analysis summary

p.35Special_Education_International_Perspectives_Pract..._----_Part_IV_The_Middle_East.pdf

Home >Education homework help >analysis summary

PART IV

THE MIDDLE EAST

Special Education International Perspectives : Practices Across the Globe, edited by Anthony F. Rotatori, et al., Emerald Publishing Limited, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wsu/detail.action?docID=1780814. Created from wsu on 2019-12-24 10:40:15.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

SPECIAL EDUCATION TODAY

IN ISRAEL

Hagit Ari-Am and Thomas P. Gumpel

ABSTRACT

This chapter describes the current state of special education in Israel as well as what the future holds with possible solutions to improve services for individuals with disabilities. Israel is a very complex society and, as such, the educational system is very complex as well. The development of the special education system in Israel will be described as well as the current policies. In addition, different service delivery models will be explained. Inclusionary practices in Israel will be discussed as well as the prevalence and incidence rates of different disabilities in Israel and how they have changed over time. Finally, different strategies and models for implementation of services will be described and the importance of teacher training to meet student needs will be highlighted.

The Israeli education system in general, and the special education system, in particular, face complex challenges. Israel is a complex society, fractured into different sectors where each sector pushes its own agenda and attempts to dictate government policy. Israel is also an immigrant country with

Special Education International Perspectives: Practices Across the Globe

Advances in Special Education, Volume 28, 473�504 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0270-4013/doi:10.1108/S0270-401320140000028022

473

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0270-401320140000028022

a large indigenous population and is engaged in an ongoing political, national, and military conflict with enemies from without and competing national narratives from within. It would be inconceivable that these monumental stresses would not impact on society’s greatest instrument of socialization and homogenization: the educational system. In all countries, the provision of special services to children with special educational needs is a civil and human rights issue, and so these fractures in Israeli society are also amplified in the special educational system. As we shall see, this small country faces a series of challenges which are unique to the Israeli context, as well as other challenges which are common to other ethnically diverse nations.

The State of Israel is a small country (20,770 sq. km.) and is slightly smaller than New Jersey, with a primarily industrial and service oriented economy (96.5%). The population of 8 million is composed of two primary ethnic groups: 75.3% Jewish and 20.7% Israeli-Palestinians (also called Israeli-Arabs

1 ) who are either Muslims or Christians; Druze and Bedouins

are two ethnic groups subsumed within the Arab sector. Four primary reli- gions are represented in the country: Jewish (75.3%), Muslim (17.2% � predominately Sunni Muslim), Christian (2%), and Druze (1.7%) (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2012b). In this rich ethnic mosaic, the Jewish popula- tion can be roughly divided into four groups: secular, traditional (keeps some sort of Jewish traditions and holidays and would be considered “reform” or “conservative” Judaism in North America), religious (would be considered “orthodox” Judaism in North America, men are noticeably visible by the knitted yarmulke), and the ultra-orthodox (who live in sepa- rate communities, often known as “Hassidic Jews” in North America, men are noticeably visible by their black suits, hats, and beards). The Jewish population is also divided into Ashkenazi (of European descent) and Sephardic (also called Mizrahim and are of Middle Eastern descent) Jews. The ultra-orthodox are divided into countless subgroups, some Ashkenazi and some Sephardic (Gumpel, 2011).

SPECIAL EDUCATION IN ISRAEL

The birth of the Israeli special education system can be divided into three historical periods: (a) developments which took place during the period when Ottoman Syria (1516�1918, which included Palestine) was ruled by the Ottoman Empire (1453�1918) and was divided into three primary

474 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

provinces or sanjaks (Sanjak of Jerusalem, Sanjak of Balqa, Sanjak of Acre); the Sanjak of Jerusalem was exposed to increased European influ- ence since the cessation of hostilities in the Crimean War (1853�1856), as Ottoman Syria was forced to allow European powers to purchase land and assume rights in the Holy Land; (b) the period following the end of the First World War in which the United Kingdom assumed control of Palestine as a British Mandate (1918�1948) and during which political Zionism, which called for the establishment of a Jewish state as the national (or binational) and secular homeland of the Jewish people; and (c) the period since the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948.

The first special education institutions in Palestine (the term to define the pre-state entity) were established early in the 20th century, during the Ottoman Period, mainly by physicians who received funding from organi- zations and philanthropists. The Jewish Institute for the Blind was estab- lished in Jerusalem in 1902, by Nachum Natanzon, a philanthropist and by Abraham Mozes Lontsz who lost his sight as a young man and later pub- lished the first Hebrew books in Braille. Concurrently, the Arab Organization for the Welfare of the Blind was established in Jerusalem, by Sobhi El-Dajani, a member of a family of physicians, who was blind him- self and directed the institute with his wife and received support from the British government. At roughly the same time, two other institutes for visually impaired Arab students were also founded in Ramallah (for girls) and in Beit-G’an, in the northern part of the country (Sadeh, 2003).

The trend to develop special educational frameworks for sensory impaired children continued during the period of the British Mandate: in 1932 the first school for deaf and hearing impaired children was opened in Jerusalem through the support of the Alliance Israélite Universelle. The school, which is still in operation, has always served both Jewish and Arab children. Concurrently, Dr. Mordechai Birchiyahu, began to work with and teach “difficult to educate” and “nervous” children in the new city of Tel Aviv. Birchiyahu also established an institution for children with intel- lectual disabilities (ID), with the support of the head of the local educa- tional department at the time, Shoshana Persitz, in 1929; “Netzah Israel” was active for 60 years (until 1989, Sachs, Levian, & Weiszkopf, 1992; Sadeh, 2003). In 1939, another school was established in Jerusalem: the David Yellin School served children with various disabilities.

Massive migration along with the United Nations declaration of November 29, 1947, changed Palestine forever by creating a de jure Jewish state through demographic transformation, land acquisition, development of a separate Jewish economy, and the development of separate social,

475Special Education Today in Israel

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

political, economic, and educational institutions (Farsoun & Zacharia, 1977). The shift in balance from an unimportant backwater province of the Ottoman empire, consisting only of a handful of impoverished groups of Jews in the late 19th and early 20th century, to a fledgling modern nation with a clear Europeanized majority created a European style hegemony in all cultural and national institutions which was, of course, reflected in the structure and goals of the educational system of the time.

EDUCATIONAL POLICY IN ISRAEL

Following the establishment of the State of Israel, in 1948, the educational system grew rapidly. A major challenge in becoming a viable and stable Jewish state was the need to recreate a Jewish majority in Palestine where none had existed for 2,000 years. During this time, the seeds of today’s primary and basic dilemmas of modern Israeli society were sown, issues whose trajectories are still visible today. Since achieving indepen- dence, the country’s leaders have repeatedly declared that a primary goal of the educational system has been to reduce socioeconomic gaps between dif- ferent segments of the population on an inter-ethnic (i.e., Jewish vs. Arab allocations in education) and an intra-ethnic (Ashkenizim vs. Mizrachim, secular vs. religious) level. These “gaps” exist on a myriad of economic, cul- tural, and legal levels (Gumpel, 2011). For instance, marked differences are evident in demographic comparisons between Jewish and Arab citizens. Israeli-Palestinian families are larger than their Jewish compatriots (in 2010, 11% of Israeli-Palestinian families had more than five children vs. only 3% of Jewish households, Meyers � JDC � Brookdale Institute, 2012). Likewise, poverty rates between the two groups differ: in 2012, 53% of Israeli-Palestinian families, and 66% of Israeli-Palestinian children lived in poverty versus 14% and 24%, respectively, for the Jewish population. Disability rates also differ between the two groups. In 2012 the prevalence rates for severe disabilities among children was 5% for Israeli-Palestinian and 3% for Jewish children (Meyers � JDC � Brookdale Institute, 2012).

Aside from the declarative nature of these intentions, educational policy has rarely been discussed on a systemic level (Shmueli, 2003). Disparity in educational performance also exists between the primary Jewish groups and between Jews and Arabs (OECD, 2009). For instance, in 2011, 70.4% of all Jewish high schools students were eligible for their high school matri- culation diploma, as compared to a 52.5% rate for Arab high school

476 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

students; these numbers have remained fairly stable since 1995 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2012b) and are even more disturbing in Jerusalem, the capital. Despite an 8% dropout rate among youth in West Jerusalem, the dropout rate in occupied East Jerusalem

2 approaches 50% (Wargen, 2006).

In 1960 there were 353 special education schools in Israel and only one of them was Arab. Over the succeeding decades, Israel has witnessed a con- tinued reduction of segregated special education schools in the Jewish edu- cation system with a concomitant increase of special schools in Arab education (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2012b). Due to a myriad of reasons too numerous to explore here, educational expenditures in the Arab sectors in Israel have trailed those in the Jewish sectors. Figure 1 shows the dispari- ties in the provision of special educational frameworks for these two groups. Despite the fact that Jewish educational institutions were histori- cally funded more than those of non-Jewish groups, funding and resource gaps have been slowly closing since the 1980s. Even though these gaps are being reduced, Israeli-Palestinian children are still underserved; whereas in 2011 the ratio of special education schools for each Jewish child was 1:7,692, for Israeli-Palestinian it was 1:8,695 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2012a).

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2011

Jewish Education 352 284 214 188 160 199 198

Arab Education 1 12 18 21 46 58 58

–

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

N u

m b

e r

o f

S c h

o o

Number of special education schools in Israel since 1960

Fig. 1. Number of Special Education Schools for Jewish and Israeli-Palestinian

Children from 1960 to 2011.

477Special Education Today in Israel

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The Israeli educational system is controlled by a strong central bureau- cracy located in Jerusalem and is run by the Ministry of Education (MoE) (Gumpel, 2011), which has undergone substantial changes over the last 65 years. The special education system is directed from the ministry via the Division of Special Education (DSE). As a result of the complicated politi- cal reality in Israel, educational policy is subservient to different, often con- flicting, political and demographical considerations (Avissar, Moshe, & Licht, 2013) as frequent political changes make it difficult to formulate long-term policies. For example, a recent reform to set a clear “strategic plan” was made by the MoE in 2011 where three major goals and 11 opera- tional targets were outlined (e.g., enhancing Zionist ideology along with Jewish, democratic, and social values, reducing violence and creating a positive school atmosphere, improving educational achievements, reducing achievement gaps between different demographic groups, improving tea- cher’ status, and encouraging efficacy in the system). The following year, in 2012, one more major aim was added in a declared intention to strengthen schools’ ability to include students with different special educational needs and abilities and to reduce referrals to special education settings (the so-called “The 12th Target � Inclusion” mandate, Avissar et al., 2013).

Inclusionary Practices

The special education system in Israel has historically been dominated by neurologists, neuropsychologists, pediatricians, and psychologists working in a medical and pathology-based categorical model of impairment where all children receiving special education services are divided into 12 different eligibility categories based on their primary disability (Gumpel, 2011). Historically, the first step in changing the policy toward educating students with special needs was the establishment of a ministerial panel of experts to reconsider the definition of a child with special needs and the purpose of special education (known as the “Cohen-Raz Committee,” 1976

3 in Ronen,

1982). The committee recommended, for the first time in Israel, that a student would be placed in a special school not only because of his or her disability, but also by his or her special needs and level of functioning (Marom, Bar-Siman Tov, Karon, & Koren, 2006). Despite the panel’s recommendations, discussion of integration and inclusion only began to gain momentum following legislation of the 1988 Special Education Law (SEL) and the implementation of the law in the early 1990s, as many children who previously received services in segregated settings began to receive services

478 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

within the general education framework (Avissar & Layser, 2000; Comptroller’s Office, 2001; Gumpel, 2011; Margalit, 1999). Like much of Israeli society, special education procedures prior to the passage of the SEL of 1988 (“Special Education Law of 4758,” Knesset, 1988) were based on an informal and personal form of negotiation between the educational system, the child’s family, and the Ministry of Education (Gumpel, 1996). Services were provided under the more general auspices of the Compulsory Education Law of 1949 and the State Education Law of 1953. Today, over 30 years after its passage, the SEL of 1988 remains the foundation of Israeli special education and marks a turning point in the provision of special edu- cation services to children and adolescents with special needs. As a result of the SEL, the special educational system has slowly shifted to a more inclu- sionary system with a set of bureaucratic safeguards to ensure that all chil- dren receive a quality education.

Currently, the MoE has adopted three models of inclusionary special education: (a) the individual inclusion of students within general education classes and kindergartens where the majority of learners do not have learn- ing disabilities (LDs); (b) self-contained classes within general education schools where the students have identified multiple LDs as well as Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD), Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), and mild ID; and (c) inclusionary classes, with a limited number of special needs students and two teachers (a primary “homeroom” teacher and a special education teacher) who work both together and separately (this model is not common, and exists primarily in kindergartens). Despite these guidelines, the number of inclusionary placements has gotten smaller over the last decade, with a fairly consistent downward trend in inclusion- ary placements (see Fig. 2).

Prevalence and Incident Rates

In the 2011�2012 academic year, there were 2,576,900 children in Israel; approximately 75% were Jewish and 25% Israeli-Palestinians. For all students, 330,000 (12.8%) children had identified disabilities or chronic diseases, according to estimations of the National Council for the Child (NCC) (Zionit & Ben-Arie, 2012). In that same year, 203,200 children (7.9%) were identified by the MoE as having special educational needs, 64.5% were included in general educational settings, 18.6% studied in self- contained classes within general education schools, and 16.9% of them studied in segregated schools. Table 1 shows prevalence rates of ten

479Special Education Today in Israel

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

primary disability categories in the three types of special educational place- ments: inclusionary classrooms, special day classes in general education schools, and segregated special education schools (Zionit & Ben-Arie, 2012). LD is the largest category of students and accounts for 51.4% of all students with special needs; however, this number refers only to students who are identified as presenting with complex or multiple LDs, and are supported by special education services (most “mild” LDs are never for- mally identified through special education placement committees). Students with LDs are also the largest group in inclusionary and self-contained classes. Other categories of special needs students are those with EBD at 7.6%, developmental delays (10.8%), and language delays (6%); for both of these two groups, 70% of identified children receive services in early childhood settings (Zionit & Ben-Arie, 2012).

Table 1 also clearly shows that educational placements in Israel are guided by a categorical system where inclusionary resources are available depending on the student’s diagnostic category as opposed to his or her individual functional level. General education placements are implemented primarily among children with LDs where 70.5% of these students are included in general education settings, similar to the placement of students with developmental (72.4%) or language (70.5%) delays. Slightly more than a half of students with EBD are included (56%), and less than a half (44.8%) of students with cerebral palsy/severe physical handicaps are

11.09% 10.41% 9.47% 6.71% 5.92% 5.99%

46.09% 49.20% 50.42% 48.22%

51.02% 50.90%

42.81% 40.39% 40.12%

45.06% 43.06% 43.11%

1999/2000 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007

P e rc

e n

Academic Year

Decisions of Placement Committee

General Education Kindergarten or Classroom Special Day Class Segregated SPED School

Fig. 2. Decisions of Placement Committees, 1999�2000 through 2006�2007 Academic Years.

480 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

included. Nearly a third of students with psychiatric disorders (32.3%), and ASD (28.7%) are included individually in general educational settings.

CHANGES IN RATES OF DISABILITIES

Figure 3 shows the prevalence rates of selected disabilities since 2006 (the first year that the Central Bureau of Statistics published detailed data on each disability) cross-tabulated with type of placement. While in 2012 nearly 8% of Israeli students were defined as students with special needs, six years earlier only 5.5% were identified as such. The total increase of students in the educational system was of 1.2 during this period, while the increase in the number of special education students was of 1.74.

Three different types of prevalence increases are evident since 2006. First, certain disability groups have kept pace with growth rate of the gen- eral education system (moderate and profound ID, sensory impairments, and physical disabilities). A second trend is evident in categories which have almost doubled their size relative to the general educational trends (i.e., LD, EBD, and psychiatric disorders). For instance, the number of students with diagnosed LDs or psychiatric disorders has increased by 92%

Table 1. Frequencies of Selected Disability Groups Receiving Services from the Ministry of Education in the 2009�2010 Academic Year, Listed

in Order of Prevalence.

Absolute

Number

% Special

Schools

% Special Day

Class

Inclusion

LD 106,021 4.8 24.7 70.5

Developmental delay 22,401 23.0 4.6 72.4

EBD 15,825 25.3 18.7 56.0

Language disorders

(delay)

12,540 29.6 2.8 67.6

ASD 6,876 42.3 29.0 28.7

Hearing impairment 4,349 15.7 19.0 65.3

Significant physical

handicaps

2,806 51.1 4.1 44.8

Moderate/Severe ID 2,766 93.6 6.4 0.0

Psychiatric disorders 2,270 65.0 2.7 32.3

Visual impairment 1,102 15.5 0.0 84.5

Medically fragile 741 0.0 0.0 100.0

Source: Zionit, Berman, and Ben-Arie (2009).

481Special Education Today in Israel

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

and 90%, respectively, during this same period. The third data trend includes those disability groups whose identification and placement in the special education system has increased to a much larger extent: at times over 200% growth (mild IDs and developmental delays, ASD and language disorders, and medically fragile children). This extreme growth is well illustrated by the change rates of two separate categories which increased dramatically over the last several years: ASD and LD.

CASE STUDY: CHANGES IN PREVALENCE OF

STUDENTS DIAGNOSED WITH AUTISTIC

SPECTRUM DISORDER

Currently, due to significant methodological differences across studies, there is no agreement between Israeli authorities and researchers regarding the prevalence of ASD in Israel. A report published in 2010 (Tseva, 2012)

2.85 2.74

2.60

2.30

1.92 1.90

1.65 1.41

1.26 1.03 1.01

0.00

De ve

lo pm

en ta

l D el ay

La ng

ua ge

D iso

rd er

s (d

el ay

)

M ed

ica lly

F ra

gi le

Ps yc

hi at

ric D

iso rd

er s

Si gn

ific an

t P hy

sic al H

an di ca

He ar

in g

Im pa

irm en

Vi su

al Im

pa irm

en t

M od

er at

e/ Se

ve re

ID AS

D LD EB

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Fig. 3. Changes in Rate of Disabilities since 2006. The Increasing Rate of General

Education = 1.21, Overall Increase of Special Education = 1.74.

482 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

in order to estimate the incidence of ASD in Israel and to correlate preva- lence rates and other demographic variables, shows a dramatic increase between the 1980s and 2004. The increase was recorded in all populations in Israel, yet most pronounced in the Jewish populations (due to apparent under-diagnosis in other ethnic groups). Among the latter, rates increased from 1.2 per 1,000 among children born in 1986�1987 to more than 3.6 per 1,000 in 2003. The study database included two Israeli national regis- tries: The Israeli Ministry of Social Affairs, which is the official agency responsible for welfare of individuals with autism in Israel and the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), as a source of annual numbers of live births and on infant mortality (defined as death during the first 12 months, between 1986 and 2005), stratified by gender and ethnicity (Gal, Abiri, Reichenberg, Gabis, & Gross, 2012). The increase in prevalence rates showed a strong gender effect. Among males, the average rate increased from 2.3 per 1,000 in 1986�1990 to 5.1 per 1,000 in 2000�2004, while among girls a modest increase was seen from an average of 0.53 per 1,000 in 1986�1990 to 1.0 per 1,000 in 2000�2004; the male to female ratio gradually increased during the study period from 4.8:1 in 1986�1990 to 6.5:1 in 2000�2004. Another recent Israeli study examined physician records rather than governmental reports or educational sources of ASD, in order to calculate the prevalence and incidence of ASD over seven years (Davidovitch, Hemo, Manning-Courtney, & Fombonne, 2012). All chil- dren in this report were registered in one of the Israel health maintenance organizations (HMO) which provide services to approximately 25% of Israeli population.

4 In 2010 the prevalence of children diagnosed with ASD

was 4.8 per 1,000; boys were 7.8 per 1,000 and girls were 1.6 per 1,000 (cor- responding to a male:female ratio of 5.2:1). The study found a significantly lower prevalence of ASD for low SES group as compared to other income groups. Further, prevalence was lower for both Israeli-Arabs (1.2 per 1,000) and ultra-orthodox Jews (2.6 per 1,000) as compared to the rest of the population (Davidovitch et al., 2012).

Generally, despite a significant increase in the last two decades, preva- lence rates in Israel are lower as compared to US figures. One possible explanation is that the lower reported prevalence is related to more strict diagnostic criteria in Israel: children younger than six years of age are eval- uated at local community Child Developmental Centers where a diagnosis is provided by a multidisciplinary team consisting of at least two specialists with different backgrounds (e.g., a child psychologist and a specialist in pediatric neurology and development) and are conducted over several meetings. Currently, Ministry of Health regulations rely on DSM-IV

483Special Education Today in Israel

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

criteria for ASD; however, new regulations are currently being rewritten to apply DSM-5 criteria. For children older than six years of age, who are not referred to a Child Developmental Center, new health regulations (estab- lished in 2008) require that an ASD diagnosis be made only after two sepa- rate evaluations (one from a specialist in pediatric neurology and development, and the other from a clinical pediatric psychologist). Physicians and psychologists are required to delineate how each child’s symptoms match the DSM-IV criteria (Davidovitch et al., 2012).

According to the MoE, there were 2,990 students with ASD in the edu- cational system in the 2006�2007 academic year, while eight years later, the total number of ASD students increased by 318% to 9,524 (see Fig. 4). When considering the placements of students diagnosed with ASD during these years (see Fig. 5), one can see the increase of individual inclusion and placements from slightly over one-tenth in 2006�2007 to almost one-third in 2011�2012. A small reduction of students in special schools is apparent between 2006 and 2007, 30.7% to 2010�2011, 24.2%, and a sharp increase in 2011�2012. This increase is, apparently, artificial and a product of

2,990 3,404

4,098

5,437 5,748

6,876

9,524

2006–2007 2007–2008 2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011 2011–2012 2013–2014

Fig. 4. Total Number of Students Defined as ASD by MOE, between 2006 and

2012.

484 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

changes in the way data are currently collected. Following a correction, the percentage of ASD students in special schools reduced to 23.6%, while pla- cement in special classes remains quite stable at 47%.

PROMINENT EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS

DSE guidelines specify that (a) every student is entitled to his or her educa- tion and participation in his or her community; (b) every student is entitled to access to resources which will promote self-realization and the develop- ment of talents and skills in order to develop skills; (c) every student and his or her family must be involved in planning current and life-long instruc- tional goals; (d) the educational system must respect differences among stu- dents with disabilities; and (e) teachers must be committed to cooperative

2006–2007 2007–2008 2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011 2011–2012 2013–2014

Segregated Schools 30.7 28.0 25.5 22.8 24.2 42.3 36.2

Special Day Classes 57.5 60.1 60.8 49.5 52.3 29.0 30.8

Inclusion 11.8 11.9 13.6 27.7 23.5 28.7 33.1

P e rc

e n

ta g

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

10%

Fig. 5. Percentages of Students with ASD in Different Settings between 2006 and

2014.

485Special Education Today in Israel

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

educational processes and professional standards (Avissar & Bav, 2010; Pen & Tal, 2006).

Services are provided in three main frameworks, special kindergartens and schools, self-contained classes, and individual inclusion in general edu- cation schools. Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) for every stu- dent with special needs are mandated by the Special Education Law of 1988 and its revision of 2002. The MoE differentiates between IEPs for stu- dents in enrolled in segregated schools or self-contained classes (Tala or (תל"א and the IEP of individually included students (Techi or ,(תח"י although they are similar in their components. The Tala must include a statement of the present educational performance, strengths, and educational goals in all principal academic areas: cognitive, educational, behavioral-emotional, sensory-motor, communication, and life skills. Instructional goals must be set for all relevant areas and a delineation of educational services must be provided (Director General � Ministry of Education, 7/1998) and educa- tional staff are encouraged to invite the parents in order to solicit their input. It is “highly recommended” that the completed IEP will be delivered to the parents during the beginning and ending of the academic year, the teacher must evaluate progress and report to parents. As in the Tala, the Techi must contain statements of the present educational performance, list strengths and weaknesses, define the responsibilities of each staff member, and specify which educational services are to be provided (if the student is receiving assistance from a paraeducator, his or her role must also be speci- fied). Unlike the Tala, however, instructional goals should be based on the general education curricula, and include the expected assignments for the students; students and their parents must be invited to the planning phase and receive a copy prior to the beginning and end of each academic year (Director General � Ministry of Education, 11/2007; Instructions Chapter D1 for Special Education Law, 4763 [Correction number 7 for Special Education Law, 1988], 2002).

EDUCATIONAL PLAN IN SEGREGATED SCHOOLS

In the late 1990s the director of the DSE convened a steering committee for planning a program for adolescents in segregated schools. The results were summarized in a series of guidelines based on a model of quality of life (Reiter, 1999), emphasizing feelings of well-being, opportunities for positive social involvement, and opportunities to achieve personal growth where

486 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

individual perceptions and values � the subjective views of the person � are recognized as a key facet of quality of life (Schalock et al., 2002). These guidelines outline four domains: social education, career education; inde- pendent living in the community, and citizenship education through the use of computers. Initially, the program was designated for students with ID only; however, it has been widely implemented by all special education schools nationwide (Avissar & Bav, 2010; LEV-21, 2009).

Core Curriculum

Until the mid-1980s, the DSE viewed the general education curriculum only as a general framework, allowing teachers to adapt contents and methods. In the mid-1980s, the DSE started to plan a core curriculum along with the Curriculum Planning and Development Division in the MoE, and although cooperation was initially minimal, over time the curri- culum became more systematic (Avissar & Bav, 2010). Following passage of the SEL in 1988, professional committees were also set to develop special education curricula in subjects such as mathematics, language, history, science, and physical education. In 2005, the MoE published a core curricu- lum for elementary schools (general and special education) and defined mandatory content to be mastered by every student in order to develop as productive citizens, able to function both cognitively and emotionally as productive adults based on learning skills and social values (Director General � Ministry of Education, 11/2005). Following the general curricu- lum, the DSE differentiated between individual inclusion in general educa- tion settings and segregated schools, where there is more operational freedom to adopt and adapt appropriate content. All special education schools are required to apply the Core Curriculum for special education. Schools can develop or adopt additional subjects according to their own policies and ideologies (Tal & Leshem, 2007).

Strategies for Accommodations

Three types of accommodations are recognized by the MoE: Adaptations � changes in the presentation of the educational material, including enlarge- ment of written material, presenting the material with additional supports and classroom amplification systems; Modifications � changes in the contents of the educational program, such as a reduction of part of

487Special Education Today in Israel

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

the material; and Alternatives � adding a unique subject requirement for the students (Tal & Leshem, 2007). Accommodations are the most frequent method employed in general education schools, including adding supple- mental time, using a calculator, extended formulae page, or allowing oral answers.

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

Response to Intervention (RtI) is “the practice of providing high-quality instruction and interventions matched to student needs, monitoring pro- gress frequently to make decisions about changes in instruction or goals, and applying child response data to important educational decisions” (Batsche et al., 2005). RtI models are typically composed of a minimum of the following components: (a) a continuum of evidence-based services available to all students, from universal interventions and procedures to intensive and individualized interventions; (b) decision points to determine if students are performing significantly below the level of their peers; (c) ongoing monitoring of student progress; (d) employment of more intensive or alternative interventions when students do not improve; and (e) evalua- tion for special education services if students do not respond to interven- tion instruction (Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, & Lathrop, 2007). In the multitier RtI model, the form of academic intervention changes at each tier, becoming more intensive as a student ascends across tiers. Increasing intensity is achieved by using more teacher-centered, systematic, and expli- cit instruction, conducting it more frequently, adding to its duration, creat- ing smaller and more homogenous student groupings, or relying on instructors with greater expertise (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Lipka, 2013). There are several examples of programs applying principles of RtI in Israel. Some RtI programs were developed by the MoE, and others were devel- oped in teacher training programs and are implemented in schools with the approval of the MoE. For example, the “Safra Model” was developed in Haifa University and is applied both in Hebrew and Arabic in elementary, middle, and high schools. The program includes teacher training in the first tier and intervention with the students in the second tier, using computer- ized monitoring of students’ progress. Efficacy research indicates a signifi- cant improvement of basic and advanced reading and writing processes as well as higher student motivation (Lipka, 2013). Another example is the “ELA” program (an acronym in Hebrew for “Detection, Diagnosis,

488 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Learning, and Assessment”) implemented among secondary schools and based on mapping tools to identify students with difficulties. Mapping commences at the beginning of each academic year with the administration of a diagnostic language test. When students with difficulties are identified, they receive support in multi-language subjects, like history and literature, within small groups, usually by cooperative learning strategies (Lipka, 2013). A third program is “I Can Succeed” (in Hebrew � EYAL), which is meant to promote students with learning disabilities’ academic and emo- tional development and prevent dropout. It is a three-year program in sec- ondary schools under the auspices of the MoE, local municipalities, the National Insurance Institute, and teacher training programs specializing in LDs. Data are collected in the first year to identify at-risk students, and during all three years of high school students participate in weekly meetings with an educational case-manager and learn educational and personal skills (Lipka, 2013).

The operational principles of the “The 12th Target � Inclusion” (described above) are similar to those of RtI: monitoring all students and identifying those with difficulties, preparing an IEP for every student who experiences difficulties, monitoring progress and adjusting interven- tion, parental involvement during the entire process and the use of coun- selor and psychologist resources. Specific guidelines were published for preschool to elementary, middle, and high school (Ministry of Education, 2012, 2013). In preschool, for example, a professional team will be deployed at every local authority and will include the teacher, edu- cational psychologists, preschool counselors, occupational therapists, speech therapists, and behavior analysts. The team will coordinate with the local superintendent and the director of the local municipality kinder- garten department. There are also dates for monitoring progress and training educational teams and other professionals. Every school must develop a multidisciplinary team to lead the process and organize the plan as well as a training program for the educational staff, build a functional profile of every student with difficulties, intervention plans based on indi- vidual or small learning groups, accommodations and adaptations to be implemented in classes, assessment and data collection. When the inter- disciplinary school team considers submitting a child’s dossier to the special education placement committee, they must first consult with the local professional committee and validate that all in-school possibilities have been exhausted (Ministry of Education, 2012, 2013). As this program was first implemented in the 2012�2013 academic year, no data are currently available regarding program efficacy.

489Special Education Today in Israel

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

THE INCLUSION PLAN

Mandated inclusion plans are guided by three main principles: differential services in accordance with individual needs, placement in a general educa- tional facility based on the principle of the “least restrictive environment,” and organizational flexibility in service delivery (Avissar, 2012). The plan details four categories of supports. The first category involves teaching and learning, supplemental teaching and special services, including remedial teaching (language, mathematics, and learning strategies), ancillary profes- sionals (creative arts therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, and physical therapists), and expert teachers (for applied behavior analysis, ABA, didactic diagnostics, for visually impaired students or hearing impaired students). The second category involves accommodations and adaptations (adapting the curriculum for the student by a special education teacher), technical supports (i.e., hearing devices), and organizational sup- ports. The third category is a combination of teaching and accommoda- tions, such as teaching in a special environment (care center or study center), teaching within specialized facilities or teaching in a cooperative inclusionary model with both general and special teachers in the same class (usually kindergarten). The fourth support method is the provision of indi- vidual assistance by a “paraeducator.” These ancillary support personnel are only a part of the overall plan and are allocated to specific low fre- quency populations (ASD, psychiatric disorders, cerebral palsy and physi- cal handicaps, moderate intellectual or developmental disability, visually impaired and blindness, and medically fragile). Support is not automatic by student diagnosis and requires an assessment of the student’s level of func- tioning. Levels of paraeducational support may cover between 5 and 30 hours a week, reassessed on a yearly basis. Paraeducators are employed by the local municipality who contributes 30% of their salaries (the MoE cov- ers the remaining 70%) and typically earn minimum wage (the only employment requirement is 12 years of schooling) (Director General � Ministry of Education, 11/2007).

INTERVENTIONS FOR MAINSTREAMING STUDENTS

Matya � Organizational Resources

Following the “Margalit Report” of 2000 and the 2002 “Revision of the Special Education Law,” community resource organizations were

490 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

established, called Matya. Matyaot (plural) are organizational entities in each municipality by which educational, and specifically inclusion oriented, resources are organized and allocated. The Matya structure allows for the funding of school based and itinerant teachers specializing in a wide variety of specialized skills, from behavioral specialists and consultants, to diag- nosticians, and other ancillary services (Gumpel, 2011). Since the establish- ment of the Matyaot, they have become dominant in mediating the relationship between the MoE, the field, and local authorities. Key features include: (a) the ability to act and be an extension of the local educational authority superintendent; (b) flexibility and responsiveness to changing needs; (c) proximity to the field and familiarity with the unique characteris- tics of the students in order to allow the adjustment necessary assistance; (d) the ability to recruit personnel, to pool resources and transfer them according to changing needs; (e) high-level organizational ability to assist special education schools in performing their tasks, allowing them to devote more time to educational interventions; and (f) the ability to specia- lize in methods and special care areas needed to include students into gen- eral education settings (Director General � Ministry of Education, 12/ 2010).

Special Issues: Accessibility of Educational Institutes

The accessibility chapter of the Equal Rights for People with Disabilities Law (1998) was passed by the Knesset (Parliament) in 2005. This chapter requires that public places and services must be made accessible, including schools (Bizchut, 2010). However, the Minister of Education published reg- ulations regarding accessibility and access to schools in order to facilitate individual inclusion only in 2011 (despite the fact that the law stated the regulations must be met no later than 2006). According to the MoE, 4,000 classes are now accessible for deaf and hearing impaired students (out of 31,753 or 12.6% all classrooms nationwide). The number of accessible classrooms exceeds the number of children who are deaf or hearing impaired (O. Halpern, personal communication, February 6, 2014). Regulations specify the actual accommodations required by any institution with a student or parent with disabilities, including physical or sensory dis- abilities (Ministry of Education, 2011). Unfortunately, the educational institution is made accessible only when a student enrolls, a procedure which may take time to complete. In addition, the law requires accessibility only of the entrance, the central area, the specific class where the child is

491Special Education Today in Israel

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

enrolled and the nearby restroom; other public areas like the library and the schoolyard may remain inaccessible (Bizchut, 2010).

Blind and Visually Impaired Students

The population of blind and visually impaired students is one of the smal- lest among special needs populations in the country, 0.53% of all special needs students. The majority of students with visual impairments are included in general education settings (85%). Every school district has a “specialized Matya” for educating students with visual impairment, which is responsible for providing optimal and professional interventions (Director General � Ministry of Education, 12/2010). Each blind or visually impaired student is entitled to have the individual support of an itinerant specialized teacher. Students with visual impairments are entitled to a paraeducator, according to their level of functioning and indepen- dence. There is an increasing use of assistive technologies for students with visual impairments, such as the “Technological Set for Visually Impaired Students” which includes: a laptop, a closed circuit television camera con- nected to the laptop, and software to enlarge material and distance. The set is usually given to older students who can properly use it and benefit from its possibilities (Shabat, 2011). There are other resources for blind and visually impaired people in Israel, such as the Learning Center for the Blind at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the library for the blind which prints books in Braille and records audio files for students (as well as other populations who need this services, such as students with LDs).

Students with ASD

The sustained increase in the number of children diagnosed with ASD glob- ally, as well as in Israel, requires the MoE to address the educational needs of these children in the least restrictive environment. In recent years, chil- dren with ASD are identified at younger ages and at higher rates, and their clinical management is becoming more intensive, proactive, comprehensive, and consequently, also more expensive. The Israeli health system bases most of its services on public organizations and is based on a national socialized medical model which emphasizes early intervention and preven- tion. “Well Baby Clinics” and “Family Health Clinics” exist in every com- munity in Israel and are completely free; “Well Baby Clinics” begin their

492 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

proactive interventions with every pregnant woman and provide pre- and post-natal care for all babies during the first few years of life. In Israel, all families receive a governmental stipend upon the birth of a baby. This sti- pend is used as a highly effective incentive for visiting a “Well Baby Clinic” within the first weeks of life. Further, the “National Insurance Institute Act” defines eligibility of children with specific developmental disabilities (ASD among them), for extended health services. Funding of up to three individualized treatments per week is given up until age 18 for all children diagnosed with ASD. Additional treatments may be funded by the Ministries of Health, Education, or Labor, according to the child’s age and educational setting. In addition, access to a pediatrician or nurse is unrest- ricted, most medications are funded with a co-payment of no more than 15%, and some specific ASD treatments are covered (Raz, Lerner-Geva, Leon, Chodick, & Gabis, 2013). From the age of six months to three years, children with ASD are eligible for early preschool special education, includ- ing at least 10 hours of individualized treatments per week, all funded by the Ministry of Labor and Social services. After age three, children are eli- gible for special education in preschool, kindergarten, or a school setting, funded by the MoE. However, if parents or educators opt for integration in general education settings, eligibility for treatments is more limited. Home-based programs and many educational interventions are not reim- bursed; they are fully paid for by parents. Gaps in public service availabil- ity and eligibility along with medical recommendations for an intensive treatment paradigm may encourage utilization of private health services, and have significant economic and social implications (Raz et al., 2013). A recent study conducted in Israel found that despite the National Insurance Institute coverage, there is a high out-of-pocket expenditure of approxi- mately 21% of the yearly combined family income for one child and so represents a serious economic burden (Raz et al., 2013).

Early intervention in ASD is most often provided in community center- based autism-specific early intervention preschools, using one of the main approaches in the field � ABA, DIR-Floortime, or TEACCH, or a combi- nation of methods. Intervention teams usually include program supervi- sors, trained therapists, speech and language pathologists, occupational therapists, special education preschool teachers, and educational psycholo- gists (Zachor & Ben-Itzchak, 2010; Zachor, Ben-Itzchak, Rabinovich, & Lahat, 2007). In a study conducted in Israel which compared two early intervention approaches for ASD, the students who received an ABA inter- vention showed significantly greater improvements than a matched group of students who received conventional educational treatments (Zachor

493Special Education Today in Israel

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

et al., 2007). Alternatively, a more recent study did not find major differ- ences between the two interventions, and in the group of less severe autism symptoms, there was a minor preference to a more eclectic approach (Zachor & Ben-Itzchak, 2010).

Inclusion of Students with ASD Inclusion of students diagnosed with ASD is part of the Inclusion Plan for low frequency special needs populations, according to the SEL, the 2002 Revision, and MoE regulations. However, disparities are apparent between the inclusion of students with ASD vis-à-vis other populations; these differ- ences are often due to strong parent organizations and support groups of these specific populations. In order to ensure quality inclusion, many families take a primary role in including their children with ASD, either by hiring professionals as program supervisors and “inclusion coordinators” (to differentiate their function from paraeducators) or by surreptitiously (and illegally) supplementing the paraeducator’s salary, or paying an extra payment per working hour and privately adding extra work hours. Of course, these courses of action are dependent on family socioeconomic levels, and so are problematic. In schools, an inclusion advisor is a profes- sional responsible for designing the inclusion programs, presenting them to the families and the education system and guiding the inclusion coordina- tors who work directly with the student in the educational environment. The inclusion advisor usually meets with the inclusion coordinators on a weekly basis in order to solve ongoing problems. As part of the effort to promote individual inclusion, special courses for coordinators are offered by the major parents’ organization in Israel (Eldar, Talmor, & Wolf- Zukerman, 2010). De facto, many parents hire the assistants (or inclusion coordinators) privately and the system usually turns a blind eye.

Matyaot have ASD specialists who regularly visit the inclusive settings, some on a weekly basis, other less frequently. Matyaot also have continu- ing education programs for inclusive teachers and ancillary staff in design- ing and implementing social skills training for students with ASD. Some of the social groups are composed of included students only and others are mixed groups of students with ASD and typically developing peers. In the last decade, various courses and training programs of special interventions and treatments of children with ASD have been provided by Israeli univer- sities, teaching colleges, and other institutions resulting in more profes- sionals providing assistance and care for children with ASD, either in the formal educational system, healthcare centers, or in private settings with families and children.

494 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

TEACHER TRAINING

The development of a quality educational system is due to a large extent on the quality of the teachers who work in that system. Therefore, increasing teachers’ professionalism is a recurrent and central theme in the Israeli edu- cation system. This growing awareness of the importance of teacher train- ing as a means for promoting learning outcomes and school effectiveness has led to the appointment of several national committees to investigate new ways in the training, preparation, accreditation, and compensation of teachers (Gumpel & Nir, 2005).

The “National Committee for Examining Teachers’ Status and the Status of Teaching Profession” (also known as the “Etzioni Committee”) was established by the MoE in 1979 in order to improve the quality of teacher education and to address the need for measures to strengthen teaching as a profession as well as teachers’ professional status. Among suggested measures was the provision of merit benefits to excellent tea- chers, an increase in the teacher’s professional autonomy, an extension of demands for the teacher’s continual professional development and aca- demic level, and the enforcement of strict supervision of novice teachers including internship and licensure requirements (Etzioni, 1981; Ministry of Education � Culture and Sport, 2004). Fifteen years later (1994) another national committee was appointed to explore the issues related to the preparation and training of teachers in Israel (“The Committee for the Reform of Matriculation Examinations,” also known as the Ben-Pertz Committee). This committee described the deterioration of the teaching profession and teacher status despite previous efforts and emphasized five main issues in its report: (a) the allocation of teacher colleges to train teachers and to award teaching diplomas with a BA or a BEd degree; (b) the examination of the geographic dispersion of the teacher training institutions and an examination of ways to increase collaboration as a means for promoting efficiency; (c) the raising of academic entrance requ- irements for those applying to teacher training colleges and the im- provement of candidate selection; (d) the provision of incentives for outstanding student teachers; and (e) the provision of a teaching license from the MoE to those holding an academic degree and a teaching certificate after they complete their internship. These recommendations were adopted by the MoE and were also deployed at the university level for those seeking a secondary education teaching diploma at the univer- sity level (Gumpel & Nir, 2005; Hoffman & Niderland, 2010; Knesset, 2003).

495Special Education Today in Israel

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

A few years later, in 2005, the government established a “National Task Force to Promote Education in Israel” (known as the “Dovrat Committee”) in order to recommend major and inclusive reforms in the education in Israel. In the section dealing with the diminishing status of teachers in the country, the committee emphasized the demand to treat teaching like every other profession, with the addition of more work hours at school and the implementation of means for gauging success in reaching educational milestones (Hoffman & Niderland, 2010). Although the com- mittee’s reforms were never actually implemented due to opposition from the two powerful national teachers unions, parts of the recommendations were later incorporated into agreements between the government and unions in 2007 leading to current reforms in the educational system � “New Horizon” (Ofek Hadash, or ,אופק חדש for elementary schools) and “Courage to Change” (Oz Latmura or ,עוז לתמורה for secondary schools) (Hoffman & Niderland, 2010).

Despite all of these attempts at reform, in Israel as in much of the wes- tern world, approximately 50% of new teachers leave the profession during their first five years of employment due to low salaries, long hours, lack of institutional support (Gavish, 2002), and pervasive school violence. In addition, according to a recent study, novice teachers in Israel experience high levels of burnout as early as the beginning of their first year of teach- ing, due to three main variables: a lack of appreciation and professional recognition from students, a lack of appreciation and professional recogni- tion from public, and a lack of a collaborative and supportive work envir- onment (Gavish & Friedman, 2010).

Another government committee tasked with reforming teacher training was convened by the Israeli Council for Higher Education: “The Committee for Establishing Guiding Principles for Teacher Training in Higher Education in Israel” (also known as the “Ariav Committee,” 2006). A major recommendation by the committee was the national implementa- tion of the requirement of at least an undergraduate degree in education (BA or BEd) and a teacher license as a condition for employment. Prior to these recommendations (since before the founding of the State of Israel), employment was not infrequently granted to teachers with a high school diploma and a teacher’s license who were trained in a teacher’s college (akin to Normal Schools in the United States or École Normale in France). Requiring an undergraduate degree also necessitated a change in the struc- ture and personnel in many teaching colleges in the country. Whereas, pre- viously, instructors in these teaching colleges could include experienced teachers (without undergraduate degrees), a shift began where all teacher

496 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

training personnel must possess at least a graduate degree. Over the last decade, many teacher colleges have begun to offer MA or MEd degrees, and so the Israeli Council for Higher Education now requires that all faculty members have a PhD in their area of specialty.

Currently, there are 5 teacher training departments in Israeli universities and 23 teacher colleges (11 secular, 9 Jewish-religious, and 3 in Arab educa- tion). About 22,000 undergraduates studied education in 2012, 20% of them specializing in special education, an overall increase of 4.5% from the previous year (Ya’acov, 2012). Nearly 3,500 graduate students were enrolled studied during this same year, a yearly increase of 11%. Figure 6 shows the recent changes in Jewish and Arab primary teaching personnel over the last decade and highlight some important differences between the two groups (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2012b). For both groups, most teachers are women; however, more male teachers work in the Arab sector. Generally, both groups show a marked increase in the number of teachers with undergraduate degrees; this is most pronounced among Jewish tea- chers, who also lead in the number of teachers with graduate and postgrad- uate degrees. Further, the population of teachers has gotten older during this decade, as fewer younger teachers enter the school work force.

In the second decade of this century, teacher training in Israel is in the midst of fundamental reforms. The first phase is characterized by under- graduate baccalaureate studies, coupled with practicum during studies, and one year of induction, followed by two more years of internships, during which time the novice receives guidance and support from both an experi- enced teacher and a group at their teaching college or university. The school principal is responsible to evaluate the novice’s work before accep- tance as a permanent teacher eligible for tenure. The second phase of these reforms relates to ongoing in-service training throughout the teacher’s pro- fessional employment (Zilbershtrum, 2013). In 2009, the MoE published provisions for professional development of all teachers, including special education teachers and ancillary staff.

A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHER TRAINING

The purpose of the framework is to improve teacher quality and profes- sionalism by developing new and attractive professional possibilities, to set more stringent acceptance criteria for teacher training, to emphasize the importance of practical experience, to enhance the relationship between

497Special Education Today in Israel

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

theory and practice, and to set uniform required core subjects (allowing for variability and uniqueness according to each school’s educational vision). The “Ariav Committee” recommended core studies which include three main parts: content area, studies in educational foundations (pedagogy, teaching methods, research, field work, philosophical foundations, cogni- tive-emotional-social development, theories of teaching and learning, orga- nization and evaluation methods, ethnic and cultural differences, and students with special needs), and compulsory studies in English, the Hebrew or Arabic, culture and citizenship, and technology skills (Ariav et al., 2006). Special education students teachers are required to master these core subjects as well as a special education specialization, either for children aged 6�21 years (usually all children with special needs and all type of placements, and in the last year students can specialize in one dis- ability or category of disabilities) or focus on specific disabilities in pre- school, elementary, or secondary school. Some of the teacher training colleges offer specific specialization in specific disabilities, such as LD,

W om

en U p

to a

ge 2

9 Ag

e 50

a nd

o ve

U nd

er gr

ad ua

te D

eg re

G ra

du at

e or

P os

t-G ra

du at

e D eg

re e

Av er

ag e

W or

k H ou

rs p

er W

ee k

100

P e rc

e n

ta g

Jewish 1999–2000

Jewish 2011–2012

Arab 1999–2000

Arab 2011–2012

Fig. 6. Differences in Personnel between Jewish and Arab Sectors in General and

Special Primary Education.

498 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

ASD, or EBD and all students in special education have one or two days of field experience each week for every year of their training. Field work includes observations, interviews with the staff, and actual teaching, with the support of both the college tutor and the staff within their class. Graduating students receive a Teaching Certificate from their college and a BEd; however, they must also be licensed (certification from MoE) after two years of successful internships. Recent data of the Central Bureau of Statistics (2010 in Ma’agan, 2013) reveals that 60% of graduated Jewish students and 67% of graduated Arab students begin their internship and more than 23% of Jewish primary teachers and 18% of Arab primary tea- chers leave the profession after first year of teaching (Ma’agan, 2013).

Narrative research about students’ motives for studying special educa- tion reveals that many of them choose the profession from individual motives, some have LDs themselves, others have a family member with spe- cial educational needs and have had successful life experiences (e.g., volun- teering or during their compulsory military service). Often, they are motivated to improve the educational system and make it more responsive for students and most of them perceive the special education system as more significant and challenging than the general education system (Lavian, 2013). Despite their sense of idealism and a belief in their willing- ness and ability to work hard, special education teachers, mainly teachers in special day classes, experience professional burnout at the same levels of general education teachers; however special education teachers who work in inclusionary settings, often with small groups of students, appear to be at a lower risk for burnout (Lavian, 2012).

CONCLUSION

It appears that the DSE promulgates a comprehensive and coherent policy in accordance with special education goals and policies and is responsive to field-based needs. However, it is unclear as to what extent these plans are currently implemented (Avissar & Bav, 2010). General education tea- chers in Israel often do not use accommodations or modifications in their instructional methods for students with special needs, despite acknowled- ging their benefits and need. For example, in a study of general and special education teachers in general education settings, it was apparent that teachers did not cooperate with other professionals at school to solve problems or to share responsibility in classroom management. Special

499Special Education Today in Israel

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

education teachers, on the other hand, reported limited yet inefficient cooperation with parents, despite official exhortations to cooperate and develop partnerships (Layser & Ben-Yehuda, 1999). Similar findings regarding this gap between the ideal and reality was found in another study of general education teachers, who rarely used instructional accom- modations for students with special educational needs, despite positive attitudes and opinions regarding these accommodations (Almog & Shechtman, 2004).

NOTES

1. In this chapter we use the term Palestinian to describe ethnic Palestinians (as opposed to Druze and Bedouins), a sector of the Arab minority of Israel, and citi- zens of the State. In its current usage, the term does not refer to those Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories or Gaza Strip (areas captured by Israel in the 1967 war, also known as the Six Day War); these non-Israeli Palestinians do not hold Israeli citizenship and do not receive services from the Israeli Ministry of Education. 2. The term East Jerusalem refers to part of the city annexed by Jordan in 1948

after the Israeli War of Independence and then again by Israel in 1980, following the 1967 or “Six Day War.” The Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem is not recog- nized by any other country in the world, nor by the United Nations. The 1980 Israeli annexation annexed only the land; Arab residents were not granted citizen- ship or equal rights commensurate with citizenship. 3. Israeli government ministries often convene panels of experts in order to clar-

ify and develop policy recommendations. These committees are often named after their Chair. 4. Israel has a mandatory national healthcare system in which all citizens are free

to choose between four HMO, each providing equivalent medical services. All citi- zens are covered from “cradle to grave.”

REFERENCES

Almog, O., & Shechtman, Z. (2004). Teachers’ instructional behavior towards students with

special needs in regular classes and their relationship to student’s performance [in

Hebrew]. Issues in Special Education and Rehabilitation, 19, 79�94. Ariav, T., Olshtain, E., Alon, B., Back, S., Grienfeld, N., & Libman, Z. (2006). Committee for

guidelines for teacher education: Report on programs in higher education institutions in

Israel. Jerusalem, Israel: Council for Higher Education [in Hebrew].

Avissar, G. (2012). Inclusive education in Israel from a curriculum perspective: An exploratory

study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(1), 35�49.

500 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Avissar, G., & Bav, T. (2010). תהליכים ומגמות בתכנון לימודים בישראל לתלמידים עם מוגבלויות [Process and trends in educational planning for students with disabilities in Israel] [in Hebrew].

Theory and Practice in Educational Planning, Ministry of Education, 21, 141�167. Avissar, G., & Layser, Y. (2000). Evaluating values in special education as change in education

[in Hebrew]. Halacha veMa’ashe b’Tichnun Limudim, 15, 97�124. Avissar, G., Moshe, A., & Licht, P. (2013). “These are basic democratic values”: The percep-

tions of policy makers in the ministry of education with regard to inclusion. In

G. Avissar & S. Reiter (Eds.), Inclusiveness: From theory to practice (pp. 25�48). Haifa, Israel: AHVA Publishers.

Batsche, G., Elliot, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., & Prasse, D. (2005).

Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA:

National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Bizchut. (2010). The accessibility to education in Israel � General data file [in Hebrew]. Bizchut � The Israel Human Rights Center for People with Disabilities.

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2012a). 8.29. Students with special needs in secondary education

by type of disability and type of setting, 2007/08, 7. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.gov.

il/reader/shnaton/templ_shnaton.html?num_tab = st08_29&CYear = 2012. Accessed on July 3, 2012.

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2012b). Statistical abstract of Israel 2012, selected data from the

new Israel statistical abstract No. 63-2012. Jerusalem, Israel: Central Bureau of

Statistics.

Comptroller’s Office. (2001). State comptroller’s annual report. Jerusalem, Israel: Government

Press.

Davidovitch, M., Hemo, B., Manning-Courtney, P., & Fombonne, E. (2012). Prevalence and

incidence of autism spectrum disorder in an Israeli population. Journal of Autism and

Developmental Disorders, 43(4), 1�9. Director General � Ministry of Education. (1998, July). Individual educational program (IEP)

for students in special education settings. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education and

Science Press.

Director General � Ministry of Education. (2005, November). 3(A), Director General’s regu- lations: The core curriculum for primary education. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of

Education and Science Press.

Director General � Ministry of Education. (2007, November). 3(d), Director General’s regula- tions: Inclusion plan in regular education and the treatment of children with special

needs in regular education. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education and Science Press.

Director General � Ministry of Education. (2010, December). 4(A), Director General’s regula- tions: Matya � Local organizational resources for implementation of the special educa- tion law and expertizing Matyas of visually impaired students. Jerusalem, Israel:

Ministry of Education.

Eldar, E., Talmor, R., & Wolf-Zukesrman, T. (2010). Successes and difficulties in the indivi-

dual inclusion of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in the eyes of their

coordinators. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(1), 97�114. Etzioni, A. (1981). Report of the national committee which examined the statues of the teacher

and the teaching profession [in Hebrew]. Hed Hachinuch, 53(18), 7�17. Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to intervention:

Examining classroom behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73(3),

288�310.

501Special Education Today in Israel

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Farsoun, S. K., & Zacharia, C. (1977). Palestine and the Palestinians. Boulder, CO: Westview

Press.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and

how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93�99. Gal, G., Abiri, L., Reichenberg, A., Gabis, L., & Gross, R. (2012). Time trends in reported

autism spectrum disorders in Israel, 1986�2005. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(3), 428�431.

Gavish, B. (2002). The gap between role expectations and actual role perception for beginning

teachers during their first year of teaching. Jerusalem, Israel: The Hebrew University of

Jerusalem.

Gavish, B., & Friedman, I. A. (2010). Novice teachers’ experience of teaching: A dynamic

aspect of burnout. Social Psychology of Education, 13(2), 141�167. Gumpel, T. P. (1996). Special education law in Israel. Journal of Special Education, 29(4),

457�468. Gumpel, T. P. (2011). One step forward, two steps backward: Special education in Israel. In

M. Winzer & K. Mazuek (Eds.), International practices in special education: Debates

and challenges (pp. 151�170). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press Publishers. Gumpel, T. P., & Nir, A. E. (2005). The Israeli educational system: Blending dreams with con-

straints. In K. Mazurek & M. A. Winzer (Eds.), Schooling around the world: Debates,

challenges and practices (pp. 149�167). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hoffman, A., & Niderland, D. (2010). Teachers’ image in the mirror of teachers training,

1970�2006 [in Hebrew]. Dapim, 49, 43�86. Instructions Chapter D1 for Special Education Law, 4763 [Correction number 7 for Special

Education Law, 1988]. (2002).

Knesset. (2003). Center for research and information: Background document for discussion of

teacher preparation in Israel and the structure of the curricula in teacher training institu-

tions. Jerusalem, Israel: Knesset Printing Office.

Lavian, R. H. (2012). The impact of organizational climate on burnout among homeroom

teachers and special education teachers (full classes/individual pupils) in mainstream

schools. Teachers and Teaching, 18(2), 233�247. Lavian, R. H. (2013). “You and I will change the world”: Student teachers’ motives for choos-

ing special education. World Journal of Education, 3(4), 10�25. Layser, Y., & Ben-Yehuda, S. (1999). The challenge of inclusion: Applying intervention

programs by general and special education teachers [in Hebrew]. Issues in Special

Education and Rehabilitation, 14(2), 17�29. LEV-21. (2009). LEV-21 � “Towards adulthood”, curriculum for adolescents and adults between

the ages of 16�21 in special education [in Hebrew]. Ministry of Education, Curriculum Division, Jerusalem, Israel.

Lipka, O. (2013). The response to intervention (RTI) model: Components and implications for

teaching and learning. In G. Avissar & S. Reiter (Eds.), Inclusiveness: From theory to

practice (pp. 161�188). Haifa, Israel: AHVA Publishers. Ma’agan, D. (2013). Reform “Ofek Chadash”: Did the reform improve the attraction of teaching

profession and student achievement? [in Hebrew]. 29th annual conference, Israel

Economic Committee. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.gov.il/www/presentations/educ_

4_0613.pdf

Margalit, M. (1999). Report on the actualization of the abilities of students with learning disabil-

ities. Jerusalem, Israel: Minister of Education and Science.

502 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.cbs.gov.il/www/presentations/educ_4_0613.pdf

Marom, M., Bar-Siman Tov, K., Karon, A., & Koren, P. (2006). Inclusion of children with special

needs in the regular educational system. Jerusalem: Myers � JDC � Brookdale Institute. Meyers � JDC � Brookdale Institute. (2012, March). The Arab population in Israel: Facts and

figures 2012. Jerusalem: Author.

Ministry of Education. (2011). Regulations for equal rights to people with disabilities: Individual

accessibility accommodations for a student and a parent. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of

Education.

Ministry of Education. (2012). The inclusion book: Investigating perceptions and their implemen-

tation in the inclusion process. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education, Pedagogical

Administration.

Ministry of Education. (2013). Support model for the expansion of inclusion capacity and

advancement of students in educational institutions [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem, Israel:

Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education � Culture and Sport. (2004). The pedagogical administration: The divi- sion of elementary schools. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education � Culture and Sport.

OECD. (2009). OECD economic surveys: Israel 2009 (Vol. 2009). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Pen, R., & Tal, D. (2006). Environment designs around the principles of “quality of life” and

“universal design” summons a platform of addressing any person without labeling [in

Hebrew]. Eureka: Teaching Science and Technology in Primary Schools, 22, 1�6. Raz, R., Lerner-Geva, L., Leon, O., Chodick, G., & Gabis, L. V. (2013). A survey of out-of-

pocket expenditures for children with autism spectrum disorder in Israel. Journal of

Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 2295�2302. Reiter, S. (1999). Special needs students’ quality of life, in light of expansion the principle of

normalization [in Hebrew]. Issues in Special Education and Rehabilitation, 14(2), 61�69. Ronen, C. (1982). Introductory chapters in special education [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Otsar

Hamore.

Sachs, S., Levian, M., & Weiszkopf, N. (1992). Introduction to special education [in Hebrew]

(Vol. Unit 1). Tel Aviv, Israel: Open University.

Sadeh, S. (2003). Special education in Israel: Pre-state period. Historical documentation of spe-

cial education [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv, Israel: Special Education Division, Ministry of

Education.

Schalock, R. L., Brown, I., Brown, R., Cummins, R. A., Felce, D., Matikka, L. … Parmenter,

T. (2002). Conceptualization, measurement, and application of quality of life for per-

sons with intellectual disabilities: Report of an international panel of experts. Mental

Retardation, 40(6), 457�470. Shabat, Y. (2011). An assisting technology � For what? [in Hebrew]. Field of Vision (“Sde

Reiya”), 3, 2�4. Shmueli, E. (2003). Forming factors of educational policy in Israel. Studies in Educational

Administration and Organization, 27, 7�36. Special Education Law of 4758, Knesset. (1988).

Tal, D., & Leshem, D. (2007). Curriculum for students with special needs. Jerusalem, Israel: The

Division of Special Education, Ministry of Education.

Tseva, Y. (Ed.). (2012). A review of public services [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Ministry of Social

Affairs and Social Services.

Wargen, Y. (2006). Education in East Jerusalem (p. 15). Jerusalem: Knesset Center for

Research and Information.

503Special Education Today in Israel

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Ya’acov, S. (2012). Training teachers in Israel: Who needs the retraining plan? [in Hebrew].

Kav HaHinuch, 586, 1�3. Zachor, D. A., & Ben-Itzchak, E. (2010). Treatment approach, autism severity and interven-

tion outcomes in young children. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4(3),

425�432. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2009.10.013 Zachor, D. A., Ben-Itzchak, E., Rabinovich, A.-L., & Lahat, E. (2007). Change in autism core

symptoms with intervention. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1(4), 304�317. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2006.12.001

Zilbershtrum, S. (2013). The policy of the division of internship and teaching entry [in

Hebrew]. In S. Shimoni & A. Avinadav-Unger (Eds.), The sequence: Training, speciali-

zation and professional development of teachers � Policy, theory and practice (pp. 95�100). Tel Aviv: Mofet.

Zionit, Y., & Ben-Arie, A. (2012). 2012 Children]ילדים בישראל in Israel, 2012] [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem, Israel: The Israel National Council for the Child.

Zionit, Y., Berman, T., & Ben-Arie, A. (2009). 2009 ילדים בישראל [Children in Israel 2009] [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem, Israel: The Israel National Council for the Child.

504 HAGIT ARI-AM AND THOMAS P. GUMPEL

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

SPECIAL EDUCATION TODAY

IN THE KINGDOM OF

SAUDI ARABIA

Turki A. Alquraini

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive view of spe- cial education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The chapter starts with the origins and attitudes of the Saudi citizens regarding persons with special needs. Next the chapter examines trends in legislation and litigation pertaining to persons who are disabled which led to the gov- ernment’s passage of Regulations of Special Education Programs and Institutes (RSEPI) in 2001. The RSEPI regulations were modeled after the United States 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Included in the discussion of the RSEPI is a delineation of the Disability Code which is comprised of 16 articles. The author also provides information on prominent educational intervention employed in the Kingdom as well details about the preparation of para- professionals and special education teachers. The chapter concludes with the special education progress that has occurred since the passage of RSEPI.

Special Education International Perspectives: Practices Across the Globe

Advances in Special Education, Volume 28, 505�528 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0270-4013/doi:10.1108/S0270-401320140000028023

505

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0270-401320140000028023

INTRODUCTION

Special education today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has been significantly influenced by a number of factors that include its religious and cultural differences of its citizens as well as its recent formation as a coun- try. KSA is located in the southwest of the Arabian Peninsula. This country is partially bordered in the east by Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, and in the north by Jordan, Iraq, and Kuwait (Alquraini, 2010). King Abdul-Aziz al Saud and a small group of men established this country in 1932. After this date, the Saudi government considered the improvement of several fields, including healthcare, the economy, and the education system. As part of its educational system improvement, KSA established the Ministry of Education which regulates the free education services for all Saudi students. Right now, there are 26,934 schools that serve almost 5 million students (boys and girls) from kindergarten to the high school level with almost a half-million teachers (men and women) (Ministry of Education, 2012). This Ministry of Education has to take into consideration the KSA religious and cultural aspects in the education of the Saudi students; therefore, there are separate boys’ and girls’ schools. This ministry is also responsible for establishing education building codes and architectural requirements, certifying and hiring teachers, setting stan- dards for teacher degrees, providing workshops and in-services training for teachers, and developing the general curriculum (Alquraini, 2010). Additionally, this ministry provides special education services for students with disabilities, especially those who have mild to moderate disabilities from the ages of 6 to 18 years. In the following sections, readers will be provided with a more comprehensive and detailed information to under- stand special education today in Saudi Arabia after its recent formation as a country. It includes the following sections: origins and attitudes, preva- lence and incident rates, trends in legislation and litigation, prominent education interventions, preparation for special education personnel, and the overall progress that KSA has made in establishing inclusive special education services.

ORIGINS AND ATTITUDES

In KSA, there are religious and cultural aspects that differentiate it dramatically at times from Western countries and contexts. For instance,

506 TURKI A. ALQURAINI

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Saudi society values are inherently affected by the Islamic religion, which is based on the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad. These long established society values, in some cases, view disability as punishment for a person because he or she or his or her family has done something wrong in the form of a “sin” toward Allah (God) or another individual in society. This value may lead to derision and ridicule of a person/family that has a child with a disability. Another view toward dis- ability, according to Saudi values, is that having a child with a disability serves as a test from Allah for either the person or his or her family to see if they will be patient in order to enter Paradise, the holy place pre- pared by Allah for those who follow the rules of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. This view toward disability in KSA leads most Saudi citizens to believe that individuals with disabilities are dependent on other people, are entrenched in a low quality of life, and are helpless (Al-Gain & Al-Abddulwahab, 2002). Unfortunately, this latter view can cause Saudi citizens to consider people with disabilities as objects of ridicule and may prevent and exclude them from participating in any type of typical com- munity or social activity. The effect of holding these values and views leads to different attitudes toward people with disabilities which can have an effect on their education and treatment. Some of these attitudes are discussed later.

Several studies have examined the attitudes toward people with disabil- ities in KSA. For example, Al-Abdulwahab and Al-Gain (2003) examined the attitudes of 130 healthcare professionals regarding people with physi- cal disabilities. Their research pointed out that the majority of healthcare professionals had positive attitudes toward people with physical disability. From this finding, the researchers postulated that the values of Saudi cul- ture apparently had little effect on healthcare professionals’ attitudes toward people with physical disabilities. Another attitude investigation about people with physical disabilities was carried out by Al-Demadi and Al-Shinawi (1989), who examined the attitudes of 458 college students with different undergraduate majors at King Saud University toward peo- ple with physical disabilities. The authors investigated the attitudes of the students based on three independent variables: gender, educational level, and major. The researchers found that students with a special education major had more positive attitudes than other students in other college majors. Further, it was reported that there were no differences in the atti- tudes among sophomores, juniors, and seniors toward people with physi- cal disabilities, and that male students had more positive attitudes toward individuals with physical disabilities than females.

507Special Education Today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Another study was conducted by Al-Muslat (1987), who examined the attitudes of 420 teachers, 115 principals, and 52 supervisors toward people with disabilities, including people with visual impairments, hearing impair- ments, emotional and behavior disorders, intellectual impairments, and learning disorders. Al-Muslat indicated that the teachers, principals, and supervisors in Saudi Arabia exhibited negative attitudes toward people with emotional and behavior disorders and intellectual impairments but positive attitudes toward people with learning disorders, visual impair- ments, and hearing impairments.

Another interesting attitude study was carried out by Al-Sartawi (1987), who investigated the attitudes of 252 college students at the College of Education at King Saud University toward people with intellectual impair- ments. The investigator examined the students attitudes based on college major, level of education, and grade point average (GPA). Al-Sartawi reported that students who majored in special education or physiology had more positive attitudes toward people with intellectual impairments than students who had other college majors. This researcher also indicated that junior students had more positive attitudes than did students in other levels of education. Lastly, the researcher found that the college students with the highest GPAs expressed more positive attitudes toward individuals with intellectual impairments than those students with lower GPAs.

A more inclusive study on attitudes was carried out by Sadek, Mousa, and Sesalem (1986) who explored the attitudes of Saudi citizens toward people with visual impairments. The researchers examined attitudes by age, education level, and gender. The researchers indicated that citizens had positive attitudes toward people with visual impairments, and that there was no difference in their attitudes based on their age or level of education. However, female citizens expressed less positive attitudes than male citizens toward people with visual impairments.

Lastly, another inclusive study was carried out by Al-Marsouqi (1980) who investigated the attitudes of Saudi citizens toward people with hearing impairment, visual impairment, and intellectual impairments. The researcher analyzed citizen’s attitudes based on both demographic and independent variables that included gender, contact with individuals with disability, and level of education. This study revealed that Saudi citizens had positive attitudes toward people with hearing impairment and visual impairment; however, they had negative attitudes toward people with intel- lectual impairments. Additionally, those citizens who had experiences with people with disabilities expressed more positive attitudes than citizens who did not. In contrast from the findings above, female citizens were found to

508 TURKI A. ALQURAINI

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

have more positive attitudes toward people with disabilities than male citizens.

The above studies indicate that a variety of variables affect attitudes of Saudi healthcare providers, college students, teachers, principals, school supervisors, and citizens toward people with disabilities. Variables such as college major, gender, age, prior experience, education level, and the specific disability can influence one’s attitudes. While long standing KSA cultural and religious differences may have a negative effect on a Saudi citizen’s view of an individual with a disability, there is more recent special education literature evidence that reports that many Saudi citizens have a positive view of people with disabilities. Such evidence is an indi- cation that Saudi citizens are becoming more willing to accept individuals whose abilities differ from theirs and participate with them in different life activities.

This growing acceptance and engagement in KSA can be traced histori- cally to the early efforts of families to gain support for special education considerations for their children in the 1950s and 1960s. For example, prior to 1958, most students with disabilities in KSA did not obtain any type of special education services or related services. The majority of these students were supported by their families, who struggled in order to obtain health- care and other assistance for their children (Al-Ajmi, 2006). In 1954, a few Saudi citizens with visual impairments started to learn the Braille method from someone who came back from Iraq at that time (Al-Mousa, 2008). After that, this group tried to teach this method to more students with visual impairments in schools as well as colleges. Within a short period of time, their efforts paid off in 1959 and 1960, when the Ministry of Education established the first institute for 40 students with visual impair- ments (Al-Mousa, 2008).

A few years later in 1962, the Ministry of Education established a special education department to serve three categories of students: those with visual, hearing, and intellectual disabilities. The Ministry of Education then established institutes for these three categories across the country where special curriculums were used to educate these students. Students could attend these institutes when they reached public school age. However, in 1997, the philosophy of this special education department changed, which dramatically affected the special education services for students with dis- abilities. For example, the department started to consider early assessment for students at-risk so that those students with identified disabilities could be provided early remedial intervention. This department also extended its services to include many other types of students with disabilities, such as

509Special Education Today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

students with physical, learning, and multiple disabilities, and autism (Al- Mousa, 2008).

With these changes, it became apparent to the Saudi government that there was a lack of appropriate and best practice special education services for students with disabilities. As a means to remedy this situation, the Saudi government made a significant effort to improvement these services. The government requested that personnel from the Special Education Department under the Ministry of Education and some special education faculty at King Saud University, who earned their doctoral degrees from the United States, review the United States’ special education policies, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997) in the hope of developing a more appropriate special education policy for KSA. Their efforts resulted in the 2001 Regulations of Special Education Programs and Institutes (RSEPI) which introduced the first special education regulations for students with disabilities in KSA (Alquraini, 2013).

The RSEPI identified 10 categories of disability that should be served by the schools: hearing disabilities, visual disabilities, intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities (LD), gifted and talented abilities, autism, multiple disabilities, physical and health impairment, communication disorders, and emotional and behavioral disorders. These categories were based on commonly used special education terms among special education profes- sionals across the globe and the prevailing best practice special education literature.

The RSEPI specifies that students identified as having one of these cate- gories must be assessed by a multidisciplinary team which is housed in each school. Once a student is identified with a disability, he/she will be provided the necessary special education services. This team usually uses formal tools to assess the child with a presumed disability, such as intelligence quotient scales (e.g., Wechsler Intelligence Scales), adaptive behavior scales (e.g., Vineland Adaptive Behavior), and achievement tests (Wechsler Individual Achievement Test). This team might also use other informal scales, such as interviews or observation. Even though this effort to provide appropriate special education services for those students has improved the practice of special education in KSA immensely, these services are still simi- lar to those that were provided in the 1970s in the United States such as the mainstreaming philosophy, self-contained classrooms, resource room place- ment, placement of students into a classroom by their identified categorical classification (learning disabled, behaviorally and emotionally disordered, intellectual impaired), and the establishment of special schools and centers

510 TURKI A. ALQURAINI

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

for children with a specific type of disability (center for the physically impaired).

PREVALENCE AND INCIDENT RATES

According to the Central Department of Statistics and Information Population and Vital Statistics (2011) in KSA, 0.8% of the Saudi popula- tion is reported as having disabilities (approximately 17,493,364 people). Also, the number of KSA children born annually with a disability is between 400 and 500. Additionally, the number of people with disabilities by age as reported by this center is as follows: 1% younger than 1 year, 3% from 1 to 4 years, and 4% from age 5 to 80 years and above. The percen- tage of KSA people with disabilities by gender is 65% males and 35% females. This center reported the number of people with disabilities in KSA by type of disability as follows: 9,522 people with visual impairment, 29,507 people with intellectual disabilities, 21,462 people with multiple dis- abilities, 5,306 people with psychological disorders, 5,773 people with hear- ing impairment, 7,067 people with communication disorders, and 44,456 people with physical disabilities. Finally, there are two main factors that might cause disability in KSA: genetic causes associated with consangui- nity, and a high rate of car accidents (Al-Gain & Al-Abddulwahab, 2002).

In the community of Saudi schools, there are different prevalence and incident rates of disability. The Ministry of Education has reported that 53,414 disabled students (see Table 1), including those with intellectual disability, deaf and hard of hearing impairment, learning disability, autism, multiple disabilities, and visual impairment, receive special education

Table 1. The Categories and Number of Students with Disabilities Who Are Serviced by Special Education in Public Schools in KSA.

Categories Students (Male) Students (Female) Total

Learning disability 17,842 6,964 24,806

Intellectual disability 13,657 5,932 19,589

Hearing impairment 13,657 1,606 19,589

Visual impairment 1,041 480 1,521

Autism 725 100 825

Multiple disabilities 421 32 453

Total 38,300 15,114 53,414

511Special Education Today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

services in public schools or institutes. Today, 24,806 students (17,842 male and 6,964 female) out of the entire public school-age population between the ages of 6 and 18 years have been identified as having a learning disabil- ity. Students classified with a learning disability therefore represent about 46% of the entire school-age disability population. Another major category is students with intellectual disabilities. Today 19,589 students (13,657 male and 5,932 female) receive special education services due to their intellectual impairment. This number represents about 36% of the entire public school- age disability population. Students classified with hearing impairment or as hard of hearing represent approximately 13%, or a total of 6,219 (4,613 male and 1,606 female) students out of the entire school-age disability popu- lation. Additionally, 3% (1,521 students: 1,041 male and 480 female) of the entire school-age disability population is considered visually impaired. Students with autism represent 2% of the public school-age disability popu- lation with a total of 825 students (725 male and 100 female). Finally, a total of 453 students (421 male and 32 female) with multiple disabilities represent only 1% of the public school-age disability population. Even though these reported numbers are meant to represent the percentage of students with disabilities, special education professionals in KSA question whether these numbers accurately represent the total number of students with disabilities given that the total public school population is 4,904,777 students. Unfortunately, this question cannot be answered for now, since KSA does not have a national study regarding the prevalence and incident rates for all categories of disability at the school-age level.

Additionally, there are some reasons that might affect conducting accu- rate research regarding the disability issues in Saudi Arabia, including “incidence of consanguineous marriage, the high incidence of car accidents, and the fact that some families feel ashamed about having a child with a disability, as a result, they tend to avoid participation in such research” (Al-Gain & Al-Abddulwahab, 2002, p. 2).

TRENDS IN LEGISLATION AND LITIGATION

Since the early 1990s, the Ministry of Education has considered how to improve the special education services for students with disabilities by establishing rules that protect the rights of these students. In 2001, the Special Education Department in the Ministry of Education established the RSEPI, after extensive collaboration with other agencies, such as

512 TURKI A. ALQURAINI

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

the Special Education Department at King Saud University, as well as tak- ing into consideration the US special education policies, including IDEA (1997) and Alquraini (2013). In essence, the RSEPI is modeled after the US’s IDEA and its major elements are delineated below.

Major Elements of the RSEPI

The RSEPI includes 11 parts that present critical education provisions to adequately serve special education students and their families (Ministry of Education, 2002). Part One delineates the important definitions used in this legislation so that teachers, administrators, supervisors, parts, mental health professionals, and other service providers can easily communicate essential aspects to one another. For instance, it defines the concepts of “disability,” “least restrictive environment,” “transition services,” “multi- disciplinary team,” “IEPs,” “special education teacher,” “resource room,” and other aspects of providing education services to special education students (Alquraini, 2013).

In Part Two, the primary goals of special education services are pre- sented. For example, these services should be provided for students with disabilities to meet their unique needs and support them in obtaining the necessary skills that will assist them in living independently and integrating appropriately into society. These goals can be achieved through different procedures such as: (a) determining the needs of students with disabilities through early detection process; (b) providing a free and appropriate special education and related services that meet their needs; (c) specifying these services to the students with disabilities within their IEPs; (d) taking advantage of scientific research to improve the services of special education; and (e) raising awareness about the disability among the members of society by discussing the causes of the disability and the ways to reduce it (Alquraini, 2013).

Part Three presents the foundations of special education in KSA in 28 subsections that discuss important concepts concerning the rights of students with disabilities to acquire appropriate education. This part emphasizes that students with disabilities should be educated in general education and that IEP teams should make decisions regarding the place- ment of students with disabilities, taking into consideration a continuum of alternative placements.

Furthermore, in Part Four, the characteristics of the 10 categories of disabilities discussed previously (hearing impairment, visual impairment,

513Special Education Today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

intellectual disabilities, LD, gifted and talented abilities, autism, multiple disabilities, physical and health impairment, communication disorders, and emotional and behavioral disorders) are explained. Also, it defines the pro- cedures of the assessment for each disability in each category (Alquraini, 2013).

Part Five presents the transition services available for students with disabilities in KSA. It indicates that the main goal of transition services is assisting these students to prepare in moving from one environment to another. Further, this part emphasizes that transition services should be provided for the student when he or she needs them as part of his or her IEPs. Additionally, it defines the types of transition services that might be provided, such as those that assist these students in moving across different levels of education (e.g., preschool to elementary). Finally, Part Five emphasizes that the transition services should be provided for the students with disabilities at an early stage (Alquraini, 2013).

Part Six describes in a comprehensive manner the tasks and responsibil- ities for professionals (e.g., teachers, principals, and service providers) who work with students with disabilities, either in public schools or special schools. The responsibilities of the agencies for the school districts and the schools regarding these students and their families are determined in Part Seven of the RSEPI. This is a critical aspect because these agencies are responsible for providing a free and appropriate education for students with disabilities. In addition, these agencies must provide awareness pro- grams for the families of these students that will increase their knowledge regarding different issues accompanying disability. Lastly, these agencies are to encourage these families to be involved in different activities, such as participating in short- and long-term planning and providing IEPs for their children (Alquraini, 2013).

Part Eight includes specific procedures of assessment and evaluation for students to determine if they are eligible for special education services. For example, this part indicates the definition, goals, and procedures associated with assessment and the composition of the multidisciplinary team (e.g., the special education teacher, general education teacher, parents, and others). It defines the steps of assessment that should be considered by the schools to determine the eligibility for special education services: (a) obtain- ing consent from the parents before diagnosis of the child; (b) gathering preliminary information on the status of the child who might need special education services; (c) referral of the child for further assessment proce- dures if needed; (d) and assessment of the child’s needs in different areas by the multidisciplinary team (Alquraini, 2013).

514 TURKI A. ALQURAINI

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Part Nine delineates the individual education program (IEP) that should be provided for each student who is eligible for special education services. This part defines the importance of the IEP for students with a disability and specifies that the IEP is a unique approach that should be considered to meet the individual curriculum needs of each student and appropriate special education and related services which must be incorporated into the student’s school day. Further, it explains the essential considerations of the IEP such as the requirement that it be jointly developed by the multidisci- plinary team and the student’s family; aspects that should be included in the IEP (general information about the student, the current performance of the student, special education and related services that the student might need, the professionals who are participating in its delivery). Finally, this part mandates that the student must participate in the IEP and the require- ment that the IEP should be evaluated annually to determine whether or not its goals have been met (Alquraini, 2013).

The evaluation process for students with disabilities is explained in Part Ten. It describes the definition and goal of the evaluation process (e.g., to determine the current performance of the student). In addition, Part Ten defines significant aspects that should be considered by the multidisciplin- ary team such as appropriate assessment devises and tests for evaluating each type of disability (e.g., when evaluating a student with possible intel- lectual impairment, the multiple disciplinary team should consider three assessment devises to measure the student’s current intellectual, adaptive functioning, and academic level). Lastly, Part Eleven explains general rules for schools and school districts, such as the fact that only the Special Education Department is responsible for the interpretation of the RSEPI (Alquraini, 2013).

Disability Code

The Disability Code was passed by the Saudi government in 2000. It includes 16 articles that present different issues regarding disability. For instance, Article One of this legislation describes the term of disability as described by the Prince Salman Center for Disability Research (2004), namely,

A person with a disability is one who is totally or partially disabled with respect to his/

her bodily, material, mental, communicative, academic or psychological capabilities, to

the extent that it compromises the ability of that person to meet his/her normal needs

as compared to his/her non-disabled counterparts. (p. 5)

515Special Education Today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Based on Article One, a student with a special need could be eligible under one of nine categories of disability, namely: visual disability, hearing disability, cognitive disability, physical disability, LD, speech and language impairments, behavioral problems, developmental delay, and multiple dis- abilities (Prince Salman Center for Disability Research, 2004). A provision of this article further requires government and private agencies to assist eligible people under the Disability Code in welfare, habilitation, health, education, training and rehabilitation, employment, complementary ser- vices, and other areas (Prince Salman Center for Disability Research, 2004).

Article Two of the Disability Code specifies that people with disabilities should have access to free and appropriate services in the areas of health, education, training and habilitation services, employment, social programs, and public services through public or governmental agencies. More specifi- cally, it defines the main issues that should be considered by services provi- ders in these areas. For instance, in the health area, this legislation requires service providers in the healthcare field to provide medical as well as habili- tation services in the early stages of disability for both the person with a disability and his or her family and to improve the healthcare for people with disabilities while taking into consideration the current approach to healthcare; health service providers (e.g., nurses) are also expected to have an adequate level of training to be able to provide high quality health-care services for people with disabilities (Prince Salman Center for Disability Research, 2004).

Specific to the education area, the Disability Code requires a free and appropriate education for all people with disabilities regardless of their educational stage (e.g., preschool, general, vocational, and higher educa- tion). Under the Disability Code, training and habilitation services should be provided by vocational and social habilitation centers for individuals with disabilities in KSA as required by the labor law (Prince Salman Center for Disability Research, 2004).

In the employment area, this legislation indicates that people with dis- abilities have the right to get jobs that might assist them in discovering their personal capabilities and allow them to earn income just like other indivi- duals in society. It also requires all agencies either governmental or private that have 25 employees or more to employ 4% of their workforce from categories of people with disabilities and give them equal job growth opportunity in the employment environment similar to those of nondis- abled workers (Prince Salman Center for Disability Research, 2004).

The Disability Code also emphasizes that people with disabilities should participate in all of the social programs that guarantee them the right and

516 TURKI A. ALQURAINI

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

opportunity to fully integrate with other people in society without discrimi- nation based on their disabilities. Also, it requires that public services should be facilitated and accessible for all people with disabilities in terms of public transportations, technology, and other services. Finally, under this legislation most people with disabilities can get benefits, such as:

• Persons with disabilities get 50% off of their tickets through all public transportation.

• Persons with disabilities are provided all types of care, including treat- ment and medicines free of charge.

• Persons will disabilities are provided job support on an equal basis as other people without disabilities.

• Persons will disabilities are provided parking spaces for their cars. • Persons with disabilities, as well as their families, are provided with

financial assistance.

These legislations, particularly Disability Code legislation, guarantee the right for all people with disabilities to receive free and appropriate services in terms of health, education, training and habilitation services, employ- ment, social programs, and public services. They also work to protect against any type of discrimination.

To summarize, the RSEPI and the Disability Code support the right of children with disabilities to obtain a free and appropriate education by considering many issues that guarantee this right. The RSEPI requires schools to educate their students with disabilities in a general education set- ting to the maximum extent, taking into account a continuum of alternative placements. Further, the RSEPI requires that special education services (e.g., IEPs, related services, transition services, and others) should be carried out with students with disabilities in the real world to discourage isolation and segregation while increasing opportunities for acceptance and tolerance by other nondisabled citizens (Alquraini, 2013).

PROMINENT EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTION

The KSA special education services and intervention are in a developing and formative stage, similar to the commencement of special education policies and practices that were initiated in the United States during the late 1960s and early 1970s (Marza, 2002). Due to their current stage of

517Special Education Today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

development, provisions and best practices of appropriate education for students with disabilities are lacking in the following areas.

Education Setting

Even though the RSEPI requires schools to allow students with disabilities, including students with moderate and severe disabilities, to receive their education with typically developing peers in regular classrooms to the max- imum extent of their abilities, this has not been practiced with students with disabilities in KSA. In other words, students with disabilities still receive their education separately in special schools, private institutions, and self-contained classrooms within the school. Positively, students with LD are educated in general education classrooms with their typically devel- oping peers, with some support from special education services such as resource rooms (Al-Ahmadi, 2009; Al-Mousa, Al-Sartawi, Al-Adbuljabar, Al-Batal, & Al-Husain, 2006). LD students follow the general education curriculum. Meanwhile, students with intellectual disabilities receive their education in self-contained classrooms within public schools, sharing some non-curricular activities with their typically developing peers (Al-Mousa et al., 2006). These students follow the special education curriculum designed by the Ministry of Education, which is different than the general curriculum that is provided to their typically developing peers. Students with autism, multiple disabilities, and visual and hearing impairments are educated in special schools which does not allow to them to interact with their typically developing peers.

Procedures to Determine Eligibility for Special Education Services

Unfortunately, in KSA the diagnosis and assessment processes to deter- mine the eligibility of students for special education and related services are still not free of shortcomings. First off, the assessment process for children does not begin early enough to successfully determine disabilities. This pro- cess usually starts when the child goes to school, so the schools and other agencies do not provide early intervention for preschool children with dis- abilities and their families (Alquraini, 2010). Additionally, most of the spe- cial education institutes, as well as public schools, lack a multidisciplinary team and reliable and valid assessment scales to carry out intellectual, adaptive, achievement, and behavioral evaluations that are appropriate for

518 TURKI A. ALQURAINI

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

the cultural standards of KSA (Al-Nahdi, 2007). Lacking an appropriate multidisciplinary team, assessment procedures for children with mild to moderate disabilities are non-team based. Therefore, in most cases, the schools’ psychologists define students’ eligibility for special education service based on a student’s IQ scores and teacher observation. In time, the overall assessment and diagnostic procedures will be reassessed and revised to achieve a truly reflective practice in KSA but for now misdiagnosis and inappropriate diagnosis may occur.

Providing Individual Education Programs

The RSEPI requires schools to provide an IEP for each student with a dis- ability and it has become one of the most important educational services provided for each child. However, little historical research has examined IEPs for students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia but recently researchers (Al-Herz, 2008) have begun to shed light on this vital provision of the law. For example, Al-Herz (2008) examined achievement of IEP goals and related difficulties in programs and special education institutes in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. This researcher found that special education teachers successfully determine the important elements of IEPs in terms of the stu- dent’s weaknesses and strengths, annual goals and short-term objectives, and needs requiring specially designed instruction. However, this study concluded that some obstacles impede the provision of effective and appro- priate IEPs, such as the lack of efficient multidisciplinary teams members (including the special education teacher, the child’s previous teachers, the parents of the child, and other members as needed) to formulate short- and long-term IEP goals. Also, the study indicated that the IEPs did not address the student’s needs based on their current individual strengths and weaknesses (Al-Herz, 2008). Lastly, Al-Herz pointed out those families in the study did not participate effectively with other school staff in determining the needs of their children, or in the preparation and imple- mentation of IEPs.

The above study points out significant deficit issues regarding the provi- sion of establishing appropriate individual education programs. Not having team members establish a student’s IEP based upon their current strengths and weaknesses is problematic because many times IEPs and short- and long-term goals are written by special education teachers without participa- tion of the parents and other service providers (Al-Herz, 2008). This leads to the classroom special education teacher being solely responsible for IEPs

519Special Education Today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

for up to 15 students with disabilities in the class. Unfortunately, this situa- tion makes it difficult for the teacher to pay individual attention to each student needs. To summarize, although students with mild to moderate dis- abilities have received appropriate education, more effort is needed to truly individualize the services received.

Related Services for Students with Disabilities

The RSEPI states that in order for students with special education needs to receive maximum benefit from their special educational programs, related services such as physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech�language, and counseling services must be provided (Ministry of Education, 2002). A number of researchers (Al-Otaibi & Al-Sartawi, 2009; Alquraini, 2007; Al-Sartawi & Grageah, 2010; Al-Wabli, 1996; Hanafi, 2008) have examined the feasibility of related services and their importance for students with dis- abilities in special education institutes or centers and public schools. For instance, Al-Wabli (1996) examined the feasibility of related services and their importance in special institutes for students with intellectual disabil- ities. This researcher found that speech�language pathologists, school counselors, psychologists, and social workers were available in these special institutes examined but occupational therapy and physical therapy services were lacking at times.

Following the above line of investigation, Alquraini (2007) examined the feasibility and effectiveness of related services for students with intellectual disabilities in public schools. According to this researcher, the most readily available related services were transportation, speech and language therapy, psychological services, school counseling, and school health services. On the other hand, social work service, occupational, and physical therapy services were available infrequently for these students. A similar study was conducted by Hanafi (2008), who examined the viability of related services for students with hearing disabilities in public schools. The researcher indi- cated that health and medical services were more available for these stu- dents; however, social worker and rehabilitation services were not available. Al-Otaibi and Al-Sartawi (2009) investigated the feasibility of related services for students with multiple disabilities in special education centers and institutes. The researchers reported that the special education centers and institutes lacked health, medical, and physical therapy services. Finally, Al-Sartawi and Grageah (2010) examined the feasibility of related services for students with autism in special education centers. These

520 TURKI A. ALQURAINI

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

researchers concluded that there were shortcomings in the provision of related services for students with autism in terms of speech and language therapy, psychological, school counseling, and social worker services.

In summary, although KSA students with a variety of disabilities, who attend public schools or special education centers and institutes, receive some related services other services that they need are unavailable. This is likely due to a lack of professionals who specialize in these fields, or because professionals with these foci (e.g., physical and occupational ther- apy) are often employed in hospitals instead of schools due where they receive greater salaries (Alquraini, 2007). That being said, there are some private agencies such as Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Humanitarian City that do provide these services. Unfortunately, parents must pay for these services, since the RSEPI does not require schools or schools districts to pay for pri- vate agencies to provide these services. In conclusion, students with disabil- ities in KSA public schools, special education centers and institutes receive some related services but for those students that need a professional with a specific focus (e.g., physical therapy) their special needs go unmeet.

Transition Services

The RSEPI requires that transition services be provided for students with disabilities. According to the RSEPI, transition services are intended to prepare the student with disabilities to move from one environment or stage to another (Ministry of Education, 2002). Additionally, this legisla- tion emphasizes that transition services should be provided for the student when he or she needs them as part of his/her IEP. The RSEPI defines the types of transition services that may be provided in order to assist students to move to different levels of education (e.g., preschool to elementary, high school to higher education, or employment settings) (Ministry of Education, 2002). Finally, the RSEPI indicates that transition services should be provided for students with disabilities at an early stage without defining that age. For instance, it states that when the student is 16 years or younger, he or she should receive transition services when necessary. Despite this fact, transition services have not always been completely carried out for students with disabilities (Almuaqel, 2006). This was demonstrated by Almuaqel (2006) in a study which examined the percep- tions of parents, special education teachers, and rehabilitation counselors for students with intellectual delays regarding these students’ individualized transitional plans. Finally, even though transition services are mandated

521Special Education Today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

by the RSEPI, to the best of this researcher’s knowledge, there is no pub- lished research addressing transition services for students with disabilities in KSA.

PREPARATION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

PERSONNEL

Paraprofessionals

In KSA, the public schools lack paraprofessionals who can be supportive of both teachers and students in different ways (e.g., that assist the teachers in adapting and modifying curricular activities). It is becoming critical that the Ministry of Education consider ways to increase the number of para- professionals that can be trained and hired to assist public school teachers and students with disabilities. This author recommends that this can be accomplished by employing people who have at least a high school diploma and have passed a specific test that determines whether they are qualified for the job. Once they are qualified for the role of a paraprofessional, they can be trained via in-service workshops regarding the specific roles that need to be carried out. This training would then be followed up with on the job training and supervision.

Teacher Preparation

In KSA, there are 24 university special education departments that prepare special education teachers based on a category (e.g., learning disabled, hearing impaired) of students that they will work with. Some of these departments prepare their teachers to work with three main categories of disability (intellectual disability, learning disability, and hearing impart- ment). Other departments prepare their teachers to work with students with autism, communication disorders, and behavioral disorders. There is only one university department that prepares teachers to work with stu- dents with multiple disabilities and provide early intervention for children with disabilities. Most of the university departments have general programs in special education that provide general special education coursework (e.g., educating students with disabilities in public schools, inclusive educa- tion, introduction of special education, etc.) and a special program that

522 TURKI A. ALQURAINI

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

focuses on specific disabilities such as intellectual disabilities (e.g., teaching methods for students with intellectual disabilities, an introduction to intel- lectual disability). There is only one special education department at King Saud University that has been accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). All college students in tea- cher training programs complete three and a half years of coursework and a practicum of one semester. After successfully completing the above requirements, the students participate in day-to-day teaching of students with disabilities in self-continued classes, institutes, or a resource room. After successfully completing their day-to-day training, they become certi- fied as a special education teacher and can seek employment as a special education teacher. Special education teachers are encouraged to get a grad- uate degree at one of four university special education departments that provide a master’s degree in special education based on a category of disability.

PROGRESS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES IN

SAUDI ARABIA

Despite the problematic issues addressed above regarding special education services in KSA, the services have improved. This improvement has occurred in educating students with mild and moderate disabilities in the least restrictive environment, such as general classrooms or self-contained classrooms in public schools, with some opportunities to participate with their typically developing peers in nonacademic activities. An emerging agenda is to improve the education of students with moderate to severe dis- abilities, including those with autism and multiple disabilities. Also there has been more interest in the past few years in adding students with atten- tion deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and emotional and behavioral disorders to meet their special needs. Financial and governmental support will be sought to increase the number of professionals who can participate in related, transition, vocational, and multidisciplinary team services. It is obvious that individuals with disabilities who acquire maximum benefit from their special educational programs will be better prepared to transfer from their school environment to a community environment and be less dependent on others on a daily life long basis.

Even though, there are 24 university special education departments that prepare special education teachers in KSA, these departments do

523Special Education Today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

not always provide the best knowledge base and teaching technique skills required to assist the teachers to work in inclusive classrooms, to provide effective transition services, and to use assistive technologies. Therefore, it is recommended that these department curriculums be revised and reoriented so that general and special education teachers are taught to work together in a collaborate manner to educate students with disabil- ities who are placed in an inclusive classroom. This reoriented curriculum can be enhanced by classroom teachers’ use of available assistive technology.

The RSEPI and public school programs for students with LD highlight the right for people with disabilities to obtain free appropriate education services as well as other services such as: healthcare, training and habilita- tion, employment development, and social programs. However, in the real world, these rights have not been fully granted to individuals with disabil- ities in KSA. Today in KSA, there are different types of discrimination that people with disabilities still face related to accessing education, employment, and social services. Additionally, females with disabilities are still suffering from discrimination based on gender bias and prejudice simi- lar to nondisabled females. The following section discusses the above issues in more detail and makes appropriate recommendations and suggestions that policymakers, educators, and other professionals might consider to improve the quality of life and promote equal rights for individuals with disabilities in the Saudi society.

Although the code of disability legislation underlined the rights of indi- viduals with disabilities, these individuals still struggle with some issues regarding employment in terms of their hours worked, workplace safety and security, and negative attitudes from employers toward hiring people with disabilities. The Ministry of Labor is now trying to solve these issues by creating laws that protect the rights of these individuals in getting appropriate jobs and fair work conditions.

As KSA continues its dramatic period of improvement, changes in spe- cial education services will occur rapidly (Al-Quraini, 2012). The follow- ing suggestions might be considered to improve special education services in KSA. First, policymakers should review existing legislation related to students with disabilities and evaluate each laws’ relevance to worldwide current trends in providing best practice special education services. This review should take into consideration successful policy experiences such as IDEA (1997) in the United States. More specifically the review should evaluate major tenets for providing a free appropriate education for indi- viduals with special needs in terms of the following:

524 TURKI A. ALQURAINI

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

(A) Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): This term should be clarified in the RSEPI to mean that the appropriate place to educate students with disabilities is in a general education setting to the maximum extent possible; however, when the level or severity of disability does not allow for the stu- dent to be the placed in this setting, the continuum of alternative placement options should be considered, including the general classroom, the special education classroom, special schools, home instruction, or instruction in hospitals and institutions.

(B) Procedural Safeguards: Under this regulation, an amendment to the RSEPI should be made for identifying procedures (procedural safeguards) that guarantee the rights of parents or guardians of children with severe disabilities regarding settling education disputes. This part should outline procedures that assist students with disabilities to be educated using special education services. For example, parents or guardians should receive a written letter that informs them about any procedures that might be con- ducted by the schools with their children regarding educational placement. This letter should be sent by the school to the parents with sufficient notice (Yell, 2006). This letter also ought to explain clearly the description of the action, reasons for this action, and the further procedures that might be conducted with the student.

RSEPI must also mandate that the parent has the right to discuss any educational placement pertaining to their child made by the school that requires further procedures. There are some times when parents disagree with the decision made by the schools about educational placement. Therefore, another agency should be involved in solving this disagreement. For instance, the school districts might establish an office of hearing in each school district that aims to facilitate a problem between the schools or ser- vice providers and the parents (Yell, 2006).

Additionally, when the parents of the student cannot solve the dilemma with the school or school district, further procedures might be considered in terms of taking the issue to the local court in each city or the Supreme Court (the highest level of court in KSA). The final decisions of the courts should be reported and published in a specific database that might assist policymakers and researchers in developing special education policy regard- ing placement in the general education setting for students with severe disabilities in KSA.

(C) Responsibility for Implementation: A regulation that should be con- sidered in the amendment to the RSEPI is the name of the agency or

525Special Education Today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

department that has responsibility for the implementation of this legisla- tion. This part should also identify responsibility to enforce the implemen- tation of the RSEPI. For example, the Special Education Department should have the power and responsibility to monitor and enforce special education services, particularly educating students with disabilities in the LRE under this legislation.

(D) Developing an Effective System of Accountability: The main reason behind many of the problems with the implementation of the RSEPI in Saudi Arabia is a system accountability absence to enforce the require- ments of this legislation in the real world. Therefore, it is highly recom- mended that an effective monitoring system needs to be put in place to assist the Special Education Department in Saudi Arabia in investigating whether the requirements of the RSEPI have been carried out for stu- dents with disabilities, particularly educating students with disabilities in the LRE.

The main goals of this system would be enforcing and monitoring these requirements, and ensuring continued improvement in educational outcomes for children with disabilities who are eligible for special educa- tion and related services. The main features of this system should be explained in terms of the aspects of accountability, the role of the agency that has responsibility for accountability of the RSEPI, and main steps or procedural safeguards that might be considered to make sure that school districts and the service providers follow these regulations. Additionally, the Ministry of Education should annually evaluate the quality of special education services and present a report that explains these services to public agencies. This report might assist these agencies in providing effective best practice services, and helping them improve their provision of special education services to students with disabilities. Another suggestion is to address critical elements of successful inclusion, such as accommodation and instructional modifications of general curri- culum, and collaborations. Furthermore, the stakeholders’ perspectives toward inclusion should be examined through more research to determine the best ways to enhance their perspectives of how to be more supportive of students in a general education setting. Procedures to determine elig- ibility for special education services should be based on the findings of a multidisciplinary team as well as the other issues discussed above. Finally, schools should consider providing related services in support of their IEPs, particularly occupational, physical, and speech�language therapy.

526 TURKI A. ALQURAINI

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

REFERENCES

Al-Abdulwahab, S. S., & Al-Gain, S. I. (2003). Attitudes of Saudi health care professionals

toward people with physical disabilities. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal,

14(1), 63�70. Al-Ahmadi, N.A. (2009). Teachers’ perspectives and attitudes towards integrating students with

learning disabilities in regular Saudi public schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Retrieved from http://etd.ohiolink.edu

Al-Quraini, T. (2012). Factors that are related to teachers’ perspectives towards inclusive edu-

cation of students with severe intellectual disabilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Journal

of Research in Special Education Needs. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

doi/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01220.x/abstract

Al-Ajmi, N. S. (2006). The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Administrators’ and special education

teachers’ perceptions regarding the use of functional behavior assessment for students with

mental retardation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-

Madison, Madison, WI.

Al-Demadi, A., & Al-Shinawi, M. (1989). Types of attitudes toward people with physical dis-

ability among students in King Saud University. Journal of College Education, 4(2),

40�62. Al-Gain, S. I., & Al-Abddulwahab, S. S. (2002). Issues and obstacles in disability research in

Saudi Arabia. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal, 13(1), 45�49. Al-Herz, M. M. (2008). Achievement of goals of the individualized education program (IEP) for

students with mental retardation and related difficulties. Master’s thesis. Retrieved from

http://www.dr-banderalotabi.com/new/admin/uploads/2/dov17-5.pdf

Al-Marsouqi, H. A. (1980). A facet theory analysis of attitudes toward handicapped indivi-

duals in Saudi Arabia. Dissertations Abstracts International: Section C, Education,

41(9), 8726431A.

Al-Mousa, N. A. (2008). Development process of special education in the Kingdom of

Saudi Arabia: From segregation to integration. Dubai, United Arab Emirates: Dar

Alqlam Co.

Al-Mousa, N. A., Al-Sartawi, Z. A., Al-Adbuljabar, A. M., Al-Batal, Z. M., & Al-Husain, A.

S. (2006). The national study to evaluate the experiment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

in mainstreaming children with special educational needs in public education schools.

Retrieved from http://www.se.gov.sa/Inclusion.aspx

Almuaqel, A. (2006). Perception of parents, education teachers, and rehabilitation counselors of

the individualized transition plan (ITP) for students with cognitive delay. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho, Idaho, Moscow.

Al-Muslat, Z. A. (1987). Educators’ attitudes toward the handicapped in Saudi Arabia.

Dissertations Abstracts International: Section C, Education, 48(11), 264781A.

Al-Nahdi, G. H. (2007). The application of the procedures and standards of assessment and diag-

nosis in mental education institutes and programs as regards Regulatory Principles of

Special Education Institutes and Programs in Saudi Arabia. Master’s thesis. Retrieved

from http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/alnahdi/DocLib/Forms/AllItems.aspx

Al-Otaibi, B., & Al-Sartawi, Z. A. (2009). Related services that are needed for the students with

multiple disabilities and their families in Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from http://www.

drbanderalotabi.com/new/1/pdf

527Special Education Today in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://etd.ohiolink.edu

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01220.x/abstract

http://www.dr-banderalotabi.com/new/admin/uploads/2/dov17-5.pdf

http://www.se.gov.sa/Inclusion.aspx

http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/alnahdi/DocLib/Forms/AllItems.aspx

http://www.drbanderalotabi.com/new/1/pdf

Alquraini, T. A. (2007). Feasibility and effectiveness of related services that are provided to the

students with mental retardation in public schools. Master’s thesis. Retrieved from http://

www.drbanderalotaibi.com/new/admin/uploads/2/5.pdf

Alquraini, T. A. (2010). Special education in Saudi Arabia: Challenges, perspectives, future

possibilities. International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 139�147. Alquraini, T. A. (2013). Legislative rules for students with disabilities in the United States and

Saudi Arabia: A comparative study. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education,

2(6), 601�624. Al-Sartawi, A. M. (1987). Attitudes of students at college of education in King Saud

University toward people with mental retardation. Journal of College Education, 2(7),

112�127. Al-Sartawi, Z., & Grageah, S. (2010). The provision of the related services for children with

autism and their families. Journal of College of Education, Ain Shamas University,

2(40), 210�225. Al-Wabli, A. M. (1996). Related services that are provided for students with mental retarda-

tion in special education institutes in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Education, 20(3),

191�232. Central Department of Statistics and Information Population and Vital Statistics. (2011).

Population and housing characteristics in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from

http://www.cdsi.gov.sa/pdf/demograph1428.pdf

Hanafi, A. (2008, June). Actual related services for students with hearing disability in Saudi

Arabia. Paper presented at the first scientific conference of mental health in the College

of Education, University of Banha, Egypt. Retrieved from http://faculty.ksa.edu.sa/

70443/Pages/cv.aspx

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997. (1997). Pub. L No.105-17, 111, Stat. 37.

Marza, H. M. (2002). The effects of early intervention, home-based, family-centered, support

programs on six Saudi Arabian mothers with premature infants: The application of inter-

active simulation strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland,

College Park, MD.

Ministry of Education of Saudi Arabia. (2002). Regulations of special education programs and

institutes of Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from http://www.se.gov.sa/rules/se_rules/index

htm

Ministry of Education of Saudi Arabia. (2012). General directors of special education.

Retrieved from http://www.se.gov.sa/hi/

Prince Salman Center for Disability Research. (2004). Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provision code

for persons with disabilities. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Prince Salman Center for Disability

Research.

Sadek, F. M., Mousa, F. A., & Sesalem, K. S. (1986). Attitudes of Saudi Arabian society

toward people with blindness. Journal of College Education, 3(6), 51�77. Yell, M. L. (2006). The law and special education (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall

Publishers.

528 TURKI A. ALQURAINI

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.drbanderalotaibi.com/new/admin/uploads/2/5.pdf

http://www.cdsi.gov.sa/pdf/demograph1428.pdf

http://faculty.ksa.edu.sa/70443/Pages/cv.aspx

http://www.se.gov.sa/rules/se_rules/index htm

http://www.se.gov.sa/hi/

SPECIAL EDUCATION TODAY IN

TURKEY

Macid Ayhan Melekoğlu

ABSTRACT

As a result of human right movements, the importance of special needs of individuals with disabilities has become more prominent in many coun- tries in the world. Hence, endeavors of people with disabilities, their family members, and advocates to seek accessible communities and equal opportunities for education, as well as, job placement have been widely accepted as human rights for individuals with disabilities. Consequently, establishing barrier-free environments and inclusive societies for people with disabilities have become important indicators of social development of countries. Besides, since education is considered as a fundamental human right, the importance of providing special education for children with disabilities has been recently realized by many nations (United Nations. (2006). World programme of action concerning disabled per- sons. New York, NY: United Nations). Turkey is one of those countries that have quite recently started to invest in special education services for its citizens with disabilities. This chapter focuses on the development, as well as the current state of special education in Turkey. Included in this development are the following sections: origins of Turkish special educa- tion, prevalence and incident rates, trends in laws and regulations,

Special Education International Perspectives: Practices Across the Globe

Advances in Special Education, Volume 28, 529�557 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0270-4013/doi:10.1108/S0270-401320140000028024

529

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0270-401320140000028024

educational interventions, working with families, teacher preparation, progress that has been made, and special education challenges that exist.

INTRODUCTION

Turkey, known as the Republic of Turkey, is located in Western Asia. It is also known as the bridge between Europe and Asia which makes it a coun- try of geostrategic importance. The actual area of Turkey is 814,578 square kilometers, of which 790,200 are in Asia and 24,378 are located in Europe. According to Turkey’s most recent census, the country’s population is nearly 75 million (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2012). The vast majority of citizens are Muslims. The country’s official language is Turkish. The coun- try is a founding member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and Group of 20 (G-20) major economies. Furthermore, Turkey has the world’s 15th gross domestic product (GDP) (World Bank, 2012). In addition, Turkey is a candidate country for the European Union (EU) membership following the Helsinki European Council.

Turkey is a republic based on secular, democratic, and pluralistic princi- ples. The Turkish Republic was established in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and has a parliamentary system of government that constitution- ally protects personal rights and freedoms. As a result, Turkey has the divi- sions of power that one would expect: judicial, legislative, and executive. The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey (1982) is the supreme law of the country. In terms of educational structure, “formal education” and “informal education” are two main parts of the Turkish education system. The typical education that citizens are exposed to is in school environments defined as formal education and based on specific ages. Educational environments that provide early childhood, primary, secondary, or higher education are classified as formal education. However, there are informal education environments which consist of academic and nonacademic education and vocational training workshops and centers available for people who have never received formal education, dropped out of school at any level, or graduated from an informal school system. Additionally, all Turkey educational activities are governed by two institutions, the Ministry of National Education (MEB, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı) and the Higher Education Council (YÖK, Yükseköğretim Kurulu). All public and private institutions that provide education, including special education, from early

530 MACID AYHAN MELEKOĞLU

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

childhood to secondary level operate under the responsibility and control of the MEB, while all higher education institutions are controlled by the YÖK (Melekoğlu, Cakiroglu, & Malmgren, 2009).

ORIGINS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

The Republic of Turkey is a considerably young country which was estab- lished in 1920; however, Turkish people have existed in history for centu- ries. In fact, when some individuals with intellectual disabilities were exiled or burned in Western countries during the Middle Ages, there were healing centers established in the lands of Turkish people. Especially after accept- ing the religion of Islam, Turkish people placed strong emphasis on human health and provided free access to hospitals for individuals in Turkish countries such as Seljuks of Anatolia and the Ottoman Empire (Baykoç- Dönmez & Şahin, 2011). In terms of provision of special education, gifted and talented children were systematically selected and educated in the Enderun School (Enderun Mektebi) which was founded in 1455 by Fatih Sultan Mehmed, the Sultan of that time, and served during the era of the Ottoman Empire (Melekoğlu et al., 2009). Furthermore, conscious and sys- tematic special education services for children with disabilities started in 1889, for children with hearing impairments in a school that was estab- lished as a part of the Istanbul Trade School under the leadership of Mister Grati (Grati Efendi) who was a citizen of Austria and principal of the school. After one year, another section was opened in the school for students with visual impairments. This special education school served stu- dents with disabilities for 30 years and was shut down in 1919 (Akçamete, 1998; Akkök, 2000; Baykoç-Dönmez & Şahin, 2011; Cavkaytar & Diken, 2012; Eripek, 2012).

Right after the official establishment of the Republic of Turkey, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, a private association started a special education school called the “School for Deaf-Mute and Blind” for children with hearing impairments and visual impairments in Izmir in 1921. The school was turned over to the Ministry of Health and Social Aid in 1924 and continued to provide services until 1950. Since the provision of special education services was considered the responsibility of the Ministry of Health and Social Aid at that time, special education schools and institutions were functioning under the management of that ministry until 1950. Afterwards, special education became a duty of the MEB and the

531Special Education Today in Turkey

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

“School for Deaf-Mute and Blind” was transferred to this ministry in 1951. In the meantime, to improve participation of blind people into the society, the first blind union, called Altınokta Körler Derneği (Six Dots Foundation for the Blind), was established under the leadership of Associate Professor Mitat Enç in 1950 (Akçamete, 1998; Baykoç- Dönmez & Şahin, 2011; Şahin, 2005). Professor Enç, who had a visual impairment, was an important pioneer in the field of special education because of his endeavors in the development of university special education programs and his service at the MEB. In the current era, the National Conference of Special Education is organized each year in remembrance of Associate Professor Mitat Enç and the 23rd National Conference of Special Education was held in Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University in 2013 (http:// oek2013.ibu.edu.tr).

As a recently established country, Turkey started to exhibit striking and critical developments in the field of special education after 1950. First of all, the transfer of responsibility for special education from the Ministry of Health and Social Aid to the MEB reflected the government’s interest in making education of individuals with disabilities a major issue of education rather than a health-related issue. Starting in 1950, special education ser- vices were carried out by a branch office of the General Directory of Elementary. In addition, a systematic teacher training structure was initiated at the Gazi Education Institute in Ankara by forming the Department of Special Education in 1952. Also, the section of the “School for Deaf-Mute and Blind” for children with visual impairments was moved to a building that is currently known as the Estimesgut Orphanage in Ankara, the capital of Turkey, in 1951 and then, relocated to a building at the Gazi Education Institute in 1952. The Department of Special Education at the Gazi Education Institute admitted 40 students to train as the first special education specialists of the country. However, after two years of training students, the department was shut down in 1955 (Şahin, 2005).

However, schools continued to be opened for children with visual and hearing impairments, and a selection procedure was developed for children with intellectual disabilities which allowed them to participate in the educa- tion system as well. The first psychology clinic, which is currently called the Guidance and Research Center (RAM, Rehberlik ve Araştırma Merkezi), was formed in Ankara in 1955 to evaluate educable children with intellec- tual disabilities, examine other students with special needs, and provide gui- dance for these students. Consequently, a special education classroom was formed for children with intellectual disabilities in the Ankara Kazıkiçi

532 MACID AYHAN MELEKOĞLU

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://oek2013.ibu.edu.tr

Bostanları Primary School in 1955 (Şahin, 2005). Soon after, additional special education classrooms were established for students with intellectual disabilities in the Yeni Turan and Hıdırlıktepe Primary Schools in Ankara in 1955. Eventually, these classrooms became the first examples of incor- porating the special education classroom model in regular education schools (Baykoç-Dönmez & Şahin, 2011).

In 1957, the Children in Need of Protection Law (No. 6972) was enacted, and article 22 of the law indicates that the MEB was required to provide necessary precautions for children with special education needs who were considered children in need of protection. Also, the rights of indi- viduals with disabilities to receive special education were secured in the amended 1961 Constitution by article 50 which states that the government must take necessary precautions for individuals with special education needs to make them beneficial to the society.

In 1961, another law important to the development of special education was enacted, namely, the Elementary and Education Law (No. 222). This law officially indicated the special education needs of children with disabil- ities required compulsory education age by mentioning that children who are at the compulsory education age and have disabilities due to intellec- tual, orthopedic, mental, and social deficits need to be provided special education (Akkök, 2000; Baykoç-Dönmez & Şahin, 2011). Of note in the development of the above laws and article 50 was the advocacy influence of The Blind Union, Altı Nokta Körler Derneği (Six Dots Foundation for the Blind), which stressed the need for inclusion provisions regarding indivi- duals. In addition, the Blind Union developed and implemented the first workshop day shelter system for individuals with disabilities in Turkey (Şahin, 2005).

Initial steps for the education of gifted education occurred in the 1956 Education of Gifted Children in the Fine Arts Law (No. 6660). This law stated that the government was responsible for the education of gifted chil- dren in the fine arts. Due to a lack of gifted educational resources, gifted children were sent abroad to receive the necessary education for 17 years. While this law is still in force, the government stopped sending these chil- dren after 17 years of implementation (Şahin, 2005). Starting in the 1963�1964 school year, gifted students were selected from primary schools in Ankara and Istanbul and educated in separate special education class- rooms with a special curriculum. However, this educational practice ended in 1968. A few years later, another attempt was initiated to provide gifted classrooms to meet the skills of gifted students in primary schools but those attempts were stopped in 1972 (Şahin, 2005).

533Special Education Today in Turkey

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

The importance of special education in Turkey became even more evi- dent in 1980, when MEB directed the Department of General Directorate of Elementary Education to make special education services a division rather than a branch. Soon after this, Turkey’s first special education law, namely, the Children with Special Education Needs Law (No. 2916) was enacted in 1983. This law was supported by many constituted special edu- cation regulations and provisions. In fact, the Turkey Constitution was amended in 1982 to include special education provisions that are still in force today such as article 42 that states the Constitution is responsible for taking necessary precautions for individuals with special education needs to make them beneficial to the society (Akçamete, 1998; Baykoç-Dönmez & Şahin, 2011; Vuran & Ünlü, 2012).

Although endeavors for training special education specialists were inter- rupted in the 1950s, many educators including first graduates of the Department of Special Education at Gazi Education Institute contributed to the development of special education in Turkey. These educators trained many special education teachers for the field, disseminated various special education implementations in the education system, and made significant contributions to the establishment of national politics on special education. These educators include the pioneering university work of Associate Professor Mithat Enç, Professor Yahya Özsoy, and Professor Doğan Çağlar, who helped establish college special education programs, as well as MEB professionals, Şaban Dede and Hasan Karatepe, who made great contribution to the developments of the national special education system.

After the innovative and pioneering efforts of the above individuals, other universities established special education programs in Turkey with the help of many talented professors. For example, Professor Şule Bilir helped constitute the Division of Special Education under the Department of Child Development at the prestigious Hacettepe University, in Ankara in 1978. This special education division has been a leading division in train- ing academicians, child development specialists, and teachers in the field of special education in Turkey for many years. Also, Professor Ayşegül Ataman and Professor Ümit Davaslıgil are well-known pioneers, who made great contributions in the area of special education in the Turkish education system (Baykoç-Dönmez & Şahin, 2011).

By the 1990s, the development of special education gained further momentum due to the increased number of trained personnel, an increase in conducted studies, and a fury of published research papers in Turkey. For instance in 1965, there were only 55 associate degree graduates, three master’s graduates, and one doctoral graduate in the field of special

534 MACID AYHAN MELEKOĞLU

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

education. This number increased to 625 teacher certificate holders, 187 bachelors graduates, 66 master’s graduates, 16 doctoral graduates, 2 assis- tant professors, 6 associate professors, and 5 professors in 1990 (Baykoç- Dönmez & Şahin, 2011).

Furthermore, Köksal Toptan, who was the Minister of MEB between 1991 and 1993, put great emphasis on special education and the country’s most comprehensive works were carried out during this period. These works resulted in the targeted employment of workers in special education, the securing of employee rights for individuals with disabilities, and a vast improvement in the quality and quantity of special education institutions. In addition, necessary tools and materials were developed and provided for special education practices and new implementations were started in the field of special education. Also, a new service, namely, the General Directorate of Special Education, Guidance and Advisory Services was established in the Central Ministry Organization in 1992 (Akçamete, 1998; Baykoç-Dönmez & Şahin, 2011). Further, Professor Necate Baykoç- Dönmez, who was an academician in Hacettepe University, was appointed as the general director of the above service between 1992 and 1995, and she initiated many reforms in the field of special education in Turkey.

The above aspects had an effect on the acceptance and value of inclusion practices in Turkey. This was evident when the MEB accepted inclusion practices as an important concept for special education. The ministry sup- ported the dissemination of information about the importance of inclusion for students with disabilities into regular education in schools across the country. In essence, inclusion practices were viewed as a means to nourish awareness in the society and promote consciousness for the needs of people with disabilities. The importance of this practice was further enhanced when the Turkish government proclaimed 1993 as the Year of Special Education (Akkök, 2001). It is noteworthy that only a few years after this proclamation, the 1997 Special Education Regulation Law (No. 573), which is currently in force, was enacted. Due to this law, the number of private special education and rehabilitation centers (özel özel eğitim ve rehabilitasyon merkezleri) escalated because the government started to pay the special education, rehabilitation, and therapy services expenses pro- vided by these centers (Baykoç-Dönmez & Şahin, 2011; Vuran & Ünlü, 2012). Lastly, based on the law, the MEB enacted the Special Education Services Regulation in 2006 which delineated current definitions of special education categories and terms (Diken & Batu, 2010). These MEB categori- cal definitions of exceptionality (Çuhadar, 2012; MEB, 2006) follow. An individual with an intellectual disability (zihinsel yetersizliği olan birey) is

535Special Education Today in Turkey

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

defined as one who has an IQ score at least two standard deviations below 100, and limited performance or deficiencies in conceptual, social, and prac- tical adjustment skills, and who manifests those characteristics during the development period before the age of 18 years. In addition, individuals with intellectual disabilities are classified into four categories: mild intellectual disabilities (hafif düzeyde zihinsel yetersizlik), moderate intellectual disabil- ities (orta düzeyde zihinsel yetersizlik), severe intellectual disabilities (ağır düzeyde zihinsel yetersizlik), and very severe intellectual disabilities (çok ağır düzeyde zihinsel yetersizlik). An individual with multiple disabilities (birden fazla yetersizliği olan birey) is a person with disabilities in more than one domain. A person with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (dikkat eksikliği ve hiperaktivite bozukluğu olan birey) is defined as one who shows attention deficit, over activity, hyperactivity, and impulsivity characteristics that are not appropriate for one’s age and developmental level in at least two contexts for a minimum of six months before the age of 7 years. An individual with speech and language disorders (dil ve konuşma güçlüğü olan birey) is depicted as a person who displays problems in the use of speech, acquisition of speech, and communication. A person with emotional and behavioral disorders (duygusal ve davranış bozukluğu olan birey) is defined as one who manifests emotional reactions and behaviors that vary significantly from the social and cultural norms. An individual with a visual impairment (görme yetersizliği olan birey) is a person who has partial or total loss of vision. Whereas, a person with a hearing impairment (işitme yetersizliği olan birey) is one who experiences problems with acquisi- tion of speech, use of speech, and communication due to partial or total loss of hearing sensitivity. An individual with orthopedic disability (ortopedik yetersizliği olan birey) is person with movement deficiencies due to dysfunc- tion in muscular, skeleton, and joint systems as a result of disease, accident, and genetic problems. A person with autism (otistik birey) is an individual with significant deficiencies in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal com- munications, and interest and activities. An individual with a specific learn- ing disability (özel öğrenme güçlüğü olan birey) is one who experiences academic difficulties, which emerge in one or more knowledge acquisition processes such as understanding and using written or oral language, listen- ing, speaking, reading, spelling, concentrating, attention, or performing mathematical operations. There is separate special education category for a person with cerebral palsy. A person with cerebral palsy (serebral palsili birey) has disabilities in motor skills that are connected to dysfunctions in muscular and nervous systems due to pre-, peri-, or postnatal brain damage. An individual with chronic health problems (süreğen hastalığı olan birey) is a

536 MACID AYHAN MELEKOĞLU

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

person with health problems that require continuous or long time nursing and treatment. Lastly, a gifted individual (üstün yetenekli birey) is a person who shows high level performance in intelligence, creativity, art, sports, lea- dership capacity, or specific academic domains compared to his/her peers.

An examination of Turkey’s special education literature reveals that defi- nitions of special education categories can include those based upon the Special Education Services Regulation (MEB, 2006) and definitions from the US’s special education literature that is incorporated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) (American Psychiatric Association, 2004), and US text books (see Akçamete, 2009; Ataman, 2005; Baykoç, 2011; Diken, 2010a, 2010b; Rotatori, Obiakor, & Bakken, 2011; Sucuoğlu & Kargın, 2010). In fact, many laws and regula- tions related to special education in Turkey have been deeply influenced by US laws and regulations about special education such as the least restrictive environment (LRE) and individualized education programs (IEPs).

PREVALENCE AND INCIDENT OF STUDENTS WITH

SPECIAL NEEDS

In terms of the number of students in special education, Turkey publishes overall statistics for special education annually. There is no official publica- tion of the number of students in each special education category (Cakiroglu & Melekoğlu, 2013). However, the official publication includes the number of students in separate and inclusive school settings. According to the National Statistics there were 32,180 students with special needs in formal school system in the 2002�2003 school year in Turkey (MEB, 2003). This number has increased to 220,649 in the 2012�2013 school year (MEB, 2013). In the current education system, approximately 7% of all children with special needs are included in formal and informal education settings in Turkey (Baykoç-Dönmez, 2011). In fact, a steady increase in the number of students with special needs in formal education system was reported when the annual statistical reports were analyzed (see Table 1) by Cakiroglu and Melekoğlu (2013). These researchers used a linear regression analysis to determine the extent to which there is a linear relationship between school years and the total number of students with special needs for each school year. The regression analysis indicated a significant increase in the number of students with special needs from 2002�2003 to

537Special Education Today in Turkey

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

2012�2013 (R2 = 0.895, F[1,10] = 86,513, p < 0.000). This model accounted for 89.5% of variance in the increase, and the researchers reported that the school year was a significant predictor variable that had a significant impact on the increase in the numbers of students with special needs (β = 0.952, p < 0.000). These findings show that the increase in the numbers of students with special needs in formal education has been statistically sig- nificant over the last decade in Turkey (Cakiroglu & Melekoğlu, 2013).

When the number of students in segregated school settings was exam- ined in the 2012�2013 school year, results show the following distribution by exceptionality: 1,006 early childhood education students; 3,577 students with hearing impairment; 1,406 students with visual impairments; 642 stu- dents with orthopedic disabilities; 2,658 students with mild intellectual dis- abilities; 14,427 students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities including autism; and 68 students with adaptation problems (including emotional and behavioral disorders).

In addition to those students with disabilities who are enrolled in formal schooling, there were students with special needs that are educated in infor- mal schools. Currently, 31,376 students are categorized as receiving infor- mal education. Of this number, 11,268 are gifted students enrolled in 66 after regular school Science and Arts Centers. In addition, 20,108 students with disabilities received informal education in 152 private special educa- tion schools in the 2012�2013 school year according to the MEB (2013).

Inclusion practices are also widely accepted in Turkey’s education sys- tem. However, the official publication of national enrollment statistics

Table 1. Students with Special Needs in Formal Education in Turkey.

School

Year

Total Number of

Students in Formal

Education

Total Number of Students

with Special Needs in

Formal Education

Percentage of Students with

Special Needs in Formal

Education System

2002�2003 13,686,616 32,180 0.023 2003�2004 13,852,429 19,447 0.014 2004�2005 14,039,609 61,127 0.044 2005�2006 14,482,335 68,967 0.047 2006�2007 14,874,496 78,743 0.053 2007�2008 14,817,654 89,703 0.061 2008�2009 15,351,849 88,931 0.058 2009�2010 16,137,436 120,111 0.074 2010�2011 16,845,528 141,248 0.084 2011�2012 16,905,143 199,513 1.180 2012�2013 17,234,452 220,649 1.280

538 MACID AYHAN MELEKOĞLU

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Table 2. Students with Special Needs in Inclusive Classrooms in Turkey (by MEB).

School Year Elementary School Level Secondary School Level Total Number of

Students in

Inclusion Male Female Total Male Female Total

n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

2004�2005 24,634 (61.5) 15,416 (38.5) 40,050 � � � 40,050 2005�2006 27,706 (61.6) 17,239 (38.4) 44,945 761 (51.8) 707 (48.2) 1,468 46,413 2006�2007 27,725 (61.4) 17,429 (38.6) 45,154 813 (52.1) 749 (47.9) 1,562 46,716 2007�2008 34,293 (61.4) 21,547 (38.6) 55,840 � � � 55,840 2008�2009 15,450 (32.3) 32,417 (67.7) 47,867 1,443 (54.2) 1,220 (45.8) 2,663 50,530 2009�2010 23,064 (32.4) 48,078 (67.6) 71,142 2,854 (56.4) 2,208 (43.6) 5,062 76,204 2010�2011 27,444 (32.4) 57,136 (67.6) 84,580 4,816 (61.9) 2,959 (38.1) 7,775 92,355 2011�2012 84,309 (61.1) 53,584 (38.9) 137,893 6,744 (62.1) 4,116 (37.9) 10,860 148,753 2012�2013 89,852 (61.1) 57,196 (38.9) 147,048 8,777 (61.6) 5,470 (38.4) 14,247 161,295

Note: “�” indicates absence of data.

5 3 9

S p e c ia l E d u c a tio

n T o d a y in

T u rk e y

S pecial E

ducation International P erspectives : P

ractices A cross the G

lobe, edited by A nthony F

. R otatori, et al., E

m erald

P ublishing Lim

ited, 2014. P roQ

uest E book C

entral, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com /lib/w

su/detail.action?docID =

1780814. C

reated from w

su on 2019-12-24 10:40:15.

related to inclusive education includes only overall numbers. Data for inclusion education has been available since the 2004�2005 school year but only at the elementary level. There were 40,050 students with special needs in inclusive settings in the 2004�2005 school year (MEB, 2005). This num- ber increased to 92,355 in the 2010�2011 school year (MEB, 2011a), and then increased to 161,295 in the 2012�2013 school year (MEB, 2013; see Table 2 for details). In terms of the percentage of students with special needs in inclusion among all students in special education, the rate has always been more than half since the 2004�2005 school year and has increased to almost three quarters of all students with special needs during the last two school years. The percentage of students with special needs in inclusion can be examined in Fig. 1.

Although, the officially published national statistics do not include data regarding separate special education categories in Turkey, a secondary data set obtained from the Turkish Ministry of National Education Strategy Department was analyzed to gather statistical details about special educa- tion categories in inclusion in Turkey (MEB, 2011b). The raw data about special education statistics was officially requested with a written applica- tion by the chapter’s author to the MEB for analysis and research pur- poses. Details about the number of students in each special education category in inclusive classroom between the 2004�2005 and 2010�2011 school years can be found in Table 3.

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

School year

65.5% 67.3%

59.3% 62.2%

56.8%

63.4% 65.4%

74.6% 73.1%

Fig. 1. Percentage of Students with Special Needs in Inclusion in Turkey.

540 MACID AYHAN MELEKOĞLU

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Table 3. Number of Students in Each Special Education Category in Inclusive Classrooms in Turkey.

SE Category 2004�2005 2006�2007 2007�2008 2008�2009 2009�2010 2010�2011 E E S E E S E S E S

MD 0 0 0 0 16,487 0 32,006 0 45,430 0

ID 28,110 30,116 359 37,766 11,328 932 20,063 3,494 20,740 5,007

EBD 4,103 2,730 49 3,211 15,153 112 12,912 1,024 12,146 1,795

S/LD 2,088 1,991 78 2,204 1,553 86 1,971 75 2,120 159

HI 1,670 1,792 583 2,324 1,322 645 1,690 255 1,626 392

OD 1,669 2,050 178 2,472 1,083 337 1,346 82 1,374 176

VI 1,459 1,179 246 843 362 401 462 92 460 152

A 542 828 9 1,054 318 29 376 14 373 41

LD 0 4,107 60 5,500 220 121 267 24 263 47

G 409 361 0 466 41 0 49 2 48 6

Note: SE = special education; E = elementary school level; S = secondary school level; MD = multiple disabilities; ID = intellectual disabil- ities; EBD = emotional and behavioral disorders; S/LD = speech and language disorders; HI = hearing impairments; OD = orthopedic dis- abilities; VI = visual impairments; A = autism; LD = specific learning disabilities; G = gifted.

5 4 1

S p e c ia l E d u c a tio

n T o d a y in

T u rk e y

S pecial E

ducation International P erspectives : P

ractices A cross the G

lobe, edited by A nthony F

. R otatori, et al., E

m erald

P ublishing Lim

ited, 2014. P roQ

uest E book C

entral, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com /lib/w

su/detail.action?docID =

1780814. C

reated from w

su on 2019-12-24 10:40:15.

The results of the data analysis indicate that there has been a steady increase in the number of students with special needs in inclusion educa- tion. It is noted that the fastest increasing special education category is multiple disabilities. Further it should be noted that many students with special needs have been diagnosed with a secondary disability over the years, and categories such as learning disabilities, autism, or intellectual disabilities, the number of students has either declined or stayed steady even though the number of students in inclusion has been escalating.

TRENDS IN LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN TURKEY

The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey has included laws and regula- tions regarding special education for individuals with disabilities since its first enactment in 1926. Special education was first addressed in Turkish Civil Law (No. 743) that was enacted in 1926. This law required parents to raise their children with physical or intellectual disabilities and they would receive appropriate education. In 1961, the Constitution was amended to incorporate rules about people with special needs that was proposed by the Blind Union. The formal regulation about education of individuals with special needs was explained in articles 42, 50, 62 of the Constitution. For the first time, these articles included provisions related to regulations regarding special education services (Şahin, 2005). Then in 1961, The Elementary and Education Law (No. 222) was enacted. This law indicated that all schools and classes must accommodate children with special needs. Additionally, article 12 specified that provision of special education services should be secured for students with intellectual, psychological, physical, emotional, and social disabilities (Senel, 1998).

In addition to the above, a number of laws and regulations that govern issues about employment of people with disabilities have been enacted. For example, regarding employment of people with disabilities, article 50 was enacted in the Employment Law (No. 1475). This law indicates that a busi- ness that employs 50 or more employers needs to hire 2% of their work- forces from people with disabilities as well as provide appropriate working conditions based on their specific needs (Şahin, 2005).

The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey was amended in 1982, and it currently includes several vital regulations for individuals with disabil- ities; especially, human rights which address the rights of individuals with special needs. Right after the amendment of the constitution, the first

542 MACID AYHAN MELEKOĞLU

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

comprehensive law regarding individuals with disabilities was enacted in 1983. This law entitled The Children with Special Education Needs Law (No. 2916) consisted of sections on: definitions, principles, special educa- tion institutions, duties about special education, diagnosis, placement, and monitoring of children with special education needs. The law stayed in force until a new law, namely, The Special Education Law was enacted in 1997 (Akçamete, 1998; Baykoç-Dönmez & Şahin, 2011).

The Special Education Law (No. 573) published in The Official Gazette (No. 23011) in 1997. The law’s aim is to regulate principles and provisions regarding the rights of persons with disabilities to receive gen- eral and vocational education according to the general goals and basic principles of the Turkish National Education System. The law defines diagnostic, special education assessment, and placement processes of spe- cial education. In addition, educational principles regarding early child- hood, elementary, secondary, higher, and informal education are specified for individuals with special needs. Further, the law delineates educational settings and highlights educational principles about inclusive education. Other issues illustrated by the law include: the active participation of family members in all aspects of their child’s special education processes; the importance of contributions of special education organizations to the development of special education policies; the incorporation of special education services into social interaction; and the adaptation processes. In essence, this law provides the basic principles of special education which include that: (a) special education needs to be viewed as an abso- lutely necessary part of general education; (b) all students with disabilities should receive required special education services regardless of the sever- ity of the disability; (c) early intervention is critically important for better provision of special education services; (d) all students with special needs should have IEPs that meet their specific needs; (e) students with special needs should be placed in least restrictive educational environments with their nondisabled peers; (f) vocational education and rehabilitation ser- vices need to be continuous for students with special needs; and (g) edu- cation services that are provided in all educational levels for students with special needs should be planned by the relevant institutions (Akçamete, 1998; Akkök, 2000; Baykoç-Dönmez, 2000). These principles are clearly outlined in the law and children with special needs are viewed as being a crucial part of public education. Soon after the law was enacted the number of students in inclusion increased. However, due to financial drawbacks and a shortage of trained professionals in the field of special education, these principles have not been fully adhered to and

543Special Education Today in Turkey

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

implemented by the professionals, who provide special education services to children with special needs (Melekoğlu et al., 2009).

Another important development for individuals with disabilities in 1996 was the establishment of the Administration for Disabled People which was connected to the Turkish Prime Ministry. The purpose of this adminis- tration is to execute services for individuals with disabilities regularly, effec- tively, and efficiently by ensuring cooperation and coordination between national and international institutions and organizations; support genera- tion processes of national policies about individuals with disabilities; and identify problems of individuals with disabilities and find solutions for these problems (Akçamete, 1998; Baykoç-Dönmez & Şahin, 2011). This administration was transferred to the Ministry of Family and Social Policies in 2011 and became the General Directorate of Disabled and Elderly Services.

In 2006, the Special Education Services Regulation was enacted by the MEB (2006). This regulation consists of nine parts and provides specific details about provisions of special education services in the Turkish educa- tion system. General provisions, educational assessment and placement, special education services board and duties, working procedures, and prin- ciples of the special education assessment board, educational practices through inclusion, educational services, institutions, staff, duties, authority and responsibilities, education and training, and miscellaneous and final provisions are parts of the regulation. As mentioned earlier, this regulation includes definitions of many terms, including special education categories, about special education. According to this regulation, the goal of special education includes: (a) educating individuals to perform their roles in the society, establish good relations with others, be able to work in coopera- tion, adapt to their environments, and be productive and happy citizens; (b) developing basic living skills to live independently in the community and become self-sufficient; and (c) preparing individuals for upper levels of education, business and professional fields, and life in line with the educa- tional needs, capabilities, interests, and abilities by using appropriate educational programs and special methods, personnel, and equipment.

A close examination of the above laws and regulations regarding spe- cial education points to a great impact from special education legislations that originated in the United States and the United Kingdom (Akçamete, 1998). In fact, many Turkish legislative acts were modeled after US spe- cial education laws such as the IDEA (2004) because a number of influ- ential special education Turkish academicians and special education experts, who completed their graduate studies in special education at

544 MACID AYHAN MELEKOĞLU

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

universities in the United States, were involved in the formulations of Turkey special education laws. In terms Turkey’s special education laws and regulations, the legal infrastructure was vigorously established and enacted by the endeavors of advocates, academicians, and politicians rather than individuals with disabilities and/or their family members. Therefore, the implementations of these laws and regulations are not controlled by people and family members receiving those services. Consequently, even though the quantity of special education services and institutions has quickly increased, the quality of special education services is still not at a desired level in Turkey.

EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS IN TURKEY

As seen in the official Turkey statistics about students with special needs in special education, almost three quarters of students are educated in inclu- sion classrooms and the rest are placed in segregated schools or classrooms. The 2006 Special Education Services Regulation (MEB, 2006) indicates the importance of inclusion by describing it as a special education practice based on the idea that students with special education needs should be edu- cated with their nondisabled peers in public and private early childhood, elementary, secondary, and adult education institutions that include necessary support services that enhance their educational well-being. In fact, dissemination of inclusion practices has been widely supported in the last decade, and special education and inclusion practices are developing rapidly in the Turkish education system since the enactment of the special education law. Even though inclusion practices are not presently at the desired level of quality, dissemination information about inclusive educa- tion is embraced as an important educational policy (Diken & Batu, 2010; Melekoğlu, 2013; Melekoğlu et al., 2009; Sucuoğlu & Kargın, 2010). However, studies about inclusion practices in Turkey have been limited to: investigation of opinions and suggestions of teachers regarding inclusion of children with intellectual disabilities; the impact of inclusion practices on children with intellectual disabilities; and factors influencing social accep- tance of children with intellectual disabilities by their normally developing peers (Diken & Batu, 2010).

While inclusive educational intervention is experienced by the majority of students with disabilities, there are quality primary and middle school educational interventions for students with disabilities who are in

545Special Education Today in Turkey

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

self-contained classrooms. For instance, in the 2012�2013 school year, a total of 25,477 students were educated in self-contained classrooms (MEB, 2013). Most of these classrooms are cross-categorical self-contained classrooms while some are non-categorical classrooms. Self-contained class- rooms usually consist of students with moderate and/or severe intellec- tual disabilities, autism, visual impairments, hearing impairments, and multiple disabilities. The number of students in each classroom is usually between 8 and 10 but those numbers can vary depending on the location of the school. Typically, there is one special education teacher in most classrooms.

Meaningful primary and secondary educational intervention is also pro- vided at residential schools for children with visual impairments, hearing impairments, and orthopedic disabilities. Almost all of the students with hearing impairments use hearing aids in their classrooms. Also, students with visual impairments can access brailed educational documents in segre- gated settings.

Similar to other countries, educational intervention at private special education and rehabilitation centers is widespread in Turkey. Students with disabilities in these placements can receive individual and/or group educa- tion and rehabilitation or therapy services. The government covers the expenses of these services for 2�3 hours per week. If families desire addi- tional hours of services, they must pay for it (Vuran & Ünlü, 2012). Families with gifted children receive special education in Science and Arts Centers after their regular education hours. As of the 2012�2013 school year, there are 66 Science and Arts Centers serving 11,268 gifted and talented children (MEB, 2013). Typically, instruction for these students involves exposure to specific academic topics and/or accelerated learning opportunities in various ability domains.

In terms of teaching techniques for students with special needs such as a specific learning disability, there is no special instructional techniques that are universally employed (Özyürek, 2005). This occurs because most gen- eral education teachers working in inclusive classroom usually do not receive any educational support in terms of best special education practices and many have little awareness of teaching techniques for students with special needs. In contrast, students with special needs, who are instructed by teachers with special education training, are exposed to quality educa- tion. For example, many of these teachers employ best practice special education techniques such as applied behavior analysis (ABA) methods (see Anderson, Marchant, & Somarriba, 2010). Further, the Turkish educa- tion system has started discussions about adopting the Response to

546 MACID AYHAN MELEKOĞLU

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Intervention (RTI) model (see Kauffman, Bruce, & Lloyd, 2012) that is employed in the United States.

All special education experts and academicians emphasize the impor- tance of early intervention and prevention programs, and the Special Education Services Regulation has aspects related to early childhood spe- cial education. However, there is no officially practiced and supported early intervention program or prevention system throughout Turkey and there are only a couple of early childhood institutions that provide this service to young children with special needs. Thus, even though the critical impor- tance of early intervention and prevention programs for the success of spe- cial education practices are well known, the lack of those programs is a significant deficiency in the special education field in Turkey (Baykoç- Dönmez, 2011; Er-Sabuncuoglu & Diken, 2010).

Another common special education practice, namely, a systematic tran- sition procedure for individuals with disabilities from school to adult life, is not occurring in Turkey. While school placements of individuals with dis- abilities are coordinated by the RAMs in cooperation with parents/primary carers of these individuals, the transition of students with special needs is not systematically planned. Positively, after their school completion, stu- dents with disabilities can attend vocational schools or training centers until age 23 years. After completing their work training in these programs, there is no transition system to place them in a job. The options for adult individuals with disabilities who complete vocational schools or training centers are: living in an adult education institution governed by the General Directorate of Life Long Learning; living with their family mem- bers; and living in a care center.

WORKING WITH FAMILIES OF INDIVIDUALS WITH

DISABILITIES IN TURKEY

Parents or primary carers of individuals with disabilities have legal rights related to: special education assessment of their children; school placements of their children; and the preparation of individualized education plans for their children. The Special Education Services Regulation (MEB, 2006) stresses the active participation and education of families under the princi- ples of special education. In addition, the regulation indicates that family approval is required for educational assessment and diagnosis of their child. It also emphasizes that the family is an important partner in the

547Special Education Today in Turkey

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

cooperation between schools, institutions, and RAMs for efficacy of special education services (MEB, 2006). Since the majority of families of indivi- duals with disabilities are from a low socioeconomic level and have limited education, they are not aware of or do not pursue their legal rights for the education of their children. Further complicating the situation is the fact that most of the families of individuals with disabilities are at a denial or aggression stage rather than an acceptance and adjustment stage in Turkey. Often, these parents are embarrassed to have children with disabilities which interferes with their seeking financial supports or advocating for their children to receive quality special education and become integrated into the society.

Typically, school guidance counselors or teachers work as liaisons with families of children with special needs. For most of the families, their inter- action with these experts is limited to participation in parent�teacher con- ferences and getting periodic information about the annual progress of their children. Such limited interaction becomes problematic because families, who have a child in an inclusive classroom, may encounter resis- tance or exclusion from families of nondisabled students. Sometimes this negative reaction by parents of nondisabled children leads to their nondis- abled students refusing to interact with children who have special needs. Lastly, families are responsible for all stages of special education assess- ment of their children which can be a problem due to their lack of knowl- edge about special education.

Studies of families of individuals with disabilities in Turkey have focused on topics such as evaluating the effectiveness of family education programs that are formed to teach a variety of skills to children with special needs; characteristics of families of children with special needs; family education and family guidance; family participation; family anxiety, worries, stress, social support, and resilience levels; family needs; and family attitudes (Meral, 2011).

TEACHERS TRAINING IN SPECIAL EDUCATION

Teacher training in special education in Turkey is a relatively new endea- vor. The first attempt for special education teacher training started in the 1952�1953 school year in the Department of Special Education at Gazi Education Institute. This program was open just for primary education teachers with three years of experience. The program involved two years of

548 MACID AYHAN MELEKOĞLU

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

instruction. Unfortunately, after only two terms of graduating students, the teacher training program ended. This resulted in regular education teachers meeting the special education needs of students until 1980s. These teachers were trained via exposure to in-service training workshops and/or special education certification programs.

A second attempt at formal special education teacher training was initiated by the Educational Sciences Department in the School of Education at Anadolu University in Eskisehir in 1983. This program had its first graduates in the 1986�1987 school year. In 1990, the Department of Special Education was established in the School of Education at Anadolu University. This Department of Special Education has been teaching college students who had an interest in teaching individuals with intellectual disabilities and hearing impairments. Soon afterwards, Gazi University offered special education teacher training programs for college students interested in educating individuals with intellectual disabilities and visually impairments (Akçamete, 1998; Baykoç-Dönmez & Şahin, 2011; Eripek, 2012).

Currently, a four-year undergraduate education is necessary to become a special education teacher in Turkey. Teacher candidates are centrally placed in undergraduate programs based on the results of nationwide higher education exams. Regular teacher candidates are trained by faculty in the Education Department while special education teacher candidates are trained by faculty in the Special Education Department. There are approximately 180 universities in Turkey, and as of the 2013�2014 school year, only 19 of these universities have undergraduate special education departments that offer programs to train special education teachers. Typically, these programs offer training in intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments, visual impairments, and gifted. Almost all offer a program of study in intellectual disabilities because it has the largest special education teacher quota (over 1,500) in the country’s central higher education placement.

The undergraduate programs in special education use preset curriculums that are approved by the YÖK. There are required courses in these curricu- lums and teacher candidates at times need to fulfill field work for some courses. In addition, these programs require students to complete a teach- ing practicum over two semesters (28 weeks). All special education teacher candidates who successfully complete a program of study with a 2.0 grade point average have the right to work as a special education teacher. While there is no national teacher certification that is necessary to work in public schools, teacher candidates must take a nationwide teacher placement

549Special Education Today in Turkey

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

exam. Based on their exam scores and the national quota in appointment periods, teacher candidates are placed by the MEB.

PERSPECTIVE ON THE PROGRESS OF

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Although special education is a considered a new field in the Turkish edu- cation system, there are positive developments, as well as, problems in edu- cating students with special needs. First of all, there are sufficient numbers of special education teachers in most of the segregated schools and the RAMs but the current quality of education and assessment processes being practiced needs to be improved. Second, inclusion practices have been rapidly disseminated in general education schools but there are almost no support services in the school for children with special needs nor in-service assistance to the teachers of students in inclusive classrooms. These aspects are problematic because many regular education teachers are not trained about inclusion and/or education of individuals with special needs. Therefore, most of the students with special needs do not receive quality education or in some cases, any education. In addition, the majority of tea- chers of inclusive classrooms are against inclusion practices, and teachers, administrators, nondisabled peers, and their families often manifest nega- tive attitudes toward children with special needs and their families (Melekoğlu, 2013). Given all the above negative aspects, inclusion practices can be harmful for some children with special needs.

In terms of training special education teachers, there are 19 special education departments training special education teachers in universities but most teachers are educated to work with individuals with intellectual disabilities. Due to this, the current supply�demand balance cannot be achieved. While special education department faculty support other educa- tion departments by providing special education foundation and/or inclu- sion courses there are many university educational departments that do not have a special education expert to offer these courses. Therefore, teacher candidates that graduate from these universities are not well equipped con- cerning special education and inclusion best practices (Melekoğlu, 2013). Also, even when teacher candidates are exposed to special education courses, the courses are taught from a theoretical perspective rather than a practical knowledge base perspective. Positively, special education teacher candidates receive practical knowledge perspectives and working experience

550 MACID AYHAN MELEKOĞLU

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

about students with special needs in their last year of college. Even then the teacher candidates have a lot to learn as most do not have any school or society contact with students who have special needs prior to entering college.

Another problem with the teacher training system is the categorical approach that special education programs use to training special education teacher candidates. The categorical system does not allow teacher candi- dates who study under one category, such as intellectual disabilities, to earn a certificate in another category such as hearing impaired. A more efficient approach that is used in many countries would be to train special education teacher candidates using a cross-categorical approach that would allow them to be certified to teach students from different categories. Also, this approach would help to reduce teacher shortages in some areas of spe- cial education. Further, university graduate programs do not allow certified regular education teachers (e.g., history, science) to become special educa- tion teachers in Turkey. Hopefully as inclusive education increases, univer- sities will allow non-special education teachers to be trained in special education in a master’s degree program. Such a change would be very logi- cal for regular education teachers with specialities in say math or science to become certified to teach gifted students in these areas especially at the secondary school level.

Unfortunately, there is almost no official government attempt to improve quality of life, employment training, and living arrangements of individuals with disabilities in Turkey. While vocational schools or training centers provide work training for some individuals with disabilities, the training does not comply with contemporary needs of businesses. There are some nongovernmental organizations and municipalities that work on pro- viding opportunities for individuals with disabilities to acquire employment training and a job placement but they are very limited in scope and often result in job failure due to a lack of on the job training, follow up, or sus- tainable long-term funding. In terms of living arrangements, individuals with disabilities usually stay with their families or in care centers rather than in independent living settings. There is no community independent liv- ing arrangement settings such as group homes that have been established by the government for individuals with disabilities.

Positively, funding educational services and certain life aspects from the government has significantly improved for individuals with disabilities and their families in the last decade. For example, all individuals with disabil- ities are eligible for monthly disability salary if they meet the official requirements for disability. In addition, if the individual with a disability is

551Special Education Today in Turkey

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

in need of care, a family member or someone else who provides care to that person can receive a care salary. Also, the government pays education, rehabilitation, or therapy expenses for persons with a disability if the ser- vices are provided by private special education and rehabilitation centers (Akçamete, 1998; Vuran & Ünlü, 2012). Furthermore, all medical expenses of individuals with disabilities are covered by the government. Government reforms in funding education and services for individuals with disabilities has improved considerably, however, more needs to be done especially in the employment domain and the quality control of care services.

SPECIAL EDUCATION CHALLENGES

There are nine challenges that remain in special education today in Turkey. These challenges were identified and discussed by experts in the special edu- cation field at a recent conference, namely, the Special Education Search Conference, that was held at Anadolu University in November 2013 (Özel Eğitim Arama Konferansı, 2013). The first identified challenge is to estab- lish a new model of training special education personnel. While there are training programs for special education teachers, there are no program to train paraprofessionals who work in special education schools, institutions, and centers. In addition, the current teacher training model does not respond to the needs of the Turkish education system. Further is the need for special education teacher candidates to be trained in cross-categorical programs.

A second challenge is to resolve the academic personnel shortage needs at universities. In many university special education departments, there are only a couple of academicians with doctoral degrees in special education. Additionally, there are many universities that wish to establish special edu- cation departments but they cannot find faculty with graduate degrees in special education. There needs to be more information dissemination about graduate special education program offerings. Due to special education teacher shortages, graduate students in special education should be sup- ported financially to encourage other college students to enter into special education.

A third challenge in special education is establishing effective inclusive education. There should be at least one special education teacher in each school to serve as a support person. Also, paraprofessionals should be allowed to work in inclusive classrooms. Teachers of inclusive classrooms

552 MACID AYHAN MELEKOĞLU

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

need to be comprehensively trained in effective special education best prac- tices and receive necessary support as required.

A fourth challenge in Turkey is the need for early diagnosis and inter- vention of young students with special needs. Positively, there have been several studies about the adaptation of early intervention programs in Turkey such as the “Small Steps Early Intervention Program,” “Portage Early Education Program,” “Behavioral Education Program for Children with Autism,” “Responsive Teaching,” and “First Step to Success” (Diken, Cavkaytar, Batu, Bozkurt, & Kurtılmaz, 2010; Er-Sabuncuoglu & Diken, 2010; Yıldırım Doğru, 2011) but these programs have not been integrated in the early childhood special education system in Turkey. To accomplish this, there needs to be an official coordination system established between the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of National Education, and the Ministry of Family and Social Politics for early diagnosis and early inter- vention of children with disabilities. Also, education and rehabilitation cen- ters and schools need to be directed by the government to focus on early intervention and rehabilitation. For this to occur, the MEB needs to estab- lish official procedures, plans, and regulations for early childhood special education and intervention starting at the birth of a child.

The fifth challenge in special education is to develop better family parti- cipation and support. Families of children with disabilities should be edu- cated about the child’s disability, rights, interventions, educational practices, and related issues as soon as a disability is diagnosed in children. This education procedure should be operated by the government in a sys- tematic and planned way. In addition, active participation of families in all stages of special education should be secured officially, and if necessary, advocates for families should be integrated into the process.

The sixth challenge in special education today in Turkey is the need for job training and placement of individuals with disabilities. Similar to best practice in many developed countries, the government needs to start plan- ning transition to work plans for individuals with disabilities when these students enter their teenage years. These students need exposure to work training and work environments to increase their success in future job pla- cements. To make this a sustainable process, the government should make agreements for job placements and training procedures of individuals who have disabilities with national and local business entities. In addition, the government should promote public and private shelter workshops and require strict and regular controls of these workshops.

The seventh challenge is dealing with the current deficiency in laws and policies about special education. All existing laws and regulations should be

553Special Education Today in Turkey

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

revised to address critical comments made by directors of nongovernmental organizations and experts regarding the needs of the Turkish education sys- tem (Eripek, 2012). Also, the government should determine functional poli- cies and be accountable for the implementation of those policies.

Dissemination of research-based practices is the eighth challenge in spe- cial education in Turkey. The MEB should play an active role in this pro- cess and officially create an environment that introduces and promotes research-based practices in special education and requires educators to use those practices in schools. Additionally, the government should provide funding to universities and community researchers for the investigation of effective special education practices.

The ninth challenge existing in special education is the transition of indi- viduals with disabilities to independent living. The government should plan and coordinate the transition process early on, and train experts about the issue and create adequate environments and a support system for smooth transition of individuals with disabilities to independent living.

In summary, special education in Turkey today has come a long ways and is still in the process of development. There are many challenges remaining in special education in Turkey but those challenges are not com- pletely new in the special education field. Many countries have already handled those problems, and Turkey can study these solutions and adapt them according to national needs and expectations. Positively, there is strong governmental support for special education but more determined administrators are needed for resolving the special education challenges listed at the 2013 Special Education Search Conference. Addressing these challenges will go a long way in fulfilling Turkey’s comprehensive reform in special education.

REFERENCES

Akçamete, A. G. (2009). Genel eğitim okullarında özel gereksinimi olan öğrenciler ve özel eğitim.

[Students with special needs in general education schools and special education.] Ankara:

Kök Yayıncılık [Kok Publication].

Akçamete, G. (1998). Türkiye’de özel eğitim. [Special education in Turkey]. In S. Eripek (Ed.),

Özel eğitim (pp. 195�208). [Special education.] Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları [Anadolu University Publications].

Akkök, F. (2000). Special education research: A Turkish perspective. Exceptionality: A Special

Education Journal, 8(4), 179�273. doi:10.1207/S15327035EX0804_5 Akkök, F. (2001). The past, present, and future of special education: The Turkish perspective.

Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies, 6(2), 15�22.

554 MACID AYHAN MELEKOĞLU

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

American Psychiatric Association. (2004). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

(4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, D. H., Marchant, M., & Somarriba, N. Y. (2010). Behaviorism works in special

education. In F. E. Obiakor, J. P. Bakken, & A. F. Rotatori (Eds.), Current issues and

trends in special education: Identification, assessment, and instruction (pp. 157�173). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Ataman, A. (2005). Özel gereksinimli çocuklar ve özel eğitime giriş. [Children with special needs

and introduction to special education.] Ankara: Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık [Gunduz

Education and Publication].

Baykoç, N. (2011). Özel gereksinimli çocuklar ve özel eğitim. [Children with special needs and

special education.] Ankara: Eğiten Kitap [Egiten Book].

Baykoç-Dönmez, N. (2000, July). Special education in Turkey. Paper presented at the meeting

of International Special Education Congress (ISEC), Manchester, UK.

Baykoç-Dönmez, N. (2011). Türkiye’de özel eğitim çalışmaları günümüzde yaşanan

sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. [Special education studies in Turkey current problems and

proposed solutions]. In N. Baykoç (Ed.), Özel gereksinimli çocuklar ve özel eğitim

(pp. 535�556). [Children with special needs and special education.] Ankara: Eğiten Kitap [Egiten Book].

Baykoç-Dönmez, N., & Şahin, S. (2011). Özel eğitimin tarihi gelişimi [Historical development

of special education]. In N. Baykoç (Ed.), Özel gereksinimli çocuklar ve özel eğitim

(pp. 535�556). [Children with special needs and special education.] Ankara: Eğiten Kitap [Egiten Book].

Cakiroglu, O., & Melekoğlu, M. A. (2013). Statistical trends and developments within inclu-

sive education in Turkey. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Advance online

publication. doi:10.1080/13603116.2013.836573

Cavkaytar, A., & Diken, İ. H. (2012). Özel eğitim 1: Özel eğitim ve özel eğitim gerektirenler.

[Special education 1: Special education and those who require special education.] Ankara:

Vize Yayıncılık [Vize Publication].

Children in Need of Protection Law [Korunmaya Muhtaç Çocuklar Hakkında Kanun],

Government of Turkey. (1957).

Children with Special Education Needs Law [Özel Eğitime Muhtaç Çocuklar Kanunu],

Government of Turkey. (1983).

Constitution of the Republic of Turkey. (1982). Retrieved from http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/

anayasa.htm. Accessed on May 20, 2013.

Çuhadar, S. (2012). Özel eğitim süreci [Special education process]. In S. Vuran (Ed.), Özel

eğitim (pp. 3�30). [Special education.] Ankara: Maya Akademi [Maya Academy]. Diken, İ. H. (2010a). İlköğretimde kaynaştırma. [Inclusion in elementary school.] Ankara:

Pegem Akademi [Pegem Academy].

Diken, İ. H. (2010b). Özel eğitime gereksinimi olan öğrenciler ve özel eğitim. [Students with

special educational needs and special education.] Ankara: Pegem Akademi [Pegem

Academy].

Diken, İ. H., & Batu, S. (2010). Kaynaştırmaya giriş. [Introduction to inclusion]. In

İ. H. Diken (Ed.), İlköğretimde kaynaştırma (pp. 1�25). [Inclusion in elementary school.] Ankara: Pegem Akademi [Pegem Academy].

Diken, İ. H., Cavkaytar, A., Batu, E. S., Bozkurt, F., & Kurtılmaz, Y. (2010). Effectiveness

of the Turkish version of “first step to success program” in preventing antisocial

behaviors. Education and Science, 36(161), 145�158.

555Special Education Today in Turkey

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/anayasa.htm

Education of Gifted Children in the Fine Arts Law [Güzel Sanatlarda Fevkalade İstidat

Gösteren Çocukların Devlet Tarafından Yetiştirilmesi Hakkında Kanun], Government

of Turkey. (1956). Retrieved from http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/ MevzuatMetin/1.3.6660.

pdf. Accessed on May 20, 2013.

Elementary and Education Law [İlköğretim ve Eğitim Kanunu], Government of Turkey. (1961).

Retrieved from http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/24.html. Accessed on May 20, 2013.

Employment Law [İş Kanunu], Government of Turkey. (1971). Retrieved from http://www.

mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.1475.pdf. Accessed on May 20, 2013.

Eripek, S. (2012). Zihinsel yetersizliği olan bireyler ve eğitimleri. [Individuals with intellectual

disabilities and education.] Ankara: Eğiten Kitap [Egiten Book].

Er-Sabuncuoglu, M., & Diken, İ. H. (2010). Early childhood ıntervention in Turkey: Current

situation, challenges and suggestions. International Journal of Early Childhood Special

Education, 2(2), 149�160. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, U.S.C. § 612 et seq. Kauffman, J. M., Bruce, A., & Lloyd, J. W. (2012). Response to intervention (RTI) and

students with emotional and behavioral disorders. In J. P. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor, &

A. F. Rotatori (Eds.), Behavioral disorders: Practice concerns and students with EBD

(pp. 107�128). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Melekoğlu, M. A. (2013). Examining the impact of interaction project with students with

special needs on development of positive attitude and awareness of general education

teachers towards inclusion. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(2), 1053�1077. Melekoğlu, M. A., Cakiroglu, O., & Malmgren, K. W. (2009). Special education in Turkey.

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(3), 287�298. Meral, B. F. (2011). Gelişimsel yetersizliği olan çocuk annelerinin aile yaşam kalitesi algılarının

incelenmesi. [Examination of the family quality of life perceptions of mothers who have

children with disabilities.] Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Anadolu Üniversitesi

[Anadolu University], Eskişehir.

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) [Ministry of National Education]. (2003). Millı̂ Eğitim sayısal

veriler 2002�2003 [National education numerical data 2002�2003]. Retrieved from http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/ist2002_ 2003.zip. Accessed on February 23, 2012.

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) [Ministry of National Education]. (2005). Milli Eğitim istatistik-

leri 2004�2005 [National education statistics 2004�2005]. Retrieved from http://sgb. meb.gov.tr/istatistik/ist2004-2005.rar. Accessed on February 23, 2012.

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) [Ministry of National Education]. (2006). Özel eğitim hizmetleri

yönetmeliği. [Regulation of special education services.] Published in the Official Gazette

of Republic of Turkey, Issue 26184, May 31, 2006.

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) [Ministry of National Education]. (2011a). Milli Eğitim istatis-

tikleri örgün eğitim 2010�2011 [National education statistics formal education 2010�2011]. Retrieved from http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/meb_istatistikleri_orgun_ egitim_ 2010_2011.pdf. Accessed on September 6, 2011.

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) [Ministry of National Education]. (2011b). Özel eğitimle ilgili

istatistiki bilgiler. [Statistical information about special education.] Obtained from the

Ministry of National Education Strategy Development Presidency on a CD as an

attachment to the official document dated September 30, 2011 and numbered 6543.

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) [Ministry of National Education]. (2013). Milli Eğitim istatistik-

leri örgün eğitim 2012�2013 [National education statistics formal education 2012�2013]. Retrieved from http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2012_

2013.pdf. Accessed on May 12, 2013.

556 MACID AYHAN MELEKOĞLU

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/ MevzuatMetin/1.3.6660.pdf

http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/24.html

http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.1475.pdf

http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/ist2002_ 2003.zip

http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/ist2004-2005.rar

http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_ 2010_2011.pdf

http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2012_2013.pdf

Özel Eğitim Arama Konferansı [Special Education Search Conference]. (2013). Anadolu

Üniversitesi özel eğitim arama konferansı raporu, 16�17 Kasım 2013. [Anadolu University special education search conference report, 16�17 November 2013.] Arama Araştırma Organizasyon Danışmanlığı [Search Research Organization Counseling],

Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir [Anadolu University, Eskisehir].

Özyürek, M. (2005). Öğrenme güçlüğü gösteren çocuklar. [Children with learning disabilities].

In A. Ataman (Ed.), Özel gereksinimli çocuklar ve özel eğitime giriş (pp. 215�228). [Children with special needs and introduction to special education.] Ankara: Gündüz

Eğitim ve Yayıncılık [Gunduz Education and Publication].

Rotatori, A. F., Obiakor, F. E., & Bakken, J. P. (Eds.). (2011). History of special education.

Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Şahin, S. (2005). Özel eğitimin tarihçesi. [History of special education]. In A. Ataman (Ed.),

Özel gereksinimli çocuklar ve özel eğitime giriş (pp. 49�70). [Children with special needs and introduction to special education.] Ankara: Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık [Gunduz

Education and Publication].

Senel, H. G. (1998). Special education in Turkey. European Journal of Special Needs

Education, 13(3), 254�261. Special Education Law [Özel Eğitim Hakkında Kanun Hükmünde Kararname], Government

of Turkey. (1997). Retrieved from http://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_ dosyalar/2012_10/

10111011_ozel_egitim_kanun_hukmunda_kararname.pdf. Accessed on May 20, 2013.

Sucuoğlu, B., & Kargın, T. (2010). İlköğretim’de kaynaştırma uygulamaları. [Inclusion practices

in elementary schools.] Ankara: Kök Yayıncılık [Kok Publication].

Turkish Civil Law [Türk Kanunu Medenisi], Government of Turkey. (1926).

Turkish Statistical Institute. (2012). Population and development indicators. Retrieved

from http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?tb_id=39& ust_id=11. Accessed on April 12, 2011.

Vuran, S., & Ünlü, E. (2012). Türkiye’de özel gereksinimli çocukların eğitimi ile ilgili örgütle-

nme ve mevzuat. [Organization and legislation about education of students with special

needs in Turkey]. In S. Vuran (Ed.), Özel eğitim (pp. 57�80). [Special education.] Ankara: Maya Akademi [Maya Academy].

World Bank. (2012). World development indicators database. Gross domestic product 2010.

Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ DATASTATISTICS/Resources/

GDP.pdf. Accessed on April 12, 2012.

Yıldırım Doğru, S. S. (2011). Erken çocuklukta özel eğitim. [Early childhood special

education]. In S. S. Yıldırım Doğru, & N. Durmuşoğlu Saltalı (Eds.), Erken çocukluk

döneminde özel eğitim (pp. 37�102). [Special education in early childhood.] Ankara: Maya Akademi [Maya Academy].

557Special Education Today in Turkey

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_ dosyalar/2012_10/10111011_ozel_egitim_kanun_hukmunda_kararname.pdf

http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?tb_id=39& ust:id=11

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. E

m er

al d

P ub

lis hi

ng L

im ite

d. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed