in the region. According to Young (1997), individuals with disabilities in the Middle East are devalued to a considerable degree. Mothers may be repudiated by their husbands and nondisabled children. Daughters will find their marriage prospects blighted.

Disability, Culture, and Attitudes People with special needs usually face two types of problems: one is coping with the public rejection that comes from societal attitudes; the other is personal adjustment to the disabling condition (English, 1971). According to Priestley (1998), “many of our

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

185

186

Samir Dukmak and Hytham Bany Issa dominant cultural values about disability are themselves disabling” (p. 27). In general terms, the societal rejection of the disability is constructed as the individual’s misfortune, rather than as social exclusion or oppression. Imrie (1997) argues that the social, attitudinal, and environmental barriers in society are an important component in disabling people with physical and/or intellectual disabilities. Prejudice against people with physical disabilities has been found to be associated with cultural norms that were related to health and physical appearance (Schneider & Anderson, 1980). It has been argued that individuals with special needs are viewed more positively in modern cultures than in traditional societies (Jordan & Friesen, 1968). In the case of Eastern cultures, when physical disabilities are interpreted as punishment from heaven or the results of unnatural forces, they are perceived as being unchangeable by medical means. Thus, the attitudes of people toward physical disabilities who live within these cultures can be characterized by a passive acceptance of fate, as well as pity toward the individuals with a physical disability (Katz, Hass, & Bailey, 1988). In the Middle East in general, and the Gulf region in particular, children with special needs live in a culture where there have been efforts to hide individuals with disabilities from society. This is because families are faced with the negative consequences of labeling their children. Identification and disclosure carry social consequences to such a degree that some families, especially those who have children with severe disabilities, are more likely to keep them at home and hidden from society. In these cultures, families who have children with special needs may require many years to develop an understanding of individuals with disabilities. Fortunately, during the last 10 years, some progress has been made through educational initiatives and government actions.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Disability and Prosperity The UAE is different from the rest of the Arab region as it is not beleaguered by poverty like, for example, Jordan and Egypt, and the country is free from civil conflict such as exists in Palestine. Yet UAE families still face the problems of significant social stigma about disability. To date, these have yet to be ameliorated by open dialogue on issues pertaining to social inclusion of individuals with disabilities. That said, even if such debates have yet to be more fully introduced, there is substantial progress on many fronts. For example, the UAE takes justifiable pride in the medical and technological advances being made in the country, and that the nation’s recreational and leisure facilities are now wheelchair friendly (Eno, 2000). On the other hand, according to Crabtree (2007) social inclusion of individuals with disabilities in the UAE, in terms of education and employment, remains at a basic level. Even equal access to health services is not always extended to individuals with disabilities, and discrimination is particularly invidious where disability and immigrant status overlap. In many cases, problems related to rehabilitation services delivery are caused by the absence of specific policies and by deficits in the country’s administrative system. Other factors are related to the complexity and unresponsiveness that characterize the delivery system for rehabilitation services (Dukmak, 2009; Ma, Coyle, Wares, & Cornell, 1999; Timmons, Butterworth, Whitney-Thomas, Allen, & McIntyre, 2004). For all the above reasons, disability in the Middle East in general and the UAE in particular, is a subject that is ripe for investigation and full of hope and promise.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Improving Special Education in the United Arab Emirates The authors’ discussions under the “Major Issues” and “Emerging Priorities” sections constitute an attempt to stimulate that investigation in a positive and fruitful direction.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

R E F E R E NC E S Abu-Habib, L. (1997). Introduction. In L. Abu-Habib (Ed.), Gender & disability: Women’s experiences in the Middle East (pp. 1–8). Oxford, UK: Oxfam. Afshan, Ahmed. (2010, July 29). Madares Al Ghad system to be extended to grade 4. Khaleej Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew .asp?section=theuae&xfile=data/theuae/2010/july/theuae_july697.xml. Al-Hilawani, Y. A., Koch, K. R., Braaten, S. R. (2008). Enhancing services for students with mild disabilities in the Middle East Gulf Region: A Kuwait initiative. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 4(5), Article 1. Retrieved from http://journals.cec.sped.org/tecplus/vol4 /iss5/art1/. Al-Jenaibi, B. (2010). Differences between gender treatments in the workforce. Cross-Cultural Communication, 6(2), 63–74. Al Roumi, M. (2008, February 10). UAE ratifies UN convention on rights of people with disabilities. Gulf-News. Retrieved from http://www.gulfnews.com/nation/General/10188576 .html. Bouhdiba, A. (1997). The child and the mother in Arab-Muslim society. Psychological Dimensions of Near Eastern Studies, 1997, 126–141. Bradshaw, K., Tennant, L., & Lydiatt, S. (2004). Special education in the United Arab Emirates: Anxieties, attitudes & aspirations. International Journal of Special Education, 19(1), 49–55. Brett, J. (2002). The experience of disability from the perspective of parents of children with profound impairment: Is it time for an alternative model of disability. Disability & Society, 17(7), 825–843. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour. (2003, March 31). Country reports on human rights practices—2002. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/g /drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18291.htm. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour, (2006, March 8). Reports on human rights practices in the UAE (2005). Retrieved from http://www.uaeprison.com/human_rights _practices_report_uae_2005.htm Crabtree, A. S. (2007). Family responses to the social inclusion of children with developmental disabilities in the United Arab Emirates. Disability & Society, 22(1), 49–62. Crabtree, S. A. (2010). Engaging students from the United Arab Emirates in culturally responsive education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 85–94. Downing, J. E., & Williams, L. J. (1997). Inclusive education for students with severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 18(3), 133–153. Dukmak, S. (2002). Parental attitudes towards their children with special needs in Palestine. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Manchester, UK. Dukmak, S. (2009). Rehabilitation services in the United Arab Emirates as perceived by parents of children with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 75(4), 27–34. Emirates News Agency, WAM. (2006, February 21). “Partnership schools”—a new phase of national development. Retrieved from http://www.uaeinteract.com/docs/Partnership _schools__a_new_phase_of_national_development/19758.htm. Emirates News Agency, WAM. (2008, February 14). UAE signs protocol to Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.uaeinteract.com/docs/UAE _signs_Protocol_to_Convention_on_Rights_ofpersons_with_Disabilities/28632.htm. English, R. W. (1971). Correlates of stigma toward physically disabled persons. Rehabilitation Research and Practice Review, 2, 1–17.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

187

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

188

Samir Dukmak and Hytham Bany Issa Eno, F. A. (2000). A world of difference. WE Magazine, 4(2), 86. Fazil, Q., Bywaters, P., Ali, Z., Wallace, L., & Singh, G. (2002). Disadvantage and discrimination compounded: The experience of Pakistani and Bangladeshi parents of disabled children in the UK. Disability & Society, 17(3), 237–253. Feldman, E. (1976). Attitudes of Jewish and Arab village leaders towards rehabilitation of the disabled. Unpublished master’s thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Fitzgerald, J. (1997). Reclaiming the whole: self, spirit, and society. Disability and Rehabilitation, 19(10), 407–413. Florian, V. (1977). A comparison of attitudes towards the physically disabled between Jewish and Arab high school students. Megamot, 2, 184–192. Florian, L. (1998). Inclusive practice: what, why and how? In C. Tilstone, L. Florian, L. Rose, & R. Rose (Eds.), Promoting inclusive practice (pp. 13–26). London: Routledge. Hamza, N. (1964). The psychology of handicapped. Cairo: Egypt Press. Imrie, R. (1997). Rethinking the relationships between disability, rehabilitation and society. Disability and Rehabilitation, 19(7), 263–271. Jordan, J. E., & Friesen, E. W. (1968). Attitudes of rehabilitation personnel towards physically disabled persons in Columbia, Peru, and the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 74, 151–161. Katz, I., Hass, R., & Bailey, J. (1988). Attitudinal ambivalence and behavior towards people with disabilities. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes towards persons with disabilities (pp. 47–57). New York: Springer. Kauffman, J. M. (1993). How we might achieve the radical reform of special education. Exceptional Children, 60, 6–16. Leyden, G., & Miller, A. (1998). Including all our children in mainstream school and comments: Realizing the dream. Educational Psychology in Practice, 14(3), 188–193. Ma, G. X., Coyle, C., Wares, D., & Cornell, D. (1999). Assessment of services to American Indians with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 11–16. Miles, M. (1983). Attitudes towards persons with disabilities following I.Y.D.P. (1981) with suggestions for promoting positive change. Peshawar, Pakistan: Mental Health Center, Mission Hospital Peshawar. Miles, M. (1995). Disability in an Eastern religious context: Historical perspectives. Disability & Society, 10(1), 49–69. Miles, M. (1997). Afghan children and mental retardation: information, advocacy and prospects. Disability & Rehabilitation, 19(11), 496–500. Minke, K., & Bear, G. (1996). Teachers’ experience with inclusive classrooms: Implications for special education reform. Journal of Special Education, 30(2), 35–73. Phillips, L., Sapona, R., & Lubic, B. L. (1995). Developing partnerships in inclusive education: one school’s approach. Intervention in school and Clinic, 30, 262–272. Priestley, M. (1998). Disability politics and community care. London: Jessica Kingsley. Salloum, H. (2003). Women in the United Arab Emirates. Contemporary Review, 283(1651), 101–104. Schneider, C. R., & Anderson, W. (1980). Attitudes toward the stigmatized. Some insight from recent research. Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin, 23, 299–313. Stang Dahl, T. (1997). The Muslim family: A study of women’s rights in Islam. Oxford, UK: Scandinavian University Press. Swadi, H., & Eapen, V. (2000). A controlled study of psychiatric morbidity among developmentally disabled children in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics, 46, 278–281.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Improving Special Education in the United Arab Emirates

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Timmons, J. C., Butterworth, J., Whitney-Thomas, J., Allen, D., & McIntyre, J. P. (2004). Managing services delivery systems and the role of parents during their children’s transitions. Journal of Rehabilitation, 70(2), 19–26. United Arab Emirates. (2006). Federal Law No. 29/2006 in respect of the rights of people with special needs. United Arab Emirates Ministry of Education. (2010). School for all: General rules for the provision of special education programs and services (public & private schools). Abu Dhabi, UAE: Ministry of Education, Department of Special Education. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities and Optional Protocol. New York: Author. Young, W. C. (1997). Disability, spiritual beliefs and the church: The experiences of adults with disabilities and family members. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(5), 594–603.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

189

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved. International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

South Asia—Diversity, Progress, and Challenges

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Part Five

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved. International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

10 Facing the Challenge of Inclusion in India

Maya Kalyanpur and Anjali Misra

“Come to India! One billion people can’t be wrong,” reads a popular tourism slogan, which, like many witticisms, hides an ineluctable truth. For many, the first image of India is of a teeming population, second only to that of China’s—and they would not be far wrong. India is the seventh largest country in the world. In an area roughly one-third the size of the United States but with a population three times as large, India has 17% of the world’s population. Three of India’s largest cities—Mumbai, Kolkata, and Delhi—each have populations larger than Los Angeles, the second-largest city in the United States. However, 72% of the Indian population lives in rural areas. This diamond-shaped country dominates South Asia, jutting into the Indian Ocean in the south and crowned by the Himalayas in the north. India’s neighbors, Pakistan in the west, Nepal and China in the north, Bangladesh and Myanmar in the east, and Sri Lanka in the south, have strong political and cultural links with it. In fact, both Pakistan and Bangladesh (then called East Pakistan) were new countries carved out of India as part of the political negotiations for independence from the British in 1947. Indian civilization is the only one that has lasted unbroken and relatively unchanged through the millennia. Hinduism, the predominant religion in the prehistoric Rig Vedic period, prevails even today, outlasting all other religions. It withstood invasions from Alexander the Great in the 4th century bc and the Mongols in the 12th century ad as well as empire building by the Mughals from the early 17th to the mid-19th centuries and the British from the mid-18th to the mid-20th centuries. India is a secular democratic republic. The structure of its central government is based on its colonial heritage of the British parliamentary system, with distinct but interrelated executive, legislative, and judicial branches. It has both a prime minister and a president, although the latter’s duties are mostly ceremonial. With a brief 2-year exception, India has maintained a democratic political system, tainted by dynastic rule and political corruption but tempered by legislative measures. For example, the 2005 Right to Information Law served to create a highly engaged and increasingly empowered electorate (Polgreen, 2010). As a republic, India’s 29 states (there are also seven federally administered union territories) have independent state rights, in particular with regard to education. Currently, the central government contributes 25% to state coffers toward expenditures in education, with specific emphasis on implementation of universal primary education or Education for All (EFA) programs. Contemporary India is very much a country in transition. Since the early 1990s, when the postindependence socialist policies gave way to privatization and a free-market 193

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

194

Maya Kalyanpur and Anjali Misra economy, numerous problems have prevailed. These include substantial poverty, large income gaps between wealthy and poor, and a mass of people who lack the skills to participate in the new economy.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E S O C I A L FA BR IC Only the continent of Africa exceeds the linguistic, cultural, and genetic diversity of India (Library of Congress, 2004). Each state has its own language, cuisine, customs, and history. This diversity is probably best exemplified by the variety of languages spoken: There are 22 regional officially recognized languages, with Hindi being the national language and the most commonly spoken. However, the Indian Census lists 114 languages spoken by 1 million or more persons and 216 dialects. Other sources estimate that 850 languages and 1,600 dialects are in daily use (Library of Congress, 2004). As a result, many Indians speak more than one language. Similarly, every major religion is represented. Hindus constitute 80.5% of the population; 13.5% are Muslims (there are more Muslims in India than in the entire Middle East), and 2.3% Christian. Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Zoroastrians, and Jews make up the remaining 4%. Perhaps because of its immense diversity, India is also a country of contradictions. For instance, using Green Revolution agricultural technologies, the country has become self-sufficient in food production. However, 35% of the population continues to live in poverty—that is, on less than $2 a day (United Nations Development Programme, 2009). Similarly, India has more newspapers than any other nation, and newspaper readership grows annually by millions. Further, it has developed an educational infrastructure that has trained one of the world’s largest scientific and technical populations (Library of Congress, 2004). However, in 2007, the average adult (age 15 and older) literacy rate was only 66% (United Nations Development Programme, 2009). Certainly India’s enormous population, which at a growth rate of 1.37% is likely to exceed China’s by 2050, has contributed to these startling discrepancies. For instance, in 2007, there were nearly 195 million children of school age (6 to 14 years; Kaushik, 2007), making it difficult for necessary services to keep up with demand. According to UNESCO (2005, cited in Singal, 2006a), India is one of 35 countries most unlikely to meet the EFA goal by 2015. At a simplistic level, it could be argued that these contradictions are the result of having too many people and too few resources—that it is merely a question of numbers. However, the interplay of other factors on politics and policy cannot be overlooked. In this section, we examine how three factors—the interconnection between caste and class, the medium of instruction as a legacy of colonialism, and gender discrimination—affect the education of poor children, girls, and, by extension, children with disabilities.

Poverty and the Caste–Class Nexus Much like race in the United States and class in the United Kingdom, caste is embedded into the social fabric of India, affecting virtually every aspect of its political–economic milieu. Social stratification in traditional Indian society was based on a fivefold division of society (Ramaswamy, 2005). These social strata consisted of three high castes, a fourth

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Facing the Challenge of Inclusion in India “nonpolluting” caste, and the lowest, ritually polluting caste, referred to as the scheduled castes by the government. The lowest caste members prefer to refer to themselves as Dalits. The first three groups received the greatest social prestige, the greatest secular power, and the greatest material wealth, in that order, while the fourth group performs various services for them, particularly in the field of agriculture. Dalits are confined to the least desirable occupations—scavengers, sweepers, washermen, and laborers— resulting in extreme poverty, in addition to being socially stigmatized and residentially segregated. Since independence in 1947, the Indian government has made several efforts to improve the status of Dalits, including abolishing ritual segregation through community development and welfare programs, and instituting “reservations,” a form of affirmative action (Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment [MSJE], 2006). As a country in transition, these policies and the process of modernization have produced an environment conducive to upward social mobility for Dalits (Yardley, 2010). However, the high correlation between caste and poverty continues to create “a lethal cocktail of educational denial” (Kaushik, 2007, p. 16). For instance, Dalit children constitute 57.3% of the total number of children enrolled in grade 1 who drop out before completing grade 8. Further, when families lack the economic capability to provide for their children’s education or cannot forgo the income the child brings by earning a wage instead of attending school, the legacy of poverty is passed from one generation to the next.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Medium of Instruction as a Legacy of Colonialism The colonial system of education was overtly elitist, designed to create a class of English-speaking, Western-thinking Indians to fill the lower tiers of the administrative system. Ironically, the postcolonial system that purports to be egalitarian has actually perpetuated the class distinctions and elitism by stepping quietly into the shoes of the system the British left behind (Balagopalan, 2002). Private English medium schools, originally established by Christian missionaries, became the means for children of the Indian upper castes to access an education in English. With independence, new state boundaries were drawn up along lines of language usage. The central government decided to adopt Hindi as the national language, although it was spoken by only 40% of the population. The government imposed compulsory learning of Hindi as a second language in all states, with the primary medium of instruction being the regional or official state language (Ilaiah, 2007). Currently, students in government-run schools learn in the regional language of their state (which may or may not coincide with their mother tongue). They start learning Hindi as a second language from grade 3 onward, and English as a third language from grade 7 onward. All central and many state government-run higher education institutions teach in English. Thus, students who have been educated in English from the beginning have a considerable edge—given that less than 2% of students are accepted into elite institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology—over those who began to study it in grade 7. Indeed, as Varma (2007) states, “The English language has become one of the most subtle forms of social exclusion. Unless you speak it with the same fluency and accent, you’re immediately considered inferior in the social hierarchy” (p. 43).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

195

196

Maya Kalyanpur and Anjali Misra The economic liberalization policies of the 1990s have contributed to education becoming “a growth industry and a commodity for sale and transaction, available only to those who can afford it” (Sinha, 2007, p. 38) further reinforcing class and caste distinctions. Even today, only about 20% of children attend private schools; the rest receive an education in government-run, free schools.

Gender Discrimination Against Girls The cultural legacy of patrilineage and “strong son-preference” among many communities makes women and girls the victims of discriminatory practices and abuse (Patel, 2003). For instance, the patriarchal perception of women as burdens relegates them to subordinate positions in the family, forces them into low-paid or unpaid jobs in the workforce, and denies them property and inheritance rights. The idea of woman as burden is embedded in the cultural belief that any economic investment in girls, such as an education, accrues to the husband, not to the natal family, as opposed to boys, whose education is seen as feeding back into the earnings and status of the family. As a result, more girls than boys are likely to be out of school at all ages. For instance, 6.8% of girls between the ages of 11 and 14 are not in school, as opposed to 5.3% of boys of the same age range (Annual Status of Education Report [ASER], 2010). Girls constitute 51.2% of the total number of children enrolled in grade 1 who drop out before completing grade 8 (Kaushik, 2007). A large number of girls also drop out of the education system around puberty for reasons of safety, particularly if schools are located a distance away from the family home (requiring them to travel alone), or because they are needed to help with household chores or income generation (Mehrotra, 2005). Regional variations do exist. For example, in Kerala there is complete retention until age 12 with females outnumbering males.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E G E N E R A L S C HO OL S Y S T E M The educational system in India is so complex and multitiered that no chart can do summative justice for the numerous variations and exceptions to the rule. Table 1 provides a general overview of the basic structure. Two parallel systems of education have emerged in India: the government system and the nongovernment system. The government system, which does not charge fees, has two components: formal and informal education. At the primary level, the formal government system of education is considered inferior to the nongovernmental systems because schools have fewer resources and English is not the medium of instruction. However, a few secondary-level educational programs such as the Kendriya Vidyalaya (Central Schools) have maintained a high standard of education with outcomes comparable with the nongovernmental system. Government-run higher education institutions have produced an elite class that has held its own in technology and science within the global arena. The informal educational system was developed to provide alternative, flexible options to children who have either never attended school or had dropped out and were overage, such as migrant or street children, as well as literacy programs for adults (Department of School Education and Literacy, 2005). Currently, options offered through the National

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Facing the Challenge of Inclusion in India Table 1. Structure of General Education Systema Major Educational characteristics levels

Government Formal

Voluntary, nonprofit

Private, for profit

Sources of revenue

Taxes, grants

Government monies, matching funds from foreign agencies, international donors

Corporate funds and tuition fees

Costs for beneficiaries

None (some schools may charge tuition on a sliding scale)

Ranges from none, nominal fee to fee based

Fee based

Mostly lower middle class and working class; some disadvantaged children (e.g., poor children, rural children, street children, children with disabilities)

Disadvantaged children

Middle-class and affluent children

Target beneficiariesa

Preschool (3 to 6 years) Primary (7 to 14 years) Secondary (15 to 17 years) Tertiary (18+)

Medium of instructiona

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Nonformal

Nongovernment

Adult Nonea literacy and alternative school completion programs

Preschool (3 to 6 years)

Regional language

Primary (7 to 14 years) Grades 1 to 10

Regional language; national language introduced at grade 3

Secondary (15 to 17 years) Grades 11 to 12

Regional language; English introduced at grade 7

Tertiary (18+ years) (3 years baccalaureate degree)

English

Regional language

Regional language, with national languagea

English

a This presents only a general picture. There may be exceptions in which some agencies and government programs target additional beneficiary groups or provide instruction in English.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

197

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

198

Maya Kalyanpur and Anjali Misra Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) include distance learning as well as face-to-face programs for traditional school certificates, vocational education coursework, bridge courses, back-to-school camps, seasonal hostels, and drop-in centers to reach children who cannot attend formal schools. The NIOS curriculum has become an attractive alternative for many students with disabilities enrolled in inclusive schools who need the flexibility of staggered courses and examinations (Singal, 2006b), even though the program has been criticized for substandard quality, resulting in limited future life opportunities (Nambisson, 2000; Singal, 2009). The nongovernmental education system that developed as a response to the government shortfall also has two components: voluntary, nonprofit agencies and private, for-profit agencies. Voluntary agencies (also referred to as nongovernmental organizations or NGOs) target disadvantaged, out-of-school communities, such as street children, poor children in rural areas, and children with disabilities. Many voluntary agencies receive government funding that is then matched through donations from large businesses, foreign agencies, or international donors, on the understanding that beneficiaries will be charged nothing or only a nominal fee to offset specific recurring costs (Chadha, 2005). Private, for-profit agencies, always a presence, have burgeoned with economic liberalization into “a differentiated school system with schools to suit every pocket” (Sinha, 2007, p. 36). Parental perceptions hold that that these English-medium schools have more to offer. Such schools accounted for 21% of total enrollments at the elementary level in 2009 (ASER, 2010). While these parallel structures predominate in the regular education system, they also prevail in the special education system, as the next section describes. Although variations may exist across states, school attendance in general education is compulsory up to the age of 14 years and the general pattern of education is 10+2+3. Primary education consists of grades 1 to 5, upper primary consists of grades 6 to 8, and lower secondary education consists of grades 9 and 10. Grades 1 to 8 are also referred to as elementary education and grades 1 to 10 constitute basic education (Chauhan, 2009; see Table 2). After passing grade 10 examinations to complete basic education, students Table 2. Level of Schooling by Grade Level Grade level/ number of years Grades 1 to 5 Grades 6 to 8 Grades 9 to 10 Grades 11 to 12

3 years 2 years Variable

Level of Education Primary Elementary Upper primary Lower secondary Pre-university or upper secondary (students can choose to take these years in school or at university) Graduate (baccalaureate or bachelor’s degree) Postgraduate (or master’s) MPhil and PhD

Basic education

Secondary

University

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Facing the Challenge of Inclusion in India specialize in arts, science, or commerce areas. Passing national examinations after grade 12 qualifies students for university entrance, although admission grade requirements are very high. In the past 10 years, the government has built more schools than in the previous 40 years (Chauhan, 2009). Despite the increase in the number of private and government schools, overall demand far outstrips supply. As a result, admission into private schools has become highly competitive, typically involving a series of tests and interviews to wean out all but the best from long waiting lists. In this system, inequalities relating to caste or class and gender are exacerbated. For instance, girls and children from traditionally disadvantaged caste groups are generally underrepresented in the private school system (Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2006).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION S E RV IC E S Special education services are provided within this framework of general education. Historically, voluntary agencies have predominated in providing service for people with disabilities in India (Alur, 2002a; Misra, 2000). This started with Christian missionaries, who created special schools in the 1880s, and some government intervention in the 1940s during British rule, with sheltered workshops for war veterans. At first, the newly independent Indian government preferred to focus on setting up national research institutes and awarding scholarships to deserving students with disabilities while granting monetary assistance to voluntary agencies to continue to establish special schools. However, in the 1970s when the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recommended that developing countries implement inclusive schooling as a cost-effective alternative to educating children with disabilities separately, the Indian government responded with a pilot project. This was the Integrated Education of Disabled Children scheme, which was eventually subsumed under two generic development programs: the District Primary Education Program (DPEP) and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) or EFA program (Rao, Narayan, & Mani, 2005). As a result, educational services for children with disabilities are provided through both formal and informal components of government programs (as in the regular education system) as well as through voluntary agencies (Chadha, 2005). Most special schools have been established by NGOs and are disability specific. Many are residential. Some parents prefer special schools because of the ease of access to a variety of services, including medical treatment, adaptive equipment, trained teachers, and an individualized curriculum (Raver, 2001). However, the existing special schools can accommodate only a very limited number of children. In recent years, the government has started giving subsidies to private schools for offering inclusive education to students with disabilities. Although this has resulted in increased inclusion, access has been governed by a variety of factors. For one, admission is based on available resources and only students who require minimal or no assistance are likely to be included. For another, schools accept children if parents are willing to find and pay for additional support services such as an aide, speech and occupational therapy, assessment, and remedial help at home (Thirumurthy & Jayaraman, 2007). In addition, the highly competitive environment of general education, the unbending

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

199

200

Maya Kalyanpur and Anjali Misra demands of the curriculum that includes having to learn three languages, and the lack of testing modifications in most schools place many students with disabilities—in particular, students with language disabilities—at a distinct disadvantage.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

OV E RV I E W OF S PEC I A L N E E D S According to the most recent round of the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO, 2003), the total number of people with disabilities in India is 18.49 million, about 1.8% of the total population. In a comprehensive situational analysis of the disability sector in India, the World Bank (2007) noted that using broader definitions of mental illness and developmental disabilities could result in a prevalence as great as 40 million. In terms of educational levels, the report found that about 38% of children with disabilities aged 6 to 13 years were not attending school. Some 55% of adults with disabilities were illiterate, with only 7% in rural and 18% in urban areas having completed secondary education. More recently, Alur and Bach (2010) estimated that children with disabilities constituted 27% of all out-of-school children, including 75% of all children with severe disabilities and 30% of all children with mild disabilities. Those who do attend school rarely progress beyond primary grades. The 2003 NSSO survey also found that children with developmental disabilities, individuals in rural areas, and girls with disabilities receive even fewer services than most people with disabilities. Girls with disabilities, especially after age 12, have lower enrollment ratios than boys with disabilities as measured by regions (urban and rural), by type of schooling (regular and special schools), and by level (primary and secondary). Prevailing cultural attitudes may account for this. For instance, many families choose not to educate their child, particularly if the child is severely disabled or has multiple disabilities because of the belief that such a child would not benefit from an education (Misra, 2000). The limited availability of schools, especially in rural areas, is also a major contributory factor. It is estimated that there are only 2,500 or so private and government-run special schools in the country (World Bank, 2007). Rao and Reddy (2004) found that less than 15% of special education services were located in rural areas. C AUS E S OF DI S A BI L I T Y Major causes of disability in India are linked to poverty, malnutrition, communicable diseases, poor-quality prenatal care, and limited access to immunization for polio or measles. High prevalence rates of blindness result from vitamin A deficiency; diseases such as cholera and typhoid result from poor hygiene (Asian Development Bank [ADB], 2002). Another nutrition-related cause is iodine deficiency, which results in developmental and physical disabilities and growth deficits in millions of children. Currently, 30% of households use noniodized salt (International Institute for Population Sciences, 2000). Iron deficiency, which can seriously impede mental development and cause anemia (Govinda & Bandyopadhyay, 2008), affects 74% of people younger than 33 and 95% of adolescent girls (United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF], 2004). Polio is a major contributor of physical disabilities and, with blindness, is at least four times more likely

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Facing the Challenge of Inclusion in India to occur among the poor (Pinto & Sahu, 2001). Road and agricultural accidents and injuries also cause physical disabilities. The unfortunate fact is that large numbers of children become disabled from preventable factors. Ensuring the vaccination of all children continues to present problems because vaccines are often rendered ineffective through poor storage conditions and heat. In addition, medical services are often inaccessible in rural areas: Approximately 70% of doctors practice in urban centers. People from rural areas often depend on temporary government medical camps for immunization and other medical services.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

L A BE L I NG OF DI S A BI L I T I E S Scholars assert that the labeling process may be deeply problematic (Kalyanpur, 2008a; Singal, 2009). For instance, the NSSO (2003) found almost equivalent rates of both incidence and prevalence of disability overall in both urban and rural areas. This happened despite the preponderance of a rural population and substantially greater prevalence rates for more visible conditions, such as locomotor and visual impairments, than less visible conditions, such as learning and developmental disabilities. An acute scarcity of identification and screening services in rural areas hardly helps (ADB, 2002; Rao & Reddy, 2004). Kalyanpur (2008a) has suggested that these discrepancies are the result of problematic definitions that emerge from the medical model and that identify deviations from developmental milestones rather than on common understandings and perceptions of disability. For instance, although people are identified as being disabled if they have “less than 40% functioning,” no guidelines for identifying this functional level are provided. Also, because of the social stigma, many people will not admit having a family member with a disability, which could result in an undercount. Because of traditional discriminatory attitudes against females, often girls in northern and western India are consistently undernourished, resulting in mild levels of developmental delay. However, they may not be perceived as being mentally retarded within the collective perceptions of their communities (Sen, 2005). Similarly, Pai (2002) found that village children in Maharashtra with mild mental retardation and hearing impairments, which did not prevent them from earning an income for the family, were not perceived as disabled. A MOU N T O F E DUC AT ION A L I N T EG R AT ION India has made a commitment to inclusive education, and the term has gained popularity in government documents and school systems (Kalyanpur, 2008b; Singal, 2006b). Inclusion, however, has different interpretations, and the focus is mostly on ensuring that children with disabilities are within the educational system. As a result, all educational settings, including special schools, are considered inclusive. Children with disabilities receive educational services through both the government and the nongovernment regular and special schools. As mentioned before, the two major government initiatives—DPEP and SSA—target children with disabilities. As a result, the number of children with disabilities in the regular school system exceeds the number in special schools. Of all 5- to 14-year-old students with disabilities who have access to

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

201

202

Maya Kalyanpur and Anjali Misra schooling, 94.5% are in regular schools and 5.7% are in special schools (World Bank, 2007). Under the DPEP, more than 600,000 children with special needs have been enrolled in regular schools (World Bank, 2007). However, the primary focus of this program is on the identification of disabilities and distribution of aids and appliances rather than educational inclusion (Singal, 2006b). On the other hand, the SSA program was launched in 2003 with the specific purpose of implementing the government’s platform for EFA. It targets all children between the ages of 6 to 14 years, including children with special needs, and offers schools cash grants of up to Rs.1,200 (about US$26) per child per year (World Bank, 2007). Despite government programs, children with disabilities are five and a half times more likely to be out of school than their nondisabled peers and about four times more when compared to the scheduled caste or Dalit population (World Bank, 2007). Most disconcertingly, as overall attendance rates increase, children with disabilities have begun to account for greater proportions of out-of-school children. In other words, children with disabilities are the last group of out-of-school children who are able to access school.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Dimensions of the Provision of Equal Access In the 1990s, the government enacted three disability-related legislations (see Kalyanpur, 2008b, for a more comprehensive analysis). Responding to the need for capacity building, the 1992 Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) Act established the RCI as a statutory body mandating minimum teacher certification standards in special education and rehabilitation (Misra, 2000). The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) (PWD) Act of 1995 and the National Trust (for the Welfare of Persons With Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation, and Multiple Disabilities) Act of 1999 followed. The 1995 PWD Act mandates yearly screenings for disabilities and access to a free education in an appropriate environment for every disabled child. The 1999 National Trust Act provides for the constitution of a central body, the National Trust, to enable people with disabilities to live within their communities and develops procedures for appointing a guardian or trustee in the event of a parent’s death. The recently enacted Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 is the first nondisability-focused legislation that delineates children with disabilities as a separate category from other disadvantaged groups. Table 3 provides a summary of this legislation. At the ministerial level, the 2006 National Policy for Persons With Disabilities and the Action Plan for Inclusion in Education of Children and Youth With Disabilities (IECYD) have sought to ensure that when children with disabilities are placed in inclusive settings, existing physical infrastructures and teaching methodologies are modified to meet their needs. The policy expands coverage in rural and unserved areas, mandating 3% coverage of persons with disabilities in poverty-reduction programs. The action plan also provides for in- and preservice training in disability and inclusive education to regular education and preschool (anganwadi) teachers through collaboration with the Rehabilitation Council and the National Council for Teacher Education. It recommends that some special schools convert to resource centers for teacher training and materials while others remain as special schools, providing children with severe intellectual or multiple disabilities with home-based services.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Facing the Challenge of Inclusion in India Table 3. Legislation Law Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 National Trust (for the Welfare of Persons With Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation, and Multiple Disabilities) Act, 1999 Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

Mandate Sets minimum standards for teacher training and certification for professionals in the field of special education and rehabilitation Provides education in appropriate environment, public awareness campaigns, 3% reservation quota in employment, accessibility features in buildings, transport and other public services, and the appointment of a disability commissioner in each state to safeguard the rights of people with disabilities Provides the constitution of a central body, the National Trust, to enable people with a disability to live within their communities by extending need-based services for families in crisis (including respite care, foster family care or day care, residential hostels, and homes), developing procedures for appointing a guardian or trustee in the event of a parent’s death, and establishing self-help groups Reiterates the government’s promise of a child’s right to free education of equitable quality, espousing the idea of rights within the culturally responsive framework social justice and collective advocacy. Specifies practical modifications, such as modified textbooks and barrier-free school buildings

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

ROL E S O F PA R E N T G ROU P S Over the years, the role of parent groups has become increasingly prominent. Similar to parent groups in the United States, the initial objectives were to provide services for their children. Most parent groups, therefore, were established around special schools and, as the children grew up, expanded to workshops and similar vocational options. In the absence of government intervention, many parent groups provided training courses for teachers and became clearinghouses for disseminating information about services. In 1994, several parent associations consolidated to form a National Federation of Parents’ Associations called Parivaar (or family), which has since become a major force in advocating on behalf of children with disabilities and their families. For instance, Parivaar played a pivotal role in lobbying for the enactment of the 1999 Family Trust Act (J. P. Gadkari, president, Parivaar, personal communication, March 8, 2010). While this act mandates specific services, such as the provision of a guardianship arrangement, it does not mandate any parental rights, such as equal partnerships with professionals, as explicitly provided, for instance, through the Individuals With Disabilities Act for parents in the United States. On an individual level, the level of parent involvement and empowerment tends to depend on the parents’ socioeconomic status and, even more so, on the willingness of the professionals to engage with them. While many private schools do encourage participation in classrooms, fundraising, and cultural events, most government schools do

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

203

204

Maya Kalyanpur and Anjali Misra not have an open door policy where parents can have easy access to the principal or teachers (Jambunathan & Caulfield, 2008). Typical parent–teacher relationships can be characterized as formal and bound by hierarchy and distance (Kalyanpur & Gowramma, 2007; Misra, 2000). Many parents are so grateful that their child is given the opportunity to go to school that they hesitate to question or make demands, fearing removal or retribution. On the whole, the lack of a milieu of parental rights has forced parents, and particularly mothers, to develop their own networks and strategies toward participating in their child’s rehabilitative care and education. Middle-class parents, who constitute the majority of the members of parents’ groups, tend to use the Internet to access information and to network and are more likely to be permitted by professionals to be part of the educational process (Kalyanpur & Gowramma, 2007; Mukhopadhyaya, 2003; Rao, 2006). On the other hand, although specific agencies have made efforts to increase low-income parents’ participation by providing training in the belief that parents are a child’s “second teacher,” most low-income families tend to be disenfranchised from this process (Rao, Narayan, & Mani, 2005).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

DI F F E R E NC E S A N D VA R I AT ION S I N OPP ORT U N I T Y A N D I N AC C E S S In a situation where there is an overall dearth of services and most children with disabilities do not go to school, the question of variation of opportunity and access by level or type of disability, location, gender, or other social factors is almost moot. However, there are differences worth considering, always keeping in mind that the disadvantage is relative. For instance, negative attitudes about people with disabilities still abound and are strongest against people with intellectual impairments and females (Rao et al., 2005). Although a majority of the population, including children with disabilities, lives in rural areas, most voluntary agencies set up special schools in urban areas. Catering primarily to middle-class parents at first, they charged fees. As a result, educational services were inaccessible to poor children with disabilities and those living in rural areas. Although this has eased somewhat with government intervention and with more voluntary agencies targeting disadvantaged communities, only 1% of children with disabilities in rural areas are enrolled in school as compared to 11% in urban areas (World Bank, 2007). The general school system is characterized by a highly structured, rigid curriculum, delivered in a lecture format to large groups of students even from the very early grades. In 2006, teacher pupil ratios were 1:36 in elementary schools and 1:49 in primary schools (Chauhan, 2009). Four-year-olds in private preschools are expected to read and be able to spell four- and five-letter words, add and subtract, and start learning Hindi as a second language. Expectations increase in higher grades. Students must memorize large amounts of information, and the emphasis is on preparing them for national exams taken at predetermined grade levels. Such practices do not lend themselves to individualization of teaching strategies, materials, or assessment practices. As a result, those who are less able are not only unsuccessful and ignored but also unable to vocalize their needs within a school culture that

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Facing the Challenge of Inclusion in India expects unquestioning attention, conformity, and respect and discourages any opposition to teaching practices. The government has taken measures to mandate modifications in national examinations for students with learning difficulties, but private schools are not required to comply with these regulations, nor are these measures adequate for the day-to-day accommodations from which such students could benefit. Government requirements on the medium of instruction also place students with language difficulties in the almost impossible situation of mastering three languages to complete their education (Kalyanpur & Gowramma, 2007; Thirumurthy & Jayaraman, 2007). All these factors are intensified when one realizes that the choice for those children with disabilities who are able to attend school is not whether to attend a special or inclusive regular school but between no school or a regular school with little or no support (Singal, 2009). Enrollment and completion rates for girls drop steeply at secondary levels (ASER, 2010), severely limiting their access to vocational options. This situation becomes more acute for girls with disabilities because of their additional vulnerability. For instance, a study of South Indian middle-class families with adolescent daughters (Kalyanpur & Gowramma, 2007) found that parents worried about allowing the girls to work in places where other employees are male and often developed employment options within the family support network that provided the protection they sought. The burden of a young adult daughter with disabilities is more keenly felt by low-income families who lack access to financial resources and support systems. In many developing countries, such as India, development of special education services and an increase in disability awareness has resulted in patterns paradoxical, even opposite, to those in developed countries such as the United States. For instance, even as mainstreaming became more widespread in the United States in the 1970s with the number of special schools gradually decreasing over time, in India the growth of special schools was just beginning. Although there has been a movement toward inclusion in India, this has not reduced the number of special schools. Similarly, in the United States, large numbers of children are labeled as learning disabled, accounting for about half the population of children with disabilities. Physical disabilities, such as visual and motor impairments, are low-incidence categories. In India, however, it is precisely the more visible disabilities, such as visual and motor impairments, which account for more than half the population of children with disabilities. Children with developmental disabilities, particularly at mild levels, and learning difficulties, tend to remain underidentified.

T E AC H I NG A N D L E A R N I NG I N T H E E A R LY Y E A R S There are 158 million children in India between birth and 6 years of age, constituting 42% of the total population (Census of India, 2001). More than two-thirds of children live without basic amenities and with little or no access to services that foster growth and development. One-third of babies are born with low birth weight (International Institute for Population Sciences, 2005–2006). Approximately 2.6 million children younger than 5 years die each year; girls are 50% more likely to die (Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2005). About 50% of children younger than 5 years of age

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

205

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

206

Maya Kalyanpur and Anjali Misra are moderately to severely malnourished. Deficiencies of key vitamins and minerals in pregnant women and babies results in long-term morbidity. In a constitutional amendment, the government committed to providing early childhood care and education for all children younger than 6 years. Other legislation for those younger than 6 years includes prevention of female feticide, promotion of breastfeeding, growth and development of children with disabilities, and provision of day care through crèches for women laborers (Sharma, Sen, & Gulati, 2008). Although the Right to Education Act of 2009 recognizes children with disabilities and includes accessibility provisions, it does not include children younger than 6 years. The Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) program, launched in 1975, is the largest government-sponsored program globally, with anganwadis across 5,885 administrative units, each with a population between 80,000 to 120,000. The program takes a holistic approach, targeting the health, nutrition, and education of young children. Beneficiaries have shown better outcomes, including lower infant mortality rate, better nutritional status, and higher completion rates in educational progress than the general population (Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development [MoWCD], 2007a). However, the program does not specifically target children with disabilities (Alur, 2002b), and studies indicate that they are poorly represented among its beneficiaries. Wide variations in quality of services and their implementation have been noted within and across states (National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development, 2006). In response, at the midterm assessment of the 10th Five-Year Plan (Planning Commission, 2005), the decision was made to universalize ICDS coverage by 2012 by expanding day care and crèche facilities. The nongovernmental sector also provides early childhood services. Private agencies tend to focus on kindergartens and preparatory schools that cater to socially well-off families. Admission is highly competitive and not easily accessible to children with disabilities. Voluntary agencies work in rural areas or cater to disadvantaged communities. Put together, these agencies cover only 57% of children between 3 and 6 years and 21% of the entire birth to 6 age range (MoWCD, 2007b). The National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has outlined a developmentally appropriate curriculum for early childhood education (NCERT, 2005). Yet, in reality there are wide interstate variations in delivery of education and programming for young children. Teacher training programs vary in terms of requirements, duration, quality, content, and practical experiences. There is no oversight for accountability, accreditation, or maintenance of quality indicators of appropriate early childhood development (NCERT, 2006). ICDS workers receive a 26-day training course that does not include a practice component (Datta, 2001). Voluntary agencies typically include on-the-job training specific to their needs but these programs are not regulated or rigorous. Universities offer 2-year accredited early childhood programs; however, they can only prepare about 6,000 teachers, far short of meeting national demand. Across the country, 20 states do not have any recognized preschool preparation institutions (National Council for Teacher Education [NCTE], 2005). There is little incentive for teachers to seek professional development because they are poorly paid and there is no accountability (NCTE, 2005).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Facing the Challenge of Inclusion in India Poor teacher preparation in early childhood practices has resulted in developmentally inappropriate instruction being delivered in a rigid and regimented fashion with an emphasis on “teaching to admission tests” at the next level and little encouragement for creative expression. For instance, in their study of 21 early childhood classrooms in a southern city, Jambunathan and Caulfield (2008) found high pupil–teacher ratios of 20:1 and rows of desks in classrooms that lacked resources, materials, supplies, and stimulating manipulatives.

E DUC AT ION A L PL AC E M E N T As discussed in previous sections, the limited numbers of special schools, mostly located in urban areas, accommodate a very small percentage of students with disabilities. While many students with disabilities are in regular schools, these tend to be children with disabilities that require minimal curricular modifications. For instance, students with motor impairments (37%) and students with visual impairments (18%) account for 55% of all children with disabilities in elementary schools; students who are mentally challenged (15%), students with speech impediments (13%), and students with hearing disabilities (10%) constitute only 38% of this population (National University of Educational Planning and Administration, 2007). Indeed, scholars have asserted that government commitment to the inclusion of children with disabilities (through SSA) is mere rhetoric and not reflected in programmatic reality (Alur & Bach, 2010; Raver, 2001; Singal, 2005). For instance, many SSA schools are physically inaccessible to students with disabilities and lack a systematic method of referral and assessment. Attendance and enrollment rates are dismal (World Bank, 2007). Implementation of effective teaching practices is inadequate (SSA, 2007).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Teacher Attitudes Studies of teacher attitudes toward the inclusion of children with disabilities have found that although teachers express acceptance of children with disabilities, they lack confidence in their skills and the quality of support for inclusive education (Singal, 2006a). In general and more significantly, teachers did not consider the learning outcomes of students with disabilities as their responsibility. As a result, the educational needs of the students remained the responsibility of the resource or special education teacher, if there was one, or the parent. It is disheartening that the resource teacher to student ratio currently is 1:182 instead of the recommended 1:8 (MSJE, 2006). A survey of 310 government primary schools in New Delhi revealed that parental support and a philosophy of philanthropy in the school were strong predictors of principals’ willingness to admit students with disabilities (Sharma, 2001). The teachers in this study expressed dissatisfaction with the administration’s management of inclusion without their input and the lack of resources and were concerned about their workload within the reality of large class sizes and other responsibilities. Still, most teachers had made no changes in their teaching on the grounds that the students had only physical disabilities. Only a few teachers had modified the physical arrangement of the classroom and were willing to give the student with disabilities extra attention and time by soliciting peer helpers.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

207

208

Maya Kalyanpur and Anjali Misra Singal (2006b) has suggested that efforts by teachers to accommodate students with disabilities are based on feelings of pity, kindness, and sympathy. Finally, when asked about their classroom experiences, 62.5% of students with disabilities in a study (Soni, 2004, cited in Chauhan, 2009) felt their teachers were positive and spent extra time with them, but not one said he or she was allowed or encouraged to answer questions in class.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Pedagogical Approaches and Availability of Resources Regular education teachers’ perceptions that students with disabilities included in their classrooms were the responsibility of the special education teacher could be attributed in large part to the notable absence of collaboration between regular and special education teachers. Indeed, the prevalent perceptions among special educators themselves are that students who cannot adhere to the general education classroom requirements must be taught in a special school and that the needs of students with disabilities can be best met in special settings (Rao, Cheng, & Narain, 2003). This is hardly helped by the fact that best practices for inclusion such as collaboration, social acceptance, differentiated curriculum, materials, and assessment are limited to intellectual discussions in teacher training programs that often use western textbooks (Misra, 2000). Support services such as speech, physical, and occupational therapy are far too scarce to meet the demands of individual students with disabilities (Raver, 2001). The dearth is even more apparent in government schools. In principle, several government programs include the provision of assistive technology. For instance, the SSA program offers free transportation as well as assistive devices for visual, hearing, orthopedic, and intellectual disabilities, such as braille machines, white canes, hearing aids, and thick pens, and has allocated Rs.500 rupees [about US$10] to teachers who develop low-cost teaching and learning materials. However, studies indicate that, for several reasons, only 25% of students with disabilities were using aids and appliances (Singal, 2009; Thomas, 2005). Access to rehabilitative services tends to be concentrated in urban areas. The devices that are available are often difficult or expensive to repair and maintain. As well, inadequate policy dissemination means that people are often unaware of programs providing free aids and appliances: A survey found that 72.3% of households with disabilities had no knowledge of the government program for distribution of free assistive devices (World Bank, 2007). As a result of government corruption, assistive technologies in reality get rationed instead of being distributed as a right for those with disabilities (World Bank, 2007). Some individuals have to bribe officials to receive these “free” devices. Finally, inadequate infrastructure is a factor; for example, ramps built in 500,000 schools were found to have poor surface and angle construction and wheelchairs were not designed to suit the undulating, unpaved, and stony surfaces of rural roads (SSA, 2007).

Parental Attitudes Many variations exist in parental attitudes based on demographics and access to resources. In general, given limited access to reliable diagnoses and guidance, many parents feel helpless and overwhelmed by their child’s disability (Misra, 2000). Parents from poor backgrounds may believe that the disability is a result of past misdeeds (karma), fate, or the mother’s fault (Misra, 2000). The societal stigma associated with

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Facing the Challenge of Inclusion in India disability, such as negative prospects for an arranged marriage of their other children (Alur & Bach, 2010) or school rejection (Thirumurthy & Jayaraman, 2007), often results in parents becoming socially isolated. This, in turn, prevents them from disclosing information about their child’s special needs to teachers or seeking appropriate interventions for their children. Some parents believe and accept that their child should not be educated in a regular school. However, when given a choice between special and inclusive schooling, most do choose inclusive classrooms (Alur, 2002b). Many parents are willing to invest in the education of their child with a disability, despite the number of educated, unemployed youth in the country, out of necessity to reduce their dependency on others (World Bank, 2007).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T E AC H E R S A N D PE DAG O G Y Two government-established institutions, the NCERT and the NCTE, are responsible for research, curriculum development, and training in regular education nationwide. A separate organization, the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), regulates and monitors teacher preparation in special education. While six government-established national institutes prepare personnel through long-term diploma or degree programs to teach individuals in disability-specific categories (visual impairments, hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, mental retardation, traumatic injuries, and multiple disabilities), the RCI also accredits certificate and diploma training courses offered by nongovernment voluntary agencies, many of which are considerably shorter than those offered at the national institutes. Because of this institutional dichotomy, the regular education teacher training curriculum does not include a disability component, resulting in a dismal lack of preparation of general education teachers about inclusion or disability in general (Alur & Bach, 2010). In 2006, the IECYD Action Plan sought to address this omission by requiring that the RCI and NCTE collaborate to provide in- and preservice training on disability and inclusive education to regular education teachers as well as to anganwadi workers in the ICDS program. However, critics of teacher training programs suggest that, in general, the preparation of special and regular education teachers in inclusive education is inadequate. First, most courses offer theoretical knowledge but no opportunities for practical experiences. As a result, teachers emerge from this training lacking confidence in their ability to include children with disabilities in their classrooms or even the conviction that students with disabilities can be included in the general education classrooms (Abdul & Muhammed, 2009). Second, the different lengths of training contribute to wide variations in the quality of teacher training programs. For example, under the SSA program, teacher training ranges from 1 to 5 days or 45 to 90 days. The 1- to 5-day training is considered to be an orientation as it is very basic and merely covers issues of identification and management (Singal, 2009). However, less than 0.2% of all SSA teachers undergo the longer 45- to 90-day training (World Bank, 2007). It does not help that most government teachers are poorly educated to begin with, have little to no contact with technology and science, and that the majority of undertrained teachers are deployed to work in rural areas in poor, deprived schools (Govinda & Bandyopadhyay, 2008).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

209

210

Maya Kalyanpur and Anjali Misra

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

M A JOR C ON T ROV E R S I E S A N D I S S U E S In a comparative study of progress in the education sector between 1986 when the government launched the National Policy on Education and Program of Action and 2006 at the mid-term review of the SSA/EFA program, Chauhan (2009) concludes that “the Government has made concerted efforts to enhance access of children to schools” (p. 234). For instance, in the 6 years between 2000 and 2006, the percentage increase of 23% in the number of elementary schools constructed was almost as high as the increase of 27.6% during the period between 1985 and 2000. Further, 91% of primary and 87% of elementary schools are located in rural areas. As a result, the net enrollment ratio is 84.5% at the primary level and 50% at upper primary level, with girls constituting 48% of the total enrollment at elementary level. Despite this massive expansion, Chauhan (2009) notes that 16% of children aged 6 to 11 years and about 50% of those aged 11 to 14 years are still not in school. Disparities based on caste, gender, and wealth persist. For instance, dropout rates for girls, poor children, and children in rural areas have been consistently greater than for their counterparts. Children with disabilities, especially girls, are prioritized target beneficiaries for the EFA program. Certainly, the many disability-specific activities, including offering free assistive devices and transportation to students with disabilities and training teachers in inclusive education, have contributed toward an overall increase in the number of children with disabilities in school in India. However, more than half a century after independence, the progress in absolute numbers is small (World Bank, 2007). Children with disabilities were found to be the last group of out-of-school children to be included in schools even in states with high enrollment rates overall, such as Kerala. Girls with disabilities, poor children with disabilities, and children with disabilities in rural areas are doubly disadvantaged. The most pressing issue facing India now is ensuring that its population is educated. Research has shown that education is strongly correlated to economic development, which, in turn, reduces population pressures. As families begin to recognize the longterm dividends of an education, they become more willing to invest in children’s education and will have fewer children to ensure this (Chauhan, 2009; Sen, 2005). The education of women and girls, in particular, is the indicator that shows this correlation the most strongly (Sen, 2005). For children with disabilities, there is the auxiliary need to provide access to affordable health services, particularly in the areas of prevention and early detection, to reduce the long-term impact of the impairment. Because of the cyclical nature of this process, there are concerns that current population growth trends might make the goal of an educated and healthy population impossible to achieve. Barriers to the inclusion of children with disabilities are tied inextricably to this larger context (Miles & Singal, 2010; Thirumurthy & Jayaraman, 2007; World Bank, 2007). This section examines the most significant barriers: the parallel structures of service delivery, differing definitions of inclusion and disability, and inadequate teacher training, leading to poor quality of inclusive education.

Parallel Structures of Service Delivery The parallel structures within the educational system are major barriers to progress toward the inclusion of children with disabilities, particularly given the context of limited

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Facing the Challenge of Inclusion in India resources. Two different ministries, the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) and the MSJE, deal with regular education and special education, respectively, resulting in fragmentation and dualism. For example, MSJE regulates teacher training for special education through the Rehabilitation Council and MHRD does this for general educators through their departments of special education and inclusive education. This affects uniformity in preparation of teachers for inclusive education and feeds the perception of separation of special education (Alur & Bach, 2010). The dichotomy is further exacerbated by NGOs, which, in contributing to the education of students with disabilities, have also created a dual system and harmed inclusion efforts. By continuing to teach students in segregated environments, NGOs perpetuate the charity view of disability rather than the human rights perspective. They also reduce governmental initiative and urgency to integrate students with disabilities (Alur & Bach, 2010).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Differing Meanings of Inclusion and Disability These parallel structures in service delivery relate to another major barrier to inclusion: the differing interpretations of the meaning. Researchers in the field have asserted that the Indian government has adopted the concept of inclusion more to conform to international donor requirements than with a clear understanding of its meaning (Kalyanpur, 2008a; Singal, 2005). As a result of the belief that just providing an education to traditionally excluded groups, such as children with disabilities, is a major step toward including them, inclusion in India has come to mean a mélange of styles that incorporates all options, from regular classroom placement to special schools. Despite the initial vision of the early IECYD plan of children with disabilities attending neighborhood schools, the current SSA/EFA program has allowed special schools to flourish, through both government and voluntary agencies, as part of the effort toward inclusion. The pervasiveness of this problem is seen in the contradictory mandates of the two legislations. While the PWD Act promotes inclusion, the National Trust Act promotes segregation with its requirement that facilities for individuals with disabilities include residential hostels and homes (Singal, 2005). This loose interpretation of inclusion has also impacted the defi nitions of disabilities. Both less inclusive, medical models of impairments and more inclusive, biopsychosocial models are used. As a result, data on prevalence rates vary depending upon the source used. For example, the 2001 National Census data showed people with disabilities as being 2.13% of the population, the 2003 NSSO data yielded a prevalence rate of 1.8%, while alternative sources estimate greater incidence rates of 4 to 8% (World Bank, 2007). School-based records point to further discrepancies in the number of children with disabilities (Alur & Bach, 2010).

Inadequate Teacher Training and Quality of Inclusive Education With the government’s attempt to respond to inadequate infrastructure by building more schools, the debate has moved toward the issue of quality of education. The acute teacher shortage means that, instead of the promised three teachers per school, many schools function as single-teacher schools, resulting in high pupil–teacher ratios. To offset this problem, untrained teachers are increasingly appointed locally on a contractual basis (Chauhan, 2009; Mehrotra & Panchamukhi, 2006).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

211

212

Maya Kalyanpur and Anjali Misra The bottleneck for placement in secondary and higher education means that private schools have become increasingly selective about who they admit, and teachers at all grade levels are under tremendous pressure to “teach to the test” and adhere to the curriculum. As a result, there is little motivation to adapt to diversity, differences, and disabilities. Further, teaching students with disabilities is not considered socially prestigious. There are low salaries and poor working conditions, so few individuals opt for this as a career. Differences in the quality of education based on medium of instruction have created what Sinha (2007) refers to as “a system of hidden apartheid” where schools, instead of nurturing equity and social justice and fostering inclusive democracy, actually reinforce class differentiation and foster social exclusion. Children with disabilities have even less opportunity to participate in such a scenario, particularly if they happen also to be poor and female.

FUTUR E TR ENDS Perhaps it will be a long time before existing inequities of caste and class, wealth, and gender that affect school-age children, and children with disabilities in particular, are no longer a part of the rich tapestry of a diverse India. Efforts toward this goal, already begun, must not stop. A primary and imperative need is building a cohesive structure for service delivery. There are three aspects that this cohesive structure should focus on: mobilizing coordinated action from key stakeholders, including government and nongovernment agencies as well as parents; standardizing teacher training; and adopting a multifaceted approach with the convergence of health and education.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

C O OR DI N AT E D AC T ION A MONG K E Y S TA K E HOL DE R S There needs to be a clearly articulated and widely understood common meaning of inclusion. The discourse necessary for the clarification of inclusion will inevitably lead to reflection and meaningful insights into what direction India wants to take in meeting the needs of her disabled population. Leaders in the field need to answer questions, such as the following: Is inclusion synonymous with best practice in the Indian context? If best practices for inclusion are currently debated and researched in developed nations with little consensus or uniformity regarding who is included or how services are provided, then how will the populous nation of India implement this philosophy? What means can be used to dispel the societal notion that students with disabilities must be taught in separate schools and are a drain on meager resources, especially in a society where vocational opportunities for individuals with disabilities are almost nonexistent and competition for others to get ahead is intense? Can a shift in traditional paradigms of teaching and learning within the school system that require a fundamental change in the Indian school culture be achieved to facilitate inclusion? Most significantly, policymakers and professionals alike must understand that, for long-term sustainability, both public and private sectors have to be equally involved instead of expecting the government to take on the entire responsibility. In this context, Alur and Bach (2010) suggest the need for collaboration between the private and public sectors and urge NGOs to provide training, offer resources, and take an active advocacy

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Facing the Challenge of Inclusion in India role in inclusion. With greater cross-fertilization of ideas, government district-based models to provide inclusion can be better supported to replicate successful practices and implement effective monitoring and evaluation systems. Similarly, empowered and educated parents can be instrumental in moving the disability agenda forward. They can be key players in perpetuating the human rights philosophy and in mobilizing a dramatic shift from karma and charity-based beliefs. Parents in India often sacrifice personal gains for their children and are important sources to tap as partners in the inclusion process and as resources to teachers.

Standardized Teacher Training Inclusion is recommended as the only financially viable way to educate the large numbers of students with disabilities. Radical and systemic changes are required not only in the methods of curriculum delivery and resources but in the philosophy, beliefs, and values of educators. Administrators will need to create an environment of acceptance of diversity and responsibility toward all children, irrespective of ability. Efforts toward inclusion will require a modification in current teaching and assessment practices resulting in innovative, creative thinking, and overall improvement in teaching and learning. National teacher training institutes must establish an inclusive curriculum that instills the notion of education for all among teachers and an understanding of social justice. Universities must expand their training programs and provide incentives for higher education in the field of special education. Teachers must receive training in the use of differentiated teaching practices and be prepared to collaborate with special educators. Trained professionals must be given incentives to go to rural areas. Collaboration between special schools run by voluntary agencies and government-run regular schools will also dispel the segregationist attitude toward education of those with disabilities. Special schools could offer specialized services such as occupational and speech therapy to children in inclusive classrooms and serve as resource centers while maintaining responsibility for serving students with more severe disabilities. Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Converging Health and Education Services There is an urgent need for early identification and better assessment tools and practices to meet student needs. Community-based centers that currently exist to offer free medical clinics could include screening and referral for disabilities administered by workers trained in the use of locally developed instruments. Information about disabilities in easy-to-understand language must be readily available and disseminated through government, medical, and educational agencies. This could also involve including a special education component in training programs for medical and related professionals such as doctors, nurses, therapists, and social workers. Developing a systematic referral process for provision of services from identification of disability to admission to school is crucial. If village health workers, anganwadi teachers, parents, and primary schoolteachers know what resources are available and how to tap into them, it could help to ensure that students with disabilities receive all necessary supports, aids, and appliances. The laudable goal of EFA requires mobilization of resources and efforts through collective monitoring and commitment of all those who believe in building better futures for millions of India’s children with disabilities. The status of this group as the most marginalized, underserved, and voiceless must change.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

213

214

Maya Kalyanpur and Anjali Misra

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

R E F E R E NC E S Abdul, G. K., & Muhammed, A. P. (2009). Inclusive education: Does the regular teacher education programme make a difference in knowledge and attitudes? Paper presented at the International Conference on Education, Research, and Innovation for Inclusive Societies, Andra Pradesh, India. Alur, M. (2002a). Special needs policy in India. In M. Alur & S. Hegarty (Eds.), Education and children with special needs: From segregation to inclusion (pp. 51–66). New Delhi: Sage. Alur, M. (2002b). “They did not figure”: Policy exclusion of disabled people in India. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6, 101–112. Alur, M., & Bach, M. (2010). The journey for inclusive education in the Indian sub-continent. New York: Routledge. Annual State of Education Report. (2010). Annual status of education report, 2009. New Delhi: Pratham. Asian Development Bank (ASB). (2002). Identifying disability issues related to poverty reduction: India country study. Manila, Philippines: Author. Balagopalan, S. (2002). Constructing indigenous childhoods: Colonialism, vocational education, and the working child. Childhood: Journal of Child Research, 9, 19–34. Census of India. (2001). Census. New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General of India. Chadha, A. (2005). NGO initiatives in inclusion: The SSA experience. New Delhi: Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. Chauhan, C. P. S. (2009). Education for all in India: A second look. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28, 227–240. Datta, V. (2001). A study of urban early childhood programmes—A project sponsored by UNICEF. Mumbai: Tata Institute of Social Sciences. Department of School Education and Literacy. (2005). Education guarantee scheme and alternative and innovation education. Retrieved from http://education.nic.in/edu_guarantee_sch /edu_guarantee_back.asp. Government of India. (2007). Selected educational statistics, 2004–2005. New Delhi: Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development. Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. (2005). Annual Report, 2004–05. New Delhi: Author. Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MSJE). (2006). National policy for persons with disabilities. New Delhi: Author. Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development (MoWCD). (2007a). Report of working group on development of children for the eleventh five year plan (2007–2012). New Delhi: Author. Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development (MoWCD). (2007b). ICDS-IV Project. IDA assisted: 2008–09 to 2012–13: A hand book. New Delhi: Author. Govinda, R., & Bandyopadhyay, M. (2008). Access to elementary education in India: Country analytical review. Sussex, UK: Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transition, and Equity. Ilaiah, K. (2007). What kind of education do Dalit-bahujan children need? In A. Kaushik (Ed.), Shiksha: The challenge of Indian education (pp. 51–58). New Delhi: Tehelka Press. International Institute for Population Sciences. (2000). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-2), 1998–99. Mumbai: Author. International Institute for Population Sciences. (2005–2006). National fact sheet India (Provisional data): National Family Health Survey 3. Mumbai: Author. Jambunathan, S., & Caulfield, M. (2008). Developmentally appropriate practices in Asian Indian early childhood classrooms. Early Child Development and Care, 178, 251–258.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Facing the Challenge of Inclusion in India Kalyanpur, M. (2008a). Equality, quality, and quantity: Challenges in inclusive education policy and service provision in India. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12, 243–263. Kalyanpur, M. (2008b). The paradox of majority under-representation in special education in India: Constructions of difference in a developing country. Journal of Special Education, 42, 55–64. Kalyanpur, M., & Gowramma, I. P. (2007). Cultural barriers to South Indian families’ access to services and educational goals for their children with disabilities. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 8, 69–82. Kaushik, A. (2007). Introduction: Completing the elusive triangle. In A. Kaushik (Ed.), Shiksha: The challenge of Indian education (pp. 15–20). New Delhi: Tehelka Press. Library of Congress. (2004). Country profile: India. Federal Research Division. Retrieved from http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/India.pdf. Mehrotra, S. (2005). The economics of elementary education in India: The challenge of public finance, private provision, and household costs. New Delhi: Sage. Mehrotra, S., & Panchamukhi, P. R. (2006). Private provision of elementary education in India: Findings of a survey in eight states. Compare, 36, 421–442. Miles, S., & Singal, N. (2010). The Education for All and inclusive education debate: Conflict, contradiction, or opportunity? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 1–15. Misra, A. (2000). Special education in India: Current status and future directions. Journal of International Special Education Services, 3, 6–11. Mukhopadhyaya, T. R. (2003). The mind tree: A miraculous child through the silence of autism. New York: Arcade. Nambisson, G. B. (2000). Dealing with deprivation. Seminar, 493, 50–55. National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). (2005). Seventh All-India Educational Survey, provisional statistics as on September 30, 2002. New Delhi: Author. National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). (2006). National curricular framework, 2005; Position paper: National focus group on early childhood education. New Delhi: Author. National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). (2005). Annual report, 2004–05. New Delhi: Author. National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development. (2006). Three decades of ICDS: An appraisal. New Delhi: Author. National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO). (2003). Disabled persons in India, NSS 58th round (July–December 2002). New Delhi: Government of India. National University of Education Planning and Administration. (2007). Elementary education in India: Progress toward UEE. Flash statistics. District Information System for Education data, 2005–2006. New Delhi: Author. Pai, M. (2002). Integrating disability concerns in primary education: The Maharashtra experience. In M. Alur & S. Hegarty (Eds.), Education and children with special needs: From segregation to inclusion (pp. 104–110). New Delhi: Sage. Patel, V. (2003, June 30). A cultural deficit. India Together. Retrieved from http://www .indiatogether.org/2003/aug/wom-sexratio.htm. Pinto, P. E., & Sahu, N. (2001). Working with persons with disabilities: An Indian perspective. Buffalo, NY: Center for International Rehabilitation Research Information and Exchange. Planning Commission. (2005). Midterm appraisal of the Tenth Five-Year Plan. New Delhi: Government of India. Polgreen, L. (2010, June 28). Right-to-know law gives India’s poor a much-needed lever. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/world /asia/29india.html.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

215

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

216

Maya Kalyanpur and Anjali Misra Ramaswamy, G. (2005). India stinking: Manual scavengers in Andhra Pradesh and their work. Pondicherry, TN: Navayana. Rao, L. G., Narayan, J., & Mani, M. N. G. (2005). Status of education of children with disabilities. Secunderabad, India: National Institute for the Mentally Handicapped. Rao, L. G., & Reddy, S. H. K. (2004). Organizational aspects of special schools for mental retardation in India. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 27, 127–133. Rao, N., Cheng, K.-M., & Narain, K. (2003). Primary schooling in China and India: Understanding how socio-contextual factors moderate the role of the state. International Review of Education, 49, 153–176. Rao, S. (2006). Parameters of normality and cultural constructions of “mental retardation”: Perspectives of Bengali families. Disability and Society, 21, 159–178. Raver, S. A. (2001). India: Training teachers for children with mental retardation. International Journal of Special Education, 16, 16–23. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. (2007). Inclusive education in SSA. Retrieved from 164.100.51.121 /inclusive-education/Inclusive_Edu_May07.pdf. Sen, A. (2005). Women and men. In A. Sen (Ed.), The argumentative Indian (pp. 220–250). New York: Giroux, Farrar & Strauss. Sharma, A., Sen, R. S., & Gulati R. (2008). Early childhood development policy and programming in India: Critical issues and directions for paradigm change. International Journal of Early Childhood, 40, 65–82. Sharma, U. (2001). The attitudes and concerns of school principals and teachers regarding the integration of students with disabilities into regular schools in Delhi, India. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne. Singal, N. (2005). Mapping the field of inclusive education: A review of the Indian literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9, 331–350. Singal, N. (2006a). Inclusive education in India: International concept, national interpretation. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 53, 351–369. Singal, N. (2006b). An ecosystemic approach for understanding inclusive education: An Indian case study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 239–252. Singal, N. (2010). Education of children with disabilities in India. In UNESCO, EFA global monitoring report: Reaching the marginalized. Paris: UNESCO. Sinha, S. (2007). Children’s right to education and democratization of schools. In A. Kaushik (Ed.), Shiksha: The challenge of Indian education (pp. 33–40). New Delhi: Tehelka Press. Thirumurthy, V., & Jayaraman, B. (2007). Special education in India at the crossroads. Childhood Education, 83, 380–384. Thomas, P. (2005). Mainstreaming disability in development: India country report. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSARREGTOPLABSOCPRO/1211714 -1144074285477/20873614/IndiaReportDFID.pdf. United Nations Children’s Fund. (2004). Mapping India’s children: UNICEF in action. New Delhi: Author. United Nations Development Programme. (2009). Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development (Human Development Report). New York: Author. Varma, P. (2007). We need to go back to the drawing board. In A. Kaushik (Ed.), Shiksha: The challenge of Indian education (pp. 41–50). New Delhi: Tehelka Press. World Bank. (2007). People with disabilities in India: From commitments to outcomes. New Delhi: Human Development Unit, South Asia Region. Yardley, J. (2010, July 9). In India, the story of castes, honor and killings intertwine. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

11 Making the Invisibles Visible: Special Education in Pakistan

Mah Nazir Riaz

Pakistan came into existence on August 14, 1947, after a struggle for independence from British rule led by Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. The two Muslim majority wings in the eastern and northwestern regions of the Indo-Pak subcontinent are made up of East Pakistan and West Pakistan, separated by 1,600 kilometers of Indian territory and incompatible linguistic and cultural differences. Since gaining independence, Pakistan’s history has been characterized by periods of military rule, political instability, and armed conflicts with neighboring India. Moreover, economic grievances and political dissent in East Pakistan led to violent political tension and military action to restore peace in the region that escalated into a civil war. After 9 months of guerrilla warfare between the Pakistan army and the Indian-backed Bengali militia, Indian intervention led to the Indo-Pakistan war in 1971 and ultimately to the cessation of East Pakistan as an independent state that instead became Bangladesh. Pakistan is a federation of four provinces, a capital territory, and a group of federally administered tribal areas. The government of Pakistan exercises de facto jurisdiction over the western parts of the disputed Kashmir region, organized as two separate political entities: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. There are currently 113 districts in Pakistan proper, each with several tehsils (administrative divisions) and union councils. The tribal areas comprise seven tribal agencies and six small frontier regions detached from neighboring districts. Azad Kashmir comprises ten and Gilgit-Baltistan seven districts, respectively. With a population of more than 170 million, Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world. Pakistan is rated as a low-income country—it ranks 65th among 102 developing nations. The Human Development Index (HDI), which was 0.34 in 1975, increased to 0.539 in 2006. However, this improvement has been quite slow, and most of Pakistan’s social and development indicators appear to be quite low compared to other similar developing countries. Pakistan was ranked 134 in the year 2006. Despite Pakistan’s slow growth, its gross domestic product (GDP) has increased. But public spending in the social sector as a whole is less than 0.5% of the GDP. Little funding is allocated for health, education, housing, water supply, sanitation, and gender equality. Over the past decade, the structure of Pakistan’s economy has changed from a mainly agricultural base to a strong service base. At present, agriculture accounts for only 20% of the GDP, whereas the service sector accounts for 53%. Also, significant foreign investments have been made in areas such as telecommunications, real estate, and energy.

217 International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

218

Mah Nazir Riaz Other important industries include food processing, iron and steel, and apparel and textiles, which account for approximately 60% of exports.

T H E S O C I A L FA BR IC Pakistan is a democratic, parliamentary, federal republic with Islam as the state religion. Thus, the social and political role of Islam is of fundamental importance in Pakistan. It exercises a very strong influence on shaping not only our social and religious values but also Muslims’ cultural traditions, including social institutions, beliefs, and ceremonials (Baluch, 1965). It was indeed the religion of Islam that provided the basis for the creation of an independent Muslim state, which enabled Muslims to ordain their lives freely on the tenets of Islam (Ahmad, 1982). Islam has a pervasive influence not only on daily activities such as diet, marriage, customs, education, and the celebration of festivals but also on the formulation and implementation of the policies of the government. According to Islamic principles, education is compulsory for every man and woman. Almost every religion preaches nondiscrimination on the basis of color, sex, economic and social status, and physical disability (Qureshi, 2003). Islam also emphasizes universal kinship and the quality of humankind. The prejudice against education, especially as expressed by the Taliban in Swat and other parts of Khyber Pukhtoon Khawa, is erroneously attributed to Islam. Moreover, contrary to Western propaganda, Islam has given equal status to men and women. Islam allows women economic independence and the right to get an education, to participate in social life, and to work outside the home. Women have the right to approve their spouse, to seek divorce, and to remarry if divorced or widowed. The Holy Quran (the Divine Book of Muslims) says the following:

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female and made you into races and tribes, so that you may identify one another. Surely the noblest of you, in Allah’s sight, is the one who is most pious of you. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware. (Surah Al-Hujrat 49: Ayeh 13) The Noble Quran Pakistani society comprises four major ethnic and language groups, namely, Pathans, Punjabis, Balochi, and Sindhi, who live in four different provinces of Pakistan. Pakistan is a multilingual country with more than 60 languages spoken. The official language of Pakistan is English, whereas the national language is Urdu. Each province has its own provincial language, such as Punjabi and Saraiki (Punjab); Pashto (Kahyber Pakhtunkhwa); Sindhi (Sindh); and Balochi (Balochistan). More than 50% of Pakistanis are literate. The literacy rate has gradually increased during the last 6 decades. If we compare the overall literacy rate in the country from 1951 to 2009, we find an increase from 16.47% in 1951 to 57% in 2009. The literacy rates vary regionally, particularly by sex. For the male population, the rate increased from 19.2% to 57%; for females, it increased from 12.2% to 45%. An estimate of the literacy rate in 2009 revealed that it ranges from 87% in Islamabad to 22% in tribal areas, where the female literacy rate is 7.5%.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Making the Invisibles Visible

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T H E G E N E R A L S C HO OL S Y S T E M Education in Pakistan is divided into 5 levels. These are primary (grades 1–5); middle (grades 6–8); high (grades 9–10), leading to a secondary school certificate; intermediate (grades 11–12), leading to a higher secondary school certificate (HSSC); and university education, leading to graduate and advanced degrees. After earning the HSSC, students may enroll in a professional college, where they can pursue a bachelor’s degree in engineering (BEng), medicine (MBBS), dentistry (BDS), or law (LLB), for example, or study for a Bachelor of Arts (BA), Bachelor of Science (BSc), Bachelor of Commerce (BCom), or Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA). A master’s degree requires 2 years of study beyond a bachelor’s degree. Several universities in Pakistan offer the MPhil/PhD degree in selected fields and require extensive research in an area of specialization. At the time of independence, Pakistan had only one university. Now there are 132 universities, including 59 in the private sector. There are also 730 technical and vocational institutions in the country. From 1947 to 2003, not a single university in Pakistan was ranked in the top 600 universities of the world. Today, 5 Pakistani universities belong to this prestigious group. In the field of natural sciences, the progress has been even more remarkable: The University of Karachi is now 223 in rank; the National University of Science and Technology, 260; and Quaid-e-Azam University, 270. About 445,000 university graduates and 10,000 computer science graduates are turned out every year by Pakistani universities. In Pakistan a large number of educational institutions called madrassahs provide Islamic education and offer free boarding and lodging to students who come mainly from poor families. Besides these, several private schools offer a parallel secondary school education system based upon the curriculum that prepares students for the Cambridge International Examinations. Students who opt for this system take the ordinary-level (O) and advanced-level (A) examinations through the British Council. The number of educational institutions in the country (see Table 1) is based on information in Pakistan Education Statistics (Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education, 2007–2008). Presently, in the public sector there are 146,603 primary schools in Pakistan, together with 9,989 informal mosque schools that educate children who range from 5 to 9 years of age. There are 17,250 primary schools in the private sector. There are vast provincial disparities in rates of enrollment. They are highest in the urban areas of the province of Punjab (53%); in the rural areas of Balochistan, they are lowest (10%). The school dropout rates are alarmingly high in rural schools, especially among girls. Thus, girls’ education is far behind that of boys, and this gender gap appears to be markedly large when Pakistan is compared with neighboring countries in South Asia. The establishment and management of schools is the responsibility of provincial governments. Due to inadequate funding, almost 60% schools in Pakistan lack basic facilities and equipment, such as benches, desks, blackboards, and laboratories. Most of the schools are overcrowded, and, in some cases, the classrooms accommodate students from different grades (multigrade classrooms). In most educational institutions in the private sector, the medium of instruction is English. Over a period of time this will be extended to all schools across the country. In

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

219

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

2 828 4,624 1,222 2,209 236 149 265 9,535

Boys

Total 492 867 20,756 15,055 12,381 1,309 562 932 52,354

Source: Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education (2007–2008).

Pakistan (Level) Preprimary Mosque Primary Middle High Higher Sec. Inter College Degree College Total

Urban Girls Mixed 8 482 12 27 4,913 11,219 1,328 12,505 1,859 8,313 296 777 180 233 438 229 9,034 33,785

Table 1. Number of Educational Institutions in Pakistan

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Boys 10 8,893 51,514 6,668 4,975 449 65 121 72,695

Rural Girls Mixed 32 281 71 158 41,227 33,106 6,703 12,403 2,442 4,166 369 305 95 59 101 48 51,040 50,526 Total 323 9,122 125,847 25,774 11,583 1,123 219 270 174,261

Boys 12 9,721 56,138 7,890 7,184 685 214 386 82,230

Total Girls 40 83 46,140 8,031 4,301 665 275 539 60,074

Mixed 763 185 44,325 24,908 12,479 1,082 292 277 84,311

Making the Invisibles Visible fact, the use of English is increasing in Pakistan very rapidly; it is estimated that 18 million Pakistanis have a command of the English language. This makes Pakistan the ninth largest English-speaking country in the world and the third largest in Asia. The regular education system of government schools in Pakistan functions independently of the special school system. A similar pattern is seen in private schools. Pakistan has some inclusive schools, but they are mainly located in big cities and run by the private sector. Most of these schools are not accessible to children with disabilities who live in remote rural areas. Besides, fearing social stigmatization, the parents themselves are not willing to send their special child to school. Sometimes principals or teachers refuse to accept a child with a moderate disability due to limited facilities. Hence, distance, lack of transportation, and other problems make it difficult for children with disabilities to attend and avail themselves of the existing facilities in a specific area.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

H I S T OR Y OF S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION The history of special education in Pakistan is older than that of Pakistan itself. The first school for children with disabilities was established in Lahore in 1906. Still, only a few educational institutions were educating these children when the partition of the IndoPak subcontinent occurred in 1947 (see Aqila, 2003). The need to establish schools for special education was placed on the government agenda for the first time by a national commission on education in 1959. The commission recommended both the provision of vocational education for children and adults with mental retardation and the training of teachers for the education of persons with handicaps. The education policy of 1972 allocated specific funds for special education. During the next 2 decades, the government recognized the need to pay special attention to the problems of persons with handicaps. Consequently, the budget allocation was enhanced. This initiative on the part of the government led to the establishment of more than 200 special education schools that enrolled more than 20,000 children. Further rapid developments in special education truly began in 1980, when the United Nations declared 1981 as the International Year of Disabled Persons. For the first time, the systematic care of persons with disabilities was brought into focus in Pakistan. The movement gained political support, and unlimited financial resources were available for special education during the Zia-ul-Haq regime. The late president, General Zia-ul-Haq, invited several experts in the field of special education from the United States, Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait for consultation (Sultana, 1993). The government of Pakistan also sent educationists, administrators, and medical doctors to foreign countries to gain knowledge and equip themselves with the skills needed for the education, treatment, and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. The federal government also initiated various education programs around the country. In 1985 the Directorate General of Special Education (DGSE) was established as a part of the Ministry of Health, Special Education, and Social Welfare. Initially, the DGSE devised programs for the education of persons with special needs (DGSE, 1986). However, these efforts were soon expanded to include early detection, treatment, and rehabilitation facilities. Consequently, a network of special education institutions was established

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

221

222

Mah Nazir Riaz throughout Pakistan between 1983 and 1988 for all of the 4 major disability groups (i.e., blindness, deafness, physical handicaps, and mental retardation) (Riaz, 1994). Almost all of these institutions were established at the divisional headquarters and in big cities, including Islamabad, Azad Kashmir, and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

DI M E N S ION S OF T H E PROV I S ION OF EQUA L AC C E S S

Legislation and Policy

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• The National Policy for Persons With Disabilities (Government of Pakistan, 2002) was approved by the DGSE in October 2002 and launched in Lahore in June 2003. Its objectives are the optimal development of persons with disabilities in all walks of life, especially with regard to health, education, and social, economic, and vocational needs. The overall mission is to provide—by 2025—an environment that will facilitate the optimal realization of the potential of persons with disabilities; this will be accomplished by inclusive mainstreaming and providing them the support of the government, the private sector, and civil society. Keeping in view our Islamic teachings, these facilities will be provided to all persons with disabilities regardless of caste, creed, religion, gender, or other considerations for the realization of their full potential. Specific objectives include the integration of persons with disabilities into all spheres of life—social, economic, personal, and political. Moreover, their involvement in planning and implementing educational, training, and rehabilitation programs for themselves, their families, and their communities will ensure that they are able to enjoy their rights and opportunities in the same way as other Pakistani citizens. Persons with disabilities are to have equal opportunities and access to education; medical, social, and psychological services; vocational training; and employment and rehabilitation without discrimination. Legislation relating to the employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities is to be adequately formulated and strictly enforced. • The National Plan of Action (NPA) (Government of Pakistan, 2006) was designed to implement the National Policy for Persons with Disabilities of 2002. The plan was prepared in 2006 after consultation with individuals and groups, NGOs, and private-sector stakeholders at the federal and provincial levels. The NPA focused on action to be taken over the following 5 years, although the recommendations were made up to the year 2025. For the implementation of the National Policy for Persons With Disabilities, databanks on disability will be established at the federal, provincial, and district levels and will include statistics on causes, types, and frequencies of disabilities, as well as available services and programs. The time frame set for this task was July 2007 on, and the data were to be disseminated by posting on the Internet from January 2008 on. It was also decided that early child development will be included in the curriculum of paramedical, nursing, and medical colleges from July 2009 on. All provincial headquarters, including Islamabad, have been declared disability-friendly cities that will provide barrier-free

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Making the Invisibles Visible environments, including those for sports and recreation, for persons with disabilities. In the national policy the government has also included the establishment of parks for persons with disabilities. In addition, the National Plan of Action recommends the provision of inclusive, costeffective educational opportunities to all children with moderate and mild disabilities from kindergarten through tenth grade. As all regular schools must make provision for children with special needs, amendments in textbooks and methodologies were suggested in their curricula. It was further proposed that the existing teacher-training curricula at all levels must incorporate inclusive education as an integral component from January 2007 on. Inclusive schooling is discussed later in more detail.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Current Special Education At present, a network of federal, provincial, and NGO-based institutions provides education to almost 4% of the total population of children with special needs in Pakistan. As Table 2 shows, the Directorate of Special Education has established 1,063 institutions exclusively for the education of children with special needs. Currently, children with severe disabilities are admitted to special schools after examination by an admission committee consisting of principal, vice principal, and technical staff (e.g., physiotherapist, speech therapist, audiologist, medical officer). The basic objective of all of these schools and institutes is to provide individually planned and systematically monitored teaching and training facilities that address learners’ individual requirements. To achieve this goal, all equipment and educational materials are adapted to the children’s needs in order to help them attain a higher level of self-sufficiency and success at school and in the community than would be possible if they were placed in typical classrooms. Furthermore, changes are required in teaching practices and the curriculum, and supplementary equipment, teaching aids, and specialized physical arrangements that facilitate the students’ optimal participation are needed. The success of programs begins with an assessment of the specific strengths and limitations of each special child. For example, if an assessment shows that a student cannot write by hand due to a physical disability, then, if resources permit, the school authorities may provide a personal computer for typing school assignments or at least permit the student to answer questions orally. Similarly, a child who easily gets distracted in a large, busy classroom may be placed in a smaller classroom such as a resource room. Special education programs for children who have developmental disorders must focus on what is necessary for the students to know and what they are capable of learning. The DGSE has also developed several projects throughout Pakistan for the education, welfare, and rehabilitation of persons with special needs. For instance, all individuals with disabilities who are capable of benefitting from vocational training are provided training opportunities at vocational training centers established at Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, Quetta, and Peshawar. These centers, which are well equipped with the latest machinery and other equipment, offer 2-year certificate courses in different trades. Another special program is the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment for Disabled Persons (VREDP) plan, which was launched in 1992 with financial and technical assistance from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the International Labour Organization.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

223

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Gender AJK Balochistan Boys 201 540 Girls 111 184 Total 312 724 Teaching Staff Male 10 18 Female 36 44 Total 46 62 Distribution of Organizations by Disability Hearing impairment 6 5,140 Mental retardation 3 4,103 Visual impairment 1 4,129 Physical disability 4 566 Multiple disabilities 0 1,598 Total 14 19 Distribution by Types of Service Education 4 9 Guidance and 2 7 counseling Vocational training 1 8 Sports and recreation 1 8 Assessment 3 7 Rehabilitation 5 4 Therapeutic services 5 2 Early identification 1 0

Northern Area 129 86 215 13 21 34 11 8 12 10 1 42 11 11 10 9 6 12 9 7

Capital 594 489 1,083 24 108 132 15 14 15 19 14 77 20 20 14 13 18 24 16 11

51 49 41 44 25 22

58 46

22 17 15 28 11 93

235 205 440

NWFP 2,912 1,067 3,979

145 138 99 99 89 46

242 128

160 140 103 129 66 598

462 1,143 1,605

Punjab 11,084 7,100 18,184

Table 2. Facilities and Services Available in Pakistan for Persons with Disabilities (Distribution by Province)

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

63 72 90 46 72 46

79 85

48 67 25 53 27 220

163 510 673

Sindh 2,353 1,380 3,733

292 290 264 234 218 133

723 299

267 253 175 248 120 1,063

925 2,067 2,992

Total 17,813 10,417 28,230

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

5 7 4 8 1 4 1

1

0 0 0

0 0 0

Source: Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education (2007–2008).

Media/Alternative medicine Community services Prevention Social uplift/ Empowerment Employment Outreach program Old-age benefits

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

9 8 3

13 11 10

13

5 6 4

6 7 7

6

12 10 4

25 22 21

25

42 21 7

41 31 32

44

30 39 6

39 47 38

39

99 88 25

131 122 116

133

226

Mah Nazir Riaz

The Population to Be Served In the first decade of this century, several international movements have developed a number of conventions and agreements concerning the empowerment of persons with disabilities. These trends have led the Pakistani government to participate actively in the global movement for the betterment of people with disabilities. Consequently, the first ever National Policy for Persons with Disabilities was formulated in 2002 (Government of Pakistan, 2002). It aimed to provide information about the number of persons with disabilities in Pakistan based upon the World Health Organization’s (WHO) estimates of 10% of the population and upon more detailed information provided by Pakistani-based studies, including the National Census of 1998. This report indicated that the total population of Pakistan is 132,352,279 (68,873,686 males and 63,478,593 females). These numbers included 3,293,155 reported persons with disabilities. This is a low estimate of 2.49% of the total population.

Etiologies of Disabilities

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Persons with disabilities include all those with any of the following types of disabilities or combinations thereof: autism, deafness, hearing impairments, blindness/visual impairment, mental retardation, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairments, serious emotional disturbances, specific learning disabilities, and speech or language impairments. In the following paragraphs we present the etiology of the normative disabilities with particular reference to the situation in Pakistan. Note that at present there is a constant increase in disabilities due to malnutrition and disease, environmental hazards, natural disasters, traffic and industrial accidents, suicide attacks, and various forms of aggression in society. • Visual impairment. Out of 40 million blind people around the world, about 80% live in developing countries. The World Health Organization estimates that cataracts, glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration, trachoma, corneal opacity, and diabetic retinopathy are the most prevalent causes of visual impairment. Add to these disease, malnutrition, and lack of awareness about possible treatment. However, 70–80% of blind people can have their vision restored by medication, laser treatment, or surgery. • Hearing impairment and deafness may be congenital or acquired. The more common acquired hearing impairments may result from premature birth, anoxia, rubella, syphilis, or certain other infections during pregnancy. Some infectious childhood diseases such as meningitis, measles, mumps, and chronic ear infection are also culprits. Aging is the most significant cause of hearing impairment. Children who have at least one deaf parent or a close relative who is deaf are at high risk of congenital hearing impairment or deafness. • Mental retardation. There are 4 levels of mental retardation: mild, moderate, severe, and profound. Several other disorders may be associated with mental retardation, including epilepsy, cerebral palsy, vision and hearing impairments, speech/language problems, and behavioral problems. Some abnormal genes

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Making the Invisibles Visible cause mental retardation whenever they are present and when the same abnormal gene is inherited from both parents. In Pakistan and many other Muslim countries, marriages between cousins are quite common. Consequently, if both spouses carry the same abnormal gene, it is much more likely that some of their children will inherit this abnormal gene from both parents, resulting in a disability. Parents should think carefully before arranging marriages between cousins. • Physical disabilities affect not only one’s mobility but perhaps also one’s capability for verbal and nonverbal communication. For instance, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, and facial burns limit facial expression and can thus affect communication.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Detection of Disabilities For children born in hospitals, a disability such as Down syndrome may be identified at birth and the parents informed about the probable handicap. Numerous hospitals in Pakistan have facilities to assess the nature and severity of such disabilities during infancy. However, most children in Pakistan are not born in hospitals. Home deliveries assisted by traditional (often untrained) midwives known for their experience are preferred, especially in rural areas, due to lack of financial resources and transportation, as well as fear of hospitals. Most women believe that hospital personnel are less caring and concerned than midwives. As a result, the detection of disabilities is delayed, sometimes indefinitely. Visual and hearing impairments are usually diagnosed later. In Pakistan, the pediatric departments of most hospitals are well equipped with appropriate diagnostic facilities for these disabilities. The labeling of the population with disabilities is usually the function of medical specialists and psychologists. However, we have a serious problem in the intellectual assessment of children. Currently, not a single educational institution in Pakistan is equipped to carry out intellectual assessments. Consequently, children with low intelligence or who are borderline cases further deteriorate because their parents ridicule them, teachers blame the parents for not taking an interest in their child’s studies, and the children lag behind others in academic achievement.

Types and Number of Special Schools According to a directory prepared by DGSE (2006), special education schools in Pakistan provide education from primary through high school. Some of these schools are for girls, some are for boys, and others are coeducational. The medium of instruction in most of the schools is Urdu, the national language of Pakistan, although some schools use English. The number of students enrolled in each center varies widely and ranges from 10 to 250. There are 97 centers for children with hearing impairment; 54 special schools for children with visual impairment; 40 centers for children with physical disabilities; and 42 schools exclusively for children with mental retardation. The remaining institutions provide services to students with more than one disability. All of these institutions work under the supervision of directors; principals, vice principals, and multiprofessional teams comprising teachers, medical officers, audiologists,

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

227

228

Mah Nazir Riaz physiotherapists, social case workers, braille experts, mobility instructors, and vocational teachers. These institutions provide facilities for education, treatment, training, parental counseling, and the rehabilitation of children/persons with disabilities. The professionals focus their efforts on making their clients self-reliant members of society.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Educational Placement Depending on the type of disability, children are enrolled in the relevant institutes for education, training, and rehabilitation. In this section we provide an overview of the special education centers working under the Directorate General of Special Education. In the centers for children with visual impairment, both specialized and conventional teaching methods are used. Specialized methods include braille books, talking books, low-vision aids, closed-circuit TV, and magnifiers. Most of these centers provide education up to the primary level. A few provide education up to the secondary school certificate level. The centers for children with hearing impairment carry out assessments and provide speech therapy aimed at adequate communication ability and skills. Guidance and counseling services are provided to children and their parents. Special education up to the primary level is provided in all of these centers; higher classes are also arranged in a few centers. Education is in accordance with a specially designed syllabus based on communication techniques consisting of speech development, lipreading skills, and sign language. The centers for children with mental retardation provide special education to develop perceptual, social, and communication skills. There is no formal methodology; rather, individualized curriculum planning (ICP) programs promote and modify the behavior of these children by using toys, pictures, and audiovisual aids. Specially designed checklists help to assess social and general behavior, as well as work-related behavior and the learners’ reading and writing skills. These centers also provide prevocational training. The centers for children with physical handicaps provide education, medical checkups, and physiotherapy services. Virtually the same syllabus is followed as that in schools for children without such handicaps. For example, children are given training in arts and crafts to prepare them for vocational training and rehabilitation. The exception is children with cerebral palsy, for whom a special curriculum has been developed. Most of the educational institutions for persons with disabilities provide all or some of the following services: • Prevention. Although the prevention of disabilities is largely the domain of medical personnel, psychologists, social workers, and family counselors, educational services play a crucial role through research and training. The educational institutions in Pakistan are striving to achieve this objective by including courses of studies in health, education, and child development aimed at the provision of information about the prevention of disabilities. • Detection. An effective diagnostic system is a prerequisite for the development and implementation of preventive and intervention strategies. Children who are diagnosed soon after birth and receive appropriate intervention and family support usually experience greater success than those whose diagnosis is delayed.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Making the Invisibles Visible Disabilities in infants born in hospitals are easily detected, and the concerned medical specialists provide treatment for the children and guidance for the parents in the initial stages. • Intervention. Children with moderate or severe impairments are referred to a multi-professional team for intervention strategies. • Counseling. Parents and children with disabilities are provided counseling services for healthy mental growth and development of self-reliance. Counselors educate parents and teachers so that they can develop a positive attitude toward children with handicaps.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Attitudes The attitude of society toward persons with disabilities is generally positive in Pakistan and is more favorable in rural areas than in urban areas. However, people generally lack knowledge about the capabilities of persons with disabilities, resulting in a low profile for this population, together with several misconceptions and negative attitudes. People may hold superstitious beliefs about persons with disabilities. For instance, some Pakistanis believe that having a child with mental retardation is a curse on the family or an expression of divine wrath. Others attribute it to sinful acts of the parents. Some illiterate people call persons with mental retardation Allah waley, which implies that such persons are pious and innocent and possess supernatural powers. They believe that their blessings can alleviate the ills and misfortunes of those who approach them for this purpose. On the other hand, many people in our society call people with mental retardation pagal or lawanaity (persons with mental illness). Many parents are not willing to disclose a child’s disability due to the social stigma attached to these persons. Parents are especially concerned that the marriage prospects of their children without a disability may be adversely affected if they are suspected of being carriers of defective genes. Many poor and uneducated families consider a child with a mental or physical disability as a lifetime moral and financial burden and a source of social stigmatization. Sometimes they abandon a male child at a shrine or shelter, where he remains vulnerable to abuse (Mumtaz, 2008). On the other hand, girls with mental retardation are confined within the four walls of a room and thus are practically isolated from the family. Consequently, these children are cut off from their siblings and have no opportunities for education, employment, or social activities. A family’s educational background and financial resources play a crucial role in shaping the personality of a child with any kind of physical or mental disability. Families who are well educated, wealthy, and broadminded usually have a positive attitude. They perceive their special child as equal to other children and express their love and affection without being influenced by social prejudices. They invest time, money, and energy to provide the necessary treatment and assistance to help the child surmount challenges. Empirical studies have revealed variations in the perceptions and attitudes of children, parents, teachers, administrators, the media, and society at large toward disability. Differences in attitudes and viewpoints have also been reported between urban and rural populations, between educated and illiterate individuals, and according to the

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

229

230

Mah Nazir Riaz type of disability. For example, when Noor and Khokhar (2000) looked at children with physical disabilities studying in ordinary schools, they reported that the respondents seemed satisfied with the positive attitude of administrators and teachers and with their level of participation in the classroom. The main problem these children reported was their difficulty in moving in the school buildings. Hussain and Javed (1997) reported that the inclusion of children with hearing impairment in regular classroom is acceptable to many educationists in Pakistan. Wahid and Ishfaq (2000) found that university teachers believe that, with training, children with hearing impairments can develop appropriate reading, writing, mathematical, social, and vocational skills. Other studies reveal that children with disabilities prefer to study with other children, though they are not sure whether they are capable of pursuing their education in such an educational setting, especially in view of the reactions and attitudes of other children toward their disability. Hayat (1994) reported that most children with disabilities seem eager to study in regular schools, where they can study and play with other children. These young students believe that such an approach will aid their academic achievement and remove the stigma associated with their disability. However, they are concerned about being teased by other children. Similar findings were reported by Batool and Mehmood (2000) about children with visual disabilities.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Inclusive Schooling Inclusive education differs from earlier approaches that concentrated mainly on disability and special education needs. Inclusive education addresses the rights of children to participate and the school’s duty to accept them. It rejects the segregation or exclusion of learners and maximizes their participation in community schools. Inclusive education calls for a restructuring of policies, curricula, and the teaching practices followed in schools and all other learning environments to meet children’s diverse learning needs. In other words, the schools and other centers of learning must become caring, nurturing, and supporting institutions that meet the needs of all students and teachers. Inclusive education is a new concept in Pakistan. Currently, debates are ongoing regarding the promotion of inclusive education. Two recent declarations are of particular interest. The Islamabad Declaration on Inclusive Education (Ministry of Social Welfare and Special Education, 2005) resulted from a national consultation on inclusive education held at Islamabad in April of 2005. The federal, provincial, and district governments, educational institutions, schools, parents, religious institutions, NGOs, organizations of persons with disabilities, the donor community, the business community, and society at large were urged to ensure that all children—regardless of gender, abilities, disabilities, and socioeconomic, cultural, and ethnic background—be treated with dignity and respect and have equal access to education, health services, work, and all other aspects of life. It was recommended that Pakistan develop inclusive environments on all levels of the mainstream public and private education system throughout Pakistan and eliminate barriers to participation in all public places. The Islamabad Declaration on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities followed the 2005 declaration (Government of Pakistan, 2009). It emerged after the leaders of

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Making the Invisibles Visible organizations of persons with disabilities from all of the provinces of Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir, senior officials from the DGSE, universities, students, the corporate sector, print media, legislators, international NGOs, and professional bodies assembled for a conference in August 2009. The participants agreed that the term persons with disabilities will be used instead of disabled persons in all communications to highlight the importance of human beings rather than the impairment. Furthermore, persons with disabilities will be provided access to the same range of services, opportunities, and facilities that are provided to other citizens of Pakistan. Easy access will be considered in designing new buildings, parks, housing developments, and public places. Those who advocate inclusive education believe that the government cannot achieve its goal of education for all until all of its policies take into account the 10% of children with mild and severe disabilities. Supporters argue that inclusion in mainstream schooling is an appropriate way to provide education for all children by bringing support services to the child rather than moving the child to the support services. Furthermore, it is more expensive to set up special schools than to train existing teachers and provide learning aids for children with disabilities in regular schools. Construction of ramps and classroom rearrangement can be accomplished within a limited budget. Parents and other decision makers largely champion inclusive education if professional support and financial resources for the improvement of schools are made available. In Pakistan, opponents of inclusive education believe that the professionals responsible for formulating the policies are mostly international experts who are not fully aware of the situation prevailing in our country. They believe that efforts directed toward the introduction of inclusive education are practically impossible. The majority of policy makers and consultants working at the federal level in special education indicate that they are not in favor of initiating inclusive education in Pakistan. They believe that the idea of inclusive education is alien to and impractical in Pakistan. Some concerned groups are also afraid that inclusive education may upset the current special education setup: They prefer to protect the current special education system. Some people argue that, without community awareness, teacher training, and appropriate courses, it is not practical to adopt inclusive education. Even when parents, teachers, administrators, and professionals seem to be aware of the concept of inclusive education, they are not sure how to implement it in ordinary schools and are uncertain of its impact on schools and children.

Inclusion in Practice A few schools are making serious efforts to create an inclusive environment through experimentation with various approaches. They provide access to existing schools to children with special needs; keep children with special needs within regular schools (although in separate classrooms); and support schools with multigrade inclusive classrooms. However, most schools in Pakistan are overcrowded and poorly equipped. The pedagogical method used largely emphasizes learning by rote. Very few schools address children’s individual learning needs. Many schools still use corporal punishment. The private sector is willing to cater to needs of children with disabilities and seems to be actively striving to expand and improve educational services. Some private schools

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

231

232

Mah Nazir Riaz have begun incorporating inclusive education. Often these schools are spacious and financially sound and have good physical and instructional facilities. A number of problems exist. For one thing, inclusive schools that demonstrate good practices in Pakistan are restricted to big cities in the private sector. Most of these schools are not accessible to children with disabilities living in remote rural areas. Too, in big cities such as Lahore and Karachi, there are professionals, though limited in number, who offer individualized education programs (IEP) for children with special needs. The IEPs are designed to meet the needs of individual students. However, these programs are very expensive, and the financial resources of the majority of parents are insufficient to allow them to take advantage of this service.

T E AC H E R S A N D PE DAG O G Y

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Teacher Training To provide sufficient numbers of special education personnel, the government of Pakistan in 1986 established the National Institute of Special Education (NISE). The organization’s main objectives are to devise programs that train educators who cater to the needs of persons with special needs; organize both short- and long-term training courses for teachers who work in special education centers; establish collaborative links with educational institutions, universities, and international agencies to train such professionals; organize national and international seminars; undertake research on the problems of children with disabilities; and prepare materials to guide the parents and teachers of children with special needs. Relevant courses are often organized in collaboration with international agencies such as the British Council, UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO, Cumberland University, the Norwegian Association of the Blind and Partially Sighted, Sight Savers International, the World Bank, Braillo Norway, NIFEM, IBM, and DIANATICs, UK. In addition, NISE organizes national and international conferences and seminars on a variety of issues related to special education. The development of special education curricula, learning materials, and other related materials are undertaken by NISE as well. The National Trust for the Disabled (NTD) (Government of Pakistan, 2003) often organizes training programs and orientation courses for administrators, teachers, and other professionals in collaboration with the NISE. The topics include classroom-management techniques, sign language, vocational training, conductive education for teachers working with children with cerebral palsy, mobility training for teachers working with children with visual impairment, networking of services for children with visual impairment, Total Communication for teachers working with children with hearing impairment, IEPs for teachers, the role of physiotherapists in the management of children with physical handicaps, introduction and management of cerebral palsy and Down syndrome, and financial management of the centers. The National Library and Resource Centre, established to provide relevant knowledge and professional literature and serve as a valuable resource facility for researchers in the field of special education, is attached to NISE. The library obtains books, journals, and

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Making the Invisibles Visible videos from developed countries of the world and disseminates them to the concerned institutes of special education for guidance and application.

I S S U E S I N T E AC H E R PR E PA R AT ION

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Very few students in Pakistan pursue higher education in the field of special education. Consequently, the majority of teachers who have specialized in various disciplines do not possess the skills required for teaching children with special needs. To increase the number of teachers available to teach at special education institutions, it is highly desirable that at least students of B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education/teachers training for secondary schools) study special education as a core course to acquire some training in working with special children. The prerequisite for admission to special education teacher training programs is a graduate degree in psychology, sociology, physical therapy, nursing, social work, or education. These training programs are run by the Ministry of Health separately from regular teacher training programs. Currently, two different approaches are followed for the preparation of a teacher to deliver educational and other services to children with special needs, namely, traditional and nontraditional. The traditional programs consist of regular semester courses largely offered by universities in Punjab and Karachi. Special education teachers are given an interdisciplinary comprehensive training aimed at providing a vast theoretical knowledge base, which will enable them to integrate a variety of theories in their practice. The nontraditional teacher training programs are offered primarily through in-service and professional development opportunities to teachers who work in special education institutions. In-service training is provided through short, intensive courses taught by foreign experts, such as psychologists, physicians, speech therapists, audiologists, and special educationists. These experts are invited mostly from England, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, and the United States.

ROL E S OF T H E PR I VAT E S EC T OR , PA R E N T G ROU P S , A N D A DVO C AC Y

Private Sector Telenor Pakistan recently launched the Khuddar Pakistan program in collaboration with STEP (Special Talent Exchange Program) (Safwan, 2009). This program aims to fully integrate persons with disabilities in their organization, to create awareness about their abilities, and to help them participate fully in everyday life with the help of assistive technologies. To achieve this objective, technology training laboratories will soon be established in partner institutions for persons with disabilities. The program also includes a talent hunt at schools for young cricketers with visual impairment. When a national wheelchair cricket tournament was organized by STEP, a total of 6 teams participated from all over the country. The National Braille Press, established at the Special Education Centre for Visually Impaired Children in Islamabad in 1986, was established by the Norwegian Association

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

233

234

Mah Nazir Riaz of the Blind and Partially Sighted for printing braille books and other teaching materials. Textbooks and useful materials in braille are distributed to special education centers and NGOs. The National Mobility and Independence Training Centre in Islamabad provides free training and guidance to persons with visual handicaps. Initially, the institution organized workshops and training courses with the help of foreign experts, but now locally trained teachers are providing instruction to parents, teachers, paramedical staff, and NGOs (DSGE, 2006).

Parents The majority of parents of children with disabilities are ready to do whatever they can to educate their child. Those who have financial resources generously donate to special education schools. However, parents largely seem dissatisfied with the quality of education and are not completely pleased with the existing vocational training facilities in special schools. In order to monitor the progress of children with disabilities, all of the special education centers working under the DGSE have established parent-teacher associations. This forum helps parents learn the skills to meet the special needs of their children and become partners in their education and training.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Advocacy Groups Associations of exceptional people have played a pivotal role in changing the lives of people with special needs in Pakistan. For example, the NTD is a national-level organization responsible for initiating, executing, and coordinating plans, programs, and projects for education, training, and rehabilitation (Government of Pakistan, 2003). The NTD has established special education complexes around the country. In most places, the teacher-student ratio is 1:10, which is ideal in the context of Pakistan. A specialized teaching methodology includes the use of various aids depending on students’ particular disabilities. Vocational programs are also arranged for the training and socioeconomic rehabilitation of students with disabilities. Physiotherapy services are also available for students and out patients.

The Role of NGOs A number of NGOs at the local, provincial, and federal levels are working for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. These NGOs, INGOs, and UN agencies have taken several initiatives to establish a large number of schools to address the needs of persons with disabilities. In addition, NGOs have great potential for implementing inclusive education: Several NGOs run model special schools in every big city in Pakistan.

M A JOR C ON T ROV E R S I E S A N D I S S U E S • Political situation. Almost 3 million Afghan refugees migrated to Pakistan during the Soviet War in Afghanistan. A huge inflow of these refugees adversely affected the socioeconomic conditions of the country. Pakistan also had to face the

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Making the Invisibles Visible devastating effects of the earthquake of 2005 and the flood of 2010. The nation is once again confronted with a major challenge by an enemy group known as the Taliban, whose trained suicide bombers penetrate Pakistani territory whenever their leaders want to shed the blood of innocent masses. At the same time, drone attacks and ongoing conflicts in Swat, North and South Waziristan, and the tribal areas have caused massive destruction of human life and damaged the infrastructure of northwest Pakistan. The ongoing confl ict between Taliban militants and our government had displaced more than 3 million civilians in Pakistan as of the end of 2009. This havoc has had disastrous consequences for our fragile economy (Saiyid, 2008). Our present political leadership does not seem to have the vision to fi nd a practical and lasting solution to this painful situation. • Gender. During the past 2 years, gender disparity has further increased due to the Taliban’s enforcement of a complete ban on female education in the Swat district. A large number of girls’ schools were shut down or blown up by the militants in the town of Mingora (Swat). However, after military operations in the areas, several schools were reopened.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• Access. Out of a total of approximately 18 million children in Pakistan, only about 42% are enrolled in schools. Besides significant gender disparities in educational achievement, marked variations exist between urban and rural populations and among the different provinces of Pakistan. The government is striving hard to improve the current status of education in the country. Through various educational reforms, the Ministry of Education expects to achieve the target of 100% enrollment among primary school–aged children and an 86% literacy rate among people who are at least 10 years of age. • Inclusion. Although mainstreaming has largely replaced special institutions in the developed countries, very little change has taken place in Pakistan regarding inclusive education. Mainstream schools reject the admission of a child with a disability on the grounds that the child cannot cope with academic work. They ignore the fact that education is not just about academics but also about inculcating social and moral values, discipline, and social interaction. Another argument against inclusive education involves the limited infrastructure and teaching staff to cope with the needs of children with disabilities. Our classrooms in government-run schools are often overcrowded with a teacher-student ratio of at least 1:50. • Pedagogy. In Pakistan today, the emphasis of schoolteachers is neither on enhancing the students’ learning ability nor on developing their classroom participation. Furthermore, the present school system does not provide opportunities for creative and critical thinking. Students are expected to obey their teachers and to learn by rote rather than develop critical thinking or participate in creative activities. • Technology. Another important issue relates to the optimal utilization of available resources provided by the government for special education. For instance, many

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

235

236

Mah Nazir Riaz institutions established for persons with visual impairment have automatic braille translation machines that can translate large amounts of important material. But very few people know how to operate them. Consequently, they are used marginally for translating text. For optimal utilization of such equipment, either the teachers must be trained or trained personnel must be available in the special education institutions.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

FUTUR E TR ENDS As full citizens of Pakistan, people with disabilities are entitled to equal rights. The Ministry of Women Development, Social Welfare, and Special Education, is currently streamlining its functions to meet the needs of women, children, persons with disabilities, and elderly people. Its main objective is to implement the governmental policies and projects that address the provision of training and services for persons with disabilities and handicaps. A national task force on persons with disabilities has been set up to design appropriate strategies in consultation with the provincial governments, NGOs, and civil organizations working in this field. A full-fledged program to spread awareness of the needs of people with physical challenges will be launched in the near future. Schools focusing on the academic, social, emotional, and physical development of all children will be established throughout Pakistan. This initiative is based on UN conventions, the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and the Islamabad Declaration of Inclusive Education. It is expected that the number of schools providing inclusive education in Pakistan will increase rapidly in the near future. This movement will necessitate changes in curriculum in collaboration with the relevant agencies, provision of specialized aids and equipment for persons with disabilities, and teacher training programs. To strengthen such programs, it is imperative to provide diagnostic and assessment services, occupational therapy, and physiotherapy. The use of information technology will be publicized (e.g., the use of computers for the education and training of persons with disabilities as promoted by special education centers established by federal and provincial governments). The private sector and the general public will also be involved in this fast-expanding field. Special attention will be given to the provision of assistive technology for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. Outreach programs will be promoted for the identification of children with disabilities, assessment of their special needs, and training of their family members in their homes. Training facilities will also be provided for staff involved in outreach programs. At present, there is only a 1% quota for the employment of persons with disabilities. Legal steps will be taken to increase the quota to 2%. Employers will be given incentives, financial assistance, and exclusive contracts or priority production rights to promote the employment of persons with disabilities. Future policies concerning persons with disabilities will focus on academic and applied research, as well as creating public awareness and an attitude of change by presenting positive images and success stories of persons with disabilities through the mass media.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Making the Invisibles Visible Table 3. Classification of Disabled Population by Nature of Disability Disability Male Visual handicap 146,029 Hearing impairment 138,235 Physical handicap 382,262 Severe mental illness 119,645 Mental handicap 134,887 Multiple disabilities 140,285 857,362 Others Total population of persons 1,918,705 with disabilities

Female 119,369 105,448 243,523 91,209 115,297 130,166 569,438 1,374,450

Total 265,398 243,683 625,785 210,854 250,184 270,451 1426,800 3,293,155

Percentage 8.06 7.40 19.00 6.40 7.60 8.21 43.33 2.49

Source: Statistics Division (Population Census Organization), Govt. of Pakistan (Census 1998).

C L O S I NG NO T E The development and growth of special education in Pakistan is enlightening. As a third-world country with limited financial resources and experiencing political unrest, constant exposure to threats from neighboring countries and the Taliban, overpopulation, and the interference of the United States in the boundaries of our country, Pakistan has made remarkable progress in the areas of special education, teacher preparation, and the range of services provided to persons with disabilities.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

R E F E R E NC E S Ahmad, A. 1982. Nationalism or Islam: Indo-Pakistan Episode. New York: Vantage. Aqila, K. (2003). A historical and evaluative study of special education in Pakistan. PhD diss., University of Karachi, Pakistan. Baluch, N. A. (1965). The traditional cultures in West Pakistan. In A. S. Dil (Ed.), Perspectives on Pakistan (pp. 167–202). Abbottabad: Bookservice. Batool, T., & Mehmood, H. (2000). Attitudes of visually impaired children toward their inclusion in the schools of normal children. Master’s thesis, University of the Punjab. Government of Pakistan, Directorate General of Special Education. (2006). Facilities and services for persons with disabilities in Pakistan. Islamabad: DGSE. Government of Pakistan, Directorate General of Special Education. (1986). National policy for rehabilitation of the disabled. Islamabad: DGSE. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education. (2007–2008). Pakistan education statistics. Islamabad: Academy of Educational Planning and Management. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare. (2009, August). Islamabad declaration on rights of persons with disabilities. Islamabad: Sightsavers, American Institute for Research. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare. (2006). National plan of action. Islamabad: DGSE. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Social Welfare and Special Education. (2005, April). Islamabad Declaration on Inclusive Education. Islamabad: Braillo Norway IDP International Development.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

237

238

Mah Nazir Riaz

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Social Welfare and Special Education. (2002). National policy for persons with disabilities. Islamabad: DGSE. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Social Welfare and Special Education. (2003). National trust for the disabled. Islamabad: DGSE. Hayat, R. (1994). The attitudes of physically disabled students and their teachers towards integration of the disabled in schools for normal children. Master’s thesis, University of the Punjab. Hussain, B., & Javed, T. 1997. The development of a plan for mainstreaming of hearingimpaired children. Master’s thesis, University of the Punjab. Mumtaz, S. (2008, September 27). Our invisible citizens. Daily Dawn. Retrieved from http:// DAWN.com. Noor, N., & Khokhar, S. (2000). The study of the problems faced by the physically handicapped students in the normal educational institutions. Master’s thesis, University of the Punjab. Qureshi, M. M. (2003). Pakistan country. Paper presented at the regional workshop on a comprehensive and integral convention on the protection and promotion of the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. Riaz, M. N. 1994. Special education in Pakistan. In K. Mazurek & M. Winzer (Eds.), Comparative studies in special education (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Safwan. (2009, September). Telenor Khuddar Pakistan program. Retrieved from http://www .telenor.com.pk/cr/khuddarPakistan.php. Saiyid, D. (2008, September 27). The threat from within. Daily Dawn. Retrieved from www .dawn.com/2008/09/27/op.htm. Sultana, Q. (1993, April). Special education in Pakistan. Paper presented at the Annual International Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, San Antonio, Texas. Wahid, Z., & Ishfaq, S. (2000). A study of the perceptions of the Punjab University teachers about the academic capabilities of hearing-impaired children. Master’s thesis, University of the Punjab.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

The Pacific Rim—Changing Paradigms and New Approaches

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Part Six

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved. International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

12 Special Education in Rising China: Its Developments, Prospects, and Challenges in the Early 21st Century

Wing-Wah Law

Since the late 20th century, the rights and education of persons with disabilities have been important international concerns, particularly in the international human rights movement and the Education for All Movement (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2010; United Nations, 2006). These movements strive to maximize the participation of all, including disabled persons, in education and society by redistributing resources and minimizing exclusionary and discriminatory practices (Polat, 2011). China has responded to these movements since the 1980s through various efforts to develop work and education opportunities for disabled persons. Responses have included the enactment of laws to protect the rights of disabled persons, provision of rehabilitation and employment services, expansion of public special education in special schools, special and inclusive classes in ordinary primary and junior (vocational) secondary education, and curricular reform to reduce gaps in curricula between disabled students and regular students. These efforts represent a step toward bringing social justice to disabled people in Chinese society. The striving for social justice is constrained, however, by weak enforcement of the law as well as extra-legal factors such as low education financing, lack of support for inclusive education, inadequately trained teachers and social workers, and a lack of parental and community involvement. Before examining the development of and contentious issues confronting education for disabled persons, it is useful to understand the general context of Chinese special education. T H E G E N E R A L C ON T E X T OF C H I N E S E S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION China has a territory of 9.6 million square kilometers. It has 33 administrative divisions, including four municipalities (Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Chongqing), 22 provinces, five autonomous regions (such as Tibet and Xinjiang), and two special administrative regions (Hong Kong and Macao). Its administrative hierarchy comprises two major tiers: the central government and local governments. The latter is further divided into municipal/provincial, city, county, township, and village levels. The author would like to express gratitude to Rao Ning for his careful research assistance in the writing of this chapter. 241

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

242

Wing-Wah Law Demographically, China is the most populous country in the world. It has 1.3 billion people, about one-fi fth of the world’s population. China comprises 56 ethnic groups, with Hans as the ethnic majority group (92% of the total population); the rest are ethnic minority groups (8%). Although more than 50 languages are used, the Han people’s Chinese is the official written language. Putonghua is the official common national language. Some minority languages do not have a written form. Since the late 1970s, China has experienced drastic domestic changes. These include an economic transition from a socialist to a socialist market economy, sociopolitical changes from suppression to toleration of civil society and religion, and a reinstatement of Chinese culture.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Economic Transition From Socialist to Socialist Market Economy In the late 1970s, China adopted a policy of economic reform and opening up to the world. Since then, China has diversified its diplomatic and economic links from the former socialist bloc to include capitalist countries. To revitalize the declining socialist economy at home, China adopted five major strategies (Law, 2006b). First, it made use of the diversification of economic ties to tap into global capital and utilize foreign knowledge and technology from Western countries such as the United States and Germany. Second, China transformed its socialist economy marked by central planning to a socialist market economy marked by the coexistence of state planning and the market as well as private forces. Third, China utilized a differential approach to development. Because of its vast territory and huge population, it is difficult for China to have equal pace of development across all areas. Thus China allowed some areas to develop first (particularly coastal China in the 1980s to western China in the late 1990s) and some people to get rich first, with a view to creating co-prosperity across the nation. Fourth, China gradually shifted its economic structure from primary to tertiary industry. The share of primary (the manufacture of raw materials such as meat, grains, and timber), secondary (the manufacture of goods), and tertiary industries (industries that provide transportation or finance) changed from 28.2%, 47.9%, and 23.9% in 1978 to 11.3%, 48.6%, and 40.1% in 2008, respectively (National Bureau of Statistics, 2009). Fifth (and related to the third strategy), China increased the pace of urbanization. The population of urban dwellers rose from about 10% in 1950 to 18% in 1978 and 46% in 2008. China’s economic achievements are remarkable. Its gross domestic product (GDP) rose over 80-fold, from CNY365 billion in 1978 to CNY30,067 billion in 2008. In 2009, China replaced Japan as the second-largest economy (after the United States) in the world. Despite these achievements, China is still at the level between lower-middle- and uppermiddle-income countries. Its per-capita income is still low; for example, the figure for 2008 was US$2,940, which led China to rank 127th in the world (World Bank, 2010).

Sociopolitical Change From Suppression to Toleration of Civil Society and Religion The People’s Republic of China has been ruled by the Communist Party of China from its founding in 1949. Since the economic reform and opening to the world in the late 1970s, China has made a policy shift from suppression to partial toleration of civil society as an intermediate realm between the state and basic units, such as the family (Zhang & Baum, 2004).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in Rising China This burgeoning civil society is marked by the widespread use of mobile phones and the Internet, the rise of public opinion in traditional mass media and cyberspace (Liu, 1996), and the blooming of nonprofit social organizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The number of registered social organizations and NGOs rose from 154,000 in 2000 to over 410,000 in 2009 (Ministry of Civil Affairs, 2001, 2009). These organizations take over from the state many social and community services in various sectors and provide new services to address emerging social needs. There are five major religions in China: Buddhism, Daoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestant Christianity. Despite the constitutional right to freedom of religion, the state strictly controlled religious activities during the period under Mao Zedong’s leadership (1950s through mid-1970s). Since the economic reform in the late 1970s, the state began to allow the blooming of religions. Nowadays, religious activities are becoming more open to the public and are less subject to the state’s control, as long as they do not organize activities or touch on issues that are deemed politically sensitive by the state. Because China adopts the policy of separation between religion and education (National People’s Congress, 1995, Article 8), religious groups are not allowed to run schools or to organize religious activities on campuses.

Reinstatement of Chinese Culture as an Integral Part of Nation Rebuilding

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Although Chinese culture is multifaceted and difficult to define (Fan, 2000), Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism have been considered as three major pillars of traditional Chinese culture that have shaped Chinese people’s social norms, thoughts, behaviors, and values (Russell, 1922; Zhu & Xu, 2005). In imperial China, Confucianism advocated the need to take care of disabled persons (and orphans and the widowed; Confucius, 1985). Such responsibility often fell on the shoulders of their families and communities rather than the state. In post-1949 China under Mao Zedong’s leadership, traditional Chinese culture was condemned as feudalist and considered a forbidden topic, even in academic research (Tang & Zuo, 1996). During the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), Mao launched the nationwide Campaign of Criticizing Lin Biao and Confucius to eradicate such Confucian values as fi lial piety, righteousness, particularistic loyalty, and ritualism (Brugger, 1978). After Deng Xiaoping assumed power in the late 1970s, China’s government began to reinstate the role of Chinese culture in rebuilding the nation. In particular, it used traditional Chinese values and virtues to tackle moral and social issues that arose from socialist market economic reform, such as money worshipping, extreme individualism, and hedonism (Law, 2006a). To ease internal social and ethnic confl icts resulting from economic and social disparities, China’s President Hu Jintao (2003) specifically incorporated a traditional Chinese value—harmony (he)—as a guiding principle of state governance and an important goal of the Chinese nation’s revival. Later, the Communist Party of China Central Committee and the State Council (2008) specified developing work for disabled people and improving their living and working conditions as “important and urgent” tasks of building a harmonious and moderately prosperous society in China.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

243

244

Wing-Wah Law E X PA N S ION OF T H E E DUC AT ION A L S Y S T E M China’s educational system is the largest in the world. It comprises four major tiers: preschool education, primary education and junior-secondary education as 9-year compulsory education, senior-secondary/technical education, and higher education. This is shown in Figure 1. In 2009, China’s student enrollment amounted to 251 million. This broke down to about 27 million in 138,200 preschools, 101 million in 280,200 primary schools, 54 million in 56,300 junior-secondary schools, 46 million in 29,00 senior-secondary schools, 428,000 in 1,672 special schools, and 23 million in higher-education institutes (Ministry of Education, 2010). To face the rising challenges from economic globalization and increasing demands for quality human capital to advance national development, China has been expanding its educational system in stages since the 1980s. This started with the policy of popularizing 9-year compulsory schooling (primary and junior-secondary education) in 1986 with a view to enhancing the quality of the labor force at the low end of the labor market. Similar to the economic strategy of allowing some areas to develop first, China started popularizing primary education and then junior-secondary education. Geographically,

Level Higher education (4 years of undergraduate programs)

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Post-compulsory secondary education (3 years)

Compulsory schooling (6 years of primary education and 3 years of junior-secondary education, grades 1-9)

Regular Education

Regular higher-education institutes

Special Education

Places for disabled learners in regular or special classes

Special highereducation institutes

Regular senior-secondary/ technical schools

Special seniorsecondary education

Regular primary and junior-secondary schools

Special schools

Regular Preschools

Special preschools

Preschool education (3 years)

Disabled learners

Figure 1. Academic structure of China’s education and special education Source: Adapted from Po (1995).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in Rising China it began with the coastal region in the late 1980s and extended to central and western regions in the 2000s. To produce more workers at the high end of the labor market, China began to drastically expand its higher education in the late 1990s. Between 1997 and 2009, the quota of admission to first-year undergraduate and certificate programs increased from about 1 million to 6.4 million; the admission rate rose from 9.1% to 24.2% (Ministry of Education, 1998, 2010). Education for students with disabilities, in special schools or mainstreamed in regular classrooms, also increased from the preschool to higher education levels.

DE F I N I T ION A N D P OPU L AT ION OF DI S A BL E D PE R S ON S

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

In China, a person with disabilities (canjiren) is legally defi ned as “one who has abnormalities or loss of a certain organ or function, psychologically or physiologically, or in anatomical structure and has lost wholly or in part the ability to perform an activity in the way considered normal” (National People’s Congress, 2008, Article 2). Disabilities include physical, visual, hearing, speech, intellectual, psychiatric, and multiple impairments. According to the first two national sampling surveys of the disabled population, the estimated number of disabled persons increased from 51.64 million in 1987 to 82.96 million in 2006. The estimated percentage of disabled persons in the population increased by 1.44% to 6.34% in 2006 (State Statistical Bureau, 1987, 2006). These surveys reflected two conspicuous changes in types of disabled persons: the percentages of physically disabled persons and psychiatric persons rose, but those of intellectual disability and hearing and speech disabilities dropped (see Table 1). In 2006, disabled persons were distributed among 70.5 million families, which covered about 20% of China’s population (State Statistical Bureau, 2007). Male and female disabled persons accounted for 51.6% and 48.4%, respectively. Regarding the rural-urban distribution, a majority (75%) of disabled persons lived in rural areas with the rest Table 1. Estimated Population of Disabled Persons by Type of Disabilities, 1987 and 2006 Type of Disability

1987 Number

Hearing Speech Visual Physical Intellectual Psychiatric Multiple Total

17,700,000* 7,550,000 7,550,000 10,170,000 1,940,000 6,730,000 51,640,000

Percentage 34.4* 14.6 14.6 19.7 3.8 13.0 100.0

Number 20,040,000 1,270,000 12,330,000 24,120,000 5,540,000 6,140,000 13,520,000 82,960,000

2006 Percentage 24.2 1.5 14.9 29.1 6.7 7.4 16.3 100.0

*Figures include persons with hearing and speech impairments. Source: State Statistical Bureau (1987); State Statistical Bureau (2006).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

245

246

Wing-Wah Law residing in urban areas. With regards to age distribution, 4.7% of disabled persons were ages 14 or below, 42.1% were ages 15 to 59, and 53.2% were ages 60 or above. The illiteracy rate of disabled persons ages 15 and above was to 43.3% (i.e., 35.9 million). Regarding schooling, 26.4 million (31.8%) disabled persons attained primary school qualification, 12.5 million (15%) completed junior-secondary education, 4.1 million (4.9%) received their senior-secondary-school diploma, and 940,000 (1.1%) attained degrees or subdegree qualifications. In 2009, China provided rehabilitation services for 6.2 million disabled persons, including hearing and speech training for more than 19,800 children, physical therapy for more than 15,000 children with physical disabilities, and rehabilitation training for 1,090 autistic children (China Disabled Persons’ Federation, 2010).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

E M E RG E NC E OF L EG A L PROT EC T ION OF DI S A BL E D PE R S ON S’ R IG H T S T O E DUC AT ION I N T H E 19 8 0 S Before the late 1970s, China’s special education focused on only two major disability types: visual impairments and deafness. In 1965, 266 blind schools and deaf schools enrolled about 22,800 blind or deaf students (Fang, 2000). No education was offered for children with mental impairments and other types of disabilities. There was also no specific institution to train special education teachers. After the Constitution was revised in 1982, China began to expand the definition of education for disabled children to include speech disabilities and other impairments. Currently, special education generally refers to the provision of education for three major types of children with special educational needs (SEN). These are children with general disabilities, children with learning disabilities, and gifted children (Fang, 2005). Children with general disabilities include those with physical, sensory, mental, speech, or multiple impairments. “Problem students” (wenti xuesheng) refer to those with learning disabilities, behavioral and emotional disorders, or autism. (Problem students and those who are gifted are not the focus of this chapter.) Since the economic reform and opening to the world in the late 1970s, China’s state began to strengthen legal protection of and education for disabled people. In the early 1980s, the National People’s Congress (1982) amended the Constitution to recognize major rights of disabled people and required the state and society to “help make arrangements for the work, livelihood and education of the blind, deaf-mute and other handicapped citizens” (Article 45). This has become an important legal foundation for developing special education. Later, the Communist Party of China Central Committee (1985) stipulated that in addition to the introduction of 9-year compulsory schooling, China should develop special education for children who are blind, deaf, physically handicapped, or developmentally disabled. As a result, in 1986 China enacted the Basic Education Law and began to implement 9-year compulsory schooling for all children, including those with disabilities. This is in line with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s position advocating the extension of the universal right to education to persons with disabilities (UNESCO, 2010).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in Rising China In particular, the Basic Education Law required governments of all levels to set up special schools or special education classes for children who were blind, deaf, or developmentally delayed or who had language disabilities (National People’s Congress, 1986, Article 9). However, this was far from enough to protect the rights of disabled people in education or in other aspects of their lives. A few years later, the National People’s Congress (1990) enacted the unprecedented Law on the Protection of Persons With Disabilities to provide a wider coverage of disabled people’s rights in areas including rehabilitation, education, employment, cultural life, social security, and accessible environments. Regarding education, the 1990 law enshrined China’s six major guiding principles to protect disabled children’s opportunity to access education at various levels. • The principle of equality. The law stipulated that disabled children had the same legal right to 9 years of free, compulsory schooling as other children (Article 18).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• The principle of different approaches to children with different levels of disability (Articles 22–23). The law stipulated two major approaches to special education: segregation and inclusive education. In the segregation approach, children with severe disabilities study in special schools or educational institutions. In the inclusive approach, disabled students with the ability to receive regular education attend classes (suiban jiudu) with other students in regular preschools, schools, or educational institutions according to their age. During the 9-year compulsory schooling, these disabled students could study the same curriculum and textbooks as other students, but demands on their progress would be flexible (Ministry of Education, 1994). To a large extent, China’s inclusion approach is in line with the spirit of UNESCO’s (1994) Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Disabled children who are not able to receive regular education can attend special education classes, which are offered in children’s welfare institutes or schools attached to regular preschools. • The principle of nondiscrimination against disabled children. Primary schools and junior-secondary schools are required to admit eligible disabled children who are able to adapt to their schools. As well, senior-secondary schools, vocational and technical schools, and higher-education institutes have to admit qualified disabled children, as prescribed by the state, without discrimination (Article 22). This principle is also advocated by the United Nations (2006, Article 24). • The priority of developing special education. The first goal is to increase the number of special education programs and opportunities and its second goal is to enhance the quality of the education. Compulsory education and vocational and technical education would be developed first and then preschool and juniorsecondary education and above (Article 20) would follow. • The principle of cooperation. Government and private actors should act together in sponsoring and providing special education (Article 21). • The importance of training teachers. The law stipulated that basic knowledge of special education be incorporated into general teacher training regular schools. Teachers who teach in special schools or who teach special education classes in

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

247

248

Wing-Wah Law general schools should receive specialized training regular schools (Article 25). The Ministry of Education’s (1994) Regulations on Education for Persons With Disabilities strengthened this article by being the first regulations to govern the daily operation of special education in China.

E DUC AT ION F OR DI S A BL E D C H I L DR E N S I N C E T H E 19 8 0 S China’s system of special education was established gradually, beginning in the 1980s with the first enactment of legislation to protect disabled persons’ rights. It covered preschool education, 9-year compulsory primary and junior-secondary schooling, senior-secondary/technical education, and higher education (see Figure 1). Education for people with general disabilities seeks to create conditions that help them participate in social life with equal opportunity (Ministry of Education, 1994). The Ministry of Civil Affairs mainly oversees employment for disabled people, and the Ministry of Education is mainly in charge of education for disabled children. Both ministries are assisted by a semi-state organization, the China Disabled Persons’ Federation, which was established in 1987 by merging several major associations for disabled persons.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Preschool Education Preschool education for disabled persons is provided mostly through four major channels that are mostly publicly funded: regular preschools, welfare-related institutes for disabled children, rehabilitation institutes, and special schools or special preschool classes in regular schools (State Council, 1994). They provide education mainly for deaf children, but are expanding to include children with other disabilities. In developed cities, some private preschools are beginning to offer special education classes for children. They focus mostly on language training for deaf children and rehabilitation for autistic children because early intervention and treatment are vital to these children. Wealthy parents are willing to pay high tuition fees for these programs. Preschool education for disabled children is still at the beginning stage of development, however. Compared to other educational levels, its school facilities, teacher qualifications, and teacher training programs are weak (Zhu, 2008).

Nine-Year Compulsory Education Nine-year compulsory schooling is the largest sector of education for disabled children. It is provided in four major types of classes: those in special schools for children with visual, hearing, and mental impairments; special education classes held in regular schools, children’s welfare institutes, and related institutes for the disabled; and inclusive classes in regular primary schools and junior-(vocational) secondary schools (suiban jiudu). With a view to facilitating the access of disabled students to compulsory schooling, China introduced a 5-year (1996–2000) plan for special education. Similar to the popularization of 9-year compulsory schooling in the regular school sector, China set different concrete targeted admission rates of 33 types of disabled children in areas with

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in Rising China Table 2. School Enrollment of Disabled Persons Ages 6–14 by Type of Disability, 2006 Type of Disability

Hearing Speech Visual Physical Intellectual Psychiatric Multiple Total

Disabled children Number

Percentage

110,000 170,000 130,000 480,000 760,000 60,000 750,000 2,460,000

4.5 6.9 5.3 19.5 30.9 2.4 30.5 100.0

Percentage of disabled children studying in regular or special schools 85.1 76.9 79.1 80.4 64.9 69.4 41.0 63.2 (average)

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Source: State Statistical Bureau (2007).

different levels of economic development. Between 1996 and 2000, the national admission rate of students with visual, hearing, and mental impairments was expected to rise to about 80% (State Education Commission & China Disabled Persons’ Federation, 1996). This plan was not successful, however. In 2006, disabled children ages 6 to 14 amounted to 2.46 million (about 3% of the population of disabled persons; State Statistical Bureau, 2007). Most were children with mental impairments (30.9%) and children with multiple disabilities (30.5%; see Table 2). About 63.2% of disabled children were enrolled in regular schools or special schools. But this figure was significantly lower than the corresponding national average of admission rates of typically developing children to primary education (99.3%) and junior-secondary education (97%). In 2009, the figure even dropped slightly to 62.9% (Ministry of Education, 2010). Moreover, a significant portion of legally eligible disabled children could not receive compulsory schooling. In 2009, while 428,100 disabled children were enrolled in special or regular schools, some 211,000 were unable to enjoy basic education (China Disabled Persons’ Federation, 2010; Ministry of Education, 2010; see Figure 2). The reasons preventing them included severe impairments, poor families that could not afford it, and insufficient places for special education, particularly in poor rural areas. Despite special education’s expansion since the 1980s, disparities in educational opportunities for disabled students still exist. Girls are more disadvantaged than boys because boys are often given priority in family consideration. In 2008, the admission rates of girls and boys were 34.4% and 65.6%, respectively (calculated from figures in Ministry of Education, 2009b). Disabled students living in rural or less developed areas are more disadvantaged. In 2008, most (95% of 1,640) special schools were located in urban and county/township areas, and only about 5% of special schools were in rural areas (Ministry of Education, 2009b). The admission and enrollment rates of special and regular schools in rural areas were 38% and 40%, respectively, but about 75% of disabled persons, as mentioned earlier, lived in rural areas. The urban-to-rural ratio of disabled children population was 1:3, but that of disabled children in school was 1.22:1 (Guan, 2009).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

249

250

Wing-Wah Law Multiple disabilities

27,000 14,000

Psychiatric diseases

46,000

Physical disability

44,000

Intellectual disability 20,000

Speech impairment

29,000

Hearing impairment

31,000

Virtual impairment 0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Number of disabled children Figure 2. Distribution of disabled students who were unable to access school education, 2009 Source: China Disabled Persons’ Federation (2010).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Postcompulsory Vocational and Regular Education At the postcompulsory schooling level, the admission and enrollment rates of disabled students are far lower than those of their counterparts in regular institutions. The bottleneck of disabled students seeking to access further education begins at the seniorsecondary level. Based on limited statistics available from the China Disabled Persons’ Federation (2010) and the Ministry of Education (2010) from 2009, 11,448 disabled students studied in 174 vocational schools or institutes. Another 6,339 disabled students were enrolled in 104 special senior-secondary schools: 5,197 in 80 special schools for the deaf and 1,142 in 20 schools for the blind. The overall enrollment size of special seniorsecondary/vocational education was only 0.04% of its regular counterpart’s enrollment. In addition, 1,852 vocational training institutes under the aegis of the China Disabled Persons’ Federation offered short- or medium-term vocational training workshops to 7.9 million people. Throughout the world, disabled people have very restricted opportunities for higher education (UNESCO, 2010). China is no exception. Compared to other Chinese students, disabled students’ road to higher education in China is more difficult. Under the policy of zero rejection, regular higher-education institutes, as mentioned earlier, must use the same entrance requirements in admitting regular and disabled students. Physically disabled individuals are required to take the national entrance examination. Blind and deaf students must take entrance examinations run by individual higher education institutes. English is a core entrance exam subject and has been a major barrier to disabled students accessing higher education. Deaf students have been allowed to take English only as an elective, rather than as a core subject, in compulsory schooling since the special education curricular reform in 2007 (see more in the next section). As a result, in 2009, only about 6,600 disabled students were admitted to regular universities and colleges, and 1,196 disabled students were admitted to special higher-education institutes (China Disabled Persons’ Federation, 2010). These numbers account for only 0.1% of 6.4 million first-year students in Chinese higher education. Disabled students’

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in Rising China demand for places in senior-secondary and higher-education programs has increased, however, because of the expansion of compulsory schooling.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Curricular Reform of Chinese Special Education Recently, China began to reform curricula for blind, deaf, and mentally impaired students in special schools. The Ministry of Education (2007a, 2007b, 2007c) issued three new curriculum standards covering course subjects and the amount of time devoted to these subjects during the 9 years of compulsory education in order to help students master a broad knowledge base and develop basic competencies to face labor market needs in changing domestic and global economic contexts. A careful analysis of these new curricula reveals four major changes. First, the Ministry of Education introduced three common principles: (1) integration between education and rehabilitation; (2) integration between learning and life; and (3) maintenance of uniform national educational standards and the flexibility to adapt the curricula to the students’ special-education needs. Second, the Ministry of Education stressed the concept of inclusion by reducing the gaps in the overall aim and scope of curricula between regular students and disabled students. As in the regular curriculum, the new curricula emphasized the importance of preparing students to live and function as responsible Chinese citizens. In particular, these new curricula stressed the political task of special education in helping students develop the spirit of patriotism and collectivism and a love for socialism and the Communist Party of China. Moreover, similar to the revised basic curriculum standards of regular primary schools and junior-secondary schools in the early 2000s (Ministry of Education, 2001), the new curricula for the blind and deaf aimed to help disabled students develop a basic and broad knowledge base. Similar to the regular curricula, these two new curricula adopted the concept of key learning areas by grouping subjects. Blind students, for example, are required to take political education (6.3% of total class time in 9 years); Chinese (18.3%); mathematics (16.9%); English (7.8%); history and society (3.5%); science (7.8%); physical and health education (6.3%); art and music (10.6%); and integrative practical learning, covering information technology, integrative social practice, and a school-based curriculum (15.1%; Ministry of Education, 2007b). Students with mental impairment are not required to take this kind of broad curriculum because of their limited capacity to handle so many key learning areas. Instead, they are expected to learn basic knowledge and master basic daily living skills. At the primaryschool level, mentally impaired students must participate in about 70% to 80% of the general (compulsory) curriculum, including language in life, mathematics in life, life adaptations (self-care, simple housework, self-protection, and social adaptation), singing and movement, drawing and craft, and physical education and health (Ministry of Education, 2007c). Depending on school conditions and students’ learning ability, they can take more challenging subjects through electives, which account for about 20% to 30% of class time. The electives might include information technology, rehabilitation training, a second language (such as local dialects, Putonghua, or simple English), art and leisure activities, and some school-based modules. Third, different elements and emphases are incorporated into the new curricula, particularly for blind and deaf students. The object is to equip them with skills to rise to

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

251

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

252

Wing-Wah Law the challenges from rapid social change in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world. Take the new curriculum for deaf children as an example. Similar to UNESCO’s (1996, 2000) advocacy of four major types of basic skills (learning to know, learning to do, learning to be, and learning to live together) to face the challenges of globalization, the new curriculum expects deaf students to shift the focus of their learning from merely learning outcomes to include learning processes and skills by learning to learn, learning to live together, learning to cooperate, and learning to survive (Ministry of Education, 2007a). The new curriculum incorporated a mandatory key learning area—integrative practical learning (which covers information technology, project learning, and service learning)—with a view to enhancing the abilities of disabled children in information processing, social interactions, and participation in community and society. Another new key learning area—communication and social interaction—was specifically intended to provide deaf children with training in sensory awareness, speech, sign language, and writing skills to lay an important foundation for their future work and social life. These students also were given an unprecedented opportunity to choose English language as an elective. This training could help students access foreign information and access to the world through the Internet. It also gives them a better chance to access higher education because of the English-language component in the entrance exams for admission to Chinese universities and colleges. Finally, the new curriculum emphasized deaf students’ artistic and aesthetic development. For example, every week students spend from 5 to 6 class hours for physical education in grades 1 to 3; from 10 to 12 hours in grades 1 to 6; and from 0 to 6 hours in grades 7 to 9 for arts and crafts (Wang, 2007). These new curriculum emphases are in line with the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), which recognizes the importance of disabled person’s accessibility not only to physical environments but also to the social, economic, and cultural environments and information in a changing world. Fourth, to emphasize the integration of education and rehabilitation, different types of rehabilitation for blind, deaf, and mentally impaired students are arranged in the new curricula. Blind students are required to use 7.4% of class time on general rehabilitation, mobility training, and social adaptation. Deaf students need to spend about 6.6% to 6.8% of class time on communication and social interaction, and 4.9% to 7.0% of class time on labor skills (including basic daily life skills, and working and vocational skills; Ministry of Education, 2007a, 2007b). For mentally impaired students, rehabilitation, as mentioned earlier, is an elective component. It needs to develop individualized programs for students with differing impairment in movement, cognition, speech and/or thinking, and offer rehabilitation training, treatment, and counseling (Ministry of Education, 2007c).

C ON T E N T IOUS I S S U E S C ON F RON T I NG WOR K A N D E DUC AT ION F OR DI S A BL E D PE R S ON S Work and education for disabled people in China have witnessed important achievements since the 1980s. The Communist Party of China Central Committee and the State Council (2008), however, have admitted that such work is facing a number of major challenges.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in Rising China These are the lack of a comprehensive policy and measures to protect disabled people; problems in basic living, health care, rehabilitation, education, employment, and participation in social life; living standards that are far below the average standards of their community; reluctance of some local governments and departments to encourage work for people with disabilities; low public awareness of the needs of disabled people; and some people’s strong discrimination against them. Similarly, education for disabled children is facing contentious issues: demand for legal assurance of greater access to education, shortage of educational financing, problems of inclusive education, lack of professionally trained social workers, and low parental and community involvement. The next section argues that these issues challenge the provision of equal access to and the quality of education for disabled persons in one way or another. Law alone cannot ensure social justice and equity; the provision and quality of education for disabled children are also affected by extra-legal factors, including educational financing.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Ensuring Access to Education The first contentious issue is how to ensure disabled children’s greater access to compulsory and postcompulsory schooling. Despite the promulgation of the 1990 law on disabled persons’ rights and several important administrative regulations, in the late 2000s the Minister of Civil Affairs, Li Xueju (2008), admitted that disabled children, disabled youths, and children whose parents are disabled were still confronting “practical difficulty” in accessing education at various levels. To address this issue, China’s government continued to rely on the use of the law. Some scholars (e.g., Bao, Li, & Guo, 2009; Deng & Zhou, 2005) pushed for a special law on education for disabled children similar to the U.S. Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Instead of enacting a special education law, the National People’s Congress (2006) revised the Basic Education Law to include language requiring regular primary and junior-secondary schools to admit disabled students who have the ability to receive a regular education. One year after signing the United Nations’ Convention of Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007, China revised the law protecting disabled persons. On the one hand, the revised law continues to uphold the six guiding principles of education for disabled people as codified in the 1990 law. On the other hand, the revised 2008 law codified three new special education policies (National People’s Congress, 2008). First, to ease families’ financial burdens, local governments are required to provide free textbooks and boarding allowances for students with disabilities and students from poor families with disabled parents in order to help them complete compulsory education (Article 21). Second, to provide enough school places, governments above the county level are required to set up schools and related educational institutions in accordance with the number, types, and distribution of disabled children in their jurisdictions (Article 24). Third, unlike the 1990 version, which did not specify any consequence of violation, but similar to the Ministry of Education’s (1994) Regulations, the 2008 revised law clearly stipulates that disciplinary measures would be taken against those in charge of or directly responsible for any educational institutions that refuse to admit students with disabilities or that impose additional conditions that are not required by the state in order to limit the admission of disabled students (Article 63).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

253

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

254

Wing-Wah Law To enforce the revised law, and based on the experience of the 1996–2000 implementation plan, the State Council (2009) issued an important instruction for the popularization of 9-year compulsory schooling for disabled children with visual, hearing, or intellectual impairments across China. In particular, it raised the target admission rates: an annual increase to near 100% in cities and economically developed areas in China and in rural areas in the western and central regions that had already achieved the task of providing 9-year compulsory schooling for all eligible regular children, and an increase to about 70% in areas that had not achieved this task. The instruction also requires local governments to create better conditions for providing basic education for children with disabilities. Unlike the 1996–2000 implementation plan, however, this instruction has not specified any deadlines for accomplishing these targets, which allows local government to determine when they should achieve the targets and possibly delay such completion. To some extent, the Outline of China’s National Plan for Medium and Long-Term Education Reform and Development (2010–2020) closed this loophole. This 10-year plan set the development of special education as one of the central government’s 10 priority projects in the 2010s. China’s new national plan introduced four concrete measures to ensure greater access to special education (Communist Party of China Central Committee & State Council, 2010). First, the 2010–2020 plan requires governments of all levels to incorporate special education into their plans and agendas for economic and social development. Second, it promises that by 2020 every city or county/town with a population over 300,000 will have a special school and that the quota for disabled students in regular classes and special education classes in regular schools at various levels will be expanded. Third, the 2010–2020 plan requires governments to increase their expenditure on education for disabled students. It also requires the State Council to establish basic standards of special schools and local governments to define a per-capita public expenditure for disabled students. Fourth, the plan promises to gradually extend free education for disabled students from compulsory schooling to the senior-secondary level. Despite these legal revisions and administration regulations, in 2009 about one out of three disabled children, as shown earlier, could not access 9-year compulsory schooling. Too, the percentages of disabled students at senior-secondary and higher education levels remained very low.

Shortage of Educational Financing Legislation alone cannot ensure disabled children’s equal access to education; many other factors also affect such provision. One factor is educational financing, a second major challenge to education for disabled children in China. China’s government has been urged to increase its funding of education for disabled students (Xie, Qian, Yang, & Jiang, 2009), but inadequate funding is a problem throughout China’s entire educational system. Despite fast economic growth and a large educational expansion since the 1980s, the public investment for all educational levels has remained low in China. The percentage of the GDP spent on national education expenditures, for example, was 3.04% in 1990 and 3.48% in 2009 (Ministry of Education, National Bureau of Statistics, & Ministry of Finance, 2009; Zhao, c. 1997), which was lower than the world average (4.6%) and the average of lower-middle-income countries (4.0%) in 2009 (World Bank, 2010).

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in Rising China Moreover, public financing for education is unevenly distributed in China because it depends on economic developments of local areas and the ability of local governments to generate income (particularly tax revenue). This is a result of the state decentralization and the relegation of major financial responsibility to local governments since the economic reforms in the 1980s (Kaup, 2004; Law, 2006b). Financing for education is exacerbated by the policy of developing different regions in different stages because it has widened disparities in economic development and educational financing between urban and rural areas and among eastern, central, and western regions (Law & Pan, 2009). China’s government has set the reduction of such educational disparities as an important goal of its administration between 2010 and 2020 (Communist Party of China Central Committee & State Council, 2010). Although its public financing for special education managed to rise from CNY931 million to CNY1,932 million between 1999 and 2004, the share of special education in public-education financing remained at a low level during this period. It was between 0.36% and 0.38%, which was comparatively lower than the 3% in South Korea (Pang & Yin, 2008). As a result, special schools and regular schools suffer from a lack of professionally trained special education teachers, facilities, and services geared to disabled students’ needs (Liu & Mao, 2007). Turning to private education is not a viable solution for disabled children because most parents cannot afford the high tuition fees. In 2006, the average annual household incomes of families with disabled persons in urban and rural areas were CNY4,864 and CNY2,260, respectively—much less than those of families without disabled family members (State Statistical Bureau, 2007). Unless China’s state government drastically increases its public educational financing, the provision and quality of education for disabled children will most likely continue to be constrained by very tight budgets.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Lack of Support for Inclusive Education The third contentious issue confronting education for disabled children is related to the popularization of inclusive education. Since it was piloted in 1987, inclusive education in regular classes in China has become a major alternative channel for disabled students to access education. It has mainly targeted students with mild hearing, visual, and mental disabilities. The number of disabled students in regular classes is limited to 3. This policy of inclusion has helped drastically increase the likelihood that disabled students will receive formal education, particularly at the primary-education level. In 2008, 36.7% (of 417,440) disabled students ages 6 to 14 were enrolled in special schools, 45.2% in inclusive classes in regular primary schools, 16.9% in inclusive classes in regular junior (vocational) schools, and 1.2% in special classes in regular primary schools and junior (vocational) schools (calculated from figures in Ministry of Education, 2009b). Inclusive education has also provided a significant arena for disabled students to become immersed in mainstream society. Inclusion has also eased the financial burden of China’s state government and families with disabled children. Inclusive education in China is challenged by three problems that adversely affect the quality of disabled children’s learning in inclusive classes. First, regular schools lack adequate funding to establish resource rooms and provide special facilities to support the learning of disabled students. Second, many teachers in regular schools do not cater

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

255

256

Wing-Wah Law to the special needs of disabled students in their classes and demand that disabled students perform as regular students. Because these teachers receive minimal training about special education in their pre-service teacher training, they have very little understanding of special education and the needs of disabled students, not to mention their limited ability to provide individualized programs for disabled students in their classes (Tang, 2009). In a survey by Deng (2004), for example, many primary teachers in regular schools supported inclusive education but still preferred that disabled children attend special schools. Moreover, teachers in regular schools are under strong pressure from their schools and from parents with regular children to follow the mainstream curriculum and help regular students get good academic results in internal and public examinations. As a result, while many disabled students physically sit or mix together with regular students in the same classroom, they are often marginalized and do not learn as well as expected. The dropout rate of disabled students in regular schools remains high (Guan, 2009). Third, despite the legal enactment of a zero-rejection policy, many local governments do not closely enforce the law because they regard this task as a low priority. Many regular schools continue to reject disabled students who are able to study in regular classes because they fear the performance of disabled students could affect their students’ promotion rates and therefore their school reputation and future student intakes.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Inadequately Trained Teachers and Social Workers The fourth challenge to education for disabled children is the rising demand for strong professional teams of special education teachers and social workers. In the early 1980s, China began to emphasize such training and raise the qualifications of special education teachers. It has established training institutes at the senior-secondary/technical and higher education levels, providing certificates and undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral programs to special education teachers, educators, and researchers (Fang, 2005). In 2008, China had 45,990 special education staff, including 36,306 full-time teachers, 3,469 administrative staff, and 2,385 teaching-support staff (Ministry of Education, 2009a). Regarding educational attainment, 14.6% of full-time teachers achieved senior-secondary qualifications, 49% were certificate holders, 35.5% were degree holders, and 0.6% held master’s degrees. Only 54% of teachers had received special education training. This training of those in the teaching profession is falling far short from meeting the demand for qualified special education teachers, as outlined in the aforementioned medium- and long-term national plans for education development between 2010 and 2020 (Communist Party of China Central Committee & State Council, 2010). In a 2005 survey by Wang (2006), over 60% of 135 surveyed principals of special schools (in 12 provinces in eastern and western China) indicated that their teachers who were responsible for disabled children’s rehabilitation had not received relevant professional training and lacked relevant knowledge and skills. Over 70% of surveyed principals admitted that their teachers did not have the ability to diagnose and assess disabled children. The training of ordinary teachers for inclusive education in regular schools is even worse than that of their counterparts in special schools (Xiao, 2009). All this suggests that China needs to enhance the quality of in-service special education teachers in both special and regular schools as a short-term measure and to increase special education

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in Rising China training for pre-service teachers over the long term. This, in turn, will require more universities and colleges to offer various special education specializations and modules (Tang, 2009). Moreover, China has long overlooked the role of social workers in education, especially in special education. In many societies, social workers play an important role in both regular and special school education. For example, they can help identify and assess students’ special education needs and provide them with counseling services that teachers cannot offer. Despite the rise of social organizations and NGOs in providing various social services since the 1980s, the development of the social work profession is at the very beginning stage in China. Only after the Communist Party of China Central Committee (2006) specified China’s “desperate need” for professional social workers in the construction of a harmonious society did China’s universities begin to develop curricula for training social workers. Most of their curricula are mainly sociology-oriented, however. The involvement of social workers in special education is rare (An, 2009). As Liu (2010) argued, China needs to develop a strong pool of professionally trained social workers for special education. To complement the role of special education teachers, these social workers should be specially trained to identify and assess children’s special needs, provide support to special education teachers in designing individualized learning plans for disabled children, and offer counseling services to these children and their parents. This, however, would require the state to recognize the professional status of special education–specific social workers, to establish relevant posts for them in both special schools and regular schools with special education classes, and to develop a specialist curriculum for those social workers in higher education, particularly teacher-training institutes through the cross-fertilization of special education and social work.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Low Parental and Community Involvement The fi fth contentious issue confronting education for children with disabilities is related to parental and societal involvement. Parents could be a vital source of strength and contribute to their disabled children’s education and rehabilitation. Although parents and schools (and the community) in special education are urged to cooperate in China (Zhao, 2008), parental participation in school education and management is minimal. Parent associations are increasingly common in regular schools, particularly in urban areas, but many exist as a formality and instead become “social networking clubs” for parents or channels to help schools collect fees for student activities (Wang, Mao, & Wang, 2010). Parental participation in special education is even worse. Many studies (e.g., Wang, 2004; Zhang, Yaqiu, & He, 2004) have shown that in China parental involvement in the education of their disabled children is minimal. This does not necessarily mean that parents do not care about their disabled children. On the contrary, Han’s (2005) comparative study of parents with disabled children, parents with regular children, and special education teachers in three special schools and two regular schools in Dalian City showed that surveyed parents with disabled children had stronger needs and were more willing to participate in school activities than the parents of regular children. Surveyed special education teachers also hoped their parents would participate more in school activities.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

257

258

Wing-Wah Law One difficulty is that many parents do not know how to be involved in special education for their children. Wang (2004) identified three major barriers to parental involvement in special education. First, many parents with disabled children have little access to information about their development, rehabilitation, education, services, and rights: They lack professional and social support to rear and educate their disabled children. Second, parental involvement in special education is often prevented by practical problems confronting parents such as a sense of guilt over their children’s disabilities; feelings of low self-esteem when interacting with teachers and other parents, particularly in regular schools; and little time available for participation in school events and activities because of their need to earn money to finance their children’s rehabilitation and education. Third, many special schools and regular schools with special education classes are unaware of how important the parents’ role is. Many parents have few opportunities to communicate with teachers directly about their disabled children’s needs and difficulties. As compared to parental involvement, the role and functions of social organizations and NGOs in work for disabled persons and special education at the community level in China are far more marginal. Despite the blooming of nonprofit social organizations and NGOs in providing various social services, very few focus on work and education for disabled people. Such work has been mainly taken up by the government-sponsored China’s Disabled Persons Federation and organizations under its aegis at various levels. Under tight public financing for special education, the community, social organizations, and NGOs constitute an important source of potential resources in promoting, providing, and enhancing the quality of rehabilitation and education for disabled children.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

C ONC LUS ION This chapter has examined the general context and development of work and education for disabled persons in China since the 1980s. As a middle-income but highly populous country, China has made various efforts to promote social justice for disabled people. Such promotion, however, has depended on its domestic contexts and conditions. In particular, it has been constrained by weak legal enforcement to protect disabled people’s rights; a lack of financial resources and support for education of disabled children (particularly in rural areas) and inclusive education in regular schools; teachers and social workers who lack appropriate training to handle disabled learners’ needs; and weak collaboration among schools, parents, and the community in the education of disabled students. Now that China has significantly improved its economy and is aiming toward building a moderately prosperous society in all aspects by the 2020s, we can expect more provision and better quality in the work and education for disabled persons across the nation. To further promote social equity for individuals with disabilities in the early 21st century, China could first reconsider enacting a law on special education that would force governments of all levels to take more financial and legal responsibility for disabled people’s education and employment in their jurisdictions. But because law alone is not enough to ensure the provision of public special education, it is important to ensure adequate financing. As a rising economic power, China is in a better position to increase its share of educational investment as a portion of the GDP than ever before. With such an increase, special education could obtain more financial resources to build more

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in Rising China special schools, improve facilities in regular schools that promote inclusive education, provide more and better special education specific training for pre-service and in-service teachers in special schools and regular schools, and establish the post of social workers in schools with disabled learners. Because local governments differ in their ability to generate income, the central government should play an important role in reducing urban–rural and inter-regional disparities in work and education for disabled people. For example, they could redistribute education resources from rich to poor areas and from urban to rural areas, and closely monitor local governments’ performance in work and education for the disabled. In addition to compulsory education, it is essential to give disabled persons greater access to postcompulsory education, particularly at the senior-secondary level, which is the bottleneck in education for disabled children. Otherwise, their competitiveness and employment possibilities in China’s labor market might be further reduced, partly because of the qualification inflation resulting from a drastic expansion of seniorsecondary education and higher education for regular students since the 1990s. As well, China should provide greater support to parents with disabled children (through, for example, parent education) and involve them more in their children’s education. China could solicit support from and tap the resources of local communities, social organizations, and NGOs for developing education for disabled children. Education for disabled children in China is still developing, and its policy and provisions are moving toward more inclusive education despite many practical difficulties and limitations. Because China’s state and local governments are still playing pivotal roles in developing work and education for persons with disabilities, how to address these increasing demands for social equity is expected to continue to hinge on their commitments, priorities, and strategies. At the same time, nonstate actors, particularly schools, parent groups, communities, and NGOs, can be expected to increase their contributions to the cause of promoting social justice for individuals with disabilities.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

R E F E R E NC E S Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. (West 1993). An, Q. (2009). Lun shehui gongzuo zai woguo teshu ertong jiaoyu zhong de jieru (On social work intervention in special education for children with limited abilities). Zhongguo Teshu Jiaoyu (Chinese Journal of Special Education), (3) 13–16. Bao, M., Li, J., & Guo, W. (2009). Woguo Teshu Jiaoyu Falu Quexian Jiqi Lifa Xueshu Jianyi (Special Education Law of China: Its Problems and an Academic Proposal). Jixu Jiaoyu Yanjiu (Continue Education Research) (12), 68–71. Brugger, B. (1978). Conclusion. In B. Brugger (Ed.), China: The impact of the Cultural Revolution (pp. 253–279). London: Croom Helm. China Disabled Persons’ Federation. (2010). 2009 Nian zhongguo canjiren shiye fazhan tongji gongbao (Statistical communique on development of the work for persons with disabilities in 2009). Beijing: China Disabled Persons’ Federation. Communist Party of China Central Committee. (1985). Reform of China’s educational structure. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. Communist Party of China Central Committee. (2006). Guanyu goujian shehui zhuyi hexie shehui ruogan zhongda wenti jueding (A decision concerning several important questions about the construction of a socialist harmonious society). Beijing: People’s Press.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

259

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

260

Wing-Wah Law Communist Party of China Central Committee & State Council. (2008). Guanyu cujin canjiren shiye fazhan de yijian (Opinion concerning the furthering of the development of the work for the disabled). Beijing: State Council. Communist Party of China Central Committee & State Council. (2010, July 30). Guojia zhong changqi jiaoyu gaige he fazhan guihua gangyao (2010–2020 Nian) (Outline of China’s national plan for medium- and long-term education reform and development [2010–2020]). Zhongguo jiaoyubao (China Education Daily), pp. 1–3. Confucius. (1985). Li ji (The classic of rites). Hong Kong: Boyi. Deng, M. (2004). A comparative study of attitudes to inclusive education of teachers who teach disabled students attending regular classes in rural and urban areas. Jiaoyu yanjiu yu shiyan (Educational Research and Experiment), (1), 61–66. Deng, M., & Zhou, H. (2005). Guanyu zhiding teshu jiaoyu fa de changyi (A proposal on the legislation of special education law). Zhongguo teshu jiaoyu (Chinese Journal of Special Education), (7), 3–6. Fang, J. (2000). Zhongguo teshu jiaoyu de qiyuan de fazhan (The development of special education in China). In F. Zhang, H. Ma, & X. Du (Eds.), Teshu jiaoyu shi (History of Special Education) (pp. 196–234). Shanghai: East China Normal University Press. Fang, J. (2005). Teshu jiaoyu xue (Special education). Beijing: People’s Education Press. Fan, Y. (2000). A classification of Chinese culture. Cross Cultural Management, 7, 3–10. Guan, Q. (2009). Guanzhu zhongguo nongcun teshu jiaoyu zhongdian redian nandian mangdian (Concerning Chinese rural special education: Focused, heated, difficult and ignored issues). Zhongguo teshu jiaoyu (Chinese Journal of Special Education), (2), 3–7. Han, M. (2005). Teshu jiaoyu xuexiao jiazhang canyu qingkuang de yanjiu (Parental involvement in education for handicapped children). Zhongguo teshu jiaoyu (Chinese Journal of Special Education), (9), 8–12. Hu, J. T. (2003). Zai sange daibiao yantaohui shangde jianghua (Speech at the Symposium on the “Three Represents”). In D. Y. Shen & L. S. Cheng (Eds.), Hu jintao tongzhi qiyi zhongyao jianghua xueji duben (A study guide for the speech of Hu Jiantao at the Symposium on the “Three Represents”) (pp. 1–18). Beijing: Communist Party of China Central Committee Party School Press. Kaup, K. P. (2004, September). Empowering the disabled: The China Disabled Persons’ Federation. Paper presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago. Law, W.-W. (2006a). Citizenship, citizenship education and the state in China in a global age. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 597–628. Law, W.-W. (2006b). Education reform for national competitiveness in a global age: The experience and struggle of China. In K. Mazurek & M. Winzer (Eds.), Schooling around the world: Debates, challenges, and practices (pp. 68–103). Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon. Law, W.-W., & Pan, S.-Y. (2009). Legislation and equality in Basic Education for All in China. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education, 40, 337–372. Li, X. (2008). Guanyu zhonghua renmin gongheguo canjiren baozhang fa xiuding caoan de shuoming (An explanatory note concerning the revision of the Law on Protection of Persons With Disabilities [revised draft]). Beijing: National People’s Congress. Liu, A. (1996). Mass politics in the People’s Republic: State and society in contemporary China. Boulder, CO: Westview. Liu, B. (2010). Lun teshu jiaoyu zhong shehui gongzuo zhichi fuwu de tuozhan (On the expansion of social work supporting services in special education). Zhongguo teshu jiaoyu (Chinese Journal of Special Education), (6), 13–17. Liu, Q., & Mao, W. (2007). Zhongguo de jichu teshu jiaoyu (Special education at the compulsory schooling level in China). Jiaoshi bolan (Teacher Readings), (12), 39–41.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Special Education in Rising China Ministry of Civil Affairs. (2001). 2000 nian minzheng shiye fazhan tongji baogao (2000 statistical report on the development of civil affairs). Beijing: Author. Ministry of Civil Affairs. (2009). 2008 nian minzheng shiye fazhan tongji baogao (2008 statistical report on the development of civil affairs). Beijing: Author. Ministry of Education. (1994). Canjiren jiaoyu tiaoli (Regulations on education for persons with disabilities). Beijing: Author. Ministry of Education. (1998, April 12). 1997 nian guanguo jiaoyu shiye fazhan tongji gongbao (Statistical report on educational achievements and developments in China in 1997). Zhongguo jiaoyubao (China Education Daily), p. 2. Ministry of Education. (2001). Jichu jiaoyu kecheng gaige gangyao shixing (Guidelines on the curriculum reform of basic education). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. Ministry of Education. (2007a). Longxiao xuexiao yiwu jiaoyu kecheng shezhi shiyan fangan (Curriculum standards for schools for the deaf-mute in compulsory education, pilot). Beijing: Author. Ministry of Education. (2007b). Mangxiao xuexiao yiwu jiaoyu kecheng shezhi shiyan fangan (Curriculum standards for schools for the blind in compulsory education, pilot). Beijing: Author. Ministry of Education. (2007c). Peizhi xuexiao yiwu jiaoyu kecheng shezhi shiyan fangan (Curriculum standards for schools for the mentally impaired in compulsory education, pilot). Beijing: Author. Ministry of Education. (2009a). Teshu jiaoyu xuexiao jiaozhigong shu (Statistics on teachers and staff in special schools). Beijing: Author. Ministry of Education. (2009b). Teshu jiaoyu xuexiao jiben qingkuang (Basic statistics of special education, 2008). Beijing: Author. Ministry of Education. (2010, August 3). 2009 nian guanguo jiaoyu shiye fazhan tongji gongbao (Statistical report on educational achievements and developments in China in 2009). Zhongguo jiaoyubao (China Education Daily), p. 2. Ministry of Education, National Bureau of Statistics, & Ministry of Finance. (2009, November 20). 2008 nian quanguo jiaoyu jingfei zhixing qingkuang tongji gonggao (Report on the implementation of the national educational expenditure of the People’s Republic of China, 2008). Zhongguo jiaoyubao (China Education Daily), p. 2. National Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Zhongguo tongji nianjian, 2009 (China statistical yearbook, 2009). Beijing: China Statistical Publishing House. National People’s Congress. (1982). Zhonghua renmin gongheguo xianfa (The constitution of the People’s Republic of China). Beijing: Author. National People’s Congress. (1986). Zhonghua renmin gongheguo yiwu jiaoyufa (The basic education law of the People’s Republic of China). In Zhonghua renmin gongheguo jiaoyufa, yiwu jiaoyufa, jiaoshifa (The education law, basic education law and teachers law of the People’s Republic of China) (pp. 1–13). Beijing: China Law Publishing House. National People’s Congress. (1990). Zhonghua renmin gongheguo canjiren baozhang fa (The law of the People’s Republic of China on the protection of disabled persons). Beijing: Author. National People’s Congress. (1995). Zhonghua renmin gongheguo jiaoyufa (The education law of the People’s Republic of China). In Zhonghua renmin gongheguo jiaoyufa, yiwu jiaoyufa, jiaoshifa (The education law, basic education law and teachers law of the People’s Republic of China) (pp. 1–13). Beijing: China Law Publishing House. National People’s Congress. (2006). Zhonghua renmin gongheguo yiwu jiaoyufa (The basic education law of the People’s Republic of China). Beijing: China Law Publishing House.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

261

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

262

Wing-Wah Law National People’s Congress. (2008). Zhonghua renmin gongheguo canjiren baozhang fa (The law of the People’s Republic of China on the protection of persons with disabilities). Beijing: China Minzhu Fazhi Publishing House. Pang, W., & Yin, H. (2008). Woguo teshu jiaoyu jingfei touru de shuju fenxi yu taolun (An analysis on funds for special education in China). Zhongguo teshu jiaoyu (Chinese Journal of Special Education), (12), 13–17. Po, Y. (1995). Teshu jiaoyu (Special education). Beijing: Huaxia Publishing House. Polat, F. (2011). Inclusion in education: A step towards social justice. International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 50–58. Russell, B. (1922). The problem of China. London: Allen & Unwin. State Council. (1994). Guowuyuan. Canjiren jiaoyu tiaoli (Regulations on education for the disabled). Beijing: Author. State Council. (2009). Guanyu jinyibu jiakuai teshu jiaoyu shiye fazhan de yijian (Opinions concerning further quickening the development of special education). Zhongguo canjiren (Disability in China), (6), 24–25. State Education Commission & China Disabled Persons’ Federation. (1996). Canji ertong shaonian yiwu jiaoyu jiuwu shishi fangan (Action plan for the implementation of nine-year compulsory schooling for disabled children during the period of the ninth five-year plan [1996–2000]). Beijing: State Education Commission. State Statistical Bureau. (1987). Diyici quanguo canjiren chouyang diaocha zhuyao shuju gongbao (Report on the First National Survey on the Population of the Disabled). Beijing: Author. State Statistical Bureau. (2006). Dierci quanguo canjiren chouyang diaocha zhuyao shuju gongbao (diyi hao) (Report on the major data of the Second National Survey on the Population of the Disabled [Part 1]). Beijing: Author. State Statistical Bureau. (2007). Dierci quanguo canjiren chouyang diaocha zhuyao shuju gongbao (dier hao) (Report on the major data of the Second National Survey on the Population of the Disabled [Part 2]). Beijing: Author. Tang, G. (2009). Putong shifan yuanxiao kaishe teshu jiaoyu ke de xianzhuang jiqi celue (The offering of special education specialism in regular normal universities and colleges). Wenjiao Ziliao (Data of Culture and Education), (2), 237–239. Tang, Z., & Zuo, B. (1996). Maoism and Chinese culture. New York: Nova Science Publishers. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities and Optional Protocol. Washington, DC: Author. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris: Author. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. Paris: Author. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2000). Globalization and living together: The challenges for educational content in Asia. Paris: Author. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2010). The right to education for persons with disabilities: Towards inclusion. Paris: Author. Wang, H. (2006). Zhongguo teshu ertong yiwu jiaoyu fazhan zhong de wenti diaocha baogao (An investigation report on problems in compulsory education development for special children in China). Zhongguo teshu jiaoyu (Chinese Journal of Special Education), (10), 3–9. Wang, H., Mao, C., & Wang, Y. (2010, November 4). Jiazhang heshi neng zhenzheng jiandu xuexiao (When will parents really govern schools?). Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily), p. 12. Wang, Q. (2004). Dui teshu ertong jiazhang canyu xuexiao jiaoyu de sikao (Parental involvement in education for students with special needs). Xinan shifan daxue xuebao

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in Rising China

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

(Renwen shehuikexue ban) (Journal of Southwest Normal University [Humanities and Social Sciences]), 30 (1), 91–95. Wang, Y. (2007, July 11). Qian tan xin longxiao yiwu jiaoyu kecheng shezhi shiyan fangan (Reflection on the pilot curriculum standards for schools for the deaf-mute in compulsory education). Retrieved from http://www.syse.syn.cn/display_new.asp?id=5265. World Bank. (2010). World development indicators 2010. Washington, DC: Author. Xiao, F. (2009). Zhongguo de sui ban jiudu lishi xianzhuang zhanwang (Disabled students attending regular classes in China: History, current situations, and prospects). Zhongguo Teshu Jiaoyu (Chinese Journal of Special Education), (3), 3–7. Xie, J., Qian, L., Yang, X., & Jiang, X. (2009). Guowai teshu jiaoyu jingfei touru he shiyong jiqi dui woguo teshu jiaoyu fazhan de qishi (The input and use of special educational funds in the world and the implication to the development of Chinese special education). Zhongguo Teshu Jiaoyu (Chinese Journal of Special Education), (6), 17–24. Zhang, X., & Baum, R. (2004). Civil society and the autonomy of a rural NGO. The China Journal, 52, 97–107. Zhang, Y., Yaqiu, C., & He, W. (2004). Beijingshi teshu ertong xue qian jiating jiaoyu zhuangkuang diaocha baogao (A survey on preschool home education of children with special needs in Beijing). Zhongguo Teshu Jiaoyu (Chinese Journal of Special Education), (11), 73–77. Zhao, B. Q. (1997). Guanyu zhongguo jiaoyu jingfei wenti de hugu yu sikao (Reflection on the problems on educational financing in China). Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn /jytouru/zlwenxian/01.htm. Zhao, L. (2008). Teshu jiaoyu ying zou jiazhang canyu jiaoyu de moshi (Models of parental involvement in special education). Zhichang Yanjiu (Career Horizon), (2), 123–124. Zhu, X. Y., & Xu, S. X. (2005). Zhongxi wenhua gailun (Introduction to Chinese and Western cultures). Beijing: China Light Industry Press. Zhu, Z. (2008). Zhejiangsheng Xueqian Teshu Jiaoyu De Xianzhuang Ji Duice (Early childhood special education in Zhejiang province: Development and strategies). Zhongguo teshu jiaoyu (Chinese Journal of Special Education), (12), 23–27.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

263

13 Special Education in South Korea: Overcoming Conflicts for the Realization of Educational Welfare

Dae Young, Jung

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Korea is a peninsula extending south from the northeast Asian mainland. This peninsula is divided into two parts. One part is communist North Korea; the other is South Korea, which is a democracy and has a market economy. South Korea was home to around 48.2 million people as of July 1, 2010. Seoul, the capital city, has a population of around 10.4 million. South Korea’s population density is 483 persons per 1 square kilometer, one of the highest densities in the world. Yet the birth rate has plummeted over the past 3 decades as a result of the government’s population control policy, recording less than 1.15 expected children for every woman of child-bearing age as of 2009. Korea’s location has historically made it prone to conflict and tension with the neighboring nations of China, Russia, and Japan. In the past, Korea was ceaselessly invaded by those nations. The end of World War II brought about liberation from Japan’s oppressive colonial rule over Korea. However, Korea was then divided along the 38th parallel, with the Soviet Union occupying the north half and the United States occupying the south. The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a general election in Korea, which took place on May 10, 1948, in the area south of the 38th parallel. The Government of the Republic of Korea was inaugurated on August 15, 1948. But on Sunday, June 25, 1950, without warning, North Korean troops invaded the unprepared South across the 38th parallel. Thus, the Korean War broke out. It ended with the 1953 armistice. But the two hostile forces are still deployed along the 155-mile demilitarized zone (DMZ), which replaced the 38th parallel. The many wars took a toll on South Korea’s economy, and its citizens’ quality of life suffered. The educational system was also poor, and South Korea did not have enough money and energy to educate children with disabilities. In the first years of South Korea’s independence, religious organizations and welfare organizations led special education. In 1970, South Korea began to solve the necessities of life through the Saemaeul (new community) movement. As the economy began to develop and stabilize in the mid-1970s, interest grew in special education. The Special Education Promotion Law (SEPL), enacted in 1977, brought great changes to special education. Older attitudes that children with disabilities should be cared for in specialized facilities by social workers began to change, and the nation started to actively intervene in their education. At present, South Korea’s special education is developing rapidly, thanks to democratization and economic development (Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development [MEHRD], 2007–2008).

264 International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in South Korea

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

S O C I A L FA BR IC Ethnically, Koreans are one family of the Mongolian race. They speak a common language and share a strong cultural identity. Their language, which belongs to the Ural-Altaic family, is distinct from Chinese and Japanese. Koreans use a unique phonetic alphabet called Hangeul that is characterized by an easily understood scientifically designed system. Korean culture is unique in the way it developed through its interactions with diverse outside cultures. Today, Buddhism, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Cheondogyo (a modernized religion based on Dong Hak), and other religions coexist in Korea. In the absence of a state religion, every Korean is free to engage in the religious life of his or her choice. Korean culture is also characterized by advanced science and technology, which derive from ancient times. Woodblock printing, for example, was developed during the Silla Kingdom (57 bc–935 ad) and was perfected during the Goryeo Dynasty (918–1392), when Koreans published the incredible, voluminous Tripitaka Koreana in its entirety, using more than 80,000 woodblock printing plates. Korean creativity is further demonstrated by masterful paintings and sculpture; Korean art can be considered as the third unique aspect of the culture. Paintings on the walls of ancient tombs provide a vivid depiction of life during the Three Kingdoms period (57 bc–668 ad). The Hangeul phonetic alphabet is another source of pride for Koreans. Before Hangeul was invented, Korean intellectuals used Chinese characters but the difficulty of learning the characters left the masses illiterate. Deploring mass illiteracy, King Sejong the Great commissioned royal scholars to invent Hangeul in the mid-15th century. This movement encouraged the flourishing of folklore and folk novels and enhanced literacy throughout the population. South Korea remained a predominantly agricultural society until the first half of the 20th century. In the early 1960s, the government began implementing 5-year economic plans, which led to unprecedented socioeconomic growth. Despite its poor natural resources, South Korea has joined the top ranks of developing countries. The Saemaeul movement, which promoted the qualities of diligence, self-help, and cooperation in creating infrastructure, also provided the country with the fuel to ignite modernization in the rural regions (MEHRD, 2005–2006, 2007–2008). Today, South Korea’s society, culture, and economy are developing rapidly. According to Drucker (2004), it took Europe 200 years, the United States 100 years, and Japan 70 years to modernize their societies. It has taken South Korea 40 years. As of December 2010, South Korea’s size of exportation and importation was seventh in the world. As of 2010, the nation’s per-capita gross national product (GNP) stood at $30,200. Of course, rapid development brings its own set of problems. For example, there is conflict among the classes and regions. Korea has experienced ideological conflict for years, a result of the division of the country into north and south. Recently, South Korea has experienced conflict between progressives and conservatives. South Korea is rapidly changing into a multicultural society due to the expansion of international exchange. Foreign workers began to flow into South Korea in earnest starting in the 21st century. About 13% of Koreans have married a person of a different

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

265

266

Dae Young, Jung nationality as of July 2007. As the number of immigrants via marriage is increasing, Koreans accustomed to a homogeneous culture and a racially homogeneous nation are experiencing cultural conflicts, language problems, school-life adaptation of children of multicultural families, and underachievement of children of multicultural families. For example, it is time for South Korea to actively intervene in bilingual education and multicultural education.

G E N E R A L E DUC AT ION A L S Y S T E M Korea has a single-track 6-3-3-4 system in order to ensure that every citizen can receive elementary, secondary, and tertiary education without discrimination, according to the ability of each student (MEHRD, 2008). The single-track system requires 6 years in primary school, 3 years in middle school, 3 years in high school, and 4 years in college or university. Primary and middle school are compulsory in Korea. Kindergarten (ages 3 to 5) and high school are compulsory for children in special education.

Educational Philosophies The ideology underlying education in South Korea pursues Hong-Ik human, a philosophy that aims to create an ideal citizen who has a high degree of independence and who contributes to the nation’s development of democracy and the well-being of humankind. This ideology undergirds a concrete goal of education; that is, education should foster this type of person. This is most clearly seen in the curriculum at the national level, which has been revised seven times since it was first developed in 1955. With each revision, the image of the person to be formed by education was characterized somewhat differently, depending on the demand and the spirit of each period, but it always remained within the fundamental ideology of the Hong-Ik human being with Hong-Ik ideology (see Han, 2003; Kang, 2004; MEHRD, 2005–2006, 2007–2008).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

School Aims National, public, and private kindergartens provide preschool courses for children in the 3- to 5-year age bracket. Based on the government’s kindergarten education curriculum, kindergarten aims at providing an appropriate environment for nurturing children and promoting their wholesome development through various enjoyable activities with diversified contents and methods of instruction. As of April 1, 2010, 40.5% of preschoolage children attended 8,388 kindergartens nationwide (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST], 2010). Primary school aims to provide general rudimentary education. As of 2010, the enrollment ratio of primary schools increased to 98.6% (MEST, 2010). To expand foreign language education, English has been taught as a part of the regular curriculum since 1997, with 1 to 2 hours per week from third grade on. Teachers are to teach English but an exchange-class program or team-teaching system may be adopted, depending on school conditions. Native English-speaking teachers are invited from many foreign countries, including the United States, Australia, Canada, and England. Secondary education is divided into middle and high school. As of 2010, the enrollment ratios of middle school and high school were 97.6% and 92.4%, respectively. Middle

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in South Korea school aims to conduct standard secondary education on the basis of primary education. The purpose of high school is to develop students’ capability to chart their futures befitting their aptitude and talent and to enhance their ability as global citizens. High school is divided into several different types of schools: general, vocational, science, and other specialized high schools. Institutions of higher education in Korea are divided into seven categories: colleges and universities, industrial universities, universities of education, junior colleges, broadcast and correspondence universities, technical colleges, and other miscellaneous institutions. As of 2010, the enrollment ratio of higher education is 70.1% (MEST, 2010). But South Korea has too many higher educational institutions in proportion to the number of high school students.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Organization and Structure of the Education System The macro-organization of the educational system in South Korea includes the MEST at the national level and Regional Offices of Education at the metropolitan or provincial level. The MEST is responsible for the formulation and implementation of polices related to academic activities, sciences, and public education. The ministry plans and coordinates educational policies; works out ideas for elementary, secondary, and higher education support for all levels of schools; supports local educational agencies and national universities; operates the teacher-training system; oversees adult education; and develops human resource policies. Regional or local administrative offices make decisions regarding education, art, and science pertaining to each local area. Each local office has a board of members, a reviewing and decision-making organ, and a Superintendent of Education as an independent executive organ. The School Education Law, which articulates the goals and objectives of education for each school level, specifies the contents to be organized by schools and teachers. From there, the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development promulgates the national school curriculum, prescribes the curriculum for each school level, and details the criteria for the development of textbooks and instructional materials. The national curriculum has been revised on a periodic basis to reflect the newly rising demands for education, the emerging needs of a changing society, and the new frontiers of academic disciplines. The national curriculum ensures a standard quality of education, maintains the quality of education, and guarantees equal education opportunity for all. To afford flexibility for individual schools, the national curriculum works with regional guidelines in order to pursue the characteristics and objectives of each school. The curriculum has 10 basic common subjects, autonomous activities, and special activities that cover the 10 years from the first year of elementary school through the first year of high school. For the final 2 years of high school, elective subjects are designed to provide students choices with regard to individual differences in career desire and aptitude. Textbooks have been developed that emphasize encouraging students’ selfdirected learning capacity and creativity; that address different levels of student achievement; and that are fun and easy to use. The South Korean government’s efforts to relax the centralization of education and expand the educational autonomy of local government are part of education reform. To actively cope with rapidly changing social needs, the MEST changed to a frequent

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

267

268

Dae Young, Jung revision system from a periodical revision system for the national curriculum starting from 2008 (MEHRD, 2007–2008). As noted, the government is attempting to strengthen the autonomy of education by giving schools more authority for the arrangement and operation of the curriculum.

S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION I N S OU T H KOR E A South Korea’s recent special education policies aim to provide educational services that can meet the needs of people with disabilities according to the life cycle, that is, from early childhood through childhood, the adolescent period, and adulthood. The longterm aim is to form an educational community in which people with disabilities and people without disabilities can receive educational services together by reducing the number of students who attend special schools or special classes and integrating them into general classes.

Legislation The policy of South Korea’s special education is established and executed based on the Constitutional Law, the Fundamentals of Education Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the Special Education Law (SEL). It is influenced considerably by the Disabled People Welfare Act, the Disability Discrimination Act, and the Convenient Facilities Improvement Act.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Special Education Legislation The Special Education Promotion Law (SEPL), first enacted in 1977, stipulated that special education include general education, therapeutic education, and vocational education. It was to be presented by using curriculum, methods, and media suitable for students with special education needs. The SEPL of 1977 was amended in 1994 with an emphasis on the selection, admission, and integration of students with disabilities. It stipulated that special education– related services referred to the services that provide human and physical resources, including counseling support, family support, auxiliary personnel support, assistive technology device support, learning aids support, integrated support, and information access support. The 1994 law was amended again in 2007. The amended law emphasized the expansion of educational opportunities, the establishment of a special education delivery system, the improvement of the quality of special education, and the expansion of related services and educational welfare support, and guaranteed the right of students to attend school (Kim, Lee, Kim, & Kwon, 2009). The major contents of the SEL 2007 are • Expansion of educational opportunity. Autism spectrum disorder and developmental delay were added to the categories of disabilities for special education. The law also extends compulsory and free education. Prekindergarten (infants from birth to age 2) and extended high school (1 to 3 years after high school) are

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in South Korea free. Kindergarten (ages 3 to 5) to high school are compulsory. The law also introduced adult education. • Establishment of a special education delivery system. This included the establishment of an early identification system; the establishment of diagnosis in regular schools, evaluation, selecting and placement of students with disabilities for special education; the foundation and management of special education support centers; and the establishment of adult education institutions for individuals with disabilities. • Support centers. Special education support centers were established throughout the country with the aim of providing high-quality special education service and increasing the services for early special education as well as supporting the independence of people with disabilities by increasing career education and improving their life quality. • Improvement in the quality of special education. The amendments limit class size to four students per class for kindergartens, six for primary and middle school, and seven for high school. The law also establishes integrated education principles; calls for the improvement of Individualized Education Plans (IEPs); allows people with disabilities more voice in decisions concerning their careers and education; and expansion of in-service training opportunities for teachers. • Expansion of related services and educational welfare support. This includes regulating related services and establishing all-day programs for kindergarten and an education welfare system for college students with disabilities. • A guarantee of the rights of students and their parents. This serves to extend discrimination prohibition conditions and the topics that are prohibited.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Related Laws The Disabled People Welfare Act (2007) forms the basis of all laws and ordinances related to people with disabilities. It lays an important foundation for the development and execution of policies and contributes to improving and guaranteeing the rights and interests of people with disabilities. It aims to make a contribution to social integration by improving the participation of people with disabilities in social activities, promoting measures for their welfare, and clarifying national and local governments’ responsibilities for guaranteeing their rights. The Disability Discrimination and Relief of Right Act (2007) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. Areas of discrimination include employment, education, the provision and use of goods and services, judicial and administrative procedures, political rights, maternity/paternity rights and family, welfare facilities, and the right to health care. The Disabled Persons Employment Promotion and Vocational Rehabilitation Act (2007) covers the employment and vocational rehabilitation of people with disabilities. It supports independence through vocational guidance, vocational adjustment training, job competency development training, job placement, and employment and guidance for adjustment after employment.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

269

270

Dae Young, Jung

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION DE V E L OPM E N T PL A N S A N D S PEC I A L E DUC AT ION P OL IC I E S In South Korea, development plans are made and practiced over 5-year periods. Below we examine educational development plans in the periods from 1992 to 2002 and from 2003 to the present (Department of General Education, 1992; MEHRD, 1996, 1997, 2003). The period from 1992 to 2002 saw a revised SEPL, broader opportunities for students with disabilities to enter school, a strengthening of special education, and reinforcement of the special education support system (Department of General Education, 1992). Educational institutions for infants with disabilities increased, itinerant education for children with severe disabilities began, and majors of 1 to 3 years in high school courses were established. In 1994, the Korea Institute for Special Education was established to develop policies through research and training (Korea Institute for Special Education, 2004, 2006). The number of special schools for children with severe disabilities increased by 33.3% and the number of students who attended special schools increased by 20%. The number of special classes for students with mild disabilities increased by 20.4%. Throughout this period, however, a new recognition of integrated education was emerging. For example, 11.4% of special classes were integrated into general classes; the number of students with mild disabilities who attended special classes gradually decreased by 6.5%. As a result of policies for the expansion of higher education for people with disabilities, by 2002 there were 614 students with disabilities receiving higher education at 15 colleges and 46 universities. In 2002, the Korea National College of Rehabilitation and Welfare was established; it has 10 departments and admits 250 students every year. Students with disabilities can be admitted to university through a special screening system. The period from 2003 to 2007 saw a guarantee of the opportunity for schooling via integrated education, improvement in the quality of special education through diversification of educational methods, reinforcement of the expertise and responsibility of teachers in charge of special education, and the reestablishment of the delivery of special education and support systems. There was an improvement in the accessibility of welfare and increases in employment, in opportunities to access information, and in convenient facilities for people with disabilities (Korea Rehabilitation Society for the Handicapped, 2005). The budget for special education accounted for 2.0% of the total education budget in 2003. By 2007, it was 3.0%. Special schools were modernized and educational expenses for preschoolers with disabilities were supported to relieve the burden on the parents. Special education assistants were put in place to lessen the financial burden related to the reduction of regular students per class. About 4,000 special education assistants were placed throughout the country as of 2007.

Categories of Disability Ten categories of disabilities were designated by the SEL of 2007. A person eligible for special education is someone who has been diagnosed with any of, or a combination of, the following: visual impairments, auditory impairments, mental retardation, physical handicaps, emotional/behavioral disorder, autistic disorder, communication disorder, learning disabilities, health disorder, or developmental delay, or a person who is

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in South Korea diagnosed with disabilities approved by presidential decree. Only those with applicable disabilities are eligible for special education. “Disabilities approved by presidential decree” means that children with other disabilities can be eligible for special education if a social consensus is reached.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Prevalence The prevalence of individuals with special education needs (SEN) is lower in Korea than in other countries in the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), for a number of reasons. First, there is no consensus on the conceptual and operational definitions for SEN, especially the subordinate categories of learning disabilities and emotional/behavioral disorders. In the case of learning disabilities, the concepts of underachiever, slow learner, and low achiever are not clearly defined. Thus, students with learning disabilities are classified as underachievers and often do not receive appropriate special education services. As well, the criterion for diagnosing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is narrow; in many cases, ADHD is excluded from special education. Second, the development of test instruments is insufficient. Screening tools, rating scales, and test instruments are imported from foreign countries but are not appropriate enough to reflect the culture and characteristics of South Korea. One of the reasons that it is difficult to secure reliable and valid test instruments is because South Korea is parsimonious about investing in developing instruments. Third, the criterion for diagnosis is so strict that children who should be eligible for special education service are often excluded. We must also mention that the parents of children who have the symptoms of disabilities may object to their children being diagnosed with disabilities. Recently, the prevalence of students with visual impairments and students with auditory impairments has declined sharply while the prevalence of students with emotional/ behavioral disorders and with autism has increased. Boys outnumber girls with SEN, except for auditory impairments. For emotional/behavioral disorders, the prevalence of boys was 2.6 times higher than that of girls. In autism and language disorders, the prevalence of boys is higher than that of girls by 4.6 and 3.5, respectively (MEST, 2010).

Special Education Statistics Students who receive special education account for less than 2% of the total school population in South Korea. As mentioned, this figure is lower than that of other OECD countries such as the United States, Japan, and Australia. The SEL of 2007 stipulated that review of actual conditions should be conducted every 3 years to establish special education policy. In 2010, the population and percentage rates according to areas of disability were as follows: mental retardation, 53.5%; physical handicap, 13.0%; learning disability, 7.9%; autism, 6.9%; auditory impairment, 4.7%; emotional/behavioral disorder, 4.5%; visual impairment, 3.0%; health disorder, 2.7%; communication disorder, 2.0%; and developmental delay, 1.7% (MEST, 2010).

Educational Placement Students with serious disabilities are mainly placed in special education schools and hospital schools. Special schools have their preschool, elementary school, middle

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

271

272

Dae Young, Jung school, and high school on the same campus. There are 150 special schools with a total enrollment of 23,944 (30.0%) children with severe disabilities (MEST, 2010). In the case of mild disabilities, 42,021 children are given education in 7,792 special classes; 13,746 students are in 12,375 general classes within general schools. At present, many children have postponed their school attendance due to health problems and their disabilities, a number that almost matches the number of students who are actually taking special education. Itinerant education is given to children with disabilities who are at home, who are in the hospital or related facilities, or who are placed at general schools that do not have special classes. There are 30 hospital schools for children with health disorders or severe multiple disabilities throughout the country (MEST, 2010). Examining the placement rate according to education environment reveals that 30.0% of children with special needs attend special education schools and special education support centers and 70% attend general schools. In general schools, 52.7% of students are placed in special classes; 17.3% are in general classes. In general schools, students with disabilities made up 4.4% of the students in preschool (including infants); elementary school, 44.3%; middle school, 24.3%; and high school (including postsecondary education), 27.0%. When examining the rate of special school according to establishment, public special schools accounted for 36.7%, national special schools accounted for 3.3%, and private special schools accounted for 60.0%. Schools for mental retardation accounted for 63.3%, schools for physical handicaps accounted for 12.0%, schools for auditory impairment accounted for 12.0%, schools for visual impairment accounted for 8.0%, and emotional/behavioral disorder schools accounted for 4.7% (MEST, 2010). It was previously reported that many children with disabilities who attended general schools had difficulty adapting and returned to special schools (MEST, 2010). This phenomenon began to decrease after 2008 because the number of special classes at high schools increased considerably due to the SEL of 2007.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Educational Services Preschool Education National, public, and private kindergartens educate children from the age of 3 to 5 years. Kindergartens aim to provide an appropriate environment for nurturing children and promoting their wholesome development through various pleasant activities with diversified content and methods of instruction based on the kindergarten curriculum provided by the state. Goals for young children are to provide experiences that will promote sound growth in mind and body; develop basic life habits and attitudes for living together with other people; provide experiences that assist in creatively expressing thoughts and feelings; promote correct language use; and help children confront the concerns of everyday life (MEHRD, 1997). To provide preschool education to children of low-income families, the government has undertaken a series of projects. It assisted families with kindergarten tuition from September, 1999; financed free education for 5-year-old children from 2002; provided tuition aid to the parents of 3- and 4-year-old children from 2004; and extended support to families with two or more children attending kindergarten simultaneously from 2005.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in South Korea One of the characteristics of preschool special education is that parents of children with disabilities prefer social welfare centers (SWC) to kindergartens because SWCs operate all-day programs and provide various treatment services. Some parents delay their children entering elementary school for 1 to 2 years in order to receive the services that SWCs provide.

Primary and Secondary Education. Primary education aims to provide the general skills necessary to live a productive life. The quantitative expansion of primary education is attributed to the government’s proper educational policies and public enthusiasm for education that has not wavered despite all the political, social, and economic trials and tribulations. The purpose of middle schools is to expand on the foundation laid by primary education. Middle school students are assigned to the schools nearest their homes.

High School Education The goals of high school are to develop students’ capability to chart their futures befitting their aptitudes and talents and to help them to become global citizens. South Korea has specialized high schools for gifted students, but these are criticized for mainly focusing on the students who go to prestigious universities (see Jung, 2004).

Higher Education A special entrance system for students with disabilities was introduced to institutions of higher education in 1995. This system aims to meet the needs of students with disabilities for higher education and permits universities to admit students with disabilities within 10% of the entrance quota. It was reported that 652 students with disabilities attended university as of 2010 (MEST, 2010).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T E AC H E R E DUC AT ION The special education teacher-training curriculum is related closely to that of general education. Special and general teacher education is offered by universities of education, colleges of education, departments of education, or teacher’s certificate programs in college and universities, junior colleges, the Korea National Open University (an online and correspondence university), and graduate schools of education. Kindergarten teachers are trained by junior colleges and the department of kindergarten teachers in universities. Most primary school teachers are trained by universities of education. Secondary school teachers are trained at teachers’ colleges or through teachers’ certificate programs in general colleges and universities. The system for educating special education teachers is of two types. The fi rst type is through undergraduate programs in a university. Students who complete the special education course are eligible for integrated special education qualifications. A special education program takes 4 years. Majors are divided into early childhood special education, elementary special education, and secondary special education. The second means of developing special education teachers is in a graduate school of education where students holding an undergraduate degree in general education can

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

273

274

Dae Young, Jung obtain special education qualifications in two years by completing special education courses. In-service training is offered to teachers to improve their professionalism and inspire them with a strong sense of mission so that they can carry out their educational activities and prepare themselves for the rapidly changing era of information, industrialization, and diversification. In-service training is offered in three categories: training for certifi cates, general training, and special training. Certificates are tied to promotion to a higher level. Participants in the programs, which last 30 days (180 hours) or longer, may be 1st Grade and 2nd Grade teachers, vice principals, principals, librarians, and professional counselors.1 General training is designed to nourish the abilities and capacities needed in various areas of school life, including curricular instruction, student guidance, and administrative tasks. Overseas training, a part of general training, consists of hands-on experience and field training (for teachers who majored in science and industrial subjects). Field training is offered in either foreign universities or training institutions for 4 to 8 weeks in order to give teachers the advanced knowledge, educational methods, and scientific technology of foreign countries. Special training sponsored or arranged by the MEST consists of long-term programs (2 years maximum) offered by the teacher-training institutes for the enhancement of special fields, at home and abroad.

Teachers’ Organizations and Welfare Organizations South Korea has pledged to allow teachers’ union activities. Currently, there are four such organizations: the Korean Federation of Teachers’ Association (KFTA), the Korean Teachers and Educational Workers’ Union (KTEWU), the Korean Union of Teaching and Education Workers, and the Korea Liberal Teachers’ Union (KLTU). The Korean Teachers’ Mutual Fund (KTMF) and the Korean Teachers’ Pension (KTP) have been established to promote teachers’ welfare and to provide financial security so that educational workers can fully devote themselves to their jobs. Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Academic Activities South Korea has 14 learned societies related to special education and eight special education institutes attached to universities. The Korea Institute for Special Education is in charge of research and training and contributes to the development of special education through policy studies and the development of teaching and learning materials (Korea Institute for Special Education, 2004, 2006).

AC T I V I T I E S O F I N T E R E S T S G ROU P A N D N G O s Many interest groups have formed since the end of the 20th century. Representative groups include the Korea Parents Association (KPA), which has 30 branches throughout the country, the Parents Association for Autistic Children (PAAC), and the Parents Association for Mentally Retarded Children (PAMRC). Societies of parents of people with

1. 1st Grade and 2nd Grade refers to the status of the teachers in rank.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in South Korea disabilities undertake diverse activities, such as education and consultation, advocacy, surveys and research, international exchange, the operation of welfare facilities, and guardianship for people with disabilities.

I S S U E S A N D TA S K S

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

South Korean education has made steady progress. Admission rates to primary schools, middle schools, high schools, universities, and graduate programs have dramatically soared. Illiteracy is very low. The 1997 Seventh Curriculum establishes the standard for all school levels and directs the guidelines for developing textbooks. Along with general education, special education has developed remarkably. Accordingly, legal systems have been established, educational opportunities for students with disabilities have increased, and the quality of special education service has improved considerably. There are many successes, but also multiple challenges facing education in South Korea (Jung, 2002). These include the following: • General education system. In some ways, the values and the goals of education have been distorted due to the ups and downs of Korean politics. Currently, education in South Korea has been put on a back burner. The nation has other priorities, such as investment growth. Korean society has developed a distorted view of the purpose of education, which includes the conflicting values of education, Koreans’ perspectives toward education levels, and their reliance on private education. These manifest as the “first-class syndrome” (the trend to stick to the top-class universities), excessive private lessons (the dependency on private education to enter a good university), and students who failed in the previous entrance exam (in worst cases, some students retake the exam three or four times). In the 21st century, South Korea has a lot of work ahead in order to re-establish the purpose of education, develop the contents and methods, and mobilize the resources required for its realization so that we can adapt to accelerating globalization and an information society. • A clear plan. South Korea’s politicians and government officials tend to aim for performance and achievement, which causes the consistency of policy to be disregarded. Education was no exception to this rule. By adopting the educational policies of advanced countries without careful consideration, the field of education experienced many failures. For example, special education experienced many conflicts by introducing IEPs, integrated education, and transition education without careful consideration and before the system was fully ready. • Advocacy. The Progressive Party in South Korea, which came to power in the later half of the 1990s to the beginning of the new century, had a great interest in improving the rights of minority groups. Within this political environment, underprivileged persons and groups asserted and claimed their rights. This social atmosphere, for example, led parents of children with disabilities who were dissatisfied with the slow improvement of special education to form interest groups and assert and claim the rights to education.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

275

276

Dae Young, Jung The SEL of 2007 accepted requests from the Progressive Party, parents’ associations, and social organizations. It must be noted, however, that the SEL of 2007 accepted some radical and unrealistic requests so that excessive demand and interference distorted policies. For example, the law stipulated that the number of students per special class should be four in preschool; six in elementary school; six in middle school; and eight in high school. At present, few schools comply with these class sizes. In elementary schools and middle schools, it is common for the number of students per special class to exceed 10. The acceptance of unrealistic requests made schools violate the law. • Early identification and the establishment of an early intervention system. As the government emphasizes early identification, the establishment of an early intervention system is an important task of national policy. Efforts to establish a system for early identification and early special education are ongoing, but performance is still not satisfactory. We need a more systematic process.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• Expansion of educational opportunities for students with mild disabilities. Students with severe disabilities receive educational service at special schools. Students with mild disabilities are mainly placed in special classes or general classes in general schools. Special classes include full-time special classrooms, part-time special classrooms, and resource rooms. But the number of students who receive special education service is actually very small and the prevalence rates are much lower than those of other countries. Special education is mainly centered on severe disabilities. When students with mild disabilities are classified as underachievers, they do not receive proper educational services. It is necessary to redefine the concepts so that all students with needs can receive systematic services. • Definitions and diagnosis. The conceptual and operational definitions of disabilities used to diagnose and evaluate disabilities are insufficient. In particular, the distinction between learning disabilities and emotional/behavioral disorders is not clear, which means that some children with mild disabilities are excluded from receiving services. Efforts to develop proper diagnostic criteria for eligibility should be made. • Improvement in the quality of special education services. In order to improve the quality of special education, it is important to improve the quality of special education teachers and strengthen the special education/general education partnership. All teachers must develop expertise in special education, instructional accommodations and modifications, scientific research-based instruction, and inclusive education (Jung & Han, 2008). • Optimization of the delivery and support system for special education. Every time the government drafted 5-year development plans, MEST considered the establishment of special education service delivery as important. Although the number of students who need special education service placed in general classes has increased, proper integrated education is not provided. • Inclusive education. The paradigm of special education is changing to consider the importance and nature of inclusive education. However, the change centers International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in South Korea on physical integration. We need a great effort to make changes in instructional, psychological, and social integration as well (see Jung, 2003, 2004; Korea Association of Inclusive Education, 2005). • Support centers. There are 180 special education support centers established to support special education. Special education support centers aim to conduct early identification, diagnostic evaluation, information management, special education training, and support for teaching and learning activities (SEL, 2007). However, qualified experts who can do the tasks properly are not placed in these centers. The work of special education support centers and rehabilitation centers for the disabled overlaps. Rehabilitation centers belong to the Ministry of Health and Welfare and mainly deal with welfare support. They provide therapy services to children with disabilities and operate various family support programs. Special education support centers deal mainly with educational support. It is necessary to improve cooperation between education support centers and rehabilitation centers as well as to establish an interagency cooperation system and transdisciplinary team approaches.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• Systemic provision of related service. Special education-related services include family support, therapy, auxiliary personnel support, instructional support, and inclusive education support. However, systematic support is not provided because qualified experts are not prepared. For example, more than 4,000 special education assistants support the activities of special education teachers. Many of them obtained their qualification by taking short-term programs that were provided by universities or learned societies. To improve the effect of special education, it is necessary to enhance the quality of special education assistants (SEL, 2007). • Higher education. The special entrance system allowed many students with disabilities to be admitted to universities. However, universities do not provide proper support for students with disabilities. Although the MEST evaluates the support of universities for students with disabilities every few years, remarkable improvement has not been made. The special entrance systems for students with disabilities have also caused some problems. For example, people with cerebral palsy who were admitted to university through the special entrance system obtained the qualifications of special education teachers and were employed as teachers even though the work is greatly physically taxing for a person perhaps in a wheelchair. It is necessary to reasonably reconsider this system for students with disabilities. • Multicultural families. In recent years, South Korea has faced a growing population of ethnically diverse citizens. The number of multicultural families rose remarkably to account for 2.2% of the population. Research conducted by Seol, Suh, Lee, and Kim (2009) projects that the rates will reach 5.5% by 2020. We must take measures to solve the problems of learning difficulties that children of multicultural families experience. • Strengthening of vocational education and transitional education and the substantiality of higher education for students with disabilities. One of the long-term goals of special education is to help students with disabilities become competent persons who can International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

277

278

Dae Young, Jung achieve economic independence. However, the number of people with disabilities who are employed is small. It was reported that among students with disabilities who graduated from high school, 31.3% went on to higher education; only 11.4% became employed (MEST, 2010). Although the government encourages companies and public organizations to hire people with disabilities, enterprises and public organizations are reluctant. Many large companies will bear the handicapped employment levy instead of hiring people with disabilities. • Understanding of people with disabilities. Welfare policy and its execution are considerably influenced by the opinion and awareness of citizens. Government has made a considerable effort to improve the life quality of people with disabilities, but there still exists prejudice and discrimination, which impedes social integration. It is important for citizens and government to cooperate to improve the life quality of people with disabilities.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

F I N A L T HOUG H T S South Korea is a unique nation that has maintained a 5,000-year history even while surrounded by powerful neighbors. It made a quantum leap during the 1960s amid the invasion, tension, and conflict involving China, Russia, and Japan. Education made a tremendous contribution to the nation’s emergence from absolute poverty to one with thriving political and socioeconomic policies. The government’s sustained efforts to develop special education and change societal attitudes about disabilities have considerably relieved prejudice and led to more positive views of the rights of people with disabilities. The enactment of laws such as the Disability Discrimination Act, the Disabled Child Welfare Act, the Special Education Law, and the Convenient Facilities Promotion Act made great contributions to this improvement (Park, 2008; Park, Jung, Kim, & Kim, 2005). These laws compelled the national central government and local governments to provide services for people with disabilities and contributed to promoting the recognition of their rights. The change of recognition may take a long time, but administrative and financial support according to laws and regulations can bring about change in a shorter period of time.

R E F E R E NC E S Department of General Education. (1992). Special education development plan. Seoul: Author. Drucker, P. F. (2004). Drucker sayings in Korean. Seoul: Chungrim. Han, K. U. (2003). The pedagogy of 21c Korea. Seoul: Korea Academic Information. Jung, D. Y. (2002). The prospect and tasks of Korean special education. Paper presented at the 10th Rehabilitation International Korea Conference. Jung, D. Y. (2003). A study on the educational structure and practical direction supporting inclusive education. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 19, 139–165. Jung, D. Y. (2004). Education of children with gift/talent and/or disabilities. Kyungnam, Korea: Changwon National University Press. Jung, D. Y., & Han, K. I. (2008). Workbook for pre-special teachers. Seoul: Yangsuwon. Kang, C. D. (2002). The history of Korean educational culture. Seoul: Moonumsa.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Education in South Korea

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Kang, M. S. (2004). School culture in Korea. In I. H. Kim (Ed.), Educational history and the lecture of educational philosophy. Seoul: Moonumsa. Kim, W. K., Lee, S. J., Kim, E, J., & Kwon, T. H. (2009). The commentary of special education law. Seoul: Education Science Publishing. Korea Association of Inclusive Education. (2005). Inclusive education for general teachers. Seoul: Hakzisa. Korea Institute for Special Education. (2004). The ten-year history of Korea Institute for Special Education. Seoul: Seoul Multi-Net. Korea Institute for Special Education. (2006). Research on actual state of students with special education needs. Kyungki, Korea: Korea Institute for Special Education. Korea Rehabilitation Society for the Handicapped. (2005). Workshop for assessing second five-year welfare development for the handicapped. Seoul: Author. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (1996). Comprehensive development plan of special education. Seoul: Author. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (1997). 1998–2002 five year special education development plan. Seoul: Author. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2003). Special education development plan to improve educational outcomes of all students (’03–’07). Seoul: Author. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2005–2006). Education in Korea. Seoul: Author. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2007–2008). Education in Korea. Seoul: Author. Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2008). Annual report of special education. Seoul: Author. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. (2010). The annual report of special education. Seoul: Author. Park, J. Y., Jung, D. Y., Kim, J. Y., & Kim, D. S. (2005). A study for improving special education related laws. Seoul: Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. Park, S. P. (2008). NGO, government, and policies. Seoul: Hanwool. Seol, D. H., Suh, M. H., Lee, S. S., & Kim, M. A. (2009). A study of the medium- to long-term prospects and measures of multicultural family in Korea: On the focus of the population projection of multicultural family in Korea, and the analysis of its socio-economic impacts on Korean society. Seoul: Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Family Affairs.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

279

14 Current Developments in Education Policy for Students With Disabilities in Australia

Joseph Zajda

Washed by the Pacific and Indian oceans, Australia has 34,218 kilometers of coastline and a landmass of 7,617,930 square kilometers. The nation is a federation of six states— Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales (NSW), Queensland, Tasmania, and Western Australia—and two territories—the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and the Northern Territory. Australia was claimed by Britain in 1778 and founded in 1788. The country was first settled through penal transportation to the Botany Bay colony of NSW. The gold rush in the early 1850s brought new immigrants and new prosperity to the various colonies. On January 1, 1901, the six colonies joined to become a federation and the Commonwealth of Australia was formed. Australia is a constitutional monarchy with a federal division of powers. It uses a parliamentary system of government, headed by Queen Elizabeth II as the Queen of Australia. The Queen is represented by her viceroys in Australia: the Governor General of Australia and governors for each state.

T H E S O C I A L FA BR IC Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Australia has over 22 million people. The urban population is nearly 90%, which makes Australia one of the most urbanized nations globally. All of Australia’s major cities rate very highly in global comparative livability surveys. Melbourne reached second place on The Economist’s 2008 World’s Most Livable Cities list (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2009). Australia was ranked second in the United Nations (UN) Human Development Index (UN, 2009). Almost 90% of the population is of European descent. Most Australians are descended from colonial-era settlers and post-Federation immigrants from Europe and other parts of the world. The vast majority of immigrants came from the British Isles, and the people of Australia are still mainly of British or Irish ethnic origin. In the 2006 Australian census, the most commonly nominated ancestry was Australian (37%), followed by English (31.7% ), Irish (9%), Scottish (7.6%), Italian (4.3%), German (4%), Chinese (3.4%), and Greek (1.8%). Australia is a free market economy defined by a neo-liberal ideology. It has a high gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and a low rate of poverty. It was ranked third in the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, and is globally the 13th largest economy out of 196 280

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Education Policy for Students With Disabilities in Australia nations. Australia has the 11th highest per-capita GDP (similar to that of the United States).

E DUC AT ION I N AUS T R A L I A Education in Australia is primarily the responsibility of the states and territories that manage the school system within individual states, provide funding, and regulate the public and private schools as well as postsecondary institutions. Both public schools and private schools exist in each state. While the curriculum taught in each state or school may vary, the learning areas are the same in all. Education is compulsory between the ages of 5 and 15 to 17, depending on the jurisdiction. The academic year in Australia varies between states and institutions but generally runs from late January/early February until mid-December for primary and secondary schools. Postcompulsory education is regulated within the Australian Qualifications Framework, a unified system of national qualifications in schools, vocational education, and training (Technical and Further Education, or TAFE) and the higher education sector. Schools in Australia are based on a three-tier structure: government schools, Catholic schools, and independent schools. Government schools educate about 65% of Australian students; some 35% attend Catholic and independent schools. Regardless of whether a school is part of the government, Catholic, or independent systems, it is required to follow the curriculum frameworks of its state or territory.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Preschool Preschool (also known as kindergarten) is relatively unregulated and not compulsory. Preschools are run by the state and territory governments, except in NSW, Victoria, and South Australia where they are administered by local councils, community groups, or private organizations. Fiscal and administrative responsibility for preschools in NSW and Victoria rests with the Department of Community Services and the Department of Human Services, respectively. In all other states and territories, responsibility for preschools rests with the relevant education department (The Structures of Preschool Education in Australia, 2007). Preschool is offered to 3- to 5-year-olds. Attendance numbers vary widely between the states. In general, some 86% of children attend preschool centers.

Primary and Secondary Schools Primary schools cover 7 years, or 8, if one includes the prep grade, or preschool for 5-year-olds. The name for the fi rst year of primary school varies considerably between the states and territories. For example, what is known as kindergarten in ACT and NSW may mean the year proceeding the first year of primary school or preschool in other states and territories. Some states vary as whether Year 7 is part of the primary area or not. Secondary schools cover 6 years for 12- to 17-year-olds. More than 74% of students stay at school until Year 12, the final year of secondary schooling. Year 12 examinations are

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

281

282

Joseph Zajda externally administered by the relevant states and territories. All students who sit for the final Year 12 examinations are ranked. These scores are used for university admission (99.9 score for medicine or 95 for the commerce faculty at the University of Melbourne). The score of 95 means that the candidate, ranked against some 60,000 students who sat for the Year 12 examination, placed in the top 5% in the state. The 2006 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) ranked the Australian education system as 6th for reading, 8th for science, and 13th for mathematics on a worldwide scale including 56 countries (Australian Council for Educational Research [ACER] 2009). The 2008 Education Index, published with the Human Development Index (United Nations [UN], 2009), listed Australia as 0.993. This is one of the highest in the world, tied for first with Finland and Denmark.

Higher Education Sector There are 38 government and 2 private universities in Australia. The federal government funds the public universities but is not involved in setting curriculum: Each higher education institution designs its own programs and curricula. A relevant professional body must endorse a course for it to run. Typically, a university degree takes 3 or 4 years to complete, followed by master’s (1 to 2 year) and doctoral (2 to 4 year) programs.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

S T U DE N T S W I T H DI S A BI L I T I E S I N AUS T R A L I A Students meeting Australian government criteria for disability status are referred to as students with a disability. The term disability includes individuals with cognitive and intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, vision impairments, hearing impairments, language disorders, autism, pervasive developmental disorders, chronic medical conditions, and multiple disabilities. Some students also have other forms of disadvantage, whether it is isolation, poverty, being indigenous, social deprivation, and so on. There are about 100,000 students with disabilities in Australian schools, both special schools and regular schools. Some students with disabilities are educated in special schools that provide a very important educational environment for those students. There are about 20,000 students in these separate special schools—that is, about 15 to 20% of all children with disabilities. The remainder—about 80%—attend our regular primary and secondary schools. Recent years have seen a very significant increase in the number of students with disabilities being mainstreamed into government schools. Interestingly, about two-thirds are in primary schools (Australian Human Rights Commission, n.d.). The identification and assessment of students with disabilities play an important role in the initial stages of pedagogy. Clearly, the identification of a child with a disability or a learning difficulty needs to occur at an early stage to maximize cognitive developments and social benefits to the individual and the family. In Australia, access to specialist resources addressing special needs is available at the school level. During the identification and assessment stage of students with disabilities, schools use specific disability criteria. An example from the state of NSW is shown in Table 1.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Education Policy for Students With Disabilities in Australia Table 1. The Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn Program for Inclusion of Students with Disabilities Categories of disability 1. Cognition (intellectual)

2. Sensory (hearing)

3. Sensory (visual)

4. Physical

5. Mental health (social/ emotional)

6. Pervasive developmental disorder (autism)

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

7. Language disorder

8. Chronic medical

Relevant details Full-scale score on a standardized, restricted psychometric (IQ) assessment at or below the second percentile and accompanied by associated academic and adaptive behavioral delays Permanent (sensorineural/conductive) hearing loss of 30+ decibels with resultant communication difficulties Permanent vision loss of 6/24 or less in the better eye corrected, or less than 20 degrees field of vision Ongoing physical condition (e.g., cerebral palsy, osteogenisis imperfecta, spina bifida) that significantly limits functioning and independence in mobility, personal care, and undertaking essential learning tasks Mental health problems at a level of frequency, duration, and intensity that seriously affects educational functioning; behaviors must be evident in home, school, and community environments (a diagnosis of ADD [with or without hyperactivity] is not included) Diagnosis indicating a pervasive developmental disorder (e.g., autism) or disability affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction that significantly affects the ability to learn; diagnosis must also include a clinically significant adaptive behavioral delay Expressive and/or receptive language disorder with a scaled score of 70 or less on a restricted, standardized speech pathology assessment (i.e., the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals [CELF]) Chronic medical condition that affects functioning and/or independence so that a student is highly dependent on another or access learning

T H E PU R S U I T OF I NC LUS ION In recent decades “the dominant issue in special education has revolved around the education of students with special needs in general classrooms and neighbourhood schools, variously encompassed under the terms inclusion, inclusive schooling, inclusive education or, occasionally, progressive inclusion” (Winzer & Mazurek, 2010b, p. 87). Although definitions abound, inclusive schooling for students with disabilities can be defined simply as

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

283

284

Joseph Zajda “instruction that is specially designed to meet the unique needs of children and youth who are exceptional” (Winzer & Mazurek, 2010b, p. 87). Educational institutions should cater to all students, including those with disabilities. The main aim of inclusive schooling is to empower children and youth who have physiological, cognitive, and emotional differences that change substantially the way they learn, respond, or behave. The 1980s heralded a remarkable international commitment to the inclusion of persons with disabilities into society and schools. As Winzer and Mazurek (2010a) observed, “School systems were prompted to abandon special schools and special classes and instead create socially just communities where students with disabilities could be included into neighbourhood schools and general classrooms” (p. 3). Then “as policy makers and educators around the world adopted the notion that all children had the right to be educated together, they set out to recast the functions, content, processes, and structures of schooling” (p. 3). Australia was influenced by myriad streams of the progressive pedagogy movement. These included:

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• The American experience. In the United States, the first major federal legislation authorizing funds for compensatory education was the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title I (ESEA). This was replaced by the 1981 Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA), which continues to be the “cornerstone of America’s compensatory education efforts” (Passow, 1997, p. 85). As a form of inclusive pedagogy, mainstream education for students with disabilities was promoted with the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL94-142), amended in 1990 as the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This legislation and its amendments have served, and continue to serve, as a model piece of legislation for other countries as they provide education for students with disabilities (Winzer, 2006). • U.K. influences. The Report on the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People in England (Warnock, 1978), known as the Warnock Report, offered reinforcement for much needed policy reform. • International agencies. The 1981 International Year of the Disabled Person offered a significant policy drive by drawing worldwide attention to special education. • The European experience. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on special needs education was the outcome of more than 300 participants representing 92 governments and 25 international organizations who met in Salamanca, Spain, from June 7–10, 1994. Participants considered the fundamental policy shifts required to promote the approach of inclusive education—namely, enabling schools to serve all children, particularly those with special educational needs. As policy reform initiative, the Salamanca declaration continued the spirit of similar education reforms in the area of compensatory and special needs. It asserted the significance of inclusive pedagogy when it decided that “Regular schools with inclusive orientations are the most effective means of combating discrimination,

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Education Policy for Students With Disabilities in Australia creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all.” (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 1994) UNESCO’s later report, Overcoming Exclusion Through Inclusive Approaches in Education: A Challenge and a Vision (2001), expanded the theme. UNESCO stated that schools should accommodate all children regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other conditions. This should include disabled and gifted children, street and working children, children from remote or nomadic populations, children from linguistic, ethnic or cultural minorities and children from other disadvantaged or marginalised areas or groups. (UNESCO, 2001)

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

L EG I S L AT I V E F R A M E WOR K Prescriptive legislation of the ilk of the American IDEA is not in place in Australia. However, as a nation committed to multiculturalism, Australia follows the principles of cultural diversity and a pluralist democracy. Therefore, commonwealth legislation and the policies of state governments on social justice, antidiscrimination, and equality have had a significant influence on educational provisions for students with disabilities (Westwood, 2001). The commonwealth government of Australia showed little interest in special education until the reformist Gough Whitlam Labor Government was elected in 1972. During its 3-year rule, the government introduced a series of policy documents and legislation, including antidiscrimination laws. At the policy level, the government adopted integration as its preferred way of meeting the educational needs of children with disabilities. More significantly, it established the influential policy think tank—the Commonwealth Schools Commission—which became a major influence through its support of research and policy initiatives, as well as a vehicle for the commonwealth government’s policy of supporting integration (Winzer, Altieri, Jacobs, & Mellor, 2003). In 1992, the commonwealth government passed the Federal Disability Discrimination Act (DDA; Australian Human Rights Commission, n.d.) that came into effect on March 1, 1993. The DDA made it against the law for an educational authority to discriminate against someone because that person has a disability. Critically, a person with a disability has a right to study at any educational institution in the same way as any other student. This includes all public and private educational institutions, primary and secondary schools, and tertiary institutions such as TAFE, private colleges, and universities (Australian Human Rights Commission, n.d.). In 2004, the Disability Discrimination Amendment (Education Standards) Bill 2004 (Parliament of New South Wales, 2005) amended the DDA of 1992. The 2005 amendment, known as the Disability Standards for Education, plays a significant role in educational placement in Australia in general. The amendment came into being because there was the need to mandate compliance with the disability standards mandated in 1992 and to ensure that the provisions of the draft disability standards for education were fully supported. The main aim of the amendment was to explain and clarify the legal

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

285

286

Joseph Zajda obligations of education and training service providers as well as the rights of people with disabilities under the seminal DDA of 1992. The Disability Standards of 2005 (Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department, 2005) set out to ensure that students with disabilities have the same rights as other students in a number of interlocking areas: • Educational equity. The standards give students and prospective students with disabilities the right to education and training opportunities on the same basis as students without disabilities. This includes the right to comparable access, services, and facilities, and the right to participate in education and training without discrimination. • Accommodations. The rights to equity are not merely formal. Education providers have a positive obligation to make changes to reasonably accommodate the needs of a student with a disability. A reasonable adjustment for students with disabilities is defined as a measure or action taken to assist a student with  a disability to participate in education and training on the same basis as other students. In determining whether an adjustment is reasonable, an education provider should take into account information about the nature of the student’s disability, his or her preferred adjustment, and any adjustments that have been provided previously (Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department, 2005).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• Stereotypes. An aim of the standards was to overcome discrimination based on stereotyped beliefs about the intellectual and cognitive abilities of students with disabilities. Accordingly, all students should be treated with dignity and enjoy the benefits of education and training in supportive environments that value and encourage participation by all. • Harassment and victimization of students with  disabilities. Education providers are obliged to put in place strategies and programs to prevent harassment and victimization. They must ensure that staff and students know not to harass or victimize students with disabilities, or students who have associates with disabilities. An education provider must take reasonable steps to ensure that staff and students know what to do if harassment or victimization occur (Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department, 2005). • Direct and indirect discrimination. Direct discrimination occurs when a person discriminates against another person on the ground of a disability, and as a result treats, or proposes to treat, the aggrieved person less favorably than the discriminator would treat a person without the disability in circumstances that are not materially different. Indirect disability discrimination is when a person discriminates against another person on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if the person (the discriminator) requires, or proposes to require, the aggrieved person to comply with a requirement or condition that is likely to result in the effect of disadvantaging persons with disabilities. Another key education policy document came in the form of the Adelaide Declaration on the National Goals for Schooling in the 21st Century that arose from a discussion paper International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Education Policy for Students With Disabilities in Australia (1998) reviewing the Hobart Declaration (1989) and superseded these earlier documents. In April of 1999, state, territory, and commonwealth ministers of education met as the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) in Adelaide. At that meeting, ministers endorsed a new set of national goals for schooling, which were released as the Adelaide Declaration (Department of Education, Science and Training, 2006). A later education policy document (which now supersedes the Adelaide Declaration) was the 2008 Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs, 2008). It sets the direction for Australian schooling for the next 10 years and also addresses inclusive education. The education policy goals were developed by education ministers in collaboration with the Catholic and independent school sectors and following public consultation on the draft declaration (Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs, 2008).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

I NC LUS ION I N PR AC T IC E Australia is developing its own unique view of inclusive education (Winzer & Mazurek, 2010b). Although legislation specifically targeted at special education such as that in the United States does not appear, recent education policies in Australia promote equity, inclusion, human rights education, and social justice. Following these policies and global trends in inclusive education policy reforms, all educational institutions in Australia today prefer an inclusive pedagogy approach. At the same time, due consideration is given to the level of impairment involved in the special needs of an individual student. Compared to other Western nations, the inclusive movement arrived relatively late in Australia (Van Kraayenoord, 2002). It was not until 2001 that the actual terms inclusion and inclusive schooling appeared in the lexicon (Winzer et al., 2003). They supplanted the word integration, which had been used to denote the least restrictive but most appropriate educational placement for each student with a disability (Gannon, 1991). Today, the term inclusive education is emerging in education policy used to articulate the rights of students with disabilities, impairments, and learning difficulties to participate in the full range of programs and services and to use any facilities provided by the education system (Meyer, 2001). The commonwealth government has an overarching concern with integration and specific policies for discrimination as we have discussed above. But each Australian state and territory has its own unique responses to inclusive education policy reforms. The momentum and practice differ dramatically (Winzer et al., 2003), and there exist considerable curricular and classroom pedagogy variations in Australia among schools. We can see the flavor of this in recent policy discussions and in two examples from different systems. A 2003 meeting of the Australian Special Education Principals Association (ASEPA) identified the challenge of ensuring that all students (including students with disabilities and special needs) are recognized and catered for in curriculum options across Australia. It then established a Curriculum Working Party to review the range of curriculum responses being developed in the states and territories for students with special education needs.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

287

288

Joseph Zajda At the policy level, the working party identified a significant consensus from members regarding curriculum issues for students with disabilities and special educational needs (SEN). They found that “strategic vision, research activities and national leadership in curriculum are missing for SEN,” and that there were considerable variations state by state in how to authentically include all students. The working party chided that “there is an ongoing tension that inclusion implies that all students will fit and be able to access the generic product, whilst providing curricula that is not broad enough to accommodate the needs of all students—therefore ‘all’ does not in fact mean all.” Because curriculum does not provide supporting documents and resources that meet the full range of student and specific needs, they stressed that inclusive schooling for students with disabilities in Australia should address the diversity of needs, rather than planning one curriculum for all (ASEPA, 2003, original italics).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

The State of Victoria The state of Victoria adopted a comprehensive integration approach in special education following the report of the ministerial review of educational services for the disabled (Victoria, Department of Education, 1984), known as the Collins Report. The controversial Collins Report was influenced by education reforms in special education, notably from the United States and the United Kingdom. The report proposed five major principles: rejection of the concept of ineducability; children’s right to education in a regular classroom; transfer of children and resources from the special school’s sector to regular schools; noncategorical service delivery; school-based resources; and collaborative decision-making. Despite its pedagogical significance, the Collins Report failed to define the term integration. Instead, it referred to two aspects of policy and practice, both of which identify processes (Reed, 1990). They were a process of increasing the participation of children with impairments and disabilities in the education programs and social life of regular schools in which their peers without disabilities participate, and a process of maintaining the participation of all children in the educational programs and social life of regular schools (Victoria, Department of Education, 1984). However, the report laid the groundwork for extended discussions. For example, the Victorian social justice framework for schools in 1991 identified seven groups whose needs should be monitored, including students with disabilities (The Social Justice Framework/State Board of Education [and] School Programs Division, Ministry of Education Victoria, 1991). In a 1997 review, integration became the main education policy and pedagogical principle. The 2001 Meyer report recommended that special schools continue with an enhanced role to provide for children whose disabilities need longer support and to provide research opportunities in collaboration with local schools on the development of strategies that strengthen inclusive education (Meyer, 2001). Currently, Victoria maintains a dual system of regular and special schools. The complex of special schools thrives alongside inclusive programs with much collaboration and interaction.

New South Wales: The Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn The Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn can be regarded as a pragmatic model of inclusive pedagogy that addresses the diversity of needs of students with disabilities.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Education Policy for Students With Disabilities in Australia For the purposes of identification and resourcing in ACT and NSW Archdiocesan schools, students with a disability is the term applied to students with special needs (disabilities; Archdiocese, New South Wales, n.d.). In the Archdiocese, students with special needs and disabilities are identified according to the Australian government criteria and as determined at the state level. They also have an eight-level scale to address the specific needs of students with disabilities. They include the following forms of disabilities: cognitive, sensory, visual, physical, mental health (social and emotional), pervasive developmental disorder, language disorder, and chronic medical condition (see Table 1). The Student Centred Appraisal of Need (SCAN) mechanism is an ascertainment and planning process to determine student needs and assist in making adjustments for students with disabilities in ACT schools of the Archdiocese. An Individual Education Plan (IEP) is a written plan developed at school level to plan for, review, and assess the learning needs of students with disabilities. The IEP, developed in collaboration with parents, is a key element of a school’s response to meeting needs of every student with disabilities. Schools offer their own IEP for each special needs student. The annual IEP summary is a Catholic Education Office (CEO) requirement for system accountability and planning processes. An Individual Planning Tool (IPT) is an ascertainment and planning process to determine student needs and assist in making adjustments for students with disabilities in the NSW schools of the Archdiocese. The IPT process will be gradually introduced into NSW schools from 2010. The Literacy Numeracy and Special Learning Needs program is an Australian government initiative to provide educational systems with supplementary resources to support better learning outcomes for students with special needs. The Archdiocese distributes these resources to schools on an annual basis to support students with disabilities and students with special needs (other than disabilities).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T E AC H E R S A N D PE DAG O G Y The research literature on teaching students with disabilities has broadly and widely documented the nexus among teacher training, teacher perceptions, teacher attitudes, teacher discrimination, and teacher efficacy that affect classroom pedagogy. Critical areas—among many others—are teacher rejection of the principles of inclusive schooling and teacher lack of knowledge and skills (Winzer, 2008). Some teachers dislike the principles of inclusion. Winzer (2006) observes that Many teachers reject the demands that all teachers be prepared to teach all children, dispute inclusion as a universal template that assumes that only one solution exists to the various challenges faced by children with special needs, are unwilling to accept the loss of the safety valve called special education, and prefer the present system. (p. 33) Teachers’ perceptions of teaching children with disabilities and their attitudes toward inclusion are significantly influenced by their own perceived levels of efficacy, particularly in the teaching of children with disabilities in their classrooms (Hsien, 2007; Winzer & Mazurek, 2010b). Many teachers lack skills. Research findings from across the globe indicate that schools and teachers are struggling to respond to students with special

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

289

290

Joseph Zajda needs and to provide authentic, relevant, empowering, and worthwhile schooling for such students (e.g., Aniftos & McLuskie, 2003; Wills & Cain, 2002; Winzer & Mazurek, 2005; Zajda, 2011). Australian teachers have reported that they found the inclusion of students with special needs to increase their workloads and spoke of their increased stress and lack of support (Chen & Miller, 1997; Forlin, Haltre, & Douglas, 1996; Klassen, Usher, & Bong, 2010). A recent study in Western Australia (Anderson, Klassen, & Georgiou, 2007) found that many teachers seemed willing to move toward greater inclusive practices although many were ambivalent or angry about the problems associated with the day-to-day practice.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Teacher Training Level of training is significantly correlated with the level of confidence in teaching inclusively. It follows that the nature and the quality of teacher training for inclusive schooling for students with disabilities is a major factor affecting teacher attitudes and teacher efficacy (Romi & Leyser, 2006; Winzer, 2006; Winzer & Mazurek, 2010a, 2010b). Reports from Australia claim that young teachers are not trained effectively to work with students with special needs (see Milton & Rohl, 1999). In a recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) survey, more than 60% of Australian teachers wanted more development than they received (OECD, 2009). It is not surprising that a recent study (Anderson et al., 2007) found that the number one request by teachers was for more training and professional development in inclusion-related topics. In particular, teachers wanted more training in a variety of disabilities. Some advances are evident. In the state of Victoria, major government policies have emphasized that for inclusive education reform to be successful there is need for reform in teacher preparation at the pre-service level so that teachers are better prepared for inclusive schooling for students with disabilities. However, in the state of New South Wales it was proposed that teachers be trained to cover a broader range of needs instead of specializing in areas such as autism, language, or behavioral difficulties. The Education Minister did not believe specializations will be lost, or that online training is inadequate. She said that “110 hours of additional specialist training is something that most teachers that I’ve talked to have actually jumped at the chance to do.” Opponents argue that “The idea of using online training for just 110 hours and [then] put teachers in front of students with diverse special needs was always absurd.” (ABC News, 2009). In September 2009, the New South Wales government deferred the reform of special education in the public schools to allow time for further consultation.

C H A L L E NG E S As Winzer and Mazurek (2010b) point out, “Few issues have received the attention and generated the controversy and polarization of perspectives as has the movement to include all children with disabilities into general classrooms” (p. 87). Although integration is accepted policy in Australia, the issue of genuine inclusion of students with disabilities continues to be a challenge and there are still unresolved education policy, curriculum, and classroom pedagogy issues.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Education Policy for Students With Disabilities in Australia Australia sees a plurality of voices governed by a common concern; multiple discourses address inclusive schooling for students with disabilities. Each state approaches inclusive education quite differently so that education policy reforms for inclusive schooling contain a multifaceted diversity of educational provisions, rather than one approach. Inclusive schooling in Australia illustrates the complexity of the inclusive reform movement, the changing agenda, and the pervasive challenges. We point to only two of the challenges below: legislative intent and teacher skills and training.

Legislation and Its Intent The rights of students at risk and with disabilities in Australia are protected by the Education Act (1989), the Anti-Discrimination Act (1991), the Disability Services Act (1992), and the DDA of 1992 (Australian Human Rights Commission, n.d.). The DDA of 1992 was designed to protect individuals with disabilities against discrimination, including discrimination in education. Jackson, McAfee, and Cockran (1999) observe that “the DDA is only necessary because we have to make something right for a group of people for whom the right thing is not being done voluntarily” (p. 20). However, they concluded that, despite this intent, discrimination against students with disabilities in Australia still exits. Surveys and anecdotal evidence indicate that discrimination remains a significant problem at all levels of education and in particular for children with disabilities wishing to be included in mainstream education. Jackson and colleagues (1999) further note,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Despite these noble intentions it is apparent that there is limited awareness of the DDA in education systems at all levels. In school systems in particular the right thing is still not being done even though there is awareness of the law at senior levels. It is our conclusion that very large institutions with very large budgets and a history of getting their own way have shown that they will not do the right thing, despite the law. (p. 20) Given the enduring history of discrimination in education, they call for multiple strategies to address discrimination. School systems “will not do the right thing in future unless principles are clearly defined, their performance is independently monitored and very powerful contingencies are placed on compliance with the law” (Jackson et al., 1999, p. 20).

Teacher Skills and Teacher Training Teacher resistance and tension continue to be significant factors. A body of research finds that teachers in Australia experience pedagogical difficulties when teaching students with disabilities. They find the inclusion of students with special needs to increase in their workloads and cause stress. And, “While educational integration is advancing rapidly, policy makers, parents, and practitioners must still grapple with systems unready to meet the multiple responsibilities of inclusive schooling” (Winzer, 2006, p. 37). Combined with the issue of inadequate training for pre-service teachers in preparing classroom lessons that would meet the full range of inclusive schooling for students with disabilities, there is the issue of shortage of teaching resources.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

291

292

Joseph Zajda F I N A L T HOUG H T S Education policy and pedagogy for inclusive schooling for students with disabilities in Australia has a rich history of some 4 decades. Influenced by globalization and education reform and reflecting social justice, human rights, and inclusion, schools in Australia have adopted the global pedagogy of inclusive schooling for all (see Zajda, 2010). Inequity in the classroom for students with disabilities continues to be a major issue globally. In order to achieve social justice in schools, learning opportunities need to be created that reinforce equity for all students. This is the essence of inclusive pedagogy and human rights education. Nevertheless, there exist inclusions, not a sole identifiable vision of inclusion. Efforts to bring about fundamental change cannot be quantified into a generic recipe (Winzer & Mazurek, 2010a). This chapter reviewed recent education policy and pedagogy initiatives in the area of students with disabilities. It discussed education policy for students with special needs within the nexus of social justice, human rights education, and inclusive pedagogy. We conclude that education policy and pedagogy in Australia, while progressive in its intent, has much to achieve if we are to have authentic and meaningful pedagogy for students with disabilities.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

R E F E R E NC E S ABC News. (2009). Special education reform put on hold. Retrieved from www.abc.net.au/news /stories/2009/09/18/2689698.htm. Anderson, C., Klassen, R., & Georgiou, G. (2007). Inclusion in Australia: What teachers say they need and what school psychologists can offer. School Psychology International, 28, 131–147. Aniftos, M., & McLuskie, L. (2003, December). On track toward inclusive education. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. Archdiocese, New South Wales. (n.d.). Students with special needs (disabilities)—identification and support. Retrieved from http://www.ceocg.catholic.edu.au/policies/spec_needs.htm. Australian Council for Educational Research. (2009). OECD Programme for international student assessment. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/keyfindings.html. Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department. (2005). Disability standards for education. Retrieved from http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Humanright sandanti-discrimination_Disabilitystandardsforeducation. Australian Human Rights Commission. (n.d.). Disability Discrimination Act of 1992. Retrieved from http://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/legislation/index.html#dda. Australian Human Rights Commission. (n.d.). The Disability Discrimination Amendment (Education Standards) Bill 2004 [2005]. Retrieved from http://www.hreoc.gov.au /disability_rights/legislation/edbill2r.htm. Australian Special Education Principals’ Association . (2003). Curriculum—built in, not bolted on. Retrieved , from http://www.asepa.org.au/PDF/National%20Curriculum.pdf. Chen, M. R. & Miller, G. (1997). Teacher stress: A review of the international literature. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED410187). Department of Education, Science and Training. (2006). The Adelaide declaration on national goals for schooling in the twenty-first century. Retrieved from http://www.mceetya.edu.au /mceetya/nationalgoals/index.htm.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Education Policy for Students With Disabilities in Australia The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2009). Quality-of-life index. Retrieved from http://www .economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.PDF. Forlin, C., Haltre, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Inclusion: Is it stressful for teachers? Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 21, 199–217. Gannon, P. M. (1991). Current themes in integration. In A. F. Ashman (Ed.), The Exceptional Child Monograph, No 2 (pp. 175–194). St. Lucia, Queensland: Fred and Eleanor Schonell Special Education Research Centre. Hsien, M. L. W. (2007). Teacher attitudes towards preparation for inclusion—In support of a unified teacher preparation program. Post-Script: Postgraduate Journal of Education Research, 8(1), 49–60. Retrieved from http://www.education.unimelb.edu.au/research /resources/student_res/postscriptfiles/vol8/Michelle_Hsien.pdf. Jackson, R., McAfee, J., & Cockran, J. (1999). Disability discrimination in education (discussion paper). Retrieved from http://www.include.com.au/papers/DDAsummary.pdf. Klassen, R., Usher, E., & Bong, M. (2010). Teachers’ collective efficacy, job satisfaction, and job stress in cross-cultural context. Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 464–487. Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs. (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Retrieved from http:// www.mceecdya.edu.au/mceecdya/melbourne_declaration,25979.html. Meyer, L. H. (2001, February). Employment and training review of the program for students with disabilities and impairments (Report submitted to the director, Office of School Education). Melbourne, Australia: Victoria Department of Education. Milton, M., & Rohl, M. (1999). Children K–2 who are of concern to their teachers: Identification, programs and the professional needs of teachers. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3, 9–16. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris: Author. Parliament of New South Wales. (2005, October). Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Equality in Education and Employment) Bill. Retrieved from http://www.parliament.nsw.gov .au/Prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20051013033. Passow, A. H. (1997). Compensatory education for equity and excellence: A critique of the Title 1/Chapter 1 Program. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Education and Society (pp. 85–106). Melbourne, Australia: James Nicholas Publishers. Reed, B. (1990). A survey of teachers’ concerns towards integration in state primary schools, Bendigo Region, Victoria. Retrieved from https://www.highbeam.com/Registration/Registration1. Romi, S., & Leyser, Y. (2006). Exploring inclusion preservice training needs: A study of variables associated with attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21, 85–105. The Social Justice Framework/State Board of Education [and] School Programs Division, Ministry of Education Victoria. (1991). Retrieved from http://www.bing.com/s earch?q=The+Victorian+social+justice+framework+for+schools+in+1991+&mkt= en-au&qs=n&first=1&FORM=PERE. The Structures of Preschool Education in Australia. (2007). Retrieved from http://www .aeufederal.org.au/Ec/PreschoolEducationSheetNo2.pdf. United Nations. (2009). Human development index. New York: Author. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action. In Final report of the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and quality. Salamanca, Spain: Author. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2001). Overcoming exclusion through inclusive approaches in education. A challenge and a vision (Conceptual paper for the education sector). Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org /images/0013/001347/134785e.pdf.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

293

294

Joseph Zajda

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2002). The roles of the educational psychologist in inclusion in Australia. Educational and Child Psychology, 19, 46–58. Victoria, Department of Education. (1984). Collins report: Integration in Victorian education (Report of the ministerial review of educational services for the disabled). Melbourne, Australia: Author. Warnock, H. M. (1978). Special education needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the education of handicapped children and youth. London: Her Majesty’s Printing Office. Westwood, P. S. (2001). Making special schools ordinary: Is this inspirational or confused thinking. International Journal of Special Education, 16, 7–20. Wills, D., & Cain, P. (2002, November 13). Key competencies required for teachers to work in and foster inclusive school communities. Paper presented at the Teacher Education for Inclusion Conference, Edith Cowan University, Perth. Winzer, M. (2006). Including students with special needs: Two landscapes. Curriculum and Teaching, 21, 21–39. Winzer, M. (2008). Muted voices in educational reform: Teacher attitudes and the inclusive Movement. Educational Theory and Practice, 30, 5–25. Winzer, M. A., Altieri, E., Jacobs, T., & Mellor, E. (2003). Reform in special education: Case studies from Australia, Canada, and the United States. International Journal for the Humanization of Education, 8, 96–118. Winzer, M., & Mazurek, K. (2005). Global agendas in special education: A critique. Educational Theory and Practice, 27, 7–24. Winzer, M., & Mazurek, K. (2010a). Different spaces, different places: An analysis of the inclusive reform for students with disabilities in the United States and Germany. World Studies in Education, 12, 3–18. Winzer, M., & Mazurek, K. (2010b). Including students with special needs: Implications for social justice. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Globalization, education and social justice (pp. 87–101). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Zajda, J. (2010). Global pedagogies. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Zajda, J. (2011). PEP visits to non-government and government schools in Victoria during the last two decades. Melbourne: Australian Catholic University.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

15 New Perspectives on Special Needs and Inclusive Education in Japan

Naoki Ito, Satoshi Arakawa, Satoshi Nitsu, Fusaji Ando, Seiichi Makino, Tatsuya Toda, and Mitsuyasu Tomita

Japan is an arc-shaped archipelago off the east coast of Asia. The country consists of four main islands—Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu—and many small islands. The total land area of Japan is almost the same as Italy. Nearly 70% of the land is mountains and forests. Most of Japan has a temperate climate with four distinct seasons. Japan is composed of 47 prefectures, a prefecture being the largest unit of government below the national level. The population in 2010 was about 128 million, placing Japan about 10th in the world in terms of population. However, compared to the United States, Japan has about half the population in an area only 1/25th of its size. Over 43% of the national population of Japan lives in the urban Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya areas. The present main political parties are the Democratic Party (DP), the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), Komati, the Japan Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party, and other small parties. In 2010, the administration changed hands from the LDP to the DP. The principal religions in Japan are Buddhism, Shinto, and Christianity. Buddhism especially has been a major presence in the life of the Japanese for a long time. However, Japan has no state religion, and religious functions are forbidden in the public schools. In ancient times, Japan was deeply influenced by China. Over the centuries, Japan assimilated Chinese and other foreign cultures and simultaneously built its own culture. Today, Japan boasts 11 World Cultural Heritage sites: for example, the Horry-Temple, the oldest wooden building in the world, and Himeji-Castle. There are also three World Natural Heritage sites.

T H E S O C I A L FA BR IC Japan is one of the most developed countries in the world. For example, the Japanese mass media has reached a high degree of development. Newspaper circulation is 68,521,000; that is, 625 per 1,000 adults subscribe to newspapers, which is the top in the world. The Japanese people also receive the benefits of huge developments in information technology. The penetration rate of the Internet reached 76.8% in 2008; mobile phones were at 92.4% in 2010. For decades, a strong Japanese economy meant that tertiary industries expanded rapidly. According to the census in 2005, the percentage of Japanese workers engaged in primary, secondary, and tertiary industries was 5.1%, 25%, and 67.3%, respectively. At the same time, the percentage of the population engaged in agriculture dropped from 26.8% in 1960 to 2% in 2005. 295

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

296

Naoki Ito, Satoshi Arakawa, Satoshi Nitsu, Fusaji Ando, Seiichi Makino, Tatsuya Toda, & Mitsuyasu Tomita Manufacturing, especially automobiles, industrial machinery, and electronics, became the main industries. Japan still produces 15% of the cars currently produced in the world. However, many Japanese automobile companies have been shifting their production bases to overseas in order to reduce production costs and the damage caused by a strong yen. The collapse of the bubble economy and a protracted recession, followed by the global recession that began in 2008, struck the Japanese economy. The traditional system of lifetime employment, seniority-based wages, and enterprise eroded. Today, many Japanese people are faced with difficult economic problems. In Japan, a low birth rate and longevity are advancing hand in hand. The rate of the elderly population of Japan is the highest in the world. The number of people ages 65 and older has increased from 5.7% in 1960 to 22% in 2008, an increase twice as high as that in Europe and three times that in the United States. According to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW), the number of young unemployed persons (15 to 34 years old) who neither do housekeeping nor go to school has rapidly increased. About 40% of youth do not have regular employment. This is one of reasons for the declining marriage rate.

T H E G E N E R A L S C HO OL S Y S T E M

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

The current school system in Japan was established just after World War II. Since then, no noticeable modification has been made to the regular school system. According to the School Education Law in Japan, the school system provides kindergarten, elementary school, junior high school, senior high school, secondary school, special needs education, universities, and colleges of technology. These are shown in Figure 1.

Age 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14

Compulsory Education

13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

Regular Schools φ φ Special Needs School

University College of Technology

φGraduate

Junior College

Course Upper Secondary Department

Senior High School

Secondary School

Lower Secondary Department

Junior High School

Elementary School

Kindergarten

Special Needs Class

Elementary Department

φ Kindergarten Department

Figure 1. Basic structure of the school system in Japan.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Needs and Inclusive Education in Japan Parents have an obligation to send their children to school for 9 years beginning in April of the year the child becomes 6 years of age. This obligation can be extended or exempted due to very significant disability. However, the cases of extensions and exemptions have decreased to less than 100 annually.

Schooling for Special Needs Japan has two separate school systems: regular schools and special needs schools. However, inside the regular school system there are several measures to accept students with disabilities. As in many other countries around the world, the situation of special education in Japan is in a state of flux. In recent decades, the education system for students with disabilities has changed—and to a large extent. We outline these changes below. (For more on legislation and reform see Abe, 1998; Matsumura, 2008; Yamaguchi, 2005.) • The first change came in 1979, when a new government ordinance was enacted to deal with the rapidly increasing number of children with significant or multiple disabilities. Education at schools for the handicapped became compulsory. Even children with the most significant disabilities were now able to go to school. • Education in a resource room was accepted by amendment of ministerial ordinance of the School Education Law in 1993 (see Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology [MEXT], 2009).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• Changes to the law in 2007 brought a number of revolutionary changes, foremost among which was a change in terminology from special education to special needs education. • Before 2007, Japan had three types of special schools: schools for the blind, schools for the deaf, and schools for the handicapped. The latter group was further subdivided into three types: special schools for students with intellectual disabilities, for those with physical disabilities, and for sickly students. From 2007 on, these special schools were integrated into one type called Tokubetsu Shien Gakko, which literally means special support school but is generally regarded as a special needs school. Under the new special needs school system, one particular school can accept several types of disabilities. But because the change happened abruptly and the history of the old special schools was long-standing, not all special needs schools accepted the five kinds of disabilities. In fact, most special needs schools are still maintaining the old system based on the five kinds of disabilities. This is shown in Table 1. • After 2007, special needs education could be provided in various places: special needs schools, special needs classes, resource rooms, and regular classes of regular schools. • Learning disabilities (LD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) were recognized as disabilities, and children with these disabilities could receive special instruction. In 2002, the MEXT showed that 6.3% of students with special educational needs (students with LD, ADHD, and so on) were in elementary and

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

297

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

298

Naoki Ito, Satoshi Arakawa, Satoshi Nitsu, Fusaji Ando, Seiichi Makino, Tatsuya Toda, & Mitsuyasu Tomita Table 1. Number of special needs schools in 2008 Type of school Number of Number of Departments Schools Kinder- Elementary Lower Upper garten 2nd 2nd

Number of Students

Blind

70(2)

47

65

62

57

3488

Deaf

99(8)

91

93

83

65

6427

Intellectual

490(49)

11

412

414

427

67271

Physical

151(13)

9

147

147

122

13157

Sickly

74(16)

73

69

40

3103

Deaf and intellectual Intellectual and physical Intellectual and sickly Physical and sickly Intellectual, physical, and sickly Deaf, intellectual, physical, and sickly Blind, deaf, intellectual, physical, and sickly

2

1

2

2

2

157

90(4)

1

87

87

86

13928

9

9

9

1122

9 13

3

13

13

12

1361

13(1)

1

12

12

10

877

1

1

1

90

14

14

12

1353

1

14(2)

2

*All departments may not cope with the plural disorders showed in “Type of school.” Numbers in parentheses are the numbers of branch schools. Source: Tokubetsu Shien Kyouiku Shiryo (MEXT, 2008), http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/tokubetu/ material/1279975.htm.

junior high schools. The amendment of the School Education Law aimed to give them special needs education. They are now served in regular classes and resources rooms with special supports. • The legal changes in 2007 also brought some changes in the acquisition of teachers’ licenses for special needs education. It is clearly stated that the study of the mental and physical development of disabled children and their learning processes should be included in educational psychology classes as part of the required teacher training curriculum.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Needs and Inclusive Education in Japan

Special Needs Schools Most special needs schools have elementary, lower secondary, and upper secondary departments. A few special needs schools, especially the old special schools for blind and deaf students, have kindergarten departments and graduate courses in the upper secondary departments. Recently, the number of special needs schools that only have upper secondary departments increased, especially for students with mild intellectual disabilities. Almost all special needs schools that are located outside of a city provide school buses and/or a dormitory. Most schools for sickly children are close to hospitals and are served by the medical staffs.

Visiting Education Children with the most significant disabilities attend special needs schools. Some of them have such severe disabilities that they often cannot go to school. In these cases, teachers visit their home to teach them. Usually a teacher visits twice every week. Special needs school personnel evaluate whether a child can attend school regularly or requires education at home.

Special Needs Education Within Regular Elementary and Junior High School

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Students with mild disabilities have the option of attending a special needs class in a regular school, which is often closer to their home than the nearest special needs school. Each school can have up to seven kinds of special needs classes, such as classes for students with intellectual disabilities, for students with physical disabilities, for sickly or weak students, for weak-sighted students, for hard of hearing students, for students with speech defects, and for students with emotional disorders or with autism. However, no school has all seven types of classes. Most schools have only one or two types of classes. In fact, the number of schools that do not have any special needs classes is not small; the situation depends on the district. This is shown in Table 2.

Resource Rooms There are three ways for students with mild disabilities who are attending regular classes to attend resource rooms: they can attend a special needs class or a resource room at their own school; they can attend a class or resource room at another school; or they can meet with a visiting special education teacher if facilities are not available nearby. Students can use one of these options from an hour a month to 8 hours a week (see MEXT, 2009).

Accredited Entry Students In Japan, there are particular criteria to enter special needs schools. If a student’s disability matches the criteria, the parents of the student basically choose the special needs school. However, if the parents strongly want their child to attend a regular school and the school meets enough conditions, the student may be accredited by a municipal board of education and be able to go to the regular school near her or his home. Accredited entry students are limited but increasing.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

299

300

Naoki Ito, Satoshi Arakawa, Satoshi Nitsu, Fusaji Ando, Seiichi Makino, Tatsuya Toda, & Mitsuyasu Tomita Table 2. Numbers of special needs classes (2008) Main specialty of disability

Elementary school

Lower secondary school

Number of classes

Number of students

14,143

47,062

6,996

24,202

1,847

3,163

638

1,038

Sickly and weak

780

1,492

312

520

Weak sighted

204

257

76

90

Hard hearing

497

901

209

328

Speech

386

1,324

64

87

9,817

32,132

4,035

11,570

27,674

86,331

12,330

37,835

Intellectual Physical

Emotion and autism Total

Number of classes

Number of students

Source: Tokubetsu Shien Kyouiku Shiryo (MEXT, 2008), http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/ tokubetu/ material/1279975.htm.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

OV E RV I E W OF S PEC I A L N E E D S In 2008, the number of people in Japan with identifiable disabilities was as follows: roughly 3,660,000 with physical disabilities; 550,000 with intellectual disabilities; and 3,230,000 with mental disorders, (see Cabinet Office of the Government of Japan, 2010). In total, about 1.8% of students access one type of special needs education. Depending on the source of the data, an estimated 60,000 children (0.56 to 0.7% of students) go to special needs schools. About 124,000 children (0.8 to 1.15%) go to a special needs class in normal elementary or junior high school. There are 50,000 children (0.3 to 0.46%) using a special needs room (resource room). In 2007, about 72% of these children had speech defects. In addition, there are 680,000 children (6.3%) who may have mild disabilities, such as LD, ADHD, or high-functioning autism, in regular classrooms. Senior high school is not compulsory education in Japan. The ratio of students with disabilities continuing to senior high school is about 97%, the same as for students without disabilities. In 2007, there were 5,404 students with some type of disability at universities. These proportions seem to be very low. In fact, some teachers find that there are many more students who demand special needs education. Some of these students are well supported by good teachers; others are ignored. To make matters worse, some special needs may be simply overlooked by some teachers.

Educational Equity As most special needs schools are public schools, equality of education is guaranteed. Educational opportunity is not affected by social class, gender, ethnic, religious, racial, or other factors. Gender differences do not become an obstacle for disabled persons. The educational subjects, the schedule, and the location are the same for male and female students.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Needs and Inclusive Education in Japan

Procedure to Enter School Figure 2 shows the procedure for school attendance at elementary schools or in elementary departments of special needs schools. The municipal board of education plays the most important role in deciding which school a child should attend. A guidance committee for school attendance (which also directs children who change schools at any point of their school careers) also has a role in placing children with disabilities. Before going into an elementary school, a consultation about the disability is held. The boards of education conduct a precise investigation about a child in relation to her or his disabilities: Data are collected from medical institutions, the kindergarten, and so on. Specialists in the education of physically and intellectually disabled children from the boards of education talk with the parents. Recently, administrators have started to

(DATE) Oct.1st Municipal Board of Education makes a list of students who will enter elementary school in the following April Oct.31st Municipal Board of Education executes health examination for the students

Correspond to the criteria for special needs school? NO Nov.30th

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

YES

Municipal Board of Municipal Board of Education Education notifies prefectual board of accredits that the student education that special needs can get appropriate school is appropriate education at regular school

Guidance Committee for School Attendance is established and municipal board of education hear the views of parrents, professions of education, medicine, psychology, or disability study

Dec.31st Municipal Board of Education notifies parents the date and the name of the regular school that their child should attend.

Prefectural Board of Education notifies parents the date and the name of the special needs school that their child should attend.

Jan.31st

Apr.1st A new school year starts!

Figure 2. Procedure of school attendance for elementary school or elementary department for special needs school. International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

301

302

Naoki Ito, Satoshi Arakawa, Satoshi Nitsu, Fusaji Ando, Seiichi Makino, Tatsuya Toda, & Mitsuyasu Tomita listen more to the parents’ points of view. Today, parents, professionals, and a member of the municipal board of education together discuss what is the best choice for each child. If the specialist and parents reach an agreement, the disabled child will go into a suitable school. For the child with significant disabilities, the special needs school is prepared. For the child with mild disabilities, selection is prepared for three possible courses: a regular class, a special needs class, and a resource room. According to the regulations of the present law, a child who is significantly disabled can attend a special needs school. However, it is the municipal board of education that judges the appropriate placement for an individual child. Sometimes, it judges that the significantly disabled child does not belong in a special needs school but belongs in a regular elementary school or junior high school in the child’s town. We call this type of students “accredited entry students.” There are a few parents who deny the specialists’ judgments about their child’s disability. For various reasons they refuse to send their child to a special needs school or a special needs class. Some parents say, “Even if my child has a disability, the child can profit in a regular class.” Or some parents argue, “If a child with disabilities studies in a regular class, it is expected that the child becomes normal little by little.” According to the MEXT, the number of students going to regular schools increases every year. In 2007, there were 1,759 students who would traditionally have attended special needs school but were instead placed in regular elementary schools. There were 583 such students in regular junior high schools.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

T E AC H I NG A N D L E A R N I NG I N T H E E A R LY Y E A R S Education for young children in Japan is primarily in kindergartens or nursery schools. Almost all children receive some kind of education in either nursery school or kindergarten before they enter compulsory education. As of 2009, the total number of kindergartens and nursery schools in Japan was 36,000. In general, from 2003 to 2009 the proportion of children who were admitted, especially to nursery schools, increased. Based on age groups, 50% of the children over 4 years old were in kindergartens while 41.6% were in nursery schools. Kindergartens and nursery schools differ in the areas of tuition, schools hours, admission criteria, and class size, all of which influence parents’ decisions on which facilities in which to enroll their children. Kindergartens are under the jurisdiction of the MEXT and intended for children ages 3 to 6 years. They are considered as educational institutions in which children cultivate the foundations for compulsory education. Nursery schools are child welfare facilities for children whose parents have difficulty taking care of their children because of their work. They are under the jurisdiction of the MHLW and intended for children from birth to 6 years of age. The government is now trying to integrate kindergartens and nursery schools into single facilities. Some children with disabilities go to nursery schools, kindergartens, or other day-care facilities; others go to a kindergarten department of a special needs school, depending on their needs. Some use day-care facilities for children with disabilities at the same time that they are enrolled in kindergartens or nursery schools. Kindergarten departments are found in 92% of the old schools for deaf students and 65% of the old schools for blind students. Consultations for children are available in many of these schools.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Needs and Inclusive Education in Japan Nursery teachers, physical therapists, occupational therapists, and clinical psychologists are usually assigned to day-care facilities for children with disabilities. They do individual training such as occupational therapy, sensory integrative therapy, and speech and language therapy, in addition to caring for children with disabilities in groups in order to promote the development of the children and reduce their disabilities.

T E AC H E R S A N D PE DAG O G Y The municipalities have built and manage many elementary schools and junior high schools. As a general rule, however, the prefectures build and manage special needs schools. Prefectures pay two-thirds and the country pays one-third of a teacher’s salary. Although the teacher who works in a special needs school has to have both a license for a regular school and a license for special needs education, the government will admit a teacher with no license in special needs education to teach at the special needs school for a time. The rate of teachers who have an appropriate license is about 70% in the special needs schools that originated from the old schools for handicapped students and 50% in those that originated from the old schools for blind or deaf students. When the number of teachers is insufficient, support assistants are employed. The MEXT distributed 30,000 support assistants’ wages to rural areas in 2008. The teacher who takes charge of special needs education has to draw up an Individualized Educational Support Program and an Individualized Teaching Program. This is different from the Individualized Education Program (IEP) developed in the United States. The contents of the plans in Japan are mainly written about the education provided by a school; there is no support for students attending the school specified in the plan. Teachers at special needs schools also give advice or provide support for students studying at regular schools, if requested by the regular schools.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Issues in Teacher Preparation Before acquiring a teacher’s license for special needs education, a license for a regular school is needed. Teachers’ licenses for special needs education are licenses that clearly state the fields of disability in which individuals can teach. The fields are divided into three categories: education for those who are visually disabled, education for those who are hearing disabled, and education for children with intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, and sickly children. For example, a candidate can acquire certain credits for visual disability and obtain a teacher’s license for special needs education, including education for the visually disabled. In addition, when an individual acquires certain credits for hearing disability, the person can obtain a teacher’s license for special needs education, including education for the visually or hearing disabled. By getting more credits, teachers can add other fields of disability in which they can teach. As an example, we will examine the curriculum for a license in the education of children with intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, and sickly children. This curriculum includes four groups of subjects. The first group consists of fundamental theories on special needs education, such as an introduction to special needs education. The second group is made up of particular subjects on special needs education and is divided into two categories. One is a series of subjects on the psychology, physiology, and pathology of children with mental and physical disabilities. The other concerns curriculum and

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

303

304

Naoki Ito, Satoshi Arakawa, Satoshi Nitsu, Fusaji Ando, Seiichi Makino, Tatsuya Toda, & Mitsuyasu Tomita teaching methods for these children. The third group includes subjects for the education of children with visual disabilities, children with hearing disabilities, and children with developmental disabilities. The last group requires education students to do 2 weeks practice teaching in special needs schools, which includes guidance from universities or colleges before and after practice teaching. Currently, half the number of teachers working in special needs schools for children with visual or hearing disabilities, and 30% of teachers in special needs schools for students with other disabilities, do not have the license for special needs education. Teachers lacking the license are encouraged to take the necessary credits and acquire the license by attending lectures given by a board of education or a teacher’s college during the long holidays. With these efforts, teachers are striving to improve their ability to produce creative teaching practices in their own regions. As well, some teachers are studying in graduate schools to examine their own practice and deepen their experiences while working at schools.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

ROL E S O F PA R E N T G ROU P S , PRO F E S S ION A L A S S O C I AT ION S , A N D A DVO C AC Y G ROU P S Advocacy organizations in Japan are committed to important duties. One of the duties is to lobby the government; another is to actively let many people know about disabilities. Parents’ groups are divided into several organizations according to particular disabilities. Among the groups, those advocating for children and adults with intellectual disabilities are dominant and have the qualification of social welfare corporations. There are other groups that have the same qualification or qualifications as nonprofit organizations. The Japan National Assembly of Disabled Peoples’ International (DPI) is organized by persons with disabilities themselves. The group tackles the problems of disabled persons as human rights issues. The Japan Network on Disabilities (JANNET) was established in 1993 in connection with the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons as determined by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). JANNET started with 30 formal organization members including the All Japan Deaf-Mute Association and the Japanese Partner Dog Academy. JANNET exchanges information with organizations for people with disabilities overseas.

M A I N DI S C US S ION S A N D DE B AT E S A range of issues surrounding special needs education and inclusive schooling continue to bring debate, discussion, and controversy in Japan. Two main issues have been discussed since the 1960s: the school system and the pedagogy of special needs education. In the current climate, inclusive schooling is attracting much attention. The first long-standing issue (which is connected to the inclusive debate) concerns the entry into school of children with disabilities and integration. Some researchers and educators insist that special schools are discriminatory and that all children, including children with significant disabilities, should be placed in regular schools or regular classes. They argue that the education of children with disabilities is a right and that the term special education should be avoided. In contrast, most teachers of special education

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Needs and Inclusive Education in Japan consider the special school or the special class as one of the most important educational places for children with disabilities. The second issue concerns the content and the methods of special needs education, together with a revision of the relevant course of study. One topic concerns whether education for children with disabilities, especially intellectual disabilities, should be different from general education. Another dilemma surrounds whether students with special needs should be guaranteed a common universal education even if the contents and method of special education may be more suitable for them. In March 2009, the revised curriculum for special needs schools was published. This revision is based on the amendment of the Fundamental Law of Education, the three laws concerning education, and the changes to special needs education. However, the extent of this revision was not great.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Inclusive Schooling Japan was an early signatory of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities and promotes their social participation (United Nations, 2006). However, Japan has not yet signed the Optional Protocol or ratified the convention. Nevertheless, the Japanese government has started to review existing laws with a view to ratifying the convention. The Democratic Party, which declares the promotion of inclusive education as one of their policies, came into power in 2009. Their accession, the UN convention, and other events and variables have prompted political discussions focused on what ought to be inclusive education in Japan. Periodic and frequent official meetings and other conferences in Japan have examined special needs and inclusive education. Of course, a number of different opinions have emerged. For example, a special committee of the Central Council for Education, which is an advisory committee of the MEXT, explored inclusive education in some detail. Various issues were treated such as the school entry system, consultation and support from an early stage, and curricula in regular and special needs schools. This was subsumed under the name of “Japanese-style of inclusive education.” This seemed to aim for maintenance of the present situation, insisting that special needs education in Japan is compatible with inclusive education. The Conference for Promotion of the Reform of the System for Persons With Disabilities (2010) was sponsored by the Cabinet Office of the Government of Japan. The discussions centered on what should be the form of education for persons with disabilities. Many participants were opposed to separate special needs education and focused on whether special needs education is compatible with inclusive education. Other main themes looked at whether special needs schools and classes or the dormitories of special needs school were inconsistent with the UN convention. There were also considerations of “unification of enrollment” and the “right of parents to school choice.” The principle that has emerged from this conference is that all children should be enrolled in regular classes, regardless of their disabilities. However, it is simultaneously admitted that if the child or the parents wish, then she or he can be enrolled at a special needs school.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

305

306

Naoki Ito, Satoshi Arakawa, Satoshi Nitsu, Fusaji Ando, Seiichi Makino, Tatsuya Toda, & Mitsuyasu Tomita Many people are worried that confusion and difficulty will arise if the system is reformed. Teachers and parents also worry that special needs schools and classes could be totally abolished. Some concerned organizations, such as the association of principals of special needs schools, hold opinions that they base on the good results arising from special needs education. Others argue that discussions on inclusive education should not be limited to issues about the place of learning (regular school or special needs school) or whether there should be special needs schools and classes or not; rather, discussions should be based on the realities of the needs of children and the actual educational scenes. They argue that inclusive education should guarantee all students participation in learning, including regular curriculum and pedagogy, by responding to the diversity of the educational needs of all students. In an inclusive school, a whole school support system should be established consisting not only of teachers but also various support staffs. There should be reasonable adjustments in the regular class, and support from resource rooms, special needs classes, and external professional organizations. Furthermore, the development of an inclusive school is a link in the development of an inclusive community where children, youths, and adults with disabilities are guaranteed to live and act from preschool to postschool time. C H A L L E NG E S

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

In a general sense, we can say that special needs education in Japan remains separate from the general system although many and varied options are emerging that join special and general education. Still, it is not enough, and special education is still developing. Both regular and special needs education have many problems, especially shortages of personnel, lack of material resources, the busyness of teachers, and so on. We outline further ongoing challenges below. • Many people hold that special needs and inclusive education should be established based on the Japanese Constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (United Nations, 2006). However, we have not yet worked out how to adopt measures that would resolve the situations and problems associated with inclusive schooling. Unless there is a concrete plan for these, we would not expect any real progress in inclusive education. • The situations of the actual education scenes, for both regular and special needs, are becoming more and more serious. A lot of students in regular schools cannot actually participate in learning and activities at school because of competition and oppression from other students. • The MEXT gave funds to provide assistant personnel for special needs education to every municipality in 2007 to 2008. Still, each municipality does not necessarily use the funding efficiently to develop special needs education in the public schools. • The birth rate in Japan is declining, and the number of children is decreasing. But while the number of students at regular schools is decreasing, the number of students for special needs education is increasing. This causes some serious

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Special Needs and Inclusive Education in Japan problems. The number of special needs school is not sufficient; therefore, many children have to go to distant special needs schools and reside in their dormitories. There is also a shortage of classrooms at special needs schools. At one special needs school, for example, teachers have to use one classroom for two classes by separating the room with a curtain. • Because of the shortage of classrooms and teachers, the educational condition of special needs education has become worse and is not meeting the special needs of students sufficiently. • One of the reasons underlying the increase of students who receive special needs education is that more parents have come to realize the benefits of special needs education and expect their children to receive them than ever before. In one way, this is rather welcome, and it is important to respond to the expectations. On the other hand, it is a worrying and negative factor because it means that the percentage of children who are excluded from regular education is increasing.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

• In traditional special education, the main objective tends toward training the students for after-school life and vocations. To some observers, education that focuses only on preparing for work in the future may be insufficient and improper and may fail to realize the full and effective societal participation and inclusion of persons with disabilities. A newer view directs teaching toward all-around humanistic development. However, in spite of the discussions on inclusion, competition and achievements are being stressed not only in regular education but also in special needs education. Training children as future taxpayers is regarded as a most important function of schooling. Hence, it may be that disparities and discriminations are spreading again between the students who are expected to be taxpayers and the ones who are not expected to be. • With the national government and prefectures’ support, kindergartens and nursery schools have been trying to improve their facilities and increase the number of teachers. However, the actual conditions among facilities vary. In special needs education for young children, several improvements are needed. These include promoting better conditions and improving the expertise of teachers in order to meet the individual needs of children with disabilities. • Schools must create transition programs. It is necessary that all the agencies that support children with disabilities work to create Individualized Educational Support Programs with a view to foreseeing students’ futures after graduating from school in order to provide comprehensive and continuous support.

FUTUR E TR ENDS Discussions about the formulation of an inclusive education system are proceeding. Promoting the infrastructure of the educational environment and a community are emerging as practical issues. In addition, how to determine a suitable school for a child and how to develop the expertise of teachers are important problems and the subject of

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

307

308

Naoki Ito, Satoshi Arakawa, Satoshi Nitsu, Fusaji Ando, Seiichi Makino, Tatsuya Toda, & Mitsuyasu Tomita considerable discussion. Education for gifted students attracts little attention in Japan: It is one of our future issues.

C ONC LUS ION In 2007, an amendment of the School Education Law brought changing paradigms to educational services for students with disabilities in Japan. It led to the alteration of the phrase special education to special needs education, recognized LD and ADHD as types of disabilities, and allowed that children with different special needs could attend either a school for special needs education or a regular class in a regular school. The number of students in special needs schools and special needs classes has rapidly increased since the middle of the 1990s, overwhelming schools’ capacities. Many people are working to improve special needs education. At the same time, many advocates in Japan hope to develop inclusive schools and communities where no one is excluded, everyone is guaranteed full participation and all-around humanistic development, and all children can enroll in regular schools in their own communities.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

R E F E R E NC E S Abe, Y. (1998). Special education reform in Japan. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 13, 86–97. Cabinet Office of the Government of Japan. (2010). The white paper on persons with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www8.cao.go.jp/shougai/whitepaper/h22hakusho /zenbun/zuhyo/zuhyo1_04.html. Conference for the Promotion of the Reform of the System for Persons with Disabilities. (2010, June). The fundamental direction about the promotion of the reform of the system for persons with disabilities (the first opinion). Tokyo: Author. Matsumura, K. (2008). Special needs education in Japan. Journal of Special Education in the Asia Pacific, 4, 1–11. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology. (2009). Tokubetu shien gakkyu no genjo. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/054 /shiryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2009/08/05/1282736_2.pdf. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). Students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages: Policies, statistics and indicators. Paris: Author. United Nations. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (G. A. Res 44/25, Annex 44, U.N. GAOR Supp. [No. 49] at 167, UN Doc A/44/49). United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Right of Persons With Disabilities and Optional Protocol. New York: Author. Yamaguchi, K. (2005, August). Development of special needs education in Japan and some current problems. Paper presented at the International Special Education Congress: Inclusion—Celebrating diversity, Glasgow, Scotland.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Contributors Ulf Algermissen has been a teacher in different special education schools in Germany since 1985, and principal of St. Ansgar- School (special school for children with behavioural problems) since 1992. His academic training started in 1975 as a trainee in industrial business in Hildesheim, Germany. He focused on special education studies in Hannover from 1979 to 1985, and held a university lectureship at Hanover in the Faculty of Special Education. Since 2006, he has engaged a lectureship at the University of Hildesheim in the Faculty of Pedagogics. His research interests are in the areas of maladaption and primary schools, therapy and pedagogics, and action research. John Anderson is honorary professor of education at Queen’s University Belfast. He has been a strategy coordinator for ICT in schools in Northern Ireland, an adjunct associate professor at Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, the deputy director of the UK Microelectronics Education Programme and a lecturer in education. As a Managing Inspector in the Education and Training Inspectorate in Northern Ireland he manages inspection programs and advises on policy on school improvement and teacher education.  He is an international consultant, evaluator and author on a wide range of UK and European projects.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Fusaji Ando is a professor in the faculty of education at Hirosaki University. His field of study is special needs education. Satoshi Arakawa is a professor at Ibaraki University and vice dean of the College of Education. He is also chairperson of the Japanese Association on Disability and Difficulty. Jolanta Baran is head of the branch for supporting the development of persons with disabilities in the Department of Special Education, Pedagogical University of Cracow, Poland. Her major interest is the wide range of problems associated with supporting the development and improving the well being of persons with disabilities in both family and education/care institutional contexts. Dae Young, Jung is a professor in the Department of Special Education at Changwon National University, South Korea. He is author and co-author of about twenty books in diverse areas of special education, including special education, inclusive education for general teachers, teaching children with learning disabilities, and so on. Functional Behavior Assessment and Positive Behavior Support (2009) is his latest book. He serves as president of the Korea Learning Disabilities Association and on the editorial boards of several major journals in the field of special education. 309 International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

310

Contributors Samir Dukmak is an assistant professor in the College of Education at Al Ain University of Science & Technology, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi Emirate, United Arab Emirates. He received his doctorate in special education from Manchester University, United Kingdom. Dr. Dukmak’s research interests include assessment of children with special needs, inclusion/inclusive education, classroom interaction, rehabilitation, behavior problems, intellectual disabilities, and stress and coping in families of children with disabilities. His recent research contributions include articles in various regional and international journals, and chapters in books edited by experts in the field of special education. Temesgen Fereja earned his master’s degree in curriculum and instruction from Addis Ababa University in 2001. In 2007, he completed his PhD at the University of Magdeburg, Germany. He is currently an assistant professor in the Graduate School of Education, Addis Ababa University. His research focuses on multicultural education issues in Ethiopia.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Lani Florian is professor of social and educational inclusion at the University of Aberdeen (UK). Her research interests include models of provision for meeting the needs of all learners, inclusive pedagogy and teaching practice in inclusive schools. She has consulted on special needs education and inclusion for a number of international agencies including UNICEF, and the OECD. She served as a rapporteur for UNESCO’s International Bureau of Education’s 48th International Conference on Education, “Inclusive Education: The Way of the Future.” She is editor of The SAGE Handbook of Special Education, and co-author of Achievement and Inclusion in Schools, winner of the 2008 NASEN/TES academic book award. She co-edited Disability Classification in Education, and Promoting Inclusive Practice won the NASEN/TES academic book award in 1999. Thomas P. Gumpel is chair of the Department of Special Education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and researches primarily issues of special education and access in East Jerusalem, as well as bullying and victimization. He is the editor of the Journal of International Special Needs Education, and is involved in many international initiatives promoting inclusion of children with special educational needs into the general education system. For the last four years, he has returned to the classroom, and has been teaching and working in the Palestinian school system in East Jerusalem. Olga Graumann was a professor and director of the Institute of Educational Science at the University of Hildesheim, Germany, until 2010. She is now the authorized representative for international projects and cooperation at the University of Hildesheim. Together with a group of teachers, she initiated the first model integration school in the East of North Rhine-Westfalia in Germany and has published numerous books and articles about Special Education and individual advancement in school. She is president of the Academy for the Humanization of Education and the director of diverse international projects. She was also a teacher for many years in different schools for special education.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Contributors Hytham Bany Issa is an assistant professor in the College of Education at Al Ain University of Science & Technology, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi Emirate, United Arab Emirates. He started his academic career at the Education Department of Ahl-Albyet University in Jordan directly after receiving his doctorate in educational administration in 2009 from Yarmouk University in Jordan. Dr. Hytham’s research interests include student assessment, higher education, primary and secondary education, school leadership, educational administration and management, and pre-school education. Naoki Ito is a Ph.D. candidate in the graduate program of sociology, Ritsumeikan University. His current research themes are employment support for persons with disabilities and sexuality education for students and young people with disabilities. Maya Kalyanpur started her career as a teacher of children with intellectual disabilities in India in 1981. She received her PhD in special education from Syracuse University, New York, in 1994 and taught at Towson University in Maryland for 14 years, retiring as professor. She has authored books and numerous articles on special education policy and families from culturally diverse backgrounds in the United States and India. Since 2006, she has been a consultant in Cambodia on projects relating to inclusive education. Currently, she is Inclusive Education Advisor to the Ministry of Education under the World Bank-supported Fast Track Initiative program.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Wing-Wah Law is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong.  His research interests and publications cover the areas of education and development, globalization and citizenship education, education policy and legislation, education reform and Chinese societies, and music education and social change. Seiichi Makino is a professor in the Faculty of Humanities, Sapporo Gakuin University. His field of study is special needs education for physically and intellectually disabled children. He is an expert of autism spectrum support qualified by the Japanese Academy of Autistic Spectrum. Kas Mazurek is a professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Lethbridge, Canada.  His research and teaching overlap the fields of comparative education, multiculturalism, and the social contexts of ideas, policies, and practices in education. Anjali Misra is professor of special education at the State University of New York, Potsdam, and current chair of the Department of Special Education. She was primarily responsible for the development of the Master in Special Education degree program at this college. After completing a master’s in child development from Delhi University in India, she got a master’s and Ph.D. in Special Education from Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Misra has several years of experience teaching children with disabilities. She founded a small school for children with special needs in India. She has published chapters in six different books and articles in several journals including the Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, Exceptional Children, The Elementary School Journal, and Behavioral

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

311

312

Contributors Disorders. Her current research interests focus on international special education, service delivery, and in the area of emotional and behavioral disorders. Dr. Misra has been the recipient of several awards in both India and the United States including the President’s Award for Excellence in Research and Scholarship at SUNY Potsdam. Mark P. Mostert is director of the Institute for the Study of Disability and Bioethics at Regent University in Virginia Beach Virginia, where he is also professor of special education and director of the special education doctoral program. Satoshi Nitsu is an associate professor in the Faculty of Humanities, Sapporo Gakuin University. His field of specialization is special needs education. Festus E. Obiakor is a professor in the Department of Exceptional Education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. His research interests include multicultural special education, education for at-risk learners, comparative/international special education, and educational reform. He is an internationally known teacher-scholar who has authored or co-authored more than 150 publications, including books and journal articles. He serves on the editorial boards of many refereed journals and he is the executive editor of Multicultural Learning and Teaching (MLT).

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Fr. MaxMary Tabugbo Offor is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Exceptional Education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. His research interests include multicultural special education, international special education, and at-risk learners. He is an experienced public school teacher. Mah Nazir Riaz is currently professor of psychology and dean of social sciences at Frontier Women University in Peshawar. She was professor at the Centre of Excellence in Psychology at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad from 1999 to 2002. Her academic publications include over 60 research papers in national and international journals, three textbooks, and chapters contributed to edited books. Among her national and international honors and awards is the “Izaz-e-Kamal” (President of Pakistan’s Award) in 2002 for her lifetime achievements and outstanding contributions to the field of psychology; the Distinguished Professor Award from the Ministry of Education of NWFP in 2003; and the Star Women International Award in 1996. She is a member of the International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection (ISIPAR) and representative of ISIPAR for South Asia. Over the last two decades her research projects have focused, in particular, on parental acceptance-rejection. Martyn Rouse is chair of the social and educational inclusion program at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland where he directs the Inclusive Practice Project, which is designed to reform teacher education so that teachers are better prepared to work in the diverse classrooms to be found in schools today. Previously he was a senior lecturer at the University of Cambridge and Director of Studies for Education at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. He has undertaken research and development work

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Contributors on inclusion for local authorities in the UK and for several national and international agencies, including the European Agency for the Development of Special Needs Education, the OECD and UNICEF. He has published widely on inclusion and special needs and is a well-known speaker on these issues nationally and internationally. He is the co-author of Achievement and Inclusion in Schools published by Routledge, winner of the NASEN/Times Education Supplement Academic Book of the Year 2008. Alemayehu Teklemariam is chair of the Department of Special Needs Education, Addis Ababa University (AAU), Ethiopia. His BA is from the University of Joensuu, Finland; M.Phil from the University of Oslo, Norway; and PhD from the University of Jyvaskyla, Finland. He has been a teacher in primary regular school and in a special school for the deaf, he served as a teacher trainer at Adama Teachers College and Sebeta Center for Special Needs Education, and he was a curriculum expert and researcher at the Institute of Curriculum Development and Research before becoming Head of Educational Programs and Teacher Education in the Ministry of Education in Ethiopia. In 2003 he joined Addis Ababa University. Tatsuya Toda is assistant professor in the Department of Educational Psychology, Kushiro Campus, Hokkaido University of Education. Mitsuyasu Tomita is a professor in the Faculty of Humanities, Sapporo Gakuin University. His field of study is education methods.

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Margret A. Winzer is a professor emerita at the University of Lethbridge where she teaches courses in special education and early childhood education. She has researched and written extensively in the area of special education and inclusion, most recently in the fields of the history of special education and comparative studies in special education. Joseph Zajda is a professor in the Faculty of Education at the Australian Catholic University (Melbourne Campus). He specializes in globalization and education policy reforms, comparative and international education, decentralization and privatization, and excellence and quality in education. He has written and edited 24 books and over 100 book chapters and articles in the areas of globalization and education policy, social justice, intercultural dialogue, human rights education, higher education, and curriculum reforms. He is the editor of the 12-volume book series Globalisation and Comparative Education (Springer, 2009, 2010). He is also the editor of The International Handbook of Globalisation and Education Policy Research. Dordrecht: Springer (2005, 2011) and also edits World Studies in Education, Curriculum and Teaching, and Education and Society for James Nicholas Publishers. He received the Vice-Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Teaching, Australian Catholic University in 2004.

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

313

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved. International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Index

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Note: Page numbers followed by f and t indicate figures and tables, respectively. Aboriginal population of Canada, 45, 54 access to special education: China, 253–54; Ethiopia, 131–32; Germany, 109–10, 111t, 112–16; India, 202, 204–5; as international movement, 1; Japan, 300–301; ongoing state of revision of, 6; overview of, 11; Pakistan, 235; Poland, 96–98; UAE, 176–79; U.K., 76–78, 79, 81–82; U.S., 32–33. See also themes accountability: in Canada, 57–58; overview of, 9 achievement gaps in Israel, 156 advocacy: Japan, 304; Pakistan, 234; South Korea, 275; U.S., 26–28 Africa. See Ethiopia; Nigeria Americans With Disabilities Act (U.S.), 28–29 assessment: Canada, 56, 57–58; Germany, 110; India, 213; Pakistan, 223; psychoeducational, 14; UAE, 179–80, 183; U.K., 71–72, 74, 74t, 75 assimilation: Israel, 155; U.S., 24 assistive technology. See technology attitudes toward persons with disabilities. See disability Australia: challenges, 290–91; education, 281–82; inclusion, 283–85, 287–89; issues, 292; legislative framework, 285–87; national context, 280; social fabric, 280–81; students with disabilities, 282, 283t; teachers and pedagogy, 289–90

charter schools: Canada, 45; U.S., 24–25 China: context of special education, 241–43; controversies and issues, 252–58; disabled persons population, 245–46, 245t; education for disabled children, 248–52, 249t, 250f; education system, 244–45, 244f; future trends, 258–59; legal protection of rights to education, 246–48; national context, 241 civil society in China, 242–43 collaboration, interprofessional, in U.S., 40 colonialism in India, 195–96 comparative studies: database from, 6–7, 10; globalization and, 3–5; nature and utility of, 3–8; regional practices and, 5–6; in special education and inclusive schooling, 8; teacher knowledge and, 6; theoretical positions and, 7–8; worldview and, 5 controversies and issues: Australia, 292; China, 252–58; Ethiopia, 133–34; India, 210–12; Israel, 166–67; Japan, 304–6; Pakistan, 234–36; Poland, 98–100; South Korea, 275–78; UAE, 181–83; U.K., 81–82; U.S., 37–38 Council for Exceptional Children, 26 cultural issues: China, 243; imperialism or hegemony, danger of, 5; Nigeria, 144–46; South Korea, 265; UAE, 182–83, 184–86 cultural parameters of education reform, 9–10

Basic Education Law (China), 246–47 Batu, Miss, 140 bilingual special education, 31–32 borrowing, definition of, 5 bullying in U.S., 23

Dakar Framework, 10–11 Dewey, John, 103 disability: Australia, 282, 283t; Canada, 51–52; charitable responses to, 14; China, 245–46, 245t; cultural attitudes toward, 9–10; Ethiopia, 127; Germany, 107, 108–9; India, 200– 201, 208–9, 211; Japan, 300; Nigeria, 144–45; Pakistan, 226–27, 229–30, 237t; Poland, 94–95; population with, 10; self-determination by person with, 40; South Korea, 270–71, 278; Soviet Union, 94; UAE, 178–79, 184–87; U.K., 69–70; U.S., 23–24, 39. See also hearing impairment; learning disabilities; mental retardation; physical disabilities; speech and language disabilities; visual impairment Disability Standards for Education (Australia), 285–86 discipline for inappropriate behavior in U.S., 31 District Primary Education Program (DPEP, India), 199, 201–2

Canada: development of special education, 46–47; future trends, 59–61; inclusion in practice, 52–59; inclusive agenda, 48–49, 49–50t; legislative activity, 47–48; school system, 45–46; social fabric, 44–45; students with exceptionalities, 51–52 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 47, 48 Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 47 case studies, 1–2. See also specific countries caste system in India, 194–95 challenges to inclusion: Australia, 290–91; Canada, 54–59; Ethiopia, 133–34, 136; Israel, 151, 166–67; Japan, 306–7; Nigeria, 144–46; overview of, 16; U.K., 82–83

315 International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

316

Index

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

diversity and inclusion, 2. See also linguistic diversity; minorities Dix, Dorothea, 23, 25 early childhood intervention: Canada, 53; China, 248; Ethiopia, 132; Germany, 116–18; India, 205–7; Japan, 302–3, 307; Poland, 95–96; South Korea, 272–73, 276; UAE, 174; U.K., 78–79; U.S., 33–34, 40 economic transition: China, 242; South Korea, 265 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHCA, U.S.): Australia and, 284; Canada and, 47; in U.S., 26–28, 35–36 Education for All (EFA) initiative: China, 241; India, 199, 210, 211; overview of, 10–11; Poland, 100; U.K., 67–68 education policy and national economic planning, 4. See also legislation and policy Education Sector Development Plan (ESDP, Ethiopia), 130–31, 135 education system: Australia, 281–82; Canada, 45–46; China, 244–45, 244f; East Jerusalem, 163–65, 164f; Ethiopia, 126; Germany, 104–5, 106f; India, 195–96, 197t, 198–99, 198t, 204; Israel, 154–56; Japan, 296–97, 296f; Nigeria, 138–40; Pakistan, 219, 220t, 221; Poland, 88–89, 90f, 91–92; South Korea, 266–68, 275; UAE, 172; U.K., 70–72; U.S., 24–25, 26. See also funding for education; inclusive schooling/ inclusion; reform initiatives EFA. See Education for All (EFA) initiative emotional and behavior disorders (EBD) in Germany, 112, 117–18 employment, transition to: Japan, 307; U.S., 32, 38, 39, 40. See also vocational training England, 67, 69t, 70–71, 70t, 75 equality in law, 13–14 equality of access. See access to special education Ethiopia: challenges, 133–34; early intervention, 132; education system, 126; future trends, 134–36; history of special education, 126–28; national context, 125–26; policies and related documentation, 128–32; teacher training, 132–33 ethnicity. See also linguistic diversity; minorities ethnocentrism, danger of, 5–6 etiologies of disabilities, 10 Europe. See Germany; Poland; United Kingdom exceptionalities, students with, in Canada, 51–52 expert model, 40 family roles in precolonial Nigeria, 138–39 Federal Disability Discrimination Act (DDA, Australia), 285–86, 291 Federal Law No. 29/2006 In Respect of the Rights of People With Special Needs (UAE), 172–73, 176 financial constraints on education funding, 11–12. See also funding for education fragmentation in Israel, 152–53

functionalist perspective, 7 funding for education: Canada, 55–56; China, 254–55, 258–59; East Jerusalem, 167; Ethiopia, 132; Germany, 105; India, 196, 197t, 199; Israel, 155; Japan, 306; Nigeria, 145–46; Pakistan, 217, 219; South Korea, 270; U.K., 70; U.S., 24–25 future trends: Canada, 59–60; China, 258–59; Ethiopia, 134–36; Germany, 119–20; India, 212–13; Japan, 307–8; Pakistan, 236; Poland, 100; UAE, 183–87; U.K., 82–83; U.S., 38–41 gender issues: China, 249; India, 196, 200, 201, 205; Islam and, 218; overview of, 12; Pakistan, 229, 235; Poland, 95; UAE, 185; U.S., 30, 32–33 Germany: disability, 108–9; early intervention, 116–18; future trends, 119–20; history of special education, 106–8; inclusion, 109–10, 111t, 112–15; legislation, 106; models of integration, 115–16; national context, 103–4; school system, 104–5, 106f; teacher education and training, 118–19 Gidada Solan, 127 gifted students in Germany, 115 globalization and comparative studies, 3–5 Great Britain. See United Kingdom hearing impairment: China, 245t, 250f, 252; etiology of, 226; Germany, 113–14, 117; Pakistan, 228, 237t Herzl, Theodor, 153 history of special education: Canada, 46–47; Ethiopia, 126–28; Germany, 106–8; Japan, 297–98; Nigeria, 140, 141–44, 141t, 143t; Pakistan, 221–22; Poland, 93–94; U.K., 72–74, 74t, 75–76; U.S., 25–29 homelessness in U.S., 22 Howe, Samuel Gridley, 25 human capital model of schooling, 4–5, 7, 9 ibn Ali, Hussein, 153 identification of students for special education: Australia, 282, 289; Canada, 51–52; Germany, 109; India, 201, 213; Israel, 160; Japan, 299; Pakistan, 227; Poland, 97; South Korea, 276; UAE, 174, 179–80; U.K., 73–74, 78; U.S., 29–31, 37 immigration: Canada, 44; Germany, 104; Israel, 155; Pakistan, 234–35; South Korea, 265–66; U.K., 68–69; U.S., 22–23 inclusive schooling/inclusion: agenda for, 2–3; Australia, 283–85, 283t, 287–89; Canada, 47, 48–49, 49–50t, 52–62; China, 248–52, 249t, 250f, 255–56; comparative studies in, 8; defi nition of, 2; East Jerusalem, 165–66; Ethiopia, 128–32; India, 199–200, 201–2, 211–12; Israel, 156–62, 160f, 161f; Japan, 297–302, 298t, 300t, 301f, 305–6; Pakistan, 223, 224–25t, 227–28, 230–32, 235; South Korea, 268–73; UAE, 173–75. See also challenges to inclusion

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Index India: causes of disability, 200–201; controversies and issues, 210–12; early intervention, 205–7; educational placement, 207–9; future trends, 212–13; inclusion, 201–2; labeling of disabilities, 201; legislation, 203t; national context, 193–94; opportunity and access, 204–5; parent groups, 203–4; school system, 196, 197t, 198–99, 198t; social context, 194–96; special education services, 199–200; teachers and pedagogy, 209 Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, U.S.), 28, 31, 32, 284 instructional placement: Canada, 58–59; India, 207–9; Japan, 301–2, 301f; Pakistan, 228–29; Poland, 97; South Korea, 271–72; UAE, 180–81; U.K., 79; U.S., 34, 35 integration. See inclusive schooling/inclusion interest groups in South Korea, 274–75 international directives, 12–13. See also Education for All (EFA) initiative; Salamanca Statement; United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Islam in Pakistan, 218 Israel: controversies and issues, 166–67; education system, 154–56; history of, 153–54; Jerusalem, 152, 162–66, 164f; national context, 151–52; special education system, 156–62, 160f, 161f Japan: challenges, 306–7; discussions and debates, 304–6; early intervention, 302–3; future trends, 307–8; national context, 295; parent groups, professional associations, and advocacy groups, 304; school system, 296–99, 296f, 298t, 300t; social fabric, 295–96; special needs, 300–302, 301f; teachers and pedagogy, 303–4 Jerusalem, 152, 162–66, 164f, 167

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

Kashmir region of Pakistan, 217 Kerschensteiner, Georg, 103 Law on the Protection of Persons With Disabilities (China), 247 learning disabilities: Germany, 110, 112; Israel, 159–60 least restrictive environment (LRE): Israel, 157, 158; Poland, 99; UAE, 180–81; U.S., 34 legislation and policy: Australia, 285–87, 291; Canada, 47–48; China, 246–48, 253–54; Ethiopia, 128–29; Germany, 106; India, 202, 203t; Israel, 156–59; Nigeria, 142, 146–47; overview of, 13–14; Pakistan, 222–23; Poland, 88–89; South Korea, 266–67, 268–70; UAE, 172–73; U.S., 26–29 linguistic diversity: China, 242; Ethiopia, 125–26; India, 194, 195; Israel, 152; Pakistan, 218 literacy rates, 14 litigation in Canada, 48 Mann, Horace, 23

Matal professionals in Israel, 151 Matya structure in Israel, 162 McMahon, Henry, 153 medical model of disability, 23 mental disabilities in Germany, 112, 117 mental retardation: etiology of, 226–27; in Pakistan, 228, 237t Middle East. See Israel; United Arab Emirates minorities: Canada, 44–45; Israel, 151–52, 153–54, 155; Poland, 87; U.S., 30, 38. See also linguistic diversity missionaries: India, 199; Nigeria, 139–41, 141t Montessori, Maria, 103 multicultural special education: South Korea, 277; U.S., 31–32 national context: Ethiopia, 125–26; Germany, 103–4; India, 193–94; Israel, 151–54; Japan, 295; Nigeria, 138; Pakistan, 217–18; South Korea, 264; UAE, 171–72; U.K., 67–68 National Policy for Persons with Disabilities (Pakistan), 222, 226 National Policy on Education (Nigeria), 141–42, 144, 146 Negaso Gidada, 127 New South Wales, 288–89, 290 NGOs. See nongovernmental organizations Nigeria: cultural bridges, building, 144–46; education system, 138–40; history of special education, 140, 141–44, 141t, 143t; national context, 138 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (U.S.), 28, 38–39 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs): China, 242, 257, 258; India, 198, 199, 206, 211, 212–13; international directives of, 12–13; Pakistan, 234; role of, 14; South Korea, 274–75 North America. See Canada; United States Northern Ireland, 67–68, 69t, 70t, 74t, 76 Obiakor, Festus E., 139 outcomes: Canada, 58; Germany, 110, 112; UAE, 177, 180; U.K., 72, 81–82 Pacific Rim. See Australia; China; Japan; South Korea Pakistan: controversies and issues, 234–36; disability, classification of, 237t; equal access provision, 222–23, 224–25t, 226–32; future trends, 236; history of special education, 221–22; national context, 217–18; NGOs, 234; parents and advocacy groups, 234; private sector role, 233–34; school system, 219, 220t, 221; social fabric, 218; teachers and pedagogy, 232–33 paraeducators in Canada, 58 parents and placement: Canada, 58–59; China, 257–58; India, 203–4, 208–9; Japan, 302, 304, 307; Nigeria, 145; Pakistan, 234; Poland, 99–100; South Korea, 274–75; UAE, 177–78; U.S., 35

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

317

318

Index physical disabilities: China, 245t, 250f; effects of, 227; Germany, 113, 117; India, 205, 207; Pakistan, 228, 237t; UAE, 186 Poland: controversies and issues, 98–100; early intervention, 95–96; future trends, 100; history of special education, 93–94; inclusion, 96–98; private schools, 92–93; school system, 88–89, 90f, 91–92; social fabric, 87–88; special needs overview, 94–95; teachers and pedagogy, 98 policy borrowing, 5 population: Australia, 280; Canada, 44; China, 242; Ethiopia, 125; India, 193, 194; Israel, 151; Japan, 295; Pakistan, 217; Poland, 87; South Korea, 264; UAE, 171; U.K., 68; U.S., 21–22, 22t poverty: Canada, 51; Ethiopia, 125, 128, 131, 136; Germany, 104; India, 194–95, 200–201, 205–6; Israel, 154; Pakistan, 217; U.S., 21–22, 32, 33 prevalence estimates of disability: Canada, 51–52; Ethiopia, 127–28; overview of, 10; Poland, 94–95; South Korea, 271; U.K., 75–76; U.S., 29–30 private schools in Poland, 92–93 private sector in Pakistan, 219, 233–34 proclamations in Ethiopia, 129 professional associations in Japan, 304 professional development: Canada, 57; U.K., 79–81. See also training in special education for teachers psychoeducational assessment, 14

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

reform initiatives: UAE, 182–83; U.K., 77–78 regional perspectives, 14–15 regional practices and comparative studies, 5–6 research: Canada, 59; overview of, 15; UAE, 182 response to treatment/response to intervention (RTI), 37, 40 rights-based perspective, 7–8 Ryerson, Egerton, 46 Salamanca Statement: Australia and, 284; China and, 247; Ethiopia and, 128; overview of, 12, 13 Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA, India), 199, 201–2, 209, 210, 211 school system. See education system; reform initiatives school transformation, 15 Scotland, 67–68, 69t, 70t, 75–76 self-determination by people with disabilities, 40 social context: Australia, 280–81; Canada, 44–45; China, 241–43; India, 194–96; Japan, 295–96; Pakistan, 218; Poland, 87–88; South Korea, 265–66; UAE, 184–86; U.K., 68, 69–70, 69t; U.S., 21–23, 32–33 social model of disability, 23–24, 39 social workers in China, 256–57 South Asia. See India; Pakistan South Korea: activities of interest groups and NGOs, 274–75; educational system, 266–68; issues and tasks, 275–78; national context,

264; social fabric, 265–66; special education, 268–73; teacher education, 273–74 special education, case studies of, 1. See also history of special education; inclusive schooling/ inclusion; themes; training in special education for teachers; specific countries Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, 77 Special Education Law (SEL): Israel, 156–59, 166; South Korea, 268–69, 271, 276 speech and language disabilities: China, 245t, 250f; Germany, 114–15, 117 standards-based approaches: Canada, 57–58; overview of, 9; U.K., 81–82; U.S., 38–39 substance abuse in U.S., 23 Sullivan, Annie, 25 Taliban, 218, 235 teacher knowledge and comparative studies, 6 teachers: Australia, 289–90, 291; Canada, 56; India, 207–8; Japan, 303; Pakistan, 235; Poland, 98; U.S., 35. See also training in special education for teachers technology: Pakistan, 235–36; U.S., 35, 39 themes: accountability, 9; cultural parameters, 9–10; Education for All initiative, 10–11; equality of access, 11; financial constraints on funding, 11–12; gender issues, 12; international directives, 12–13; legislation, 13–14; literacy rates, 14; NGOs, 14; overview of, 8; psychoeducational assessment, 14; regional perspectives, 14–15; research, 15; school transformation, 15; teacher training, 15–16 theoretical positions and comparative studies, 7–8 therapeutic measures, right to, in Germany, 116 Third National Development Plan, Nigeria, 143–44 training in special education for teachers: Australia, 289–90, 291; Canada, 53–54, 57; China, 256–57; Ethiopia, 132–33, 135–36; Germany, 118–19; India, 206–7, 209, 211–12, 213; Japan, 298, 303–4; overview of, 15–16; Pakistan, 232–33; Poland, 98, 99; South Korea, 273–74; UAE, 175–76, 183; U.K., 79–81; U.S., 35–38, 40 transition from school to work or higher education: Japan, 307; U.S., 32, 38, 39, 40 UAE. See United Arab Emirates U.K. See United Kingdom United Arab Emirates (UAE): education system, 172; equal access provision, 176–78; identification, assessment, placement and implementation, 179–81; issues, 181–83; legislation, 172–73; national context, 171–72; opportunity and access differences and variations, 178–79; priorities, 183–87; special needs education, 173–75; staffing and qualifications, 175–76 United Kingdom (U.K.): controversies and issues, 81–82; early intervention, 78–79; educational placement, 79; equal access provision, 76–78; future trends, 82–83; historical context, 67–68; India and, 193, 195, 199; Pakistan and, 217; role in education system in Nigeria,

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

Index education, 30–31; school system, 24–25; social context, 21–23, 22t; teachers and pedagogy, 35–37; technology, 35; transition, 32 U.S. See United States Victoria, state of, 288, 290 violence in U.S., 23 visual impairment: China, 245t, 250f; etiology of, 226; Germany, 114, 117; India, 205, 207; Nigeria, 140; Pakistan, 228, 233–34, 237t vocational training: China, 250; Japan, 307; Pakistan, 223; South Korea, 277–78. See also transition from school to work or higher education Wales, 67–68, 69t, 70t, 76 Warnock, Mary, and Warnock Report, 73, 82–83, 284 welfare state in United Kingdom, 69–70 western industrialized democracies and cultural imperialism, 5–6 worldview and comparative studies, 5 Zionist movement, 153

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved.

139–40; school system, 70–72, 70t; social fabric, 68–70, 69t; special needs overview, 73–76; teachers and pedagogy, 79–81; Zionist movement and, 153 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities: Canada, 48; China, 253; Ethiopia, 128; Germany, 108; Israel, 167; Japan, 305; overview of, 13; UAE, 172; U.K., 83; U.S., 40–41 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). See Education for All (EFA) initiative; Salamanca Statement United States (U.S.): assimilation, 24; children and youth with disabilities, 29; conduct and discipline, 31; contextual factors, 32–33; controversies and issues, 37–38; culture and disability, 23–24; early intervention, 33–34; future trends, 38–41; history of special education, 25–29; instructional placement, 34; least restrictive environment, 34; multicultural and bilingual special education, 31–32; Pakistan and, 237; parent and teacher attitudes to placement, 35; prevalence, opportunity, and access, 29–30; qualifying students for special

International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press,

319

Copyright © 2011. Gallaudet University Press. All rights reserved. International Practices in Special Education : Debates and Challenges, edited by Margret A. Winzer, and Kas Mazurek, Gallaudet University Press, 2011.