Instructional Collaboration in International Inclusive Education Contexts (International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, 17) 1839829990, 9781839829994

Citation preview

INSTRUCTIONAL COLLABORATION IN INTERNATIONAL INCLUSIVE EDUCATION CONTEXTS

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION Series Editor: Chris Forlin Recent volumes: Volume 1: Volume 2:

Volume 3: Volume 4: Volume 5: Volume 6: Volume 7: Volume 8: Volume 9: Volume 10:

Volume 11: Volume 12: Volume 13:

Volume 14:

Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties in Mainstream Schools – Edited by John Visser, Harry Daniels and Ted Cole Transforming Troubled Lives: Strategies and Interventions for Children with Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties – Edited by John Visser, Harry Daniels and Ted Cole Measuring Inclusive Education – Edited by Chris Forlin and Tim Loreman Working with Teaching Assistants and other Support Staff for Inclusive Education – Edited by Dianne Chambers Including Learners with Low-Incidence Disabilities – Edited by Elizabeth A. West Foundations of Inclusive Education Research – Edited by Phyllis Jones and Scot Danforth Inclusive Pedagogy Across the Curriculum – Edited by Joanne Deppeler, Tim Loreman, Ron Smith and Lani Florian Implementing Inclusive Education – Edited by Amanda Watkins and Cor Meijer Ethics, Equity and Inclusive Education – Edited by Agnes Gajewski Working with Families for Inclusive Education: Navigating Identity, Opportunity and Belonging – Edited by Dick Sobsey and Kate Scorgie Inclusive Principles and Practices in Literacy Education – Edited by Marion Milton Service Learning: Enhancing Inclusive Education – Edited by Shane Lavery, Dianne Chambers and Glenda Cain Promoting Social Inclusion: Co-Creating Environments That Foster Equity and Belonging – Edited by Kate Scorgie and Chris Forlin Assistive Technology to Support Inclusive Education – Edited by Dianne Chambers

Volume 15: Volume 16:

Resourcing Inclusive Education – Edited by Janka Goldan, Jennifer Lambrecht and Tim Loreman Minding the Marginalized Students Through Inclusion, Justice, and Hope: Daring to Transform Educational Inequities – Edited by Jose W. Lalas and Heidi Luv Strikwerda

This page intentionally left blank

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION VOLUME 17

INSTRUCTIONAL COLLABORATION IN INTERNATIONAL INCLUSIVE EDUCATION CONTEXTS EDITED BY

SARAH R. SEMON University of South Florida, USA

DANIELLE LANE Elon University, USA And

PHYLLIS JONES University of South Florida, USA

United Kingdom – North America – Japan India – Malaysia – China

Emerald Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2022 Editorial matter and selection © 2022 Sarah R. Semon, Danielle Lane and Phyllis Jones. Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited. Individual chapters © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited Reprints and permissions service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-83982-999-4 (Print) ISBN: 978-1-83982-998-7 (Online) ISBN: 978-1-80043-000-6 (Epub) ISSN: 1479-3636 (Series)

To Dr Phyllis Jones who reminded us daily to “Trust the Process” and whose caring, thoughtful mentorship made all the difference. You are a true light in the world.

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS About the Editors

xi

About the Contributors

xiii

Series Introduction

xix

Foreword

xxiii

Acknowledgments

xxv

Mapping Collaboration across International Inclusive Educational Contexts Sarah Semon, Danielle Lane and Phyllis Jones

1

Creating Inclusive Classrooms in the Pacific Region: Working in Partnership with Teachers in the Republic of Nauru to Develop Inclusive Practices Angela Page, Joanna Anderson, Penelope Serow, Elvira Hubert and Anne O’Donnell-Ostini

7

Using Collaborative Instructional Approaches to Prepare Competent Inclusive Education Student Teachers Joseph Seyram Agbenyega and Deborah Tamakloe

23

Instructional Collaboration in Saudi Inclusive and Mainstream Education Khalid Mohammed Abu-Alghayth

41

Collaboration Is the Key – The Role of Special Educators in Inclusive Schools in Germany Phillip Neumann and Birgit L¨utje-Klose

55

Social Innovation through Collaboration for Enabling Educational Inclusive EcoSystems: Following Italy’s Lead Elisabetta Ghedin

71

ix

x

CONTENTS

Collaboration in Context: Instructional Coaching to Support Inclusive Classrooms, an American Perspective Gretchen L. Stewart and Danielle Lane

97

The Collaborative Partnership between Teachers and Occupational Therapists in Public Special Schools in South Africa 115 Selina Kungwane and Millicent Boaduo Inclusive Education in Lesotho and the Current Challenges in Implementing It through Instructional Collaboration Mamotjoka Joyce Morai

127

Education of Children with Disabilities in Cambodia: Trends, Collaborations, and Challenges Sokunrith Pov

139

Inclusive Education in Indonesia: Collaboration among Stakeholders Suhendri

151

Collaborations to Promote Inclusive and Special Education in Myanmar Zun Wai Oo and Norimune Kawai

167

Collaboration in Special Needs Education in Japan: Current Conditions Norimune Kawai

185

Model of Collaboration for Philippine Inclusive Education Michel P. Basister and Maria Luisa S. Valenzuela

201

Index

217

ABOUT THE EDITORS Dr Sarah R. Semon is a Program Planner/Analyst and Co-Principal Investigator for the Leadership in Literacy Intervention Grant in the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of South Florida. She teaches masters and undergraduate courses in the Exceptional Student Education program and previously taught high school special education and fourth grade general education. Her current scholarship focuses on research-based instruction to improve outcomes for students with disabilities, improving the preparation of special and general educators to serve students with disabilities, and job-embedded professional development to support inclusive education. Her most recent publications include articles related to job-embedded professional development to support inclusion, funding for inclusion in IDEA and ESSA, and teacher education and school reform to improve postsecondary outcomes. She has extensive experience coordinating state and federal research and special education personnel and leadership preparation grants. Dr Danielle Lane is an Assistant Professor of Education at Elon University in North Carolina where she teaches courses in special education and educational research at the undergraduate level and serves as a university supervisor for preservice teacher candidates. She earned her doctorate in curriculum and instruction with a concentration in special education as well as a graduate certificate in qualitative research from the University of South Florida. Her research focuses on global understandings of disabilities in various cultural contexts. Specifically, she is interested in centralizing the importance of inclusive practices in educational provisions that are provided to students with disabilities. Dr Lane’s most recent collaborative publication, What’s in the Budget?: A Look at Funding for Inclusive Initiatives in ESSA and IDEA, was published in Resourcing Inclusive Education (International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Vol. 15). Dr Lane also serves as the editor for the International Journal of Whole Schooling. Dr Phyllis Jones is a Professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of South Florida. Phyllis taught and was a deputy head in schools in the United Kingdom for 15 years before she entered teacher education. She came to USF in 2003. She is the author of Curricula for Students with Severe Disabilities: Narratives of Standards-Referenced Good Practice, Inclusion in the Early Years: Stories of Good Practice, coauthor of Collaborate Smart and lead editor of A Pig Don’t Get Fatter the More You Weigh It: Balancing assessment for the classroom, Leading for Inclusion, Creating Meaningful Inquiry in the Inclusive Classroom, Pushing the Boundaries: Developing Inclusive Practices through

xi

xii

ABOUT THE EDITORS

Integration of Insider Perspectives, coeditor of The Routledge Companion to Severe, Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties and the Foundations of Inclusive Education Research. She is coeditor of the International Journal of Whole Schooling, sits on the editorial board of Disability & Society, and is a regular reviewer for the British Journal of Special Education, Journal of Child and Family Studies, International Journal of Inclusive Education, Journal of Teacher Education, and International Review of Education. Internationally, she has worked in England, Ireland, New Zealand, Thailand, and Mexico.

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS Dr Khalid Abu-Alghayth is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education at King Khalid University. Dr Khalid’s research interests include teacher collaboration, professional development, lesson study, and assistive technology in inclusive and mainstream education. He has a doctorate in special education from the University of South Florida, a master’s degree in special education focusing on severe intellectual and developmental disabilities from Ball State University, and a bachelor’s degree in special education from King Saud University. Khalid worked as a teacher of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Saudi mainstream schools. Dr Khalid is the author of a book chapter titled “Assistive Technology in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” and other recent articles on teacher collaboration, lesson study, and assistive technology. Dr Joseph Seyram Agbenyega is an Associate Professor and Research Chair at Emirates College for Advanced Education in Abu Dhabi, UAE. His research focuses on macro- and micro-exclusion in education and quality teacher education in inclusive education systems. Previously, Joseph worked at Monash University in Australia for more than 10 years and held the post of Director of Graduate Research, Education and Chair of Board of Examiners for Graduate Research in the Faculty of Education. Dr Joanna Anderson holds a PhD from the Graduate School of Education at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom. Her main research interests are inclusive education and the contexts within which it operates, school leadership for inclusive education, inclusive education policy, and behavior and inclusive education. Joanna works as a Lecturer in learning and teaching (inclusive education) within the School of Education at the University of New England. As part of this role, she has worked to support the implementation of inclusive practices in Nauru. Previously, Joanna worked for more than two decades in primary educational settings across Australia and New Zealand, as both a teacher and a school leader. Michel P. Basister received a bachelor’s degree in Secondary Education major in Mathematics (Cum Laude) from Bicol University (Legazpi City); Master of Public Management at the University of the Philippines (Open University); and Master of Arts in Education major in Special Education at the University of Nueva Caceres (Naga City). He was a Monbukagakusho scholar at Hiroshima University (Japan) and studied Japan’s educational practices for gifted and struggling students in mathematics. Recently, Mr. Basister earned his Master of

xiii

xiv

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Science in Public Policy and Management under the CHED-CMUA scholarship at Carnegie Mellon University (Australia). He served as an Education Program Specialist for Human Resource Development of the Department of Education, Naga City division, Philippines. Currently, he is the Assistant Dean of the School of Graduate Studies and the College of Education of the University of Nueva Caceres and serves as faculty for the Master of Public Administration and Master of Arts in Education programs. His published articles focus on mathematics education as well as inclusive education. Millicent Boaduo is the Chief Education Specialist, Department of Basic Education in South Africa. Millicent is an occupational therapist who worked as a district therapist in the North West Province for 6 years in the Inclusive Education unit. She was promoted to Chief Education Specialist to the national Department of Basic Education in Inclusive Education, where she currently oversees the development of policies and programs geared toward learners with disabilities in all schools. Her focus area is the support of learners in special schools and the use of assistive devices and technology to ensure access to education for all. Dr Elisabetta Ghedin works at the Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Pedagogy, and Applied Psychology, University of Padova, Italy. She is an Associate Professor of Inclusive Education, Vice-Director of the specialized course for special educational teachers, and a member of the Directive of Italian Special Education Society. Her research interests include the collaboration in mainstream school, the preservice and in-service teacher training on coteaching practice, the accessibility for all, the operationalization of the ICF biopsychosocial model, and the promotion of health and well-being in learning environments. Elvira Hubert currently works as an Inclusive Education Advisor for the Department of Education in the Republic of Nauru. She is working toward her Master of Special and Inclusive Education with the University of New England, having completed her graduate diploma in teaching and then Bachelor of Education as part of an educational partnership with this university and the government of Nauru. Her position as Disability Manager with the education department involves working alongside University of New England staff to develop the training and processes for teachers within the Inclusive Education project that is currently in progress. Dr Norimune Kawai is a Deputy Executive Director at Hiroshima University. He also is the Director of the Center of the Special Needs Education Research and Practice, and a Professor of Special Needs Education at the Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University. Although his original research topics are listeners’ auditory perceptions of stuttering and speech motor activities of people who stutter, he currently conducts extensive research on communication disorders in general and inclusive education. Professor Kawai also spends more than 400 hours every year working with students and adults

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

xv

who have various kinds of speech, language, and hearing disorders in addition to his teaching and research hours. Selina Kungwane is a Doctoral Student at the University of South Africa and Assistant Director of the Department of Higher Education and Training South Africa. Selina has been involved in the promotion of the rights of people with disabilities in various departments she has worked in. With a master’s degree from Hiroshima University, she is currently pursuing doctoral studies focusing on disability support in the technical and vocational education and training (TVET) sector. She obtained an opportunity to work at the Department of Higher Education and Training in South Africa, TVET branch, offering nonacademic support. Her focus area is support for students with disabilities in TVET Colleges. Dr Birgit L¨utje-Klose is Professor for Special und Inclusive Education at Bielefeld University, Germany. Her research area is the development of inclusive schools and the framework conditions for a positive development of students with learning and language impairments in inclusive settings. A special focus lies on multiprofessional cooperation and coteaching. Currently she is part of the leading team of the project “Bielefeld Training on Cooperation in inclusive Schools” (BiFoKi) and of multiple projects in in the field of teacher education for inclusion (https://www.uni-bielefeld.de/einrichtungen/biprofessional/projekt/). She is coauthor of several workbooks on learning impairments, and special and inclusive education. Mamotjoka Joyce Morai is a Teacher at St Paul’s School for the Deaf in Lesotho. She received her Bachelor’s Degree in Special Education from the National University of Lesotho in 2014 and Master’s Degree in Education majoring in special education and inclusive education from Hiroshima University, Japan, in 2020. Currently, her research interest focuses on instructional strategies for the deaf or hard of hearing learners in Lesotho to learn English writing composition skills. Dr Phillip Neumann is a Research Assistant at the Faculty of Education at Bielefeld University, Germany. His research area is multiprofessional cooperation, special and inclusive education, and school development in inclusive settings. He did his doctorate on the subject of cooperation between general and special educators in inclusive primary and special schools. Currently he is part of the leading team of the project “Bielefeld Training on Cooperation in inclusive Schools” (BiFoKi). Anne O’Donnell-Ostini is the University of New England’s Inclusive Education Advisor on Nauru. Leading from a rights-based, social model of disability, has ensured Anne’s partnership and collaboration roles in Nauru have developed in a socially just and culturally inclusive way. The unpacking of the Inclusive Education Policy and Guidelines (2017) and support of teachers in establishing inclusive and equitable classrooms has been central to Anne’s role. Anne works

xvi

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

closely with Elvira Hubert and other Nauruan educational counterparts to ensure respectful and responsive relationships built on trust acknowledging Nauruan ways of being and pedagogy. Anne is an experienced teacher practitioner in a range of educational settings, including disability and early intervention contexts. Anne’s experience in lecturing within the UNE School of Education in areas of inclusive math classrooms, young children with exceptionalities, social justice and resilience and her related master’s research studies have been complimentary to this advisor role. Zun Wai Oo is a master’s student specializing in the inclusive education course of the International Educational Development program at the Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University, Japan. She is an international student and a recipient of the Japanese government scholarship provided by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. Zun Wai Oo hails from Myanmar and has worked as a teacher at Sagaing University Education, Myanmar. Dr Angela Page has worked as an Inclusive Education advisor to schools and governments in New Zealand and the Pacific region. Dr Page currently lectures in inclusive education and classroom management at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Prior to this position, she was employed as an inclusive education lecturer at the University of New England, where she first began working in the Inclusive Education project in Nauru. She has a particular interest in inclusive and special education practices within new or emerging contexts. As an educational psychologist, she has assisted in the development of inclusive education practices for teachers as well as in the guidance in case management policy and practice. Alongside other Pacific writers, Angela has published widely in the field of inclusive education in Pacific contexts as well as using indigenous frameworks. She has recently edited a book titled Inclusive Education: Global Issues and Controversies. Sokunrith Pov is from the Office of Research and Policy Analysis in the Department of Policy, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport in Cambodia. He has been involved in various educational research projects that inform educational policy development and implementation in Cambodia. His research interest involves several aspects of educational development issues, including inclusion, equity, access, and quality. Professor Penelope Serow leads multiple education and development projects in the Pacific Region at the University of New England (UNE). Pep teaches Mathematics Education to preservice and in-service teachers within primary, secondary, and postgraduate programs. Research directions include mathematical concept development in both primary and secondary contexts; assessment for learning techniques; using technology as a teaching tool; culturally responsive professional development; curriculum development; building local teacher capacity in rural, remote, and developing contexts; international partnerships to promote equity in access and participation; and Aboriginal education. Pep is currently the Research Coordinator for the School of Education (UNE).

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

xvii

Research Team awards have included Australian Rural Education Award (2016) for innovative strategies for improving equity in rural education in international settings, Australian College of Education HTB Harris Award (2017) in recognition of a significant educational program, and UNE Citation for Outstanding Contribution to Student Learning (2017). Dr Gretchen L. Stewart is the Founder and Director of Smart Moves Academy, an innovative private K-8 school. She holds a PhD from the University of South Florida in the United States. Her research centers around inclusive education K12 and educational neuroscience. Gretchen is a graduate of the American University Centers for Disability, Leader in Neurodevelopmental Disabilities Trainee program at the Mailman Child Development Center, University of Miami. She holds a certificate in qualitative research and an MA in Special Education K-12 along with an MA in Curriculum and Instruction K-12. Gretchen has taught undergraduate courses in general and special education teacher education and has served as a graduate assistant for the SunCoast Area Teacher Training Education and Research Center in Tampa, Florida. Gretchen worked for 20 years in American public PK-12 education as a general and special education teacher, instructional coach, a school administrator, a state department technical assistance specialist, and an executive director of curriculum and instruction and professional learning. Her pronouns are She/Her/Hers. Suhendri is a Teacher Trainer at the Ministry of Education, Indonesia. As a national teacher trainer for kindergarten and special needs schools, he has been training kindergarten and special needs schoolteachers all over Indonesia and is a speaker at international and national conferences and seminars. In 2013, he completed his master’s degree with a focus on the education of gifted children at Flinders University, Australia. Currently, he is a doctoral student at Hiroshima University, Japan, majoring in inclusive education under the supervision of Professor Norimune Kawai. Dr Deborah Tamakloe is an Associate Professor of Special Education at Millersville University in Lancaster, PA, USA. She researches assistive technologies for students with special education needs. Maria Luisa S. Valenzuela received a bachelor’s degree in Occupational Therapy from the University of Santo Tomas and is a licensed Occupational Therapist since 2008. She received her Master of Arts in Education major in Special Education from De La Salle University-Manila. Ms. Valenzuela is presently working toward a doctoral degree in Clinical Psychology at the University of Santo Tomas (Manila). She continues to serve clients as an Occupational Therapist handling CSNs and a Special Education Consultant; has been affiliated with De La Salle Medical and Health Sciences Institute in Dasmarinas City, Cavite, since 2011; and has held numerous administrative positions in the Occupational Therapy Department under the College of Rehabilitation Sciences. Besides being a full-time faculty, she also serves as a Clinical Supervisor in different satellite centers – pediatric, physical dysfunction, and psychiatric/psychosocial settings.

This page intentionally left blank

SERIES INTRODUCTION The adoption internationally of inclusive practice as the most equitable and allencompassing approach to education and its relation to compliance with various international Declarations and Conventions underpins the importance of this series for people working at all levels of education and schooling in both developed and less developed countries. There is little doubt that inclusive education is complex and diverse and that there are enormous disparities in understanding and application at both inter- and intracountry levels. A broad perspective on inclusive education throughout this series is taken, encompassing a wide range of contemporary viewpoints, ideas, and research for enabling the development of more inclusive schools, education systems, and communities. Volumes in this series on International Perspectives on Inclusive Education contribute to the academic and professional discourse by providing a collection of philosophies and practices that can be reviewed by considering local, contextual, and cultural situations to assist governments, educators, peripatetic staffs, and other professionals to provide the best education for all children. Each volume in the series focuses on a key aspect of inclusive education and provides critical chapters by contributing leaders in the field who discuss theoretical positions, quality research, and impacts on school and classroom practice. Different volumes address issues relating to the diversity of student need within heterogeneous classrooms and the preparation of teachers and other staffs to work in inclusive schools. Systemic changes and practice in schools encompass a wide perspective of learners to provide ideas on reframing education to ensure that it is inclusive of all. Evidence-based research practices underpin a plethora of suggestions for decision-makers and practitioners, incorporating current ways of thinking about and implementing inclusive education. While many barriers have been identified that may potentially constrain the implementation of effective inclusive practices, this series aims to identify such key concerns and offer practical and best practice approaches to overcoming them. Adopting a thematic approach for each volume, readers will be able to quickly locate a collection of research and practice related to a topic of interest. By transforming schools into inclusive communities of practice, all children can have the opportunity to access and participate in quality and equitable education to enable them to obtain the skills to become contributory global citizens. This series, therefore, is highly recommended to support education decision-makers, practitioners, researchers, and academics, who have a professional interest in the inclusion of children and youth who are marginalized in inclusive schools and classrooms.

xix

xx

SERIES INTRODUCTION

Volume 17 continues to bring some excellent articles that have a very timely focus. The issue of instructional collaboration has never been more relevant considering the international educational climate over the past 18 months. During this extended time frame all countries have had to adapt to “schooling” that has taken on a range of meanings as they have responded to the need for isolation to prevent the spread of the highly infectious coronavirus (COVID-19). In most countries this has resulted in prolonged absences from the physical school environment with the need for systems to offer distance learning through online or through other off-school options for educating all students. To achieve this has required extensive collaboration between teachers, education assistants, peripatetic staff, parents, other stakeholders, and the students themselves. Effective collaborative practices are particularly essential to ensure that learners with special educational needs are able to maintain their education without direct contact with their teachers. This can be quite problematic for many students given that the majority of their instruction is traditionally presented face-to-face, as without direct support success is limited. Instructional collaboration is also a key mechanism for ensuring that school connectedness continues during prolonged absences. In Volume 13 in the series the focus was on the importance of promoting social inclusion and developing a sense of belonging for learners with special needs. It was continually affirmed throughout the earlier volume that without this many students may present with social, emotional, or behavioral issues that challenge the effectiveness and sustainability of inclusion. These do not lesson when education changes to an offschool situation, and indeed may be emphasized when students return to the regular classroom. Learning how to effectively collaborate for enabling instructional approaches that meet the needs of all students is critical to prevent further isolation and a breakdown in the positive methods that have become well established and need to endure to support inclusive education. This latest volume in the series is, therefore, an especially important one as while addressing the need for, and ways to support, instructional collaboration in a traditional sense, it also provides a diverse range of approaches than can be utilized in both traditional schooling methods and adapted for other unique situations as they arise. This volume provides an excellent international perspective as it includes collaborative approaches from a wide range of systems with reference to 13 different regions. Together these provide extensive ideas, techniques, and collaborative styles for instruction, covering a broad range of sociocultural and contextually different situations. The chapters also include recent research, policy changes, and local advocacy methods that support inclusive education for learners at most risk. Within each regional experience collaborative approaches are highlighted between teachers, therapists, government officials, and other stakeholders to encourage change that drives inclusion forward. While providing insights into the ways in which instructional collaboration varies between regions, the authors also discuss ways of addressing barriers and potential challenges to enabling effective partnerships to be established and maintained. Volume 17 provides a wealth of international approaches and practical and useful ideas for enabling effective

SERIES INTRODUCTION

xxi

instructional collaboration and will prove to be an extremely useful resource for everyone involved in the education of learners with special needs. It will be essential reading for those in the educational sphere for ensuring that all children and youth are included in consistently meaningful and effective ways. I highly recommend and endorse this book as an excellent addition to the International Perspectives on Inclusive Education series. Chris Forlin Series Editor

This page intentionally left blank

FOREWORD I am honored to have the opportunity to write the foreword for this wonderful resource for educators on the topic of collaborative practices. I first met Dani and Sarah years ago while working on my doctoral degree at the University of South Florida. In that time, we grew to become friends, colleagues, and collaborators. Dani and I first met in a doctoral seminar course. Sarah and I met years later when we were assigned offices across the hall from one another. I have worked jointly with each of them on various projects including doctoral research projects, redesigning an online course for undergraduates, and more. During our time together, I have had the pleasure of collaborating with them both individually and collectively. Our collaborative work began as a weekly writing group designed to set goals, to hold each other accountable, and to provide each other with support and feedback on various writing projects we each worked on. We meet at least once a week to discuss our writing progress, provide feedback, and set new goals. Since joining this group, we have supported each other through multiple writing projects including a cowritten book chapter, various conference presentations, and most recently, my own dissertation, to name a few. Beyond helping myself and one another, Sarah and Dani are both always looking to support others around them. Whether they are meeting with students, working on a team-related project, or mentoring doctoral students, they are so giving of their time and knowledge and constantly seek new opportunities for collaboration. They really live and breathe the foundations of this book in all aspects of their work. As a former general education teacher in the elementary setting, I too, understand and value the importance of collaboration. In order to meet the variety of needs of a diverse student population, it is important to value the knowledge and experience of others to support inclusive education. It is befitting that collaborative practices for inclusive education be the topic of this book because we share the belief that all students deserve an education that meets their needs and challenges them to truly be the best version of themselves. In this book, you will find detailed examples from around the world for how to use collaborative practices to support inclusive education for all students. I wish you well on your journey throughout these shared stories. Nicholas Catania, PhD University of South Florida

xxiii

This page intentionally left blank

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, we would like to thank Dr Chris Forlin, the series editor, for the incredible opportunity to serve as editors of this volume. To our authors, thank you for your tireless efforts and collaboration. Your passion and desire to increase inclusive opportunities for all is evident in the sharing of your knowledge of collaboration and inclusion with stakeholders across the globe. Lastly, we thank our writing group for sticking with us through the process of editing this volume. Your insights and support were monumental in our ability to create a unique and comprehensive volume.

xxv

This page intentionally left blank

MAPPING COLLABORATION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL INCLUSIVE EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS Sarah Semon, Danielle Lane and Phyllis Jones

ABSTRACT While the chapters in this book present insights on collaborative instructional practices from a cross section of international perspectives, this introductory chapter frames a commentary for the following chapters. The work of instructional collaborative practices internationally shifts the responsibility from the deficits within the student to the instructional decisions made as teachers, as well as policies, procedures, and decisions made by educational institutions. We highlight influential scholars whose work can inform the inclusive and collaborative instructional practices occurring worldwide. As teacher educators, we conclude that a collaborative approach to instruction empowers teachers with the knowledge that they have the ability, given a little ingenuity, to include students regardless of the unique learning needs they may present. Further, we examine sociopolitical current trends which support and constrain the work of collaborative inclusive practice in the field. Finally, we provide an overview of the chapters to come, all of which provide evidence for the need to invest in and cultivate collaborative instructional practices for the benefit of all students. Keywords: Collaboration; instruction; international inclusive education; professional development; in-service preparation; international perspective

Instructional Collaboration in International Inclusive Education Contexts International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 17, 1–6 Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620210000017002

1

2

SARAH SEMON ET AL.

INTRODUCTION: A JOURNEY OF COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES AND INCLUSION AROUND THE GLOBE Around the globe, there is growing consensus that services for students with disabilities should be as inclusive as possible and promote appropriately ambitious goals for all students. This global emphasis on inclusive education is highlighted in the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Goal Four, which charges nations to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” (UNESCO, 2017, p. 12). For this to occur, effective instructional collaboration is required. The efforts and continued need for effective instructional collaboration in order to achieve inclusion for all are highlighted in the work of international scholars in this volume. Specifically, each scholar or scholar team highlights developments and experiences related to collaboration between stakeholders in their respective nations – each framed within their own particular sociohistorical context. Historically, the stories of inclusion and exclusion are similar across nations. However, as you will read in the following chapters, recent research, policy, and advocacy efforts provide glimpses of improved opportunity and development while recognizing the need for continued progress and change. The history of services for students with disabilities is portrayed by JohnStewart and Tavera-Salyutov (2018), who describe phases of social exclusion, neglect, separation, integration, and, finally, full sociopolitical inclusion. These phases of service mirror the continuum of inclusive education services (Florian, 2014). Internationally, countries are at different phases in providing services for students with disabilities. Social exclusion, neglect, and separation are seen in locales throughout the world where services are provided in a variety of settings such as group homes, orphanages, separate classrooms, separate schools, institutions, etc. Integration occurs when students with “special educational needs” are educated in the mainstream classroom with some accommodations and an expectation that they will function within the unaltered classroom environment (UNESCO, 2017). This suggests that integration requires students to change their behavior in order to conform with the status quo of the school system. Less common, but more ideal locales promote sociopolitical inclusion where the school changes to meet the learning needs of the community of students through the strategies of universal design for learning (UDL) (Meyer et al., 2014) and culturally responsive pedagogy (Castro-Villarreal et al., 2016). In the latter two phases (integration and sociopolitical inclusion), the special and general education teachers work collaboratively to meet the learning needs of all students in the general education setting (Barrett, 2011). The idea that people with impairments are human beings, with the same human dignity as all other human beings who are considered nonimpaired, gained momentum from the middle of the last century in the aftermath of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). This process was supported by important international conventions and the rise of the disability rights movement (Rioux, 2007). It promoted the view that society should integrate people with impairments into their communities socially, politically,

Mapping Collaboration across International Inclusive Educational Contexts

3

culturally, and economically, giving them a better possibility of living more fulfilled lives than they had during the long ages of predominant exclusion, neglect, and inhumane treatment (Baynton, 2013). It ultimately resulted, in 2006, in an international commitment to giving people with impairments full human rights protection – the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – requires the full sociopolitical inclusion of people with impairments among the member states of the United Nations. While conceptualizations of inclusion vary throughout the world, the foundational understanding of inclusion in this book is the view that inclusion is a civil right, a concept that applies to everyone and encourages a “…system of policy and practices that embraces diversity as a strength, creates a sense of belonging, equal membership, acceptance, and being valued, and involves fundamental civil rights” (Jones et al., 2011, p. 9). The chapters in this book reflect the current status of inclusion in each nation and tell the story of how collaborative practices help each nation’s quest for inclusive practices. Further, each chapter highlights the unique pairings of stakeholders, such as teachers, therapists, government officials, and university personnel who unite as advocates and models for collaboration that encourages change and propels inclusion forward. We begin our international journey of collaboration and inclusion in the Pacific Region where Page, Serlow, Hubert, and O’Donnell-Ostini describe partnerships aimed at creating inclusive classrooms. Specifically, the chapter authors highlight the policy guiding inclusion in the Republic of Nauru and a series of professional development workshops for teachers on unpacking the policy directions, guidelines, and roles and responsibilities for teaching staff in Nauru. Further, they describe how university staff work collaboratively with Nauruan teachers in order to develop their ability to create and facilitate inclusive classrooms. The authors do so by embracing approaches that incorporate culturally responsive practices such as the framework of Ekereri (educational approaches that embody the core values of Nauruan culture). In Chapter 3, our journey continues in Australia where we acknowledge that while most chapters in this book are focused on collaboration in the field, it is important to recognize and encourage the efforts of teacher educators who are doing the important work of preparing inclusive educators. In this chapter, Agbenyega and Tamakloe explain how they use the status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness (SCARF) model developed by David Rock, to build on existing knowledge of student teacher development. They do this by theorizing and offering practical ways to enact collaborative instructional practices through attention to the social and emotional aspects of collaboration. The chapter reports on student teachers’ experiences in a course unit on inclusive education in one Australian university that adopted a collaborative instructional practice, deepening their understanding and practice of inclusion. The student teachers’ collaborations with peers and teachers in the field are examined in terms of the SCARF framework, which describes five domains of human social relation and experience (Rock, 2008). The authors provide clear recommendations for teacher educators who are working to prepare collaborative inclusive educators.

4

SARAH SEMON ET AL.

Chapter 4 takes us to Saudi Arabia where Abu-Alghayth sheds light on aspects of instructional collaboration with the purpose of providing further understanding of how teachers collaborate and what hinders their collaboration in Saudi inclusive and mainstream schools. The author presents the voices of two special education teachers and two college professors while explaining and clarifying aspects of instructional collaboration. The chapter also outlines possible changes that may encourage teachers and support them in developing effective practices for instructional collaboration. In Chapter 5, we travel to Germany where, like many nations around the globe, there is a long-standing dual system of general and special education. Changing attitudes and raising awareness about the benefits of collaboration may help to shift thinking about long-standing roles and settings for special educators’ work. Framing their work as teacher educators and researchers toward this end, ¨ Neumann and Lutje-Klose provide insight into the historical background and legislative efforts designed to promote inclusive education in Germany. Understandably, the realities of classrooms do not always reflect the intent of the law, and as such, these authors contend that growing collaborative relationships is key to building parity and trust among special and general educators as well as transdisciplinary coalitions to support students in inclusive environments. As we depart from Germany, we continue our international trek to Italy where Ghedin shares, in Chapter 6, a proposed framework that aligns with the Italian Ministry of Education’s focus on ensuring a welcoming school for pupils with disabilities, strengthening the role of families and professional partners in the inclusion process, and involving, especially through on the job training, all school staff. In taking a macro approach to understanding collaboration that supports inclusion, the author suggests and highlights how the Educational Inclusive Ecosystem (EIESy) model transforms the fragmentation of education toward interconnected government in order to support more inclusive opportunities for student. In Chapter 7, we move to the United States where Stewart and Lane take a uniquely critical and personal approach to coaching for inclusion. They share how their own experiences with discrimination and injustice inform their work preparing and coaching inclusive educators. They highlight and provide compelling microlevel vignettes grounded in research on the centrality of relationship-building and empathy work for establishing collaborative relationships with teachers and families. They also share firsthand knowledge of what it takes to change the mindsets of administrators district-wide. The chapter closes with a series of provocative questions applicable to the collaborative work of teacher educators, leaders, coaches, and teachers. In Chapter 8 of this book, we alight in Africa where Kungwane and Boaduo provide a distinct contribution to our understanding of collaboration to support inclusive education. Specifically, the authors describe the collaborations between occupational therapists and teachers in public schools in South Africa. In their discussions, they highlight the vital role of occupational therapists in supporting inclusive practices, the obstacles teachers and occupational therapists must overcome in order to collaborate, and the benefits of collaboration between

Mapping Collaboration across International Inclusive Educational Contexts

5

occupational therapists and teachers aimed at increasing inclusive experiences for students. In Chapter 9, our exploration of collaboration and inclusion remains in Africa where Morai chronicles the developments toward inclusive educational systems in Lesotho, Africa, one of the 29 least economically developed countries in the world. Here, Morai shares the ongoing challenges facing the nation, while highlighting the good work that has been done so far to include children with disabilities in many schools. Recommendations for setting a strong interdisciplinary collaborative foundation for professionals, communities, and families are set forth. Chapter 10 takes us to Cambodia where Pov describes inclusion in a nation with limited resources and capabilities. We learn about the legal requirements related to inclusion and to facilitating collaboration aimed at increasing inclusive practices. Despite limited literature on special education and inclusion in Cambodia, the author provides a history of special education and inclusion in the country. The chapter also outlines trends, challenges, and collaboration aimed at supporting inclusion across the nation. In Chapter 11, we travel to Indonesia where Suhendri, a teacher trainer with the Ministry of Education, shares the history of inclusive education in Indonesia. While providing a detailed history of Indonesia’s legislation, philosophy, and commitment, Suhendri points out realities and gaps that remain in terms of enacting and coordinating inclusive instruction, curriculum, and therapies to support students with special needs. Suhendri shares insights into what the nation might do to bring implementation efforts into alignment with the lofty legislation and initiatives of Indonesia. We continue our international journey in Chapter 12 to Myanmar where Wai Oo describes inclusion and collaboration from the perspective of a graduate student specializing in inclusive education. In this chapter, Wai Oo provides an overview of inclusive education in Myanmar as well as the policies, agencies, and programs guiding inclusion throughout the nation. The chapter also outlines barriers in collaboration aimed at supporting inclusive education and the need for government agencies to work collaboratively in order to support a truly inclusive education system in Myanmar. In Chapter 13, Kawai details Japan’s current efforts to support students with disabilities in inclusive settings. The roles and responsibilities of special needs coordinators are contextualized within Japan’s historical trends, legal foundations, and sociopolitical structures. The chapter highlights ways in which Japan creates existing special schools as centralized supports for teachers, families, and students in regular education settings. Drawbacks to this model are noted, and recommendations for moving forward are presented. Our international journey concludes in Chapter 14 where Basister and Valenzuela share a model of collaboration to support inclusive practices in the Philippines. Basister and Valenzuela’s proposed model for collaboration highlights stakeholders’ experiences, accomplishments, issues, and challenges in providing inclusive education. In addition to the proposed model, the chapter

6

SARAH SEMON ET AL.

includes a critical look at the impact of existing policies, culture, and practices on the collaborations of professionals and other stakeholders of inclusive education.

EMBARKING ON A JOURNEY OF COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES AND INCLUSION AROUND THE GLOBE When you turn this page, you will embark on a 13 chapter excursion around the world. At the start of each chapter, you will be introduced to a new nation, a new context, a new culture, and a new view on instructional collaboration and inclusion. You will read about barriers and triumphs that stakeholders around the world experience and grapple with on a regular basis, in the name of inclusion for all. As you read each chapter and turn each page, we, the editors, encourage you to consider your own context and how these chapters and the lessons you learn can be applied to your unique setting. Most importantly, we ask that with each context, each barrier, and each success, you see an opportunity to do and be better because every student deserves our best.

REFERENCES Barrett, A. M. (2011). Education quality for social justice. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.08.007 Baynton, D. C. (2013). Disability and the justification of inequality in American history. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 12–33). Routledge. Castro-Villarreal, F., Villarreal, V., & Sullivan, J. (2016). Special education policy and response to intervention: Identifying promises and pitfalls to advance social justice for diverse students. Contemporary School Psychology, 20(1), 10. Florian, L. (2014). The SAGE handbook of special education (Vols. 1–2). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282236 John-Stewart, G., & Tavera-Salyutov, F. (2018). Remarks on disability rights legislation. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 37(5), 506–526. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib. usf.edu/10.1108/EDI-12-2016-0114 Jones, P., Carr, J. F., & Fauske, J. (Eds.). (2011). Leading for inclusion. Teachers College Press. Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. T. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing. Rioux, M. (2007). Disability rights in education. In L. Florian (Ed.), The sage handbook of special education. SAGE Publications. Rock, D. (2008). SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others. Neuroleadership Journal, 1, 44–52. UNESCO. (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. UNESCO.

CREATING INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS IN THE PACIFIC REGION: WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH TEACHERS IN THE REPUBLIC OF NAURU TO DEVELOP INCLUSIVE PRACTICES Angela Page, Joanna Anderson, Penelope Serow, Elvira Hubert and Anne O’Donnell-Ostini

ABSTRACT Inclusive education can be viewed as an ongoing active process or journey that is impacted by changes in policy, practices, and values (Anderson & Boyle, 2020). This “journey toward inclusion” is not always an easy undertaking, but rather a progression that requires modification to systems, structures, and functioning in schools. Nauru, a small Pacific republic situated in the Micronesian central Pacific Ocean, has worked in partnership with Australian education providers since 2011 to improve educational learning experiences for all Nauruan students. More recently, initiatives by the Nauru Government resulted in the commissioning of a national project to develop a Nauru policy on inclusive education and also to deliver professional development for teachers that would be needed to support inclusion. Inclusive education staff at the University of England, Australia, guided the development of the project which culminated in the Nauru Inclusive Education Policy and Guidelines (2017) (Page, 2018). From this policy, a series of workshops were delivered on unpacking the policy directions, guidelines, and roles and responsibilities for teaching staff in Nauru. This chapter describes the university staff who are

Instructional Collaboration in International Inclusive Education Contexts International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 17, 7–22 Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620210000017003

7

8

ANGELA PAGE ET AL.

working in collaboration with Nauruan teachers in order to develop their capacity to create inclusive classrooms. In doing so, we embraced approaches that incorporated culturally responsive practices into our work, using the framework of Ekereri (educational approaches that embody the core values of Nauruan culture) into our practices. With this chapter, we hope to further the understanding of how contextual factors influence the collaboration and implementation of educational partnerships between culturally distinctive groups of people. Keywords: Partnership; Nauru; cultural context; collaboration; professional development; inclusive education policy

INTRODUCTION Inclusive education in the greater Pacific region, and as it is globally, is grounded in the United Nations (UN) Convention (United Nations, 1989), the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006). Internationally, the UN has continued to press for all government bodies to ensure an inclusive education system for children at any level of their educational attainment. These efforts led to the Incheon Declaration which also includes a framework for the provision of an action plan for inclusive education (UNESCO, 2016). Nations in the Pacific have responded to these initiatives for inclusive education, especially for those students who have disabilities (Sharma et al., 2016; Tones et al., 2017). These wider Pacific goals include the UN Sustainable Goals 2030 (United Nations, 2015), which among them, addresses inclusive and equitable education. New educational processes, such as those initiated in the Pacific region in inclusive education, are impacted by ongoing changes in policy, practices, and values. This chapter focuses on the “journey toward inclusive education” in the small Pacific state of Nauru. With 11,347 residents, Nauru (Fig. 1) is the smallest state in the South Pacific and the third smallest state by area in the world, at 21 square kilometers. Nauru gained independence from Australian administration in 1968, although it remains reliant on Australian aid (Williams & Macdonald, 1985). Ongoing support remains and includes commitments such as the Aid Investment Plan (DFAT, 2015). Over the last 10 years, partnership priorities between Australia and Nauru have focused on improving the learning experiences for Nauruan students (Rose et al., 2018). One example of this ongoing support is a working partnership, which began in 2011, with the Australian education provider and the University of New England with the aim to improve the educational learning experiences for all Nauruan students. In 2015, initiatives by the Nauru Government resulted in the establishment of a national project to develop a Nauru policy in inclusive education and also to deliver professional development and training on inclusive education practices for teachers that would be needed to support inclusion. Inclusive education staff at the University of England, Australia, guided the structure and content of the

Creating Inclusive Classrooms in the Pacific Region

Fig. 1.

9

Map of Nauru (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: Nauru_map.jpg).

project which culminated in the Nauru Inclusive Education Policy and Guidelines in 2017 (Page, 2018). As a result of this initiative, the policy was ratified by the Nauru Government on November 27, 2018, and from this document, a series of workshops were subsequently delivered on unpacking the directions, guidelines, roles, and responsibilities of the policy, and developing the skills and

10

ANGELA PAGE ET AL.

practices that would be necessary to address the needs of students with disabilities in the classroom. This chapter describes university staff working in collaboration with Nauruan teachers in order to develop their capacity to create inclusive classrooms. In order to successfully work alongside Nauruan teachers, we embraced approaches that incorporated culturally responsive practices into our work, using the concept of Ekereri (educational approaches that embody the core values of Nauruan culture) into our workshop approach and practices. Through these experiences, we hope to demonstrate the importance of developing meaningful collaborative practices that should be incorporated into professional development approaches in order to facilitate sustainable shifts toward inclusion.

THE CONTEXT OF COLLABORATION A description of the geopolitical context is needed first and foremost to describe why it is significant to work alongside and in collaboration with partners. As a comparatively “progressive nation” in the inclusive education field of research and practice, Australia has much to offer to other countries who are at the beginning of their inclusive education journey (Lim & Thaver, 2014). However, within this geopolitical and historical context, Australian educators are in danger of wheeling out professional development that is written to serve inclusion practices from a Western discourse of education (Armstrong et al., 2016). Such perspectives reflect the research, knowledge base, and understanding (Thaman, 2003) of inclusive education from the Australian or Western experience. For example, many of the common terms and definitions of inclusive education are based around Western concepts of “global inclusionism” (Le Fanu, 2014, p. 40). Common-use language includes integration, normalization, special education, and the term itself – inclusion (Armstrong et al., 2016; Cole, 2005; Florian & Linklater, 2010). Additionally, inclusive education concepts are often described as top-down impositions that hold little relevance for the communities and schools in the Pacific country it is implemented (Panapa, 2014). Sharma et al. (2015) state that despite demonstrated commitment by the government in the Pacific, very little progress has occurred in practices in the region as a result of the externally imposed policies. The warning is clear – these top-down changes are likely to fail where initiatives meet resistance from teachers and others involved in education (McDonald & Tufue-Dolgoy, 2013). For these reasons, “perspective of local stakeholders should inform the research policy and practice directions across the Pacific” (Sharma et al., 2015, p. 339). It is generally recognized that inclusive education reform is largely driven by international policies (Le Fanu, 2013; McDonald & Tufue-Dolgoy, 2013). Further, it is important to note there is growing recognition in the educational community that the fundamental principles of inclusive education (responding to issues of disability) need to be consistent with local cultural values and attitudes (communal beliefs) in the Pacific (Miles et al., 2014; Page et al., 2018, 2020).

Creating Inclusive Classrooms in the Pacific Region

11

Indeed, Rabukawaqa (2009) argues that inclusion has been part of the Pacific culture for a very long time; however, the concept needs to be revisited, revised, and reinterpreted within the Pacific context. For example, how each country perceives disabilities has an impact on the attitudes of the community and is distinctive in different cultures (Sharma et al., 2016). Given that there are varied cultural definitions of disability, or concepts of people with disabilities being different or in need of remedial care (McDonald, 2001), it is not surprising that teachers might struggle with what is communicated in largely postindustrial Western language. A way forward, therefore, is to propose a method of collaboration that places indigenous knowledge at the center of educational strategy and layers international best practice in inclusive education over it, bringing together two parts to make a stronger whole. Fa’avae (2018) states the benefit of this approach enables both parties to learn from, work together, and discover ways “to support and strengthen Oceanic people and their educational needs” (p. 81). A collaborative approach that places indigenous knowledge at the center of professional development can be used to illustrate how the existing and seemingly disjointed divisions of knowledge may be brought together. To further articulate this concept, “learning from” and “working together” can apply to sources of knowledge. Rather than taking models that work well in other settings and mapping them onto another context, Pacific nations can appropriate evidence-based practices to inform classroom management approaches in different ways. Subsequently, “to support and strengthen Oceanic people” may be achieved using “outsider” contributions of knowledge where it is deemed appropriate and useful. Any professional development will benefit from “outsiders” who have articulated pedagogical solidarity for the planned changes. Solidarity is defined as a pedagogical education strategy where the outsider’s role is to bring support that is shared and mutually productive. The outsider has a mutual interest in the progress of change (Gaztambide-Fern´andez, 2012) which is to “articulate a set of parameters for solidarity relations through which to imaginatively construct new ways of entering into relations with others” (p. 1). Additionally, “supporting and strengthening Oceanic people” can be enhanced by using methods to engage teachers in their professional development that are valued within each context. We contend that the relevant work of Gaiyabu (2007) needs to be highlighted.

THE INCLUSION OF NAURUAN CONCEPTS Gaiyabu (2007) describes the Nauruan educational concept of Ekereri which is: …broader than that of school effectiveness used in Western educational literatures and discourses. Ekereri is a curious paradoxical term in Nauruan, encompassing education, school, teaching and learning embedded within oral cultures and traditional values in both formal and informal settings. (p. vii)

12

ANGELA PAGE ET AL.

The significance of Ekereri is that it challenges the traditional discourse of education for local Nauruans. Ekereri is learning that deals with the culture and customs of Nauru that are expressed in everyday practices and the environment where the sea, the land, the sky, and the relationship with the spirit are recognized. Ekereri does not just happen at school; it is embedded in the community and home, and in teaching and learning but not belonging to just teaching and learning. The importance of Ekereri is the Nauruan expression of understanding of values and practices through the development of wisdom, culture, customs, knowledge, experiences, and the recognition of the relationship with the Nauruan environment (Gaiyabu, 2007). Disregarding the importance of Ekereri will lead to inevitable incongruence as Nauruan attempt to navigate the Western and Nauruan worlds. The value of embedding Ekereri when working in the Nauruan context is that it provides a relevant discourse between that offered by Western research and the Nauruan experience. As a result, what is seen and not seen through the “valuing of indigenous knowledge and wisdom” (Thaman, 2003, p. 7), is further acknowledged. By bringing Ekereri to the fore, the local people become active participants in the development of inclusive education rather than passive recipients.

THE NAURU INCLUSIVE EDUCATION CONTEXT In 2011, the national census determined that Nauru had a school population of 2,526 students where 42 students were identified to have a disability (Republic of Nauru Government Bureau of Statistics, 2015). Additionally, the census showed a high percentage, between 15 and 27% of school-aged children who had a disability but had never attended school. Difficulty with mobility, movement, and sight are the most common types of disabilities (Republic of Nauru Government Bureau of Statistics, 2015). It was reported that “anecdotal evidence suggests that parents of students with a disability are reluctant to enroll students” (DFAT, 2012, p. 21). This reluctance by families and the community to encourage the participation of students with disabilities in schooling is not uncommon in Pacific nations (Page et al., 2018; Sharma et al., 2016). Inclusive education initiatives for Nauru were first articulated as a result of the Pacific Education Development Framework (PIFS). The framework outlined a vision for quality education in all Pacific countries (PIFS, 2009). The framework also specifically addressed the needs of students with special educational needs, with a vision of “an inclusive, barrier-free, and rights-based society for people with disabilities, which embraces the diversity of all Pacific people” (PIFS, 2009, p. 9). Nauru’s commitment to inclusive education was subsequently mandated in the Education Act (Republic of Nauru Government, 2011), which outlined the principles and provisions of inclusive education for children with special education needs, namely those regarded as “disabled.” This conceptualization of inclusion is specific to the Nauru context in that, for example, students with other special educational needs are not prioritized. The principles of inclusive education stipulated that school-age children who have a disability must, where practicable,

Creating Inclusive Classrooms in the Pacific Region

13

be enrolled in and attend a school, and be permitted to participate in all activities offered by that school. Furthermore, a special education center was to be available for students who “cannot attend a school” (Republic of Nauru Government, 2011, Section 95.3). The operationalization of this part of the Act is the Able-Disable Center that had a recorded enrollment of 35 preschool and schoolaged students between 2011 and 2014. It was noted, however, that the accuracy of the attendance statistics was difficult to establish because of the variability in children going to school on any given day (Republic of Nauru Government Bureau of Statistics, 2015). The emphasis on disability in the Act reflects the current “journey” of inclusive education in Nauru. The locating of legislation in disability is reflected in other Nauru documents such as the Education Strategic Plan (2008–2013) which seeks to improve special education qualifications for teachers in the Able/Disable Center and to address the low enrollment figures of students with disabilities in schools (DFAT, 2015).

MEETING IN PARTNERSHIP According to Williams and Staulters (2014), the current educational climate is full of reforms that have resulted in the delivery of a variety of programs designed to address identified systemic gaps. The authors argue that in order to be successful the programs require implementation with fidelity and integrity that uses the guiding principles of problem-solving teamwork and collaboration in partnerships. Rosenfield (2008) describes a form of instruction collaboration that involves three central elements: (a) the communication and relationship skills that are necessary for developing and sustaining trusting relationships; (b) the problem-solving stages that are necessary to defining the problem, generating hypotheses, identifying and implementing interventions, and documenting the effectiveness of interventions; and (c) the use of evidence-based assessment and intervention strategies for delivering effective instruction. Several criteria were identified to ensure a successful partnership including the relationship between members that needs to be meaningful, the aims of the partnership need to be specified, and all parties should be committed to cooperation, the capacities of the collaborators should be complementary, and all collaboration should have reasonable expectations of the problem-solving process and ultimately on the outcomes (Goddard et al., 2006). Our approach to inclusive education professional development brought together this process of collaboration within the Nauruan cultural context and the University of New England’s philosophical positioning to work in collaboration with teachers in solidarity. From this perspective, a series of professional development opportunities were then planned for teachers in Nauru in inclusive education that builds upon the Nauru Inclusive Education Policy (2017).

14

ANGELA PAGE ET AL.

THE NAURU INCLUSIVE EDUCATION POLICY AND GUIDELINES Under the provision of the Nauru Education Act 2011, school is mandatory for all school-aged children between 5 and 18 years. The Nauru Inclusive Education Policy and Guidelines (2018) is a document that provides an action plan from the rules of conduct prescribed by the Education Act. The policy outlines the key principles of inclusive education in Nauru, outlining that:

• The Nauru school system is the foundation for inclusive education. • The belief that ALL students have a right to an education in the • • • •

regular classroom. Inclusive education at all levels benefits students with special educational needs as well as their peers. Each student is unique and needs an individualized approach to meet their intellectual, spiritual, physical, social, emotional, cultural, and career goals. Differences are valued as a resource to support learning rather than problems to overcome. Parents are valuable contributing partners in the education system, and their involvement enhances the school’s contribution. The participation of each student in all aspects of school life is vital for a rich educational experience. All students feel that they belong, and their views and values are respected. (p. 12)

The policy was intended to support schools in developing a culture of inclusivity and build a system where everyone is valued and feels a sense of belonging. There is a proportion of children who may not be meeting their potential within the education system. In order to achieve their potential, children require an equitable education system. The policy’s terms and references were inclusive of equity that applied to all levels of education across all settings, whether be in the mainstream setting or the Able/Disable Center. Holistically, the policy aimed to encourage the continual improvement of practices of inclusive education.

BUILDING CAPACITY IN INCLUSIVE EDUCATION The Nauruan Inclusive Education Policy and Guidelines 2017 defined the directions, roles, and responsibilities for teaching staff in Nauru. While this was published and disseminated to schools, it was deemed necessary to provide a series of workshops to teachers in Nauru, to precipitate the enactment of the policy within their classrooms. This decision was made for three reasons. Firstly, teachers needed to know and experience curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment for inclusive education. Secondly, a process to promote sustainable inclusive practice through a mechanism of support for teachers needed to be established.

Creating Inclusive Classrooms in the Pacific Region

15

Finally, there was a requirement for a structure to be put into place to identify, diagnose (if appropriate), and support access for students and their families to the schooling system. Rather than delivering predetermined content, processes, and systems to a passive audience of teachers, we developed and implemented the Framework for Inclusive Action, a structure to situate the practice of inclusive education within the Nauruan context. We, as academics from the University of New England, worked with the Nauruan Department of Education to collaboratively design the framework. It should be noted that one academic was the author of the Nauruan Inclusive Education Policy and Guidelines 2017 and, therefore, had a comprehensive understanding of the Nauruan context, as well as an established working relationship with the Department of Education. There was a shared understanding that the framework had to empower Nauruan educators with the knowledge, skill set, and motivation to drive the agenda for sustainable change within their education system, rather than attempt to “reproduce” inclusive education from a Western paradigm. Fig. 2 provides a visual representation of the Framework for Inclusive Action that was developed to guide the process of enacting inclusive principles and practices within Nauruan schools. Two elements were central to the framework; Ekereri as the principle that guided all education in Nauru, and the students, all of whom had a right to access an appropriate education. In between these elements sat a hierarchy of factors, each operating under Ekereri for the benefit of all students, and while hierarchical in nature, it was recognized that a relationship of influence existed between, and within, each of the factors. The University of New England positioned itself “alongside” rather than within the framework, affirming the significance of the partnership, while acknowledging the necessity that the process be both held and

Fig. 2.

Framework for Inclusive Action in Nauru.

16

ANGELA PAGE ET AL.

sustained by educators in Nauru. Fundamental to this was the establishment of a group of teachers who would operate as leading practitioners of inclusive education. A further move to maximize the success of the project, an inclusive education advisor from the University of New England was employed to work in Nauru to provide guidance and advice for schools, teachers, parents, and other stakeholders in the inclusive education field. The advisor has been assisting in the implementation of the project goals alongside a local counterpart, who will access the professional development necessary to support inclusive practices at a micro and systemic level. This design intends to ensure that the project is more likely to be sustainable and assist in the journey toward a fully Nauruan inclusive education. Inclusive Education Teachers The employment of teachers as leaders of inclusive practices is documented in the literature as an effective strategy to drive sustainable change (Lyons et al., 2016). This approach negates inclusive education being positioned as a “top-down” reform that is reliant upon external intervention and instead situates it as part of the everyday practice of classroom teachers. The first series of five workshops was delivered to a group of Nauruan’s teachers identified by the Department of Education as leading practitioners within their schools who would become the nation’s inclusive education teachers. It is important to note here that the notion of leadership is one that does not sit comfortably with many Nauruan people. We worked with the Department of Education to ensure the expectations placed on the inclusive education teachers were culturally appropriate, and that the workshops provided opportunities to both learn about and practice working as a “leader” in Nauru’s schools. This was considered particularly important in order to ensure the sustainability and relevance of any professional development that was provided. Series 1 Workshops The outline for these workshops was deliberately unconstrained to facilitate and embrace teacher “voice” that would advise the direction of both the content delivered and the outcomes produced. While the Framework for Inclusive Action guided the structure of the workshops, it was only after the completion of one workshop that planning would be finalized for the next workshop. This way of working afforded us the flexibility to respond to the teachers in a culturally responsive way, both in relation to the content being presented and the pedagogies employed. Concurrently to the running of these workshops, visits were made to the schools of the prospective inclusive education teachers. This provided an opportunity for teachers to share their classroom practices and provided a context for the workshops. Rather than talking metaphorically, we could situate activities and discussions within the context of the teacher’s classrooms and

Creating Inclusive Classrooms in the Pacific Region

Fig. 3.

17

Series 1 Workshops.

schools. As represented in Fig. 3, four main topics were covered across the five sessions. (1) Questions were posed, and activities laid out, which encouraged the teachers to engage with current understandings of inclusive education, through the lens of Ekereri. This was an opportunity for us to learn and develop also, alongside the teachers. While the teachers were developing their knowledge of inclusive education, we were gaining a better understanding of Ekereri, and inclusive education in Nauru. (2) Nauruan curriculum documents and various pedagogies were explored within an inclusive education paradigm, through discussion, role play activities, and the participation in modeled lessons. From here, teachers worked in collaborative groups to plan a lesson for their students that incorporated the elements that were explored by the group previously. The collaboration brought a collective perspective to their planning, and they experienced a different way of doing things. (3) Facilitated discussion led to a coconstructed flowchart of support, now known within the Nauruan Department of Education as the Inclusive Education Support Process. The flowchart outlined the process of support, from the first point at which a classroom teacher noted a potential issue for a student, through to the provision of an Individual Education Plan and intensive intervention for students with more complex needs. This flowchart situated the teachers we worked with as inclusive education teachers and leaders of inclusive education within their schools. Along with this, the responsibility of the inclusive education advisor was described within the hierarchy of the flowchart (a job that at the time was filled by a teacher from Australia), and the role of the Department of Education in facilitating inclusion was outlined. (4) The newly decreed inclusive education teachers conversed about their roles and how they might use the knowledge of inclusive education and skills in collaboration they had developed over the course of the workshops in order to support the teachers in their schools. Input was sought from this group about what they considered the important messages that we needed to deliver to all classroom teachers in a subsequent series of workshops. This insight was used to plan sessions for all classroom teachers.

18

ANGELA PAGE ET AL.

Input on the second series of workshops was also obtained from a second round of visits to the classrooms of the inclusive education teachers. We were invited by a number of these teachers to observe (and in some cases participate in) the inclusive lesson they planned during the workshops. This experience provided photographs and examples of practice that we were able to use in the second series of workshops. Classroom Teachers These workshops were run over two sessions and delivered to all classroom teachers. Two workshops were offered to allow smaller groups and facilitate greater active participation. Each school was invited to participate as a cohort in order to encourage discussion and reflection that met the needs of specific school contexts. Series 2 Workshops These workshops incorporated content that was determined in a previous workshop as key for this group of participants, and the visits to the schools (anecdotes, examples, and photographs). The workshop material delivered through the context of the Nauruan schooling system using pedagogies tried and tested in the first series of workshops. Three main topics were covered across the two sessions represented in Fig. 4. Content explored within these topics was similar to that described for the first series of workshops. Differences arose in the depth to which topics were explored and with the level of input asked of the participating teachers. These workshops were designed to have teachers participate in and experience the content, rather than create it, and to leave the workshops with something to try out in their classrooms. It was then the work of the inclusive education teachers and advisors to support the inclusive practice in the classrooms of this group of teachers.

EVALUATION The Context of Collaboration – Solidarity and Working Alongside Collaboration is a term that is not achieved without planning and cooperation. In order to achieve collaboration, we worked together with the Department of

Fig. 4.

Series 2 Workshops.

Creating Inclusive Classrooms in the Pacific Region

19

Education since 2011, building trust alongside the development of shared goals for Nauruan education. From this position, respectful engagement was more likely to occur, where all parties are participating with each other. Supporting teachers to become inclusive practitioners, especially where there is a specific context and cultural distinctions, must take into consideration their uncertainty in providing inclusive teaching (Sharma et al., 2013). For this reason, it was deemed appropriate to bring together a group of teachers who were identified by the Department of Education to be strong advocates for inclusive education. This group of teachers then, as a team, developed the inclusive education management system that would be used in Nauruan schools. This system was then approved by the Department of Education. In doing so, inclusive education change was more likely to be implemented by the workshop participants. The participants in the workshops were provided with additional inclusive teaching training, so that they could then become lead teachers in their school. This additional training involved the lead teachers developing inclusion goals that were then implemented and practiced in their classrooms. The workshop providers worked alongside the lead teachers to establish the process of a continuous feedback loop. The feedback loop is based on positive and supportive suggestions to promote critical reflection rather than “expert advice.” The Department of Education’s inclusive education advisor was part of the feedback loop and was able to continue the feedback process, which allowed ongoing support. The Inclusion of Nauruan Concepts It is widely recognized that successful implementation of educational reforms requires that attention is paid to the context (Sharma et al., 2016). Inclusive education itself is a contested construct (Boyle & Anderson, 2020), which adds to the complexity of reform in Nauru. While there is much evidence to suggest that educating students within inclusive systems benefits students and the communities in which they live (Graham, 2020), there is little research specific to the Pacific nations, and as a result, context may not be fully considered and dismissed. Yet, given the influence of the body of knowledge on inclusive education policy, we were reluctant to reject it. Instead, our collaborative processes built on existing knowledge and added to it. Taking into account international knowledge, we can provide a structure of inclusion. By looking at education for all students through the lens of Ekereri, inclusive education approaches were then locally “revisited and reclaimed” (Miles et al., 2014, p. 343). In doing so, it is recognized that inclusion is an indigenous concept that is neither new nor unwelcome. The values and beliefs underpinning social and cultural life in Nauru may be appreciated within the policy and practices of inclusive education. Meeting in Partnership Between 2016 and 2018, university inclusive education staff engaged with the Department of Education to provide inclusive education support in Nauru through advisory work. This initial relationship facilitated effective collaboration

20

ANGELA PAGE ET AL.

on the inclusive education program. The planning and preparation of the workshops were developed within a partnership between the university and department staff in a partnership that is a recognized component of any successful change (Williams & Staulters, 2014). The series of workshops were codesigned with the aims of Nauruan education in mind. Additionally, senior staff at the department participated in the workshops, showing a very public commitment to the initiative. University staff and Department of Education staff copresented the workshop content. All of these aspects support an effective meeting in partnership that ultimately enables successful inclusive education change (Goddard et al., 2006).

CONCLUSION This chapter describes how university staff worked alongside Nauruan educators in order to develop their capability to become inclusive teachers. In order to achieve this aim, we embraced approaches that amalgamated culturally responsive practices into our workshop delivery, using the lens of Ekereri (educational approaches that embody the core values of Nauruan culture). With this chapter, we have demonstrated how understandings of context, collaboration, and educational partnerships between culturally distinctive groups of people can successfully effect educational change. The workshops that unpacked the Nauru Inclusive Education Policy and Guidelines resulted in teachers being willing to embrace the new inclusive teaching principles and demonstrating these concepts in classrooms. What we observed was extremely encouraging for the development of inclusive education in Nauru. Not only did the teachers benefit from the inclusive teaching professional development, but we also found that student learning was enhanced from the inclusive practices. We observed students who were highly engaged in their lessons and effectively and efficiently on task in many classrooms. Continued collaboration, continued implementation of the program, coaching local counterparts through the process, and building on existing positive partnerships have provided a healthy starting point for Nauru’s inclusive education journey. Sound inclusive education practice is good education for all, and once established, is then the best way to educate students with special educational needs (Ainscow, 2013). This aim can be accomplished through an inclusive education grounded in authentic practices that are both sensitive and feasible to the local context and education policymakers. Thus, the “journey for inclusive education” in Nauru will be a long-term process of continual development, but initial evaluations are very promising.

REFERENCES Ainscow, M. (2013). From special education to effective schools for all: Widening the agenda. In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education (pp. 171–186). Sage.

Creating Inclusive Classrooms in the Pacific Region

21

Armstrong, F., Armstrong, D., & Barton, L. (2016). Inclusive education: Policy, contexts and comparative perspectives. Routledge. Boyle, C., & Anderson, J. (2020). The justification for inclusive education in Australia. Prospects, 49(3), 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09494-x Cole, B. (2005). Mission impossible? Special educational needs, inclusion and the re‐conceptualization of the role of the SENCO in England and Wales. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20(3), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250500156020 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [DFAT]. (2015). Aid investment plan: Nauru 2015–2016 to 2018–2019. https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/aid-investment-plan-nauru2015-16-to-2018-19 Fa’avae, D. T. M. (2018). Complex times and needs for locals: Strengthening (local) education systems through education research and development in Oceania. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 17(3), 80–92. Florian, L., & Linklater, H. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Using inclusive pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(4), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2010.526588 Gaiyabu, M. (2007). Ekereri in the lives of teachers, parents and pupils: A path to school effectiveness and improvement in Nauru. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Cambridge. Gaztambide-Ferna´ ndez, R. A. (2012). Decolonization and the pedagogy of solidarity. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 41–67. Goddard, J., Cranston, N., & Billot, J. (2006). Making it work: Identifying the challenges of collaborative international research. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 10(11). http://iejll.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/iejll/index.php/ijll/article/view/611 Graham, L. (2020). Inclusive education in the 21st century. In L. Graham (Ed.), Inclusive education for the 21st century: Theory, policy and practice (pp. 3–26). Allen & Unwin. Le Fanu, G. (2013). The inclusion of inclusive education in international development: Lessons from Papua New Guinea. International Journal of Educational Development, 33(2), 139–148. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.03.006 Le Fanu, G. (2014). International development, disability, and education: Towards a capabilitiesfocused discourse and praxis. International Journal of Educational Development, 38, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.04.001 Lim, L., & Thaver, T. (2014). Inclusive education in the Asia-Pacific region. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(10), 975–978. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.696773 Lyons, W. E., Thompson, S. A., & Timmons, V. (2016). ‘We are inclusive. We are a team. Let’s just do it’: Commitment, collective efficacy, and agency in four inclusive schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(8), 889–907. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1122841 McDonald, B. L. (2001). Transfer of training in a cultural context: A Cook Islands study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Victoria University of Wellington. McDonald, B. L., & Tufue-Dolgoy, R. (2013). Moving forwards, sideways or backwards? Inclusive education in Samoa. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 60(3), 270–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2013.812187 Miles, S., Lene, D., & Merumeru, L. (2014). Making sense of inclusive education in the Pacific region: Networking as a way forward. Childhood, 12(3), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/090756821 4524458 Page, A. (2018). Nauru inclusive education policy and guidelines 2017. Department of Education, Nauru Government. Page, A., Boyle, C., McKay, K., & Mavropoulou, S. (2018). Teacher perceptions of inclusive education in the Cook Islands. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1359866x.2018.1437119 Page, A., Mavropoulou, S., & Harrington, I. (2020). Culturally responsive inclusive education: The value of the local context. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 67(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1757627 Panapa, T. (2014). Ola Lei: Developing healthy communities in Tuvalu. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Auckland.

22

ANGELA PAGE ET AL.

PIFS. (2009). The Pacific education development framework. http://www.forumsec.org/resources/ uploads/attachments/documents/Pacific%20Education%20Development%20Framework%202009 -2015.pdf Rabukawaqa, E. (2009). Opening address. In P. Puamau & F. Pene (Eds.), Inclusive education in the Pacific (The PRIDE project; Pacific education series no. 6) (pp. 1–8). University of the South Pacific. Republic of Nauru Government. (2011). Education Act. http://ronlaw.gov.nr/nauru_lpms/files/acts/ 1df28ffed5d39d32bf989111669ec266.pdf Republic of Nauru Government Bureau of Statistics. (2015). Disability monograph: Analysis of the 2011 population and housing census. United Nations Population Fund. Rose, H., Parkula, B., & Barkat, S. (2018). Nauru improved education investment end-of-term review: Prepared for the Australian high commission Nauru. Australian High Commission. https:// www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/nauru-improved-education-partnership-investment-review.pdf Rosenfield, S. (2008). Best practice in instructional consultation and instructional consultation teams. Best Practices in School Psychology, 5, 1645–1660. Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Deppeler, J., & Yang, G. (2013). Reforming teacher education for inclusion in developing countries in the Asia Pacific region. Asian Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(1), 3–16. Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Sprunt, B., & Merumeru, L. (2016). Identifying disability-inclusive indicators currently employed to monitor and evaluate education in the Pacific Island countries. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1170754 Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Macanawai, S. (2015). Factors contributing to the implementation of inclusive education in Pacific Island countries. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1081636 Thaman, K. H. (2003). Decolonizing Pacific studies: Indigenous perspectives, knowledge, and wisdom in higher education. The Contemporary Pacific, 15(1), 1–17. https://doi.org.10.1353/cp.2003. 0032 Tones, M., Pillay, H., Carrington, S., Chandra, S., Duke, J., & Joseph, R. M. (2017). Supporting disability education through a combination of special schools and disability-inclusive schools in the Pacific Islands. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 64(5), 497–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2017.1291919 UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. In Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education; Access and Quality. https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000110753_spa?posInSet51&queryId5N-EXPLORE-99f3a8b4 -d3f0-47d6-9a2a-7b925460679f UNESCO. (2016). The Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation of sustainable development goal 4. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656 United Nations. (1989). United nations convention of the rights of the child. https://www.un.org/ development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/conventionon-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml United Nations. (2015). Resolution adopted by the general assembly on 25 September 2015, transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://undocs.org/A/RES/ 71/313. Williams, M., & Macdonald, B. (1985). The phosphate’s: A history of the British phosphate commission and the Christmas Island phosphate commission. Melbourne University Press. Williams, S. A., & Staulters, M. L. (2014). Instructional collaboration with rural educators in Jamaica: Lessons learned from an international interdisciplinary consultation project. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 24(4), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412. 2014.929968

USING COLLABORATIVE INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES TO PREPARE COMPETENT INCLUSIVE EDUCATION STUDENT TEACHERS Joseph Seyram Agbenyega and Deborah Tamakloe

ABSTRACT The remarkable achievements being promoted through inclusive education practices make the deficiencies associated with educational exclusion all the more noticeable. Despite many schools adopting the philosophy of inclusion, avoidable educational exclusion of students with special needs still persists in educational systems worldwide. This is because the preparation of competent teachers to respond to variations in student populations in schools is very difficult to achieve. A major reason for this difficulty is that most student education programs fail to nurture collaborative instructional practice culture in student teachers, which can enable them to work well with others to teach all students. Utilizing the status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness (SCARF) model developed by David Rock, this chapter contributes to existing knowledge on student teacher development by theorizing and offering practical ways to enact collaborative instructional practices in inclusive education. The chapter addresses this issue by reporting student teachers’ experiences in a course unit on inclusive education in one Australian university that adopted a collaborative instructional practice, deepening their understanding and practice of inclusion. Keywords: Australia; collaborative instructional practice; SCARF model; inclusive education; student teachers; teacher educators

Instructional Collaboration in International Inclusive Education Contexts International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 17, 23–39 Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620210000017004

23

24

JOSEPH SEYRAM AGBENYEGA AND DEBORAH TAMAKLOE

INTRODUCTION Inclusive education enables access and full participation in learning with the provision of ongoing support tailored to individual needs. The widespread adoption and implementation of inclusive education by many countries has revealed the problems of this political, educational, philosophical, and human rights discourse. Of the many inclusive education challenges discussed, the majority pointed to policy-practice dissonance, inadequate resources, poor teacher quality, and inability or unwillingness of teachers to collaborate and lead others to teach all children (Agbenyega & Klibthong, 2020; Allan, 2008). Studies have shown that the key to effective implementation and delivery of inclusive education is based on teacher effectiveness of which collaborative instructional practice forms a part (Khazanchi & Khazanchi, 2020; Naraian & Schlessinger, 2018; Somerton et al., 2020). The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to existing knowledge on student teacher development by theorizing and offering insights into ways to enact collaborative instructional practices that can lead to effective learning where inclusivity is the desirable goal. To explore this complex pedagogical space, this chapter draws on the status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness (SCARF) model developed by David Rock (Rock, 2008) to explore how to better support preservice teachers to adopt a brain-based approach and enact collaborative practices to improve professional capabilities needed for inclusive education. Applying the model to deepen our understanding of collaborative learning highlights the critical relational areas that need to be worked on to enhance student teachers’ collaborative instruction competency. These analyses are significant for inclusive teaching and collaborative practice in schools to address structural and systemic barriers that hinder the teachers’ ability to collaborate with and lead others to eliminate all forms of exclusionary practices. Collaborative instructional practice is an important component of inclusive education (Slater & Gazeley, 2019). Collaborative instruction, sometimes referred to as cooperative teaching or team teaching, involves educators with varying skills and competencies coming together for a common purpose to teach students ¨ (Jurkowski & Muller, 2018; Naraian & Schlessinger, 2018). The purpose of collaborative instruction is to engage in shared thinking and meaning-making which leads to responsive education, and richer and more complex learning. It is by placing collaborative instruction at the center of inclusive education that we bring different expertise to support all students. Indeed, the value of inclusive education is evident in ways it “wages war” against exclusion and eradicates “educational harm” through inclusive teaching (Robinson, 2018). In inclusive schools, teachers utilize collaborative teaching practices and restructure the ways they work together in teaching and learning relationships. Teachers are often challenged by learning with, from, and through others due to different values, personalities, and expectations (Stoll, 2010). According to Vygotsky (1997), “through others we become ourselves” (p. 105). In this sense, inclusive education teachers and teacher educators are beginning to understand that on entering a collaborative instructional practice space, a teacher not only gets something from others, assimilating it, but that the space of

Using Collaborative Instructional Approaches

25

interaction itself reworks all the collaborators’ thinking process and teaching behavior to carve anew their whole course of teacher professional development. Many teachers are increasingly finding it challenging to keep pace with rapid instructional transformation imposed by inclusive education policy and practice requirements, as well as understand collaborative instruction and respond to student diversity in the ways inclusivity is infused into students’ learning and achievement. Inclusive education policy regarding student teacher development connects to collaborative practice to help nurture core professional capabilities that enable graduating teachers to perform at high proficiency levels (Le et al., 2018; Naraian & Schlessinger, 2018). Thus, it can be argued that what teachers are capable of doing independently provides understanding into their previous capabilities; on the other hand, what they are capable of doing collaboratively can demonstrate their future professional proficiencies as inclusive teachers. In addition, those preparing preservice teachers are expected to be cognizant of the harm poorly prepared teachers can cause to children at risk in inclusive schools (Naraian & Schlessinger, 2018). In the absence of collaborative professional capability, education professionals may be disconnected from one another and implement disjointed educational programs, exposing students, particularly those at risk to further exclusion. In order to provide a deeper understanding of collaborative instructional practice, this chapter utilizes the SCARF model as the theoretical framing.

THE SCARF MODEL AND COLLABORATION This chapter uses Rock’s (2008) SCARF brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others as the underpinning model for deepening our understanding of collaborative instructional practice in inclusive education. David Rock’s SCARF model is an acronym for status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness that describes five domains of human social relation and experience (Rock, 2008). According to Gutierrez-Shackelford (2016), …the model was developed from four years of research with 30 neuroscientists … with the purpose to improve leaders’ effectiveness and efficiency in organizations and help them to succeed through understanding how the brain works. (p. 118)

When applied to collaborative instructional practice in inclusive education, the model’s five principles are intended to focus our attention on the interconnectedness of professional practice and human behavior. In a critical sense, the SCARF model is based on neuroscience research that foregrounds the ways humans socialize and connect to one another and to themselves (Lieberman, 2007). According to brain researchers, our brain treats our social needs the same way as our survival needs, for example, shelter, food, and water (Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2004; Gordon, 2000). Status Rock (2008) explains status as the relative importance of a person to others. This explanation bears resemblance to Bourdieu’s idea of symbolic capital which he

26

JOSEPH SEYRAM AGBENYEGA AND DEBORAH TAMAKLOE

explained as “honor” or “prestige,” “the form that the various species of capital assume when they are perceived and recognized as legitimate” (1989, p. 17). Thus, status is a symbolic identifier of a person within a group. By implication, status defines one’s place in any group, for example, culture, school, clubs, political party, and so on. Indeed, status plays a predominant role when we relate and engage in conversations or any form of social activity with others. Sapolski’s (2002) research suggested that status is equated to survival and an individual’s overall well-being. The nature of an individual’s status within a social group affects how the mind processes information and acts in social situations (Zink et al., 2008). In Bordieuan perspective, status can be understood as “the distributions, one of the most unequal, and the most cruel, is the distribution of symbolic capital, that is social importance, and reasons to exist” (Bourdieu, 1997, p. 284). This provides a deeper understanding of an individual’s symbolic strength in relation to others which constitute the assemblage of the social space needed for any collaborative instructional practice to be effective. According to Chaio, Bordeaux, and Ambady (2003), the ways our brain ponders on status is similar to how it processes numbers. In Rock’s (2008) view, a person feels better than another, when their sense of status increases, but when status is threatened, it can generate ambivalent reactions in the individual. In this sense, exclusion or belittling a person within a collaborative space can lead to a reduction in status activated by the brain as physical pain (Eisenberger et al., 2003). Certainty Rock (2008) explained certainty as the ability to predict the future. He stated, “the brain is a pattern-recognition machine that is constantly trying to predict the near future” (2008, p. 44). With the introduction of inclusive education across the globe coupled with political, socioeconomic, and environmental factors, school systems and practices are rapidly and constantly changing. This leaves teachers and teacher educators with great uncertainty. It is argued that certainty provides stability to individuals and groups to survive transformations because their dopamine levels increase and help them to cope with change (Rock, 2008; Schultz, 1999). Conversely, uncertainty reduces collaboration and engagement, and results in low-quality work (Hawkins & Blakeslee, 2004). Similarly, Hedden and Garbrielli (2006) found that uncertainty shifts attention away from one’s goals, compelling them to focus on mistakes and their limitations. In a collaborative instructional space, dissonance in goals and practices including acting suspiciously or inappropriately by members of the group can trigger uncertainty and lead to avoidance and substandard practices. Autonomy In Rock’s (2008) view, autonomy provides a sense of control over events. Autonomy is the perception of exerting control over one’s environment: a sensation of having choices. According to Hackman and Oldham (1976), autonomy means “substantial freedom, independence and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in

Using Collaborative Instructional Approaches

27

carrying it out” (p. 258). Bourdieu (1989) claimed that the degree of symbolic autonomy an individual can exert in a relational situation often determines whether or not they function well. Accordingly, the need for autonomy underscores individuals’ inherent pursuit of freedom to make choices and perform an activity whether in a group situation or individually (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Collaborative practices are full of stress because individual teachers and/or teacher educators bring their own individual capabilities and differences into a group situation. Researchers identified that in group situations where individual or group stress is not managed well, the collaborative space can be highly destructive; it is only when individuals within the group develop a sense of control to manage their own stress that the collaborative practice is enhanced (Van den Broeck et al., 2010). Other studies noted that even in group collaborative situations, a person’s feeling of an increased autonomy enhances their engagement with others. Conversely, a person’s feeling of less autonomy, when, for example, being micromanaged in a group situation, can trigger a strong threat reaction (Rock, 2008). In collaborative practice, a feeling of lack of agency to influence a decision or contribute to an outcome can lead to apathy and disengagement (Van den Broeck et al., 2010). Relatedness In Rock’s (2008) view, relatedness connotes a “sense of safety with others, of friend rather than foe” (p. 45). Relatedness is a critical social need that entails decisions about belongingness with others or a feeling of an outsider (Kim et al., 2018). In self-determination theory (SDT), for example, autonomy, competence, and relatedness are three key components that explain innate psychological needs, which have to be satisfied for individuals to thrive in any social group (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vansteenkiste et al., 2008). Relatedness represents a fundamental motivational mechanism that encourages and strengthens individual performances in a collaborative situation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In this regard, a sense of relatedness promotes effective communication and shared thinking which are essential for collaborative instructional practices (Deci & Ryan, 2008). On the contrary, there is disengagement when members of a collaborative team feel threatened by one another. Rock (2008) notes that threat responses such as fear and avoidance are generated in social interactions that are perceived as unsafe. Thus, it is crucial to recognize the role that relatedness plays in driving human behavior in group situations or where individuals experience a sense of belonging (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Van den Broeck et al., 2010). Fairness Rock (2008) explains fairness as ways people perceive fair exchanges between and among people. Studies have shown that when people feel they are treated fairly, they feel rewarded and are more willing to work with others (Berry, 2008). People may naturally engage with others in reducing exclusion in order to increase fairness (Kim et al., 2018). For example, the philosophy and practice of inclusive education is a strong response to unfair educational practices (Berry, 2008). It is

28

JOSEPH SEYRAM AGBENYEGA AND DEBORAH TAMAKLOE

argued that when people perceive unfair situations, the brain activates insular, a part of the brain involved in intense emotions (Rock, 2008). In all social groups, the identification of unfair situations may drive some groups or individuals to sacrifice their lives to correct the injustices; such is observed in political struggles, teacher and student demonstrations, and individual human right activisms. By implication, the fairness of the group in which an individual is situated is especially vital when we expect them to implement collaborative practices. Importantly, fair exchanges can enable a strong sense of belonging that instigates and enhances collaborative efforts (Berry, 2008).

APPLYING THE CONCEPTS OF SCARF TO COLLABORATIVE INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE In this chapter, we used the concepts status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness as five pillars for developing and implementing collaborative instructional strategies in a preservice teacher development program for inclusive education. Collaboration is foundational to inclusive education, as it helps teachers and teacher educators to enact joint cognitive activity that leads to complex professional learning and deep meaning-making (Slavin, 1996). Teaching and learning as a cognitive activity is not a function of an individual expertise but a human social practice and need that are influenced by factors beyond personal interests (Vygotsky, 1978). Collaborative instructional practice, therefore, focuses on new ways by which a group of professionals with varied expertise, experiences, values, practices, and dispositions come together to question, challenge, modify, and enhance teaching and learning (Munthe, 2003; Rock, 2008). This is possible when there is respect for individual autonomy, fairness, certainty, recognition of status, and relatedness. Robbins (2005) claimed that collaboration places “emphasis on relationships between people, contexts, actions, meanings, communities, and cultural histories” (p. 142). In teacher education, preparing teachers to be collaborative can be challenging to achieve. Participation with others requires distributed cognition across people with a transformative behavioral attribute involving recognition of SCARF. Despite challenges in collaborative practice, studies found that when attention is paid to issues of autonomy, status, relatedness, fairness, and certainty, it is possible for people to enact joint discussions to enhance personal efficacy (Berry, 2008; Munthe, 2003). Renshaw (2002, p. 4) argues that “the collective opportunities constructed to learn from each other and to benefit from the diversity of experiences and perspectives that each person brought to educational issues” generate dialogical spaces for deep professional learning and transformative practice. Therefore, we concur with the view that teacher preparation for inclusive education should be “situated in teachers’ everyday practice, and distributed across communities, tools, and contexts” (Vrasidas & Glass, 2007, p. 94), so that teachers can be equipped with transformative skills “to address the challenges they face in their everyday teaching and to meet demands for teacher quality and school accountability” (Vrasidas & Glass, 2007, p. 88).

Using Collaborative Instructional Approaches

29

THE STUDY We carried out this research at an Australian university teacher education department where collaborative instructional practices form part of preparing student teachers. This study formed part of a first-year Bachelor of Early Child/ Primary dual certification course unit (Module) that aimed at preparing the student teachers to become inclusive practitioners. The main approach to teaching the course unit is collaborative instructional practice to allow the preservice teachers learn the same with, from, and through their educators and peers. Ethics approval was sought from the university at the center of the study, and all student teachers signed consent forms to be part of the study. Through a collaborative inquiry session, student teachers worked together with the researchers in collaborative inquiry groups to formulate the following research questions to guide the study: (1) How can we implement more effective collaborative learning strategies? (2) What are the challenges to effective collaboration as perceived by the student teachers?

METHODOLOGY Participants The participants were 35 first-year student teachers enrolled in the secondsemester early childhood/primary education dual certification program (30 females, 5 males). The unit at the center of the project was a special education/ inclusive practice module taught in both online and face-to-face mode. The module aimed at developing the teacher’s knowledge of inclusive teaching in early childhood/primary educational settings. During the course of their study, the student teachers took part in a 12-week semester learning program. This program included 15 days of professional experience component for the student teachers to collaborate and teach alongside assigned registered mentor teachers. The student teachers’ professional experience capabilities were assessed by their mentor teachers while the university lecturers awarded marks for their performance in the content of the module. The student teachers completed two assessments (individual and group components) to measure their overall understanding of the module. Convenient and comprehensive sampling procedures were used to invite participants to be part of the study. There were 12 students from Australia, 15 from China, two from India, three from Vietnam, and three from Indonesia. We employed a collaborative inquiry research approach to conduct this qualitative research because the teaching and assessment approaches of the module adopted the philosophy of collaborative inquiry. Donohoo (2013) posits that collaborative inquiry enables a collegial systematic examination of educational practice through a careful application of research techniques. According to Stoll (2010), collaborative inquiry brings together learning communities to

30

JOSEPH SEYRAM AGBENYEGA AND DEBORAH TAMAKLOE

“deconstruct knowledge through joint reflection and analysis, reconstructing it through collaborative action, and co-constructing it through collective learning from their experiences” (p. 474). A collaborative approach was particularly useful for us in this research as we aimed to jointly develop the preservice teachers’ collaborative learning as an instructional skill. The methodological process empowered the preservice teachers to use their own personal experiences, ideas, and knowledge to coconstruct knowledge with their peers and mentors. As our research efforts were aimed to effect change in the ways the student teachers learn with, through, and from others, we adopted a five-stage data collection and analysis approach. Framing the Problem: Framing the problem was the first stage, where we divided the 35 preservice teachers into five groups to identify a meaningful focus and shared vision around collaborative instructional practice concerns and came up with an inquiry question. The group questions were then discussed jointly to arrive at the research questions for the study. Collecting Data: We asked the preservice teachers to come up with the type of evidence we can jointly and individually collect, and where to collect the evidence. The student teachers suggested documenting their own learning in their discussion groups, their professional experience (practicum) when they coteach with teachers in the field, and keeping personal online journals as data sources. The use of interviews enabled us to gain deeper insights into the student teachers’ perspectives regarding learning and teaching in collaborative teams. During the interviews, we asked the student teachers to share their practicum experiences on collaborative instructional practice. The practicum was in primary schools which starts at Foundation (also called kindergarten/preparatory/preschool) through to Year six or 7. Examples of interviewing questions were: “What did you gain from collaborative learning and instructional practice?”, “What do you think others gained from you?”, “What challenges do you encounter in collaborative teaching and learning practice?”, and “What strategies do you adopt in your group to resolve conflicts during collaborative instructional practice?”. Analyzing and Sharing Evidence to Inform Future Directions: A collaborative data analysis technique was used to thematically analyze the data. We workshopped the SCARF model with the teachers in the final week of the semester and asked them to analyze the data by chunking key ideas under the various concepts. Data analysis was performed as joint activity during class tutorials in the last week of the semester. We used the first hour of the 3-hour tutorial to explain the conceptual meanings of the five concepts in the SCARF model to the student teachers. We then organized the students into five groups, gave them access to the anonymous data sets (interview transcripts and journal entries), and tasked them to use the remaining 2 hours to collaboratively explore the data set and extract keywords or phrases that resonate with each concept in the SCARF model. The preservice teachers read through the data sets five times, described, and classified key ideas under the SCARF model as categories from which themes were extracted for interpretation. We later conducted independent analysis and juxtaposed these with the students’ analytical categories. As we used the SCARF model to guide the analytical framework, the students’ analysis was mostly

Using Collaborative Instructional Approaches

31

consistent with those of the researchers. On the final day of the semester, we shared our findings with the preservice teachers and celebrated our joint discovery of enacting collaborative learning practice. We ended the analytical discussions on how this learning can be translated into the preservice teachers’ future profession as qualified inclusive teachers.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION In this section, we categorize the findings according to Rock’s (2008) SCARF model under themes with relevant statements from student participants without assigning it to individual participants. The comments which appeared in the table are those from student teachers who participated in the module. The comments reflected the participants in class and practicum collaborations. We did not collect data from the registered teachers. The findings as summarized in Table 1 implicate issues of SCARF. In terms of status, promoting effective academic and social educational outcomes through collaborative practices must recognize and value individual status. As argued by scholars, a teacher’s or a student’s sense of status can be threatened by the way their status is perceived within a collaborative group (Chaio, Bordeaux, & Ambady, 2003; Renshaw, 2002). In this study, student teachers were worried about how some of their colleagues usurped their status to dominate collaborative discussions in class while others failed to contribute to discussions because of fear that their ideas would be stolen. They believed that shared communication and feedback built on trust with members of their team can accentuate collaborative practice in class. In addition, the data indicate that the student teachers perceived power differential in group situations as a threat to their collaborative practice. Their perceived threats relate to their practical experience when they had to work collaboratively with qualified registered teachers that they considered wielded power during their professional development process. We argue that effective collaborative instructional practices are not based on conscious design but rather emerge from unconscious dispositions directed to a certain type of social recognition and inclusion. In the Australian context, registered mentor teachers are in a position of power to recommend pass or fail grades for student teachers during practicum experience. Studies have shown that the status of individuals in collaborative groups may be threatened if they feel they have disproportionate power and influence, which can disrupt collaborative practice (Morrison et al., 2009). Similarly, when status and power relations fluctuate some personal and social attributes, members in a collaborative group may feel as though their interests are jeopardized by others (Stephan et al., 2008). Thus, recognition and celebrating the status of each member of the team can foster effective collaboration (Baker & Clark, 2010). For example, if registered mentor teachers value the contributions of student teachers, it is possible to engage them in dialogic communicative practices for effective learning outcomes to be realized (Pauli et al., 2008). The lack of dialogical engagement can devolve into arguments

32

JOSEPH SEYRAM AGBENYEGA AND DEBORAH TAMAKLOE

Table 1. Summary of Key Findings. SCARF

Themes

Status

Dealing with opposing perspectives

Certainty

Clarity of direction

Autonomy

Issues of competence

Relatedness Absence of collaborative skills

Fairness

Respectful relationships

Relevant Extracts

• Students who disagree with others’ view might withhold their own views (In-class collaboration); • Being too careful that they would be judged harshly by others (In-class collaboration); • Some students dominate discussions and defend their conclusions (In-class collaboration); • Trusting others is important to engage them (Practicum collaboration). • You don’t really know what you are going to expect from others in your group (In-class collaboration); • Some students are just about routine work, which does not improve effective collaboration; • There is uniqueness and value conflict within working groups; • Confronted with role and performance ambiguity, not • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

knowing clearly what one’s responsibility in the collaborative team; When you collaborate, you encounter increased emotional exhaustion; Role performance clarity ensures effective collaboration; Reflective and flexible certainty increases desire for working with others. Some students are inward looking, not willing to contribute; Reliance on others too much for their own becoming; The rest were all incompetent members. They just belong physically to the group but couldn’t contribute any opinion; Demonstrating self-sufficiency in collaborative group improved morale, made the learning environment warmer, and reduced isolation and budding on others; There is pressure to conform to group norms and which can affect a sense of autonomy; Group learning is like one person providing information and everybody moving along, it shouldn’t be this way. Some group members are passive, not connecting well with others; It is helpful knowing that you are not alone in trying to figure out what to do and how to do it; Better to work with like-minded people; Opportunity to teaching each other the practice of teaching; Dialogic reflection. Lack of contribution by others; Allocating the same marks to groups despite different levels of contribution by team members; Transparency of rules, expectations, or objectives.

driven by a status threat, a desire to not be perceived as less than another. In this study, as the student teachers worked in group situations, those who experienced a status threat appeared to be defending their position or simply withdrawing their participation in the group. This is consistent with previous research suggesting that collaborative practice faces a status threat when members of a

Using Collaborative Instructional Approaches

33

collaborative team refuse to pay attention to others’ opinions or abruptly interrupt and refute alternative suggestions without explanations (Le et al., 2018). The findings in this research also point to situations where some student teachers assumed authoritarian roles when working on group tasks in class and micromanaged members in their collaborative groups which resulted in a perception of devaluation of status by others. In collaborative practices, judging performance on individual basis can instigate authoritative views and practices, instead gauging performance on collective outcomes of the group can increase effective collaborative practice (Girwetz & Cribb, 2009). In this sense, when developing student teachers’ collaborative behavior, more attention must be paid to reducing status threats in ways feedback on performance is given (Rock, 2008). Other possible ways to enhance status and efficacy in collaborative instructional practice is by allowing members of a collaborative team to give themselves feedback on their own performance. The status of members in a collaborative instructional team can be increased when the expertise of each member is valued (Agbenyega & Klibthong, 2020; Mitchell et al., 2006). Again, Rock (2008) explains that status describes one’s relative position in a community of importance based on what is valued; therefore, it is important to identify what each person in the collaborative team is better at and to offer them the opportunity to contribute according to their expertise. Secondly, the findings of this study indicate that any kind of significant change in professional practice generates uncertainty. For example, the student teachers were asked to collaborate with mentor teachers they were not previously acquainted with. Wang et al. (2016) argue that “the nature of society as an open system makes it impossible to make predictions as can be done in natural science” (p. 179). This is the case where it is not possible to predict what might happen when individuals collaborate with unfamiliar colleagues to teach. For the student teachers in this study, uncertainty was uncovered by not knowing what issues would emerge from others in their group, uniqueness, and value conflict within group members, role and performance ambiguity, increased emotional exhaustion, and role performance clarity (see Table 1). Thus, teachers would need to be adequately prepared to deal with uncertainty in collaborative instructional spaces. A previous study has shown that reflective and flexible certainty can increase desire for working with others in a collaborative practice team (Munthe, 2003). Assisting student teachers to develop collaborative practice plans, strategies, or map out a task structure can enable a feeling of clarity about how a collaborative team might better function to produce desired outcomes. This does not mean everything will work out as planned, but planning can increase group members’ certainty because tasks are carefully analyzed and changed to meet specific goals. Studies found that establishing clear expectations of what might happen collaborative practice teams can decrease uncertainty and enhance the collaborative process (Baker & Clark, 2010; Renshaw, 2002). Certainty can also be increased through clarifying concepts and agreeing on group norms with clear objectives at the start of any collaborative practice. According to Le et al. (2018), providing adequate information on the structure of the collaborative team, roles expectation, and how and when things should be done can increase a sense of

34

JOSEPH SEYRAM AGBENYEGA AND DEBORAH TAMAKLOE

certainty. Increased certainty among members of a team can lead to effective collaborative practice. This study identified issues related to autonomy. For example, the autonomy of individual student teachers was threatened during practicum when they had to collaborate with mentor teachers who were in a superior position due to their experiences and registered status. It is argued that working in a collaborative team can lead to a feeling of a reduction in autonomy. However, healthy collaborative teams can counter this threat with an increase in status, certainty, and relatedness (Rock, 2008). Recognizing individual autonomy is important for collaborative teams to function to their maximum potential; it is important for group members to provide options, allowing group members to choose, participate, and contribute according to their expertise. It is argued that while providing significant autonomy in a collaborative team can be challenging, allowing group members self-directed participation within agreed parameters can increase autonomy (Le et al., 2018). Creating opportunities for collaborative groups to establish the parameters by which group members can exercise their creativity and autonomy is critically important. For example, Girwetz and Cribb (2009) argued that apart from contributing to the physical and mental well-being of teachers, “autonomy can…be defended on the grounds that it is a condition for creativity, experimentation and variety” (p. 172). Inclusive education thrives on relatedness and so do collaborative practices. The findings of this study implicate the importance of managing relatedness threats in collaborative practice for its efficiency. Issues of relatedness (see Table 1) resonate around passivity of some group members, getting help from others in figuring out what to do and how to do it, the desire to work with likeminded people, learning from, with, and through others, and dialogic reflection on practices. In fact, collaboration practice involving teachers from different cultures, varying learning styles, beliefs, and values can be an especially challenging task. It is argued by some scholars that inclusion or exclusion in collaborative processes expresses an individual’s affiliation to a social group or rejection from it (Morrison & Gleddie, 2019; Wang et al., 2016). In this way, collaborative practices “are much more complex than they appear at the outset; they are also meaningful, figurative, and an important element of social status and prestige” (Wang et al., 2016, p. 183). It is possible to enact effective collaborative practices for inclusive education by ensuring that team members are empowered to share personal stories of their values, beliefs, and previous learning experiences. In addition, honest conversations and joint reflection can increase relatedness in collaborative teams (Bjørnsrud & Nilsen, 2019). If teacher collaborative practice is to attain its highest performance goal, then positive social connections must be considered the fundamental need. Studies found increasing safe connections between collaborative team members by establishing buddy systems and ongoing mentoring and support can act as a reward mechanism and diffuse threat to relatedness (Morrison et al., 2009; Renshaw, 2002). In addition, teaching student teachers ways to develop and establish trust through joint reflection can have a substantial influence on relatedness (Bjørnsrud & Nilsen, 2019).

Using Collaborative Instructional Approaches

35

Finally, in this study, the student teachers reported issues of fairness as they work together in collaborative teams. These issues include the lack of contribution by others, allocating the same marks to groups despite different levels of contribution by team members, and transparency. Perceived unfairness in collaborative teams can pose significant threats to teacher collaborative practice (Kittleson et al., 2013). It is found that collaborative teams that adopt transparent practices in terms of how group members will be rewarded remain cohesive and productive (Le et al., 2018). Without fair exchanges, collaborative practice teams can deteriorate and become disorganized (Stephan et al., 2008). For fairness to stay strong and boost the morale of the collaborative team, all teachers within a collaborative team must uphold their part of the established group norms (Le et al., 2018). Ruys, Van Keer, and Aelterman’s (2012) research revealed insufficient attention of teachers to organizing collaborative work such as determining group norms and facilitating activities. The student teachers’ sense of unfairness also emerged from a lack of clear guidelines and expectations. In preservice teacher preparation, candidates can be allowed to set up their collaborative teams and identify their own rules of the accepted behavior they would expect of members. Being attentive to fairness in preparing preservice teachers for inclusive education, such as how to treat each other with dignity in collaborative groups, can be powerful to counter fairness threats (Berry, 2008; Girwetz & Cribb, 2009). Interestingly, the perception of fairness is key to inclusive education just as to collaborative instructional practice, so even a slight reduction in a sense of fairness during collaborative instructional practice may go a long way to instigating apathy in teams.

IMPLICATIONS In this study, we are suggesting that using the SCARF model (Rock, 2008) to interrogate collaborative instructional practice can lead to uncovering complex human relation factors that facilitate or inhibit collaborative instructional practice in inclusive education systems. It is argued that a perceived sense of increase in status, autonomy, certainty, relatedness, and fairness activates reward circuitry in the brain and empowers individuals to work with others in collaborative teams (Gutierrez-Shackelford, 2016). In this sense, the SCARF model is useful for teacher educators who are training teachers to be inclusive practitioners to critically consider, identify, and analyze the core social domains that drive human behavior in collaborative instructional practices (Rock, 2009). Teacher collaborative instructional practice thrives on positive human relations. Thus, in revisiting David Rock’s SCARF model, three key principles for enacting effective collaborative instructional practices are worth noting: (1) That, in any collaborative practice, the brain will treat social threats and rewards with the same intensity as physical threats and rewards (Lieberman & Eisenberger, 2009).

36

JOSEPH SEYRAM AGBENYEGA AND DEBORAH TAMAKLOE

(2) That, the capacity to make decisions, solve problems, and effectively collaborate with others to teach can generally be reduced by a threat response and increased under a reward response (Elliot, 2008). (3) That, in collaborative instructional practice, a threat response is more intense and more common and often needs to be carefully minimized in social interactions for productive outcomes to emerge (Baumeister et al., 2001). Therefore, two implications are important here. Firstly, knowing the drivers that can cause a threat response in collaborative instructional practice teams, for example, power differentials, pressure from other group members, and unfair treatment can help teacher educators to develop core values necessary for student teachers to minimize threats. Secondly, being aware of the factors that catalyze mutual satisfactions for teachers such as trust, clarity of goals, and mutual contribution can assist teacher educators to prepare student teachers to motivate others more effectively by tapping into their inner reward systems (Kendall, 2019).

LIMITATIONS This study is not without limitations. The participants were student teachers, and they were participating in a University module run by lecturers, which adopted a unique teaching approach focused on inclusive education, and, hence, the findings cannot be generalized to other modules in the program, which do not have a practicum and collaborative components. In addition, the student teachers worked with registered experienced teachers. In terms of qualification and registration, the student teachers’ status was much lower than the registered mentor teachers they worked with during their practicum experience. This could probably impact their collaborative practices. In addition, their professional experience capabilities were assessed by their mentor teachers in the field, and they were marked for the overall performance in the module by their lecturers. It is possible that the collaborative practice experience would have been different if the student teachers were performing their professional practice with colleagues of similar status.

CONCLUSION Despite the limitations espoused previously, we conclude that teachers will work best in collaborative instructional teams, lead, and be led by others only if team member status is fairly equal, and when goals to be attained by the team are made clearer (Rock, 2010). The act of forming collaborative instructional teams whose members feel threatened, disconnected, socially rejected, or treated unfairly can be a futile endeavor, which can endanger the practice of inclusive education. When educators create nurturing learning environments that position each member of the collaborative team as having a valuable status, they can equally

Using Collaborative Instructional Approaches

37

reduce status threat and encourage effective interaction in collaborative teams. In addition, establishing certainty through clear outlines of what the group is to do, the outcomes to be achieved, valuing the expertise of the members of the collaborative team, and infusing flexibility and the sense of autonomy can make collaborative instructional teams productive (Munthe, 2003). Above all, problems associated with collaborative instructional practice such as lack of communication, apathy, and domination can be minimized through the enactment of respectful relationships. In fact, a respectful relationship is significant for all-inclusive education in which collaboration by mutual respect, trust, good communication, understanding, and honesty underpin its practices.

REFERENCES Agbenyega, J. S., & Klibthong, S. (2020). A qualitative study to explore Thai early childhood teachers’ experiences of inclusive teaching practices. Australian Education Researcher, 48, 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-020-00380-1 Allan, J. (2008). Rethinking inclusive education: The philosophers of difference in practice. Springer. Baker, T., & Clark, J. (2010). Cooperative learning – A double-edged sword: A cooperative learning model for use with diverse student groups. Intercultural Education, 21(3), 257–268. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14675981003760440 Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 Berry, R. A. W. (2008). Novice teachers’ conceptions of fairness in inclusion classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1149–1159. Bjørnsrud, H., & Nilsen, S. (2019). Joint reflection on action – A prerequisite for inclusive education? A qualitative study in one local primary/lower secondary school in Norway. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(2), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1427153 Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14–25. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/202060 Bourdieu, P. (1997). The forms of capital. In A. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. S. Wells (Eds.), Education: Culture, economy and society (pp. 46–58). Oxford University Press. Chiao, J. Y., Bordeaux, A. R., & Ambady, N. (2003). Mental representations of social status. Cognition, 93(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.07.008 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15327965PLI1104_01 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/07085591.49.1.14 Donohoo, J. (2013). Collaborative inquiry for educators: A facilitator’s guide to school improvement. Sage. Eisenberger, N., & Lieberman, M. (2004). Why it hurts to be left out: The neurocognitive overlap between physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 294–300. Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt: An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 1089134 Elliot, A. J. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation. Erlbaum. Girwetz, S., & Cribb, A. (2009). Understanding education: A sociological perspective. Polity Press. Gordon, E. (2000). Integrative neuroscience: Bringing together biological, psychological and clinical models of the human brain. Harwood Academic Publishers. Gutierrez-Shackelford, E. M. S. (2016). The impact of neuroleadership brain domains versus charismatic leadership on employee motivation. Doctoral dissertation. Industrial-organizational Psychology,

38

JOSEPH SEYRAM AGBENYEGA AND DEBORAH TAMAKLOE

California School of Professional Psychology Alliant International University, Los Angeles. ProQuest Number: 10006503. https://www.scribd.com/document/377423304/ Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0030-5073(76)90016-7 Hawkins, J., & Blakeslee, S. (2004). On intelligence. Times Books. Hedden, T., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2006). The ebb and flow of attention in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 9(7), 863–865. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn0706-863 ¨ Jurkowski, S., & Muller, B. (2018). Co-teaching in inclusive classes: The development of multiprofessional cooperation in teaching dyads. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2018.06.017 Kendall, L. (2019). Supporting all children to reach their potential: Practitioner perspectives on creating an inclusive school environment. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 47(6), 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2018.1520278 Khazanchi, R., & Khazanchi, P. (2020). Effective pedagogical practices in inclusive classrooms for students with disabilities.. In A. Singh, M. Viner, & C. J. Yeh, (Eds.), Special education design and development tools for school rehabilitation professionals. IGI Global. https://doi.org/ 10.4018/978-1-7998-1431-3.ch003 Kim, J.-In, Chung, M. K., & Dray, B. J. (2018). Students’ relatedness needs in a teacher education course: The role of identities as learners & capital. Multicultural Education, 25(3–4), 29–36. Kittleson, J., Dresden, J., & Wenner, J. A. (2013). Describing the supported collaborative teaching model: A designed setting to enhance teacher education. School-University Partnerships, 6(2), 20–31. Le, H., Janssen, J., & Wubbels, T. (2018). Collaborative learning practices: Teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1259389 Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: A review of core processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 259–289. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085654 Lieberman, M., & Eisenberger, N. (2009). Neuroscience: Pains and pleasures of social life. Science, 323(5916), 890–891. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1170008 Mitchell, J. P., Macrae, C. N., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Dissociable medial prefrontal contributions to judgments of similar and dissimilar Others. Neuron, 50(4), 655–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.neuron.2006.03.040 Morrison, K. R., Fast, J., & Ybarra, O. (2009). Group status, perceptions of threat, and support for social inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 204–210. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.004 Morrison, H., & Gleddie, D. (2019). In-service teachers’ and educational assistants’ professional development experiences for inclusive physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 38(4), 328–337. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0271 Munthe, E. (2003). Teachers’ workplace and professional certainty. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(8), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.02.002 Naraian, S., & Schlessinger, S. (2018). Becoming an inclusive educator: Agentive maneuverings in collaboratively taught classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 179–189. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.012 Pauli, R., Mohiyeddini, C., Bray, D., Michie, F., & Street, B. (2008). Individual differences in negative group work experiences in collaborative student learning. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410701413746 Renshaw, P. (2002). Learning and community. Australian Education Researcher, 29(2), 1–13. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF03216761 Robbins, J. (2005). Contexts, collaboration, and cultural tools: A sociocultural perspective on researching children’s thinking. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(2), 140–149. https:// doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2005.6.2.4 Robinson, R. (2018). Safety and harm in school: Promoting the perspectives of students with intellectual disability. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 18(1), 48–58. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12417

Using Collaborative Instructional Approaches

39

Rock, D. (2008). SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others. Neuroleadership Journal, 1, 44–52. Rock, D. (2009). Managing with the brain in mind. Strategy and Business Magazine, 56, 58–67. Rock, D. (2010). Impacting leadership with neuroscience. Human Resource People and Strategy, 33(4), 6–7. Ruys, I., Van Keer, H., & Aelterman, A. (2012). Examining student teacher competence in lesson planning pertaining to collaborative learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 349–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.675355 Sapolski, R. M. (2002). A primate’s memoir: A neuroscientist’s unconventional life among the baboons. Scribner. Schultz, W. (1999). The reward signal of midbrain dopamine neurons. News in Physiological Sciences, 14(6), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1152/physiologyonline.1999.14.6.249 Slater, E., & Gazeley, L. (2019). Deploying teaching assistants to support learning: From models to typologies. Educational Review, 71(5), 547–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1457011 Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ ceps.1996.0004 Somerton, M., Helmer, J., Kasa, R., Hern´andez-Torrano, D., & Makoelle, T. M. (2020). Defining spaces: Resource centres, collaboration, and inclusion in Kazakhstan. Journal of Educational Change, 16, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09384-1 Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2008). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stoll, L. (2010). Connecting learning communities: Capacity building for systemic change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins, (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change. Springer. Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 981–1002. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X481382 Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Self-determination theory and the explanatory role of psychological needs in human well-being. In L. Bruni, F. Comim, & M. Pugno (Eds.), Capabilities and happiness (pp. 187–223). Oxford University Press. Vrasidas, C., & Glass, G. V. (2007). Teacher professional development and ICT: Strategies and models. The Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(2), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2007.00116.x Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The structure of higher mental functions (M. J. Hall, Trans.). In R. W. Rieber (Series Ed.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol. 4, The history of the development of higher mental functions (pp. 83–96). Plenum. Wang, H. F., Luo, G. L., & Hong, H. P. (2016). Beyond socio-materiality and sense-making: Planting symbolic power and critical realism into strategy-as-practice logic. Open Journal of Business and Management, 4(2), 177–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2016.42020 Zink, C. F., Tong, Y., Chen, Q., Bassett, D. S., Stein, J. L., & Meyer- Lindenberg, A. (2008). Know your place: Neural processing of social hierarchy in humans. Neuron, 58(2), 273–283. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.01.025

This page intentionally left blank

INSTRUCTIONAL COLLABORATION IN SAUDI INCLUSIVE AND MAINSTREAM EDUCATION Khalid Mohammed Abu-Alghayth

ABSTRACT This chapter aims to shed light on some aspects of instructional collaboration with the purpose of providing further understanding of how teachers collaborate and what hinders their collaboration in Saudi inclusive and mainstream schools. Instructional collaboration among teachers in Saudi educational settings has not been thoroughly reviewed, nor has it been adequately considered as an essential component in assuring the implementation of inclusive education. The voice of two special education teachers and two college professors are presented and discussed in order to explain and clarify aspects of instructional collaboration. The last part of the chapter delineates proposed changes that may motivate teachers and aid them in developing a clear understanding of how to practice instructional collaboration in inclusive and mainstream settings, namely, provision of professional development for special and general education teachers, endorsement of legislation and regulations to promote instructional collaboration, and development of teacher education programs. Keywords: Instructional collaboration; inclusive education; mainstream education; students with disabilities; professional development; Saudi Arabia Ongoing instructional collaboration between teachers is essential to the success of inclusive education. Without such collaboration, it becomes difficult for teachers to provide education that meets the needs of students with diverse abilities.

Instructional Collaboration in International Inclusive Education Contexts International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 17, 41–54 Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620210000017006

41

42

KHALID MOHAMMED ABU-ALGHAYTH

Inclusive and mainstream education in Saudi Arabia has been negatively impacted by a number of factors, including a lack of teacher collaboration. This chapter provides a brief introduction of teacher collaboration and Saudi inclusive and mainstream education. It also reviews and synthesizes existing research relevant to instructional collaboration in inclusive and mainstream settings and presents the voices of special education teachers and professors concerning their perspectives on the reality of instructional collaboration in schools. Suggestions for promoting successful instructional collaboration between teachers are proposed at the end of the chapter. Clarifying some relevant aspects of Saudi Arabia’s educational system will undoubtedly assist readers of various backgrounds and cultures in gaining a clearer understanding of instructional collaboration and inclusive education in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, this chapter begins with a brief discussion of how the history of the country and Saudi culture has influenced the educational system. Instructional collaboration in inclusive and mainstream education is subsequently discussed in detail along with other relevant aspects and issues.

OVERVIEW OF EDUCATION IN SAUDI ARABIA Saudi Arabia is one of the largest developing countries in the Middle East, and the largest country in the Arabian Peninsula, which is located in the western part of Asia. It has a population of over 34 million individuals, which is growing at a rapid rate of approximately 2.4% as of 2019 (The General Authority for Statistics [GAS], 2019). Culturally, Saudi Arabia is an Islamic country, and Saudi people follow religious principles that influence their behaviors and attitudes (Al-Aqeel, 2005; Al-Issa, 2009). Moreover, the Saudi educational system is influenced by the Saudi political system, which is guided by Islamic law (Alfaifi, 2016). Following the expansion of the country by King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud in 1932 and being proclaimed the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the enterprise of improving the country has reached into various areas, particularly after oil was first discovered in the 1930s. Education was and remains a top priority for national development. Since the establishment of the Saudi Ministry of Education in 1953, the Saudi government has launched an array of initiatives and plans with a vision of ensuring that the country operates according to the best educational models and is able to provide all individuals with a free and appropriate education at all levels (Ministry of Education of Saudi Arabia, 2008). An example of this is the establishment of the Special Education Department of the Ministry of Education in 1962, with the goal of discovering the capabilities of students with disabilities, providing them with all necessary programs and services, giving them opportunities to learn in an appropriate environment, and preparing them for a bright future as supportive members of Saudi society (Ministry of Education, 1995). Furthermore, efforts toward reforming the Saudi educational system have increased over the last two decades through several ambitious initiatives and visions, which indicates that education is one of the top priorities for the Saudi government.

Instructional Collaboration in Saudi Inclusive and Mainstream Education

43

In regard to the educational placement options for students with disabilities in KSA, there are a variety of options including special education schools or institutes, mainstream, and inclusive education. Students with severe disabilities usually enrolled in special education schools or institutes. Those with highincidence disabilities placed in separate classrooms in general education schools. In most cases, only students with learning disabilities are placed in general education classrooms (Alnahdi et al., 2019). In this chapter, mainstream education refers to “educating children with special educational needs in regular education schools, and providing them with special education services” (Ministry of Education of Saudi Arabia, 2002, p. 8). The term “inclusive education” will be used in this chapter to refer to the educational system that guarantees the full participation of students with disabilities in general education classrooms with an access to the general education curriculum (Forlin, 2012; Hettiarachchi & Das, 2014; Tiwari et al., 2015). Inclusive education services have been provided in only some selected schools across the country as a beginning of a larger initiative by the Ministry of Education and Tatweer Company (Tatweer for Educational Services, 2017).

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL COLLABORATION IN SAUDI SCHOOLS It has been widely noticed that over the last few decades inclusive school settings have become more diverse; students now come from various cultures, hail from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds, and have different learning abilities (Meadan & Monda-Amaya, 2008). Delivering appropriate education for such a diverse environment is complex and challenging, especially when dealing with students with disabilities (Amer et al., 2009; Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2014; Hentz & Jones, 2011), requiring teachers to have specific characteristics. Competent and well-trained teachers with flexible minds and positive attitudes toward collaborative practice are critical to the success and coherency of inclusive educational programs for students with diverse abilities (Bouillet, 2013; Park et al., 2018). Furthermore, such instructional collaboration can only be effective when teachers have mutual goals, build stable and cooperative relationships with effective communication, engage in joint problem-solving and planning, work together to address obstacles, and share responsibility, accountability, and resources (Friend & Cook, 2016; Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2014; Jones, 2014; Khairuddin et al., 2016; Lamar-Dukes & Dukes, 2005; Park et al., 2018; Wallace et al., 2001). However, the extent to which teacher education programs in Saudi universities have enhanced this practice and other inclusive education practices among teachers has been insufficient (Alquraini & Rao, 2018). Although instructional collaboration among teachers is linked to improvement in teacher confidence, performance, and efficacy, as well as student learning effectiveness, and achievement (Hargreaves, 1994; Ketterlin-Geller et al., 2015; Van Garderen et al., 2012), this practice in KSA is an area that has not been adequately considered by researchers, teachers, administrators, policymakers,

44

KHALID MOHAMMED ABU-ALGHAYTH

and other educators. Researchers have not thoroughly reviewed instructional collaboration in educational settings, especially given that inclusive education has been a major focus for the Ministry of Education over the past decade. Moreover, how instructional collaboration is currently implemented in schools remains unclear. The extent of teacher instructional collaboration in inclusive and mainstream settings and the mechanisms by which they collaborate are still vague. This chapter aims to shed light on some aspects of instructional collaboration with the purpose of providing further understanding of how teachers collaborate and what hinders their collaboration. The voice of special education teachers and college professors will be presented later in this chapter to explain and clarify more aspects of instructional collaboration in Saudi schools, what challenges teachers face, and what teachers need in order to practice instructional collaboration successfully and appropriately. Instructional Collaboration in Research Existing research in Saudi Arabia has typically focused on specific services and aspects of inclusive and mainstream education (e.g., teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education) rather than trying to understand what other factors are essential to successfully teach students in inclusive settings (such as instructional collaboration). In contrast to research conducted in KSA, numerous studies worldwide have examined more aspects of inclusive education, including instructional collaboration (Atkins, 2009; Conderman & Johnston-Rodriguez, 2009; Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2014; Lofthouse & Thomas, 2017; McDougall, 2019; Sannen et al., 2019; Zagona et al., 2017). Saudi researchers have recently drawn attention to instructional collaboration in studies on inclusive education that found a connection between barriers to inclusive education and teacher collaboration (e.g., Alharthi & Evans, 2017; Alotaibi, 2017; Alquraini & Rao, 2018; Alshahrani, 2018; Binmahfooz, 2019). Alharthi and Evans (2017) noticed that the attitudes of Saudi special education teachers toward their roles and responsibilities regarding collaborative practice indicated that they did not prefer to work with another teacher. The researchers believed that the lack of teacher collaboration in KSA may impact the development of inclusive practices. They said “teachers need to learn to use evidence-based strategies to serve students with LD in inclusive classrooms and find ways to collaborate with colleagues and parents through on-going professional learning” (p. 1). Studies conducted in KSA on inclusive and mainstream education consistently show that teacher instructional collaboration is a significant and integral part of a successful and effective implementation of inclusive practices. Alshahrani (2018) found an absence of instructional collaboration between teachers both when teaching students and when promoting mainstream education in schools. She argued that there is a great need for teachers to engage in instructional collaboration as a lack of collaboration was found to be a major barrier to mainstream education. The lack of collaboration was the result of insufficient knowledge,

Instructional Collaboration in Saudi Inclusive and Mainstream Education

45

experience, and awareness among general education teachers regarding inclusive and mainstream education (Alshahrani, 2018). She stated: This lack of awareness is also evident from the view that educating students with SEN in mainstream schools is solely the responsibility of special education teachers, an attitude which is indicative of an unwillingness for collaboration and a limited understanding of what inclusion requires. (p. 152)

In addition to limited knowledge, other reasons were also associated with the absence of collaboration, such as general education teachers being unwilling to take on further workload. Further, one of the teachers in Alshahrani’s study said, “teachers who have training in special education and inclusion are more positive and collaborative than the others” (p. 154). Therefore, it appears critical that teachers working in inclusive and mainstream education schools have sufficient training in inclusive education practices. In the same vein, Binmahfooz (2019) found that collaboration was missing in schools, and the teaching responsibilities in a classroom usually fall to only one teacher. For instance, two preservice teachers in her study stated that they did not find any collaboration between the general and special education teachers. They indicated one of the general education teachers in school was “crude” in her understanding of inclusive education practices. This finding is in agreement with Alotaibi’s (2017) findings, which showed that the sharing of planning and instruction responsibilities regarding curriculum and learning strategies was absent among teachers. However, teachers did report a positive indicator when they could find the coteaching model effective in terms of student behavior and performance. It is interesting to note that teachers held this positive perspective even though they reported a lack of collaboration in their experience. A lack of teachers’ collaboration was found to be an important factor that also influenced job satisfaction among Saudi special education teachers and would lead them to leave their schools (Sheaha, 2004). This indicates that Saudi special education teachers appreciate the value of collaboration and consider it an essential part of their working environment. Unfortunately, according to the author’s knowledge, no further relevant investigations into the connection between teacher job satisfaction and instructional collaboration in Saudi schools have been conducted since the aforementioned study. Even so, research on instructional collaboration is lacking, and current studies examining factors associated with inclusive education have revealed an unambiguous relationship between inclusive education and instructional collaboration in Saudi schools. In light of the information discussed above, it is clearly no coincidence that collaboration is considered as a factor in a large number of studies. These unexpected findings signal the need for additional studies to more deeply investigate instructional collaboration in Saudi inclusive and mainstream education. Educational Reform and Teacher Collaboration Over the last decade, there have been many calls for educational reform in the country. As a result, the Ministry of Education has launched numerous initiatives

46

KHALID MOHAMMED ABU-ALGHAYTH

and programs with the aim of improving the educational system in KSA. One of the main things Saudi researchers have been calling for in education reform is instructional collaboration. Researchers have stressed the need for teacher collaboration in inclusive and mainstream education in a number of recently published articles. This began with Alquraini (2011) when he asserted that teachers should practice collaboration in schools and that the Ministry of Education should promote collaborative approaches. Alquraini asserted that colleges of education in KSA should prepare students for collaborative practices, asserting that this practice is essential to inclusive education. He also demanded that the Saudi educational associations in special education provide training programs to develop the collaboration skills of in-service teachers. Another call for enhancing instructional collaboration in inclusive and mainstream education was made several years later by Al-Assaf (2017), who argued that the Ministry of Education should make a systemic change in school environments that would facilitate collaborative work and planning among teachers. Moreover, Al-Assaf (2017) suggested the Ministry of Education and institutes of higher education should find solutions to train preservice teachers on instructional collaboration and other inclusive education practices through their teacher education programs. Alshahrani (2018) also asserted that it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education to include instructional collaboration and other essential practices of inclusive education in teacher preparation programs. Alshahrani suggested “awareness-raising opportunities for general education teachers” (p. 245) in order to help them understand inclusive education and increase the level of their collaboration with colleagues. Alharthi and Evans (2017) demanded quick and urgent changes to improve inclusive education, stating that it is the responsibility of school administration to provide an appropriate school culture that enhances collaboration among teachers. They further explained that teachers’ attitudes, concerns, and needs regarding inclusive education should be considered in order to create a more inclusive school environment. The researchers further indicated that it is necessary that school administration support teachers and staff by providing professional development sessions on inclusive education practices.

VOICES OF TEACHERS AND PROFESSORS This section is concerned with the views of special education professors and teachers regarding their experiences of instructional collaboration in Saudi inclusive and mainstream education. Several factors have emerged from the literature indicating ambiguity in how Saudi teachers are prepared for collaboration and how they practice it in inclusive and mainstream education; consequently, it is critical to understand how professors and teachers perceive these factors. Interviews with two special education teachers revealed completely different images of instructional collaboration in Saudi inclusive and mainstream education. Majeed Alahmari has more than 10 years of experience working with

Instructional Collaboration in Saudi Inclusive and Mainstream Education

47

students with developmental disabilities in a mainstream school. Ali Asiri, who has five years of experience, works in an inclusive school and stated that his school has been chosen as “one of the best schools that implement inclusive education in KSA.” Majeed’s initial thoughts on instructional collaboration were very positive. “I thought collaborative practice would abbreviate years of hard work into gaining much experience in only a few years.” However, his experience with a collaboration initiative in his current school left him “disappointed.” Working at three different schools in the last 10 years, Majeed said that the idea of teacher collaboration has only come to light in the last couple of years. Our supervisor from the school district came to school a couple years ago and told us he wanted us (the special education teachers) to work together, to work as a team in the school… our isolation does not seem healthy… He wanted us to start with visits; I mean teachers visit each other everyday in classrooms…The supervisor wanted to enhance the soul of collaboration in school environment. That was a good idea I think.

Majeed explained what happened later, indicating that this idea took an unexpected turn when these visits became free of collaboration. He described their visits as follows: “I visit another teacher for one class, give him my positive comments on a paper, and leave the classroom.” The school environment, at the moment, is not significantly different from how it was before the collaboration initiative; instructional collaboration effectively does not exist due to several challenges. However, one of the positive outcomes of the initiative was that a few teachers – particularly newer teachers – started voluntarily asking other teachers at the school to visit them and provide feedback on their teaching strategies, which opened the door for further collaboration. Majeed presented an example of two new teachers who this year told him and another colleague that they would like to work closely with them to create lesson plans for some of their students. Majeed and his colleague opened the door for collaboration with the new teachers and provided all necessary assistance concerning lesson plans and other teachers’ materials. The new teachers’ request for collaboration was a significant step in order to learn from colleagues with more years of teaching experience. Ali described a completely different experience with instructional collaboration in his school. The story began four years ago, when the Ministry of Education decided to implement a new model of inclusive education in schools. Ali mentioned that teachers at his school did not know much about instructional collaboration in inclusive education when the initiative began. School administration gradually trained teachers until, Ali said, they reached “a convincing level of collaboration among all teachers in school.” He emphasized the significance of school administration in the success of inclusive education, including the success of instructional collaboration among teachers. When Ali was asked about the key factors that facilitated the school starting from nothing to instituting full instructional collaboration, he listed the following elements:

• Teachers were sensitized to the importance of collaboration for both student and teacher.

48

KHALID MOHAMMED ABU-ALGHAYTH

• All teachers, specialists, and staff were taught to work as one team. • School administration provided all necessary support to enhance • •

teacher collaboration. Instructional collaboration became an essential component of teacher evaluation at the school. Administration engaged in ongoing evaluation of teacher collaboration at school, with an emphasis on teacher improvement.

While Ali noted the characteristics needed in an effective model, both Ali and Majeed stated several serious challenges to practicing instructional collaboration that they noticed over the last few years:

•A • • •

lack of financial support, particularly among general education teachers, limits their willingness to collaborate with special education teachers, who are paid more. An unwillingness to collaborate is common among teachers because they believe that instructional collaboration requires additional time and effort. A lack of appreciation on the part of certain teachers for the value of collaboration and its potential benefits to both students and teachers. In Majeed’s school specifically, instructional collaboration was only a recommendation, not a mandatory practice. This is the case in the majority of schools in the country where “it is hard to see collaboration between general and special education systems” (Aldabas, 2015, p. 1165).

Two professors were also asked about teacher preparation for instructional collaboration in KSA. Professor of Special Education, Omar Agail, has been studying and evaluating special education programs at Saudi universities for over a decade. Assistant Professor of Special Education and an expert in mainstream education, Basmah Alshahrani, has studied the reality of teacher collaboration in mainstream schools in Saudi and noticed a paucity of studies by Saudi researchers on this matter. Their thoughts and interpretations of the gap between teacher preparation and the practice of instructional collaboration in schools are critical to understanding collaboration in KSA. Omar indicated that since the expansion of mainstream schools across the country, a large gap has appeared between what teachers are required to implement in inclusive and mainstream schools and how they are prepared in college. In considering his observations of a large number of preservice and inservice teachers in different schools, Omar stated that instructional collaboration between special and general education teachers is almost nonexistent. Basmah agreed explaining that most schools lack a “culture of collaboration” and that instructional collaboration will not be successfully implemented without teacher and school principals understanding what collaboration means and why they should practice it. The three primary reasons behind the absence of collaboration in schools, according to Omar and Basmah, are as follows:

Instructional Collaboration in Saudi Inclusive and Mainstream Education

49

(1) The lack of legislation and regulations that enhance instructional collaboration in educational settings. (2) Poor teacher preparation for inclusive education, particularly among general education teachers. (3) The belief that general and special education teachers work separately from one another and have different aims in school; these beliefs are inculcated in teachers at the teacher preparation level. Omar and Basmah placed strong emphasis on raising the quality of teacher education programs and enacting legislation and regulations consistent with the practices of inclusive education to overcome these barriers and to ensure both successful instructional collaboration and other evidence-based practices in inclusive education.

PERCEPTION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES FOR SUCCESSFUL INSTRUCTIONAL COLLABORATION In this section, a proposed list of key factors in the success of instructional collaboration in Saudi inclusive education is discussed, in addition to suggestions and recommendations based on the current literature on instructional collaboration. Based on instructional collaboration challenges found in the literature, in addition to those laid out by the professors and teachers interviewed, the following factors may assist in overcoming obstacles and enhancing the practice of collaboration among teachers in inclusive education. Professional Development One of the challenges found in the literature and mentioned by the interviewed teachers is teachers’ lack of knowledge and desire regarding practicing collaboration with colleagues (Alshahrani, 2018; Atkins, 2009; Finke et al., 2009; Zagona et al., 2017). Therefore, increasing special and general education teachers’ knowledge and sensitizing them to the significance of collaboration is a critical solution to begin with and may be achieved through professional development. It is evident that professional development sessions play a significant role in changing teachers’ attitudes and increasing their collaboration (Combs et al., 2010; Gokdere, 2012; Olore, 2017). Several researchers (e.g. Aldabas, 2015; Alquraini, 2011; Olore, 2017) have suggested professional development sessions on some areas:

• Inclusive education. • Students’ disabilities • • •

(particularly for general education teachers and school staff). Trust-building between teachers. Teaming skills. Instructional collaboration.

50

KHALID MOHAMMED ABU-ALGHAYTH

These areas and other professional development opportunities may help enhance collaboration in inclusive settings among special and general education teachers (Olore, 2017). Legislation and Regulations Where it does exist, the practice of instructional collaboration varies considerably between Saudi schools, a fact that can be ascribed to the lack of relevant legislation and regulations that ensure teachers practice collaboration (Alnahdi, 2014). Current regulations also lack detailed practical guidelines on how inclusive education should be implemented in schools. Clearly, such legislation and regulations have failed to keep up with changes in inclusive education. Therefore, Alquraini (2011) suggested a comprehensive evaluation of the current legislation on special education. One significant difference between Ali and Majeed’s schools lies in school policy. Ali indicated that his school’s administration set a policymaking collaboration a mandatory practice, which gradually enhanced teacher collaboration. Majeed, however, said that it was optional, which predictably meant that no efforts were made by teachers to collaborate with each other. Enacting legislation and regulations that enhance instructional collaboration practice will play a vital role in improving inclusive education practices and strategies (Zhang et al., 2019). Almost all special education legislation and regulations were enacted before the Ministry of Education established the current inclusive education model in schools. There is a great need to bridge this divide and amend current legislation and regulations to be consistent with the present inclusive education system that has been adopted across the country. This will require implementing the best modern inclusive education practices and strategies, including instructional collaboration. Teacher Education For over a decade, Saudi teacher education programs have been working on improving their quality in order to better prepare future teachers for inclusive schools (Alquraini & Gut, 2012). Nevertheless, there remains a gap between the ideal skills of teachers in inclusive education and their preparation in college. Current literature found that teachers lack knowledge and skills regarding instructional collaboration and other inclusive education practices (Alharthi & Evans, 2017; Alotaibi, 2017; Alshahrani, 2018; Binmahfooz, 2019). Furthermore, the gaps between teacher education programs and actual teacher practice have increased over the last decade, prompting the Ministry of Education to intervene. The steps taken have been the most momentous in the history of education college reform in KSA. Admissions were suspended to all education colleges several years ago with the aim of raising the quality of teacher education programs and bridging the aforementioned gaps between teacher preparation and practice. The Ministry of Education and Saudi education colleges have recently announced new teacher education programs that will begin accepting college students in 2022.

Instructional Collaboration in Saudi Inclusive and Mainstream Education

51

The increased adoption of instructional collaboration in inclusive and mainstream education is dependent upon new teacher education programs providing enhanced theoretical and practical knowledge of instructional collaboration to preservice teachers through courses, seminars, and other formal learning activities. It is critical that special and general education teachers learn about instructional collaboration in college and are properly trained in effective collaboration strategies for inclusive education. School-related Factors In order to ensure the successful practice of instructional collaboration in inclusive education, all relevant issues should be comprehensively considered. One of the issues found in the literature (Alshahrani, 2018; Binmahfooz, 2019) is general education teachers’ lack of collaboration with special education teachers in schools. Both Alshahrani and Binmahfooz suggest raising awareness and improving practical skills of collaborative practice among general education teachers. However, a serious concern has been noticed in inclusive schools in KSA. General and special education teachers teaching in inclusive schools are paid wages based on their type of bachelor’s degree. Teachers with a special education certificate are paid 30% higher wages than general education teachers. During the interview with Ali, he mentioned that general education teachers in his school and other schools believe they can’t be expected to take on further workload while they are paid lower wages. A solution might be financially supporting general education teachers in order to encourage them to collaborate with special education teachers. Another school-related factor that may enhance this practice in inclusive education is teacher evaluation. Generally speaking, the current teacher evaluation system in Saudi schools does not make instructional collaboration a critical element in teacher evaluation. A major difference between the two interviewed teachers, Ali and Majeed, in practicing instructional collaboration was that teachers in Ali’s school were appreciated and given extra credit in their evaluation when they practiced instructional collaboration. There is evidence to suggest that teacher evaluation motivates teachers to carry out professional practices in schools (Tuytens & Devos, 2014). Therefore, schools should reinvent teacher evaluation and consider instructional collaboration and further inclusive education practices to meet the current trends of inclusive education.

CONCLUSION Delivering an appropriate education for diverse students through inclusive education is challenging (Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2014) and requires that teachers engage in instructional collaboration in order to provide coherent educational programs for students with diverse abilities (Bouillet, 2013; Park et al., 2018). In KSA, instructional collaboration among teachers in inclusive and mainstream settings has not been researched, nor has it been adequately considered as an

52

KHALID MOHAMMED ABU-ALGHAYTH

essential component in assuring the implementation of inclusive education in schools. However, the proposed changes such as provision of professional development for in-service special and general education teachers, endorsement of legislation and regulations, development of teacher education programs, and other school-related factors may both motivate teachers and aid them in developing a clear understanding of how to practice instructional collaboration in inclusive settings may result in enhanced instructional collaboration in Saudi inclusive education.

REFERENCES Al-Aqeel, A. (2005). Education policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Al-Roshd Library. Al-Assaf, S. (2017). An evaluation of the new inclusion model in Saudi Arabia: Teachers’ knowledge and perspectives [Doctoral dissertation, Edgewood College]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Al-Issa, A. (2009). Education reform in Saudi Arabia between the absence of political vision and apprehension of religious culture and the inability of educational administration. Dar Al-Saqi. Aldabas, R. A. (2015). Special education in Saudi Arabia: History and areas for reform. Creative Education, 6(11), 1158. Alfaifi, M. S. (2016). Self-directed learning readiness among undergraduate students at Saudi Electronic University in Saudi Arabia [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida]. Scholar Commons. Alharthi, N., & Evans, D. (2017). Special education teachers’ attitudes towards teaching students with learning disabilities in middle schools in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Modern Education Studies, 1(1), 01–15. Alnahdi, G. H. (2014). Special education programs for students with intellectual disability in Saudi Arabia: Issues and recommendations. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15(1), 83–91. Alnahdi, G. H., Saloviita, T., & Elhadi, A. (2019). Inclusive education in Saudi Arabia and Finland: Pre‐service teachers’ attitudes. Support for Learning, 34(1), 71–85. https://doi.org.10.1111/14679604.12239 Alotaibi, M. (2017). The perception of special teachers in Saudi middle and high school about co-teaching [Master’s thesis, State University of New York at Fredonia]. SUNY Digital Repository. Alquraini, T. (2011). Special education in Saudi Arabia: Challenges, perspectives, future possibilities. International Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 149–159. Alquraini, T., & Gut, D. (2012). Critical components of successful inclusion of students with severe disabilities: Literature review. International Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 42–59. Alquraini, T. A. S., & Rao, S. M. (2018). A study examining the extent of including competencies of inclusive education in the preparation of special education teachers in Saudi universities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 65(1), 108–122. Alshahrani, B. F. (2018). Obstacles to inclusion of students with special educational needs (SEN) in primary mainstream girls schools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) from the perspective of special education teachers [Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham]. UBIRA eTheses Repository. Amer, A. M., Mahmood, Sh, & Mumtaz, K. M. (2009). Inclusive school and inclusive teacher. The Dialogue, 4(2), 272–284. Atkins, T. (2009). A case study examining the collaboration between general education and special education teachers in inclusive classrooms [Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University]. Scholars Junction. Binmahfooz, S. (2019). Saudi special Education preservice teachers’ perspective towards inclusion [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida]. Scholar Commons. Bouillet, D. (2013). Some aspects of collaboration in inclusive education – Teachers’ experiences. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3(2), 93–117.

Instructional Collaboration in Saudi Inclusive and Mainstream Education

53

Combs, S., Elliott, S., & Whipple, K. (2010). Elementary physical education teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special needs: A qualitative investigation. International Journal of Special Education, 25(1), 114–125. Conderman, G., & Johnston-Rodriguez, S. (2009). Beginning teachers’ views of their collaborative roles. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(4), 235–244. Finke, E. H., McNaughton, D. B., & Drager, K. D. (2009). “All children can and should have the opportunity to learn”: General education teachers’ perspectives on including children with autism spectrum disorder who require AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25(2), 110–122. Forlin, C. (2012). Responding to the need for inclusive teacher education: Rhetoric or reality? In C. Forlin (Ed.), Future directions for inclusive teacher education (pp. 3–12). Routledge. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2016). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Allyn & Bacon. General Authority for Statistics. (2019). The total population in 2018. General Authority for Statistics in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. https://www.stats.gov.sa/en/indicators Gokdere, K. (2012). A comparative study of the attitude, concern, and interaction levels of elementary school teachers and teacher candidates towards inclusive education. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 2800–2806. Hamilton-Jones, B. M., & Vail, C. O. (2014). Preparing special educators for collaboration in the classroom: Pre-service teachers’ beliefs and perspectives. International Journal of Special Education, 29(1), 76–86. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. Teachers College Press. Hentz, S. M., & Jones, P. M. (2011). Collaborate smart: Practical strategies and tools for educators. Council for Exceptional Children. Hettiarachchi, S., & Das, A. (2014). Perceptions of ‘inclusion’ and perceived preparedness among school teachers in Sri Lanka. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 143–153. Jones, P. (2014). Supporting school level conversations about inclusion through the facilitated Best Practices for Inclusive Education (BPIE) process: A Floridian story. Exceptional Child: Education and Upbringing, 2(70), 19–28. Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Baumer, P., & Lichon, K. (2015). Administrators as advocates for teacher collaboration. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(1), 51–57. Khairuddin, K. F., Dally, K., & Foggett, J. (2016). Collaboration between general and special education teachers in Malaysia. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16(1), 909–913. Lamar-Dukes, P., & Dukes, C. (2005). Consider the roles and responsibilities of the inclusion support teacher. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(1), 55–61. Lofthouse, R., & Thomas, U. (2017). Concerning collaboration: Teachers’ perspectives on working in partnerships to develop teaching practices. Professional Development in Education, 43(1), 36–56. McDougall, A. (2019). A Study of the collaborative strategies of general education and special education teachers in the inclusion classroom in an urban high school [Master’s thesis, Rowan University]. Rowan Digital Works. Meadan, H., & Monda-Amaya, L. (2008). Collaboration to promote social competence for students with mild disabilities in the general classroom: A structure for providing social support. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(3), 158–167. Ministry of Education. (1995). The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education of Saudi Arabia. (2002). Document of rules and regulations for special education institutes and programs. Ministry of Education. https://edu.moe.gov.sa/Taif/Sections/ EducationalAffairs/Pages/Special_Edu.aspx Ministry of Education of Saudi Arabia. (2008). Development of education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. AL-Frazdak Printing Press. Olore, K. L. (2017). The effectiveness of general and special education collaboration in middle schools [Doctoral dissertation, Lesley University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

54

KHALID MOHAMMED ABU-ALGHAYTH

Park, J., Lee, S. H., & Kim, Y. R. (2018). Pre-service special educators’ perceptions about collaboration with general educators in Korea: Implications for personnel preparation programs. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 15(1), 43–58. Sannen, J., Ferbuyt, N., De Maeyer, S., Struyf, E., Van Avermaet, P., & Petry, K. (2019). Development and validation of a social network instrument to assess and strengthen teacher collaboration in inclusive education. Pedagogische Studi¨en, 96(3), 190–207. Sheaha, M. H. (2004). Factors related to job dissatisfaction among special education teachers in Saudi Arabia [Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Tatweer for Educational Services. (2017). Practical guide: Inclusive education in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ministry of Education. Tatweer Co. For Educational Services. https://catalog.t4edu.com/ar/items/index/dThUcE85cWtnRnRqY3ZMM3Q0R1NEZz09 Tiwari, A., Das, A., & Sharma, M. (2015). Inclusive education a “rhetoric” or “reality”? Teachers’ perspectives and beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 128–136. Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2014). How to activate teachers through teacher evaluation? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(4), 509–530. Van Garderen, D., Stormont, M., & Goel, N. (2012). Collaboration between general and special educators and student outcomes: A need for more research. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 483–497. Wallace, T., Shin, J., Bartholomay, T., & Stahl, B. J. (2001). Knowledge and skills for teachers supervising the work of paraprofessionals. Exceptional Children, 67(4), 520–533. Zagona, A. L., Kurth, J. A., & MacFarland, S. Z. (2017). Teachers’ views of their preparation for inclusive education and collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(3), 163–178. Zhang, J., Wright, A. M., Kim, E. J., & Szilagyi, J. (2019). A collaborative journey toward inclusive teacher education programs. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 21(1–2), 37.

COLLABORATION IS THE KEY – THE ROLE OF SPECIAL EDUCATORS IN INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS IN GERMANY ¨ Phillip Neumann and Birgit Lutje-Klose

ABSTRACT Inclusive education is about creating beneficial environments for all students (Booth & Ainscow, 2011). Within Germany, the role of special education within inclusive schools has been widely discussed (Powell et al., 2016). Educators worldwide consider collaborative teaching between special educators and general educators to be a fundamental precondition for inclusive education (Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014). The history of the German school system, however, is characterized by a rigorous division of special and regular schools that is reflective of broad divisions in teacher education. Since the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in Germany in 2009, more students with special educational needs, as well as special educators, have begun to attend and work in inclusive schools. While cooperation between general and special educators is a key to the development of inclusive schools, many teachers report that responsibilities are divided between special and general teachers, while various challenges exist regarding cooperation (Urban & L¨utje-Klose, 2014). Nevertheless, dysfunctional cooperation can foster mechanisms of separation and exclusion even in “inclusive” settings (Idel et al., 2019). The present chapter offers a reflection on the different roles of special educators and the current state of research on interdisciplinary and multiprofessional cooperation in inclusive schools in Germany. It also provides a discussion of relevant implications for the development of inclusive schools and teacher training.

Instructional Collaboration in International Inclusive Education Contexts International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 17, 55–69 Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620210000017007

55

56

¨ PHILLIP NEUMANN AND BIRGIT LUTJE-KLOSE

Keywords: Inclusion; cooperation; collaboration; special education; Germany; multiprofessional cooperation

INTRODUCTION Ensuring the social and academic inclusion of students with special education needs (SEN) and adapting to those students’ requirements are among the main challenges faced by inclusive schools worldwide (UNESCO, 2017). Since the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in Germany in 2009, a growing number of students in Germany with special educational needs1 have been taught in inclusive schools. In 2018, 42.3 % of all students with SEN were taught in inclusive schools compared to only 18.4 % in 2008 (Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung, 2020). In Germany as well as internationally, the inclusion of children with SEN in regular classrooms is an important issue that requires multiprofessional collaboration between regular and special education teachers, therapists, social workers, and other school staff ¨ (Lutje-Klose & Neumann, 2018). The task of creating beneficial environments for all students (Booth & Ainscow, 2011) leads to challenges in the negotiation of roles and responsibilities. The role of special education in particular within inclusive schools is widely discussed in Germany (Powell et al., 2016) as well as in other European countries (Schwab, 2020). A central question in this context concerns the realization of cooperative teaching by special and general educators, a practice that educators and researchers worldwide consider fundamental for inclusive education (Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014). The German school system implements a multitrack approach for students with SEN (Brussino, 2020). Such an approach fosters the continued existence of special schools while simultaneously expanding inclusive schooling. In spite of the increasing number of students with SEN in inclusive classrooms, the number of students who attend special schools is decreasing only marginally. In fact, the latter figure is almost as high as it was before the ratification of the CRPD. At the same time, the overall percentages of students in Germany labeled having SEN has grown, from 5.9% of all students in 2008 to 7.4% in 2018 (Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung, 2020). As a consequence of these trends, the roles of special education teachers are changing and expanding, even while there is a large shortage of such teachers throughout the school system. On the one hand, many special educators continue to work as teachers in exclusive special schools, while on the other hand, a larger number assume the role of support personnel in inclusive schools, a position involving a completely different set of responsibilities. In inclusive schools, a special educators’ principal tasks can vary from diagnosing and counseling to performing small group interventions to team-teaching. This chapter offers a reflection on the different roles assumed by special educators and the current state of research on interdisciplinary cooperation in inclusive schools in Germany. Therefore, the chapter first provides an overview of the development of special education in Germany and a description of the different roles performed by special educators in inclusive schools. Subsequently,

Collaboration Is the Key

57

the chapter introduces a theoretical model of cooperation in (inclusive) schools and presents several key findings regarding cooperation in Germany’s inclusive schools. Finally, a discussion is offered concerning implications of the above for the development of inclusive schools in Germany and pre-service as well as inservice teacher training.

SPECIAL EDUCATION IN GERMANY – SHIFTING BETWEEN TWO SYSTEMS The roles and responsibilities of special educators in Germany today and the conflicts and challenges that accompany them are the result of the way special education developed historically in Germany and its traditional context, namely special schools, as well as the primary task of diagnosing students’ special educational needs. Some of the difficulties regarding cooperation arising in inclusive schools are only understandable against the background of the history of the German (special) school system. Due to Germany’s federal system, there are 16 different sets of legislation regarding teacher training, school organization, the diagnosis of SEN, and provision of special education (Blanck, 2015; Pfahl & Powell, 2011; Piezunka et al., 2016). Consistent throughout all German federal states is the rigorous division between special and regular schools, which corresponds with the broad divisions in teacher education. As inclusive schooling has expanded following the 2009 ratification of the CRPD in Germany, more students with SEN and special education teachers have moved from special schools to inclusive schools. Attempts to integrate those special educators in inclusive school settings, however, have met with obstacles and resulted in problems that are to some extent the consequence of the historical division of responsibilities. After the end of the Second World War, the strongly segregated and stratified school system of the former regime was reestablished in Germany, which included the institutionalization of special schools (Pfahl & Powell, 2011; Powell et al., 2016). While in primary education all German states oversaw one type of school (Grundschule), each state oversaw three to four different types of secondary schools: Hauptschule, Realschule, Gymnasium, and, beginning in the 1970s, a comprehensive school called Gesamtschule. An additional seven to 12 different types of special schools are in operation, one for each disability or special educational need, starting as early as the first grade.2 For a long time, the diagnosis of a students’ disability and respectively special needs in the school context necessarily resulted in that student being placed in a corresponding special school. Eventually, in 1994, the German legislators introduced the term and concept of sonderp¨adagogischer F¨orderbedarf to the education laws and implemented a new paradigm of individualized SEN (Pfahl & Powell, 2011). According to the new laws, special education support could be provided in any school type and not only in special schools, as was previously the case. Nonetheless, the German special school system has persisted, and German education has made only minor progress toward satisfying the requirements of the CRPD (Powell et al., 2016).

58

¨ PHILLIP NEUMANN AND BIRGIT LUTJE-KLOSE

As a result of this, all 16 German federal states continue to administer at least two systems of special education at once: the system of special schools and that of inclusive schools.3 Furthermore, some states maintain “special schools without students” in which special educators work as consultants for one or, quite often, multiple schools in their district (Beck & Maykus, 2016). These developments at the institutional level have been accompanied by a heated debate concerning the question of whether special education is an inde¨ pendent discipline or subdiscipline of education (Lutje-Klose & Neumann, 2015). A key component of this debate is the question of whether special educators in inclusive settings should be considered general teachers or providers of specialized services (Kretschmann, 1993; for a similar discussion of this debate in the United States, see; Murawski, 2010; Fuchs et al., 2010). Two general positions can be distinguished in the discourse on this debate in ¨ Germany (Lutje-Klose & Neumann, 2015). One position promotes a narrow understanding of the term “inclusion” that focuses on including students with SEN in inclusive schools; according to this view, schools and special education should aim primarily to adapt students’ behavior to fit in and normalize their performance in relation to the average performances of their non-SEN peers. In Germany, this approach is generally associated with the implementation of response-to-intervention (RTI) concepts and methods (e.g., Huber & Grosche, 2012; Voß et al., 2013). The purpose of implementing RTI concepts is to adapt teaching and special education interventions to the special needs of students in inclusive schools. One downside of the RTI approach, however, is the risk of encouraging student labeling through a strong focus on the normalization of learning outcomes (Limbach-Reich, 2015). In accordance with the focus on adaptation and normalization, the role of special education in RTI approaches is mainly to perform diagnostics and provide specialized (out-of-class) support for ¨ students with SEN (Lutje-Klose & Neumann, 2015). In contrast, the opposing position promotes a broad understanding of “inclusion” that is consistent with the idea of “Education for All” (UNESCO, 2017). According to this view, inclusive schools should address the needs of all children and strive to create the least restrictive environment possible for them, especially in cases where different barriers obstruct their learning, including but not limited to those affecting students with SEN. In this approach, special educators assume a broader variety of professional roles within inclusive schools: they counsel teachers, students, and their parents; they prepare and teach lessons both on their own and in forms of co-teaching; and they carry out diagnostics and provide individual support. According to supporters of this position, however, the main aim of special education should be to minimize the labeling and segregation of students and foster academic and social participation by valuing and promoting diversity in cooperation with general educators. Against this background, one can distinguish between three prototypical forms of special education services that are provided in inclusive schools in ¨ ¨ ¨ Germany (Lutje-Klose, 1997; Lutje-Klose & Neumann, 2018; Lutje-Klose & Urban, 2014). These services, which were first described by Reiser (1998), are the following:

Collaboration Is the Key

59

a. Personalized additive services (personalisierte additive Serviceleistung) This form of special education service comprises the narrowly defined tasks of diagnosing and providing special educational support. These services are personalized in that they focus on the individual student with (presumed) SEN and interventions are strictly bound to those students, while they are additive in the sense that interventions take place mostly outside of the classroom in pull-out settings. b. Team-teaching in joint classes (Doppelbesetzung im gemeinsamen Unterricht)/ Classroom-based intervention This form of special education service involves the shared teaching responsibilities of general and special educators. It comprises tasks such as the cooperative planning of lessons, as well as the implementation of different types of co-teaching (as discussed by Friend & Bursuck, 2006), although it is important to note that special educators are also expected to teach classes independently in certain subjects. c. Special educational ambulatory service and counseling (Sonderp¨adagogische Ambulanz und Beratung)/Collaborative consultation In this form of special education service, the special educators are responsible less for teaching than for supporting general teachers by advising them regarding classroom problems, by diagnosing students and by giving specific individualized support when needed. The difference between this class of services and personalized additive services is that, in this case, special educators are not bound primarily to those students with SEN but instead act in accordance with a broader, inclusive approach. Forms (b) and (c) are mainly associated with supporting inclusivity in inclusive schools, while form (a) is viewed as promoting “exclusive settings in inclusive schools.” Nonetheless, a large portion of the research conducted on inclusive schools in Germany demonstrates that most schools implement mixed forms of personalized ¨ additive services and special education counseling (Lutje-Klose & Neumann, 2018). These mixed forms are comparable to forms of “collaborative consultations” ¨ implemented in schools in the United States (Lutje-Klose, 1997). Given the combination of services described above, special educators who move from special schools to inclusive schools must adjust to a new set of ¨ requirements regarding their professional activity (Lutje-Klose & Urban, 2014). In special schools, their role is that of a teacher who plans and teaches classes, and staff normally consist of other special educators. In inclusive schools, on the other hand, they are responsible for regularly providing individual support outside the classroom and diagnosing students while only occasionally participating in teaching (Melzer et al., 2015; Moser & Kropp, 2014). The types of special education services that are provided in German schools today mostly resemble those described by Murawski (2010), and these continue to persist even in inclusive schools. In this organization of services, general teachers are responsible for classroom management and teaching, while special educators are

60

¨ PHILLIP NEUMANN AND BIRGIT LUTJE-KLOSE

responsible for performing administrative duties, diagnosing students, conducting individualized interventions, and advising teachers and parents. However, even within inclusive schools, the division of responsibilities between general and special educators in Germany may contribute to structures and practices that exclude students with SEN. Given this tendency in inclusive schools, general and special educators should aim to support inclusivity by cooperating and working together in interdisciplinary teams.

INTERDISCIPLINARY COOPERATION BETWEEN SPECIAL AND GENERAL EDUCATORS IN INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS Studies of inclusive schools in Germany have corroborated the findings of researchers worldwide in identifying the following principles as key to the administration of effective inclusive schools (Dyson, 2010; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014):

•A • • •

unifying vision: In effective inclusive schools, all professionals commit to being responsible for all the school’s students. These schools seek to prevent discrimination against all categories of student, not only against those with disabilities or SEN. Shared decision-making and distributed leadership: Principals are important actors in effective inclusive schools. They serve as the “keeper of the vision” (Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014, p. 21) and support their teaching staff while demanding commitment. Problem-solving organization: Effective inclusive schools focus on solving emerging problems by using the resources available in the best way possible. They therefore base decisions on data and collaboration in teams. Efficient and flexible use of resources: Using resources effectively and flexibly implies rejecting the traditional strict separation of the respective responsibilities of general and special educators. The flexible use of resources is enabled by ensuring that all educators share responsibilities for all students and by establishing cooperation structures (including making arrangements with socalled “para-professionals” like teaching assistants).

Studies of the German education system indicate that cooperation between general and special educators is highly important for ensuring inclusive schooling for students with SEN. That successful cooperation is a central factor for the development of inclusive schools was already highlighted by the authors of a study that accompanied pilot projects on the integration of students with disabilities in Germany in the early 1980s (e.g., Kreie, 1985). These findings have been reproduced in several studies conducted over the past decades (e.g., Arndt & Werning, 2013; Haas & Arndt, 2017; Idel et al., 2019). In a summary of their findings on inclusive secondary schools in Germany, Greiten et al. (2016) get to

Collaboration Is the Key

61

the heart of the matter, stressing that “cooperation [between general and special educators] is, from the point of view of both professions, the central access for a special educational perspective into the general school system” (Greiten et al., 2016, p. 155; translation by the authors). In Germany, a frequently used theoretical model of cooperation between teachers is the one published by Gr¨asel et al. (2006). In their model, the authors rely on the theory of cooperation advanced by Erika Spieß (2004), which is based on an organizational psychology approach, and adapt Spieß’s concept with regard to cooperation between (general) teachers in schools. The model is developed around three central variables: autonomy, mutual trust, and shared goals and tasks. Using these variables, Gr¨asel et al. (2006) differentiate between the following three forms of cooperation, characterized by different degrees of complexity:

• Exchange denotes “low-cost” forms of cooperation, such as informing other • •

teachers about daily incidents or exchanging teaching materials without further discussion. Coordination/shared work refers to forms of cooperation, in which all participants agree on shared goals and coordinate their actions to achieve them, such as when teachers plan a teaching unit on a specific task and each participant prepares a part of the unit. Coconstruction means forms of cooperation in which school- and teachingrelated problems are solved interactively through sharing of interpretation and knowledge and agreement on common goals and strategies.

These three forms are comparable to those described by the American researcher C. A. Marvin (1990), where exchange, in the model of Gr¨asel et al., is equivalent to cooperation in Marvin’s, and coconstruction is known as collaboration, with both models using the term coordination for the second form of cooperation. As the examples provided above demonstrate, cooperation as discussed by Gr¨asel et al. (2006) requires a broader understanding than is implied by the term “team-teaching” in the context of a classroom (Friend & Bursuck, 2006; Friend et al., 2010), as the former comprises all forms of cooperative action both in and outside the classroom. The centerpiece of the model of Gr¨asel et al. (2006) is its combination of the different forms of cooperation with the variables of teacher autonomy, mutual trust and shared goals and tasks among teachers. When forms of cooperation are more complex and demanding, individual participants are less autonomous, and more mutual trust is necessary. Furthermore, according to the model, teams of teachers develop a greater number of shared goals and tasks when they are engaged in more intense forms of cooperation (see Fig. 1). The model does not suppose a hierarchical relationship between the three forms of cooperation. Instead, each form has its value for particular tasks or situations in the school. Moreover, teams can have strong mutual trust while still engaging in forms of

¨ PHILLIP NEUMANN AND BIRGIT LUTJE-KLOSE

62

Fig. 1.

Forms of Cooperation in Schools. Source: Neumann (2019), based on Gr¨asel et al. (2006).

exchange; however, a high level of mutual trust is needed for teams to engage in collaborative forms of cooperation (Neumann, 2019). While considering the overlaps between the models of Gr¨asel et al. (2006) and of Marvin (1990), it should be noted that Marvin’s model was originally developed in the context of interdisciplinary cooperation in the United States, while the model of Gr¨asel et al. was adapted to also describe and analyze interdisciplinary cooperation in inclusive schools in Germany (Neumann, 2019). The broad definition of cooperation provided by the model of Gr¨asel et al., which goes beyond concepts of team-teaching, makes the model exceedingly relevant for inclusive settings because in addition to team-teaching by general and special educators, one of the keys to developing effective inclusive schools – and one of the main challenges for schools in Germany today – is fostering cooperation between teachers and school social workers, parents and external institutions ¨ such as school psychologists, youth welfare offices, and speech therapists (Bohm¨ ¨ Kasper, 2013; Bohm-Kasper et al., 2017; Lutje-Klose & Neumann, 2018). Research on interdisciplinary cooperation in inclusive schools in Germany has produced three central findings: first, cooperation has been found to support ¨ everyday work and facilitate the completion of everyday tasks (e.g., Lutje-Klose et al., 2005); second, cooperation has been described as an effective resource for teams and individuals (e.g., Gebhard et al., 2014); finally, however, cooperation has been identified as a burden when it is dysfunctional (e.g., Reh, 2008). In addition to the four principles identified at the beginning of this chapter as key to the administration of effective inclusive schools, a significant precondition

Collaboration Is the Key

63

for the development of functional cooperative relationships within German inclusive schools seems to be the affiliation of special educators with the schools ¨ at which they work (Lutje-Klose et al., 2005; Voß, 2013). Not all special educators in Germany have such an affiliation. In a study by Moser and Kropp (2014), more than 30% of special educators in locations around Germany reported working at more than one school and in some cases more than three schools, while a study by Beck and Maykus (2016) found that over 60% of the special educators in Lower Saxony worked at multiple schools. This tendency is additionally problematic when one considers that the amount of time teachers are given to cooperate has a crucial impact on the success of cooperative relationships and, moreover, on the effectiveness of inclusive schooling (e.g., Arndt & Werning, 2013; Neumann, 2019). Traveling between schools limits the time available not only for fostering cooperation but also for other tasks that special educators in schools must perform, such as diagnostics and providing individual support. Research has demonstrated that if teachers and special educators have little to dedicate to cooperation, they tend to separate responsibilities and let special educational support be implemented outside of the classroom (e.g., Unger, 2012), a tendency which is identified as an obstacle to the development of inclusive schools. Furthermore, as qualitative studies have revealed, teachers in German inclusive schools report that inconvenient framework conditions and difficulties in cooperating with teams often lead to special ¨ and general teachers having strictly divided responsibilities (Urban & LutjeKlose, 2014). This, in turn, can foster mechanisms of separation and exclusion even in “inclusive” settings (Idel et al., 2019). In promoting collaboration in inclusive schools, cooperation with and support from the school principals is found to be a relevant factor, as the principal is a key player who can create an environment that is conducive to for cooperation (Baumann et al., 2012; Lambrecht et al., 2020; Scheer, 2020). In particular, principals can support cooperation by promoting team structures and providing time and resources for cooperation. Furthermore, besides resources such as time and space, general and special educators identify mutual appreciation and acceptance between teachers, as well as feelings of trust and reliability, as bases ¨ for cooperation (e.g., Lutje-Klose, 1997) that can in some cases even make up for limited resources or the absence of team structures (Arndt & Werning, 2013). A main challenge in achieving interdisciplinary cooperation in inclusive schools is clarifying and reaching agreements regarding the respective roles and tasks of special and general educators. When these roles and tasks are vague or uncertain, special educators in particular have difficulties cooperating (Lindmeier ¨ & Beyer, 2011; Lutje-Klose et al., 2018). This appears as a crucial problem because there are no uniform legislative guidelines in place in Germany that would dictate how special education in inclusive schools should be implemented. As a result, each individual school can decide how to apply their resources for the purposes of special education (Lambrecht et al., 2016), and each school therefore clarifies the tasks and teaching roles of special educators in its own way. This situation makes the decisions of school principals highly important while complicating the work of the so-called “traveling special educators” who work at

64

¨ PHILLIP NEUMANN AND BIRGIT LUTJE-KLOSE

more than one school, as the latter are likely to be responsible for carrying out different roles and tasks at each school they work at.

IMPLICATIONS FOR INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS AND PREAND IN-SERVICE TEACHER TRAINING As the above summary of research on interdisciplinary cooperation in Germany indicates, the central challenge for special educators in German schools is to collaborate with general educators on-site to establish shared roles and tasks. For this purpose, a school’s or team’s available resources need to be evaluated and distributed to meet that school’s or team’s specific needs. The German multitrack approach, with its different forms of special educational services that vary ¨ between and even within federal states (e.g., Lutje-Klose et al., 2017), entails exceptional challenges for special educators in inclusive schools. There are few legal directives in place regarding the teaching roles and tasks of special educators or the diagnosis of SEN. Moreover, schools in all of Germany’s federal states enjoy a high degree of autonomy. These factors together place significant pressure on special educators to define their roles when they shift from special to inclusive schools, as well as on general teachers who are newly responsible for teaching in teams. Because of the traditional division in teacher training received by general and special educators in Germany, one can expect these groups of educators to have received different professional knowledge and socialization and to have distinct motivations and occupational expectations (e.g., Gorges et al., 2017; Kiel et al., 2015). Given this division, pre-service teacher training in recent decades has rarely sought to provide the professional skills and expertize required to negotiate multiple roles, collaboratively develop teaching in joint classes or provide students with individual support without fostering exclusive tendencies (Hopmann et al., 2019). To ensure that special and general teachers develop a positive attitude regarding inclusion, possess basic interdisciplinary cooperation skills and share knowledge about diagnostics, support and teaching in inclusive classrooms, German universities should implement joint pre-service and in-service training for special and general educators. At present, only a few universities in Germany have introduced integrated forms of special education teacher training, where general and special educators are trained and prepared together for at least a portion of their pre-service teacher training; these programs include the Integrated Teacher Training for Special Education program at Bielefeld University and the Teacher Training for Inclusive Education/Special Needs Education program at the University of Bremen. In these reformed teacher training programs, the training of special education teachers is blended with that of general teachers with the aim of overcoming the traditional separation of general and special education that is instituted already at the beginning of the teacher professionalization process (for more information on the Bielefeld Model, see Amrhein et al., 2015). In the Bielefeld model’s bachelor’s and master’s programs, students of both general and special education are assigned as many modules as

Collaboration Is the Key

65

possible; students are thereby provided with a variety of different viewpoints and competencies, and cooperation between special and general educators is fostered ¨ as early as possible in order to cultivate multiprofessional cooperation (LutjeKlose et al., 2014). To promote collaboration in inclusive schools and support in-service teachers and special educators, training sessions should be conducted on-site and address whole, multiprofessional teams at once. Several forms of in-service training have been developed recently that promise to develop team structures and encourage collaboration (e.g., Wild et al., 2020). Given the different forms of cooperation and their respective requirements (see Fig. 1), teachers and special educators need to be prepared to accept the difficulties caused by changes in team structures as well as in individual work conditions when striving to implement forms of collaboration. It must be noted that collaboration is not only developed through the efforts of individual teachers but also depends on the support of principals, who must provide educators with time outside of their teaching hours to cooperate with one another and demonstrate a supportive attitude toward cooperation (Neumann, 2019). One approach that appears to be effective in fostering collaboration in inclusive schools is the implementation of collaborative Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). Researchers claim that when schools institute collaborative forms of IEPs, they provide a methodological foundation that facilitates collaboration between teachers (Eggert, 1997; Popp et al., 2017). Recent research also indicates that IEPs, when successfully implemented, are a promising tool for promoting the inclusion of students with SEN in regular schools (Idel et al., 2019). However, effectively implementing IEPs only appears feasible if structural changes are implemented within the German school system that brings standards in inclusive schools in line with CRPD requirements. As long as special education resources are divided in a multitrack system, there will never be sufficient resources to ensure that inclusive schools serve all students.

NOTES 1. The recommendations of the German Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) in 1994 introduced the term “sonderp¨adagogischer F¨orderbedarf” into German school laws (Sekretariat der Kultusministerkonferenz, 1994). The construct is based on the international term “special educational needs.” Until then, underachieving students, students with behavioral problems and students with any kind of disability were defined as “sonderschulbed¨urftig,” which can be translated as “needing schooling in a special school.” 2. Five of the 16 German federal states (L¨ander) established a two-track secondary education system: Bremen, Hamburg, Saarland, Schleswig-Holstein, and Saxony. Since 2009, Bremen also has closed nearly all of its special schools (Maaz et al., 2019). 3. This is in addition to schools at both the primary and secondary level that do not teach students with SEN at all, such as the Gymnasiums, which very rarely include students with SEN.

66

¨ PHILLIP NEUMANN AND BIRGIT LUTJE-KLOSE

REFERENCES ¨ Amrhein, B., Lutje-Klose, B., & Miller, S. (2015). The bielefeld model of integrated special education – ways out of the dilemma of developing inclusion-sensitive teacher education. In S. G. Huber (Ed.), Yearbook of school management 2015 (pp. 224–240). Wolters Kluwer. Arndt, A.-K., & Werning, R. (2013). Instructional collaboration of regular teachers and special educators: Results of a qualitative research project. In R. Werning & A.-K. Arndt (Eds.), Inclusion: Developing cooperation and teaching (pp. 12–40). Klinkhardt. Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung. (2020). Education in Germany 2020. An indicator-based report with an analysis of education in a digitized world. wbv Media. Baumann, B., Henrich, C., & Studer, M. (2012). Framework of instructional cooperation. Swiss Journal of Special Education, 18(9), 42–47. Beck, A., & Maykus, S. (2016). Teacher collaboration in inclusive elementary schools from an interprofessionality perspective. Empirical findings on evaluation and experience of intra-school collaboration. In S. Maykus, A. Beck, G. Hensen, A. Lohmann, H. Schinnenburg, M. Walk, E. Werding, & S. Wiedebusch (Eds.), Inclusive education in day care centers and elementary schools. Empirical findings and implications for practice (pp. 146–172). Beltz Juventa. Blanck, J. M. (2015). Integration and inclusion in schools in Germany. A comparative view of the 16 ¨ federal states. In P. Kuhl, P. Stanat, B. Lutje-Klose, C. Gresch, H. A. Pant, & M. Prenzel (Eds.), Inclusion of students with special educational needs in school achievement tests (pp. 153–177). Springer Fachmedien. ¨ Bohm-Kasper, O. (2013). Teacher cooperation at all-day schools. Stress experience and work climate. Schoolmanagement – The Journal of School and Classroom Development, 4, 13–16. ¨ Bohm-Kasper, O., Demmer, C., & Gausling, P. (2017). Multi-professional cooperation in open versus ¨ restricted all-day programs. In B. Lutje-Klose, S. Miller, S. Schwab, & B. Streese (Eds.), Inclusion: Profiles for school and classroom development in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Theoretical foundations – empirical findings – practical examples (pp. 117–128). Waxmann. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion. Developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Brussino, O. (2020). Mapping policy approaches and practices for the inclusion of students with special education needs. OECD Education Working Papers, (227). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/ 10.1787/600fbad5-en. Dyson, A. (2010). Developing inclusive schools: Three perspectives from England. DDS – The German School, 102(2), 115–129. Eggert, D. (1997). Focusing strengths. Individual development plans (IEP) in learning diagnostics (2nd ed.). Borgmann. Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2006). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers (4th ed.). Pearson. Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9–27. 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(3), 301–323. Gebhard, S., Happe, C., Paape, M., Riestenpatt, J., V¨agler, A., Wollenweber, K. U., & Castello, A. (2014). Characteristics and evaluation of cooperation between special educators and regular teachers in inclusive classroom settings. Empirical Special Education, 6(1), 17–32. ¨ Gorges, J., Neumann, P., Lutje-Klose, B., & Wild, E. (2017). Dimensions of inclusion-related motivation for further education of special educators and teachers of general schools. Empirical Special Education, 9(3), 199–214. ¨ Gr¨asel, C., Fussangel, K., & Probstel, C. H. (2006). Encouraging teachers to cooperate – a task for Sisyphus? Journal of Pedagogy, 52(2), 205–219. Greiten, S., Franz, E.-K., & Biederbeck, I. (2016). How is the special education perspective contoured and how does it find its way into inclusive teaching in general schools? Findings from group discussions on experiences regarding networking of special education teachers and regular

Collaboration Is the Key

67

school teachers. In A. Kreis, J. Wick, & C. Kosorok Labhart (Eds.), Cooperation in the context of heterogeneity in schools (pp. 143–158). Waxmann. Haas, B., & Arndt, I. (2017). On the way to inclusive schools. The importance of teamwork and cooperation for the implementation of inclusion in schools in Bremen. https://www.gew.de/file admin/media/publikationen/hv/Hochschule_und_Forschung/Ausbildung_von_Lehrerinnen_und_ Paedagogen/Zukunftsforum_Lehrer_innenbildung/Lehrer_innenbildung_Auf_dem_Weg_zur_in klusiven_Schule.pdf. Accessed on April 6, 2021. ¨ ¨ Hopmann, B., Bohm-Kasper, O., & Lutje-Klose, B. (2019). Multi-professional cooperation in inclusive all-day schools as a topic of university teaching. Challenge Teacher Education – Journal for Conceptualization, Design, and Discussion, 2(3), 400–421. Hoppey, D., & McLeskey, J. (2014). What are qualities of effective inclusive schools? In J. McLeskey, N. L. Waldron, F. Spoonder, & B. Algozzine (Eds.), Handbook of effective inclusive schools. Research and practice (pp. 17–29). Routledge. Huber, C., & Grosche, M. (2012). The response-to-intervention model as a foundation for an inclusive paradigm shift in special education. Journal of Special Education, 63(8), 312–322. ¨ ¨ ¨ Idel, T.-S., Lutje-Klose, B., Gruter, S., Mettin, C., Meyer, A., Neumann, P., Buttner, G., Hasselhorn, M., & Schneider, W. (2019). Inclusion in the Bremen school system. In K. Maaz, M. ¨ Hasselhorn, T.-S. Idel, E. Klieme, B. Lutje-Klose, P. Stanat, M. Neumann, A. Bachsleitner, J. ¨ Luhne, & S. Schipolowski (Eds.), Empirical focus on two track education systems and inclusion. Results of the evaluation of the bremen school reform (pp. 121–161). Waxmann. Kiel, E., Heimlich, U., Markowetz, R., & Weiß, S. (2015). Common and yet different – a comparison of career choice motives of prospective teachers in special and general education. Empirical Special Education, 7(4), 300–319. Kreie, G. (1985). Integrative cooperation: On the cooperation of special educators and elementary school teachers. Beltz. Kretschmann, R. (1993). Methodology and didactics of integrative teaching. In H. Mohr (Ed.), Integration changes schools. Concepts of special education centers (pp. 54–72). Hamburger Buchwerkstatt. ¨ Lambrecht, J., Bosse, S., Henke, T., J¨antsch, C., & Sporer, N. (2016). An inclusive elementary school is an inclusive elementary school? Journal of Educational Research, 6(2), 135–150. ¨ Lambrecht, J., Lenkeit, J., Hartmann, A., Ehlert, A., Knigge, M., & Sporer, N. (2020). The effect of school leadership on implementing inclusive education: How transformational and instructional leadership practices affect individualised education planning. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1752825. Limbach-Reich, A. (2015). “Response to intervention” (RTI) in the tension field of inclusive diagnostics. In H. Sch¨afer, C. Rittmeyer, & B. Altenrichter (Eds.), Inclusive diagnostics manual (pp. 478–495). Beltz. Lindmeier, B., & Beyer, T. (2011). Cooperation of teachers in different forms of school integration. Special education today, 56(4), 396–413. ¨ Lutje-Klose, B. (1997). Ways of integrative language and communication support in schools. Conceptual ¨ developments and their assessment by American and German experts. Rohrig. ¨ Lutje-Klose, B., Miller, S., & Ziegler, H. (2014). Professionalization for inclusive schools as a challenge for teacher education. Social Passages, 6, 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12592-014-0165-7. ¨ Lutje-Klose, B., & Neumann, P. (2015). The role of special education in teacher professionalization for inclusive schooling. In T. H¨acker & M. Walm (Eds.), Inclusion as development. Consequences for schools and teacher education (pp. 101–116). Klinkhardt. ¨ ¨ Lutje-Klose, B., & Neumann, P. (2018). Professionalization for an inclusive school. In B. Lutje-Klose, T. Riecke-Baulecke, & R. Werning (Eds.), Basic knowledge teacher education: Inclusion in schools and classrooms. Basics in special education (pp. 129–151). Klett und Kallmeyer. ¨ Lutje-Klose, B., Neumann, P., Gorges, J., & Wild, E. (2018). The bielefeld longitudinal study on learning in inclusive and exclusive forms of special needs education (BiLieF) – central findings. DDS – The German School, 110(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.31244/dds.2018.02.02. ¨ Lutje-Klose, B., Neumann, P., & Streese, B. (2017). Inclusion in schools in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) – seven years after the ratification of the UN CRPD. Journal for Inclusion. https:// www.inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion-online/article/view/416. Accessed on September 15, 2021.

68

¨ PHILLIP NEUMANN AND BIRGIT LUTJE-KLOSE

¨ Lutje-Klose, B., & Urban, M. (2014). Cooperation as an essential condition for inclusive schools and teaching development. Part 1: Foundations and models of inclusive schools and teaching development. Journal of Special Education and its Neighboring Fields Quarterly, 83(2), 112–123. ¨ Lutje-Klose, B., Urban, M., Werning, R., & Willenbring, M. (2005). Special needs education in lower Saxony: Qualitative study on pedagogical work in regional integration concepts. Journal of Special Education, 56(3), 82–94. ¨ Maaz, K., Hasselhorn, M., Idel, T.-S., Klieme, E., Lutje-Klose, B., Stanat, P., Neumann, M., ¨ Bachsleitner, A., Luhne, J., & Schipolowski, S. (2019). Empirical focus on two track education systems and inclusion. Results of the evaluation of the Bremen school reform. Waxmann. Marvin, C. A. (1990). Problems in school-based speech language consultation and collaboration services: Defining the terms and improving the process. In W. Secord & E. H. Wiig (Eds.), Collaborative programs in the schools. Concepts, models, and procedures (pp. 37–47). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Melzer, C., Hillenbrand, C., Sprenger, D., & Hennemann, T. (2015). Tasks of teachers in inclusive education systems – review of international studies. Educational Science, 26(51), 61–80. Moser, V., & Kropp, A. (2014). Final report: “Competencies in inclusive settings” (KIS) – preliminary work on a competency structure model for special educators. Berlin. Murawski, W. W. (2010). Collaborative teaching in elementary schools: Making the co-teaching marriage work! Corwin. Neumann, P. (2019). Cooperation self-determined? Interdisciplinary cooperation and goal conflicts in inclusive elementary schools and special schools. Waxmann. Pfahl, L., & Powell, J. J. (2011). Legitimating school segregation. The special education profession and the discourse of learning disability in Germany. Disability & Society, 26(4), 449–462. Piezunka, A., Gresch, C., S¨alzer, C., & Kroth, A. (2016). Identification of pupils according to UN CRPD requirements in nationwide surveys: Special educational needs, special education or special support? Journal of Pedagogy, 62, 190–211. Popp, K., Melzer, C., & Methner, A. (2017). Develop and implement individualized education plans (3rd ed.). Ernst Reinhardt Verlag. Powell, J. J., Edelstein, B., & Blanck, J. M. (2016). Awareness-raising, legitimation or backlash? Effects of the UN convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities on education systems in Germany. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 14(2), 227–250. Reh, S. (2008). “Reflexivity of the organization” and commitment. Perspectives on teacher cooperation. In W. Helsper, S. Busse, M. Hummrich, & R.-T. Kramer (Eds.), Pedagogical profes¨ Sozialwissenschaften. sionalism in organizations (Vol. 23, pp. 163–183). VS Verlag fur Reiser, H. (1998). Special education as a service? Perspectives on the professional role and the professionalization of special educators. Journal of Special Education, 49(2), 46–54. Scheer, D. (2020). School principals and inclusion. Springer. Schwab, S. (2020). Inclusive and special education in Europe. In Oxford research encyclopedias. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1230. Sekretariat der Kultusministerkonferenz. (1994). Recommendations for special needs education in schools in the Federal Republic of Germany. Sekretariat der St¨andigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der L¨ander in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Spieß, E. (2004). Cooperation and conflict. In H. Schuler, N. Birbaumer, D. Frey, J. Kuhl, W. Schneider, & R. Schwarzer (Eds.), Organizational psychology – group and organization (pp. 193–250). Hogrefe. UNESCO. (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Unger, M. (2012). Cooperation between primary and special school teachers within the framework of regional integration concepts in Lower Saxony. In S. Seitz, N.-K. Finnern, N. Korff, & K. Scheidt (Eds.), Inclusive equals equitable? Inclusion and educational justice (pp. 222–227). Klinkhardt. ¨ Urban, M., & Lutje-Klose, B. (2014). Professional cooperation as an essential condition for inclusive schools and teaching development. Part 2: Research results on intra – and interprofessional cooperation. Journal of Special Education and its Neighboring Fields Quarterly (VHN), 83(4), 283–294.

Collaboration Is the Key

69

Voß, L. (2013). The concepts of “competence centers for special education” and “regional integration concepts” as precursors for inclusion. A qualitative study. In R. Werning & A.-K. Arndt (Eds.), Inclusion: Developing cooperation and teaching (pp. 63–85). Klinkhardt. ¨ Voß, S., Blumenthal, Y., Diehl, K., Mahlau, K., Sikora, S., & Hartke, B. (2013). The Rugen Inclusion Model (RIM): Interim results after two years. Live Together, 21(2), 91–99. ¨ ¨ Wild, E., Lutje-Klose, B., Gorges, J., Neumann, P., Gruter, S., Weber, A., & Goldan, J. (2020). Cooperation is the key – the “bielefeld training on cooperation in inclusive schools” (BiFoKi). SEMINAR – Teacher Education and School, 26(4), 56–68.

This page intentionally left blank

SOCIAL INNOVATION THROUGH COLLABORATION FOR ENABLING EDUCATIONAL INCLUSIVE ECOSYSTEMS: FOLLOWING ITALY’S LEAD Elisabetta Ghedin

ABSTRACT This chapter aims to investigate how a range of emerging trends within the international community can be used to build a connective educational ecosystem based on an inclusive and universal process (Biggeri et al., 2017; Ziegler, 2017). The starting question is: how multidisciplinary teams in Italy could take action toward inclusive education? Partnering is becoming a central system organization strategy for schools to adopt for successful innovative teams with creative educational ideas (Kelly et al., 2002), and here it is declined in the Italian context in which inclusive education was officially embraced in 1977 as a national policy (D’Alessio, 2011). National legislation (104/92 Law) made explicit the mandate that students with disabilities receive their education (to the maximum extent possible) with nondisabled peers in the general education classroom using appropriate supplemental aids and services in the least-restrictive environment (Anastasiou et al., 2015; Canevaro & de Anna, 2010). It is crucial to encourage new forms of practice which require collaboration capabilities (Hattie, 2015; Vangrieken et al., 2015) between multidisciplinary teams that comprised general teachers, special education teachers, health professionals, school psychologists, school leaders, and the students’ family (Meirink et al., 2010). These resources could be distributed across inclusive ecosystems to support all students by enabling them to prosper in an Instructional Collaboration in International Inclusive Education Contexts International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 17, 71–96 Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620210000017008

71

72

ELISABETTA GHEDIN

increasingly diversified and complex environment in which creativity, ability to innovate, entrepreneurship, and a commitment to continuous learning are joint and connective (EU, 2008). This creates a state of positive multiagency collaboration that promotes the well-being of students and the system. Keywords: Social innovation; inclusive education; collaboration; network; connection; ecosystem

INTRODUCTION The goal of the measure taken by the Italian Ministry of Education is to ensure an increasingly welcoming school for pupils with disabilities, strengthening the role of families and professional partners in the inclusion process and involving – especially through on-the-job training – all school staff. With a revised and rationalized system and strengthened functions, all contributors (school leaders, school staff, teachers, psychologists, health professionals) will operate to support inclusion, with greater involvement of families and associations (Council of Ministers. Reform of the National Education and Training System 2015 L. 107). The education system must develop an improved infrastructure and processes for networking and sharing professional knowledge and must promote school as an active and open community in order to increase connections with families and local organizations, including those of the nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations or associations and private firms. School leaders should facilitate the necessary relationships with the local authorities and the various institutional, cultural, social, and economic realities. The school system also takes into account the proposals and opinions of parents’ organizations and secondary school students (Council of Ministers. Reform of the National Education and Training System 2015 L. 107). Moreover, the activities of the network of all the involved partners determine moves toward inclusion in practices. We assume here that sustainable human development refers to a forward-looking, learning, searching, and experimental process in which established coordination patterns are complemented, extended, and shaped by aspects such as selforganization, cross-sector cooperation, networks, and new forms of knowledge production to reconfigure these interfaces into sustainability-oriented governance (Howaldt & Schwarz, 2017, p. 172). Associated processes of “cross-sector fertilization” (Phills et al., 2008, p. 40) and the convergence of sectors (Austin et al., 2007) make “blended value creation” increasingly possible (Emerson, 2003, p. 49). Thus, the requirements for collaboration and networking between actors and across sectors increase, and connective capabilities promote “real” empowerment and participation by supporting power to and power over (through collaboration) and how collaboration challenges the existing power relations within the current aid system. The limited available literature on how this could be implemented to the benefit of communities stresses the challenge of liberating reflection and imagination and complements the search for improved principles, justice, and equality with a bottomup actor-perspective by promoting the reorganization of human resources based on collaboration. Without intentional and strategic collaboration across support organizations, inclusive ecosystems cannot achieve their full potential for inclusive

Social Innovation through Collaboration

73

innovation. This process empowers the community to achieve a collective goal grounded in their desire to change a given situation (Chiappero Martinetti et al., 2017), to attain different outcomes, or to improve access to public goods and services (Biggeri et al., 2017). Equipping schools to engage in collaboration will require a sustained focus and commitment of time, finances, technology, and professional expertise. Such a climate is necessary to support schools in designing and implementing new methods, technologies, and pedagogies. Just as important, education professionals must become agents of change rather than objects of change as education develops (Bourn, 2016). Their practice should be reflective, assessing innovative approaches and determining what works best in which circumstances. Hence, in order to spur educational reflectivity, we need to clarify the basic terms of the debate and explore how educational collaboration can be enhanced by new forms of innovation management and new forms of connections in and between schools. Education systems designed in the last century no longer meet the needs of our learners or our societies, and schools must be transformed to engage today’s young people (UNESCO, 2013). To this end, here it will be proposed the Educational Inclusive EcoSystem (EIESy) model with the aim of offering a complex background of the inclusive italian context by connecting the institutional landscape and the semantic landscape (“sfondo semantico”) (Dainese, 2019). EIESy, in fact, depicts the “Sfondo istituzionale” which refers to the specific original organization, implicit and explicit, of space, time, mediation, communication rules, and possible actions of collaborative partnerships. However, to actualize positive and productive multidisciplinary teams, it is also necessary to consider the “Sfondo semantico,” which is the construction of the conceptual and emotional background lived and experienced by the partners within which the organized networks act (Berlini & Canevaro, 1996, as cited in Dainese, 2019). A “structure of narrative connection” (Canevaro et al., 1988, as cited in; Dainese, 2019) refers to meanings shared by stakeholders acting mutually toward the creation of a shared context. The organization of the educational context can facilitate or hinder, to the point of inhibiting, this activity (ICF, WHO, 2007). Hence the value, especially when considering special educational needs and obstacles to learning and participation, of institutions designing the organization of the educational environment, with a commitment at promoting “connective capabilities” aimed at supporting the well-being functionings of the entire organization.

THE LANDSCAPE: PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS THROUGH COLLABORATION Within the ongoing financial uncertainties and rapidly dwindling resource reserves at the global level, on September 25, 2015, the General Assembling of the United Nations (UN) adopted a resolution known as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015). This Agenda is a plan of action with the aim of strengthening universal peace and widespread freedom. This plan

74

ELISABETTA GHEDIN

is intended to be pursued in a collaborative partnership between all countries and stakeholders. One aspirational target is to provide inclusive and equitable quality education at all levels in a nurturing environment in the form of safe schools and cohesive communities for the full realization of all students’ potentials (UN, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on September 25, 2015). This Agenda reaffirmed the global community’s commitment to promote effective public, public–private, and civil society partnerships that build on the experience and resourcing strategies of the members. Knowledge exchange and collaboration among UN agencies supports the educational proposals in the Post-2015 Development Agenda and sustainable development goals in education at an international, national, and local level. Similarly, networking schools globally would allow students to learn and share worldwide. Partnerships between civil society organizations, the private sector, schools, and governments are crucial in building education for sustainable development in many countries. Although working through networks and in partnerships can be challenging, it is nevertheless essential for wide-scale system change. Partnerships and networks have existed for many years as mechanisms to advance work in climate change, biodiversity, water, poverty alleviation, sustainable consumption, and production, among other major challenges facing the world today. There is growing capacity in the education sector to work in alignment and collaboration with these long-standing sustainable development partnerships and networks, suggesting that pursuit of these relationships may prove fruitful in the coming years (UNESCO, 2014). This effort could influence education pedagogies and approaches that encourage learners to ask questions, analyze, think critically, and make decisions in collaboration with others. Innovative approaches to learning contribute to understanding among learners that will, in turn, support future sustainable development (UNESCO, 2011). Participatory learning processes, critical thinking, and problem-based learning are proving particularly conducive to education for sustainable development, and so interagency collaboration between all stakeholders should be reinforced and continued as essential to moving toward inclusive and sustainable education (EU, 2018). The basis of this vision is that collaboration is key, and that this process cannot be established top-down through creating structures and making agreements in advance. In practice, collaboration, trust, and connection must grow slowly, from the bottom, through jointly realized initiatives. New research suggests that multiactor collaboration strengthens and improves all phases in the innovation process (Eggers & Singh, 2009; Hartley, 2005; Nambisan, 2008). Comprehension of the problems and challenges at hand is improved when the experiences and knowledge of different public and private actors are included, allowing new ideas to be sharpened and combined. The selection and testing of the promising solutions is improved by the participation of actors with different backgrounds and concerns in the discussion on the gains and risks. Last, but not least, the diffusion of innovation is enhanced because the participants act as ambassadors and disseminate both the content and advantages of the innovative practices (Sørensen & Torfing, 2013).

Social Innovation through Collaboration

75

While much has been written about the practice of networking for the creation of a sustainable development policy, an exploration of these practices could help ensure that the full benefits of collaboration are being achieved. Within this landscape is the EIESy model that seeks to embrace the premises illustrated here. Further research is needed on the process of multistakeholder social learning, with innovative methodologies that capture the learning taking place at the various levels and provide a better sense of how this learning contributes to sustainability. Moreover, capability connections play an important role in catalyzing, linking, and mediating interaction within multistakeholder mechanisms. Building space for the facilitation of learning through partnerships, including how to manage these processes in online environments, as well as the creation of adequate monitoring and evaluation strategies will be essential in the years to come.

THE EDUCATIONAL INCLUSIVE ECOSYSTEM This section illustrates a connective hub and inclusive network ecosystem for connecting multiple devices (persons and services) together to act as a single network segment through a deliberative approach. The EIESy proposed here comes from research work within the Dislocating Education by Empowering Connective Capabilities in the Communities (DEECCC-School Project) research project1, University of Padova, FISPPA Dept., conducted during 2017–2019, of which the author was the principal investigator. The research project explored how connective capabilities can promote “real” empowerment and participation of the involved by supporting power from within (through conscientization), with (through conciliation), and to and over (through collaboration). The aim of the research was to promote, support, and sustain grassroots innovations in inclusive educational systems taking into account connective capabilities, inclusive cultures, policies, and practices.2 The proposed framework conceptualizes a connective, generative, and accessible “ecosystem” (EU Commission, 2015) or “enabling ecosystem” (OECDLEED, 2016), a connective space in which individual, relational, collective, and social capabilities nurture personal and relational well-being. Inclusive innovation, entrepreneurship, and investment ecosystems can be built anywhere. The essence of an entrepreneurial ecosystem is its people and a culture of trust and collaboration that allows them to interact successfully. An inclusive ecosystem allows for the fast development and flow of authentically diverse talent, information, and resources, so that entrepreneurs can quickly find what they require at each stage of growth. As a result, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. As mentioned above, the recent 107/15 Italian law declares that schools need to develop the capability to connect different types of systems with varied functions. Partnering is becoming a central system organizational strategy for schools (Yoshino & Rangan, 1995, as cited in Kelly et al., 2002). Amartya Sen stated that the intrinsic satisfactions that occur in a life must occur in an individual’s life, but in terms of causal connections, they depend on social

76

ELISABETTA GHEDIN

interactions with others (Sen, 2002, p. 85). This is a matter of how their relational social identities enable them to develop their individual capabilities in the roles they occupy in social groups. These roles individualize them, but an analysis of the collective intentionality beyond their commitments to others in their role also enables people to individualize themselves relative to others. Indeed, roles are typically interlocking and, consequently, combine people with one another in partnerships and teams. In these within-a-group social interactions, people develop their capabilities, not just in terms of what they can be and do, but in terms of what they can be and do in collaboration with others who are similarly developing their capabilities (Davis, 2015). The idea is to move beyond the “invited” spaces for participation, so that communities can create their own participatory and connective ecosystem through dislocating grassroots educational innovations (Cornwall, 2002; Gaventa, 2004). These are ecosystems “in which like-minded people join together in common pursuits” and where “real empowerment and participation” (Cornwall, 2002, p. 24) are promoted through grassroots initiatives and sustained through collaboration processes. An ecosystem that plays host to several organizations encourages the creation of relationships and connections that might lead to social innovation. What matters is the organization’s capacity to connect to other organizations and the value of their knowledge and activities (Biggeri et al., 2017). This is the reason why different community ethos develop different ecosystems. Community-based approach, community-based participatory research, community-based education, commons-based peer production, and community-based inclusion/ rehabilitation are examples of a tendency to focus on the participatory processes of those involved in the collaboration. The hallmark of these systems is effective collaboration among large groups of individuals to provide information, knowledge, or cultural goods without relying on either market pricing or managerial hierarchies. Connections between different groups provide opportunities for people to engage in practices that permit them to exhibit and experience virtuous behaviors. Thus, connective capital is crucial within these ecosystems (Ichniowski & Shaw, 2009). A wide variety of knowledge and skill sets are necessary in order to enhance an organization’s innovation capabilities and functionings and soft skills that give employees and volunteers the capacity to work and connect with others. Openness to new ideas and points of view, agreeableness, entrepreneurial attitude, and the capacity to analyze issues in a multidisciplinary perspective enhance the connective capability in educational innovation. The present work is inspired by two frameworks: (i) an integration of topdown and bottom-up approach (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Cohen, 2004) and (ii) an ecological systems framework (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Odom et al., 2004). Concerning the first point here, the proposal is versus an equilibrium of top-down and bottom-up visions because at last knowledge dimensions (topdown dimensions: from literature on human development approach, pedagogy of freedom, collaborative evaluation) and incoming dimensions from the environment (bottom-up dimensions coming from the DEECCC-School Project) are integrated. But this equilibrium is not necessarily stable. It is liable to be upset by

Social Innovation through Collaboration

77

further examination of the conditions which should be imposed on the contractual situation and by particular cases which may lead us to revise our principles and dimensions (Rowls, 1999). These top-down and bottom-up dimensions are organized in a multitier collection at different “systems levels” – macro-, meso-, and microsystem – within a broad, ecological structure. These different levels exert reciprocal influences on one another (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The model is built around the principles of inclusive education according to the European Agency (2015). In line with the major trends connected with the 2030 Agenda, this theory-based model aims to promote design and evaluation processes based on the idea of connected networks and can serve as a framework for planning, improving, and evaluating EIESy quality at local, regional, and national levels, and taking as an example the experience of Italy in promoting inclusive and sustainable flourishing life design for children and youth with disabilities and special educational needs (Fig. 1). The Macrosystem The macrosystem is composed of the global pattern of ideologies, beliefs, values, religions, forms of government, cultures, and subcultures present in the daily lives of people who influence their development. Here the macrosystem refers to consistencies in the content of lower-order systems (micro–meso) that exists, or could exist, at the level of subculture or the culture as a whole, along with any belief system or ideology underlying such inconsistencies (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 26). The dimensions of the EIESy macrosystem are: human development, mainstream access for all, good governance and adequate resources, innovative learning environments, collaborative evaluation for all, self-assessment. Human development: We assume that sustainable and human development (Minsch et al., 1998, VIII, as cited in Howaldt & Schwarz, 2017) refers to forward-looking social learning, searching, and experimentation processes in which established steering and coordination patterns are complemented, extended, and shaped by aspects such as self-organization, cross-sector cooperation, networks, and new forms of knowledge production in order to reconfigure these interfaces for sustainability-oriented governance (Howaldt et al., 2015, p. 42). The Human Development Approach (HDA) places people at the center of development, in the process of “creating an environment in which individuals can develop their potential and lead a life capable of satisfying one’s desires, needs and interests” (Biggeri & Chiappero Martinetti, 2010, p. 38), clearing the way to both subjectivity and multidisciplinary development. A scientific revolution of similar magnitude has revived the debate around development policies in individual countries and internationally, leading to a complete rethinking of action strategies. A policy issue connected to a focus on well-being indicates the need to promote a culture in which people give value to sustainable human development and the principles of inclusion, equity, and justice. This approach highlights the ability of development to enlarge opportunities for people and facilitate an environment where people can enjoy what they value in life. Some studies (Alden Rivers et al., 2015; Ananiadou & Claro, 2009; Beamish & McLeod, 2014; Griffin

78

Educational Inclusive EcoSystem (EIESy Model).

ELISABETTA GHEDIN

Fig. 1.

Social Innovation through Collaboration

79

et al., 2012; Lambert, 2015; Metz, 2011) highlight that promoting the well-being of all means transforming the terms on which they engage with others and others engage with them, with the goal of understanding the formal and informal ways in which people associate with each other and the spaces in which it happens. Mainstream access for all: Since the 1970s, Italy has strived toward full inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream schools, implementing an antidiscriminatory educational policy and abandoning segregated educational practices (Caldin, 2013; Cornoldi et al., 1998; Ferri, 2017; OECD, 1999). Despite a progressive legal framework, however, numerous shortfalls have emerged in the Italian school system: the Italian approach to inclusion is not without its challenges (D’Alessio, 2011; Kanter et al., 2014; Norwich, 2015). The process to develop ways to help learners with disabilities gain access to the general education curriculum began nearly 50 years ago (Council of Ministers, 1977, p. 517). In the early years, it focused on helping individuals adapt or “fix” themselves, overcoming their disabilities in order to learn within the general education curriculum (Council of Ministers, 1992, p. 104). This work focused on assistive technology, compensatory tools (such as spellcheck), and skill-building software, all of which remain an important facet of any comprehensive educational plan. However, this focus obscured the critical role of the environment in determining who is or who is not considered “disabled” (i.e. according to the International Classification of Functioning, 2001; The United Nations, 2006). In the late 1980s, the attention shifted toward the curriculum and its limitations (i.e. as outlined by Disability Studies, Booth & Ainscow, 2011) which asked if and how these limitations might “disable” learners. This shift led to a simple, yet profound realization: the burden of adaptation should be placed on the curricula, not the learner because most curricula are unable to adapt to individual variability (Edyburn & Gardner, 2009). Moreover, in educational environments such as schools and universities, individual variability is the norm, not the exception (Boggino & Boggino, 2013). Today, Italy has exceeded its educational goals to decrease the number of high school dropouts and increase the number of students electing for higher education by 2017. Nevertheless, the country had the second lowest share of tertiary graduates in the European Union in 2017 (26.9% of 30–34-year-olds). The number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion increased considerably between 2008 and 2016; Italy needs to lift more than 5.2 million people out of the risk of poverty to reach its national target by 2020 (EUROSTAT, 2018, p. 139). The reflections above reported about cultural vision promoted in Italy are even more interesting if we consider that the law has made enormous steps forward in terms of guaranteeing an adequate body of legislation for inclusive policies and practices but has not brought about changes in attitudes and meso–micro collaborations. These challenges must be conquered by bringing about changes in attitudes and convictions and through the development of relationships and friendships based on principles of equality. In the Italian context, several studies (Abbring & Meijer, 1994; Associazione TreeLLLe, Caritas Italiana e Fondazione Agnelli, 2011; Canevaro et al., 2011; Monasta, 2000) have raised issues regarding collaboration at all levels of schools.

80

ELISABETTA GHEDIN

Nonetheless, the Italian system requires that professionals work collaboratively and is essential in inclusive education at all school levels (Canevaro & de Anna, 2010). Due to the inherent benefits and challenges of collaboration among networks, it is of paramount importance to devote attention to the state of collaboration in Italian schools, so the development and implementation of collaborative practices can be a reality that works for schools, teachers, and students. Most of the national scientific literature focuses on the inclusion of pupils with disabilities in primary and secondary education (D’Alessio, 2011; D’alonzo, 2018; Ianes et al., 2014; ISTAT, 2016) and promoting their flourishing life design. Due to recent normative law in Italy, partnerships between schools and stakeholders have emerged as particularly important mechanisms for encouraging and spreading ideas and practices (107/15 law). Practitioners consistently cite opportunities to collaborate with their peers as an effective form of continuing professional development, recommending that the government establish a forum for dialog between innovators and stakeholders. Good governance and adequate resources: In the context of multistakeholder partnerships and collaboration, the role and scope of action of good governance is to provide the leadership, framework, and directions for programming consistent with public policy and the needs of all citizens. Good governance has the ability to convene actors and deploy tools such as agendas and guidelines, financial resource allocation, training and capacity-building, as well as knowledge acquisition and sharing that supports how partners contribute to the ecosystem. It follows that it is important to design and value policies and practices that take into account the complexity of the involved dimensions, moving away from a linear and reductionist logic (the “logic of the frontier”). In fact, the logic of “universal accessibility” (Boggino & Bares, 2013; Rose & Meyer, 2002) provides the construction of spaces without frontiers (accessible for all) in which differences and limits are recognized and given value. In particular, an improvisational approach to network space is adopted, emphasizing the creative role of risktaking, an open-minded attitude to experience, the performative dimension of participation in a network, and varied dispositions toward adaptation and exaptation to change (Santi & Zorzi, 2016). Innovative learning environments (OECD, 2013): A comprehensive concept of social innovation, grounded on social theory, focuses on cross-sectoral collaborations between actors from the state, research, business, and civil society (Howaldt et al., 2015), pointing to the need for what they call “constructive partnerships between the sectors (economy/social economy state society)” (Scoppetta et al., 2014, p. 91) in order to reap the full potential of social innovation. By adopting the definitions of social innovation as supporting “changes in […] society which enhance its collective power resources and improve its economic and social performance” (Heiskala, 2007, p. 59) and social entrepreneurship as “entrepreneurial activity with an embedded social purpose” (Austin et al., 2006, p. 1), it is possible to conceptualize social innovation as a driver of systemic social betterment in a broad sense, which may or may not require extensive entrepreneurial skills.

Social Innovation through Collaboration

81

Thus, social innovations (i.e. the recombination of social practices) change the manner in which we live together (e.g. shared housing), work (e.g. telework), consume (e.g. car-sharing), distribute wealth (e.g. unconditional basic income), or deal with economic crises (e.g. short-time work instead of termination). Social innovations provide new forms of collaboration between people (e.g. coworking spaces), organizations (e.g. private–public partnerships), and states (e.g. agreement on the free movement of labor), and can emerge within different sectors in: civil society (e.g. urban farming), politics (e.g. parental leave), and the economy (e.g. microcredits). The notion of community takes on new meanings as global demographics shift and networked technologies change how people access information and resources. New considerations on what it means to participate – both physically and digitally – in a community of networked, mobile individuals strengthen how social innovations are developed, shared, and implemented in an educational context to promote flourishing connective capabilities. More important for this study is the focus of both discourses on the processes underlying the changes, in particular, the openness, inclusiveness, and participatory nature of the educational innovation as well as the focus on local resources and innovative capability not directly reliant or beholden to outside demands or inputs. In his book Social Physics, Pentland (2014) shows that both people’s desires and their decisions about how to act are often, and perhaps typically, dominated by social network effects (p. 59). This vision tells us that what we want and value, as well as how we choose to act in order to obtain our desires, are a constantly evolving property of interactions with other people. Our desires and preferences are mostly based on what our peer community agrees is valuable rather than on rational reflection based directly on our individual biological drives or inborn morals. Over the past two decades, networks have increasingly gained the attention of the education sector for their promise as vehicles for innovation and improvement in educational systems (Rinc´on-Gallardo & Fullan, 2016, p. 6). Contemporary societies are increasingly characterized by highly varied and complex forms of organization. Movement toward new organizational molds dates back to at least the mid-twentieth century when workplace programs started to emphasize group processes and teamwork as critical factors for increased organizational productivity and innovation. Later, these changes extended to relations among organizations and led to the extensive formation of interorganizational networks. In education, innovation is conceived in a learning environment that is an “organic, holistic concept – an ecosystem that includes the activity and the outcomes of the learning” (OECD, 2013, p. 14). Moves to restructure schools and a growing emphasis on the intra- and interinstitutional networks of professionals and organizations have been part of the policy landscape for at least two decades. Especially since the mid-1980s, many educational organizations have rushed to form or to join networks or have been vigorously encouraged to do so. Today, these organizational forms are regarded as “a new construct for conceiving of educational provision and a new strategy for achieving reform” (Chapman & Aspin, 2003, p. 653). To innovate and sustain the change means to overcome isolation through working with different knowledge

82

ELISABETTA GHEDIN

and community partners by developing strong connections so as to extend boundaries, resources, and learning spaces. However, the proliferation of networks as a strategy for change has traveled at a much faster rate than their effectiveness. Indeed, existing networks in education often seem to be more inconsequential than effective (Chapman & Muijs, 2014; de Lima, 2010). When it comes to improving student outcomes across entire educational systems, it is not the existence or the creation of networks per s`e that ´ matters but rather how they function and what they actually do (RinconGallardo & Fullan, 2016, p. 6). The mere adoption and widespread dissemination of networks as a strategy for change is likely to produce superficial and even harmful practices if not accompanied by clarity and precision about the patterns of interaction that distinguish effective from inconsequential or even harmful networks. The diversity within organizations and the stakeholders they serve requires an awareness and appreciation of the multiple value perspectives that are found both inside and outside the organization. Very few studies have approached network interaction and related collaboration in a holistic way. The central argument proposed here is that innovation floats on a sea of inquiry and that networks are a driver for change. Creating conditions in schools and learning settings where networks are encouraged, developed, and sustained is essential to open up thinking, changing practices, and creating more innovative approaches to learning and teaching. As innovation is a multidisciplinary activity, studies have consistently shown the positive effects derived from the existence of good relationships between partners on knowledge flows and exchange and, ultimately, upon innovation performance (Nygaard & Russo, 2008). Collaborative evaluation for all: The evaluation process of this model is coherent with its design, as it is oriented to value connections and seeks to understand the value of the connections that sustain and promote the EIESy model. A good platform has a collaborative purpose that inspires diverse people to orient their actions toward the same general cause by creating environments that invite and allow stakeholders involvement and commitment. In pursuit of this, it is necessary to understand and assess barriers to collaboration and create opportunities to overcome them (O’Sullivan, 2012). Effective collaborative purposes work toward a desirable future in which a wide array of actors can see themselves playing a role. Self-assessment: The first relevant assessment aspect focuses on fostering reflective processes in individuals, which is of primary importance for promoting freedom, choices, and the capacity to aspire. Therefore, it seems relevant to foster critical thinking and the ability to identify what to give value; participants must be able to identify the networks aspiration, desires, and commitments as well as what kind of agency the network puts into action. A self-assessment of the value of the connections is possible if networks are stimulated to reflect on not only their own capacity to aspire but also on the process during the process itself. Each step should be accompanied by a reflective space in which individuals are invited to think about the “success” of the process in facilitating their participation and empowerment, the expression of all points of view, and positive interaction; they

Social Innovation through Collaboration

83

must consider if the network feels like an active agent in this process and if the members feel that it is possible to participate, freely express opinions, and connect to others in an inclusive community. In the second dimension of the assessment framework – the collaborative one – all of these reflective questions become common and shared reflections; the individual self-assessment level is preliminary for assessing collective agency, that is “the capacity of the group to define common goals and the freedom to act to reach the chosen goals” (Pelenc et al., 2015, p. 229). A collective reflection could promote collective self-awareness that enables communities to recognize their collective strengths and the ways in which they can improve and address the constraining factors that do not promote accessibility and inclusion. Implementation references three dimensions (Ibrahim, 2017) guiding the assessment process. The first is success defined by processes rather than outcomes. The success of connections should be based on their ability to empower communities with the capacity to act (Moulaert et al., 2005), add social value beyond measurement and quantification (Mair & Mart´ı, 2006), sustain this change over the long term (Lodemann & Ziegler, 2015), and adapt to complex realities. Second, the sustainability of connections must be assessed based on the effect they have on individual and communal lives according to a people-centered view of sustainability (Seyfang & Smith, 2007). Third, connections should be assessed on their ability to be scaled-up; good connections should be replicable in order to have a significant impact (Borzaga & Bodini, 2012). This refers to various ways in which innovative ideas and initiatives can be diffused through the application of the connection in a new context or in a reproduction of the initiative in a new environment. The coconstruction of a connective training and learning ecosystem works on a platform that provides connections in order to enable participants to find others with the functionings, aspirations, interests, and skills they need. The assessment dimensions of the EIESy include accessibility, network effect, interoperability, mutualism, and practicality (Heckscher & McCarthy, 2014). Accessibility refers to the wider the access, the more the system serves its purpose. The “network effect” is a dimension in which the more people use the system, the more variety is generated. Interoperability refers to the strength of the system gained from its connection to other platforms, the generation of interrelations, and new connections and in which openness is necessary. Mutualism pertains to how good the systems helps members interact with each other and defines their own priorities and activities; members learn from each other and benefit from the knowledge, and sometimes direct help, of peers. Finally, practicality refers to the usefulness of the tools the system provides; in order to be effective, providing focused tools is necessary. The Mesosystem The mesosystem represents the interrelations among settings in which multiprofessional teams participate. The above illustrated generalized patterns referred to the macrosystem setting (that are patterns of ideology and organization of

84

ELISABETTA GHEDIN

social institutions common to a particular culture or subculture) are manifested in the complex of nested, interconnected system that is called mesosystem. Here, the settings are: interdisciplinary/interagency fertile connections, new partnerships, relevant collaborative training, accessible and generative school ethos, community commitment, opportunities for change. Interdisciplinary/interagency fertile connections: Bushe (2013) stated that Transformation requires a collapse of coherence, a belief that what we are doing or how we are doing it is no longer tenable. In biochemistry, when a variable is pushed to the point where the system is no longer viable, the system either falls apart of re-organizes at a new level of complexity. Harnessing this emergent change process invites us to think about increasing the odds of a group of people reorganizing at a higher level of complexity. (p. 12)

The system must develop an improved infrastructure and processes for networking and promote a development of the school as an active and open community and be able to develop and increase connections with families and local community, including the organizations of the private and third sectors. Therefore, the requirements for collaboration and networking between actors and across sectors increase, and connective capabilities can promote “real” empowerment and participation of those involved by supporting power to and power over (through collaboration) and supporting collaboration with other actors to challenge the existing power relations within the current aid systems. The key concept of “generativity,” meaning generative action, may take the form of creating, maintaining, or offering that which has been created or maintained to a community. Generativity is the other-regarding desire to invest one’s substance in forms of life and work that will outlive the self; it refers to the processes and capacities that help people see old things in new ways (Gergen, 1978; Schon, 1979). It is ideally reinforced by a belief in the goodness or worthwhileness of the human enterprise and is expressed by a concern for and commitment to future generations. It includes, but is not limited to, productivity and creativity (Snow, 2015). Generativity is an orientation in which people closely connect with others through time. The emergence of connection between different groups offers opportunities (in terms of capabilities) for more people to act in accessible and generative spaces that permit them to exhibit and experience beneficial behaviors that could nourish other spaces. Thus, connective capital is crucial within this ecosystem (Ichniowski & Shaw, 2009). New partnerships: It is becoming increasingly evident that achieving excellence and equity in education requires significant changes to what happens to children outside as well as inside school (Ainscow, 2014; Whitehurst & Croft, 2010). The most effective networks combine school-focussed strategies with efforts to engage the wider community through actions such as health and nutrition initiatives and neighborhood services. Involving multiple community partners such as universities, the media, local businesses, and sports clubs to simultaneously improve ´ school systems and their surrounding communities, however, is not easy (RinconGallardo & Fullan, 2016, p. 16). Deliberate leadership that aims to find and maintain a common purpose, stay the course, and create alignment and coherence is fundamental to turning new community partnerships into impactful

Social Innovation through Collaboration

85

vehicles of school and community transformation. More important is the focus of both discourses on the processes underlying the changes, in particular the openness, inclusiveness, and participatory nature of the educational innovation as well as the focus on local resources and innovative capability not necessarily reliant or beholden to outside demands or inputs. The educational capability to connect reflects an entrepreneurial vision pursued by microservices that show a special ability in designing and organizing flexible, broad, and sometimes very complex networks of partners and then to pull them together around credible educative ideas. Partnering is becoming a central system organization strategy for schools to use to improve their ability to educate (Yoshino & Rangan, 1995). Relevant collaborative training: The unit of work in the Italian context is the multidisciplinary team: a group of individuals from multiple disciplines, as well as the family of the child, who meet to pursue the common goal of the success of the student with special education needs in the mainstream classroom. The team includes professionals, family members, and, when appropriate, the student. The tasks of the team may vary; they may discuss the student’s evaluation or the child’s individualized program and how all members can work to support it. The professional collaboration of a multidisciplinary team helps ensure that the work regarding the child is comprehensive, meaning that it encompasses all academic, social, and functional aspects of education. The ultimate goal of the team is to serve the student and the family better. Multidisciplinary teams collect several types of data to inform the team about the students’ strengths, challenges, and needs. Three stages of expertise can be identified in a collaboration process. These stages are the beginners, in which there is only superficial communication, little attention to environmental organization, network management entrusted to a single partner, and evaluation which could be defined as “traditional”; the compromise stage, in which communication becomes more open and interactive and attention focuses on the organization of the network environment, although some partners in this stage must give up something in order to obtain something else in exchange; and the collaboration stage, which is the most advanced stage and characterized by authentic communication and interaction, a high degree of well-being in relationships and in which members work together in a fluid manner (Ghedin & Aquario, 2020). Providing quality education to all students is a challenge for schools. Inclusive education requires that professionals and families coconstruct learning and develop the best environments for children to succeed in school and society. Such coconstruction requires not only collaboration between teachers but also a different way of working as a team. It also requires new ways of teaching, so that all available resources can be best utilized. A wide variety of knowledge and skill sets are necessary in order to enhance the organization’s innovation capabilities and function (Sen, 1999) as the soft skills that give employees and volunteers the capacity to work and connect with others, openness to new ideas and points of view, agreeableness, entrepreneurial attitudes, and the capacity to analyze issues in a multidisciplinary perspective and enhance the connective capability in building educational innovation. With reference to the “philosophy of collaborating” and to the fact that schools represent an educating community, networks

86

ELISABETTA GHEDIN

should be trained in the identification of a useful repertoire of collaborative good practices by becoming a place in which every partner can enhance its potential as much as possible (Ghedin & Aquario, 2020). Accessible and generative school ethos: Some places are easy to navigate and rich in resources to support human development. Others constitute paths empty of environmental and social obstacles that undermine physical, social, and psychological well-being and the development of aspirations. In these contexts, social exclusion can mean being cut off from living with people and in places that support the possibility of expressing oneself according to one’s own aspirations. Thus, possibilities remain for understanding the nature of the “good space” that has to be imagined as the socially just space with strong obligations toward those marginalized from the means of survival and human fulfillment (Wacquant, 1999). That is the inclusive space, which is also that of untapped potential and expanded human capital. Most importantly, it is the space that provides an opportunity for individual and connective advancement out of social multiplicity and mobility (Amin, 2006). This dimension outlines the accessible and generative capabilities of a network ethos imagined as an everwidening habit of solidarity built around different dimensions of the urban common good. The constructs of accessibility and generativity allow consideration of the well-functioning space through the lens of the value of the differences. The reflection on accessibility and generativity in the appropriation by individuals and social groups of material and immaterial resources (goods, services, and connections) in a given space presents strong links and can make an important contribution to the study of social exclusion. The procedural nature and dynamics of accessibility and generativity highlight the interaction and mutual reinforcement between individual conditions of vulnerability that manifest in different social and spatial spheres. Since more research on the impact of accessibility on choices and on flourishing is urgently needed, the EIESy model proposal here allows inquiry into how access to opportunities and generativity of networks may affect the ability of an individual to flourish by promoting their connectivity agency. We also stress that, besides the environmental and economic aspects, the social aspects of sustainability are also of increasing importance, and accessibility and generativity are two of the criteria for evaluating the sustainability of various spatial configurations. Community commitment: The notion of community is taking on new meanings as global demographics shift and networked technologies change how people access information and resources, and how they connect with each other. The “sense of responsibility for the collective” is achieved through explicit commitment to the success of the group (Roberts & Lacey, 2008). Once an individual has a sense of responsibility toward the group, specific activities and institutional arrangements serve to make it easier to build social capital (Glaeser, 2001). Four potential links that help create a sense of responsibility and commitment to the success of a group are education, institutions, purposive action, and specific activities (Glaeser, 2001). Schools must design an educational setting with a positive, future-oriented goal of building well-being in students rather than simply diminishing ill-being. Community commitment

Social Innovation through Collaboration

87

creates change by identifying and amplifying the positives in students, staff, and the school rather than by reducing weaknesses, flaws, and limitations. In order to take some kind of initial action, a good system gets commitments from as many people as possible. This can be done through a ritualized event after the design statements have been finalized, where the improvisational destiny is explained and individuals each make some kind of public declaration of something they will each do in service of design proposals. Salancik (1977) argues that commitment is created when people take actions that are voluntary, visible, and relatively irreversible, and that these are important things to think about when constructing events. Leaders of EIESy model who have a vision of and commitment to inclusion should have the competence to create a welcoming, caring ethos, and to enable collaborative responsibility for the benefit of each student’s engagement. There are two basic types of commitment: calculative and affective. The former is based on a rational assessment of benefits and costs derived from a particular relationship, whereas the latter assumes an affective predisposition to maintain the relationship because of an emotional bond with the partner, often as a result of identification with the partner’s values. Most research agrees that affective commitment has the most influence on maintaining mutually beneficial relationships, so we use this construct in our model. Research on social alliances emphasized the importance of affective bonds for the success of a partnership. For example, Berger et al. (2006, p. 131) stated that …[f]or a partnership to thrive, the managers themselves needed to be deeply and holistically involved in the partnership. This involvement went beyond cognitive or rational engagement; it often involved them in emotional, social, and physical ways.

This type of commitment is similar to what Seitanidi and Crane (2009) define as “partnership institutionalization.” Trust is the major determinant of affective commitment (Sanzo et al., 2015). Opportunities for change: The practice of educational professionals should be reflective, assessing innovative practices and approaches and determining what works best in which circumstances. This process empowers the community participants to achieve a collective goal grounded in the wish of the community to change a given situation (Chiappero Martinetti et al., 2017) to attain different outcomes or to improve access to public goods and services (Biggeri et al., 2017). The term “opportunities” refers to a “coherent methodological way of addressing the issues, challenges, changes and concerns of an organisation in ways that build on the successful, effective and energising experiences of its members” (Preskill & Catsambas, 2006, p. 2). It is about the coevolutionary search for the best in people, their organizations, and the relevant world around them, and involves systematic discovery of what gives “life” to a living system wherein it is most alive, most effective, and most constructively capable in economic, ecological, connective, and human terms (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). This approach to personal and organizational change is based on the assumption that questions, and dialog about strengths, successes, values, hopes, and dreams are themselves transformational (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2003, p. 1). What makes this path

88

ELISABETTA GHEDIN

different is its focus on local strengths and achievements rather than on deficits and problems. By building on what works, you get solutions that have already proven themselves in another organization and could be adopted by another one in a positive way. The Microsystem In the microsystem, considered dimensions involve the collaborative affect experienced by the connected networks in a given setting with particular physical, material, and relational characteristics. Connected networks are the unit of analysis within this ecosystem. All the agents involved in the educational system should develop a set of capabilities enabling them to promote well-being in an increasingly diversified and complex environment in which the atmosphere of collaboration, mutual interdependent sharing, shared human capital, good communication, knowledge creation, and distributed leadership are valued. Connected networks are characterized by distributed leadership and where, as Spillane et al. (2004) suggest, distributed leadership is constituted through the interaction of leaders, teachers, and the situation as they influence instructional practice. It is a form of lateral leadership where the practice of leadership is interdependent and shared among organizational members. Here, organizational influence and knowledge creation is governed by the shared human capital of individuals rather than individual direction, and good communication is the foundation of the networks. Communication about what works well and what functions encourages caring, creative, and critical thinking (Biggeri & Santi, 2012), and the focus of the discourse is on the processes underlying the changes (Santi, 2006). Central to the notion of this ecosystem is an ethic of interpersonal caring (Hargreaves & Giles, 2003; Louis et al., 1995). This is not an individual feature but rather a joint and connective activity. Drawing inspiration from anatomy, the EIESy develops on the capability of connecting different types of tissue (systems) with varied functions (the connective ecosystem supports and connects internal organs [teamwork groups], forms structures and nodes of connections [guidance projects], attaches systems to nodes [school/families collaboration], and replaces damaged nodes). Connective tissue consists mainly of particular relations embedded in different manners that ground nodes (interconnections with families and the local territory). The density of these relations and nodes and the presence or absence of certain functions and conversion factors make some connective tissues soft and rubbery and others hard and rigid. Conscientization, conciliation, and collaboration: Connected networks function well with the interrelation of these three dimensions: (1) conscientization (Freire, 1972), which encourages partners to think critically about their realities and nurtures their “capacity to aspire” for better lives; (2) conciliation, which blends individual and collective interests rendering them mutually reinforcing rather than conflicting, and (3) collaboration between local communities and other cultural centers, business, homes, and virtual centers, which is crucial for challenging the existing unequal power relations among partners (Ibrahim,

Social Innovation through Collaboration

89

2017). These processes promote social change at three highly interdependent levels: the individual, collective, and institutional levels. Conscientization starts with the articulation of individuals’ values, aspirations, and needs for well-being in order to assess their abilities to achieve these goals. The role of the process articulating these norms and cognitive frames is important in order to induce positive connective behavioral changes. The dynamics and sustainability of this phase will depend on a number of personal and contextual factors. First, they are affected by personal traits such as self-confidence, educational level, and professional and social status, as well as the personal willingness to improve their lives. Second, the capacity to aspire is also crucial for the conscientization process. The “capacity to aspire” is how a group succeeds in reducing the costs of developing a culture of aspirations by collectively envisioning their future and capacity to shape this future through influencing other groups, the government, and other factors in their physical and social environment (Appadurai, 2004, pp. 64–65). Arguably, aspirations also constitute the kernels or precursors of many important capabilities that support human flourishing. Group aspirations enable change to occur where individuals alone would falter. And finally, (re-)claiming a rich conceptualization of aspiration may help inform efforts aimed at the development of socially just societies where all individuals are able to flourish and identify images of a connected desirable future (hopes and dreams for their connective opportunities). We must then consider how the process can support individuals to act as agents of connective change. An agent is someone who initiates courses of action to achieve goals in accordance with their own values (Davis, 2004). Individuals who are agents “have diverse valued goals and commitments on behalf both of themselves and their society” (Alkire, 2005, p. 125). They need to think critically about their life, current status, and aspirations for better living conditions and decide on and plan actions to bring about these changes. In conciliation, networks are crucial enablers for new social and educational practices and innovations (Cunha et al., 2015; Seyfang & Smith, 2007). By acting individually, community members are unable to address the existing structural inequalities and social obstacles in their respective communities. That is why, they need to act collectively and connectively. As a group, they can jointly determine priorities and then include the most essential elements in a “provocative proposition.” In this proposal, networks are able to describe in positive terms, and in the present tense (as if already achieved), the organizational qualities they most want to deliver. Collaboration among local communities and other actors is crucial for challenging the existing unequal power relations among and between these partners. Through these partnerships, the sustainability, scalability, and success of social innovations at the grassroots level can be promoted. This collaboration needs to be based on transparency and mutual accountability to avoid cooptation. It is important that communities openly discuss what they want to get out of their collaborative partnerships and clarify the responsibilities of each actor. Collaborations between grassroots actors (Leach et al., 2012) are, therefore, essential to induce institutional change and enhance the bargaining power of local communities visa` -vis other actors.

90

ELISABETTA GHEDIN

CONCLUSIONS This chapter has described the proposal of the ecosystem model of EIESy in the Italian context. Given the urgency and magnitude of development challenges amid resource and climate difficulties, new partnerships and alternatives within the field of sustainable development are needed. Here, I showed how the inclusive ecosystem model could support policymakers and practitioners to envisage the overlap of their roles both in the general review of the EIESy model and on priority areas for improving quality EIESy through collaboration between different levels of policy and practice. With the mission of improving education quality and lifelong-learning participation in a collaborative way, across educational areas, responsibilities, and silos, including stakeholders from all the societal sectors concerned (public, private, civic, and science) and allowing bottom-up initiatives and experimentation, social innovation will, in my opinion, “orchestrate the rich diversity of talent and expertise that today lies mostly fragmented or untapped” (Mazzucato, 2018, ¨ ¨ p. 5; Schroder & Kruger, 2019). As I write at the beginning of the chapter, this model is a proposal, so the most important challenge is to prove its effectiveness with the aim to promote, support, and sustain grassroots innovations in inclusive educational systems focusing on flourishing life design of the involved. A research project could seek to explore the interactive relationship between agency and structure and to show how connected networks can promote “real” empowerment and participation of the involved by supporting power to and power over (through collaboration) and how they can collaborate with other actors to challenge the existing power relations within the current aid systems. Missions connect all relevant actors through new forms of partnership for co-design and cocreation by focusing on targets that require multiple sectors and actors to solve. Thus, missionoriented innovation has the possibility of leading to system-wide transformation. (Mazzucato, 2018, p. 15)

The EIESy model moves on from the fragmentation of education and lifelong learning (with separate rationalities, target orientations, and public responsibilities) to connect governance structures (the ecosystem of relevant actors and stakeholders from policy, economy, civil society, and science) between centralized and decentralized public government, economic market, and civil society–driven structures. Moreover, it is crucial that the model supports new forms of practice that call for a capacity to work with other practitioners and draws on resources that may be distributed across inclusive ecosystems to support one’s actions. What becomes significant is that the state educators favor in practice creates a context of positive multiagency collaboration and allows them to grow and develop toward a common well-being.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is grateful to the research group for the continuing and shared reflection and discussion about the project and the model. The author is also grateful to Prof.

Social Innovation through Collaboration

91

Debora Aquario for her continuing and helpful comments on the evaluative dimension. Thanks also to Prof. Roberto Dainese for his suggestions on “sfondo integratore.”

NOTES 1. Research group: Debora Aquario (UniPD), Caterina Arciprete (ARCO), Mario Biggeri (UniFI), Norberto Boggino (Universidad Nacional de Rosario), Federico Ciani (DISEI), Roberto Dainese (UniBO), Luca Fazzi (UniTN), Anthony Giannoumis (Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences), Carmela Nitti (ARCO), Marina Santi (UniPD), Lorella Terzi (University of Roehampton), Simone Visentin (UniPD), Ignacio Pais (UniPD), Giuseppe Lucio Santamaria (UniPD), Eleonora Zorzi (UnipD). Principal Investigator: Elisabetta Ghedin (UniPD). 2. Here, the Educational Inclusive EcoSystem (EIESy) model is conceptualized taking into consideration the first step (of four steps) of the DEECCC (Dislocating Education by Empowering Connective Capabilities in the Communities)-School Project in which data were collected from three Reports aimed to highlight the Italian schools’ works during a selected period of time: School Self-Assessment Report (Rapporto di Autovalutazione, RAV, Direttiva 11/2014); the Improvement Plan Report (“Piano di Miglioramento,” PDM); the Annual Plan for Inclusion (“Piano Annuale per l’Inclusione,” PAI, C.M. 8/ 2013) (downloaded by “Scuola in Chiaro,” the institutional platform in which all Italian schools update these formal documents) with the aim of focusing on local strengths and achievements, rather than on deficits and problems. It means to recognize the value that it is appreciated. It looks at what works well. And then seeks more ways to make it happen.

REFERENCES Abbring, I., & Meijer, C. J. W. (1994). 1994. Italy. In C. J. W. Meijer, S. J. Pijl, & S. Hegarty (Eds.), New perspectives in special education (pp. 9–24). Routledge. Ainscow, M. (2014). From special education to effective schools for all: Widening the agenda. In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education (Vol. 2, pp. 171–185). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781446282236.n12 Alden Rivers, B., Armellini, A., Maxwell, R., Allen, S., & Durkin, C. (2015). Social innovation education: Towards a framework for learning design. Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning, 5(4), 383–400. Alkire, S. (2005). Why the capability approach? Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 115–135. https:// www.doi.org/10.1080/146498805200034275 Amin, A. (2006). The good city. Urban Studies, 43(5/6), 1009–1023. Retrieved from http:// www.jstor.org/stable/43197514. Accessed on August 26, 2021. Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. OECD Publishing. Anastasiou, D., Kauffman, J. M., & Di Nuovo, S. (2015). Inclusive education in Italy: Description and reflections on full inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(4), 429–443. https: //doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2015.1060075 Appadurai, A. (2004). The capacity to aspire: Culture and the terms of recognition. In R. Vijayendra & M. Walton (Eds.), Culture and public action (pp. 59–84). Stanford University Press. Austin, J. E., Guti´errez, R., Ogliastri, E., & Reficco, E. (2007). Capitalizing on convergence. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(1), 24–31. Austin, J., Wei-Skillern, J., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/ abstract51501555. Accessed on March 24, 2020.

92

ELISABETTA GHEDIN

Beamish, P., & McLeod, B. (2014). Can the use of web 2.0 tools help deliver 21st century learning? In T. Sweeney & S. Urban (Eds.), Now its personal. Paper presented at the Australian Council for Computers in Education, Adelaide Convention Centre, Adelaide, 30 September – 3 October (pp. 36–44). Lesmurdie, Australia, Australian Council for Computers in Education. Biggeri, M., & Chiappero Martinetti, E. (2010). Sviluppo umano sostenibile, capability approach e cooperazione internazionale. In M. Biggeri e G. Canitano (Eds.), Temi avanzati di economia e politica della cooperazione internazionale allo sviluppo (pp. 37–64). Milano. Biggeri, M., & Santi, M. (2012). The missing dimensions of children’s well-being and well-becoming in education systems: Capabilities and philosophy for children. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 13(3), 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2012.694858 Biggeri, M., Testi, E., & Bellucci, M. (2017). Enabling ecosystems for social enterprises and social innovation: A capability approach perspective. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18(2), 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2017.1306690 Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education. An introduction to theories and methods. Pearson Education Inc., Allyn & Bacon. Boggino, N., & Bares, E. (2013). Como evaluar desde el paradigma de la complejidad. Homo Sapiens Ediciones. Boggino, N., & Boggino, P. (2013). Pensar una escuela accesible para todos. De las concepciones actuals sobre integracion, inclusion, NEE, a la accesibilidad universal. Homo Sapiens Ediciones. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Borzaga, C., & Bodini, R. (2012). What to make of social innovation? Towards a framework for policy development. Euricse Working Paper, 036(12). Bourn, D. (2016). Teachers as agents of social change. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 7(3), 63–77. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793–828). Wiley. Bushe, G. R. (2013). Generative process, generative outcome: The transformational potential of appreciative inquiry. In D. L. Cooperrider, D. P. Zandee, L. N. Godwin, M. Avital, & B. Boland (Eds.), Organizational generativity: The appreciative inquiry summit and a scholarship of transformation (advances in appreciative inquiry (Vol. 4, pp. 892113). Emerald Publishing Limited. Caldin, R. (2013). Current pedagogic issues in inclusive education for the disabled. Pedagogia Oggi, 2, 11–25. Canevaro, A., d’Alonzo, L., Ianes, D., & Caldin, R. (2011). L’integrazione scolastica nella percezione degli insegnanti. Erickson. Canevaro, A., & de Anna, L. (2010). The historical evolution of school integration in Italy: Some witnesses and considerations. Alternative European Journal of Disability Research, 4, 203–216. Chapman, J., & Aspin, D. (2003). Networks of learning: A new construct for educational provision and a new strategy for reform. In B. Davies & J. West-Burnham (Eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and management (pp. 6532659). Pearson. Chapman, C., & Muijs, D. (2014). Does school-to-school collaboration promote school improvement? A study of the impact of school federations on school outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09243453.2013.840319 Chiappero Martinetti, E., Houghton Budd, C., & Ziegler, R. (2017). Social innovation and the capability approach—Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18(2), 1412147. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2017.1316002 Cohen, S. (2004). The nature of moral reasoning: The framework and activities of ethical: The framework and activities of ethical deliberation, argument, and decision-making. University Press Anz. Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. Berrett-Koehler.

Social Innovation through Collaboration

93

Cornoldi, C., Terreni, A., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1998). Teacher attitudes in Italy after twenty years of inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 350–356. Cornwall, A. (2002). Making spaces, changing places: Situating participation in development. Working Paper series, 170. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK. Council of Ministers. Framework law for assistance, social integration and the rights of disabled people. (1992). L. 104. Council of Ministers. Reform of the National Education and Training System. (2015). L.107. Council of Ministers. Rules on pupil assessment and abolition of remedial exams. (1977). L. 517. Cunha, J., Benneworth, P., & Oliveira, P. (2015). Social entrepreneurship and social innovation: A conceptual distinction. In L. M. Carmo Farinha, J. J. M. Ferreira, H. Lawton Smith, & S. Bagchi-Sen (Eds.), Handbook of research on global competitive advantage through innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 616–639). https:doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8348-8.ch033 Dainese, R. (2019). Sfondo integratore. In L. d’Alonzo (Ed.), Dizionario di pedagogia speciale (pp. 3392344). Editrice Morcelliana. D’Alessio, S. (2011). Inclusive education in Italy. Sense. D’alonzo, L. (2018). Pedagogia speciale per l’inclusione. Schol´e. Davis, B. (2004). Inventions of teaching: A genealogy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Davis, J. B. (2015). Agency and the process aspect of capability development: Individual capabilities, collective capabilities, and collective intentions. In Filosof´ıa de la Econom´ıa. https://ssrn.com/ abstract52625673 Edyburn, D. L., & Gardner, J. E. (Eds.). (2009). Readings in special education technology: Universal design for learning. Technology and Media Division (TAM) of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). Eggers, B., & Singh, S. (2009). The public innovators playbook. Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value map. Integrating social and financial returns. California Management Review, 45(4), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166187 European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2015). Agency position on inclusive education systems. Odense, Denmark. www.europeanagency.org European Commission. (2015). A map of social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Brussels: Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. European Union. (2008). Conclusions of the council and of the representatives of the governments of the member states, meeting within the Council of 21 November 2008 on preparing young people for the 21st century: An agenda for European cooperation on schools (OJ 2008/C 319/08). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri5OJ:C:2008:319:0020:0022:EN: PDF. Accessed on March 24, 2020. European Union. (2018, October). Europe moving towards a sustainable future Contribution of the SDG Multi-Stakeholder Platform to the Reflection Paper “Towards a sustainable Europe by 2030”. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/sdg_multi-stakeholder_platform_input_to_reflec tion_paper_sustainable_europe2.pdf EUROSTAT. (2018). Smarter, greener, more inclusive? Indicators to support the Euro 2020 Strategy. Publications Office of the European Union. Ferri, D. (2017). Unveiling the challenges in the implementation of Article 24 CRPD on the right to inclusive education: A case-study from Italy. Laws, 7(1), 1–17. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Books. Gaventa, J. (2004). Towards participatory governance: Assessing the transformative possibilities. In S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds.), From tyranny to transformation (pp. 25241). Zed Books. Gergen, K. (1978). Toward generative theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 134421360. Ghedin, E., & Aquario, D. (2020). Collaborative teaching in mainstream schools: Research with general education and support teachers. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 16(2), 1–34. Glaeser, E. L. (2001). The formation of social capital. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 34–40. Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Springer.

94

ELISABETTA GHEDIN

Hargreaves, A., & Giles, C. (2003). The knowledge society school: An endangered entity. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity (pp. 1272159). Open University Press. Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public service: Past and present. Public Money & Management, 25(1), 27234. Hattie, J. (2015). What works best in education: The politics of collaborative expertise. Pearson. Heckscher, C., & McCarthy, J. (2014). Transient solidarities: Commitment and collective action in post-industrial societies. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 52(4), 627–657. Heiskala, R. (2007). Social innovations: Structural and power perspectives. In T. J. H¨am¨al¨ainen (Ed.), Social innovations, institutional change and economic performance. Making sense of structural adjustment processes in industrial sectors, regions and societies (pp. 52–79). Edward Elgar Publishing. Howaldt, J., Kopp, R., & Schwarz, M. (2015). Social innovation as drivers of social change—Exploring tarde’s contribution to social innovation theory building. In A. Nicholls, J. Simon, & M. Gabriel (Eds.), New frontiers in social innovation research (pp. 29–51). Palgrave. Howaldt, J., & Schwarz, M. (2017) Social innovation and human development—How the capabilities approach and social innovation theory mutually support each other. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18(2), 1632180. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2016.1251401 Ianes, D., Demo, H., & Zambotti, F. (2014). Integration in Italian schools: Teachers’ perceptions regarding day-to-day practice and its effectiveness. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18, 626–653. Ibrahim, S. (2017). How to build collective capabilities: The 3C-model for grassroots-led development. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18(2), 1972222. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19452829.2016.1270918 Ichniowski, C., & Shaw, K. L. (2009). Connective capital as social capital: The value of problem-solving networks for team players in firms. NBER Working Paper No. 15619. http://www.nber.org/ papers/w15619 Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT). (2016). ‘L’integrazione degli alunni con disabilit`a nelle scuole primarie e secondarie di primo grado: Anno scolastico 2015–2016. www.istat.it/it/archivio/ 194622 Kanter, A. S., Damiani, M. L., & Ferri, B. A. (2014). The right to inclusive education under international law: Following Italy’s lead. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 17, 21–32. Kelly, M. J., Schaan, J. L., & Joncas, H. (2002). Managing alliance relationships: Key challenges in the early stages of collaboration. R&D Management, 32(1), 11222, https://doi.org/10.1111/14679310.00235 Lambert, J. (2015). Theoretical basis for using 21st century skills as a foundation for a textbook in educational technology. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 1, 243722443. ¨ J., Raskin, P., Scoones, I., Stirling, A. C., Smith, A., Thompson, J., Millstone, Leach, M., Rockstrom, E., Ely, A., Arond, E., Folke, C., & Olsson, P. (2012). Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 11. https://.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04933-170211 de Lima, J. A. (2010). Thinking more deeply about networks in education. Journal of Educational Change, 11(1), 1–21. Lodemann, J., & Ziegler, R. (2015). How can resilience theory inform social innovation for the marginalized? CRESSI Working Papers, 6. Louis, K. S., Kruse, S., & Bryk, A. S. (1995). Professionalism and community: What is it and why is it important in urban schools? In K. S. Louis, S. Kruse, & Associates (Eds.), Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools (pp. 4–26). Corwin. Mair, J., & Mart´ı, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41, 36–44. Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European union. A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/mazzucato_report_2018.pdf

Social Innovation through Collaboration

95

Meirink, J. A., Imants, J., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2010). Teacher learning and collaboration in innovative teams. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40, 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0305764X.2010.481256 Metz, S. (2011). 21st-century skills. The Science Teacher, 78(7), 6. Monasta, A. (2000). Italy. In C. Brock & W. Tulasiewicz (Eds.), Education in a single Europe (pp. 228–247). Routledge. Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., & Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Social innovation and governance in local communities. Final SINGOCOM report to the EC (FP6). IFRESI. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00420980500279893 Nambisan, S. (2008). Transforming government through collaborative innovation. Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Norwich, B. (2015). Inclusive education in Italy: A response to Anastasiou, Kauffman and Di Nuovo. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(4), 448–451. Nygaard, S., & Russo, A. (2008). Trust, coordination and knowledge flows in R&D projects: The case of fuel cell technologies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 23–34. O’Sullivan, R. G. (2012). Collaborative Evaluation within a framework of stakeholder-oriented evaluation approaches. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35, 518–522. Odom, S. L., Viztum, J., Wolery, R., Lieber, J., Sandall, S., Hanson, M. J., Beckman, P., Schwartz, I., & Horn, E. (2004). Preschool inclusion in the United States: A review of research from an ecological systems perspective. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 4(1), 17–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1471-3802.2004.00016.x OECD. (1999). Inclusive education at work: Students with disabilities in mainstream schools. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2013). Innovative learning EnvironmentsEducational research and innovation. OECD Publishing. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264293488-en OECD-LEED. (2016). Building enabling ecosystems for social enterprises. In Capacity Building Seminar, Brussels, 17th–18th February 2016. http://www.oecd.org/employment/leed/socialoecdeu-cbs.htm Pelenc, J., Bazile, D., & Ceruti, C. (2015). Collective capability and collective agency for sustainability: A case study. Ecological Economics, 118, 226–239. Pentland, A. (2014). Social Physics: How good ideas spread. Penguin Press. Phills, J., Deiglmeier, J. A. K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(3), 34–43. Preskill, H., & Catsambas, T. T. (2006). Reframing evaluation through appreciative inquiry. Sage. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ´ Rincon-Gallardo, S., & Fullan, M. (2016). Essential features of effective networks in education. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1(1), 5–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-092015-0007 Roberts, K., & Lacey, J. (2008). What is the relationship between human and social capital. Rural Society, 18(2), 103–116. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design for Learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Salancik, G. (1977). Commitment is too easy. Organizational Dynamics, 6(1), 62–80. Santi, M. (Ed.). (2006). Costruire comunit`a di integrazione in classe. PensaMultimedia. Santi, M., & Zorzi, E. (2016). Education as Jazz. Interdisciplinary sketches on a new metaphor. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ´ Sanzo, M. J., Alvarez, L. I., Rey, M., & Garc´ıa, N. (2015). Business–nonprofit partnerships: A new form of collaboration in a corporate responsibility and social innovation context. Service Business, 9, 611–636. Schon, D. A. (1979). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 137–163). Cambridge University Press. ¨ ¨ Schroder, A., & Kruger, D. (2019). Social innovation as a driver for new educational practices: Modernising, repairing and transforming the education system. Sustainability, 11, 1070. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su11041070

96

ELISABETTA GHEDIN

Scoppetta, A., Butzin, A., Rehfeld, D., Butzin, A., Domanski, D., & Kaletka, C. (2014). Social innovation in the social economy and civil society. In J. Howaldt (Ed.), Theoretical approaches to social innovation: A critical literature review (pp. 79–96). http://www.si-drive.eu/wpcontent/ uploads/2014/11/D1_1-Critical-Literature-Review_final.pdf Seitanidi, M. M., & Crane, A. (2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the selection, design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 413–429. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford UP. Sen, A. K. (2002). Symposium on development as freedom: Response to commentaries. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37(2), 78–86. Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09644010701419121 Snow, N. (2015). Generativity and flourishing. Journal of Moral Education, 44(3), 263–277. https: doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2015.1043876 Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Enhancing social innovation by rethinking collaboration, leadership and public governance. Social Frontiers, The next edge of social innovation research, Nesta. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34. The United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Treaty Series, 2515, 3. UNESCO. (2011). Education for sustainable development: An expert review of processes and learning. Paris, UNESCO. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ 927unesco10.pdf. Accessed on March 25, 2021. UNESCO. (2013). The global learning crisis. Why every child deserves a quality education. https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000223826 UNESCO. (2014). Shaping the future we want. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php? page5view&type5400&nr51682&menu535 United Nations. (2015). General assembly resolution A/RES/70/1. In Transforming our world, the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol5A/ RES/70/1&Lang5E Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002 Wacquant, L. (1999). Urban marginality in the coming millennium. Urban Studies, 36, 1639–1647. Whitehurst, G. J., & Croft, M. (2010). The Harlem children’s zone, promise neighborhoods, and the broader, bolder approach to education. The Brookings Institution. Whitney, D., & Trosten-Bloom, A. (2003). The power of appreciative inquiry. Berrett-Koehler. WHO. (2007). International classification of functioning children and youth. WHO. Yoshino, M. Y., & Rangan, U. S. (1995). Strategic alliances: An entrepreneurial approach to globalization. Harvard Business School Press. Ziegler, R. (2017). Social innovation as a collaborative concept. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2017.13489358.7.2017

COLLABORATION IN CONTEXT: INSTRUCTIONAL COACHING TO SUPPORT INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS, AN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE Gretchen L. Stewart and Danielle Lane

ABSTRACT Changes in American public education can be linked to wider social movements. New policies and practices have historically emanated from a variety of social problems such as racism and the marginalization and exclusion of populations of children who differ by ability, economic class, and ethnic heritage. In the era of a global pandemic (COVID-19), the authors embrace the context of civil unrest in the United States as it directly relates to the factors necessary to build effective collaborative relationships in public institutions shaped by history and culture. In this chapter, we position school inclusion in the United States as an issue of social justice. In sharing our positionality and professional experiences as educators, we discuss instructional coaching as a collaborative lever to support inclusion in American classrooms. Our experiences, combined with the literature, serve as evidence that the formation of deeply meaningful professional relationships rooted in authentic empathy may serve as a powerful collaborative action to transform unjust structures. These relationships as actions in and of themselves, thus, form a psychological foundation (community consciousness) needed to effect positive change. The chapter is organized into three sections that examine instructional coaching for inclusion on marcopolicy, mezzo-academic, and microsituational levels. The chapter ends with a call to action applicable to PK–12 educators and leaders, as well as instructors and professors in teacher preparation programs.

Instructional Collaboration in International Inclusive Education Contexts International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 17, 97–113 Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620210000017010

97

98

GRETCHEN L. STEWART AND DANIELLE LANE

Keywords: Collaboration; inclusion; professional relationships; coaching; modeling; coteaching There must exist a paradigm, a practical model for social change that includes an understanding of ways to transform consciousness that are linked to efforts to transform structures. (hooks, 1996)

It is the year 2020, and the entire world has been upended by an insidious virus running rampant across the globe and named for the disease it causes, COVID19. Life and schooling as we have known it has inextricably changed, COVID-19 has left no nation untouched. Simultaneously, in the United States, political protests over virus stay at home orders and abuses of police powers toward African-American’s caught on camera have sparked massive nationwide protests. Civil unrest in the United States in turn, inspired a global resurgence in the call to dismantle unjust structures upholding racial and other forms of discrimination. Currently, the world is emotionally strained, reeling economically, and struggling to reinvent itself educationally. Approximately 290 million school-aged children across the globe were forced into distance learning, as schools closed their doors in the wake of COVID-19 (Peele & Riser-Kositsky, 2020). In the United States, 55.1 million students have spent months out of school (Peele & Riser-Kositsky, 2020), and the issues surrounding students with disabilities are that much more stratified. The vulnerable state of students, teachers, parents, and institutions has shifted the national discourse on education into survival mode, and business is anything but normal. In the Southeastern part of the United States, two American scholars meet virtually to discuss the writing of this chapter. In the seemingly overnight pivot from face-to-face meetings to virtual learning, our shared sentiment is that the effects of COVID-19, the resurfacing of deep wounds forged by institutional racism, and our own individual circumstances offer a unique visage from which to deliberate over collaboration and inclusion. In the search for perspective, we cannot ignore the extreme, historic, and compelling events of recent times, nor our own positionality. I, the first author, am a nearly 50-year-old nonwhite passing AfricanAmerican/Irish woman, who grew-up in the Midwest United States in a working middle class single-parent family. I am a single parent of two young men labeled with neurodevelopmental differences (autism) and genetic variance (down syndrome). I have fresh memories of being called a nigger from childhood through adulthood, being dissuaded from taking advanced classes in high school, and being personally and professionally ostracized over the naturally kinky stylings of my hair, and the brown color of my skin. My career as an educator spans more than 20 years in American K–12 public education. Throughout this time, I served as a general and special education classroom teacher, a special education administrator, a state-level technical specialist, and a district-wide director of instruction, leadership, and professional development. All of the time spent was in urban, high needs, poverty-stricken schools.

Collaboration in Context

99

I, the second author, am a 30-year-old divorced white woman who was raised in the Northeast United States. I am a member of the LGBTQIA1 community, and find myself, on an almost daily basis, evaluating my surroundings to determine if being open about my sexuality is personally and professionally safe. I took a nontraditional educational path in which I attended college classes in the evening and online while working multiple jobs to make ends meet. Professionally, I have 10 years of experience in the special education field. I taught preschool through primary school in a variety of inclusive models, am a former teacher of students labeled with severe and profound autism, served youth and adults labeled with disabilities in community settings, and recently started my career in academia as an Assistant Professor of Education at a liberal arts university in North Carolina that primarily serves undergraduate students. The differences in our life experiences have never trumped the undeniable and universal unity of the human condition between us, and we have forged a deep reverence for one another’s lives. We have spent a great deal of time together, within the United States and internationally, and in doing so found common ground in our guttural displeasure of the unjust. You might call us a two-person American melting pot. We have both spent time exasperated by the way things are, yet hopeful about the way things could be. Our greatest connection is found in our fervent and undying agreement that education has the potential to be a powerful equalizer, regardless of its history in America as being just the opposite for so many children of color and those labeled with a disability. Our intent in sharing who we are is to express our personal and professional investment in effecting lasting societal change. We live with the effects of unjust structures; we have intimate experiences thereof. As such, we recognize that sometimes, it’s that one quote, or one article, or one book that tips the scales and moves us to action. Instructional coaches have a unique opportunity to transform unjust structures through collaboration via authentic and empathetic professional relationships. We aim to offer a unique lens from which to consider the boots on the ground role of instructional coach to support inclusion. We hope to provide you with inspiration, vested personal perspective, and actionable ideas to better your small and mighty part of our world. Toward that end, and spurred by the state of the world, the sociopolitical times, and our positionalities, we are approaching this chapter differently than might be expected. That difference begins with the awareness that the exclusion of diverse groups of children from participation in a myriad of life experiences has deep roots in the economic, political, and sociomoral dynamics of our country. The exclusion of children labeled with a disability in the United States public educational structure did not originate within schools, nor is it discreetly a school issue today. To openly discuss the challenges and opportunities collaboration offers toward inclusion, we must transcend the boundaries of the school proper. One approach is to deliberate community and individual consciousness, and how they are contextualized within school structures that much by default reinforce exclusion. If we ignore this consideration, we may fail to understand the root causes present in the systemic barriers to inclusion and be more likely to employ solutions that do little to challenge the deep-seated, oppression-based,

100

GRETCHEN L. STEWART AND DANIELLE LANE

disparate realities which lead to civil unrest. We operationalize the concept of community consciousness work that resonates in the bell hooks quote opening this chapter. We adopt the perspective of inclusion as social justice, and we argue that the psychological basis of the mental attitudes that lead to action (community consciousness) found in effective inclusive environments is driven by the formation of deeply meaningful professional relationships. These relationships work to build authentic perspectives of an individual’s reality and to form synergistic empathy. To effectuate our charge, we offer a multilayered approach to the consideration of an American perspective of instructional coaching to support inclusive classrooms. We begin with a socio- and geopolitical “bigger picture,” as seen through a brief, macropolicy review of inclusion in the United States. Next, we present a mezzo-perspective of instructional coaching and collaborative practices that is driven by interdisciplinary literature in inclusive practices and the behavioral sciences that includes community consciousness and transformational relationships. Finally, we share grassroots, microfocused perspectives from our work as instructional coaches in American classrooms. Through stories derived from our experiences in American public schools, we showcase professional relationship building as a social consciousness lever to foster inclusive practices, deepen collaboration, and transform unjust structures. We conclude the chapter with action-orientated and role-focused sets of next-step questions for PK–12 school staff and teacher educators.

A MACROPOLICY OVERVIEW OF INCLUSION AS SOCIAL JUSTICE IN AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION In the United States, public movements for social justice are often paralleled pedagogically in public education. At each iteration of mass social change, new ideas in teaching and learning emerge by which instructional strategies are often revised. As school structures are pressed to expand opportunities for access to and equity in a free, meaningful, public education, the range of diverse stakeholders widens. At different times in our contemporary history, large groups of alienated students and their parents as stakeholders have formed sociopolitical movements (the American civil rights, disability, and migrant education movements), which directly and indirectly pushed approaches to schooling in new directions. This decades-long process has not been without its obstacles in working toward an inclusive education for all, with many alarming achievement disparities among school-aged students in the United States still standing. Yet, with each iteration of large-scale social justice movements, approaches to teaching and learning have evolved, and the inclusion of students labeled with a disability offers a prime example. Inclusive education in the United States is a social movement that has gained momentum and influence in policy and practice arenas over the last 30 years. Through the development of United States federal and state laws, policies, and regulations (which are inherently political), students with disabilities were at first

Collaboration in Context

101

allowed, and then later integrated, and more recently included, in general education classrooms with students who do not have disabilities. On the heels of the United States civil rights movement, policies related to children with disabilities began to change with fervor in the late 1960s. This was a time when AfricanAmericans were faced with racially motivated discriminatory practices throughout the activities of daily living. While African-American children in the United States gained the legal right to attend school with white children in 1954, it took some time before children with disabilities earned the protected right to attend school in the United States. In 1972, an investigative reporter named Geraldo Rivera exposed a state-run facility in New York, named Willowbrook, to the American public. In a facility built for 4,000, more than 6,200 children and adults with disabilities were being held and purported to being educated and cared for (Rivera, 1972). The children at Willowbrook labeled with intellectual disabilities were found to be abused, neglected, starved, and living in filth (Rivera, 1972). What Rivera documented disgusted the American public, and resulted in much public outcry after the horrors of Willowbrook were exposed. It was not until after several legal battles by families of children at Willowbrook aimed at gaining better conditions and an education (Linnell & Wieck, 2012) that the United States federal government passed the first federal legislation guaranteeing children with a disability a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The concept of FAPE resulted in children with disabilities gaining access to American public schools as a provision of law. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) passed in 1975 by the United States Congress was the catalyst for increased emphasis on more inclusive placements and decreased use of state-run institutions for children with intellectual and other disabilities (Office of Special Education Programs, 2007). Ten years later in 1987, Willowbrook permanently closed its doors. The enactment of PL 94-142 changed access to schooling for children with all manifestations of cognitive and biophysical differences who had previously been excluded on this basis and, thus, reached far and wide into every school in the nation. Today, PL 94-142 is known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and continues to set the regulatory stage for inclusive education in the United States. While progress toward educational inclusion was made through politicized policy routes in the United States, the psychological underpinnings of discrimination have largely remained intact and, in many ways, parallel the continued struggle for access and equity in American life sought by nonwhite citizens. Currently, inclusion of students with disabilities in United States public schools PK–12 is tied to federal funding (Yell & Christle, 2017). As noted, IDEA requires that students are provided FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (2004). Put simply, schools must allow children identified with a disability to attend school in classrooms with their peers who are not identified as having a disability. Specifically, the policy states, “To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled” (IDEA, 2004). Additionally, the legislature requires Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to

102

GRETCHEN L. STEWART AND DANIELLE LANE

ensure that students with disabilities have access to general education classrooms unless the “nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily” (IDEA, 2004). As such, inclusion as defined by policy in the United States centers on the location in which a student with a disability is served and is determined along a continuum with the general education classroom being the least restrictive setting and the self-contained classroom being the most restrictive. While our national guidelines for educational inclusion demonstrate policies with a social and moral heartbeat, what plays out in classrooms across the United States can look and feel very different. Special education mandates such as IDEA are severely underfunded, and the role of the special education teacher is tasked differently from school-to-school and district-to-district. Schools are given latitude in how to achieve inclusion, and while many assert the outcomes of educational inclusion are beneficial to all involved, there are difficult truths that must be addressed in order to keep moving forward. One of those truths has to do with the disproportionate nature of labeling black male children with intellectual, emotional, and behavioral disorders, and black and brown children with learning disabilities. Too, there rages a national debate over out of school suspension rates for black children, which have been inordinately higher than their white peers for decades. Kramarczuk Voulgarides et al. (2017) put it quite soberly in stating it is an epic conundrum that IDEA, being of sound legal merit and basis, has been unable to eliminate or even slow the disproportionate identification and discipline of children of color. Another truth is that given the push for standardized testing in the United States, combined with merit-based evaluation systems tying teacher pay to student achievement, the federal mandate for inclusion has, in many places, created situations that breed animosity among teachers, leaders, and parents toward students with disabilities. Often, the interconnectedness of inclusion and finances hamper equity efforts and lead to mental attitudes that include, but are not limited to, school leaders rejecting the placement of students with disabilities within their schools (or begrudgingly accepting them). This frequently results in teachers not wanting students labeled with a disability in their classrooms, general education teachers not considering students with disabilities in their classrooms as “their students,” thereby deferring responsibility for students with disabilities to special education teachers, and parents complaining about students with disabilities as detrimental to their child’s learning environment and potential. There are also many examples nationwide of schools and classrooms where inclusion is welcomed and proactively considered in the planning process in order to foster success. The majority of the literature, however, remains focused on making improvements amid social and structural barriers to inclusion, which alludes academically, to the larger trend. We feel the bottom line is this: while we are well past institutionalizing children in asylums, continuing to compel behavior and achievement through policy and technical intervention has done and will continue to do little to change the underlying mental attitudes of discrimination and a deep-rooted systemic,

Collaboration in Context

103

cultural system of exclusion. We contend that a turn to focusing on the psychological work involved in changing attitudes through relationships may be one of the most effective approaches to better inclusive schools and classrooms, but also the most authentic lever we can pull toward changing conditioned human behavior to support the dismantling of unjust structures of discrimination as it plays out in American schools. Transformation of barriers, structures, and attitudes through personal and professional coaching relationships is where we ought to invest our efforts and resources.

COLLABORATION TO SUPPORT INCLUSIVE CLASSROOM PRACTICE: A MEZZO-ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE OF THE LITERATURE SUPPORTING EMPATHIC RELATIONSHIP BUILDING AS TRANSFORMATIVE In this section, we transition our discussion away from the bigger picture, toward the inner workings of the inclusive classroom. We consider in brief the literature surrounding instructional coaching in educational contexts, blending it with literature from behavioral science related to transformational collaboration. We are interested in what type of work coaches can do that sticks and changes the attitudes behind the practices in lasting ways. While multiple interpretations of the role of coaching as a collaborative pathway toward instructional refinement exist, our perspective is that effective collaboration is chiefly a psychological process and happens within larger interrelated spheres of community consciousness that cannot be ignored. Mental attitudes toward teaching, learning, the social construct of schooling, disability, race, privilege, and the self and others inextricably direct the degrees to which inclusion and instructional coaching hold transformational power. The effective instructional coach must not only know this but also understand how to foster inclusion through the nurturing of inclusive mental attitudes. This nurturing too may call for a dismantling of strong, longheld beliefs. To understand better the role of relationships in successful coaching, we turn to the literature. A meta-analysis of 31 studies related to coaching between 2012 and 2018, with the majority of those studies hailing from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Ireland, and New Zealand, Eastman, reported that no matter the geopolitical or cultural context, the signals of transformational coaching (trust, respect, deep self-reflection) revolved around the psychological aspects of the relationship between coach and coachee (Eastman, 2019). Interdisciplinary social and behavioral science supports this assertion and is replete with reports on the unambiguous relationship between sustained collaboration and positive, dynamic, and emotional relationships between collaborators (Parrott, 2017). Toward this end, Gino (2019) stressed the importance of specific communication skills (listening versus talking, asking expansive questions), intentional

104

GRETCHEN L. STEWART AND DANIELLE LANE

work in empathy growth, finding comfort in feedback, and live modeling by master coaches, as essential to psychologically beneficial collaborative partnerships. In education, empathy work is seldom a part of early or sustained professional preparation, teacher training, or professional development. We believe empathy is a critical element in growing and sustaining organic inclusive practices that support just structures of schooling. Da Fonte and Barton-Arwood (2017) suggest that communication skills are the building blocks of relationships between teachers who collaborate in inclusive classrooms. They offer that lowstakes opportunities (chats over coffee, for instance) to develop personal relationships are central to helping people become comfortable with what will inevitably turn into high stakes conversations about students and professional responsibilities. The authors further suggest we have more work to do in preservice teacher education programs. There is a need to intentionally arm budding general education teachers and special education teachers with the necessary skills to initiate and foster deep and trusting relationships that allow collaboration to manifest the very best in teaching and learning for a wide range of students (Da Fonte & Barton-Arwood, 2017). Further, the assertion that empathy and trust in relationship building is important to those doing work in schools with vulnerable populations, such as children labeled with a disability, is supported by both student outcomes and the sociopolitical nature of healing from exclusion and discrimination. Hayes and Bulat (2017) recognize that being labeled with a disability as a child is a significant factor in subsequent social and educational marginalization. Typically, educational relationships around disability in schools consist of “shop talk,” or discussions of test scores and the logistics around the delivery of special education services. Many special education teachers spend a great deal of time collecting mandatory data for caseloads of students in multiple classrooms, with significant time spent writing Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and attending meetings. While assessments can provide useful academic information about students, it gives teams limited insight into student and stakeholder motivation and the sociopolitical power dynamics that come into play between home, school, and society. These elements covertly and overtly influence collaborative relationships and outcomes. To push back against business as usual, as academics leading preservice teacher education courses, we share real-life experiences with our teacher education students that illustrate the critical nature of focusing on authentic and personal relationships as a collaborative lever to improve school experiences for students and reduce barriers to inclusion. We share the experience of one of the authors, using the first person “I” for clarity, with our students in the retelling of the following occurrence: One day I received a new fifth-grade student named Derrick. He arrived escorted by the office staff. I took mental note that his parents were not present. After the day concluded, I reached out by phone to the name and number listed on his emergency card to introduce myself. Fast forward a week, and after multiple notes home and repeated calls, I had yet to reach Derrick’s parents and Derrick’s classroom behavior was rapidly declining. A week later, Derrick was

Collaboration in Context

105

facing a three-day school suspension for fighting at recess. It was imperative that I reach someone responsible for him at home. I made the call regarding the suspension and left a message. It should be noted that my policy was always to make positive contacts with parents at a three-to-one ratio before I discussed any potential negatives. The fist messages I had left at the number I had been given were positive attempts to connect with this young man’s family. A short time later, my classroom phone rang. It was Derrick’s guardian, his grandmother. I introduced myself, talked a bit about Derrick in general, highlighting positives, and then began telling her what occurred, as well as the parameters of the suspension. She was silent at first, but then began yelling loud enough that the other students in the room could hear her through the phone. Her exact words were, “this is the problem with you white teachers, you always doing something to our African-American boys.” She went on for a while more and when she stopped, I responded. I said, “well actually, I’m not white, I’m black.” There was a long pause, and the next words out of her mouth were, “I’ll be right there.” Everything about her tone and response to me changed in that instant as (I believe) she felt a camaraderie of human experience with me because of the color of my skin. She was at once, comfortable. I too felt something in her rage, and I wondered about the untold part of her and Derrick’s lives that resulted in her as grandma, raising her grandchild. I later found out that Derrick’s mother was unable to care for him, and he was placed by the foster care system in his grandmother’s home. He was one of the several children at home, and in her retirement, I could sense her exhaustion. In America, race matters and cannot be ignored, as our history has shaped our nation in reference to African-Americans in many ways that highlight the very worst of community consciousness and social injustice. As a teacher that day, I felt a relief in that moment, knowing that when she arrived, the tension wouldn’t be about my skin tone, it would be about Derrick and his and her relationship and our relationship, and how we come to better understand one other in support of this young man. In truth, there are multiple points we could make about what a conversation like this conveys about race, class, culture, education, and power in America. As an African-American woman who grew up with a white mother, I have been told that I “sound white.” I don’t pretend that I do not know what that means or what my student’s grandmother meant. It was not just that I sounded white to her, but also that she automatically associated white with injustice. In responding to me when she thought I was white, it was clear that she was pushing back against the continued exclusion of her family from the just navigation of a school system predicated on exclusion and discrimination. Derrick’s grandmother instinctively assumed I was treating her grandson unfairly. That had been her reality, an experience no doubt backed by years of tangible evidence substantiating the generational effects of inequitable participation in education. For the preservice teachers in our classes, who are primarily white females who have been successful in school, we ask, “What would be your response to Derrick’s grandmother?” From there, we spend weeks digging and unearthing the mental attitudes that support our students’ responses, and many times, we put in work that has nothing to do with the technical nature of parent contact logs and IEP writing.

106

GRETCHEN L. STEWART AND DANIELLE LANE

The school that this situation occurred at was wildly diverse, in terms of student and family population. More than 35 different languages were spoken there. Socioeconomically, nearly 100% of families qualified for free and reduced school lunch. Well more than half of the staff were white, middle to upper class females who drove in from the suburbs to teach there. The staff had been handpicked, and for the most part, many of them were genuine in their efforts and acceptance of the responsibility of privilege. We were challenged to help our families trust us and to build authentic, empathetic bridges between their and our life experiences. One way we accomplished this was to make the school into a hub for community celebration and elevation of our differing life experiences. Every year, we embarked on a months-long social and cultural investigation of the elders in our community, some the grandparents of our students, others volunteer in the school, and other staff. Our students, together with a folk musician, would craft songs from the elders’ life stories, inclusive of painful struggles for equity, and moments of great achievement and joy. We began to know and understand our community deeply, and we grew in solidarity in order to work together to champion school success for each student as a basic human right. Race was not transcended, it was rather celebrated, and the implications of being white or black or brown in our part of the city in our part of America became a fiery motivation to keep finding out and doing the next right thing for people. All of this grew from intentional collaborative conversation that in many ways allowed our students’ families to coach us as teachers, toward psychologically beneficial partnerships. To facilitate collaboration toward lasting inclusive environments requires culturally responsive relationships characterized by tireless efforts to change discriminatory mindsets. Our students and their families experience exclusion that is often generational and present in many functions of daily life with resentment as an ever-present emotion in marginalized populations. From our places of privilege, having successfully navigated formal educational structures, we must try to step into the shoes of others to understand the psychological impacts institutionalized, systematic racism and prejudice has on motivation, collaboration, and relationship building in an educational environment. The same holds true when we talk about the inclusion of children and families living with differences that we label as disabilities. The social stigma, narrowed opportunities, and poor academic outcomes that are associated with cognitive and neurodevelopmental disabilities in children are well documented (Mitter et al., 2019). Derrick was labeled with a neurodevelopmental disability, had brown skin, and was growing up in generational poverty. While Derrick did not complete the year at our school, I was able to build a partnership with his grandmother and his special education case manager. Together, beginning with lower stakes meetings and moving into higher stakes conversations about societal issues impacting the family, we were able to keep Derrick from being repeatedly suspended. In our experience, meaningful relationships foster commitments that evolve into effective and sustainable collaboration. We say once again, relationships are the hallmark of transformation.

Collaboration in Context

107

GRASSROOTS EXPERIENCES: A MIRCOENGAGEMENT WITH CONTEXT, DESIGN, AND OUTCOMES Turning from our mezzo-focus on support from the literature for psychological pedagogy serving as the foundation for collaboration and coaching and situational narrative to corroborate such, we engage with you in this next section through brief vignettes told in first person from the perspectives of the authors. The two stories below offer our experiences in differing models regarding the actual work of examining and building upon community and individual consciousness as collaborative levers toward inclusion. As you read, think about the last time you were charged with starting a new collaboration. Think about how you approached the situation and examined the communications you had around community consciousness and individual mental attitudes. If those were not as robust as you may have liked, think about how you might approach your next opportunity with the goal of building a deeply committed, transformational collaboration through an intentional, psychological approach to relationship building.

COACHING AND COTEACHING: THE CASE OF JAMIE AND FAITH The first example we share is contextualized as a job-embedded, face-to-face coaching model for special education teachers around instructional strategies and inclusive, collaborative practices in the Southeastern United States. The project later turned to virtual collaboration as COVID-19 closed schools and pivoted to online interactions. As an instructional coach in this project, as I will often do when working with a new collaborator, I began my job with nonobtrusive, informal observations of the classroom. As I began a new cycle of semester-long coaching in the Spring of 2020, I was introduced to Jamie and Faith’s third-grade classroom. Jamie was a general education teacher, and Faith was a special education teacher. The staffing model was such that Jamie and Faith did not share a physical teacher workspace within the classroom. The focus of my coaching was based on a directive from the school principal to increase the use of high-leverage, collaborative coteaching strategies. In particular, school leadership was interested in Jamie and Faith implementing station teaching. Both were open to my presence in their classroom, and it was well understood that I did not carry evaluative power. We had permission as a part of the coaching initiative to take risks, fail, and keep trying. My role as coach was clear, and administrative support was evident. The support was genuine, however, and came on the heels of an exasperated principal, district instructional intervention specialist, and on part of Faith, who had each been trying to effect change over a period of many months in Jamie’s classroom. The inclusion model was described by administration as being push-in, meaning the special education teacher would join the general education teacher for short periods of instruction throughout the day (namely reading and math). Faith described the reality of the model differently,

108

GRETCHEN L. STEWART AND DANIELLE LANE

as she found it necessary to remove the children with disabilities from the regular education setting given serious management issues and the divide that had grown between the two teachers. I was told as a new incoming coach, that “everything” had been attempted in terms of helping turn the classroom around, and there was a feeling that it would be very difficult to change what was happening. As I sat listening to the long list of intensive interventions that had come before me, I couldn’t help but to notice that each item was hyperfocused on Jamie’s failure to implement strategies that had been shared with her. The professional community surrounding Jamie felt bitter at her inability to change, and her apparent denial of the difficult truth that her classroom was in serious chaos on a daily basis. Jamie and Faith’s classroom was an educationally harmful environment. Faith had lost all empathy toward Jamie and had abandoned ship by turning to a pull-out model of service. The manner in which the circumstances were being portrayed to me was such that I understood my work with these teachers was a last resort for Jamie. After some time spent observing the classroom, I understood that in order to be successful, I was going to have to take a consciousness/psychological approach with both teachers. I began with Jamie. Jamie’s classroom had fallen apart, and there was little to no classroom management, with virtually every student in an academic and social tailspin. Respect from student to teacher did not exist, social relationships were fractured, and the environment was intensely stressful. Jamie was personally and professionally dejected. Within a minute of our first conversation, Jamie broke down emotionally. In talking to Faith, she expressed that she had used the last of her emotional energy to simply do her job of being present in Jamie’s classroom. She had tried to use coteaching models like station teaching, but the attempt had devolved into Faith going into the classroom, pulling the children on her caseload out of the classroom in an attempt to provide students some type of instruction, and dropping them back off at the end of period. Faith had checked out from actively trying to help Jamie, she too was mentally exasperated. The children labeled with disabilities in this classroom stood out, and Jamie was quick to point that out in her mind; in her mind, they were essentially the problem. At this point, I knew that true and sustainable change would not be possible without addressing the mental attitudes of both teachers. I decided to start with Jamie by asking her to meet with me outside of school. I emailed her the following (altered from the original to ensure confidentiality): Hi Jamie, Thank you again for spending time with me yesterday during your planning period. I want you to know that I see you – as a person, as an educator, as someone who really wants something different for your students, and I would like to help you, if you want. It would like to take some time away from school for you and I to work together. Sometimes, getting away from school changes how we see things. I’d suggest we get together and do some planning somewhere you feel awesome at – like your happy relaxing spot (mine is Jax Max – a coffee house in Leeward). I’d suggest an hour to begin with. I am free this weekend at a time that would work for you. So, give it some thought and let me know:) Also, feel free to call me if you prefer to chat about it. Warmest regards.

Collaboration in Context

109

She responded: Oh my gosh! I can’t believe you’re willing to do this with me. I am 100% on board to meet outside of school! My own kids are grown and attending college 4 hours away so I’m usually good for whenever. I am currently helping my mom through deciding whether my dad should be in memory care or a psychological ward, so I’m planning on spending the weekend there. If we could maybe meet on Saturday morning or even sometime Friday night, I’m good. If that doesn’t work, I’m willing to try to amend to work around it. I really appreciate all your help and I am so, so very grateful that you may be able to help me with this class. I’m so thankful for whatever input you can provide. I really feel like we can work together to help this class. I have loved all your ideas so far and I’m positive that any work we do will only positively impact these students. I’m so glad Carolyn accepted this coaching for us. I’m so excited to move forward and see the positive impact for our students! I feel really connected to them and I feel like the suggestions you’ve made have been incredibly positive and meaningful. I look forward to the next steps we take and how (hopefully) impactful it will be for us all!

We must say it again, there simply is no substitution for taking time and being intentional in building meaningful relationships. In a coaching relationship, I have found that a coachee will not care what I know, until they know that I care. Let that resonate for a moment. Knowing is a psychological process of communication over time that begins with building trust, practicing empathy, and helping a person become comfortable with feedback as feedforward, through nonjudgmental questioning. In Jamie’s reply, she began to share personal things about her life, which was an important indicator of trust beginning to form between us. She also conveyed an authentic excitement, which was an indicator to me that it might be possible to extract the necessary commitment level we would need to sustain momentum and transform instruction. As a matter of logistics, I did share with school leaders that I planned to radically engage Jamie, so they were aware that we would meet outside of school on our own time. At first, I met with each teacher alone to build relationships of trust. Once established, I asked Faith to trust me and take a risk to reengage with Jamie. I didn’t bring the two teachers together until I was certain I had buy-in and performance from Jamie that Faith could see firsthand. This helped Faith to begin trusting that Jamie would indeed follow through. The work was challenging, and I listened more than I spoke, asking only carefully chosen questions that confronted mental attitudes and expanded the teachers’ perspectives of what was happening to the children. After four classroom visits and one outside of school meeting, Jamie, Faith, and I successfully implemented station teaching in language arts, with the teachers then extending the same collaborative strategies into mathematics. We implemented a new classroom management system that assured all students were recognized for improvements. Jamie’s mental attitude about the students with disabilities in her classroom had begun to change at the personal level, which translated to her and Faith having more positive conversations characterized by a dedication to a joyful classroom that was psychologically safe and nurturing. During station time, an outside observer could no longer tell which students were labeled with a disability, a universal marker of an effective inclusive classroom, and something that was not observable when we began the coaching cycle.

110

GRETCHEN L. STEWART AND DANIELLE LANE

The key to change in Jamie and Faith’s classroom was strategic transformation of a consciousness that had been reinforcing exclusion and had in many ways formed justification in each teacher’s minds that avoidance of one another was their only option. I acted as the empathetic go-between for Jamie and Faith until they could once again see each other as professionals who would stop at nothing to assure student success. I live modeled with Jamie and Faith and believe that each teacher grew more comfortable with feedback as a result, eventually able to give one another constructive feedback to improve their joint practices.

MULTIMODAL COACHING AND COLLABORATION: A DISTRICT INITIATIVE The second vignette comes from a hybrid district-wide vision of instructional coaching in the Midwestern United States. When leadership change arrived at a medium-sized urban public-school district with a population of 25,000 students that employs more than 2,000 teachers, with more than 30 schools, so did a vision for an instructional transformation. My charge was to organize professional development in instructional coaching for school leaders using the resources and methods created by the authors of Results Coaching (Kee et al., 2010). These master practitioners also served as the primary trainers in a coaching approach that could be applied at all levels of leadership and instruction, general and special, throughout the school district. The vision was a slow growth model and began with both traditional and jobembedded professional learning. Initially, the trainings were heavily traditional, occurring in multiweek, multihour sessions away from live school operations. District leadership and all school principals formed with the first cadre of coaches. The vision from district leadership was that in order to bring about instructional change, school principals needed to exert greater influence as instructional experts. The political climate of the early 2010s was highly charged, as a new and complex teacher evaluation system was implemented by the state. Teachers’ unions were under extreme duress by state governance, and in areas where student outcomes were poor, the pressure to eliminate unions who were viewed as protecting ineffective teachers was palpable. At the time, instructional coaching was seen as both a practical and a political move, aimed at keeping the peace while the state instituted dramatic changes to teacher evaluations. Principals were given the tools needed to spend more time with individual teachers in order to help them improve their practices. The main feature of the time spent with teachers was focused on relationship building through the use of psychologically based communication tools. In order to train more than 60 district leaders, principals, and assistant principals, within a single year, there was a need to take a blended traditional and job-embedded approach. Initial trainings took place in a more traditional fashion, with school leaders coming to the district office for several consecutive all-day sessions to learn the fundamentals of the coaching system. During these sessions, leaders were asked to experiment with the communication skills they

Collaboration in Context

111

were learning and share their insights with the group. Specifically, how the new coaching approach impacted their relationships with peers and teachers under their supervision. At the same time, school leaders were being coached by district leaders through a similar slow rollout in terms of practice and reflection. The next group of personnel that received training were the district curriculum and special education support staff, as their roles included close and direct contact with teachers who struggled with inclusion. The district took an all or nothing perspective and chose not to delineate between special and general education in this process, something that is often overlooked in mass initiatives for change. In doing so, the philosophical message was one of unity and a precept to educational inclusion as the rule rather than the exception. After the initial training series, the training continued with a job-embedded approach. Individual one-to-one mentoring from master coaches was offered to select groups within district and school leadership, and within the instructional support staff. Variable one-to-one mentoring hours were given to individuals who: (1) indicated they wanted such support and/or (2) were considered to be influential within the district. Mentoring was delivered in various formats from weekly phone or virtual synchronous meetings to in-person and within-school direct collaboration. There were also opportunities for refresher sessions and feedback for those not involved in the intensive mentoring. Since each district staff served in roles that were a bit different from one another, the one-to-one guidance allowed for role-specific feedback and reflection. For instance, a director of professional learning with no supervisory capacity, but who held great influence on school leaders, could receive individualized support that was different from a director of schools who had supervisory capacity but less instructional influence. This hybrid approach allowed for the deep-rooted dissolution of siloed attitudes and beliefs about inclusion, as both general education teachers and special education teachers were now receiving the same type of instructional messages from a diverse cadre. School leaders were expected to use their coaching skills to pay equitable attention toward relationships and communication improvements with all teachers, rather than just general education teachers or special education teachers. Throughout two years of implementation, district improvement ratings issued by the state, based upon standardized assessment measures, rose for students with disabilities. Subsequently, more students with special needs were receiving their education in the general education classroom, the LRE. Additionally, the data two years post coaching implementation indicates that during and after implementing the PK–12 coaching vision, the district closed achievement gaps between students with disabilities and those who do not have disabilities in reading at a higher rate than prior to implementation. Through a commitment to changing attitudes about inclusion, a large school system transformed community consciousness and began to meaningfully address structures that reinforced exclusion and poor outcomes.

112

GRETCHEN L. STEWART AND DANIELLE LANE

TAKING ACTION, TRANSFORMING COMMUNITY CONSCIOUSNESS No matter what is happening in our world, from face-to-face to virtual learning spaces, relationships between people are the real-time roots of change. We the authors built our collaborative relationship by pursuing our doctorates together, being lost in a study abroad program together, sharing our families with one another, crying, laughing, and being ever so serious together. Your experiences with people matter. People are the stuff of deeper connectivity and serve to reveal the roots of a person’s consciousness. Relationships lead to sustainable commitments to change and mutual trust that each individual is going to do the hard work that needs to be done. Discovering your personal connection to others is key to developing collaborative relationships that seed the transformation of thought and professional practice. As instructional coaches, we have observed that the most successful partnerships begin with the critical analysis of the stakeholders’ positionality regarding collaboration, inclusion, and social justice (which includes ourselves). To assist you, we offer a set of questions you might ask as points of entry into higher stakes conversations. Adapted from Richards (2018), these questions can be used in a variety of ways, and in our professional opinion, are most powerful when you begin with asking them of yourselves, inserting your own, contextappropriate settings. Coaches may use these questions to begin the process of understanding attitudes and connecting with teachers. Teachers may use these questions to continually assess their beliefs and actions against what actually happens within their instructional communities. Postsecondary faculty may use these questions to craft reflective tasks for preservice educators as they articulate their personal philosophies of teaching and learning. In asking and answering these questions, the goal is to examine the elements of community consciousness that reinforce structures of exclusion and to unearth what may be driving barriers. From there, collaboration around creating structures within classrooms that reinforce inclusion can develop. In considering these questions, it is necessary to use your gut instincts and feel out the situation, listen intently, and be present in the moment. (1) Which children and families feel most at home in your classroom/school, and which ones feel like (unwanted) guests? (2) Whose norms, values, and perspectives does your classroom/school consider normal or legitimate? (3) Whose norms, values, and perspectives does your classroom/school silence, marginalize, or delegitimize? Through what structures? What are the educational consequences of such marginalization? (4) Whose interests does the school/classroom protect or whose interests do you protect? Why? As you prepare to turn the page and close this chapter, we urge you to pause, think of your current context and role in the world’s education system. Ask yourself these four questions and then ask yourself one final question:

Collaboration in Context

113

(5) How can you strengthen collaborative practices through meaningful relationships, as a lever to foster an inclusion consciousness for all?

REFERENCES Da Fonte, M. A., & Barton-Arwood, S. M. (2017). Collaboration of general and special education teachers: Perspectives and strategies. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(2), 99–106. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1053451217693370 Eastman, C. (2019). The developmental needs of coaches and coachees. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 8(3), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-03-20190044 Gino, F. (2019). Cracking the code of sustained collaboration. Harvard Business Review, 97, 71–81. Hayes, A. M., & Bulat, J. (2017). Disabilities inclusive education systems and policies guide for low-and middle-income countries. Occasional Paper. RTI Press Publication OP-0043-1707. RTI International. hooks, b. (1996). Killing rage: Ending racism. Journal of Leisure Research, 28(4), 316. Individuals with disabilities education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400. (2004). Kee, K., Anderson, K., Dearing, V., Harris, E., & Shuster, F. (Eds.). (2010). Results coaching: The new essential for school leaders. Corwin Press. Kramarczuk Voulgarides, C., Fergus, E., & King Thorius, K. A. (2017). Pursuing equity: Disproportionality in special education and the reframing of technical solutions to address systemic inequities. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 61–87. Linnell, B., & Wieck, C. (2012). Access to Justice: The impact of federal courts on disability rights. The Federal Lawyer. https://disabilityjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/FLDecember2012-Access-toJustice-Article1.pdf Mitter, N., Ali, A., & Scior, K. (2019). Stigma experienced by families of individuals with intellectual disabilities and autism: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 89, 10–21. Office of Special Education Programs. (2007). History twenty-five years of progress in education children with disabilities through IDEA. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/history.pdf Parrott, L. (2017). The modelling spiral for solving ‘wicked’ environmental problems: Guidance for stakeholder involvement and collaborative model development. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 8(8), 1005–1011. Peele, & Riser-Kositsky, M. (2020, March 6). Map: Coronavirus and school closures. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-coronavirus-and-schoolclosures.html Richards, B. (2018, May). Is your university racist? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/ advice/2018/05/25/questions-institutions-should-ask-themselves-determine-if-they-are-operating Rivera, G. (1972). Willowbrook: A report on how it is and why it doesn’t have to be that way. Random House. Yell, M. L., & Christle, C. A. (2017). The foundation of inclusion in federal legislation and litigation. In Handbook of research on classroom diversity and inclusive education practice (pp. 27–52). IGI Global.

This page intentionally left blank

THE COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS IN PUBLIC SPECIAL SCHOOLS IN SOUTH AFRICA Selina Kungwane and Millicent Boaduo

ABSTRACT With the advent of democratic government in South Africa in 1994, the government has been making strides toward ensuring that education is accessible to all, including children with disabilities. The South African Constitution, under the Bill of Rights, alludes to the fact that the government has the responsibility to ensure that education is accessible and all are given the necessary support. The Department of Basic Education has developed a variety of legislation, policies, and guidelines to improve the inclusion of children with disabilities in schools. The launch of Education White Paper 6: Building an Inclusive Education and Training System: Special Needs Education, 2001, further led to the development of several policies, strategies, guidelines, and interventions in order to support the development of an inclusive education and training system. The objective of education White Paper 6 is to build an inclusive education system in the country. This requires stakeholders with various relevant expertise to work as teams in order to make education accessible and offer support to those learners with barriers to learning in classrooms. Collaboration between teachers and occupational therapists in a classroom is seen as vital. Keywords: Teachers; occupational therapists; learner; collaboration/ partnership; inclusion; public school Instructional Collaboration in International Inclusive Education Contexts International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 17, 115–126 Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620210000017011

115

116

SELINA KUNGWANE AND MILLICENT BOADUO

INTRODUCTION South Africa is a signatory of various legislations promoting the human rights of people inclusive of education and eradication of poverty. Skills development and knowledge are seen as vehicles to eradicate poverty irrespective of disability. The Constitution of the Country is the foundation of all policies developed and the Bill of Rights alludes to the accessibility of education. The government has the responsibility to make schools accessible and provide support for success. The Department of Basic Education (DBE) in South Africa has the responsibility to oversee and make sure that schools are accessible and learners are offered the necessary support. South Africa has nine provinces with 25,154 schools, of which 23,076 are public and 1,922 are independent/private schools. Within these there are 447 public special schools (www.education.gov.za). Various legislation, guidelines, framework, and strategies have been put in place to address the issues of inclusive education for accessibility of the schools by children with disabilities. The implementation of Education White Paper 6, Special Education Needs: Building an Inclusive Education System (White Paper 6) (Department of Education [DoE], 2001), is now in its 20th year of the proposed 20-year implementation trajectory. Inclusive education, as outlined in White Paper 6 (Safford et al., 2018), is about the transformation of an education system that has previously been divided into “special education” and “mainstream education.” The education system has been integrated into one system that embraces equity and quality, acceptance of equal rights for all learners and social justice, and transforming the education system to effectively respond to and support learners, parents, and communities, as well as to promote the removal of barriers to learning and participation in the education system in an incremental manner. Other policies such as the Screening Identification Assessment and Support (SIAS) policy (DBE, 2014), guidelines were developed to create full service schools that become inclusive schools. All these documents were put in place to address and create inclusive education. White Paper 6, SIAS, and the guidelines are in place and calling for various stakeholders to collaborate in order to create and establish inclusive schools. There is a dire need of occupational therapists in schools and for them to have collaborative relationships with teachers in order to support the developmental, academic, and functional needs of learners. Even though South Africa is in agreement with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the targets to be reached by 2030 (The Presidency. South Africa, 2019), various studies and reports reveal that sub-Saharan Africa, inclusive of South Africa, has some sort of progress in ensuring that all children complete “quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.” In South Africa, various plans have been made but it is reported that the implementation of those plans is a challenge. The implementation challenges may include a lack of participation of parents in academic activities, teachers workload, attitude and inadequate training, multigrade challenges, and lack of resources (Adewumi & Mosito, 2019; DBE, 2015). The basis of teachers and occupational therapists’ collaboration is their respective expertise to offer services to learners with disabilities in schools. There

The Collaborative Partnership

117

is limited understanding of how collaboration between teachers and occupational therapists contributes to educational programming and outcomes for students with disabilities (Villeneuve & Hutchinson, 2012). Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the collaboration between teachers and occupational therapists, relationships in schools, the roles of occupational therapists, how teachers view occupational therapists roles, and barriers of collaboration.

POLICIES GUIDING INCLUSION The Sustainable Development Goal Four: Quality Education South Africa as a signatory of the SDGs needs to ensure that its citizens have access to inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. The seventh target speaks to Gender equality and inclusion and states that, By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations. (Commonwealth, 2019)

South Africa, as the member of the United Nations, has the responsibility to adhere to the agreements and implement what was agreed upon toward education. Therefore, for learners with disabilities and those who experience barriers to learning to be included in education, there is a need for involvement of various stakeholders including occupational therapists to collaborate with teachers for the education system to be inclusive (Dalton et al., 2012). The Brussels Declaration affirms inclusion as the driving principle of all policies and calls for strengthened resource mobilization (Commonwealth, 2019). South Africa supports international conventions, agreements, and declarations toward accessibility of education (Du Plessis, 2013; UNESCO, 1994). Based on the international conventions, agreements and declarations the country developed the constitution, policies, legislations, and strategies toward awarding all citizens their rights to education. South Africa ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in November 2007 and that has assisted as a basis for the development of policies such as White Paper on the Rights of People with Disabilities (WPRPD) (DSD, 2016) and Integrated National Disability Strategy (INDS) White Paper (DSD, 1997) and various programs that are geared toward promoting and protecting the rights of people with disabilities. The two provided the detailed outline for the integration of inclusion of disability into every aspect of government including education. Furthermore, it alludes to the paradigm shift of seeing disability as a health and welfare issue but to be a right-based integrated approach (DSD, 2016; Republic of South Africa, 1996). The South African Schools Act of 1996 provides for the inclusion of all learners and the necessary educational requirements without discrimination. The National Education Policy Act of 1996 determines the norms and standards for education planning, provision, governance, monitoring, and evaluation.

118

SELINA KUNGWANE AND MILLICENT BOADUO

Provincial Education Departments are required to implement the policies and programs in line with the national goals and ensure that an inclusive education system is reached. Bose and Hinojosa (2005) indicate that services for students with disabilities need to be integrated into the educational system. The White Paper on Special Needs Education 6 defines learners with special needs as not only those with physical, mental, or neurological impairments (DoE, 2001) but also those experiencing learning difficulties as a result of socioeconomic deprivation. Learners with barriers to learning need to be offered support to succeed. The support varies according to the barriers and needs of learners and the department has to provide. Unfortunately, even at this stage of democracy in South Africa, we still find lack of support for learners with disabilities in public special schools due to various challenges faced by schools (Dalton et al., 2012).

THE ENGINE FOR THE WHITE PAPER 6 In South Africa, the White Paper 6 was put in place to promote inclusive education whereby various stakeholders need to come together in order to promote access and success of learners with disabilities within the education sector. The operationalization of White Paper 6 was realized through the policy on SIAS and various other policies and guidelines. The SIAS policy was promulgated in 2014 and is a product of the work done over a period of 10 years, through a rigorous process of field testing and consultation to ensure that it provides an instrument to facilitate that opportunities are presented to all learners to learn. The purpose of the policy is to guarantee that all children of school-going age experiencing barriers to learning, including those with disabilities, have reasonable access to inclusive, quality, and free primary and secondary education on an equal basis with other young people in the communities in which they live. The policy standardizes procedures to screen, identify, assess, and provide support programs for all learners to enhance their participation and inclusion in school, making teachers and parents central to the support processes. Furthermore, it provides a mechanism for early identification and for addressing barriers to learning and development. The information gathered through this process supports teachers’ responses in using techniques such as curriculum differentiation to address barriers that are linked to curriculum delivery and assessment or to make a referral to another specialist such as an occupational therapist, a speech therapist, or a psychologist for further intervention and support (DBE, 2014).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The sociocultural activity theory (SCAT) provides a conceptual framework for the study of collaboration by identifying elements within human activity systems that are relevant to shared work. SCAT offers a framework for describing the collaborative relationship between various partners and through multiple perspectives working toward a particular goal (Villeneuve & Hutchinson, 2012).

The Collaborative Partnership

119

Occupational therapists and teachers work as a team toward addressing the challenges faced by learners with academic work in order to develop remedial strategies for the learner’s academic success (Barnes & Turner, 2001). Their expertise is utilized for the benefit of the learner as their customer. Each has a particular role to play to contribute to the success of the learner (Hargreaves et al., 2012). The study contributes to the literature on the collaboration between teachers and occupational therapists in public special schools in South Africa. There is a paucity of research in this area and more needs to be researched in order to cover the whole of South Africa and to influence policy toward improving the involvement of occupational therapists in schools and collaboration with teachers in order to improve inclusive education, especially for learners with disabilities and those who experience barriers to learning. Furthermore, the research aims to describe the nature of collaborative work between teachers and occupational therapists for the benefit of learners.

WHAT IS COLLABORATION? According to Bose and Hinojosa (2005) developed a theoretical framework that defines collaboration. Collaboration is a style of interaction characterized by volunteer participation and the equal status of all parties engaged in the collaborative process as they work towards a common goal. People who collaborate also share decision making, resources, and accountability for outcomes. The characteristics of collaboration include an appreciation for this interpersonal style and the mutual trust that develops between those who collaborate. (p. 289)

Through collaboration ideas, role as and responsibilities may be shared to avoid confusion whilst promoting the learner’s right to education (Bouillet, 2013).

ROLES OF TEACHERS IN COLLABORATION The role of teachers in implementing inclusive education is to educate learners and help with social integration. Teachers are a part of the professional team and with other stakeholders assisting learners with disabilities and barriers to learning to access education and skills necessary for their survival in society (Bouillet, 2013). The teachers need to work closely with occupational therapists. It is unfortunate that the Report on the Implementation of the White Paper 6 is silent on the issues of collaboration toward implementing the policy through SIAS. Teachers need to receive some advice from the occupational therapists in terms of how they handle and improve their teaching to benefit learners. The training of teachers and strengthening of school-based support teams are recommended toward improving the inclusion of learners with disabilities and barriers to learning (DBE, 2015). Not all teachers in the system are trained to implement SIAS while they are expected to identify and include learners with disabilities and barriers to learning. In this case, availability and collaboration with occupational

120

SELINA KUNGWANE AND MILLICENT BOADUO

therapists will serve an advantage as they would team up to implement policies advocating for inclusion. The teachers will focus on teaching and learning while the occupational therapists focus on therapy.

ROLES OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS IN COLLABORATION The expansion of the occupational therapy profession emphasizes occupational therapists’ importance in promoting the learning of all children, regardless of their ability. Occupational therapists have an important role to play in classrooms and are a necessary part of educational teams. Occupational therapists’ roles in schools are not limited to evaluation of learners, whereby reports are utilized to assist the educational developments and functional needs of the learner in the school setting (Benson et al., 2016; Villeneuve & Hutchinson, 2012). They work in schools/classrooms with teachers and they have the responsibility to determine the challenges and needs of learners. According to Villeneuve and Hutchinson (2012), …school-based occupational therapy contributes to outcomes that may include (a) skill development and improving the ability of students to meet expectations of the school program; (b) building capacity in others to deliver programming with students; (c) the removal of barriers (physical and attitudinal) to participation; and (d) recommending activity adaptations or technologies as strategies that enable students to succeed at school despite limitations imposed by their disability. (p. 2)

Rourk (1996) indicates that occupational therapists can help with adapting curriculum, instruction, and school environments to meet the needs of learners. Therefore, occupational therapists need to advise and engage teachers for the benefit of learners’ development. Benson et al. (2016) in their study concluded that school-based occupational therapists should have a voice in the education system. When the occupational therapists’ involvement in classrooms has a positive impact and increases learners’ participation, they are viewed as a valuable member of the education team. Positive impacts will be evident when the teacher–therapist relationship is that of a team and they work toward a common goal of promoting success of learners with disabilities. The occupational therapists should be a source of information for teachers and increase the value of support required by the teachers in schools (Gerde et al., 2014; Villeneuve & Hutchinson, 2012). As such, the occupational therapists are expected to play a role in schools and their roles are changing to meet the needs of the implementation. According to Sonday et al. (2012), there is limited data on the roles of occupational therapists in inclusive education in South Africa. The report on the implementation of White Paper 6 alludes to school-based support teams to improve inclusion through capacity building of teachers and it is vague on other support. Therefore, it cannot be told what roles are expected from occupational therapists in schools. Wills and Case-Smith (1996b) in their study found that occupational therapists in rural areas played a generalist role as the only pediatric occupational therapist

The Collaborative Partnership

121

available while in urban areas the occupational therapists specialized. The latter is because in urban areas there are more resources and services. Even though the roles of occupational therapists are seen as vital, there might be misconceptions of occupational therapists within the multidisciplinary team. The misconceptions may lead to inaccurate referrals, resistance to the occupational therapy profession, and undervaluing of the roles of occupational therapists (Sonday et al., 2012). Furthermore, occupational therapists share their professional knowledge, expertise, and responsibility with teachers and other related service personnel and involve them in providing occupational therapy services to learners with disabilities and barriers to learning. Occupational therapists can help with adapting the curriculum, instruction, and school environments to meet the needs of learners with disabilities. Therefore, there is a need for a better relationship between teachers and occupational therapists in order to understand the role of occupational therapists in an educational environment (Rourk, 1996).

BENEFITS OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS IN SCHOOLS Various studies indicate that teachers in schools are not capacitated to deal with learners with disabilities and there is a need for capacitation to provide support to learners. Collaboration is seen as a valued key component of successful interventions in schools (Bose & Hinojosa, 2008; Rourk, 1996). Therefore, occupational therapists, as specialists, will be able to determine the challenges faced by learners in schools for teachers to be able to accommodate the learners and include them during teaching and learning. The occupational therapists may assist with the improvement of retention of learners with disabilities in the schooling system (Lorenzo et al., 2013). Collaboration is the key to the success of inclusion, as educational programs benefit students because they are integrated into the social environment of the classroom. In addition, there are opportunities for professional development, as teamwork in the classroom creates opportunities to learn new skills, share ideas, and improve cohesiveness in services for learners with disabilities (Bose & Hinojosa, 2005; Rourk, 1996). Effective collaboration will ensure that learners benefit in teaching and learning (Barnett & O’shaughnessy, 2015). For the successful implementation of inclusive education, there is a need for effective collaboration between teachers and occupational therapists and for them to better understand mandates of the policy on SIAS as a tool for early identification of learners with disabilities and those experiencing barriers toward learning.

CHALLENGES FACED BY TEACHERS AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS IN WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP There are various skills required for the successful collaboration between teachers and occupational therapists: knowledge and competence, ability to

122

SELINA KUNGWANE AND MILLICENT BOADUO

solve problems, conflict resolution, development of shared values, defining of roles and responsibilities, establishment of team meetings, and processes including schedules. In addition, the availability of administrative staff to assist with administrative matters will enable the teachers and occupational therapists to have time to interact (Bose & Hinojosa, 2005). Furthermore, school-based occupational therapists are faced with various challenges in their roles in building an inclusive education system (Barnett & O’shaughnessy, 2015; Sonday et al., 2012). Even though there is a need for teachers and occupational therapists relationships in schools, not all see an eye to eye in terms of the occupational therapists’ role in the schools or classrooms (Benson et al., 2016). Not all teachers appreciate the presence of occupational therapists and this might be due to various reasons not limited to the understanding of the work of occupational therapists in the school setting. Teachers and occupational therapists need to understand the role of the occupational therapist and the need to work as a team for the benefit of learners. Collaboration in inclusive schools emphasizes the importance of communication skills for successful collaboration (Bose & Hinojosa, 2005). According to Sonday et al. (2012), occupational therapist roles would be to educate and raise awareness about the functions that fall within the field of the school-based occupational therapist and the contributions that an occupational therapist can make to inclusive education. Logistical difficulties (Barnes & Turner, 2001), such as a lack of team meetings and inflexible schedules, continue to interfere with the process of service integration and collaboration (Bose & Hinojosa, 2005). The Report on the Implementation of White Paper 6 speaks to the learner–teacher ratio; unfortunately, it is silent on the issues of occupational therapists as we cannot see how occupational therapists are spread in schools or districts to play their role in the implementation of the White Paper 6 and SIAS as the vehicle to drive the Act. This may be due to lack of accessibility to specialist support in schools (DBE, 2015). A clear picture on availability of occupational therapists is necessary for the improvement of the implementation of the drivers of inclusive education implementation as research indicated that resources are important in driving the implementation of policies.

WHO DOES WHAT, WHEN, AND HOW? There is a need for clear roles and responsibilities for teachers and occupational therapists for collaboration to be successful. A teacher needs to know the roles and responsibilities in the process of assisting a learner who needs support and so are occupational therapists. Unclear roles and responsibilities lead to misunderstanding and the learner suffers. Occupational therapists need to focus on the identification of challenges and interventions which may be implemented to assist the learner. The teachers and occupational therapists need to work as a team, as teachers focus on teaching and learning and occupational therapists on therapy (Barnett & O’shaughnessy, 2015).

The Collaborative Partnership

123

SHORTAGE OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS IN SCHOOLS Resources seem to be more limited in rural areas than urban areas, funding systems pose a challenge in allowing schools to include occupational therapists (Plessis & Mestry, 2019; Wills & Case-smith, 1996a). The provinces which improved the levels of support in terms of resources in schools benefited because they could see progression of learners from one level of study to the other. Even though the report alludes to some progress in provinces with resources, there is a shortage of specialists in schools which leads to many referrals (DBE, 2015). This indicates that there is a need to improve the way occupational therapists are allocated in schools or districts to support learners with disabilities and those with barriers to learning. The one question which might arise is, are the occupational therapists not attracted to the education sector or is the country lacking enough occupational therapists? This is another area that should be researched in order to dig deeper and understand why there is shortage of occupational therapists in schools. With this, it is reasonable to suggest that if there are not enough occupational therapists to provide services throughout South Africa, the implementation of SIAS might be skewed as teachers are not specialists in therapy.

HOW CHALLENGES MAY BE OVERCOME The recruitment, deployment, continuing professional support, and accountability of teachers is one of the biggest challenges facing African countries. DBE (2015) alludes to some provinces not reporting on the implementation of the White Paper 6 and this may be overcome by getting resources distributed accordingly with full capacitation. Sonday et al. (2012) recommend that collaboration should be evident at all levels to address the challenges of implementation of inclusive education. Acceptance of occupational therapists in classrooms to work as teams together with other health and social care professionals for inclusion of learners with disabilities and those who experience barriers to learning will improve the inclusion and progress of learners with academic work. The SIAS policy (2014) provides Department of Basic Education Form 126: Health and Disability Assessment indicating that healthcare and social service professionals such as occupational therapists have a vital role to play in ensuring that the needs of a learner are assessed and catered for. This means that both teachers and therapists need to work hand in hand to provide a seamless service for the learner. Collaboration between the two professionals can be improved through the following:

• A shared understanding between the occupational therapist and teacher of the

common goal; improving learner performance and outcomes. The understanding that collaboration with each other would bring about improvement of the learner’s educational outcome and the benefit it has for all involved (Hargreaves et al., 2012).

124

SELINA KUNGWANE AND MILLICENT BOADUO

•A •

shift in the attitudes of therapists toward teachers and vice versa. Both professionals need to appreciate the skills brought by each, and furthermore that each is a member of the support team for the learner no matter how they are employed (private or school employed). Setting aside meeting times to strengthen the collaboration between the two professionals. According to Hargreaves et al. (2012), therapists and teachers felt that meeting together regularly, providing in-service training, and discussing the learners intervention planned would bring about more awareness of therapists by teachers and teachers being able to identify the learners who require more support from the occupational therapist.

Teachers’ personalities and receptiveness in their understanding of the role of occupational therapy in the school has an impact on how they collaborate with occupational therapists (Wills & Case-Smith, 1996b). Interactions between teachers and occupational therapists are viewed as one of the primary challenges in working together (Bose & Hinojosa, 2005, 2008). Since resources play a major role in education, there is a need for the improvement of personnel including specialists in order to ensure that there are enough teachers and occupational therapists to implement inclusive education. Bouillet (2013) in his study alludes to a need to investigate the availability of professionals for collaboration in schools so is the same in South Africa. This will help with planning and ensuring that there is professional recruitment into the sector to service learners with disabilities and barriers to learning.

CONCLUSION Limited research has been conducted in the country in relation to teachers and occupational therapists collaboration. Since the implementation of the White Paper 6 on Inclusive Education, there is a need for more research to understand the need and the impact of occupational therapists in South African education for learners with special needs and barriers to learning. The report on the implementation of the White Paper 6 on Inclusive Education is silent on issues of teachers and occupational therapists collaboration. Furthermore, the data received from the provinces do not include all provinces. The Department of Basic Education as the custodians of White Paper 6 has the responsibility to address the challenges and barriers toward inclusion of learners with disabilities and those experiencing barriers to learning. The development and capacitation of school-based support teams, which include specialists like occupational therapists, will improve the implementation of SIAS. Teaming up with occupational therapists will have various benefits not limited to offloading the burden from teaching having to work alone in implementing SIAS, occupational therapists will bring in theory expertise on therapeutic areas, while teachers will be able to focus on teaching and learning. As a team they would be able to develop strategies for the benefit of the learners’ inclusion and learning progress.

The Collaborative Partnership

125

REFERENCES Adewumi, T. M., & Mosito, C. (2019). Experiences of teachers in implementing inclusion of learners with special education needs in selected Fort Beaufort District primary schools, South Africa. Cogent Education, 6, 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1703446 Barnes, K. J., & Turner, K. D. (2001). Team collaborative practices between teachers and occupational therapists. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 83–89. https://doi.org/10.5014/ ajot.55.1.83 Barnett, J. E., & O’shaughnessy, K. (2015). Enhancing collaboration between occupational therapists and early childhood educators working with children on the autism spectrum. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0689-2 Benson, J. D., Szucs, K. A., & Mejasic, J. J. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the role of occupational therapist in schools. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention. https:// doi.org/10.1080/19411243.2016.1183158 Bose, P., & Hinojosa, J. (2005). Interacting with teachers in inclusive early childhood classrooms. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(3), 289–297. Bose, P., & Hinojosa, J. (2008). Reported experiences from occupational therapists interacting with teachers in inclusive early childhood classrooms. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.62.3.289 Bouillet, D. (2013). Some aspects of collaboration in inclusive education - teachers’ experiences. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal. Commonwealth Education Report. (2019). In G. Nethersole, Jane, & Malone (Eds.), Education report 2019 commonwealth. Deep Marwa. www.commonwealthcbc.com Dalton, E., Mckenzie, J., & Kahonde, C. (2012). The implementation of inclusive education in South Africa: Reflections arising from a workshop for teachers and therapists to introduce Universal Design for Learning. African Journal of Disability, 1(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v1i1.13 Department of Basic Education [DBE]. (2014). Policy on screening,identification, assessment and support. Pretoria. http://www.education.gov.za Department of Basic Education [DBE]. (2015). Report on the implementation of education white paper 6 on inclusive education. http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/160308overview.pdf Department of Education [DoE]. (2001). Education WHITE PAPER 6: Special needs education building an inclusive education and training system. Department of Social Development [DSD]. (2016). White paper on the rights of persons with disabilities (pp. 4–197). Government Gazette. 39792. Department of Social Development.) [DSD]. (1997). White paper for social welfare. Government Printers. Du Plessis, P. (2013). Legislation and policies: Progress towards the right to inclusive education. De Jure Law Journal, 46(1), 76–92. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script5sci_arttext&pid5S2225-71 602013000100006&Ing5en&tlng5en Gerde, H. K., Foster, T. D., & Skibbe, L. E. (2014). Beyond the pencil: Expanding the occupational therapists’ role in helping young children to develop writing skills. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1070 Hargreaves, A. T., Nakhooda, R., Mottay, N., & Subramoney, S. (2012). The collaborative relationship between teachers and occupational therapists in junior primary mainstream schools. South African Journal of Occupational therapy. http://.scielo.org.za/pdf/sajot/v42n1/03.pdfHart Lorenzo, T., Ned-Matiwane, L., Cois, A., & Nwanze, I. (2013). Youth, disability and rural communities: Facing the challenges of change. Disability Catalyst Africa Series, 3. Plessis, P., & Mestry, R. (2019). Teachers for rural schools - a challenge for South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 39, s1–s9. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v39ns1a1774 Republic of South Africa. (1996). Constitution of the republic of South Africa, 230 Cape Town §. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021855300011499 Rourk, J. D. (1996). Roles for school-based occupational therapists: Past, present, future. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50(9), 699–700. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.50.9.698

126

SELINA KUNGWANE AND MILLICENT BOADUO

Safford, K., Chamberlain, L., Donohue, D., & Bornman, J. (2018). The challenges of realising inclusive education in South Africa. In Learning and teaching around the world. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9780429491498-15 Sonday, A., Anderson, K., Flack, C., Fisher, C., Greenhough, J., Kendal, R., & Shadwell, C. (2012). Schoolbased occupational therapists: An exploration into their role in a Cape Metropole full service school. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 42(1), 2–6. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php? script5sci_arttext&pid5S2310-38332012000100002&lng5en&tlng5en The Presidency. South Africa. (2019). South Africa’s voluntary national review report. https://sustaina bledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/23402RSA_Voluntary_National_Review_Report__9_ July_2019.pdf Unesco. (1994) The Salamanca statement framework. Policy, June, 7–10. https://doi.org/ED94/WS/18 Villeneuve, M., & Hutchinson, N. L. (2012). Enabling outcomes for students with developmental disabilities through collaborative consultation. Qualitative Report, 17(49), 1–29. Wills, K., & Case-smith, J. (1996). Perceptions and experiences of occupational therapists in rural schools. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50(5)370–379. http://ajot.aota.org Wills, K., & Case-Smith, J. (1996). Perceptions and experiences of occupational therapists in rural schools. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.50.5.370

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN LESOTHO AND THE CURRENT CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING IT THROUGH INSTRUCTIONAL COLLABORATION Mamotjoka Joyce Morai

ABSTRACT The pursuit of promoting inclusive education is rippling across Africa, and governments are working hard to ensure that all students are in schools and receive quality education, especially with the impetus of the Sustainable Development Goals. The importance of providing education to all children is essential, and collaboration is necessary. Collaboration between different professionals enhances the learning outcomes of all children through better identification, assessment, and appropriate placements. Lesotho is one example of countries that strive to provide all children with equal access to education, including those with disabilities. Although children with disabilities are sent to schools in Lesotho, teachers face challenges in teaching those students, which underscores the need for instructional collaboration between available special needs education professionals. This chapter describes inclusive education in Lesotho and provides an overview of the challenges related to implementing it through a multidisciplinary special education team. Finally, the chapter concludes that collaboration in teaching all students should be pursued by Lesotho to ensure sharing of ideas and building of relationships for the success of inclusive education. Keywords: Inclusive education; instructional collaboration; special needs professionals; children with disabilities; Africa; Lesotho Instructional Collaboration in International Inclusive Education Contexts International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 17, 127–138 Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620210000017013

127

128

MAMOTJOKA JOYCE MORAI

Inclusive education is a multifaceted process (Hornby, 2015; Mitchell, 2015) and collaboration is inevitable in achieving it. Teachers are usually solely held accountable for the success of their students in schools with limited assistance from other professionals. The fundamental principle of inclusive education is that all children should have the opportunity to learn together (Florian, 2007; Peters, 2003), and different professionals should work together to ensure that students receive appropriate education (Hernandez, 2013; Mosia, 2011; Obeng, 2012; Ritzman et al., 2006). Developing countries face numerous challenges in attaining collaboration in inclusive education, which, among others, includes limited human resources to ensure cooperation. Therefore, many students are found in schools, but not learning (Wodon et al., 2018). The World Bank’s report on learning to keep the promise of education emphasizes that schooling without learning is a wasted opportunity, specifically for children who need education the most to have better lives, which includes children with disabilities (CWDs) (World Bank, 2018). Inclusive education is one way of improving the livelihoods of all children, but it is considered an investment and sacrifice to be made by teachers. Therefore, the need for collaboration to assist teachers, and thereby, inclusive education, results in opportunities to fulfill the educational promises. Research has highlighted the limited access to education for CWDs and revealed several factors that lead them not to enroll in school, enroll at a late age, or even drop out of school before they receive education (Wodon et al., 2018). Other studies have outlined limited resources and funding as factors that prohibit the successful implementation of inclusive education in different African countries (Adebayo & Ngwenya, 2015; Akinyi et al., 2015; Mapunda et al., 2017; Mosia, 2014; Mukhopadhyay et al., 2012; Zwane & Malale, 2018). Although these studies attribute the challenges of implementing successful inclusion to limited resources and funding, Charema (2010) argues that inclusive education is not poverty bound and can still be achieved despite limited resources.

CONTEXT: EDUCATION IN LESOTHO Lesotho is a kingdom in southern Africa covering a land area of 30,355 km2. It is entirely landlocked by the Republic of South Africa. The education system in Lesotho entails preschool, primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. The preschool is for three years, the primary level is for seven years, the secondary level is for five years, and the tertiary level is for a minimum of one year depending on the program (UNICEF Lesotho Statistics, 2012). Education in Lesotho is provided jointly by the Government of Lesotho (GoL), churches, and the community (Mariga et al., 2014). Education for CWDs is provided by the government and churches, but mainly by churches. Lesotho is one of the 29 least developed countries in the world as weighed economically by the United Nations (Mariga et al., 2014). Education for CWDs has always been the responsibility of the churches. In 1987, King Moshoeshoe II’s charitable social organization Hlokomela Bana (Care for Children) called for a

Inclusive Education in Lesotho and the Current Challenges

129

national discussion on how to educate its CWDs. Subsequently, the Ministry of Education and Training hired Csapo, an external consultant, to evaluate special education options in Lesotho. Csapo (1987) recommended that Lesotho move toward inclusive education and fit into Lesotho’s cultural framework of extended family and caretaking of all children because, according to him, inclusive education was cost-effective. Two years later, the GoL agreed with his recommendations and implemented the policy (Johnstone & Chapman, 2009). The government started supporting the education of CWDs in 1989 when churches were already providing education to CWDs in Lesotho. In 1996, the Lesotho College of Education also sought expertise from two foreign aid workers to introduce inclusive education to the curriculum that was used to train teachers (Johnstone & Chapman, 2009). Moreover, special schools in Lesotho are still owned by the churches but, since they have been receiving support from the government since 1989, they are guided by the policies and curriculum of the Ministry of Education and Training (Johnstone & Chapman, 2009). However, the curriculum does not cater or accommodate CWDs (GoL, 2016). In 2012, an integrated curriculum was introduced in Lesotho, which also did not cater to the needs of CWDs in terms of teaching strategies, teaching materials, and methods of assessment used (GoL, 2018).

DEFINING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN LESOTHO Inclusive education has several definitions across the world, but it has the core aspiration of teaching all children irrespective of their backgrounds and abilities (Bhroin & King, 2020; Peters, 2003; Yeo et al., 2016). However, inclusive education should be domestically defined in each country (Johnstone & Chapman, 2009; Peters, 2003). In Lesotho, inclusive education means including CWDs into regular schooling (Johnstone & Chapman, 2009; Mosia, 2014). Despite the definition of inclusive education in Lesotho, there is still limited knowledge of what inclusive education means and how to implement it for teachers in special and inclusive schools. Mosia (2014) found that inclusion and integration are used interchangeably to mean placing children in regular schools in Lesotho. Recently, the GoL described inclusive education as the reform of the education system to ensure that all learners have access to quality education (GoL, 2018).

CHALLENGES OF COLLABORATION IN INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN LESOTHO The challenge of achieving inclusive education for sub-Saharan Africa is enormous, but conversely, the opportunities it could provide are also significant (Wodon et al., 2018). Although inclusive education in Lesotho has taken a step forward despite all the challenges, considerable difficulties prevail, most notably in assessing, placing, and teaching CWDs (Mosia, 2014). The challenge of limited

130

MAMOTJOKA JOYCE MORAI

assessment programs in many developing countries has made the limitation in collaboration to implement inclusive education, even among teachers. Many countries in Africa are rudimentary in terms of professionals in special education. Mapunda et al. (2017) examined the assessment and intervention programs in special needs education in Tanzania. Their study found that collaboration was limited between parents and teachers, and there were no paraprofessionals to work with teachers to identify and assess students with special needs. These findings are congruent with those of Lesotho. Mosia (2014) found that teachers are left to identify and assess students with special needs because of limited paraprofessionals, and teachers also do not collaborate among themselves to make those assessments. However, Lesotho, like many other developing countries, has positive responses to ensuring the implementation of inclusive education despite the challenges. For example, the GoL launched an inclusive education pilot program in 1993 to include all CWDs in regular classrooms and trained teachers to work with those children (Khatleli et al., 1995). The evaluation of the program showed that teachers were motivated to work with students with special needs in their schools (Mittler & Platt, 1996). Even though teachers responded positively about the knowledge of inclusive education, Khoaeane and Naong (2015) found that 63% of the teachers in their study had no training to teach students with disabilities. Even though Khoaeane and Naong (2015) focused on one district, and in the 1993 program on 10 districts, their district was part of the program and the difference of 22 years with many untrained teachers indicates the stagnation in training teachers about inclusive education in Lesotho. The literature abounds with evidence of the challenges of collaboration across the world in different contexts. For example, Mosia (2014) found that inclusion and integration in Lesotho are used concurrently to mean placing students with special needs in normal schools. Teachers have limited understanding of inclusive education, which makes collaboration even more challenging. Mosia (2014) also revealed that teachers sometimes forget that they have learners with special needs in their classrooms, using the example of a teacher with a learner with visual impairment in her class who said she sometimes forgets she has a visually impaired learner. Khoaeane (2012) also conducted a study to investigate teachers’ challenges when implementing inclusive education in Maseru, Lesotho. The results of their study showed that teachers had students with disabilities in their classrooms but did not have the skills to teach them. The other finding was that inclusive education in Lesotho was not “properly implemented.” These findings help affirm the argument of Mosia (2014) that teachers have a limited understanding of what inclusive education is and how to implement it. These research studies in Lesotho provide evidence of teachers’ knowledge about inclusive education and how to teach CWDs in their classrooms highlight consistent challenges relating to the implementation of inclusive education regarding human resources. There are also a limited number of schools, most of

Inclusive Education in Lesotho and the Current Challenges

131

which are in urban areas, and many students with disabilities cannot attend school (Harrington, 2015). The assessment of CWDs in Lesotho has also been highlighted as limited (Mncina et al., 2019). Research studies show that Lesotho has no system for assessing CWDs (Mosia, 2014; Urwick & Elliott, 2010), which makes teachers assess their students.

CURRENT LEGAL ASPECTS OF SUPPORTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN LESOTHO Currently, there are legal aspects in Lesotho that support inclusive education, starting from when the education of learners with disabilities became part of government responsibilities to the present. In 1989, the GoL developed a policy statement for special education (Mosia, 2014; Sefuthi, 2016). The policy statement called for, among many things, the integration of CWDs into mainstream schools, building resource centers to assess learners with disabilities, and ensuring that CWDs completed seven years of primary school (Mosia, 2014). In 1990, the Education for All (EFA) Goals were adopted in Lesotho, which led to the establishment of the Special Education Unit (SEU) in 1991 to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities (GoL, 2016). The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were adopted in 2000 and Child-Friendly Schools (CFS) pillars were adopted in 2005 to ensure that education for CWDs was accessible and of quality. In 2006, the Education Sector Strategic Plan 2005–2015 was adopted to help implement the EFA and MDGs goals and to ensure that education for all children was improved. As a result, the special education unit sent itinerant teachers to six districts in Lesotho to support teachers who taught learners with special needs in their classrooms and schools (Sefuthi, 2016). Lesotho also ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008 (CRPD) (Mosia & Phasha, 2017). After two years, the Lesotho Education Act 2010 was promulgated to promote free and quality education for all learners, including those with disabilities (GoL, 2011). The National Policy on Orphans and Vulnerable Children (GoL, 2006), the National Strategic Plan on Vulnerable Children 2012–2017 (GoL, 2012), and Sustainable Development Goals (2015) were also adopted and implemented by the GoL to promote the provision of inclusive education for CWDs.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ISSUES IN LESOTHO INCLUSIVE EDUCATION Currently, there are five special schools in Lesotho, located in four districts. In all, there are 10 districts in Lesotho, and thus, the other 6 districts do not have special schools. Furthermore, Lesotho is divided into lowlands and highlands. The available special schools are only in the lowlands, and CWDs in the highlands must travel to the lowlands to be in school (GoL, 2018). As a result, there has

132

MAMOTJOKA JOYCE MORAI

been low enrollment, high dropout rates, and late school entry of CWDs in primary schools due to lack of transport to travel long distances (Mariga et al., 2014). Notably, a high dropout rate has been prevalent in Lesotho. For example, in 2016, a total of 18,282 learners with special education needs were reported to be in primary schools, and 7,395 in the same year were reported to be in secondary schools. This statistic shows how prevalent the dropout rate is in the primary grades for learners with special needs (GoL, 2018). Research on inclusive education in Lesotho reports that teachers and educators have limited knowledge of what inclusive education is. Many of them are not trained to teach different learners with special needs in their classrooms. For example, according to Mateusi et al. (2014), 98.26% of teachers who were interviewed in their study reported not having any training to teach students with disabilities (Mkandawire et al., 2016). Therefore, many teachers do not understand inclusive education when they are asked to implement it in their classrooms. In January 2009, the Lesotho College of Education started a Higher Diploma program on Special Education. In August of the same year, the faculty of education at the National University of Lesotho began a special education degree (Mosia, 2014), but few teachers are trained in these programs and many of those who graduate do not get jobs; and yet there are limited human resources in schools to teach Lesotho students with special needs. Another challenge faced by teachers is limited support from Ministry of Education and Training. Research studies show that Lesotho has no system for assessing CWDs (Mncina et al., 2019; Mosia, 2014; Urwick & Elliott, 2010) and teachers identify and assess students with CWDs (Mosia, 2011). Although the special education unit tries to reach out to schools with the support of itinerant teachers, there is also a limited number of itinerant teachers. Currently, 12 itinerant teachers are allocated to serve all 10 districts in Lesotho, which results in poor provision of special education services and limited support to teachers in schools (GoL, 2018). Collaboration is also limited between teachers and itinerant teachers, and many policies in Lesotho are silent about the importance of collaboration in implementing inclusive education in Lesotho. Mosia (2014) argued that government policy documents, such as the Policy Statement of 1989 and the Education Strategies Plan 2005, do not discuss the role of multidisciplinary teams in the assessment of learners with special needs to ensure that learners are appropriately placed and supported. He argues that a lack of professionals such as psychologists and occupational therapists in assessing children with special needs is not adequate to give them proper placement and support. Parents are also not included in the assessments and placement of their children. In 2011, Mosia argued that different professionals in special education help with identifying and proper assessment for efficient support to students with special needs. However, in 2014, he still showed that there was a struggle to get professionals in special education in Lesotho and continues by arguing that there is still no adequate professional and financial support in schools (Mosia, 2014).

Inclusive Education in Lesotho and the Current Challenges

133

BENEFITS OF INSTRUCTION COLLABORATION The emphasis on collaboration underscores a significant shift from issues of limited resources and funding to utilizing available support and expertise to make inclusion work. The success of inclusive education depends on the participation and involvement of various role players and the will of all stakeholders to work together to identify and overcome barriers to inclusion (GoL, 2011). With the success of inclusive education work and with available resources across different countries, there are increasingly stringent collaborations to ensure that the implementation of inclusive education involves multiple professionals to utilize their expertise. Instructional collaboration has been regarded as a way to improve inclusive education for students with special education needs (Hornby, 2015). Collaboration is a strategy that ensures that inclusive education is implemented successfully (China & Cardona, 2013; Nel et al., 2014). Many countries have introduced inclusive education to promote education for all and access to education to CWDs, but, as Wodon et al. (2018) argued, different stakeholders must be involved in making inclusive education work for them. Indeed, collaborative decision-making and problem-solving are at the core of inclusive education for all students (Ainscow & Sandhill, 2010). Collaboration is a significant factor in making inclusive education work in any context. The benefits of collaboration are for teachers to work with other professionals to be inclusive in their classrooms (Bhroin & King, 2020; Florian & Spratt, 2013). Different professionals are essential to identify, assess, and design an appropriate program for CWDs (Mosia, 2011). The Continental Plan of Action for the African Decade of Persons with Disabilities (2010–2019) advocates for full participation, equality, inclusion, and empowerment of people with disabilities in Africa (African Union, 2012). However, many African countries formulate policies from a theoretical perspective and lack resources for implementation (Akinyi et al., 2015). Therefore, collaboration in achieving inclusive education is not prevalent with evidence that different professionals are limited, particularly in developing countries. For example, in Lesotho, teachers identify and assess students (Mosia, 2011). In South Africa, Nel et al. (2014) showed that collaboration between different professionals within inclusive education remains stagnant. In Ghana, Obeng (2012) showed that there is a need for professionals to work with teachers to implement inclusive education. From the early 1990s, Lesotho is an example of inclusion resulting from interaction between government schools, NGOs, and local communities, a partnership well suited to nurturing inclusive education (Khatleli et al., 1995). However, the response to challenges remains incremental. In 1989, the Ministry of Education developed a policy statement that listed seven goals; goals four and five aimed to (4) establish a functional Itinerant Special Education Team to support mainstream teachers and (5) create a network of services that would enable the education of people with disabilities (Mosia, 2014).

134

MAMOTJOKA JOYCE MORAI

FUTURE PERSPECTIVES OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN LESOTHO Despite the current issues in Lesotho regarding inclusive education, plans are afoot by the GoL to address them. The government formulated in 2016 the Education Sector Plan 2016–2026 to work toward achieving inclusive education. According to the Education Sector Plan 2016–2026, the special education unit in Lesotho aims to shift from integration to inclusion by shifting the pedagogies, such as mental retardation to intellectual disabilities and special education to inclusive education (GoL, 2016). Furthermore, for the future of inclusive education in Lesotho, with reference to the challenges the country has faced, the GoL aims to increase access to special education by 2026. To achieve this, the government sets the following objectives: (1) To expand the provision of inclusive education into the education system, aiming to make at least 25% of primary schools and 5% of post-primary schools inclusive by 2026. The government will conduct a study in search of CWDs out of school, improve community awareness campaigns, and facilitate the establishment of some reference centers (in existing inclusive schools) to disseminate good practices. (2) The second objective is to strengthen the delivery of inclusive education by having inclusive education policy implemented in 2016. To achieve this, the GoL will aim to complete the curriculum for Basotho students with intellectual disability and to train teachers on teaching strategies at all levels of education. The GoL also aims to employ sign language interpreters and orientation and mobility instructors to supply appropriate teaching and learning materials for students with special needs, such as brailed textbooks, stylus, slates, and Manila paper, and to conduct periodic supervision and mentorship sessions in all schools. (3) The GoL will increase human resources in the special education unit by 2026. The aim is to have four itinerant teachers in the four remaining districts. (4) The last objective is to enhance the capacity of the SEU by training SEU officers on new inclusion trends by 2026 and to train them on handling different types of disabilities (GoL, 2016). Since 2016, GoL has made significant achievements based on these future aspirations, in particular the adoption of inclusive education policy in 2018. The government is looking forward to using this policy to improve inclusive education in Lesotho. The Education Sector Plan, however, does not address the challenges singled out by some research studies in Lesotho on programs needed to ensure implementation of inclusive education, for example, the identification and assessment program that will help teachers identify and assess students. In addition, programs for sign language are not included, even though the plan aims to hire sign language interpreters. The plan also does not address the issue of collaboration between special education professionals and their training, which is essential to achieving all the goals it set.

Inclusive Education in Lesotho and the Current Challenges

135

CONCLUSION Collaboration is about establishing relationships and using those relationships to share ideas and make inclusive education successful in any context. There are many challenges in implementing inclusive education that require collaborative efforts. There are still many CWDs who do not have access to education and high dropout rates for those who manage to go to school (Wodon et al., 2018). The benefits of instructional collaboration are to share the responsibility for students’ learning. To make instructional collaboration work, teachers should not only work between themselves but also with other professionals and communities to succeed in inclusive education. Collaboration with other professionals such as psychologists and social workers can help them improve their instruction in the classroom (Mosia, 2014). Different countries have learned much from instructional collaboration, and those that have not, like Lesotho, should implement it with available local resources to achieve inclusive education. The most important lesson is that countries must localize inclusive education, depending on how they define it and the available resources in their countries. Implementation of instructional collaboration gives the complex process of inclusive education more credibility because it brings on various human resource professionals to work together in terms of achieving it. It is vital to have multiple views to enhance the validity of the data gathered from identification, assessments, and placements of students with special needs. Different professionals such as doctors, psychologists, and social workers help make decisions and plan (Mosia, 2011). For example, when different professionals work together to assess and place students, there is the basis of evidence of what they do and how students should be taught in the classroom. The collaboration of experts in different fields means that – at least in the process of decision-making in placing and teaching students – teachers will be exploring multiple views while simultaneously examining the possibilities and future goals before making placements. Inclusive education is complex and lifelong and cannot be achieved in the same way (Peters, 2003). Furthermore, no individual or method can make inclusive education successful without collaboration with others. It is only when various ideas and expertise are involved in planning and implementing inclusive education that it can make progress and work to improve the knowledge and lives of people with disabilities in their different communities. As Wodon et al. (2018) stated, the challenges of achieving inclusive education for sub-Saharan Africa may be many, but so are the opportunities it could provide. Collaboration aims to ensure that all students are educated and live better lives in the future anywhere in the world as long as inclusive education is implemented differently and is linked to each country’s cultural and social-economic backgrounds. Despite numerous challenges to the implementation of inclusive education in Lesotho, this chapter concludes that when different expertise come together, inclusive education will eventually be a national achievement, and everyone will contribute to the country’s economic development.

136

MAMOTJOKA JOYCE MORAI

REFERENCES Adebayo, A. S., & Ngwenya, K. (2015). Challenges in the implementation of inclusive education at Elulakeni Cluster primary schools in Shiselweni district of Swaziland. European Scientific Journal, 11(13), 246–261. African Union. (2012). Continental plan of action for the African decade of persons with disabilities (2010–2019). https://au.int/sites/default/files/pages/32900-file-cpoa_handbook._audp.english__copy.pdf Ainscow, M., & Sandhill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802504903 Akinyi, E. L., Onyango, N. E., & Aluko, O. J. (2015). Challenges facing implementation of inclusive education in public secondary schools in Rongo Sub-County, Migori County, Kenya. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 20(4), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-20463950 ´ & King, F. (2020). Teacher education for inclusive education: A framework for Bhroin, N. O., developing collaboration for the inclusion of students with support plans. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 38–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1691993 Charema, J. (2010). Inclusive education in developing countries in the Sub Saharan. International Journal of Special Education, 25(1), 87–93. China, E., & Cardona, M. A. (2013). Inclusive education in Spain: How do skills, resources, and supports affect regular education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(5), 526–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.689864 Csapo, M. (1987). Basic, practical, cost-effective education for children with disabilities in Lesotho. Consultant’s report. Ministry of Education. Florian, L. (2007). Reimagining special education. In L. Florian & Sage Publications Inc (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of special education (pp. 1–20). SAGE Publications. Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08857257.2013.778111 Government of Lesotho. (2006). National policy on orphans and vulnerable children. D. o. S. Welfare. Lesotho: Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. Government of Lesotho. (2011). Situation analysis of orphans and other vulnerable children in Lesotho 2011. M. o. S. Development. Maseru, Lesotho, Government of Lesotho. Government of Lesotho, Ministry of Education and Training. (2005). Kingdom of Lesotho education sector strategic plan 2005–2015. Lesotho. Government of Lesotho, Ministry of Education and Training. (2012). National strategic plan on vulnerable children: April 2012–March 2017. M. o. S. Development, Lesotho. Government of Lesotho, Ministry of Education and Training. (2016). Kingdom of Lesotho education sector plan 2016–2026. Lesotho. Government of Lesotho, Ministry of Education and Training. (2018). Lesotho inclusive education policy. Lesotho. Harrington, K. (2015). “Shining a light on disability”: Supporting and promoting inclusion in Lesotho. Australian Volunteers International. https://forum-ids.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ lesotho_disability_final_13march2015.pdf Hernandez, S. (2013). Collaboration in special education: Its history, evolution, and critical factors necessary for successful implementation. Onlinrnandeze Submission, 3(6), 480–498. Hornby, G. (2015). Inclusive special education: Development of a new theory for the education of children with special educational needs and disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 42(3), 234–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12101 Johnstone, C. J., & Chapman, D. W. (2009). Contributions and constraints to the implementation of inclusive education in Lesotho. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 56(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120902868582 Khatleli, P., Mariga, L., Phachaka, L., & Stubbs, S. (1995). Schools for all: National planning in Lesotho. In B. O’Toole & R. McConkey (Eds.), Innovations in developing countries for people with disabilities. Lisieu Hall.

Inclusive Education in Lesotho and the Current Challenges

137

Khoaeane, T. J. (2012). Challenges facing teachers with regard to the implementation of inclusive education in the Maseru district of Lesotho. Master’s thesis. Central University of Technology, Free State. Khoaeane, T. J., & Naong, M. N. (2015). How to overcome challenges for meaningful implementation of inclusive education in Lesotho. Journal of Social Sciences, 42(3), 289–297. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09718923.2015.11893416 Mapunda, P. H., Omollo, A. D., & Bali, T. A. L. (2017). Challenges in identifying and serving students with special needs in Dodoma. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-017-0036-8 Mariga, L., McConkey, R., & Myezwa, H. (2014). Inclusive education in low–income countries: A resource book for teacher educators, parent trainers and community development workers. In Inclusive education in low-income countries: A resource book for teacher educators. Parent Trainers and Community Development Workers. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2015.1074391 Mateusi, C. M., Khoaeane, J. T., & Naong, M. N. (2014). Challenges of inclusive education: Lesotho case study. International Journal of Education Sciences, 6(2), 263–273. Mitchell, D. (2015). Inclusive education is a multifaceted concept. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 5(1), 9–28. Mittler, P., & Platt, P. (1996). Inclusive education in Lesotho: Evaluation of a pilot project in ten primary schools. Lesotho Ministry of Education. Mkandawire, M. T., Maphahle, S. P., & Tseeke, M. R. (2016). A comparative assessment of special education situations between Lesotho and Malawi. International Journal of Education and Research, 4(5), 171–184. Mncina, T., Mukurunge, T., & Bhila, T. (2019). An investigation into the robustness of the assessment of learners with special needs: Case of Leseli community school. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 3(6), 520–524. https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd29 183.pdf Mosia, P. A. (2011). Education support services for learners with special education needs in Lesotho: International practices and local realities. A Journal of the Faculty of Social Sciences, 15(1 & 2), 69–80. Mosia, P. A. (2014). Threats to inclusive education in Lesotho: An overview of policy and implementation challenges. Africa Education Review, 11(3), 292–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 18146627.2014.934989 Mosia, P. A., & Phasha, N. (2017). Access to curriculum for students with disabilities at higher education institutions: How does the National University of Lesotho fare? African Journal of Disability, 6, 257. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v6i0.257 Mukhopadhyay, S., Nenty, H. J., & Abosi, O. (2012). Inclusive education for learners with disabilities in Botswana primary schools. SAGE Open, 2(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2158244012451584 Nel, M., Engelbrecht, P., Nel, N., & Tlale, D. (2014). South African teachers’ views of collaboration within an inclusive education system. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(9), 903–917. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.858779 Obeng, C. S. (2012). Children with disabilities in early care in Ghana. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 4(2), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.20489/intjecse.107939 Peters, S. J. (2003). Inclusive Education: Achieving education for all by including those with disabilities and special education needs. The World Bank, (November), 133. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2003/09/08/000160016_20030908131732/ Rendered/PDF/266900WP0English0Inclusive0Education.pdf Ritzman, M. J., Sanger, D., & Coufal, K. L. (2006). A case study of a collaborative speech-language pathologist. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27, 221–231. Sefuthi, N. (2016). Inclusive education policy on the doorsteps in Lesotho. Disability Lesotho, 4(3), 2–3. http://blogs.sun.ac.za/afrinead/files/2016/03/Disability-Lesotho-Feb2c-2016-1.pdf UNICEF Lesotho Statistics. (2012). http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/lesotho_statistics.html Urwick, J., & Elliott, J. (2010). International orthodoxy versus national realities: Inclusive schooling and the education of children with disabilities in Lesotho. Comparative Education, 46(2), 137–150.

138

MAMOTJOKA JOYCE MORAI

Wodon, Q., Male, C., Montenegro, C., & Nayihouba, A. (2018, December). The challenge of inclusive education in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Group. https://doi.org/10.1596/31005 World Bank. (2018). World development report 2018: Learning to realize education’s promise. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1096-1 Yeo, L. S., Chong, W. H., Neihart, M. F., & Huan, V. S. (2016). Teachers’ experience with inclusive education in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36, 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02188791.2014.934781 Zwane, S. L., & Malale, M. M. (2018). Investigating barriers teachers face in the implementation of inclusive education in high schools in Gege branch, Swaziland. African Journal of Disability, 7(391), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v7i0.391

EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES IN CAMBODIA: TRENDS, COLLABORATIONS, AND CHALLENGES Sokunrith Pov*

ABSTRACT Cambodia has been listed among the countries with the highest rates of people with disabilities. From the end of the civil war in 1979, various nongovernment organizations and government agencies have actively worked to provide not only rehabilitation services to the victims of landmines and combats, but also special education services to children with disabilities. This chapter aims to disclose the trends, collaborations, and challenges in the implementation of special education and inclusive education in Cambodia. Secondary data such as scholarly journals, reports, and legal documents were collected through a search of the databases of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Science Direct, Google Scholar, and the websites of related organizations. The analysis of the literature was carried out by focusing on various themes, including the support services for people with disabilities, special education and inclusive education in Cambodia, collaborations, and professionals in the domain of special education and inclusive education, as well as the laws and policies for people with disabilities. To date, Cambodia continues to have limited capacity to implement various legal provisions and collaborations among professionals. The inclusive education notion that prevails in the Cambodian context remains rudimentary. Furthermore, various emerging barriers hinder the implementation of the inclusive education system.

*

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2595-2396

Instructional Collaboration in International Inclusive Education Contexts International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 17, 139–150 Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620210000017014

139

140

SOKUNRITH POV

Keywords: Disability; special education; inclusive education; special educational needs; inclusion; Cambodia

DEFINITIONS In recent years, Cambodia has experienced several changes in the definition and classification of disability (USAID, 2018). Inclusive education continues to be defined as a broad term, which requires a major modification to limit its scope to specific target groups, disabilities, and severity levels of disabilities for an effective inclusion process. The definitions of special education, Special Educational Needs ˇ ska (SEN), and inclusive education have been documented by two sources – Siˇ and Such´anek (2015, p. 79) and MoEYS (2018, pp. 11–12) – who provide ˇ ska and Such´anek (2015), different explanations to the terms. According to Siˇ special education is translated as the education that identifies the academic, physical, cognitive, and social-emotional instruction provided to children with one or more disabilities. And, the Cambodian Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport (MoEYS) defines SEN as: An education system that is designed to facilitate the learning of individuals who, for a wide variety of reasons, require additional support and adaptive pedagogical methods to participate and meet learning objectives in an educational program. Reasons may include but are not limited to disadvantages in physical, behavioural, intellectual, emotional and social capacities apart from issues like language, culture, migration, homelessness, and poverty. Educational programs in special needs education may follow a similar curriculum as those offered in the parallel and regular system. However, they take the individual’s particular needs into account by providing specific resources (e.g., especially trained personnel, equipment, or space) and, if appropriate, modified educational content or learning objectives. (MoEYS, 2018, p. 11–12)

ˇ ska and Such´anek (2015, p. 79), inclusive education, in short, According to Siˇ is regarded as the integration of students with SEN into mainstream schools. In a similar fashion but in a broader notion, MoEYS (2018) defines inclusive education as: A dynamic process of addressing and responding positively to the diverse needs of individuals and groups by promoting their participation in learning, cultures, and communities while reducing or eliminating exclusion within and from education. It involves changes, modifications in content, approaches, structures, and strategies that include all persons in the education system. This process helps expand the education system’s responsibility in delivering education services to all learners. (MoEYS, 2018, p. 11)

BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE MANDATES In recent years, the provision of special education for children with SEN and the integration of the inclusive education system in education blueprints have attracted remarkable interest from policymakers in the Global South (developing countries), including Cambodia. Segregated education is often found within the system in countries with less developed economies, where the inclusive education system is yet to be prioritized within the education sector. The general education

Education of Children with Disabilities in Cambodia

141

system of the Global South countries tends to focus on emerging issues in general education, while inclusive education is adopted with the limitation of initiatives or without initiatives at all. In Cambodia, the provision of special education is mostly handled by local and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) with minimal support from the government, while the inclusive education notion remains rudimentary despite its adaptation into the Cambodian education system for many years. Many decades of civil and international conflicts in Cambodia have rendered it one of the countries with the highest rates of people with disabilities worldwide (UNICEF, 2003). The support services for people with disabilities started in the 1980s with the provision of urgent rehabilitation services to the victims of landmines and combats after the Khmer Rouge regime. After the end of the civil war (Khmer Rouge regime) in 1979, besides rehabilitation services, educational services for children with disabilities were provided by NGOs and related government agencies, often with little coordination and cooperation among those organizations. Despite the rapid enrollment rate after the civil war, the majority of children with disabilities were not enrolled in schools or dropped out of schools (UNICEF, 2003). Thereafter, educational policies addressing the educational needs of children with disabilities were not developed until 2008. As a predominantly Buddhist society, disabilities are frequently viewed as the result of a sin committed in one’s previous life. In Cambodia, the provision of special education services for children with disabilities was initiated when Cambodia ratified the treaty of the “Convention on the Right of Child” adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1989 (Nishio, 2019). In 2000, Cambodia adopted the concept of Education for All (EFA) into its education system through the World Forum in Dakar, Senegal (Kalyanpur, 2016; Nishio, 2019), while the country continued to face a severe inadequacy of special schools, poor training infrastructure, and a severe shortage of specialized personnel. Furthermore, the accepted outlook was “whatever schooling was better than no schooling” (Kalyanpur, 2011). Although the Dakar framework, laws, and policies are in place, Cambodia does not have an explicit and coherent paradigm to put policy into practice and to align with the Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (USAID, 2018). People with disabilities remain among the most marginalized groups, and there are claims of them being stigmatized and ignored by society (Connelly, 2009). In 2007, in line with the EFA goals, the rights of children with disabilities to educational access were expressed in the Law on Education in Cambodia. Articles 38 and 39 of the Law on Education address the rights of learners with disabilities by ensuring that their access to education was on par with their peers without disabilities, and that they received special education services (Cambodia National Assembly, 2007). In 2008, MoEYS formulated the first policy on Education for Children with Disabilities (ECD) to adhere to the policy of ChildFriendly Schools (CFS). The CFS was one of the crucial educational policies aimed at achieving the EFA goals by 2015 (MoEYS, 2008). The ECD was revised as the Policy on Inclusive Education (PIE) in 2018. The PIE is more relevant to the concept of the new international development agenda – Sustainable

142

SOKUNRITH POV

Development Goal 4 (SDG4) – which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all (UNESCO, 2015). The PIE covers the educational provision for students with SEN from kindergarten to higher education levels of both public and private institutes (MoEYS, 2018). Despite various legal provisions addressing the disability rights mentioned above, the majority of special education has been supported by NGOs, while only minimal support is provided by the government. Moreover, the integration of students with SEN into mainstream schools remains a challenge in the Cambodian context. When the international standards of the Global North (developed countries) were applied in the Cambodian context, many problems emerged as the universal standards of inclusive education were initiated through international aid (Kalyanpur, 2016). Despite being considered a stable, semi-democratic country for nearly two decades, access to quality education is still inadequate for children with disabilities despite international human rights ˇ ska & Such´anek, 2015). obligations (Siˇ According to the Census Report of 2013 by the Ministry of Planning (MoP), the number of people with disabilities accounted for 2.1% of the total population of 14.68 million. Among the total population, the proportion of women with disabilities (2.2%) was slightly higher than that of men with disabilities (1.9%). The number of people with disabilities in rural areas (2.3%) was higher than in urban areas (1.3%). Additionally, 17.63% of children between age 0 and 14 with disabilities and people with disabilities aged between 15 and 19 years was 9.27% of the total population. At the school level, the most recent study by Nishio (2019) stated that by 2017, the number of students with disabilities was 44,759 in primary schools and 6,787 in secondary schools across the country. The data from the 2013 Census Report indicated various types of disabilities among the total population, including sight (38.61%), speech (6.46%), hearing (10.81%), movement (24.73%), mental retardation (6.84%), illness (7.89%), multiple disabilities (1.55%), and others (3.11%). At present, these data illustrate that in addition to disabilities caused by the civil war, there are many people living with disabilities caused by traffic accidents, work accidents, diseases, aging, etc. (MoP, 2013).

STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGED IN EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES Since the 1990s, the Disability Action Council (DAC) and several NGOs have been established to provide special education services to children with SEN and assure the rights of people with disabilities. The DAC was established within the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans, and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSVY) in 1997 to facilitate, coordinate, and foster private and public provision of services for people with disabilities, especially educational services for students with disabilities. It functions as an advisory body for the government and to policymakers on issues related to disability with core funding support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Then, in 2000, MoEYS set up

Education of Children with Disabilities in Cambodia

143

a Special Education Office (SEO), which was responsible for preparing guidelines for inclusive education, gathering statistics on children with disabilities, monitoring, and evaluating various programs of NGOs in the special education domain. It is also responsible for providing educational services to learners with disabilities, learners of ethnic minorities, learners of poor households, learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, and female learners (MoEYS, 2018). In 2016, the SEO was upgraded to the Department of Special Education (DSE) (MoEYS, 2018), which is a part of the Primary Education Department in the MoEYS (Kalyanpur, 2016). It was upgraded to provide increased inclusive education services to people with SEN, including children from kindergarten to those pursuing higher education (MoEYS, 2018). In addition to general support from the DAC and SDE, several NGOs have been working actively to provide special education services to children with visual impairments, hearing impairments, and mental disabilities for the last four decades in Cambodia. Among those NGOs, two major organizations provide special education services to children with disabilities: the Krousar Thmey Foundation (KTF) and the Rabbit School Organization. The KTF was founded in 1991 and runs with subsidies provided by the government. KTF has opened schools for the children with vision and hearing impairment in four cities: Battambang, Phnom Penh, Kampong Cham, and Siem Reap. After twenty years of expertise in special education, KTF officially transferred five specialized schools to the MoEYS in 2016. These schools offer comprehensive education programs to children with vision and hearing impairments from kindergarten to grade 12, and its curriculum was designed in line with the official curriculum of the MoEYS by KTF’s team. The five schools are located in Battambang, Siem Reap, Phnom Penh, Kampong Cham, and Chbar Ampov. These schools were then officially transformed into special high schools for the academic year 2017–2018. In Cambodia, a high school is quite unique. It is a type of school consisting of various educational levels. For instance, it can consist of upper secondary level only, while some high schools consist of kindergarten, primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary levels. In some other high schools, it includes only two educational levels: lower secondary and upper secondary levels. A special high school refers to a high school consisting of primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary levels that provides special education services to children with vision and hearing impairment. After the transfer, the National Institute of Special Education (NISE) became responsible for training specialized teachers to work in the five schools (KTF, 2017). Students with SEN study at special schools in the morning and attend inclusive schools in the afternoon. Teachers in the special schools collaborate with mainstream school teachers to help children with SEN learn and interact with their peers without disabilities in the mainstream schools once a week. The Rabbit School Organization is well known for providing special education to children with intellectual disabilities. It was established in 1997 in order to provide education to children aged zero to six years who were abandoned or whose parents were killed during the Khmer Rouge regime. Currently, it accepts children from the age of four and supports them until they turn 25. The Rabbit

144

SOKUNRITH POV

School Organization has worked with children with intellectual disabilities for over 20 years in order to promote the rights of children with disabilities to obtain a decent life with equal dignity and access to education, regardless of their origin, nature, or the severity of impairments. To help students with disabilities engage with society, this organization has integrated students into various mainstream schools. It first integrated students into the Toul Kork primary school and a vocational training center in Phnom Penh in 2008, when the first policy on ECD was formulated by the MoEYS. Each student enrolled in the Rabbit’s school program was assessed, supported, and educated with a specific program designed to respond to the individual needs of the students. There are four main phases of school that students must complete. In the first phase, students are enrolled in either a special class (children with a moderate to severe disability) or a readiness class (children with a mild to moderate disability) from the age of four. In the second phase, students with mild to moderate disabilities, from the age of six, are integrated into inclusive classrooms at public schools. There are five inclusive classes in five primary schools in Kampong Speu, two classes in Toul Kork primary school in Phnom Penh, four classes in four primary schools in Kandal, and five classes in five primary schools in Siem Reap. In the third phase, students aged 14–16 with mild to moderate disabilities are placed in a prevocational training program. In the fourth phase, students aged 16–25 years with mild to moderate disabilities are placed in vocational training and job placement to reintegrate them into society (Rabbit School Organization, 2020).

TEACHER TRAINING IN SPECIAL EDUCATION Before the establishment of the NISE, only a small number of Cambodian teachers had received training courses on special education and inclusive education. In 2013, only two Provincial Teacher Training Centers (PTTCs) – PTTCs Battambang, and PTTCs Takeo – provided regular courses on SEN and inclusive ˇ ska & Such´anek, 2015). After KTF officially education to trainee teachers (Siˇ transferred the five special schools to the MoEYS, the first teacher training center (TTC) for special education was established. In 2017, NISE was established under the subdegree 117. NISE became the first institute in the country to provide four-year training in special education to trainee teachers. The graduates of this institute will be dispatched to five special schools in three provinces and one city: Battambang, Kampong Cham, Siem Reap, and Phnom Penh. The objectives of the NISE are to provide training on special education to teachers at all levels, build capacity on disabilities, and create supplementary education content aligned with standards and corresponding to job market needs for people with disabilities (NISE, 2019). Although many types of disabilities are defined within the scope of special education in Cambodia, the current provision of special education services focuses on only three types of disabilities: vision impairment, hearing impairment, and mental disabilities. Despite providing training on special education, the training courses continue to be rudimentary and require major reforms (Nishio, 2019). The recruitment for four-year training on special education remains a

Education of Children with Disabilities in Cambodia

145

serious concern as the applicant pool for a four-year course remains nonexistent. For example, in 2019, the first successful cohort of training only consisted of inservice teachers who are currently working at KTF’s special schools. They were trained on a specific disability only for a year. The training focused on methodology for teaching children with vision and hearing impairments, while training on intellectual disabilities was not provided (KTF, 2019a). The teacher training courses on special education at NISE are translated from the American curriculum. The modification of the curriculum needs to be aligned within the Cambodian context; however, Cambodia continues to have very limited human resources and capacity for its implementation.

COLLABORATIONS AMONG PROFESSIONALS The major support services for children with disabilities remain in the hands of international professionals who are actively engaged in special education. Although Cambodia has established the NISE, a severe lack of human resources, especially Cambodian specialists in the special education field and material resources, has become a critical concern. As such, there is little understanding of collaboration among professionals in special education in the Cambodian context. It was reported that, within the ministries, DAC and SEO made a collaborative effort to develop a teacher training manual on inclusive education. The joint project was piloted in a provincial school and was later expanded to 10 other schools; however, the project faced problems due to the inadequacy of material and human resources (Yoder, 2005) and the departure of international advisors embedded with the DAC. As a result, the project languished (Kalyanpur, 2016). Kalyanpur (2016) explained that the failure arose from a gap in the duration of the application of universal standards that prevailed in the Cambodian inclusive education context. In the Global North countries, the concept of inclusion had been adopted since 1994 when the Salamanca Statement denounced special schools as exclusionary, with the claim that children with disabilities could obtain education and additional services that responded to their special needs in educational settings with their peers without disabilities. Therefore, it created the availability of specialists and material resources, who could provide timely support to students with disabilities to access education in the general education setting (Kalyanpur, 2016). In contrast, the integration of inclusive education remains rudimentary in Cambodian education contexts. Materials, resources, and specialists are severely lacking. Most specialists are foreigners employed with NGOs in Cambodia. Teacher training in the special education domain was launched in 2017. All of these factors contributed to the failure of the collaboration among government agencies. Among the NGOs and government agencies, it was reported that only KTF has a close collaboration with MoEYS to provide special education services to children with vision and hearing impairments. Although KTF has transferred the five special schools to the MoEYS, its efforts in providing technical support persists in ensuring that children with vision and hearing impairments have access to both special and inclusive classes under the MoEYS’s system. This also helps

146

SOKUNRITH POV

the process, due to the shortage of specialists in the special education domain. After the official transfer of the five special schools to the government, KTF continues to coordinate with the MoEYS to (1) conduct an audit twice a year for three years, (2) coordinate projects related to inclusive education, (3) develop resources, (4) support the government for the implementation of inclusive and special education policies and activities, and (5) function as technical advisors to the MoEYS (KTF, 2019b). Despite the existing collaboration, there is no clear paradigm of coordination and collaboration among organizations such as the KTF, Rabbit School Organization, DAC, NISE, SDE, and other stakeholders. Even though some coordination and collaboration exist among organizations, it remains problematic due to the mismatch and lack of a strong link between the ˇ ska & Such´anek, 2015; USAID, 2018). The lack platforms (Kalyanpur, 2016; Siˇ of engagement, collaboration, and coordination in special education results in the duplication of effort among those organizations. Many organizations are reported to have a limited financial and human capacity to implement programs following international standards that are aligned with the CRPD. Some organizations, such as the MoEYS and NGOs, have developed screening tools separately, even though they could have coordinated this effort. Others are commonly unable to make use of existing resources (USAID, 2018). Therefore, an exclusive platform where stakeholders can engage, coordinate, and collaborate should be developed. This could provide opportunities for relevant stakeholders to generate solid coordination among their organizations. Further, USAID (2018) suggests sharing financial resources, technical expertise, and tools for effective collaboration among professionals in the special education domain.

KEY CHALLENGES For several decades, organizations, including MoEYS, have been committed to providing special education services to children with disabilities and to integrate the inclusive education system with the Cambodian educational system. Howˇ ska and Such´anek (2015) claim ever, many issues have emerged. For instance, Siˇ that training courses on inclusive education are insufficient and the knowledge of teacher trainers about inclusive education is also limited. Teachers have not been well trained in either special education or inclusive education. It is claimed that the training course on inclusive education at TTC only becomes a compromise among development partners and the Cambodia government, in which there is ˇ ska & not a coherent structure for implementation (Kalyanpur, 2016; Siˇ Such´anek, 2015). Another issue is the lack of training on teaching methodologies to accommodate a wide range of disabilities. Additionally, there is a lack of a clear understanding of the concept of inclusive education among teachers and school administrative staff. ˇ ska and Such´anek (2015), it was observed that teachers’ According to Siˇ competencies, child labor, teachers’ workload, financial barriers, environmental barriers, planning and evaluation, teacher education, political leadership, and attitude barriers mainly limit the process of implementing inclusive education.

Education of Children with Disabilities in Cambodia

147

Moreover, it was also claimed that the lack of infrastructure, aid, assistive devices, quality teaching and learning materials, teaching methodologies, teachers’ knowledge, skills and training, parental involvement, funding, good health, and nutrition to support students with disabilities also interrupts the implementation of inclusive education. Furthermore, according to the report of USAID (2018), there are 10 key hindrances in the implementation of inclusive education in Cambodia: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

(9)

(10)

The platforms developed by different stakeholders are not well linked. The laws and policies are not fully allied with the CRPD. There is no valid database on disability prevalence rate. Approximately 52% of children with disabilities are still not enrolled in schools or have dropped out of schools. The government does not have sufficient capacity and a clear plan on how to transition completely to the inclusive education system. The identification of disabilities remains a challenge due to the lack of comprehensive screening tools. There is no availability of specific disability- related pre-service teacher training. In mainstream inclusive schools, students with disabilities do not receive sufficient support with assistive devices because assistive devices are typically provided by the NGOs. The national curriculum for mainstream inclusive schools is the same as general mainstream schools, and there are no service supports such as IEPs, therapy, and transportation by related local authorities. Cambodian parents are still hesitant to send their children with disabilities to schools.

Nishio (2019) argues that children with disabilities are either left behind in mainstream schools or remain in segregated education in the guise of inclusive education. Family poverty, family economic instability, lack of programs for children with disabilities, poor governance and accountability of the government, lack of finance and funding, limited human capacity and resources, social discrimination, and stigma are also key interferences to educational opportunities for children with disabilities (Mak & Nordtveit, 2011). Kalyanpur (2016) discusses two key challenges for inclusive education implementation in the Cambodian context: Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and the classification of disabilities. First, IEPs serve a crucial purpose in monitoring the learning progress of students with disabilities in developed countries. However, it is difficult to put into practice in the Cambodian context, where the notion of inclusive education is extremely basic (Kalyanpur, 2016; Nishio, 2019). Large classes, lack of trained professionals, ineffective provision of training to general education teachers, and parents’ belief that their children with disabilities cannot benefit from schools are the main barriers to implementing IEPs and inclusive education. In general education, teachers do not have specific training or knowledge to modify the curriculum for students with SEN. Children

148

SOKUNRITH POV

with disabilities struggle to cope with the curriculum, which targets only learners without disabilities. At the same time, teachers are stressed to get them on track with their peers without disabilities. Second, the classification of disabilities in Cambodia has become controversial due to the arbitrariness of its evolution. As such, the classification has been changed several times. While the original classification included 14 categories of disability, in 2003, the DAC, the MoSVY, and the Ministry of Health (MoH) established an eight-category classification, including difficulties with vision, hearing, speaking, mobility, feeling (or tactile), strange behavior (or mental), learning difficulties, fits (or seizures), and others. Later in 2011, the classification system was revisited. The DAC initiated the revisit with the involvement of administrative representatives from local NGOs and national-level representatives from the MoH, MoEYS, MoSVY, and Ministry of Rural Development (MRD). After discussions, four categories of disabilities were developed: physical, mental, intellectual, and other disabilities (Nishio, 2019). Kalyanpur (2016, p. 20) stated that: Later at DAC’s monthly meeting on inclusive education, when I asked what this condition of “mental readiness” referred to and what behaviours such a person might exhibit, the DAC responded that this was just “an example of the types of intellectual disabilities” that exist and was unable to give further details. This led to more questions from the larger community of international experts on disability-based in Cambodia and discussions about the validity of the category of “mental readiness.” In response, the DAC decided to drop the category… Here, the labeling process was removed from the reality of people’s lives and the limitations they face, and it fell into the hands of professionals and government officials, developing their own criteria for severity of function and limited participation.

The classification system has become profoundly misleading for many stakeholders because this system does not apply to children with multiple or cooccurring disabilities. Therefore, it does not apply to the classification of developmental disabilities. For instance, people with autism and cerebral palsy are incorrectly assumed to have mental disabilities. This confusion will create major issues in responding to the right demands, including the educational placement of children with disabilities (USAID, 2018). USAID (2018) reported that in 2008, MoSVY and MoEYS were working on the revision of the classification to be better aligned with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health.

IMPLICATIONS At present, there is limited clarity on the number of inclusive schools across the country. The number of students with disabilities and inclusive schools should be identified and documented in the annual publication of the Education Management Information System (EMIS). Although the terms “inclusive education” and “special education” are defined in the PIE, a more specific and simplified definition should be provided, and the definition of “inclusive school” should be well defined and include an explanation to address the question: What are the paradigms and features of inclusive schools? The definitions of these terms should be well

Education of Children with Disabilities in Cambodia

149

understood by parents, teachers, and related stakeholders. Furthermore, MoEYS should collaborate with related specialist organizations to train more Cambodian specialized personnel to work closely with TTC. To increase the enrollment rate of children with disabilities, campaigns to raise public awareness about special education and inclusive education need increased initiatives. The close link between schools and communities is an effective model for the campaign. Comprehensive screening tools and guidelines are needed to enable children with disabilities to receive appropriate services and match their educational needs in special or mainstream schools. Seeking technical assistance for the provision of teacher training on special education from international development partners is another crucial action. Cambodia needs specialists, especially those with international expertise, to help train Cambodian teacher trainers on a wide range of disabilities. Moreover, the curriculum for teacher training should focus on specific and a wide range of disabilities. The government should allocate more subsidies to activities and policy implementations supporting inclusive education and special education development. To date, studies on aspects of special education and inclusive education have revisited policy implementations rather than focus on their practices, process, implementation, outcome, and impact of specific programs and initiatives at school levels. Studies on the curriculum for teacher training, teaching methodologies for teaching students with disabilities, and other special education – and inclusive education – related topics should be conducted to contribute to the policy formulation, implementation, and scarcity of literature on special education and inclusive education domains in Cambodia. Overall, since the concept of inclusive education that exists in the Cambodian context is based on the international standard of the Global North, it needs to be refined to fit with the Cambodian educational system and sociopolitical context.

CONCLUSION It has been observed that, throughout the history of educational development in Cambodia, disabilities were not well addressed in the predominantly Buddhist society because disabilities were considered to be the result of a sin committed in one’s previous life. Gradually, the rights of people with disabilities, especially children with disabilities, in Cambodia have been increasingly emphasized by the government. Children with disabilities have access to education like their peers without disabilities. For several decades, Cambodia did not provide teacher training in special education or establish special schools for children with disabilities. It is commendable that KTF has transferred their special schools to the MoEYS, and at the same time, the NISE has been established to provide teacher training in the special education area, although significant reforms are still required. The close collaboration between KTF and MoEYS should be viewed as a model that other related organizations in special education and inclusive education domains need to consider. A clear paradigm of collaboration can benefit all relevant stakeholders to achieve their goals through effective implementation, collaboration, monitoring, evaluation, and the use and sharing of resources

150

SOKUNRITH POV

among themselves. Finally, the scarcity of literature on the special education and inclusive education domains makes it difficult for academicians, researchers, policymakers, and development partners to capture the trends of special education and inclusive education in Cambodia. There should be significant scientific studies in these areas to help relevant stakeholders gain a better view of the development of special education and inclusive education for their current and future initiatives.

REFERENCES Cambodia National Assembly. (2007). The law on education. NS/RKM/1207/032. Connelly, U. B. (2009). Disability rights in Cambodia: Using the convention on the rights of people with disabilities to expose human rights violations. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, 18, 123. Kalyanpur, M. (2011). Paradigm and paradox: Education for All and the inclusion of children with disabilities in Cambodia. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(10), 1053–1071. Kalyanpur, M. (2016). Inclusive education policies and practices in the context of international development. Lessons from Cambodia. ZEP: Zeitschrift f¨ur internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungsp¨adagogik, 39(3), 16–21. KTF. (2017). Annual report. https://www.krousar-thmey.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/AR-2017ENGLISH-min.pdf KTF. (2019a). Annual report 2019. https://www.krousar-thmey.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ Annual-Report-2019.pdf KTF. (2019b). Official Ceremony of the five special schools to the Cambodian Government. Mak, M., & Nordtveit, B. H. (2011). “Reasonable accommodations” or education for all? The case of children living with disabilities in Cambodia. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22(1), 55–64. MoEYS. (2008). Policy on education for children with disabilities. Phnom Penh: Department of Policy. MoEYS. (2018). Policy on inclusive education. Phnom Penh: Department of Policy, 11–12. MoP. (2013). Cambodia inter-censal population survey 2013: Final report. https://www.stat.go.jp/info/ meetings/cambodia/pdf/ci_fn02.pdf NISE. (2019). NISE Cambodia. https://www.facebook.com/245258143092187/posts/national-institutefor-special-education-nise-of-ministry-of-education-youth-and/247395182878483/ Nishio, A. (2019). History and current situation of education for children with disabilities in Cambodia. A Gray Literature Review, 10, 1753–1763. Rabbit School Organization. (2020). The Rabbit school. https://www.rabbitschoolcambodia.net/ ˇ ska, J., & Such´anek, O. (2015). Access to education for learners with disabilities in Cambodia as a Siˇ post-conflict country. Development, Environment and Foresight, 1(2), 77–91. UNESCO. (2015). Education 2030. World Education Forum 2015. 51-51. https://en.unesco.org/worldeducation-forum-2015/incheon-declaration UNICEF. (2003). Inclusive education initiatives for children with disabilities: Lessons from the East Asia and Pacific region. Bangkok. USAID. (2018). Cambodia technical assistance for coordination and collaboration in early grade reading: Cambodia situational analysis of the education of children with disabilities in Cambodia report. NW Washington. Yoder, J. (2005). External evaluation of education for children with disabilities support program in Cambodia. UNICEF.

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN INDONESIA: COLLABORATION AMONG STAKEHOLDERS Suhendri

ABSTRACT The Government of Indonesia has started committing to promoting inclusive education since the release of the Minister of National Education of Indonesia’s Regulation Number 70 of 2009, which focuses on discussing inclusive education. Indonesia has been facing some challenges with implementing inclusive education, including teachers’ attitudes and skills, community acceptance, and support systems. However, considerable efforts have been made by related parties to implement this type of education. Besides issuing regulations, the government has produced and developed many programs regarding inclusive education. School members, professionals, and therapists work hand in hand to help special needs children in an inclusive school setting. Furthermore, the community has played its role as advisors, supporters, controllers, and mediators of the lives of children with special needs. At last, international organizations have been taking part in programs dedicated to inclusive education in Indonesia. It is hoped that all these collaborations will highly benefit the implementation of this education system. Keywords: Inclusive education; Indonesia; collaboration; special needs children; special education; education systems

OVERVIEW OF SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION IN INDONESIA Indonesia, with its national motto “Unity in Diversity,” has guaranteed all its people – including children with special needs – access to education as stated in Instructional Collaboration in International Inclusive Education Contexts International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 17, 151–166 Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620210000017015

151

152

SUHENDRI

the 1945 Constitution (Undang-undang Dasar, 1945). The history of the development of special education in Indonesia began with the arrival of the Dutch (1596–1942), who opened institutions for children with special educational needs. The first institution for the education of blind children was opened in 1901, for children with developmental disabilities in 1927, and for children with hearing impairment in 1930 – all three in Bandung, West Java (Rahardja, 2016). Initially, children with special needs were educated in special schools separately from the general population. Indonesia was heading toward an educational system that integrated special needs children into regular schools, but this was still limited to those who could follow the regular curriculum (Garnida, 2015). Furthermore, since 1980, Indonesia began to implement the concept of inclusive education in schools – an education system that does not distinguish the diversity of individual characteristics (Darma & Rusyidi, 2015). Some scholars and organizations in Indonesia give slightly different definitions of children with special needs. Roihah (2015) defines children with special needs as individuals with characteristics that deviate from what society generalizes as “normal.” According to Desiningrum (2017), children with special needs can be regarded as intellectually disabled, making it difficult for them to succeed in school at par with other children. Meanwhile, the Indonesian Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection (Menteri Pemberdayaan Wanita dan Perlindungan Anak) (2013) mentions that children with special needs have limitations or extraordinary physical, mental intellectual, social, and emotional traits, which significantly influence the process of their growth or development compared to other children of their age. The government began to pay attention to the education of children with special needs by issuing the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 of 1989, concerning the national education system, which explicitly states that citizens with physical or mental disabilities are entitled to special education. A regulation on persons with disabilities, namely Law 4 (1997), strengthened again with Law 23/2002 on Child Protection, which handles the issues concerning children with disabilities, and the Ministry of National Education Regulation No. 70/2009 about inclusive education. The latest regulation for special needs education is Law 8 of 2016, concerning individuals with special needs, which requires the central government and regional governments to plan, organize, and evaluate the implementation of respect, protection, and fulfillment of the rights of such individuals.

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN INDONESIA As a developing country, Indonesia continues to support high-quality education that can be reached by all Indonesian citizens. One of the education systems that are and will continue to be developed is inclusive education. The history of inclusive education in Indonesia dates to the 1960s when the integration of blind students in high schools began by the individual initiative (Wulandari, 2014). In 1999, the government introduced the idea of inclusive education with technical assistance from the University of Oslo through seminars and workshops. In 2004,

Inclusive Education in Indonesia

153

a national convention was held in Bandung, which produced the Bandung Declaration as Indonesia’s commitment to inclusive education; this declaration’s first point is to ensure that special needs children have the opportunity to access all aspects of life, including in education, health, society, welfare, and security, and to become a reliable next generation (Firdaus, 2010; Herawati, 2012; Wulandari, 2014). Some Indonesian scholars attribute a slightly different meaning to inclusive education. Fitria (2012) argues that it is an education where all students with special needs are received at regular schools provided around their residence, and they get various support services according to their educational needs. Meanwhile, Rudiyati (2011) describes inclusive education as being implemented where schools can accommodate all children without discrimination based on their physical condition, intellect, and social, emotional, linguistic, ethnic, cultural, or other conditions. Another scholar, Wathoni (2013), explains that inclusive education is an education service system requiring children with special needs to study at the closest schools within the regular classroom environment with those of their age. Despite the various definitions given by scholars, the Minister of National Education of Indonesia’s Regulation Number 70 considers an inclusive education as An education administration system that provides opportunities for all students who have disabilities and have the potential for intelligence and / or special talents to participate in education or learning in an educational environment together with other students in general. (Permendiknas, 2009, p. 2)

Other critical points on the implementation of inclusive education in Indonesia are stated by Rudiyati (2011) and Garnida (2015), who mention some philosophical foundations: first, Indonesia follows the principle of Unity in Diversity (Bhinneka Tunggal Ika); second, the views of religion and especially of Islam, which is the religion adopted by most Indonesian citizens, confirm that humans are born in a state of holiness. They also note that the nobility of a person is seen not in a material sense but in the taqwa (obedience to God), and that humans are created differently to know each other. Third, the universal view on human rights states that every human being has the right to decent living, education rights, health rights, and the right to get a proper job.

ISSUES IN INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN INDONESIA Many scholars argue that inclusive education provides advantages not only for children with special needs but also for members of the school and the community. The main advantage is that all children’s human rights are fulfilled (Darragh, 2007; Rudiyati, 2011; Souto-Manning et al., 2019); however, the implementation of an inclusive system is easier said than done. Many problems and challenges occur in the implementation of inclusive education in Indonesia. Teachers’ attitude toward inclusive education has been widely discussed in many kinds of literature (Abosi & Koay, 2008; Lisdiana et al., 2018; Souto-Manning et al., 2019; Supriyanto, 2019).

154

SUHENDRI

In Indonesia, teachers’ attitude toward inclusive education is considered as the number one barrier influencing the implementation of inclusive schools (Hartati, 2017). Supriyanto (2019) reveals that teachers’ educational degree and field is the most common factor affecting their attitudes toward inclusive education. Meanwhile, Garnida (2015) mentions that, based on the findings of the inclusive education development team at the Indonesian Directorate of Special Education School Development, the acceptance of social and community aspects is generally the main challenge for students with special needs to access the education in Indonesia. Although many rules have been issued to allow accommodations for children with special needs, these legal instruments cannot be implemented effectively. Several rules requiring partiality for special needs people are not obeyed – neither by the community and the private sector nor by the government itself (Suharto, 2008). Individuals with special needs also must accept that most public facilities, public transportation facilities, and housing areas in Indonesia still do not meet the minimum standard of accessibility as an inclusive society (Pramudiana, 2016; Priscyllia, 2016). In their social life, children with special needs in Indonesia also face a reality where some communities still label them as disabled. This issue can trigger discrimination toward special needs children in an inclusive school setting (Abosi & Koay, 2008; Souto-Manning et al., 2019; Takdir, 2013). Even Suharto (2008) believes that the fate of children with special needs in Indonesia is very alarming and far behind compared to other Asian countries. Other issues of special education concern teachers. Some Indonesian existing literature reveals that teachers in Indonesia tend to have a detrimental to neutral attitude toward special needs education and particularly inclusive education (Hartati; 2017; Kurniawati, 2014), followed by a lack of competency in dealing with special needs children (Firmansyah & Widuri, 2014; Marti, 2012; Salamah, 2015). Another issue concerns the support system of special needs education in Indonesia, which has not been run properly. Misconceptions about the concept of special education, inconsistent regulations or policies, an inflexible education system, and unsupportive facilities in inclusive education are some of the obstacles hindering special education in Indonesia (Darma & Rusyidi, 2015; Pitri & Anwar, 2017). Therefore, education for special needs children in an inclusive school setting cannot be implemented to its full potential.

THE COLLABORATION, THE SOLUTION GOVERNMENT Abosi and Koay (2008) suggest that some governments in developing countries have not paid much attention to special needs education. However, some efforts have been made by the Indonesian government to support inclusive education. In addition to issuing the regulation of inclusive education in Indonesia, government agencies also exist to assist inclusive education; these include the Directorate of

Inclusive Education in Indonesia

155

Special Education and Special Services Education under the Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education, a professional learning center for special needs and kindergarten teachers (PPPPTK TK and PLB), and regional education offices. According to Garnida (2015), two further steps can support the implementation of inclusive education in Indonesia: the socialization of inclusive education within the community, so that Indonesians are aware of it, and the appointment of new teachers of special education pupils to be placed in inclusive schools. The Minister of National Education of Indonesia’s Regulation Number 70 of 2009 is the latest issued by the Government of Indonesia to continue to develop inclusive education. One of its main points is the government’s obligation to appoint only one inclusive school at each level in each subdistrict in Indonesia. Various rules related to the implementation of inclusive education in Indonesia had previously been formulated, including Government Regulation (PP) Number 72 of 1991 concerning Special Education, Indonesian Law Number 20 of 2003 concerning the National Education System for education for students with disabilities as well as the Circular of the Director-General of Primary and Secondary Education Management of the Ministry of National Education Number 380/ C.C6/MN/2003, dated January 20, 2003, which stated that “[e]very district/city is required organizing and developing inclusive education in at least 4 (four) schools consisting of elementary, junior high, high school, [and] vocational school” (Izzaucon, 2014; Puspito, 2015; Wathoni, 2013). In fact, the 1945 Constitution (amendment) of the State of Indonesia Article 31 already stipulated in paragraph (1) that “[e]very citizen has the right to education” and in section (2) that “[e]very citizen is obliged to attend basic education, and the government is obliged to finance it.” According to Pitri and Anwar (2017), the implementation of special education is a shared responsibility, and no party has a more significant role than other parties in its function related to this issue. The government plays an essential role in ensuring that all policies and regulations regarding special needs education have been correctly implemented. Moreover, the government needs to adapt to existing programs as well as to innovate them, so that children with special needs are adequately facilitated. In collaboration with other parties, the government also needs to encourage the private sector to participate in the empowerment of children with special needs and make them more independent (Manik, 2010). The Government of Indonesia, through the Ministry of Education, has continuously supported an education system that can accommodate special needs children. One of the developing programs is inclusive education (Garnida, 2015). The implementation of inclusive education is the government’s effort to produce future generations who can understand and accept all forms of difference and not create discrimination in the next community life (Darma & Rusyidi, 2015; Garnida, 2015). In some cities in Indonesia, inclusive schools have also emerged as the collaboration between schools and local governments. Related to the implementation of inclusive education in Indonesia, Firdaus (2010) has summarized what the collaboration between the Government of Indonesia and education stakeholders has led to:

156

SUHENDRI

(1) Many workshops and seminars on inclusive education, both at national and local levels, have been held by the government, involving educators and education managers. (2) Nine special schools in nine provinces have been selected to become the source centers of inclusive study while maintaining their role as special schools. (3) Some universities have started to introduce inclusive education as a course topic. (4) Lecturers in some universities have been involved in workshops or seminars on inclusive education. (5) Local educational agencies in many provinces have been more proactive in promoting inclusive education. (6) In 2002, a project developed each of the three pioneering inclusive schools in nine provinces that had Resource Centers, and the Ministry of National Education ambitiously increased this number the following year. Since then, around 2,000 children with disabilities have been placed in regular schools. (7) The National Workshop on Inclusive Education was held in Bandung, Indonesia, on August 8–14, 2004 and produced a national declaration, which then appealed to the government, educational institutions, related institutions, the business and industry, and the community to guarantee that every child with disabilities or special needs gets equal access to all aspects of life – in the fields of education, health, social welfare, security, and others – and become a reliable next generation. Further collaboration can be established between the Ministry of Education, a government organization that is responsible for providing the right of education for all, and the Social Ministry. So far, the Social Ministry has conducted programs to support the education of special needs children, including the following: (1) Home care services for treatment counseling in special needs children’s home; physical therapy, diagnosis, and intermediaries for placement in school institutions; referral services for social rehabilitation, employment, special assistive services for people with disabilities, and leisure activities. (2) Rehabilitation and support services to carry out life independently including efforts in physical, mental, motor and mobility guidance, attitude, and behavior therapy. (3) Guaranteed protection and accessibility to public services and standardization of social services. (4) Counseling and improvement of community sensitivity toward the lives of people with disabilities have been implemented as well as advocacy and development in the curriculum of educational and training institutions to enhance the public’s appreciation for the rights of persons with special needs (Depsos, 2003; Kusumastuti et al., 2014).

Inclusive Education in Indonesia

157

SCHOOL AND ITS MEMBERS At the implementation level, according to Rudiyati (2011), based on the theory of Vaughn, Bos, and Schuman in the Indonesian Directorate of Special Schools Development (2007, pp. 1–10), there are five models by which children with special needs are placed in inclusive settings in Indonesia: (1) Full inclusion – where students with special needs learn the same curriculum as other students together with them, all day. (2) Regular class with clusters – where students with special needs learn together with other students in a special group. (3) Regular class with a pull-out system – where students with special needs learn together with other students, and they are sometimes separated from the class and led to the counseling room to study and get guidance from specialized teachers. (4) Special class with some integrations – where students with special needs learn from specialized teachers in the individual rooms and sometimes with regular students in the regular class. (5) Full special class – where students with special needs learn from special teachers in special classrooms within a regular school. Schools in Indonesia mostly adopt a full-inclusion model, where students with special needs learn together with regular students. For example, Setiawan (1999) mentions that if the school has confirmed that there are a few gifted students in a class, then they will join the regular class. Some other schools implement a pullout system; a principal of an inclusive elementary school in Yogyakarta mentions that all the classes implement the same curriculum; however, if students with special needs require special attention, they are at times separated from the rest (Garnida, 2015). These types of schools generally have individual teachers allocated for special needs children. In the implementation process, this approach is adapted based on students’ needs and characteristics. Every student will have different time for their individual time based on the treatment they have. At this model, class teachers and special teachers will collaborate to design and develop the individual learning instructions (Garnida, 2015). Garnida takes an example of how to divide time for individual learning and class learning of an aggressive student in a regular class. He said that 16% of this student’s time in school should be in the regular class with class learning where he learns like other students. Then, 84% of his time should be in a special class with a special teacher to consistently modify and reduce his aggressive behavior in school. As the student shows the progress, the individual time can be reduced. Generally, inclusive schools in Indonesia adopt the public school curriculum – currently, the curriculum which is being used is the 2013 curriculum. According to Machali (2014), the 2013 curriculum is structured by developing and strengthening balanced attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Its learning system

158

SUHENDRI

promotes four aspects, namely the thematic integrative learning model, scientific approach, active strategy, and authentic assessment. However, many teachers in inclusive schools find difficulty in compiling learning programs in an inclusive class setting. According to Rudiyati (2011), some schools that implement inclusive education in Indonesia do not have an individualized educational plan/program for children with special needs; in fact, many schools do not have an additional curriculum for special needs children such as writing and reading braille for the blind, communication learning for children with speech impairments, and independent learning for children with special needs. Therefore, regarding the implementation of the 2013 curriculum, Garnida (2015) suggests that teachers in inclusive schools must always conduct an ongoing curriculum evaluation so that the material always reflects the current affairs, especially for providing inclusive education to students with special needs. A study from Tarnoto (2016) reveals that challenges in the implementation of inclusive education in Indonesia from the perspective of elementary schools’ teachers (n 5 112) can be found in different elements. In Tarnoto’s study, 27.4% of teachers claim that shadow teachers supporting inclusive education are less in number. Looking at parents, teachers believe that the lack of parental support for inclusive education is the primary challenge (47.3%). Another challenge is from students. Teachers (35.3%) consider that special needs children have different problems and require different treatments; they claim that main factors preventing the implementation of high-quality inclusive education in Indonesia include schools being prepared for inclusive school programs in terms of administration and human resources, lack of government attention and concern for the implementation of inclusive schools, lack of public knowledge related to inclusive education and special needs, and lack of facilities and infrastructure that support the implementation of inclusive education. Many studies reveal that professional learning for teachers to equip themselves with the knowledge and skills required for dealing with all students in a class is the main factor supporting inclusive education in a school (Abosi & Koay, 2008; Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Tarnoto, 2016); therefore, some scholars suggest that the Government of Indonesia ought to pay more attention to this issue (Garnida, 2015; Lisdiana et al., 2018; Tarnoto, 2016). Nevertheless, some effective professional developments in inclusive education can be provided to support the improvement of teacher competency in training – for example, inservice professional development (Lisdiana et al., 2018; Loreman, 2001, cited in Loreman, 2007) and coaching (Nishimura, 2014; Sari, 2007).

PROFESSIONALS AND THERAPISTS To achieve academic success, children with special needs often require special handling or therapy, which has the goal of reducing behavioral problems, improving children’s learning skills and development, and the ability to socialize and adapt in their social environment (Bektiningsih, 2009; Desiningrum, 2017). This goal can be achieved through holistic and individualized education and

Inclusive Education in Indonesia

159

teaching programs, in which special education and therapy are essential components (Bektiningsih, 2009; Desiningrum, 2017). Some special schools in Indonesia have begun working with therapists who have specific expertise. For example, a state special school in Semarang, Central Java, has already collaborated with six therapists with different expertise and educational backgrounds, namely two behavioral therapists, two physiotherapists, and two occupational therapists (Bektiningsih, 2009). These therapists create specialized programs, including early intervention programs, supporting therapy programs, and secondary school programs. They also conduct individual activities occasionally by combining two or three children who have similar problems (Bektiningsih, 2009). The Semarang Special Education Development Center – a special education institution – has already provided occupational therapy facilities for students with Down syndrome (Irawan, 2015). This institution is a technical implementation unit of the Central Java Province Education Office, which has the task of providing education, training, and therapy for children with special needs. Based on her study of this institution, Irawan (2015) mentions that children with Down syndrome get occupational treatment only once a week, and each therapy session lasts for 45 minutes because of the large number of children participating and the limited number of therapists. Besides occupational therapy, this unit also provides sensory integration therapy, speech therapy, ADL therapy (daily activities), behavior therapy, orthopedagogy (remedial teaching), physiotherapy, music therapy, and acupressure and acupuncture therapy for students with special needs. In Bandung, West Java, private inclusive schools have been working together with therapists and doctors. These schools routinely check the physical and psychological conditions of children with special needs through therapists and doctors once a year; however, they may sometimes do it more than once depending on the needs and the agreement between parents and the school (Garnida, 2015). Despite some special schools already having their therapists or having collaborated with them, some special schools in Indonesia require more teachers and therapists to support and help special needs children learn (Bektiningsih, 2009; Garnida, 2015). In some areas of the country, mainstream schoolteachers work together with professionals known as special assistant teachers – special education–qualified teachers and psychologists who have a role in helping regular teachers deal with special needs students and achieve their maximum competence (Yatmiko et al., 2015). In this collaboration, regular teachers and special assistant teachers exchange information about the problems faced by the children and how to find appropriate solutions (Chomza, 2017). In her research at an inclusive elementary school in Yogyakarta, Chomza finds that the regular teacher will specifically ask the special assistant teacher the reasons behind special needs students’ learning problems and how to handle them, and the special assistant teacher will provide a solution. In Surabaya, East Java, which sees forms of coordination and collaboration in addition to discussing the barriers to learn of children with special needs, special assistant teachers also help regular teachers develop learning

160

SUHENDRI

designs to be modified according to the individual student’s needs (Izzati, 2015). This kind of learning is called an individual learning program. In an individual learning program, the learning instruction in a teachinglearning process is compiled by related parties. Those parties include class teachers, subject teachers, psychologists, students’ parents, shadow teachers, and therapists. The compilation of the individual learning program is done in the beginning of the semester and will be evaluated when the program has ended. The evaluation of the program is adjusted based on students’ needs; it can be done once in a month, once in three months, or based on the needs of the students (Garnida, 2015). For example, for an individual learning program for a student with a behavior. Problem can be done with the following pattern. In the beginning, the psychologist and the class teacher can firstly observe the student behavior as the baseline using a valid and reliable instrument. Then, all parties mentioned above set a long-term and a short-term goal for the student. In a learning process in the class, the class teacher, the subject teacher, and the shadow teacher work together to assist the student to study together with his friends. After one hour, the student can be separated into a special class with the therapist and special teacher to assist him with behavior modification and individual intervention. Before going home, the class teacher can give him a connecting book for his parents about his progress and what his parents have to do at home. Once in a month, the psychologist can observe his behavior progress and his teacher will evaluate his academic learning. Indonesia also has therapy services centers for children with special needs, some of which are still integrated with other health services in general hospitals. However, their functions are not focused on specific disabilities, and the number of occupational therapists, speech therapists, social workers, and psychologists in these hospitals is still limited (Kusumastuti et al., 2014).

COMMUNITY Another aspect that also plays an essential role in improving the positive atmosphere of inclusive education in Indonesia is community support. Some communities in developing countries like India, Vietnam, Brunei, and Nigeria uphold their traditional values, displaying negative attitudes toward special needs children; this approach prevents these children from receiving the same education as others (Abosi & Koay, 2008). In Indonesia, many believe that inclusive schools and special schools are the same. To gain support from communities, schools and the government need to provide information about inclusive schools. If the community can be involved in inclusive education, support can be obtained – for example, financial support, infrastructure support, transition post-school life, job training, and involvement in the management team to organize inclusion (Garnida, 2015; Loreman, 2007). Community involvement also plays an essential role in providing rights equitable and quality education, a conducive environment for children with special needs (Firdaus, 2010; Smith, 2006; Souto-Manning et al., 2019). In a real

Inclusive Education in Indonesia

161

neighborhood, a community can take part in supporting families who have children with special needs if they need help with them. Other examples may be asking children to befriend those with special needs, assist them in schools, collaborate, and spend leisure time playing together. In Indonesia, the role of community in education, including special needs education, is based on the decision of the Minister of National Education Number 004/U/2002 to form a school committee, which has the function to accommodate and channel the aspirations and initiatives of the community in implementing operational policies and educational programs in schools (Garnida, 2015). However, the committee has not yet played an optimal role. According to Garnida (2015), there are two factors why the role of the community in education has not developed in Indonesia. Firstly, the socialization of its service has not been properly received, as revealed in the data survey of the Indonesia Corruption Watch in 2003, which reveals that 58% of teachers and 59.9% of parents still think that the committee is the school’s additional helper. Secondly, the election of the school committee is based on the school principal’s decision, and this unfair election has made the committee the principal’s “servant” rather than the collaborator. Based on Law 20 of 2003 concerning the Indonesian national education system, community participation and school partnerships can be promoted in many ways, especially in the school’s management, with nonacademic programs. Many nongovernmental organizations have supported the development of special education in Indonesia and are usually found in various provinces or districts/ cities. One of the old success stories of community-based rehabilitation (CBR) in Solo, Central Java, to help children with special needs is from Lysack (1995). According to Lysack, at the time of her study, CBR in Solo had trained over 1,000 volunteers to learn about disability identification and simple early intervention techniques to support children with special needs. Firdaus (2010) mentions that an inclusive education working group in West Java, whose members come from the nongovernmental organization, the West Java Education Office, and UPI (University of Education, Indonesia), has been formed to support this education system. The Social Ministry also supports a CBR program that aims to help special needs children and their families, such as detecting early disability and referring special needs children for assistance according to their needs (Kusumastuti et al., 2014). The collaboration between the community, including nongovernmental organizations, and the school is based on general guidelines for the implementation of inclusive/special education, including the following: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Planning of schools’ program Provision of experts/related professional Decision-making in a school program Implementation of learning and evaluation Funding School Supervision Helping alumni to find jobs (Garnida, 2015).

162

SUHENDRI

Pitri and Anwar (2017) reveals that community organizations have generally been able to show their role as advisors, supporters, controllers, and mediators in the life of special needs children. She further believes that, although the overall community organization can carry out its functions optimally, community organizations have been able to help many children with special needs in improving education and community empowerment.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS The Indonesian National Plan of Action for children with special needs 2004–2013 has determined eight priority areas, one of which is international cooperation and human rights (Kusumastuti et al., 2014). Indonesia has had numerous collaborations with other countries supporting its implementation of special education. For example, Suhendri (2018) mentions in his report that there has been a government-to-government collaboration between Indonesia and Australia in the context of special education, such as by giving a short-course scholarship to 15 Indonesian scholars to study special education at Sydney University, Australia, in 2017. This short course was followed by representative educators of kindergartens, special schools, and the teacher training center of the Ministry of Education of Indonesian regions such as Medan, Lampung, Jakarta, Bandung, Cirebon, Yogyakarta, Kalimantan Selatan, Maluku, Sulawesi Utara, and Papua. Firdaus’ study (2010) mentioned at least three international collaborations in special education: first, UNESCO has been actively involved in the promotion of inclusive education in West Java; second, an inclusion and special needs education master program has been launched at UPI (University of Education, Indonesia) with technical assistance from the University of Oslo, Norway; and third, another international collaboration is between Indonesia and the United States. The Al-Falah Cibubur School in East Jakarta, which has implemented inclusive education, has been cooperating exclusively with the Tallahassee Creative School, Florida, USA, since 1996, with its massive special education program known as Beyond Center and Central Times (BCCT). In fact, many other examples of international collaborations to support special education in Indonesia exist besides what has been mentioned above; unfortunately, the literature concerned with them is limited.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN INCLUSIVE EDUCATION In terms of professional development for inclusive education teachers, there has been a national professional learning center for special needs and kindergarten teachers to improve their competencies in inclusive education, namely PPPPTK TK and PLB (Pusat Pengembangan dan Pemberdayaan Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan, Taman Kanak-kanak dan Pendidikan Luar Biasa/Indonesian National Center for Development and Empowerment of Teachers and other

Inclusive Education in Indonesia

163

Educational Personnel of Kindergarten and Special Education). This institution was first established in 1950 under the ministry of education, Indonesia (PPPPTK TK & PLB, 2019). The core function of this institution is to conduct training for special school and kindergarten teachers. With its vision to develop character-based human beings and the education and culture ecosystem in the kindergarten and special education sectors with the spirit of cooperation, this institution has successfully trained many teachers from all over Indonesia. According to Guskey (2002), professional development or so-called training is the effort of changing teachers’ way of teaching, attitudes, and students’ achievement in the classroom. Recently, with the rapid development of inclusive education, this institution starts to train mainstream schoolteachers to equip them with skill and knowledge about inclusive programs. However, training mainstream schoolteachers about inclusive education needs more effort, because most mainstream schoolteachers have no background in special education. Therefore, the training of inclusive education needs to be conducted step by step, from elementary, intermediate, to advanced level, and every level has different subjects to learn. For example, at the elementary level, teachers learn about the concept of inclusive education, new policy in education, early intervention, and others. At the intermediate level, teachers learn how to teach in diversity, design individual learning, and others. While at the advanced level, teachers start learning about evaluation in inclusive settings, consultation and collaboration, and other subjects. During the training, the teachers as participants have a chance to discuss related topics with the trainers about their situation in inclusive schools. Most of the discussion topic is about how to teach children with special needs in a regular classroom. Besides that, during the training, fellow participants share their experiences about interacting with special needs children in their class and exchange ideas about how to run inclusive learning in their school. Trainers as the facilitators provide reinforcement of the things discussed. Since inclusive education is still a new thing in Indonesian education, the training itself should be done effectively to guarantee that teachers’ competency in inclusive education improves. In a 10-day training, besides the in-class lecture for about five days, the trainers usually ask the participants to directly implement their new skills and knowledge on their real schools for three days while trainers will accompany them. At the last two days, all participants will report what they have done and then they will share their experiences during the implementation process. With this method, participants can learn from each other, and finally with the help of trainers, they can produce the best practice of inclusive education implementation at their schools. Generally, after the training and before actualizing inclusive education, the participants will be asked to start building cooperation with related parties such as special schoolteachers, doctors, psychologists, therapists, parents, communities, and educational government officers. With the help of trainers, these parties will take part with their respective professional fields to help teachers to

164

SUHENDRI

start inclusive education in their schools. Trainers will keep guiding them during the process of new implementation. Every three or six months, trainers will come to their school to see the progress of the inclusive education implementation. If someday they are considered successful in implementing inclusive education in their schools, they will be asked to share their knowledge with their fellow teachers.

CONCLUSION In general, the implementation of inclusive education in Indonesia has run well. Every related party has played its role to support the development of inclusive education in Indonesia. The Government of Indonesia has issued some regulations to oversee the implementation of inclusive education. Furthermore, some programs and corporations have been held as evidence of the government’s seriousness in continuing to support this inclusive education program. In schools, some issues in actualizing inclusive education programs including the adaptation of regular curriculum, the lack of human resources such as shadow teachers, the learning program, and even support from parents still exist. However, some schools in Indonesia have been implementing inclusive education through some models. Furthermore, they build collaboration with therapists and professionals in developing their inclusion program. The role of the community also plays an important part in the success of inclusive education in Indonesia, especially for the nonacademic programs such as funding, school supervision, and supporting families who have children with special needs. In addition, many organizational organizations have collaborated with Indonesian government and organizations to help the development of inclusive education programs in Indonesia. Finally, with the effective professional development, teachers are hoped to be spearheading the success of implementing inclusive education in Indonesia.

RECOMMENDATION Many things have happened during the journey of inclusive education in Indonesia. During the process of its development, many related parties have been working together to find the best practice of inclusive education in schools. However, some efforts need to be done to accelerate the implementation of quality and equitable inclusive education at all levels of education in Indonesia. Among others include more collaborations among stakeholders to support inclusive education in Indonesia and studies of inclusive education in all areas, especially in instructional learning since Indonesian teachers are really struggling in this part. Besides that, the role of government should be increased in many areas of inclusive education, such as the supervision of the inclusive school’s policy, more budget, and building supportive infrastructure for inclusive schools.

Inclusive Education in Indonesia

165

REFERENCES Abosi, O., & Koay, T. L. (2008). Attaining development goals of children with disabilities: Implications for inclusive education. International Journal of Special Education, 23(3), 1–10. Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147. Bektiningsih, K. (2009). Autistic children therapy program in special school Semarang. Jurnal Kependidikan: Penelitian Inovasi Pembelajaran, 39(2). Chomza, N. (2017). Collaboration of regular teachers with special teacher assistance in learning for children with special needs in the first grade of class inclusive school of Taman Muda Yogyakarta. Widia Ortodidaktika, 6(3), 267–279. Circular of the director general of primary and secondary education management of the ministry of national education Number 380/C.C6/MN/2003, dated January 20, 2003. Inclusive Education. Darma, I. P., & Rusyidi, B. (2015). The implementation of inclusive schools in Indonesia. Prosiding Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat, 2(2). Darragh, J. (2007). Universal design for early childhood education: Ensuring access and equity for all. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(2), 167–171. Depsos (2003). General guidelines for social services and rehabilitation programs. Depsos RI. Desiningrum, D. R. (2017). Psychology of children with special needs. Psikosain. Firdaus, E. (2010). Inclusive education and its implementation in Indonesia. In Seminar Nasional Pendidikan. Universitas Jenderal Soedirman (UNSOED), Purwokerto. Firmansyah, I., & Widuri, E. L. (2014). Subjective well-being in special schoolteachers. Empathy, 2(1), 1–8. Fitria, R. (2012). The learning process in inclusive settings in elementary schools. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Khusus, 1(1), 90–101. Garnida, D. (2015). Introduction to inclusive education. Refika Aditama. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and teaching, 8(3), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512 Hartati, S. (2017). Services for children with special needs in Tiji Salsabila inclusive kindergarten, Padang City. Pedagogi, 3(3b). Herawati, N. I. (2012). Inclusive education. EDUHUMANIORA: Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar, 2(1). Irawan, R. D. (2015). Occupational therapy for children with special needs (Down syndrome) (case study of children aged 5–6 years at the Semarang special education development centre). Doctoral dissertation. Universitas Negeri Semarang. Izzati, R. S. (2015). Implementation of the 2013 curriculum for students with special needs at inclusive elementary schools. Jurnal Pendidikan Khusus, 7(4). Izzaucon. (2014). The aims and foundation of inclusive education. http://izzaucon.blogspot.com/2014/ 06/tujuan-dan-landasan-pendidikan-inklusi.html Kurniawati, F. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and teaching strategies towards students with special educational needs in primary inclusive education in Indonesia. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Kusumastuti, P., Pradanasari, R., & Ratnawati, A. (2014). The problems of people with disability in Indonesia and what is being learned from the world report on disability. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 93(1), S63–S67. Lisdiana, A., Supriyanto, D., & Tarsidi, D. (2018). Teacher attitudes towards inclusive education – International trends. JASSI ANAKKU, 19(1), 1–10. Loreman, T. (2001). Secondary school inclusion for students with moderate to severe disabilities in Victoria, Australia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Monash University. Loreman, T. (2007). Seven pillars of support for inclusive education: Moving from “why?” to “how?” International Journal of Whole Schooling, 3(2), 22–38. Lysack, C. L. (1995). Community participation and community‐based rehabilitation: An Indonesian case study. Occupational Therapy International, 2(3), 149–165. Machali, I. (2014). The 2013 curriculum change policy towards the golden Indonesia in 2045. Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, 3(1), 71–94. Manik, F. (2010). Government policy on education services for children with special needs. http:// laynrudi.blogspot.com/2010/08/kebijakan-pemerintah-terhadap-layanan.html

166

SUHENDRI

Marti, A. D. (2012). Inclusive education in elementary schools in Padang City. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Khusus, 1(3), 1–13. Menteri Pemberdayaan Wanita dan Perlindungan Anak. (2013). Guidelines for handling children with special needs for companions (parents, family, and community). Kementrian Perlindungan Anak dan Perempuan. Nishimura, T. (2014). Effective professional development of teachers: A guide to actualizing inclusive schooling. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 10(1), 19–42. Permendiknas [Regulation of the minister of national education of the republic of Indonesia] No. 70. (2009). Inclusive education for students. Pitri, T. A., & Anwar, K. (2017). Collaboration between government and community in providing education: Special education in Riau province in 2015–2016. Jurnal Online Mahasiswa Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik Universitas Riau, 4(2), 1–12. PPPPTK TK & PLB. (2019). Education and training catalogue. PPPPTK TK & PLB. Pramudiana, I. D. (2016). Implementation of public service policy for people with disabilities. DIMENSI-Journal of Sociology, 9(1). Priscyllia, F. (2016). Legal review of public service facilities for persons with disabilities. Lex Crimen, 5(3). Puspito, P. (2015). Inclusive education policy. http://pepenk26.blogspot.com/2015/02/kebijakan-pendidikan-inklusi-di.html Rahardja, D. (2016). Special education in today’s perspective. Jassi Anakku, 9(1), 76–88. Roihah, A. I. H. (2015). The effectiveness of “incredible mom” training on increasing the attitude of acceptance of parents with the condition of children with special needs. Doctoral dissertation. Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim. Rudiyati, S. (2011). A portrait of inclusive schools in Indonesia. Makalah: Pertemuan Nasional Asosiasi Kesehatan Jiwa dan Remaja (AKESWARI): Yogyakarta. Salamah, S. T. (2015). Patterns of using Deixis in the communication process among children with special needs: A pragmatic study. Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta. Sari, H. (2007). The influence of an in-service teacher training (INSET) programme on attitudes towards inclusion by regular classroom teachers who teach deaf students in primary schools in Turkey. Deafness & Education International, 9(3), 131–146. Setiawan, C. R. (1999). Giftedness creativity: Why, what, and how. Remaja Rosdakarya. Smith, J. D. (2006). Inclusion, school for all. Nuansa. Souto-Manning, M., Rabadi-Raol, A., Robinson, D., & Perez, A. (2019). What stories do my classroom and its materials tell? Preparing early childhood teachers to engage in equitable and inclusive teaching. Young Exceptional Children, 22(2), 62–73. Suharto, E. (2008). Implementation of public service policies for communities with special needs. Focus Group Discussion (FGD) “Service for Customers with Special Needs in Public Sector”. Lembaga Administrasi Negara. Sahira Butik Hotel, Bogor. Suhendri. (2018). Introduction to inclusive education in kindergarten. Majalah Inklusi: Ministry of Education, Indonesia. ISSN: 1978-5151. Supriyanto, D. (2019). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A literature review. Indonesian Journal of Disability Studies, 6(1), 29–37. Takdir, M. (2013). Inclusive education: Concepts & applications. Ar-Ruzz Media. Tarnoto, N. (2016). Problems faced by the school for providing inclusive education at the elementary level. Humanitas: Jurnal Psikologi Indonesia, 13(1), 50–61. Undang-undang Dasar 1945 (amendment) [Indonesian constitutional amendment. (1945). Article 31 paragraphs 1 and 2. Wathoni, K. (2013). Implementation of inclusive education in Islamic education. Ta’allum: Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, 1(1), 99–109. Wulandari, F. (2014). History of inclusive education in the world and in Indonesia. https://www.academia.edu/8677313/Pendidikan_Inklusif Yatmiko, F., Banowati, E., & Suhandini, P. (2015). Implementation of character education for children with special needs. Journal of Primary Education, 4(2), 77–84.

COLLABORATIONS TO PROMOTE INCLUSIVE AND SPECIAL EDUCATION IN MYANMAR Zun Wai Oo and Norimune Kawai

ABSTRACT Improvements in special education and the implementation of inclusive education are a significant focus in Myanmar. Legislation toward these goals was officially enacted in the National Education Law, which was amended in 2015. While the Ministry of Education has adopted a policy of inclusive education, which states that all students with disabilities could attend mainstream school classes, classroom settings are not adequately equipped to support students with disabilities. The Department of Social Welfare does not have an inclusive education program. The department’s role is to support the training of schools as a part of special education for such students, providing primary special education via different teaching methods and appropriate therapies for students with disabilities. After students pass the primary education exam, they can join middle school, high school, and higher education levels of inclusive education, which run under the Ministry of Education. All special schools in Myanmar focus their different occupational therapies on enhancing students’ physical and mental capabilities and collaborating with outside professionals in relevant areas. The Ministry of Education aims to develop the knowledge and skills of teacher educators and teachers, so they can effectively adopt more inclusive teaching practices. Currently, Myanmar’s basic education reforms are being carried out through the National Education Strategic Plan (2016–2021). The ministry is currently working to implement a new 4-year pre-service degree program as well as the Basic Education School Quality Assurance Standards Framework. Such a movement to enhance the quality of teachers became a bridge to collaborate between inclusive and special education within two ministries. Instructional Collaboration in International Inclusive Education Contexts International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 17, 167–183 Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620210000017016

167

168

ZUN WAI OO AND NORIMUNE KAWAI

Keywords: Inclusive education; special education; occupational therapy; speech therapy; physical therapy; collaborations to promote inclusive education

The Republic of the Union of Myanmar is a Southeast Asian country where various ethnic groups with different languages have lived together for centuries. While it gained independence from the British in 1948, conflicts and civil wars began soon after independence. These conflicts caused instability and policy disorder in the country’s economic, educational, and social affairs. The rights and welfare of both children and people with disabilities were also neglected in the midst of instability and incomplete policy (Myanmar Federation of Person with Disabilities and Myanmar Disabled People Organizations, MFPD & DPOs, 2018). After decades of military rule, multiparty elections were held, for the first time, in 2010 and were scheduled to occur every fifth year. In 2010, the election results formed a new government, bringing about many significant changes and transformations. After the first election in 2010, the newly formed government decided to prioritize crucial changes and improvements in education. Improving special education and implementing the concept of inclusive education were a significant focus and were officially enacted into law with the 2015 amendment to the National Education Law (NEL). However, even with the legislation supporting improvements, various barriers and challenges remain in the implementation phase (Ministry of Education, 2015; Myanmar Federation of Person with Disabilities and Myanmar Disabled People Organizations, MFPD & DPOs, 2018). The recent 2020 election began the third phase (2021–2025) of this new system. The situation in Myanmar changed after the February 1, 2021 military coup. In response to the February 1, 2021 military coup, Myanmar citizens are peacefully protesting their anger and unconditional refusal to this illegal and antidemocratic act on the radio, web, and streets (Soe et al., 2021). No one knows if such a rapid escalation of the situation in Myanmar could affect the current development of inclusive and special education in Myanmar.

BACKGROUND AND CURRENT LEGAL ASPECTS The first Myanmar National Disabilities Survey (2008–2009) described that there are 1.3 million persons with disabilities out of the total population of 58.37 million (2.23% of the population). According to the survey results, 53% of persons with disabilities do not attend school, and only 2% can access higher education. According to the population census carried out by the government in 2014, the number of persons with disabilities increased to 2.3 million or 4.6% of the population. The census recorded four disability categories: seeing, hearing, walking, and remembering/mental. The census further recorded the degree of difficulty the respondents experienced for each type. A total of 2,311,250 people (4.6%) had at least one type of disability. The most common type of disability is

Collaborations to Promote Inclusive and Special Education in Myanmar

169

vision impairment (2.5% of the population), followed by walking (1.9%), mental (1.7%), and hearing impairment (1.3%) (Department of Population Ministry of Immigration and Population, 2015a, 2015b). During the decades after independence, Myanmar’s government tried to align with various international movements, including the efforts to improve the rights and laws of the child. Myanmar participated in the United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child (UNCRC, 1989), which was a movement that emphasized child-centered pedagogy to meet children’s needs. In 1991, Myanmar ratified the Convention on the Right of the Child, followed by the Myanmar Child Law enacted in 1993. As a result, the National Committee on the Right of the Child was also formed in October 1993 (MFPD & DPOs, 2018). In 1990, Education for All (EFA), another international framework, was set up to support the educational rights of children with disabilities. In the Review Report on EFA, the Ministry of Education mentioned that Myanmar initiated inclusive education for children with disabilities by accepting them into basic education schools, the Non-Formal Primary Education (NFPE) program at monastic schools, and special schools (Ministry of Education, 2014b). Myanmar’s education policy draws on the principles of both global and local instruments of the EFA, which publicly supports the rights of persons with disabilities. Globally, the Salamanca Conference was formed by UNESCO in 1994, wherein the participants agreed to a statement on educating all disabled children. The statement reaffirmed “EFA,” stating that the persons with disabilities have the right to access regular education classes (UNESCO, 1994). In line with the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) and reinforcement of inclusive education in the Global EFA plan (2004), the Ministry of Education arranged opportunities for children with disabilities and other excluded children (i.e., street children, victims of civil wars or trafficking, children affected by HIV) to attend formal schools, wherein they could continue their education while receiving exceptional care and attention. The inclusive education programs were formulated to accommodate all children, regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic, or other conditions (Ministry of Education, 2014b). In 1999, the World Education Forum was held in Dakar, Senegal. Based on the Dakar EFA Goals and Millennium Development Goals, most countries adopted the EFA Plan as their long-term educational development plan from 2000– to 2015 (UNESCO, 2000, 2009). To protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities, the United Nations made another international human rights agreement titled “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” The Convention took effect in May 2008. Myanmar ratified the treaty on December 7, 2011 and submitted it on November 17, 2015. Additionally, the Myanmar government signed the Bali Declaration on the Inclusive Development for People with Disabilities on November 17, 2011. Although the government took these official actions in 2011, there was not a clear definition of disabilities in Myanmar’s Social Security Law (2012). The law described disabilities as temporary and permanent disabilities of persons injured in the workplace, especially in military areas. In 2014, the Social Protection Strategy prescribed a social protection procedure, but it still did not

170

ZUN WAI OO AND NORIMUNE KAWAI

define or identify the types and levels of disabilities or the registration of persons with disabilities (MFPD & DPOs, 2018). In 2015, the Right of the Persons with Disabilities Law was enacted, which legislated the registration of persons with disabilities. It has been worded as follows: “The persons with disabilities can apply for registration in accordance with their specification in order to be recognized as persons with disabilities with their consent to enjoy the right of this Law” (Right of the Persons with Disabilities Law, 2015, p. 14). This law was a constructive movement for the welfare of persons with disabilities. Those who want to register are entitled to free medical checkups at designated hospitals. No other monthly or annual allowance program for persons with disabilities has been implemented.

TECHNICAL TERMS DEFINED IN MYANMAR’S NATIONAL EDUCATION LAW Every country has their own definitions of inclusive education and special education (or special needs education) according to their respective laws and policies prescribed by the government. Although all concepts and policies of inclusive and special education have a universal basic ground, some specific concepts are different according to each country’s context. The following three terms related to inclusive and special education are defined in Myanmar’s NEL. Special Education Program: The establishment of schools that have a special program to teach children with disabilities through appropriate teaching methods (Ministry of Education, 2015). Special Education Services: The opening of temporary, emergency schools in border areas with conflict, less developed areas, areas with low transportation, and regions affected by natural disasters (Ministry of Education, 2014a). Notably, in some countries, special education services are only related to the services for the children with disabilities. Here in Myanmar, the law prescribed special education services as the different services for all forms of vulnerable groups of people. Inclusive Education: The program that creates opportunities for those who have no access to education for a variety of reasons, including persons with disabilities (Ministry of Education, 2015).

ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION Although the Ministry of Education has a policy on inclusive education that allows all students with disabilities to attend mainstream school classes, it was found that mainstream schools are not adequately equipped to cater to students with disabilities, even in their primary years. There are numerous challenges in implementing the inclusive education policy, since schools lack the required resources and facilities (Country Report, 2008).

Collaborations to Promote Inclusive and Special Education in Myanmar

171

As previously mentioned, the Department of Social Welfare does not have an inclusive education program and only supports a few primary schools (running as special schools) to provide examinations to students with disabilities. In this case, the Department of Social Welfare, an institution under the Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement, plays a leading role in providing the essential components of special education based on the individual needs of children with disabilities. Myanmar’s system is slightly different from that of other countries as the Department of Social Welfare operates training schools as part of special education for such students, providing primary special education using different teaching methods and appropriate therapies for students with disabilities. In contrast, middle, high, and higher (university) levels are run as inclusive education under the Ministry of Education (Department of Social Welfare, 2015). In addition, Eden Center for Disabled Children (ECDC) (a well-known nonprofit charity organization), Yangon Education Center for the Blind, the Mary Chapman School (school for the hearing impaired), and other organizations also provide education for children with disabilities. The Department of Social Welfare referred to these organizations as the providers of special education for children with disabilities (Hauschild & Zin Min Htet, 2015). Under the Department of Social Welfare, persons with disabilities are cared for under institution-based care services, eight special schools for different disabilities, and six nursery schools for children with disabilities. The eight special public schools for students with disabilities are as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Two schools for the vision impaired (Kyee Myin Taing, Sagaing) Two schools for the hearing impaired (Yangon, Mandalay) Two schools for disabled children (Yangon, Mandalay) Disabled Care Center (Yangon) School for the Adult Disabled (Yangon) (Department of Social Welfare, 2019)

These schools provide students with free meals, accommodations, appropriate health care, and training. All of these schools accept students between six and 18 years of age, except for the school for adults with disabilities in Yangon, where persons with disabilities between 18 and 45 can have access to obtain suitable training for their living. The schools for vision impairments accept students with total and partial blindness and provide primary special education (together with braille). For middle and high education, the students go to their respective schools within the inclusive education scheme. All students have access to accommodations in the student dormitory. For university education, the schools arrange for students with disabilities to attend the University of Distance Education if they have a sponsor. They can receive significant training from their specialized schools, such as computer training (with braille), language training, vocational training (such as wickerwork and therapeutic massage), sports activities (training as athletes), and music training (Department of Social Welfare, 2019).

172

ZUN WAI OO AND NORIMUNE KAWAI

Like the schools for visual impairments, schools for hearing impairments provide primary special education by using sign language, including fingerspelling, lip reading, and speech reading. When students have finished their primary special education, they join mainstream schools under inclusive education by living in student dormitories. Students also receive vocational training, physical training, and sports education (Department of Social Welfare, 2019). The schools for children with disabilities accept students with different disabilities, including students with amputations, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism, and Down’s syndrome. Students with intellectual, developmental, or learning disabilities are observed and evaluated upon admission and then taught and trained. The students are grouped and taught based on their developmental abilities. Students who have physical and neurotypical disabilities can undergo primary education at these schools, while other children with developmental disabilities are taught basic writing, reading, and arithmetic. Children with physical disabilities can take the exam conducted by the Ministry of Education (Department of Social Welfare, 2019). For students with special educational needs, there is no particular curriculum or curriculum adaptation in mainstream education. Therefore, at the primary level, they receive the national education curriculum with different adaptations in their special schools in accordance with their disabilities. When they pass the primary standard examination, they go on to receive mainstream education in regular schools for middle and high school levels. At the same time, they still receive training and education via many activities during their special school dormitory lives until they have reached 18 years of age (Department of Social Welfare, 2019). For those students with other disabilities or severe and profound disabilities who cannot attend these middle and high schools, they can receive suitable therapies and training for daily lives both in public and private special schools (Department of Social Welfare, 2019).

APPLICATION OF THERAPIES WITH THE HELP OF PROFESSIONALS TO PROMOTE SPECIAL EDUCATION Occupational Therapy in Special Schools Reed and Sanderson (1999) stated that occupational therapy is a way to study human occupation concerning health, satisfaction, and sense of well-being, as well as the management of adaptive behavior or competent performance, which are required to perform these occupations. Thus, with the help of occupational therapy, physical or mental illness, injury, disability, or other health conditions can improve, as those affected by these conditions develop the skills necessary to complete daily tasks or specific activities (Bernal, 2014). In the schools for students with visual impairments in Yangon and Sagaing, the students are trained in necessary computer skills, English language skills,

Collaborations to Promote Inclusive and Special Education in Myanmar

173

audio skills, wickerwork, and physiotherapy as part of vocational training. Additionally, if students are interested in music, they can practice playing and singing with both modern and traditional music. For Myanmar’s traditional music training, part-time professional musicians were hired by schools. To improve the mental and physical hygiene of visually impaired students, the schools provide daily physical exercises and sports activities. With the help of these occupational therapies, students become more confident about their abilities and comfortable in their daily activities. For example, students from the school for vision impairment (Kyimyindine) took part in the eighth ASEAN Para Games held in Singapore in 2015 and won five prizes: two gold medals, one silver medal, and two bronze medals (Department of Social Welfare, 2019). Another example of occupational therapy is practiced in the Mary Chapman School for Deaf in Yangon. The school provides primary academic education and vocational training in sewing, knitting, embroidery, computing, bookbinding, cooking, and shiatsu training. The students can also participate in art activities twice a week, such as a watercolor and drawing class, with the help of volunteer teachers (Farrell, 2012). All special schools in Myanmar focus their occupational therapies on enhancing students’ physical and mental capabilities and collaborating with outside professionals in relevant areas. Speech Therapy in Special Schools According to Bernal (2014), speech therapy is a treatment to improve a variety of conditions related to language comprehension, communication, eating, swallowing, speaking ability, and confidence. Sign language is a way of communicating using visual gestures, facial expressions, and body language. Sign language is mainly used by persons who have a hearing impairment (University of Cambridge, n.d.). It is also an option for any child with the adequate motor skills to execute the signs. Moreover, sign language is a tool used by speech language pathologists as a therapy for children who become frustrated when they cannot verbally communicate their desires and needs. Lip reading and fingerspelling are the combined visual approaches to sign language. Students from all schools for students with hearing impairments in Myanmar are trained in speech therapy, lip reading, Myanmar sign language, and fingerspelling during their primary school years in special schools. Students also received weekly training in the basic skills necessary to have successful lives and effectively communicate in society. One example of weekly training in basic communication skills is the delivery of a motivational speech at every weekly assembly by the principal, teachers, and students themselves. Speakers including students rotate weekly according to the schedule (Department of Social Welfare, 2019). In Myanmar, the Sign Language Dictionary Volume 1 and Volume 2 were published in 2007 for education of the hearing impaired. An essential speaking book and a DVD of the Myanmar sign language were successfully published in 2009. Those published processes were supported by the Social Welfare Administration, which is a project to promote the social participation of the community

174

ZUN WAI OO AND NORIMUNE KAWAI

for the hearing impairment, implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). Moreover, sign language training and workshops are given to parents and others interested in learning sign language one or two times per year (Department of Social Welfare, 2019). Physical Therapy in Special Schools Physical therapy helps people recover from illness or injury. It works to relieve pain, restore maximum function, and prevent future injury or disability. While it focuses on physical recovery, it can also address psychological, emotional, and social factors (Bernal, 2014). Children with disabilities nurtured by the training schools in Myanmar have doctors from the Social Welfare Department and pediatric neurologists from public children’s hospitals that look after their health. Moreover, physiotherapists also provide exercises to help students become physically healthy children. Children with intellectual disability are trained to speak, achieve sufficient fine and gross motor skills, carry out their daily activities independently, count the numbers, and recognize colors and names. Students are taught through playing, reciting poems, singing songs, and exercising with music (Department of Social Welfare, 2019). Current Issues in Inclusive Education In 2012, the Comprehensive Education Sector Review (CESR, 2012–2014) was established. This review recommended changes in the education system. In 2014, the government enacted the NEL to reform the outdated education system. The law was revised and amended in 2015. Based on the results of the CESR (2012–2014), and in line with the new NEL, Myanmar’s education system is entering a new era of reform. The National Education Strategic Plan (NESP, 2016–2021) was developed as a result of a nationwide CESR (2012–2014). It began in 2016 and is currently underway, as nine transformational shifts are in progress to achieve NESP goals. One of these transformational shifts is “Basic Education – Access, Quality, and Inclusion” (Ministry of Education, 2016, p. 64). Regarding this reform goal, how to include all children ensuring their equity and assuring quality of educational standards becomes the significant challenge of the NESP members. The Ministry of Education (2014) recognized the right of all citizens to access free and compulsory primary education. As the first step to support assuring the quality of education, the law mandated to extend the basic education system to the KG112 years structure, in which learning of different national languages and cultures, the use of national languages as classroom languages, commitment to inclusive education, and a decentralized education system are considered as the main infrastructures (Ministry of Education, 2016). A report from a research study in 2015 conducted by ECDC and Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO) highlighted that legal and policy frameworks primarily support the education of children with disabilities in special schools. The evidence also presented that the mainstream school system’s framework does not support

Collaborations to Promote Inclusive and Special Education in Myanmar

175

the implementation of inclusive education. They found that there was a lack of guidance on enrollment and assessment of disability in mainstream schools. Additionally, teachers at mainstream schools are not trained in teaching methods for children with disabilities, and the curriculum and exam frameworks are centralized, making schools unable to adapt to student needs in education and exams (ECDC & VSO, 2015). They also presented recommendations to improve inclusive education for children with disabilities in the following nine areas: (1) Law and policy framework to support inclusive education (2) Importance to reduce poverty and promote the education of children with disabilities (3) Attempt to promote positive parent attitudes toward disabilities and inclusive education (4) Enhancement of access for children with disabilities to enroll in mainstream schools (5) Practical strategies needed for assessment of disability and labeling (6) Building a framework to fix centralized curriculum and exams (7) Ways to promote teaching practices and resources (8) Improvement of the environment in and around the school (9) Awareness of social inclusion (ECDC & VSO, 2015) Additionally, a conceptual framework for basic education reforms based on NESP goals has been developed to show the critical links between subsector reform areas in basic education with the following four sections: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Section Section Section Section

targeted targeted targeted targeted

to to to to

access, quality, and inclusion of all children reform the basic education curriculum student assessment and examinations improve teacher education and management (Ministry of Education, 2016)

A new strategy for capacity building in teacher education can promote the progressive adoption of effective teaching and learning methodologies for all children with disabilities at all levels. Myanmar’s education system is not only currently poised for curriculum reform in the basic education sector but also is undergoing curriculum reform in pre-service training in education colleges (Ministry of Education, 2016). Although the Ministry of Education plans to solve the challenges in implementing inclusive education in Myanmar in line with the NESP goals, currently, those issues are still challenging in implementing inclusive education in Myanmar.

176

ZUN WAI OO AND NORIMUNE KAWAI

Related Programs for Inclusive Education in Myanmar Myanmar’s government applies a rights-based approach to inclusive education in their planning processes. They are now trying to expand inclusive education to reach not only students with special educational needs but also the following excluded groups:

• Children • • • • •

who are belonging to different ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities Children who are living in poverty or slum areas Child victims who are from civil war areas Child victims of trafficking, drug addiction Children who are in correction centers Children who are affected by HIV (Ministry of Education, 2016)

Thus, inclusive education is the right of all children who need an opportunity for education. Moreover, it is an educational program that creates opportunities for children with disabilities and other disadvantaged children to pursue education along with their nondisadvantaged peers at formal schools (Ministry of Education, 2016). Many programs have been implemented in the country to achieve EFA goals. Some of these programs are presented below:

• School program for every school-age children • Special alternative education program for overaged children • Monastic schools arranged by religious institutions • Mobile schools with the help of volunteer teachers • Programs to open more schools in remote areas • Special education program for HIV/AIDS-infected and affected children • Voluntary night schools run by the mainstream schools • Orphanage homes (Pa-ra-hi-ta Homes) • Education provided in prisons • NFPE program (Ministry of Education, 2016) Collaborations with Different Organizations to Promote Inclusive Education Leprosy Mission Myanmar There are currently several ongoing collaborations between various organizations in Myanmar who aim to promote inclusive education within the education system. The first is a regional project led by Leprosy Mission Myanmar, which promotes the inclusion of children with disabilities in three middle schools in Ayartaw, Sagaing Region (Humanity & Inclusion, 2018). The stakeholders from Leprosy Mission Myanmar not only provide physical and medical support but also create a barrier-free environment. They also

Collaborations to Promote Inclusive and Special Education in Myanmar

177

provide functional appliances through their rehabilitation center in Ayartaw Township. In their project report, they mentioned one case of a 6-year-old girl with cerebral palsy who can now continue her schooling due to the program’s help. This success was the result of advocacy work that focuses on close coordination and effective communication among civil society organizations, international nongovernmental organizations, education departments, regional legislators, and families. At first, the principal and teachers were not willing to accept this student because of the added paperwork burden, and they felt unsure of how to approach her education. However, Leprosy Mission Myanmar was able to collaborate with legislators, resulting in positive transformation. They convinced the school to accept her with the equipment needed to facilitate transportation and accessibility. Moreover, they successfully coordinated and communicated with the community, teachers, and families of seven students with disabilities: three from one school and four from other schools in this region. To make the school setting inclusive, Leprosy Mission Myanmar supported the renovation of school buildings, creating a barrier-free environment. Other physical supports for children with disabilities became useful assistance tools for them like wheelchairs, crutches, and prosthetic legs. There is a big adjustment to inclusive schools in this region because of this project. Leprosy Mission Myanmar reported that they were able to help 51 children with disabilities attend mainstream schools. The most salient movement they made was effectively coordinating with one of the region’s members of Parliament. He became collaborative to disability organizations and families. He made significant progress by submitting disability-related movements in Parliament (Humanity & Inclusion, 2018). Leprosy Mission Myanmar suggested that more advocacy work is urgently required to ensure the awareness level of teachers for children with disabilities and better understanding of their rights to quality education at the Ministry of Education policy level. To address the accessibility issues, they recommend preparing barrier-free school settings and providing capacity building for teachers to ensure that children with disabilities are welcome in schools and that their learning is supported in individualized fashion (Humanity & Inclusion, 2018). Eden Center for Disabled Children The next program is a national program organized by the ECDC and the Ministry of Education. The program addresses how the development of teacher training promotes the inclusion of all children at schools. In the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), there are four goals for quality education. The last one, goal number four, focuses on making a quality assurance education for all by ensuring inclusiveness, equality, and lifelong learning. Accordingly, Myanmar enacted the legislation in 2015 to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. Consequently, many disability-related organizations including ECDC began to

178

ZUN WAI OO AND NORIMUNE KAWAI

encourage the development of the first Disability Rights Law (2015) and an amendment to the Ministry of Education (2015). The ECDC has implemented the EFA projects since 2006, focusing on promoting inclusive education. In this project, the organization worked to collaborate with different stakeholders at all levels of the education system. They moved forward their steps by strengthening policy and practice related to inclusive education and promoting the new education legislation and reforms. As a practical implementation, the project provided capacity building training to teachers in order to enhance their awareness of education as a right for children with disabilities, foster their engagement to inclusive practices through training, and communicate with students with disabilities effectively. As a result of 10 years of “EFA” and the work of ECDC, 250 children with disabilities can access their education in their communities within 10 Yangon townships (Hlaing Tharyar, Shwe Pyi Thar, Htan Ta Pin, Inn Sein, Hlaing, Mingalardon, Bahan, North Dagon, North Okkalar, and Mayangone). They have been provided with means of transport, school materials, basic medical needs, functional appliances, easy access renovation, and other individualized accommodations. Although this inclusive movement for 250 children with disabilities could not cover the whole country, it became a dynamic shift for future movements for all children’s inclusion. Most of these 250 students had physical impairments, while some students had visual or hearing impairments. Project activities to help them included the following:

• Providing support for the students such as stationery and other school-related needs

• Counseling • •

for family members with the help of resource persons from the Myanmar Education Consortium Delivering awareness training for teachers, parents, and community leaders from the targeted areas Conducting workshops and seminars for senior officers with the support of the resource persons from the Ministry of Education (Hauschild & Zin Min Htet, 2015)

The most significant changes and outcomes that occurred during the project are listed below:

• In the 2016–2017 academic year, more than 88 teachers from 50 mainstream •

schools were attending the training related to inclusive and special needs education. After teacher training, 250 children with disabilities could approach the inclusive education in 50 mainstream schools across 10 targeted Yangon townships. The Department of Basic Education (DBE), in line with the new policies, provided stipends for educational expenses to more than 200 children with disabilities.

Collaborations to Promote Inclusive and Special Education in Myanmar

179

• Those • • •

schools are now fitted out to become inclusive schools that accept children with disabilities and provide better education via trained teachers and specialized teaching and support staff. In the NESP (2016–2021), the Ministry of Education makes an engagement for inclusive education, and the education for children with disabilities is identified as a priority for the reform section. The National Education Policy Commission was set up with many stakeholders including a professional related to inclusive education. Presently, the Ministry of Education is planning to start pre-service and inservice teacher training to build the capacity necessary for disability and inclusive education.

Finally, the ECDC and the Ministry of Education highlighted some key points and challenges that still exist and that must be addressed in order to improve inclusive education based on their program outcomes. They mentioned that although a school can be a mainstream school, the main reason why children with disabilities from rural and suburban areas often face the challenge of getting to schools is due to the transportation difficulties. Another reason is the teaching methods used in Myanmar’s mainstream schools which are instructive and examoriented. While teachers have the competence and dedication necessary to communicate students with disabilities, challenges exist with respect to the adoption of educational policies that are inclusive of students’ diversity in relation to assessment formats, exam times, grading systems, and other individualized accommodations for grading (Humanity & Inclusion, 2018). These challenges are evidence that the challenges mentioned in the previous section on current issues in inclusive education are still unsolved and more actions are needed to support inclusive education. Save the Children A third project that embraces collaboration as a means to facilitating inclusion is an inclusive education project for three years. The target areas were seven townships located in the Magway Region, Kayah State, Shan State, and Kayin State. The focus of the project was early childhood care and development centers and kindergartens. The goal of this project is to raise access to schooling and improve the academic performance of the most vulnerable children in early grades, in particular, the children with disabilities and those from ethnic minorities (Save the Children, 2019). In addition to building capacity among teachers, community-based and school-based interventions that focused on disability inclusion to showcase the best practices to support teachers, communities, and district and township officials were emphasized. Additionally, policy commitment and working with other development partners became pivotal issues for the project’s stakeholders. Save the Children is the only one international nongovernment organization in Myanmar that has a memorandum of understanding with the DBE under the Ministry of Education. The project study aimed to have a better understanding of

180

ZUN WAI OO AND NORIMUNE KAWAI

inclusion among teachers and officers. It was found that losing the rights of the children with disabilities is prevalent because of lack of teaching strategies to handle inclusive classrooms and insufficient information on the disability types (Save the Children, 2019). Applying a system approach toward inclusive education has been a good way to address these questions. An integrative approach was used to collaborate with national stakeholders (Ministry of Education, Teacher Education Colleges, and National Education Policy Commission members), international practitioners, township officers, and other officials from the community. The project’s stakeholders created a good network with disabled people’s organizations. Through the project scenario, they raise awareness of the participants through different workshops and seminars. The main themes to discuss were on disability issues and on inclusive education. It is beneficial for new movements in educational transformation, such as the curriculum reform and the changes in the teacher education sector (Save the Children, 2019). An engagement with the newly trained and experienced teachers occurred with the permission from the government. It was initiated in 80 townships and increased to 312 townships nationwide. This engagement was the matter in hand for the capacity building of the teachers from the mentoring system and all participant teachers from the cluster schools. In this case, they provided workshops and shared pragmatic strategies and abstract understanding under the topics about discrimination, inclusion, international and local laws and policy on disabilities, and tips for how to include all children with different abilities (Save the Children, 2019). The project was initiated with different levels of system targeting on awareness-raising about social inclusion, inclusive education, and rights of the children with disabilities. For example, at the community level, the project team aimed to raise the awareness level of community members including the children, parents, and teachers. At the township level, the project team targets on the officials, cluster heads, and teachers from specific areas to give access to join weekly teacher training for inclusive education. While parents and other community members are trying to disseminate information about the social inclusion within the communities followed by supporting the school infrastructure to be accessible for learners with disabilities, teachers and cluster heads who received the initial training from the project team deliver their message about the inclusive teaching to the cluster group or the whole school (Save the Children, 2019). NESP (2016–2021) was developed as part of Myanmar’s educational reform including the development of the new curriculum in the basic education sector. At the same time, there was a great influence on educational organizations to be more inclusive with the collaboration of the “Save the Children” program. Such a great effort was made not only by the “Save the Children” program members but also by the members of the JICA and the curriculum reform team who also emphasize inclusiveness. The new primary curriculum has been fixed to be able to include all children. So, disabilities have now been incorporated into it, both in text and textbook illustrations. For instance, students have to learn that children with disabilities are equally important for the community through their new

Collaborations to Promote Inclusive and Special Education in Myanmar

181

textbooks. Equal access in school means everyone should be able to access the same opportunity to go to mainstream school and to study the same curriculum as a supportive part of their learning needs (Ministry of Education, 2016; Save the Children, 2019). The objective of the strategic plan for improving access to quality inclusive basic education has a subsequent alignment with the project. As mentioned above, the project has different levels from community to national level which have the identical key messages to the strategic plan as follows.

• Providing all children access to accomplish basic education • Providing all children basic knowledge, skills, attitudes, and competencies for the twenty-first century that could apply to their daily lives

• Providing all children to make their opening move on their learning pathway

by accessing quality primary education including early childhood education (Ministry of Education, 2016)

As Save the Children plays an influential role in the process of developing the kindergarten curriculum, it is necessary to use inclusive standardized indicators to monitor and measure the quality of kindergarten programs as the foundation of primary education. On the basis of the consultations with the Ministry of Education officials, the project team successfully developed a quality control framework for kindergartens in Myanmar. The project has also a collaborative link with UNESCO which is actively involved to bring up-to-date the pre-service teacher education program. One of the intentions is that the updated teacher education program needs to align with SDGs Goal Four. Save the Children and UNESCO now collaborate to share the knowledge of inclusive education to teachers as part of their training experiences and effectively monitor and support the changes in classrooms. Such a strong collaboration leads to the capacity building of teacher mentors and cluster heads accompanied by follow-up meetings, joint and exchange projects. Both UNESCO and Save the Children pulled together new ideas and strategies. For example, UNESCO incorporated the principles of “learn-apply-reflect” to their programs for teachers. Therefore, it can be concluded that the contribution of the project is mainly on the needs of Myanmar teachers to be equipped with the skills needed to cope with multilingual, multicultural, and multiability classrooms simultaneously having values on diversity, inclusion, and responsiveness (Save the Children, 2019). Future Perspectives to Make Inclusive Education Better In Myanmar, the basic education reforms in the twenty-first century are carried out within NESP (2016–2021). In 2018–2019, the Myanmar Education Quality Improvement Program (My-EQIP) office opened within the Ministry of Education. With My-EQIP’s support, the Ministry drafted a pilot School Quality Assurance Standards Framework (SQASF). The Basic Education School Quality Assurance Standards Framework (BE-SQASF) is a joint initiative of the

182

ZUN WAI OO AND NORIMUNE KAWAI

governments of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and Australia. The SQASF is an essential system that can enhance the quality of schools in the long term. It empowers schools to define their specific needs and develop their own school improvement plans. My-EQIP has also assisted the Ministry of Education in mainstreaming the diversity of gender, disability, and ethnicity across program activities (Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2019). Additionally, the Ministry of Education is collaborating with VSO by arranging some professional development programs. Some professionals are volunteering to contribute their knowledge in professional development programs that support teacher educators in delivering a new inclusion-focused teacher education curriculum. Every education college has to participate in yearly action research competitions for the professional development of the educators. By involving both stakeholders and volunteers in inclusive-focused professional development programs, teacher educators will have more options to conduct action research related to inclusive education and that could improve not only the research skills of teacher educators and teachers in education colleges but also the quality of inclusive education in mainstream school. It is imperative to the inclusion movement that these Ministry of Education collaborations and reforms continue to develop. Further, inclusion-focused teacher training requirements (both in pre-service and in-service) should be implemented in the basic education sector, for simply giving all students the right to attend mainstream schools is not enough. To overcome the barriers presented in this chapter, an effective bond between the Department of Social Welfare and the Ministry of Education must be of at most critical priority in future.

REFERENCES Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, (DFAT). (2019, October 2019). Aid program performance report 2018–2019. Myanmar. Bernal, N. (2014, October 9). Types of therapy. Care Conversations. https://careconversations.org/ types-therapy Comprehensive Education Sector Review (CESR). (2012–2014). http://www.cesrmm.org Country Report. (2008). Myanmar education development strategy focusing on inclusive education. The Government of the Union of Myanmar: Ministry of Education. Department of Population, Ministry of Immigration and Population. (2015a). The 2014 Myanmar population and housing census highlights of the main results census report, 2(A). https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/2014-myanmar-population-and-housing-census-union-report-censusreport-volume-2-enmy Department of Population, Ministry of Immigration and Population. (2015b). The 2014 Myanmar population and housing census, the union report census report, 2(B). https://reliefweb.int/report/ myanmar/2014-myanmar-population-and-housing-census-union-report-census-report-volume2-b-enmy Department of Social Welfare. (2015). Initial report on the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. The Republic of the Union of Myanmar: Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement Department of Social Welfare, Nay Pyi Taw. Department of Social Welfare. (2019). Special schools. https://www.ssdsw.gov.mm/en/special-schools Eden Centre for Disabled Children and Voluntary Service Overseas, (ECDC & VSO). (2015). Inclusive education and children with disabilities in Yangon Myanmar: A space to learn for all children.

Collaborations to Promote Inclusive and Special Education in Myanmar

183

Farrell, M. (2012). Educating special children: An introduction to provision for pupils with disabilities and disorders (2nd ed.). Routledge. Hauschild, A., & Htet, Z. M. (2015). Analysis of inclusive education in Myanmar final report. Myanmar Education Consortium (MEC). Humanity & Inclusion. (2018). Include us! Good practices in the inclusion of persons with disabilities in Myanmar. https://admin.makingitwork-crpd.org/sites/default/files/2018-02/Include%20Us% 21%20MiW%20Myanmar%202018.pdf Ministry of Education. (2014a). National education law. The Republic of the Union of Myanmar. Ministry of Education. (2014b). National EFA review report [Review Report]. The Government of the Union of Myanmar: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2015). National education law. The Republic of the Union of Myanmar. Ministry of Education. (2016). National education strategic plan 2016–21. The Government of the Union of Myanmar: Ministry of Education. Myanmar Federation of Person with Disabilities and Myanmar Disabled People Organizations, (MFPD & DPOs). (2018). DPOs report reflecting on the state implementation of UNCRPD initial report. [Reporting Cycle Related]. Submitted to Committee on the Right of Persons with Disabilities by Myanmar Federation of Person with Disabilities and Myanmar Disabled People Organizations. Reed, K. L., & Sanderson, S. N. (1999). Concepts of occupational therapy (4th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Right of the Persons with Disabilities Law. (2015). [Law enactment]. Ministry of social welfare, Relief and resettlement, Department of Social Welfare. Save the Children. (2019). Mainstreaming sharing good practices. https://resourcecentre.savethechildren. net/node/15216/pdf/inclusive_education_report_2019_0.pdf Soe, Z. W., Oo, M. M., Wah, K. S., Naing, A. T., Skalicky-Klein, R., & Phillips, G. (2021). Myanmar’s health leaders stand against military rule. The Lancet, 397(10277), 875. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(21)00457-8 UNESCO. (1994). World conference on special needs education: Access and quality [program and meeting document]. United Nations Ministry of Educational, Scientific and Education and Science Cultural Organization Spain, Salamanca, Spain. UNESCO. (2000). The Dakar framework for action education for all: Meeting our collective commitments [program and meeting document]. United Nations Ministry of Educational, Scientific, and Education, Dakar, Senegal. UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. United Nations Ministry of Educational, Scientific, and Education, Dakar, Senegal. University of Cambridge. (n.d.). Language Centre teaching programmes: CULP – Languages for all: British sign language. https://www.langcen.cam.ac.uk/culp/bsl/culp-bsl.html The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). (1989). https://downloads. unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/unicef-convention-rights-child-uncrc.pdf?

This page intentionally left blank

COLLABORATION IN SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION IN JAPAN: CURRENT CONDITIONS Norimune Kawai

ABSTRACT According to the revised School Education Act enacted in April 2007, special needs schools in Japan are to provide education for enrolled students as well as any necessary advice or assistance requested by local kindergartens, elementary, junior high, and other schools so that they may educate students who require special educational support. This means that special needs schools must take on the role of special needs education (SNE) centers in the community. Specific assistance that can enhance SNE at elementary, junior high, or other schools, such as promoting understanding of students with disabilities, providing specialized guidance in the form of educational content and methods, and establishing a school support system, may be obtained from special needs schools. In elementary, junior high, and other schools, the number of faculty members and state of facilities and equipment are not always sufficient, and each school has limited support. Therefore, collaboration with special needs schools and medical and welfare institutions is important. This chapter provides a brief overview of the current SNE system in Japan and introduces the roles of SNE coordinators, current issues facing the system, and future perspectives of collaboration to better serve SNE. Keywords: Inclusive education; special needs education; special needs education coordinator; consultation; collaboration; Japan In Japan, special education has been provided in four different settings since 2007. The first is special needs schools for students with relatively severe

Instructional Collaboration in International Inclusive Education Contexts International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 17, 185–200 Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620210000017017

185

186

NORIMUNE KAWAI

disabilities. These schools are usually divided into four levels: kindergarten, elementary school, junior high school, and high school, with elementary and junior high schools being compulsory. The target disabilities of special needs schools are visual impairment, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, physical disability, and chronic diseases. At special needs schools, students study with a special curriculum, surrounded by multiple teachers and a variety of facilities and equipment that meet their needs. Approximately 0.8% of the students in compulsory education learn at special needs schools (Cabinet Office of Japan, 2020). The number of students enrolled in special needs schools has increased about 1.2 times in this decade (Cabinet Office of Japan). The class size of special needs schools is six; however, if students have multiple disabilities, the class size is reduced to three. Therefore, the cost per student at a special needs education (SNE) school is about 10 times that of a regular school. SNE is also provided in regular schools. The second setting consists of special needs classrooms for students with relatively mild disabilities established in regular elementary and junior high schools. The target disabilities of special needs classrooms include intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, chronic diseases, weak vision, hearing loss, speech–language disorders, autism spectrum disorders, and emotional disturbances. For students with chronic diseases, special needs classrooms may also be established as branch classrooms in hospitals. The class size of special needs classrooms is eight. Approximately 2.9% of the students in compulsory education study in these classrooms (Cabinet Office of Japan, 2020). The number of students enrolled in special needs classrooms has increased about 2.1 times in this decade (Cabinet Office of Japan). The third setting is called a resource room and is used by students with mild disabilities who study most of the time in regular classrooms, visiting the resource room once to several times a week to receive special education services. The resource room is a variety of classes based on disabilities, while most classes (mainly instruction for each subject) are provided to students with disabilities who are enrolled in regular classes in elementary and junior high schools. It is one form of SNE in which special guidance necessary for improving and overcoming difficulties is given in a special place. The target disabilities are speech–language disorder, autism spectrum disorder, emotional disturbance, weak vision, hearing loss, learning disability (LD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), physical disability, and sickness/physical weakness. The standard instruction time is defined as one- to eight-unit hours per week (one-unit time per month to eightunit hours per week for students with LD and/or ADHD). The last setting is regular classrooms. The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology-Japan (MEXT, 2007) recognizes that SNE is not only for students with significant disabilities but also for those with difficulties related to learning and social activities; it is meant to create a cohesive society in which every person plays an active role while recognizing diverse identities. Therefore, unlike special needs schools, special needs classrooms, and resource rooms, where teachers are obligated to create individualized education plans (IEPs) for students with special needs, MEXT strongly encourages local school districts to have regular classroom teachers create IEPs for students with special

Collaboration in Special Needs Education in Japan

187

needs who are only enrolled in regular classrooms. To provide quality special education, schools must collaborate among themselves and with medical, social welfare, and workforce organizations, including student development centers, pediatric clinics, and other supportive services (hereinafter referred to as “relevant organizations”). With regards to the necessity of collaboration among local schools, special needs schools, and relevant organizations, the Future of Special Needs Education (Final Report) issued by the MEXT Research Cooperation Council in March 2003 declared that …in order to provide effective and efficient education in response to the educational needs of each student with disability, elementary/junior high schools and schools serving students with disabilities must exchange information daily, and close collaboration in educating these students is indispensable.

The same report went on to state that, Even when considering responses from an educational point of view, we need to give due consideration to the coordinated collaboration of relevant organizations, taking into account the importance of measures in terms of human services and medical care.

In SNE, to understand a student’s developmental status and behavioral characteristics, teachers are required to consider the specific educational support needed for the student. However, teachers at kindergartens, elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, and six-year secondary schools (hereinafter referred to as “elementary, junior high, and other schools”) do not necessarily have the specialized knowledge needed to provide SNE; therefore, it is often difficult for them to offer satisfactory instruction using school resources only (Kawai, 2017). In such cases, it is important to receive specialized advice from special needs schools and relevant organizations to make school education more effective and efficient and invigorate the school’s support system to provide better services to students with special needs. In elementary, junior high, and other schools, the number of faculty members and state of facilities and equipment are not always sufficient, and each school has limited support. Therefore, they must collaborate with special needs schools and medical and welfare institutions. The benefits of collaborating with relevant organizations include the following:

• The • • • •

difficulties experienced by the student and the history behind them are more easily understood, and specific support methods are clarified. Points to be kept in mind at school regarding the student’s instruction can be understood and shared among the staff. The functions of the school committee and the support team are strengthened. An effort is made to enlighten and educate the SNE staff. Parents can gain a more objective understanding of their children.

With this collaboration in SNE, parents, schools, relevant organizations, professionals, and other individuals involved in working with the students need to

188

NORIMUNE KAWAI

work together and utilize each other’s human and material expertise. In elementary, junior high, and other schools, the basic stance of SNE is not to have the teacher deal with problems alone but rather to work together as a team to support the student. It is critical for the Japanese SNE system to proactively cooperate with key personnel at relevant organizations to promote the establishment of a face-to-face support network system via the transdisciplinary collaboration approach. To create such a face-to-face support network system, SNE coordinators have a crucial role in promoting it (Forlin et al., 2014). SNE coordinators are positioned as the schools’ contact points for parents and relevant organizations and as personnel responsible for coordinating with related parties in schools and relevant organizations (National Institute of Special Education, 2006). There are facilities and equipment for specialized teachers and persons with disabilities in special needs schools, and many educational and teaching activities are devised within the school. However, for students who need medical care it is important to create a flexible system to develop an education plan tailored to meet student needs, such as cooperating with medical and welfare institutions to support students and guidance and advice from experts outside the school. One of the roles of SNE coordinators is to serve as the schools’ windows for parents and relevant organizations and as liaisons with related parties in the school and related organizations such as welfare and medical care. In 2007, MEXT introduced the SNE coordinator system, which reproduces the Special Educational Needs Coordinator system used in the United Kingdom in all public elementary, junior high, and other schools, including special needs schools (Sanagi, 2018). In addition, according to the actual conditions of the area and the demands of the families, SNE coordinators provide educational consultations for students with disabilities and their parents, as well as special education services in the area by utilizing the expertise of teachers and facilities/equipment at each school. SNE coordinators in special needs schools should act as consultants for local regular schools, specifically for SNE coordinators in regular schools. Before 2007, the previous special education system provided its services only in special education schools, special classrooms, and resource rooms; however, since 2007, SNE has started to provide its services in regular classrooms as well. According to the Education Personnel License Act (EPLA), a teacher at a special needs school must have a teaching license for kindergarten, elementary school, junior high school, or high school, as well as a teaching license for special needs schools. However, according to the supplementary law of the EPLA, a person who only holds a teacher’s license for kindergarten, elementary, middle, or high school can also teach at a special needs school. Therefore, the percentage of teachers at special needs schools who hold teaching licenses for special needs school is 84.9% (MEXT, 2021). The percentage of special needs classroom teachers who hold teaching licenses for special needs school (there is no teaching license in SNE, so special needs classroom teachers and resource room teachers are strongly recommended to hold teaching license for special needs school to guarantee professionalism in SNE) is 30.5% (MEXT, 2021). This means a limited number of teachers and SNE

Collaboration in Special Needs Education in Japan

189

coordinators have enough knowledge and skills to deal with students with special needs in regular schools. Therefore, it is critical for local regular schools to solicit help from SNE coordinators at special needs schools to provide better education for students with special needs.

HOW TO PROMOTE COLLABORATION AND CONSULTATION WITH RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS To promote collaboration and coordination with relevant organizations, SNE coordinators adhere to the following procedures for requesting consultations with relevant organizations when necessary. First, it is critical to create a list of relevant local organizations. The SNE coordinator plays a central role in collecting and organizing information on what kind of educational, medical, human services, labor, and other relevant organizations are present in the area and what kind of consultation and collaboration they can provide. Second, SNE coordinators need to decide whether to seek collaboration and coordination. The school committee examines and determines the necessity of requesting a consultation and seeking advice and the purposes and conditions involved and determines the organization to which the request is made. As a reference, when making the request, SNE coordinators should note the educational resources available at the school and clarify what kind of support can and cannot be provided there. Third, SNE coordinators need to prepare for the consultation. When they conduct consultations, they should be ready to discuss the status of the student, as well as what kind of support is provided at school. Then, they should summarize what kind of advice the parents are specifically seeking, such as classroom guidance or individual support. Fourth, it is necessary to obtain parental consent when SNE coordinators obtain information from relevant organizations. When requesting a consultation with a relevant organization, SNE coordinators should explain the purpose of the consultation and what materials will be provided to the parents in advance, gain consent, and proceed with a common understanding. It is also important to coordinate with the relevant organization. SNE coordinators are central to the coordination of the consultation schedule and necessary materials. Finally, it is critical to create and prepare necessary materials related to the student to provide explanations and reports to the relevant organization with which the coordinators have requested a consultation. It is also important to collect the following information and materials necessary for the consultation and obtain advice.

• A brief summary of the student • A summary of what kind of support is currently provided and the responses to and results of that support

• The overall classroom environment, including relationships with other students

190

NORIMUNE KAWAI

• Individual teaching plans, individual educational support plans, psychological

and developmental test data, and the student’s notebooks and schoolwork, among other things.

COLLABORATION WITH SPECIAL NEEDS SCHOOLS According to the revised School Education Act enacted in April 2007, special needs schools are to provide education for enrolled students, as well as any necessary advice or assistance requested by local elementary, junior high, and other schools so that teachers in these schools may appropriately educate students with special needs. In response to this, special needs schools are making the most of the specialized knowledge and skills they have accumulated to enhance further the function of special support education centers in the community. Specific assistance that can be used to enhance SNE at elementary, junior high, or other schools, such as understanding students with disabilities, providing specialized guidance content and methods, and establishing a school support system, may be obtained from special needs schools. The following are examples of specific initiatives that special needs schools can support. (1) Support for teachers at elementary, junior high, and other schools • Helping teachers grasp the psychological, academic, and behavioral aspects of students with special needs and provide advice on class management, subject guidance, etc. • Promoting teacher participation in, and advice for, special needs and case study meetings • Supporting teachers in their preparation of individual instruction plans and individual education support plans (2) Consultation and information provisions related to SNE and related subjects • Consultation with parents about the development of preschool students and their special needs • Consultation on the learning and behavioral aspects of students enrolled in regular classes • Distribution of educational leaflets, information dissemination in the form of written materials, etc. (3) Guidance and support for students with disabilities • Guidance provided through elementary, junior high, and other school visits • Implementation of psychological and other types of tests • General instruction (for students with hearing impairment) (4) Communication and coordination with medical, human services, labor, and other relevant organizations • Provision of information on the type of relevant organizations and support provided, contacts, coordination, etc. • Provision of information on the use of human services

Collaboration in Special Needs Education in Japan

191

(5) Training for teachers at elementary, junior high, and other schools • Conducting workshops, lectures, and the like for teachers at local elementary, junior high, and other schools • Training and local workshop participation for SNE coordinators in local elementary, junior high, and other schools (6) Providing services for students with disabilities • Lending of teaching materials/tools, psychological testing tools, and other resources to elementary, junior high, and other schools • Implementing school tours of special needs schools so that teachers in local elementary, junior high, and other schools can participate in them and learn how to provide better services for students with disabilities by observing SNE teachers’ practices. Every school has its own unique characteristics; special needs schools are characterized by the many support functions they provide. Even as SNE coordinators seek the support of their school committee, it is recommended that they should not hesitate to consult a special needs school if no improvement is evident. An SNE coordinator from the special needs school will visit the school; observe the classroom teacher, the target student, other students, and classroom environment; check the target student’s IEP; and provide recommendations on how the classroom teacher can more effectively provide appropriate services to the student. Local regular schools must try their best to provide appropriate services to students with special needs in the least restrictive environment. However, if, despite providing additional support, no significant efficacies are observed in the regular classroom, the members of the school committee in SNE will discuss whether it is beneficial for the target student to continue in the regular classroom.

POINTS TO KEEP IN MIND WHEN WORKING WITH RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS Placing a request with a relevant organization might be appropriate in any of the following situations: (1) when the efforts of the school alone are insufficient, (2) when a determination or special advice about the student is necessary pursuant to educational practice, or (3) when the parent/guardian makes an offer as such. When an elementary, junior high, or other school requests consultation or advice from a relevant organization, the following points are to be noted to ensure effective collaboration. Having a Common Understanding of the Direct Support Needed and Clarifying Objectives The actual situation surrounding the student and the direction that support is to take are to be thoroughly examined by the school and support committees, with a common understanding reached. Based on this, those tasks to be handled by schools versus those to be solved via collaboration/coordination with relevant

192

NORIMUNE KAWAI

organizations are sorted out, as well as what support is being sought and for what purpose. Suppose appropriate support is provided by relevant organizations to schools continuously. In that case, SNE coordinators and teachers can learn how to collaborate with relevant organizations and provide appropriate services for students with special needs. Through this kind of support, teachers can obtain the knowledge and skills necessary to work appropriately with students with special needs, reducing their dependency on the relevant organizations. Paying Attention to How Personal Information Is Handled When working with relevant organizations, it is often necessary to provide the personal information of the student. Under the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (2003), the school must endeavor to protect and manage the personal information of its students. When providing personal information, generally, the school must first obtain the consent of the parent. Consulting to Improve the School Environment The school should interview the parent/guardian, understand the parent’s thoughts and concerns, discuss the purpose of the consultation, and obtain the parent’s consent. The SNE coordinator should explain to the parent in an easyto-understand manner that, as the student is experiencing trouble at school, the coordinator would like to seek a specialist’s advice to help create an environment where it is easier for the student to learn. If the parent still seems reluctant, the teacher and coordinator may consult without the parents’ consent (they should never give out personal information). After the visit, the school environment should be reassessed and altered based on the expert’s advice. If this results in an improvement in the student’s performance, conveying this to the parent/guardian may lead to a change in their attitude and encourage them to seek out consultations. To cooperate effectively with related organizations, elementary, junior high, and other schools should establish a school support system based on the common understanding of all faculty and staff, with communications and coordination taking place that center on the SNE coordinator and proactive efforts to clarify objectives. The advice that may be obtained through consultations and collaboration with relevant organizations is not limited to these examples; it is also important to use the collective SNE knowledge and skills available at the student’s school and link them to the enhancement of the school’s support system.

FORMULATION AND UTILIZATION OF INDIVIDUAL NEEDS EDUCATION PLANS For students with disabilities, depending on the condition of the disability, to maximize the possibility and cultivate the power necessary for independence and social participation, it is important to grasp each person’s educational needs and provide appropriate guidance and support. For this reason, depending on the

Collaboration in Special Needs Education in Japan

193

state of disability, special curriculum, small class organization, and textbooks created with special consideration of special support classes for special support schools and elementary and junior high schools, and guidance by regular classes are provided. Guidance and support are provided by utilizing faculty and staff with specialized knowledge and experience and facilities and equipment that take into consideration disabilities. SNE is provided at all schools where students with special needs are enrolled, including students with LD, ADHD, and highfunctioning autism (HFA). Objectives The individual education support plan is based on accurately grasping the needs of each student with a disability and responding appropriately in the medium to long term. It is designed to provide consistent support from infancy to postgraduation. The support plan is intended to be used as a core tool by various relevant organizations – particularly in education and medical care, human services, labor, and other fields – to work in close collaboration to share information and provide the necessary support. It is important for elementary, junior high, and other schools to formulate individual education support plans as needed and promote effective support in collaboration with relevant organizations. Roles and the Significance of Utilization The roles of the individual support plan and the significance of its utilization are as follows: (1) Holistic lifestyle support for the student A student spends time in many different places. The purpose of the individual education support plan is to create an individual network centered on the student, utilizing essential social resources in accordance with the needs of the student to support him or her. (2) Consistent lifelong support This program is premised on sharing support policies with relevant organizations and continuing to provide support while remaining aware of a student’s future as the student transitions from preschool to school and then to society. (3) Comprehensive support to promote the student’s participation in society By anticipating a student’s future participation in society, this program seeks the collaboration of relevant organizations in providing comprehensive support for physical and psychological difficulties, as well as workplace and personal struggles. Individual educational support plans are significant not only as tools for working together with relevant organizations but also as a means of raising teacher awareness and improving professionalism. For better education and support of all students, formulating and using individual education support plans should begin as soon as possible.

194

NORIMUNE KAWAI

Content and Design The basic requirements of an individual education support plan are as follows:

• The • • •

needs of each student (i.e., his/her present/future hopes and dreams): Requirements from such fields as education, human services, and medical care to overcome the constraints of living with a disability. Support objectives: Goals for providing appropriate support based on the actual conditions and needs of the student. Support content and organizations: Specific support content aimed at fulfilling the objectives of the implementers/implementing organizations. Evaluation, revision, transfer of control, etc.: Items for which evaluation, revision, transfer of control, etc. are necessary.

Individual schools decide the program design considering local conditions and the circumstances surrounding the student. It is important to devise a framework that is easy for individuals at relevant organizations to understand and take on. Working with the community to create a cooperative consultation and support system. Building a Network of Relevant Organizations and Stakeholders A cross-sectional network of relevant administrative departments and agencies related to medical care, health, human services, education, labor, and related fields in prefecture support areas where SNE coordinators in special needs schools provide their support. Additionally, if there are multiple networks, efforts should be taken to clarify the responsible organization even as unification is considered while trying to work together. To provide appropriate consultation and support for the various needs of and difficulties experienced by students with disabilities and their parents, comprehensive evaluations in various fields and occupations and varying support must be provided in an integrated and continuous manner. Since an individual organization may suffer from limitations regarding conducting comprehensive evaluations and providing necessary consultations and support, multidisciplinary and multioccupational support networks must be established locally. These networks can support students with disabilities and their parents. There are currently two main types of networks serving students with disabilities and their parents: educational field networks centered on education boards and healthcare and social services networks centered on independent regional committees. Educational Networks Construction of Networks within Prefectural and City Governments (Establishment of Committees to Coordinate Special Regional Collaboration) Within prefectural and city governments, it is critical to establish committees to coordinate special regional collaboration (MEXT, 2003). These are to serve as networks for facilitating cooperative relationships between relevant departments

Collaboration in Special Needs Education in Japan

195

and agencies in the medical, health, human services, education, and labor fields involved in consulting and supporting students with disabilities and their parents. Examples of the roles such councils may play are listed below:

• Sharing information on consultation and support measures • Coordination of consultation and support measures and • • • •

examination of coordination measures Formulation of a master plan for consultation and support Formulation of an “individual support plan” model to serve as a blueprint for cooperating with relevant organizations to provide consistent support from the student’s infancy until he/she graduates Provision of information related to consultation and support Establishment of support areas

Construction of Networks in the Support Area In support areas, it is critical to establish committees to coordinate special support area collaboration in the form of networks between relevant departments and agencies. Since it is important to establish a system that is more closely related to the community, relevant medical, health, human services, education, and labor departments and relevant organizations such as special needs schools (schools for students with visual, hearing, intellectual, and physical disabilities and chronic diseases), social service offices, public health centers, medical institutions, and public employment agencies would participate in the local council for SNE. The role of this council is almost akin to that of the committee to coordinate special regional collaboration; however, for students with disabilities and their parents, it is necessary to consider specific measures that are closely related to the community. The idea is to consider the setting, function, role, and the like of relevant consultation- and support-related organizations in disability health and welfare circles, and at the designated city and core city levels of the support area, depending on the actual conditions in the prefectures and support areas. The basic assumption is that the support area will be established with a fixed scope that spans several municipalities. However, because the relevant bureau/ organization in the municipality is the closest place for special needs students and their parents to receive consultation/support from, it is quite possible that, like support areas, municipalities will end up tackling this alone. Should this be the case, it is important for the municipality to build a network to facilitate smooth collaboration and coordination. Committees to coordinate special regional collaboration should support smooth collaboration in support areas and municipalities, and committees to coordinate special support area collaboration will promote smooth collaboration in municipalities. By promoting the establishment of both, it is critical that the network covers each area in the prefecture and region. In creating such committees to coordinate special regional collaboration, consideration is given to utilizing the departments to be created and similar issues facing each region.

196

NORIMUNE KAWAI

When creating such networks, it is also important to appoint a person to act as a key coordinator between the relevant departments. It is important for special needs schools to serve as centers for SNE in the community and play a critical role in support areas. Each school’s SNE coordinator serves a central role in connecting schools, parents, and relevant organizations. Elementary, junior high, and other schools also need to be aware of the roles of SNE coordinators in special needs schools, which are to support teachers at elementary, junior high, and other schools; provide consultation and information on SNE and related subjects; offer guidance and support for students with disabilities; communicate with relevant organizations; hold in-service training for teachers at elementary, junior high, and other schools; and provide services for students with disabilities. By establishing a strong relationship between local schools and special needs schools, better services can be provided to students with special needs quickly and appropriately. Health and Human Services Network With regards to creating local support systems, such as consultation support projects, the Services and Supports for Persons with Disabilities Act of 2006 calls for municipalities to establish “independent local support councils,” comprising consultation support providers, disability and human service providers, health and medical personnel, educational and employment-related organizations, companies, disability-related organizations, and academic experts, to play a central role by serving as a forum for regular consultations between local stakeholders. The main functions of this council are as follows:

• Consultation and coordination on how to respond to difficult cases (individual • • • •

care meetings held by the support staff on an as-needed basis) Discussions on network construction and related topics led by local stakeholders Development and improvement of local social resources Establishment and administration of subcommittees for areas such as student support and advocacy Administrative evaluation to ensure the neutrality and fairness of the entrusted consultation support provider

Moreover, prefectural and city governments have established “Independent Prefectural Support Councils” as places for consultation among stakeholders and others, playing a leading role in establishing a consultation support system for the entire prefecture (MEXT, 2003). The main functions of this council are as follows:

• Understand and evaluate the status of the consultation support system for each •

independent local support council in the prefecture or municipality, advise on maintenance measures, etc. Advise on difficult-to-handle cases in the region

Collaboration in Special Needs Education in Japan

197

• Assist in launching a regional professional advocacy support system • Support establishment of a system for resolving a broad array of issues spanning multiple areas

• Provide guidance for improving skills of consultation support workers • Verify and develop local community resources Organizational Structure and Collaboration There is a need for local networks to be created in both the education and human services fields. The area where this network is first created may perhaps vary by region, with respective education and human service network target areas sometimes being municipalities and sometimes other areas. The goal here is to build a support system in which education, human services, and other relevant fields work together. As it is anticipated that member composition and agendas will overlap, it will be necessary to devise ways to unify the organizational system and establish the rules of collaboration in accordance with the situation on the ground. Clarifying the Organization in Charge Many different organizations provide consultation and support for students with disabilities and their parents. While there are no objections to the idea that these organizations should work in collaboration to provide support to students with disabilities and their parents, in practice, it is often the case that each institution is left to its own devices with little in the way of coordination taking place (Kawai & Nosaki, 2014). For this reason, parents may not know where to turn for help, and when they do seek help, they are often told that “this is not our jurisdiction, so we cannot help,” forcing them to look elsewhere. This may be because the organization targets another class of individuals for assistance. An interruption has occurred in the transfer of control related to personnel or lack of information, among others. However, no matter how many organizations are created, if they are not functional when the student with special needs and his/her parents first seek help, they are essentially useless (Kawai, 2017). To overcome these issues, it is desirable to establish an organization that connects relevant organizations and stakeholders and has consultants to provide appropriate advice. Such organizations have already been established within local governments and education boards in more progressive municipalities. With such names as “Students’ Affairs Section,” these respond appropriately to issues presented by residents. In many local governments, such as municipalities, affairs related to students and disabilities are divided into Administrative Department approaches that address health, student care, and social welfare and Board of Education approaches involving school-related organizations. There are several patterns when it comes to organizations that tie them together, as indicated below:

198

NORIMUNE KAWAI

• Sections • •

and offices related to students are set up in the Administrative Department Sections and offices related to students are consolidated in the Administrative Department, and a dedicated section is established A team is formed within the organization affiliated with the Administrative Department with a person designated as a leader

For all of these, human resources are gathered from multiple relevant organizations, and points of contact are consolidated so that the initial consultation is with this organization. Conferences that bring together relevant organizations are also held. Moreover, in prefectural and city governments, consolidating the affairs of each organization in the municipality is more important. While it may not always be practical to set up a Students’ Affairs Section or a similar department, it is important to establish a permanent organization that is responsible for some measure of collaboration, as all consultation and support offered within prefectural and city governments must function properly.

SUMMARY In this chapter, the collaboration system in Japanese SNE was introduced. Since 2007, Japanese public schools have been working hard to promote SNE to realize a symbiotic society by providing SNE services in different school settings. However, there are many things that Japan must improve to provide better services to students with disabilities. First is about the variety of continuous learning venues such as regular classes, special needs classes, regular instruction, and special needs schools. The mechanism for deciding where to go to school for students with disabilities has changed, turning into a process of comprehensively judging the place of education according to special educational needs and flexibly reviewing the school according to changes in the situation. To provide appropriate guidance and necessary support to students with educational needs, it is necessary to consider devising a flexible learning place. For example, as a basic environment improvement, providing special guidance through individual guidance and creating learning places, such as guidance through classes or individual guidance through the flexible operation of special support schools, is recommended. A reasonable accommodation is provided in each educational setting. It is hoped that guidance in individual instruction areas, including reasonable accommodation, will lead to ordinary class instruction. Diverse learning venues with continuity do not mean that diverse learning venues exist independently but are, for example, continuous with the education provided in each of the special needs schools, special needs classes, and regular classes. Second is about the variety of continuous learning venues such as regular classes, resource rooms, special needs classrooms, and special needs schools. In Japan, the student placement system to decide which schools students with disabilities should enroll in has been changed, and it has become possible to

Collaboration in Special Needs Education in Japan

199

determine the place of education according to special needs and to flexibly review the school according to changes in the actual situation. To provide appropriate guidance and necessary support to students with special needs, it is necessary to consider making the learning environment flexible. For example, as a basic environment improvement, providing special guidance by personalized guidance and learning places, such as using resource rooms and providing individual guidance through the flexible operation of special schools, is encouraged. A reasonable accommodation is provided in each educational setting. It is hoped that guidance in individual instruction areas, including reasonable accommodation, will lead to regular classroom instruction. Diverse learning venues with continuity do not mean that diverse learning venues exist independently, but there is continuity in the education provided in each special needs school, special needs classes, and regular classes. Therefore, it is necessary to consider how the curriculum should be organized. Third is the utilization of local resources that support school education and cooperation with related organizations. It is important for schools not only to raise students but also to create a system in which related organizations such as health, medical care, welfare, and labor support school education. As many multidisciplinary specialists will be involved in school education, managers must demonstrate greater management skills in school management and have a clear vision and work systematically toward it. Fourth is the connection of support from early childhood education to elementary and secondary education to higher education. Preschool consultation support files, school attendance support sheets, and IEPs need to be used as lifelong support tools rather than separately. In Japan, it is necessary to consider ensuring administrative services such as the IEP in the United States. Finally, it is difficult to establish an inclusive education system by relying solely on the efforts of the people who are related to SNE. Instead, it is important to promote understanding and enlightenment in residents, students without disabilities, and their parents.

REFERENCES Act on the Protection of Personal Information. (2003). JPN. https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/document? lawid5415AC0000000057 Cabinet Office of Japan. (2020). Reiwa 2 nen ban shogaisha hakusho [White paper on persons with disabilities]. 2020 Edition. Forlin, C., Kawai, N., Ochiai, T., Ashida, C., & Higuchi, S. (2014). Future issues in developing an inclusive education system in Japan: The roles that universities should play. The Bulletin of the Center for Special Needs Education Research and Practice, Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, 12, 25–37. Kawai, N. (2017). The curricula of inclusive education. In T. Ochiai & N. Kawai (Eds.), Realization of a symbiotic community and construction of an inclusive education system: The role of special support education in the future (pp. 156–173). Airi Publishing Co. Kawai, N., & Nosaki, H. (2014). Challenges and prospects of exchange activities and collaborative learning towards the construction of inclusive education system: Focusing on effective methods of collaborative learning in the future. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, 63(Pt. I), 125–134.

200

NORIMUNE KAWAI

MEXT. (2007). Tokubetsu shien kyoiku no suishin ni tsuite [Promotion of Special Education]. https:// www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/nc/07050101/001.pdf MEXT. (2021). Tokubetsu shien gakko kyoin no tokubetsu shien gakko kyoyu-to menkyojo hoyu jokyo-to chosa kekka no gaiyo (reiwa 2 nendo) [Summary of the survey results such as the status of holding teaching licenses for special needs school of special needs school teachers (2020)]. https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20210308-mxt_tokubetu01-000013247.pdf Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [MEXT]. (2003). Kongo no tokubetsu sien kyoiku no arikata nit suite (saishu hokoku) [Future of special needs education (final report)]. https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/054/shiryo/attach/1361204.htm. National Institute of Special Education. (2006). Tokubetsu sien kyoiku ko:dineta: jissenn gaido: LD/ ADHD/koukinou jiheisho tou wo fukumu shogai no aru kodomo eno shien no tameni [Special needs education coordinator practical guide: For the support of students with disabilities including LD/ADHD/high functioning autism]. https://www.nise.go.jp/kenshuka/josa/kankobutsu/pub_c/c-59.html Sanagi, T. (2018). Teachers’ expectation to the role of special needs coordinator in Japan: A comparison between primary and special needs schools. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 8(3), 13–16. http://doi.org/10.30845/ijhss.v9n3p3 School education act 2007 s.8 (JPN). https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid5322AC0000000026_ 20200401_501AC0000000044 Services and supports for persons with disabilities act 2006 s. 2.2.1 (JPN). https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/ document?lawid5417AC0000000123_20200401_430AC0000000044

MODEL OF COLLABORATION FOR PHILIPPINE INCLUSIVE EDUCATION Michel P. Basister and Maria Luisa S. Valenzuela

ABSTRACT Different strategies for expanding access to education of children with special needs (CSNs) are being implemented in the Philippines. With the existing definitions, policies, and programs for the country’s inclusive education, collaboration between stakeholders will serve as a vital component in achieving a more inclusive environment. Specifically, the journey of CSNs toward full inclusion will depend on the available professional services, easy access to these services, and the mechanisms to address conflicts that may arise in accessing these services. This chapter provides a critical reflection on the impact of existing policies, culture, and practices on the collaborations of professionals and other stakeholders of inclusive education. Additionally, a model of collaboration is proposed in this chapter based on the stakeholders’ experiences, accomplishments, issues, and challenges in providing inclusive education to CSNs including the future perspectives on ensuring a more inclusive environment. Keywords: Inclusive education; instructional collaboration; Philippines; challenges on collaboration; model of collaboration; children with special needs Currently, the precise meaning of the construct of collaboration is still vague since various references provide different interpretations of the term. Nevertheless, literature, over time, has explored various aspects and views of collaboration, including (1) interdependence, shared perspectives, and goals where collaboration can be viewed as a means of several professionals from different fields coming and working together to achieve mutually agreed-upon outcomes

Instructional Collaboration in International Inclusive Education Contexts International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 17, 201–216 Copyright © 2022 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3636/doi:10.1108/S1479-363620210000017018

201

202

MICHEL P. BASISTER AND MARIA LUISA S. VALENZUELA

(Carrea et al., 2005; Hernandez, 2013; Snell & Janney, 2005; Wright in; O’Toole & Kirkpatrick, 2007); (2) interpersonal characteristics which reflected references on members’ values, roles, and skills for collaboration process (Rainforth & England, 1997; Wade et al., 1994; Welch, 1998); and (3) contextual setting and constructs which involve collaborative ethics wherein members embody social, cultural, and structural constructs of collaboration while respecting the different specific roles and skills each member brings into the process (Wade et al., 1994; Welch & Tulbert, 2000). Additionally, there have been several perspectives regarding the challenges in the process of collaboration that need to be addressed. These include (1) some equate collaboration to coordination and cooperation but these are just part of collaboration since coordination involves only the managerial process to accomplish tasks while cooperation is just an agreement between two or more parties to perform certain activities (Bauer et al., 2010; Downing & Baily, 1990; Friend, 2000; Welsch, 1998); (2) the issue of trust and respect between involved individuals or institutions especially in terms of honoring time and acknowledging efforts in achieving the desired results (Bauer et al., 2010; Friend, 2000); (3) culture of individualism – seen to be the reason for hesitating many individuals when it comes to working together (Niles & Marcellino, 2004); (4) viewing preference to work independently as not part of collaborative engagements; (5) privatization of practice – various professionals preferred isolated service provision (Ritzman et al., 2006); and (6) funding – fund disbursements (both public and private) relative to inclusive education shows a growing trend for documentation requirements and productivity levels for related service providers. In effect, it requires inclusive education professionals or specialists to provide services to a greater number of students with increasing demand for time on documentation. This eventually reduces the time for collaborative engagement among the inclusive education team (Hamel, 2003; Mintz, 2003; Scalise, 2005). The collaboration between the stakeholders serves as a vital component in achieving a more inclusive environment. It is a crucial tool for parents, teachers, and other professionals to achieve a more comprehensive view of the diverse needs of CSNs and take responsibility for serving them. Given the number of professionals who could work together to address the needs of CSNs, prioritization of CSN’s needs and different approaches to addressing these needs should be brought into the discussion to develop and enhance the collaboration between and among members of the inclusive education team where composition varies from country to country. However, there are various factors that could affect these discussions. One example is the various roles played by members of the inclusive education team such as the itinerant roles fulfilled by related service providers compared to special education teachers who are with students with special needs and their families daily (Stephanie, 2010; Utley & Rapport, 2002). Another factor could be the openness to change and innovation of the approaches used by service providers (either the special education teachers or the related service providers). Interpersonal communication also plays a vital role in collaborative teaming (Blask, 2001; Stephanie, 2010; Utley & Rapport, 2002). Continuous open communication could help establish rapport between team

Model of Collaboration for Philippine Inclusive Education

203

members. This may also help clarify the desired educational outcomes and how these outcomes can be achieved, including how conflicts can be avoided or managed. Unfortunately, the study of Valenzuela (2017) found that the Philippines still needs to exert more efforts to promote and practice collaboration for inclusive education. The issues and challenges for collaboration might emerge from different areas of the sociocultural involvement of various stakeholders. The following sections review the evolving models of collaboration, describe the overview of the Philippine inclusive education, explore the existing practice and challenges of collaboration in the country, and the proposal of a collaboration model for its inclusive education setting.

NATURE AND EVOLVING MODELS OF COLLABORATION Collaborative teamwork is viewed by many as a characteristic of a productive working relationship between people providing special education and related services in the educational setting (Stephanie, 2010; Utley & Rapport, 2002). The literature suggests (Stephanie, 2010; Utley & Rapport, 2002) a framework that may be used to conceptualize the elements of teamwork, which can be organized in three dimensions. One of the dimensions is the philosophical underpinnings of teamwork – this dimension describes the need for team members to share a similar philosophy about their work. In this dimension, there is a need for team members to develop a willingness to adopt processes or norms that aid in guiding interactions between and among them. The second dimension is the structures (formal and informal) that could impact the dynamics as to how team members interact with one another. This domain covers structures that include interpersonal and communication skills development, how stages of professional development influence change or innovation in the educational setting, sensitivity to how each team member’s roles are defined, and typical leadership styles demonstrated in team meetings. The third dimension is the functions or activities of service provision through which team members practice their disciplinary expertise – activities that begin from assessment and continue through IEP development, implementation, and evaluation. Additionally, other scholars (Brownell et al., 2006; Butera, 2005; Hantzidimantis, 2011; Hernandez, 2013; Welch & Tulbert, 2000) identified several interconnected factors as essential in the development of an individual’s collaborative skills. These are (1) perceptions, attitudes, and preparation; (2) professional efficacy; (3) interpersonal skill capacity; and (4) contextual setting and organizational capacity. Given the numerous definitions, elements, and factors affecting collaboration, it is also necessary to consider the evolving models of collaboration that emerged over the years. Table 1 summarizes the literature review conducted by Valenzuela (2017) about these various models of collaboration: The presented models of collaboration may serve as a guide on how members of the inclusive education team can work together to achieve the effective

204

MICHEL P. BASISTER AND MARIA LUISA S. VALENZUELA

Table 1. Evolving Models of Collaboration. Model

Description

Multidisciplinary approach

Characterized by application of several services from different disciplines working independently, which results in limited interaction between team members. This approach presumes that experts assess and address the needs of the child in their areas of expertise. Multidisciplinary teams are organized hierarchically with team assessments and consultations separately conducted (Carpenter et al., 1998; Kritikos et al., 2012; Stepans et al., 2002). Transdisciplinary Characterized by exchange of information and sharing responsibility for approach student learning between and among team members (Carpenter et al., 1998; Downing & Baily, 1990; Hernandez, 2013; Prelock et al., 1995). Interdisciplinary Refers to the coordinated and cooperative engagement of different approach disciplines. Professionals from several disciplines work interdependently in the same setting. They may conduct assessments separately; however, they work together to achieve common goals (Hernandez, 2013). Interprofessional This was introduced in 1975 and is used to describe clinical practice while approach interdisciplinary is described in the educational process (Dean & Ballinger, 2013). Transtheoretical Model This model is characterized by active participation of paraprofessionals in cooperation with the family of CSNs to monitor transitions from one stage to another to ensure achievement of the desired outcomes (Liu et al., 2018; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997). Transitional Relationship This model shows that parents are being recognized by health-care Model professionals as cotherapists. It also considers home as an extended learning facility to reinforce interventions being provided to CSNs. (Turnbull in Kalyva, 2013). Consumer Model This model recognizes the right of the parents to be in control of the interventions being provided to their child. However, when the recognition of the rights of the parents always prevail, the rights of other members of the team might be taken for granted (Kalyva, 2013). Empowerment Model In this model, the views of the family members of CSNs including the extended family, friends, and the community where they belong are also being considered in the planning and implementation of any interventions for the child (Kalyva, 2013). Negotiation Model In this model, the views of the parents, health-care professionals, and other members of the team are being considered in determining their roles in the intervention. Additionally, this model provides avenues for parents to participate in the decision-making process pertaining to the improvement of their child. The parents also receive considerable attention and support in order for them to effectively perform their roles in providing the defined interventions (Kalyva, 2013). Intradisciplinary This model includes only one professional field in direct interaction with Approach clients (Pimmer et al., 2012).

outcomes for CSNs. It is important to consider the roles of each member in providing services to achieve the goals for CSNs. However, transposing any of these models from one organizational or cultural setting to another may necessitate adaptations to ensure its effectiveness. Thus, the local inclusive education

Model of Collaboration for Philippine Inclusive Education

205

practices, as well as the objectives and available resources of the community, will be considered in adopting or blending any of these models.

OVERVIEW AND PROSPECTS OF PHILIPPINE INCLUSIVE EDUCATION It was just recently when the advocacy for the development and implementation of inclusive education was evident in the Philippines. However, if we are going to trace the history of this field in the ASEAN region, it can be noted that the Philippines is one of the pioneer countries that gave attention to children with special educational needs in the region. Inclusive education initiatives in the country started in 1907 when special schools for the blind and deaf were established followed by the establishment of other special schools such as the special schools for mental retardation (1927), for physical disabilities (1927), for cerebral palsy (1953), for behavioral problems and chronic illnesses (1962), among others. The first formal training of teachers for special education in the country happened in 1956 at the Baguio Vacation Normal School. Currently, various colleges and universities are offering special/inclusive education courses in their undergraduate and graduate school programs (CHED, 2017; CHED, 2019). The collaboration among the government, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), inclusive education professionals, and the relatives of the CSNs was instrumental for improving the quality of education for all children in the country. The supportive policies of local, national, and international bodies paved the way for ensuring the implementation of effective mechanisms on how to serve individuals in the inclusive education sector. The country adheres to various international policies and agreements related to inclusive education (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989; World Declaration on Education for All, 1990; UNESCO Salamanca Statement and Framework of Action, 1994; UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006; UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, 2007; and the Education 2030 Framework for Action). Aside from the provisions of these international policies, the Philippines also promulgated its policies and guidelines to ensure that individuals with special educational needs are adequately taken care of by their families, schools, and the community. In 1992, the country passed a landmark legislation for inclusive education, which is the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, mandating the State to provide disabled persons with training on civics, vocational efficiency, and other skills. It also emphasized provisions of quality services in education, health, welfare, and employment; rules against discrimination; and admission of children with disabilities into regular public schools (RA 7277, 1992). The Magna Carta defined special education as the education of persons that require modifications of the curricula, programs, services, and facilities to help unlock their potentials and become independent members of the society. These persons may be gifted/talented, fast learners, persons with intellectual disabilities, behavior problems, special health problems, visually impaired, hearing impaired,

206

MICHEL P. BASISTER AND MARIA LUISA S. VALENZUELA

orthopedically handicapped, learning disabled, speech impaired, or multiple handicapped (Department of Education, 2010). Integration and maintenance of CSNs into the regular school system and eventually in the community are also one of the ultimate goals of the Philippine government. Recently, the country widened the concept of special education to inclusive education, which expanded the concerns of previously defined special education and thus included the children of indigenous people, Muslims, street children, working children, and abused children as priority groups in providing inclusive services (Quijano, 2011). With more than two decades of inclusive education implementation, the Department of Education of the Philippine government has identified issues and challenges to be given more priority to improve the delivery of inclusive education. These include addressing the negative attitudes of various stakeholders toward inclusive education, ensuring that facilities, curricula, methodology, approaches, and other support systems are suitable to the needs of CSNs, preparing inclusive education professionals to work together while serving their purpose for the CSNs, providing financial and logistical resources to sustain the implementation of inclusive education, and mobilizing interest groups to support the successful implementation of inclusive education in the country (Quijano, 2011). To address these issues and challenges, the following major programs and projects are being implemented by the education agency: advocacy programs in promoting the rights and welfare of CSNs, improving the capabilities of educational institutions to provide inclusive education services, and encouraging synergy between national government, NGOs, and international bodies to conceptualize and implement programs that will facilitate the inclusion of every CSN. Though the country still needs to increase efforts in ensuring quality inclusive education delivery, several outcomes were already reported. These include educational outcomes as well as economic and social outcomes. Economically speaking, inclusive education contributed to a higher employment rate in the country since CSNs were trained to become productive and independent from their families (Quijano, 2011). CSNs were also equipped to look and join several job opportunities in order to finance their living. Thus, the country is accumulating savings from social welfare services that support persons with disability. This also means a possible realignment of resources to other priority development programs. Additionally, the development of more accepting and socially adjusted citizens who are more supportive of persons with special needs can be considered as a social outcome of this program.

COLLABORATIONS IN PHILIPPINE INCLUSIVE EDUCATION Various studies were conducted in the Philippines to determine the extent of awareness and implementation of policies relative to the country’s inclusive education. Muega (2019) found no significant difference between the knowledge and involvement in the inclusion of the parents of CSNs, inclusive classroom

Model of Collaboration for Philippine Inclusive Education

207

teachers, and inclusive school administrators. The study of Ecoben (2019) revealed that the regular public school teachers were very much aware of the need for specialized education training for mainstream pupils and understood that it could help them perform better as mainstream teachers. Meanwhile, as emphasized by Hallahan et al. (2019), to ensure successful inclusive education, it is imperative that parents, general and special education teachers, instructional and school leaders, and other inclusive education professionals were all trained to perform their respective role in inclusive settings, especially on working together for a common purpose. Thus, these stakeholders must be trained not only for their respective fields, but must also be knowledgeable on how to practice collaboration in providing an effective teaching and learning environment in inclusive settings. Indeed, in providing services and other forms of interventions, parents and other stakeholders of the inclusive education sector should work together to achieve the optimal quality of life for CSNs. They have to collaborate in order to ensure that interventions for all children are properly implemented and outcomes are achieved. The Philippine inclusive education’s policies and collaborative practices were examined in terms of each of the following categories: assessment, access, and interventions. Assessment. Identifying and assessing CSNs, including the selection and evaluation of the outcomes of the interventions given to them, is an ongoing process. The synthesis of information from the involved stakeholders will be the basis for any educational placement of the CSNs. The country’s legal provisions (RA 10754, 2016) on the identification and screening of CSNs emphasize that it will be conducted as early as possible by the school and the community using appropriate assessment instruments. The team approach is being used in the identification and assessment procedures, which involve persons with working knowledge and understanding of CSNs. This may include: (1) parents/guardians/ extended families, neighbors, and friends, (2) regular teachers, (3) special education teachers, (4) guidance counselors, (5) school administrators, (6) health workers, developmental-behavioral pediatricians, pediatrics, (7) social workers, (8) psychologists, (9) speech, physical, and occupational therapists, (10) law enforcement officers, and (11) probation officers (RA 10754, 2016). However, the policy is silent as to how these individuals and professionals collaborate with each other. In the assessment procedures, one of the conditions that should be met before accessing the Philippine educational program for a CSN is the confirmation of a disability or condition that requires special education services from a professional service provider. This confirmation process may involve specialists such as occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech and language pathologists who are not widely available. Thus, it shows that the country is embracing the medical model in providing educational services where selected professionals should set the direction of the treatment or intervention for CSNs (Valenzuela, 2017). However, if not satisfied, parents of CSNs may agree or go against the recommendations of professionals on the types of services or the course of treatments to be availed. Furthermore, parents may also opt to go to different

208

MICHEL P. BASISTER AND MARIA LUISA S. VALENZUELA

specialists for consultations. With this kind of setup, many goals depending on the specialists’ scope of practice, may emerge, and without proper communication or endorsement, the malalignment of goals poses a problem. Indeed, the struggle as to who takes the lead in the child’s plan of care – both educational and related services serve as a systemic factor affecting collaboration (Chong et al., 2013). Thus, addressing these concerns and challenges in the effectiveness of the collaboration among all stakeholders is crucial to achieving optimal quality of life of every CSN. Access. In accessing educational services for CSNs, some of the models and programs in the country involve partial mainstreaming toward inclusion, full mainstreaming or inclusion, and other specific programs or approaches such as resource room plans, services from specialists, itinerant teachers, special class plans, special education centers, special day schools, hospital instruction, and community-based delivery systems. The success of inclusive education service delivery will significantly depend on the availability of both human and nonhuman resources for various inclusive education programs. Resource allocation is aligned to the ideologies of service provisions of educational, health, and related services concerning the dynamic needs of CSNs (McLean, 2012). However, the country is experiencing inadequate human and nonhuman resources for both educational and related services for CSNs. In the interview conducted by Valenzuela (2017), one occupational therapist shared that: Difficulties in available services are common among my clients. Thus, some of them receive services from those who do not have the license yet to practice. As for the physical therapists and speech pathologists, they are not a mainstay, and we have to wait for them at least twice a month. Additionally, physicians are also towns away. (p. 50)

Generally, some parents in the country would resort to receiving services from nonlicensed practitioners given several possible reasons 2 financial concerns, inaccessibility of licensed professionals due to location, unavailability of services in their area resulting to going to other places to avail the service or settle with whom is available, nonsatisfaction of parents with the frequency of provided service resulting to having additional services from different locations (Valenzuela, 2017). This results in the inclusive education team’s working environment with different to limited paraprofessionals who have varying means and time frames for evaluation. This situation is confusing not only to parents but also to team members due to outdated reports on the child’s progress. Prompt information sharing and communication among individuals working in different settings is considered one of the vital factors affecting collaboration (Chong et al., 2013). In the study conducted by Valenzuela (2017), several anecdotes from parents and service providers reflected unavailability and inaccessibility of special education services in various parts of the country. Since the ratio of services needed and providers are not sufficient, most service providers tend to concentrate on the country’s big cities which creates a problem for other areas of the county who also need related services such as physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech language pathologists, and the like. Nevertheless, aside from going to big

Model of Collaboration for Philippine Inclusive Education

209

cities to look for professional service providers, some members of the team resort to consulting their colleagues who may not directly work with the child but may recommend strategies that may be applied to the CSN. These scenarios clearly show the resiliency of team members in finding different ways to have access to services. This also ensures that even with limited professionals, for the time being, measures to guarantee that a holistic approach to managing different areas of child development are being undertaken. However, the quality of these services should not be compromised. Making sure to have everyone abreast of the updates, especially when services become available, is crucial. If problem areas are brought about by the unavailability and inaccessibility of services, the more it is needed to have a close working relationship of professionals with the resources at hand. Interventions. Different strategies for expanding access to education for CSNs are being implemented in the Philippines. These include enhancement of special education centers, provision of early intervention programs, teacher education, and training, improvement of the curriculum, transition programs, and several others aimed at targeting all CSNs concerns and issues (Quijano, 2011). The successful delivery of these interventions will significantly depend on the knowledge, attitudes, and scope of practice of various members of the inclusive education team. Having an open mind, understanding of the nature and limitations of other members, as well as applying different means of communication that would work among members are some of the vital factors in having a good working relationship (Kalyva, 2013). The study of Valenzuela (2017) found that, through collaboration, various professionals and parents in the country were able to acquire additional knowledge and skills from other team members, especially on how to handle CSNs effectively. Specifically, parents were equipped with knowledge and skills from therapists and teachers in handling CSNs such as approaches when difficulties or problems on behavioral, cognitive, and self-help domains are presented. However, information acquired through collaboration may be taken for granted by other team members based on their daily interactions with the child. For example, a member of the team may dismiss or will not address immediate concerns arising from information through collaboration since they might not see it as important. Further, some parents may not follow what was professionally recommended by other professionals in the team, especially when parents do not agree (possibly in denial) with the diagnosis or professional recommendations. Additionally, parents may seek another opinion until they reach what is more acceptable to them. The same is true with professionals who can be very protective of their professions and view themselves as experts of certain domains. This is normal in the Philippine setting, especially if the child receives several services or parents opt to go to different specialists for consultations. With this kind of setup, many goals emerge depending on the specialists’ scope of practice. Without proper communication or endorsement, the malalignment of goals poses a problem in any course of intervention for the CSN. Keeping an open mind toward each profession’s uniqueness will serve as one factor in establishing a good working relationship among members. The members

210

MICHEL P. BASISTER AND MARIA LUISA S. VALENZUELA

of the inclusive education team should emphasize the importance of understanding other member’s scope of practice that can contribute to the child’s development (Hernandez, 2013). Indeed, successful collaboration can be achieved when members understand the roles each member plays, how they can contribute to child’s progress, how follow-through of management is applied when other members see improvement, and when members keep a positive attitude in working with several people when they understand the scope of practice. The primary principle of effective collaboration in any intervention is for professionals within the team to combine their expertise in creating several options for students with special needs (Ritzman et al., 2006 in Hernandez, 2013). Moreover, several studies (Brownell et al., 2006; Butera, 2005; Damore & Murray, 2009; Hantidizimantis, 2011; Kurjan, 2000) claimed that the perceived professional competency and confidence impacts the development of collaborative relationships. The key to understanding how multi- and interdisciplinary service systems work can be achieved by including the stakeholders to participate in the collaborative environment (Butera, 2005). This is supported by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, wherein the child benefits from the relationships and continual exchange of ideas and interactions between individuals from a different setting where the child is engaged. Additionally, professional efficacy, mutual respect, and acknowledgment of the individual contributions to the team are also crucial in any collaborative endeavor (O’Toole & Kirkpatrick, 2007; Sileo, 2011).

MODEL OF COLLABORATION FOR PHILIPPINE INCLUSIVE EDUCATION The discussion above shows that the evidence of the collaborative elements, utilization of the related services integral in IEP stages, and visibility of the attributes of the different models of collaboration were found to be moderately observed. This implies that the Philippines is just on its way to progress in terms of collaboration. Thus, to strengthen the practice of collaboration, promote success, and avoid failure in the field of inclusive education in the country, there is a need to propose a Philippine Model of Collaboration. The model should effectively factor in the comprehensive and rich experiences and data from various sectors (such as parents, medical specialists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech language pathologists, teachers: regular and SPED, psychologists, etc.) in the context of collaboration to make it applicable to various situations of CSNs. Specifically, the model will consider the location and the interaction and access to services given by available inclusive education team members. It does not, however, attempt to produce specific materials or modules needed for the implementation of the proposed model. Fig. 1 shows the proposed model of collaboration for the Philippine inclusive education. The proposed model aims to: (1) increase the evidence of the different collaborative elements particular to teamwork and service provisions for CSN; (2) increase the extent of collaboration integral to the different stages of IEP for CSN; (3) incorporate best attributes that can be found in the different models of

Public Service Training Programs

Parent Organization

Developed Communities

Underdeveloped Communities

Parent Organization

National Interdisciplinary Organization of Professionals for CSN

Medical Specialists

Occupational Therapists

Teachers

Physical Therapists

SpeechLanguage Pathologists

Referral to specialized/ Related Services and Medical Follow-ups Dept of Health

Persistent Unmet Needs on Functional Domains Universal Design for Learning & Response to Intervention

NGOs Dept of Education

LGUs National AntiPoverty commision

Access to Educational Programs (Regular/SPED/Daycare) No Developmental Pediatricians

Formal Assessments and Medical Diagnosis

With Developmental Pediatricians

Model of Collaboration for Philippine Inclusive Education

CSN Optimum Quality of Life

Identification of Needs

CSN Impairments, Functional Limitations & Participation Restrictions involving Domains of Function Referral System Guidelines

Absent

Continuum of Opportunities Resource Setting Finances Access Absent to Services

Sufficient Legend:

Fig. 1.

& Straight Lines

Collaboration

Proposed Philippine Collaborative Model for CSN Given Interdisciplinary Experiences. Source: Valenzuela (2017). 211

212

MICHEL P. BASISTER AND MARIA LUISA S. VALENZUELA

collaboration toward a holistic practice of collaboration; and (4) incorporate invaluable recommendations from interdisciplinary members who are experienced in handling CSNs toward a holistic practice of collaboration. The challenges faced by CSNs hinder them in terms of achieving an optimized quality of life. These challenges are in the form of impairments, functional limitations, and activity restrictions that, according to the World Health Organization (2018), need to be addressed through the help of the different people involved in the child’s care and management. It is best for parents, family members, and caregivers of the CSNs to work together in helping CSNs achieve their full potential and become productive members of their society. They are direct stakeholders in the service delivery process and are active throughout the entire client management process, which runs from assessment, evaluation, diagnosis, prognostication, planning for care, intervention delivery, and outcomes evaluation. Active participation of the parent/family/caregiver can be optimized through membership in an active organization promoting the welfare of CSNs. In the Philippines, there are various active organizations dedicated to the welfare of CSNs which are structured on a nationwide scale, reaching its membership to the developed and even underdeveloped areas of the Philippine community. These organizations (i.e., Autism Society Philippines, Downs Syndrome Society of the Philippines, ADHD Society of the Philippines) actively advocate for CSN inclusion by organizing activities that promote awareness, support movement that benefits CSNs, and coordinate with professional organizations (i.e., Philippine Academy of Occupational Therapists (PAOT), Philippine Physical Therapy Association (PPTA), and Philippine Association of Speech Pathologists (PASP)). The challenges for CSNs can emerge from different areas of their sociocultural involvement with different sectors. Based on their needs, it can emerge as early as the stage of identification. The identification process of CSNs commences the quest for further measures so that their needs can be addressed. This process falls into the aspect of prereferral, whereby screening measures and child find activities are set forth, leading to the second stage that is the referral. Referral demands formal assessments and medical diagnosis. In the Philippines, the role of professionals such as Developmental Pediatricians, Speech Pathologists, and others is crucial to establish the direction the CSN will take as far as detailed problem identification and intervention is concerned. In the Philippines, most specialists such as Developmental Pediatricians, Speech Pathologists, Occupational Therapists and the like are mostly concentrated in the country’s Capital Region. This divides the opportunities of CSNs and their families toward equity in accessing their services since those in rural and underdeveloped areas may be missing out on the presence of qualified professionals. The limitation in accessing educational programs that is a right of every Filipino child is also affected by this since the education system’s practice is to ensure the child has access to the special education program once confirmation of the condition set by the diagnosis is established. The Philippines system of collaboration is dominantly embracing the medical model which is hierarchical in nature and heavily relies on the medical professionals who serve as key persons to

Model of Collaboration for Philippine Inclusive Education

213

set the tone and direction of the child’s education, care and management given the interdisciplinary set-up of services (Valenzuela, 2017). The proposed model aims to give equal importance to all professional members of the team (medical specialists, teachers, regular and special education, as well as related services- PT, OT, SLP). Additionally, public schools in underdeveloped areas lack access to resources and teacher development training programs. The persistent unmet needs of CSNs in the different domains of function, especially the foundational skills needed for them to become independent members of society warrant the need for further medical follow-ups and referral to specialized or related services provided by specialists like occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech and language pathologists. These experts given various domains of function are not readily accessible, especially in underdeveloped areas of the Philippine community (Valenzuela, 2017). To address these concerns and challenges and to achieve optimal outcomes for the quality of life of CSNs, collaboration among all stakeholders is critical. To enrich the status of collaborative practices in the country, the model proposes that the interdisciplinary team members organize themselves into a functional and structured organization where the roles, scope of practice, and services of each discipline are clarified and the communication system is enhanced. Once established in a national setting, the continuum of opportunities can be directed toward sufficiency since the national organization can help balance and ensure equity in the distribution of their services. They can also provide for ways by which an online system of direct linking and communication can be established for the successful delivery of inclusive education services. Since remote areas lack online facilities, government agencies such as the Department of Health, Department of Education, National Anti-Poverty Commision, Local Government Units and other nongovernment offices are included in the model to help address CSNs’ needs regardless of their location. To be successful, the model needs national level participation from various stakeholders. The national interdisciplinary organization (NIO) can facilitate training programs that will engage all team members, especially the parent/family stakeholders, in the care and management of CSNs. Training programs to educate and increase the knowledge of the CSNs’ condition, delivery options for management (including modules for language and communication strategies in place of Assistive Technologists in the Philippines), and understanding of professional recommendations can be facilitated as well, which lessens the conflict among stakeholders.Given the crucial role of the NIO, its formal linkage to the NGOs promoting the welfare of CSNs will be a significant leap in bridging the gap in the services’ provision accessibility. Other organizations, government and nongovernment structures like the Department of Health, Department of Education, local government units and private foundations, as well as the Philippine AntiPoverty Commission can be linked to NIO and NGOs, and will all help provide access to finances, services, and provision of appropriate resource settings for CSNs. The key is the direct link between communication and collaboration. Lastly, all established organizations linked together through formal systems of

214

MICHEL P. BASISTER AND MARIA LUISA S. VALENZUELA

affiliation can develop standard referral system guidelines that will ensure clarity in roles, communication, and linking of services that will balance the continuum of opportunities for CSNs. With the presented situation of the status of the Philippine inclusive education and the importance of collaboration between the various stakeholders of the inclusive education in the country, a concrete guide on how these members of inclusive education community can work together to achieve a common goal of improving the lives of CSNs will be beneficial.

REFERENCES Bauer, K. L., Iyer, S. N., Boon, R. T., & Fore, C. (2010). 20 ways for classroom teachers to collaborate with speech-language pathologists. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(5), 333–337. Blask, F. (2001). Collaboration between general education teachers and related service providers. Online Submission. Brownell, M. T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., Waldron, N., & Vanhover, S. (2006). Learning from collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children: Council for Exceptional Children, 72, 169–185. Butera, G. (2005). Collaboration in the context of Appalachia: The case of Cassie. The Journal of Special Education, 3, 106–116. Carpenter, S. L., King-Sears, M. E., & Keys, S. G. (1998). Counselors 1 educators 1 families as a transdisciplinary team 5 more effective inclusion for students with disabilities. Professional School Counseling, 2(1), 1–9. Carrea, V. I., Jones, H. J., Thomas, C. C., & Morsink, C. V. (2005). Interactive teaming: Enhancing programs for students with special needs. Pearson Merrill-Prentice Hall. Chong, W. W., Aslani, P., & Chen, T. F. (2013). Shared decision-making and interprofessional collaboration in mental healthcare: A qualitative study exploring perceptions of barriers and facilitators. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(5), 373–379. https://doi/org/10.3109/ 13561820.2013.785503 Commission on Higher Education. (2017). Policies, standards, and guidelines for Bachelor in special needs education (BSNEd). CHED MCHED Memorandum No. 77, series of 2017. https:// ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CMO-No.-77-s.-2017.pdf Commission on Higher Education. (2019). Policies, standards, and guidelines for graduate programs. CHED Memorandum No. 15, series of 2019. https://ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/CMONo.-15-Series-of-2019-%E2%80%93-Policies-Standards-and-Guidelines-for-Graduate-ProgramsUpdated.pdf Damore, S. J., & Murray, C. (2009). Urban elementary school teachers’ perspectives regarding collaborative teaching practices. Remedial and Special Education, 30(4), 234–244. Dean, S. G., & Ballinger, C. (2013). An interprofessional approach to rehabilitation. In S. G. Dean, R. J. Siegert, & W. J. Taylor (Eds.), Interprofessional rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9781118702741.ch3 Department of Education. (2010). Revised manual of regulations for private schools in basic education. Department of Education Order No. 88, s. 2010. Department of Education Order No. 88, series of 2010. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/DO-No.-88-s.-2010.pdf Downing, J., & Baily, B. R. (1990). Sharing the responsibility: Using a transdisciplinary team approach to enhance the learning of students with severe disabilities. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(3), 250–278. Ecoben, M. (2019). Readiness of public-school teachers in handling inclusive education. IOER International Multidisciplinary Research, 1(2). Friend, M. (2000). Myths and misunderstandings about professional collaboration. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 130. Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2019). Exceptional learners: An introduction to special education. Pearson.

Model of Collaboration for Philippine Inclusive Education

215

Hamel, T. (2003). Rate setting unit revisions to related services schedules. Special education program services and reimbursement bureau—Rate setting unit. New York State Education Department. Hantzidimantis, P. A. (2011). A case study examining the collaboration between a general education and a special education teacher in an inclusive classroom. Hofstra University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (pp. 1–131). Hernandez, S. (2013). Collaboration in special education: Its history, evolution, and critical factors necessary for successful implementation. US-China Education Review, 3(6), 480–498. Kalyva, E. (2013). Collaboration between parents of children with autism spectrum disorders and mental health professionals. In M. Fitzerald (Ed.), Recent advances in autism spectrum disorders. Intechopen.Editors. https://doi.org/10.5772/53966 Kritikos, E. P., LeDosquet, P. L., & Melton, M. E. (2012). Foundations of assessment in early childhood special education. Pearson. Kurjan, R. M. (2000). The role of the school-based speech-language pathologist serving preschool children with dysphagia: A personal perspective. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31(1), 42–49. Liu, K. T., Kueh, Y. C., Arifin, W. N., Kim, Y., & Kuan, G. (2018). Application of transtheoretical model on behavioral changes, and amount of physical activity among university’s students. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2402. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02402 McLean, S. (2012). Barriers to collaboration on behalf of children with challenging behaviours: A large qualitative study of five constituent groups. Child & Family Social Work, 17(4), 478–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2206.2011.00805.x Mintz, R. (2003). Medicaid documents requirements summary. Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, County of Nassau, NY. Muega, M. A. (2019). Inclusive education in the Philippines: Through the eyes of teachers, administrators, and parents of children with special needs. Social Science Diliman, 12(1), 5–28. Niles, W. J., & Marcellino, P. A. (2004). Needs based negotiation: A promising practice in school collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(4), 419–432. O’Toole, C., & Kirkpatrick, V. (2007). Building collaboration between professionals in health and education through interdisciplinary training. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 23(3), 325–352. Pimmer, C., Pachler, N., Nierle, J., & Genewein, U. (2012). Learning through inter- and intradisciplinary problem solving: Using cognitive apprenticeship to analyse doctor-to-doctor consultation. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 17, 759–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10459-012-9350-7 Prelock, P. A., Miller, B. L., & Reed, N. L. (1995). Collaborative partnerships in a language in the classroom program. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 26(3), 286. Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38 Quijano, S. (2011). Inclusive education: The Philippine perspective. In Inclusive Education Conference, Vietnam. Rainforth, B., & England, J. (1997). Collaboration for inclusion. Education & Treatment of Children, 20(1), 85. Republic Act 10754. (2016). An Act expanding the benefits and privileges of persons with disabilities. Philippine Congress. Republic of the Philippines. Republic Act 7277. (1992). An act providing for rehabilitation, self-development, and self-reliance of disabled persons and their integration into the mainstream of society and for other purposes. Philippine Congress. Republic of the Philippines. Ritzman, M. J., Sanger, D., & Coufal, K. L. (2006). A case study of a collaborative speech—Language pathologist. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27, 221–231. Scalise, R. J. (2005). Medicaid claiming/billing handbook—(Update #6): Medicaid unit. New York State Education Department. Sileo, J. M. (2011). Co-teaching: Getting to know your partner. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(5), 32–39. Snell, M. E., & Janney, R. (2005). Collaborative teaming (2nd ed.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

216

MICHEL P. BASISTER AND MARIA LUISA S. VALENZUELA

Stepans, M. B., Thompson, C. L., & Buchanan, M. L. (2002). The role of the nurse on a transdisciplinary early intervention assessment team. Public Health Nursing, 19(4), 238–245. Stephanie, L. M. (2010). Implications of collaboration in education. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 8(4). https://scholars.fhsu.edu/alj/vol8/iss4/35 Utley, B., & Rapport, M. (2002). Essential elements of effective teamwork: Shared understanding and differences between special educators and related service providers. Physical Disability Education and Related Services, 20(2), 9–47. Valenzuela, M. L. (2017). Proposed Philippine model of collaboration for children with autism given interdisciplinary experiences. In Proceedings of Academicsera International Conference, New York, USA. Wade, S. E., Welch, M., & Jensen, J. B. (1994). Teacher receptivity to collaboration: Levels of interest, types of concern, and school characteristics as variables contributing to successful implementation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 5(3), 177–209. Welch, M. (1998). The IDEA of collaboration in special education: An introspective examination of paradigms and promise. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 9(2), 119. Welch, M., & Tulbert, B. (2000). Practitioners’ perspectives of collaboration: A social validation and factor analysis. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(3), 357–378. World Health Organization. (2018). Nurturing care for early childhood development: A framework for helping children survive and thrive to transform health and human potential. World Health Organization. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

INDEX Acupressure, 159 Acupuncture therapy, 159 Adequate resources, 80 ADL therapy, 159 Aid Investment Plan, 8 Al-Falah Cibubur School in East Jakarta, 162 American K–12 public education, 98 American perspective coaching and coteaching, 107–110 collaboration to support inclusive classroom practice, 103–106 macropolicy overview of inclusion as social justice in American public education, 100–103 mircoengagement with context, design, and outcomes, 107 multimodal coaching and collaboration, 110–111 taking action, transforming community consciousness, 112–113 Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 186 Australia, 3 Australian university teacher education, 29 Autonomy, 26–27

Blended value creation, 72–73 Bottom-up approach, 76–77 Cambodia background and legislative mandates, 140–142 collaborations among professionals, 145–146 education of children with disabilities in, 141 implications, 148–149 key challenges, 146–148 stakeholders engaged in education for children with disabilities, 142–144 teacher training in special education, 144–145 Cambodian Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport (MoEYS), 140 Capability connections, 75 Capacity to aspire, 88–89 Central Java Province Education Office, 159 Certainty, 26 Challenges on collaboration, 202 Child-Friendly Schools (CFS), 131, 141–142 Children with disabilities (CWDs), 128, 147 assessment in Lesotho, 130–131 education in Cambodia, 141 in regular classrooms, 130 stakeholders engaged in education for, 142–144 Children with special needs, 205 Classroom teachers, 18 Coaching, 107–110 Coconstruction, 61

Basic Education School Quality Assurance Standards Framework (BE-SQASF), 181–182 Behavior therapy, 159 Beyond Center and Central Times (BCCT), 162 Bill of Rights, 116 217

218

Collaboration, 5, 18–19, 88–89, 119, 128, 133 among professionals, 145–146 approach, 10–11 aspects and views, 201–202 benefits of collaboration between teachers and occupational therapists in schools, 121 challenges in inclusive education in Lesotho, 129–131 with different organizations to promote inclusive education, 176–177 embarking on journey of collaborative practices and inclusion around globe, 6 journey of collaborative practices and inclusion around globe, 2–5 nature and evolving models of, 203–204 occupational therapists roles in, 120–121 in Philippine inclusive education, 206, 210, 214 to support inclusive classroom practice, 103–106 teachers roles in, 119–120 Collaborative instruction, 24 Collaborative instructional practice, 24 applying concepts of scarf to collaborative instructional practice, 28 findings, 31–35 implications, 35–36 limitations, 36 methodology, 29–31 participants, 29–31 SCARF model and collaboration, 25–28 study, 29 Collaborative partnership, 73–74 Collaborative teamwork, 203 Commons-based peer production, 75–76

INDEX

Communication skills, 103–104 Community, 160–162 commitment, 86–87 community-based approach, 75–76 community-based education, 75–76 community-based inclusion/rehabilitation, 75–76 community-based participatory research, 75–76 consciousness, 99–100, 112–113 Community-based rehabilitation (CBR), 161 Comprehensive Education Sector Review (CESR), 174 Conciliation, 88–89 Connection, 43–44 Conscientization, 88–89 Consultation, 189–190 Consumer model, 204 Contemporary societies, 81–82 Continental Plan of Action for African Decade of Persons with Disabilities, 133 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), 2–3, 56, 141 Cooperation, 61 forms in schools, 62 interdisciplinary, 63–64 Cooperative teaching. See Collaborative instruction Coordination/shared work, 61 Coteaching, 107–110 COVID-19, 98 CSN, 207–208, 212 challenges for, 212 Cultural context, 103 Culturally responsive pedagogy, 2 Dakar framework, 141 Department of Basic Education (DBE), 116, 178–179

Index

Department of Education of Philippine government, 206 Department of Social Welfare, 171 Department of Special Education (DSE), 142–143 Developmental Pediatricians, 212–213 Disabilities. See also Children with disabilities (CWDs), 144–145 Disability Action Council (DAC), 142–143 Disability Rights Law, 177–178 Dislocating Education by Empowering Connective Capabilities in Communities (DEECCC-School Project), 75 East Java, 159–160 Ecological systems framework, 76–77 Ecosystem, 75–76 Eden Center for Disabled Children (ECDC), 171, 174–175, 177, 179 Education in Lesotho, 128–129 professionals, 72–73 in Saudi Arabia, 42–43 systems, 72–73, 152–153 Education Act, 12–13 Education for All (EFA), 58, 131, 141, 169 Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 100–101 Education for Children with Disabilities (ECD), 141–142 Education Management Information System (EMIS), 148–149 Education Personnel License Act (EPLA), 188 Education Sector Plan (2016–2026), 134 Educational harm, 24–25 Educational inclusion, 101–102, 111

219

Educational inclusive ecosystem, 75–89 macrosystem, 77–83 mesosystem, 83–88 microsystem, 88–89 Educational Inclusive EcoSystem model (EIESy model), 73, 75, 78 Educational processes, 8 Educational reform and teacher collaboration, 45–46 Effective instructional collaboration, 2 EIESy model, 4 Ekereri, 10 framework, 3 Nauruan educational concept of, 11 Empathy work, 103–104 Empowerment model, 204 Engine For White Paper 6, 118 Exchange, 61 Fairness, 27–28 Family economic instability, 147 Family poverty, 147 Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), 100–101 General Authority for Statistics (GAS), 42 General education, 140–141 German school system, 56 Germany, special education in, 57–60 Gesamtschule, 57 Global inclusionism, 10 Good governance, 80 Government of Indonesia, 155 Government of Lesotho (GoL), 128, 131 Grounded on social theory, 80 Grundschule, 57 Gymnasium, 57 Hauptschule, 57 Health and human services network, 196–197

220

Hearing impairment, 144–145 High-functioning autism (HFA), 192–193 Hlokomela Bana, 128–129 Human development, 77–79 Incheon Declaration, 8 Inclusion, 3, 5 embarking on journey of collaborative practices and, 6 narrow understanding of, 58 of Nauruan concepts, 11–12, 19 as social justice in American public education, 100–103 Inclusive classrooms building capacity in inclusive education, 14–18 collaboration to support inclusive classroom practice, 103–106 context of collaboration, 10–11 evaluation, 18–20 inclusion of Nauruan concepts, 11–12 map of Nauru, 9 meeting in partnership, 13 Nauru inclusive education context, 12–13 Nauru Inclusive Education Policy and Guidelines, 13–14 Inclusive education. See also Special education, 2, 8, 10, 24, 41–43, 128, 140, 148–149, 199, 202 building capacity in, 14–18 current issues in, 174–175 in Indonesia, 152–153 issues in, 153–154 in Lesotho, 129 policy, 134 reform, 10–11 in Saudi Arabia, 41–42 in Saudi schools, 43–46 teachers, 16–18 in United States, 100–101

INDEX

Inclusive educational systems through collaboration, 73–75 Inclusive schools interdisciplinary cooperation, special and general educators in, 60–64 pre-and in-service teacher trainings, 64–65 Independent local support councils, 196 Individual learning program, 159–160 Individualized Education Plans (IEP), 65, 147–148, 186–187 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 101 Indonesia collaboration, 154 community, 160–162 Corruption Watch in 2003, 161 inclusive education in, 152–153 international organizations, 162 professionals and therapists, 158–160 school and members, 157–158 special needs education in, 151–152 Indonesian National Plan of Action, 162 Innovative learning environments, 80 Instruction(al) collaboration, 41–42 benefits of, 133 changes for successful, 49–51 education in Saudi Arabia, 42–43 educational reform and teacher collaboration, 45–46 inclusive and mainstream education in Saudi Arabia, 41–42 inclusive education and instructional collaboration in Saudi schools, 43–46 legislation and regulations, 50 professional development, 49–50 in research, 44–45 school-related factors, 51 teacher education, 50–51

Index

voices of teachers and professors, 46–49 Integrated National Disability Strategy (INDS), 117 Integration, 10 Interdisciplinary approach, 204 Interdisciplinary cooperation, 56–57, 63–64 Interdisciplinary/interagency fertile connections, 84 International inclusive educational contexts embarking on journey of collaborative practices and inclusion around globe, 6 journey of collaborative practices and inclusion around globe, 2–5 International organizations, 162 Interprofessional approach, 204 Intradisciplinary approach, 204 Islamic law, 42 Italian Ministry of Education, 72 Japan, special education, 185–186 collaboration and consultation with relevant organizations, 189–190 collaboration with special needs schools, 190–191 formulation and utilization of individual needs education plans, 192–198 working with relevant organizations, 191–192 Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), 173–174 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), 42–43 Krousar Thmey Foundation (KTF), 143 Law 23/2002 on Child Protection, 152 Law on Education, 141–142 “Learn-apply-reflect”, 181

221

Learner, 73 Learning disability (LD), 186 Least restrictive environment (LRE), 101–102 Leprosy Mission Myanmar, 176–177 Lesotho benefits of instruction collaboration, 133 challenges of collaboration in inclusive education in, 129–131 current legal aspects of supporting inclusive education in, 131 current situation and issues in Lesotho inclusive education, 131–132 education in, 128–129 future perspectives of inclusive education in, 134 inclusive education in, 129 Local Education Agencies (LEAs), 101–102 Macrosystem, 77–83 Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, 205 Mainstream education, 43, 116 Mary Chapman School for Deaf in Yangon, 173 Meeting in partnership, 19–20 Mental disabilities, 144–145 Mesosystem, 83–88 Microsystem, 88–89 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), 131 Ministry of Education, 156, 170, 177–178 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT), 186–187 Ministry of Health (MoH), 147–148 Ministry of Planning (MoP), 142 Ministry of Rural Development (MRD), 147–148

222

Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans, and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSVY), 142–143 Mircoengagement, 107 Model of collaboration for Philippine inclusive education, 210–214 Modeling, 103–104 MoEYS, 145–146 Multidisciplinary approach, 204 Multimodal coaching and collaboration, 110–111 Music therapy, 159 Myanmar application of therapies with help of professionals to promote special education, 172–182 department of social welfare for special education, 170–172 inclusive and special education in, 168, 175–176 legal aspects, 168–170 National Education Law, 170 Myanmar Education Quality Improvement Program (My-EQIP), 181–182 National Education Law (NEL), 168, 170 National Education Policy Act (1996), 117–118 National Education Strategic Plan (NESP), 174 National education system, 152 National Institute of Special Education (NISE), 143 National interdisciplinary organization (NIO), 213–214 National Policy on Orphans and Vulnerable Children, 131 National Strategic Plan on Vulnerable Children, 131 National Workshop on Inclusive Education, 155–156

INDEX

Nauru inclusive education context, 12–13 Nauru Inclusive Education Policy and Guidelines, 8, 10, 13–14 Nauru policy in inclusive education, 8–10 Nauruan concepts, inclusion of, 11–12 Negotiation model, 204 Network, 133 Non-Formal Primary Education (NFPE), 169 Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), 140–141, 205 Normalization, 10 Occupational therapists, 212–213 benefits of collaboration between teachers and occupational therapists in schools, 121 challenges faced by teachers and occupational therapists in working in partnership, 121–122 roles in collaboration, 120–121 shortage in schools, 123 Occupational therapy in special schools, 172–173 Opportunities for change, 87–88 Orthopedagogy, 159 Pacific Education Development Framework (PIFS), 12–13 Paraprofessionals, 60 Partnership challenges faced by teachers and occupational therapists in working, 121–122 meeting in, 19–20 Personalized additive services, 58–59 Philippine Academy of Occupational Therapists (PAOT), 212 Philippine Association of Speech Pathologists (PASP), 212 Philippine educational program for CSN, 207–208 Philippine inclusive education, 203

Index

collaborations in, 206–210 model of collaboration for Philippine inclusive education, 210–214 nature and evolving models of collaboration, 203–204 prospects of, 205–206 Philippine Physical Therapy Association (PPTA), 212 Physical therapy in special schools, 174 Physiotherapy, 159 Policy on Inclusive Education (PIE), 141–142 Professional development, 3, 49–50 in inclusive education, 162–164 Professionals, 158–160 collaborations among, 145–146 relationships, 99 Professors, voices of, 46–49 Progressive nation, 10 Provincial Teacher Training Centers (PTTCs), 144–145 Public special schools in South Africa benefits of collaboration between teachers and occupational therapists in schools, 121 challenges, 123–124 challenges faced by teachers and occupational therapists in working in partnership, 121–122 collaboration, 119 Engine For White Paper 6, 118 occupational therapists roles in collaboration, 120–121 policies guiding inclusion, 117–118 shortage of occupational therapists in schools, 123 teachers roles in collaboration, 119–120 theoretical framework, 118–119 Quality education, 117–118

223

Rabbit School Organization, 143–144 Realschule, 57 Relatedness, 27 Relevant collaborative training, 85 Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 168 Resource room, 186 Response-to-intervention (RTI), 58 Right of the Persons with Disabilities Law, 169–170 Saudi Arabia education in, 42–43 inclusive and mainstream education in, 41–42 inclusive education and instructional collaboration in Saudi schools, 43–46 Saudi educational system, 42 Save the Children program, 179–181 School committee, 161 School Education Act, 190–191 School Quality Assurance Standards Framework (SQASF), 181–182 School-based occupational therapy, 120 School-related factors, 51 Screening Identification Assessment and Support (SIAS), 116 Segregated education, 140–141 Self-determination theory (SDT), 27 Semarang Special Education Development Center, 159 Sensory integration therapy, 159 Sfondo istituzionale, 73 Sign language, 173 Skills development, 116 Social entrepreneurship, 80 Social exclusion, 2 Social innovation, 80–82 educational inclusive ecosystem, 75–89

224

promoting sustainable and inclusive educational systems through collaboration, 73–75 Social Ministry, 156 Social Welfare Administration, 173–174 Sociocultural activity theory (SCAT), 118–119 Solidarity, 18–19 Sonderp¨adagogischer F¨orderbedarf, 57 South Africa, 116 South African Schools Act (1996), 117–118 Special assistant teachers, 159–160 Special education. See also Inclusive education, 10, 116, 140–141, 148–149, 185–186, 205–206 in Germany, 57–60 interdisciplinary cooperation, special and general educators, 60–64 in Japan, 185–186 pre-and in-service teacher trainings, 64–65 teacher training in, 144–145 Special Education Office (SEO), 142–143 Special educational ambulatory service and counseling, 58–59 Special educational needs (SEN), 2, 56, 140 Special needs children, 152 Special needs education (SNE), 185–186 coordinators, 188–189 in Indonesia, 151–152 Special schools in Lesotho, 129 Speech Pathologists, 212–213 Speech therapy, 159 in special schools, 173–174 Stakeholders engaged in education for children with disabilities, 142–144

INDEX

Status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness model (SCARF model), 3, 24, 35–36 autonomy, 26–27 certainty, 26 and collaboration, 25–28 fairness, 27–28 relatedness, 27 status, 25–26 Status, 25–26 Structure of narrative connection, 73 Student teachers, 3 Students with disabilities, 42 Supporting inclusive education in Lesotho, 131 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 116, 131, 177–178 SDG 4, 117–118, 141–142 Sustainable human development, 72–73 Teacher training center (TTC), 144–145 Teachers, 128 benefits of collaboration between teachers and occupational therapists in schools, 121 challenges faced by teachers and occupational therapists in working in partnership, 121–122 classroom, 18 development, 24 education, 50–51 educational reform and teacher collaboration, 45–46 educators, 24–25 inclusive education, 16–18 roles in collaboration, 119–120 teacher, 50–51 training in special education, 144–145 voices of, 46–49 Team-teaching in joint classes, 58–59 Therapists, 158–160

Index

225

Top-down approach, 76–77 Transdisciplinary approach, 204 Transitional relationship model, 204 Transtheoretical model, 204 Traveling special educators, 63–64 UNESCO, 162 United Nations Convention (UN Convention), 8 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with

United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 142–143 Unity in Diversity, 151–153 Universal design for learning (UDL), 2 Vision impairment, 144–145 Voices of teachers and professors, 46–49 Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), 174–175

Disabilities (UNCRPD), 117 United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 2, 73–74

Wages war, 24–25 White Paper on Rights of People with Disabilities (WPRPD), 117 World Health Organization (WHO), 148

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank