School Inclusion in Lebanon: Integrating Research on Students with Giftedness and Learning Disabilities into Practice 3031347781, 9783031347788

Citation preview

Nidal Jouni Anies Al-Hroub

School Inclusion in Lebanon Integrating Research on Students with Giftedness and Learning Disabilities into Practice

School Inclusion in Lebanon

Nidal Jouni • Anies Al-Hroub

School Inclusion in Lebanon Integrating Research on Students with Giftedness and Learning Disabilities into Practice

Nidal Jouni Department of Education American University of Beirut Beirut, Lebanon

Anies Al-Hroub Department of Education American University of Beirut Beirut, Lebanon

ISBN 978-3-031-34778-8    ISBN 978-3-031-34779-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34779-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

For my wonderful mother Samia, my amazing daughters Yara, Roua, Lilia, and my supportive husband Fayad. – Nidal Jouni To the educators, researchers, and policy makers who tirelessly work towards making schools more inclusive for all marginalized, underrepresented, and vulnerable learners, this book is dedicated to you. – Anies Al-Hroub

Preface

In today's society, the concept of inclusion has become increasingly important, and it has been recognized as a crucial factor in improving the academic performance of all students, including those with special needs. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the impact of inclusion on students' academic performance in Lebanon, where the call for inclusive education is becoming more widespread. This research book aims to address this issue by examining the impact of inclusion on the academic performance of students with and without special needs in a Lebanese school. The study explores three key domains that have been identified as influential in fostering students' academic performance in inclusive settings. The first domain is management and organization, which includes aspects such as school policies, procedures, and infrastructure. The second domain is teaching and learning, which refers to the approaches used by teachers to deliver instruction and the strategies employed to engage students in the learning process. Finally, the third domain is student support and school ethos, which encompasses the school's culture and values, as well as the various forms of support provided to students. To achieve its objectives, this research book compares the academic performance of regular students to that of students with learning disabilities and gifted students. The study seeks to identify the student population that benefits the most from inclusive practices and to determine the practices that contribute most positively to fostering academic performance in each group. The comparison of the three domains across the different student populations is crucial in identifying the most effective strategies that can be employed to promote academic success for all students. The book provides a detailed description of the inclusive practices that have been found to impact students' performance positively. These practices are examined in the context of their contribution to fostering the academic performance of regular students, gifted students, and students with learning disabilities. The book presents an inclusive schooling model that has been empirically proven to positively impact the performance of all student groups. This model offers practical guidance for educators seeking to implement effective inclusive practices in their classrooms.

vii

viii

Preface

It is essential to note that the benefits of inclusive education go beyond academic achievement. Inclusive practices have been shown to foster social and emotional development, enhance self-esteem, and promote a sense of belonging and acceptance among all students. The promotion of diversity and the celebration of differences are central to the philosophy of inclusive education, and the book aims to contribute to this movement by providing evidence-based guidance on how to implement inclusive practices in schools. In conclusion, this research book addresses a crucial issue in the field of education by examining the impact of inclusion on the academic performance of students with and without special needs in a Lebanese school. The study provides a comprehensive analysis of the three key domains that influence academic success in inclusive settings and identifies the practices that contribute most positively to fostering academic performance in each student group. The book offers practical guidance for educators seeking to implement effective inclusive practices in their classrooms and contributes to the growing movement toward inclusive education in Lebanon. 

American University of Beirut, Lebanon

Anies Al-Hroub Nidal Jouni

Contents

 1 E  quitable and Inclusive Education in Lebanon: Policies and Practices for Special Needs Learners in Lebanon ������������������������    1 Anies Al-Hroub, Asma Tilawi, and Nidal Jouni  2 I nclusive Education in Lebanon: An Overview of the Concept and Its Implementation ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   25 Anies Al-Hroub and Nidal Jouni  3 S  tudent Populations in Inclusive Educational Settings Around the Globe and Lebanon ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   37 Anies Al-Hroub and Nidal Jouni  4 H  istorical and Theoretical Approaches to Inclusive Education����������   47 Anies Al-Hroub and Nidal Jouni  5 P  erformance of Students With and Without Special Educational Needs ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   67 Anies Al-Hroub and Nidal Jouni  6 S  pecial Education and Inclusion in Lebanon����������������������������������������   77 Anies Al-Hroub and Nidal Jouni  7 A  Mixed-Method Study on the Impact of Inclusion on the Academic Performance of Students With and Without Special Educational Needs����������������������������������������������������������������������   87 Nidal Jouni and Anies Al-Hroub  8 T  he Impact of Inclusion on Student Performance in Lebanon ����������  109 Nidal Jouni and Anies Al-Hroub  9 I nclusive Education Framework Model for Lebanon��������������������������  133 Asma Tilawi, Anies Al-Hroub, and Nidal Jouni 10 F  uture Directions for Inclusive Education in Lebanese Schools ��������  163 Nidal Jouni and Anies Al-Hroub ix

x

Contents

Appendix I: Rights of People with Disabilities (PwDs), Law 220—May 29, 2000��������������������������������������������������������������������������  179 Appendix II: Catering for Student Differences: Indicators for Inclusion ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  209 Appendix III: Student Performance in Inclusive Settings ��������������������������  243 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  257

List of Figures

Fig. 4.1 Evolution of inclusion from an international comparative perspective����������������������������������������������������������������������  50 Fig. 7.1 Interconnected dimensions of inclusion����������������������������������������������  89 Fig. 7.2 Transformations of dimensions into domains������������������������������������  90 Fig. 7.3 Comparing Lebanon and Hong Kong using Hofstede Insights model������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  94 Fig. 8.1 Ranking of all students’ performance indicators from the most highly rated to the least highly rated �������������������������� 116 Fig. 8.2 Results of the three populations in all domains���������������������������������� 118 Fig. 9.1 Visual representation of RTI �������������������������������������������������������������� 153 Fig. 9.2 Visual representation of RTI implementation ������������������������������������ 154

xi

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Students’ and teachers’ distribution across schools in Lebanon for the academic year 2019–2020 ��������������������������������  4 Table 1.2 Policies, laws, decrees, and national strategic action plans on Inclusive Education in Lebanon��������������������������������������������������  15 Table 2.1 Conceptual projects related to SEN carried out by CERD in Lebanon����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  28 Table 7.1 Distribution of the study sample by type, gender, and school level�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 100 Table 7.2 Number of volunteers for FGDs per level and per population �������� 101 Table 7.3 Number of participants in the qualitative data collection���������������� 102 Table 7.4 Example of conversion of observable features into survey items������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 102 Table 7.5 Converting focus questions in the Indicators for Inclusion into age-appropriate questions���������������������������������������������������������� 104 Table 8.1 Impact of inclusion on student performance among the three populations (regular, gifted, and with learning difficulties)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 111 Table 8.2 Paired comparison of students’ performance ���������������������������������� 112 Table 8.3 Student performance among the three populations (regular, gifted, and with learning difficulties)�������������������������������� 113 Table 8.4 Paired comparison for indicators of students’ performance showing significant differences�������������������������������������������������������� 114 Table 8.5 Inclusive practices by domains among the three populations (regular, gifted, and with LD)���������������������������������������������������������� 117 Table 8.6 Paired comparison for the domain of management and organization ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 118 Table 8.7 Management and organization domain indicators among the three populations (regular, gifted, and with learning difficulties)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 119 xiii

xiv

List of Tables

Table 8.8 Teaching and learning domain indicators among the three populations (regular, gifted, and with learning difficulties)���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 120 Table 8.9 Paired comparison for indicators of teaching and learning domain using post hoc ������������������������������������������������ 123 Table 8.10 Student support and school ethos domain indicators among the three populations (regular, gifted, and with learning difficulties)���������������������������������������������������������� 128 Table 8.11 Paired comparison for indicators of student support and school ethos domain������������������������������������������������������������������ 129

Abbreviations

ALP CAD CERD CRDP DPO D-RASATI EBD EDP FGD GCC GRS ICIDH ICMPD IDEA INEE LD LRE MEHE MENA MOSA NCOD RACE RTI SEN TVET UN UNDP

Accelerated Learning Programs Central Administration of Statistics Center for Educational Research and Development Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Disabled People’s Organisations Developing Rehabilitation Assistance to Schools and Teacher Improvement Emotional Behavioral Disorder Educational Development Project Focus Group Discussion Gulf Cooperation Council Gifted Rating Scales International Classification of Impairment, Disability, and Handicap International Centre for Migration Policy Development Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies Learning Disabilities Least Restrictive Environment Ministry of Education and Higher Education Middle East and North Africa Ministry of Social Affairs National Council on Disability Reaching All Children with Education Response to Intervention Special Educational Needs Technical and Vocational Education and Training United Nations United Nations Development Report

xv

xvi

UNESCO UNHCR UNICEF UNRWA WHO

Abbreviations

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization United Nations Higher Council for Refugees United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East World Health Organization

Chapter 1

Equitable and Inclusive Education in Lebanon: Policies and Practices for Special Needs Learners in Lebanon Anies Al-Hroub, Asma Tilawi, and Nidal Jouni

Abstract  This chapter provides an overview of education in Lebanon, beginning with a profile of the state and an introduction to the education system. The Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE) and the Center for Educational Research and Development (CERD) are discussed, along with the structure of the educational system and enrollment. The chapter then provides an in-depth look at public, private, and specialized schools, including a portrayal of special needs education in Lebanon. International conventions and resolutions are explored, followed by an analysis of inclusive education models in Lebanese private schools. Law 220/2000, the national policy on inclusive education, is introduced, along with the National Educational Plan for Persons with Disabilities and the role of international organizations in the promotion of inclusive education. The chapter concludes with a call to action for the adoption of policies, decrees, and procedures that support the social and educational inclusion of special needs children in Lebanon. It also concludes with recommendations that emphasize adopting a unified definition and promoting active involvement of individuals with disabilities in education planning, highlighting the importance of standardizing terminology, investing in teacher training, and strengthening monitoring systems for inclusive education in Lebanon.

Lebanon Profile Lebanon is one of the smallest countries in the Arabic world (10,230 square kilometers). The current population of Lebanon is 6,825,445, based on United Nations Worldometer (2023). Lebanon has the highest per capita refugee population in the world, hosting an estimated 1.5 million Syrians (Al-Hroub, 2022; UNHCR, 2021) and 174,000 Palestinians (ICMPD, 2019). Lebanon’s literacy rates (95.07%) are A. Al-Hroub (*) · N. Jouni Department of Education, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon e-mail: [email protected] A. Tilawi Lebanese University, Letters and Human Sciences (FLHS), Hadath, Lebanon © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Jouni, A. Al-Hroub, School Inclusion in Lebanon, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34779-5_1

1

2

A. Al-Hroub  et al.

higher than the average rates in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region (Abdul-Hamid, et al., 2017), a ratio of 84% of students attended pre-compulsory education, and 97% of students enrolled in compulsory primary education according to the 2016 United Nations Development Report (UNDP) and Al-Hroub (2022). The official language used in Lebanon is Arabic, with additional use of French, English, and Armenian (INEE, 2020). About half of the Lebanese people are bilingual, and a good number of those who attended private schools are trilingual (Al-Hroub, 2022; Zouein, 2003). For instance, in one conversation, most people communicate by alternating between Arabic, French, and English.

1.1 The Educational System in Lebanon: An Overview Following Lebanon’s independence in 1943, the Ministry of Education was established to prepare its citizens and enable them to be involved in the development of the state (Frayha, 2003). The Lebanese education system is governed primarily by two entities: the Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE) and the Center for Educational Research and Development (CERD). MEHE is in charge of supervising the whole education sector, from the authorization of national policies to the running of service delivery in public schools, in addition to overseeing private schools and other educational institutions. CERD, a self-governed entity under the auspices of MEHE, is responsible for national strategic planning, the development of curriculum and textbooks, educational research, teacher training, and evaluation. The initial goal of MEHE and CERD is to develop a state system that provides free remarkable education as evidenced by the MEHE’s 2013 mission statement. The Mission of the National Education Strategy (MEHE, 2004) in Lebanon states that the MEHE is concerned to provide equal opportunity education. While the statement to build the education system outlined in the Ministry’s vision was well-­ founded, the public school system wished for has been incompetent. During the Civil War, Lebanese schools suffered a great deal, which resulted in poor quality education. In specific, the educational system of public schools was incompetent and disintegrated due to various political and religious parties (Frayha, 2003). Post-Civil War, extensive efforts were initiated to reform education. The outcome was three education reforms, two of which took place in 1994 and 2010. The third contemporary reform, Reaching All Children with Education, RACE I (2014–2016) followed by RACE II (2017–2020), emerged after the Syrian crisis (MEHE, 2017). The Plan for Educational Reform in 1994 resulted in the implementation of a new curriculum in 1997. However, the updated Lebanese national curriculum and correlated pedagogical benchmarks still needed to be more student-centered and cater to necessary life skills. In 2006, a second education reform initiative started and ended with the publication of “Quality Education for Growth, National Education Strategy Framework, and Education Sector Development Plan (GE) 2010–2015.” The current RACE project caters to Syrian refugee students and Lebanese students alike as per the MEHE publication (2017).

1  Equitable and Inclusive Education in Lebanon…

3

Private as well as public schools adopt the basic National Curriculum mandated by the Lebanese government. Private schools supplement this curriculum with topics relevant to the goals of each school (Haidar, 2002). The majority of public and private schools are coeducational with most of the teachers and administrators being women.

1.2 Structure of the Educational System in Lebanon The structure of the educational system in Lebanon consists of a 2-year cycle of preschool education, 9 years of compulsory basic education, and 3 years of secondary academic or vocational education after which the students sit for a General Certificate of Secondary Education Exam—Baccalauréat (or Terminale). Formal education at schools is structured in three phases: (a) preschool education (ages 03–05); (b) basic education (ages 6–14), divided into cycle 1 (Grades 1 to 3), cycle 2 (Grades 4 to 6), and cycle 3 (Grades 7 to 9); and (c) secondary education (ages 15–18; Grades 10–12), sometimes known as cycle 4. Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) is considered a formal education (as a parallel option after cycle 3) (Vlaardingerbroek et al., 2017). The system requires an examination filter at the end of cycle 3 (i.e., after Grade 9) and a terminating examination at the end of cycle 4. These examinations commonly remain referred to as the Brevet and Baccalauréat (or Terminale), respectively. The main three languages, English and/or French with Arabic, are taught from early years in Lebanese schools. English or French is the mandatory media of instruction and assessment for mathematics and three science subjects (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics) for all schools (43% French, 33% English, and 23% English & French) (CERD, 2020; Vlaardingerbroek et al., 2011). Arabic is the official language in Lebanon taught in schools. All schools offer bilingual education, having Arabic as the first language and French or English as the second language. In nursery grade levels, Arabic, along with the foreign language, is introduced. The foreign language turns out to be the language of instruction for most subjects in the upper elementary and secondary grades, and a second foreign language is taught in cycle 3. Many schools are introducing a second foreign language at the primary level (Al-Hroub, 2011, 2022).

1.3 Educational Provision and School Enrollment in Lebanon The number of students for the 2019–2020 school year in all education sectors in Lebanon reached 1,069,826 including 3614 students from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) schools. The majority of students are Lebanese (85.2%), followed by Syrians (8.8%), Palestinians (4.6%), and other nationalities (1.4%). According to the “Statistical Bulletin for the academic year 2019–2020” issued by the Ministry of Education and Higher

4

A. Al-Hroub  et al.

Table 1.1  Students’ and teachers’ distribution across schools in Lebanon for the academic year 2019–2020 Type of school Public Subsidized Private Nonsubsidized private UNRWA Total

% of schools 43.1% 12.3%

# of teachers 40,729 7468

Total % enrolment 32% 12.5%

# of females 180,939 63,854

% of females 52.9% 47.9%

# of males 161,364 69,587

% of males 47.1% 52.1%

42.3%

51,215

52.2%

270,700

48.5%

287,368 51.5%

2.3% 100%

1658 101,137

3.3% 100%

18,959 534,452

52.6% 49.9%

17,055 47.4% 535,374 50.1%

Al-Hroub (2022), CERD (2020)

Education (MEHE) and the Center for Educational Research and Development (CERD), there are 2861 schools in Lebanon distributed as follows: public schools (43%) and private schools (57%), among which free schools (12%), with charges (42%), and UNRWA schools (2%). The number of schoolteachers and administrators is 101,137 (19,860 males, 81,277 females) (Al-Hroub, 2022; CERD, 2020). Table 1.1 shows that slightly less than two-thirds of students attend private subsidized or nonsubsidized schools, approximately one-third attend public schools, whereas only 3.3% attend UNRWA schools that cater to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Most students (52.2%) are enrolled in schools in Lebanon that are registered in private fee-paying schools. It is worth noting that school enrolment rates for females and males are very similar in Lebanon at all school types, with a slight increase in female enrolment at public and UNRWA schools (Al-Hroub, 2022; CERD, 2020). The school enrolment rate at the elementary level, for both males and females, is very high. The CERD report in 2020 reveals results touching 98% and 95%, respectively, for age groups 5–9 and 10–14, which declined to approximately 70% for the age group 15–19 (Al-Hroub, 2022; CERD, 2020). Public Schools One thousand two hundred and fifty-seven state schools, also called public or government schools, are spread in all Lebanese regions and are free of charge at all levels (MEHE, 2017). The schools function under governmental authorities and welcome all those who apply if they meet the appropriate age range for their group and pass the entrance exam live in the school neighborhood. The MEHE controls all the public education institutions through centralized regional education bureaus, which act as a liaison between public schools and the directorates of the governorates of Lebanon. Principals of these schools have little authority, for almost everything seems to be decreed to them by the MEHE starting from the recruitment of teachers and staff, distribution of teaching hours to teachers, student distribution in classes, and registration. Hence, principals have no say in decisions relating to their schools. Challenged by shortages of qualified teachers and aging infrastructure, education in Lebanon is highly privatized and serves less than a third of school-aged children

1  Equitable and Inclusive Education in Lebanon…

5

enrolled in public schools (Al-Hroub, 2022) To the advantage of private schools, the registration of Lebanese students in public schools has been declining due to the quality gap between the two systems and the convenience of semi-free private schools commonly affiliated with organizations. On the bright side, the recovery plan set by the MEHE in 1994 succeeded in (a) updating the curricula by the end of 2000, (b) drafting a law that has not been ratified by the Parliament to mandate basic education until the age of 15 instead of 12, (c) providing free public education funded by beneficiary grants, (d) providing professional development to school administrators with support of the Faculty of Education of the Lebanese University, and (e) improving the performance of MEHE and the integration of Educational Management Information System. As per the MEHE’s “Quality Education for Growth Plan” (2010) and the progress report published by the Council of Development and Reconstruction (2016), the main problems within the education sector in public schools are as follows: (a) providing equal opportunities for every student in enrolment, school attendance, and success; (b) poor education quality, specifically the Kindergarten and primary cycle curricula; (c) shortage in qualified teachers and staff; (d) inadequate buildings and educational resources; (e) insufficient administrative staff at the school level; and (f) restricted protocols to sustain reform. In 2009, the Educational Development Project (EDP) funded by a World Bank loan finalized the rehabilitation of 11 public schools and adopted an education strategy. Between 2010 and 2015, the Education Development Project was put into action through the collaboration of the MEHE, the Educational Center for Research and Development (CERD), and foreign funding sources. The offspring was the USAID-funded Developing Rehabilitation Assistance to Schools and Teacher Improvement (D-RASATI) program. According to USAID’s D-RASATI II (2016), quality public education is far from being reached in Lebanon because of inadequate resources, infrastructure, educational technology facilities, and competent teachers of English language and Information Communication Technology (ICT). By the end of the project, 183 public schools and 6 training centers were reformed, 1282 public school infrastructures were examined, the science labs of 238 secondary public schools and 6 training centers were renovated, and the National Educational Technology Strategic Plan (ICT) was launched to be realized via an action plan; 170 inspectors and counselors were trained to do class observation for teacher evaluation, training the trainers on methods of teaching, in addition to English language training for teachers and leadership professional development for principals (CERD, 2016; USAID, 2016). Despite the efforts to make the ICT plan succeed and the training of teachers to employ technology in their classrooms, results were unsatisfactory and less than anticipated. Since the researchers train pre-service teachers in public schools, they have witnessed that only the student teachers made use of the computer tools available in the classrooms. About 40% of the teaching and administrative staff of public schools do not hold university degrees as per CERD’s report (2016). With the Syrian crisis and the immense burden laid on the education sector, the MEHE, and some education sector associates developed an education response

6

A. Al-Hroub  et al.

plan, the Reaching All Children with Education (RACE I) Strategy (2014–2016) followed by RACE II (2017–2020). The general goals of the RACE program are to provide equitable admission to schools, enhance the quality of schooling, as well as improve the decrees and monitoring of the Lebanese education system. In collaboration with international parties, the MEHE enrolled around 42% of Syrian children in public schools from 2015 to 2016. Other children were registered in regulated Accelerated Learning Programs (ALP) devised to help them transfer into formal education (UN, 2017). Fortunately, few public schools are ready to deliver academic materials and additional activities such as sports, arts, and music. MEHE has reconstructed several public schools to accommodate large numbers of students and closed several inefficient small schools. Further, charity organizations are providing donations to the renovation of several public schools. Private Schools The private school system has a long history of religious affiliation; they may get the support of local Islamic associations, French Jesuits, American, or British Protestant missions (Najjar, 2008). One thousand five hundred and twenty-seven fee-paying and government-subsidized private schools are spread all over the Lebanese territory (MEHE, 2017). Some are fee-paying, while others are government-­subsidized. The well-off Lebanese attend considerably high fee-paying private schools. Unlike public schools and under slight authority from the MEHE, private schools are autonomous institutions whose principals are free to decide on the curriculum, recruitment, extracurricular activities, fund-raising, professional development, and student admission. To maintain a prestigious reputation, school image, and high scores on the national official exams, most private schools strive to attract and cater to the privileged elite students leaving behind poor achievers and, specifically, SEN students. Some private mainstream schools in Lebanon offer special educational services and are categorized as “inclusive schools” (N = 76) in the Directory of Inclusive Schools published by CERD in 2016 and updated by SKILD in 2022. The number of private inclusive schools is as follows: Beirut (N = 16), Mount Lebanon (N = 35), North of Lebanon (N = 8), South of Lebanon (N = 10), and Bekaa (N = 7). Specialized Schools Advocates of civil society and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) run these specialized free-of-charge schools. These schools depend on grants, donations, and funded projects. The Ministry of Social Affairs (MOSA) provides partial funding to these institutions. The main function of these schools is to provide primary special education and vocational training as an alternative to regular mainstream education for students with special needs. Some of these schools are the foster house of many children with average to severe disabilities. Special Needs in Lebanon Inclusive education in Lebanon has been an issue because of the social and economic fluctuations happening in the country. The 2012 Central Administration of

1  Equitable and Inclusive Education in Lebanon…

7

Statistics (CAS) estimated poverty in Lebanon at 27%. The latest datasets revealed that almost 28% of Lebanese families are classified as poor (CERD, 2016). Poverty is still growing with the prevalent sum of SEN children whose parents cannot afford the required services (UNESCO, 2013a). Hence, those children are not receiving the help needed to deal with their disabilities, which increases the number of SEN children. Not only poverty but also the Civil War coupled with the 2006 war with Israel did add the impairment of thousands of more individuals, the consequences of which are still being suffered today. Clear statistical data on those with SEN in Lebanon is essential, for there are no available statistics on the SEN population as per CAS.  While the percentage of people with disabilities is estimated to be 1.5% of the population, a UN survey expects the figure to be 10% of the global population (UNESCO, 2013a). The reason behind that is the lack of a conventional definition system of disability categorization (Mansour, 2011). Even though the Ministry of Social Affairs (MOSA) has started to provide disability cards to individuals with a disability, who register themselves voluntarily since the 1990s, many have been reluctant to register. Until the end of January 2013, only 80,703 were registered persons with disabilities in Lebanon, corresponding to 18% of the whole population of persons with disabilities (UNESCO, 2013a). Within the Lebanese context, SEN children have difficulties accessing many public and private schools in Lebanon whose buildings are not equipped, curricula are not adapted, and whose human and physical resources are not provided. Most of the SEN students are not in an IE system. SENs are dealt with through nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), organizations launched by parents of SEN children, and other service providers under the umbrella of the MOSA, which monitors the educational and rehabilitation programs of those centers. Children with mild SENs are generally not accepted in public or private schools (Wehbi, 2006), and if they happen to be admitted, they are left to suffer or drop out as very few schools are professionally able to cater to their needs. A survey launched by Tabet aimed at identifying the numbers and types of SEN students in public schools as a part of The National Educational Plan for persons with disabilities (PWD). According to the results of this study, 75,671 SEN students were included in public schools distributed all over the Lebanese regions, unlike the figures of school-aged disability cardholders issued by the MOSA (Tabet, 2014). Responses received from secondary teachers were disregarded due to the limited response rate. CERD referred to the limited enrolment of SEN students in secondary mainstream education in Lebanon. The results of the survey revealed a discrepancy in the responses between different education regions concerning the identified SEN students having a “disability.” Khochen (2017) referred this to the definition of “disability” that the survey adopted and to the population’s failure to identify SEN students. Recently, some private schools pioneered serving SEN children by providing an inclusion program that offers a curriculum modified and tailored to mild SEN. Inspired by the demonstrated effectiveness of this program, a small number of private schools are now in the prospect of developing IE programs for children with

8

A. Al-Hroub  et al.

SEN. However, what they describe as inclusion ranges from simple full physical inclusion to partial inclusion in a regular classroom without providing appropriate support. It may be due to their unawareness of, or dedication to, the essential practices of inclusion. The predicament escalates with the shortage of teachers and other paraprofessionals who advocate the philosophy and believe in the convenience of inclusion. Even though the present framework of educating children SEN in Lebanon seems uninviting, there is a potential hope for a better upcoming future. Many factors underlie this potential hope energized by six pillars: (a) Lebanon’s endorsement of international conventions and resolutions, (b) inclusive education models in some private schools, (c) Law 2000/220 and related decrees, (d) the National Educational Plan for Persons with Disability, (e) role of international organizations, and (f) role of the Lebanese higher education institutions.

1.4 Endorsement of International Conventions and Resolutions Like several other countries in the Arab region, Lebanon has ratified multiple international conventions pertaining to human rights and disability issues. The most recent ratification made by Lebanon in 2023 was that of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (Peters, 2009) (MEHE & CERD, 2023). We can mention several international conventions, such as (a) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), (b) the Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960), (c) the World Declaration on Education for All (UN, 1990a), (d) the International Convention on the Rights of Children (UN, 1990b), (e) the Standard Rules for the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1993); and (f) the Salamanca Declaration concerning the principles, policies, and practices for the education of persons with special needs (UNESCO, 1994). The latest one is the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development that Lebanon adopted among 193 states (2015). Aiming at leaving no one behind, the agenda is a commitment of member states to several goals whose result is a more sustainable world, one of which is quality inclusive education represented in SDG4. Thus, Lebanon has endorsed several international conventions that uphold the right to education for everyone, opening with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights through many United Nations statements and concluding with the Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1993), which pushes countries to upgrade their educational systems and serve people with disabilities. Lebanon’s first ambassador to the USA and UN, Charles Malik, was one of the key people that framed the Declaration. The Lebanese Constitution of 1990 commits Lebanon to apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and human rights treaties. However, not all aspects are considered. According to a UN report on human rights practices in Lebanon (UN, 2017), although banned by law, persons

1  Equitable and Inclusive Education in Lebanon…

9

with disabilities struggled with discrimination. The MEHE specifies that the construction of a new school building includes all necessary accommodations to receive students with physical needs; yet, almost all the public schools are not ready to receive SEN students. In 1964, Lebanon ratified the 1960 Convention against Discrimination in Education (UNESCO, 2013a, b). Going further, Lebanon took part in the World Conference on Education for All that was held in Jomtien, Thailand. Lebanon also signed the World Declaration on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs (EFA), the resolution of a UNESCO-sponsored conference held in Jomtien, Thailand (March 5–9, 1990). The Declaration states: “Basic education should be provided to all children... To this end, basic education services of quality should be expanded, and consistent measures must be taken to reduce disparities” (UN, 1990a, Article 3.1, p.  3). The principles of the Declaration are incorporated into the National Educational Plan for Persons with Disabilities that was launched in January 2012, which stresses providing special consideration to the learning needs of persons with disabilities and taking the necessary procedures to ensure the accessibility of all categories of disabilities as part of the educational system (UNESCO, 2013b). In 1991, Lebanon decided to follow and implement internationally accepted standards for all children and, thus, ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which states among other things the following: “Children have the right to education. Primary Education should be free, and all children should be required to attend. Secondary Education should be accessible to every child.” However, in 1996, the Convention on the Rights of the Child reported Lebanon was not implementing the necessary measures to meet the requirements delineated in the mandate (Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1996). Up to this date, Lebanon has submitted five reports (reports four and five combined) to the UN International Committee on the Rights of the Child on its progress in realizing the CRC (CRC, 2017). In the latest report of June 2017, the Committee appreciated the State party for the high enrolment rates in public schools, for raising the age of compulsory education to 15 years, for expanding early childhood education, and for adopting numerous measures to ensure Syrian refugee children have access to education, including the implementation of the Convention in terms of “Reaching All Children Through Education” (RACE I and II) initiative and the Education National Strategy 2010–2015: Quality Education for Growth presented earlier. In addition, Lebanon, among 92 governments and 25 international organizations sanctioned the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education, adopted at a UNESCO-sponsored conference held in Salamanca, Spain (June 7–10, 1994), which upholds that schools are to welcome all children and support IE. In May 2000, the Lebanese Parliament enforced Law 220. This law, which presents a legislative frame for guarding the rights of people with disabilities, will be further, studied in a subsequent section. In 2004, the MEHE published the National Strategy for Education for All (2004–2015), based on the objectives of the World Conference on Education for All. Furthermore, in 2007, Lebanon signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRDP) (Peters, 2009). Despite 2013 being declared as the year of persons with disabilities and the

10

A. Al-Hroub  et al.

Convention being predicted to be endorsed, the process was interrupted due to political issues (UNESCO, 2013b). In 2010, the MEHE published Quality Education for Growth (2010–2015) to confirm the right to education for all and emphasize international declarations and conventions to which Lebanon is a signatory. It highlighted some priorities like promoting equal opportunity to quality education and having the infrastructure to welcome SEN learners. In September 2015, Lebanon, among 193 states, adopted the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development agreed upon at the Sustainable Development Summit. The historical agenda, which includes 17 SDGs built on the preceding MDGs, envisioned how the world should look in 2030 (UN, 2015). Aiming at leaving no one behind, the agenda is a commitment of member states to several goals whose result is a more sustainable world, one of which is quality inclusive education represented in SDG4. Goal 4 of the SDGs dictated: “inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all.” Accordingly, the inclusive education agenda with a focus on SEN children continues to move forward under the SDGs that were launched in 2016. In 2021, the MEHE developed a 5-year General Education Plan for Lebanon (2021–2025) that aims to transform the education system to contribute to the country’s overall socio-economic development vision, while fulfilling its international commitments in education (SDG 4) and reducing vulnerabilities such as gender, disabilities, and special education needs. The plan vision emphasizes good-quality education for all and promotes the inclusion of students at risk, including those with disabilities, to develop responsible, active, innovative citizens and workforce (MEHE, 2021). The MEHE 5-year plan for the year 2021 encompassed the following key components: (a) a delineated stage aimed at enhancing school inclusion and removing impediments that impede effective learning and active engagement among students, (b) the establishment of national systems with the capacity to provide equitable access to high-quality early child education (ECE) for all children in an inclusive fashion, and (c) a pronounced emphasis on the implementation of curriculum reforms and learning assessments, with the primary objective of establishing a comprehensive and inclusive curriculum that addresses the diverse needs of students, thereby ensuring effective education for all learners (MEHE, 2021). As stated earlier, in 2023, the Lebanese government ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRDP) (MEHE & CERD, 2023).

1.5 Inclusive Education Models in Private Schools in Lebanon Several private schools in Lebanon have initiated different models of inclusion, which can be categorized as follows: (a) full inclusion in a regular classroom with accommodations, (b) full inclusion in a regular classroom with a shadow teacher, (c) partial inclusion in a regular classroom with pull out sessions, and (d) SE classes in a regular school (Dirani, 2018; Nadjarian, 2009; Oweini & El-Zein, 2014). Other

1  Equitable and Inclusive Education in Lebanon…

11

schools accept mild SEN students who can manage the mainstream education requirements on their own or with the support of their parents. In several cases, SEN students are enrolled in mainstream schools where they receive support provisions from the special schools or NGOs to which they are affiliated. Here the student receives a basic form of support from mainstream school along with the provision of a special visiting teacher that helps in customizing the subject materials, assists in exam reading/writing, and transports the child to and from school (Khochen, 2017). Moreover, many SEN students registered by MOSA with disability cards are enrolled in private inclusive schools through the financial support of the government.

1.6 Inclusive Education-Related Lebanese Policy: Law 220/2000 and Related Decrees In conjunction with the Ministry of Social Affairs (MOSA), the Bill of Rights, drafted by advocacy groups including war-injured and individuals with disabilities, was finally declared as Law 2000/220, in May 2000. This Lebanese law was the outcome of lobbying and advocacy of stakeholders in the country, such as disabled people organizations (DPOs). This Lebanese law, according to UNESCO (2013a), “… is comprehensive in terms of covering all aspects connected to the life of PWDs” (p.11). It also defined the strategy to be followed by the National Council on Disability (NCOD). “… even though the Lebanese law does not adopt the rightsbased approach paradigm, it meets many of the basic international standards” (p. 11). Despite its issuance in the year 2000, the law still lacks executive mandate and enforcement. DPOs have been the most determined dynamic members of the NCOD in pushing the implementation of the law. The term “disability” in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), is described as “an umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. It denotes the negative aspects of the interaction between an individual (with a health condition) and that individual’s contextual factors (environmental and personal factors)” (WHO, 2001, p.  213 as cited in WHO & World Bank, 2011). In the same vein, a broad and inclusive definition of disability is set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRDP, 2006). CERD explained that “Recognising that disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others” (Preamble, Paragraph e). Lebanese Law 220/2000 encompasses specific provisions regarding the definition and enrollment of individuals with disabilities in educational institutions. It was stated in Article 1 that “Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments, which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an

12

A. Al-Hroub  et al.

equal basis with others” (Article 1, p. 4). There is no indication in the law for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, or children with emotional and behavioral problems (Berri & Al-Hroub, 2016; Shehab & Al-Hroub, 2019; Luor et al., 2022). Article 2 of this law adopts the medical model of disability, which focuses on the medical aspects of disabilities and excludes the social model that emphasizes societal barriers. However, it is important to note that having a disability does not, in itself, impose any limitations on enrollment in educational institutions, as clarified in Article 60 of the law. Regarding the right to education, Lebanese Law 220/2000 stipulates that equal educational and learning opportunities must be ensured for all individuals with disabilities, both children and adults, in both public and private general education (GE) classrooms. Accordingly, provisions are made to accommodate different forms of disability during exams. However, a critical analysis of Law 220 by Al-Hroub (2015a, b, 2022) argues that the law does not explicitly state the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in general education schools. Consequently, it cannot be broadly asserted that Law 220 unequivocally endorses the policy of inclusion in the Lebanese context. Article 63 specifies that an educational committee specialized in the education of PWD, to be headed by the Director-General of the MEHE and includes a member of the National Committee of PWD is accountable for attending to the implementation of the sections related to education in the law. However, the National Council of Persons with Disability, a committee elected by persons with disability, stakeholders, and representatives of the MOSA, does not have any executive responsibility. While the purpose of Law 220 is to maintain inclusive education in mainstream educational settings, the results are still elusive because of poor governmental implementation (LPHU, 2003; Coalition of Civil Society Groups Active in Lebanon, 2010). Since the establishment of Law 220, the proportion of SEN students in mainstream Lebanese public schools is still negligible (UNESCO, 2010; The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2010). The articulation of Law 220 is evident to ensure the rights of SEN individuals, but the decree is yet to broaden the definition of disability and to state the mechanisms necessary to apply the law (LPHU, 2011). One of the main causes of slow advancement in implementing inclusive education is the stigma associated with “disabilities” producing negative mindsets of denial by the typical society (Coleridge, 1993; Nagata, 2008; Peters, 2009; Wehbe & Lakkis, 2010). Albeit Law 220, many schools still refrain from enrolling students with SEN simply because they are either ill-equipped with resources or lack trained professionals that are essential for providing a suitable education to SEN students. If an ill-equipped school accepts SEN students, they are kept suffering unattended and marginalized. The reason that justifies the current situation is that our educational system and teachers are not capable of implementing the law. Accordingly, many SEN children are still generally blocked out of private or public schools, and they are referred to NGO-specialized centers supported by the MOSA. As such, they enroll either in

1  Equitable and Inclusive Education in Lebanon…

13

specialized schools or in government-subsidized institutions. Children with SEN are either at-risk of failure or dropping out of school since most schools are not ready or willing to cater to their learning differences. Nevertheless, the law gives the MOSA the authority for disability issues and appoints a National Committee on Disability Affairs as the executive agency for supervising the implementation of the law. On the other hand, in the law, it is specified that the MEHE is to finance specialized schools and their education facilities (article 61). However, the ministry does not have a unit to address the needs of SEN students, not even administering interventions in sign language or Braille. Instead, the MOSA runs specialized education or vocational rehabilitation institutes. To date, the law in question has not been fully enacted through executive decrees or decisions, but some exceptions have been made regarding educational matters. For example, Decree No. 11853/2024 establishes a specialized committee for the education of people with disabilities, which will provide technical, artistic, and educational consultations and assistance, as well as prepare integrated projects to establish a national library, a national printing press using Braille, and unify sign language. Other decrees, such as Decree No. 16417/2006 and Decree No. 9533/2012, pertain to the exemption from official exams for individuals with learning difficulties and special educational needs (CERD, 2012, 2020). However, Decree No. 9138/2022 revokes these previous decrees and pertains to determining the cases in which people with learning difficulties, special educational, psychological, and chronic diseases are exempt from official exams for the third cycle and the general secondary certificate (Saifan & Saloum, 2023). Despite these exceptions, no decree has been announced to fully enact the law that was declared more than two decades ago. While Lebanese decrees proclaim free and mandatory education and inclusion of SEN students, binding decrees are yet to support these laws. Specific measures and practical mechanisms for the enforcement of the law need to be taken. It is when putting into effect these instigating decrees that security forces have the power to monitor and protect marginalized children. Alas, if accountability measures are not developed, this law will remain a cliché slogan.

1.7 The National Educational Plan on Inclusive Education for Children with SEN A spark of hope appeared in the skyline in 2012 when the Center for Educational Research and Development (CERD) of the Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE) revealed the blueprint of the National Educational Plan for Persons with Disabilities. The plan reveals the objectives of realizing inclusive education in public schools. The inclusive schools’ program adopted the UNESCO’s 2005 definition of inclusion which defines it as:

14

A. Al-Hroub  et al. A process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all learners through increasing participation in learning…, and reducing exclusion within and from education. It involves changes and modifications in content, approaches, structures and strategies, with a common vision which covers all children of the appropriate age range and a conviction that it is the responsibility of the state to educate all children’ Inclusion is a process. Inclusion has to be seen as a never-ending search to find better ways of responding to diversity. It is about learning how to live with difference and learning how to learn from difference. (MEHE, 2018, p. 3)

In 2018, the Directorate General of Education formally adopted the concept of “inclusive education” and “children with special educational needs” in a total of 30 public schools that were evenly distributed across all governorates. Recognizing the contemporary nature of inclusive education, this decision necessitated the provision of essential support to educators, caregivers, and students. Consequently, MEHE, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, particularly UNICEF, and coordination with CERD, undertook various initiatives. These initiatives included capacity-­ building programs for teachers, raising awareness among caregivers, ensuring the availability of necessary educational tools and resources, and establishing a specialized team of experts to assist in the implementation of inclusive education within the aforementioned 30 schools. Additionally, the Ministry took the initiative to commence the rehabilitation of school buildings and infrastructure, aiming to make them accessible to all learners. To date, the number of inclusive schools in our country has expanded to 110, serving as a crucial milestone toward the realization of our commitment to achieving inclusive education nationwide by the year 2030 (MEHE & CERD, 2023). In 2021, the MEHE developed a 5-year general education plan that aims to provide access to equitable and quality education for all children living in Lebanon, while also strengthening the resilience of the public education system to effectively manage crises. As stated in the plan: “All children living in Lebanon will have access to equitable and quality basic education, secondary education, TVET, and higher education” (MEHE, 2021, p. 6). The plan also aims to fulfill international commitments in education and reduce vulnerabilities such as disabilities and special education needs. In addition, the plan emphasizes the promotion of the inclusion of students at risk, including those with disabilities, to develop responsible, active, innovative citizens and workforce (MEHE, 2021). In June 2023, MEHE launched the “National Policy for Inclusive Education,” which represents the culmination of extensive endeavors directed toward the attainment and effective execution of this undertaking, thereby reflecting our steadfast dedication to upholding the entitlement of every child to receive education of high quality that embodies inclusivity. The Policy underwent a comprehensive development process involving diverse stakeholders. Initiated in February 2022, the process encompassed a desk review, situational analysis, and engagement of national and international consultants. Participation was sought from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations (CSOs), international agencies, universities, organizations of persons with disabilities (OPDs), school representatives, as well as children with special needs and their families. From March to December 2022, extensive consultations were conducted both in-person and online, gathering

1  Equitable and Inclusive Education in Lebanon…

15

detailed information on the state of inclusive education in Lebanon. The consultations aimed to establish a shared vision, outline commitments and intervention areas, and collaboratively develop a framework for the Policy (MEHE & CERD, 2023). To ensure inclusivity and relevance, specific sections of the Inclusive Education Policy document were shared and deliberated with stakeholders according to their respective roles in educational inclusion. The document underwent modifications to incorporate the visions and commitments of stakeholders and government partners, ensuring contextualization and feasibility. In December 2022, an updated draft of the Policy was presented, followed by a series of consultative workshops, focus group discussions, and stakeholder reviews conducted between January and May 2023. These activities culminated in the finalization of the Policy (MEHE & CERD, 2023). The Lebanese Inclusive Education Policy is intricately connected to a range of national policies, laws, decrees, and strategic action plans at the national level as shown in Table 1.2. Table 1.2  Policies, laws, decrees, and national strategic action plans on Inclusive Education in Lebanon Document Year Statement 1995 “Education shall be free insofar as Lebanese it is not contrary to public order Constitution (with and morals and does not affect the amendments) dignity of any of the religions or – Article 10 sects.” Law 220 2000 “Each and every disabled person shall have the right to education. The law shall ensure equal opportunities for the education of all disabled persons, children or adults, within all educational institutions of any kind, in regular classes thereof and in special classes, if necessary.” Decree No. 11853 2004 “Formation of a committee for the education of persons with disability and special needs.”

Decision No. 12

2019 “The term “disabled people” will be replaced by “people with special needs” … Assigning December 3 of each year as the National Day for Inclusion of Children with Special Needs.”

Target Provide free quality education for all

Ensure access of all children with disability to education no matter what

Form a national committee for the education of children with disability headed by the DG of Education with members from different ministries, Universities, and schools, with the support of experts when needed Use the term special needs in all official documents and celebrate the national day for inclusion. Therefore, the term children with special needs and children with disability will be used interchangeably in this policy document based on the context (continued)

16

A. Al-Hroub  et al.

Table 1.2 (continued) Document Decree No. 9138

Year Statement 2022 “Exempting children with learning difficulties, special educational and psychological needs, and chronic diseases from the school and official exams for the third cycle (G7 to G9), and determining their conditions in these classes when they should not be exempted from the exams, in addition to the conditions of those who have reached the official exams for the general secondary certificate (G12).” MEHE 5-Year 2021 “Improve school inclusion and Plan: Program 1.3 remove barriers to learning and participation.” MEHE 5-Year 2021 “National systems can provide Plan: Program 2.2 equitable, high quality and inclusive Early Childhood Education (ECE) for all children.” 2021 “An effective and inclusive MEHE 5-Year curriculum is in place.” Plan: Priority Area 5— Curriculum, Reforms, Learning Assessments 2022 “The curriculum is based on Lebanese principles focused on the learner National being the centre of and partner in Framework learning, providing equal for the General opportunities and ensuring Education: inclusion of children with special Curriculum needs….”

Target Provide the necessary adaptations/exemptions for learners with difficulties on a case-by-case basis

Move forward with the inclusion program with the aim of improving quality and eliminating barriers to education Begin inclusion from ECE

Develop a flexible and updated curriculum

Provide a framework for the reform of the general education curriculum with a focus on inclusive education

MEHE & CERD (2023, pp. 13–14)

1.8 Role of International Organizations Several international organizations have considerable contributions to school improvement and reform such as The United Nations (UN), United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), and the British Council. In association with MEHE, many international organizations in Lebanon, such as the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) led by the Arab Regional Office of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) located in Beirut, planned three

1  Equitable and Inclusive Education in Lebanon…

17

national conferences on SE (held in April 1999 and June 2000) to collect recommendations of stakeholders and formulate an action plan. Upon the appointment of a new Cabinet of Ministers including a new MEHE, the conference follow-up activities to form committees and delegate projects were discontinued. Besides, the UN organizations, along with other international organizations, have a significant job in promoting educational and social services in Lebanon. In 2008, the 48th session of the International Conference on Education (ICE) was held in Geneva and resulted in a broadened concept of IE aiming to achieve quality education for all (UNESCO IBE, 2008). Further, the British Council contributed to developing inclusive education provision by launching the National Day for Students with learning difficulties in April 2013 followed by a set of workshops by UK consultants. In the same direction, a Memorandum of Understanding was established between MEHE, Smart Kids with Individual Learning Differences (SKILD), CERD, and the British Council as a framework of collaboration toward supporting inclusion in Lebanon. A conference to support the inclusive practice facilitated by UK professionals followed by campaigns to raise inclusive education awareness in April (British Council, 2017). Along the same line, in 2013, the British Council organized a study visit to the UK where many Lebanese teachers, policymakers, and parents participated in a training program, conferences, and workshops, run by UK experts and teachers. The participants were inspired by the study visits, where they saw some of the ways that the requirements of SEN children are met (Walshe, 2014). In 2013, UNESCO Office in Lebanon completed an Assessment of the Level of Inclusiveness of Public Policies (UNESCO, 2014). Because of increasing inclusiveness and social sustainability, especially for persons with disabilities (PWD), the assessment attempted to upkeep national efforts to evaluate, compare, and reform national policy and governing frameworks after the Parliament endorsement of Law 220/2000 on disability. The report highlighted the National Action Plan for Persons with Disabilities prepared by CERD in 2012. Add to this the national strategy for accessibility of children with disabilities prepared by the Higher Council for Childhood (HCC). Meanwhile, there is no law to protect PWD; MOSA with the help of some NGOs is working to offer them the needed services. Toward the end of 2015, UNESCO in partnership with the Lebanese National Association for the Rights of Disabled People (NARD) organized the National Conference on “The Right to Education and Knowledge for People with Disabilities in Lebanon.” The conference involved major stakeholders from civil society, ministries MEHE, and MOSA, and educators working in educational inclusion in Lebanon. Emphasizing the educational status of the SEN individuals, the conference reviewed the plan of the Centre of Educational Research and Development (CERD) and the related agendas of the Ministry of Education aiming to merge the PWD in schools and aspired to have ratified a national plan for educational inclusion ratify. In the same venue, the UNESCO model policy for information and communication technology (ICT) in education for PWD was discussed. The Department of Education at the American University of Beirut successfully hosted two conferences focusing on children with special educational needs. The first conference, held on March 2016, was the National Conference for Diagnosis

18

A. Al-Hroub  et al.

and Treatment of Children with Learning Disabilities (LD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders (ADHD). The event took place at the American University of Beirut in Lebanon. Similarly, in March 2015, the department organized the National Conference for Diagnosis and Treatment of Children with Learning Disabilities (LD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders (ADHD) at the same location. Subsequently, on May 22, 2018, MEHE, in partnership with UNICEF, launched the Pilot Inclusive Education Project. The project encompassed 30 public schools distributed across all Lebanese governorates. It aimed to encourage the enrollment of young learners who face learning difficulties and to ensure the provision of accessible and high-quality education for all students throughout Lebanon (MEHE & UNICEF, 2021). A study done by Haigazian University in 2021 examined the Inclusive Education Pilot Project in 6 out of 30 Lebanese public schools, conducted by MEHE in partnership with UNICEF (MEHE & UNICEF, 2021). Data were collected through questionnaires, focus groups, and observation, involving various stakeholders. Findings revealed a generally positive perception of inclusive education as feasible and applicable. Definitions of inclusive education varied among participants, with functional definitions prevailing. Participants perceived improvement in learners with LD, but expectations varied. School culture was described as accepting, with an emphasis on team collaboration. Regarding inclusive policies, participants perceived a good parental inclusion policy, average performance monitoring, and average support in terms of resources and training. The study revealed confusion among participants about their roles in the inclusive education process. Teacher training and their vision of inclusion were highlighted as areas for improvement. In terms of online teaching and intervention services, gaps were found between interventionists, interventionists and teachers, and between interventionists, teachers, and learners with LD. School closures negatively impacted the provision of services, resulting in many learners with LD not benefiting from them. These findings contribute to the understanding of inclusive education implementation in Lebanese public schools and provide insights for enhancing inclusive practices in the future (MEHE & UNICEF, 2021). Furthermore, various Lebanese universities, including AUB and Haigazian, organized multiple conferences on inclusive education between the years 2020 and 2023. These conferences provided platforms for scholars, researchers, and practitioners to gather and exchange knowledge, insights, and practices related to inclusive education in Lebanon.

1.9 Role of Higher Education Institutions in Lebanon Lebanon is known for its large number of private higher education institutions and is considered one of the oldest in the Arab region, dating back to the nineteenth century when the American University of Beirut (AUB) was founded in 1866 and the University of Saint Joseph (USJ) was founded in 1875. Lebanon’s higher

1  Equitable and Inclusive Education in Lebanon…

19

education system’s freedom and independence are protected by the constitution. The system operates under the supervision of the Directorate-General for Higher Education, which is responsible for licensing and validating the degrees and disciplines offered by the institutions (Al-Hroub, 2014, 2022). According to the statistics report from the CERD (2020), there have been 49 universities operating in Lebanon in the academic year 2019–2020. Among these universities, there is one public university, the Lebanese University (LU), which was founded in 1951. Most universities were legalized in the 1990s when the education system in the country rapidly expanded following 15 years of Civil War over the period 1975 to 1990. The number of public and private university students for the 2019–2020 school year in Lebanon reached 222,064 with 142,739 (64.3%) of all students attending private universities and 79,325 (35.7%) enrolled in the Lebanese University (CERD, 2020).

1.10 Conclusion In conclusion, the education system in Lebanon for students with special educational needs (SEN) presents several challenges, ranging from discrimination to a lack of resources and support. However, the potential for a more inclusive education system for children with SEN in Lebanon exists, despite the current uninviting framework. The six pillars of hope, including Lebanon’s endorsement of international conventions and resolutions, the existence of inclusive education models in some private schools, Law 2000/220 for Persons with Disability (PWDs), the National Educational Plan for Persons with Disability (PWDs), the role of international organizations, and the role of higher education institutions, provide a foundation for future progress. Lebanon has endorsed several international conventions related to human rights and disability issues that uphold the right to education for everyone. These conventions, coupled with the Lebanese Constitution’s commitment to applying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, create a basis for change. Additionally, Lebanon has taken part in conferences and initiatives such as the World Conference on Education for All and the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education, both of which promote inclusive education. The existence of inclusive education models in some private schools shows that it is possible to create an inclusive environment that meets the needs of all students. However, the implementation of these models on a larger scale is still needed to ensure that every child has access to quality education. Law 2000/220 presents a legislative framework for guarding the rights of people with disabilities in Lebanon, including the right to education. However, the law adopts the medical model, and the implementation of this law has been slow, and more efforts are needed to enforce it fully. While there is still much work to be done to develop a law that truly promotes the inclusive education system in Lebanon, adopting policies, decrees, and measures that promote the social and educational inclusion of children with SEN and developing a flexible curriculum aimed at all learners, irrespective of their differences, can help achieve this goal.

20

A. Al-Hroub  et al.

The National Educational Plan for Persons with Disability launched in 2012 stresses providing special consideration to the learning needs of persons with disabilities and taking the necessary procedures to ensure the accessibility of all categories of disabilities as part of the educational system. This plan is a step in the right direction, but more work is needed to implement it fully. The launch of the “National Policy for Inclusive Education” by MEHE in June 2023 marks a significant milestone in Lebanon’s pursuit of providing high-quality and inclusive education to all children. The development process of the policy was extensive and inclusive, involving a diverse range of stakeholders, including NGOs, CSOs, international agencies, universities, OPDs, school representatives, and families of children with special needs. The policy sets a foundation for further progress and implementation of inclusive education practices in Lebanon, enabling the country to move closer to achieving educational equity and inclusivity for all. International organizations play a crucial role in supporting inclusive education in Lebanon. The United Nations has adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which includes a commitment to quality inclusive education. The UN and other international organizations can provide support, resources, and expertise to help Lebanon create a more inclusive education system (Al-Hroub et al., 2020). Lebanese higher education institutions also have a critical role to play in promoting special education and inclusive education. The country’s large number of private higher education institutions, as well as the presence of the Lebanese University, provides a solid foundation for training teachers and educational professionals in inclusive education practices, conducting research to inform policy and practice, and collaborating with schools and other organizations to provide support and resources for students with disabilities and their families. In summary, while Lebanon’s education system for students with SEN is facing several challenges, the potential for a more inclusive education system for children with SEN exists. The six pillars outlined above provide a foundation for change, and with the right support, resources, and commitment, Lebanon can create an inclusive education system that meets the needs of all students, regardless of their abilities. Inclusive education is not just a matter of fulfilling legal obligations or international commitments; it is a matter of promoting human rights, equity, and social justice. Educators need to work within the available school system and adapt their teaching practices to meet the needs of all their children. By working together, Lebanon can ensure that every child has the opportunity to learn and thrive, regardless of their background or abilities.

1.11 Recommendations for a National Policy on Inclusive Education in Lebanon The recommendations derived from Haigazian University’s 2021 study emphasize crucial areas that necessitate attention and action for the development of a national policy on inclusive education in Lebanon. Firstly, it is crucial to adopt a unified definition of inclusive education based on the UNICEF framework, encompassing

1  Equitable and Inclusive Education in Lebanon…

21

specific objectives. This definition acknowledges the rights of individuals with disabilities and emphasizes their active involvement in all aspects of planning and implementation. Secondly, standardizing disability terminology and classification systems is essential to ensure clarity and consistency across different stakeholders and statistical reporting. By using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), Lebanon can establish a strong, integrated national database for disability statistics. Thirdly, collaboration between relevant organizations is paramount to unifying, sharing, and disseminating data on inclusive education. This will facilitate informed policy choices and effective planning by a wide range of stakeholders, including service providers, policymakers, researchers, and NGOs. Fourthly, capacity building plays a vital role in promoting inclusive education. Investing in teacher training, particularly in creating inclusive environments and implementing Universal Design for Learning (UDL), is crucial. In-service training should be ongoing and incorporate a Training-of-Trainers (ToT) model to ensure sustainability. Adequate staffing, including teaching assistants, is necessary, and addressing behavioral difficulties through training in Positive Behavior Intervention and Support (PBIS) is recommended. Fifthly, support within schools should focus on granting authority and accountability to school principals, empowering them as advocates for inclusive education. Parents of learners with and without disabilities should be actively involved as valuable resources within the school community and as advocates for inclusive education. Sixthly, monitoring and evaluation systems need to be strengthened to support inclusive education within schools. This includes self-monitoring tools for teachers, standardized assessment practices, digital documentation, and enhanced tracking of learners’ progress and development. Finally, awareness raising and promoting respect for diversity is crucial for fostering an inclusive society. Adequate training for school stakeholders, collaboration with NGOs for evidence-based awareness campaigns, and an inter-ministerial approach will contribute to changing attitudes and reducing stigma against individuals with disabilities. By implementing these recommendations, Lebanon can pave the way for a comprehensive and effective national policy on inclusive education, ensuring the rights and quality of education of all learners, regardless of their abilities.

References Abdul-Hamid, H., Sayed, H., Krayem, D., & Ghaleb, J. (2017). Lebanon: Education public expenditure review. World Bank Group. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank. org/bitstream/handle/10986/30065/127517-REVISED-Public-Expenditure-Review-Lebanon2017-publish.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Al-Hroub, A. (2011). School dropouts in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs (IFI) & United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). Retrieved from: https://www.aub.edu.lb/ifi/public_ policy/pal_camps/Documents/research_reports/20111212ifi_pc_unrwa_research_report01_ hroub_english.pdf

22

A. Al-Hroub  et al.

Al-Hroub, A. (2014). Perspectives of school dropouts’ dilemma in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon: An ethnographic study. International Journal of Educational Development, 35, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2013.04.004 Al-Hroub, A. (2015a, Oct). The Lebanese Law 220 on the Rights of Disabled Persons (Law 220/2000): A critical review. The first conference for the Syndicate of Special Education Teachers in Lebanon on the ethics of the profession of special education, Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon. Al-Hroub, A. (2015b). Tracking dropout students in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. Educational Research Quarterly, 38, 52–79. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1061953 Al-Hroub, A. (2022). Gifted education in Lebanon: Re-examining the role of educational and learning capitals. Cogent Education, 9(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2073644 Al-Hroub, A., Saab, C., & Vlaardingerbroek, B. (2020). Addressing the educational needs of street children in Lebanon: A hotchpotch of policy and practice. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(3), 3184–3196. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feaa091 Berri, H., & Al-Hroub, A. (2016). ADHD in Lebanese schools: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­28700-­3 British Council. (2017). Inclusion and education: The Journey of Inclusion in Lebanese Schools. Retrieved from: https://www.britishcouncil.org.lb/en/partnerships/success-­stories/ inclusion-­education Combaz, E. (2018). Situation of persons with disabilities in Lebanon. Retrieved from: https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b584da340f0b633af812655/Disability_in_Lebanon.pdf CERD. (2012). Official exams exemptions decree number 9533. MEHE. CERD. (2016). The Statistical Report of Academic Year 2015–2016. The Republic of Lebanon, Ministry of Education and Higher Education. Beirut: MEHE. CERD. (2020). Statistical bulletin for the academic year 2019–2020. Center for Educational Research and Development. Coalition of Civil Society Groups Active in Lebanon. (2010). Joint UPR submission on Economic and social rights. Retrieved http://www.annd.org/old%20web%202015/english/data/statement/file/28.pdf Coleridge, P. (1993). Disability, liberation, and development. Oxfam GB. Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1996). Concluding observations of the committee on the rights of the child: Lebanon. Retrieved from: http://www.lnf.org.lb/child/concob.html Council of Development and Reconstruction. (2016). Social infrastructure: Education and higher education. Retrieved from: http://www.cdr.gov.lb/eng/progress_reports/pr102016/educ.pdf Dirani, L.  A. (2018). The historical developments of inclusive education in Lebanon. A paper presented at a seminar on special education in Lebanon: The status of inclusive education. Haigazian University, Beirut, Lebanon. Frayha, N. (2003). Education and social cohesion in Lebanon. Prospects, 33, 77–88. Haidar, N. F. (2002). Lebanon as a regional educational and cultural center. In K. C. Ellis (Ed.), Lebanon’s second republic: Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp. 140–145). University Press of Florida. ICMPD (2019). Migration of Palestinian refugees from Lebanon: Current trends and implications. Vienna: ICMPD. Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) (2020). Education in emergencies data snapshot: Lebanon. Retrieved from: https://inee.org/system/files/resources/Lebanon%20 Crisis%20Snapshot.pdf Khochen, M. (2017). Including disabled students in mainstream educational provision in Lebanon with particular reference to those with vision impairment. Unpublished thesis, UCL Institute of Education. Lebanese Physically Handicapped Union. (2011). Critical review in the legalization of Law 220 /2000. LPHU. Lebanese Physically Handicapped Union (LPHU). (2003). Between the law and its implementation, a fissure called reality. Connect Magazine. Beirut: LPHU.

1  Equitable and Inclusive Education in Lebanon…

23

Luor, T., Al-Hroub, A., Lu, H. P., & Chang, T. Y. (2022). Scientific research trends in gifted individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A bibliographic scattering analysis (1998-2020). High Ability Studies, 33(2), 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2021.1948394 Mansour, L. (2011). National Inclusion programme in Lebanon, report of the final evaluation. Ministry of Social Affairs. MEHE. (2004). National education strategy in Lebanon. Ministry of Education and Higher Education, Beirut, Lebanon. Retrieved from http://www.mehe.gov.lb MEHE. (2010). Quality education for growth, national education strategy framework and education sector development plan (General Education) 2010–2015, the general education sector: Facts and figures. Ministry of Education and Higher Education, Beirut, Lebanon. Retrieved from http://www.mehe.gov.lb MEHE. (2017). Reaching all children with education: RACE II (2017–2020). Ministry of Education and Higher Education, Beirut, Lebanon. Retrieved from http://www.mehe.gov.lb MEHE. (2018). Screening tools for the MEHE CERD UNICEF inclusive schools pilot project: A concept note. Lebanon. MEHE. (2021). Lebanon five-year General Education Plan 2021–2025. Retrieved from: https://www.mehe.gov.lb/ar/SiteAssets/Lists/News/AllItems/5YP%20MEHE-­G E%20__ amend1_%20Feb%202022.pdf MEHE & CERD. (2023). National policy on inclusive education for children with special needs in Lebanon. MEHE, CERD, Education Cannot Wait, European Union and UNICEF. MEHE & UNICEF. (2021). Case study on the inclusive education pilot project in Lebanese public schools. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/lebanon/media/8391/file Nadjarian, P. (2009, May). Inclusive education: The Lebanese context. Panel discussion. Retrieved from http://player.slideplayer.com/24/7038005/# Nagata, K.  K. (2008). Disability and development: Is the right model of disability valid in the Arab region? An evidence-based field survey in Lebanon and Jordan. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal, 19, 60–78. Najjar, D. (2008). Effectiveness of management in private schools in Lebanon. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham, School of Education. Oweini, A., & El Zein, H. L. (2014). Inclusive education for children with special needs: The case of Lebanon. In I. Bogotch & C. M. Shields (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and social (in) justice (pp. 871–894). Springer. Peters, S. J. (2009). Review of marginalization of people with disabilities in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010. UNESCO. Retrieved from http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001866/186600e.pdf Saifan, G. & Saloum, T. (2023). Literature review: Summary of previous projects and research. MEHE: Unpublished presentation. Shehab, N., & Al-Hroub, A. (2019). Is the DSM-5 a culturally appropriate assessment tool for identifying learners with ADHD in Lebanese schools? International Journal of Special Education, 34, 166–181. Tabet, M. (2014). Statistical study in identifying the types and numbers of those with a disability in public mainstream schools in Lebanon (Arabic version). CERD. UN. (1990a). World declaration on education for all (EFA): Meeting basic learning Needs: World conference on education for all. Jomtein, Thailand, March 1990. Retrieved from: http://www. un-­documents.net/jomtien.htm UN. (1990b). The international convention on the rights of children. Retrieved from: Convention on the Rights of the Child | OHCHR. UN. (1993). The standard rules for the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. Retrieved from: Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities | United Nations Enable. UN. (2015). General assembly, seventieth session. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/ migration/generalassembly/docs

24

A. Al-Hroub  et al.

UN. (2017). Lebanon crisis response plan 2017–2020. Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/report/ lebanon/lebanon-­crisis-­response-­plan-­2017-­2020-­enar UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). (2017). Concluding observations on the combined fourth and fifth periodic report of Lebanon, CRC/C/LBN/CO/4–5. Retrieved from http:// www.refworld.org/docid/59c912574.html United Nations. (2014). Policies and processes for social inclusion, volume 1: Possibilities from South-East Asia. Retrieved from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000231615 United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from: https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/crpd/pages/conventionrightspersonswithdisabilities.aspx UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from: http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF UNESCO. (2013a). Social inclusion of young persons with disabilities (PWD) in Lebanon: Where do we stand and what should be done to promote their rights? Retrieved from: http://www. unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Beirut/images/SHS/Social_Inclusion_ Young_Persons_with_Disabilities_Lebanon.pdf UNESCO. (2013b). Assessment of the Level of Inclusiveness of Public Policies in Lebanon. UNESCO, Beirut. Retrieved from: http://www.unesco.org/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/ FIELD/Beirut/images/SHS/Assessment_of_level_of_Inclusiveness_of_Public_Policies_in_ Lebanon.pdf UNESCO-IBE. (2008). Development of education in Austria: 2004–2007. Federal Ministry for Education, the Arts and Culture in cooperation with Federal Ministry for Science and Research. Retrieved from: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/National_Reports/ICE_2008/austria_NR08_en.pdf Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). [Adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948]. Retrieved from http://www. unhchr.ch/udhr/ UNHCR. (2021). Lebanon: Fact sheet, September 2021. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/ files/resources/Lebanon%20factsheet%20September%202021.pdf USAID. (2016). Developing rehabilitation assistance to schools and teachers improvement (D-RASATI 2). Retrieved from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00mmxj.pdf Vlaardingerbroek, B., Shehab, S. S., & Alameh, S. K. (2011). The problem of open cheating and invigilator compliance in the Lebanese Brevet and Baccalauréat examinations. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(3), 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijedudev.2010.03.002. Vlaardingerbroek, B., Al-Hroub, A., & Saab, C. (2017). The Lebanese educational system: Heavy on career orientation, light on career guidance. In R. Sultana (Ed.), Career education and guidance in the Mediterranean region: Challenging transitions in South Europe and the MENA region (pp. 255–265). Sense Publishers. Walshe, N. (2014). How the Middle East can help children with special needs. Voices Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-­magazine/ how-­middle-­eastern-­can-­help-­children-­special-­needs Wehbi, S. (2006). The challenges of inclusive education in Lebanon. Disability & Society, 21, 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590600679980 Wehbi, S., & Lakkis, S. (2010). Women with disabilities in Lebanon: From marginalization to resistance. Affilia, 25(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109909354985 WHO. (2001). International classification of functioning disability and health. Geneva. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/classifications/icfbrowser World Health Organisation, World Bank. (2011). Summary: World report on disability 2011. World Health Organisation, Geneva Worldometer. (2023). Countries in the world by population 2023. Retrieved from: https://www. worldometers.info/worldpopulation/population-by-country/ Zouein, G. (2003). Lebanon: System of education. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 3349–3356). Pergamon.

Chapter 2

Inclusive Education in Lebanon: An Overview of the Concept and Its Implementation Anies Al-Hroub and Nidal Jouni

Abstract  This chapter offers an introductory overview of the concept of inclusive education and its relevance in the Lebanese educational context. The chapter commences by providing a comprehensive overview of existing literature and empirical evidence on the effects of inclusive education for both regular and special needs students. In doing so, it highlights the potential benefits of this pedagogical approach for all students. Subsequently, the chapter outlines the contemporary definition of inclusive education and examines its implementation in the Lebanese educational context. The chapter also highlights the dearth of empirical studies examining the effectiveness of inclusive education and its effects on students’ academic performance. Additionally, the chapter addresses the existing challenges and prospects for inclusive education in the Lebanese educational system. Overall, the chapter aims to provide a foundation for further research and practices in the domain of student inclusion within the Lebanese context.

2.1 Introduction Education systems are built on the assumption that all students that belong to the same age group are at comparable developmental levels and learn similarly. Consequently, most curricula, content, skills, teaching materials, and practices are designed for the “typical” student. However, some students are developmentally and cognitively different from the general population; therefore, the current educational system either will be engaging these students below their potential or will make them struggle to keep up with the learning process (Al-Hroub, 2021, 2010b; Al-Hroub & El-Khoury, 2018; Al-Hroub & Whitebread, 2008, 2019).

A. Al-Hroub (*) · N. Jouni Department of Education, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Jouni, A. Al-Hroub, School Inclusion in Lebanon, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34779-5_2

25

26

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

2.2 Background on Inclusion Regardless of their differences, those students are identified as children with special needs that must have access to regular schools, which should accommodate them within an inclusive setting capable of meeting their needs as declared at the UNESCO conference in Salamanca, Spain in 1994. Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) defined inclusive education as educating children with special needs in regular schools instead of in special schools. However, for several decades, inclusive education addressed mostly the needs of children with learning disabilities without fully recognizing that also gifted children have specific needs. Therefore, Van derMeulen et al. (2014) called for full inclusion in educational settings defined as a desirable situation, whereby all children, including children with severe disabilities and highly gifted children, should be placed in a regular classroom. With this clear international move toward inclusive education, “there has been a fierce debate about the desirability of this trend” (Ruijs et al., 2010, p. 352). In this debate, many of the arguments focus on the influence of inclusive education on students without special needs. Therefore, it is very important to know the empirical evidence on the effects of inclusion for both regular students and students with special needs as proposed by Farrell (2000).

2.3 Background on Inclusion in Lebanon In Lebanon, as in other countries, education policies are shifting toward inclusive education. The advocacy of inclusion in Lebanon can be traced up to 2000. A law was issued aiming to serve individuals with disabilities, but the law issued at that time did not promote inclusive education in schools (Al-Hroub, 2022; British Council, 2017). Despite this, a few private schools (Human Rights Watch, 2018), including the one where the study was conducted, promoted inclusion. In contrast, most public schools were found by Human Rights Watch (2018) as lacking reasonable and appropriate accommodations that ensure a learning environment in which all children can participate fully. With the increasing call for inclusive schooling in Lebanon, inclusion stimulates research into educational outcomes of students with and without special needs to conclude the desirability of this choice in the Lebanese context, especially when recent Western research has revealed specific differences in the culture and climate of inclusive schools and classes (Carrington & Robinson, 2006; Kebbi & Al-Hroub, 2018; Shehab & Al-Hroub, 2019). Therefore, it is expected to find differences in the Lebanese context and the school of the study regarding the impact of inclusion on the student’s performance with and without special needs.

2  Inclusive Education in Lebanon: An Overview of the Concept and Its Implementation

27

2.4 Laws and Decrees Related to the Education of Persons with Disabilities in Lebanon In the subsequent analysis, we undertake a comprehensive examination and investigation of the legal framework and decrees about the education of individuals with disabilities in Lebanon. This scrutiny encompasses the elucidation of their entitlements, the promotion of their integration into educational establishments, and the implementation of measures to guarantee their access to educational opportunities and requisite assistance. Law 220/2000  The first law regarding the rights of persons with disabilities was issued in 2000 (Law 220/2000) concerning the rights of disabled individuals. This law recognizes the right to education for persons with disabilities and emphasizes that disability should not hinder the acceptance of learners into educational institutions. However, schools are not obliged to make adaptations to make education accessible, nor are they required to accept learners with disabilities. In addition, the conceptual dimension has not been well defined in Lebanon, and there are no implementing decrees for this law, making it easily circumvented and ineffective (Khochen & Radford, 2012). Decree No. 11853  In 2004, to ensure education for children with special educational needs, Decree No. 11853 was issued, establishing a national committee for the education of disabled individuals under the chairmanship of the Director General of Education, with members from various ministries, universities, and schools, supported by experts as needed. The tasks of this committee include organizing matters related to the education of children with special needs, providing consultations and technical, technological, and educational assistance, as well as preparing comprehensive projects to establish a national speaking library and a national printing house in Braille and unifying sign language (MEHE & CERD, 2023). Decree Related to Official Examinations  As for official examinations, in 2006, in light of the difficulties faced by children with special needs in official exams, Decree No. 16417 was issued to specify cases of exemption from official exams for learners with learning difficulties. The designated committee makes the decision to grant exemption or not based on the file of the learner with special educational needs, and the learner is awarded a certificate of completion of the ninth grade. Subsequently, Decree No. 9533 was issued to determine the conditions for learners with special educational needs regarding the official examination for the intermediate certificate. The committee makes a decision based on the cumulative file and an interview with the learner, either granting exemption or adapting the official exams according to the learners’ situations. Recently, Decree No. 9138 was issued on May 13, 2022, which replaced and repealed the previous decrees (MEHE & CERD, 2023).

28

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

2.5 The Concept of Inclusive Education in Lebanon In Lebanon, as in most countries, there is a need for a better definition of the conceptual dimension of inclusive education. Research on the basic concepts of inclusive education in the Lebanese context is lacking, despite the multiplicity of projects that have been carried out by various actors such as the CERD, the MEHE, the MoSA, NGOs, universities, and associations, among others and the many resulting reports. At this level, the MEHE and CERD have published documents containing a list of terms and definitions for concepts related to disability, special educational needs, and inclusive education. Table 2.1 below summarizes some of the projects that have addressed the conceptual level. It is important to note that each of these projects had its conceptual representations and references, which demonstrates the usefulness of developing a close understanding of the implementation of inclusive education (CERD, 2020). Lebanon ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which was signed in 2007, via decree 1096616 addressed to the Ministry of Social Affairs on February 6, 2023. The CRPD defined inclusive education as “the result of a process of continuing and proactive commitment to eliminating barriers impeding the right to education, together with changes to the culture, policy, and practice of regular schools to accommodate and effectively include all learners” (Article 10d) (UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2016). However, As part of this national action plan, the CERD (2020) proposed a definition of inclusive education, adapted to the Lebanese context, which will serve as a

Table 2.1  Conceptual projects related to SEN carried out by CERD in Lebanon Entities/authors CERD, IDRAAK CERD CERD CERD CERD, UNICEF CERD, UNICEF CERD, UNICEF CERD, UNICEF CERD, UNICEF CERD (2020)

Document title Learning difficulties and common psychological disorders in schools Support training units for training on the learning difficulties guide Guide to concepts related to learning difficulties Dictionary of words related to learning difficulties Differentiated Instruction to Enhance Learning (DIFA) Module IMPI Inclusion: MTSS Planning and Implementation (IMPI) Module Screening Tools Concept Note

Year of publication 2012 2013 2014 2014 2017 2017 2019

Screening Tools

2019

Inclusion: Screening Tools and Decision-Making (IST) Module

2019

2  Inclusive Education in Lebanon: An Overview of the Concept and Its Implementation

29

reference for writing all the dimensions (general policy statements, structures and systems, and practices) of the national action plan in a coherent manner: Inclusive education is a process that requires the education system (curriculum, evaluation, etc.) to be accessible to all learners regardless of their diversities. They have their place in school based on an equal right, which implies a shift from the principle of equality to that of equity. It is necessary to design flexible educational paths (using specific materials or techniques or relying on professionals to provide individualized support) based on the specific needs and characteristics of each learner. These paths strive to avoid stigmatization as much as possible. All the support that all learners may need, either regularly or temporarily, must be available in the regular functioning of the school. This does not preclude some from benefiting from medical care or therapies outside of this context. It is then a matter of pooling the skills of all professionals (specialized and teachers) to build practices that allow different learners to progress together within the school setting (p. 15).

The definition of inclusive education provided above appears to be comprehensive and accurate, with an emphasis on individualized support, accessibility, and equitable treatment. However, there are a few areas where the definition could be further developed or improved. For example, the definition could benefit from a clearer explanation of what is meant by “diversities.” It is important to clarify that inclusive education is not limited to diversity in terms of disabilities or special needs but also includes diversity in terms of cultural backgrounds, language abilities, socio-economic status, and other factors. In addition, the definition could benefit from a more detailed explanation of how the shift from the principle of equality to that of equity is enacted in practice. This could include examples of specific policies or practices that prioritize equity, such as the provision of additional resources or supports to learners who face particular barriers to education. Furthermore, the definition could also benefit from a discussion of how inclusive education is connected to broader social justice issues. Inclusive education is not only about ensuring that all learners have access to the same resources and opportunities but also about challenging systemic discrimination and oppression that may prevent some learners from thriving in the education system. Overall, while the definition provides a strong foundation for understanding inclusive education, it could be further developed to provide a more nuanced and detailed understanding of the principles and practices of inclusive education.

2.6 The National Public Inclusive Schools Project In the academic year 2016–2017, MEHE began planning for the implementation of the Public Inclusive Schools Project. In 2018, in coordination with CERD and collaboration with UNICEF, the Ministry launched a pilot project in 30 public schools across Lebanon to enhance inclusive education based on quality and equity. The project utilized a multitiered system of support (MTSS) as a general framework and implemented differentiated instruction within the early grades. Each school employed a team of specialists, including a special educator, a psychologist, a speech and language therapist, a movement therapist, and an occupational therapist, to support learners and the academic staff at the school (MEHE & CERD, 2023).

30

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

In the academic year 2021–2022, the Ministry, in coordination with UNICEF, launched the first phase of expanding the project by adding 30 integrated public schools in Lebanon. In the academic year 2022–2023, the second phase of expansion was implemented, resulting in an additional 30 morning-shift public schools and 20 afternoon-shift public schools, bringing the total number of integrated official schools to 110 (MEHE & CERD, 2023).

2.7 Why Study Inclusive Education Scholars, such as Farell (2000), Lindsay (2007), and Shaeffer (2019) have stressed the shortage and limited quality of empirical studies on the effectiveness of inclusive education and its determinants. Studies on inclusion in different countries assess inputs such as facilities, teaching-learning materials, and processes such as the number of teachers trained per year, whereas school self-assessments should go beyond that. With the introduction of policies toward inclusive education, questions have been raised primarily about the impact of this inclusion on children with special needs. Research conducted in the 1990s compared students’ outcomes in regular and inclusive settings. Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) found that students with special educational needs (SEN) achieve better in inclusive settings than in non-inclusive ones but stated that some caveats must be pointed out as the different studies described inclusion differently. Nepi et  al. (2013) argued that the availability of empirical data on the social and academic outcomes of students with SEN is still very limited. Concurrently, Lindsay (2007) found that it is difficult to draw conclusions about inclusive education because it is an international movement built on a common basis of principles and ideas with weak empirical legitimization, and there are many different forms of inclusion (e.g., mainstream, pull-out, or inclusion in regular classes all day). Together with this debate about the effectiveness of inclusion on children with special needs, a debate about the influence of inclusion on students without special needs (regular) has emerged. Ruijs et al. (2010) proposed that when focusing on regular students, it can be reasoned that inclusive education can have both negative and positive effects on academic achievement and social-­ emotional development. These contradictory effects are related negatively to teachers’ attention to children with special educational needs at the expense of regular children and to the general level of education in the class that might be adjusted for special needs and positively to the increase in awareness about differences between people and the presence of teacher assistants in classes. Researchers agree that it is critical to investigate the perspectives of students without disabilities on social inclusion to develop effective inclusive practices (Edwards et al., 2019). As the literature before 2000 does not give clear results according to Lindsay (2007), it is very important to know the empirical evidence on the effects of inclusion for both regular students and students with special educational needs. A reason why a study of an inclusive setting claiming that it is meant to remove barriers to learning and participation of all students is highly desirable as there is a rare opportunity to compare populations of students with special needs, both gifted and learning disabilities, to a third regular population.

2  Inclusive Education in Lebanon: An Overview of the Concept and Its Implementation

31

Although the core goal of inclusive education worldwide is to maximize the learning potential of students with special education needs in inclusive settings as stated by Yang et al. (2015), it was found that “little research attention has been paid to SEN children’s social, and emotional gains from inclusive education compared to their academic performance” (p.  545). Building on that, student performance in inclusive settings should be investigated at the affective level and the academic level as long as schools are meant to develop students in all aspects. Reviewing the research on special education for gifted children on social-emotional effects, Van derMeulen et al. (2014) found that no clear pattern of improvement or decline can be established when gifted are placed outside special schools and declared that more research concerning the social-emotional effects of inclusive education on gifted students is necessary. As for regular students, Ruijs et al. (2010) found that earlier research provides little evidence on the effects of inclusion on the socio-­ emotional functioning of “typical” students. In line with these findings, there is a sufficient need to study the impact of inclusion in the same school on students’ performance in all domains of development. Coleman et  al. (2015) called for researchers to elicit students’ perspectives through their voices when evaluating social and psychological development. They emphasize the need to examine students’ experiences within inclusive settings, especially since inclusion is not a static process but rather a dynamic one happening at the interface between teacher and student, students and peers, and students and school environment (Adderley et al., 2015). It was argued by Rose and Shevlin (2004) that providing opportunities to those who have been previously denied can be enabled only by listening to students’ voices. This shortage in research using students’ voices was found across categories of students (Yang et al., 2012). Consequently, to understand the context of any inclusive setting, it is important to study it as perceived by the students with and without special needs (LD, gifted, and regular). In recent literature reviews, gifted children were excluded from all categories of students with SEN on the spectrum (Kalambouka et al., 2007; Lindsay, 2007). In addition, research conducted on the gifted population compares them to regular students, and no study was found comparing their perception of an inclusive setting to perceptions of students with disabilities. Experimental evaluations of the effects of inclusive schools are needed to construct an empirical basis that adequately informs the debate on inclusion as a choice to ensure the learning of all learners (Dell’Anna et al., 2019).

2.8 Researching Students’ Perspectives on School Inclusion Historically, the emphasis of research involving children was to conduct it on children. A recent call by researchers argues that children and students should have a major role in informing thinking, policies, and practices in education (Messiou, 2019). Central to this argument is the fact that inclusion is a dynamic process and not a static position: it happens at the interface between teacher and student,

32

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

students and peers, and student and school environment (Adderley et  al., 2015). Therefore, children’s voices are considered a challenging starting point for developing more inclusive practices within schools (Messiou, 2006). Since children are the first to experience the impact of inclusion or exclusion within educational settings, listening to their voices becomes an extremely crucial part of inclusive practice. This is in line with the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) calling to “assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child” (Zammar, 2020, article 12). Following this announcement, children’s views on matters that concern them were heard on many initiatives worldwide. As inclusion is seen as a social model removing all barriers to learning and participation, “More importance is placed on the views and ideas of children because their contributions are seen as a starting point for moving toward more inclusive practices rather than just having a viewpoint on issues that adults consider to be of importance” (Adderley et  al., 2015, p.  108). Although some practical challenges in addition to age and maturity are logistical difficulties to be overcome conducting research with children, children have the potential to be involved in each stage of the research design with an emerging need for ground rules and flexibility in styles. Children’s voices are meant to be their thoughts and emotions as well as their actions for bringing about change (Messiou, 2019), especially in an era of child-­ centered pedagogy. In an earlier study, Messiou (2006) reported, “Listening to children’s voices is a manifestation of being inclusive” (p. 769) when inclusion is seen as the presence, participation, and achievement of all learners (Ainscow, 2005). For this reason, hearing students’ voices should not be understood as hearing the voices of students with disabilities only but as focusing on all students. Messiou (2019) found in a study investigating students as a catalyst for promoting inclusive education that “student’s voices were a determining factor in bringing about change in practices” (p. 777) and that these voices are valuable resources across countries and resources. It was found also that to create welcoming communities, schools need to value their students’ voices and act upon them through meaningful dialogues. We can go further by arguing that it is a dialogue with the children themselves that is most helpful in revealing these particular practices (Adderley et al., 2015).

2.9 Why Study Inclusive Education in Lebanon Lindsay (2007) argued that inclusive education is a movement built on weak empirical legitimization. More than 10 years later, Dell’Anna et al. (2019) are still arguing how inclusive education was built on a common basis of principles and ideas with weak empirical legitimization, a reason why both concepts and research processes in inclusive education are challenging the field of inquiry. Farell (2000) described that special education and special schools cannot be abolished unless enough empirical evidence on the effects of inclusion for both regular and students with SEN exists, and “only then will decisions on inclusive education be mainly based on evidence instead of the ideals in the human rights debate” (Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009, p. 68).

2  Inclusive Education in Lebanon: An Overview of the Concept and Its Implementation

33

In a recent literature review, several research gaps have emerged in the field of inclusive education. Firstly, there is a lack of consensus regarding the exploration and evaluation of social inclusion from the perspective of regular students. This gap indicates a need for studies that delve into school culture and policies to gain a comprehensive understanding of social inclusion. Additionally, there is a limited number of studies that explore the actual experiences of students without special educational needs (SEN) in inclusive settings, which further emphasizes the need for research in this area (Al-Hroub, 2010b; Edwards et al., 2019). To address these research gaps and contribute to both theory and practice, it is essential to compare the perceptions of three distinct student populations within the same inclusive school (Kebbi & Al-Hroub, 2018). This comparison will not only shed light on their performances but also explore the interaction between inclusive policies, cultures, and practices. Such an investigation will yield valuable insights for researchers and practitioners alike. Surprisingly, the literature search revealed a scarcity of studies that compare the performance of these three student populations within the same school setting. Existing research often focuses on comparing the performance of students with learning disabilities solely to that of regular students or the functioning of gifted students solely between special or regular schools. By comparing the performances of these three distinct populations across the spectrum of special education, hypotheses can be formulated regarding their interplay when they coexist in the same school environment. This, in turn, may open the door for further research on full inclusion. The implications of such promising studies extend beyond academia and hold significant practical value. Firstly, the findings will aid in the establishment of a caring environment and the creation of an optimal social context that positively impacts social interactions and emotional well-being. Secondly, the findings will inform the development of educational interventions and tailored enhancement programs that enhance the positive emotional experiences of students with SEN (both gifted and with learning disabilities) and foster the development and maintenance of their adaptive social and emotional competencies. Furthermore, researching multiple groups of learners with special educational needs will enhance our understanding of their perceptions of performance based on their experiences within the same inclusive school. This understanding will contribute to suggestions for educators and help practitioners develop effective inclusive educational practices for all students across the spectrum of special education. Notably, this research may have implications beyond the immediate study site. School administrators and educators can utilize the findings to improve efforts, policies, and practices related to inclusive programs. The results may also inform the design of more effective inclusive interventions. At the national level, where inclusive education is still in its early stages, such research will provide a stronger research base, crucial for decision-making and the advancement of future inclusive education initiatives in Lebanon. Moreover, considering the limited response from schools to the Lebanese Ministry of Education and Higher Education’s call for the implementation of inclusive education, research on inclusive education remains highly relevant and essential for both practitioners and researchers.

34

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

Therefore, conducting research that explores the inclusion of learners with learning disabilities, giftedness, and regular students within the same inclusive school is paramount to addressing research gaps, informing practice, and contributing to the advancement of inclusive education efforts in Lebanon. The implications of this research extend to school administrators, educators, policymakers, and researchers, providing valuable insights for enhancing inclusive practices and expanding the knowledge base of inclusive education in the Lebanese context.

2.10 Conclusion In conclusion, this chapter has provided an overview of the concept of inclusive education and its relevance in the Lebanese educational context. The chapter began by reviewing the existing literature and empirical evidence on the effects of inclusive education for both regular and special needs students. It highlighted the potential benefits of inclusive education for all students and the need for further research to evaluate its effectiveness. Additionally, the chapter outlined the contemporary definition of inclusive education and its implementation in the Lebanese educational system, while also addressing the challenges and prospects for inclusive education. The chapter provides a closer look at the legal framework and decrees related to the education of individuals with disabilities in Lebanon presenting a mixed picture. While Law 220/2000 recognizes the right to education for persons with disabilities, it lacks clear definitions and enforcement measures, making it less effective. On the other hand, Decree No. 11853 establishes a national committee for the education of disabled individuals and promotes various initiatives to enhance accessibility and support. Decrees addressing official examinations provide exemptions and adaptations for learners with special educational needs. Furthermore, the National Public Inclusive Schools Project, implemented by MEHE has made significant strides in promoting inclusive education. The project utilizes a multitiered system of support and employs a team of specialists to assist learners and academic staff. The ongoing expansion of the project demonstrates the commitment to fostering inclusive learning environments in Lebanon. The literature on inclusive education has revealed that there is a shortage of empirical studies on the effectiveness of inclusive education and its determinants. Researchers have emphasized the need for studies that investigate the impact of inclusion on academic achievement, social-emotional development, and the perspectives of students without disabilities on social inclusion. The chapter highlighted the importance of studying the impact of inclusion on students’ performance in all domains of development and the need for experimental evaluations of the effects of inclusive schools to construct an empirical basis that adequately informs the debate on inclusion. Moreover, the Lebanese context presents unique challenges and prospects for inclusive education. The country is undergoing political and social turmoil, which has affected the education system, particularly in terms of resources and

2  Inclusive Education in Lebanon: An Overview of the Concept and Its Implementation

35

infrastructure. The chapter highlighted the need for further research to evaluate the effectiveness of inclusive education in this context. Overall, this chapter has provided a foundation for further research and practices in the domain of student inclusion within the Lebanese context. It emphasizes the importance of evaluating the impact of inclusive education on all students, including those with special needs, gifted students, and regular students, and the need for experimental evaluations to construct an empirical basis that adequately informs the debate on inclusion. It is hoped that this chapter will encourage further research in this field, ultimately leading to more effective and inclusive educational practices that benefit all students.

References Adderley, R.  J., Hope, M.  A., Hughes, G.  C., Jones, L., Messiou, K., & Shaw, P.  A. (2015). Exploring inclusive practices in primary schools: Focusing on children’s voices. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30, 106–121. Al-Hroub, A. (2010a). Perceptual skills and Arabic literacy patterns for mathematically gifted children with learning difficulties in Jordan. The British Journal of Special Education, 37, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2010.00453.x Al-Hroub, A. (2010b). Programming for mathematically gifted children with learning difficulties in Jordan. Roeper Review, 32(4), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2010.508157 Al-Hroub, A. (2021). The utility of psychometric and dynamic assessments for identifying cognitive characteristics of twice-exceptional students exhibiting mathematical giftedness and learning disabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.747872 Al-Hroub, A. (2022). Gifted education in Lebanon: Re-examining the role of educational and learning capitals. Cogent Education, 9(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2073644 Al-Hroub, A., & El Khoury, S. (2018). Introduction to giftedness in Lebanon. In I. S. El Khoury & A. Al-Hroub (Eds.), Gifted education in Lebanese schools: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp.  1–7). Springer International Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­78592-­9_1 Al-Hroub, A., & Whitebread, D. (2008). Teacher nomination of ‘mathematically gifted children with learning difficulties’ at three public schools in Jordan. The British Journal of Special Education, 35, 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­8578.2008.00379.x Al-Hroub, A., & Whitebread, D. (2019). Dynamic assessment for identification for twice-­ exceptional learners exhibiting mathematical giftedness and specific learning disabilities. Roeper Review, 41, 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2019.1585396 Ainscow, M. (2005). Looking to the future: Towards a common sense of purpose. The Australasian Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 182–186. doi: https://doi.org/10.2260/ 1030-0112.29.2.0268. British Council. (2017). How to include children with special educational needs and disabilities. Retrieved from: https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/how-includechildren-special-educational-needs-and-disabilities. Carrington, S., & Robinson, R. (2006). Inclusive school community: Why is it so complex? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10, 323–334. CERD. (2020). National action plan for inclusive, equitable, and quality education in Lebanon. . Coleman, L. J., Micko, K. J., & Cross, T. L. (2015). Twenty-five years of the lived experience of being gifted in school: Capturing the students’ voices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 358–376. Dell’Anna, S., Pellegrini, M., & Ianes, D. (2019). Experiences and learning outcomes of students without special educational needs in inclusive settings: A systematic review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.159224

36

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

Edwards, B.  M., Cameron, D., King, G., & McPherson, A.  C. (2019). How students without special needs perceive social inclusion of children with physical impairments in mainstream schools: A scoping review. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 66, 298–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1585523 Farrell, P. (2000). The impact of research on developments in inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4, 153–162. Human Rights Watch. (2018). I would like to go to school: Barriers to education for children with disabilities in Lebanon. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/ report/2018/03/22/i-­would-­go-­school/barriers-­education-­children-­disabilities-­lebanon Kalambouka, A., Farrell, P., Dyson, A., & Kaplan, I. (2007). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educational Research, 49, 365–382. Kebbi, M., & Al-Hroub, A. (2018). Stress and coping strategies used by special education and general classroom teachers. International Journal of Special Education, 33, 34–61. Khochen, M., & Radford, J. (2012). Attitudes of teachers and head teachers towards inclusion in Lebanon. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(2), 139–153. Lindsay, G. (2007). Annual review: Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1–24. MEHE & CERD. (2023). National policy on inclusive education for children with special needs in Lebanon. MEHE, CERD, Education Cannot Wait, European Union, and UNICEF. Messiou, K. (2006). Understanding marginalisation in education: The voice of children. European journal of psychology of education, 21, 305-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173418. Messiou, K. (2019). The missing voices: Students as a catalyst for promoting inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7–8), 768–781. Nepi, L. D., Facondini, R., Nucci, F., & Peru, A. (2013). Evidence from full-inclusion model: The social position and sense of belonging of students with special educational needs and their peers in Italian primary school. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(3), 319–332. Rose, R., & Shevlin, M. (2004). Encouraging voices: Listening to young people who have been marginalised. Support for Learning, 19(4), 155–161. Ruijs, N. M., & Peetsma, T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4, 67–79. Ruijs, N. M., Van der Veen, I., & Peetsma, T. T. (2010). Inclusive education and students without special educational needs. Educational Research, 52(4), 351–390. Shaeffer, S. (2019). Inclusive education: A prerequisite for equity and social justice. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-­019-­09598-­w Shehab, N., & Al-Hroub, A. (2019). Is the DSM-5 a culturally appropriate assessment tool for identifying learners with ADHD in Lebanese schools? International Journal of Special Education, 34, 166–181. UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2016). General Comment No.4 (2016), Article 24: Right to Inclusive Education, CRPD/C/GC/4. UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from: http://www.refworld.org/docid/57c977e34.html UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and framework for action on special needs education. Adopted by the world conference on special needs education: Access and quality. Paris: UNESCO. Van derMeulen, R. T., Van derBruggen, C. O., Spilt, J. L., Verouden, J., Berkhout, M., & Bögels, S. M. (2014). The pullout program day a week school for gifted children: Effects on social emotional and academic functioning. Child & Youth Care Forum, 43, 287–314. Yang, Y., Gentry, M., & Choi, Y. O. (2012). Gifted students’ perceptions of the regular classes and pull out programs in South Korea. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(3), 270–287. Yang, L., Sin, K. F., & Lui, M. (2015). Social, emotional, and academic functioning of children with SEN integrated in Hong Kong primary school. Asia-Pacific Education Research, 24(4), 545–555. Zammar, R. (2020). The challenges regarding the protection and education on the rights of children: an overview of the situation of the child within the legal and practical compliance in Lebanon (Doctoral dissertation, Notre Dame University-Louaize).

Chapter 3

Student Populations in Inclusive Educational Settings Around the Globe and Lebanon Anies Al-Hroub and Nidal Jouni

Abstract  This chapter provides an overview of the student populations that are anticipated to be present in inclusive educational settings, both globally and in Lebanon. The increasing diversity of societies, as well as the evolving perception of human rights and educational obligations, has led to a growing number of students with varying needs being integrated into mainstream education. Furthermore, this chapter will expound upon the new understanding of special education needs (SEN) and will define the categories of students that are expected to be present in an inclusive educational setting, including gifted students, those with learning disabilities (LD), and regular students. The focus is on inclusive educational settings that promote diversity and integration of heterogeneous populations, providing equal opportunities for all learners.

3.1 Introduction Young children in today’s classrooms embody a variety of racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural identities, have a wide range of developmental abilities, and live in a multitude of family structures (Blanchard et al., 2018). These identities, abilities, and structures intersect on different levels due to globalization, thus producing more complex and differentiated classrooms, challenging the normality of populations and the myth of the average. Until the 1990s, educational systems often focused on the average learners and, consequently, failed to adequately meet the educational needs of the “weaker” and “gifted” students. Students performing below or above average were identified as students with special educational needs (SEN). In response to these special needs,

A. Al-Hroub (*) · N. Jouni Department of Education, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Jouni, A. Al-Hroub, School Inclusion in Lebanon, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34779-5_3

37

38

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

representatives of 92 UNESCO countries, Lebanon among them, met in Salamanca, Spain, and agreed upon adopting inclusive policies in regular schools: Those with special education needs must have access to regular schools which accommodate them within a child-centered pedagogy capable of meeting these needs. Regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society, and achieving education for all. (UNESCO, 1994, Articles 2.4–2.5)

Since the Salamanca Statement, inclusive education has been advocated for by many scholars with a worldwide core goal of maximizing the learning potential of students with special needs in mainstream educational settings (Yang et al., 2015). By the beginning of the twenty-first century, the concept of special educational needs has broadened, extending beyond categories of disability to include all children who need additional differentiated support as defined by UNESCO: “Inclusive education is a process of strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners and can thus be understood as a key strategy to achieve education for All” (UNESCO, 2009, p. 8). Thinking has shifted away from the idea of special education as a specialized response to individual difficulty toward one that focuses on extending what is ordinarily available to everyone in the learning community of the classroom while acknowledging individual differences, thereby transforming the role that special education can play within the international Education For All (EFA) movement and social justice agendas for education (Florian, 2014). As Florian (2014) pointed out, a large and ever-widening gap exists between the purpose of special education and its practice. Therefore, a commitment to inclusive education as expressed in policies is of limited value unless it can be translated into working practices (Rose et al., 2010). Schools’ evaluation practices become a way to better understand how their actions can lead to the implementation of social justice and engage in more equitable inclusive actions. This chapter will review the literature on the evolution of the conceptions of special education and inclusion, the new approaches and challenges in educating all in the appropriate sociocultural system, and the impact of inclusion on students’ performance by uncovering all the practices, which might promote or hinder inclusion within schools. This review will also explore research where children’s voices have been utilized to develop inclusive practices in schools.

3.2 A Changing Society Studies about special educational needs (SEN) and inclusion need to reflect adequately the rapidly changing, increasingly diverse nature of societies in the world. Populations are becoming more heterogeneous with the changes in the cultural, ethnic, and religious profile; patterns of family organization, economic, and occupational structures; the relative status of men and women; and the perception of human rights and social responsibilities (Frederickson & Cline, 2009). Thus, any research on the education of children with SEN needs to take full account of the increasing diversity of society and the impact this has on the kinds of educational provisions

3  Student Populations in Inclusive Educational Settings Around the Globe and Lebanon

39

and inclusive settings. This applies to all countries including Lebanon which witnessed an increasing number of orphans due to successive wars, different religious profiles among its population, culturally diverse families due to marriages with displaced populations into Lebanon, or with foreigners by Lebanese expatriates, increasing rate of divorce and other reasons similar to what is happening all around the globe.

3.3 Special Educational Needs (SEN) From a sociocultural perspective, SEN will be defined as the “Outcome of an interaction between the individual characteristics of learners and the educational environments in which they are learning” (Frederickson & Cline, 2009, p.8). This relatively new conceptualization of SEN differs dramatically from the earlier definitions. A study of the history of SEN will show a gradual shift from the use of medical language, to a within-child model of SEN, to a more recent one integrating the interaction with the learning environment within the definition away from the social conspiracy model based on notions of normality and abnormality. However, many countries are still using categorical descriptions of disabilities or impairments to discuss SEN.  In the UK, four categories of SEN are recognized within the 2001 Code of Practice: (i) communication and interaction; (ii) cognition and learning; (iii) behavior, emotional, and social development; and (iv) sensory and/or physical needs (Garner, 2009). In this framework, SEN is connected to disability and impairment rather than the need to remove all barriers to learning and participation. Norwich (2010) considered that special educational needs are the needs requiring provision, which is additional to, and different from, provision on average available in mainstream schools. Similarly, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines SEN as “Those with special educational needs are defined by the additional public and/or private resources provided to support their education” (Norwich, 2014, p.59). The OECD outlined 4 basic patterns of definitions in 23 countries: 1. Use of disability categories only (e.g., France, Germany) 2. Use of disability categories + disadvantaged students (e.g., Greece, New Zealand) 3. Use of disability categories + disadvantaged students +gifted students (e.g., Spain, Turkey) 4. Base provision on the need to respond to exceptionalities rather than defining students (e.g., New Brunswick, Canada, the UK, and Denmark) (Norwich, 2014, p. 58) As stated, few countries extended the range of children with SEN beyond disabilities. “The concept of special educational needs is broad, extending beyond categories of disability to include all children who need additional support” (Florian, 2014, p. 11). In these rapidly changing societies, this definition represents a shift in thinking needed to move away from what works for most learners with additional

40

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

support given to those few who experience exceptionalities, toward one that presents rich learning opportunities sufficiently differentiated for everyone in an inclusive environment. Unfortunately, Special Educational Needs in Lebanon are defined based on disability only despite the presence of significantly other categories as disadvantaged students due to successive wars and more than one refugee crisis.

3.4 Defining Students with SEN, LD, and/or Giftedness Disability is often the first and only dimension of diversity that people associate with special education and issues of inclusion (Theodaris et al., 2015); nevertheless, it is increasingly looked at inclusive education as a reform that welcomes diversity among all learners (UNESCO, 2009). Defining Students with Learning Disabilities  “Learning disability is a term used to describe a group of neurological conditions that interfere with a person’s learning” (Harwell & Williams Jackson, 2008, p.1). The term learning disability (LD) is broadly used to describe a heterogeneous group of deficits; persons with LD have specific impairments in one or more academic areas (Martinez & Semrud-Clikeman, 2004). The impact of the conditions may range from mild to severe and may affect listening, speaking, reading, writing, and mathematical calculation. LD may also include an attention deficit component and a socio-emotional component. As LD are not obvious, they are referred to as hidden disabilities and cause feelings of frustration, anger, depression, anxiety, and worthlessness (Al-Hroub, 2010a, b 2021; Al-Hroub & Whitebread, 2008, 2019; Harwell & Williams Jackson, 2008). Before 1937 LD was not recognized; it was until the late 1960s that Samuel Kirk suggested the term. Free and appropriate services were given to students with LD in the “least restrictive environment” by 1975 in the USA in the presence of a resource specialist. In the late 1980s, children served in pull-out programs joined general education and inclusion was the new word. Incidences of LD range from a low of 1 percent in Japan and China to 33 percent in Venezuela, depending on who is counted (Harwell & Williams Jackson, 2008). Students with LD have traditionally been identified using psychological standardized testing especially using an intelligence test (IQ) to index and compare it with their achievement. Students with significant discrepancies between the two were eligible for identification as having learning disabilities (Vaughn et al., 2014). The overreliance on IQ measures and the requirement to wait for a discrepancy between IQ and achievement led to recommendations for using other means for identification (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009) such as dynamic assessment. Causal factors are numerous and divergent and are still in the study. It is worth mentioning that in Lebanon as in some other countries most of the time, we refer to children with SEN as children with disabilities, more precisely children with learning disabilities. In some earlier reviews, children with mild to

3  Student Populations in Inclusive Educational Settings Around the Globe and Lebanon

41

moderate LD are considered the biggest group of children with SEN (Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). Defining Gifted Students  While there is a general agreement that special education services should be offered for children with learning disabilities, it is still not fully recognized that gifted children have special needs (VanderMeulen et al., 2014). No one definition of gifted or giftedness is universally accepted (Al-Hroub, 2022, 2023). Labels as talented, high achiever, extremely gifted, or genius make defining giftedness ambiguous and inconsistent across countries and experts. Additionally, the interconnected components of giftedness such as intelligence, creativity, and achievement make identifying gifted students harder (Al-Hroub & El Khoury, 2018b). Definitions in the USA have been evolving from 1972 to 1993; the latter still stands in the new millennium: Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or environment. These children and youth exhibit high-performance capability in intellectual, creative, and /or artistic areas, possess an unusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. They require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools. Outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor. (Davis et al., 2014, p.18)

Gifted children come into the classroom with unique skills, abilities, and needs. Strengths include the ability to grasp new information, strong problem-solving skills, and long attention spans with high motivation and persistence (Al-Hroub, 2013, 2021; Borders et al., 2014); they frequently show superior affective characteristics such as social skills, personal adjustment, self-concepts, independence, self-­ confidence, internal control, humor, high moral thinking, and empathy (Al-Hroub, 2011, 2012; Al-Hroub & El-Khoury, 2018c). However, some highly gifted children may suffer from social inadequacies, anxiety, and depression (Rimm et al., 2018). There are many strategies for identifying gifted and talented students, some stressing only intelligence and considering a high IQ score an indicator of giftedness. However, the “Bell curve” has been criticized for ignoring modern conceptions of intellectual giftedness, and many educators are recommending that talent development replace gifted education (Al-Hroub, 2020; Rimm et al., 2018) which may imply broader identification and programming for all students by adopting multidimensional assessment of talents (Al-Hroub, 2010, 2021). Incidences of giftedness vary from 3% to 20% as in the talent pool approach by Renzulli (Al-Hroub, 1999; Rimm et al., 2018) depending on the definition of giftedness and the relevant components. Teaching gifted students in inclusive settings can be in different forms ranging from independent study to small group instruction, learning stations or centers, tiered lessons, and problem-based learning (Al-Hroub, 2010; Borders et al., 2014). Acceleration and enrichment are also two controversial options for serving the gifted population with contradictory research results (Rimm et al., 2018). An important issue to raise here is that the overrepresentation of minorities among students with learning disabilities corresponds to an underrepresentation of minorities among gifted students. Again, social justice and equity are to be

42

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

viewed in terms of inclusion as removing all barriers to learning and participation in a relevant sociocultural setting. Although in fully inclusive settings gifted and LD students are in the same regular classrooms, most teachers struggle with adequately meeting the needs of gifted children, and the focus is most often on average and LD students (Al-Hroub, 2009, 2010a, b ; Osin & Legsold, 1996). One example of how gifted children have not been targeted in earlier years is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 in the USA which aimed at boosting the achievement of the lowest-achieving students. The lowest-achieving 10% of students have made dramatic gains in reading and math; gifted students have languished academically with insignificant gains (Loveless, 2008). The needs of gifted children have been denied, and this denial may lead to inappropriate instruction, which in turn may lead to boredom (Gallagher et al., 1997). Opposite to calls for offering special education services to students with LD in general education classrooms, contradictory views about educating gifted students in regular classrooms have been raised. Separate studies have been reviewed from the 1990s through 2007 by Reis (2009) who reported a crucial summary stating that the needs of gifted students are generally not met in American classrooms where the focus is most often on struggling learners; grouping gifted students for instruction increases their achievement; and use of acceleration results in higher achievement. Regular school programs may meet neither the academic nor social needs of gifted children (Rimm et al., 2018), and gifted students may be rejected due to their differences in a general education setting (Al-Hroub, 2007). These findings reveal the challenge inclusion of gifted students will face when adopted as a learning environment for them. It has been acknowledged that general education needs to be more responsive to diversity and committed to providing equitable learning opportunities that promote the development of gifted students whose characteristics include a rapid rate of learning. A crucial question has been raised when discussing the inclusion of gifted students: “Is the primary goal of education social change or development of the individual?” (Cramond et al., 2002, p.126). It has been found that there are losses in achievement test scores of students from upper-level classes who are regrouped heterogeneously (Brewer et  al., 1995). However, as inclusion’s latest definition is involved more with removing barriers to learning and participation instead of issues of placement, studies on the benefits or impact of inclusion on gifted students’ performance need to be conducted more extensively. As for Lebanon, the country lacks a formal system of education for gifted students as a result of its lack of understanding of the construct of giftedness which is the main reason for the shortage of gifted education in Lebanon (Al Hroub & El Khoury, 2018a).

3.5 Defining Students Without SEN: Regular Students In the debate on inclusive education, a third population is important besides LD and gifted: students without special educational needs, known as regular students or typically developed students. Proponents of inclusive education believe that an

3  Student Populations in Inclusive Educational Settings Around the Globe and Lebanon

43

inclusive setting will provide the experience for school peers without a known disability to develop a better understanding and tolerance for diversity among students (Kalambouka et al., 2007). Thus, regular students in this study are the ones who are typically developing and without a known disability. Disability is often the first and only dimension of diversity that people associate with special education and issues of inclusion (Theoharis et al., 2015); nevertheless, inclusive education is increasingly looked at as a reform that welcomes diversity among all learners, integrating gifted students, students with learning disabilities and regular students (UNESCO, 2009).

3.6 Conclusion The chapter highlighted the need for inclusive educational settings that promote diversity and integration of heterogeneous populations, providing equal opportunities for all learners. The increasing diversity of societies, as well as the evolving perception of human rights and educational obligations, have led to a growing number of students with varying needs being integrated into mainstream education. This has resulted in a need for a new understanding of special educational needs (SEN) that extends beyond categories of disability to include all children who need additional differentiated support. The Salamanca Statement adopted by representatives of 92 UNESCO countries, including Lebanon, in 1994, advocated for inclusive policies in regular schools, stating that those with special educational needs must have access to regular schools that can meet their needs. Since then, inclusive education has been advocated for by many scholars with a worldwide core goal of maximizing the learning potential of students with special needs in mainstream educational settings. Thinking has shifted away from the idea of special education as a specialized response to individual difficulty toward one that focuses on extending what is ordinarily available to everyone in the learning community of the classroom while acknowledging individual differences, thereby transforming the role that special education can play within the international Education For All (EFA) movement and social justice agendas for education. Furthermore, the chapter emphasized that studies about SEN and inclusion need to reflect adequately the rapidly changing, increasingly diverse nature of societies in the world. Populations are becoming more heterogeneous with the changes in the cultural, ethnic, and religious profile, patterns of family organization, economic and occupational structures, the relative status of men and women, and the perception of human rights and social responsibilities. The changing society applies to all countries, including Lebanon, which has witnessed an increasing number of orphans due to successive wars, different religious profiles among its population, culturally diverse families due to marriages with displaced populations into Lebanon or with foreigners by Lebanese expatriates, increasing rate of divorce, and other reasons similar to what is happening all around the globe.

44

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

Additionally, the chapter defined SEN as the outcome of an interaction between the individual characteristics of learners and the educational environments in which they are learning. This relatively new conceptualization of SEN differs dramatically from the earlier definitions, which used medical language or within-child models. However, many countries are still using categorical descriptions of disabilities or impairments to discuss SEN. In the UK, four categories of SEN are recognized within the 2001 Code of Practice, and in this framework, SEN is connected to disability and impairment rather than the need to remove all barriers to learning and participation. Overall, the chapter provided an insightful overview of the student populations that are anticipated to be present in inclusive educational settings, both globally and in Lebanon. It highlighted the need for inclusive policies in regular schools that can accommodate learners with SEN and promote diversity and integration of heterogeneous populations, providing equal opportunities for all learners. The chapter emphasized that studies about SEN and inclusion need to reflect adequately the rapidly changing, increasingly diverse nature of societies in the world and that the new conceptualization of SEN focuses on extending what is ordinarily available to everyone in the learning community of the classroom while acknowledging individual differences.

References Al-Hroub, A. (1999). Theories and programs for the education of gifted and talented. Dar Al-Shorouk. Al-Hroub, A. (2007). Parents’ and teachers’ contributions to identifying the unusual behavioural patterns of mathematically gifted children with learning difficulties (MG/LD) in Jordan. The Psychology of Education Review, 31, 8–16. Al-Hroub, A. & Whitebread, D. (2008). Teacher nomination of ‘mathematically gifted children with learning difficulties’ at three public schools in Jordan. The British Journal of Special Education, 35, 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2008.00379.x Al-Hroub, A. (2009). Charting self-concept, beliefs and attitudes towards mathematics among mathematically gifted pupils with learning difficulties. Gifted and Talented International, 24, 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2009.11674864. Al-Hroub, A. (2010a). Programming for mathematically gifted children with learning difficulties in Jordan. Roeper Review, 32(4), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2010.508157 Al-Hroub, A. (2010b). Perceptual skills and Arabic literacy patterns for mathematically gifted children with learning difficulties in Jordan. The British Journal of Special Education, 37, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2010.00453.x Al-Hroub, A. (2011). Developing assessment profiles for mathematically gifted children with learning difficulties in England. Journal of Education for the Gifted, 34(1), 7–44. https://doi. org/10.1177/016235321003400102 Al-Hroub, A. (2012). Theoretical issues surrounding the concept of gifted with learning difficulties. International Journal for Research in Education, 31, 30–60. http://www.cedu.uaeu.ac.ae/ journal/issue31/ch2_31ar.pdf Al-Hroub, A. (2013). A multidimensional model for the identification of dual-exceptional learners. Gifted and Talented International, 28, 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2013.11678403 Al-Hroub, A & Whitebread, D. (2019). Dynamic assessment for identification for twice-exceptional learners exhibiting mathematical giftedness and specific learning disabilities. Roeper Review, 41, 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2019.1585396

3  Student Populations in Inclusive Educational Settings Around the Globe and Lebanon

45

Al-Hroub, A. (2020). Use of the Jordanian WISC-III for twice-exceptional identification. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity (IJTDC), 1&2, 121–144. Al-Hroub, A. (2021). The utility of psychometric and dynamic assessments for identifying cognitive characteristics of twice-exceptional students exhibiting mathematical giftedness and learning disabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.747872 Al-Hroub, A. (2022). Gifted education in Lebanon: Re-examining the role of educational and learning capitals. Cogent Education, 9(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2073644 Al-Hroub, A. (2023). Rethinking gifted education in Jordan: An analysis of the role of educational and learning capitals. Cogent Education, 10(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.108 0/2331186X.2023.2203591 Al-Hroub, A., & El Khoury, S. (2018a). Introduction to giftedness in Lebanon. In I. S. El Khoury & A. Al-Hroub (Eds.), Gifted education in Lebanese schools: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 1–8). Springer International Publishing. Al-Hroub, A., & El Khoury, S. (2018b). Definitions and conceptions of giftedness around the world. In I.  S. El Khoury & A.  Al-Hroub (Eds.), Gifted education in Lebanese schools: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 9–38). Springer International Publishing. Al-Hroub, A., & El Khoury, S. (2018c). Giftedness in Lebanon: Emerging issues and future considerations. In I. S. El Khoury & A. Al-Hroub (Eds.), Gifted education in Lebanese schools: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 95–110). Springer International Publishing. Blanchard, S. B., King, E., Van Schagen, A., Roach Scott, M., Crosby, D., & Beasley, J. (2018). Diversity, inclusion, equity, and social justice: How antibias content and self-reflection support early childhood preservice teacher consciousness. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 39(4), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2017.1408722 Borders, C., Woodley, S., & Moore, E. (2014). Inclusion and giftedness (pp. 127–146). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0270-­4013(2014)0000026006 Brewer, D. J., Rees, D. I., & Argys, L. M. (1995). Detracting America's schools: The reform without cost? Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 210–215. Cramond, B., Benson, L., & Martin, C. (2002). Serving gifted students through inclusion. Roeper Review, 24(3), 125–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190209554150 Davis, G., Rimm, S., & Siegle, D. (2014). Education of the gifted and talented. Pearson. Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, M. (2009). Response to intervention models as alternatives to traditional views of learning disabilities: Response to the commentaries. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 48–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-­8606.2008.00076.x Florian, L. (2014). Reimagining special education. In L.  Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 9–22). SAGE. Frederickson, N., & Cline, T. (2009). Special educational needs, inclusion and diversity. McGraw-­ Hill Education. Gallagher, J., Harradine, C., & Coleman, M. (1997). Challenge or boredom: Gifted students’ view on their schooling. Roeper Review, 19(3), 132–136. Garner, P. (2009). Special educational needs: The key concepts. Routledge. Harwell, J.  M., & Williams Jackson, R. (2008). The complete learning disabilities handbook: Ready-to-use strategies and activities for teaching students with learning disabilities. Wiley, Incorporated. Kalambouka, A., Farrell, P., Dyson, A., & Kaplan, I. (2007). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educational Research, 49, 365–382. Loveless, T. (2008). An analysis of NAEP data. In Thomas B.  Fordham Institute (Ed.), High achieving students in the era of NCLB (pp. 13–40). Author. Martinez, R. S., & Semrud-Clikerman, M. (2004). Emotional adjustment and school functioning of young adolescents with multiple versus single learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(5), 411–420. Norwich, B. (2010). Dilemmas of difference, curriculum and disability: International perspectives. Comparative Education, 46(2), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050061003775330 Norwich, B. (2014). Categories of special educational needs. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 55–72). SAGE.

46

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

Osin, L., & Lesgold, A. (1996). A proposal for the reengineering of the educational system. Review of Educational Research, 66, 621–656. Reis, S. M. (2009). Research that supports the need for and benefits of gifted education. (NAGC Legislative Committee Report). National Association for Gifted Children. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea.02/107-­110.pdf Rimm, S. B., Siegle, D., & Davis, G. A. (2018). Education of the gifted and talented (7th ed.). Pearson. Rose, R., Shevlin, M., Winter, E., & O’raw, P. (2010). Special and inclusive education in the Republic of Ireland: Reviewing the literature from 2000-2009. European Journal of Special Education, 25(4), 359–373. Ruijs, N. M., & Peetsma, T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4, 67–79. Theoharis, G., Causton, J., & Woodfield, C. (2015). Inclusive leadership and disability. In G. Theoharis & M. Scanlan (Eds.), Leadership for increasingly diverse schools (pp. 13–38). Routledge. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and framework for action on special needs education. Adopted by the world conference on special needs education: Access and quality. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Van derMeulen, R. T., Van derBruggen, C. O., Spilt, J. L., Verouden, J., Berkhout, M., & Bögels, S. M. (2014). The pullout program day a week school for gifted children: Effects on social emotional and academic functioning. Child & Youth Care Forum, 43, 287–314. Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Denton, C. (2014). Teaching elementary students with learning disabilities. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 633–658). SAGE. Yang, L., Sin, K. F., & Lui, M. (2015). Social, emotional, and academic functioning of children with SEN integrated in Hong Kong primary school. Asia-Pacific Education Research, 24(4), 545–555.

Chapter 4

Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Inclusive Education Anies Al-Hroub and Nidal Jouni

Abstract  This chapter provides an overview of the historical and theoretical underpinnings of student inclusion in education. It investigates how the notion of inclusion has evolved and its relationship with social justice and equity in education. Additionally, the chapter examines how inclusion is a transformational approach that meets the diverse expectations and needs of all learners and compares different inclusive models across countries. Furthermore, the chapter explores the theoretical foundations of inclusion based on an understanding of the ecological context and sociocultural dimensions of children’s learning. It highlights the link between students’ learning and the application of sociocultural instructional approaches that promote student social interaction and engagement with the learning environment.

4.1 Conceptions of Inclusion 4.1.1 From Exclusion to Inclusion: The Historical Progression of Special Education This section provides an overview of the historical evolution of special education leading up to inclusion. According to Winzer (2014), attitudes toward individuals with disabilities gradually humanized over time but were challenged by debates, issues, and controversies that were shaped by emotional responses and historical and cultural beliefs. Before the eighteenth century, persons with disabilities faced cruel and dismissive attitudes in a society where individual differences were not tolerated in Western cultures (Winzer, 2014). In the early nineteenth century, European concepts merged

A. Al-Hroub (*) · N. Jouni Department of Education, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Jouni, A. Al-Hroub, School Inclusion in Lebanon, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34779-5_4

47

48

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

with American Evangelical pursuits, leading to reforms to improve the lives of people with disabilities. Institutions were built on charity by clergy who were considered the natural guardians of education for students with disabilities. These institutions aimed to protect and rescue this population and segregated them from society. At the end of the nineteenth century, common schools were established in response to social, economic, and political changes. However, the growing student diversity challenged the common school ideal, leading to the continued growth of institutional settings until the mid-twentieth century. Segregated classes dominated the schooling practice and remained the preferred settings for students with disabilities until the mid-twentieth century. It was only after the Second World War that it became evident that separation marginalized and devalued this minority population (Thomas, 2013). By the 1960s, segregation practices in institutional settings were heavily criticized, with a call for social integration mobilized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the Convention against Discrimination in Education in 1960 (Thomas, 2013). This move to oppose exclusion in policy added to the move toward social justice internationally, leading to a resurgence of interest in progressive educational thinkers such as John Holt, Lawrence Cremin, Jean Piaget, and Lev Vygotsky. These educators questioned beliefs about ability and achievement, recognizing that notions of success or failure at school were constructed rather than within the child. From Dewey (1915) and Vygotsky (1934) in the early twentieth century to Lave and Wenger (1991) and Scardamolia and Bereiter (2003) at the end of the century, it was found that learning is social and centrally depends on the learning environment (Thomas, 2013). Mainstreaming emerged as an approach to integrate students with disabilities into general education classes. In the 1980s, integration into mainstream schools became an alternative approach where learners with disabilities were integrated to work alongside regular students but often without the needed support for full participation (Polat, 2011). This practice ranged from partial segregation in special schools and mainstream schools to full placement in mainstream schools and occasional pull-out from mainstream classes for placement in special classes or resource rooms and segregated group activities. Critiques from sociology showed that injustices occurred in systems with separate forms of provision for learners with special educational needs (SEN) (Florian, 2008). Scholars were frustrated with the paradoxical nature of special needs education which led many to embrace the idea of inclusive education. The Wisconsin Education Association Council (2007) highlighted the philosophical and conceptual distinction between integration/mainstreaming and inclusion. The issue of educating students with disabilities has been an ongoing challenge for educators and policymakers, with two main approaches being integration and inclusion. Proponents of integration believe that children with disabilities should first be placed in special education environments and must demonstrate an ability to

4  Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Inclusive Education

49

keep up with the work assigned by the classroom teacher before being integrated into general education settings. In contrast, inclusion supporters view the general classroom as the default setting for all children, and removal from the setting should only occur when appropriate services must be provided elsewhere (Poon-McBrayer, 2014). However, the terms integration and inclusion are often used interchangeably, confusing (Mittler, 2000). Polat (2011) distinguished between the two terms, stating that integration refers to the partial or full physical placement of children with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream schools, while inclusion involves a broader process of changing values, attitudes, policies, and practices within the school setting and beyond. The importance of inclusion in education was recognized in various international declarations and frameworks, such as the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons (UN, 1982); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989); the World Declaration Education for All (World Conference on Education for All, 1990); the Salamanca Statement and Framework of Action on Special Needs Education (World Conference on Special Needs Education, 1994); the Dakar Framework for Action (World Education Forum, 2000); Education for All (EFA): Towards Inclusion (UNESCO, 2010); and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2007) (Rioux, 2014). However, the implementation of inclusive education remains problematic and slow in many countries, particularly due to the lack of a universally agreed definition of inclusion (Booth et al., 2006). The history of education for all students within a unified system has seen attempts to progress from common schools to inclusive schools. Inclusive education represents the most recent and radical attempt to achieve education for all and respond to the variability within twenty-first-century populations. However, the concept has become entwined with contradictory forces, challenging its originality, vitality, and ability to transform education (Rix, 2011). Many settings have made significant changes in their policies, cultures, and practices in engaging with inclusive education, but some have reinterpreted inclusive constructs to suit their established practices. As we move into the twenty-first century, Thomas (2013) argues that it is time for ideas and policies about inclusion to move forward and explore a range of matters concerning learning, community, identity, and belonging. Gender, health and nutritional status, language, religion, geographic location, migration, culture, economic status, and dis/ability are all seen by educators as barriers to the achievement of education for all and obstacles to a more just, equitable, and inclusive society (Shaeffer, 2019). To conceptualize the evolution of inclusion from an international comparative perspective, four core ideas representing the four phases of concept development are presented in Fig. 4.1. The evolution of the concept of inclusion has shifted from a focus on the need, advocacy, and investment for inclusive schools to the recognition, acceptance, and promotion of inclusivity in all schools regardless of context and students’ profiles (Opertti et al., 2014).

50

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

4.1.2 Inclusion as a Derivative of Social Justice and Equity in Education The achievement of an inclusive society, where all individuals can participate and learn together, necessitates an expanded comprehension and development of inclusive education as a fundamental principle to attain and sustain quality education for all (UNESCO, 2009). Inclusive societies are the application of social justice theories to education. The notion of social justice originated in the mid-nineteenth century when Taparelli advocated for people from all levels of society to collaborate in meeting everyone’s needs without resorting to competition, conflict, or violence (Connor, 2014, p. 112). Social justice education is a philosophy, an approach, and actions that embody treating all people with fairness, respect, dignity, and generosity (Nieto & Bode, 2007). The conceptualization of human rights was influenced by Taparelli’s original thoughts. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, along with the political and social movements for equity in the Civil Rights movements of the 1960s,

2009 UNESCO Policy Guidelines on Inclusion 2008 48th session of the international conference on Education 2005 UNESCO guidelines for inclusion Inclusion

Human-rights based perspective (1948~)

Transforming education systems (2005~)

Response to marginalized groups (2000~)

- 1990 World Conference on Education - 2000 Dakar Framework for Action - 2010 Report

UNESCO

EFA

Monitoring

- 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Right (Article 26) - 1989 Convention on

Response to Children based perspective (1990~)

- 1990 World Conference on Education for All. - 1993 Standard Rules for Equalization Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. - 2006 United Nations Convention with Disabilities. - 2009 Follow-up conference Salamanca statement.

Fig. 4.1  Evolution of inclusion from an international comparative perspective

of

the

4  Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Inclusive Education

51

led educators to view universal education of good quality as an endeavor for achieving nonauthoritarian, equitable, and just societies. Such inclusive societies can more likely be achieved with education systems that are genuinely inclusive of all children and with the creation of environments that celebrate diversity and difference (Shaeffer, 2019). It is important to clarify that inclusive education is not limited to the inclusion of children with disabilities but is a means of shaping an inclusive society by embracing a broad range of diversity beyond disability (Polat, 2011). The debate about whether education fosters equity and social justice is ongoing because a commitment to inclusive education has little impact unless it is translated into actions that enable successful learning outcomes to be achieved (Nieto & Bode, 2007). Globally, many children are not achieving the minimum expected levels of learning due to neglect, disinterest, discriminatory practices, lack of resources and data, and limited access to support systems (Al-Hroub, 2014). Inclusion has become synonymous with access and participation from an equity access and social justice perspective (Kearney, 2009). An inclusive policy with implications for equity and social justice is often presented as an operational process or action aimed at removing all obstacles to access and learning beyond a focus on children with disabilities. These practices, as described by Shaeffer (2019), include increasing enrolment, attendance, and completion, reducing repetition and dropout rates, reducing disparities in provision and student, and celebrating diversity and promoting cohesion. However, schools are still far from achieving such inclusive practices (Ryan, 2006). Scholars argue that social justice cannot be achieved unless students and their parents are included in key educational processes (Ryan, 2006). To reach equitable and just schools, inclusive education should focus on removing complex barriers to learning and participation in schools and creating spaces and opportunities for collaboration among professionals, families, and students. Fraser (1997, 2008) conceptualized a three-dimensional perspective of justice according to which the inclusive education movement will constitute a continuous struggle toward the redistribution of access to and participation in quality opportunities to learn (redistribution dimension); the recognition and valuing of all students differences as reflected in content, pedagogy, and assessment tools (recognition dimension); and the creation of more opportunities for minorities and marginalized groups to advance claims of educational exclusion and their respective solutions (representation dimension). This conceptualizing of justice will help inclusive education deal with how differences are valued, respected, and constructed in the social context of educational institutions. It will allow inclusive education to address students’ issues of misdistribution, misrecognition, and misrepresentation (Waitoller & Annamma, 2017). Findings using this model by Kilinc (2019) revealed that students with disabilities “had justice struggles in regard to misdistribution of access, misrecognition of their abilities and backgrounds, misrepresentation of their voices, and participation in learning activities” (p. 1296). Sampaio and Leite (2018) concluded that the concept of social justice has been developed from a broad view of equity, which is the process by which students can access quality educational environments in which their different learning rhythms are considered. As actions and

52

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

processes are essential to achieving social justice in the learning environments, schools’ evaluation practices will be a better way to understand how their actions can lead to the implementation of social justice and are a mechanism to engage in school diversity and equity (Sampaio & Leite, 2018). Beyond a rights-based argument, there are several reasons why promoting inclusive education systems and schools is important (Ainscow, 2005). Education is meant to not only make individuals more knowledgeable, mature, responsible, and open-minded but also make societies more democratic, equitable, and just (Shaeffer, 2015). Therefore, children leaving an inclusive education system should be able to develop themselves to their fullest potential and play a useful role in  local and national economic, social, and political development leading to a more just, equitable, and cohesive society (Shaeffer, 2019).

4.1.3 An Analysis of the Concept of Inclusion vis-à-vis Inclusive Education The definition of inclusion has been a subject of debate within the educational context. It has been observed that narrow conceptualizations of inclusion have resulted in the word “special” being replaced with “inclusive” without any substantive change (Thomas, 2013). On the other hand, broad conceptualizations of inclusion overlook educationally important differences (Florian, 2008). Consequently, there is a lack of coherent theoretical and conceptual proposals within the discipline of education that would facilitate a detailed debate on the fundamentals of inclusion across different theoretical and conceptual positions (Felder, 2018). Inclusion is a philosophy based on values aimed at minimizing exclusionary and discriminatory practices, intending to maximize the participation of all in society and education (Booth & Ainscow, 2005). The concept of inclusion extends beyond education and encompasses the opportunity for historically excluded populations to benefit from and contribute to economic prosperity (Stacy et al., 2019). Although there is a broad consensus on the value of inclusion in general, there is little agreement on its meaning in educational contexts (Terzi, 2010). The conceptualization of inclusion still lacks a consensus on its theoretical framework, and there are diverse understandings of inclusion in the literature on inclusive education (Felder, 2018). Inclusive education refers to all categories of learners and is not restricted to students with impairments, learning problems, or cultural minority backgrounds (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). Inclusion in everyday language typically refers to social inclusion in social contexts, including school classes and larger societal structures (Felder, 2018). UNESCO (2009) has proposed that building an inclusive society in which all people can participate effectively and learn together entails a broadened understanding of inclusive education as a key principle to attain and sustain quality education for all. Inclusive education is therefore intended to shape an inclusive society, and

4  Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Inclusive Education

53

education for all is designed to achieve an inclusive and equitable society that takes into account a broad range of diversity beyond disability (Polat, 2011). The broader definition of inclusion responds to the diverse needs of all children and promotes participation in learning and wider society (inclusion through education). It addresses access and equity (exclusion from education) and quality (exclusion within education) and demands comprehensive reform of systems (policies, curricula, structures, and strategies) and classrooms (content, pedagogy, and learning environments) to make it happen (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). With the expropriation of the term inclusive education from its focus on disabilities, it is considered a way to ensure a transformation of education systems and learning environments toward inclusion to welcome and respond to difference and diversity (Schaeffer, 2019). Inclusion is now conceived as a transformational approach that addresses a series of challenges and issues that contribute to progressively moving the inclusive education agenda from diverse and often contradictory visions, approaches, and practices structured around categories and groups to a more holistic perspective based on the idea that understanding, respecting, and responding to the expectations and needs of all learners within their contexts and circumstances are the pathway to truly attaining inclusion (Opertti et al., 2014). Within the framework of this transformational approach, inclusive education is visualized as a transversal approach to all dimensions and levels of the educational system, including formal, nonformal, and informal settings and provisions, from a lifelong learning perspective. It personalizes education to understand, address, and respond to the diversity of all learners; removes all barriers at the institutional, curricular, pedagogical, and teacher levels; and synchronizes social and educational inclusion policies and programs facilitating and ensuring the engagement and the welfare of all learners using the triad inclusive curriculum-school-teachers framework, encouraging the active role and participation of learners, their families, and their communities by promoting school cultures and environments and equipping teachers with the appropriate competencies to teach and support diverse student populations (Black-Hawkins, 2010). This transformative meaning of inclusion contrasts with a rather thin understanding of inclusion, which means nothing more than a form of placement, usually in an ordinary school rather than a special school. Norwich (2014) differentiated between this thin understanding of inclusion compared to a broader and substantial concept of inclusion that can highlight the different tensions and dilemmas resulting from a transformative multidimensional approach.

4.1.4 Justifying Inclusion Florian (2014) contends that the special education policy framework, which aims to provide access to education for students who would otherwise be excluded from schooling, paradoxically results in inequalities within education. This problem is compounded by the use of categorical descriptions to determine eligibility for special education provision, which varies across time and countries and within and

54

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

between identified groups. However, the Salamanca Statement of 1994 recognized that all children have the right to education within an inclusive education system, and the shift in focus from differences among learners to learning for all established an agenda for inclusive learning contexts (UNESCO, 1994). Consequently, inclusion has become one of the most significant values and objectives in today’s society, although there is still a relatively broad consensus about its value. The rationale for inclusive practices in educational contexts is to address inequities in the current school system. These inequities range from the overrepresentation of minorities in special education programs (Harry & Klingner, 2014) to the disparities in learning and participation opportunities evident in dual and separate systems (Capper et al., 2000). These disparities in educational opportunities reflect deep social inequities inherent in the educational system, which affect groups who are deprived of equal and fair opportunities due to their gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, language/ religion, disability, or refugee/migrant status. The disproportionate placement of marginalized, disadvantaged, or minority groups leads to seriously questionable outcomes and justifies the reconceptualization of special education (Al-Hroub, 2011, 2013; Al-Hroub et al., 2020). Furthermore, graduating from a special school significantly reduces the chances of obtaining proper employment or pursuing further education (Felder, 2018), reinforcing the argument in favor of inclusive schooling. It is not sufficient to simply enroll students in schools; it is necessary to provide a quality education that enables them to reach their full potential and participate fully in future community and national development (Shaeffer, 2019). Thus, referral for special services has been reconceptualized to refer to specialized assistance, rather than removal from the mainstream of special education (Harry & Klingner, 2014).

4.1.5 Differences Across Countries and Within Countries Inclusive education, as a global movement following the Salamanca Statement, has become a prominent part of many nations’ policy agendas. However, the implementation of inclusive education varies greatly across countries due to their distinct sociocultural, political, and economic contexts, which shape the local and national discourses on this concept (Artiles et al., 2011). The meaning of inclusive education in the United States differs from that in the international community. In the United States, it refers to providing access to the general education classroom for students with disabilities, whereas the international community considers inclusive education to be a broader equity agenda for all students (Artiles & Kozleski, 2007). Furthermore, inclusion as a term does not exist in American law, unlike inclusive practice, which is covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004). The provision of inclusive education is carried out in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) framework, whereby students with disabilities have the legal right to be placed in the LRE. The general education classroom is the first place to be considered for placing a student with special educational needs according to LRE, with the provision of appropriate supplementary aids and services (Theoharis & Causton, 2014).

4  Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Inclusive Education

55

The interpretation of terms such as special needs education, inclusive education, or inclusive schools varies significantly across Europe (Kyriazopoulou & Weber, 2009). This variation extends to the policies, practices, and terminology used in different European countries, as well as the proportion of students enrolled in special education. For instance, between 2000 and 2004, only 0.4% of Spanish students were educated in special settings, whereas 4.9% of German students were educated in special schools (Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). Furthermore, some European countries, such as Denmark, have identified two types of special education models, while more than ten such models are used in the Netherlands (Meijer & Van den Wittenboer, 2004). In response to this variation, the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education undertook a project to develop a set of indicators for inclusive education in Europe. The project involved 23 countries and 32 national experts, to create a methodology to generate a set of indicators for the national level that would be applicable at the European level (Kyriazopoulou & Weber, 2009). Despite ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons (CRDP), most European countries encountered challenges in developing efficient inclusive education systems, except those with the required socioeconomic conditions and necessary services (Kavelashivili, 2017). Inclusive education to support learning for all is gaining ground in the Arab region. Despite the adoption and ratification of the 2004 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, inclusive education in most Arab countries remains at the development stage. Efforts are being made to educate students with special educational needs within the general education system. However, these countries face challenges in restructuring their education systems into inclusive systems, including the social stigma associated with individuals with special needs and disabilities, issues related to terminology and definition, and issues related to policies and legislation (Gaad, 2011; AlKhateeb et  al., 2016). Notably, research on inclusive education in Arab countries is limited, with over two-thirds of the studies conducted in the United Aarab Emirates, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia (AlKhateeb et al., 2016). In Hong Kong, inclusive education was achieved by public pressure for improvement of practices instead of policy directions, following three development phases of inclusive education since the piloting of integration in 1997 (Poon-McBrayer, 2014). This evolution was not easy in a predominantly Chinese population and a society still under the influence of Confucian ideology, according to which parents prefer to send their children with disabilities to special schools (Poon-McBrayer, 2014). Nevertheless, the government’s adoption of indicators of inclusion adapted from the Index for Inclusion (Vaughan, 2000) provided schools with guidelines for effective inclusion practices (Education Bureau, 2008), leading Hong Kong to enter the stage of inclusion despite various political, social, cultural, and economic forces (Poon-McBrayer, 2014). Overall, the adoption and implementation of inclusive education vary across countries and within countries, reflecting differences in sociocultural, political, and economic contexts, policies, practices, and terminologies. As such, the process of developing inclusive education systems requires careful consideration of these contextual factors and tailored approaches.

56

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

4.1.6 Delivery Models: A Sociocultural Perspective The models of service delivery and forms of provision for children with special educational needs (SEN) are determined by the cultural and social context in which they are situated. As noted by Cline and Frederickson (2014), how SEN is conceptualized within a culture influences expectations regarding inclusion, integration, segregation, and specialization. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires placement in the general education classroom with support as needed unless there is reasonable evidence that a student’s needs cannot be met in that setting (IDEA, 2004). This suggests that inclusion and resource allocation should be considered as part of a continuum of services for students with disabilities. However, it is still challenging to meet the needs of some students with severe disabilities in the large-group general education setting. As a result, intensive small-­ group instruction provided in the special education setting may be necessary (McCullough, 2008). Despite the potential benefits of specialized instruction, research has shown that students with special educational needs who are placed in inclusive settings have the advantage of interacting with more capable peers and may be more motivated in the general education setting (Idol, 2006). Building on these findings, many students are now receiving special education services in the general education setting, where support strategies may include accommodations to enable access to the general education setting, differentiated instructional practices, and modified or adapted materials. The inclusive model that is widely adopted around the world involves co-teaching between a general educator and a special educator or a paraprofessional providing direct support to students in the general education setting (Hawkins, 2011). This model was also adopted by the school involved in the present study. In conclusion, the way in which special educational needs are conceptualized within a given culture influences the models of service delivery and forms of provision for children with SEN. Although specialized instruction in the special education setting may be necessary for some students, the inclusive model that involves co-teaching or direct support in the general education setting is widely adopted and has shown to be advantageous for many students with special educational needs. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the sociocultural context and individual needs when determining appropriate service delivery models for students with SEN.

4.1.7 Challenges and New Approaches Inclusive education, as a policy and practice, requires further exploration of a range of issues related to learning, community, identity, and belonging to overcome the challenges it is currently facing (Thomas, 2013). While there is a global push for inclusion, some advocates argue for the benefits of separate education as opposed to the impracticality of inclusion, thus highlighting the need to engage with critics and

4  Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Inclusive Education

57

evolve from previous forms of exceptionalism (Hallahan et al., 2023; Kaufman & Hallahan, 2005; Thomas, 2013; Warnock, 2005; Warnock & Norwich, 2010). A major challenge for inclusion lies in the discourse surrounding student learning and intelligence, which continues to be rooted in deficit-based beliefs despite the implementation of specialized services in natural environments and general education classrooms (Nusbaum, 2013). Additionally, a discourse that considers disability as abnormal and tragic persists, which hinders efforts to address marginalization and discrimination against those who are considered different (Florian, 2014). The concept of normality is another significant challenge to inclusion, as schools often group students based on statistical forms of ability, where normality is determined by what is average (Florian, 2014; Polat, 2011). This results in practices that marginalize students who are different from the norm, and inclusive education must address this by valuing diversity beyond disability and moving toward a three-­ dimensional perspective (Polat, 2011; Thomas, 2013). Furthermore, the overrepresentation of minority groups within special education programs is a persistent issue that inclusion must tackle to achieve equitable educational provision for all students (Florian, 2014; Harry & Klingner, 2014). An additional challenge is the reinterpretation of inclusive constructs to suit established practices, which reinforces the gap between the purpose and practice of special education (Rix, 2011). Rix (2011) stated, “In the process of engaging with inclusion, many settings have made changes, but many have also reinterpreted inclusive constructs to suit their established practices” (p. 276). In response to this large and ever-widening gap that exists between the purpose of special education and its practice, school evaluation practices can be a way to understand how their actions can lead to better inclusive settings and thus better implementation of special justice (Sampaio & Leite, 2018). Inclusion as a form of special education must change in response to twenty-first-century concerns about providing an equitable and personalized education for all students, no matter how diverse they are.

4.2 Theoretical Bases of Inclusion: Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory In special education, there has been a tendency to prioritize practical outcomes and service delivery over theoretical frameworks that explain children’s learning and development (Mallory & New, 1994). While educators have been successful in improving the lives of young children with special educational needs (SEN), their actions have been more pragmatic than reflective, resulting in little consideration of the ecological context and sociocultural dimensions of learning. As the field of special education moves toward inclusion, a more sophisticated understanding of the contextual factors and sociocultural dimensions of learning is needed to transform schools into inclusive and equitable communities that support learning for all.

58

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

The theoretical framework for this study is based on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, which suggests that learning takes place through social interaction and engagement with the environment (Vygotsky, 1962). Inclusive education deals with how differences are constructed in a social context (Gallagher et  al., 2014), and research shows that students with disabilities face challenges related to access, recognition of their abilities and backgrounds, and participation in learning activities (Al-Hroub, 2021; Al-Hroub & Whitebread, 2019; Kilinc, 2019). To fully support inclusive practices, a deep sense of connectedness to one’s community is needed (Budd, 2016). Therefore, the sociocultural theory provides a comprehensive description of the dynamic contexts and processes through which the learning and development of children with SEN take place (Valenzuela, 2014). Vygotsky is considered the founder of cultural psychology, a theory in which the human being is the subject of cultural, rather than natural processes (Al-Hroub, 2009a, b; Ratner, 1991). His work has been recognized as a unique theoretical framework for special education, as it shifted the understanding of human behavior from being biologically based to the sociocultural explanation of human activity by connecting sociocultural processes in society to mental processes in the individual (Gindis, 1999). As such, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory provides a theoretical basis for understanding and supporting inclusion in education.

4.3 Approaches of Sociocultural Theory in Inclusion The sociocultural theory emphasizes the role of social, cultural, and historical factors in the development of higher psychological processes, and therefore, instructional activities should focus on development rather than mere skill acquisition (Valenzuela, 2014). This approach involves a significant shift in attitude from viewing difference as a deficiency to valuing diversity. Inclusive educational settings offer the opportunity to foster cognitive development through social interactions, utilizing a variety of instructional approaches.

4.3.1 Scaffolding Vygotsky’s theory of scaffolding refers to the distance between a learner’s problem-­ solving abilities working alone and those same abilities when collaborating with more experienced individuals, such as adults or peers (Daniels, 2008). Scaffolding mediates the development of higher psychological functions (Valenzuela, 2014), promoting cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral forms of development (Al-Hroub, 2011; Feurestein, 1980). Holton and Clarke (2006) identified three scaffolding agents: expert, self, and peer, which are involved in the development of higher psychological functions. Inclusive interventions using the scaffolding approach must be contextually and culturally appropriate (Sternberg & Williams, 2010).

4  Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Inclusive Education

59

4.3.2 Zone of Proximal Development Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) theory proposes that learning occurs in the gap between an individual’s actual development level, determined by independent problem-solving, and their level of potential development, determined by problem-solving with more capable peers (Bassot, 2012). Teachers play a crucial role in identifying each student’s unique ZPD and designing tasks within that zone to promote cognitive development. Inclusive education within a sociocultural context necessitates careful consideration of each child’s ZPD and the incorporation of appropriate social and cultural contexts for learning. This approach is equally applicable to children with special needs, including gifted children. Gindis (1999) suggests that ZPD offers a qualitative distinction between children with developmental cognitive delay and educationally neglected, temporarily delayed, bilingual students, or those from impoverished families. Inclusive settings are expected to create challenges within the zone of development for all children to promote cognitive development. In summary, sociocultural theory emphasizes the role of social, cultural, and historical factors in cognitive development, and instructional activities should focus on development rather than mere skill acquisition. The scaffolding and ZPD approaches are effective methods for promoting higher psychological functions and cognitive development. Inclusive educational settings must consider the unique needs of each child and create appropriate social and cultural contexts for learning (Al-Hroub, 2012, 2021).

4.3.3 Joint Productive Activity The sociocultural theory, particularly the concept of zone of proximal development (ZPD), posits that individuals with special educational needs (SEN) in inclusive settings learn socially through the interaction between a more competent person and a less competent person on a task. This interaction allows the less competent person to become proficient independently in what was initially a jointly accomplished task (Al-Hroub, 2009a, 2011; Rieber & Robinson, 2004). The ZPD suggests that a person can perform a greater number of tasks in collaboration than they can perform alone, and the notion of ZPD goes beyond the traditional meaning of a learning situation to a more advanced interaction between experts and children in the form of cognitive apprenticeships (Al-Hroub, 2009b; Zambo, 2009). According to Tharp (1997), joint productive activity, grounded in sociocultural theory, is ideal for supporting diverse learners in the classroom, including those with the most significant needs for support (Valenzuela, 2014). The joint productive activity allows learners to influence the development of the learning context, resulting in collaborative learning that enables students to contribute their world knowledge to move their community ahead (Zambo, 2009).

60

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

Therefore, joint productive activity can be viewed as a shared and responsive social process that is not unique to any category of learners but applies to all, provided that learners receive proper assistance and are operating within their zone of proximal development.

4.3.4 Instructional Conversation Language and discourse are cultural tools that promote learning and cognitive development in Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. The ZPD, according to Vygotsky, embodies a concept of readiness to learn that emphasizes upper levels of competence, which are constantly changing with the learner’s increasing independent competence and which vary significantly among diverse learners (Daniels, 2008). In Vygotsky’s framework, the learner becomes an active participant in a socially negotiated project and constructs their meaning from socially available meaning (Al-Hroub, 2021; Al-Hroub & Whitebread, 2019; Daniels, 2008). The process of teaching and learning based on instructional conversation is referred to as dialogue in Vygotsky’s theory. This dialogue may be mediated by various tools and signs, which Vygotsky refers to as “psychological tools” or cultural artifacts (Daniels, 2008). Valenzuela (2014) argues that if students with disabilities are educated in a segregated setting, they will lack the opportunity to use, refine, and acquire communication abilities initiated by instructional conversation. Inclusive practices, policies, and cultures should aim to transform social practices within the inclusive setting to avoid marginalizing children with SEN and minimize the social complications of disability and giftedness. Furthermore, the Index of Inclusion, from which the indicators for inclusion used in the study were derived, frames inclusive practices, policies, and cultures in terms of “barriers to learning and participation” instead of the term “special educational needs.” This approach is consistent with the social model, which posits that barriers to participation may arise from the nature of the setting or through an interaction between students and their contexts (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). Given that Vygotsky argues that cultural tools and practices have a formative effect on development (Daniels, 2008), these barriers to participation can become a cause for concern. Vygotsky’s comments on inclusion should be understood within his cultural and historical context, and his vision for the future model of special education involved “Inclusion based on positive differentiation” (Gindis, 1999, p. 338). Vygotsky advocated for an inclusive model of special education that is based on positive differentiation, which could only be achieved through a truly differentiated learning environment. According to Vygotsky, such an environment is essential for the full development of a child’s higher psychological functions and overall personality. Future studies could investigate the impact of this approach on student performance in inclusive settings (Gindis, 1999).

4  Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Inclusive Education

61

4.4 Conclusion This chapter has explored historical and theoretical approaches to student inclusion in education. The concept of inclusion has evolved from a focus on special education needs to a broader definition that encompasses all learners, regardless of background or context. However, the definition of inclusion remains a subject of debate, and there is a lack of consensus on its theoretical framework, which hampers the development of coherent theoretical and conceptual proposals. Inclusive education is viewed as a philosophy based on values that aim to minimize exclusionary and discriminatory practices and maximize the participation of all in society and education. From a transformative perspective, inclusive education is seen as a way to ensure a transformation of education systems and learning environments toward inclusion to welcome and respond to differences and diversity. Inclusive education is viewed as a transversal approach to all dimensions and levels of the educational system, including formal, nonformal, and informal settings and provisions. It is based on the idea that understanding, respecting, and responding to the expectations and needs of all learners within their contexts and circumstances are the pathway to truly attaining inclusion. Inclusive education is visualized as a way to personalize education; remove all barriers at the institutional, curricular, pedagogical, and teacher levels; and synchronize social and educational inclusion policies and programs facilitating and ensuring the engagement and welfare of all learners. Despite the broad consensus on the value of inclusion in general, there is little agreement on its meaning in educational contexts. A broader definition of inclusion responds to the diverse needs of all children and promotes participation in learning and wider society. It addresses access and equity and quality and demands comprehensive reform of systems and classrooms to make it happen. However, a thin understanding of inclusion, which means nothing more than a form of placement, usually in an ordinary school rather than a special school, persists. To justify the inclusion, it is essential to recognize that the special education policy framework, which aims to provide access to education for students who would otherwise be excluded from schooling, paradoxically results in inequalities within education. The use of categorical descriptions to determine eligibility for special education provision also varies across time and countries and within and between identified groups. However, the Salamanca Statement of 1994 recognized that all children have the right to education within an inclusive education system. The shift in focus from differences among learners to learning for all established an agenda for inclusive learning contexts. In summary, the concept of inclusion is complex, and its definition remains a subject of debate. However, inclusive education is viewed as a transformative approach that addresses a series of challenges and issues that contribute to progressively moving the inclusive education agenda from diverse and often contradictory visions, approaches, and practices structured around categories and groups to a more holistic perspective based on the idea that understanding, respecting, and

62

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

responding to the expectations and needs of all learners within their contexts and circumstances are the pathway to truly attaining inclusion. To make inclusion a reality, it is essential to personalize education; remove all barriers at the institutional, curricular, pedagogical, and teacher levels; and synchronize social and educational inclusion policies and programs. Ultimately, the goal of inclusive education is to achieve an inclusive and equitable society that takes into account a broad range of diversity beyond disability.

References Ainscow, M. (2005). Looking to the future: Towards a common sense of purpose. The Australasian Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 182–186. https://doi.org/10.2260/1030-­0112.29.2.0268 Al-Hroub, A. (2009a). Dynamic assessment applied to preschool children with learning difficulties. La Nouvelle revue de l’adaptationet de la scolarisation, 46, 69–76. https://doi.org/10.3917/ nras.046.0069 Al-Hroub, A. (2009b). Évaluation dynamique appliquée aux préscolaires présentant des difficulties d'apprentissage. La Nouvelle revue de l’adaptationet de la scolarisation, 46, 61–68. https:// doi.org/10.3917/nras.046.0061 Al-Hroub, A. (2011). Developing assessment profiles for mathematically gifted children with learning difficulties in England. Journal of Education for the Gifted, 34(1), 7–44. https://doi. org/10.1177/016235321003400102 Al-Hroub, A. (2012). Theoretical issues surrounding the concept of gifted with learning difficulties. International Journal for Research in Education, 31, 30–60. http://www.cedu.uaeu.ac.ae/ journal/issue31/ch2_31ar.pdf Al-Hroub, A. (2013). A multidimensional model for the identification of dual-exceptional learners. Gifted and Talented International, 28, 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2013.11678403 Al-Hroub, A. (2014). Perspectives of school dropouts’ dilemma in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon: An ethnographic study. International Journal of Educational Development, 35, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2013.04.004 Al-Hroub, A. (2021). The utility of psychometric and dynamic assessments for identifying cognitive characteristics of twice-exceptional students exhibiting mathematical giftedness and learning disabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.747872 Al-Hroub, A., & Whitebread, D. (2019). Dynamic assessment for identification of twice-­ exceptional learners exhibiting mathematical giftedness and specific learning disabilities. Roeper Review, 41(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2019.1585396 Al-Hroub, A., Saab, C., & Vlaardingerbroek, B. (2020). Addressing the educational needs of street children in Lebanon: A hotchpotch of policy and practice. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(3), 3184–3196. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feaa091 Alkhateeb, J. M., Hadidi, M. S., & Alkhateeb, A. J. (2016). Inclusion of children with developmental disabilities in Arab countries: A review of the research literature from 1990 to 2014. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 49–50, 60–75. Artiles, A. J., & Kozleski, Ε. B. (2007). Beyond convictions: Interrogating culture, history, and power in inclusive education. Journal of Language Arts, 84(4), 351–358. Artiles, A.J., Kozleski, E. B., & Waitoller, F. (Eds.). (2011). Inclusive education: Examining equity on five continents. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Bassot, B. (2012). Upholding equality and social justice: A social constructivist perspective on emancipatory career guidance practice. Australian Journal of Career Development, 21(2), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/103841621202100202

4  Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Inclusive Education

63

Black-Hawkins, K. (2010). Educational meanings, consequences and control. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(2), 93–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2010.486229 Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2005). From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education. Routledge Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203982884 Booth, T., Ainscow, M., & Kingston, D. (2006). Index for inclusion: Developing play, learning and participation in early years and childcare. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Budd, J. (2016). Using meta-perspectives to improve equity and inclusion. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-­016-­0060-­1 Capper, C. A., Frattura, E. M., & Keyes, M. W. (2000). Meeting the needs of students of all abilities: How leaders go beyond inclusion. Corwin Press. Cline, T., & Frederickson, N. (2014). Models of service delivery and forms of provision. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 39–54). SAGE. Connor, D. J. (2014). Social justice in education for students with disabilities. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 111–128). SAGE. Daniels, H. (2008). Vygotsky and research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891797 Dewey, J. (1915). The school and society. University of Chicago Press. Education Bureau. (2008). Catering for student differences. Indicators for Inclusion: A tool for school self-evaluation and school development. Hong Kong SAR: Education Bureau. Felder, F. (2018). The value of inclusion. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(1), 54–70. Feuerstein, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. University Park Press. Florian, L. (2008). Special or inclusive education: Future trends. British Journal of Special Education, 35(4), 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­8578.2008.00402.x Florian, L. (2014). Reimagining special education. In L.  Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 9–22). SAGE. Fraser, Ν. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the postsocialist condition. Routledge. Fraser, Ν. (2008). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Polity. Gaad, E. (2011). Inclusive education in the Middle East. Routledge. Gallagher, D. J., Connor, D. J., & Ferri, B. A. (2014). Beyond the far too incessant schism: Special education and the social model of disability. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18, 1120–1142. Gindis, B. (1999). Vygotsky's vision: Reshaping the practice of special education for the 21st century. Remedial and Special Education, 20(6), 333–340. Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2023). Exceptional learners: An introduction to special education (15th ed.). Pearson. Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2014). Why are so many minority students in special education? Teachers College Press. Hawkins, R. C. (2011). The impact of inclusion on the achievement of middle school students with mild to moderate learning disabilities performance in middle school. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Walden University. Holton, D., & Clarke, D., (2006) Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37:2, 127-143, DOI: 10.1080/00207390500285818. Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77–94. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (IDEA). (2004). 20 U.S.C. 1401(3) (A). Retrieved from:https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-i/1401/3 Kauffman, J.  M., & Hallahan, D.  P. (2005). Special education: What it is and why we need it. Pearson Allyn & Bacon. Kavelashvili, N. (2017). Inclusive education in Georgia: Current progress and challenges. Izzivi Prihodnosti, 2(2), 89–101.

64

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

Kearney, A. (2009). Barriers to school inclusion: An investigation into the exclusion of disabled students from and within New Zealand Schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Kilinc, S. (2019). ‘Who will fit in with whom?’ Inclusive education struggles for students with dis/ abilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23, 1296–1314. Kyriazopoulou, M., & Weber, H. (Eds.). (2009). Development of a set of indicators for inclusive education in Europe. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. Mallory, B.  L., & New, R.  S. (1994). Social constructivist theory and principles of inclusion: Challenges for early childhood special education. The Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699402800307 McCullough, J.  L. (2008). A study of special education programming and its relationship. University of Delaware, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 3325487. Meijer, A. M., & Van den Wittenboer, G. L. H. (2004). The joint contribution of sleep, intelligence and motivation to school performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 95–106. Mittler, P. J. (2000). Working towards inclusive education: Social contexts. David Fulton Publishers. Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2007). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Norwich, B. (2014). Categories of special educational needs. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 55–72). SAGE. Nusbaum, E. A. (2013). Vulnerable to exclusion: The place for segregated education within conceptions of inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17, 1295–1311. Opertti, R., Walker, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Inclusive education: From targeting groups and schools to achieving quality education as the core of EFA. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 149–170). SAGE. Polat, F. (2011). Inclusion in education: A step towards social justice. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.06.009 Poon-McBrayer, K. F. (2014). The evolution from integration to inclusion: The Hong Kong tale. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(10), 1004–1013. Ratner, C. (1991). Vygotsky’s sociohistorical psychology and its contemporary applications. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4899-­2614-­2 Rieber, R.  W., & Robinson, D.  K. (2004). The essential vygotsky. Springer US. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­0-­387-­30600-­1 Rioux, M. (2014). Disability rights in education. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 132–148). SAGE. Rix, J. (2011). Repositioning of special schools within a specialist, personalised educational marketplace – The need for a representative principle. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(2), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110902795476 Ruijs, N. M., & Peetsma, T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4, 67–79. Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500483995 Sampaio, M., & Leite, C. (2018). Mapping social justice perspectives and their relationship with curricular and schools' evaluation practices: Looking at scientific publications. Education as Change, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.25159/1947-­9417/2146 Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A.  DiStefano, K.  E. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 269–272). Sage. Shaeffer, S. (2015). Equity in education: An imperative for the post-2015 development agenda. Asian Education Futures, Workshop Report, 1. Singapore: The Head Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.headfoundation.org/reports/Workshop_Paper_No_1_For_web_v2.pdf

4  Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Inclusive Education

65

Shaeffer, S. (2019). Inclusive education: A prerequisite for equity and social justice. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-­019-­09598-­w Stacy, C., Meixell, B., & Sirini, T. (2019). Inequality versus inclusion in US cities. Social Indicators Research, 145, 117–156. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-­019-­02090-­3 Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). Educational psychology (2nd ed.). Terzi, L. (2010). Introduction. In M. Warnock, B. Norwich, & L. Terzi (Eds.), Special educational needs: A new look. Continuum. Tharp, R. (1997). From at-risk to excellence: Research, theory, and principles for practice. Theoharis, G., & Causton, J. (2014). Leading inclusive reform for students with disabilities: A school- and systemwide approach. Theory Into Practice, 53(2), 82–97. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/43893918 Thomas, G. (2013). A review of thinking and research about inclusive education policy, with suggestions for a new kind of inclusive thinking. British Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.652070 UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and framework for action on special needs education. Adopted by the world conference on special needs education: Access and quality. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. UNESCO. https://unesdoc. unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2000). The Dakar framework for action. UNESCO. Retrieved from: https://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resourceattachments/Dakar_Framework_for_Action_2000_en.pdf United Nations. (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). UN. https://social.desa.un.org/issues/disability/crpd/convention-on-the-rights-of-personswith-disabilities-crpd United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2010). Education for All (EFA): Towards Inclusion. UNESCO. Retrieved from: https://www.unesco.org/ gem-report/en/efa-achievements-challenges Valenzuela, J. S. (2014). Sociocultural views of learning. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 299–314). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282236 Vaughan, M. (2000). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1986) Thought and language. Sage/MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. (E.Hanfmann & G. vakar, Trans.). MIT Press. Waitoller, F. R., & Annamma, S. A. (2017). Taking a spatial turn in inclusive education: Seeking justice at the intersections of multiple markers of difference. In M. T. Hughes & E. Talbott (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of research on diversity in special education. Wiley. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781118768778.ch2 Warnock, M. (2005). Special educational needs: A new look. Impact paper No 11. Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain. Warnock, M., & Norwich, B. (2010). Special educational needs: A new look. Bloomsbury Publishing. Winzer, M. A. (2014). Confronting difference: A brief history of special education. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 23–38). SAGE. Zambo, D. (2009). Gifted students in the 21st century: Using Vygotsky’s theory to meet their literacy and content area needs. Gifted Education International, 25(3), 270–280. https://doi. org/10.1177/026142940902500308

Chapter 5

Performance of Students With and Without Special Educational Needs Nidal Jouni and Anies Al-Hroub

Abstract  This chapter examines the performance of students with and without special educational needs in inclusive educational settings. It presents research findings on the effectiveness of inclusion in enhancing the academic and affective performance of students. The chapter analyzes the performance of gifted students, regular students, and those with learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms. It compares the performance of these groups across various domains and presents evidencebased practices that have been found to enhance the performance of students with special educational needs. The chapter also discusses the challenges faced by educators in creating inclusive educational environments and offers strategies for overcoming these challenges. The chapter highlights the importance of adopting a student-centered approach to teaching and learning that takes into account the individual needs and strengths of each student.

5.1 Introduction The primary focus of research on inclusion services is to evaluate whether these services are effective in enhancing student performance. Although initial research on inclusion centered on social, emotional, and motivational factors, recent studies have shifted toward evaluating the effect of inclusion on student achievement (Yell et al., 2006). The impact of inclusion on student performance was found to be different between its two components, academic and affective, and among populations with and without special educational needs (SEN). While inclusive settings seem to affect learning outcomes both academically and noncognitively, the results were contradictory and limited (Dell’Anna et  al., 2019). In promoting inclusion, the

N. Jouni · A. Al-Hroub (*) Department of Education, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Jouni, A. Al-Hroub, School Inclusion in Lebanon, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34779-5_5

67

68

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

perspective of efficacy may be more relevant and enrich the scholarly discourse on inclusive education than the perspective of social justice (Lindsay, 2007; Szumski et al., 2017). Therefore, it is not just the placement of children with SEN in general classrooms but also the implementation of inclusion and inclusive practices involved that will affect its efficacy. Research in the field of inclusive education is now focusing on developing practices that can support teaching and learning for all students with and without SEN (Nusbaum, 2013).

5.2 Impact of Multiple Factors on Inclusive Practices and Students’ Performance Inclusive education can be considered a transformative approach to education, inducing changes at the school and classroom levels. This change affects the philosophy and organization of schools, and inclusive policies, cultures, and practices are expected outcomes of inclusive education (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). It appears that strategies that are adapted for students with SEN, such as frequent feedback, cooperative learning, control of task difficulty, focus on concepts, and teaching in small collaborative groups, in addition to positive classroom climates and sensitive teachers, work effectively for all students, including those without SEN. Inclusive practices, when implemented at the school level, can also affect performance. As Szumski et al. (2017) state, “Importantly, changes at a school level can improve students’ school achievement as well” (p. 35). Thus, the school-wide application is a way of rethinking inclusion, as transforming schools into inclusive institutions allows teachers to receive support to improve their competencies and use resources optimally, which increases their sense of security and offers skills. Inclusive education requires competencies other than those required in traditional educational systems, especially when teachers make important instructional decisions in inclusive classrooms. The preparation of general education teachers can play a key role in the school achievement of all students (Szumski et al., 2017). While inclusive education is a transformative change at the school level, its effectiveness is dependent on various factors. These factors, which include age, country, behavioral disorders, educational stage, the ratio of students with SEN attending regular classes, degree of disability or giftedness, and inclusion delivery models, deeply affect the impact of inclusion on students’ performance and their perceptions of special education issues. In this literature review, we explore the impact of these factors on the effectiveness of inclusive education. Gender Gender is the most relevant individual variable that influences peers’ attitudes and beliefs in an inclusive setting (Dell’Anna et al., 2019). Although many studies have revealed gender differences in which more positive attitudes were attributed to females, exceptional gender differences were noted related to the type of disability

5  Performance of Students With and Without Special Educational Needs

69

and age. For example, Nadeau and Tessier (2006) reported that females would reject students with physical impairment more than males. Types of Disability The perceptions of students without SEN of their classmates with disabilities were found to differ depending on the nature of the student’s impairments. Students with different impairments experience different barriers to inclusion depending on the nature of the impairment (Edwards et al., 2019). Moreover, other studies investigating the type of disability’s impact on students’ perceptions found that perceptions were more positive when peers had physical disabilities than intellectual disabilities (Dell’Anna, 2019). Age The impact of age on how students without SEN perceive their peers with SEN is essential, as certain intervention approaches may be more appropriate at different ages (Edwards et al., 2019). Lund and Seekins (2014) found that a high amount of exposure in primary school was negatively correlated with the attitudes of the same students at college age. However, the results regarding age were contradictory, as in other studies, where older students had more negative attitudes toward peers with disabilities (Dell’Anna, 2019). Country Where Inclusion Is Implemented Three factors that make the impact of inclusive practices on students’ achievement differ in the length of experience in the implementation of inclusive education, the consistency of educational policy promoting inclusion, and the way inclusion is defined (Szumski et al., 2017). The effectiveness of inclusive education is, therefore, dependent on the educational policy and definition of inclusion in each country. Students with Behavioral Disorders Students with behavioral problems are among the most difficult categories of SEN (Avramidis et al., 2000). Their presence creates a challenge for inclusive education because they make classroom management difficult and take up a considerable amount of teachers’ attention (Szumski et al., 2017). Educational Stage Improving instruction strategies for students with SEN in inclusive settings may improve the learning of all students in the classroom. However, students without SEN may have better access to individual help from assistant teachers in elementary and middle school. In high school, general education teachers and special education teachers rarely cooperate to change teaching strategies in the classroom where direct instruction for whole-class teaching is often used (Szumski et  al., 2017). Moreover, there is a much stronger emphasis on content knowledge in high school than on instructional skills (Boe et al., 2007). The Ratio of Students with SEN Attending Regular Classes One of the parameters impacting the effectiveness of inclusive practices on all students’ performance is the ratio of students with SEN attending regular classes (Nepi et al., 2013). According to Szumski et al. (2017), three main factors could be the

70

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

reason for true decreases in school achievement when the percentage of students with SEN increases: (1) students with SEN often display disruptive behaviors, (2) they need more instructions directed to them, and (3) they may cause burnout of general classroom teachers and decrease, therefore, their work engagement. Degree of Disability or Giftedness Students with mild to moderate disabilities are integrated more easily into regular classrooms than those with severe disabilities. Mackie (2007) found that the inclusion of students with moderate learning disabilities could be more effective than the inclusion of students with significant learning disabilities. Highly gifted students were found to be difficult to integrate into regular classrooms, no matter how learning is differentiated. However, Renzulli emphasized that gifted learners can be taught along with other children in a program known as the school-wide enrichment model (Al-Hroub, 1999; Renzulli & Reis, 2014; Renzulli et al., 2023). Inclusion Delivery Models Different delivery models exist in different settings where general education teachers cooperate with special education teachers. Cooperative practices range from the “one teach, one assist” model to the alternative teaching model or parallel teaching model. Different models present different effectiveness levels (Szumski et  al., 2017). As education policies are more and more shifting toward inclusive education, the effect on students with and without SEN should be an important factor in designing future models, practices, and policies of inclusion.

5.3 Performance of Gifted Students in Inclusive Settings Inclusive education aims to provide equitable opportunities to all students, including those who are gifted. However, gifted students often face exclusion from funding and differentiated support (Borders et  al., 2014). The current literature predominantly focuses on ways to make gifted students fit into regular classrooms, rather than on ways to differentiate instruction within a social context (Zambo, 2009). Consequently, scholars in gifted education have increasingly called for grouping gifted children in special classes or schools to maximize their performance (Rimm et al., 2018). Drawing on Vygotsky’s theory of zone of proximal development (ZPD), Zambo (2009) suggested that “in social settings, gifted students have unique zones of proximal development that often exceed a one-size-fits-all packaged curriculum” (p. 274). Research on gifted students’ academic performance primarily compares their performance in regular heterogeneous classes versus all forms of grouping by ability or special classes (Rimm et al., 2018). Studies indicate that gifted students perform better and achieve higher when grouped with peers of high ability (Rimm et al., 2018). However, the effectiveness of special settings for gifted students is not compared to truly inclusive settings for the gifted (e.g., Al-Hroub, 2010), which are characterized by the awareness and celebration of student strengths and weaknesses,

5  Performance of Students With and Without Special Educational Needs

71

as well as diversity across students in the classroom (Borders et al., 2014). Therefore, until research is conducted on the impact of inclusion on the academic performance of gifted students, their performance in inclusive settings remains unidentified. Moreover, it is unclear whether gifted children are more or less likely than other children to experience socio-emotional difficulties in inclusive classrooms. Pfeiffer and Stacking (2000) reported that there are no large-scale, longitudinal, or comparative studies on the social-emotional problems among gifted children in general, so little evidence is found on their affective development in different settings. Although gifted children may have difficulties with their peer groups when placed in general settings because of their advanced critical thinking and leadership skills (Rimm et  al., 2018), the impact of inclusion on the social-emotional  functioning of the gifted is not reported, and outcomes are more ambivalent, making it difficult to derive (Rogers, 1991). In many studies comparing regular students’ social position and sense of belonging to those of students with abilities, it was found that high-­ proficiency student learners were much more accepted than both students with medium or low proficiency (Ruijs & Peetsama, 2009; Nepi et al., 2013), but those high-proficiency students are not identified as gifted in the research; therefore, these studies are of low relevance to describing gifted students performance at the social and affective level. Students who are gifted and talented are a population with diverse needs, who should be served in truly inclusive classrooms, and only then can research on the impact of inclusion on the academic and affective performance of the gifted be conducted and inclusive practices are accordingly evaluated.

5.4 Performance of Students with Learning Disabilities in Inclusive Settings The increasing integration of students with learning disabilities (LD) into general education classrooms has raised questions regarding their performance in inclusive settings. As students with LD are being taught the same curriculum and held to the same standards as students without LD, it is crucial to examine their academic and psychological functioning in inclusive settings. The available literature provides mixed results regarding the performance of students with LD in inclusive settings. Some studies have reported positive effects of inclusion on academic performance. For instance, a longitudinal study conducted in Norway found that students with LD could keep up with the requirements of the common curriculum more often in integrated settings than in nonintegrated settings (Gebhardt et  al., 2012). Additionally, Wiener and Tardif (2004) found that students with mild to moderate LD scored better in inclusive settings than those in special education settings, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. Conversely, Ruijs and Peetsam (2009) reported that empirical evidence regarding the benefits of inclusion

72

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

on the academic and socio-emotional development of children with LD is controversial. The effectiveness of inclusive education has been examined in numerous meta-­ analyses conducted over the years. Before 2000, the evidence for the effectiveness of inclusive education at the level of academic achievement was limited, and most of the meta-analyses showed only small positive effects (Lindsay, 2007). However, a review of the literature between 2000 and 2005 found that most studies showed positive or neutral effects of inclusive education (Lindsay, 2007). For instance, Karsten et al. (2001) found few differences between children with LD in regular schools and those in special schools at the level of their academic functioning. A study conducted by Gebhardt et al. (2012) found that fifth-grade students with LD in inclusive classes achieved results comparable to those of average fourth-­ grade students, whereas those taught in special classes accomplished outcomes comparable to second-grade students. Similarly, other studies have shown that students in inclusive education settings have better overall academic achievement than those in special schools (Lindsay, 2007; Rea et  al., 2002; Szumski & Karowski, 2014). However, some studies investigating whether students with LD perform better in inclusive settings or in settings where they have their reading lessons in separate classes have found negative and/or mixed findings about the impact of inclusion on their performance (Cole et al., 2004; Rogers & Thiery, 2003). While academic achievement is an essential aspect to evaluate the impact of inclusion, psychological functioning is equally important, especially since children and adolescents with LD are more vulnerable to emotional problems and school maladjustment (Martinez & Semrud-Clikeman, 2004). Social participation is considered a critical area for the educational development of students with LD, as it is well established that having LD predisposes a person to social and emotional difficulties (Mishna, 1996). Studies examining social position, peer acceptance, and sense of belonging of students with LD have found that they struggle to gain a good social position, feel more unpopular, and rate themselves as less accepted than nonintegrated students (Gebhardt et al., 2012; Nepi et al., 2013). Learning disabilities constitute a major cause of social exclusion in regular schools (Pijl & Frostad, 2010), and a significant difference exists between students with LD and regular students regarding social interaction (Gebhardt et al., 2012). Adibsereshki and Salehpour (2014) found higher levels of peer acceptance in inclusive schools compared to non-inclusive schools only when the disability interfered minimally with participation. A study conducted by Wiener and Tardif (2004) in Canada showed that children in inclusive settings tend to perform better in terms of social acceptance, number of friends, quality of relationship with their best friend, loneliness, self-concept, social skills, and depression. However, Karsten et al. (2001) found no significant differences in their study. In contrast, Nepi et  al. (2013) found that the amount of time spent with regular classmates did not significantly influence the quality of relationships for SEN students, and the sense of belonging and social position did not correspond with increasing time spent in regular classrooms. In a review of literature by Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) on the impact of inclusion on children with disabilities, it was found

5  Performance of Students With and Without Special Educational Needs

73

that academic achievement was slightly positively affected, but students with SEN were in less favorable social positions compared to those without disabilities. Hence, it is inconclusive whether inclusive education affects the social development or affective performance of students with LD.

5.5 Performance of Regular Students in Inclusive Settings The performance of regular students in inclusive settings is a topic that both advocates and critics of inclusive education have been interested in. The question of how regular students fare academically and develop socially when taught in mixed-­ ability classrooms remains controversial. Despite the growing popularity of inclusive education, there is a shortage of empirical studies that investigate the effectiveness of this approach, especially when it comes to analyzing the performance of regular students. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on the impact of inclusion on the academic achievement and social-emotional functioning of regular students. Two reviews conducted by Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) and Kalambouka et  al. (2007) found that it is difficult to conclude the effects of inclusive education on the academic achievement of regular students. While some studies showed positive results, others found neutral results, and some found no effect at all. However, these findings need to be considered with regard to the quality of the studies reviewed, such as the study design, the delivery model, and the time spent in inclusive classrooms. It is also important to note that differences between schools seem to be more significant than whether or not they are inclusive (Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). A more recent meta-analysis by Szumski et al. (2017) found that attending inclusive classrooms is weakly but positively associated with the academic achievement of students without SEN.  These findings support the idea of inclusive education as an effective school for all. However, a review published in 2019 by Dell’Anna et al. showed that, in some cases, learning outcomes for regular students were lower when they were in classrooms with peers with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). This finding highlights the importance of considering the specific types of SEN that students in inclusive settings have. It may be suggested that only when LD is associated with serious emotional and behavioral problems can it negatively affect the learning outcomes of regular students. There is also a lack of research on the social-emotional functioning of regular students in inclusive classrooms. Kalambouka et al. (2007) and Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) found mostly positive or neutral effects of inclusion on regular students’ attitudes toward their peers with SEN.  However, regular students were still less positive about their peers with SEN than their regular peers. This finding was also confirmed by a subsequent study by Nepi et  al. (2013), which suggested that in Italian schools, the relationship between regular students and students with SEN within their respective groups is more important than the relationship between

74

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

students with different types of disabilities. Edwards et al. (2019) found that regular students interacted less with students with disabilities and harbored more negative attitudes toward them than their regular peers. However, the same study argued that positive interactions, greater peer acceptance, and friendship development are critical outcomes of social inclusion in schools. Despite the lack of studies that compare the performance of gifted, LD, and regular students in inclusive settings, a study conducted in Italy explored the compound peer acceptance and the sense of belonging of students with high and medium levels of proficiency in an inclusive setting (Nepi et al., 2013). The results indicated that regular students’ relationships with students with SEN are more significant than the relationships between students with different levels of proficiency. According to Nepi et al. (2013), “Within the group of typically developing students, the findings demonstrate that it pays to be proficient. Indeed, the higher the proficiency, the higher the peer acceptance and the sense of belonging to their school. Within the group of SEN students, the results support the idea that they struggle to gain a good social position, are less accepted and more peripheral within the class, and feel quite distant from their school” (p. 319). This finding suggests that proficiency has a significant effect on the social acceptance and sense of belonging of students without SEN. In contrast, students with SEN face challenges in social integration and may feel isolated in the classroom. Therefore, inclusive education needs to be implemented with strategies and practices that address the social and emotional needs of students with SEN to ensure their successful inclusion in the classroom. Additionally, promoting positive relationships between regular students and students with SEN can enhance social acceptance and improve the overall inclusive educational experience for all students. In conclusion, the existing literature on the impact of inclusion on the academic achievement and social-emotional functioning of regular students is inconclusive. While some studies have found positive results, others have found no effect or negative outcomes. The type of SEN, the study design, the delivery model, and the amount of time spent in inclusive classrooms all seem to be important factors that need to be taken into account. Moreover, it is crucial to establish specific inclusive strategies and practices that support the goals of inclusive education.

References Adibsereshki, N., & Salehpour, Y. (2014). Peer acceptance of students with and without inclusion experience towards students with special needs in unisex schools of Tehran. Education3–13, 42(6), 575. Al-Hroub, A. (1999). Theories and programs for the education of gifted and talented. Dar Al-Shorouk. Al-Hroub, A. (2010). Programming for mathematically gifted children with learning difficulties in Jordan. Roeper Review, 32(4), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2010.508157

5  Performance of Students With and Without Special Educational Needs

75

Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). Student teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(3), 277–293. Boe, E., Shinn, S., & Cook, L. H. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in either special or inclusive education? Journal of Special Education, 41, 158–170. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Borders, C., Woodley, S., & Moore, E. (2014). Inclusion and giftedness (pp. 127–146). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0270-­4013(2014)0000026006 Cole, C. M., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42, 136–144. Dare, L., Nowicki, E., & Felimban, H. (2017). Saudi children’s thoughts on inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21, 532–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360311 6.2016.1218948 Davis, G., Rimm, S., & Siegle, D. (2014). Education of the gifted and talented. Pearson. Dell’Anna, S., Pellegrini, M., & Ianes, D. (2019). Experiences and learning outcomes of students without special educational needs in inclusive settings: A systematic review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.159224 Edwards, B.  M., Cameron, D., King, G., & McPherson, A.  C. (2019). How students without special needs perceive social inclusion of children with physical impairments in mainstream schools: A scoping review. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 66, 298–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1585523 Gebhardt, M., Schwab, S., Krammer, M., & Gasteiger, K. B. (2012). Achievement and integration of students with and without special educational needs (sen) in the fifth grade. The Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation, 13(3/4), 7–19. Kalambouka, A., Farrell, P., Dyson, A., & Kaplan, I. (2007). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educational Research, 49, 365–382. Karsten, S., Peetsma, T., Roeleveld, J., & Vergeer, M. (2001). The Dutch policy of integration put to the test: Differences in academic and psychosocial development of pupils in special and mainstream education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 16, 193–205. Lindsay, G. (2007). Annual review: Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1–24. Lund, E. M., & Seekins, T. (2014). Early exposure to people with physical and sensory disabilities and later attitudes toward social interactions and inclusion. Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 33(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14434/pders.v33i1.4825 Mackie, K.  M. (2007). Learning disabilities severity, classroom setting, and academic performance in middle school  (Order No. 3277343). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Martinez, R. S., & Semrud-Clikerman, M. (2004). Emotional adjustment and school functioning of young adolescents with multiple versus single learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(5), 411–420. Mishna, F. (1996). In their own words: Therapeutic factors for adolescents who have learning disabilities. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 46(1), 255. Nadeau, L., & Tessier, R. (2006). Social adjustment of children with cerebral palsy in mainstream classes: Peer perception. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 48(5), 331–336. Nepi, L. D., Facondini, R., Nucci, F., & Peru, P. (2013). Evidence from full-inclusion model: The social position and sense of belonging of students with special educational needs and their peers in Italian primary school. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28, 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2013.777530 Nusbaum, E. A. (2013). Vulnerable to exclusion: The place for segregated education within conceptions of inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17, 1295–1311.

76

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

Pfeiffer, S. I., & Stocking, V. B. (2000). Vulnerabilities of academically gifted students. Special Services in the Schools, 16, 83–93. Pijl, S. J., & Frostad, P. (2010). Peer acceptance and self-concept of students with disabilities in regular education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(1), 93–105. https://doi. org/10.1080/08856250903450947 Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68, 203–222. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2014). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for talent development (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003238904 Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., McMillen, K. S., Eckert, R. D., & Little, C. A. (2023). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented. Taylor & Francis. Rimm, S. B., Siegle, D., & Davis, G. A. (2018). Education of the gifted and talented (7th ed.). Pearson. Rogers, K. B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner (RBDM 9102). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Rogers, D. P., & Thiery, I. M. (2003). Does an inclusive setting affect reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Ruijs, N. M., & Peetsma, T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4, 67–79. Scruggs, T.  E., Mastropieri, M.  A., & McDuffie, K.  A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392–416. Simmons-Mackie, N.  N., & Damico, J.  S. (2007). Access and social inclusion in aphasia: Interactional principles and applications. Aphasiology, 21(1), 81–97. Szumski, G., & Karwowski, M. (2014). Psychosocial functioning and school achievement of children with mild intellectual disability in Polish special, integrative, and mainstream schools. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 11, 99–108. Szumski, G., Smogorzewska, J., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 21, 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004 Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Denton, C. (2014). Teaching elementary students with learning disabilities. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 633–658). SAGE. Wiener, J., & Tardif, C.  Y. (2004). Social and emotional functioning of children with learning disabilities: Does special educational placement make a difference? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 20–32. Yell, M.  L., Shriner, J.  G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2006). Individuals with disabilities education improvement act of 2004 and IDEA regulations of 2006: Implications for educators, administrators, and teacher trainers. Love Publishing. Zambo, D. (2009). Gifted students in the 21st century: Using Vygotsky’s theory to meet their literacy and content area needs. Gifted Education International, l25, 270–280.

Chapter 6

Special Education and Inclusion in Lebanon Anies Al-Hroub and Nidal Jouni

Abstract   Special education and inclusion have gained significant importance in Lebanon, a country with a unique social and political context. This chapter provides a comprehensive understanding of the Lebanese experience in special education and inclusion. The historical background of special education in Lebanon and the country’s experience in inclusive education are explored. The chapter also analyzes Lebanon’s conception of inclusion and how it aligns with global definitions and frameworks. Educational policies and practices that promote inclusive education are examined, including initiatives and programs to support students with disabilities and special needs, as well as training and development opportunities for educators in special education. Furthermore, the chapter discusses the challenges facing inclusive practices in Lebanon, including the definition and identification processes of disabilities and special needs, legislative barriers to the implementation of inclusive policies, and socioeconomic factors contributing to the exclusion and marginalization of certain groups. This chapter provides insight into the state of special education and inclusion in Lebanon and highlights areas for improvement.

6.1 Implementation of Inclusion in Lebanese Schools The success of inclusive education is influenced by various factors, such as the length of experience in the implementation of inclusive education, the adapted conception of inclusion, and the consistency of educational policies promoting inclusion (Szumski et al., 2017). Therefore, to understand the context of inclusive education in Lebanon, it is crucial to examine the length of experience, the adapted conception of inclusion, and the educational policies and practices promoting inclusion.

A. Al-Hroub (*) · N. Jouni Department of Education, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Jouni, A. Al-Hroub, School Inclusion in Lebanon, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34779-5_6

77

78

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

6.1.1 Lebanese Education System The Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE) is responsible for the oversight of the education system in Lebanon, including the approval of national educational policies and learning supervision and evaluation in public schools, with limited authority over private schools, which cater to more than 50% of Lebanese students. Education in Lebanon is divided into three phases: preschool, basic, and secondary. Basic education is compulsory for children aged 5–14, and it is divided into three cycles of three grade levels each. At the end of cycle 3, Lebanese students take an official exam called the “Brevet,” which helps determine a student’s placement in one of two secondary schools (grades 10–12) tracks: academic or technical. After grade 12, students take their second official exam called the “Lebanese baccalaureate,” which is required for admission to universities. Academic institutions are classified as public, semi-private, or private schools (Al-Hroub, 2022; Berri & Al-Hroub, 2016; Vlaardingerbroek et al., 2017). Historically, before 2018, children with physical and intellectual disabilities were not part of the public school system, except for a few schools undergoing reforming projects with external funding, such as the TAMAM project at the American University of Beirut. Typically, all children with SEN are placed in specialized institutions under the authority of the Ministry of Social Affairs (MOSA).

6.1.2 MOSA-Supported Institutions Lebanese law 220 guarantees equal opportunities for persons with disabilities to be enrolled in public and private educational institutions and states that MEHE is responsible for financing their schooling. However, children with physical and intellectual disabilities are not part of the MEHE school system. According to Human Rights Watch (2018), “The vast majority of children with a disability who were receiving any educational support from the government were securing it through the MOSA-funded institutions” (p. 16). MOSA-funded institutions have limited capacity; thus, children with SEN attend 1 of the 103 segregated private institutions funded through contracts by MOSA (Human Rights Watch, 2018). Consequently, the prevailing situation in Lebanon has been the provision of care rather than the provision of adequate education to children with SEN. Most of these private institutions funded by MOSA are religiously or politically affiliated and vary greatly depending on the type of disability, the type of services provided, and the number of children. Although these institutions may offer academic services, they are not monitored or supervised by MEHE.

6  Special Education and Inclusion in Lebanon

79

6.1.3 MEHE and the Education for SEN in Lebanon Education is a fundamental human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (1989). However, children with disabilities have historically been excluded from mainstream educational settings in Lebanon due to discriminatory admission policies, lack of necessary accommodations, unavailability of trained staff, and lack of inclusive policies and curricula. Human Rights Watch (2018) reported that children with disabilities and their families were excluded from public schools in Lebanon. Depending on their economic status, children with disabilities may choose to join one of the few inclusive private schools in Lebanon or stay unenrolled in any educational program when they cannot afford it, which further marginalizes children with disabilities from poor families. The limited access to inclusive education in the country has led to the development of special education services by nongovernmental organizations, civil society activists, and private institutions, ranging from specialized segregated institutions to fully inclusive establishments, depending on the institution’s readiness and resources. The Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE) in Lebanon has recognized the importance of inclusive education for all children, including those with disabilities and SEN, and has made efforts to promote it in the country. In May 2018, UNICEF launched a pilot program in partnership with MEHE, aiming at ensuring quality education for all children, including children with disabilities and LD in inclusive contexts (UNICEF, 2018). However, there is limited information on the program, as it is newly being implemented. It is important to note that the length of experience in implementing inclusion in Lebanon is extremely short, especially when targeting inclusive practices specifically and not special education generally. The experience is more or less restricted to the private sector in Lebanon and varies in the level of services and delivery models.

6.2 Lebanese Conception of Inclusion Disability has historically been defined using one of two approaches: “the medical model” and the “social model.” “Definition is important because they lead to a different understanding of the scope of the problem” (Article 19, 2015, p.  4). In Lebanon, disability is defined using the medical model, which views disability as an impairment that needs to be treated, cured, fixed, or at least rehabilitated (Human Rights Watch, 2018). The prevalence rate of disability in Lebanon is two percent of the total population, which is much lower than international rates. This low rate can be explained by Lebanon’s official statistics body, which uses medical definitions of disability. The Lebanese definition is affected by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition of disability, which excludes the definition of disability to social

80

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

and legal barriers that impede the capacity of a person with a disability to live normally (UNESCO, 2013). Lebanon adopted Law 220 on the Rights of Disabled Persons (Law 220/2000) in 2000, which was considered a major step forward for disability rights in Lebanon and the wider Middle East region. In Lebanese Law, disability was defined as a person whose capacity to perform one or vital functions, independently secure their personal existential needs, participate in social activities on an equal basis with others, and live a personal and social life that is normal by existing social standards is reduced or nonexistent because of a partial or complete, permanent or temporary, bodily, sensory, or intellectual functional loss or incapacity, that is, the outcome of a congenital or acquired illness or from a pathological condition that has been prolonged beyond normal medical expectations (Human Rights Watch, 2018). Social and economic rights are the core of Law 220/2000, aiming to integrate citizens with disabilities. However, implementing decrees needed for these rights to be translated into policies has not been issued because of final austerity and a lack of political will (UNESCO, 2013). The law in question defines individuals with disabilities as those who hold a registered card and “meet the International Classification of Impairment, Disability, and Handicap (ICIDH) definition” (Human Rights Watch, 2018, p. 10). The National Educational Plan for Persons with Disabilities, developed by the Center for Educational Research and Development of MEHE in 2012, aimed to promote inclusive education for persons with disabilities. This was the first official document to use the terms “persons with special education needs” and “inclusive schools” alongside the term “disability,” reflecting a broader inclusion perspective in the education sector. However, due to insufficient funding, MEHE’s inclusion strategy was not implemented, and it was not until the launch of the National Day for Students with Learning Difficulties on April 22, 2013, that inclusion began to be considered at the social level. Despite the promulgation of Law 220/2000, none of its clauses relating to education were implemented until 2013 (UNESCO, 2013). Given the absence of an official government definition of inclusion or children with special needs, few private schools adopted international convention definitions and developed policies and practices to serve children with special education needs, inspired by Western approaches.

6.3 Educational Policies and Practices: Challenges in Access and Inclusion Lebanese law prohibits discrimination in education and affirms the right of all children, including those with disabilities, to access education (Human Rights Watch, 2018). However, despite this legal framework, several challenges hinder the access of children with disabilities to quality education in Lebanon.

6  Special Education and Inclusion in Lebanon

81

6.3.1 Limited Registration of Children with Disabilities The governmental agency responsible for registering persons with disabilities reported that 8558 children aged between 5 and 14 were registered as having a disability in 2018 (Human Rights Watch, 2018). However, this number is significantly lower than the estimated percentage of children with disabilities in Lebanon. According to UNICEF, WHO, and the World Bank, at least 5 percent of children under the age of 14 have a disability, which would translate to approximately 45,000 children in Lebanon (Human Rights Watch, 2018). This discrepancy raises concerns that a significant number of children with disabilities in Lebanon are not registered and therefore do not have access to educational opportunities. Moreover, the current registration system only includes children with disabilities as defined by the International Classification of Impairment, Disability, and Handicaps (ICIDH) (Human Rights Watch, 2018). This means that other categories of children with special educational needs, such as those with emotional and behavioral disturbances or gifted children, are not considered under the current system. The narrow definition of disability in the Lebanese context is a barrier to inclusive education practices.

6.3.2 Limited Access to Inclusive Education The responsibility of including children with disabilities in education lies with teachers and school principals. However, in many public schools, a lack of reasonable accommodations, trained staff, and accessible educational materials prevents the inclusion of children with disabilities. Furthermore, the decision to include a child with a disability ultimately lies with the school principal, which can result in inconsistencies and arbitrary decision-making (Kebbi & Al-Hroub, 2018). While some private schools have adopted inclusive practices, many others are not committed to integrating children with special educational needs. Some private schools accept children with disabilities but require them to pay discriminatorily higher fees than other students (Human Rights Watch, 2018). Others choose not to include children with disabilities because they consider it a burden that may threaten their financial profits.

6.3.3 Limited Assessment and Identification Practices Another challenge to inclusive education practices in Lebanon is the limited and often unethical identification process. Reports produced by the Ministry of Social Affairs (MOSA) are solely based on a doctor’s classification of a child’s disability. Private institutions offering assessment services often lack certified licenses or scientific qualifications to conduct assessments. There are only a few assessment

82

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

centers in Lebanon that follow Western and international assessment procedures, and these services are prohibitively expensive for most families (Shehab & Al-Hroub 2019).

6.3.4 Limited Legislative Support The lack of legislation supporting inclusive education practices is a significant challenge in Lebanon. Without adequate legislative support, private sector organizations and NGOs have a significant influence on the implementation and funding of special education projects. This often leads to unethical practices and a lack of standardization in assessment, teaching, and funding.

6.3.5 Official Exam Policy for Students with SEN To address the educational needs of students with SEN, the Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE) developed an official exam policy that allows students with disabilities to undertake official exams by the end of grade 9 and grade 12. MEHE assigns special centers or classes for students identified as having a disability by a committee, which meets with students a few months before the exam to examine their portfolios prepared by their schools. The committee then decides on their eligibility to benefit from exams with accommodations and extra time (Human Rights Watch, 2018). While this policy is a step in the right direction, Lebanon still lacks legislation, which opens the door largely to unethical practices in the assessment, teaching, and funding of special education projects especially when left to the private sector and nongovernmental organizations.

6.4 Gifted Education in Lebanon Gifted education in Lebanon is confronted with a series of challenges that require urgent attention to harness the potential of talented and highly qualified students. According to Al-Hroub (2022) and Al-Hroub and El Khoury (2018a), seven main challenges impede the development of gifted education in Lebanon. Firstly, the absence of a formal policy for gifted education by the Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE) constitutes a significant hurdle. The lack of a clear policy framework contributes to the underdevelopment of gifted education in Lebanon, leading to a situation where gifted students are overlooked and they are potentially unrealized. Secondly, the concept of giftedness remains poorly understood in Lebanese schools and higher education institutions. This lack of understanding results in the failure to identify and provide appropriate educational interventions for gifted

6  Special Education and Inclusion in Lebanon

83

students. The absence of a shared understanding of the characteristics and needs of gifted students also complicates efforts to design and implement effective programs to support gifted education (Al-Hroub & El Khoury, 2022a, b). Thirdly, the absence of valid and reliable diagnostic tools in Arabic for identifying gifted children is another significant challenge. Current identification methods often fail to identify gifted students accurately, which results in underestimating the prevalence of gifted students in Lebanon and ultimately undermines the development of gifted education. Fourthly, several groups of gifted children are marginalized, including twice-­ exceptional children. These students have exceptional abilities in one or more areas, coupled with learning difficulties, behavioral disorders, or other disabilities. The lack of targeted interventions for these students leads to their marginalization, which is compounded by societal stigmatization, causing significant harm to their academic and social development. Fifthly, the lack of pre-service and in-service academic and professional programs on gifted education in Lebanese universities represents a significant challenge to the development of gifted education. The absence of qualified teachers, practitioners, and mentors who are equipped to deal with gifted education issues hinders the development and implementation of effective interventions and programs. Sixthly, the lack of facilities and services for gifted children compounds the challenges facing gifted education in Lebanon. The lack of appropriately resourced and equipped educational institutions to cater to gifted students leads to a situation where these students are not provided with the requisite support to realize their full potential. Lastly, most nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) interested in sponsoring special education projects do not prioritize gifted learners. This situation leads to inadequate funding for gifted education, which hinders efforts to implement effective programs and interventions. In addition to the challenges previously mentioned, Lebanon’s emphasis on mainstream education in the national school curriculum presents another obstacle to gifted education. According to Al-Hroub (2022) and Al-Hroub and El Khoury (2018a), this emphasis on mainstream education is a primary reason why Lebanon lacks any formal system of education for gifted students. The curriculum does not prioritize the needs of gifted students and does not provide adequate support or resources for their development. Furthermore, children with disabilities who are high-achieving face limited opportunities for enrichment activities in private schools. The services provided by these schools are often limited in both content and scope and do not compare to the enrichment programs offered in Western countries (Berri & Al-Hroub, 2016; Sarouphim, 2015). Although catering to students with special needs is now compulsory in the latest revision of the Lebanese curriculum, there is still no reference to services intended for gifted students. Additionally, the Lebanese Law 220/2000 for Persons with Disabilities focused on issues of disability and did not address the education of gifted students (Al-Hroub & El Khoury, 2018c). These additional challenges further emphasize the need for policy-makers and education authorities in Lebanon to prioritize gifted education and provide equal

84

A. Al-Hroub and N. Jouni

opportunities and resources for gifted students. The lack of attention and support for these students not only hinders their potential but also deprives Lebanon of the valuable contributions that they could make to society. Despite these challenges, Lebanese society is dynamic and multilinguistic and highly values education, producing a large number of qualified people in almost all skilled professions (Al-Hroub, 2022). To address the challenges facing gifted education in Lebanon, several implications and recommendations were drawn by Al-Hroub (2022). First, the Lebanese education authorities and policy-makers must develop policies that support the identification and nurturing of gifted learners in schools. This includes adopting broad operational definitions of giftedness based on empirical findings and developing effective identification protocols that consider the academic, social, and creative domains in students. Second, the government must improve equity at schools by providing access and quality education at private schools for economically disadvantaged Lebanese and non-Lebanese gifted students, including forcibly displaced and refugee populations. Third, Lebanese higher education institutions should pay more attention to serving gifted education at the higher education level by introducing academic and professional teacher training programs to prepare teachers, practitioners, and mentors to deal with issues related to gifted children and gifted education. Fourth, Lebanon’s decision-makers should increase the education budget for the public sector and improve budget execution to ensure that allocated resources are effective, catering to the needs of public schools and their gifted learners. They should also increase budget allocation to curriculum, learning, and equipment related to identifying and teaching gifted students at Lebanese schools. Fifth, the Lebanese education authorities, in collaboration with international donors, need to address public schools’ resources shortages and allocate human resources, including teachers, in response to public school-level needs and corresponding to standards and goals for gifted education. Finally, the government should improve accountability measures for grants provided by the public schools’ sector and parent committees, introducing a fund accountability system for gifted education, in which schools will access information on funds credited to them and record expenditures (Al-Hroub, 2022). In conclusion, gifted education faces significant challenges in Lebanon. However, by implementing the recommendations outlined above, Lebanon can take significant steps toward improving gifted education for its students, leading to better outcomes for both gifted learners and the broader society.

References Al-Hroub, A. (2022). Gifted education in Lebanon: Re-examining the role of educational and learning capitals. Cogent Education, 9(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2073644 Al-Hroub, A., & El Khoury, S. (2022a). Introduction to giftedness in Lebanon. In S. El Khoury, & A. Al-Hroub, Gifted education in Lebanese schools: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 1–7). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-78592-9_1

6  Special Education and Inclusion in Lebanon

85

Al-Hroub, A., & El Khoury, S. (2022b). Definitions and conceptions of giftedness around the world. In S. El Khoury, & A. Al-Hroub, Gifted education in Lebanese schools: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 9–38). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78592-9_2 Al-Hroub, A., & El Khoury, S. (2018a). Introduction to giftedness in Lebanon. In I. S. El Khoury & A. Al-Hroub (Eds.), Gifted education in Lebanese schools: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 1–8). Springer International Publishing. Al-Hroub, A., & El Khoury, S. (2018b). Definitions and conceptions of giftedness around the world. In I.  S. El Khoury & A.  Al-Hroub (Eds.), Gifted education in Lebanese schools: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 9–38). Springer International Publishing. Al-Hroub, A., & El Khoury, S. (2018c). Giftedness in Lebanon: Emerging issues and future considerations. In I. S. El Khoury & A. Al-Hroub (Eds.), Gifted education in Lebanese schools: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 95–110). Springer International Publishing. Article 19. (2015). Lebanon: Disability and access to information: Country report. Retrieved from https://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/37983/Disability-­and-­access-­to-­ information-­in-­Lebanon,-­31-­May-­2015,-­English.pdf Berri, H., & Al-Hroub, A. (2016). ADHD in Lebanese schools: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­28700-­3 Human Rights Watch. (2018). I would like to go to school: Barriers to education for children with disabilities in Lebanon. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/ report/2018/03/22/i-­would-­go-­school/barriers-­education-­children-­disabilities-­lebanon Kebbi, M., & Al-Hroub, A. (2018). Stress and coping strategies used by special education and general classroom teachers. International Journal of Special Education, 33, 34–61. Sarouphim, K.  M. (2015). Slowly but surely: Small steps toward establishing gifted education programs in Lebanon. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(2), 196–211. Shehab, N., & Al-Hroub, A. (2019). Is the DSM-5 a culturally appropriate assessment tool for identifying learners with ADHD in Lebanese schools? International Journal of Special Education, 34, 166–181. Szumski, G., Smogorzewska, J., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 21, 33–54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). [Adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948]. Retrieved from http://www. unhchr.ch/udhr/ United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). UNICEF. https://www. unicef.org/child-rightsconvention/convention-text UNICEF. (2018). The Ministry of Education and UNICEF promote inclusive education. Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/lebanon/press-releases/ ministry-education-and-unicef-promote-inclusive-education UNESCO. (2013). Social inclusion of young persons with disabilities (PWD) in Lebanon: Where do we stand and what should be done to promote their rights. Retrieved from: http://www. unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Beirut/images/SHS/Social_Inclusion_ Young_Persons_with_Disabilities_Lebanon.pdf Vlaardingerbroek, B., Al-Hroub, A., & Saab, C. (2017). The Lebanese educational system: Heavy on career orientation, light on career guidance. In R. Sultana (Ed.), Career education and guidance in the Mediterranean region: Challenging transitions in South Europe and the MENA region (pp. 255–265). Sense Publishers.

Chapter 7

A Mixed-Method Study on the Impact of Inclusion on the Academic Performance of Students With and Without Special Educational Needs Nidal Jouni and Anies Al-Hroub

Abstract   This mixed-method study aimed to compare the impact of inclusion on the academic performance of three groups of students: those with gifted abilities, those with learning disabilities, and those without special educational needs (regular). The study also aimed to explore the educational practices and indicators that affect students’ performance in the inclusive setting, as perceived by the students themselves. Data were collected through 483 surveys and 6 focus group discussions with middle and high school students. The study site, research questions, conceptual framework, research design, and participants are described in this chapter. The data collection methods, tools, and analysis procedures are also discussed. The findings of this study can help educators and policymakers understand the impact of inclusion on academic performance and identify educational practices that can improve the academic outcomes of students with special educational needs. The study highlights the importance of involving students in discussions about the educational practices and indicators that affect their academic performance, as their perspectives can provide valuable insights for improving inclusion practices.

7.1 Introduction This study aims to investigate the impact of inclusion on the academic performance of three groups of students, including regular students, students with learning disabilities, and gifted students, as perceived by themselves. The study further examines the educational practices and indicators that affect students’ performance in an inclusive setting, as perceived by the students. Ultimately, the study aims to enhance

N. Jouni · A. Al-Hroub (*) Department of Education, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Jouni, A. Al-Hroub, School Inclusion in Lebanon, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34779-5_7

87

88

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

inclusive practices in these domains to improve the academic performance of all students in an inclusive school. This chapter outlines the research questions, the Index for Inclusion indicators used as a theoretical framework, and the methodology employed in the study. The subsequent sections of the chapter present the site of the study, the research aims and questions, the theoretical framework, the research design, the methodology, the data analysis procedure, and a summary of the chapter.

7.2 Conceptual Framework To study the impact of inclusion on students’ performance, we adopted a conceptual framework that defines inclusion as removing all barriers to learning and participation and defines expected students’ performance within an inclusive school to be in the zone of their proximal zone of development. Indicators for assessing inclusion and its impact on student performance were derived from an international self-­evaluation tool. The Index for Inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools is a “comprehensive resource to support the inclusive development of schools” (Booth & Ainscow, 2002, p. 1), and a self-review approach “draws on the views of staff, governors, students and parents” (Booth & Ainscow, 2002, p. 1). This Index forms the conceptual framework of the study in which the researchers compared the impact of inclusion on students’ performance as perceived by students themselves using the indicators derived from this index. This is particularly important because the authors of the index explained, “There is no right way of using the Index… any use is legitimate which promotes reflection about inclusion and leads to greater participation of students in the cultures, curricula, and communities of their schools” (Booth & Ainscow, 2002, p. 2). The index adopts the concept “barriers to learning and participation” rather than the “term special educational needs” as stated by Booth and Ainscow (2002). This conception stems from the social model where “barriers to learning and participation can exist like the setting or arise through an interaction between students and their contexts” (Booth & Ainscow, 2002, p. 6). In this index, inclusion and exclusion are explored along three interconnected dimensions of school improvement: “(a) Creating inclusive cultures;(b) producing inclusive policies; and (c) evolving inclusive practices” (Booth & Ainscow, 2002, p. 6) as illustrated in Fig. 7.1. The Three Dimensions of the Index of Inclusion The index comprises three dimensions that provide a comprehensive framework for reviewing and structuring a school development plan. Dimension A: Creating Inclusive Cultures The first dimension, Creating Inclusive Cultures, focuses on building a sense of community and establishing inclusive values. This involves creating a welcoming and inclusive environment that values diversity and promotes a sense of belonging for all students. • Building community: This involves fostering a sense of community within the school; promoting positive relationships among students, teachers, and staff; and creating a safe and supportive learning environment.

7  A Mixed-Method Study on the Impact of Inclusion on the Academic Performance...

Producing inclusive POLICIES

89

evolving inclusive PRACTICES

Creating inclusive CULTURES Fig. 7.1  Interconnected dimensions of inclusion

• Establishing inclusive values: This involves identifying and promoting values that are inclusive and respectful of diversity, such as respect, tolerance, and empathy. Dimension B: Producing Inclusive Policies The second dimension, producing inclusive policies, focuses on developing policies and procedures that support the needs of all students and promote diversity and inclusion. • Developing the school for all: This involves developing policies and procedures that ensure that all students have access to quality education and are supported in their academic and personal growth. • Organizing support for diversity: This involves creating policies and procedures that promote diversity and support the needs of diverse groups of students, such as students with disabilities or students from diverse cultural backgrounds. Dimension C: Evolving Inclusive Practices The third dimension, evolving inclusive practices, focuses on continuously improving teaching practices and learning environments to promote inclusion and diversity. • Orchestrating learning: This involves developing teaching practices that are inclusive and responsive to the needs of all students, promoting engagement and active learning, and using technology and other resources to support student learning. • Mobilizing resources: This involves ensuring that the school has the necessary resources and support to implement inclusive practices, such as training for teachers and staff and access to assistive technology and other resources. This Index for Inclusion has been the major reference in the course of preparing the Hong Kong version of “Catering for Student Differences-Indicators for Inclusion” (Education Bureau, 2008). The Indicators for Inclusion are a self-­ evaluation tool, a highly interactive tool, and a set of support materials designed to

90

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

Dimensions of the Index of Inclusion: I) School Policies II) School Practices III) School Cultures

Figure 7.3

Domains in the Indicators for Inclusion: I) Management and Organization II) Learning and Teaching III) Student Support and School Ethos IV) Student Performance

Fig. 7.2  Transformations of dimensions into domains

enhance the capacity of schools in catering to students’ differences to provide high-­ quality education for all students (Education Bureau, 2008). In The Indicators of Inclusion, the indicators of the three dimensions of the Index for Inclusion are reorganized under four domains: (1) management and organization, (2) learning and teaching, (3) student support and school ethos, and (4) student performance (Fig. 7.2). Each of these domains includes several indicators, and each indicator contains some observable features that were transformed into items of the survey as suggested by the tool itself, which offers also a group of focus questions for each domain or group of indicators (Education Bureau, 2008). These were used to design this study’s focus group questions.

7.3 Indicators for Inclusion The practical implications of the Salamanca Statement on Principles, Policy, and Practice in Special Needs Education are deeply challenging to practitioners in mainstream and inclusive schools (UNESCO, 1994). The complex nature of these challenges inspired the development of the Index for Inclusion in England by Booth et al. (2006). “Breaking down the barriers: The Index for Inclusion,” was first printed in Education Journal in March 2000 as a result of over 10 years of collaborative action research for promoting inclusive education in many countries (Ainscow, 2014). The framework was first published in the book “Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools” in 2002 (Booth & Ainscow, 2002), and then it was revised in 2006 (Booth et al., 2006). The Index for Inclusion is based on the idea that all students, regardless of their abilities, backgrounds, or circumstances, have the right to a quality education that meets their individual needs. The framework aims to help schools create a more inclusive environment by involving all stakeholders, including students, parents, teachers, and community members, in the process of identifying and addressing barriers to learning and participation (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). The framework is organized around three key dimensions: inclusion in the culture, inclusion in the policies and practices, and inclusion in the learning process.

7  A Mixed-Method Study on the Impact of Inclusion on the Academic Performance...

91

Within each dimension, several indicators can help schools identify areas where they need to focus their efforts to become more inclusive (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). Since its development, the Index for Inclusion has been widely used around the world as a tool for promoting inclusive education. It has been translated into over 20 languages and has been adapted for use in a variety of educational settings, including early childhood education, primary and secondary schools, and higher education. The framework has also been used in many different countries, including the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada (Booth & Ainscow, 2002; Forian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Zara et al., 2013). This index “enables schools to draw on the knowledge and views of staff, students, parents/carers, and community representatives about barriers to learning and participation that exist with their existing cultures, policies, and practices to identify priorities for change” (Ainscow, 2014, p. 182). The Index for Inclusion has been translated and adapted for use in many countries, inspiring agencies and ministries of education around the world to develop their indicators for inclusion. Following the publication of the Index for Inclusion, “Quality Indicators in SNE” were published covering aspects of educational inputs and resources processes and results (Kyriazpoulou & Weber, 2009). Later, in 2005, a multilevel framework for evaluating the educational inclusion of students with SEN at local, school, national, and international levels was developed by Peters, Johnstone, and Ferguson: The Disability Rights in Education Model (DREM). “The DREM is a tool for use by educational policymakers, educators, community members, and people with disabilities organizations” (Kyriazopoulou & Weber, 2009). In 2009, a project conducted by the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education yielded the development of a set of indicators for inclusive education in Europe to be used as a tool for monitoring European country’s development in country-based inclusive policy and practice (Kyriazopoulou & Weber, 2009). Other guidelines on quality indicators of inclusion have been developed in the last 10 years such as “Quality Indicators for Effective Inclusive Education” in 2010 by New Jersey Coalition for Inclusive Education and “Quality Indicators for Inclusive Education” by School Inclusive Education Development Initiative. In 2017, in response to the Global Education 2030 Agenda, UNESCO published a guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education to support government education policymakers and practitioners and implement inclusive policies, programs, and practices that meet the needs of all learners (UNESCO, 2017). This document is the most recent guidance on indicators for inclusion (L. Florian, personal communication, April 21, 2018). Of all these sets of indicators and guidelines, the Index of Inclusion by Booth and Ainscow (2011) is considered the most well-known tool, translated widely into a range of languages and adapted for use in many countries; it concerns all pupils and students and is not disability specific (European Association of Service providers for persons with Disabilities [EASPD], 2012). EASPD (2012) analyzed the use and value of the Index for Inclusion and other instruments to assess and develop inclusive education practice in the Plan2 Inclusivize (p2i) partner countries and found that the Index for Inclusion is mostly used at the national level and less at the school level, and its use gives clear support and helps create a better

92

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

dialogue on inclusive education and identifying actions to be taken. It was recommended by this analysis that “carefully designed, developmental self-evaluation tools, such as the Index for Inclusion, can play a valuable role in schools and education-­focused institutions to support the process of moving toward inclusive education” (EASPD, 2012). Use of Indicators for Inclusion in Hong Kong The “Indicators for Inclusion” is a self-evaluation tool that was developed in Hong Kong to assess attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and actions within inclusive schools. The tool is based on the Index of Inclusion, which has been adapted by many countries to develop their versions of self-evaluation tools for inclusion. The aim of developing the tool was to provide high-quality education for all children and to facilitate systematic school development planning, priority setting, implementation, and progress review (Education Bureau, 2008). The Hong Kong version of the “Indicators for Inclusion” was developed by a team of educational psychologists who reviewed the descriptors in the Index of Inclusion and selected those that were more appropriate for the Hong Kong context. The tool is intended to be used by schools as a means of evaluating and improving their inclusive practices. It focuses on assessing the extent to which a school is inclusive, based on a set of indicators that reflect the values and principles of inclusion. The Indicators for Inclusion document lists four main functions of the tool. Firstly, it is a self-evaluative tool that supports critical analysis and reflection in all areas of a school’s life. Secondly, it is a highly interactive tool that encourages a collaborative team approach within the school. Thirdly, it serves as an agent of change in educational culture, policy, and practice. Finally, it provides a set of support materials to assist schools in setting targets and success criteria during the self-­ evaluation and school development process (Education Bureau, 2008). The Indicators for Inclusion tool explores three interconnected dimensions that assist and support the identification of pathways toward inclusive education. These dimensions include (a), inclusive cultures, (b) inclusive policies, and (c) inclusive practices. In the Hong Kong context, these three dimensions have been reorganized into four domains under the Hong Kong Quality Assurance Framework of School Evaluation (Education Bureau, 2008). These domains are: I. Management and organization, which focuses on the school’s leadership, management, and governance processes. II. Learning and teaching, which relates to the quality of teaching and learning, assessment, and curriculum development. III. Student support and school ethos, which includes the school’s approach to student support services, pastoral care, and the development of a positive school culture and ethos. IV. Student performance, which encompasses student outcomes and achievements, including academic and nonacademic domains (Education Bureau, 2008).

7  A Mixed-Method Study on the Impact of Inclusion on the Academic Performance...

93

As seen above, the Indicators for Inclusion tool organizes the three interconnected dimensions of inclusive cultures, policies, and practices into four domains under the Hong Kong Quality Assurance Framework of School Evaluation. This organization provides a comprehensive framework for schools to assess and evaluate their inclusive practices and enables them to identify areas for improvement and develop action plans to achieve their goals (Education Bureau, 2008). The Indicators for Inclusion tool contains observable features under each domain, which can assist schools in setting targets and defining success criteria for their self-­ evaluation and school development processes (Education Bureau, 2008). This makes it a valuable resource for schools in Hong Kong and beyond, as they strive to provide high-quality, inclusive education for all students. In Hong Kong, the government’s adoption of indicators of inclusion adapted from the Index for Inclusion represents a paradigm shift from integration to inclusion, as these indicators align with the conceptual framework of inclusion (Poon-­ McBrayer, 2014). As a result, the Hong Kong adaptation of the Indicators for Inclusion was chosen as the framework for the study, highlighting its importance and relevance in promoting inclusive education practices. Use of Indicators for Inclusion in Lebanon Lebanon currently lacks any laws that specifically support inclusive education, aside from Law 220/2000 for persons with disabilities. It is noteworthy that this law was not initially intended to promote inclusive education, as highlighted by Al-Hroub (2022). Despite the absence of supportive legislation, some private schools in Lebanon have taken positive steps toward inclusivity by making significant efforts to include children with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream classrooms. These efforts have included providing shadow teachers and additional support materials to aid in the learning and participation of all students. However, these schools lack governmental or any official means to evaluate their inclusive practices, which is an essential step toward removing barriers to learning and participation for all students. The absence of supportive legislation for inclusive education in Lebanon highlights the need for greater government action in this area. By implementing policies and providing resources to support inclusive education practices, the government can help ensure that all students have access to high-quality education, regardless of their abilities (Al-Hroub et al., 2020). Furthermore, the lack of official means to evaluate inclusive practices in private schools underscores the importance of establishing a framework for assessing inclusive practices and supporting schools in implementing necessary improvements. In the current study conducted in Lebanon, Hong Kong Indicators for Inclusion was chosen as the framework for assessing inclusive practices for two main reasons. Firstly, while there has been a global shift toward inclusive education, it has not necessarily translated into policy and practice (Ainscow, 2014). Therefore, examining the internal social dynamics of schools and their existing practices may offer new opportunities for advancing inclusive practices. Secondly, as Lebanon lacks indicators for inclusion, practitioners have to rely on international indicators or

94

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

Fig. 7.3  Comparing Lebanon and Hong Kong using Hofstede Insights model

those used by similar countries. Since no Arab country has developed indicators for inclusion, the researchers looked toward indicators used in other Asian countries. The Hong Kong model was found to be appropriate for this study, as it includes clear and direct observable features of students’ performance in an inclusive setting. The performance of all learners is a central research question for this study. According to the Hofstede Insights model, Lebanon and Hong Kong have similar estimates on five out of six cultural dimensions, which adds to the appropriateness of using the Hong Kong Indicators for Inclusion in Lebanon. Overall, the choice of the Hong Kong Indicators for Inclusion as the framework for this study allows for a comprehensive assessment of inclusive practices in Lebanon. It enables the identification of observable features of students’ performance in an inclusive setting and the evaluation of current practices in schools. This can lead to the development of action plans to promote inclusive education in Lebanon, which is important given the absence of laws supporting inclusive education in the country (Fig. 7.3). According to the cultural dimensions (G-D) theory of national culture by Geert Hofstede, power distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. Individualism is defined as the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members (Syah et al., 2022). Masculinity, where high scores in Lebanon and Hong Kong reflect a somewhat masculine society driven by competition, achievement, and success, is another dimension. Indulgence is defined as the extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses. Both Lebanon and Hong Kong accept inequalities, are considered collectivist cultures, have a society driven by competition and success, and tend to be cynical and pessimistic. On the dimension of uncertainty avoidance, Hong Kong scored low, while Lebanon scored 50, indicating that Lebanon has no clear preference for avoiding ambiguous or unknown situations. However, on the long-term orientation dimension, a discrepancy has been noted, with Lebanon scoring low and Hong Kong society being considered pragmatic.

7  A Mixed-Method Study on the Impact of Inclusion on the Academic Performance...

95

This may further explain why Lebanon faces challenges in moving away from normative education, especially as “supporting a culture shift in education’s normative center is necessary to work for the field of special needs education” (Florian, 2014, p. 20). Given that Lebanon has no indicators for inclusion, the Hong Kong Indicators for Inclusion, developed by the Hong Kong Education Bureau and issued by the worldwide used Index of Inclusion, was selected to assess inclusive practices at the site of the study. The Hong Kong model includes clear and direct observable features of students’ performance in an inclusive setting, making it an appropriate tool for the study.

7.4 The Current Study Site of the Study The research was conducted in a K-12 inclusive school in South Lebanon, which is part of a large network of religious schools. Established in 2001, the school currently has over 2000 students of both genders. The school’s infrastructure is designed to be inclusive, with facilities such as lifts and slopes to provide access to students with motor disabilities. The school is a private institution that offers affordable tuition and provides full scholarships to orphans, in addition to financial aid to other underprivileged students. The school is well-known in the region for its participation in various activities and competitions, its celebration of national and international days, and its engagement of talented students from all categories. The school’s vision and mission statements advocate for equal opportunities and ensuring education for all. In its early years, the school enrolled many orphans and students from low socio-economic backgrounds, including those with physical and learning disabilities. The school responded to the special educational needs of these students by providing special education services within and outside the classroom; hiring occupational, psychomotor, and speech therapists; and establishing a special education team. As the first school in the region to cater to students with special needs, the school attracted an increasing number of SEN students, who eventually constituted 16% of the student population. However, teachers’ attention was increasingly focused on these students at the expense of regular students, and over time, the general education level in the class decreased. Gifted students, in particular, were less challenged and started dropping out of school to join more competitive institutions with more challenging classes. To address this issue, the school developed a gifted program offered for grades 1 to 12. With the presence of teacher assistants in classes and increased awareness among teachers about individual differences and their skills in adjusting learning and teaching, the school was able to respond to many categories on the spectrum of special education, such as students with autistic spectrum disorder, developmental syndromes, and twice-exceptional students. During the study, 15% of the school’s students were identified as students with disabilities, including those with mild to moderate learning disabilities, and 8% were identified as gifted students.

96

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

To ensure that students with special educational needs (SEN) are appropriately identified and supported, the school has developed a comprehensive policy on the identification process. This policy includes a detailed process for the identification of LD and gifted students, as well as a system for providing appropriate levels of support to each group. This policy is outlined in detail in the following paragraphs. The identification process for students with learning difficulties (LD) begins with a referral process, which is completed entirely at the school. During this process, data is collected using a variety of screening tests, observations, interviews, and portfolio examinations with a rubric for every type of data. Additionally, a pre-­ referral checklist of speech and language skills and a pre-identification support plan is completed. The diagnostic process is then completed at an outside psychoeducational assessment center that is affiliated with the school and approved by the Ministry of Education and Higher Education. Once a student has been identified as having LD, they are placed into one of four levels of service. Students in levels 1 and 2 are fully integrated into regular classrooms with limited pull-out sessions, while students in levels 3 and 4 are integrated 60% of the time in regular classrooms. Levels 1 and 2 include students who have a borderline IQ index (full-scale IQ 70–85) or learning difficulties, whereas levels 3 and 4 are for students with a low IQ index (below 70) or with severe developmental delay in more than one area. According to school policy, students in levels 1 and 2 receive support in regular classrooms from support assistants. They take more time to perform academic tasks, and their exams are usually adapted according to their abilities with changes that do not exceed 20% mainly in the form of the exam rather than the content. During exams, they are eligible for a few clarification questions. The identification process for gifted students is quite different. It begins with teachers’ nominations, using a specific rubric to highlight why they consider the student gifted and eligible for the enrichment program. Students move to the next step when at least two teachers, who have known the student for more than 6 months, have nominated him/her. Next, the Gifted Rating Scale (GRS) is used to identify giftedness beyond intelligence. It has subtests on creativity, leadership, and motivation. When a high or moderate probability for a student to be gifted is the result of the test, the student is nominated for an administration of an intelligence test. The school uses the American version of GRS. Finally, an assessment at the psychoeducational assessment center is conducted, using the Woodcock-Johnson test of cognitive abilities and achievement tests. The result of the IQ test will make a child eligible for the gifted program when the score is above 120. Those students are offered options for enrichment inside the regular classrooms; they are clustered into groups and pulled out for two sessions per week to work on individual projects independently. The identification process for both LD and gifted students ensures consistency of results, as IQ tests are conducted using the same test and at the same center. The number of pull-out sessions is the same for the two populations with SEN. To monitor and evaluate inclusive practices, the school has developed written policies and procedures on inclusion. The school also developed its accreditation system for inclusion, which is supervised by an external expert who visits the school

7  A Mixed-Method Study on the Impact of Inclusion on the Academic Performance...

97

once a month. Additionally, two educational counselors work at the school with children who have educational and behavioral disturbances, in addition to a religious counselor. Research Aims and Questions The primary aim of this study is to investigate the impact of inclusion on the academic performance of regular students, students with learning disabilities, and gifted students as perceived by the students themselves. More specifically, this research aimed to (a) investigate and compare the perceptions of students with and without special needs regarding their performance in an inclusive school setting; (b) determine which group among regular students, gifted students, and students with learning difficulties is best served by inclusion, based on students’ perceptions, and understand the reasons behind their perceptions; (c) identify and understand the inclusive practices that have an impact on student’s academic performance in an inclusive school; and (d) determine which indicators of inclusion in the domains of management and organization, teaching and learning, student support, and school ethos have the most positive impact on student’s academic performance, as perceived by them. This study employs the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2011) as the theoretical framework to guide the following research questions: 1. What are the perceptions of students with and without special needs regarding their performance in an inclusive school? 2. Which group, among the three populations (i.e., regular students, gifted students, and students with learning difficulties), is best served by inclusion according to students’ perceptions? Why? 3. What are the inclusive practices that affect students’ performance? 4. Which indicators of inclusion in the domains of management and organization, teaching and learning, student support, and school ethos contribute most positively to fostering students’ performance as perceived by them? Research Design The mixed-method approach was used in this study to compare the impact of inclusion on students’ performance for students with and without special needs as perceived by them and to identify the practices that were of greater impact on their performance. The researchers opted to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches as they believe that the two methods are complementary “and that researchers who use a combination in mixed-method research studies are in the best position to give a full picture of educational practices and problems” (Gall et al., 2014, p.  16). This approach has other several advantages over using only one method. One of the primary advantages is that it allows researchers to collect a broader range of data, thus providing a more comprehensive understanding of the research topic. For example, in the study mentioned above, the mixed-method approach allowed the researchers to compare the impact of inclusion on students’ performance for both students with and without special needs, and to identify the practices that were of greater impact on their performance. This comprehensive understanding is essential to developing effective educational practices and policies (Cohen et al., 2017; Creswell & Clark, 2017).

98

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

Another advantage of the mixed-method approach is that it allows researchers to triangulate data. Triangulation is the process of using multiple sources of data to validate research findings. By using both quantitative and qualitative methods, researchers can compare and validate their results, which increases the credibility and reliability of their findings. In the study mentioned above, the researchers used both quantitative and qualitative methods to triangulate their data, which ensured the validity and reliability of their findings (Cohen et al., 2017; Creswell & Clark, 2017). Furthermore, the mixed-method approach allows researchers to take advantage of the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods are best suited for measuring and analyzing numerical data, such as test scores or survey responses. On the other hand, qualitative methods are better suited for exploring complex issues and understanding the nuances of human experiences. By using both methods, researchers can capitalize on the strengths of each approach and overcome their respective weaknesses. This can result in a more nuanced and insightful understanding of the research topic (Cohen et  al., 2017; Creswell & Clark, 2017). Finally, the mixed-method approach can also be more persuasive in communicating research findings to a broader audience. By using both quantitative and qualitative methods, researchers can provide a more comprehensive and compelling argument for their findings. Quantitative data can be used to support generalizations and demonstrate statistical significance, while qualitative data can provide rich and vivid descriptions of human experiences. The combination of both types of data can make the research more accessible and understandable to a wider audience (Cohen et al., 2017; Creswell & Clark, 2017). Method This research adopted a mixed-method approach, which involved the integration of both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The study utilized focus group discussions (FGDs) as a means of collecting qualitative data, while a survey was used to gather quantitative data using Likert scale items. The research was conducted in a convergent concurrent mode, where both types of data were collected simultaneously, analyzed independently, and then merged. The purpose of collecting both types of data was to ensure that the full range of the impact of inclusion on students’ academic performance was captured. The mixed-method approach was implemented to ensure that the research questions were comprehensively addressed by equally valuing both qualitative and quantitative data. The data and the results of the analysis were concurrently used to compare the findings from the quantitative and qualitative analysis. This allowed for a more complete and accurate understanding of the research questions. By integrating the two methods, researchers can obtain a comprehensive understanding of educational practices and issues. Furthermore, the utilization of a mixed-method approach has many advantages over using just one research method as specified above. First, the use of both qualitative and quantitative data enables researchers to gain a deeper and broader understanding of the research topic (Al-Hroub, 2014; Cohen et  al., 2017; Creswell & Clark, 2017). Qualitative data can provide rich,

7  A Mixed-Method Study on the Impact of Inclusion on the Academic Performance...

99

detailed descriptions of complex phenomena that quantitative data may not be able to capture (Al-Hroub, 2011, 2013, 2015). Conversely, quantitative data can provide statistical evidence and identify trends that may not be apparent through qualitative data alone (Cohen et al., 2017; Creswell & Clark, 2017). Second, by combining qualitative and quantitative data, researchers can triangulate their findings, which enhances the validity and reliability of the research results. The use of multiple sources of data allows researchers to cross-check their findings and ensure that the results are robust (Cohen et al., 2017; Creswell & Clark, 2017). Finally, the integration of both methods can provide a more nuanced understanding of the research topic by highlighting different perspectives and experiences. The use of FGDs, for example, can provide a platform for participants to share their personal experiences and perspectives, which can be complemented by quantitative data obtained from the Likert scale survey (Al-Hroub, 2013). Quantitative Method  The quantitative method used in this study is rooted in an epistemological belief in objective reality, aiming to provide numerical descriptions of the three populations studied. The researchers employed this approach to address three of the four research questions, which focused on identifying the perceptions of students with and without special needs of their performance in an inclusive school, determining which group of the three populations is best served by inclusion from students’ perceptions, and identifying the indicators that contributed most positively to fostering students’ performance as perceived by them. Qualitative Method  The qualitative method used in this study is grounded in an epistemological belief that scientific inquiry must focus on the study of different social realities and practices. This method is usually applied to single individuals or situations to determine the applicability of findings to other individuals and situations. The researchers used the qualitative approach to gain a more in-depth understanding of the inclusive practices that most affected students’ performance by addressing the research questions on why a certain population was best served by inclusion, what the inclusive practices that affected the students’ performance were, and which indicators contributed most positively to fostering students’ performance as perceived by them. The researchers employed focus group discussions (FGDs) as a qualitative data collection technique to serve as a member check to validate the findings from the survey used in the quantitative component of this study. This approach provided a more well-rounded understanding of the research questions by considering the emic perspective through the voices of the children themselves. Participants in the Quantitative Study The study employed purposive sampling to recruit participants for the quantitative phase, where all students in the target population had an equal opportunity to participate. The target population consisted of 18 inclusive classes in a school that had 22 sections at the middle and high school levels, which included LD, gifted, or both.

100

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

During the administration of the survey, the researchers maintained nondiscriminatory inclusive practices by offering it to all students in the inclusive classes, even if some did not meet the criteria. However, 6 students were absent during the survey administration, 6 refused to participate, and 22 were new to the school and excluded from the study due to a lack of clear perception of inclusion’s impact on their performance. Additionally, three students who did not speak English or Arabic fluently and four LD students with severe disabilities were excluded from the data. After applying the exclusion criteria, 432 surveys were available for analysis, of which 356 (82.4%) were middle school students and 76 (17.6%) were high school students. The majority of participants were regular students (81.3%), while 6.9% were gifted students and 11.8% were students with LD. The sample size included 217 (50.2%) male and 215 (49.8%) female students, with the lowest class level of participants being grade 7 and the highest class level being grade 12. The researchers employed a purposive sampling technique in selecting participants for the quantitative phase. The study’s target population was middle and high school students from 18 inclusive classes, and all students in the target population were offered an equal chance to participate. The inclusion of all students in the inclusive classes was necessary to maintain nondiscriminatory practices. However, the researchers excluded absent students, who refused to participate or were new to the school due to a lack of a clear perception of inclusion’s impact on their performance. The exclusion criteria also included students who did not speak English or Arabic fluently and LD students with severe disabilities. The sample size included 432 students, with most participants being regular students, followed by students with LD and gifted students. The majority of the participants were middle school students, and the gender distribution was almost equal (Table 7.1).

Table 7.1  Distribution of the study sample by type, gender, and school level

Type of student Regular Gifted With learning difficulties Gender Males Females School Level Middle school High school

Number (%) 352 (81.3) 30 (6.9) 51 (11.8)

217 (50.2) 215 (49.8) 356 (82.4) 76 (17.6)

7  A Mixed-Method Study on the Impact of Inclusion on the Academic Performance...

101

Participants in the Qualitative Study The researchers inquired about volunteers for FGDs by visiting the 18 inclusive classes and detailing the procedures involved while ensuring the confidentiality of all information gathered. Among the 483 students registered in the inclusive classes, 166 students voluntarily participated in the FGDs, as outlined in Table 7.2. In the recruitment of volunteers for the focus group discussions (FGDs), all groups except for the regular students’ group in middle school were included. To ensure an appropriate sample size for this group, a stratified random sample design was implemented, resulting in the selection of nine middle school students from the group of regular volunteers. The final sample for the FGDs comprised 46 students, divided into 6 groups. Specifically, three FGDs were conducted with 26(56.5%) middle school students, stratified by the levels of special educational needs (SEN), and three FGDs were conducted with 20(43.4%) high school students, also stratified by SEN levels. Of the total participants, 21(45.6%) were males and 25(54.4%) were females. Additionally, eight (17.4%) were orphans, which represents 17% of the school population, while one (2.1%) had a physical motor disability, representing 1.7% of the school population (Table 7.3). Data Collection Instruments In this section, the procedures for data collection are described for both the quantitative and qualitative components of the study. Before data collection, approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was obtained from the school principals, and parental consent was also obtained for all participating students. The data collection procedures were described in turn for the quantitative and qualitative components of the study.

7.4.1 Development of Research Instruments for Quantitative Study The survey instrument used for the quantitative study was developed by the researchers and consisted of five parts focused on student performance in inclusive settings. The survey was based on Hong Kong’s Catering for Student Differences-Indicators for Inclusion (Education Bureau, 2008) conceptual framework. The development of the survey instrument took place in four stages. In the first stage, items were selected from the observable features in the Indicators for Inclusion. The researchers included all indicators and observable features representing the student’s performance domain in the original tool in the survey. For other domains, such as management and organization, teaching and learning, student support, and school ethos, only the indicators and observable features that could be perceived by students were included. The researchers validated the chosen indicators and observable features with an expert researcher in educational leadership.

102

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

Table 7.2  Number of volunteers for FGDs per level and per population Number of students

School level Middle school High school

Gifted 10 8

Regular 128 8

LD 9 4

Table 7.3  Number of participants in the qualitative data collection Gender

Middle school

High school

Males Females Total Gifted Regular LD Total Gifted Regular LD Total

Number of students 21 25 46 8 9 9 26 8 8 4 20

Percent % 45.6% 54.4% 100%

56.5%

43.4%

Table 7.4  Example of conversion of observable features into survey items Observable feature in the original tool Item as converted in the survey

Students recognize their own strengths and weaknesses I recognize my own strengths and weaknesses

In the second stage, all observable features were converted into positive statements. Each observable feature was converted from the third plural person to the first singular person to make the survey more student-friendly (see Table 7.4). In the third stage, the survey was translated from English to Arabic by the researchers, and then it was given to the school counselor to ensure that the translated survey used the appropriate language for the school context. The school counselor, who has extensive experience in administering surveys to students and is familiar with the school’s cultural context, validated the translated survey. The survey was back-translated by an expert to ensure accuracy, and a few changes were made based on the expert’s feedback. In the fourth stage, a pilot study was conducted in a sixth-grade inclusive class consisting of gifted students and students with LD to validate the survey. The researchers tested the items and the length of the survey administration. Students were asked to answer the survey in a blue pen and circle with a red pen the items they found ambiguous or difficult. The pilot study revealed that two items were found difficult by the majority of the class, and four items required modifications based on the questions students asked during the implementation. The survey administration took between 50 and 65 minutes.

7  A Mixed-Method Study on the Impact of Inclusion on the Academic Performance...

103

Description of the Survey  The survey, entitled “Student Performance in Inclusive Settings,” was developed based on the conceptual framework of Hong Kong’s Catering for Student Differences-Indicators for Inclusion (Education Bureau, 2008). The survey consisted of 104 items in total and employed a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) “I strongly disagree” to (4) “I strongly agree.” The survey was divided into 2 sections, with the first 33 items (1 to 33) measuring how students perceive the impact of inclusion on their performance and the remaining 71 items (34 to 104) measuring inclusive practices in 3 domains that affect students’ performance. The total score for the survey is obtained by summing the value of responses on each item, with the score ranging from 104 to 416. A score in the upper 30% of each domain indicates that the impact of inclusion was positive. Part I: Demographic Information  The first part of the survey collected limited demographic information from the participants. Specifically, students were asked to provide information about their gender and class in school. It is important to note that this section of the survey is not considered part of the 104 questions and is not scored. Part II: Indicators of Student Performance  The second part of the survey aimed to explore students’ conceptions of their performance in an inclusive school. It consisted of 33 items representing all the observable features of students’ performance as they appear in the Indicators for Inclusion. Part III: Indicators of Inclusive Practices in the Domain of Management and Organization  Part III of the survey was designed to measure students’ perceptions of inclusive practices in the domain of management and organization. It consisted of 5 items representing five observable features chosen from among the 59 in the Indicators for Inclusion that can be answered from students’ perspectives. Part IV: Indicators of Inclusive Practices in the Domain of Teaching  Part IV of the survey aimed to measure students’ perceptions of inclusive practices in the domain of teaching. It consisted of 39 items representing 39 observable features chosen from among the 112 observable features in the Indicators for Inclusion that can be answered from students’ perspectives. Part V: Indicators of Inclusive Practices in the Domain of Student Support and School Ethos  Part V of the survey was designed to measure students’ perceptions of inclusive practices in the domain of student support and school ethos. It consisted of 25 items representing 25 observable features chosen from among the 137 observable features in the Indicators for Inclusion that can be answered from students’ perspectives.

104

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

Table 7.5  Converting focus questions in the Indicators for Inclusion into age-appropriate questions Domain Student performance

Performance indicator Social development

Focus questions in Indicators for Inclusion How good are students’ interpersonal relationships; social and leadership skills?

Question by the researcher How can you describe your relationships with others and your leadership skills?

Development of Research Instruments for Qualitative Study To explore the inclusive practices in the domains of management and organizations, teaching and learning, and student support and school ethos, focus group discussion questions (FGDs) were formulated. These questions were inspired by the Indicators for Inclusion and were designed to elicit explanatory narratives from students regarding their perceptions of their performance in an inclusive school. The FGDs were chosen as the research instrument due to their capacity to facilitate group interaction and potentially yield perspectives and opinions that may not have been obtained through individual interviews. The design of the FGDs followed the recommendations provided by the Indicators for Inclusion (Education Bureau, 2008) for each domain. A set of seven semi-structured questions were developed and modified to be age-appropriate, as illustrated in Table 3.5. The formulation of the questions followed the guidelines for designing qualitative research instruments by Gall et al. (2014), who emphasize the need for skilled interviewers and the importance of asking open-ended questions to encourage discussion and expression of personal opinions and feelings (Table 7.5).

7.4.2 Data Collection Procedure The researchers followed a well-defined procedure to collect the data for the study. They administered the questionnaire in the 18 inclusive classes, where only the principal was present in the classroom. The researchers provided a detailed explanation of the study and assured the participants of the anonymity of their responses and the confidentiality of the collected information. The students were given the option to complete the survey in either English or Arabic, and all participants opted for the Arabic version. The survey was completed using a paper-and-pencil method, and it took approximately 40–55 minutes to administer the test in each class. Regarding the focus group discussions (FGDs), the researchers conducted and moderated six FGDs with 46 participants selected from middle and high school. To ensure that the age difference did not intimidate the grade seven students in the presence of grade 12 students, the middle school and high school students were separated. Furthermore, the FGDs were conducted separately for regular, gifted, and LD students to provide them with a comfortable environment to express their opinions among their peers.

7  A Mixed-Method Study on the Impact of Inclusion on the Academic Performance...

105

The FGDs were held in a private office at the school with only the researchers present, and each session lasted 50 to 70 minutes. The participants gave their consent to record the discussions, which were conducted in Arabic, the language of choice for the participants. The data collected were transcribed from the recording into Arabic and later translated into English by the same researchers who conducted the FGDs to facilitate analysis. Data Analysis To interpret the data collected to answer the research questions, analyses of quantitative and qualitative data were conducted. Survey Analysis The items of the survey are intended to describe student performance in inclusive schools in addition to inclusive practices in the domains of Management and organization, teaching and learning, and student support and school ethos as perceived by the students. Descriptive analysis was used to determine test reliability using Cronbach Alpha mean test (Gall et al., 2014). For the Part II of the survey on how students perceived their performance, analysis was conducted using the Kruskal-­ Wallis test, which is “used to determine whether the mean scores of three or more groups on a variable differ significantly from one another” (Gall et al., 2014, p. 208). To compare the different populations, Dunn’s post hoc tests (Gall et al., 2014) were carried out on each pair of populations: gifted, regular, and students with LD where a significant difference was found. Analysis was done on the level of every indicator and the level of the student’s performance domain. Results for the other three domains as represented in Parts III–IV of the survey were obtained using the same tests. Additionally, the Mann-Whitney U test was “used to determine whether two uncorrelated means differ significantly from each other” (Gall et al., 2014, p. 208), and independent sample t-tests were used to compare results between the two genders. All statistical data analysis was conducted by the researchers to determine the accuracy of the analysis. Focus Group Discussions Analysis The FGDs were conducted to obtain explanatory narratives on how students perceive their performance in inclusive schools. The data collected from the FGDs were transcribed and translated from Arabic to English. To ensure a comprehensive understanding of the data before analysis, the researchers engaged in a thorough review process. This included listening to all focus group discussion (FGD) audio recordings twice, carefully reading each transcription and translation upon completion, and revisiting all FGD transcripts post-completion. The Indicators for the Inclusion coding system were used to identify patterns and themes in the analysis. The researchers employed Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) interpretative analysis using constant comparison. A table was constructed with the indicators of the four domains from the Indicators for Inclusion in the first row and the three compared populations in the first column. Segments from the FGD scripts were compared to the indicators to interpret the quantitative results and identify

106

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

commonalities or differences among domains and populations. The data were then distributed accordingly in the table. In the final stage of data analysis, the researchers integrated the results from the quantitative and qualitative data analysis to answer the four research questions. Quality Criteria Validity and reliability are critical quality criteria that determine the soundness of research findings. Validity pertains to the accuracy of scientific findings, while reliability is concerned with the replicability of scientific findings (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982). According to Gall et al. (2014), educators cannot assess the credibility of research findings without evidence on measures of validity and reliability. In this study, the researchers ensured the reliability and validity of the findings through several methods. The items of the survey used in this study are the observable features in the Indicators for Inclusion, which is a tool for school self-­evaluation and school development derived from the Index for Inclusion written by Booth and Ainscow (2002). To ensure construct validity, the items of the survey and the questions of the focus group discussions (FGDs) are derived from the same source and then adapted to make it age-appropriate. The survey had a high level of internal consistency, as evidenced by its 0.9 Cronbach’s alpha means, indicating that it is highly reliable. To establish population validity, the sample population was representative of the target population, as all of the target population was included in the sample population. The survey was developed, tested, and revised before its use for the study. The pilot testing conducted in two inclusive classes similar to the target inclusive classes of the study suggested that the measure is likely to have some level of validity and reliability (Gall et al., 2014). To reduce measurement errors, the researchers administered all the surveys in the 18 inclusive classes, always before the 5th period to avoid fatigue and during math or language classes to avoid students’ distress for missing arts or sports classes. All surveys were administered over a period of 2 weeks in an attempt to avoid any particular event that might cause a discrepancy between students’ perceptions. The researchers maintained internal validity by directly gathering data from the participants. They collected data from various segments of the population within an inclusive school, encompassing gifted students, regular students, students with learning disabilities (LD), orphans, and students with sensory and/or motor disabilities. This comprehensive approach ensured the external validity of the research, allowing for an investigation into the effects of inclusion. To ensure the adequacy of the process and the results, triangulation was used, which is “the use of multiple data collection methods, data sources, analysts or theories to increase the soundness of research findings” (Gall et  al., 2014, p.  393). Combining both quantitative and qualitative research approaches, biases by the researcher or her prejudices have been reduced, and triangulation was useful to verify the data about the inclusive practices affecting students’ performance. Patton (2002) also confirms that triangulation strengthens a study.

7  A Mixed-Method Study on the Impact of Inclusion on the Academic Performance...

107

At all stages of the study, research ethics were taken into consideration. The school was a voluntary participant in the study, and informed consent was obtained from students and parents. They were given a full explanation of the study, were assured of the anonymity of their responses, and were ensured confidentiality of all information collected. The research method approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to recruit participants for FGDs was by volunteering while ensuring equal opportunity for all students to volunteer. Participants were allowed to stop participation at any point during either the survey or the FGDs for any reason. The FGDs were audiotaped on two devices after obtaining students’ approval following IRB approval procedures. The researchers protected the identity of all participants by changing their names in the transcribed FGDs, and surveys were conducted anonymously. The study adheres to the ethical standards of the American Psychology Association concerning the treatment of participants, and ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at the American University of Beirut. All data collected using tools designed for quantitative methods were securely stored to prevent unauthorized access and will be destroyed three years after the conclusion of the study to ensure confidentiality and protect participants’ privacy.

References Ainscow, M. (2014). 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. Al-Hroub, A. (2011). Developing assessment profiles for mathematically gifted children with learning difficulties in England. Journal of Education for the Gifted, 34(1), 7–44. https://doi. org/10.1177/016235321003400102 Al-Hroub, A. (2013). A multidimensional model for the identification of dual-exceptional learners. Gifted and Talented International, 28, 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.201 3.11678403 Al-Hroub, A. (2014). Perspectives of school dropouts’ dilemma in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon: An ethnographic study. International Journal of Educational Development, 35, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2013.04.004 Al-Hroub, A. (2015). Tracking dropout students in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. Educational Research Quarterly, 38, 52–79. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1061953 Al-Hroub, A., Saab, C., & Vlaardingerbroek, B. (2020). Addressing the educational needs of street children in Lebanon: A hotchpotch of policy and practice. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(3), 3184–3196. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feaa091 Al-Hroub, A. (2022). Gifted education in Lebanon: Re-examining the role of educational and learning capitals. Cogent Education, (9)1, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2073644 Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE). Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Booth, T., Ainscow, M., & Kingston, D. (2006). Index for inclusion: Developing play, learning and participation in early years and childcare. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.

108

Nidal Jouni and Anies Al-Hroub

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539 Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Organizational Research Methods, 12(3), 614–617. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications. EASPD. (2012). Analysis of the use and value of the index for inclusion (Booth & Ainscow 2011) and other instruments to assess and develop inclusive education practice in P2i partner countries. Fontys OSO. Education Bureau. (2008). Catering for student differences. Indicators for Inclusion: A tool for school self-evaluation and school development. Hong Kong SAR: Education Bureau. Florian, L. (2014). Reimagining special education. In L.  Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 9–22). SAGE. Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828. Gall, J., Gall, M.  D., & Borg, W. (2014). Applying educational research: Pearson new international edition: How to read, do, and use research to solve problems of practice (6th ed.). Pearson Education. Kyriazopoulou, M., & Weber, H. (Eds.). (2009). Development of a set of indicators for inclusive education in Europe. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. LeCompte, D., & Goetz, P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 31–60. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. SAGE. Poon-McBrayer, K. F. (2014). The evolution from integration to inclusion: The Hong Kong tale. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(10), 1004–1013. Syah, N.  A., Claramita, M., Susilo, A.  P., & Cilliers, F. (2022). Culture and learning. In I. M. Claramita, A. Findyartini, D. D. Samarasekera, & H. Nishigori (Eds.), Challenges and opportunities in health professions education: Perspectives in the context of cultural diversity (pp. 1–16). Springer Nature Singapore. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and framework for action on special needs education. Adopted by the world conference on special needs education: Access and quality. UNESCO. Zara, C., Smith, C., Coombs, S. J., Herbert, G., & Isaacs, T. (2013). Key concepts in educational assessment.SAGE.

Chapter 8

The Impact of Inclusion on Student Performance in Lebanon Nidal Jouni and Anies Al-Hroub

Abstract  This chapter presents the findings of a study conducted to examine the impact of inclusion on student performance across various dimensions. The study explores students’ perception of the impact of inclusion on their performance; identifies the population that is best served by inclusion among gifted, regular, and students with learning disabilities; and examines inclusive practices in three domains: management and organization, teaching and learning, and student support and school ethos, which affect student performance. The research presents a detailed analysis of the indicators of inclusion in the three domains that contribute most positively to fostering students’ performance in inclusive settings as perceived by them. The chapter provides important insights into the perceptions of students about the impact of inclusion on their academic performance and identifies the best practices in inclusive education that can facilitate positive outcomes for students with different needs. Overall, this chapter highlights the importance of understanding the various dimensions of inclusion and its impact on student performance. It provides valuable information for policymakers, educators, and researchers who are interested in developing and implementing effective inclusive education practices.

8.1 Introduction This chapter presents the results of a mixed-method study aimed at addressing four research questions related to the impact of inclusion on student performance in Lebanon. The study used a Student Performance in Inclusive Settings survey, specifically designed for the research, to collect quantitative data, and focus group discussions to collect qualitative data. The study analyzed the data using statistical

N. Jouni · A. Al-Hroub (*) Department of Education, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 N. Jouni, A. Al-Hroub, School Inclusion in Lebanon, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34779-5_8

109

110

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

analysis and the Indicators for the Inclusion Framework. The following research questions were posed in this study and were addressed in this chapter: 1. What are the perceptions of students with and without special needs regarding their performance in an inclusive school? 2. Which group, among the three populations (i.e., regular students, gifted students, and students with learning difficulties), is best served by inclusion according to students’ perceptions? Why? 3. What are the inclusive practices that affect students’ performance? 4. Which indicators of inclusion in the domains of management and organization, teaching and learning, student support, and school ethos contribute most positively to fostering students’ performance as perceived by them? The analysis of the data was conducted simultaneously with the results of the study’s quantitative and qualitative analyses. This approach provided a more complete and accurate understanding of the research questions. Moreover, using a mixedmethod approach has several advantages over using just one research method, as discussed earlier. The integration of both qualitative and quantitative data allowed researchers to gain a deeper and broader understanding of the research topic (Al-Hroub, 2014; Cohen et al., 2017; Creswell & Clark, 2017). Qualitative data, as described by Al-Hroub (2011, 2013, 2015), provided rich and detailed descriptions of complex phenomena that quantitative data may not be able to capture. On the other hand, quantitative data provided statistical evidence and identified trends that may not be apparent through qualitative data alone (Cohen et al., 2017; Creswell & Clark, 2017). The chapter presents the findings under two main sections: student performance and inclusive practices.

8.2 Students’ Perception of the Impact of Inclusion on Their Academic Performance 8.2.1 Impact of Inclusion on Students’ Performance of All Populations Table 8.1 provides the minimum and maximum scores, mean, standard deviation, mean rank, percentage, p-value, and direction of the perception of two populations with special educational needs (gifted and with learning difficulties) and one regular population regarding the impact of inclusion on their performance. The table indicates that all three populations perceived inclusion as positively impacting (percentage ≥70%) their performance at school (gifted  =  82.5%, regular  =  77.7% LD = 76.7%), with gifted students perceiving a significantly higher impact of inclusion than the other two populations (regular and with learning difficulties). This finding suggests that inclusive practices have a more significant positive difference at the p-value  0.05). Gifted students in middle school reported that the enrichment program was very successful at the academic level and positively affected their grades. Gifted students in high school reported that they learned to work on their weaknesses and not only their strengths, which improved their academic performance. However, they raised concerns about the limited corrective feedback they received from teachers. Regular students reported that the school helped them improve their abilities and achieve excellent academic levels (e.g., “The school improved my abilities a lot...,” “They support us during exams...,” “They work with us on areas where we didn’t achieve well. They give us worksheets of a higher level than our level to detect where the barriers are to upgrading our level”). Students with learning disabilities reported that they now take the same exams as their classmates and still achieve good grades. Positive Impact of Inclusion on Students’ Development of Multiple Intelligences Multiple intelligences theory suggests that intelligence is not a single trait but a collection of abilities and skills that individuals possess. Inclusive education has been

8  The Impact of Inclusion on Student Performance in Lebanon

115

linked to the development of multiple intelligences among students with and without disabilities. This study examined the impact of inclusion on the development of multiple intelligences among gifted, regular, and students with learning disabilities. The results indicated that all three populations perceived a positive impact of inclusion on their development of multiple intelligences, with no significant difference between them (p-value = 0.092 > 0.05). Gifted students reported that the school provided a variety of activities that covered different aspects of intelligence. In the focus groups, gifted students expounded that the educational institution provides a diverse range of activities that encompass scientific and linguistic pursuits, as well as sports and arts. In a similar vein, a student with LD attested that the “school recognizes the unique intelligence level and strengths of its students, and endeavors to enhance them where necessary for personal development and growth.” Conversely, no pertinent verbal comments were discerned from interviews with regular students regarding the influence of inclusion on the cultivation of their multiple intelligences, albeit it was perceived to be favorable in tandem with the other two cohorts in the study. Impact of Inclusion on Student Participation in School Life The study found that 78.9% of gifted students, 72.5% of regular students, and 73.4% of students with LD perceived the impact of inclusion on their participation in school life positively. However, there was a significant difference in the perception of this impact between regular and gifted populations (p-value  =  0.013   70)

116

N. Jouni and A. Al-Hroub

of acquisition of learning skills than regular (72.4%  >  70) and LD students (72.5%  >  70). The p-value was 0.002, indicating a 99% significant difference in perception. Focus group discussions revealed that time management and meeting deadlines were common learning skills acquired by all three populations. Gifted students, however, reported acquiring additional skills such as critical thinking, creative writing, visual discrimination, research methods, and working methodology, which were not reported by regular and LD students. Gifted students were also found to have an enrichment program that further enhanced their learning skills. In contrast, only one student with LD reported having developed innovation and creativity skills. The findings suggest that inclusive schools should consider implementing enrichment programs to enhance the acquisition of learning skills, particularly for regular and LD students, and develop strategies to foster innovation and creativity skills for all students. Comparison of Indicators  When examining the performance indicators of students from three populations, namely, gifted, regular, and those with learning ­disabilities, the researchers noted that the highest perceived indicator was “students possess positive self-concept,” while the two least perceived indicators were “students have grasped a repertoire of learning skills” and “students actively participate in school life.” As depicted in Fig.  8.1, these findings were consistent across all three populations, suggesting that the school implemented comparable policies and inclusive practices to enhance the student’s performance regardless of their academic abilities or disabilities. 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74

Students Multiple Academic Students are Students have Students possess intelligence of performance motivated to grasped a actively positive self- students is of students learn repertoire of participate in concept developed has improved learning skills school life

Fig. 8.1  Ranking of all students’ performance indicators from the most highly rated to the least highly rated

8  The Impact of Inclusion on Student Performance in Lebanon

117

8.3 Inclusive Practices and Their Impact on Student Performance The findings revealed in both the surveys and focus group discussions indicate that the three populations at the school hold a positive perception of the impact of inclusion on their academic performance. To comprehend the nature of this positive impact and explore any significant differences in its effects across the three populations, the study examined inclusive practices within three distinct domains: management and organization, teaching and learning, and student support and school ethos. Table 8.5 presents the outcomes of this investigation, including the minimum and maximum scores, mean, standard deviation, mean rank, percentage, p-value, and direction of the perceptions of the three populations toward inclusive practices in these three domains, as evaluated in Parts III and V of the survey. No significant gender-based differences were detected in any of the domains. The study revealed that all three populations—gifted, regular, and students with learning disabilities— hold positive perceptions of inclusive practices in all three domains, with percentages of the entire population in each domain exceeding 70%. Furthermore, the management and organization domain exhibited a statistically significant difference (p-value = 0.009