After reading Europe: Special Education International Perspectives- Articles on Spain & the UK please post on Canvas discussions brief descriptions regarding beliefs and perceptions that impact the teaching of students with disabilities in Europe by exami

Special_Education_International_Perspectives_Pract..._----_Part_II_Europe.pdf

Home >Education homework help >After reading Europe: Special Education International Perspectives- Articles on Spain & the UK please post on Canvas discussions brief descriptions regarding beliefs and perceptions that impact the teaching of students with disabilities in Europe by exami

PART II

EUROPE

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/marymountu/detail.action?docID=1780814. Created from marymountu on 2018-09-26 20:41:47.

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

THE UNITED KINGDOM

Ron Smith, Lani Florian, Martyn Rouse and

John Anderson

ABSTRACT

This chapter aims to provide a critical analysis of special needs education within the United Kingdom today. Central to such an analysis is an understanding of the rapidly changing social and political milieu within which special needs education is embedded, including the rapidly chan- ging demographics of schooling, and the devolution of political power into four separate but linked countries � England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Following a discussion of such wider social, political and educational issues, the authors explore the convergences and diver- gences in policy and practice across the four devolved administrations. The authors describe a plethora of contemporary policy developments within each of the four administrations that speak to the need for special needs education to change in response to 21st century concerns about the problems of access to, and equity in, education for all children. Despite this, the authors remain extremely circumspect about the potential of many of these developments to lead to successful inclusive practices and developments on the ground � and explain why. The analysis in the

Special Education International Perspectives: Practices Across the Globe

Advances in Special Education, Volume 28, 109�145 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0270-4013/doi:10.1108/S0270-401320140000028011

109

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/S0270-401320140000028011

concluding section focuses on the issue of teacher education for inclusion and some very innovate UK research and development projects that have been reported to successfully engage teachers with new paradigm think- ing and practice in the field of inclusive special needs education.

INTRODUCTION

Understanding that the United Kingdom (UK) is made up of four separate but linked countries � England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales � is an essential starting point for considering special needs education in the United Kingdom today. However, while the strong similarities and links between the different countries and their own educational systems often justifies grouping them for general discussion purposes, this can obscure important differences. Differences in national contexts have resulted in var- iations in special education policy (e.g. in the language used), and practices (e.g. types of data collected), making some direct comparisons difficult � if not impossible. In this chapter, consequently, the shared concerns that are relevant across all of the countries of the United Kingdom are discussed broadly, while differences are identified to make the distinctive nature of each country context explicit. Where data is available, some examples are provided to enable the reader to make comparisons.

This chapter will consist of three major sections each with a number of relevant sub-sections. The common, but mistaken, use of the term England to refer to the United Kingdom or Britain reinforces the misunderstanding that the island of Britain is one country. This error further compounds confusion about the relationships between Britain and the other devolved countries of the United Kingdom. To clarify this situation, Section 1 attempts to contextualize UK developments by, for example, describing changes in the broader UK social milieu within which education � and spe- cial needs education � are embedded. We will also discuss developments within the general school system and some of the recent educational agen- das being forged within the devolved countries. Section 2 focuses on UK developments with respect to special needs education more generally, as well as emerging trends within each of the devolved countries. With respect to special needs education, across the United Kingdom, three discursive influences can be seen to have impacted the consciousness and practice of UK educators, that is, ‘exclusion’, ‘integration or assimilation’ and, more recently, since the adoption and international use of the term inclusion

110 RON SMITH ET AL.

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

(e.g. UNESCO, 1994, 2000), there has been much talk about ‘inclusion’ and ‘inclusive education’. Section 3 addresses selected current issues and challenges, and then discusses some of the implications of these for UK teacher education.

At this stage it should be said that, in order to maintain consistency throughout the book, we have endeavoured to address most of the topics suggested by the editor. However, of necessity, so as to take account of the specific UK context, the writing framework may take a slightly modified form. Nevertheless, the story told in this chapter makes use of the very sub- stantial knowledge base and practical experience of four UK

1 practitioners,

academics and researchers.

SECTION 1: THE UNITED KINGDOM: AN

INTRODUCTION

Essentially, the interrelated but distinct nature of the national contexts of the countries of the United Kingdom is historical. The early 18th century political union of Great Britain brought England, Scotland and Wales under a single form of government in 1707. In 1800 a further Act of Union added Ireland until it was partitioned in 1921 to become the Irish Free State. However, during this time of political change, Northern Ireland opted to remain a part of the United Kingdom, hence today references to the United Kingdom are to Great Britain and Northern Ireland, also commonly (although incorrectly) referred to as Britain.

While education in each of the four countries has many features in com- mon, Scotland and Northern Ireland have always had separate systems. Historically Scotland’s education system has served as a distinctive marker of national identity and pride; an aspect indeed of resistance to assimilation with England (Anderson, 2003). In Northern Ireland, but for different historical and political reasons, in part due to the direct rule by the Westminster Parliament, educational reforms have generally followed developments in England and Wales, which until recently, operated a uni- fied system. However, the devolution of political powers within the United Kingdom more broadly has led to the emergence of a distinct system of education in Wales since 2007 that is the responsibility of the Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (DCELLS) (Welsh Assembly Government, 2010). Devolution has also led to further distinc- tions in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

111Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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 Social Fabric of the United Kingdom

Like other countries in Europe, the United Kingdom has been undergoing rapid economic changes brought about in part by the decline of many traditional industries and mining. Heavy engineering (e.g. iron and steel manufacturing, ship building, volume car making) has been replaced by hi-tech industries and the service sector (tourism and financial services). At the same time as these major economic changes, the United Kingdom is becoming increasingly urban and multicultural (de Blij, 2005). Government statistics estimate the population to be 67 million people (Office for National Statistics, 2012). Table 1 shows the 2011 census estimate for the main ethnic group categories. However, regional variations are substantial.

The United Kingdom has a long history of immigration and identifies itself as a multicultural society with a tradition of offering opportunity to others and refuge to those escaping persecution or hardship elsewhere (Home Office, 2007). After the Second World War, the government wel- comed immigrants who were needed to help rebuild Britain. From the 1950s immigrants arrived from the former British colonies in the Caribbean and South Asia, and this is reflected in the relatively large ethnic minority groups from India and Pakistan. In recent years, the enlargement of the European Union (EU) has resulted in a new wave of immigrants from the accession states of Eastern and South Eastern Europe. Additionally, an

Table 1. The 2011 Census Estimate for the Main Ethnic Group Categories.

Ethnic Group 2011 (Population) 2011 (%)

White 55,010,359 87.1

White: Irish Traveller 63,193 0.1

Asian or Asian British: Indian 1,451,862 2.3

Asian or Asian British: Pakistani 1,173,892 1.9

Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi 451,529 0.7

Asian or Asian British: Chinese 433,150 0.7

Asian or Asian British: Asian Other 861,815 1.4

Asian or Asian British: Total 4,373,339 7.0

Black or Black British 1,904,684 3.0

British Mixed 1,250,229 2.0

Other (Total) 580,374 0.9

Total 67,594,426 100

Source: Office for National Statistics (2012).

112 RON SMITH ET AL.

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

increasing number of refugees have sought asylum in the United Kingdom from conflicts elsewhere on the world.

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

One of the many consequences of the Second World War was public demand for the post-war world to be better than the pre-war world. As part of the post-war reconstruction, the state took the view that full citizenship demanded the social rights of employment, health, housing and education (Carr & Hartnett, 1997). It was out of these expectations and aspirations that the United Kingdom moved to establish a welfare state, which included a new Education Act providing secondary education for all, and a National Health Service (NHS) that was free at the point of delivery (Board of Education, Education Act, 1944). More than sixty years after it was estab- lished, the NHS remains a crucial element of the social fabric of the United Kingdom and it continues to enjoy high levels of public approval. Nevertheless, since at least the mid-1980s, many of the socially progressive policies associated with the welfare state � particularly in England � have been replaced by a post-welfarist commitment to ‘market democracy and competitive individualism’ (Gewirtz, 2002, p. 2).

The General School System

The United Kingdom has a long history of universal provision of public education. Children between the ages of 5�16 years must attend school (in Northern Ireland the starting age is 4 years), and the majority remain in education beyond the age of 16 years.

2 Education is financed

largely through national taxation with funds distributed through local authorities, although some schools are funded directly by government. Across the United Kingdom, primary schools generally educate both

113Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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

boys and girls, but a small number of secondary schools are single-sex schools.

It is important to point out that in all four countries of the United Kingdom, faith schools are part of the state funded education system. Since compulsory school attendance laws were introduced in the 1870s and 1880s, the state education system developed in partnership with the mainstream Christian churches. Today around a third of maintained schools in England have a religious character (Church of England, Catholic, with a small numbers of Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim schools) (Teachernet, n.d.). In Scotland, the majority of schools are effectively secular and are known as ‘non-denominational’ schools.

Currently in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, after five years of secondary education, the majority of students take examinations in a range of subjects at the level of General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE). The GCSE is a single-subject examination set and marked by inde- pendent examination boards. Students usually take up to 10 (there is no upper or lower limit) GCSE examinations in different subjects, including Mathematics and English language. After taking GCSEs, students may leave secondary school or they may choose to stay on at school for two more years (years 12 and 13), or continue their education at a further education college where a range of courses are available. Students who are aiming for university normally take A-Level (short for Advanced Level) examinations. Results on GCSE and A-level examinations are not only important for indi- vidual young people; they are also used to compare schools.

Recent reports of poor performances in international tests of mathe- matics, reading and science made headline news across the United King- dom. For example, the Programme for International Student Assessment Tests (PISA), which are administered every three years by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2007), indicated that the United Kingdom’s recent performance had ‘flat-lined’ while competitors had improved. The United Kingdom remained stuck among the average, middle-ranking countries; in 26th place for mathematics and 23rd for reading, broadly similar to three years earlier. In science, the United Kingdom was reported to have slipped downwards, from 16th to 21st place, in a downward trend for results in the subject. In a breakdown of the UK results, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland were clustered around the average. Furthermore, the results were particularly poor for Wales which trailed behind the rest of the United Kingdom in all three subjects (British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC], 2013).

114 RON SMITH ET AL.

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 all four devolved administrations of the United Kingdom, recent curriculum reforms have resulted in what might be called the official curri- culum (as opposed to the planned and informal or hidden curricula) becoming a much more demand-led system of skills acquisition with in-built flexibility and responsiveness. For example, from 2008 in England, schools have had a duty to consider the potential of the National Curriculum inclusion statement to improve teaching and learning � a duty to consider the flexibilities that exist to modify or personalize the curricu- lum and to make it relevant to student’s strengths and interests.

Teaching�Learning Agendas within the Four Countries

There is a national curriculum in England, which consists of English, mathematics, science, design and technology, information and communica- tion technology, history, geography, modern languages, music, art and design, physical education, and citizenship. In addition to these subjects, there are a number of other compulsory courses, such as religious educa- tion. Children also take national curriculum-based tests at age 7, 11 and 14 years. The school level results in England are public and are used to con- struct league tables of school performance (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority [QCA], 1999).

Since May 2010, with the formation of a new right-wing-leaning coalition Government between the Conservative and the Liberal Democratic parties, schooling in England has seen further significant changes. These have included: the introduction of Higher Education tuition fees; the eradication of the Education Maintenance Grant (EMA; financial support for 16 to 18 year-olds who want to continue their education after school leaving age); the introduction of Academies and ‘Free Schools’ and proposals to change the National Curriculum and assessment arrangements. Academies were almost exclusively opened by the former Labour Government in areas of multiple social deprivation to replace under-performing comprehensives. They are free of local authority control, gain funding directly from the gov- ernment, and head teachers (Principals) are given almost complete freedom over such issues as, for example, budgets, the curriculum, hiring staff, term times and the length of school day. Now, however, all schools can apply for academy-style freedoms and Secondary schools ranked ‘outstanding’ by the statutory Inspection quango (Ofsted) are being fast-tracked into the pro- gramme while other schools will undergo a more rigorous screening process.

115Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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 in Wales 3 is distinctly Welsh both in terms of the languages of

education and the curriculum. Education is seen as playing a key role in the development of a bilingual country and Welsh Government policy is com- mitted to upholding the right of all children to be educated through the medium of Welsh, if their parents so wish. There is also an expectation that the curriculum should be distinctly Welsh in terms of the opportunities lear- ners get to develop and apply their knowledge across the curriculum. While the national curriculum initially applied to Wales, a National Curriculum Council has retained oversight of the curriculum and undertakes a 5-yearly review cycle. Recently there has been considerable investment in the devel- opment of the statutory curriculum for all 3�5 year-olds (the Foundation stage). The perception that Wales performs poorly in international compari- sons of attainment with other countries of the United Kingdom has also had a major influence on recent education policy in Wales, with new literacy and numeracy frameworks and tests for 7�14-year-olds being introduced during 2012 (Welsh Assembly Government, 2012).

In 2000, the Scottish Executive of the newly created devolved Scottish Parliament set five national priorities for education. These were: achieve- ment in attainment; a framework for learning that included supporting and developing the skills of teachers and the self-discipline of pupils; inclusion and equality to promote equity and help every pupil benefit from education; teaching values and citizenship and learning for life. Scotland is currently making the transition to a new ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ designed to give teachers and schools more flexibility and greater curricular coherence across the 3�18 age range. The purpose of the Curriculum for Excellence is encap- sulated in what are called the four capacities � to enable each child or young person to be a successful learner, a confident individual, a responsible citizen and an effective contributor (Learning and Teaching Scotland, n.d.). The assessment and examination arrangements in Scotland are the responsi- bility of the Scottish Qualification Authority (SQA, 2006). The previous tiered system (called The Standard Grade) offered examination papers at three levels (foundation, general and credit). This system has been undergoing review and revision in light of the introduction of Curriculum for Excellence, mentioned above, in order to develop a new framework of national qualifications. As a result, new examination and assessment arrangements are expected to replace Standard Grades in 2014.

No matter the other similarities and differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, educational developments in the province need to be set against the backdrop of almost three decades of political violence which saw over 3700 people killed, and tens of thousands

116 RON SMITH ET AL.

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

of people injured. The declaration of ceasefires by paramilitary groups in 1994 created an opportunity for political dialogue that led, in April 1998, to the Good Friday Peace Agreement (GFPA). The GFPA represented an attempt at a fundamental shift within society, a shift away from a ‘culture of violence’ through the establishment of new democratic structures. It enshrined commitments to pluralism, equality and human rights as essen- tial parts of the settlement. It is now 15 years since the GFPA, and, whilst it represented social and political possibilities of immense significance, to imagine that Northern Ireland had crossed some invisible Rubicon where social conflict magically disappeared would be naı̈ve. A realistic assessment of the present peace process suggests that reconciliation remains as yet an unfulfilled dream.

Segregation features in almost every aspect of life in Northern Ireland: people live, socialize, work and shop in areas where they feel safe (Leitch & Kilpatrick, 1999). Unsurprisingly, segregation also remains a distinctive characteristic of the school system. The vast majority of children and teachers attend schools that can be described as either Protestant (Controlled) or Catholic (Maintained) schools. There has been a trend towards Integrated schools that are attended in roughly equal numbers by Protestant and Catholic students, although, currently, only 7 per cent of the student population attend such institutions.

Northern Ireland retains a selective secondary education system as a result of transfer tests which are no longer regulated by the state because of contentious and unresolved policy changes relating to selective secondary education. This means that, at the age of 11 years, children in Northern Ireland are segregated at the post-primary stage by ability, and, in some cases, by gender.

Prior to 2008, Northern Ireland followed a curriculum framework simi- lar to the English national curriculum. However, from that date, a revised ‘Northern Ireland Curriculum’ was implemented. This aimed to provide better access to the skills and competences perceived as more relevant to a 21st century economy, to provide a richer entitlement and greater choice, and to enable teaching to be adapted more readily to meet pupils’ indivi- dual needs and aspirations. The curriculum also includes the study of the Irish language in all maintained schools and Irish is the language of instruction in a small number of Irish-medium schools (Council for the Curriculum, Examination and Assessment [CCEA], 2000).

In recent years, policy initiatives in Northern Ireland have prioritized issues of school improvement, raising standards, and addressing underachie- vement in literacy and numeracy (Department of Education Northern

117Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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

Ireland, 2008, 2009, 2011). International commitments to establish the abil- ity to read and write as a basic human right (UNESCO, 2000) have been mirrored in Northern Ireland by concerns to raise the literacy and numeracy standards of all children and young people � concerns brought to the fore by a number of influential enquiries and reports critical of the extant situation.

At this point it should also be said that, there has been very little actual legislative reform affecting education in Northern Ireland in the last five years, due to the complexity of the political structures. Significant time lags between the planning and implementation stages of strategies, policies or action plans now appear to be a fact of life in the Province. For some, the peace process is now definitely just a protracted talking shop that, unfortu- nately, is heading into an abyss. The power-sharing arrangements resulting from the GFPA are viewed as only serving to perpetuate the sectarian divide, leaving no room for progressive and reforming voices to be heard. Furthermore, as suggested by O’Donnell (2013), it is the case that the Northern Ireland Executive was framed specifically to suit the post-conflict situation and that it was indeed a strange and limited democratic construct.

Others take a more positive and longer view, pointing to the inevitability of slow progress in the context of transitional societies, and, despite resolu- tion, point to the significant amount of policy consultation and discussion that has occurred. Some academics also point to the work of conflict trans- formation theories and theorists, such as Lederach (1995, 1997), to help contextualize slow progress and lacunae in decision-making within societies emerging from violent conflict.

SECTION 2: SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

General Developments

As in many other countries, there is a long-standing tradition of special school provision in the United Kingdom and many such schools were established during the 20th century to educate children with disabilities. Although the numbers varied in different parts of the United Kingdom, about 2 per cent of children attended special schools. In addition, until the 1970s a very small number of children were in hospitals or attended ‘junior training centres’ run by health authorities. The 1970 Education Act in England and Wales, followed by similar legislation in Scotland in 1974,

118 RON SMITH ET AL.

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 Northern Ireland in 1987, 6 ended the long-standing practice of classify-

ing a small minority of children as uneducable, and put a stop to the arrangements for classifying children suffering from a disability of mind as children unsuitable for education at school. It also took away the power of health authorities and relocated responsibility to education authorities. For the first time in UK history, 100 per cent of school-age children were entitled to education (Vaughn, 2002).

In the 1970s the government established a Committee of Inquiry, chaired by the philosopher (now Baroness) Mary Warnock to undertake a review of special education policy and provision. The recommendations of the Committee report, commonly referred to as the Warnock Report (Department of Education and Science [DES], 1978), formed the basis for further legislative developments across all the four countries. That is, the Education Scotland Act (1980) (SOEID, 1980); the 1981 Education Act in England and Wales (Department of Education and Science [DES], 1981); and the Education Order (1984) in Northern Ireland, (DENI, 1984), which took place from January, 1986. These Acts were informed by Warnock recommendations that stressed the non-categorical nature of disability and an ecological or interactive view of special education need (SEN) which suggested that up to 20 per cent of students may have special educational needs at some point in their educational careers.

The idea that up to 20 per cent of all children might experience difficulty in learning at some time in their school careers required a definition of special educational need that was flexible and sensitive to the range and type of individual differences that make up the school-aged population. Subsequently, children with special educational needs were defined as hav- ing significantly greater difficulty in learning than other children of similar age, or having a disability preventing or hindering the child from making use of mainstream educational facilities, but the term has been problematic. For example, a student with a medical diagnosis or disability does not necessarily have a special educational need, unless special educational provision is needed to access the curriculum. Equally, a child with a special educational need does not necessarily have a disability.

The original intent of a flexible, non-categorical approach to SEN provi- sion was to enable support to be provided to children experiencing difficul- ties in learning without the delay and expense of multi-disciplinary assessment or the stigma of a label. It shifted the focus of special education away from the comfortable certainty of categorical handicaps towards a consideration of learning needs. However, notwithstanding the efforts that had been made to replace individual categories of difficulty with one

119Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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

overarching category, this has proved very difficult in practice for a variety of reasons. Riddell, Weedon, and Harris (2012), for example, noted that parents of children with particular types of difficulty, such as autistic spectrum disorder, and voluntary organizations representing these groups have campaigned for official recognition of specific categories. Government have also found it useful to request local authorities to audit the incidence of particular types of difficulty, partly as an accountability mechanism, but also to inform funding decisions. In England, the practice of gathering data by type of difficulty, which was abandoned following the Warnock Report, was reinstated in the 1990s. More recently, in response to concerns about the lack of specificity in SEN data, the English government has begun to collect data from schools to include 11 categories of SEN: Specific Learning Disability (SpLD), Moderate Learning Difficulty (MLD), Severe Learning Difficulty (SLD), Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulty (PMLD), Emotional and Behavioural Difficulty (EBD), Speech, Language and Communication Needs (SLCN), Hearing Impairment (HI), Visual Impairment (VI), Multi-Sensory Impairment (MSI), Physical Difficulty (PD), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and other (OTH). However, such data are not collected consistently across the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland and Wales, different categorical data are collected. In Scotland, local authorities provide information to the government on the numbers of children with particular types of difficulty (Riddell et al., 2012).

Despite the acknowledgement of the interactive nature of special educa- tional needs, the administrative procedures which have been set out to ensure that children are appropriately supported when they experience difficulty are based on an individual needs approach to provision. Commentators, such as Dyson (2005) have also argued that, in emphasizing the requirement that children and young people should be educated within the least restrictive environment (Frederickson & Cline, 2009), the view of pluralism in practice actually underpinning the Warnock Report, and its associated Education Acts, represented more of an ‘integrationist’ (assimila- tionist) than inclusionist impulse. In other words, children and young people were welcome in mainstream schooling as long as they could be accommodated with additional resources and without having to make too many changes to the regular curriculum. This integrationist discourse was, as Slee (2011) remarked, little more than the calculus of equity, concerned with measuring the extent of a student’s disability with a view to calculating the resource loading to accompany the student into school.

All of the UK countries use a variation of a staged assessment and inter- vention process that is specified in governmental guidance, called a Code of

120 RON SMITH ET AL.

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

Practice. In Table 2, the staged assessment procedure followed in Northern Ireland is outlined. England and Wales follow a similar approach but stages of action are simplified and refer to School Action (Stages 1 and 2), or School Action Plus (Stages 3 and 4), and Statement. In Scotland, a particular staged intervention model is not specified but local education authorities are encouraged to use a wide range of approaches that ‘are built around discrete stages of intervention which seek to resolve difficulties as early as possible and with the least intrusive course of action’ (Scottish Government, 2005).

As can be seen in Table 2, children with complex needs can be referred for what is known in the United Kingdom as ‘statutory assessment’ by a multi-professional team. Such an assessment might lead to a ‘Statement of Special Educational Needs being issued (except in Scotland which issues a Co-ordinated Support Plan, or CSP). Requests for such assessment may be initiated by the school or by the parents and the Statement is reviewed at least annually. As in other countries, following an individual needs approach to SEN provision, there are guidelines to ensure parents’ and children’s views are included in this planning process. The Statement and CSP are statutory documents that specify the educational and other provi- sion that is required to meet complex needs.

As in other countries, the relational definition of special needs education as that which is ‘additional to’ or ‘different from’ that provided to others of similar age characterizes the legal definitions of special or additional sup- port needs in the United Kingdom. As a result, there are many forms of

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

Stage 1 Teachers identify and register a child’s special educational needs and, consulting the

school’s SEN co-ordinator, take initial action.

Stage 2 The SEN co-ordinator takes lead responsibility for collecting and recording

information and for coordinating the child’s special educational provision,

working with the child’s teachers.

Stage 3 Teachers and the SEN co-ordinator are supported by specialists from outside the

school.

Stage 4 The Board (similar to Local Education Authority in England and Wales) considers

the need for a statutory assessment and, if appropriate, makes a multi-disciplinary

assessment.

Stage 5 The Board considers the need for a statement of special educational needs; if

appropriate, it makes a statement and arranges, monitors and reviews provision.

Source: DENI (1998).

121Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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

provision in mainstream and special schools, some of which is categorical and some of which is not. Provision may be made in special schools, special units attached to mainstream schools or in mainstream classes. Many main- stream schools offer ‘resourced provision’ or special ‘bases’ for children with particular difficulties, but the majority of children with special or addi- tional support needs are educated full-time in mainstream classes, bringing in specialist support as required. Schools in Northern Ireland, England and Wales have a designated SENCo (a special educational needs co-ordinator) responsible for managing provision for students with SEN. In Scotland, teachers who provide specialist support are referred to as Support for Learning Coordinators.

As suggested above, during the post-war period, and following the Warnock Report (DES, 1978) special needs education across the United Kingdom developed along broadly parallel lines. Following the prominence given to the concept of inclusion in education with, for example, the UNESCO Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), the language of inclu- sion started to become assimilated within UK legislation. Within England, Wales and Scotland for example, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 (SENDA; Department for Education and Skills [DfES], 2001), amended Part 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) enhan- cing the rights of disabled children and their parents by prohibiting discrimi- nation against disabled pupils and prospective pupils. Discrimination was defined as failure to make reasonable adjustments or the provision of less favourable treatment for a reason relating to the pupil’s disability. Similar legislation was introduced in Northern Ireland through the Special Educational Needs and Disability Order (NI) 2005 (DENI, 2005).

Early Years Provision

In the United Kingdom there is a long-standing tradition of early years edu- cation, and care for children under the age of 5 years is provided by a wide range of professionals. Childminders, private day care, voluntary sector playgroups, and local authority nursery classes and (in England) all are considered part of early years provision. For children under age 5 years, publicly funded nurseries and pre-schools are available for a limited number of hours each week. Providers of early years education vary enormously in terms of their qualifications and training. While trained teachers will be working in all classes based in school settings (reception and nursery classes), this is unlikely in private day nurseries or voluntary sector

122 RON SMITH ET AL.

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

playgroups. In these settings staffs are likely to have qualifications relating to the care of young children, rather than a teaching qualification.

All of the countries of the United Kingdom make provision for children with disabilities and complex needs from birth. The Codes of Practice that accompany special education legislation outline a framework for the provi- sion of services to children from birth through the school years. While the referral for services may be initiated by anyone, in many cases it is the early years practitioners who begin the process of identifying children with spe- cial or additional needs. It is common for practitioners to liaise (often through parents/carers) with other agencies � particularly medical � if children have been identified with an impairment of any kind. In these cases, families may be in receipt of disability living allowance, and addi- tional funds will be available to settings and families to fund additional support in addition to access to specialist provision (e.g. speech therapy and physiotherapy). Children with statements of special educational need are given privileged access to settings offering specialist provision/provision that are considered particularly suitable. In some cases this may mean that a child attends a setting outside of the catchment schools their peers would be expected to attend. In such cases additional funding for transport is provided.

Contemporary Developments within the Four Countries

England In England and Wales such inclusive policy developments have also existed alongside a broader set of educational reforms having very different policy intent. The 1988 Education Act introduced a national curriculum (which specified content), and a national assessment (which specified standards), along with a series of other changes designed to align the schooling system with the methods, cultures and ethical systems of private sector organiza- tions. Ball (2003) described the processes and effects of this post-welfarist social policy realignment as the terrors of performativity. Privileged within performative cultures were outputs rather than beliefs, values or authentic relationships, and conformity to very narrowly defined attainment targets and performance criteria (Wrigley, 2005).

Initial optimism that the consumerism, marketization and manageral- ism pursued during the late 1980s across the English public sector would be moderated during the thirteen year period of the New Labour Government (1997�2010) was soon dampened. A plethora of educational

123Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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

policies were introduced during this period targeting special needs educa- tion, social, and educational inclusion (including SENDA; see above). Indeed, as Norwich (2013a) suggested, because social inclusion became a central pillar of social, economic and educational policy, the conditions for inclusive education were probably at their optimal during this time. Despite this, critical commentaries on the actual inclusive impact of what became known as New Labour’s ‘Third-Way’, make uncomfortable read- ing. In terms of inclusive education, Dyson (2005) argued that wider post-welfarist social policy developments in England had contained inher- ent contradictions and ambiguities that changed very little in practice. Indeed, despite its laudable aims, he argued that the most disadvantaged children and young people � who traditionally make up the largest pro- portion of children identified as having special educational needs � con- tinued to be at the greatest risk of impoverished educational experiences, low achievement and limited life chances. Children living in poverty, and/ or those with special educational needs, had been made more vulnerable as schools serving areas of deprivation struggled to compete in the educa- tional market (see also, Gillborn & Youdell, 2000; McLaughlin & Rouse, 2000).

In May 2010, a Coalition between the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties came to power with a manifesto dedicated to opposing the previous Government’s ‘bias to inclusion’,

7 as well as legislate for a

more choice-based approach to provision for children with disabilities and difficulties in English schools (Norwich, 2013a). In March 2011, a Green Paper (DFE, 2011) laid out the government’s vision for a new system to support children and young people identified as having special educational needs and disabilities. Following consultation, the government (DFE, 2012) set out its next stage towards new legislation in the form of a Children and Families Bill (DFE, 2013). This had its first reading in the House of Commons in February 2013 and covered six key areas of reform. The key measures with regard to special needs education included:

• A single assessment process (0�25) axing the current system of ‘School Action’ and ‘School Action Plus’ assessments, and replacing them with a single stage called ‘SEN

Support’;

• An Education, Health and Care plan (EHC) to replace the Statement;

• An offer of a personal budget for families with an Education, Health and Care plan;

• A requirement for local authorities and health services to jointly plan and commis-

sion services;

• A requirement on local authorities to publish a local offer indicating the support

available to those with special educational needs and disabilities and their families.

(Friswell & Petersen, 2013, pp. 14�15)

124 RON SMITH ET AL.

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 general direction taken by this government has attracted criticism from many educators. Far from creating greater equality, some changes are anticipated to perpetuate inequalities both in schools and higher education (Bhopal & Maylor, 2014). With regard to special educational needs, inclu- sion is viewed narrowly in terms of school placement and is seen as a private as opposed to a public policy matter. Whether this ‘SEN market’ leads to better provision and services, or becomes a recipe for chaos, remains to be seen. However, what seems clear, as Norwich (2013b) suggested, is that the policy was not evidence-informed. Though the Government had initiated pilot developments across the country to test out its broad ideas, legislation was forging ahead before lessons had been learned from these pilots (Norwich, 2013b).

Data collated in 2012 by the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education [EADSNE], 2012)

8 indicated that there were 7,504,300

children and young people in publicly funded schools in England. Approximately 18 per cent of these were categorized as having an SEN, whilst an additional 2.7 per cent � representing those with the greatest phy- sical or mental health needs � held a statement of SEN. Overall the propor- tion of children in English special schools reduced from about 1.8 per cent of the school population in 1983 to about 1.3 per cent in the year 2000 (Norwich, 2002). Since then, depending on the formula used, the proportion in special schools has remained largely unchanged at about 1.1 per cent (Ofsted, 2010; cited in Norwich, 2013a). The most prevalent type of SEN are those children and young people identified as having moderate learning difficulties (MLD), and the second largest group consists of those identified as having behavioural, social and emotional difficulties (BSED).

Scotland Scotland did not adopt the same market-based reforms as England and con- tinues to have a largely comprehensive system of education. Until fairly recently, special needs education in Scotland was governed by a legal frame- work established within the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 as amended by the 1981 Act (Hodkinson & Vickerman, 2009). However, in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) Scotland Act 2004

9 (Scottish Executive

Education Department [SEED], 2004a), the language of special education was dropped and replaced with the arguably more inclusive terminology of ‘additional support needs’ (ASN). The inclusiveness of the ASN term, and its differentiation from SEN, was explained in a summary handout provided by the Scottish Executive Education Department (SEED, 2004b). This

125Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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

indicated that ASN referred to any child or young person who would benefit from extra help in order to overcome barriers to their learning (SEED, 2004b). The Act stipulated that an ASN might arise from any factor which caused a barrier to learning, whether that factor related to social, emotional, cognitive, linguistic, disability, or family and care circumstances. For exam- ple, additional support needs might be required for a child or young person who: was being bullied; was identified as having behavioural difficulties; had a sensory of mobility impairment; was at risk or was bereaved (SEED, 2004b). The legislation put into place a raft of additional measures to increase parental rights and local authority accountability. It abolished the Record of Needs and established a new document called the Co-ordinated Support Plan (CSP) to record the needs of children with multiple, complex and enduring difficulties requiring significant multi-agency support (Riddell et al., 2012). Finally, as Riddell et al. (2012) noted, the ASL Act put in place a number of new dispute-resolution mechanisms, outlined in a new Code of Practice (Scottish Executive, 2005).

Data collected by EADSNE indicated that, in January 2012, there were 585,289 children and young people in publicly funded schools (369,093 in primary schools, 216,196 in secondary schools and 5,595 in special schools) in Scotland. The proportion of children in special schools was approxi- mately 1 per cent. A larger number of categories of difficulty are used in Scotland (18 in total) for monitoring purposes. The largest category (learn- ing disability) accounted for about a fifth of all pupils with ASN, while the second largest category (social emotional and behavioural difficulties), accounted for just over 15 per cent. Together, these two included just over one-third of the ASN population (Riddell et al., 2012).

Wales The organization of special needs education in Wales (Welsh Assembly Government, 2009), and the definition of SEN, are exactly the same as those to be found in England (Hodkinson & Vickerman, 2009). As sug- gested above, Wales does have its own Code of Practice and the legal provi- sion of special education is governed by the Education (SEN) (Wales) Regulations 2002.

10 However, at the present time, the Welsh Government

is consulting on a new legislative framework having many elements in com- mon with the English Children and Families Bill (DFE, 2013). For exam- ple, the new legislation proposes:

• As part of a policy to make the field more inclusive of other children who have addi-

tional needs � but not disabilities/impairments � to replace the SEN terminology and give a statutory footing to the concept of Additional Learning Needs (AN);

126 RON SMITH ET AL.

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

• To replace SEN statements with new integrated Individual Development Plans

(IDP);

• For those with severe and/or complex needs, extend multi-agency arrangements from

birth to twenty-five;

• Set out the duties to be imposed on relevant bodies such as local authorities and the

National Health Service (NHS);

• Shift the emphasis away from dealing with disputes and complaints from parents/

carers, towards a strategy of prevention and early resolution of concerns and

disagreements;

• Impose a duty on the Welsh Ministers to issue a code of practice in relation to the

new statutory framework for AN;

• Impose a duty on relevant bodies to collaborate in respect of AN provision.

(Welsh Assembly Government, 2012, p. 4)

According to Ware (2013), the scale and diversity of the legislative changes currently underway in Wales, combined with the bilingual nature of Wales and a demographic that is quite distinct from England,

11 makes it difficult

to predict their overall effects on special needs education. There are, none- the-less, some concerns over the impact of certain of these changes includ- ing the cost of the Welsh Language/Welsh Medium Education Strategy and the problem of distinguishing whether initial difficulties with the curri- culum are as a consequence of being educated through a second language or of learning difficulties. Differences between Welsh Medium (W-M) and English Medium (E-M) schools have also been reported. For example, the former are reported to have: less diverse populations than E-M schools; a lower proportion of children with statements (2 per cent in W-M and 3 per cent in E-M) and significantly fewer children having free-school meals

(Ware, 2013).

Northern Ireland As described in Section 1, as a result of direct rule, the philosophy under- pinning educational special needs legislation and guidance in Northern Ireland has historically closely mirrored developments in England. Indeed, the present framework, as implemented by the Education Order (Northern Ireland) 1984, was effectively outlined by the Warnock Report (DES, 1978). However, shortly after devolved powers were restored to a Northern Ireland Assembly (October, 2009), the new Northern Ireland Minister of Education initiated a process of public consultation on the policy text entitled: Every School a Good School: The Way Forward for Special Needs Education and Inclusion in Northern Ireland

13 (DENI, 2009). Uniquely in

the history of Northern Irish educational policy-making, this policy text was initially conceived under direct rule from the English Parliament at

127Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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

Westminster (April, 2006), and consulted upon at a time when devolved powers had been restored to a Northern Ireland Assembly.

The consultation document presented an extremely comprehensive set of 26 policy proposals (see Table 3), with the stated intention of operationalizing … ‘a new, stronger, more comprehensive, more robust, inclusive framework for meeting a wide diversity of educational need, based on the broader inclusive concept of additional educational needs’ (DENI, 2008, p. 3).

Whilst the reasons for the fundamental review were overwhelmingly framed in instrumental terms, not dissimilar to some of those related to English and Welsh proposed reforms (e.g. the bureaucracy of the current SEN framework, inconsistencies and delays in assessment and provision, the steeply rising cost of the provision for SEN, the year on year increase

Table 3. Outline of Main Proposals in the DENI Fundamental Review of SEN and Inclusion.

1. Inclusion � Additional Educational Needs (AEN) Model 2. Inclusion � role of special schools 3. Early identification and intervention framework

4. Early identification and intervention � personal learning plans 5. Pre-school settings � PEAGs settings within revised SEN framework 6. Pre-school settings � pupil support services in PEAGs settings 7. Pre-school settings � early identification officers 8. Training and development � initial teacher education 9. Training and development � INSET/capacity building 10. SENCo � name change to learning support co-ordinator 11. Learning support co-ordinator � career pathway 12. The learning support co-ordinator � diagnostic testing 13. Stages of the SEN framework

14. Co-ordinated support plans (CSPs)

15. Co-ordinated support plans � complex and multiple needs criteria 16. Co-ordinated support plans � annual reviews of CSPs 17. Transition points � Access to transitions support services 18. Developing effective partnerships � between education and health and social care 19. Multi-disciplinary groups (MGs)

20. Effective partnerships with parents and carers

21. Effective partnerships with children and young people

22. Resolution and appeals mechanism � dispute avoidance and resolution services (DARS) 23. Resolution and appeals mechanism � special educational needs and disability tribunal 24. Funding � local management of schools 25. Introduction of CSPs � transitional arrangements 26. Introduction of CSPs � transitional arrangements

128 RON SMITH ET AL.

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 the number of children issued with statements and the need for clear accountability on resource utilization

14 ), there were some value-driven pro-

posals that provided much encouragement to Northern Irish practitioners and researchers who had long advocated for a genuine ‘re-visioning’ of the SEN task. For example, on the occasion of the introduction of the Code of Practice in Northern Ireland, some 25 years earlier, just such a re-visioning had been recommended by Dyson and Millward (1998) as part of their DENI commissioned research to baseline the introduction of the SEN Code of Practice. At that time, Dyson and his team intimated that policy and practice in many N. Irish schools was based on a model which was not fully aligned with the model implied by the Code. Discerning practitioners read this comment as suggesting that extant prac- tice was underpinned by a deficit model of SEN including: a narrow con- ception of SEN (relating principally to difficulties in literacy and numeracy); a tendency to respond to those difficulties outside the main- stream class (in withdrawal groups or ‘bottom’ sets) and undeveloped ideas of how children identified with a wide range of SEN could be supported throughout the school.

The Fundamental Review spoke to the aim of setting in place a dynamic programme of transformation of Special Needs Education in Northern Ireland. However, seven years further on, the final text has yet to see the light of day. On the other hand, during April 2012, the Minister of Education presented his recommendations, or ‘directions for travel,’ to the Northern Ireland Education Committee (DENI, 2012a). From this it appears that only 4 of the original 26 policy targets will form part of the new framework

15 ; that is, Personal Learning Plans will replace individua-

lized learning plans; SENCos will be called Learning Support Coordinators (LSCs); there will be a 3 phase SEN framework instead of 5, and some Statements will be set out in the form of a Co-ordinated Support Plan or CSP (DENI, 2012b).

For a number of years, one of the co-authors of this chapter has underta- ken research designed to illuminate the way in which Special Needs Education policy is made and implemented in Northern Ireland (see, e.g. Barr & Smith, 2009; Smith & Barr, 2008). Drawing mostly upon critical policy analysis (see, e.g. Ball, 1994, 2003, 2008; Ozga, 2000), he has underta- ken a probing case study of the text and trajectory of the Fundamental Review. While his analysis tells a fascinating story of Special Needs Education in Northern Ireland (Smith, 2013), his conclusions are extremely disappointing from the perspective of progressing an inclusive special needs education that supports and welcomes diversity amongst all learners.

129Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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

He persuasively demonstrates that very little of a fundamental or transfor- matory nature has actually occurred as a consequence of this protracted pol- icy cycle; apart from the strengthening and formalising of procedures chiefly as a means of regulating the contents around identification and resource allocation. The transformative nature of these proposals was initially brea- ched below the waterline by some extremely confusing and contradictory messages related to the key concepts of ‘additional educational needs’, ‘inclusion’ and ‘barriers to learning’. Then, during policy discussions, further erosion occurred as these incoherent messages were variously interpreted and misinterpreted by competing interests. For example, from the perspec- tive of inclusive education understood in terms of access, equity and quality education for all, the ‘barriers to learning’ concept refers specifically to fea- tures of the school and classroom context that discriminate and exclude. However, this was clearly not what the concept meant within this policy text. With its frequent use of language that referred to ‘children with barriers to learning’ and ‘children’s difficulties’, little if any progress appeared to have been made in moving away from conceptualizing educational difficul- ties in terms of individual pathologies. The maintenance of a highly indivi- dualized needs-orientated view of resourcing within these proposals was the logical outcome of the highly individualistic gaze adopted. The vision of inclusion has retained some very traditional approaches towards special needs education, and for this reason, reinforces some less enlightening views of children who experienced difficulties or disabilities (see also, Armstrong, Armstrong, & Spandagou, 2011).

Finally, Smith (2013) drew attention to some interesting discursive continuities with New Labour policy on inclusive education. Whilst these continuities tallied with English SEN discourse at the time of its inception, it was their implications for the trajectory of inclusive education in Northern Ireland that fuelled concern. Here, the author was particularly anxious not to leave unchallenged the way in which a human capital notion of economic development might destabilize the development of a more local and relevant model of inclusion. Embracing as it does the moral and ontological primacy of the person over claims of social col- lectivity, post-welfarist policy developments in England provide an inap- propriate worldview for advancing the sorts of transformations in human relationships required for a society emerging from 30 years of violent eth- nopolitical conflict. As Bottery (2000) starkly remarked, the first part of the Third-Way agenda involved accepting the reality of the market, whilst the second part meant devising policies that ‘brought the losers’ along’ (Bottery, 2000, p. 33).

130 RON SMITH ET AL.

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

SECTION 3: SELECTED CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

AND CHALLENGES FOR INCLUSIVE TEACHER

EDUCATION

As contemporary societies become more heterogeneous, and, as inclusive education reforms gain currency across the world, educational systems are being challenged to address some very fundamental questions related to the accommodation of difference. In tandem with the demographic develop- ments described in Section 1, there has been a growing recognition across the United Kingdom that the field of special needs education requires to change in response to 21st century concerns about the problems of access to, and equity in, education for all children. For example, in 2006, a House of Commons Report into Special Educational Needs in England suggested that the Warnock framework for supporting pupils identified as having special educational needs was based on an outdated model of society and was now ‘not fit for purpose’ (House of Commons Education and Skills Committee [HCESC], 2006, p. 12). It recommended a thoroughgoing exam- ination of provision for special educational needs (Warnock, Norwich, & Terzi, 2010). In 2009, the Lamb Inquiry on Special Educational Needs and Parental Confidence in England reported that securing appropriate educa- tional support could be a battle for some families. Furthermore, whilst almost all students (98�99 per cent) were now educated in mainstream schools, and many were indeed well supported and made good progress, too many others had a far less positive experience (Department for Children, Schools and Families [DCFS], 2009). As Kilpatrick and Hunter noted, albeit with reference to the situation in Northern Ireland, a great deal remained to be done before school systems could be said to be … inclusive (cited in Donnelly, McKeown, & Osborne, 2006).

While subsequent legislative changes have indeed been considerable, our analysis in Section 2 leaves us rather circumspect about the potential of a number of these policy innovations to encourage successful inclusive prac- tices and developments on the ground. The way in which inclusive values work out in practice is extremely complex, messy and problematic (Dyson, 2005). They need to be seen as embedded within wider national social, eco- nomic and political processes and the prevailing meaning structures, values and range of pedagogies and curricula within these wider political contexts (Clark, Dyson, Millward, & Skidmore, 1997). We intimated, for example, that messy, contradictory, confused and unclear policy discourses, as well as the effects of competing reforms (especially those geared towards school’s

131Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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

performance and measurable outcomes), left the practice of inclusion open to interpretation and distortion (see also, Armstrong et al., 2011). Slee (2011) argued that policy discourses should always be interrogated in order to determine whether they connoted a signing on to an agenda for cultural work, or liberal assimilation. His warning to never underestimate the resili- ence of the traditional forms of thinking to appropriate new turf appeared to us to be compellingly prescient. As Thomas (2013) suggested: ‘inclusion has to be conceived with many surfaces, disability certainly, and social jus- tice no less, but now other facets of life at school: community, social capital, equality, and respect’ (p. 474). The emphasis in relation to inclusion was now on looking to the classroom and school context for barriers to learning, and ensuring that provision for the majority of students is sufficiently flex- ible to accommodate students who cause concern.

Despite this, and despite the fact that special educational needs within the United Kingdom are not actually defined in law by child characteristics (see Section 2), limited concrete progress appears to have been made in moving away from deficit views and beliefs about children and young peo- ple whose school progress causes concern. Furthermore, limited movement has occurred away from a highly individualised needs orientated view of resourcing. The dominant model of SEN in policy texts seems to have remained firmly focused on viewing difference as an individual deviance, problem or pathology.

Throughout this period, a number of attitudes and practices derived from the difference as individual deviance viewpoint have remained central to the discursive consciousness of teachers, such that that they continue into the 21st century as taken-for-granted assumptions underpinning prac- tice. For example, when learning differences are viewed as having arisen from pupil shortcomings, then this all too easily translates into an accep- tance that such children require provision that is ‘different from’ or ‘addi- tional to’ that which is ordinarily available in classrooms (Florian, 2009). Despite the scarce empirical evidence to substantiate a specific pedagogical distinction for pupils labelled as having SEN, the latter continue to be seen by mainstream teachers as requiring to be dealt with by experts; in other words, seen to be ‘someone else’s problem’ (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2002). This ‘ideology of expertism’ serves to relieve mainstream schools of the pressure to respond to diverse students and consequently perpetuates and even strengthens a divisive ideology that impinges upon efforts to cre- ate more inclusive schooling environments (Troyna & Vincent, 1996, p. 385). The research programme undertaken in primary and secondary set- tings by Avramidis et al. (2002), identified a culture where teachers,

132 RON SMITH ET AL.

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

pressurized by the ‘standards agenda’, felt that they were only responsible for the learning outcomes of 80 per cent of the children in their classes, the remaining 20 per cent being the responsibility of the SEN teacher. Finally, there is evidence that dominant modes of assessment associated with deficit models of SEN are discriminatory to a diverse range of groups and neglect- ful of areas such as ethnicity, gender and class (e.g. Fernando, 2010). As Thomas (2013) noted, statistics reveal that it is minority populations of various kinds who were (and still are) identified as having learning or beha- viour difficulties, and who were (and still are) disproportionately selected for special provision (e.g. Tomlinson, 1982).

Today, across the United Kingdom, there is a conflict between the pro- tection offered by the individual needs approach to meeting special educa- tional needs as operationalized by Statements or CSPs and the resources that accompany them, and contemporary views of good practice in edu- cating all students. For example, research on teaching assistants (TAs) (Farrell, Balshaw, & Polat, 1999) urges a shift away from the one-to-one allocation of TAs to individual pupils with Statements in favour of model whereby TAs work alongside teachers in support of learning for all pupils. But problems occur when Statements specify resource allocations (such as a fixed number of hours of adult support) that are at odds with good practice. Ironically, the manner by which Statements specify resources for children may not support their learning. That there is a con- flict between contemporary knowledge of good practice and Statements, a tool developed twenty years ago when a different view of provision prevailed is not surprising. Statements were designed to ensure that resources followed children. Today’s challenge is to separate the protec- tion offered by the Statement from the means by which that protection is offered.

Teacher Education for Inclusion

The effective preparation of teachers through Initial Teacher Education (ITE) and the further development of teachers through career long profes- sional development (CLPL) are two crucial (and challenging) spaces through which education can try to meet the needs of diverse groups of learners (Beck, 2014). Calls for reform in teacher education (TE) are increasingly made in response to dissatisfaction with student performance and poor outcomes, particularly relating to the ‘long-tail of underachieve- ment’ of specific groups such as students from ethnic majorities, those

133Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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

living in poverty, or those who may have additional needs associated with disability or language.

In 1988 separate training of special education teachers at pre-service level was ended, in part, because such separate training had created a group of teachers who were themselves segregated and were seen as a barrier to inclu- sion. Currently, most initial teacher education modules, courses or inputs on additional needs, multicultural education, and ‘inclusion’, are offered as optional extras, available to only some students. Even in cases where these options are required, courses tend to focus on the characteristics of particu- lar kinds of learners, how they should be identified and specialist teaching strategies; that is, a Grey’s Anatomy approach to special education where they are ‘instructed in the pathology of human differences and defects’ (Slee, 2011, p. 155). As Florian (2013) noted, the main problem here is that the content knowledge of such courses is often not well integrated into the broader curriculum and pedagogical practices of mainstream classroom settings. On courses where input on inclusion is ‘infused’ across all course elements, the coverage is limited, and tends to reinforce the view that the education of students identified as having difficulties in learning is the pri- mary responsibility of specialists rather than class teachers with the support of specialists (Florian & Pantic, 2013). Smith (2010) found that a popular approach to infusion within subject disciplines was the intuitively appealing, but fundamentally deterministic and limiting approach, focused on matching teaching to the apparent deficit characteristics or attributes of categorized groups of learners. Not only this, despite the research evidence demonstrat- ing that the judgements teachers make about students’ learning ability limited what was possible for students to achieve (see, e.g. Ball, 1981; Boaler, William, & Brown, 2000; Hart, Dixon, Drummond, & McIntyre, 2004), he found that ability grouping and ability labelling held very high associations amongst student teachers in Northern Ireland at the end of their course as a strategy for meeting special educational needs.

However, over the past few years, the authors of this chapter have witnessed how innovative inclusive teacher education can help prepare teachers to respond to diversity without relying on different kind of pro- grammes, and transform deficit thinking about ability and disability. Limitations of space here permit only a cursory mention of four very innovative UK Research and Development Projects.

Scotland’s Inclusive Practice Project (IPP; 2006�2011) The IPP was funded by the Scottish Government and aimed at preparing primary and secondary teachers to enter a profession in which they took

134 RON SMITH ET AL.

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

responsibility for the learning and achievement of all learners (Rouse & Florian, 2012). The IPP adopted an approach to initial teacher education based on the idea that a child’s capacity to learn was not fixed, but could be enhanced based on what teachers did today. The project Directors (Professors Lani Florian and Martyn Rouse, then at the University of Aberdeen, School of Education) began with the view that there was a need to change current thinking about inclusive education as providing some- thing ‘additional to’ or ‘different from’ that which was ‘otherwise available’ to others of similar age in mainstream schools (Rouse & Florian, 2012). A key aspect of this approach was to think of inclusive teaching as making a range of opportunities available to everyone in the classroom so that all children could participate in learning activities. In this way, individual needs could be catered for but individual pupils were not singled out as being ‘less able’ or different. This position was based on the view that the central task in preparing new teachers was not to defend the need to accommodate learner differences, but to challenge assumptions about the adequacy of what was ‘otherwise available’ to the majority of learners. The follow up study of programme graduates confirmed that the approach was helpful to newly qualified teachers. Programme graduates reported that the course provided a framework for supporting the development of inclusive practice in the classroom. Observations of their practice supported this claim (see also Florian, 2012; Florian, 2013; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Florian & Linklater, 2010; Rouse & Florian, 2012).

The National Framework for Inclusion (Scotland) The Scottish Government (2009) recognized that inclusive education was of high priority and that teachers needed to be well prepared and appropri- ately supported throughout their careers if they were to succeed in develop- ing and sustaining inclusive practices. With the support of the Scottish Government (2009), the Scottish Teacher Education Committee (STEC) set up a working group in order to develop a National Framework for Inclusion. This group consisted of course Directors and inclusion specialists representing all seven universities involved in initial teacher education. Their remit was to develop a framework which would identify what was to be expected of student teachers and of qualified teachers at whatever stage of their careers, that is values and beliefs; professional knowledge and understanding; and skills and abilities. The STEC Framework highlights the principles of inclusive practice, social justice, inclusion, and learning and teaching, in the context of current policy and legislation. It adopts a broad definition of inclusion covering additional support needs, poverty,

135Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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

culture and language, and is informed by relevant aspects of UK Government’s new Equality Bill (Government Equalities Office, 2010). It attempts to promote inclusion as being the responsibility of all teachers, in all schools, and builds upon existing innovative practice within the universi- ties of Scotland, to provide a secure basis for planning courses in teacher education and professional learning.

The Contribution of Planned Activities in One-Year Postgraduate Teaching Programmes (PGCE) in England During 2007�2008, evaluative research was carried out by the PGCE Tutor Team at Exeter University (Lawson & Nash, 2010) on the idea of requiring student teachers, during one of their Teaching Practices (TPs), to undertake a piece of assessment and teaching with one pupil whose name was on the school’s SEN register, or had a Statement of SEN. As reported by Lawson and Nash (2010), this intensive and extensive evaluation led to further developments and improvements which, in turn, led to the type of task becoming promoted by the Training Development Agency for Schools (TDA) for use across all English PGCE Programmes (see, Training and Development Agency for Schools, 2009a, 2009b). The specific aims of the task were to help student teachers: develop their practical knowledge, skills and positive attitudes by teaching a pupil identified as having learning diffi- culties; extend their knowledge and understanding of this aspect of inclu- sive teaching and learning; and learn to cooperate and relate effectively with other staff in school having responsibilities related to SEN, for exam- ple the Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator or SENCo.

Recently, Lawson, Nash, and Norwich (2013) disseminated the results of their most recent research into the contribution of planned activities in PGCE programs and what student teachers learned about teaching pupils with special educational needs/disabilities in their school-based placements. Three kinds of school-based approaches were compared:

1. A personalized teaching task involving student teachers working with a pupil identified as having SEN over 6�8 hours, carried out in-class or through withdrawal;

2. An alternative non-teaching pupil-focused SEN task, for example, a classroom pupil observation around inclusion or a pupil pursuit study;

3. No specific pupil-focused SEN task other than class teaching practice.

Lawson et al. (2013) reported that, what student teachers learned about teaching pupils identified as having special educational needs was strongly interlinked with what they learned about teaching in general. A planned

136 RON SMITH ET AL.

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

pupil-focused SEN task, when carried out in favourable conditions, could make a contribution to their pedagogic knowledge, especially in under- standing personal learning needs. This was something that was less likely to be achieved from whole-class teaching experience. The value of the planned pupil-focused task was that it enabled student teachers to become aware of individual pupils’ perspectives and learning needs that went beyond differ- entiation in terms of sub-groups. Paradoxically in many ways, in spending specific time focusing on a pupil, student teachers learned about the inter- active nature of the teacher�learner relationship, and the importance of planning appropriate learning processes. This enabled them to understand greater pedagogic complexity beyond what could often be regarded as a ‘mechanistic and piecemeal’ curriculum coverage approach (Lawson et al., 2013).

The MAINSEN Project in Northern Ireland 2010�2013 (The Post-Primary PGCE in Main Subject with Special Needs Education and Inclusion) In 2010, the Department of Education in Northern Ireland funded Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) and the University of Ulster (UU) to research and develop new ways of ensuring that all student teachers approached the task of creating inclusive classroom contexts with confidence and skill (Smith, 2014). The Universities were required to collaborate in order to develop an approach to Initial Teacher Education that enabled student teachers to:

• Develop a range of practical teaching strategies with an emphasis on the development of literacy;

• Develop their assessment for learning skills, for example make an assess- ment of what learners do best, what they find difficult, and then plan a programme of learning and teaching to meet these needs within a whole- class situation;

• Develop their language of learning; • Develop their understanding of the importance of pupil meta-learning;

that is, pupil self-awareness and learning about learning.

The MAINSEN project was both underpinned and informed by a clus- ter of ideas that linked and overlapped, such as contemporary UK research on the question of whether some children required specialist teaching meth- ods (see, e.g. Lewis & Norwich, 2005), and contemporary currents of think- ing that conceptualize the individual in social terms and behaviour as socially embedded and socially meaningful. The coordinating lecturers were greatly influenced by the Scottish IPP. Indeed, the Directors of the

137Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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

latter very kindly acted as critical friends to the Northern Ireland Project. Consistent with the IPP approach, the MAINSEN Project set out to chal- lenge the idea that classroom teachers did not have the necessary skills to teach pupils identified as having special educational needs. Salient educa- tional differences were considered to be found in learners’ responses to tasks and activities, rather than in the diagnostic criteria used to categorize them in order to determine eligibility for additional support � and thereby render them beyond the responsibility of the class teacher (Florian, 2010a, 2010b). The project also developed strong links with a small, international, collaborative network of teacher educators � the Inclusive International Teacher Education Research Forum (IITERF) � who are interested in addressing questions of access and equity in relation to diversity education.

The MAINSEN was both a development and also research project. Over the three-year project period, much evidence was gathered about the ability of the MAINSEN approach to engage teachers with new paradigm thinking and practice in the field of Special Needs Education (see, e.g. Bell et al., 2012; Education and Training Inspectorate [ETI], 2012; Smith, 2014).

CODA

Schools across the United Kingdom are becoming much more diverse. Throughout the four nations of the United Kingdom, the demographics of schooling are changing, for example, the growth in cultural and linguistic diversity, the growth in the number of children identified as living in disad- vantaged circumstances (McKinney, Hall, Lowden, McClung, & Cameron, 2012), and the movement towards increased inclusion of children and young people with more diverse additional support needs (Florian, 2012). Across the United Kingdom, we presently live in a time of unprecedented change, and, as a result of devolution, the policy context of the United Kingdom is also changing rapidly. Of immediate relevance is the forthcom- ing 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum. This represents an extremely important political milestone in Scotland’s history when the Scottish electo- rate will have the opportunity of voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to remaining part of the United Kingdom (The Scotsman on Sunday, 2014). As said previously, further policy developments will likely continue to mark the distinctive approach each country is adopting, and it remains to be seen whether, to what extent, and how, these policy options will affect outcomes for stu- dents identified as having special educational needs (England and Northern Ireland), additional support needs (Scotland), or additional learning needs

138 RON SMITH ET AL.

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

(Wales). However, as we move forward, it seems very clear that the fields of inclusive special needs education, and teacher education for diversity, will remain amongst the most challenging and important tasks facing edu- cation in the United Kingdom.

NOTES

1. We also draw upon an earlier chapter by Florian, Rouse, and Anderson (2011). Consequently, here, we record our deepest gratitude to Gallaudet University Press for written permission to make use of this earlier work.

2. The leaving age in England is being raised to 18 by 2015. 3. Thanks to Dr Jean Ware, University of Bangor, Wales, for this information

on very recent educational developments in Wales. 4. All countries in the United Kingdom have school systems that produce very

high academic attainments for some students, but, there is concern in all countries, not just Northern Ireland, about the long-tail of underachievement for the lowest performing 20 per cent (OECD, 2007) and the steep rise in the numbers of young people not in education, employment and training (NEET) (Leper, 2010).

5. The Education (Mentally Handicapped Children) (Scotland) Act (1974) (Scottish Office Education and Industry Department [SOEID], 1974).

6. The Education Order (Northern Ireland), 1987 (Department of Education for Northern Ireland [DENI], 1987).

7. However, as Norwich (2013a, p. 98) remarked ‘what the Government really meant by bias towards inclusion was the previous Government’s inclusive-oriented policy initiatives, rather than extensive inclusion practices and developments’.

8. The agency SNE data collection is a biennial exercise with data provided by the representatives of the agency. In all cases this data is from official Ministerial sources.

9. Amended in 2009. 10. In January 2012, there were 363,765 young people in publicly funded schools

in Wales (EADSNE, 2012). This involved 193,374 in primary, 170,391 in secondary, and 3005 in special schools. The proportion of children in special schools was approximately 1 per cent. 11. Demographic differences between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom

include the following: it is a small country of 3,000,000 people representing less than 5 per cent of UK population; it has two official languages (Cymraeg/Welsh and English); it is very rural with 60 per cent of the country sparsely populated; one in three primary school children attend a school with fewer than ninety students; it has a lower average salary than any other UK region and one in five children live in poverty (Ware, 2013). 12. A commonly accepted indicator of social disadvantage. 13. Locally referred to as the ‘Fundamental Review’. 14. Northern Ireland has a school population of 313,600 children and young peo-

ple. There are 4600 students in 40 special schools and this comprises 1.4 per cent of the population. Special school enrolments have remained relatively static since

139Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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

2003�2004. Twenty-one per cent of children and young people in mainstream schools are placed on the SEN register (3.3 per cent having statements, and 18 per cent at Code of Practice stages 1�4 (EADSNE, 2012). 15. On the other hand, as part of a new statutory Code of Practice, the Minister

has recommended a number of minor amendments and revisions to the Education Committee.

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. (2003). The history of Scottish education, pre-1880. In T. G. K. Bryce &

W. M. Humes (Eds.), Scottish education (2nd ed., pp. 215�224). Edinburg, UK: Edinburg University Press.

Armstrong, A., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I. (2011). Inclusive education: International

policy and practice. London: Sage.

Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2002). Inclusion in action: An in-depth case study of

an effective inclusive secondary school in the Southwest of England. International

Journal of Inclusive Education, 6(2), 143�163. Ball, S. (1981). Beachside comprehensive. A case study of secondary schooling. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham, UK:

Open University Press.

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education

Policy, 18(2), 215�228. Ball, S. J. (2008). The education debate. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Barr, S., & Smith, R. A. L. (2009). Towards educational inclusion in a transforming society:

Some lessons from community relations and special needs education in Northern

Ireland. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(2), 211�230. Beck, A. (2014, March 21). Teacher education for the changing demographics of schooling:

Policy, practice and research, Towards education reform in Scotland: Implementing the

Donaldson report. Presentation at the ESRC Seminar Series, University of Edinburgh,

Edinburgh, UK.

Bell, D., Bradley, E., Dennison, J., Duke, S., Elliott, E., Johnston, N., … Smith, R. A. L.

(2012). Essays on inclusive pedagogy (Vol. 1). Belfast, UK: The School of Education,

Queen’s University Belfast.

Bhopal, K., & Maylor, U. (2014). Educational inequalities in schools and higher education. In

K. Bhopal & U. Maylor (Eds.), Educational inequalities: Difference and diversity in

schools and higher education (pp. 48�72). London: Routledge. Boaler, J., William, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students’ experiences of ability grouping �

Disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure. British Educational Research

Journal, 26(5), 631�648. Board of Education. (1944). The 1944 Education Act. London: HMSO.

Bottery, M. (2000). Education, policy and ethics. London: Continuum.

British Broadcasting Corporation. (2013, December 3). Pisa tests: UK stagnates as Shanghai

tops league table. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25187997.

Accessed on January 1, 2014.

140 RON SMITH ET AL.

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.bbc.co.uk/news/education- 25187997

Carr, W., & Hartnett, A. (1997). Education and the struggle for democracy: The politics of edu-

cational ideas. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Clark, C., Dyson, A., Millward, A., & Skidmore, D. (1997). New directions in special needs:

Innovations in mainstream schools. London: Cassell.

Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment. (2000). Developing the Northern

Ireland curriculum. Advice to the Northern Ireland minister of education on curriculum

review. Belfast, UK: CCEA.

de Blij, H. (2005). Why geography matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2009). DCSF: Special educational needs in

England. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000852/

index.shtml. Accessed on November 27, 2010.

Department for Education and Skills. (2001). Special Educational Needs and Disability Act.

London: Department for Education and Employment.

Department of Education and Science (DES). (1978). Special educational needs: Report of the

committee of enquiry into the education of handicapped children and young people (the

Warnock report). London: HMSO.

Department of Education and Science (DES). (1981). Education Act. London: HMSO.

Department of Education for Northern Ireland. (1984). The education order (NI) 1984.

Belfast, UK: HMSO.

Department of Education for Northern Ireland. (1987). The education order (NI) 1987.

Belfast, UK: HMSO.

Department of Education for Northern Ireland. (1998). Code of practice on the identification

and assessment of special education needs. Bangor, UK: Department of Education NI.

Retrieved from http://www.deni.gov.uk/index/7-special_educational_needs_pg/special_

need-codes_of_practice_pg.htm. Accessed on November 25, 2010.

Department of Education for Northern Ireland. (2005). The education order (NI) 2005.

Belfast, UK: HSMO.

Department of Education Northern Ireland. (2008). Every school a good school: A policy for

school improvement. Bangor, UK: Department of Education NI.

Department of Education Northern Ireland. (2009). Every school a good school: The way for-

ward for special educational needs and inclusion. Bangor, UK: Department of Education

NI. Retrieved from http://www.deni.gov.uk/every_school_a_good_school__the_way_

forward_for_special_educational_needs__sen__and_inclusion___8211__consultation_

document__english__pdf_434kb.pdf. Accessed in November 2013.

Department of Education Northern Ireland. (2011). Count read succeed. Bangor, UK:

Department of Education NI.

Department of Education Northern Ireland. (2012a). Summary report of responses to the

consultation on every school a good school: The way forward for special educational

needs and inclusion and the associated equality impact assessment. Bangor,

UK: Department of Education NI. Retrieved from http://www.deni.gov.uk/every_

school_a_good_school__the_way_forward_for_special_educational_needs__sen__and_

inclusion___8211__consultation_document__english__pdf_434kb.pdf. Accessed in

November 2013.

Department of Education Northern Ireland. (2012b). Review of SEN and inclusion: Minister’s

presentation to the committee for education. Retrieved from http://www.deni.gov.uk/

every_school_a_good_school__the_way_forward_for_special_educational_needs__sen__

and_inclusion___8211__consultation_document__english__pdf_434kb.pdf. Accessed in

November 2013.

141Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000852/index.shtml

http://www.deni.gov.uk/index/7-special_educational_needs_pg/special_need- codes:of_practice_pg.htm

http://www.deni.gov.uk/every_school_a_good_school__the_way_forward_for_special_educational_needs__sen__and_inclusion___8211__consultation_document__english__pdf_434kb.pdf

DFE. (2011). Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and

disability � Consultation. Green Paper. London: HMSO. DFE. (2012). Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and

disability � Progress and next steps. London: HMSO. DFE. (2013). Children and families bill. London: HMSO.

Donnelly, C., McKeown, P., & Osborne, B. (Eds.). (2006). Devolution and pluralism in educa-

tion in Northern Ireland. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Dyson, A. (2005). Philosophy, politics, and economics? The story of inclusive education in

England. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education: Evaluating old and

new international perspectives (pp. 63�88). London: Routledge. Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (1998). The research report series: Practice in mainstream schools

for children with special educational needs. Department of Education, University of

Newcastle upon Tyne, Special Needs Research Centre, Newcastle, UK.

Education and Training Inspectorate. (2012). An evaluation of the joint post-primary ‘post grad-

uate certificate in education: Main subject with special education and inclusion (PGCE

with SEN and Inclusion)’ by Queen’s University Belfast and University of Ulster

2011�2012. Bangor, UK: Education and Training Inspectorate. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2012). Special needs educa-

tion country data. Brussels, Belgium: European Agency for Development in Special

Needs Education.

Farrell, P., Balshaw, M., & Polat, F. (1999). The management, role and training of learning sup-

port assistants. London: DfEE Publications. Research Brief No. 166.

Fernando, S. (2010). Mental health, race and culture (3rd ed.). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.

Florian, L. (2009). Preparing teachers to work in ‘schools for all’ [Editorial]. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 25(4), 533�534. Florian, L. (2010a). Special education in an era of inclusion: The end of special education or a

new beginning? Psychology of Education Review, 34(2), 22�30. Florian, L. (2010b). The concept of inclusive pedagogy. In F. Hallett & G. Hallett (Eds.),

Transforming the role of the SENCO (pp. 61�72). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Florian, L. (2012). Preparing teachers to work in diverse classrooms: Key lessons for the

professional development of teacher educators from Scotland’s Inclusive Practice

Project. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 275�285. doi:10.1177/0022487112447112 Florian, L. (2013). Preparing teachers to work with everybody: A curricular approach to the

reform of teacher education. FORUM: For promoting 31-19 comprehensive education,

55(1), 95�102. Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational

Research Journal, 37(5), 813�828. doi:10.1080/01411926.2010.501096 Florian, L., & Linklater, H. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Using inclusive

pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of Education,

40(4), 369�386. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2010.526588 Florian, L., & Pantic, N. (2013). Learning to teach: Part 2: Exploring the distinctive contribution

of higher education to teacher education. York, UK: The Higher Education Academy.

Florian, L., Rouse, M., & Anderson, J. (2011). Education for all in the countries of the United

Kingdom. In K. Mazurek & M. Winzer (Eds.), Special education in an international

perspective (pp. 67�86). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Frederickson, N., & Cline, T. (2009). Special educational needs, inclusion and diversity

(2nd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill.

Friswell, J., & Petersen, L. (2013). The NASEN guide to SEN. Tamworth, UK: NASEN.

142 RON SMITH ET AL.

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

Gewirtz, S. (2002). The managerial school: Post-welfarism and social justice in education.

London: Routledge.

Gillborn, D., & Youdell, D. (2000). Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform, and equity.

Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Government Equalities Office. (2010). Equality Act. Retrieved from http://www.equalities.gov.

uk/equality_bill.aspxe. Accessed on November 27, 2010.

Hart, S., Dixon, A., Drummond, M. J., & McIntyre, D. (2004). Learning without limits.

Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Hodkinson, A., & Vickerman, P. (2009). Key issues in special educational needs and inclusion.

London: Sage.

Home Office. (2007). Life in the United Kingdom: A journey to citizenship. Norwich, UK: TSO.

House of Commons Education and Skills Committee. (2006). Special educational needs: Third

report of session 2005�2006. London: Stationery Office. Lawson, H., & Nash, T. (2010). SENCOs: A partnership role in initial teacher education? In

F. Hallett & G. Hallett (Eds.), Transforming the role of the SENCO: Achieving the

national award for SEN coordination (pp. 50�61). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education.

Lawson, H., Nash, T., & Norwich, B. (2013). Research dissemination: What trainees learn

about teaching pupils with special educational needs/disabilities in their school based

work: The contribution of planned activities in PGCE programmes. Exeter, UK:

Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter.

Learning and Teaching Scotland. (n.d.). What is curriculum for excellence? Retrieved from

http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/understandingthecurriculum/whatiscurriculumforexcellence/

index.asp. Accessed on June 1, 2014.

Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse,

NY: Syracuse University Press.

Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies.

Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace.

Leitch, R., & Kilpatrick, R. (1999). Inside the gates: Schools and the troubles. Belfast, UK:

Save the Children.

Leper, J. (2010). Rising numbers of NEET young people a key issue for coalition government.

Retrieved from http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Youth-Work/100

3023/Risingnumbers-Neet-young-people-key-issue-coalition-government. Accessed

on December 1, 2010.

Lewis, A., & Norwich, B. (Eds.). (2005). Special teaching for special children? Pedagogies for

inclusion. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

McKinney, S., Hall, S., Lowden, K., McClung, M., & Cameron, L. (2012). The relationship

between poverty and deprivation, educational attainment and positive school leaver

destinations in Glasgow secondary schools. Scottish Educational Review, 44, 33�45. McLaughlin, M., & Rouse, M. (2000). Special education and school reform in Britain and the

United States. London: Routledge.

Norwich, B. (2002). LEA inclusion trends in England 1997�2001: Statistics on special school placements and pupils with statements in special schools. Bristol, UK: CSIE.

Norwich, B. (2013a). Addressing tensions and dilemmas in inclusive education: Living with uncer-

tainty. London: Routledge.

Norwich, B. (2013b, November 15). Changing legislation and its radical effects on inclusive

and special education in England. Presentation at the Inclusive Education Day confer-

ence, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.

143Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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.equalities.gov.uk/equality_bill.aspxe

http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/understandingthecurriculum/whatiscurriculumforexcellence/index.asp

http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Youth-Work/1003023/Risingnumbers- Neet-young-people-key-issue-coalition-government

O’Donnell, L. (2013, November 7). Parties should renew vows of the Belfast agreement.

Belfast Telegraph Newspapers, Belfast, UK.

Office for National Statistics. (2012). Population estimates. Retrieved from http://www.ons.

gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Population+Estimates. Accessed on December 15, 2013.

Ofsted. (2010). The special educational needs and disability review. London: Ofsted.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007). Quality and equity of

schooling in Scotland. Paris, France: OECD.

Ozga, J. (2000). Policy research in educational settings: Contested terrain. Buckingham, UK:

Open University Press.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). The national curriculum for England.

London: QCA.

Riddell, S., Weedon, E., & Harris, N. (2012). Special and additional support needs � Current dilemmas and solutions. In L. Peer & G. Reid (Eds.), Special educational needs: A guide

for inclusive practice (pp. 99�115). London: Sage. Rouse, M., & Florian, L. (2012). Inclusive practice project: Final report. Aberdeen, UK:

University of Aberdeen School of Education.

Scottish Executive. (2005). Supporting children’s learning: Code of practice. Edinburgh, UK:

HMSO.

Scottish Executive Education Department. (2004a). Education (Additional Support for

Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. Edinburgh, UK: SEED.

Scottish Executive Education Department. (2004b). Summary handout on the Additional

Support for Learning Act. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Executive Education Department.

Scottish Government. (2005). Supporting children’s learning code of practice. Retrieved from

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/08/15105817/58273

Scottish Government. (2009). Statistical bulletin education series: Pupils in Scotland. Retrieved

from www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/11/05112711. Accessed on November 15,

2013.

Scottish Government. (2010). Implementing getting it right for every child: Summary for practi-

tioners. Retrieved from www.scotland.gov.uk/Resources/Doc/1141/0100658. Accessed

on November 15, 2013.

Scottish Office Education and Industry Department. (1974). The Education (Mentally

Handicapped Children) (Scotland) Act (1974). Edinburgh, UK: SOEID.

Scottish Office Education and Industry Department. (1980). The Education (Scotland) Act.

Edinburgh, UK: SOEID.

Scottish Qualifications Authority. (March 2006). National qualifications: A quick guide.

Retrieved from http://www.sqa.org.uk/files_ccc/nq_quick_guide.pdf. Accessed on

November 27, 2010.

Slee, R. (2011). Their irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. London:

Routledge.

Smith, R. A. L. (2010). Student teachers’ understanding of special needs education after one year

of initial teacher education. Unpublished report. School of Education, Queen’s

University, Belfast, UK.

Smith, R. A. L. (2013, November 15). Critical reflections on policy-making for inclusive and spe-

cial needs education in a transitional society. Presentation at the Inclusive Education Day

conference, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

144 RON SMITH ET AL.

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.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Population+Estimates

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/08/15105817/58273

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/11/05112711

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resources/Doc/1141/0100658

http://www.sqa.org.uk/files_ccc/nq_quick_guide.pdf

Smith, R. A. L. (2014). The post-primary PGCE in main subject with special needs education

and inclusion (MAINSEN). Final report to the Department of Education Northern

Ireland. Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK.

Smith, R. A. L., & Barr, S. (2008). Towards educational inclusion in a contested society: From

critical reflection to cultural action. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12(4),

401�422. Teachernet. (n.d.). Faith schools. Retrieved from http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/

faithschools. Accessed on November 23, 2010.

The Scotsman on Sunday. (2014). New polls show shift to yes. The Scotsman on Sunday, The

Scotsman Publications Ltd., Edinburgh, UK.

Thomas, G. (2013). A review of thinking and research about inclusive education policy, with

suggestions for a new kind of inclusive thinking. British Educational Research Journal,

39(3), 473�490. Tomlinson, S. (1982). The sociology of special education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Training and Development Agency for Schools. (2009a). Special educational needs and disabil-

ities training toolkit for 1 year ITT programmes. London: TDA.

Training and Development Agency for Schools. (2009b). Secondary undergraduate courses:

A training resource for initial teacher training providers’ user guide. London: TDA.

Troyna, B., & Vincent, C. (1996). The ‘ideology of expertism’: The framing of special educa-

tion and racial equality policies in the local state. In C. Christensen & F. Rizvi (Eds.),

Disability and dilemmas of education and justice (pp. 79�92). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

UNESCO. (1994, June 7�10). The Salamanca Statement and framework for action. Presented at the World conference on Special Educational Needs Education: Access and quality,

Salamanca, Spain.

UNESCO. (2000). The Dakar framework for action. Education for all: Meeting our collective

commitments. Paris, France: UNESCO.

Vaughn, M. (2002). Milestones on the road to inclusion 1970�2002. Bristol, UK: University of West of England. Retrieved from http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/inclusionweek/articles/

milestones.htm. Accessed on November 22, 2013.

Ware, J. (2013, November 15). The context for special/inclusive education in Wales.

Presentation at the Inclusive Education Day conference, Faculty of Education,

University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Warnock, M., Norwich, B., & Terzi, L. (2010). Special educational needs: A new look. London:

Continuum.

Welsh Assembly Government. (2009). Pupils with statements of special educational needs gov-

ernment. Retrieved from http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2009/090617sdr932009en.

pdf. Accessed on November 25, 2013.

Welsh Assembly Government. (2010). Education and skills. Retrieved from http://wales.gov.

uk/topics/educationandskills/?langen. Accessed on November 20, 2013.

Welsh Assembly Government. (2012). Forward in partnership for children and young people

with additional needs. Proposals for reform of the legislative framework for special educa-

tional needs. Cardiff, UK: Author. Retrieved from http. //wales.gov.uk/topics. Accessed

on December 25, 2013.

Wrigley, T. (2005). Misunderstanding school improvement. Improving Schools, 3(1), 23�32.

145Special Education Today in the United Kingdom

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.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/faithschools

http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/inclusionweek/articles/milestones.htm

http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2009/090617sdr932009en.pdf

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/?langen

http://http. //wales.gov.uk/topics

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

SPAIN

Shaila Rao, Cristina M. Cardona and Esther Chiner

ABSTRACT

The focus of special education around the globe may be to provide spe- cialized instruction to meet unique needs of children to help them achieve their full potential. However, each country around the globe may also have its own unique issues, barriers, legal frames, policies, and practices, as well as a history of its origin and evolution of policies and practices that govern special education in that country. This chapter describes how special education in Spain originated and evolved to its current state. It includes the following chapter sections: origins of special education in Spain; legislative acts; prevalence and incidence of various recognized disability areas; an overview of Spain’s education system including spe- cial needs education; current assessment and intervention practices; tea- cher education practices; family involvement considerations; and future challenges to special education.

INTRODUCTION

The Government of Spain was a leader in organizing a conference on inclusion in Salamanca, Spain in 1994. The conference in cooperation with

Special Education International Perspectives: Practices Across the Globe

Advances in Special Education, Volume 28, 147�180 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0270-4013/doi:10.1108/S0270-401320140000028012

147

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/S0270-401320140000028012

the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was represented by 300 participants, representing 92 govern- ments and 25 international organizations. During the conference, the Salamanca Statement or the Salamanca Statement on Principles, Policy, and Practice in Special Needs Education and Framework for Action (UNESCO, 1994) was adopted. The major tenet of the document is an equitable education for all and a worldwide consensus on future directions for special needs education. This conference was an impetus for Spain to continue its leadership in inclusive education. Spain’s leadership was recog- nized by the International Peto Institute in their the statistics published after the 1995 conference of UNESCO in France which showed that Spain was one of the leading European countries in terms of integrated education (see Deak, 1999). The inclusive education movement in Spain had its roots during the decade 1975�1985 via the work of the National Institute of Special Education. This institute had as one of its major tenets the educa- tional integration of students with special education needs and improve- ment of the rights for people with disabilities. In a national overview document about Spain’s special education practices, the European Agency for Development in Special Education (EADSP) stated that the promotion of inclusive education practices was enhanced by the Spanish constitution which recognizes the right to education as one of the essential rights that public powers must guarantee to every citizen (EADSP, 2009a). This was quite a compliment because the EADSP is an independent and self- governing organization established by Ministries of Education of its 28 member countries (Spain is a member) to act as their platform for colla- boration in the field of special needs education. The EADSP overview further states that the Spanish education system, set up in accordance with the values of the Constitution, is inspired by three main principles:

a) Quality education for all students, regardless of their condition and circumstances. b)

Equity that guarantees equal opportunities, educational inclusion and non-

discrimination and that acts as a compensating factor for the personal cultural, eco-

nomic and social inequalities, with special emphasis on those derived from disabilities.

c) The transmission and application of values that favor personal liberty, responsibility,

democratic citizenship, solidarity, tolerance, equality, respect and justice and that also

help to overcome any type of discrimination. (https://www.europea-agency.org/coun-

try-information/spain)

The above perspective provides an introduction to this chapter which is a description of special education in Spain today. This chapter will provide readers with detailed information related to the following topics: an insight into the origins of special education in Spain; a comprehensive perspective

148 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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

https://www.europea-agency.org/country-information/spain

on the development of special education in Spain; data on the prevalence of students with special educational needs; impactful trends in educational legislation and litigation; parameters related to teacher education and spe- cial education training; prevailing educational interventions and policy, standards, and research related to educational interventions; insightful information about working with families who have children with special education needs; and a synopsis concerned with the future challenges that remain in the contemporary scene of special education in Spain.

ORIGIN OF SPECIAL EDUCATION IN SPAIN

The earliest origin of special education in Spain occurred during the middle ages because of the influence of Christianity in the western countries. During this period, Christianity affected all spheres of life and had an impactful influence on society that lead to an important change in the prac- tices carried out with people with disabilities. Christianity rejected the infanticide of people with disabilities and adopted an attitude of under- standing and care toward these people. This attitude prevented children with disabilities from being eliminated but, at the same time it resulted in an increase of people with disabilities being abandoned. To remedy the increase in the abandonment of people with disabilities, society across Europe built asylums and shelter to house these people. For instance, in Spain, Pedro IV of Aragón, created in Aragón, Valencia and later in Navarra, under the name of Pare d’Orfans, the first institution to shelter orphan children after taking over the guardianship and education of these children (Vicente & De Vicente, 2006). However, as time went by, the car- ing and humanistic attitudes of politicians and the general population changed into more radical positions in which people with intellectual or mental illness were persecuted as they were considered to be possessed and condemned to be burnt. This attitude and practice remained throughout the Inquisition period which was established in Spain during the 15th century.

Hope spring a new for people with disabilities with the start of the Renaissance period. The Renaissance led a new way of understanding of science and human development and behavior based on contributions and important changes in scientific and medical conceptions. For instance, human behavior was not explained based on under demonic premises. Instead, the explanation of human behavior was based on nature and

149Special Education Today in Spain

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 physical and biological processes of the body (Illán & Arnáiz, 1996). Positively, during this time, some ecclesiastical institutions still took care of poor people, orphans, indigents, and people with mental illness and intel- lectual impairment. Unfortunately, the religious wars that took place at that time undermined the power of the Church which consequently led to the abandoning of many of these institutions (Vicente & De Vicente, 2006). Interestingly, there were some private initiatives from prominent people of that period who dedicated their lives and fortune to create hospitals and shelters for socially disadvantaged people, such as Doña Teresa Enrı́quez, Santo Tomás de Villanueva, and Miguel de Giginta. Fray Gelabert Jofré deserves a special mention because he created a hospice for people with mental illness in Valencia, which is considered to be the first psychiatric hospital in Spain.

The Renaissance in Europe became a fertile environment for people with humanist’s goals and perspectives. This was true in Spain also and the pioneering figure of Juan Luis Vives (1492�1540) is especially remarkable for his contributions to the special education. This humanist advocated for the education of children with disabilities in special schools because they were being separated from non-disabled children. His goal was to provide them with individualized special education so that they could be educated. To some extent, his educational ideas were a precursor to the 1970s’ idea of an education for all handicapped children which occurred in the United States and the United Kingdom (Vicente & De Vicente, 2006). Also, during the 16th century Juan Huarte de San Juan considered that each person had different talents and aptitudes, and that they should be assessed individu- ally. Because of these ideas he is considered to be the father of Differential Psychology and Vocational Counselling (Galino, 1968).

During the 16th and 17th centuries, one can find the first mention of spe- cial education, and more specifically, the education of people with sensory impairments. In fact, a highly important contribution for the education of the deaf was put forth by the Spanish Benedictine monk, Pedro Ponce de León (1509�1584). This monk demonstrated that it was possible to develop thinking/though processes and speech of deaf adults and children. He considered that there was a causal relationship been deafness and mut- ism and he developed the first oral method for the education of deaf peo- ple. The social dissemination of the oral method took some years due to the high cost at that time and there was difficulty using this oral method with big groups (Jiménez & Vilà, 1999). However, the method developed by Ponce de León crossed many territories and borders and eventually was enhanced in 1620 by another Spaniard named Juan Martı́n Pablo Bonet

150 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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

(1579�1633) who wrote the first book about education of deaf children (Reduction de las letras, y arte para enseñar à ablar los mudos, 1930). Interestingly, this method was further enhanced during the 18th century in Abbot L’Epée in France where it was adapted to the French phonetics and alphabet.

Despite Spanish educators being outstanding pioneers in the education of the deaf during the 16th and 17th centuries, the further development of special education practices and innovations did not materialize until the second half of the 20th century. Thus for many years, Spain was far behind other European countries with respect to special education practices and policies. For people with hearing disabilities some education innovations and programs continued to be initiated such as the one by Joan Albert i Martı́, who taught reading and writing to people with hearing impairments and founded the “Royal School of Deaf-and-Dumbs” in 1802 in Madrid. However, advances for other people with disabilities did not occur until the 20th century when a real interest the education of people with intellectual and other disabilities emerged. Another helpful impetus to special educa- tion occurred with the passage of The Public Instruction Act of 1857, which is also known as Moyano Law (Ley Moyano). This Act established compulsory education for children aged 6 to 9 years and initiated the crea- tion of schools for deaf people. A number of decades after this Act In 1907, the siblings Francisco and Amador Pereira founded the “Pedagogical Psychiatric Institute” for mentally retarded people with intellectual impair- ments. A few years later, in 1911, local authorities established a “School for blind, deaf-and-dumb and abnormal people” in Barcelona, and in 1914 the “National Board of Abnormals” was created.

These and other such initiatives were not enough for the progressive development of special education in Spain and, despite the influence of the pedagogical reform movements taking place mainly in Catalonia, and the more innovative pedagogical principles from Europe, the new ideas “did not crystallize into an adequate system for meeting the needs of handi- capped children” (Garcı́a Pastor, 1998, p. 46). Because the implementation of the compulsory education elapsed slowly, special education was also delayed. Thus, at the beginning of the 20th century special education was poorly developed in Spain.

The development of special education was further delayed from 1936 to 1939 because of the Spanish Civil War which lead to the disappearance of the pedagogical reform movements. Positively, private initiatives continued to meet the needs of children with disabilities. For instance, in 1939 the National Organization for Blind People (Organización Nacional de Ciegos

151Special Education Today in Spain

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

Españoles, ONCE) was founded. Its contribution for the education and inclusion of blind people in Spain has been outstanding. Further ONCE continues today to strive for the promotion of inclusive practices and to attend to the educational, vocational, and recreational needs of people with visual disabilities. Lastly, since its foundation, the ONCE has created schools for the blind in several cities such as Pontevedra, Alicante, Sevilla, and Madrid.

Eventually with the passage of the Elementary Education Act in 1945 (LEP, 1945) an opportunity for special education to grow materialized. This legislated Act created special schools for people with blindness, deaf- ness, and intellectual impairment. About a decade after this Act in 1955 the National Board of Special Education (previously named National Board of Abnormals) proposed the development of a Plan for Special Education that did not crystallize until 1978 (Garcı́a Pastor, 1998).

In summary, the progress of special education in Spain during the 20th century was slow and the events such as the Civil War and the subsequent dictatorship of General Francisco Franco during his 35-year reign in the century did not help its development. While there were a number of hope- ful aspects and legislation, it was not until Public Law 14/70, General Law of Education and Financing of the Educational Reform (LGE, 1970) was enacted that the special education became part of the educational system.

OVERVIEW OF SPAIN’S EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

INCLUDING SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION

The legislative framework components governing and guiding the Spanish education system comprises the Spanish Constitution (1978), the Organic Act on the Right to Education (LODE, 1985) and the Organic Law of Education 2/2006, May 3 (Ley Orgánica de Educación LOE, 2006) which develops the principles and rights established in it (EADSP, 2009b). Table 1 provides an overview of the stages constituting Spain’s education system.

Similar to other countries around the world, legislative actions in the 1990s became a primary influence behind the major educational reforms in Spain. For example, two governmental Acts, the General Educational System Organizational Act or LOGSE in 1990, and Participation, Evaluation, and Administration of Schools Organization Act, or LOPEG in 1995 “culminated 30 years of continuous education reform that began

152 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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

with LGE or the General Act of Education of 1970” (Arco-Tirado & Fernandez-Balboa, 2003 p. 586). These Acts brought about significant changes to the education system in Spain. Furthermore, the concept of “special educational needs” and “integration of students with special needs” in the mainstream classrooms that began in 1985 was strengthened by LOGSE (Moliner, Sales, Ferrández, & Traver, 2011). The LOGSE which regulates and governs special education within general plan educa- tion, asserts that the incorporation special education into the mainstream system and also introduced the concept of special educational needs. The passage of this act also initiated integration of students with special educa- tion need in mainstream establishments (schools) where the programs offered needed to be adapted to needs of the students with special educa- tional needs. The law also established that although students with special educational needs could attend either mainstream or special education establishments (schools), this should only be an option if their needs could not be met in mainstream establishments. Special education schools are

Table 1. Stages Constituting the Spanish Education System.

Stages Brief Description

Preschool

Education: 0�3 years

Provided on a voluntary basis for families with a focus on early

childhood education

Infant Education:

3�6 years Cost-free, voluntary and is the first level of school education organized

as a single three-year cycle.

Compulsory

Education: Free

of charge 6�16 years

Compulsory

Primary

Education

6�12 years, three 2-year

cycles and is

cost-free

Secondary Education

Compulsory

Secondary

Education

(ESO) leading

Compulsory

Secondary

Education

certificate,

cost-free

12�16 years

Bachillerato:

Compliments

ESO, with The

Compulsory

Secondary

education

certificate as a

prerequisite, 2-

years, and is

non-

compulsory

Specific

Vocational

Training:

Education to

prepare for

work in

specific

professional

field. Provides

an all-round

and practical

education,

and is non-

compulsory

Source: Complete National Overview � Spain � European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2009b).

153Special Education Today in Spain

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

intended for pupils who are unable to be integrated into mainstream schools. If there are no special education schools available, students with special educational needs are then educated in special classes (special units) within the mainstream centers (Spain- European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2009b).

Spain subscribed to the principles of inclusion early in the 1980s and then carried out several educational reforms in order to transform a selec- tive educational system into a more comprehensive one. Although these reforms arrived a bit later than in other developed countries, in the last three decades, a big effort has been made by the Government of Spain to develop a legislative body in accordance with the international declarations as regards to people with disability or with special educational needs (Chiner & Cardona, 2013).

The first educational reform took place in the 1970s with Public Law 14/70, General Law of Education and Financing of the Educational Reform (LGE, 1970). This law introduced important changes into the Spanish educational system. The focus of these changes was incorporated into Article 49 which was an adoption of the Spanish Constitution in 1978. The changes of this Article lead led to a policy requiring schools to inte- grate and educate people with disabilities. The effect of these changes was enhanced after the death of General Francisco Franco.

In addition, the 1970 Education Act guided a significant reform in edu- cation as it extended compulsory elementary education to children aged 14 years. Also, this act regulated secondary education and vocational training, and led to the recognition of special education as part of the educational system. However, during the 1970s, students with special educational needs still attended school in segregated settings (self-contained classrooms inside regular schools or special schools) with a parallel curriculum. According to Illán and Arnáiz (1996), the 1970 Education Act should be considered as the starting point of the national special education system. Unfortunately, the provisions under this Act were too general and they were not fully implemented.

Twelve years after the Education Act was passed, the Government of Spain passed Public Law 13/1982, Social Integration of Disabled People Act (LISMI, 1982). This law provided the process for the integration of students with special educational needs into regular schools. The law is considered a major special education landmark in all life aspects (society, school, and work) for people with disabilities. The LISMI was inspired by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons (United Nations [UN], 1971) and the Declaration on the Rights of

154 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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

Disabled Persons (UN, 1975). It is a very progressive law which recognized that the principles of normalization, social integration, community services, and individualization in education and integration in schools will only be possible if the society provides the resources and support services that is necessary to meet the needs of people with disabilities (Jiménez & Vilà, 1999).

In 1982, an additional legal disposition, namely, the Royal Decree 2639/ 1982 of Arrangement of the Special Education (Real Decreto 2639/1982, de 15 de Octubre, de Ordenación de la Educación Especial) established three different alternatives to integration: full integration, mixed integration, and partial integration. However, the Public Law 13/1982, LISMI, required more precision and in 1985, the Royal Decree 334/1985 of Arrangement of the Special Education (Real Decreto 334/1985, de 6 de marzo, de Ordenación de la Educación Especial), developed the LISMI established guidelines to begin the integration process in Spain. This legal disposition recognized that, among other aspects, (a) special education was part of the general educational system, (b) special schools should coordinate and work together with the regular schools, (c) schools should be provided with resources and supports to avoid the segregation and to promote the inte- gration of students with disabilities, (d) there is a need of assessment and counseling, and (e) a need for the development of early intervention pro- grams for children with disabilities was critical to the successful education of young students with special needs. The Royal Decree 334/1985 also marked the beginning of an eight-year experimental program for the inte- gration of students with disabilities in general schools and classrooms.

The United Kingdom’s concept of “special educational needs” (SEN) was gaining momentum in Spain at the same time. In fact the United Kingdom’s Warnock Report (Department of Education and Science, 1978) had a great influence on the Spanish educational policies and which culmi- nated in an ambitious educational reform carried out in 1990 with the LP 1/1990, Organic Law of General Arrangement of the Educational System (LOGSE, 1990). In general terms, the 1990 Education Act reaffirmed the mandate of the Royal Decree 334/1985 stating that special education is to be a part of the general education system with a common flexible curricu- lum for all students. Further, curricular adaptations and educational differ- entiation were to be made based on students’ educational needs. This new concept of “special educational needs” resulted in a more comprehensive and open education. Adopting this model necessitated that all schools accept diversity while responding to the particular needs of each student. Most importantly, the principle of inclusion guided the process of the

155Special Education Today in Spain

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 of all students with special educational needs, and since 1990, all students, regardless of their educational needs, must be taught in regular classes together with their peers. Only when this is not possible will stu- dents learn in self-contained classrooms within the regular schools or spe- cial schools.

The new demands of the 1990 Education Act led to the revision of the previous Royal Decree 334/1985 that was finally replaced by the Royal Decree 696/1995 for education of students with special educational needs (Real Decreto 696/1995, de 28 de abril, de Ordenación de la educación de los alumnos con necesidades educativas especiales). This new document included some changes such as (a) the use of the concept of students with special educational needs instead of special education students, (b) the introduction of educational response to gifted students, (c) the gradual transformation of special schools into special education resource centers, (d) the replacement of the individual development programs (PDI) by the individual curricular adaptations (ACI) which made adapting the official curriculum at different levels possible, depending on the context and the students’ needs, and (e) the diversification of the multidisciplinary teams in general, special and early intervention. Following the general guidelines of the LOGSE mandate, each Autonomous Community developed its own legislative body which has been, in some cases, interpreted and applied dif- ferently in each region (Garcı́a Pastor, 1998).

The subsequent laws enacted after the LOGSE (Public Law 10/2002 and Public Law 2/2006) only introduced minor changes (mostly centered on ter- minology) regarding the education of students with special needs. The Public Law 10/2002, Organic Law of Quality of Education (LOCE, 2002) introduced the generic term “specific educational needs” to refer to several groups of students, such as foreigners, gifted students, and students with special educational needs. This last group of students with specific educa- tional needs included students with physical and intellectual disabilities, sensory impairments or severe personality and behavior disorders. The cur- rent Education Act, the Public Law 2/2006, Organic Law of Education (LOE, 2006) refers to “students with specific educational support needs” and includes students with special educational needs derived from a disabil- ity, behavior disorders, or gifted students and students with a late entry to the Spanish educational system. The 2006 Education Act also included a section on policies to avoid educational inequalities based on ethnicity and social, economic, cultural, or geographical factors.

The above legislative acts and educational reforms allowed Spain to pro- gress a long way in twenty years in its efforts to promote inclusive

156 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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. Although its implementation started late in the 1980s, today Spain is considered to have one of the most inclusive educational systems in Europe. However, the current Government which is run by the conserva- tive party, Popular Party (Partido Popular), is preparing a draft of a new Education Act, the Organic Law of Improvement of the Quality of Education (Ley Orgánica de Mejora de la Calidad Educativa, LOMCE) which contains important changes in the organization of the educational system which may affect the education of students with special needs. This law has been questioned for its neoliberal principles. It has the risk of pro- moting inequality among students from different social backgrounds and with diverse abilities. Moreover, the current new millennium worldwide economic and financial crisis has affected the Spanish economy strongly and has prompted the Government to carry out significant cuts in educa- tion. These cuts include a reduction in teachers, a considerable increase in the student-teacher ratio, a diminishment in resources and supports that are provided to schools, and a reduction in the number of programs attend- ing to diversity.

Table 2 provides the reader with a framework of various pieces of legis- lation within the last three decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century that have influenced development of inclusion in Spain.

The 1990 Education Act is probably the most important educational reform enacted in the Spanish educational context, especially in regards to the education of students with special educational needs and their inclusion in the general education system. Although the term inclusion was not included in the text, the LOGSE mandate shared the principles of inclusive education that later many countries subscribed to after the publication of the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994). A May 2012 report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on children with special education needs (SEN) in OECD countries contended that “despite inter- national consensus on the right of children with SEN, and efforts to find an international definition agreed by all countries, data on children with SEN are still being collected according to national definition” (OECD, 2012, p. 1). The report highlighted two main issues in terms of reporting prevalence of students with SEN. The first issue is that some children’s SEN are not recognized and the second being reported data covers only the national definitions. Understanding how special educational needs are decided and defined within the Spanish educational system will be a precur- sor to understanding issues and challenges that exist in attempting to state the number of students with special educational needs included in general

157Special Education Today in Spain

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. Framework of Legislation Leading to Inclusion in Spain.

Year Law Influence

1970 General Law of Education and

Financing of the

Educational Reform (LGE)

• Introduces the special education as part of the

educational system.

• It establishes that the special education will be

provided in general schools and special schools.

1978 Spanish Constitution • Recognizes the right of all citizens to education.

• It establishes the need of planning, rehabilitation,

and integration of people with disabilities.

1982 Social Integration for the

disabled people Act (LISMI)

• Attends to personal, medical, school, and work

issues of people with disabilities.

• Integrates special education in the general

educational system.

• It is based on the principles of normalization,

integration, community services, and

individualization.

1985 Royal Decree 334/1985 of

Arrangement of the Special

Education

• It develops the demands of the LISMI.

• It represents the beginning in the practice of the

school integration in Spain.

1990 Organic Law of Arrangement

of the General Educational

System (LOGSE)

• Introduces the concept of “special educational

needs.”

• It is based on the principles of normalization and

school integration.

• Promotes the use of curricular adaptations and

diversifications to attend to the SENs.

2002 Organic Law of Quality of

Education (LOCE)

• Replaces the concept of SENs for “specific

educational needs.”

• It is based on the principles of normalization, non-

discrimination, and integration.

2003 Law on Equal Opportunities,

Non-Discrimination and

Universal Access for People

with Disabilities

• Compliments the 1982 Act on Social Integration of

Disabled People (LISMI). Marked an unambiguous

shift in Spanish disability policy toward a human

rights perspective based on the social model of

disability.

• One of the measures was setting of basic guidelines

for the educational framework to ensure pupils with

handicap achieved general objectives of education to

the maximum extent.

2006 Organic Law of Education

(LOE)

• It is based on the principles of equity in education,

normalization, inclusive education, and non-

discrimination.

• Introduces the term of “students with specific

educational support needs.”

Note: Students with Special Educational Needs Included in General Education in Spain.

158 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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 system. The OECD (2012) reported the definition of SEN in Spain is “Students with SEN refer to those who require certain support and specific educational attention due to disability or serious behavioural disorder, either for a period or throughout the whole of their schooling. The schooling of these students in special education centers will take place only when their needs cannot be met by the special needs provisions avail- able in mainstream schools” (p. 10).

The Organic Law of 2006 (LOE) differentiates support for three distinct groups of students: students with special educational needs, high ability (gifted) students, and students with a late entry into education system.

• Students with special educational needs (SEN) as per the definition above are further classified into the following categories according to Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports: hearing disability, motor disability, intellectual disability, visual disorders, pervasive developmen- tal disorders, and severe behavioral and personality disorders.

• Students with High Intellectual Abilities: Students receiving curricular adaptations for an extended, enriched curriculum, flexible schooling options, and/or participation in extracurricular enrichment.

• Students from other countries who may have joined the Spanish educa- tion system and are enrolled in courses offered to students who are at a lower age or grade level. Schools provide necessary support to students who may have language problems and difficulty integrating into the nor- mal classes according to their age.

The 2006 Organic Law of Education stipulates procedures to be followed for identification of children with SEN and requires that only teams of qua- lified personnel should carry out identification and evaluation process and decide subsequently on a program, support needs, or a plan for students. The qualified teams may include speech therapists, audiologists, psycholo- gists, guidance counselors, social workers, and teacher consultants, appointed by regional education authorities (Teese, Aasen, Field, & Pont, 2006). Such needs are to be established with necessary input from and con- sultation with parents, teachers, and administrators from the educational establishments. Students with special education needs identified by the team of experts have a choice of attending either special education estab- lishments or mainstream establishments with appropriate adaptations made to the curriculum to meet the needs of these students. The following section reports some statistics on the enrollment of students with SEN in various educational establishments (schools), including students with SEN who are integrated/included.

159Special Education Today in Spain

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 Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (MECD), Government of Spain released a report in July 2013 about students with special education needs in the year 2011�2012. According to the reported statistics, during 2011�2012 year the total number of pupils who received care and support in the three categories defined by LOE (students with SEN, students with high intellectual disabilities/gifted and students with a late entry in schools) amounted to 399,083 students or 5.1% of the total student population. Of these 117,385 students or 1.48% were students with disabilities integrated into regular schools. This category includes those integrated into public regu- lar schools and private regular schools. A total of 32,233 students were in spe- cial schools or special units within the regular schools, which again included both public special schools and private special schools and special units within public regular schools and special units within private regular schools. Table 3 provides longitudinal data for school years 1999�2000 to 2010�2011 of students with special educational needs in various schools.

The categories of special needs included hearing impairments, motor/ physical impairments, mental/intellectual/cognitive impairment, visual impairments, and autism/other developmental disabilities, and other multi- ple disabilities including pervasive developmental and behavioral disorders. The number of students with special educational needs fully integrated in regular education schools and in regular education classes increased by 7,610 over the period between 1999�2000 and 2012�2013 with an increase of 4,896 in the reported number of students with special educational needs who were in special schools and in special education units within the general education schools in the same period. The inception of inception of Public Law 13/1982 (LISMI, 1982) had a positive effect on the number of students identified as having special educational needs who were in special education schools and/or in special education units within regular schools in the pre- vious decade. An overview of longitudinal data (1990�1991 to 1999�2000) reported a remarkable decrease, from 42,329 students in 1990�1991 school years to 27,321 students in 1999�2000 school years (Cardona, 2009).

According to the July 2013 report by the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport � Government of Spain (MECD) for the school year 2011�2012, the total number of pupils who received care and support in the three categories defined by LOE (students with SEN, students with high intellectual disabilities/gifted and students with a late entry in schools) amounted to 399,083 students. Of these 149,618 were students with various disabilities. The prevalence of various disabilities reported within this stu- dent population was 70,594 students or 47.2%, the highest percentage occurred with cognitive/mental/ intellectual disabilities, followed by 43,644

160 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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. Students with Special Educational Needs in Schools in the 21st Century.

School Year % of total school population fully integrated

Overall Total of All

Students in Education at

Different Levels and in

Different Public and

Private Regular Schools

Total Number of Students with

Special Educational Needs

Integrated in Regular Schools in

Regular Classes at Different

Levels

Total Number of Students with Special

Educational Needs in Special Schools and

in Special Education Units within the

Regular Schools (Includes Public Schools

and Private Schools)

2011�2012 7,923,293 117,385 1.48 32,233 2010�2011 7,782,182 110,383 1.41 31,043 2009�2010 7,608,292 111,034 1.46 30,643 2008�2009 7,443,625 107,998 1.45 30,819 2007�2008 7,241,299 106,320 1.47 29,427 2006�2007 7,088,662 104,793 1.48 28,871 2005�2006 6,983,538 107,410 1.54 28,665 2004�2005 6,933,472 109,823 1.58 28,145 2003�2004 6,903,063 117,582 1.70 27,799 2002�2003 6,843,646 123,960 1.81 27,057 2001�2002 6,830,185 116,456 1.71 27,090 2000�2001 6,882,363 114,844 1.67 27,334 1999�2000 6,972,500 109,775 1.57 27,337

Source: Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports-Government of Spain (2013a).

1 6 1

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

n T o d a y in

S p a in

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/m

arym ountu/detail.action?docID

= 1780814.

C reated from

m arym

ountu on 2018-09-26 20:41:47.

students or 29.2% with pervasive developmental disorders. Other disabil- ities reported included 12,878 students with physical disabilities/motor impairments, 7,288 students with hearing impairments, 3,000 students with visual impairments, and 10,222 students with multiple disabilities.

ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS FOR SPECIAL

EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

The Public Law 2/2006, Organic Law of Education (LOE, 2006) stipulates that the identification and evaluation of students with special educational needs will be carried out by multi-professional (multidisciplinary) teams. These teams assess students’ needs, as well as all the relevant elements regarding the teaching-learning process. The evaluation of the student and the context is to be done to help professionals make decisions about the type of schooling, the special education provisions, and the curricular adap- tations that are necessary for the personal, intellectual, social, and emo- tional development of the students.

In order to fulfill the requirements of the Public Law 2/2006, the Ministry of Education published in Order EDU/849/2010 of arrangement in 2010 regulations governing the education of students with specific educa- tional support needs. According to this Order the student’s assessment is to be conducted by the school counselor with the cooperation of teachers, par- ents, and other professionals.

The school counselor gathers information about (a) the student (e.g., individual traits, personal and social development, curricular competence, learning styles), (b) the school context (e.g., school and classroom organiza- tion, student’s relationship with the professionals and peers), and (c) the social and family context (e.g., family and environment information, par- ents’ expectations, and relationship with school, and community resources). For this purpose, the professionals use informal instruments, measure- ments, and procedures that they consider necessary to collect information about the students and their context, especially, systematic observation, questionnaires, interviews, samples of school works, and class tests.

Once the assessment has been carried out, the school counselor writes a report which reflects the current developmental and educational profile of the student. This a confidential document that includes all the information about the student and his or her context, the instruments used for assess- ment, the main results and conclusions of the assessment, the specific educational support needs, the expected organizational and curricular

162 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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

measures to be adopted, and the personal and material resources that will be necessary. It also provides recommendations for the education of the student with special educational needs that includes specific adaptations to the curriculum.

An assessment report indicating such needs for curricular adaptations and the type of schooling that may be a better match for the educational needs of the student is a requirement for any adaptations to be provided. In conclusion, a student being transferred to any special education school is required to have a complete schooling report to help find a good match for the student’s ability and needs. This schooling report includes (1) a final assessment report prepared by multidisciplinary team specifying student’s present level of performance, student’s abilities, needs, and needed modifica- tions, (2) recommendations for educational approaches that will better respond to the student’s needs, and (3) recommendations for specific other equipment and resources. The comprehensive report concludes with a recommendation for the best fit (special school, special unit with a general education school, or a general education classroom) to meet the child’s needs determined by the multidisciplinary team, including the type of resources needed, thus justifying the placement recommended.

To avoid referrals that may lead to unnecessary and stigmatizing formal and comprehensive assessments, teachers are expected to adapt their instruction to the particular needs of each student in collaboration with the school counselor and other professionals (e.g., the special education tea- cher). Teachers may adapt their teaching strategies and the curriculum as long as the elements of the core curriculum (objectives and curricular con- tents of each level) are not significantly modified. And only when all these general accommodations are not sufficient to respond to students’ educa- tional needs, a formal assessment will be conducted by the school counselor (Giné & Ruiz, 1991; Ruiz i Bel, 1988). Teachers need to have documentation of previous assessment results and measures adopted in the classroom to respond to student’s needs and documentation to justify the need of a for- mal assessment.

PROVISION, SUPPORTS, AND EDUCATIONAL

INTERVENTIONS

Considering the trend in the last decade where inclusion has become a pre- ferred model for the education of all students, the key question is how the

163Special Education Today in Spain

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

Spanish educational system organized to meet the needs of learners identi- fied as having disabilities or severe special educational needs (SEN). According to the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2009a), the Spanish educational system supports a multi-track structure in the sense that students with disabilities and/or severe educa- tional needs can be enrolled: (1) in mainstream schools with almost full inclusion into all school activities and following the school core curriculum; (2) in self-contained special education classrooms for students in need of ongoing educational support in some periods of their timetable combined with mainstream classes; and (3) in special schools, both public and/or pri- vate schools.

In the first approach (inclusion), students with disabilities or special educational needs spend all, or at least more than half, of the school day with students who do not have special educational needs. Because inclusion can require substantial modification of the general curriculum most schools use this approach only for selected students with mild to moderate special needs for which is accepted as a best practice (Echeita et al., 2009; Verdugo & Rodrı́guez-Aguilella, 2012). Specialized services may be pro- vided inside or outside the regular classroom, depending on the type of ser- vice. Students may occasionally leave the regular classroom to attend smaller, more intensive instructional sessions in a resource room or to receive other related services that might require specialized equipment or might be disruptive to the rest of the class, such as speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, rehabilitation, or counseling.

Self-contained special education classrooms or mainstreaming refers to the practice of educating students with disabilities in classes with non- disabled students during specific time periods based on their skills. These classes are exclusively for students with special needs such as deafness, severe intellectual disabilities or personality disorders. The students in this setting usually do not get to spend any time with their non-disabled peers. Although these students attend the same school where regular classes are provided, they spend almost all instructional time exclusively in a separate classroom for students with specific needs. If their special class is located in an ordinary school, they may be provided opportunities for social integra- tion outside the classroom.

Recently, the overall number of special schools in Spain has tended to decrease (Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport, Government of Spain, 2012). While some special institutions have been transformed into

164 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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

resources centers, others have been dismantled as a result of inclusive poli- cies but still exist. The public administration gives students the necessary support from the beginning of their schooling or as soon as they are identi- fied as having special needs. The schools develop the curriculum through Individual Educational Plans (IEP), which have to take into account the student’s needs and characteristics.

Since the introduction of the Organic Law 2/2006 of Education (LOE, 2006), inclusion has been a key principle within the Spanish educational structures at different levels, recognizing the need to fit provisions to a wide range of needs and students’ abilities, motivation, mother tongue, etc. The Organic Law 2/2006 of Education establishes the concept of “pupils with specific need of educational support” which includes students with special educational needs, gifted students, and immigrant students/pupils who were incorporated late into the Spanish education system. The law is based on the following basic principles: (1) quality education for all students; (2) equity for equal opportunities, inclusion and non-discrimination; and (3) flexibility to adapt education to special needs, interests, aptitudes, and expectations.

A key component of the definition of “special educational needs” (SEN) in the Spanish legislation is that children have special educational needs if they require additional provision or different supports that are not normally available in schools. With the introduction of the term “spe- cial need of educational support,” increasingly, the population of children with disabilities is no longer defined in terms of categories of need, but inextricably linked to resourcing (European Agency for Development of Special Needs Education [EADSNE], 2013). This has opened the way to greater inclusion while placing the emphasis on funding rather than on educational issues.

In Spain as in most countries across Europe, learners seen to have “special or additional” needs that are assessed to ascertain the level and nature of support required. Agencies usually use national systems of classi- fication or categorization to identify problems and assess students’ educa- tional or supports needs. Recommendations emerging from the Spanish Minister of Education, Culture, and Sport, Government of Spain (2012a) advocate a move away from any form of classification system that leads to labeling and/or placement based on categories toward of an understanding of what benefits the students. In this sense, the Ministry recommendation is to use ordinary measures for attending to diversity, such as successive levels of curricular adaptation, or organization and delivery of support activities

165Special Education Today in Spain

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 regular settings before using more specific measures of support. Once ordinary measures have been applied and have proved to be insufficient to respond to the educational needs of a student, the education system consid- ers a series of extraordinary measures: for example, significant curricular adaptations, curriculum diversification, repeating a cycle or school year, and ultimately social guarantee programs. Other specific support measures are: alterations of school building facilities, additional support provided by specialist teachers, specific teaching methods or materials for students hav- ing sensorial (visual, auditory) disabilities or other specific needs, reduced class sizes, support specialist teachers, or special arrangements for assess- ment and evaluation. There is also the possibility of prolonging schooling up to the age of 18 years.

To meet the needs of the students with disabilities in inclusive class- rooms, teachers usually emphasize instruction in functional academics and daily living, social, and vocational skills. To teach these skills, teachers use a variety of teacher-directed, student-directed, and peer-mediated approaches. Teachers-directed models include: (a) task analysis to deter- mine prerequisite skills and component skills (what skills are needed to complete the task); (b) modeling, a method in which the teacher demon- strates the behavior to be learned, and facilitates mastery by providing much practice, reinforcement, and feedback; or (c) scaffolding, an approach that can be defined as an adjustable and temporary support. In addition, educators are increasingly facilitating students’ use of self-regulation proce- dures, such as self-monitoring, self-administering consequences, and self- instruction to promote student independence. Further, given the context of large heterogeneous classes, reflective teachers are increasingly using peer- mediated procedures to provide additional practice and individual help to students with and without disabilities. One such arrangement is peer tutor- ing, a technique that under certain conditions has been shown to benefit both tutor and tutee academically, behaviorally, and socially. Specific examples of peer tutoring in the areas of reading and math with Spanish students are reported by Cardona, Reig, and Domene (2000) and Cardona (2002) respectively. These researchers used class wide peer tutoring (CWPT) to accommodate the diversity of reading and math abilities of Spanish students in a bilingual programs that included students with mod- erate intellectual disabilities.

Additionally, the inclusion of students with disabilities in general educa- tion classrooms has resulted in increased interest among educators in pro- cedures that promote academic improvement and skills and enhance the social acceptance of these students. Recent reviews of methods suggest

166 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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

that teachers in Spain are increasingly using mastery learning (Martı́n, Torres, Santaolalla, & Hernández, 2013; Torres, 2013), computer-assisted instruction (Cascales, Martı́nez, & Laguna, 2013; Navarro & Camús, 2013), cooperative learning (Hernández & Olmos, 2011; Pujolàs, 1997), and co-teaching (Devesa, 2004). However, little information exists regarding teachers’ perceptions of within-class instructional adaptations. With this as a focus, Cardona (2003) examined how teachers (kindergarten, elementary, and secondary) perceive such adaptations in terms of feasibility, effective- ness, and desirability of implementation. This researcher found that instructional adaptations have a moderate teachers’ acceptance and that although a majority of the teachers believe that are feasible and effective only a minority perceive them as desirable. In another study, Cardona and Chiner (2006) found that teachers reported a limited use of instructional adaptations which significantly differed among kindergarten, elementary, and secondary school teachers. Cardona and Chiner indicated that a possi- ble interpretation for this finding is that teachers were not involved in sys- tematic consultation or collaboration with support personnel and viewed most of these adaptations as incompatible with the prevailing structure of the general education classroom. Other explanations could be that teachers had specific concerns involving availability of supports and time for plan- ning and implementation.

In summary, educational goals for students with disabilities emphasize readiness skills at younger ages and functional academics and vocational training at older ages. After finishing the compulsory secondary educa- tion, all students, including special education students, receive a certificate with the number of years of study and the grades they have received in the different subjects with non-prescriptive and confidential guidance regarding their academic and professional future. In addition, provision has been made (LOCE, 2002; LOE, 2006) for students with disabilities who finish basic education without having reached the objectives of com- pulsory secondary education to continue their schooling under three dif- ferent vocational training-related options: (1) social guarantee programs adapted to their personal circumstances as well as to their level of skills and development, (2) special social guarantee programs specially designed for students with disabilities wishing to continue schooling beyond com- pulsory education (ESO), and (3) transition to adult life programs (initial vocational training) for those students with disabilities associated with more severe and permanent disabilities. The special social guarantee pro- grams have the same structure as the social guarantee programs designed for students without disabilities but are organized around the following

167Special Education Today in Spain

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

areas: basic training, training and career guidance, vocational training, complementary activities, and educational guidance. On the other hand, transition to adult life programs are programs designed for students with more severe disabilities who are unable to take advantage of the two other training alternatives. These programs, which are generally provided in specific special education schools, last two years but they may be extended to three years.

As a result of the above process of schooling, the Spanish Government aims to increase the opportunities and participation of young with disabil- ities in employment and full participation in their communities. Therefore, a variety of vocational training and employment approaches have been available since the passage of Public Law 13/1982, Ley de Integración de los Minusválidos (LISMI, 1982). These approaches include the following: (1) protected employment in occupational canters; (2) sheltered workshops, structures environment where a person receives training a works with other workers with disabilities on jobs requiring relatively low skills; and (3) sup- ported competitive employment. Despite this specific legislation that pro- motes access to regular employment, a low percentage of people with disabilities (36.6%) work in inclusive environments (Colectivo IOÉ, 2003; Instituto Nacional de Estadı́stica [INE], 2012; Jordán & Verdugo, 2011; Pallisera, Vilà, & Valls, 2003). In reality, several studies (Caleidoscopia, 1996; Fernández, Arias, & Gallego, 1999; Fundación Equipara, 2008) that have examined employment rates of people with disabilities has shown that: (a) there are low social expectations for about employability, and (b) that family members and professionals negative expectations about employability of people with disabilities may be real barrier to attaining and keeping jobs. With this in mind, Gómez (2013) studied the employ- ability beliefs and perceptions of 118 families, 54 educators and 60 people with intellectual disability belonging to a non-governmental association from the Valencian Community and found that families, educators and people with a disability believe that only some people with intellectual disability can work and that family fears can affect real possibilities of their employability. Although current employment figures and perspectives may look bleak (Colectivo IOÉ, 2003; INE, 2012), evidence also shows (Carabaña, López de la Nieta, & Andreu, 2006) that employers are taking a more favorable attitude toward hiring workers with disabilities. Thanks to these employers’ efforts, many people with disabilities are achieving levels of independence in employment that were never thought possible.

168 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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 conclusion, as has been largely recognized, inclusive education and its implementation may differ depending on the context in which it is devel- oped and implemented but the literature (Alexander, 2012; European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education [EADSNE], 2011, 2013) has shown that there are common elements across different contexts as to “what works” in helping all learners to succeed. In the context of the Spanish educational system, these elements include:

• Changes in the whole educational system, rather than simply where learners with dis-

abilities are educated.

• The need to increase the capability of regular schools and develop their competence

to benefit all learners.

• The importance of listening to learners and their families in the organization of any

additional support.

• The development of inclusive attitudes and beliefs in teachers and the will to take

responsibility for all learners.

• The importance of distributed leadership to ensure a positive culture and ethos in all

schools.

• The importance of networking and collaboration in providing support at all levels

(community, school, and individual).

• The development of equitable funding approaches which aim to improve the school

system for all learners through collaboration, rather than providing an incentive to

identify and label learners (p. 63).

Ultimately, inclusion involves changing the culture and the organization of regular schools and the communities they serve in order to ensure the full participation of all learners (Mittler, 2000).

TEACHER EDUCATION FOR SPECIAL AND

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Preparing new teachers to be “inclusive” educators requires so much more than the addition of a special education course or a specific intervention module. To be successful in this effort, teacher educators must develop expertise to deal with contentious issues and address their own personal deeper values and attitudes. Special and inclusive education is different terms. Both terms have roots in the worldwide campaign to achieve educa- tion for all but its meaning differ. According to Florian (2009), special edu- cation has focused on those things that are additional to and different from

169Special Education Today in Spain

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

that which is otherwise available, while inclusive education has focused on extending the scope of the ordinary school to accommodate a greater diversity of learners ensuring their meaningful participation in the culture, curriculum, and community of mainstream schools. In any case, prospective teachers require a bachelor’s degree with an emphasis in Special Education to qualify as a special education teacher at a public school.

Spain has a decentralized system of teacher education and certifica- tion. Each Autonomous Community and University is responsible for initial certification and credentialing of its teachers. In a decentralized system, the central government, in this case, the Ministry of Education, governs almost all aspects of the teacher education and verification pro- cess. The Ministry sets minimum guideline entry and exit requirements, as well as curriculum content for teacher education programs. While the Autonomous Communities and their respective institutions of higher education monitors compliance with these guidelines there has to be an adaption of the state core program to their particular needs and demands. Therefore, in Spain, the Ministry of Education and the Department of Education of the diverse Autonomous Communities share responsibility for teacher education and certification, but higher educa- tion institutions (universities) develop from these guidelines their own programs.

Types of Institutions that Prepare Teachers

Prospective teachers in Spain have to complete a four-year undergraduate program for initial certification. Teacher education programs are offered by public universities and private universities and almost all of them pro- vide initial teacher certification in two majors (kindergarten education and primary education). Teacher certification in secondary and high school requires all prospective teachers to complete a master’s program for initial certification.

Entry Requirements

The majority of teacher education programs require a minimum GPA in high school (grades C or above) and a pass on an entrance examination (Selectividad). Performance on both is combined into a university entrance

170 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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

score which is determinant to be accepted or not in one of the two major teacher education programs (kindergarten or primary education). Also, Spain has entry requirements based on students’ performance in secondary school. Each student has a university entrance score that is calculated based on marks obtained on assessments and examinations in high school and results from university entry examination. Each university sets its own cut-off scores, acceptance being more competitive for kindergarten than primary education.

Teacher Education Curriculum

The curriculum content of the four-year undergraduate programs is deter- mined by individual teacher training institutions (universities) within the context of state and community accreditation policies. Institutions typically require 60 ECTS credits per year to complete 240 credits during the four years.

A typical undergraduate teacher education program (e.g., Maestro: Primary Education) consists of 240 credits (1 credit = 25 hours of student work at the university): 60 ECTS credits of general studies (core courses), 100 ECTS credits of professional studies and certification teaching (core courses), 30 ECTS credits of electives courses and mentions (specialization), 44 ECTS credits of practicum (student teaching and other field-based experiences), and 6 ECTS credits Final Degree Project. To obtain a men- tion in Special Education, prospective teachers are required to take 18 ECTS common courses for the itinerary (three 6 ECTS compulsory courses and two 6 ECTS elective) (see Table 3 for the mention of Special Education).

A teacher education program in special education (e.g., Maestro, Emphasis in Special Education) consists of 240 ECTS credits. On average, 60 credits of general studies (core courses), 100 ECTS credits of major credits (courses in certification teaching subject area and professional stu- dies), 12 ECTS credits of electives courses and 18 ECTS credits for the mention (special education), 44 ECTS credits of practicum (student teach- ing and other field-based experiences), and 6 ECTS credits Final Degree Project (FDP).

Teacher training programs in kindergarten or primary education majors have similar structures. All are composed of at least 240 credits distributed between common core courses, courses in certification teaching subject

171Special Education Today in Spain

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

area, student teaching and other field-based experiences, elective courses, and FPD (Table 4).

Exit Requirements

In Spain, exit standards for the undergraduate training programs of Maestro include completion of required courses, passage of classroom examinations with adequate PGA (above C), and a Practicum composed of field activities (observation in classes, assisting teachers, and collaboration in extracurricular activities) and student teaching. The length of time required for the Practicum is a semester approximately. This Practicum is supervised and evaluated by selected teachers of the schools and staff from the higher education institutions.

Degree Earned

Upon completion of the teacher education program undergraduates are awarded a bachelor degree (Diploma of Maestro). Depending on the major, students can obtain the following degrees:

• Maestro: Kindergarten Education. • Maestro: Primary Education.

With emphasis in: Music Education, Physical Education, Foreign Language Education, Special Education, and Speech Therapy depending on the institutions.

Table 4. Common Courses for Teacher Certification (Maestro: Primary Education, Emphasis in Special Education).

Plan 2012 (University of Salamanca, Spain): Itinerary of Special Education

Course # ECTS Credits

Minor common courses

Disability studies 6

Response to diversity: students with disabilities 6

Psychological disorders 6

Minor electives courses

Behavioral interventions programs 6

Communication and speech intervention programs 6

Teaching maths to students with special educational needs 6

172 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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

FAMILY AND PARENT INVOLVEMENT

Parents have a crucial role to play in the education of their children with disabilities in Spain. This role is guaranteed by law (LISMI, 1982; LOE, 2006) which requires the school system to ensure that parents have the opportunity to participate in the educational decisions affecting their chil- dren with special needs education. Special education legislation, namely, Public Law 13/1982 (LISMI, 1982), stipulates that parents of students with disabilities are entitled to the following rights to: (1) a free and appropriate public education for their children; (2) an independent psycho-educational evaluation when placement and program decisions have to be made; (3) a notice before the multidisciplinary team initiates or changes the identifica- tion, evaluation, or placement of the child; (4) give or withhold consent before an evaluation is conducted and before initial placement in made in special education; (5) revoke consent at any time; (6) request an impartial due process hearing to question identification, evaluation, or placement of the child; (7) have a full and individual evaluation of the child’s educational needs in all areas related to the suspected disability conducted by a multi- disciplinary team; and (8) have their child educated in regular schools and classrooms to the maximum extent possible with a continuum of alternate placements and supplementary services such as a resource room or itinerant instruction. In addition, this law stipulates that when a student is identified as having a disability, parents or guardians must be involved in developing individualized education program (IEP) and that the school should make every effort to provide their child with the necessary services and supports needed so that their child can be taught with children who do not have disabilities.

Parent and family responsibilities are less clearly defined in the law than are parental rights but strong recommendations exists for how schools can develop partnerships with families such as: engaging in quality communica- tion; inviting parents to participate in schools activities; soliciting parents’ input on decisions about their child’s education; or empowering parents to take action that addresses their own needs. Some of these partnerships can be developed thorough the Association of Mothers and Fathers (AMPA) at their child’s school, however, these partnerships will only be successful with strong commitment and collaboration.

Despite these requirements of collaboration between schools and families as stipulated by law, many parents have little or no involvement in their children special and/or inclusive education process. They often attend their child’s Individualized Education Program meeting but have

173Special Education Today in Spain

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

little or no involvement in developing objectives or interventions (Antequera et al., 2008). Quite frequently, families have also reported that they were not given choices to participate or reporting that their children are not receiving the kind of services they need (Gómez, 2013). However, there are several other schools where professionals, specialist personnel, regular and special education teachers, and families work together. Inclusion Europe (2006) described one such example of good practices fol- lowed by Padre Jerónimo Elementary School. This school has been practi- cing and striving to enhance their integration program for students with special needs since the year 1987�1988. The school encourages active par- ticipation by all stakeholders in education of students with special educa- tion needs specifically, parents and families. Some specific ways this school involves families are by: informing them how the school works with their children; by inviting them to participate in the follow-up and evaluation of the educational process of their children; and by providing them with proper information at the end of every school year and, most crucially, at the end of the school attendance (Inclusion Europe, 2006, pp. 9�10).

To promote family involvement in the lifelong learning of their children with disabilities parents in recent decades have engaged in united efforts, and sought awareness regarding their child’s education, care, and guidance by creating national, regional, and local associations. Calvo, Regueiro, and Ramirez (2011) published a resource guide that provides information about various organizations and associations which band together to share pro- blems and promote awareness regarding needs and education of children, youth, and adults with disabilities. It is an excellent resource for individuals with various disabilities and their families. Each page in the document lists details of organizations/associations including contact information, types of services individuals with disabilities and families can expect, and their outreach activities. https://www.uclm.es/to/fcsociales/pdf/GuiaPersonasDis capacidad.pdf.

The Spain’s State Board of Education in their Proposals for Improvement 2012 Report on the State of the Spanish Education System called for greater involvement of families in education states that “social participation in general, and students’ parents, mothers in particular are one of the fundamental pillars of education” (Ministry of Education, 2012, p. 21). In recognizing the direct positive correlation between family involve- ment and student success, the report also called for setting avenues for school�family/parent communication. Another recommendation from the report stresses the need to provide a wider choice of centers of education

174 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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

https://www.uclm.es/to/fcsociales/pdf/GuiaPersonasDiscapacidad.pdf.

for children with disabilities and greater autonomy and freedom for parents to choose the centers they deem best for their children.

FUTURE TRENDS AND CHALLENGES

Now that Inclusion is a reality in the Spanish educational system, more attention should be paid to the quality of the process of inclusive educa- tion. Administrators, professionals, and the school community should be aware that inclusion is not just having students with special educational needs in the ordinary schools and classrooms, but also the full participation of these students in all the activities that are taking place in their school and social context (Inclusion International, 1996). To achieve real inclusion of all students, administrators, professionals, and the school community must guarantee equal opportunities to these students and be able to respond adequately to their special educational needs in order to fully develop their personal, social, educational and vocational development. For this purpose, professionals, and especially regular education teachers, must believe in inclusion and understand it as a right. Positively, research has shown that teachers in Spain hold positive attitudes toward inclusion (Chiner & Cardona, 2013). Teachers have been found to generally agree with the concept of inclusion, but they also think that it is not easy to implement due to the lack of: time, resources, supports, and training (Chiner & Cardona, 2013). This latter aspect may hinder the right condi- tions to promote inclusion and can lead teachers to a discouragement that will negatively affect the students’ learning and development. Another study conducted by Chiner and Cardona (2012) also showed that, despite the positive attitudes toward inclusion, teachers do not adapt their instruc- tion sufficiently to meet students’ special needs. Further Chiner and Cardona pointed out that teachers usually implement general adaptations oriented to the whole group rather than more specific inclusive practices. In other words, they usually provide accommodations that are easy to implement.

In light of the above, the schools educational administration should pro- vide teachers with enough resources and supports, as well as necessary pre- service and in-service training through professional development courses on inclusion and specific instructional adaptations to attend students’ spe- cial educational needs in inclusive classrooms. Special attention should be paid to secondary education teachers. These teachers are well trained in

175Special Education Today in Spain

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

specific subjects, such mathematics, history, and science, but they have very little knowledge about teaching, and more specifically, teaching students with special educational needs. Currently, prior to becoming secondary education teachers, they must complete a sixty-credit program, teaching strategies (especially in their specific subject area) and, in some cases diver- sity strategies. However, this training is clearly not enough for secondary education teachers to feel prepared to address students’ special education needs. Given this situation, higher education programs should include more credits related to teaching students with special educational needs in order to prepare teachers to be more sensitive toward diversity and be con- fident to adapt their instruction to the specific needs of each student.

CONCLUSION

In spite of the significant progress made to date in Spain’s inclusive educa- tion practices, it still has a system based on a continuum of services that go from total inclusion in regular classrooms to the segregation in special edu- cation schools. The decision of placing the student is often based on cate- gories of disabilities, forgetting the principles of the special educational needs concept. The LOE (2006) mandates that students must be placed in regular classes and schools, and only when that is not possible, they will be taught in special education units or schools. However, the latter policy makes the mandate ambiguous and subject to different interpretations. Therefore, it is critical that administrators work on developing what was initially stated by the LOGSE (1990): promoting special schools as resource centers, more than direct teaching schools, and including most of the stu- dents in ordinary schools.

REFERENCES

Alexander, R. (2012, May). International evidence, national policy and classroom practice:

Questions of judgment vision and trust. Closing session keynote given at the third Van

Leer international conference on education “from regulation to trust”, Jerusalem, Israel.

Antequera, M., Bachiller, B., Calderón, M. T., Cruz, A., Cruz, P. L., Garcı́a, F. J., … Ortega,

R. (2008). Handbook for the education of students with specific need of educational sup-

port due to intellectual disability. Sevilla, Spain: Junta de Andalucı́a.

Arco-Tirado, J. J., & Fernandez-Balboa, J. (2003). Contextual barriers to school reform in

Spain. International Review of Education, 49(6), 585�600.

176 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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

Bonet, J. P. (1930). Reduction of words and the art of teaching mute people how to speak.

Madrid, Spain: Beltrán.

Caleidoscopia. (1996). Personal and social factors of the employment of people with

disabilities. Madrid, Spain: Real Patronato de Prevención y Atención a Personas con

Minusvalı́a.

Calvo, S. M., Regueiro, E. M., & Ramirez, A. P. (2011). Guide of associations for people with

disabilities. Universidad de Castilla la Mancha. Retrieved from https://www.uclm.es/to/

fcsociales/pdf/GuiaPersonasDiscapacidad.pdf

Carabaña, J., López de la Nieta, M., & Andreu, S. (2006). Analysis of interactions and impact

of the Spanish educational system on the labour market: The case of pupils with special

educational needs with particular reference to students with intellectual disabilities. In

J. M. Ibáñez (Ed.), Libro verde sobre los itinerarios hacia el empleo de los jóvenes con dis-

capacidad intelectual (pp. 73�352). Badajoz, Spain: Aprosuba. Cardona, C. M. (2009). Current trends in special education in Spain: Do they really reflect leg-

islative mandates of Inclusion? The Journal of International Association of Special

Education, 10(1), 4�10. Cardona, M. C. (2002). Adapting instruction to address individual and group educational

needs in math. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 2(1), 1�16. Cardona, M. C. (2003). Classroom change and inclusion through/via instructional adapta-

tions. Revista De Investigación Educativa, 21(2), 465�487. Cardona, M. C., & Chiner, E. (2006). Use and effectiveness of instructional adaptations in

inclusive classrooms: A study of perceptions and training needs of teachers. Bordón,

58(3), 5�24. Cardona, M. C., Reig, A., & Domene, D. (2000). Theory and practice of instructional adapta-

tions. Alicante, Spain: Universidad de Alicante Press.

Cascales, A., Martı́nez, M. J., & Laguna, M. I. (2013). Methodology to work with tablets

with students with specific needs of educational support in regular classrooms. In

M. C. Cardona, E. Chiner, & A. Giner (Eds.), Investigación e innovación educativa

al servicio de instituciones y comunidades globales, plurales y diversas (pp.

718�724). Alicante, Spain: AIDIPE (Asociación Interuniversitaria de Investigación Pedagógica).

Chiner, E., & Cardona, M. C. (2012). Teachers’ use of inclusive practices in Spain. The

International Journal of Learning Diversity and Identities, 19(1), 29�45. Chiner, E., & Cardona, M. C. (2013). Inclusive education in Spain: How do skills,

resources, and supports affect regular education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion?

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(5), 526�541. doi:10.1080/13603116. 2012.689864

Colectivo IOÉ. (2003). The employability of people with disabilities. Barcelona, Spain:

Fundación La Caixa.

Deak, A. (1999). Children with special educational needs: The position in Spain. International

Peto Institute. Retrieved from epa.oszk.hu/01400/01428/00004/pdf/0402-Deak-Spain.

pdf

Department of Education and Science. (1978). Special educational needs. Report of the com-

mittee of inquiry into the education of handicapped children and young people (The

Warnock report). London, UK: HMSO.

Devesa, M. C. (2004). Effects of co-teaching in learning to read and write in 5-year-old stu-

dents. Trabajo del perı́odo de investigación (suficiencia investigadora) del programa de

177Special Education Today in Spain

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

https://www.uclm.es/to/fcsociales/pdf/GuiaPersonasDiscapacidad.pdf

epa.oszk.hu/01400/01428/00004/pdf/0402-Deak-Spain.pdf

doctorado “Atención a la Diversidad en Ámbitos Educativos”. Universidad de

Alicante, Alicante, Spain.

Echeita, G., Verdugo, M. A., Sandoval, M., Simón, C., López, M., González-Gil, F., & Calvo,

I. (2009). FEAPS opinion about the process of educational inclusion. Siglo Cero, 39(4),

26�50. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSP). (2009a). Special

needs education within the education systems: Spain. Odense, Denmark: Author.

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSP). (2009b). Teacher

education for inclusion: International literature review. Odense, Denmark: Author.

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSP). (2011). Teacher

education for inclusion across Europe: Challenges and opportunities. Odense, Denmark:

Author.

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSP). (2013).

Organization of provision to support inclusive education: Literature review.

Odense, Denmark:

Author.

Fernández, D., Arias, E., & Gallego, L. (1999). Enterprise culture: Employers’

motivation for the inclusion of people with disabilities. La Coruña, Spain: Fundación

Paideia.

Florian, L. (2009, July). Special and inclusive education in Europe. Session keynote given at

11th IASE biennial international conference on special education, broadening the horizon:

Recognizing, accepting, and embracing differences to make a better world for individuals

with special needs, Alicante, Spain.

Fundación Equipara. (2008). 2008 Equipara report: Observatory for improving the labour equity

of people with disabilities. Barcelona, Spain: Author.

Galino, M. A. (1968). History of education: Ancient and middle ages. Madrid, Spain: Gredos.

Garcı́a Pastor, C. (1998). Integration in Spain: A critical review. European Journal of Special

Needs Education, 13(1), 43�56. Giné, C., & Ruiz, R. (1991). Curricular adaptations and school educational project. In

A. Marchesi, C. Coll, & J. Palacios (Eds.), Desarrollo psicológico y educación, III.

Necesidades educativas especiales y aprendizaje escolar (pp. 337�349). Madrid, Spain: Alianza Editorial.

Gómez, J. M. (2013). Beliefs and perceptions of employability of people with intellectual disabil-

ity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain.

Hernández, A., & Olmos, S. (2011). Collaborative learning methodologies through technologies.

Salamanca, Spain: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.

Illán, N., & Arnáiz, P. (1996). Historical evolution of special education: Background and

current situation. In N. Illán (Coord.), Didáctica y organización en educación especial

(pp. 13�43). Málaga, Spain: Aljibe. Inclusion Europe. (2006). Towards inclusive education: Examples of good practices of inclusive

education. Brussels, Belgium: Inclusion Europe and European Commission.

Inclusion International. (1996). Inclusion: News from inclusion international. Brussels, Belgium:

Author.

Instituto Nacional de Estadı́stica. (2012). Employability of people with disabilities. Series

2008�2011. Retrieved from http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=/t22/ p320/serie&file=pcaxis

Jiménez, P., & Vilà, M. (1999). Special education and diversity education. Málaga, Spain:

Aljibe.

178 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=/t22/p320/serie&file=pcaxis

Jordán, de U. B., & Verdugo, M. A. (2011). Evolution of supported employment in Spain

(1995�2010) and adjustment to the quality standards of EUSE. Retrieved from http// sid.usal.es/idocs/F8/FDO25798/Informe_INICO_ECA_1995-2010.pdf

LEP. (1945, July 18). Act of elementary education. Boletı́n Oficial del Estado.

LGE. (1970, August 6). Act on education and financing of the educational reform. Boletı́n

Oficiadel Estado.

LISMI. (1982, April 20). Act on social integration of people with disabilities. Boletı́n Oficial del

Estado.

LOCE. (2002, December 24). Organic act on educational quality. Boletı́n Oficial del Estado.

LODE. (1985, July 4). Organic act on the right to education. Boletı́n Oficial del Estado.

LOE. (2006, May 4). Organic act on education. Boletı́n Oficial del Estado.

LOGSE. (1990, October 4). Act on general arrangement of the education system. Boletı́n Oficial

del Estado.

LOPEG. (1995, November 21). Organic act on the participation, evaluation, and administra-

tion of schools. Boletı́n Oficial del Estado.

Martı́n, J. F., Torres, J., Santaolalla, E., & Hernández, V. (2013). The competence of learning

to learn: Teacher perceptions of its development in elementary and secondary school in

the community of Madrid. In M. C. Cardona, E. Chiner, & A. Giner (Eds.),

Investigación e innovación educativa al servicio de instituciones y comunidades globales,

plurales y diversas (pp. 776�786). Alicante, Spain: AIDIPE. Ministry of Education. (2012). The figures of education in Spain. Madrid, Spain: Author.

Minister of Education, Culture, and Sport-Government of Spain. (2012). Proposals for

improvement 2012 report on the state of the Spanish education system. Retrieved from

http://www.mecd.gob.es/dctm/cee/informe2012/pm2012cee.pdf? documentld = 0901e72b 8145b4f3

Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport-Government of Spain. (2013a). Report on non-

university education: Students with special educational needs, 2011�2012. Retrieved from http://www.mecd.gob.es/servicios-al-ciudadano-mecd/estadisticas/educacion/no-univer-

sitaria/alumnado/matriculado.html

Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport-Government of Spain. (2013b). Report on non-

university education: Students enrolled 2000�2011. Retrieved from http://www.mecd. gob.es/servicios-al-ciudadano-mecd/estadisticas/educacion/no-universitaria/alumnado/

matriculado.html

Mittler, P. (2000). Working towards inclusive education: Social contexts. London: David Fulton.

Moliner, O., Sales, A., Ferrández, R., & Traver, J. (2011). Inclusive cultures, policies and prac-

tices in Spanish compulsory secondary education schools: Teachers’ perceptions in

ordinary and specific teaching contexts. International Journal of Inclusive Education,

15(5), 557�572. Navarro, A., & Camús, M. (2013). The interactive whiteboard in the educational process of

students with specific learning disorders. In M. C. Cardona, E. Chiner, & A. Giner

(Eds.), Investigación e innovación educativa al servicio de instituciones y comunidades

globales, plurales y diversas (pp. 1080�1087). Alicante, Spain: AIDIPE. OECD. (2012). Child well-being module, CX3.1, special education needs. Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/social/family/

50325299.pdf

Order EDU/849/2010. (2010, March 18). Order on the educational arrangement of students with

specific needs of educational support and the regulations of school counselling services.

Ministerio de Educación, en las ciudades de Ceuta y Melilla. Boletı́n Oficial del Estado.

179Special Education Today in Spain

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//sid.usal.es/idocs/F8/FDO25798/Informe_INICO_ECA_1995-2010.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/social/family/50325299.pdf

Pallisera, M., Vilà, M., & Valls, M. J. (2003). The current situation of supported employment

in Spain: Analysis and perspectives based on the perception of professionals. Disability

and Society, 6(18), 797�810. Pujolàs, P. (1997). A methodological and organizational classroom proposal for diversity.

Aula de Innovación Educativa, 59, 23�27. Royal Decree on Arrangement of the Education of Students with Special Education needs.

(1995, June 2). Boletı́n Oficial del Estado.

Royal Decree on Arrangement of the Special Education. (1982, October 22). Boletı́n Oficial

del Estado.

Royal Decree on Arrangement of the Special Education. (1985, March 16). Boletı́n Oficial del

Estado.

Ruiz i Bel, R. (1988). Individualized teaching techniques. Madrid, Spain: Cincel.

Teese, R., Aasen, P., Field, S., & Pont, B. (2006). Equity in education thematic review: Spain

country note. Proceedings of Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development

(OECD). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/spain/36361409.pdf

Torres, B. (2013). Alternative assessment strategies for children with disabilities in inclusive

classrooms. In M. C. Cardona, E. Chiner, & A. Giner (Eds.), Investigación e innovación

educativa al servicio de instituciones y comunidades globales, plurales y diversas

(pp. 1152�1158). Alicante, Spain: AIDIPE. United Nations. (1971, December 20). Declaration on the rights of mentally retarded persons.

General Assembly resolution 2856(XXVI).

United Nations. (1975, December 9). Declaration on the rights of disabled persons. General

Assembly resolution 3447(XXX).

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (1994). The Salamanca

statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris, France: Author.

Verdugo, M. A., & Rodrı́guez-Aguilella, A. (2012). Inclusion in Spain from the perspective of

students with intellectual disability, families, and professionals. Revista de Educación,

358, 45�56. doi:10.4438/998-592X-RE-2010-358-086 Vicente, A., & De Vicente, M. P. (2006). An approach to the history of special education.

Murcia, Spain: Diego Marı́n.

180 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

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.oecd.org/spain/36361409.pdf

SPECIAL EDUCATION TODAY

IN NORWAY

Rune Sarrormaa Hausstatter and Harald Thuen

ABSTRACT

The rise of special education in Norway dates back to the early 1880s. Originally, special education was strongly influenced by the Age of Enlightenment and religious and philanthropic commitment to disadvan- taged children. This chapter describes the development of special educa- tion by examining five critical eras, namely, The Era of Philanthropy, the Era of Segregation � Protection for Society, The Era of Segregation-Best Interest of the Child, The Age of Integration � Social Critique and Normalization, and The Age of Inclusion. Also, included are sections on the origins of public education, teacher preparation aspects, approaches to special education, working with families, and important legislative acts that support the right to education for students with disabilities. The chapter also explores the tension that exists today between regular and special education due to Norwegian legislation that emphasizes that students that do not benefit from regular education have a right to special education. The chapter concludes with a discussion about the future challenge to special education, namely, the efficacy of special education.

Special Education International Perspectives: Practices Across the Globe

Advances in Special Education, Volume 28, 181�207 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0270-4013/doi:10.1108/S0270-401320140000028013

181

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/S0270-401320140000028013

INTRODUCTION

A central study in the development of special education is offered by Werner-Putnam (1979). This pioneering work presents a model where the development of special education follows certain, almost law like histori- cal development, starting with support for children with sensory impair- ment and ending with children struggling with severe learning disabilities. This stage like development seems to be in keeping with the experiences of most Western countries. However, the reason for why we experience this development can be debated. Warner-Putnam’s explanation is that the development of special education follows the economic development of each country. Special education is expensive and might therefore be seen as a luxury activity � something that a state will spend resources on after other national challenges are solved. In Warner-Putnam’s view the development of special education is a hierarchical and linear development based on the nation’s wealth. Richardson and Powell (2011) present an alternative model to Putnam. In their view, the development of special education must be looked at as the sum of both international, global trends, and national challenges. The debate about human rights (e.g. United Nations, 1975, 2006) and the quality of education are exam- ples of global processes that both constrain and force nations to develop their support for people with disabilities. As pointed out by Richardson and Powell, special education is not always about the wish to help people with problems; special education strategies can also be used as national strategies to secure the international position of the nation. Several aspects of the development of special education in Norway support the claim made by Richardson and Powell. The aim of this chapter is there- fore to describe the development of special education in Norway as responses to international trends and link this historical development to future challenges of this support system in Norway.

A FEW HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT NORWAY

Before we go into the description of the development of the special educa- tional system in Norway, it is necessary to emphasize a few general facts. Norway is a very small country with a population of about five million peo- ple and is one of the richest countries in the world � with a wealth that is

182 RUNE SARRORMAA HAUSSTATTER AND HARALD THUEN

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

reasonably shared by all citizens. The financial situation changed dramati- cally when Norway became an oil-producing nation in the early 1970s. Before the oil, Norwegian society was mainly dependent on the fishing industry, shipping, agriculture and after the Second World War an energy demanding metal industry supported by hydro power.

Norway, which is situated on the outskirts of mainland Europe, has held no vital historical position since the last Viking rides. Norway was part of a union with Demark for 436 years. Supporting Napoleon, the Danish King found himself on the losing side, and as part of the Treaty of Kiel, Norway was ceded to Sweden in 1814. Norway used the opportunity to declare its own independence and build its own constitution � resulting in the Norwegian-Swedish War, and a new union where Norway was under the Swedish king but with a Norwegian Parliament. A Norwegian Parliament meant partly Norwegian independence and the growth of the nation.

In a peaceful separation with Sweden in 1905, Norway established itself as an independent kingdom. Although, Norway was neutral in the First World War the neutrality strategy did not work in the Second World War, and Norway was occupied by Germany in 1940. Norway become part of the Western block after their political and financial support in World War II. This situation led eventually to Norway joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949.

These brief facts about Norway might seem to be of no importance in a chapter dealing with the trends in Norwegian special education. However, they are important in order to understand the role of special education in Norway. First of all, the marginal position of Norway in today’s world history means that the country has never imposed any major changes on the field of special education in a global perspective. On the contrary, Norway’s strive towards national independence and the growth of a new nation has resulted in strategies where the goal has been to adapt to the international trends of education. The development of Norwegian special education must therefore be understood as one of several areas where Norway should prove its ability to be an indepen- dent nation (Froestad, 1999). The second point is the fact that the finan- cial situation has changed a lot in Norway over the last 40 years. One result of this is that Norway can afford to use a lot of resources on its school system, and subsequently Norway might be a nation that tries to adapt to international trends more actively than many other nations.

183Special Education Today in Norway

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

ORIGINS OF EDUCATION

The Public School

The first traces of organized education in Norway date back to 1152 when the first cathedral schools were established and later changed into Latin-schools. The public school system in Norway was established in 1739, and the public school has since had a dominant position in Norwegian education. While this school legislation stated that the school should be for everybody, in practice many children did not get any education and illiteracy was the norm. The first round of modernization, finished in 1827, of the public school came as a reaction to Norwegian independence from Denmark and stated that all places with more than 30 habitants should have a permanent school. This school should offer education to children from 7 years old until about 15 years of age, for a minimum of two months per year. In 1845, a new legislation for schools in cities was declared, which ensured 18 to 24 hours teaching a week for 45 weeks a year. In 1889, the public school was reorganized into the national elementary school, which offered education for children from 7 to 14 years old. The school system was then modernized in 1936 and in 1959. In 1969 the elementary school was changed to 9 years of school (age 7�16 years) and in 1997 this was changed to 10 years of school (from age 6 years). Today there are about 600,000 students in compulso- rily school from grades 1�10 (6�16 years of age). Norway has a school system that is divided into primary school (grades 1�7) and secondary school/middle school (grades 8�10). In addition, all students have the right to a 3-year high-school education. Today, 97 per cent of children in grades 1�10, and 94 per cent of youth at high-school (grades 11�13) attend public school, and the rest join private schools (Ministry of Education and Research [MER], 2012).

Teacher Education

The development of the school system was also dependent on the develop- ment of the teaching profession. The first state owned teacher training seminary was opened in 1826, and several others were established later in the 1800s. As pointed out by Karlsen (2005), the first phase of the period of teacher education was very liberal in the sense that there was no state

184 RUNE SARRORMAA HAUSSTATTER AND HARALD THUEN

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 curriculum and no general tests. This, however, changed in the late 1800s when the state took more control over the content of the teacher training seminaries to ensure the quality of the education, and this educa- tion is still today controlled by a national framework. Teacher training education was offered as a semi-academic degree in Norway until 1973. After that teacher education was established as 3-year education study at the college level until in 1993 it was changed to 4 years of study.

THE RISE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION IN NORWAY

The history of Special Needs Education in Norway dates back to the early 1800s, when it was strongly influenced by the ideas of the Age of Enlightenment and an increasingly religious, philanthropic commitment to disadvantaged children. The origins of the first special needs educational institutions are to be found in a coming together of the rational and the humane, a meeting between the Enlightenment’s fascination with and exploration of man’s possibilities and limitations on the one hand and a Christian charity on the other. For Norway and the Western World in gen- eral, new perspectives in knowledge, institutional models and methods for deaf, blind, intellectually impaired and socially maladjusted children and young people emerged in the Western World in the years between 1770 and 1830.

Two different approaches can be identified in the early history of institu- tions in Norway. The first approach originated in Paris and derived from a scientific, medical interest in children and young people with physical or intellectual disabilities. It came to Norway with the establishment of our first institution for special education, the institute for the deaf in Trondheim which opened in 1825, and was later followed by an institute for the blind (1861) and an institute for the educationally subnormal or those whom we now refer to as having intellectual disabilities (1874). In 1881, the above three groups were brought within the remit of a common law � the Act on ‘Teaching of Abnormal Children’, or Abnormal School Act (Government of Norway, 1881), as it was called. This was a sign that special needs education was now a public concern, an undertaking that required ‘Society’s Contribution’, although it also continued to rely on pri- vate support.

The other approach is associated with children and young people who are socially maladjusted either because of their background or behaviour.

185Special Education Today in Norway

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

They were not classified as ‘abnormal’, but described by words such as ‘neglected’ or ‘morally corrupted children’. This approach was not intended to develop specific teaching methods and technology to deal with the stu- dents’ problems, but to establish a completely new environment for upbringing and care as a substitute for the child’s family. The first estab- lishment of this type to arrive in Norway was established in Oslo in 1841 under the name Toftes Gave, originally referred to as a ‘rescuing institu- tion’ and after a few decades as an ‘educational care establishment’. In 1896, the Norwegian educational care establishments were brought within the scope of the ‘Law on the Treatment of Neglected Children’, known as the Child Welfare Council Act (Government of Norway, 1896) and were now called ‘reform schools’, and the model institution Bastøy was opened at the same time.

On the basis of this the first era in the history of special needs education during the 1800s can be described as the era of philanthropy. The next era begins with two separate laws at the end of the 1800s, the Abnormal Schools Act and Child Welfare Council Act, indicating that the state now steps in and takes responsibility for the upbringing, education and care of disabled children. They become ‘children of the state’ with the development of a system of institutions based on strict segregation through the first half of the 1900s. The third era was ushered in by the Special Schools Act of 1951 (Government of Norway, 1951). This act gave Norway a general spe- cial schools system which embraced institutions that previously fell under the Abnormal Schools Act (1881) and Child Welfare Council Act (1896), bringing the blind, deaf and dumb, intellectually impaired and children with maladjusted social behaviour, behavioural difficulties, as they were called, under one and the same law. The two historical approaches were thus combined under one and the same law � and Norway ended up with one system. This system would still be based on an ideology of segregation, but at the same time people began to have doubts about the effect of the institutions and the treatment of children. The change came in 1975 with the ‘integration reform’. The Special Schools Act was now integrated with the Primary and Lower Secondary Schools Act (Government of Norway, 1975). Special needs teaching in principle are incorporated within ‘normal schools’, that is to say primary and lower secondary schools, the integra- tion of the acts being based on an ideology of normality. The era of inte- gration lasted until 1997, when it gave way to a new era, as we can describe the Reform Document which introduced the fifth and current epoch, the Norwegian Curriculum Plan of 1997 (Government of Norway, 1997). The plan is based on ‘adapted learning’ rooted in the principle of inclusive

186 RUNE SARRORMAA HAUSSTATTER AND HARALD THUEN

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, which had some years beforehand had been adopted as the guid- ing principle at the UNESCO World Conference on Special Needs Education in Salamanca (UNESCO, 1994).

Having outlined the five eras, we shall now go on to demonstrate more specifically how the changing ideologies and reforms shaped the develop- ment of special needs education in Norway.

The Era of Philanthropy (1825�1880)

The philanthropists, who took the initiative to establish institutions in the 1800s, wanted to perform their good works without any help from the Government or public funds. They were only answerable to God. The con- cept of philanthropy was far from new. It derived from the Greek expres- sion fil antropos � ‘friend of humanity’, and was best understood in everyday parlance as an expression for benevolence, kindness or generosity � a Christian charity. The spirit of philanthropy was able to flourish in Norway in the 1800s on the basis of the principle of liberalism, which required the state and the government to exercise restraint in favour of private initiatives. This created the political basis for a flourishing, Christian, private benevolence, primarily directed towards children and young people, who in their innocence were considered to be ‘the deserving poor’ that pre- vailed over other groups who were themselves considered to be ‘to blame’ for their situation.

The guiding principle for the philanthropists was charity � love for a stranger. ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’. In the Christian concept of love, your neighbour is someone who needs help, but from whom you cannot expect anything in return (Nygren, 1965, 1966). Love for a ‘neighbour’ is not like love for a relative or friend; it is directed at strangers � even your enemies. This distinguishes Christian charity from other forms of love, such as erotic love, parental love or affection between friends. The philan- thropists wanted to get back to Augustine’s caritas synthesis (compassio- nate love) � which arose from the connection between eros and agape, eros stood for man’s longing and striving upwards to God, a yearning to be loved and gain salvation, whereas agape expressed a universal love for man in God’s image which seeks to help and save mankind. In terms of the cari- tas synthesis, charity is not a love that sacrifices all, because it considers love to be a need in man. Considered in this way charity is not just a means of giving, but also a way of receiving.

187Special Education Today in Norway

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 blind, deaf, disturbed and morally maladjusted children were all given prominence in the name of charity. But they also attracted a rational, scientific interest, particularly based on medical knowledge. The mythical delusions on witchcraft and other devious causes of disability common in the Middle Ages had been cast aside, it was understood and accepted that the disabled were not to blame for their own fate. This also applied to socially and morally maladjusted children, it was accepted that they could not be held responsible for the situation in which they found themselves, which had been caused either by poverty or parental neglect. All the above groups represented a deviation from what was considered normal. Questions were asked about the limits that could be set. What could be achieved from teaching, development and improvement within the different groups? How the message of charity would be reflected in the establish- ments’ teaching work and particularly in the pastors’ meeting with the child.

International pioneers included the theologian and lawyer, Charles- Michel de l’Épée, in the education of the deaf, the linguist, Valentin Haüy, in the teaching of the blind and the psychiatrist, Jean Marc Gaspard Itard, and his student, the physician Édouard Onesimus Séguin, in the teaching of the educationally subnormal (Thuen, 2008, p. 88). These individuals estab- lished the first institutions for children with medical disabilities on a univer- sal basis � or institutes as they preferred to call them, to give their work a more professional image. l’Épée opened his institute for the deaf in 1770, in 1784 it was the turn of Haüy’s institute for the blind, and in 1837 Séguin commenced education for pupils who had been diagnosed as ‘idiots’. All three pioneers were located in Paris, where they also gained recognition and honours in the French Academy of Sciences. Common to all of them, apart from the medical-diagnostic approach, was a desire to stimulate the development of children’s moral, intellectual and mental capacity through education. Particular importance was attached to identifying the wishes of the child. Diagnostics, teaching technology and education together formed a new blueprint for the institutions, adapted to suit the different groups. In Norway the first institute for the deaf and dumb was established in 1825 (Trondheim), the first institute for the blind in 1861 (Oslo) and the first institute for the educationally subnormal in 1874 (Oslo), all significantly influenced by the above Paris institutes.

The moral educational care institutions for their part sought inspiration from the writings of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi and the establishments he and his successor, Philipp Emanuel von Fellenberg, set up in Switzerland. Then Johann Hinrich Wichern’s established Das rauhe Haus, a model for

188 RUNE SARRORMAA HAUSSTATTER AND HARALD THUEN

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

many outside Hamburg. A number of observers from the Norwegian estab- lishments visited Wichern’s establishment and returned home bursting with enthusiasm. The educational care establishments took over full responsibil- ity for the care and education of children from their parents. Their institu- tional educational theory either aimed at family model along the lines of Pestalozzi’s or Wichern’s establishments, or they could organize their activ- ities on the model of a military ‘barracks’, which some preferred. The edu- cational care establishment was a total institution along the lines of a prison, but based on the principle of educational care and not punishment of children, whereby children were not imprisoned after a judgement pas- sing a sentence for a specific number of years. The educational care estab- lishment could on the contrary detain the child as long as it was considered necessary; it was up to the establishment’s directors to assess when the child was sufficiently ‘improved’ to be discharged. In individual cases the Norwegian establishment could have custody of children from the age of six years until they were 19�20 years old. In other words, this approach involved the development of an all-embracing institutional system of education.

Elsewhere in Europe and in North America the educational care estab- lishments were prolific from the 1820s onwards and were referred to as ‘Houses of Refuge’ (North America), ‘Reformatory Schools’ (England), ‘Rettungsanstalten’ (Germany) and ‘La Colonie Agricole’ or ‘Le Péntencier Agricole’ (France). In Norway, the first educational care establishment was founded in Oslo in 1841. One particularly distinctive feature of the Norwegian establishments was their location on islands. This was partly because the island establishments were more difficult to escape from than establishments on the mainland and partly because educational work on an island could be accomplished away from and undisturbed by their surroundings.

The Era of Segregation: Protection of Society (1880�1950)

International research literature tends to make a distinction between pri- vate, philanthropic child care and public care by using the terms ‘child res- cue’ and ‘child saving’ (Thuen, 2002). The difference in concepts is based on the idea that ‘rescue’ (child rescue) derives from a private commitment rooted in civil society. It is the charity of the individual, the act of rescuing a fellow human in need that is the driving force in this form of child care. The shift to ‘child saving’ takes place when the Government intervenes in

189Special Education Today in Norway

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 care by means of laws, making it part of a public commitment. This coincided with the transition from a constitutional to a social basis for the government’s action, which is evident in significant parts of the Western world between 1870 and 1920. Care was now increasingly to be motivated as a ‘safeguard’ in a spirit of solidarity with society. There was a desire to protect the individuals who were least capable of protecting themselves and a desire to protect society from the individuals who might harm it.

The emergence of the welfare state in the early 1900s gave rise to ques- tions: What responsibility should the Government take for the education of the disabled? Should legislation also provide for their compulsory educa- tion? If so what would be the best way to provide for education outside ‘normal school’? The answer was given by the act concerning ‘Treatment of Abnormal Children’, or the Abnormal Schools Act of 1881, as it was known. With this law, Norway became the first country in Europe to intro- duce a common law for disabled children. The term ‘abnormal’ had been used for some years as a generic term for the blind, deaf and dumb and the educationally subnormal. Similar questions were asked with ref- erence to the concept of child protection: What responsibility should the Government have for the care, upbringing and education of the children who displayed deviant social behaviour at school and in the home environ- ment or whose parents were unable to take care of them? The answer was provided by the act on ‘Treatment of neglected Children’, or the Child Welfare Council Act of 1896 as it was known. The Abnormal School Act and the Child Welfare Council Act heralded a decline in importance of phi- lanthropy and special needs education and child protection now became a public concern. Special needs education was still reserved for children with medically diagnosed disabilities, whereas children with social behavioural difficulties were allocated to child protection.

The two acts must be seen in the context of the introduction of the Norwegian Elementary School Acts in 1889. These laws, one for the towns and one for the country, were intended to modernize and bring democracy to primary and lower secondary school education. The fundamental aim was to create a standard common school for all children between the ages of 7 and 14 years, and thus do away with the old school system divided by class. But the concept of a common school did not apply to everyone. Disabled children were left out. Both the Abnormal Schools Act and the Child Welfare Council Act sought to separate disabled and difficult chil- dren from the elementary schools, based on a desire to create a ‘good’ ele- mentary school for ‘normal pupils’, avoiding the disruptive effect that disabled and maladjusted children might have on the teaching. There was

190 RUNE SARRORMAA HAUSSTATTER AND HARALD THUEN

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

no issue with the right of the disabled to education in general and their obligation to participate, but with their rights within the context of the ele- mentary school, or normal school. It was decided that children who had ‘intellectual or physical Deficiencies’, who had contagious diseases, or who influenced other school children with their bad behaviour, could be excluded. At the same time, the Elementary School Acts gave the local authorities the right to establish extra tuition or special tuition, but without obligation. Rather paradoxically, the idea of making schools more demo- cratic, enshrined in the acts of 1889, led to a separation of pupils who were considered not to belong there. If the idea of a school for all, even for chil- dren from the upper social strata of the community, was to become a rea- lity, the children who it was feared would tarnish the quality of teaching, had to be left out.

The Abnormal Schools Act and the separation paragraphs in the Elementary Schools Act actually laid the foundations for an extensive, dif- ferentiated special school system in Norway. The reason was twofold. The Abnormal Schools Act was conceived out of a professional interest in the disabled who were ‘educationally competent’. Thus, the law was itself a seg- regating law that separated the disabled into two groups, the educationally competent and the non-educationally competent. The law represented a continuation of the concepts of the Enlightenment and the belief that teaching and education of disabled children was of value and beneficial. The aim was to impart to children ‘as far as possible’ a knowledge that cor- responded to the common schools’ aim of a Christian and civic education, but the abnormal schools were also supposed to prepare the students for working life. The law was effectively a law of enforcement based on the practice that all abnormal children had to be registered and assessed for a place in a school which was almost always a long way from home, thus representing a drastic infringement of parental rights. The decision to sepa- rate made in the Elementary School Acts was not justified out of any con- sideration for the disabled but as a way of protecting the elementary schools as a normal school. In other words, it was an institutionalized pro- tection of normality. Although the basic motivation was different the Abnormal Schools Act and the Elementary Schools Act became coordinat- ing aspects of a system of segregation that gradually produced a system of institutions ranging from extra tuition and special tuition to boarding schools and work and foster homes.

How did this system fit into the era? In Norway the educational concepts were taken from Europe. The German periodical Der Heilpädagog, was particularly well known. It discussed educational and teaching issues

191Special Education Today in Norway

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

associated with a broad spectrum of children with disabilities. There may have been several reasons why Norway nevertheless became the only European country to introduce a common law in the 1800s. In the prepara- tory and processing stages of the act practical considerations, such as the additional work involved in the development of three laws and the fear of favouring one group over the others, were raised (Aas, 1954; Simonsen, 1998). Froestad (1995) thinks that the fundamental explanation is more likely to lie in the understanding of handicap as a social construct. The var- ious ‘deviant groups’ were lumped into the common category ‘abnormal’ as a separate group in relation to the ‘normal’. This enabled the normal classes to be freed from deviant children who were to be transferred to ‘auxiliary schools’.

By the beginning of the 20th century, Norway had by virtue of the Elementary Schools Acts and the Abnormal Schools Act established a sys- tem of segregation that classified students into three groups: normal school pupils, special school pupils and the non-educationally competent pupils. An institutional system that would embrace all would gradually be devel- oped. But at the same time this system was beset by inconsistencies in regu- lation and organization, which could make a big difference in how children were treated. Gradually as the institutions were established, a general need emerged for testing and measuring children’s mental condition and level of ability, so that they could be classified and be allocated into the right place in the system. For example, measurement of a student’s intelligent quotient (IQ) was developed by Binet and Simon (1905), who worked from the French Ministry of Education, just after the turn of the century. The objec- tive was to identify children with intellectual impairment and their level of intellectual deficiency. On the basis of their IQ and level, they could be placed in special classes with tuition adapted to suit their needs. The tests rapidly won recognition as the best tool in the task of separating the indivi- dual student groups from one another. It was thought that children’s intel- ligence could be measured purely in terms of ability, but that their mind, which indicated their moral level, could also be assessed.

It was not many years before the institutions under the two laws came in for sharp criticism from the public, in both literature and professional con- texts. Initially, there were criticisms of abuse and mistreatment, lack of staff and resources and degrading living arrangements, primarily issues of human and material shortcomings. But soon people were not just asking about the material and resources aspects of the operation but also about the professional justification for the institutional placements. Several big cases were brought before the courts (Thuen, 2002). The revelations in

192 RUNE SARRORMAA HAUSSTATTER AND HARALD THUEN

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

these cases triggered a broad public debate about the work of the various institutions. For instance, they were accused of a lack of love and affection and a tough regime, and at worst of being concentration camps for chil- dren. Prominent politicians and members of the Government also voiced strong criticism. In practice, however, the criticism did not have much effect, investigations and official reports show that abuse and mistreatment of children continued on a significant scale right up to the 1970s (NOU, 2004, p. 23).

In the 1930s another form of criticism was expressed based on empirical and professional research (Arctander & Dahlstrøm, 1932). Arctander and Dahlstrøm reported that the research showed a high level of recidivism among children placed in institutions for children with behavioural difficul- ties or criminality. Furthermore, half of the boys in these institutions had committed criminal offences in the years immediately after being dis- charged and the rate of recidivism increased with the passing of time after they left. Also, compared with children in foster homes, the rate of recidi- vism of children from institutions was up to three times as high. In addi- tion, psychiatric studies of institutionalized children conducted at the same time showed that: large groups suffered from various forms of mental dis- orders; and many of these children were also IQ tested and labelled as ‘backward’. In short the institutions had failed in everything from the admissions procedure to the educational content and outcome.

The Era of Segregation: In the Best Interests of the Child (1950�1975)

The period after the Second World War was dominated by a strong focus on the development of the welfare state. The Nordic welfare state model became the Norwegian strategy. The Nordic welfare state model, domi- nated by a social democracy, focused on universalism by giving equal bene- fits and services to all citizens regardless of the status of the family or market. The development of a good school system was in this framework important, and all children had the right to education.

In 1951, Norway introduced the Special Schools Act, replacing the old abnormal schools and expanding the field of practice for special needs edu- cation. This law now applied to five groups of persons with disabilities, where previously there had been three. The individual groups were also extended. Where the old law included blind children, the new one would apply to the blind and the visually impaired. Likewise for the deaf; the new law included the deaf and hard of hearing. As well as these two groups,

193Special Education Today in Norway

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 law would apply to children with mental impairments with speaking, reading and writing difficulties and children with social behavioural diffi- culties, which previously fell under the Child Welfare Council Act and child protection. Terms like ‘educationally subnormal’ and ‘retarded’ were replaced by the collective term ‘mentally impaired’, which indicated that they should be the focus for the professional educational experts, while the other mentally impaired were brought back into the fold of the medical profession (Korsvold, 2006). At the same time, Norway got into a two- pronged system for special needs education; alongside separate special schools, special needs education could also be given as extra tuition in nor- mal schools. The system expanded sharply in the decades to come. For example, in 1950, 1,500 students were received extra tuition in primary and lower secondary schools while in 1975 the number had jumped to 46,000 (SSB, 1975), or around 8 per cent of all students. Then special schools tripled during the period. The peak year was in 1978, when Norway had 100 special schools in the country with a total of 3,700 pupils (SSB, 1994).

Under the two-pronged system, special needs education was distinctly segregated during the years 1950�1975. It was an intentional policy, thus expressed in a Ministerial Recommendation in 1849: ‘A system must be devised so that pupils who belong in special tuition classes can be separated as soon as it is advisable’ (Samordningsnemda for skoleverket). The old system would be modernized, but without letting go of the diagnostic philo- sophy of segregation. The terms ‘special schools’ and ‘special needs teacher’ were introduced and brought into use a few years before the Special Schools Act was introduced (Ravneberg, 1999). The teachers in the various special schools were about to move closer and the use of the generic term ‘special needs teacher’ can be interpreted as a desire to define a common professional status. It was to be the introduction to an epoch defined by professional action and an increasingly professional approach.

One significant aspect of the new segregation policy was that the various groups of disabled children were not mixed together within the institutions which had particularly been the case in the previous era. The diagnosis of children using different tests, primarily IQ tests, was central to this work (see Table 1). The problem with this type of testing was that it set IQ boundaries between the various groups. Scales for division of intelligence according to IQ were developed based on international research, but the borderline cases were and still are problematic. Because of these borderline cases, teachers in normal schools, auxiliary schools, and special schools needed to discuss where borderline students were to be placed (Ravneberg, 1999). Finally, there were also pupils with ‘character defects’ which made

194 RUNE SARRORMAA HAUSSTATTER AND HARALD THUEN

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

them unsuitable for admission to special schools. These pupils had to be separated from the special school system and sent to separate homes for the educationally subnormal but it was not clear what ‘character defects’ entailed. In hindsight due to these aspects, many children were wrongly placed in this heartless system of segregation.

It may be debated whether special needs education in the years directly after the war was anything more than a pure organizational convenience. Were the activities based on educational theories and principles? A com- mon point of reference appears to have been the Swiss psychologist, teacher of the deaf and later a professor of mental health education, Heinrich Hanselmann (Thuen, 2008). A central theme to his theory was to bring the treatment of the deaf, educationally subnormal, those with speech impedi- ments or nervous conditions, socially difficult and unprincipled children under one heading. The common feature was that they all suffered from defects in personal development that advocated a special therapeutic educa- tional approach, an overall view of their human spiritual life. The old term ‘abnormal’ was replaced by ‘developmentally impaired’, an expression that is found in the Norwegian reform philosophy at the end of the 1940s. Therapeutic educational theory focussed on the upbringing of children, not their health, which fell within the medical profession and this is where it would be necessary if it would separate the children. The general impres- sion is however that up to the 1960s special educational needs teaching both in primary and lower secondary schools and in the special schools lar- gely muddled along on the basis of trial and error, without any foundation in a tradition of scientific knowledge (Haug, 1999). The knowledge was pri- marily based on an exchange of practical experience. The content of special needs education would therefore be mainly driven by practical experience.

To increase the level of professionalism of the special education support system, the national college of special teacher training was established in

Table 1. Proposed Division of Students in the Norwegian School System in 1948.

IQ Percentage of Student Population

Normal school Above 90 93.75

Support/help school 66�90 4.9 Schools for mentally retarded 41�65 1.1 Nursing home 0�40 0.25

Source: Developed from Ravneberg (1999).

195Special Education Today in Norway

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

1961. Training of special teachers developed slowly from short courses in the 19th century, into a 2-year study course offered by the special teacher training college from 196l. The first year offered an introduction to five areas of special education: intellectually impaired, blind, deaf, language and speech problems, and behavioural problems. The education of teachers focused on practical challenges faced by teachers in the special schools. The second year offered a specialization within one of the five areas of speciali- zation. The establishment of a special teacher training school led to an increased awareness of the need to also develop special education as a research area as part of the training and development of special teachers. This focus on research led to the first MA course in special education in 1976, and the PhD in special education was established in 1986. The special teacher college became part of the University of Oslo in 1990.

In the 1970s, several other colleges were given the opportunity to offer the first and second year of training to special teachers. This development came, as discussed later, at the same time as the normalization ideology (Wolfensberger, 1972) became a political factor in education. As a result of this, the new colleges for training special education teachers divided them- selves into more or less two directions: one group following the system in the already established national special teacher training school and a sec- ond group with a clearer support of the normalization ideology and later integration.

The Era of Integration: Social Critique and Normalization

Not until the mid-1960s can we detect the signs of a political shift in the direction of a policy of integration. It was now recognized ‘that the objec- tives of the special schools are in principle the same as for normal general education schools’ (St.meld 42, 1965�1966). The separated children had a ‘need for the same broad general educational, cultural and social develop- ment objectives as other children and young people’. These were fundamen- tally new perspectives in special school policy, derived from ‘experience and new developments in psychology, psychiatry and sociology’, as it was said. Special needs education had to look after ‘the person behind the handicap’ (St.meld 42, 1965�1966). The separated children must not ‘get used to thinking of themselves and their peers as patients, cases or clients’. It is true the term ‘deviants’ was still used in referring to children with disabil- ities, but the causal pattern behind their ‘deviant condition’ was assumed to be more complicated and complex than had been believed from previous

196 RUNE SARRORMAA HAUSSTATTER AND HARALD THUEN

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

knowledge. Reference was made to England, where special educators’ attention focussed on ‘children at risk’, and the need for supervision and observation of children assumed to be in the danger zone for ‘dysfunctional development’. An effort was made to get away from the ‘old’ segregating methods and the way was opened for new, extended forms of understand- ing. In the first instance, the shift was expressed in a cautious scepticism in regards to institutions. For example, there was an argument in favour of using more day schools as opposed to boarding schools in regards to the further development of the special schools system. But in a broader per- spective they were looking for a new type of expertise, an expertise based on three aspects, as envisaged by the Spesialskolerådet (Norwegian Council for Special Schools): educational diagnosis, educational treatment, and educational research (St.meld 42, 1965�1966). The aspects looked promis- ing. It was essential for the research to be based on practical experience. Special needs educational research and special needs educational practice should be mutually stimulated by long-term cooperation.

The concept of integration entered the debate about the further develop- ment of special needs education at the end of the 1960s when the so-called Blom Committee was appointed in 1970. In spite of the ideological shift promoted by the Government in the mid-1960’s criticism of the system had not abated. There are several explanations for the negative reactions. They are partly due to the lack of political vigour on the part of the Government, and partly the treatment the children in the institutions could be exposed to. A new era was approaching. It started in 1975, when the Special Schools Act was integrated in the Primary and Lower Secondary Schools Acts. The long tradition in special needs education would now finally be replaced by ‘integration’. Science had brought a new sensitivity to the child’s inner life and psyche that indicated that the security of the child was a vulnerable and delicate quantity. With their alienation and formalism the institutions represented a danger for children. The question was no longer whether the institutions were beneficial and effective for society, but also whether they were in the ‘best interests of the child’. The Blom Committee proposed one common school law for all children. This was effectuated in 1975 (St.meld 98, 2009). This common school law empha- sized that all children should have the right to education based on their abilities. The right to special education should not be connected to a medi- cal situation or age, but to the pedagogical needs of each child. The princi- ple of education to all children gave also the last group, severe mentally disabled children, the right to education. The main focus on integration and the goal of integration was accordingly:

197Special Education Today in Norway

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) all should be part of a social community, (b) all should have a share in the goods of the community, (c) all should have the responsibility for tasks and obligations in the

community.

The goal of integration was according to this committee to reduce bar- riers on human, social, and organizational levels. People with disabilities should have the same rights as everybody else to an education to foster per- sonal, academic, and social development. How this equality should be reached was still much to be debated. The committee proposed a mix of both local support in ordinary schools and a national special school system (Kiil, 1981). This mixed support system continued to be offered in Norway for over 20 years, but the process of integration had begun.

The academic discussion in the same period was divided into two areas. As already presented, it had a strong focus on the scientific basis for the special education profession. This development was mainly within the already established categories of special needs that dominated the second year of the national teacher training college. The second area was estab- lished as part of the critique of the segregated strategy � the perspectives of normalization. The concept of normalization related to people with dis- abilities did partly exist as an organizational concept in the Nordic coun- tries just after the Second World War, however, its development as a democratic and political concept took place in the 1960s by those at the forefront; Bengt Nirje from Sweden and Niels Erik Bank-Mikkelsen from Denmark. Bank-Mikkelsen first discussed the concept in 1959 (Biklen, 1985) but the word itself was first authored by Nirje (1969, 1985). Their perspectives on normalization had an international impact in the late 1960s, and these thoughts also brought new aspects into the special educa- tion debate in Norway by particularly emphasizing that the area of educa- tion must be related to the general social principles of the community. This focus on normalization as part of the general social development gave strong support to the goal of integration. Compared to several other Western countries the development of integrating children and adults with disabilities had taken place relatively slowly. However, in the late 1980s this changed, and already in 1993 most of the nursing homes and national special schools were closed down (Tøssebro, 2010). All children were then to have their education in the normal school and adults were to have the possibility to live a normal life as participants of the local community. Vislie (1995), one of the main Norwegian contributors to the academic dis- cussion on integration, points to two strategies of integration that were

198 RUNE SARRORMAA HAUSSTATTER AND HARALD THUEN

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

developed during the 1970s and 1980s. The first strategy was related to the development of the special educational area to meet the new demands of integration. The second strategy was to reformulate the regular school sys- tem to meet an increased diversity of students.

The changes made in the Norwegian school system in the 1970s and 1980s reflect the first strategy described by Vislie (1995). The special school system was slowly reduced and almost all special schools were closed in 1993. Only a few schools for pupils with hearing and visual problems remained. The next strategy � the reformulation of the regular school sys- tem � became the next challenge for the special education system in Norway. It must be added that these radical changes in the late 1970s came at the same time as Norway became an oil-producing nation. Norway’s wealth grew extensively from the mid-1970s, and with this wealth came both the international wave of new ideas of how to meet diversity and the financial possibility to carry through and pay for new reforms.

The Era of Inclusion: The Last Phase of Norwegian Special Education?

The goal of integrating students physically into the ordinary school system was more or less fulfilled in 1993 � one year before Norway ratified the Salamanca Statement. The closing of special schools and the strong drive towards integrating students with special needs in the 1980s and the early 1990s meant that the ratification of the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) did not lead to any new national strategy when meeting children with special needs. The process of integration had already fulfilled most of the organizational strategies of the Salamanca Statement. However, for the concept of inclusion to mean more than just integration, the academic field of education presented definitions of this concept that emphasized the change that inclusion meant. In the Norwegian framework the definition presented by Peder Haug covers the Norwegian understanding of inclusion. An inclusive educational environment shall according to Haug (2003) focus on increasing fellowship among students, giving all students the possibility of participation as part of a process of democratization, and on top of this giving all students the necessary support so that they benefit from the edu- cation offered. The Norwegian understanding of inclusive education is as seen, not about integrating students in ordinary education, but about the transformation of teaching so that it supports all learners. In other words, it was the second aim of integration presented by Vislie (1995) that became the dominant focus for the Norwegian inclusion debate. A central reason

199Special Education Today in Norway

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 this focus was the high emphasis on normalization that led to the changes in the early 1990s. Theoretical perspectives of inclusion seem to follow the same line of argument and advocate for normalization would then also support the new concept of inclusive education. The political area had a strong drive towards fulfilling the normalization reform, and in this context special education was understood as not compatible with the goal of inclusion. In other words, the choice of this strategy meant that the approach of special education was reduced, and Norwegian educational policy from the mid-1990s was highly influenced by the criticism raised by advocates for inclusive education and the goal was to reduce the amount of special education to a minimum.

WORKING WITH FAMILIES

An examination of the early historical working relationship between families with special needs children and the special education profession in Norway reveals the absence of an established cooperative relationship. As you may recall, Norway’s original special education support system cared for children with special needs that did not have parents. However, there was no formal policy in the early system that addressed the parents of stu- dents receiving educational services. Briefly, The Special Education Act of 1950 addressed the involvement of the family by noting that the family of child with special needs should be respected by allowing them the opportu- nity to visit their child once a month. Positively, after World War II, many parent interest groups were formed. Also, authors began to write about the rights of the handicapped. One noted book The Rights of the Handicapped was composed by Arne Skouen in 1966. In this book, Shouen compared the special schools to concentration camps (Haug, 1999). This author’s engagement via national lectures was one of the reasons why the Blom Committee was established and why changes in special schools occurred in the 1970s.

Parent involvement changed significantly from the 1970s onwards due to Norway’s legislations. For instance, today, parents have the right to ask for an evaluation of their child if they suspect he/she has special needs and they have to approve the offering of special educations services to their child. Fundamentally, changes related to working with families has been more juridical and only limited attention has been given to the practice collaboration of special education professionals and parents

200 RUNE SARRORMAA HAUSSTATTER AND HARALD THUEN

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

(Befring & Tangen, 2008; Wilson, Hausstatter, & Lie, 2010). Certainly, this is an area that needs to be developed within Norwegian special education.

SPECIAL EDUCATION IN NORWAY TODAY

A central reason for the tension between ordinary and special education is due to the §5 in the Norwegian education law. The Norwegian legislation emphasizes that students that do not benefit from ordinary education have the right to special education (§5-1). An increase in special education is then a sign of a failing general educational system. Special education is thus used as a measurement of how well the ordinary education is able to educate all students and is hence also a measurement of inclusion in the Norwegian context.

The increased focus on inclusive education led to a reduction of special education in ordinary schools in Norway during the 1990s. The amount of special education was reduced to about 5 per cent in the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, this changed around 2005. Two central factors con- tributed to this change: first, the focus on international test results (mainly the Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA test]), and sec- ondly, a new school reform in 2006 � the Knowledge Promotion Reform (Ministry of Education, 2006), that incorporates national tests into the Norwegian school. Even though the Knowledge Promotion Reform claimed that the goal of Norwegian schools should be to reduce the amount of special education to a minimum, the amount increased dramatically (see Fig. 1). One central reason for this might be the reform itself. The Knowledge Promotion Reform was mainly developed due to the poor Norwegian results in the first round of the PISA test (Norway performed about average � and still does). The reform clearly focused on increasing the academic standard of the Norwegian student; one central strategy here was the introduction of national school tests and competition between schools. The reason for the increase of special educational needs in Norway is debated (Hausstätter, 2013), and this increase is presented as one of the most clear challenges for the Norwegian school system today. In addition to a political goal of reducing the need for special education to a minimum the special education support system is very expensive � hence, this increase is therefore extremely politically challenging. The increase is also challenging the goal of creating an inclusive school in Norway because of the idea that inclusion and special education are strategies that are not

201Special Education Today in Norway

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

compatible (Gallagher, Heshusius, Iano, & Skrtic, 2004; Mostert, Kavale, & Kauffman, 2007).

Adapted Education

The political alternative to the special education strategy is ‘adapted educa- tion’. This strategy is logically linked to the school legislation and especially to §5-1 presented above. An increase in special education is thus a sign that the ordinary education system is not good enough. So in order to try to reduce the amount of special education in Norway a lot of national resources have been put into the development of a better normal educa- tional system linked to the idea of ‘adapted education’. The theoretical fra- mework for this approach is presented by Bachman and Haug (2006). According to them, two solutions are outlined to meet the goal of adapted teaching: a student-centred approach (narrow approach) and a classroom approach (wide approach) as can be seen in Table 2.

The student-centred approach is the dominant way of meeting the goal of giving adapted teaching to all students among Norwegian teachers. This approach focuses on the abilities and possibilities of each student. The academic level of each student is evaluated and necessary teaching is then planed accordingly. The problem with this approach according to Bachman and Haug (2006) is that it supports an individualistic learning environment and not necessarily an inclusive learning environment. It

5.5

6.5

7.5

8.5

9 1 9 9 2

1 9 9 3

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

Fig. 1. Amount of Special Education in Norway Grades 1�10. Source: GSI Norway (2013).

202 RUNE SARRORMAA HAUSSTATTER AND HARALD THUEN

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

also reduces the teacher’s responsibility for the students’ learning progress (Biesta, 2004), and the ability for the teacher to create an environment for learning where students learn to relate to each other to become good citizens. The alternative to this student-centred approach is the classroom approach. The entity of teaching within this framework is the whole group of students. The idea is that the teacher should give students the possibility to work together and to share their different knowledge. As part of this teaching the student also has to relate to others and through this develop their social skills. The point of this approach is to emphasize that learning is something that goes on in a social environment and in this case it is the classroom that is the environment for teaching. The tea- cher is in this approach is a facilitator of the communication between stu- dents in relation to the goal of the teaching. Classroom management is therefore emphasized as a crucial competence for the teacher in relation to adapted teaching.

However, it is important to emphasize that the distinction between the student-centred approach and the classroom approach has mainly been through an academic way of dealing with the concept of adapted teaching. In general, the practical field of education has practiced adapted teaching within the framework of the student-centred understanding. This focus on the student-centred approach can also be the third reason for why there has been an extreme rise in the amount of special education in Norway. The student-centred approach to teaching is very similar to the way special education knowledge is developed. It is the child’s specific needs and

Table 2. Adapted Teaching.

Student-Centred Approach Classroom Approach

Individualization of teaching through

individual plans, work schedules, and

learning styles

Focus on intrinsic motivation

Portfolio assessment of individual work

Emphasis on the individual instead of the

community

The focus is on the individual student when

students have problems in school

Differentiation and possible segregation of

students

Focus on collective approaches in teaching as

well as individual approaches

Focus on both internal and external motivation

Development of a collaborative school culture

Emphasis on structure and clarity in teaching

The students’ problems in school are put into a

contextual relationship where the focus is on

the learning environment and teaching

Emphasis on social participation for all students

203Special Education Today in Norway

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

situation that defines the pedagogical strategy necessary. So, in other words, the student-centred approach and special education is based on the same fundamental understanding where teaching should be planned and carried through, and hence special education is a good way to carry through a student-centred education.

FUTURE CHALLENGES: THE EFFICACY OF

SPECIAL EDUCATION

One hundred and ninety years after the first special school was established in Norway, the role of special education is highly debated. For the last 40 years, the main debate regarding special education has been whether this type of support system stigmatizes and marginalizes students. The chal- lenge of stigmatization was the main aspect in this debate for a long time; however, this has slightly changed during the last 10 years. The main ques- tion today is not whether special education stigmatizes students but whether it is effective or not and the main question today is: Can we con- tinue supporting a special education support system if we cannot prove its efficiency?

The question of efficacy in special education is crucial for the whole existence of special education. This teaching profession is based on the first examples of successful teaching of ‘idiots’ as part of a scientific and philanthropic strive towards giving help and support to children that was excluded or found to be a problem for society for more than 200 years. To raise the question of whether special education is effective or not is therefore to challenge the essence and existence of this professional field in general. This question of efficacy is raised towards a profession that in a Norwegian context has based its professional knowledge on practical experience adapted from central Europe to begin with and later from the special schools in Norway itself. The research-based knowledge for this profession is quite young, with a slow development at the beginning of the 1960s through to the establishment of the first teacher training college in special education. The need for research-based knowledge within this field was further challenged by views on normalization, integration, inclusion, and adapted teaching supported by a political goal of reducing the need for special education in Norwegian schools. In other words, the research area of special education is still relatively young and has not yet been able

204 RUNE SARRORMAA HAUSSTATTER AND HARALD THUEN

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

to overall establish high quality research approaches. In addition, there has not been a political and ideological milieu in Norway for supporting the development of special educational research. To make things even more complicated, the area of professional practice has changed exten- sively over the last 40 years. The special education profession was devel- oped to meet the need for professional knowledge in special schools and care institutions. These institutions were closed down early in the 1990s and the special education profession had then to adapt to the new practi- cal environment in ordinary schools and as pointed out by Vislie (1995), needed to become part of the reformulation of the regular school system to meet the increased diversity of students. This new situation demanded a new set of knowledge both practical and scientific; however, the develop- ment of such new special educational knowledge has not yet been devel- oped. The reason for this is that due to the established criticism of special education within the political context, there has not been any political sup- port for developing an effective special education support system within schools, and due to the lack of academic experience within the special edu- cation area itself there has not been developed extensive research proving the effectiveness of special education support. Hence, the challenge faced by the question of efficiency in special education that we face today is, therefore, quite troublesome.

However, things seem to be changing. The increase in volume of chil- dren receiving special education support has made authorities aware of the challenges facing the special education support system. The lack of a clear understanding in this field led to a new green paper in 2009 (St.meld 98, 2009) that focuses on the right of every child to have the right to a good learning situation in schools. One recommendation in this paper was to establish an expert group that should evaluate the situation for special edu- cational knowledge in Norway. This expert group was established and their report is expected to be presented to the ministry of education in February 2014. A second sign of change is seen at the national research council in Norway. The national research grant for education for the next 3�5 years has a total budget of 163 million Norwegian kroner (about 26.7 million United States dollars) and has explicitly devoted 28 million Norwegian kroner (about 460, 000 United States dollars) towards special educational research. For the first time in over 20 years, there is a national grant sup- porting special education research and this can be understood as a sign of a changing attitude towards the need for a further development of special educational knowledge in Norway.

205Special Education Today in Norway

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

Aas, O. E. (1954). Public care for mentally retarded in Norway from 1870�1920. Oslo, Norway: Hovedfagsoppgave, Universitetet i Oslo.

Arctander, S., & Dahlstrøm, S. (1932). The status on children in public care from 1990�1928. Oslo, Norway: Olaf Norlis forlag.

Bachman, K., & Haug, P. (2006). Research on adapted education. Volda, Norway: Høgskulen i

Volda.

Befring, E., & Tangen, R. (2008). Special education. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen.

Biesta, G. (2004). Against learning: Reclaiming a language for education in an age of learning.

Nordisk Pedagogikk, 24(1), 70�82. Biklen, D. (1985). Achieving the complete school: Strategies for effective mainstreaming.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Methodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectuel

des anormaux. L’Annee Psychologique, 11, 191�244. Froestad, J. (1995). Professional discourses and public policy in the care for the handicapped in

Scandinavian in the 1980s. Dr. Avhandling, Rapport No. 34. Bergen, Norway: Institutt

for administrasjon og organisasjonsvitenskap, Universitetet i Bergen.

Froestad, J. (1999). Normality and discipline. In S. Meyer, & T. Sirnes (Eds.), Normality and

identity formation in Norway (pp. 76�98). Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal. Gallagher, D. J., Heshusius, L., Iano, R. P., & Skrtic, T. M. (2004). Challenging orthodoxy in

special education: Dissenting voices. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.

Government of Norway. (1881). Abnormal Schools Act of 1981. Oslo, Norway: Parliament of

Norway.

Government of Norway. (1896). Children Welfare Council Act of 1896. Oslo, Norway:

Parliament of Norway.

Government of Norway. (1951). Special Schools Act of 1951. Oslo, Norway: Parliament of

Norway.

Government of Norway. (1975). Primary and Lower Secondary Schools Act. Oslo, Norway:

Parliament of Norway.

Government of Norway. (1997). Norwegian curriculum plan of 1997. Oslo, Norway: Parliament

of Norway.

GSI Norway. (2013). The schools information system. Retrieved from https://gsi.udir.no/.

Accessed on December 31, 2013.

Haug, P. (1999). Special education in primary school: Fundamentals, development and content.

Olso, Norway: Abstrakt forlag.

Haug, P. (2003). Qualifying teachers for the school for all. In K. Nes, M. Strømstad, & T. Booth

(Eds.), Developing inclusive teacher education (pp. 34�51). New York, NY: Routledge. Hausstätter, R. (2013). The twenty percentage rule. Spesialpedagogikk nr 6.

Karlsen, G. E. (2005). Norwegian teacher education, a historical perspective. Norsk pedagogisk

tidsskrift nr, 6, 403�416. Kiil, P. E. (1981). Legislation for special education after 1945. Oslo, Norway: Pedagogisk

forskningsinstitutt.

Korsvold, T. (2006). The value of the child: A childhood as mentally retarded in the 1950s. Olso,

Norway: Abstrkt forlag.

Ministry of Education. (2006). The knowledge promotion reform. Retrieved from http: //www.

udir.no/Stottemeny/English/Curriculum-in-English/_english/knowledge-promotion—

Kunnskapsloftet/. Accessed on December 31, 2013.

206 RUNE SARRORMAA HAUSSTATTER AND HARALD THUEN

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

https://gsi.udir.no/

http://http: //www.udir.no/Stottemeny/English/Curriculum-in-English/_english/knowledge-promotion---Kunnskapsloftet/

Ministry of Education and Research (MER). (2012). Retrieved from http://www.regjeringen.

no/en/dep/kd/news-and-latest-publications/News/2012/regjeringen-har-begrenset-

privatskolene.html?id=686534 Mostert, M. P., Kavale, K. A., & Kauffman, J. M. (2007). Challenging the refusal of reasoning

in special education. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.

Nirje, B. (1969). The normalization principle and its human management implications. In

R. B. Kugel, & W. Wolfensberger (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the

mentally retarded (pp. 179�195). Washington, DC: President’s Committee on Mental Retardation.

Nirje, B. (1985). The basis and logic for the normalization principle. Australia and New

Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 13, 65�68. NOU. (2004). Care institutions for children: National evaluation of the institutions from

1945�1980. Olso, Norway: Ministry of Education. Nygren, A. (1966). Eros och Agape. Stockholm, Sweden: Aldus/Bonmers.

Ravneberg, B. (1999). Discourses of normality and professional processes. Rapport No. 69.

Bergen, Norway: Institutt for administrasjon og organisasjonsvitenskap.

Richardson, J. G., & Powell, J. J. W. (2011). Comparing special education: Origins to contem-

porary paradoxes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Samordningsnemda for skoleverket, VII. (1949). Olso, Norway: Kirke-og undervisnings

depatementet.

Simonsen, E. (1998). Science and professional battles: Teaching of deaf and mentally retarded in

Norway from 1881�1963. Dr. Avhandling. Oslo, Norway: Det utdanningsvitenskape lige fakultet, Universitetet i Olso.

SSB. (1975). Educational statistics. Oslo, Norway: Ministry of Education.

SSB. (1994). Statistics Norway. Oslo, Norway: Ministry of Education.

St.meld 42. (1965�1966). On the development of special education schools. Oslo, Norway: Ministry of Education.

St.meld 98. (2009). Special education. Oslo Norway: Ministry of Education.

Thuen, H. (2002). In the place of parents, child and institutions from 1820�1900. Oslo, Norway: Pax.

Thuen, H. (2008). About the child, upbringing and care through history. Oslo, Norway:

Abstrakt forlag.

Tøssebro, J. (2010). What is disability. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

UNESCO. (1994). Salamanca statement and framework for action on special education needs.

Paris, France: United Nations.

United Nations. (1975, December). Declaration on the rights of disabled persons. General

assembly resolution 3447(xxx). New York, NY: United Nations.

United Nations. (2006). United Nations treaty collection 15. Convention on the rights of persons

with disabilities. New York, NY: United Nations.

Vislie, L. (1995). Integration policies, school reforms and the organization of schooling for

handicapped pupils in Western societies. In C. Clark, A. Dyson, & A. Milward (Eds.),

Towards inclusive schools? (pp. 42�53). London: David Fulton. Werner-Putnam, R. (1979). Special education � Some cross-national comparisons. Comparative

Education, 15(1), 83�98. Wilson, D., Hausstatter, R. S., & Lie, B. (2010). Special education in primary school. Bergen,

Norway: Fagbokforlaget.

Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principal of normalization in human services. Toronto, Canada:

National Institute on Mental Health.

207Special Education Today in Norway

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.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kd/news-and-latest-publications/News/2012/regjeringen-har-begrenset-privatskolene.html?id=686534

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

SWEDEN $

Girma Berhanu

ABSTRACT

This chapter provides a comprehensive presentation and discussion of special education in Sweden. The presentation and discussion are tied deeply to the country’s general education system which incorporates social and political aspects as well as beliefs in equity for all.

The municipalities in Sweden have a large degree of independence as such special education can be organized in different ways. Yet, within each municipality’s educational structure is the common theme that stu- dents are different therefore teaching cannot be the same for everyone. The following chapter sections provide the reader with a better under- standing of Sweden’s general special education system today: legislative acts that ensure equal access to education; the special education context; the history of special education and service in Sweden; the expansion of special education starting in the 1960s and early 1970s; current preva- lence data; a clarification of differentiation, inclusion and categorization;

Special Education International Perspectives: Practices Across the Globe

Advances in Special Education, Volume 28, 209�241 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0270-4013/doi:10.1108/S0270-401320140000028014

209

$ Some sections (paragraphs) of this chapter have been adapted from the author’s

own texts (Berhanu, 2008, 2009, 2011).

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/S0270-401320140000028014

teacher preparation advances; problems in schools and student’s difficul- ties; a description of inclusive education; and current challenges to inclu- sive education.

INTRODUCTION

A presentation of special education in Sweden is deeply tied to a dis- cussion of the general educational system, structure, history, and political culture of Sweden and of the Nordic welfare model. Swedish social welfare/ educational policy has traditionally been underpinned by a strong philoso- phy of universalism, equal entitlements of citizenship, comprehensiveness, and solidarity as an instrument to promote social inclusion and equality of resources, which helped facilitate both the quality of special educational services as well as inclusive education. While Swedish education policies have a solid history and culture of solidarity, community, and social responsibility, Sweden also has deep cultural values and historical heritage that support self-realization, individual productivity, competition, and social competence. Democratic values and participation in school and society are essential elements in the Swedish social fabric. Democracy is a cornerstone and founding value of the Swedish curricula and educational legislation. Fostering democracy and raising democratic citizens are princi- pal functions of schools. Equity is also an essential element. Since the early nineteenth century, when elementary school was regarded as a basic school for all, equity has been and is still a central element in the Swedish educa- tional policies, ordinances, and directives. “Equity is a general term indicat- ing ‘fairness;’ for example, that principles of justice have been used in the assessment of a phenomenon” (Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001, p. 307). Equity in the school is guaranteed by the Swedish Education Act (Skollag, 1985, 2010). This act stipulates that consideration must also be afforded to pupils with special needs. Each school has a special responsibility for those pupils who, for different reasons, experience difficulties in attaining the established educational goals (Skollag, 1985, 2010).

Within the past decades, however, Sweden has undergone a dramatic transformation. The changes are framed within neo-liberal philosophies such as devolution (devolvement of responsibilities to local authorities), market solutions, competition, “effectivity,” and standardization, coupled with a proliferation of individual/parent choices for independent schools, all

210 GIRMA BERHANU

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

of which potentially work against the valuing of diversity, equity, and inclu- sion. Marginalization and segregation of socially disadvantaged and ethnic minority groups have increased. Result and resource differences have widened among schools and municipalities and among pupils. Swedish efforts in the past to promote equity through a variety of educational poli- cies have been fascinating. Those early educational policies, including the macropolitical agenda focused on the social welfare model, have helped to diminish the effects of differential social, cultural, and economic background on outcomes, and on the development of special educational services as well as inclusive learning settings. This has come under threat. There is still some hope, however, of mitigating the situation through varied social and educa- tional measures combined with an effective monitoring system and a stron- ger partnership and transparent working relationship between the central and local government systems. Research and follow-up are crucial in this process. At the time of writing this chapter, Sweden has gone through a range of policy reforms. The changes were triggered partly by Swedish chil- dren’s disappointing performance or lower levels of knowledge in International studies such as PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) and TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study). To help combat this trend, the country has introduced several changes to its school system, such as a new education act, new curricula, introduction of teacher certification, and new grading system. These policy changes and reforms have yet to be thoroughly evaluated.

Some studies (Berhanu & Dyson, 2012; Wernersson & Gerrbo, 2013, and references therein) indicate that the number of special needs education pupils has increased mainly in large cities and that different forms of segre- gated education have expanded. Dubious assessment methods and unreflec- tive application of individual evaluation and educational plans have led to many students being viewed as derailed from the “norm” (Isaksson, Lindqvist, & Bergström, 2010; Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education], 2005, and references therein). In addition, the share of Swedish pupils who fail in core subjects when leaving compulsory educa- tion and face problems finalizing their upper secondary education has increased steadily.

As more and more reports indicated that pupils were entering special educational placements within the regular school framework and in special schools, the government began financing a number of projects that will map out the processes that lead to exclusionary measures in an attempt to mitigate the situation and therefore enhance full participation of pupils with special needs in all aspects of school life (e.g., Berhanu, 2006).

211Special Education Today in Sweden

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 Swedish constitution recognizes equal human worth and respect for the freedom and dignity of the individuals. The principles laid down there are sources for the curriculum’s goals and objectives. In that respect, an important principle in achieving equity has been and still is the compensa- tory principle, that is, that the state should not remain neutral in issues relating to equal opportunity. Differences among geographical regions, social or economic groups must not be attributable to any form of discrimi- nation that would indicate that the principle of equality has been neglected (Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001).

Equity carries a particular significance for children with special educa- tional needs. The majority of these children are integrated into regular child-care activities, compulsory schools, and upper secondary schools. There are, however, eight special schools for pupils with hearing/vision and physical disabilities, as well as some schools for those who are mentally handicapped. A total of 1% of all pupils in the compulsory and upper secondary school levels are in such segregated settings (Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education], 2005; Vislie, 2003; Wildt-Persson & Rosengren, 2001). This is minimal by international comparison according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b). Nonetheless, since the early 1990s the situa- tion has a different and complex picture. The number of pupils placed in educational programs for learning disabled students has increased dramati- cally. In general, the number of children defined as “special needs” has shown a steady increase. In addition, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of Independent/Free schools. Variances between schools and municipalities and student achievement including segregation and persistent socioeconomic differences among the school populations have been the post-decentralization policy phenomena. All the indicators of the National Agency for Education compiled through evaluations, case studies, and supervision, testify to this fact.

THE SWEDISH EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM: THE

GENERAL CONTEXT

Sweden has signed the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations [UN], 1989), the UN Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (United Nations [UN], 1993), and UNESCO’s Salamanca Statement and

212 GIRMA BERHANU

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

Framework for Action (UNESCO, 1994). These are all powerful stan- dards and statements to prevent exclusionary activities in the school sec- tor and make a strong case for inclusion. These documents have shaped a number of important government reports, directives, and policies and have worked to place inclusive education firmly on the agenda. Political expression, however, has not matched practice. As Emanuelsson, Haug, and Persson (2005) noted, “the school act, the School ordinances and the National Curricula all emphasize the importance of solidarity, the right to education of equal value and the right for pupils who experience diffi- culties for various reasons to receive the help and support they need. Local schools, however, often find this unrealistic, which indicates that the gap between political intentions and practical realities is considerable” (p. 122).

The Swedish Education Act (Skollag, 1985, 2010) states that all children shall have equal access to education, and that all children shall enjoy this right, regardless of gender, residence, or social or economic factors. Special support shall also be given to students who have difficulty with the school- work. Most students with a need for special support are taught in regular classes in compulsory and upper secondary schools. There are also a certain number of special remedial classes for students with functional disabilities, and for students with social and emotional problems. Effective July 1, 1994, programs for pupils with learning disabilities use the same curriculum as do regular compulsory and upper secondary schools. This is a way of delineating that all pupils, regardless of learning development, fall under the same fundamental values. The special programs do, however, use their own syllabi adapted to this form of education and to the different needs they must meet for each one of their pupils. On paper and in accordance with Swedish law, parents have a right to choose between the two school forms. Whether it is an opportunity in reality was questioned in an evaluation by the National Board of Education (Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education], 2002, cited in Göransson, 2006).

Government concern to provide appropriate services to special needs children within the regular school framework has been outlined in the first Swedish National Curriculum (LGR 62, 1962) where “the contents and organization of special education were carefully specified and the accompa- nying proposal was for a system of coordinated special education as alter- native to remedial and special classes” (p. 120). However, it was not until the 1969 National Curriculum (LGR 69, 1969) came into force that increased emphasis was given to integrating children with various forms of disability into regular education. The discourses in this new curriculum

213Special Education Today in Sweden

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 many similarities with the current inclusive agenda, although the term used then was integration. One significant perspective shift in the curricu- lum and official reports of the time and the 1970s was the statement that the school’s environment represents a possible cause of children’s difficul- ties in school (Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education], 2005). Consequently, the discourses of the categorical versus the relational perspective evolved (Emanuelsson, Persson, & Rosenqvist, 2001; Emanuelsson et al., 2005). Since then a number of school reforms have taken place that aim at a school system combining quality and equality. Education can be described as one of the cornerstones of the modern wel- fare state. This has been manifested heavily in Sweden, which was domi- nated by a social democratic model. Strong Labor parties were able to secure broad support for their policies during the interwar period and after the Second World War, with solidarity, community, and equality as the key words. There were high hopes that uniform, free-of-charge education for children from all social strata would contribute to equality and justice, and promote social cohesion. Although the belief in the potential of education in this respect may have faded, education is still regarded as one of the major methods of preventing unemployment, social exclusion, and ill health (Arnesen & Lundahl, 2006). “Hence, contemporary policy for equity is very much a latter day echo of the social democrats’ age-old concept of the ‘peoples’ home’” (OECD, 2005, p. 14).

Sweden’s reputation for successfully combining effective economy and social welfare measures is still unscathed in many ways. By OECD’s (2005) measure, Sweden is an affluent, healthy and well-educated society. Its population is about 9 million, of which approximately 20% come from an immigrant background. Its strongly unique combination of social equality and equity measures, underpinned by high levels of taxa- tion and public spending based on redistributive policies, together with a regulated capitalist economic system, has brought about this success. Its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita is $28,100, compared to $26,000 GDP per capita total OECD. Overall educational attainment is quite high, with at least 80% of the population having attained upper secondary education and an average life expectancy at birth of 82.8 years for women and 77.7 for men. Furthermore, it has one of the highest OECD employment-to-population ratios, with 74% of the population at work. This is third only to Switzerland and Denmark. Sweden also has one of the highest OECD employment rates for mothers, second only to Portugal. Around 78% of all mothers of children under age 7 years were working in 2003 (OECD). Compared with OECD nations, Sweden is one

214 GIRMA BERHANU

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

of the leading countries by many standards, be it educational achieve- ment or literacy levels. It is among the highest in social expenditure as a proportion of GDP; it has one of the lowest poverty rates and the lowest levels of income inequality in OECD countries.

Most of the modern history of Sweden is characterized by collective action spearheaded by a social democratic welfare state and is a prominent example of social democratic welfare states favoring full employment and a focus on minimizing differences, social alienation, and exclusion, as opposed to individual responsibility and market solutions (Arnesen & Lundahl, 2006; OECD, 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b, 2005; Wildt- Persson & Rosengren, 2001). This political and cultural background has been instrumental in creating an early and fertile platform from which to criticize the traditional special educational and exclusionary approach and to formulate concepts such as normalization, integration, and mainstream- ing (Nirje, 1992; Wolfensberger, 1972). This background has fostered awareness and cultural messages of the significance of social inclusiveness and has resulted in organization changes such as closing large institutions for intellectually disabled persons and building community-based residen- tial, learning, and working environments. This was a remarkable achieve- ment by any standard. The social motives of education that are citizenship, social integration, social equality, and democracy had as much importance as economic motivations not only in Sweden but also in Scandinavia as a whole.

The slogan “A school for all” (En skola för alla) embellished most of the policy documents and government-commissioned reports and propositions in the 1960s, 1970s, and through the late 1980s as a component of the inclu- sive and caring welfare state. In the 1962 Curriculum for the Compulsory School System (LGR 62, 1962), a 9-year unified compulsory school pro- gram for all children ages 7 to 16 years was introduced. This compulsory curriculum emphasized that pupils come at the center of the learning pro- cess and that they should be helped to achieve multisided development within the framework of a school for all or a common frame of reference.

Current Swedish educational policy documents recognize that students are different. That has important implications in how schooling is orga- nized and therefore the learning process and the avenues to reach goals. The curriculum states clearly that consideration should be taken of the dif- ferent abilities and needs of the students. There are different ways to reach the goal. “Hence teaching cannot be designed in the same way for every- one” (LPO, 1994; LGR 11, 2010; Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education], 2011).

215Special Education Today in Sweden

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 EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE

The Swedish public education system is composed of compulsory and non- compulsory schooling. Compulsory education includes regular compulsory school, Sami school, special school, and programs for pupils with learn- ing disabilities (Sami is an ethnic group with ill-defined genetic origins, living in the northern areas of the Scandinavian Peninsula and Russia). Noncompulsory education includes the “preschool class,” upper secondary school, upper secondary school for pupils with learning disabilities, munici- pal adult education, and adult education for adults with learning disabil- ities. The 9-year compulsory school program is for all children between ages 7 years and 16 years. All education throughout the public school sys- tem is free. There is usually no charge to students or their parents for teach- ing materials, school meals, health services, or transport. The education system has focused on providing equality of opportunities and equivalence of outcomes (http://www.skolverket.se, OECD, 2005). However, the system has undergone a number of important reforms in the past 18 years that have a strong bearing on equity.

Due to the large degree of independence of the municipalities, Special Needs Education can be organized in different ways. Support could include variations of the following options:

• all pupils in need of special support have written action plans of provi- sion set up in cooperation with the pupils themselves, parents and profes- sionals involved;

• the teachers of the pupil are consulted by a specialist teacher; • a specialist teacher or assistant helps the teacher or works with the pupil

concerned for longer or shorter periods within the frames of the activities of the larger group;

• the pupil receives teaching materials adapted for his or her needs; • the pupil leaves the larger group for limited periods to work with a spe-

cialist teacher; • a classroom assistant works with the pupil in need of special support or

in the class of the pupil concerned; • the pupil in need of special support works in a group for pupils with

similar needs for longer or shorter periods within the same organization; • teachers are supported by a resource center at the local level; • resource centers at the local level may be supported by an advisor at the

National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools.

216 GIRMA BERHANU

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.skolverket.se

The majority of pupils in need of special educational support are educated in general basic compulsory classes. If this is not possible, then the school must indicate very clearly why other educational options for pupils should be considered. This is an important philosophical standpoint for child-care organization and operation. Earlier debates focused upon prerequisites for mainstreaming. Now the focus has shifted to the need for justification for segregated options to be considered for pupils (The European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2014).

The schools have a pupil-welfare team made up of a representative of the local school board, and the pupil-welfare staff (i.e., a school doctor, nurse, psychologist, counselor and Special Educational Needs (SEN) tea- chers). Pupils’ progress toward educational goals should be supported (Skollag, 2010).

Action plans of provision are set up for each pupil in need of special support in cooperation with teachers, parents, and the pupil concerned. Those plans indicate the responsibility of each partner in the development of the pupil’s abilities and knowledge. Municipal child care, pre-primary activities, compulsory schooling, after-school centers, and youth centers are often part of the same organization with a common school board. Several of these activities are often integrated, with the staff organizing joint work together. This facilitates a complete view of each pupil. It is common prac- tice to provide for the pupils’ needs in close cooperation with their parents. The National Curricula states the importance of the parents’ participation in the planning of pupils’ education. Diversity is considered as a general standard in this social development and all children should as far as possi- ble, irrespective of their needs, and be a part of such a group. All children in need of special support have written action plans of provision set up in cooperation with the pupils themselves, parents, and professionals involved (Skollag, 2010).

For pupils in need of special support, technical aid is available from the regional counties, and adaptations of teaching materials are provided from the state. Schools and teachers are consulted by local resource centers which, in turn, are consulted by the National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools. The Agency is the national authority which coordi- nates government support in respect to special needs education for chil- dren, young people, and adults with disabilities. The Agency is a resource for people working with children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities. Its primary task is to provide support under central supervision to those responsible for special needs education in government-operated schools

217Special Education Today in Sweden

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 independent schools. It does this by distributing information and pro- viding knowledge about special needs education, and by initiating and par- ticipating in developmental work in this field (http://www.spsm.se/sv/Om- webbplatsen/English).

THE HISTORY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND

SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES

Early Beginnings

In 1842, a policy termed allmän folkskola (folk school) came into force. Before that, education was reserved only for middle-class and upper-class society. The policy was primarily meant to provide schooling for all citi- zens, although in practice two parallel school systems evolved: one for the poor and disadvantaged, and the other for stronger elements of society. Even so, the policy’s intention was noble, and we can still trace Sweden’s long tradition of comprehensive, compulsory, and equivalent education from this time. It is also from this time that special needs education estab- lished its roots as a two-track system (i.e., special education and regular education settings crystallized). In the special education track the so-called problem-child was categorized using different nomenclature such as idiot, poor, feeble-minded, imbecile, and dullard. As we entered into the mid- twentieth century, these categories changed into intellectually disabled, learning disabled, and mentally retarded. During the last two decades, the general category became pupils with special needs but with a new culture of diagnosis based on neuropsychiatric methods, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Deficits in Attention, Motor Control and Perception (DAMP), autism, or Asperger’s syndrome. The above reflects how classification and categorization has been an activity “as old as schools themselves” (Mehan, 1993, p. 243; see also Hjörne, 2004; Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education], 2005).

Special education in its modern, rational, and scientific form has a brief history in Sweden. As Rosenqvist (1993) outlined already in the early 1990s, three main periods can be discerned in the history of special educa- tion in Sweden: (a) the stage of non-differentiation, (b) the stage of differ- entiation, and (c) the stage of integration.

In the early years after Allmän folkskola students who did not meet the requirements were considered to be different from the “norm.” At first it

218 GIRMA BERHANU

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.spsm.se/sv/Om-webbplatsen/English

was all about the blind and deaf children, and it resulted in the creation of three parallel tracks. The first track symbolized the school where students who fulfilled their duty and were not considered different from the “norm” were served or fully included. The second track represented the students who at some time during their school years did not meet the objectives and requirements set and were placed in so-called “Help classes,” “special classes,” and “private instruction.” The third track, built in 1807, repre- sented a school for various disabilities whose purpose was to serve disabled children to get some form of education, or rather, skills (Nilhom & Björck- Åkesson, 2007; Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education], 2005).

Special education in Sweden arose as in most countries as a response to the assumption that the usual teaching did not suit all children. In this regard, one wonders about the driving forces behind the establishment and early expansion of special education in Sweden. According to Ahlström (2011), it presumably did not come into existence merely to provide dis- abled children with remedial training and an education adapted to their needs but to fulfill many other functions. Is it not likely, for instance, that teachers as well as “normal” and “well-adjusted” pupils were expected to profit from having “misfits” dismissed from ordinary classrooms? Or, could special education not be regarded as a method to deal with too heteroge- neous classes? Certainly � but there are also reasons to believe that various professional groups had private interests in the expansion of special educa- tion, like teachers to whom a new career path was opened, and physicians who realized that their professional knowledge might be demanded in that context. Special education may, of course, also have had more covert tasks to fulfill than these, which must be considered when looking for an answer to the introductory question.

Because elementary school became compulsory in 1842, schools expanded and reached a larger segment of the population, the diversity of the student population became obvious, and the ability to meet these varia- tions within the student population was a challenge to the school authori- ties. There were a range of proposed solutions.

One solution seemed to present itself in the form of intelligence tests as instruments of

selection. In Sweden they were first used for this purpose in Stockholm in 1920

(Nordström, 1968), but until the early 1940s there were few good instruments and

trained testers. Some physicians could perform testing, but the schools wanted their

own school psychologists. Regular programmes of study for school psychologists did

not appear until the late 1950s, although annual courses in intelligence testing for tea-

chers were arranged from 1944 …. Before the appearance of intelligence tests, 2 percent

219Special Education Today in Sweden

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

of the population was estimated as being slow learners (Ramer, 1946). Now it became

the norm to follow international trends that advocated an “SL class interval”, first

between IQs of 80 and 70 and later between 85 and 70 (Skolöverstyrelsen, 1947, p. 347).

The proportion of slow learners, defined in this way, was substantially higher than had

originally been envisaged, which prompted numerous appeals for greater numbers of

SL classes. (Ahlström, 2011, p. 185)

Expansion of Special Education Starting

During the latter part of the 1960s to the early 1970s, special education expanded and one could see that about 20% of students did not perform well (Nilhom & Björck-Åkesson, 2007). It turned out also that the special education became too costly for the state. The situation forced the govern- ment to set up an inquiry committee.

After a detailed investigation into the school’s inner workings by the inquiry committee Swedish Government Official Report (SOU, 1974) the concept of mainstreaming was introduced. Class teachers were now faced with the requirement to deal with diversity of students in their class and thus adapt teaching to pupils’ differing abilities and needs. Teachers would take care of several students who previously had special education support. When the Curriculum for the Compulsory School (LGR, 1980), came into being, it was stressed with even greater force that the services of the school should be adapted to the individual student’s abilities and that the school would work proactively to prevent the onset of school difficulties. Special education as an organizational form was not mentioned in the curriculum. This curriculum’s hallmark was a “school for all.”

As a consequence of a growing number of young people leaving school without a full education, subsequent policy measures came up, with a whole new approach to special education as a field of knowledge and pro- fession. A motive was that the adaptation of mainstream education in schools should work better so that fewer students would need special edu- cation. Consequently, the dominant individual-based and medically oriented approach to school problems was replaced largely by the system- based approach (or school-based or context-based approach with regard to school difficulties). In practice, the policy change led to the introduction of the profession, Special Pedagogues (Special Educators), whose functions were more than just teaching pupils with special needs but also working at the organizational level in helping teachers to include pupils with special needs and to help meet their needs within a regular school/class settings so

220 GIRMA BERHANU

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

that fewer students would need special education in a segregated setting (Ahlberg, 2007b; Nilhom & Björck-Åkesson, 2007). These special Pedagogues [as opposed to Special Teachers] are entrusted with the respon- sibilities to serve mainly as mentors and advisors for colleagues who have special needs pupils/students in their classes. They also conduct school improvement tasks as well as teach students with the greatest problems in school.

Current School Prevalence Data

In academic year 2008�2009, the number of students in special schools amounted to approximately 22,600. Of these some 13,300 students study at one of 714 special compulsory schools and 9,300 students study in one of the 271 special upper secondary schools. Of all pupils in the compulsory school system, the share of pupils in the special compulsory school has nearly doubled from 0.8 percentage points at the start of the 1990s to 1.4 percentage points in academic year 2007�2008. Every seventh pupil in the special compulsory school was integrated (i.e., attended compulsory school in the academic year 2008�2009). An ever larger share of the special school pupils have been integrated into compulsory school since the end of the 1990s. The teacher�pupil ratio is 27 teachers per 100 pupils (Statistics Sweden, 2009).

Differentiation, Inclusion and Categorization

As mentioned earlier, the post-war Swedish educational policy measures are characterized by comprehensiveness, equity, and inclusion as coined in the slogan “A school for all.” That did not stop differentiation, classifica- tion, and categorization of children or segregated educational placements. In fact, paradoxically, the amount of special education, as Emanuelsson et al. (2005) noted, has increased steadily. Vast differences have been observed in how pupils with special needs are actually defined and regis- tered in different municipalities. This is partly the consequence of a decen- tralized education system that manifests itself in divergent local practices (Göransson, Nilholm, & Karlsson, 2011).

There are different interpretations of the importance of levels, cate- gories, and differentiation, particularly in relation to receiving support or

221Special Education Today in Sweden

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

eligibility for special schools or special programs. Göransson et al. (2011), who conducted a series of studies in this problematic area, concluded:

Regarding the importance of categories in obtaining support, policy documents do not

clearly state that a medical diagnosis is necessary for receiving extra support in regular

compulsory schools. Instead, these documents mention educational categories. But

medically based categorizations are needed for: (1) determining the eligibility for special

schools and special programs, and (2) receiving support from the National Agency of

Special Needs Education and Schools. So, one conclusion of the present analysis is that

national policies and practices leave a lot of room for interpretation at municipal and

school levels, which generates vast differences. Regarding support in municipalities, we

can first conclude that there is a need for additional overarching data. But clearly, there

are vast differences between the municipalities. This applies to: (1) issues related to

values and goals; (2) the organization and placement of pupils; and (3) the importance

of categorization. For example, more than 60% of the municipalities indicated that

medical diagnosis was of little or no relevance for receiving special support, whereas

other municipalities indicated that such a diagnosis was relevant. (p. 550)

The categorical model described in several Swedish reports is the one referred to in the international research (see Mitchell, 2005) as the within- child model, the medical model, the psych-medical model, the discourse of deviance, the defect model, and the pathological model. In this paradigm, school failure is ascribed to some defect, pathology, or inadequacy located within the student. The relational model is variously referred to as the social model, the socio-political model, the socio-political paradigm, and the defi- cient system model. In line with this, the term students with difficulties was challenged and began to be replaced by students in difficulties (Emanuelsson et al., 2001). Fierce criticism against the traditional and cate- gorical special pedagogical perspective has brought about a paradigmatic shift and a policy deeply ingrained with a relational perspective (which is more environment oriented) as a guiding principle. However, the categori- cal perspective, which is associated with traditional, segregative, and exclu- sionary approaches, has not given way to the relational perspective. In fact, the categorical perspective made an upsurge in the 1990s and has since then dominated both special education research and praxis in Sweden. The recent growth in categorization, identification, and classification within the framework of “redesigning regular education support” in the ordinary school system in an effort to facilitate inclusion has been criticized by one prominent Swedish professor of special education:

Once children are identified as “different” … they become problematic to mainstream

schools and teachers. From within the categorical perspective the process of labelling

children as “having difficulties” has the effect of investing the source of any difficulty or

222 GIRMA BERHANU

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

problem within the child. Once this process is complete, then it becomes easier to trans-

fer the responsibility to “specialists” trained to deal with the “problems” exhibited by

the child. (Emanuelsson, 2001, p. 135)

Many of the social and educational changes made in the early 1990s were dramatic. Observers might ask why there occurred such a huge shift from the traditional inclusive, collective frame of reference and social jus- tice toward individual rights, parental choice, and market-oriented policies. In particular, the impact of the decentralized educational policy on equity is pervasive. Two studies confirm that

… educational expenditure per student (measured in terms of money or teacher density)

has fallen rather dramatically during the 1990s � followed by a slight increase after the turn of the millennium. According to Björklund et al. (2004), the teacher/student ratio

has decreased by 18.7% during the 1990s. Whether this can be directly attributed to the

decentralization or to the impact of the economic downturn of the 1990s remains an

open question. (Ahlin & Mörk, 2005; Björklund, Edin, Frederiksson, & Krueger, 2004

as cited in OECD, 2005, p. 17)

Paradoxically, in the footsteps of the introduction of inclusive education, the number of pupils labeled as having special needs increased dramati- cally. Teachers found themselves incapable of dealing with pupil diversity in the classroom and meeting individual student needs. This has often been regarded as schools’ failure to meet the diverse needs of pupils, manifesting itself in resignation and distress among teachers and pupils not achieving set targets.

One in five compulsory school pupils in Sweden is judged to be in need of special needs education (Asp-Onsjö, 2006). This means that approxi- mately 200,000 pupils in Sweden receive some kind of special educational support during the school year. At the same time, the number of pupils enrolled in special schools for the intellectually disabled (särskolan) has increased from 0.9% to 1.4% during the last 5 to 6 years (Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education], 2002). “From 1992 to 2001 the number of students registered in schools and classrooms for students with severe learning disabilities … has increased by 67%” (Rosenqvist, 2007, p. 67).

The “School for all” movement was transformed to a structure of capit- alism in the 1990s and the rhetoric of inclusion became a metaphor for the dominance of human capital, manifested in personal choice, over social jus- tice. Citizenship was replaced by stress on individualization of rights and promotion of dominant social interests (Persson & Berhanu, 2005). On the positive side, there are still commendable activities and policies in Sweden

223Special Education Today in Sweden

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

that promote social inclusion. For instance, the system offers a possibility for youngsters who fail at some stage to move on into further education via individual or tailored programs. A generous school system guarantees free education (including free books, meals, and transportation to the nearest school) for all in compulsory education. Free access is also guaranteed in state-run higher education and in municipal adult education.

Teacher Preparation

In the beginning of the 1990s, a Special Educator Program was launched that would have significant impact on the praxis of special/inclusive edu- cation in Sweden. The program was in line with a relational or system- based perspective on educational difficulties. In addition to carrying out teaching tasks, Special Educators are expected to supervise, consult, and counsel regular teachers on how to meet the needs of all pupils. In line with this, all teacher trainees study special needs education within the so-called General Field of Education and may also study this field of knowledge within an eligible field of study or in specialization courses. The program was well under way until 5 years ago. Then, a new conser- vative government came into power and “discredited” it. In 2008, the government reinstituted a special teacher program in which trainees will be expected upon completion to work directly with individual pupils (The programs are: Postgraduate Diploma in Special Needs Training with spe- cialization in Intellectual Disabilities; Postgraduate Diploma in Special Needs Training with specialization in the Development of Language, Writing, and Reading; Postgraduate Diploma in Special Needs Training with specialization in Mathematical Development). The teacher prepara- tion focus is the student, not the system, a dramatic shift from the pre- vious perspective. Currently both programs exist side-by-side, are offered at an advanced level, comprise 90 credits, 1�1/2 years of full-time study, and qualify graduates for specialist tasks in schools. The new Special Education Teachers should be able to analyze school difficulties at the individual level in different learning environments and be able to persona- lize the school activities regulated by the Swedish Code of Statutes (SFS, 2008). The vision from the government’s side is now that equivalence is strengthened through early identification/detection and interventions for students in need of special education and individualized support mea- sures. From school authorities, the importance of special education exper- tise of all categories of teachers is strongly emphasized. The tricky

224 GIRMA BERHANU

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

question is whether this trend enhances or hinders the inclusive school agenda that the government itself set as a goal. All these changes have implications on the process of differentiation, individualization, segrega- tion, and categorization.

School Problems and Students’ Difficulties

In a recent large-scale study conducted by Giota and Emanuelsson (2011) on head teachers’ judgments of school difficulty, the traditional conception of school difficulties emerged that is “social background and context as well as schoolwork content and teaching habits are judged as key factors behind the students’ difficulties and need for special education support. In general, however, school problems and students’ difficulties seem still to mainly be seen as caused by student characteristics and disabilities rather than as shortcomings of school and teaching” (see also, Persson, 2008).

A similar study conducted by Isaksson et al. (2010) indicated that there were three different patterns or models for identifying and supporting pupils with special educational needs: a pedagogical, a social, or a medical model. Various professionals were involved in different ways in each model. Another finding was that school personnel did not find it easy to sort out and assess “special educational needs” and that the identification of such needs was conditioned upon resources available for the schools.

Until the early 1990s, resources to the schools, including resources for special educa-

tion, were strictly regulated and distributed based on the total number of pupils in the

school. Currently, the municipalities distribute economic resources to the schools in

terms of unspecified block grants. This system encourages schools to identify as many

pupils with special educational needs as possible, since they may then generate addi-

tional economic resources for the school (Jóhanneson, Lindblad, and Simola, 2002). To

the extent that individual shortcomings take center stage at the expense of social and

environmental aspects of teaching, a built-in conflict regarding the demand for indivi-

dual adjustment on the one hand and inclusion within the social group on the other

becomes apparent. (Egelund, Haug, & Persson, 2006; Telhaug, Mediås, & Aasen,

2004). (Isaksson et al., 2010, p. 134)

Inclusive Education

Integration and inclusion have been used interchangeably in Swedish edu- cational discourses. Most people are familiar with the term integration. The

225Special Education Today in Sweden

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

term inclusion has been difficult to translate into Swedish. That has left many with considerable ambiguities about the use of the term. As in many other countries, there is confusion and controversy over the semantics of inclusion. This demonstrates the problematic nature of terms when they cross over into use in other cultures. Many have questioned whether the new terminology means only a linguistic shift or a new agenda. In the first translations into Swedish of UNESCO’s Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (1994), inclusion was translated as integration.

Although there is still a conceptual problem of clarity, the difference between integration and inclusion has been sorted out and technically defined by the experts (see, e.g., Nilholm, 2006a, 2006b). The message of inclusive education as outlined in the Salamanca statement has now begun to perme- ate the Swedish language, at least in official documents. The social model of disability and the relational nature of disablement have been officially accepted, which implies that schooling as such “is more or less disabling or enabling” (Corbett & Slee, 2000, p. 143). This in turn requires schools to restructure and adjust their learning environments, pedagogical methods, and organizational arrangements. Despite or, rather, because of the inflated discourses of inclusion and revamping of inclusion policies, the practice is often short of advocacies. For instance, “the number of pupils in ‘special units’ (grundsärskolan) increased by as much as 62% during 1993�1999, despite promises and statutes” (Westling Allodi, 2002). Unless a whole range of activities, including branding activities and attitudes, are brought under control, legislation alone will not bring about the desired results.

Unfortunately, there are too few comprehensive studies that map out the level of participation and the extent of inclusiveness of disabled children in the ordinary school system in Sweden, in particular in terms of compar- ing pupils’ development in special and regular education. However, the indication (in terms of children’s social and cognitive development) is in line with the international studies that show that special-needs students educated in regular classes do better academically and socially than stu- dents in non-inclusive settings (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1995; Peetsma, Vergeer, & Karsten, 2001). Some Swedish studies have shown that inclu- sion has a positive effect on pupils’ self-concept (e.g., Persson & Persson, 2012; Westling Allodi, 2000, 2002). This is in line with international research (Baker et al., 1995; Lipsky & Gartner, 1996).

One exemplary action in Sweden in relation to monitoring participation and inclusive/segregative processes is the recent establishment of a Forum for Inclusive Education by Örebro University and the Swedish Institute for Special Needs Education. The main goal of the forum is to enhance

226 GIRMA BERHANU

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

knowledge on inclusive and segregative processes in school and identify good examples that promote participation in the common education. As many authors have pointed out (Kivirauma, Klemelä, & Rinne, 2006; Thomas & Loxley, 2001; Westling Allodi, 2002), this is no longer a ques- tion of compulsory education or the children’s special needs, but rather, the right to participate in a common education.

Challenges to Inclusive Education

A couple of factors that challenge inclusive education and/or the concept of inclusive education in Sweden appear to be, according to Göransson et al. (2011):

(1) Parents and children increasingly select the schools. (2) Work within the schools is

of an increasingly individualized character; it emphasizes individuality at the expense of

other values such as fellowship, solidarity and equal opportunity. However, the authors

concluded that comparing inclusiveness with standards of what inclusive education

should be is one thing. Comparing inclusiveness of various education systems is some-

thing else. So, we are content that in an international comparison, Swedish classrooms

are largely democratic; most pupils enjoy participating in school activities and influencing

them. (p. 551)

Similarly, Tideman (2007) wrote “although the overall picture in some respects is complicated and problematic, Sweden might still be considered in the vanguard of special education development in inclusive education, thus making the further development of policy and practice intriguing and worthy of attention” (p. 1947).

Ethnic Minority and Socially Disadvantaged Pupils

Sweden explicitly adopts multiculturalism and cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance in Sweden’s Curriculum for the Compulsory School System, the Preschool Class and the Leisure-Time Centre (LPO, 1994); however, terms such as ethnicity, color, and race remain obscure in official taxonomies, educational policies, and school practices. The complex relationships that exist between ethnicity, socioeco- nomic factors, special needs education, gender, and so forth have recently become a subject of research interest (Berhanu, 2008; Fridlund, 2011; Rosenqvist, 2007).

227Special Education Today in Sweden

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 recent report by Gustafsson (2006) concludes that from 1992 to 2000 a consistent and linear increase occurred in school segregation in relation to immigration background, educational background, and grades. A national tracking system enables observation of variable achievement among groups of students. Students with foreign backgrounds receive lower average grades than do their peers, have a higher dropout rate from upper secondary education while fewer qualify for higher education. Some recent Swedish studies on disproportionality indicate an over- representation of immigrant students and socially disadvantaged students in special schools and classes (Bel Habib, 2001; Hahne Lundström, 2001; Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education], 2000; SOU, 2003). These students were categorized in diffused, vague, symptom- based, and pedagogical-related terms such as concentration and behavioral problems, speech and language difficulties, unspecified “poor talent,” or developmental retardation. However, extensive and longitudinal studies have yet to be carried out in this specific problem area (see Rosenqvist, 2007) and there is a need for a coherent cumulative body of dispropor- tionality research.

A recent literature review (Berhanu, 2008; Berhanu & Dyson, 2012), demonstrates that the above problem is related to, among other reasons, unreliable assessment procedures and criteria for referral and placement; lack of culturally sensitive diagnostic tools; the static nature of tests, includ- ing embedded cultural bias; sociocultural problems, family factors, and lan- guage problems; lack of parental participation in decision-making; power differentials between parents and school authorities; institutional intransi- gence and prejudices; and large resource inequalities that run along lines of ethnicity and class.

Disproportionality is a significant phenomenon in all of the education systems for which good evidence is available. This is the case regardless of the demographics of the school population or the structures and proce- dures of the special education system. Disproportionality is not confined to countries (such as the German-speaking ones) that have historically had high levels of segregation. On the contrary, education systems (such as those in Scandinavian countries) that are relatively inclusive place a high value on equitable provision and outcomes, and are located in relatively equal societies also display disproportionality. So too do special education systems (such as those of the United Kingdom) that offer additional provi- sion to children on the basis of educational “need” without requiring a diagnosis of disability (Berhanu & Dyson, 2012).

228 GIRMA BERHANU

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

Disproportionality is most marked in those categories of special educa- tion that lack precise diagnostic criteria. In practice, this means those that relate to general learning or social difficulties rather than to physical, sen- sory, or intellectual impairment. One interpretation of this is that the preju- dices of teachers and administrators operate unchecked by objective criteria during the identification and assessment process; this then results in negative interpretations of over-represented groups’ characteristics and behaviors. However, it is notable that these groups also tend to do poorly in regular education systems and experience the greatest socioeconomic dis- advantages. It is equally plausible; therefore, that over-representation reflects accurately the actual difficulties these groups experience in educa- tion systems. These difficulties may in turn be attributable to the margina- lized social status of these groups, which education systems fail to address, but for which they are by no means entirely to blame. Overall, there is no one group that is particularly at risk of over-representation in special edu- cation (or exclusion from access to its resources), and there is no single explanation for disproportionality. However, although multiple explana- tions are needed in order to cover the multiple forms of disproportionality in the United States, Europe in general, and in Sweden in particular, a common theme is that those groups that are most at risk of wider social and educational marginalization tend also to be most at risk of dispropor- tional representation (usually, over-representation) in special education. Disproportionality can therefore be regarded as a product of social margin- ality rather than as a product of the structures and procedures of special education systems.

Although Swedish legislation guarantees bilingual education or mother-tongue instruction at preschool and compulsory school, there is a huge gap between practice and legal commitments. This glaring gap has lessened the active participation of immigrant students in school. In particular, the lack of mother-tongue assistance at preschool, combined with a fee requirement, creates an unfavorable start for many immigrant children. In fact, considering Sweden’s generosity in all aspects of school- ing when it comes to fees, it is surprising that preschool education is not gratis (see, e.g., OECD, 2005). In addition, the National Agency for Education “points to the paradox that mother-tongue instruction is nearly non-existent in special education or assimilated programs, where immigrant children are strongly over-represented. Materials are hard to find � and mostly imported from the countries of origin” (OECD, 2005, p. 46).

229Special Education Today in Sweden

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 RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE

CONSTRUCTION

The last two decades of research show not only the lack of well-founded and sound theories in special education (see, e.g., Clark, Dyson, & Millward, 1998; Emanuelsson, 1997, 2003; OECD, 1995; Persson, 1998; Skrtic, 1991) but also the crisis in special education knowledge. This phe- nomenon is not only confined to Sweden but also to other countries with similar levels of development of special educational services. Special edu- cational research is a subject of debate, and various criticisms have sur- faced. Some of the criticisms are that the research is more focused on deviations, abnormalities, and exceptionalities (Ahlberg, 2013; Dyson & Millward, 1997; Haug, 1998; Persson, 1998). In recent years, however, the criticism has a different character, which is that the research is ideologi- cal, rhetorical, and lacks theoretical basis and is remote from the daily teaching, practice, and school life (Giota, Lundborg, & Emanuelsson, 2009).

Special pedagogy/education as a knowledge and research field has thus been strongly criticized, from researchers in the field, but also from other sources. In this regard, Emanuelsson (1997) who reviewed special education research in Sweden from 1956 to 1996, has correctly captured the issue:

Special-education research in Sweden has until rather recently as elsewhere, been

restricted to questions and problems dictated within existing school teaching practices.

The focus of interest in the majority of studies is on different kinds of remedial-

education organization environments, and it is more or less tied up to what happens or

is supposed to happen in such situations …. The need to broaden this narrow perspec-

tive was pointed out rather early (for example, Emanuelsson, 1974). However, the fact

that special education was at risk of being locked in as an “artefact of regular educa-

tion” (Skrtic, 1991) by not theoretically taking into account conditions dictated within

regular teaching regulations and practices has influenced the research that has taken

place only to a small extent…. This means that the vast majority of studies have con-

centrated on special needs being understood as consequences of certain individual dis-

ability characteristics and the measures taken against them. As a rule, these measures

were formulated in terms of responses to diagnose related needs of individual help and

support in order to decrease or “cure” such difficulties. The fact that special education

was also organized as a response to the needs in regular teaching settings of getting rid

of disturbances in terms of deviant diagnosed students …. has only recently been taken

into full consideration, at least to such an extent that it can be said to be characterizing

special education research in the country. (p. 462)

Generally, special education research in Sweden is multifaceted. Foci, theoretical underpinnings, and methods vary. Some variations in this

230 GIRMA BERHANU

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

regard can be seen from one University (or research setting) to another. The research usually targets the participation, communication, and learn- ing of children, youth, and adults in various contexts and situations. In the author’s research department, a more specific description of the research environment is to use inclusion as a foundation for studying different aspects of the three processes of participation, communication, and learning. These processes are regarded as an integrative area and can be studied at the level of the individual, group, organization, and society. The object of study may vary, which means that studies have varying foci in terms of content. Participation, however, constitutes the unifying base. The three processes are considered to be predicated on each other. Even though they are intertwined, it is possible to distinguish them on an analytical level, which is a necessary condition for them to be elucidated and researched. On this common platform, research issues vary, which means that the focus of studies pursued will shift. Some studies focus on all three processes. However, other studies may have a clear focus on one or two of the pro- cesses, which means that the other one(s) form a background against which the research is carried out. Studies focusing on participation target pro- cesses of exclusion and inclusion in preschools, schools, and society. People’s participation is studied in various contexts. Causes and conse- quences of categorization and classification are analyzed (Ahlberg, 2007a, 2009, 2013).

Research interests comprise studies both of processes that lead to mar- ginalization, stigmatization, and exclusion and of processes that lead to participation and community. Studies focusing on communication target language and interaction. The linguistic and behavioral forms of expression involved in communication are studied, as is how these are created and built up through social and cultural experience. Research may be directed toward identifying and analyzing dilemmas and various discourses that take place in schools and other institutions. Research issues also may deal with language development or the creation of identity, or they may target various types of collaboration and cooperation at different levels in society. Studies that target learning focus on the formation of knowledge and cognitive, as well as emotional, physical, and social development. This includes studies of people’s learning at individual and collective levels and studies of what people learn and how various forms of knowl- edge, values, abilities, and skills are developed in different situations and contexts. Learning is understood as something that is created in the inter- action between human beings and the contexts in which they are involved (Ahlberg, 2007a, 2009, 2013).

231Special Education Today in Sweden

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

Multifaceted “problem complexes” require a multiplicity of theoretical and methodological approaches, and researchers in most research teams in Sweden use as points of departure systems theory, sociocultural perspec- tives, the communicative relational perspective, social constructionism, and the phenomenological life-world perspective (e.g., Berndtsson & Sunesson, 2012). Approaches such as ethnography, ethnomethodology, action research, and discourse theories are also used. Large-scale studies with quantitative methods are conducted in collaboration with other research environments or research institutes (Giota & Emanuelsson, 2011; Giota et al., 2009). Most of the research comprises critical analyses of concepts, phenomena, processes, and structures such as the following: Processes of inclusion and exclusion (e.g., Berhanu, 2008; Berhanu & Dyson, 2012; Fridlund, 2011; Harling, 2014); identity formation; cooperation; school documentation culture (e.g., Andreasson & Carlsson, 2013); function of special education; supervision; content and organization of education for students in need of special support; management and leadership of educa- tion at various levels; specific areas of disability or specific problem areas, such as reading and writing (e.g., Lundberg & Reichenberg, 2013; Reichenberg, 2012) and groups of students receiving special education, such as students with intellectual disabilities, with socioemotional and behavioral problems (see also PRIS [Platform for Research in Inclusive education and School development] (2013) http://www.ips.gu.se/forskning/ forskningsmiljoer/pris/ for a range of research project in one single University).

Generally, a distinctive feature of special education research is that it is a multidisciplinary field of knowledge with natural links not only with edu- cation but also with medicine, psychology, and sociology. It is then inevitable that the influence of different theories and perspectives will be very important for research in the field. The diversity offers rich opportu- nities to expand the research field, but it can also contribute to the image that special education research is suffering from “identity crises,” and the theories are diffuse (Ahlberg, 2009; Emanuelsson et al., 2001). More special education perspectives need to be developed; what Emanuelsson (1997) sta- ted a long time ago rings true now that:

Further theory development in special education will necessitate collaboration with

other research disciplines, but at the same time there will be a need for clearer relations

between special-education research, handicap research and other fields of research on

exclusional processes in society. In this respect it might be fair to say that special-

education research in Sweden today is in an exciting and demanding phase of its his-

tory. (p. 472)

232 GIRMA BERHANU

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.ips.gu.se/forskning/forskningsmiljoer/pris/%20for%20a%20range%20of%20research%20project%20in%20one%20single%20University

CONCLUSION

As elsewhere, special education in Sweden in general describes an educa- tional alternative that focuses on teaching students with academic, beha- vioral, health, or physical needs beyond those met by traditional educational programs or techniques. In Sweden, special education or spe- cial needs education is the education of students with special needs in a way that addresses the students’ individual differences and needs. Ideally, this process involves the individually planned and systematically monitored arrangement of teaching procedures, adapted equipment and materials, accessible settings, and other interventions designed to help learners with special needs achieve a higher level of personal self-sufficiency and success in school and community than would be available if the student were given access only to a typical classroom education (Mitchell, 2010).

As a research domain, special education in Sweden, as in many other countries, has been criticized for being weak in theory and perspectives. The school practice in that regard has also been a subject of debate. “It is often said to be too narrowly bound to established traditional ways of teaching, in regular as well as in special education. In a way therefore, it can, be [sic] said to be too loyal to the existing educational system and too uncritical of established educational politics …” (Emanuelsson, 1997, p. 471).

However, in a range of parameters that are believed to favor inclusive education, special education research, and services, Sweden is in the fore- front. Sweden is a wealthy, highly educated and healthy society with one of the highest standard of living in the world. In comparison to even many well-developed countries, Sweden is one of the leading countries at success- fully combining equity and social inclusion with high economic efficiency. The tradition of universalism and comprehensiveness with minimization of streaming and tracking has been the hallmark of the Swedish education system. Redistribution policies underpinned by high levels of taxation and public spending still appear to have strong social consensus. Sweden has, at the same time, undergone a dramatic transformation within the past two decades. The changes are framed within neo-liberal philosophies that place greater emphasis on devolution, marketization (driven by principles of cost containment and efficiency), competition, standardization, individual choices and rights, development of new profiles within particular school units, and other factors that potentially work against the values of diver- sity, equity and inclusion. This all has obvious implications related to spe- cial education.

233Special Education Today in Sweden

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

While there are signs that inclusive education as envisaged in the Salamanca declaration is being exercised at different levels, gaps in research and follow-ups are most noticeable in this area. Finally, an over- representation of minority pupils in special educational placements (Berhanu, 2008; Berhanu & Dyson, 2012) and significant gender differences in specific disability categories (Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education], 2005) as well as in general learning outcomes and methods of testing and assessment are areas of grave concern requiring further studies.

National evaluations and OECD (1999b, 2000b, 2005) reports indicate that differences in a number of aspects (e.g., socioeconomic, educational achievements, and resources) have increased between schools and munici- palities, as well as among pupils. Differences in achievement can be linked to the new goals and an achievement-referenced operating system. The number of children who are placed in special educational settings and in particular in Särskolan (education for learning disabled pupils) has increased. The proportions of students who fail in core subjects when leav- ing compulsory schools and students who drop out from upper secondary schools have increased. Increased segregation by place of residence, varia- tion in classification and placement decisions of pupils with special needs (diverging local practices), a proliferation of independent schools, class dif- ferences, individual choices, marginalization, exclusion, and other factors have been documented and have become a subject of heated debate during the last few years. In particular, “growing ethnic inequalities are probably the Achilles heel of the present-day Swedish education system” (OECD, 2005, p. 47; see also Beach & Dovemark, 2007; Beach & Sernhede, 2011).

The paradox is that all these trends that work against inequity are hap- pening while at the same time the rhetoric advocating a school for all and inclusive education have become policy catch-words while having very little effect on the ground. As Skidmore (2004) observed, based on his experi- ences in the United Kingdom, inclusion has become a buzzword in educa- tional discourse. Although inclusion has been adopted as a policy goal, to date much of the Swedish debate has amounted to little more than the trad- ing of abstract ideological positions, which has little connection with the daily realities in schools. In practice, the trend may be described as exclud- ing the included.

Responses and challenges to inclusive education in general and the qual- ity and extent of special education services are varied and complex. Sweden’s cultural and political heritage could have been ideal to fully implement inclusive education as envisaged in The Salamanca Statement

234 GIRMA BERHANU

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 Framework for Action (UNESCO, 1994). However, the new political movements and policies that dominate the Swedish educational system have created contradictory and conflicting realities that work not only against fundamental equity issues but also against the long Swedish tradi- tion of universalism, comprehensiveness, and egalitarianism (e.g., Beach & Dovemark, 2007; Korp, 2006).

Apart from the obvious policy shifts that brought about contradictions in the education system, the very nature of our humanity and social activ- ities also are filled with some dilemmas and contradictions. However, poli- cies and practices can either strengthen or weaken the complexities emanating from this. The dilemmas revolve around individually and collec- tively based ideas of democracy and categorization (social stigmatization/ segmentation) versus individuality, utility and culture, the public and perso- nal domains, economy and welfare, individual agency versus collective action, autonomy, and communitarianism. This has definitely shaped the policy and services for special needs pupils and the general structure of spe- cial education.

A number of government funded studies have been conducted recently to investigate the participation and inclusion of disabled pupils at different levels of the education system, particularly at individual, classroom, and school levels, and conferences are being held linked to these studies. There is therefore some hope that the studies will reveal micro-level and meso- level activities that hinder or enhance full participation of students with special needs and problematize further real-world dilemmas, including the growing culture of diagnosis. Significant factors that may facilitate physi- cal, social, and curricular inclusion have been identified: competent person- nel, differentiation in the curriculum, favorable assessment methods, collaboration between the teaching staff, class size, involvement by school leadership, continuous and intensive in-service staff training, partnership with parents, and economic factors. Moreover, the concept of participation has to be further problematized. It is one of the least empirically defined core concepts and is broadly misconceived. It is complex, multidimensional, subjective, and context-bound.

On the positive side, there are still commendable activities and policies in Sweden that promote special education and social inclusion. Acclaiming Sweden’s past achievements with regard to special education, inclusion, and equity as well as social justice, an OECD (2005) report has stated that “the tools to achieve equity in Sweden have not been added as corrections to the education system � they are at the heart of the Swedish model.” That model includes:

235Special Education Today in Sweden

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 strong, popular, and successful preschool combining care, nurture, and education;

• a well-designed, broad and attractive comprehensive curriculum; • an encouraging and non-threatening learning culture for all; • opportunities for bridges and second chance provision at all levels; • absence of dead ends; • equivalence of qualifications; and • a long-standing tradition of democratic adult education (pp. 48�49).

According to my observation the statement still rings true. There is, however, a cause for concern for how long Sweden’s positive reputation, particularly in the areas of integration. “A school for all,” equity, and social welfare will persist given the drastic changes that have taken place within a short span. Caution is needed if the traditional model that favored the development of special education and inclusive education in Sweden is to survive.

REFERENCES

Ahlberg, A. (2007a). Specialpedagogik � ett kunskapsområde i utveckling [Special Education � A knowledge domain in the process of development]. In E. Björck- Åkesson & C. Nilholm (Eds.), Reflektioner kring specialpedagogik � sex profes-sorer om forskningsområdet och forskningsfronten. Stockholm, Sweden: Vetenskaps-rådet.

Ahlberg, A. (2007b). Specialpedagogik av igår, idag och imorgon [Special education of yester-

day, today and tomorrow]. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 12, 257�268. Ahlberg, A. (Ed.). (2009). Specialpedagogisk forskning. En mångfacetterad utmaning. [Special

Education. A multifaceted challenge.] Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

Ahlberg, A. (2013). Specialpedagogik i ideologi, teori och praktik � Att bygga broar. [Special education as ideology, theory and practice � Building bridge.] Stockholm, Sweden: Liber.

Ahlström, K.-G. (2011). The origin of special education in Sweden. Education Inquiry, 2(2),

179�192. Andreasson, I., & Carlsson, M. A. (2013). Individual educational plans in Swedish schools:

Forming identity and governing function in pupils’ documentation. International

Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 58�67. Arnesen, A., & Lundahl, L. (2006). Still social and democratic? Inclusive education policies in

the Nordic welfare states. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3),

285�300. Asp-Onsjö, L. (2006). Åtgärdsprogram � dokument eller verktyg: En fallstudie i en kommun.

[Individual educational plan � Document or Tools: A case study in one municipality.] Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgiensis.

Baker, E. T., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1995). The effects of inclusion on learning.

Educational Leadership, 52(4), 33�35.

236 GIRMA BERHANU

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

Beach, D., & Dovemark, M. (2007). Education and the commodity problem: Ethnographic inves-

tigations of creativity and performativity in Swedish schools. London: The Tufnell Press.

Beach, D., & Sernhede, O. (2011). From learning to labor to learning for marginality: School

segregation and marginalization in Swedish suburbs. British Journal of Sociology of

Education, 32, 257�274. Bel Habib, I. (2001). Elever med invandrarbakgrund i särskolan: Specialpedagogik eller discipli-

när makt. [Pupils with immigrant background in education for intellectually disabled.]

Kristianstad, Sweden: Högskolan i Kristianstad. Enheten för kompetensutveckling.

Berhanu, G. (2006). Framgångsfaktorer för delaktighet och jämlikhet. [Favorable factors to

enhance participation and equality.] Goteborg, Sweden: Specialpedagogiska institutet.

Berhanu, G. (2008). Ethnic minority pupils in Swedish schools: Some trends in overrepresenta-

tion of minority pupils in special educational programs. International Journal of Special

Education, 23(3), 17�29. Berhanu, G. (2009, February 1�5). Challenges and responses to inclusive education in Sweden:

Mapping issues of equity, participation and democratic values. Presented at a Research

Forum: A comparative analysis of equity in inclusive education. Center for Advanced

Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS), Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

Berhanu, G. (2011). Challenges and responses to inclusive education in Sweden: Mapping

issues of equity, participation and democratic values. In J. A. Artiles, E. B. Kozleski, &

F. R. Waitoller (Eds.), Inclusive education: Examining equity on five continents.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Berhanu, G., & Dyson, A. (2012). Special education in Europe, overrepresentation of minority

students. In J. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity in education (pp. 2070�2073). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Berndtsson, I., & Sunesson, L. (2012). Introducing echolocation into O & M University

courses for professionals. International Journal of Orientation & Mobility, 5(1), 34�39. Clark, C., Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (Eds.). (1998). Theorizing special education. London:

Routledge.

Corbett, J., & Slee, R. (2000). An international conversation on inclusive education. In F.

Armstrong, D. Armstrong, & L. Barton (Eds.), Inclusive education: Policy, contexts and

comparative perspectives (pp. 133�146). London: David Fulton. Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (1997, May). Theory and practice in special needs education. Paper

presented at the International seminar “Theoretical perspectives on special education”,

Ålesund, Norway.

Emanuelsson, I. (1997). Special education research in Sweden 1956�1996. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 41(3&4), 461�474.

Emanuelsson, I. (2001). Reactive versus proactive support coordinator roles: An international

comparison. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 16(2), 133�142. Emanuelsson, I. (2003). Differentiation, special education, and equality: A longitudinal study

of self-concepts and school careers of students in difficulties and with or without special

education support experiences. European Educational Research Journal, 2(2), 245�261. Emanuelsson, I., Haug, P., & Persson, B. (2005). Inclusive education in some Western

European countries: Different policy rhetorics and school realities. In D. Mitchell

(Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education: Evaluating old and new international perspec-

tives (pp. 114�138). London: Routledge/Falmer. Emanuelsson, I., Persson, B., & Rosenqvist, J. (2001). Specialpedagogis forskning: en kunskap-

soversikt. [Special education research � A literature review.] Stockholm, Sweden: Skolverket.

237Special Education Today in Sweden

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

Fridlund, L. (2011). Interkulturell undervisning � ett pedagogiskt dilemma. Talet om undervisn- ing i svenska som andraspråk och i förberedelseklasser. [Intercultural education � A Pedagogical dilemma. Professional talk about the teaching of Swedish as a second lan-

guage and in preparatory classes.] Doctoral thesis. Gothenburg Studies in Educational

Sciences 310, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Göteborg, Sweden.

Giota, J., & Emanuelsson, I. (2011). Policies in special education support issues in Swedish

compulsory school: A national representative study of head teachers’ judgements.

London Review of Education, 9(1), 95�108. Giota, J., Lundborg, O., & Emanuelsson, I. (2009). Special education in comprehensive

schools: Extent, forms and effects. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(6),

557�578. Göransson, K. (2006). Pedagogical traditions and conditions for inclusive education.

Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 8(1), 67�74. Göransson, K., Nilholm, C., & Karlsson, K. (2011). Inclusive education in Sweden? A critical

analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(5), 541�555. Gustafsson, J. E. (2006). Barns utbildningssituation: Bidrag till ett kommunalt barnindex.

[Children’s educational situation: Contribution to a local child index in Swedish.]

Stockholm, Sweden: Rädda Barnen.

Hahne Lundström, K. (2001). Intagningskriterier till gymnasiesärskolan i Göteborg. [Admission

criteria to upper high school for educationally disabled in Gothenburg]. Projektarbete vid

Arbetslivsinstitutets Företagsläkarutbildning 2000/2001.

Harling, M. (2014). A fair (af) fair? On subjectivitism and differentiation in educational capital-

ism. Licentiate dissertation, Department of Education and Special Education,

University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Haug, P. (1998). Pedagogisk dilemma: Specialundervisning. [An education dilemma: Special

needs instruction.] Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish National Agency for Education.

Hjörne, E. (2004). Excluding for inclusion? Negotiating school careers and identities in pupil

welfare settings in the Swedish school. Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis

Gothoburgensis.

Isaksson, J., Lindqvist, R., & Bergström, E. (2010). Pupils with special educational needs: A

study of the assessments and categorizing processes regarding pupils’ school difficulties

in Sweden. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(2), 133�151. Kivirauma, J., Klemelä, K., & Rinne, R. (2006). Segregation, integration, inclusion: The ideol-

ogy and reality in Finland. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(2),

117�133. Korp, H. (2006). Lika chanser i gymnasiet? En studie om betyg, nationella prov och social

reproduktion [Equivalence in upper high school? A study of grades, national tests and

social reproduction]. Malmö Studies in Educational Sciences, 24, 34�38. LGR. (1980). Läroplan för grundskolan – allmän del.1980 (Lgr 80). [Curriculum for the compul-

sory school system.] Stockholm: Skolöverstyrelsen och Liber.

LGR 11. (2010). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet. [Curriculum for

the compulsory school system, the preschool class and the leisure-time centre.] Stockholm,

Sweden: Fritzes.

LGR 62. (1962). Läroplan för grundskolan. [Curriculum for the compulsory school system.]

Kungl. Skolöverstyrelsens skriftserie. Stockholm: SÖ-förlaget.

LGR 69. (1969). Läroplan för grundskolan. [Curriculum for the compulsory school system.]

Allmän del. Svenska utbildningsförlaget: Liber.

238 GIRMA BERHANU

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

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring and the remaking of

American society. Harvard Educational Review, 66(44), 762�796. LPO. (1994). Läroplan för det obligatoriska skolväsendet, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet.

[Curriculum for the compulsory school system, the preschool class and the leisure-time

centre.] Stockholm, Sweden: Skolverket och Fritzes AB.

Lundberg, I., & Reichenberg, M. (2013). Developing reading comprehension among students

with mild intellectual disabilities: An intervention study. Scandinavian Journal of

Educational Research, 87, 89�100. Mehan, H. (1993). Beneath the skin and between the ears: A case study in the politics of

representation. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on

activity and context (pp. 241�268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mitchell, D. (2005). Introduction: Sixteen propositions on the contexts of inclusive education.

In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education: Evaluating old and new interna-

tional perspectives (pp. 1�21). London: Routledge/Falmer. Mitchell, D. (2010). Education that fits: Review of international trends in the education of

students with special educational needs. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of

Education.

Nilholm, C. (2006a). Including av elever ‘I behov av särskilt stöd’ � vad betyder det och vad vet vi. [Including children with special needs � What does it mean? What do we know?] Myndigheten för Skolutveckling: Forskning i fokus nr 28.

Nilholm, C. (2006b). Special education, inclusion and democracy. European Journal of Special

Needs Education, 21(4), 431�445. Nilhom, C., & Björck-Åkesson, E. (2007). Reflektioner kring specialpedagogik � sex profes-

sorer om forskningsområdet och forskningsfronterna. [Reflections on special education:

Six professors’ comments on the research domain and the research front.] Vetens

kapsrådets Rapportserie, 5, 7�16. Nirje, B. (1992). The normalization principle papers. Uppsala, Sweden: University of Sweden,

Centre for Handicap Research.

OECD. (1995). Integrating students with special needs into mainstream schools. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (1999a). Early childhood education and care policy in Sweden, Country Note. Paris,

France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

OECD. (1999b). Inclusive education at work, students with disabilities in mainstream schools.

Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

OECD. (2000a). Education at a glance. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development.

OECD. (2000b). Special needs education: Statistics and indicators. Paris, France: OECD

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

OECD. (2005). Equity in education: Thematic review. Sweden, Country Note. Paris, France:

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Peetsma, T., Vergeer, M., & Karsten, S. (2001). Inclusion in education: Comparing

pupils’ development in special and regular education. Educational Review, 53(2),

125�135. Persson, B. (1998). Den motsägelsefulla specialpedagogiken � motiveringar, genom-förande,

konsekvenser Specialpedagogiska rapporter nr 10 Göteborg. Göteborg, Sweden:

Göteborgs universitet, Institutionen för specialpedagogik.

Persson, B. (2008). On other people’s terms: Schools encounters with disabled students.

European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(4), 337�347.

239Special Education Today in Sweden

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

Persson, B., & Berhanu, G. (2005). Politics of difference: The emergence of special needs in a

school for all. Göteborg, Sweden: (Research Programme) Project Document, Göteborg

University.

Persson, B., & Persson, E. (2012). Inkludering och måluppfyllelse �att nå framgång med alla elever. [Inclusion and goal attainment to achieve success too all pupils.] Stockholm,

Sweden: Liber.

PRIS [Platform for Research in Inclusive education and School development]. (2013).

Retrieved from http://www.ips.gu.se/forskning/forskningsmiljoer/pris/. Accessed on

February 17, 2013.

Reichenberg, M. (2012). “I liked the text about the little bird” Five intellectually disabled per-

sons talk about texts. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research Peer Review, 15(2),

108�124. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sjdr20 Rosenqvist, J. (1993). Special education in Sweden. European Journal of Special Needs

Education, 8(1), 59�74. Rosenqvist, J. (2007). Specialpedagogik i mångfaldens Sverige: Om elever med annan etnisk bak-

grund än svensk i särskolan. [Special education in multicultural Sweden: Ethnic minority

pupils in education for intellectually disabled.] Ett samarbetsprojekt mellan Special

pedagogiska institutet och Högskolan Kristianstad (HKr), Specialpedagogiska institu-

tet. Specialpedagogiska skolmyndighetens webbplats.

SFS. (2008). Förordning om ändring i högskoleförordningen. [Ordinance amending the higher

education.] Stockholm, Sweden: Utbildningsdepartmentet.

Skidmore, D. (2004). Inclusion: The dynamic of school development. Buckingham, UK: Open

University Press.

Skollag. (1985). The Education Act. Stockholm, Sweden: Utbildningsdepartementet.

Skollag. (2010). The Education Act. Stockholm, Sweden: Utbildningsdepartementet.

Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education]. (2000). Hur särskild får man vara?

En analys av elevökningen i särskolan. [How different one has to be? A study of the

increase of pupils in education for intellectually disabled.] Uppföljning/Utvärdering Dnr

2000:2037 2000-09-29. Stockholm, Sweden: Skolverket.

Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education]. (2002). Barnomsorg, skola och vuxe-

nutbildning i siffror 2002 del 2. [Childcare, school and adult education in numbers 2002

part 2.] Rapport 214. Stockholm, Sweden: Skolverket.

Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education]. (2005). Handikapp i skolan. Det

offentliga skolväsendets möte med funktionshinder från folkskolan till nutid. [Disability in

schools. The public education’s handling of handicap from Folk school to the present

time.] Rapport 270. Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes. Retrieved from www.skolverket.se

Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education]. (2011). Läroplan för grundskolan,

förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet. Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes kundservice.

Skrtic, T. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard

Educational Review, 61, 148�206. SOU. (1974). Utredningen om skolans inre arbete. [Commission (inquiry) on school’s internal

workings.] Stockholm, Sweden: Utbildnings-departementet.

SOU. (2003). För den jag är. Om utbildning och utvecklingstörning. [For who I am: On education

and developmental disability.] Stockholm, Sweden: Skolverket. The Education Act

Skollagen (1985:1000) i Svea Rikes Lag.

Statistics Sweden. (2009). Education in Sweden 2009. Örebro, Sweden: Statistics Sweden.

240 GIRMA BERHANU

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.ips.gu.se/forskning/forskningsmiljoer/pris/

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sjdr20

http://www.skolverket.se

The European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2014). Retrieved from

http://www.european-agency.org/country-information/sweden/national-overview/special-

needs-education-within-the-education-system. Accessed on January 12, 2014.

Thomas, G., & Loxley, A. (2001). Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion.

Buckingham, Sweden: Open University Press.

Tideman, E. (2007). Special education in Sweden. In Encyclopedia of special education: A refer-

ence for the education of children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities and other

exceptional individuals (pp. 1944�1947). New York, NY: Wiley. UNESCO. (1994, June 7�10). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special

needs education. Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access

and Quality, Salamanca, Spain.

United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. New York, NY: UN General

Assembly Document A/RES/44/25.

United Nations. (1993, December 20). The standard rules on the equalization of opportunities

for persons with disabilities. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, forty-

eighth session, resolution 48/96, annex. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/

enable/dissre00.htm

Vislie, L. (2003). From integration to inclusion: Focusing global trends and changes in the

Western European societies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(1),

17�35. Wernersson, I., & Gerrbo, I. (2013). Differentieringens janusansikte. [The double face of differ-

entiation.] En antologi från Institutionen för pedagogik och specialpedagogik vid

Göteborgs universitet. [Anthology from the Department of Education and Special

Education.] Göteborg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg.

Westling Allodi, M. (2000). Self-concept in children receiving special support at school.

European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15, 69�78. Westling Allodi, M. (2002). Support and a resistance: Ambivalence in special education.

Stockholm, Sweden: HLS Förlag.

Wildt-Persson, A., & Rosengren, P. G. (2001). Equity and equivalence in the Swedish school

system. In W. Hutmacher (Ed.), In pursuit of equity in education: Using international

indicators to compare equity policies (pp. 288�321). Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto, Canada:

NIMR.

241Special Education Today in Sweden

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.european-agency.org/country-information/sweden/national-overview/special-needs-education-within-the-education-system

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dissre00.htm

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

SWITZERLAND

Judith Hollenweger

ABSTRACT

This chapter delineates the development of special education in Switzerland from its early first special needs classes in the 19th century to today’s integrated and inclusive educational system which is promoted via many ventures. Along this developmental path, research revealed not only that self-contained special needs classes were less effective than inte- grated classes and that the classes contained an overrepresentation of children with migrant backgrounds. However, the movement to an inclu- sive education system has not always been easy. Included in this path to inclusion are sections on the following: legislative enactments to insure the rights of persons with disabilities, definitions of who is disabled, pre- valence data, the influence of a strong private sector on special education practices, the scientific study of special education by researchers and academics, teacher and professional training endeavors, and challenges that remain today.

Special Education International Perspectives: Practices Across the Globe

Advances in Special Education, Volume 28, 243�269 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0270-4013/doi:10.1108/S0270-401320140000028015

243

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/S0270-401320140000028015

INTRODUCTION

Through the years, special education in Switzerland has developed into a diverse field with many different theoretical and practical approaches. Diverse institutional traditions have created a multi-voiced community con- tributing to policy making, research, and practice as well as to teacher edu- cation. To understand special education in Switzerland, it is important to understand its people; their outlooks on the state and their fellow citizens which influences their understanding of good practice and expertise as well as their attitudes toward life in general and people with disabilities in parti- cular. Switzerland, also referred to as the Swiss Confederation, is a small landlocked country with a population of approximately 8 million people in 2013 and four national languages (Swiss German, French, Italian, Romansh). The Swiss are not united by a common ethnic or linguistic iden- tity, but rather by a shared sense of identity, independence and civic spirit. These are reflected in Switzerland’s direct democracy, federalism and armed neutrality and help explain why the country is not part of the European Union and joined the United Nations only in 2002.

Switzerland can be considered a consensus democracy (Lijphart, 1999). The principle of power-sharing is articulated in the composition of the gov- ernment and complex systems of decision-making at national, cantonal, and municipal levels. Government power is always shared between the major parties at national, cantonal, and communal levels thus securing a broad range of opinions. Citizens enjoy extensive rights in decision-making due to Switzerland’s direct democracy. They not only elect their communal, cantonal, and federal representatives but are called upon to vote on an average of four times a year on new laws, popular initiatives, or referen- dums (Swiss Confederation, 2013). Decisions taken by the federal or canto- nal parliaments have to be voted on by the people if 50,000 citizens so demand (referendum). Through popular initiatives, votes on amendments to the federal or cantonal legislation can be requested if 100,000 signatures are collected within 18 months (Swiss Confederation). If desired, the citi- zens always have the last word in all important matters. Another mechan- ism by which the power of the central government is limited and local decision-making strengthened is the subsidiarity principle. The 26 cantons hold all powers which are not plainly assigned to the federation and simi- larly, the communes are autonomous in all matters not regulated by the cantons. Each canton retains its own constitution and all enjoy equal rights. For example, health care, education, and culture are largely under the jurisdiction of the cantons.

244 JUDITH HOLLENWEGER

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

Direct democracy, the subsidiarity principle as well as the cultural and linguistic diversity have shaped education in Switzerland. Public education is under the authority of the individual cantons which grant varying auton- omy to their communes in organizing the provision of education. Only a few essential principles are set out at the federal level. For example, the revised federal constitution of 1874 secured the right of education for all children to be managed by the cantons without interference of the church. In 2006, the Swiss voted in favor of an amendment to the federal constitu- tion which demanded that the cantons “harmonize” their education sys- tems to facilitate transfers of children between different cantonal education systems and to guarantee quality of provision. This will partly be achieved through national education goals and a common curricular framework for the German and French speaking cantons respectively. With no direct federal influence on educational matters, the responsibility to comply with this constitutional amendment lies with the cantons. The needed coordina- tion effort at national level is the responsibility of the Swiss Conference of the Cantonal Ministers of Education (EDK). Harmonization is achieved through Inter-Cantonal Agreements or Concordats. Once such a Concordat has been approved at the inter-cantonal level, each canton will chart its own procedure to decide whether it will join the Concordat or not. Consequently, it is only legally binding for the cantons which join the Concordat. As with all changes to the legislation, concordats have to be either voted on directly by the population or in cantons where the parlia- ment decides, a vote may be requested indirectly by a referendum. Educational reforms therefore are only successful if they consider the needs and interests of all constituencies. More often than not, this results in pro- tracted change processes, but generally it leads to workable solutions. As a consequence of the citizen self-management rule which is firmly entrenched in the Swiss public services (Helmig et al., 2011); schools are governed by a local school board consisting of elected lay persons. This limits the influ- ence of the Ministry of Education and gets citizens involved in public services.

The considerable influence and power of civil society is also reflected in the principle that the state should only be responsible for activities or pro- blems that cannot be carried out or solved by other social actors such as associations, foundations, or private companies. Due to its liberal tradition and sense of independence, individual responsibility and self-help, the Swiss civil society sector is quite powerful (Helmig et al., 2011). Counting employed workers and volunteers, it comprises 6.9% of the country’s economically active population thus surpassing the workforce in the

245Special Education Today in Switzerland

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

construction, the financial or the agricultural sectors (Helmig et al.). Many of these private organizations or associations are supported financially by public funds either through direct contributions, provision of capital, or through service agreements. Service agreements are contracts that define the services which the respective private organization or association provide, for example, services for children with disabilities. This is still mir- rored today in a high proportion of special schools and services for persons with disabilities governed by private organizations or foundations rather than by the state. Only recent developments in legislation have led to some changes which may have a further impact in the future.

To understand special education in Switzerland, it is important to recog- nize how public and private sectors as well as civil society cooperate; how they influence and are driven by research, policies and practices. Developments in special education since its beginnings as a field of study can be viewed as covering three separate periods. The era of discovery and exploration was initiated with the introduction of compulsory education as the responsibility of civil society rather than the church following the French revolution wars, the birth of the modern Swiss state in 1848 and the revision of the Swiss federal constitution in 1874 (see above). This era is marked by the creation of special education as a scientific field, leading to the first European chair for special education to be established in 1931 at the University of Zurich. A second era of expansion and consolidation is closely linked to developments in the social state culminating in the intro- duction of the national invalidity insurance in 1960 and the educational expansion after the Second World War. In this era, foundations, organiza- tions and associations providing services for children with disabilities and their families or providing training for professionals underwent a process of institutionalization thus becoming part of a publicly funded network of service providers and partners in policy development. The third era of special education in Switzerland lasts until today and is marked by its disper- sion and crisis. As a result of its expansion, the boundaries and contour of special education became increasingly blurred in the 1980s, raising ques- tions about its purpose, effectiveness and legitimacy. A move toward inte- gration and inclusion challenged the institutional self-image of the private sector service providers. More recently, changes in legislation have created financial and organizational challenges for the private sector because new laws promote special education as a matter of individual rights rather than social security and welfare.

Legislation and policy development have played an important role in institutionalizing special education during the second era and in challenging

246 JUDITH HOLLENWEGER

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 structures in the third era. The next section therefore will be dedicated to developments in legislation. The impact of legislation is reflected in mechanisms of identification and definition of disability which will be explored in the third section. Prevalence data in Switzerland is scarce and only recently Switzerland has started to collect information on disability independent of service provision. Because the private sector has been instrumental in establishing special education in Switzerland, a section will be dedicated to it. It was also due to private initiatives that special edu- cation was established as a science and a field for professional training. Subsequent sections will be dedicated to describe developments in these areas and the current situation. Finally, in summing up, the last section will focus on how these developments have influenced current practices in special education and which challenges lay ahead.

DEVELOPMENTS IN LEGISLATION: FROM

BENEFITS TO RIGHTS

In 1925, a new article in the federal constitution laid the foundation for the Swiss social state with a focus primarily on creating an old age and survivor pension. When the first corresponding law was rejected by the Swiss voters, the implementation of this pension took priority over disability issues. Finally, in 1948, the Federal Office of Social Insurance [Bundesamt für Sozialversicherungen] was charged with the provision of benefits in case of old age and survivors. Only much later in 1960, did the Federal Invalidity Insurance Law [Bundesgesetz über die Invalidenversicherung, IVG] come into effect. Undoubtedly, this was the most far-reaching legislation for Swiss people with disabilities in the 20th century, including for children with disabilities. The law defined “invalidity” as the “inability to earn an income,” or � for the insured who were not gainfully employed � the “inability to continue to carry out day-to-day tasks (e.g., housework) because of a physical, psychological or mental disability.” It required the disability to be long-term (minimum of one year). Whether a disability is “congenital or the result of an illness or accident is irrelevant” (Federal Social Insurance Office, 2010). The basic premise of the Invalidity Insurance system was and still is to promote the professional (re)integra- tion of persons with disabilities as well as improve or restore their earning capacity. The guiding principle is “rehabilitation before pension” (Federal Social Insurance Office). Children with disabilities, including their

247Special Education Today in Switzerland

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, were supported by the Invalidity Insurance to ensure their future integration into the workforce.

The implementation of the Federal Invalidity Insurance marks the beginning of an era of expansion and consolidation in special education. The Invalidity Insurance helped ensure adequate provision for children with disabilities through direct payments for services (e.g., language ther- apy), aids (e.g., wheelchair), and financial support for families and children. In addition, it co-financed organizations and associations, providing educa- tional, social, and other services or training staff and professionals working in the respective institutions. According to article 74 of the Federal Invalidity Insurance Law, private national or regional organizations and associations providing services for people with disabilities or offering train- ing courses for staff and professionals were entitled to receive funding. This encouraged the establishment and expansion of private organizations and associations as well as training institutions. As knowledge related to description, diagnosis and treatment grew, “new disabilities” were identified which � once approved by the Federal Disability Insurance � led to an increase in identified children and services provided. Over the years, this led to an inconsistent and ad hoc system of establishing eligibility that was mainly driven by parents, special schools and professionals. The signifi- cances for special education will be explored in further details in the follow- ing sections.

The year 2008 generated an important momentum for special education in a time of dispersion and crisis. As part of a major reform called the “new financial perequation and the repartition of tasks” [Neugestaltung des Finanzausgleichs und der Aufgaben zwischen Bund und Kantonen] between the federation and the 26 cantons, the federation withdrew from all obligations related to special education. In other words, the Federal Invalidity Insurance ceased to finance services or training institutions and no longer paid for special education measures. This had and still has far-reaching consequences for service providers and training institutions as will be illustrated in the next sections. The Cantons now assumed full financial responsibility for the education of all children, but also gained more control over identification, organization of services and training. Article 62, paragraph 3 was included in the Federal Constitution requesting the Cantons to “ensure that adequate special needs education is provided to all children and young people with disabilities up to the age of 20” (Swiss Federation, 2013). In preparation for assuming full legal, financial, and professional responsibility for the provision of children and youth with disabilities from birth to 20 years, the Cantons charged the Swiss

248 JUDITH HOLLENWEGER

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

Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education [Schweizerische Konferenz der Kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren] to prepare an Inter-Cantonal Concordat for Special Education or short Special Education Concordat [Sonderpädagogik-Konkordat] (EDK [Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education], 2007) which came into force on January 1, 2011 after a three-year transition period. It sets out some basic standards for all cantons joining the Concordat to adhere to, namely a shared terminology, quality specification for service providers as well as a standardized eligibil- ity procedure.

There are some policy developments in disability legislation which are worth commenting on at this juncture because of their over-arching rele- vance or indirect impact on education. Due to the manifold articulated voices of the Swiss disability constituents supported by public funds and with so many diverse players each generally protective of their own subsi- dies, service contracts and interest groups, the motivation to promote legis- lation to strengthen the rights of individuals with disabilities has been less fervent than in other countries. Other reasons for the late efforts to pro- mote social, economic, and cultural rights of persons with disabilities can be found its strong tradition of civic and political rights, the absence of war veterans as well as in its decentralized and consensus-oriented direct democracy. In 1996, the Swiss Center of Independent Living was estab- lished in Zurich and has since helped develop a new perspective on disabil- ity inspired by self-advocacy, political awareness, and activism. A new awareness is also reflected in Article 8 of the revised Federal Constitution which came into effect in 2000. For the first time, it explicitly states the principle of equalization of all persons, including persons with disabilities. A popular initiative was launched in 1999 to ensure “Equal rights for per- sons with disabilities” [Gleiche Rechte für Behinderte]. The requests of the initiative were considered too radical and the Federal Council subsequently drafted a counter-proposal, the “Federal Act on the Elimination of Discrimination against People with Disabilities” [Bundesgesetz über die Beseitigung von Benachteiligungen von Menschen mit Behinderungen]. After the popular initiative was rejected by the Swiss voters in May 2003, this new federal act came into force in 2004. Article 20 explicitly demands that the Cantons provide education which is adapted to the requirements and needs of children with disabilities and to promote a “general orienta- tion towards inclusive education.”

Switzerland does not have a tradition of litigation about matters of edu- cation, but this may change over the coming years. With the entry into force of this new federal legislation, a specialist center (Egalité Handicap)

249Special Education Today in Switzerland

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

was founded in 2004 to provide legal services, monitor and document jurisdiction and to collaborate with public and private partners. Typical for Switzerland, this center is affiliated with the umbrella organization of private disability organizations and collaborates with the Federal Bureau for Equality of People with Disabilities. The current legislation does not guarantee children with disabilities the right to be included in regular schools; it only promotes inclusion and states it as the preferred model. It also ensures that children with disabilities are not discriminated against and that compensation is provided if children with disabilities are at a dis- advantage. Notably in higher education, several cases were publicized where students did not receive adequate support or adaptations were not made to ensure their participation. In 2012, the Federal Supreme Court rejected a complaint of a family that requested that their 14-year-old son with a “perceptional disorder” be schooled in a special school rather than receiving special educational support in regular school.

Despite much progress toward understanding people with disabilities as citizens and agents, children with disabilities are still today frequently trea- ted as passive targets. Self-representation of children with disabilities is only an emerging issue. Identification depends on others and their expecta- tions; the needs of the child are still defined by others. Changes are slow, despite efforts to give the child an independent voice in decisions that affect their lives. A new federal legislation on the protection of children and adults [Kindes- und Erwachsenenschutzrecht] which came into effect in January 2013 strengthens the influence of children and persons with dis- abilities in relation to legal guardianship and for the purpose of self- representation. A philosophy of improved self-representation is also embedded in the new Standardized Eligibility Procedure to secure the rights of children and youth with disabilities in the context of education (EDK, 2011). The procedure requires discussions with parents and teachers to develop recommendations. It encourages the participation of the child in this process but cannot legally ensure that the voice of the child is alto- gether taken into account. Last but not least it should be mentioned that Switzerland is one of the last countries in Europe to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006). Only in 2013, the two chambers of the Federal Assembly approved the ratifica- tion and it is expected that the Federal Council will proceed with it in 2014. It remains to be seen whether the ratification will be followed by a national action plan and whether this will have a positive impact on education for children with disabilities over the coming years.

250 JUDITH HOLLENWEGER

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

WHO HAS A DISABILITY OR SPECIAL

EDUCATIONAL NEEDS?

While impairments create realities that people have to learn to live with, “disability” is a social construct and relative to expectations, attitudes and beliefs as well as physical and social characteristics of the environment. Whether a child is identified as having a disability depends on legislation and policies, the availability of services, financing mechanisms as well as specific diagnostic or eligibility criteria. Disability, therefore, is always defined in the specific social context in which it is used. Definitions of dis- ability in education systems have been influenced mainly by medicine (e.g., to explain disorders) and psychology (e.g., to explain deviance), but also by expectations expressed in the curriculum (Hollenweger, 2013). In some countries, specific clinical categories (e.g., autism) are also used for administrative purposes, but not in other countries (OECD, 2005, 2007). Schools themselves create “disabilities” and consequently certain social groups tend to be overrepresented or underrepresented amongst children identified as having a disability. All these factors make it difficult to collect reliable data on childhood disability independent of service provi- sion. Switzerland’s decentralized structure adds to the difficulty of collect- ing comparable data unless the Federal government is given a mandate to do so. This is not the case with special education, although efforts have been made to improve data (see below). But since 2004, the federal gov- ernment has a mandate to monitor the implementation of the national disability equalization law and thus has intensified its efforts to collect relevant data.

PREVALENCE DATA

According to the 2007 Swiss Health Survey carried out by the World Health Organization (World Health Organization [WHO], 2007) the self-reported disability prevalence in Switzerland is 14%. The Federal Office of Statistics

estimates that in 2011, around 1.4 million people in Switzerland aged 16 years and older have a “disability,” of whom 541,000 experience severe restrictions and almost 40,000 live in an institution for the disabled (Bundesamt für Statistik, 2010a). It is estimated that 144,000 children with disabilities between the ages of 0 to 14 live in 122,100 households,

251Special Education Today in Switzerland

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

amounting to 8.4% of all households (Bundesamt für Statistik [Federal Office of Statistics], 2010b). As judged by their parents or caregivers, 34,400 children experience substantial participation restrictions in their daily life due to their disability (Bundesamt für Statistik). Apart from data drawn from the Swiss Health Survey, available data on childhood disabil- ity is linked to service provision. For many years, the cantonal ministries of education merely provided information on the number of children in different types of special schools and the Federal Invalidity Insurance gen- erated data along their different types of services. Thus, neither the educa- tion nor social sector is able to provide prevalence data. Over the last few years, the Federal Office of Statistics has modernized the Swiss education statistics to allow tracking of individual children throughout their school career and thus providing information on the outcomes of special educa- tional support. A pilot data collection exercise for children with disabilities was carried out in 2012, but data for all cantons will only be available for the school year of 2014�2015.

These changes coincide with the cantons assuming full responsibility for special education as the Invalidity Insurance withdraws from financing edu- cation of children with disabilities. Both developments created the opportu- nity to move away from an insurance-based thinking that defined disability as impairment, thus strongly based in a medical model of disability. Until 2008, the definition of “childhood disability” has been profoundly influ- enced by the Federal Invalidity Insurance. Children were identified as being “disabled” if they received “special education measures” [sonderpädago- gische Massnahmen] on the basis of the Invalidity Insurance Legislation. In 2009, the Invalidity Insurance no longer co-financed education, but still provided medical services to 71,139 children between the ages of 0 and 14 years, auxiliary aids (e.g., wheelchairs) to 4,978 children and paid a “help- lessness allowance” to 5,892 children unable to carry out activities of daily living (Bundesamt für Statistik [Federal Office of Statistics], 2010b). Statistics of socio-medical institutions provide information on children with disabilities living in institutions; in 2008 this included 4,757 children of which many only spent some months there (Bundesamt für Statistik [Federal Office of Statistics], 2010b). As for early childhood intervention, data provided by the “curative education services” [Heilpädagogische Dienste], shows that in 2010 they served 6,756 children who were in 29 ser- vices that provided early childhood intervention covering 17 of the 26 Cantons (Kronenberg, 2012). Clearly, this information does not cover all the services as there are over 100 early intervention centers in Switzerland and many more professionals working in a private capacity.

252 JUDITH HOLLENWEGER

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 the school year 2008�2009, out of around 780,000 children in primary and secondary education, 25,000 were taught in special classes and 16,000 in special schools (European Agency, 2010). Although the situation will improve in the future as mentioned above, the data on disability in educa- tion is still linked to type of special school rather than characteristics of the child (OECD, 2007). As a consequence, children are only identified as being “disabled” if they attend a special school or receive additional resources for their education. Identification or segregation rates vary substantially between the different cantons and regions as a result of differences in poli- cies, traditions and geography. In the Canton Basel-Town, for example, 10% of all school children either visit a special school or a special class, compared to 6.8% in the Canton of Zurich, 4.1% in the Canton of Geneva or 2% in the Canton of Ticino (Sieber, 2006). There has been an increase of segregated schooling between 1980 and 2000, a trend which was analyzed for six Cantons in 2004 (Häfeli & Walther-Müller, 2005). Some of the con- tributing factors identified were availability of services, identification and decision-making processes as well as financial mechanisms. Increased social pressure on regular schools is linked to overrepresentation of children from disadvantaged and migrant backgrounds in special education (Carigiet Reinhard, 2012; Sieber, 2006). The social bias in labeling children as being “disabled” or having “special needs” is not only a Swiss phenomenon, but in an education system which segregates a rather high percentage of children into special settings and streams children according to their achievement after 6th grade, the consequences may be more severe than in comprehensive systems where all children go to the same schools for compulsory education.

A challenge that remains is the need to implement data collecting mechanisms and generate survey data which does not only reflect service provision but is also able to inform policy makers about the effects of these services and the level of participation children with disabilities enjoy in edu- cation. With the Inter-Cantonal Concordat for Special Education, the par- ticipating cantonal education ministries are adopting the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Version for Children and Youth (WHO, 2001, 2007) as a common language, as the basis to establish eligibility (Hollenweger, 2011; Hollenweger & Moretti, 2012) and to facilitate collaboration in multidisciplinary teams. Disability is understood as the result of the complex interaction between characteris- tics of a person and the environment rather than as a fixed characteristic of an individual. In education, participation is the most central concept of the ICF as all children have a right to participate to the fullest possible level in all educational activities. Environmental factors contribute to functioning

253Special Education Today in Switzerland

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 disability and are the lever for improving participation. The ICF can be used to describe different dimensions and levels of functioning that may be present even in children with the same disorder. Thus, different sectors and professionals are able to highlight specific aspects related to their expertise and work without losing sight of other aspects. It is hoped that in the future, such a coherent conceptual basis will provide more meaningful and compatible data.

THE INFLUENCE OF A STRONG PRIVATE SERVICE

SECTOR ON SPECIAL EDUCATION

Direct democracy, subsidiarity principle, decentralization, and a strong civic society sector have left their mark on special education in Switzerland. Policy developments related to the education of children with disabilities have been unhurried in Switzerland, partially due to the consensus-based decision-making processes typical for this country, but also due to a strong private sector. Private organizations and associations have been and some still remain today major players with considerable influence in policy, prac- tice as well as in training and research. Their organization, governing prin- ciples and financing mechanisms are rooted in the diverse local scenes but through a network of umbrella organizations and other superstructures, the private sector is an important player at national level as well. In the era of discovery and exploration, private foundations, associations, and organi- zations were established as a reflection of the deep-seated Swiss civic sense, but they were able to expand and consolidate their position as a result of the Federal Invalidity Insurance legislation which not only paid for direct services but also operating subsidies for private associations and organiza- tions delivering services for persons with disabilities. This includes many private schools and institutions for children with disabilities which were founded at various points in time both by parents and professionals. Notwithstanding, today more than half of Switzerland’s special schools are run by such private bodies. A glance at their creation and expansion is cen- tral to an understanding of today’s circumstances of special education in Switzerland.

Many umbrella organizations and associations go back 150 or more years. For example, in 1810, the Swiss Charitable Association [Schweizerische Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft] was founded and soon cantonal and regional structures followed all over Switzerland. These charitable associations not

254 JUDITH HOLLENWEGER

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

only established institutions for the disabled or trained “teachers for the poor” [Armenlehrerausbildung] since 1835 but also exerted their influence in shaping the nature of the emerging public education system (Schumacher, 2010). The Swiss Teacher Association was founded in 1849, mainly to pro- mote education independent of state efforts. In 1844, the Swiss Association of Education for the Poor [Schweizer Armenerzieherverein] was founded to represent the growing number of institutions for the poor with an emphasis on their “moral development”; it survives until today as “Curaviva” and still defends the interests of homes and social institutions for persons with disabil- ities, old age and children with special needs. In 1882 the first special classes [Hilfsklassen] were installed in La Chaux-de-Fonds to support children unable to follow instruction in regular classes (Bless, 1995). To extend this practice was the declared goal of the “Swiss Conference for the Concerns of Idiots” [Schweizerische Konferenz für das Idiotenwesen], founded in 1889 and renamed as “Swiss Association for Curative Education” [Schweizerische Heilpädagogische Gesellschaft] in 1976 (Geisen & Riegel, 2009, p. 295). These associations also contributed substantially to the discovery and exploration of special education.

Pro Infirmis, founded in 1920, is a private umbrella organization with over 25 membership organizations and a network of offices in all parts of Switzerland. It has a special mandate by the federal and cantonal states to provide services to people with disabilities and their families. Sixty percent of the Pro Infirmis’ expenditures are covered by the federal government. Counseling services for families are also offered by Pro Infirmis and other associations and private bodies. There are many parents’ organiza- tions providing services for parents and organized in national umbrella organizations, for example INSIEME (children with intellectual disabilities) founded in 1957, Visoparents (Children with visual impairments) founded in 1963 and AutismusSchweiz (children with autism spectrum disorders) founded in 1975 to name just a few. Parents’ organizations work at the local or cantonal level, but are represented at the national and international levels for advocacy work and representation of their interests. Parents’ organiza- tions have recently created a “Union of Parents of Disabled Children” [Konferenz der Vereinigungen von Eltern behinderter Kinder] to represent their interests vis-à-vis society and the government. But the wide range of services available can be perplexing for families. A recent study (Wagner Lenzin, 2007) with a small sample of parents suggests that the social network and social capital of families with a disabled child are very impor- tant and facilitate access to helpful support. Counseling services offered by these private organizations can be overbearing and disempowering. It is

255Special Education Today in Switzerland

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

also suggested that some of them are not providing highly professional services.

The emergence of the social welfare system and a shift away from a charity paradigm did not result in a decrease of these private activities. Rather on the contrary, it marked the beginning of an era of expansion and consolidation of the private sector. Switzerland’s welfare state fits the residual social policy model as it relies on a high degree of personal respon- sibility and the involvement of non-government organizations (Desai, 2014). If the support and pensions of the Invalidity Insurance were insuffi- cient, persons with disabilities could rely on a network of services provided by private organizations, for example, Pro Infirmis. With the introduction of the Federal Invalidity Insurance, these services for people with disabil- ities were institutionalized within the social welfare system. Despite remain- ing private, they functioned now with a public mandate and with public funding. Between 1960 and 2008, this also applied for private organizations providing special education. Coinciding with an over-all expansion of education and a growing knowledge in special education, more and more children were identified as having a disability and being in need of support by the Federal Invalidity Insurance. New knowledge created new labels which created new sources of income, new professions, and new institutions (Bühler-Niederberger, 1991). Eventually, the expansion led to dispersion and to a loss of a clear identity of the professionals working in the area. These developments were interrupted when the Federal Invalidity Insurance ceased to finance special education and the Inter-Cantonal Conference of Ministers of Education assumed responsibility for all teach- ing professions. But with regard to providing special education, the trend has not yet been turned around because many of the cantons are not in full control and private services still play an important role. In 2003, only less than half of the special schools in Switzerland were public (46%), com- pared to 92% in the United Kingdom or 97% in Finland (OECD, 2007). It will be interesting to see whether this will change as a result of a rights- based perspective requiring the state to assume full responsibility for the education of all children � rather than delegating the education of children with disabilities to private service providers.

THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

Medicalization of the care of persons with disabilities in the 19th century and the gradual adoption of social policies mark the beginnings of special

256 JUDITH HOLLENWEGER

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 in Switzerland (Kaba, 2007). In was during this period that the social construct of “backwardness” and the “pathologies of education” were created (Ruchat, 2003). In the German-speaking part of Switzerland, special education was established as a science between 1880 and 1930 by professionals working with children with disabilities. This development was strongly driven by the will to gain authority and responsibility for the “dis- abled” rather than leaving their treatment to medicine (Wolfisberg, 2002). In 1924, the first college for “curative care workers” [Heilerzieher] was founded in Zurich (later named “Heilpädagogisches Seminar Zürich,” today “Interkantonale Hochschule für Heilpädagogik”) with Heinrich Hanselmann as its first director. Heinrich Hanselmann also was appointed professor for “curative education” [Heilpädagogik] at the University of Zurich, which in 1931 created the pioneer university chair for special educa- tion in Europe (Wolfisberg). Both, Hanselmann and his successor, Paul Moor, emphasized that “curative education” was nothing other than edu- cation in order to ensure its scientific autonomy from medicine. This strong dissociation from medicine may be one reason why special education as a science � unlike in Germany � did not develop along the lines of impair- ment categories (e.g., special education of the blind or the physically disabled), but pursued more holistic approaches. Terminology like “devel- opmental restraint” [Entwicklungshemmung] or “weakness of hold” [Haltschwäche] were used to establish the distance from medical terms like anomaly, degeneration, or defect (Gröschke, 2008). Since Paul Moor’s retirement, the positions as director of a training institution and university professor were no longer held by the same person and subsequently the science of special education and the training of professionals developed separately until this day.

Developments in the French-speaking part of Switzerland were some- what different and it is helpful to describe the diverse origins of scientific inquiry related to children with disabilities in order to understand today’s regional differences in approaches, nomenclatures, and philosophies in the sphere of special education. In Geneva, the impetus for studying children with disabilities came from within the Department of Public Instruction which established a permanent medical-educational commission in 1908. This commission was later developed into the Geneva medical-educational services [Service médico-pédagogique de Genève] (Ruchat, 2008), which still exists today. The commission was chaired by Édouard Claparède who in 1912 established the “Institut Jean-Jacques Rousseau” to promote the “science of education” and to train teachers, including those in special education. The institute also provided “medico-educational” consultations

257Special Education Today in Switzerland

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

[consultations medico-pédagogiques] and developed various diagnostic and therapeutic methods (Droux & Ruchat, 2007; Ruchat, 2008). Jean Piaget worked in the “Institut Jean-Jacques Rousseau” since 1921 and became its director in 1932. It is therefore not surprising, that the concept of “intelligence” played an important role in the construction of the “backward child” (Ruchat, 2003). In 1975, the Institute � which since 1929 was associated with the University of Geneva � became part of its Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences [Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l’Education, FPSE]. As a consequence, in Geneva the scientific study and teacher education in special education are in much closer dialo- gue than in the German-speaking part of Switzerland.

Not only political but also religious and philosophical differences added to the diversity of scientific study. A catholic “curative education” was established in Fribourg and Lucerne in 1935 but remained less influential over the coming years (Gröschke, 2008). This was partially due to the cir- cumstances that Josef Spieler, professor of “Curative Education” at the University of Fribourg, was German by origin and a member of the NSDAP; he was extradited after the Second World War for his closeness to Nazi philosophy. Special education in the Protestant universities (e.g., Geneva, Zurich) generally relied more on education and psychology, while Catholic universities (e.g., Fribourg, Lucerne) emphasized the impor- tance of philosophy and ethics. Eugenics was discussed in Switzerland with the entire scope between uncritical adoption, strategic use of some ele- ments, critical debate, and total rejection (Wolfisberg, 2002). In 1942 in Pro Infirmis’ first edition of its journal, Heinrich Hanselmann as its editor strongly rejected the notion of exterminating “worthless life.” The era of discovery and exploration was dominated by developments in Zurich and Geneva which were also of international importance. In 1925, the “International Bureau of Education” (IBE) was founded in Geneva as a private non-governmental organization to promote scientific research in the educational field and to serve as a documentation and coordination center for institutions and associations concerned with education.

3 From

1929 to 1967, Jean Piaget was director of the IBE and professor of psychol- ogy at the University of Geneva. Heinrich Hanselmann was elected first president of the “International Association for Curative Education” [Internationale Gesellschaft für Heilpädagogik], founded in 1937 (Hänsel, 2008). This served the over-all efforts to establish special education as a dis- cipline to promote the institutionalization of special education teacher training and to endorse “special education” rather than “curative educa- tion” as a scientific discipline. The Swiss school of special education

258 JUDITH HOLLENWEGER

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

remained constitutive for the study of special education until well into the post war period (Gröschke, 2008).

In the era of expansion and consolidation, the private organizations offering services for children with disabilities underwent a process of insti- tutionalization and similar developments can be observed in the Swiss uni- versities where institutes were founded. In the 1970s, the Institute of Special Education was established at the University of Zurich. The Institute for Special Education and Psychology [Institut für spezielle Pädagogik und Psychologie] in Basel was founded in 1971 and remained an independent institute associated to the University of Basel until its integration into the newly founded University of Teacher Education of Northwestern Switzerland [Pädagogische Hochschule Nordwestschweiz] in 2001. Its first director, Emil E. Kobi as well as Urs Haeberlin, professor at the University of Fribourg, were both instrumental in continuing the humanistic tradition of Switzerland’s special education as a normative and value-based science. The importance of child development and systemic perspectives remained important as did a strong focus on what makes disability a disability beyond the underlying medical realities. More recently, sociological approaches have assumed more attention to improve understanding of issues encompassing institutions, the social realities of disability and the foundation of special education itself (Weisser, 2005). The “empirical turn” in policy development and research agendas influ- enced education in Switzerland only recently, mainly initiated by OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and a move toward outcome-based educational policies (Buchhaas-Birkholz, 2009). The influence of academic special education on practice has been limited not only because of the strong civic sector as described earlier but also because teacher education and professional training has developed rather independently. Until today, the separation between academic and professional studies of special education remains a reality in most Cantons.

TRAINING OF TEACHERS AND PROFESSIONALS IN

SPECIAL EDUCATION

The training of all professionals contributing to the education of children with disabilities has its roots mainly in the private sector as described earlier. The era of discovery and exploration thus coincided with the

259Special Education Today in Switzerland

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

motivation to become established as a profession with one’s own area of work and authority independent of medicine. Similar to the institutionali- zation of services and academic studies, the expansion and consolidation of teacher training institutions was encouraged by the Federal Invalidity Insurance. Like other private service associations, teacher training institu- tions in special education benefited from subsidies by the Federal Invalidity Insurance independent of their legal status (e.g., part of a university, a pri- vate organization or public teacher training college). In 1959, the “Association of Training Institutions for Curative Education” [Verband heilpädagogischer Ausbildungsinstitute, VHpA] was created to act as the main coordinating body for the professions in the area of special education. The association founded the “Swiss Central Office for Curative Education” in 1972 as a documentation and research center. Today this “Swiss Center for Curative and Special Education” [Schweizer Zentrum für Heil- und Sonderpädagogik] still plays a central role, but is now an independent foundation charged with coordinating special education at national and international levels in close cooperation with the Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education.

The term “curative education” [Heilpädagogik] is still used today for the teaching profession in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, while “special education” generally refers to academic studies. The gap between theory and practice is aggravated by the fact that private institutions and associations play an important role in policy development and were the main drivers of the expansion of services. Until recently, private organiza- tions also played an important role in initiating new training courses. This came to an end when the Swiss Conference of the Cantonal Ministers of Education (EDK) assumed responsibility for teacher training in special education in 1998 and the training of language and psychomotor therapists in 2000 as part of the bologna process and the transformation of teacher training colleges into Universities of Teacher Education [Pädagogische Hochschulen] in the early 2000. Since then, all training courses have to comply with the accreditation regulations of the Swiss Conference of the Cantonal Ministers of Education. In most Cantons, this transition was used to integrate separate teacher training institutions for special educators into the newly founded Universities of Teacher Education, with the excep- tion of the “Inter-Cantonal University for Curative Education” [Interkantonale Hochschule für Heilpädagogik], the successor organization of the “Heilpädagogische Seminar Zürich.” This integration process was accelerated by the fact that as of 2008, the Federal Invalidity Insurance no longer subsidized these institutions.

260 JUDITH HOLLENWEGER

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

Today, the Universities of Geneva, Fribourg and Zurich offer academic studies in special education which do not qualify for practical work with children. As for Speech and Language Therapy, the Universities of Geneva and Neuchâtel offer master degrees, while the University of Fribourg, the University of Teacher Education of Northwestern Switzerland in Basel, the Inter-Cantonal University of Curative Education in Zurich and the Swiss University for Language Therapy in Rorschach offer Bachelor degrees � as required by the accreditation regulations. Bachelor degrees in psychomo- tor therapy can be attained at the Geneva University of Applied Sciences or at the Inter-Cantonal University of Curative Education in Zurich. Master degree studies for special education teachers are available at the University of Teacher Education of Northwestern Switzerland in Basel, the University of Teacher Education in Bern, the French speaking University of Teacher Education of Berne, the Jura and Neuchâtel, at the University of Fribourg, at the University of Geneva, the University of Teacher Education in Lausanne, the University of Teacher Education in Lucerne and at the Inter-Cantonal University of Curative Education in Zurich. In addition, Geneva, Basel, and Zurich also offer master degrees for early childhood intervention. These training courses correspond with the services made available for children with disabilities. Early childhood intervention [Heilpädagogische Früherziehung] is provided for children from 0 to 6 years, subsequently special education [Schulische Heilpädagogik]. Pedagogical-therapeutical measures include language therapy [Logopädie] and psychomotor therapy [psychomotorische Therapie]. Psychomotor ther- apy reflects the holistic and systemic tradition of Swiss special education and works on the premise that physical and motor disturbances have an effect on well-being, self-esteem, cognition, and social interaction (Kobi, 1993).

Over the years, there have been several initiatives to improve the compe- tence of regular teachers in the area of special education. In 1994, a first report “Special Education in Teacher Education” [Sonderpädagogik in der Lehrerbildung] (EDK, 1994) was published by the Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education and initiated a nation-wide discussion on what regular teachers need to know about special education. This was taken up by regular teacher education when their curricula changed substantially to meet the new accreditation criteria as part of the change process from colleges to universities around 2000. But subsequently, better trained regular teachers suddenly shared more and more competencies and responsibilities with special education teachers working in special classes called “curative education teachers” [Schulische Heilpädagogen].

261Special Education Today in Switzerland

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 decline of the over-all number of students between the 1990s and the early 2000 coincided with increased efforts to integrate children with disabilities in regular classes. Due to changes in legislation strengthening integration and inclusion, many special classes were abolished and special education teachers had to work alongside regular teachers in their classes. This led to a dispersion of their tasks and responsibilities in order to meet the specific needs of the local schools and teachers. Some special teachers developed into advisors, supervisors, coaches, or project managers; it was no longer clear what “curative school education” [Schulische Heilpädagogik] really was. In these times of crisis, several initiatives sought to re-invent special education as well as to strengthen the knowledge and skills of regular teachers to teach diverse groups of children (Cohep, 2008; VHpA, 2003). Today, all Universities of Teacher Education have taken up the call to prepare their students for a School for All, but clearly there are limits to what can be learned during bachelor studies leading to kindergar- ten and elementary school teacher certification. The “curative teacher train- ing institutions” once proud to trained “generalists” for children with special needs rather than “specialists” for impairment groups, are now debating what this means in a time when regular education teachers have assumed many of their former responsibilities. The debate continues and Switzerland may see a move toward training “specialist special teachers” in the future.

SPECIAL EDUCATION TODAY AND FUTURE

CHALLENGES

Once, the establishment of the first special classes in the late 19th century marked the birth of a new profession and field of work. It was the begin- ning of the long history of the “Schweizerische Heilpädagogische Gesellschaft” which shaped special education throughout the era of discov- ery and exploration and the era of expansion and consolidation (Schindler, 1990). The growth of special classes in the 1970s and 1980s lead to an over- all segregation rate of an average 6% in the late 1990s (Sieber, 2006). Since the 1980s, integration and inclusion of children with disabilities or special needs is promoted through many different ventures. Research into the effectiveness of these special classes not only identified them as less effective than integrated settings (Bless, 1995) but also uncovered an overrepresenta- tion of children with migrant background (Kronig, 2007). Today, special

262 JUDITH HOLLENWEGER

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

classes for children with learning disabilities and behavioral problems are viewed with suspicion and have been abolished in some Cantons. The “Schweizerische Heilpädagogische Gesellschaft” is no longer a relevant player; it did not survive the era of dispersion and crisis. But the re- integration of children in special classes into regular classes was not always successful. It led to an increase in the rate of children educated in special schools for children with intellectual disabilities

4 and to the uncertainty for

professionals described in the previous section. The legacy of the Federal Invalidity Insurance is still discernible in the

service provision today. Financing special classes and other support mea- sures for “mild” or high incidence disabilities was never part of the Federal Invalidity Insurance’s responsibility and the private sector was not involved in providing education for this group. The Cantonal Ministries of Education therefore had a free hand to reform special classes and special educational support in regular classes. Special schools on the other hand serve children with low incidence disabilities and benefited from subsidies provided by the Federal Invalidity Insurance. Due to changes in federal and cantonal legislations, there is a trend toward inclusion, but regular and spe- cial schools adapt only slowly to the new circumstances. The Cantons encourage special schools to develop into resources centers, but generally they still retain some children in segregated settings while increasingly pro- viding services to children in regular schools. Akin to Germany, special edu- cation was institutionalized by separate organizations and associations thus retaining its segregate tradition (Pfahl & Powell, 2010). As mentioned ear- lier, more than half of all special schools continue to function as private institutions to this day. Although the cantonal ministries of education co- finance, inspect, and supervise these special schools, they are not entirely part of the education system. Private foundations and organizations not only retain responsibility for these schools, but through their national net- works and local players influence policy and practice.

Identification rates differ across cantons as described earlier. This has raised questions about equal opportunities and the quality of provision both in integrated and segregated settings. A new standardized eligibility procedure was introduced in 2011 with the withdrawal of the Federal Invalidity Insurance from financing special education. The standardized eligibility procedure (EDK, 2011) is used by the school psychological ser- vices (e.g., in Zurich) and the medical-pedagogical services (e.g., in Geneva). Generally, there is no specific need for a medical or clinical diagnosis; the procedure takes a dimensional rather than a categorical approach and is based on the ICF (WHO, 2001) and combines information on functioning,

263Special Education Today in Switzerland

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

environmental factors and educational goals to herald required changes to the environment or special support. It is hoped that through the use of this standardized procedure, threshold criteria and other factors explaining dif- ferences in identification can be better understood. The identification of high incidence disabilities is not regulated by the Standardized Eligibility Procedure and therefore differs across cantons. In the Canton of Zurich for example, no formal clinical assessment is needed, if there is consensus amongst parents and teachers and if the necessary resources are available at school level. Resources are allocated by the school team to groups or individuals, for example, based on a school-based cooperative assessment procedure [Verfahren Schulische Standortgespräche] where all parties, including the child, come together to discuss the problems and find a solu- tion (Bildungsdirektion Kanton Zürich, 2007). These informal assessment practices may be challenged in the future as a result of a more rights-based approach to education. Schools may be confronted more and more with litigation cases as parents increasingly demand specific support, disability compensation or adaptations based on the new federal legislation and encouraged by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006).

As support for high incidence disabilities was never regulated by the Federal Invalidity Insurance, the cantons have developed diverse practices. Regular schools generally offer pedagogical-therapeutical interventions (e.g., psychomotor and speech therapy) and special education support not only for children with learning or behavior difficulties but also for children with migrant background. Switzerland has a greater rate of immigrant chil- dren (23.5%), compared to other European Countries such as France (13.2%) or Finland (2.5%) (OECD, 2010). In 2010, 42% of all regular classes in Switzerland consisted of a third or more “foreign students” (Bundesamt für Statistik, 2012). In some city districts, up to a 100% of children may be first or second generation migrants, with diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Special support in regular or special “welcom- ing classes” is provided to learn the language of instruction and in some cantons (e.g., Basel and Zurich) programs were developed to support schools with high percentages of immigrant students. Not all regular tea- chers are appropriately prepared for this cultural and linguistic diversity. Over 50% of regular teachers declare that their work in the classroom is made more difficult due to the cultural backgrounds of their students (Reusser, Stebler, Mandel, & Eckstein, 2013). The management of diversity in schools remains a challenge to this day.

264 JUDITH HOLLENWEGER

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 challenge for the future of special education today is the devel- opment of effective and efficient early childhood intervention for children aged 0�6 years. In the German-speaking region of Switzerland, “curative education services” [Heilpädagogische Dienste] were established by private associations in the 1960s and 1970s (Grob, 2010). Their strong roots in “curative education” and the private sector are typical for the special edu- cation scene in German-speaking Switzerland. However, today barriers against developing comprehensive, community-based services exist. In the French-speaking part of Switzerland, corresponding services are generally more interdisciplinary with a stronger emphasis on psychology and thera- peutic approaches (Grob, 2010). These services, such as the “Mobile Educational Services” Service Educatif Itinérant] of Geneva (established in 1969), gradually assumed more and more responsibilities for children at risk or vulnerable (Bauloz, Cevey, & Métral, 2009). Similar services in the German-speaking region of Switzerland are presently developing (Lanfranchi & Neuhauser, 2011), but questions remain about the preven- tion of developmental delay and child abuse as well as how a better head start in life can help children from disadvantaged backgrounds. So far, early childhood intervention is the only area of special education where professionals work within the family (Grob, 2010). Traditionally, special education in Switzerland provides services for children when their problems seem related to their education, but it does not “interfere” with parents. Now that the cantons are fully responsible for the development and educa- tion of all children with disabilities, it is hoped that they will seize this opportunity to foster partnerships with parents and the private sector to ensure that all children grow up in the best possible circumstances and receive the support needed to develop into healthy adults and contributing members of the Swiss society � independent of the nature and extent of their disabilities or special needs.

NOTES

1. Documentation of case available at http://www.egalite-handicap.ch 2. Statistic available online at http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/

themen/20/06/blank/key/01.html 3. Available at http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/about-the-ibe/who-we-are/history.

html 4. Table and graph available online at http://www.bista.zh.ch/sop/Sonder.aspx

265Special Education Today in Switzerland

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.egalite-handicap.ch

http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/20/06/blank/key/01.html

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/about-the-ibe/who-we-are/history.html

http://www.bista.zh.ch/sop/Sonder.aspx

REFERENCES

Bauloz, F., Cevey, A., & Métral, E. (2009). Le Service Educatif Itinérant de Genève: 40 ans de

Soutien, d’Ecoute et d’Itinérance [Mobile educational services of Geneva: 40 years of

support, listening and traveling]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 15(5),

19�25. Bildungsdirektion Kanton Zürich. (2007). Schulische Standortgespräche: Ein Verfahren zur

Förderplanung und Zuweisung von sonderpädagogischen Massnahmen. [School-based

review meetings: A procedure for planning and allocating special educational provision.]

Zürich, Switzerland: Bildungsdirektion Kanton Zürich.

Bless, G. (1995). Zur Wirksamkeit der Integration: Forschungsüberblick, praktische

Umsetzung einer integrativen Schulungsform, Untersuchungen zum Lernfortschritt.

[About the effectiveness of integration: Review of research, practical implementation of

integrative schooling, analysis of learning progress.] Bern, Switzerland: Haupt.

Buchhaas-Birkholz, D. (2009). Die “empirische Wende” in der Bildungspolitik und in der

Bildungsforschung: Zum Paradigmenwechsel des BMBF im Bereich der

Forschungsförderung [The “empirical turn” in educational policy and research: About

the paradigm shift of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research in the area of

research funding]. Erziehungswissenschaft, 20(39), 27�33. Bühler-Niederberger, D. (1991). Legasthenie: Geschiche und Folgen einer Pathologisierung.

[Dyslexia: History and consequences of a pathologization.] Opladen, Germany: Leske + Budrich.

Bundesamt für Statistik. (2010a). Gesundheit und Gesundheitsverhalten in der Schweiz 2007:

Schweizer Gesundheitsbefragung. [Health and health behavior in Switzerland 2007: The

Swiss health survey.] Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Bundesamt für Statistik.

Bundesamt für Statistik. (2012). Bildungssystem Schweiz � Indikatoren. Unterrichts- und Lernbedingungen � Kulturelle Heterogenität der Schulabteilungen [Education system in Switzerland � Indicators. Conditions of instruction and learning � Cultural heterogeneity in schools]. Retrieved from http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/15/17/

blank/01.approach.4002.html. Accessed on December 15, 2013.

Bundesamt für Statistik [Federal Office of Statistics]. (2010b). Demos: Informationen aus der

Demografie [Demos: Information from demography]. Newsletter Nr. 4, Bundesamt für

Statistik, Neuchâtel, pp. 4�8. Carigiet Reinhard, T. (2012). Schulleistungen und Heterogenität: Eine mehrebenanalytische

Untersuchung der Bedingungsfaktoren der Schulleistungen am Ende der dritten

Primarschulklasse. [Achievement and heterogeneity: A multilevel analysis of causal fac-

tors of achievement at the end of grade three.] Bern, Switzerland: Haupt.

Cohep. (2008). Analyse und Empfehlungen: Heilpädagogik in der allgemeinen Lehrerinnen- und

Lehrerbildung. [Analysis and recommendations: Curative education in general teacher

education.] Bern, Switzerland: Schweizerische Konferenz der Rektorinnen und

Rektoren der Pädagogischen Hochschulen cohep.

Desai, M. (2014). The paradigm of international social development: Ideologies, development sys-

tems and policy approaches. New York, NY: Routledge.

Droux, J., & Ruchat, M. (2007). L’«enfant-problème» ou l’émergence de figures probléma- tiques dans la protection de l’enfance [The “problem child” or the emergence of

problem figures in the protection of childhood]. Carnet de Bord, 14, 14�27.

266 JUDITH HOLLENWEGER

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.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/15/17/blank/01.approach.4002.html

EDK [Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education]. (1994). Sonderpädagogik in der

Lehrerbildung. [Special education in teacher education.] Dossier 27. Bern, Switzerland:

EDK.

EDK [Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education]. (2007). Interkantonale

Vereinbarung über die Zusammenarbeit im Bereich der Sonderpädagogik. [Inter-Cantonal

Agreement on the coordination in the area of special education.] Bern, Switzerland: EDK.

Retrieved from http://www.edudoc.ch/static/web/arbeiten/sonderpaed/konkordat_d.

pdf. Accessed on December 15, 2013.

EDK [Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education]. (2011). Standardisiertes

Abklärungsverfahren (SAV): Instrument des Sonderpädagogik- Konkordats als

Entscheidungsgrundlage für die Anordnung verstärkter individueller Massnahmen.

[Standardized eligibility procedure: Instrument of the special education concordat as

the decision basis to allocate reinforced individual provision.] Bern, Switzerland: EDK.

European Agency. (2010). Country data 2010. Brussels, Belgium: European Agency for the

Development of Special Needs Education.

Federal Social Insurance Office. (2010). Social security in Switzerland. Bern, Switzerland:

Federal Social Insurance Office.

Geisen, T., & Riegel, C. (2009). Jugend, Partizipation und Migration: Orientierungen im

Kontext von Integration und Ausgrenzung. [Youth, participation and migration:

Orientations in the context of integration and marginalization.] Wiesbaden, Germany:

Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Grob, F. (2010). Heilpädagogische Früherziehung � Integrative Pädagogik � Frühe Bildung. [Early childhood intervention � Integrative pedagogy � Early education]. Working Paper Nr. 1. Basel, Switzerland: Institut Spezielle Pädagogik und Psychologie Pädagogische

Hochschule FHNW.

Gröschke, D. (2008). Heilpädagogisches Handeln: Eine Pragmatik der Heilpädagogik.

[Curative educational practice: Pragmatics of curative education.] Bad Heilbrunn,

Germany: Klinkhardt.

Häfeli, K., & Walther-Müller, P. (2005). Das Wachstum des sonderpädagogischen Angebots

im interkantonalen Vergleich: Steuerungsmöglichkeiten für eine integrative

Ausgestaltung. [Growth of special education provision � A cross-cantonal comparison: Regulation options for an integrative design.] Luzern, Switzerland: SZH Edition.

Hänsel, D. (2008). Karl Tornow als Wegbereiter der sonderpädagogischen Profession: die

Grundlegung des Bestehenden in der NS-Zeit. [Karl Tornow as a pioneer of the special

education profession: Establishment of the existing in the era of the Nazis.] Bad

Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt.

Helmig, B., Gmür, M., Bärlocher, C., von Schnurbein, G., Degen, B., Nollert, M. … Salamon,

L. M. (2011). The Swiss civil society sector in a comparative perspective: VMI research

series (Vol. 6). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University and University of Fribourg.

Hollenweger, J. (2011). Development of an ICF-based eligibility procedure for education in

Switzerland. BMC Public Health, 11(S4), 7.

Hollenweger, J. (2013). Developing applications of the ICF in education systems: Addressing

issues of knowledge creation, management and transfer. Disability and Rehabilitation,

35(13), 1087�1091. Hollenweger, J., & Moretti, M. (2012). Using the international classification of functioning,

disability and health children and youth version in education systems: A new approach

267Special Education Today in Switzerland

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.edudoc.ch/static/web/arbeiten/sonderpaed/konkordat_d.pdf

to eligibility. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(13 Suppl. 1),

97�102. Kaba, M. (2007). Social health care access for the physically disabled in 19th century French

speaking Switzerland. Hygiea Internationalis, 6, 67�77. Kobi, E. E. (1993). Grundfragen der Heilpädagogik: Eine Einführung in heilpädagogisches

Denken (5. Auflage). [Basic questions of curative education: An introduction to cura-

tive educational thinking.] Bern, Switzerland: Haupt.

Kronenberg, B. (2012). HFE-Statistik 2010: Im Anschluss an die Heilpädagogische

Früherziehung besuchen mehr Kinder die Regelschule als die Sonderschule [HFE

Statistics 2010: More children go to a regular rather than a special school after early

childhood intervention]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 18(4), 5�12. Kronig, W. (2007). Die systematische Zufälligkeit des Bildungserfolgs. [The systematic random-

ness of educational success.] Bern, Switzerland: Haupt.

Lanfranchi, A., & Neuhauser, A. (2011). ZEPPELIN 0-3 � Förderung ab Geburt mit “PAT � Mit Eltern lernen” [ZEPPELIN 0-3 � Support from birth on with “PAT � Learning with parents”]. Sonderpädagogische Förderung heute, 6, 437�442.

Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in 36 Countries.

New Haven, CT: Yale University.

OECD. (2005). Students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages: Statistics and

indicators. Paris, France: OECD.

OECD. (2007). Students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages: Policies, statis-

tics and indicators. Paris, France: OECD.

OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background � Equity in learning opportu- nities and outcomes (Vol. 2). Paris, France: OECD.

Pfahl, L., & Powell, J. J. W. (2010). The special education profession and the discourse of learn-

ing disability in Germany. Discussion Papers No. SP I 2010-504. Wissenschaftszentrum

Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), Forschungsschwerpunkt Bildung, Arbeit und

Lebenschancen, Abteilung Ausbildung und Arbeitsmarkt, Berlin, Germany.

Reusser, K., Stebler, R., Mandel, D., & Eckstein, B. (2013). Erfolgreicher Unterricht in hetero-

genen Lerngruppen auf der Volksschulstufe des Kantons Zürich [Successful instruction in

heterogeneous learning groups in compulsory education in the canton of Zurich].

Retrieved from http://www.zh.ch/dam/Portal/internet/news/mm/2013/166/Vielfalt_

Volksschule_Bericht.pdf.spooler.download.1372834739198.pdf/Vielfalt_Volksschule_

Bericht.pdf. Accessed on December 15, 2013.

Ruchat, M. (2003). Inventer les arriérés pour créer l’intelligence: L’arriéré scolaire et la classe

spéciale: histoire d’un concept et d’une innovation psychopédagogique, 1874�1914. [Inventing backwardness to create intelligence: Educational backwardness and the

special class: History of a concept and a psycho-educational innovation.] Bern,

Switzerland: Haupt.

Ruchat, M. (2008). Le Service médico-pédagogique de Genève: un centre pour dépister l’enfant-

problème (1908�1958): 100ième anniversaire du Service médico-pédagogique 1908�2008. [The medical-educational service of Geneva: A center to detect the problem child.] Genève,

Switzerland: Département de l’instruction publique, Service médico-pédagogique.

Schindler, A. (1990). Die Entwicklung der Schweizerischen Heilpädagogischen Gesellschaft seit

1889: Antworten auf Zeitfragen aus der Sicht einer Institution. [The development of the

Swiss Association for Curative Education since 1889: Answers to questions of the time

from the perspective of an institution]. In D. Raemy (Ed.), Heilpädagogik im Wandel

der Zeit. Luzern, Switzerland: Edition SZH/SPC.

268 JUDITH HOLLENWEGER

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.zh.ch/dam/Portal/internet/news/mm/2013/166/Vielfalt_Volksschule_Bericht.pdf.spooler.download.1372834739198.pdf/Vielfalt_Volksschule_Bericht.pdf

Schumacher, B. (2010). Freiwillig verpflichtet: Gemeinnütziges Denken und Handeln in der

Schweiz seit 1800. [Voluntarily obliged: Non-profit thinking and acting in Switzerland.]

Zürich, Switzerland: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

Sieber, P. (2006). Steuerung und Eigendynamik der Aussonderung: Vom Umgang des

Bildungswesens mit Heterogenität. [Regulation and momenta of segregation: Managing

heterogeneity by the education system.] Reihe, ISP-Universität Zürich, Bd. 13. Luzern,

Switzerland: Edition SZH/CSPS.

Swiss Federation. (2013). Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation. Retrieved from

http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/1/101.en.pdf. Accessed on December 15, 2013.

United Nations. (2006). UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. New York,

NY: United Nations.

VHpA. (2003). Positionspapier des VHpA: Vermittlung heilpädagogische relevanter

Kompetenzen in der Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung. [Position paper of the VHpA:

Conveying competences relevant for curative education in teacher education.] Luzern,

Switzerland: Verband Heilpädagogischer Ausbildungsinstitute der Schweiz (VHpA).

Wagner Lenzin, M. (2007). Elternberatung: Die Bedeutung der Beratung in Bewältigung

sprozessen bei Eltern mit ihrem Kind mit Behinderung. [Parent counseling: The rele-

vance of counseling for coping processes of parents with a disabled child.] Bern,

Switzerland: Haupt Verlag.

Weisser, J. (2005). Behinderung, Ungleichheit und Bildung: Eine Theorie der Behinderung.

[Disability, inequality and education: A theory of disability.] Bielefeld, Germany:

Transcript.

Wolfisberg, C. (2002). Heilpädagogik und Eugenik: Zur Geschichte der Heilpädagogik in der

deutschsprachigen Schweiz (1800�1950). [Curative education and eugenics: The history of curative education in German-speaking Switzerland.] Zürich, Switzerland: Chronos

Verlag.

World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and

health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

World Health Organization. (2007). International classification of functioning, disability and

health: Children and youth version (ICF-CY). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health

Organization.

269Special Education Today in Switzerland

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.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/1/101.en.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

SPECIAL EDUCATION TODAY IN

ICELAND

Gretar L. Marinósson and Dóra S. Bjarnason

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the chapter is to give an overview of special education in Iceland, historically and with reference to modern use of terms, research, policy, legal trends and funding. Recent data is provided on demographic developments amongst children in Iceland and detailed account is given of practices in schools, including collaboration with parents and teacher education. Finally some issues and challenges are discussed that still remain to be solved with respect to meeting the special needs of students in school. One of the findings is that only 1.3% of students attend special schools and special classes and that the term special education has out- lived its usefulness except perhaps in the context of the three segregated special schools that still remain in the country. Official papers have replaced it with the term special support. Despite a diversity of views and practices the main implication is that a new model of education is required, in line with that proposed by Slee where the needs of individuals are served in all schools and the binary thinking related to regular versus special education is no longer necessary.

Special Education International Perspectives: Practices Across the Globe

Advances in Special Education, Volume 28, 271�309 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0270-4013/doi:10.1108/S0270-401320140000028016

271

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/S0270-401320140000028016

INTRODUCTION

Iceland: Country and Nation

Given its geographical size of 100,000 square kilometres and a population of just one third of a million inhabitants, Iceland is one of the most spar- sely populated country and smallest independent nation states in the world. The island’s location in the middle of the north Atlantic makes it relatively isolated but also well situated for the interception of cultural currents from both sides of the Atlantic. Icelanders have a distinct language and culture, which historically is closely linked to other Nordic nations. Reykjavik, the capital city, is by far the largest municipality with a population of about 120,000.

At the time of the establishment of the first public schools around 1850, Iceland was a Danish dependency and one of the poorest countries in Europe, its economy being largely based on farming and fishing. The popu- lation, numbering approximately 70,000, over 80% of whom lived in rural areas, was homogenous but literate (Guttormsson, 1983). The country gained independence step by step in the late 19th and early 20th century and became a republic with parliamentary democracy in 1944. Executive power lies with the cabinet formed usually by coalition of two or more poli- tical parties.

Iceland took a leap forward in the 20th century to become an urban, highly modern, capitalistic market society; from the 1960s it has ranked as one of the 10�15 most affluent nations within the OECD (Jónsson, 2009). Communication with other nations has always been dynamic, particularly with the Nordic states but also elsewhere. Economic prosperity after the Second World War was thus largely based upon transactions with Eastern Europe, Northern America, the European Union and, lately, Japan and China. More recently the bank crisis, the fall of the krona and the currency embargo since 2008 has seriously affected both public and private spending and set the nation’s economy back several years.

EDUCATION IN ICELAND

For centuries children were educated in their homes by their parents and later by peripatetic teachers. This system continued well into the 20th cen- tury in rural areas. The history of public schools in Iceland is relatively

272 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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

short, compared to that of neighbouring countries, spanning merely 160 years (Guttormsson, 2008). The first Education Law on public schooling was passed in 1907 followed by subsequent Education Acts in 1926, 1936 and 1946. However, it was not until the 1974 Education Act that all chil- dren, including those with special needs and disabilities, were required to attend school. Legislation and curricula in the 20th century reflect continu- ing efforts towards increased equality between children in different parts of the country, of different gender and of varying learning ability. Recent PISA results show that this endeavour has borne fruit in relative homoge- neity of school performance, at least at the compulsory school level (Halldórsson, Ólafsson, & Björnsson, 2013).

The educational system is structured at four levels of schooling:

• The preschool (‘playschool’ as it is called in Iceland), ages 2�5 years. Operated by local authorities.

• The compulsory school (‘basic school’), ages 6�16 years. Operated by local authorities.

• The upper secondary school (‘continuing school’), ages 16�20 years. Operated by the state.

• Universities and adult education provision. Independent but financed largely by the state.

This chapter deals with special education at the three first school levels, the preschool, the compulsory school and the upper secondary school. The university level is mostly left out, although students with a variety of dis- abilities are admitted for university study. Readers interested in more detailed information about the extent to which Iceland’s seven universities cater to students with special needs are referred to Stefánsdóttir’s (2013) comprehensive description.

The majority of Iceland’s public schools operate under municipalities (preschools and compulsory schools) or the state (upper secondary schools and universities). Only a few schools are privately run with 70% contribu- tions from the municipalities or the state. Students at compulsory schools are the only ones obliged to attend school but 95% of children attend preschools and up to 95% of children attend upper secondary schools although around 35% discontinue their studies before completion (Statistics Iceland, 2013). Today the annual public expenditure on educa- tion per student is slightly above the average for 21 Europe Union (EU) nations at preschool, primary school and upper secondary school levels but considerably lower at the tertiary/university level. The same applies when compared to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

273Special Education Today in Iceland

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 (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2000) average.

SPECIAL EDUCATION IN ICELAND

A review of the literature reveals little consensus on the meaning of the term ‘special education’, what it should contain, where it should ideally be practiced and how (Bjarnason, 2010b). Does the term refer to location, pedagogic methods and contents, the professionals who carry it out or to the additional resources needed to implement the special needs education? Indeed the term ‘special support’ is now used in official documents in Iceland in place of the term ‘special education’ that is seen to have outlived its usefulness except in the context of segregated special schools.

Although special education may strictly be understood as referring to what happens within the education system, the other side of the coin is what happens within the child. The term impairment is used here in the ‘individual’ or ‘medical’ theoretical perspective about what happens within the child (WHO, 1980). The term ‘disability’ is similarly debated but is used here as an over-arching term for all major barriers that prevent an individual from participating in society (and school), including personal impairments, social structures, physical structures and social prejudices. The term ‘special educational needs’ is used here to refer to all educational needs that the school does not manage to adjust to and meet in its daily work. This term overlaps with disability at the same time as it also extends beyond it to ‘cover those who are failing for a wide variety of other reasons that are known to be likely to impede a child’s optimal progress’ (OECD, 2000).

The same perplexity applies to ‘special educational needs’ as to special education and disability. Does the term refer to all kinds of special needs or only some; should, for example, difficulties related to behaviour (e.g. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD]), social interaction (e.g. bullying), giftedness and multiculturalism be categorised as special educational needs? Does the term only refer to difficulties experienced or observed in connection with education? Do these needs exist irrespective of whether they have been identified as such, diagnosed or met (OECD, 2000)? Discussing students with special educational needs implies that such a category can be identified. Many would argue that this is not so, and that such construction contributes to the maintenance of the status quo as

274 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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

regards meeting students’ individual needs at school (see, e.g. Goodey, 1999).

However, the terms special education and special educator are men- tioned neither in Icelandic law, ordinances nor the National Curriculum Guides for the pre-primary, primary or secondary sectors of the school sys- tem. Nor are they mentioned in a recent policy document on educa- tional provision by the largest municipality, the City of Reykjavı́k (Reykjavı́kurborg, 2012). Instead the term ‘special support’ is used. It is considered contradictory to maintain a system of education that should be inclusive of all children and still have special education. This makes for a rather peculiar point of departure for a chapter on special education. Notably, however, two Ordinances on students with special educational needs exists, one for the-Compulsory School (Regluerð um nemenur með sérþarfir ı́ grunnskóla nr. 585, 2010) and another for the Upper Secondary School (Reglugerð um nemendur með sérþarfir ı́ framhaldsskólum nr. 230, 2012), three special schools exist at the Compulsory School level and spe- cial classes within mainstream schools exist at these two levels. Special edu- cators still function in mainstream schools at three school levels, although their professional status is no longer recognised by law or regulation. The situation regarding this branch of the education system is, therefore, com- plicated today as it always has been.

The policy of inclusive education has gained support in Iceland, as in most other countries in the world in recent years, following a runaway increase in the number of students placed in segregated special educational provision. The policy shift in Iceland was based on developments in Sweden, Denmark, Italy and the United States in the 1970s and later public missions, first on ‘Education for All’ in Jomtien, Thailand (UNESCO, 1990), Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action for students with special needs (UNESCO, 1994), the Convention on the rights of the child (United Nations, 1989), the Dakar Framework for Action on education for all (UNESCO, 2000) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006). In a world where millions of children are deprived of education altogether, not the least girls with disabilities, the inclusion mission by UNESCO sounds utopic. Nevertheless, most govern- ments in the world have chosen inclusion as their central education policy. To what extent or how they manage to make it a reality is another matter. There is indeed a large measure of integration of students with disabilities and special needs into mainstream schools in Iceland, as only 1.3% of the school age population attends special schools (0.5%) and special classes (0.8%). However, there are at present an increasing number of so-called

275Special Education Today in Iceland

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

‘participation classes’ being established in Reykjavı́k mainstream schools, as branches from special schools, primarily for children who find it difficult to keep up with the speed of learning or exhibit difficult behaviour in main- stream classes. This is an example of local interpretation of the policy of inclusive education (Fræðslumiðstöð Reykjavı́kur, 2002).

RESEARCH ON SPECIAL EDUCATION IN ICELAND

Although special needs education is probably among the fields of education in Iceland where there has been the greatest research activity over the past 50 years, the total number of research projects is less than 100 (Marinósson, 2005). The studies divide easily into two groups. On the one hand there are projects carried out by pedagogues studying school responses to student diversity in some form, from a social-relational theore- tical perspective. On the other hand there are investigations of children’s impairments by clinicians guided by an individual-medical perspective. Half of the projects carried out by the pedagogues are quantitative in their methodological approach and half qualitative. In addition there are a few action research projects. All the projects carried out by the clinicians are basically quantitative although they may include some interview or open observation data. Half of the projects by the pedagogues are (masters or doctoral) theses submitted as part of their research training. The over- whelming majority of research projects are initiated by individuals or groups, only a few are initiated by official institutions such as the Ministry of Education. It is difficult to talk about trends in research in this field where the number of research projects is as limited as this and significantly dependent on individual researchers. However, one can broadly portray the available research as belonging to either holistic or inclusive educational research or more categorical, clinical research.

The educational research is institutionalised at university education departments, the latter to a large extent at state assessment units and a uni- versity psychology department. The institutional basis for all educational research (indeed all social science research) in Iceland is weak on account of lack of resources: under funding, lack of trained researchers and the embryonic state of research institutions. It would therefore be considered essential for those few who engage in research within similar fields to colla- borate. This is, however, rarely the case. The researchers at the different institutions hardly ever meet to discuss their research, probably precisely

276 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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

because of the weak structure that they operate within. As regards to research in special education this reflects the present uneasy relationship between the individual and the social theoretical perspectives in disability research (op. cit.; Barnes, Mercer, & Shakespeare, 1999). In the last few years, greater stress has been laid on research and publication within the universities, partly for reasons of international race for a place amongst the top 100, 300 or 500 universities in the world, partly because the value of research for society is better understood. At the same time, there has been a change in policy in allocation of competitive funds so that larger sums go to fewer applicants whilst there has been no increase in total sums, partly because of the bank crisis and the collapse of the Icelandic currency in 2008. The surge of research within special education that was felt before the bank crisis has therefore now slowed down.

Special education should not be studied separately from mainstream education but as an inherent part of it. One implication of such context- oriented approach is that the methodology should not solely be based on logical positivistic assumptions of truth and objectivity but also assump- tions of the contextual nature of social phenomena. In an era where emphasis is on the strengths of individuals and the failings of the system to meet their needs, increasing collaboration between researchers within social, health, and educational institutions is called for. There is a need for larger and longer term projects that can gain an overview of the situation in education from policy to grass roots level over an extensive time period. This necessitates comparison with similar research projects in other countries.

ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF SPECIAL

EDUCATION IN ICELAND

The development of Iceland’s response to disability mirrors closely that of neighbouring countries, albeit at a slower pace and on a smaller scale. Thus small institutions for people with intellectual disability were established by the middle of the 20th century and abandoned before the end of the cen- tury. The exclusion of children from school on the grounds of ‘amorality’ and ‘illness’ as stipulated in the Education Act 1936 was annulled by the passing of the Education Act 1974 when the right of education was extended to all children and the concept of integration was introduced. Then for the first time the school was obliged to take account of its

277Special Education Today in Iceland

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’ educational needs whereas before its major task was to teach pre- scribed subjects. To follow up on this policy legal responsibility for com- pulsory education was moved first from the state to eight education authorities (Lög um grunnskóla nr. 64, 1974) and then to the municipalities (Lög um grunnskóla nr. 66, 1995). The first ordinance on special education 1977 (Reglugerð um sérkennslu nr. 270, 1977) was revised in 1990 and the categorical system of provision replaced by a system geared to meeting spe- cial educational needs of all students in their home schools (Reglugerð um sérkennslu nr. 389, 1990). It was considered possible to evaluate more accu- rately each student’s special needs in their daily context than by diagnostic labels alone, made on the basis of snapshots taken in a clinic in Reykjavı́k. This context bound assessment of special needs only survived a few years until funding was made conditional on diagnosis by ‘recognised authorities’.

Since 1996, Compulsory Schools have been under the jurisdiction of the municipalities where Preschools were since 1994 (Lög um leikskóla nr. 78, 1944) while Upper Secondary Schools were under the state (Lög um fram- haldsskóla nr. 92, 2008). Universities have gained authority over their own affairs (Lög um opinbera háskóla nr. 85, 2008) and the education of all pedagogic personnel has been moved to university level and extended from three years (Bachelor) to five (Master) (Lög um menntun og ráðningu ken- nara og skólastjórnenda nr. 87, 2008). Discussion of the Compulsory School’s response to the diversity of students has developed in character from exclusion to inclusion to rights and thereby also through change in ideas and accompanying terminology from special education through inte- gration to inclusion. This, however, is not a linear development in time as older theoretical perspectives, nomenclature and special educational provi- sions live alongside the more recent ones. Moreover the discourse on inclu- sion as a response to student diversity in Icelandic schools must be linked to similar policies in neighbouring countries.

Looking back in time at the institutionalisation of special education, schools for deaf and blind students started around 1870 and these students have moved increasingly into mainstream schools since. Special education for physically disabled students started in the mid-20th century and was provided in special schools and units after World War II but since 1970 it has increasingly taken the form of personal support within mainstream school surroundings (Sigurðsson, 1993). Children with intellectual disabil- ities who were considered uneducable were first offered a place in an insti- tution in Sólheimar, a residential care home established in 1931 by a private individual. In the 1950s and 1960s, the population of children with

278 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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 disability in institutions expanded considerably with the estab- lishment of other homes under the Ministry of Social Affairs and a medical institution, Kópavogshæli. Höfðaskóli, the first special school for children with IQs of 50�70 was opened in Reykjavı́k in 1961 and, after the educa- tion authorities had taken over the education and training of children who had been considered uneducable, special classes were established in main- stream schools. Special education for students with emotional and beha- vioural difficulties started in residential facilities in the countryside in the late 1940s. These two major categories of special educational needs have since gradually become an assignment for the preschool and compulsory school to solve largely inside the mainstream but the special classes and the special schools have also survived. In addition, a surprising number of stu- dents with new and previously unknown diagnostic labels have demanded the attention of teachers and school managers (e.g. autistic spectrum disor- der and ADHD).

Special education in Iceland has generally developed from categorisation and segregation towards individualisation and inclusion. However, the development is more complicated as categorisation does not always have a corollary in segregation and individualisation is not always the result of inclusion. In fact, the processes can work totally independently of each other and run parallel in time. Furthermore, the process from categorisa- tion to individualisation has turned back on itself so that the trend now is towards greater categorisation in the school system under the influence of funding control and medical diagnosis that support each other (Marinósson, 1999).

The development of disability studies as a sociological alternative to the medico- psychological paradigm of handicap was influential in moving the development of special education in the direction of looking more closely at the context of school problems and not merely at the students themselves (Bjarnason, 2010a). This social focus overshadowed special education and marginalised it, at least academically and politically.

The introduction of ‘individualisation of instruction,’ promoted by the Director of Education for Reykjavik, further diverted attention from spe- cial education to the work of the class teacher. The idea behind ‘individua- lised instruction’ was indeed that by realising the aim of providing for individual educational needs the requisite for special education was done away with and with it the considerable cost to the education directorate (Fræðslumiðstöð Reykjavı́kur, 2000).

A fundamental principle of the Icelandic educational system is that everyone should have equal opportunities to acquire an education,

279Special Education Today in Iceland

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

irrespective of sex, economic status, residential location, religion, possible impairment, and cultural or social background. Only recently, however, was education seen as a medium for democratic aims in society: That by educat- ing each and every individual to his or her full potential (s)he could be given an opportunity to take full part in society, this being considered the founda- tion of a fully democratic society (European Agency, 2011).

Earlier research in Iceland and elsewhere indicate, however, a number of factors that stand in the way of equal access to education for disabled peo- ple, such as badly co-ordinated official policy, lack of collaboration between service systems, lack of information, devaluation of students with disability, attitudes that regard diversity in the student group as a problem, lack of financial support, narrow definition of curriculum for disabled stu- dents, inflexible teaching methods and segregation of support from other types of school work (Bjarnason, 2004; Gunnþórsdóttir & Bjarnason, in press; Marinósson, 2011; Marinósson & Bjarnason, 2007). These are some of the challenges that still face Iceland and impact on the quality of educa- tion for special needs.

LEGAL TRENDS, LITIGATION AND THE FINANCING

OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

Legal Trends

Although the needs of poor and disabled people for subsistence had been provided for since the middle ages, the first legislation that specifically con- cerned disabled people was the Law on institutions for imbeciles 1936 (Flóvenz, 2004). This legislation was a shift of emphasis ‘from passive sup- port, in the form of subsistence payments for disabled people, towards active welfare policies’ (Ólafsson, 2005). Since the Second World War, the Icelandic legislative assembly has passed various acts of education designed to work towards equality of educational opportunity and against social inequality. Thus, a general Law on the affairs of the disabled was passed in the early 1990s (Lög um málefni fatlaðra, 1992). However, there is no sepa- rate legislation for special education at any of the four levels of education.

The legal context for what was to follow as regarded education for chil- dren with disabilities was the passing of three vital social legislations in 1936; the Law on social security (Lög um alþýðutryggingar), the Law on state subsistence for the sick and disabled (Lög um rı́kisframfærslu sjúkra

280 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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

manna og örkumla) and the Law on institutions for imbeciles (Lög um fávitahæli) (Margeirsdóttir, 2001). The Education Act of 1936 explicitly excluded those from school who were unfit for reasons of ‘moral deficiency or singular disobedience’. Those whom the doctor deemed lacking in men- tal or physical abilities, and were seen unable to learn with other children were excused from school (Lög um fræðslu barna, 1936). Perhaps the law’s main purpose, to make school attendance mandatory for 7�14-year olds (previously 10�14 years), should be understood in the context of the social legislation passed at that time, as some of these children were provided with instruction and support elsewhere than in school. The Education Act of 1946 was the first piece of legislation in Iceland to mention the school’s role in adjusting to the needs of the students:

Schools shall endeavour to organise their work in accordance with the nature and needs

of their students, to help them adopt healthy attitudes and habits, observe their physical

health and instruct them in subjects stipulated by law, each according to his or her

developmental capacity. (Lög um fræðslu barna, 1946, authors’ translation and emphasis)

At that time, it indicated a shift from a systems orientation to a more child- centred view. This was consistent with the child-centred view that had its provenance in the ‘age of enlightenment’. Under its banner, it was consid- ered necessary to ‘take account of the child’s nature and adjust one’s expec- tations of children to their development and ability’ (Guttormsson, 1983).

Whilst the 1946 Education Act shifted the main focus from school sub- jects to the students’ needs, it was the 1974 Education Act that recognised in law for the first time that all children of a given age had an equal right to education in the state school system and that the school had a role in meeting the full diversity of student needs (Lög um grunnskóla nr. 64, 1974). The view that this should be done in the child’s neighbourhood school rather than as a segregated provision has been stated since then in an increasingly unequivocal fashion by those who formulate official educa- tion policy (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2012b). Following this legislation in 1974, the field of intellectual disability was transferred from under the jurisdiction of health authorities to education. This coincided when special schools replaced instruction within the subnormality institu- tions with the first Ordinance on special education 1977 (Reglugerð um sérkennslu nr. 270, 1977).

The Law on the Affairs of People with Disabilities, which was passed in 1992 (Lög um málefni fatlaðra nr. 59, 1992), stipulates that all individuals with disabilities (defined as intellectual disability, psychiatric illness,

281Special Education Today in Iceland

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

physical disability, blindness and/or deafness as well as disabilities resulting from chronic illness and accidents) are to be enabled to live and function in the community. For this purpose, where a disabled person’s needs are not covered by general services within the fields of education, health and social services, special services, detailed in the law, shall be provided. The law has been criticised for interpreting the concept of disability too narrowly since it does not cover groups that undoubtedly need this service, such as chil- dren with ADHD, epilepsy and dyslexia. These and some other groups with special needs are not defined as disabled, which perhaps throws a light on the influence of the funding system on medical criteria. The aim is now to bring this policy of social inclusion into practice by covering the rights of people with disabilities by common law and thus make special legislation unnecessary. Thus, service would be provided on the basis of what an indi- vidual needs within his or her social context instead of on the basis of a diagnosis of disability (Margeirsdóttir, 2001).

Next, the legislative assembly, passed an Education Act-Preschools in 1994 providing for special needs of preschool children in their local pre- schools (Lög um leikskóla nr. 78, 1994). The Education Act-Compulsory Schools in 1995 stipulated 10 years of compulsory schooling for children aged 6�16 years. However, there is no mention of special education in that law (Lög um grunnskóla, 1995). The idea is that the ‘basic school’ shall be inclusive, catering for all educational needs of all its students. Around the same time, an Ordinance from 1986 stipulating the sole right of those hav- ing a particular university degree to practise special education was annulled by the Ministry of education and culture. Thereafter, a school principal could hire any qualified teacher to provide support for those students who needed it. Another landmark made in the 1995 Education Act was the transfer of compulsory schools from the state to the municipalities. According to law on Upper Secondary School (Lög um framhaldsskóla nr. 80, 1996) everyone is entitled to education at that school level and stu- dents with special needs are to be provided with support and instruction according to their needs. Although students are expected to follow the ordin- ary curriculum as far as possible there is the possibility of establishing special units for students with disabilities (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2011b; Eurypedia, 2014).

New Education Acts of Law were agreed in 2008 for all educational levels, that is the Preschool, Compulsory School, Upper Secondary School and Higher Education Act. In addition a number of implementing Ordinances have been issued providing for various policy details (Mennta- og menningar- málaráðuneytið, 2012a; Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2012b;

282 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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

Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2012c). The Icelandic government ratified: the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006) in 2012; the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child (United Nations, 1989) in 2013; and adopted the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO, 1994) in 1995.

The Education Acts for Preschools, Compulsory Schools and Upper Secondary Schools all stipulate that students shall have education accord- ing to their needs (Lög um framhaldsskóla, 2008; Lög um grunnskóla, 2008; Lög um leikskóla, 2008). If this stipulation was followed to the extreme and individualisation of instruction was complete there would be no need for special education as there would be no special educational needs at school. However, there is an escape clause saying that for those, whose needs the school does not meet there shall be a service that assesses these needs and advises the school on how to meet them. This also applies to children with Icelandic as a second language. Guidelines for services for students with special educational needs in Preschool and Compulsory Schools are given in Ordinance on students with special needs and Ordinance on municipalities’ expert services in schools. Here students with special educational needs are defined as ‘students who find learning hard for reasons of specific learning difficulties, social or emotional difficulties or disabilities according to paragraph 2 of the Act on the Affairs of the Disabled nr. 59/1992, students with dyslexia, students with chronic illness, developmental impairment, mental disorders and other students with health related special needs’ (Reglugerð um nemendur með sérþarfir ı́ grunnskóla nr. 585, 2010; Reglugerð um sérfræðiþjónustu sveitarfélaga nr. 584, 2010). Responsibility for providing this service is divided between the schools, the local authority’s services and services provided by the four state diagnostic and advisory centres for disability, hearing, sight and psychiatric problems. Three of these state institutions fall under the Ministry for Social Affairs and one under the Ministry of Health but none under Education.

According to the Preschool Act, Compulsory School Act and Upper Secondary School Act, the staff of each school are obliged to write a work- ing guide, a kind of school policy, which is to be based on the National Curriculum Guidelines (see Mennta- og menningarmálráðuneytið, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c). However, each school has an opportunity to take into account its circumstances and special characteristics. The school working guide is also an administrative plan for each school. It is to account for the school year and to include an annual calendar, the organisation of teach- ing, the aims and content of the education offered, student assessment pro- cedures, assessment of the work that goes on in the school, extra-curricular

283Special Education Today in Iceland

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

activities and other aspects of the operation of the school including how it is going to meet students with special needs. Compulsory schools display their policy on special needs education on their website and introduce it to teachers and parents (European Agency, 2011; Reykjavı́kurborg, 2012).

Inclusive education is mentioned in the Education Act 2008 for the first time as the basic education policy in Iceland from early years to the period of transition to university or the labour market. The general aims of the legislation on each school level apply to all students including those with disabilities and special needs. This means addressing and responding to the learning needs of all students. In short Education for All means that:

• There is equal opportunity for all to attend school and acquire education in accor-

dance with their ability and needs.

• Schools must attend to the ability and needs of all students.

• Students and/or their parents decide on which school they attend.

• Students in need of special support have the right to special provision.

(European Agency, 2011)

The education policy places emphasis on the Icelandic National Curriculum Guides for Preschool (2012a), Compulsory School (2012b) and Upper Secondary School (2012c).

1 The curriculum guidelines assure con-

formity of goals for all three levels of schooling. The National Curriculum Guide based on the Compulsory School Act of 2008 stipulates that

Compulsory schools must educate all children in an effective manner. According to

law, all children are entitled to appropriate education in compulsory school, academic,

vocational and artistic, and local authorities are required to offer appropriate study

opportunities regardless of their children’s physical or mental capabilities, emotional or

social situations or linguistic development. This applies to all children; children with or

without disabilities, with long-term illnesses, exceptionally intelligent children and chil-

dren with mental disabilities, children from remote communities and children from

ethic, linguistic or cultural minorities. (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2012b)

Similar stipulations of inclusive education appear in the curriculum guides for the Preschool and the Upper Secondary School. The central principle as laid down in the Act and the National Curriculum Guides is to make it possible for all children to study in their local inclusive schools.

A National Curriculum Guide for special units in Upper Secondary Schools, called ‘practical departments’, was published in 2005. The pro- gramme offered by the units has three levels depending on the needs of stu- dents and lasts four years (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2011b).

284 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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

Litigation

Litigation regarding educational issues is not common in Iceland. There is, however, no dearth of disputes dealing with everything from the violation of privacy to hospital mistakes at the birth of a child. The most common cases concern compensation for a loss of some kind. There is a trend to solve educational disputes at a lower level of administration before taking them to court. Thus the Education Acts refer disputes to the Ministry of Education that publishes its arbitration on its website. The following is an example of such a case.

Ruling on a charge brought by parents stating that a ruling by the City of Reykjavı́k to

refuse entry into a special school to a student with mild intellectual disability was wrong.

The parents stated that the ruling by the City of Reykjavı́k to refuse their daughter

entry into Klettaskóli special school was based on rules set by the Education commit-

tee that all children with an IQ of 50�70 were expected to attend a mainstream school. The charge was that this rule contravened the Education Act for compulsory

school, no. 91/2008; Ordinance on students with special educational needs, no. 585/

2010; Law on the affairs of disabled people, no. 59/1992; the Constitution for

Iceland, no. 33/1944 and the UN Convention on the Rights of Children. The City

Advocate claimed that the Education Act for the Compulsory School clearly states

that the school should be inclusive and adjust its services to suit the needs of the

child. This intention is then detailed in the Ordinance for students with special educa-

tional needs and the National Curriculum Guide. He further claimed that the rules of

acceptance of students to the school were set on the basis of all these laws, ordinances

and curriculum guides and stated quite unequivocally that the school is for students of

1st � 10th class in the compulsory school who have been assessed with medium, severe or deep intellectual disability or with mild intellectual disability with additional impair-

ments such as Autistic Spectrum Disorders, Cerebral Palsy and blindness. Furthermore,

the school should be able to offer the applicant education suitable for him or her

and that demonstrably the local school is unable to offer the same. The Ministry ruled

that the Reykjavı́k Education Authority was within its rights to refuse the child entry

into the special school (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2011a; authors’s translation).

If a child is unequivocally disabled the parents can seek the assistance of the Guardian of the Rights of People with Disabilities who helps with redressing whatever wrong has been alleged. The next stage may be the Ombudsman of the Althingi who has an advisory role towards official instances on behalf of members of the public who appeal to his office. Nevertheless, several cases related to special education or disabilities appear before the courts annually. Mostly, they are demands for financial compensation because services have not been provided, but in rare cases

285Special Education Today in Iceland

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 right of entry into a mainstream school or a special school are sought. The following is an example of such a case.

Supreme Court Case no.169/2007. H.Ó. vs. S-town.

A local authority was charged by parents of maltreating their 12 year old daughter by

excluding her from a primary school. The parents demanded a considerable sum of

money as compensation. The daughter had been diagnosed with autistic spectrum dis-

order combined with intellectual disability. For reasons of behaviour the school found

it impossible to integrate her into mainstream classes and suggested to the parents that

they move the child to a special school. The parents claimed that, according to

Compulsory School Act where inclusion was the main policy, their daughter had

an undeniable right to attend a mainstream school. The verdict which fell in the munici-

pality’s favour was supported by the argument that since the Compulsory School Act

had the provision that a special school was an option if the parents and professionals

considered the child’s needs were not met in his or her home school then this child did

not have an unequivocal right of attendance at a mainstream school. (Iceland Supreme

Court, 2007; authors’ translation)

Both these cases are instructive as the Education Act is not crystal clear on the point as to whether parents can choose a school for their child or not. It is left to ‘parents, teachers, school managers, or other experts’ to decide whether the mainstream school does or does not meet the needs of the child; then parents can apply to transfer him or her to a special school. Apparently the authority that runs the school can then wield its power to refuse the application although the law does not say so.

Financing

Without additional resources, it is questionable whether instruction or sup- port for students with special needs that is provided as part of the daily work of the mainstream classroom teacher would be labelled special educa- tion, even though it may be carried out in accordance with an individual education plan and although the general education teacher may have a further degree in special education. One of the central characteristics of special education is that it involves financial contributions over and above the ones required for group instruction. Resources required may be ten times greater per child than that in the mainstream. Thus, it matters a great deal how this funding is allocated and used.

Preschool is financed by the municipalities but they may determine a fee collected from the parents for their child’s attendance. There are no sepa- rate funds for special education at the preschool level. Compulsory

286 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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

schooling is free of charge but in order to meet the needs of students with disabilities funds are provided by central government to the municipalities via the Municipalities Equalisation Fund. The students funded must be residents of the municipality, their disabilities must have been diagnosed and it must be clear that they need considerable and extended additional support at school (Jöfnunarsjóður sveitarfélaga, 2014).

Payments to the municipalities for students with impairments depend on the levels of disability. The same amount is expected to be paid per student with the same degree of disability to each municipality irrespective of whether the special education provided varies from one municipality to another. This amount is determined on the basis of medical diagnoses and is in accordance with the amount the individual and his/her family gets from the national security system because of a given disability as described in the Act on the Affairs of the Handicapped (Lög um málefni fatlaðra nr. 59, 1992). The State Diagnostic and Advisory Centre, which has created the rules for the Advisory Committee of the Equalisation Fund, has the final say in whether the amount suggested by other specialists is in accor- dance with the given degree of disability. The amount allocated for each student is meant to provide an educational opportunity for that student. This can be in the form of a special class or a special school run by the local authority itself, shared with other authorities or stationed in a different authority (European Agency, 2011). The Equalisation Fund is now in the process of adapting the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS) for the evaluation of needed funds for support for children as well as adults (Jöfnunarsjóður sveitarfélaga, 2012).

In addition to the funding provided for individual students with diag- nosed impairments by the Equalisation Fund, the municipalities allocate funds for students with disabilities in collaboration with the schools and their expert services (special educators, schools advisory services, school health service, etc.). This is usually done on the basis of an annual survey in the schools updated twice a year, that is according to need rather than a disability category. However, some local authorities take account of whether the children have been assessed to receive family support from State Social Security and at what level (Elı́n S. Jónsdóttir, personal commu- nication, 2014, Akureyri). For this, the State Social Security Institute assesses the child’s level of disability (five levels), the need for care, support or treatment and finally the cost involved (Tryggingarstofnun rı́kisins, 2012). Many municipalities follow the example from the City of Reykjavı́k that has a two-tier system of allocation of funds for special education: One allocation for students with disabilities and another general allocation for

287Special Education Today in Iceland

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 whole student body, including students with special needs such as learn- ing disabilities, ADHD or language and speech impairment. The allocation for students with disabilities is made following an application by the school, only for students diagnosed by authorised state agencies and on the basis of a plan of intervention submitted by the school. The general alloca- tion is a sum proportional to 0.14�0.25 of a weekly lesson multiplied by the number of students in the school. Some municipalities allocate this lat- ter sum on identified students, others in a lump sum to be used by the schools as they see fit. Reykjavı́k adds a third tier in its allocation for schools that apply for it on the basis of a disproportional number of stu- dents with special needs compared to other schools. A separate allocation is made for students who need support for reasons that they have a mother tongue other than Icelandic. All allocations are made on the condition that the school organise its work in accordance with the policy of inclusive edu- cation (Reykjavı́kurborg, 2012). The state pays upper secondary school operating costs. Funds for educating students in need of special support are applied for to the Ministry of Education on an individual and/or group basis.

As detailed above, the funding of special education is to some extent linked to diagnostic labelling of impairments. One of the consequences is that schools try to identify students with disabilities who might fetch extra funds for the school. A system based on diagnostic labels thus has perverse incentives for over identification of disabilities and special needs. Some municipalities are therefore transferring more of their special education resource distribution from the ‘bounty’ system to a ‘base’ funding system where schools get a general sum estimated on the basis of the totality of educational needs of its students as observed in the school context at that time (‘difficulty model’) as opposed to being based on formal diagnosis only (‘disability model’). This later approach to funding has been adopted by Finland (Jahnukainen, 2011).

THE CHILDREN: PREVALENCE AND INCIDENCE OF

IMPAIRMENT

Official information on the prevalence and incidence of disability in Iceland is hard to come by. The State Diagnostic and Counselling Centre, which has as one of its roles to keep an overview of children’s disability in the country does not have this statistic, neither does the Ministry of Welfare

288 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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

that has disability as one of its tasks, nor any other state institution. One wonders how it is possible to plan to meet the needs of these individuals with disabilities without having some idea of the size and composition of the task. The larger municipalities do, however, keep data on the children with disabilities and special needs that they serve in their schools. In addi- tion, Statistics Iceland (2013) keeps data on education and finally there are a few carefully done studies on the epidemiology of some disability groups that we can rely on (see Tables 1 and 2).

The proportion of students who receive special support in compulsory schools has risen gradually over the last two decades after remaining rela- tively stable for two decades before that. Thus, in 1974 around 15% of stu- dents received special education. In 1984 and 1994 the figure remained unchanged but, as Table 3 shows, in 2005 it had risen to 23.7% and in 2013 to 27%. One of the reasons may be the tendency to provide short- term help for a variety of reasons (e.g. help at break-time and lunch-time)

Table 1. Prevalence of Impairment amongst Children.

Disability % NB n a

Age

Autism spectrum disorder 1.20 b

Boys 1.72%; girls 0.64% 22.229 14�18 Intellectual disability

(severe)

0.51 c

Medium ID: No data Mild ID: No

data

Not

provided

5�18

Cerebral palsy 0.22 d

139 5�6 Visual impairment 0.1

e 73,459 0�17

Hearing impairment 0.05 f

4,000 0�18 Psychiatric disorders 10.1

g 317 4�6

a n = size of population from which % is calculated.

b Sæmundsen, Magnússon, Georgsdóttir, Egilsson, and Rafnsson (2014).

c Bakel et al. (2013). d Sigurðardóttir, Þórkelsson, Halldórsdóttir, Thorarensen, and Vik (2009).

e Rosenberg, Hansen, Rudanko, Viggósson, and Tornquist (1996). f Ingibjörg Hinriksdóttir, chief physician, personal communication, National Hearing and

Speech Institute (2014). g Guðmundsson et al. (2012).

Table 2. Number of Compulsory School Students with Formal Diagnosis.

Year No. of Diagnosed Students Total No. of Students %

2010�2011 6,527 42,320 15.42 2012�2013 6,955 42,320 16.43

Source: Statistics Iceland (2013).

289Special Education Today in Iceland

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

to a greater number of students than before for the purpose of preventing learning or social problems from becoming entrenched. This development is an indication of greater flexibility in the provision of learning support within mainstream schools (Svavarsdóttir, Ólafsdóttir, & Logadóttir, 2011). Considering that only 5.25% of compulsory school students in Reykjavı́k are diagnosed with impairments and 1.3% of these are in special schools and special classes (Hrund Logadóttir, personal communication, 2014, Reykjavı́kurborg) these figures warrant observations on how the sys- tem of special education has a tendency to blow up despite the fact that the number of students per teacher (1:10) and group (1:19) is low compared to many other countries (OECD, 2013).

EDUCATIONAL PROVISION AND TEACHER

EDUCATION FOR SPECIAL NEEDS

Identification and Intervention

Most children with severe disabilities are identified at preschool age (0�5 years of age) by medical personnel, health visitors or preschool teachers. They are then generally referred to the State Diagnostic and Counselling Centre (Greiningar- og ráðgjafarstöð rı́kisins, 2014) for a medical examina- tion, psychological assessment and evaluation by social workers as well as physical and occupational therapists. The National Institute for the Blind, Visually Impaired and Deaf Blind is a public institute governed by the Ministry of Welfare. It provides services mainly in the rehabilitation and

Table 3. Proportion of Preschool and Compulsory School Boys and Girls who Receive Special Support or Special Education.

Years Preschool Compulsory School

Boys (%) Girls (%) Total (%) Boys (%) Girls (%) Total (%)

2004�2005 7.7 4.0 5.9 28.7 18.5 23.7 2008�2009 6.6 3.5 5.1 30.0 18.7 24.5 2012�2013 7.6 3.7 5.7 33.0 20.9 27.0

Source: Statistics Iceland (2013).

290 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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 area and does not provide initial medical diagnosis or medical treatment. This institute is responsible for a national database regarding visually impaired and blind individuals. A corresponding facility, The National Hearing and Speech Institute of Iceland is the centre of knowl- edge in the field of hearing and speech impairments. This centre offers the diagnosis and treatment, sales and services of hearing aids and assistive equipment. Children and adolescents with serious emotional and psychia- tric problems are referred to the Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Unit of the National Hospital for diagnosis and treatment. Children with suspected disabilities at preschool can be referred by preschool teachers for diagnosis and intervention to the expert services operated by social and educational departments of the municipalities (European Agency, 2011). The same applies to students at compulsory schools where parents and teachers play a major part in identifying and evaluating students’ need for support. For this purpose a variety of methods are used for screening in the fields of lan- guage, literacy, maths and social interaction (Svavarsdóttir et al., 2011). The next step is often a conference in the Child Welfare Committee of the school where the student’s teachers, special educators, a representative of the school health service, the school psychologist, the principal and others share their evaluation of the situation. The conclusion may be a referral to a school psychologist for formal assessment who may then recommend special educational support in or outside the classroom (Björnsson, 1991).

The law concerning compulsory education underlines the right of every child to receive appropriate education in a school nearest to his or her home. However, parents have the right to apply for a special school for their child should the mainstream school fail to provide education suited to his or her needs. This is, however, limited to students with considerable learning or behaviour problems so that those with milder level of difficulty cannot expect to gain access to a special school. This has led to conflicts between parents and the local authority (Ólafsdóttir, 2013; Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2011a). Decisions as to who is eligible for edu- cation at a segregated facility are, in the case of students at the compulsory level, reached in consultation between head teachers and their special edu- cators, parents and the school advisory services or other experts. At the compulsory, level special educators and guidance counsellors located in schools provide counselling and support to their fellow teachers and par- ents. Students can also be referred by teachers and parents to the munici- pality’s school expert services for diagnosis and intervention (European Agency, 2011).

291Special Education Today in Iceland

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

Provision of Special Support

According to the law on preschools children who, because of disability, emotional or social difficulties, need special support or training are pro- vided with such support in their own preschool under the guidance of experts. Similarly, the compulsory ‘basic schools’ have inclusive catering for special needs as well as other educational needs of its students. The main policy is that such instruction should take place in their local home school. Special needs education in the mainstream school is organised on a short-term or long-term basis depending on the needs of the student, possi- bly lasting all of his or her school years. The municipalities are also obliged to offer education for children who are in hospitals or are sick for a long period (Lög um grunnskóla, 2008). Recent immigrants receive special instruction in Icelandic, both at the compulsory and upper secondary levels, in addition to some provision for instruction in their native language (European Agency, 2011).

Everyone is entitled to education at Upper Secondary School level. Students with disabilities (as defined in the Law on the Affairs of the Disabled) are to be provided with instruction and special support in their studies. Expert advice and suitable conditions are to be ensured. In their studies, disabled students are to follow the mainstream curriculum with other students as far as possible. The law provides for the possibility of establishing special units within upper secondary schools for students with disabilities. The law also stipulates that deaf students have the right to special instruction in the Icelandic sign language (Lög um framhaldsskóla nr. 92, 2008). In addition, there is increasing emphasis on educational and vocational counselling.

The Ordinance on students with special needs in compulsory schools (Reglugerð um nemendur með sérþarfir ı́ grunnskóla nr. 585, 2010) and its counterpart for the upper secondary school (Reglugerð um nemendur með sérþarfir ı́ framhaldsskólum nr. 230, 2012) state that support for individual students and student groups involves a flexible and multifarious learning context and teaching methods and that the support shall take place within a local school. According to this special support, which is not seen as sepa- rate from other teaching, involves changes of educational aims, curricular content and teaching context and/or methods as compared with what other students of the same age are offered. It involves the writing of an education plan for an individual or a group of individuals, implementation of the plan and finally written reports and evaluation of the education plan and its implementation.

292 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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 educational support in the Compulsory School is provided by a variety of arrangements:

1. Special needs education in mainstream classes (within class or pull-out). 2. General special education classes in regular schools (for students seen to

have learning and behavioural problems). 3. Specialised special classes or units for students seen to share the same

problem or label such as autism spectrum disorders. 4. Special schools (Reykjavı́kurborg, 2012, p. 16).

Outside of Reykjavı́k, the first arrangement mentioned above would be seen widely but the second, third and fourth arrangements would only apply in rare instances. Students in the special units within regular schools have a home class and spend a part of the day taking part in that programme.

According to those in charge of providing for special needs of children in Akureyri, a town on the north coast of Iceland, each mainstream school makes an education plan for an individual with special needs, a group or a special class. The plan includes teaching, materials and assistants and is reviewed two to four times a year. The teaching plan is carried out by a class teacher and in some instances a support person in the class. In many schools, teachers work in teams so that the teaching load of students with disabilities is spread within the team. A team is created around each child with disabilities, including a representative from the school, who supervise the use of funding provided for the student’s education (Elı́n S. Jónsdóttir, personal communication, 2014, Akureyri).

There are three segregated special schools in the country that serve stu- dents with disabilities at the compulsory school age: A school for students with intellectual and multiple disabilities and two schools for children with socio-emotional and behavioural difficulties. In addition to the above- mentioned special schools, there are special classes in 49 Compulsory Schools (30%) with 1�40 students each. This includes temporary classes (for students with learning and behaviour issues) as well as more long-term special classes (e.g. for students diagnosed on the autistic spectrum disor- der). All these special classes are located in mainstream schools and the stu- dents participate in regular class part of the time. Students with hearing impairment attend a ‘twin school’ together with students with unimpaired hearing. In that school, sign language is on equal footing with the Icelandic language. Two ‘participation’ classes have just been established in Reykjavı́k mainstream compulsory schools, one for students with ‘mild’ intellectual disability and another for students with behaviour problems

293Special Education Today in Iceland

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

operated by the special school for those students. The idea is that the students will have easier access back into the mainstream school from these ‘participa- tion’ classes than from the special schools. In addition to short-term home support teaching for sick children, there are facilities available for children who are hospitalised for longer periods in two national paediatric wards. Surveys by the City of Reykjavı́k also reveal that in all year school groups, special support is more often provided in ‘pull-out groups’ than inside the classroom, despite the policy of inclusive education, according to which as much instruction as possible should be provided within the classroom and despite the fact that all schools employ support personnel in mainstream classrooms (Fræðslumiðstöð Reykjavı́kur, 2002; Reykjavı́kurborg, 2012). No statistics exist on the learning outcomes and grades of students with special educational needs or diagnostic labels in comparison with other students.

At upper secondary level, students with disabilities and students with emotional or social difficulties are to be provided with instruction and special study support. Extra teaching hours are provided to schools wishing to give special support to individuals or groups of students so that they can either follow the mainstream curriculum or a special pro- gramme. Many Upper Secondary Schools now provide extra support to students who have difficulties with reading and writing. There are special programmes (called ‘practical departments’) operated in all (19) upper secondary schools for students who find learning difficult in the main- stream classes because of disabilities or special educational needs. The ratio of teachers and students in the units is 1:1 to 1:4 and the students are offered instruction for four years, the same length of time as students in mainstream classes. Many of the students receive part of their instruc- tion in mainstream classes and mingle with other students in the cafe- teria. In mainstream courses, students with disabilities are assisted with their studies by, for example, sign language interpreters, co-students act- ing as scribes or other assistants, but in other respects they are subject to the same rules as other students. The upper secondary schools have, in col- laboration with the Ministry of Education, done a great deal in recent years to meet the needs of all their students at that level; this is in accordance with the law and regulations as well as official policy, which emphasises offering courses to match everyone’s abilities. The new programs are especially intended for students with poor preparation for enrolment in the more diffi- cult programs. The results of an evaluation of these programs indicate that direct interaction between the students in these programs and their non-disabled peers is minimal. The students themselves and their parents and teachers, however, all consider their enrolment in the mainstream

294 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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

schools beneficial (Leiknisdóttir, Jónsdóttir, & Jónsdóttir, 2012). No special schools for students with disabilities exist at the Upper Secondary School level.

At the University of Iceland, where an official policy exists on how to meet the needs of students with dyslexia, physical disabilities, blindness and psychological problems, students can apply to the Counselling Service for special study arrangements and special examination procedures. The School of Education offers a two-year diploma programme for students with intellectual disability where they can prepare for work on the open market (Stefánsdóttir, 2013).

Most preschools and compulsory schools put someone in charge of spe- cial support arrangements who maintain contact with the municipality’s expert services. For the Compulsory School this service offers general curri- cular advice, specialist advice on the teaching of the main school subjects, guidance for students and psychological counselling. The focus shall be not only on support for teachers and head teachers in day-to-day school work, including how to meet special educational needs, but also on teachers’ projects aimed at school improvement. The purpose is to strengthen the professional capacity of the school to solve its own problems. Specialists of the service, such as teachers, psychologists and other specialists, are also expected to assess students with psychological or social problems, should these difficulties impede their education. Some advice to parents is also expected (Lög um grunnskóla nr. 91, 2008). The service has been criticised for being too clinically oriented and not providing enough support for lea- dership and development work in schools that may help with building inclusive education (Sigþórsson, 2013, 212). No such expert service is operated for the Upper Secondary Schools on an area basis, but guidance counsellors employed by the schools deal with learning and personal pro- blems presented by individual students. For more complicated problems, they direct students to specialised evaluation and services outside the school (European Agency, 2011).

Special needs education cannot be considered without reference to its social and institutional context. For special needs education to work in practice a network both inside and outside the schools must exist between all those who serve the needs of the children in question. Ordinance no. 585 (Reglugerð um nemendur með sérþarfir ı́ grunnskóla nr. 585, 2010) for expert services in municipalities, paragraph 5 stipulates that head tea- chers of preschools and primary schools shall take the initiative in enter- ing into collaboration with the local authority’s school expert service, social service, child protection service and health service in connection

295Special Education Today in Iceland

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

with chronic illnesses or other health needs of individual student. In the City of Reykjavik, for example, there are several institutions run by the City involved in meeting the needs of individuals. At the Compulsory School level there are additionally two special schools with limited advi- sory role to mainstream schools and parents. Finally, there are third-level institutions serving children with disabilities and a hospital for children, all run by the state. Inside the schools, there are student counsellors whom special educators need to collaborate with. In most schools, this collaboration is managed by a special educational needs co-ordinator. Parents are usually in good collaboration with the schools on how to plan and organise special education for their child. Without collaboration there is a danger of cross-over advice to teachers and parents.

TEACHER EDUCATION

Teacher education is at the university level. Teacher education for the Compulsory School level started in 1971 whereas teacher training for the Preschool level started in 1994. A three year bachelor degree in education was required for teacher certification at the preschool and compulsory school level until 2011. Teachers in upper secondary school were required to add 60 ECTS in pedagogy to their bachelor degree to fulfil requirements for teaching their school subjects. A recent study showed that preparation for student teachers at university undergraduate level for work in an inclu- sive school is far too limited (Guðjónsdóttir & Karlsdóttir, 2012). In 2011 a new law on teacher education took effect requiring a master’s degree (5 year of study) for teacher certification at all school levels. Teachers wishing to specialise in special needs education complete a 120 ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) programme leading to a masters in spe- cial and inclusive education at the University of Iceland, School of Education in Reykjavı́k (Marinósson & Bjarnason, 2011).

WORKING WITH FAMILIES

The role of parents as advocates for their children’s education has been strong in Iceland as in many other western countries, but the advocacy has taken the form of lobbying the Ministry of Education, local educational authorities and individual schools and preschools, through the media,

296 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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

personal contacts and parent associations (Bjarnason, 2010a). Thus, in Iceland the development has been impacted by parents but driven by pro- fessionals and politicians.

Hardly any services or formal support beyond the family doctor was available to disabled children living at home and their families until after the middle 20th century. Parents of blind and deaf children formed support societies for those categories of children in the late 1930s and 1940s.

In the 1950s, when the post-war welfare system was taking shape two benefit societies were established to aid people with disabilities. The Benefit Society for Children with Disabilities (Styrktarfélag lamaðra og fatlaðra) was established by medical doctors and other health professionals in 1952 to support and care for children and young people diagnosed with polio. The society has broadened its clientele and now supports children with a variety of physical and intellectual impairments. Its mission today is ‘to support people with disabilities, particularly children, in every possible manner that contributes to their participation, competence and quality of life’. The Benefit Society manages a community based rehabilitation centre and a camp for disabled children and youth in Reykjadalur, just out of Reykjavı́k. In 1958, some parents of children with intellectual impairments joined together to solve their private problems. They initiated the opening up of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) service for children and adults with intellectual and multiple impairments. The association was called ‘Styrktarfélag vangefinna’ which translates as The Benefit Society for the Mentally Retarded. The name was changed in 2008 to Ás Benefit Society (Ás Styrktarfélag). From the beginning, this organisation attemp- ted, as did many similar organisations on both sides of the Atlantic, to fill gaps in services by building up, administering and operating segregated services for people with intellectual disabilities, from group homes, day- services to supported workshops, respite homes, summer camps and more. The organisation financed these services by selling lottery tickets and from public collections and benefits. In 2002, a contract was made with the Ministry of Social Services and Municipal Service Centres (svæðisstjórnir) for financial support towards the running of the services (Gunnarsdóttir, 2009). By the late 1960s and early 1970s a more radical group of parents and a few professionals joined forces, disappointed with the focus of The Benefit Society for the Mentally Retarded, and in 1976 they formed the advocacy movement Þroskahjálp (literally ‘Help with development’), an umbrella association of parents and professionals pressing not only for ser- vices but also for normalisation, integration, inclusion and human rights. This group grew in strength and importance and developed into a powerful

297Special Education Today in Iceland

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

pressure group, being involved in shaping national disability policy and leg- islation. Þroskahjálp was instrumental in shifting the focus of government and public opinion from that of disability in the family as a private pro- blem to it being recognised as a public issue based on citizenship and human rights. The focus on disability in the family being recognised as a public issue grew in strength and influence such that young parents in the late 1990s and the new millennium expected better and more generic and/or special services for their disabled children as a right. Þroskahjálp lost some of its attraction for some parents who established a number of associations for the support of children with particular labels, such as Downs Syndrome, harelip, Tourette, ADHD, autism spectrum disorder and so forth. These parental societies have gained in voice and, from the parents’ perspective, have been more accessible than Þroskahjálp. It may be argued that parents pulled the wagon for change in policy and practice shifting the focus gradually away from disability in the family as a private problem towards framing it as a public issue (Bjarnason, 2010a).

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Special Education versus Special Support

The theoretical position of special education vis-à-vis other disciplines is now more uncertain than before. It used to be considered an expert area within education drawing on a legacy from psychology, medicine, law, phi- losophy, and even religion but always operating within education. Now it is seen by some as an impostor in the inclusive school, an unwelcome propo- nent of the medical model in the context of a social model. The reason for this is based on a categorical perspective, where diagnostic tests are used for the classification of students into diagnostic categories. This is despite the fact that special education has been offered as a master’s degree study at the Iceland University of Education and later at the School of Education at the University of Iceland and not at the Faculty of Psychology; and the focus of the study has, for the last 25 years been an inclusive one.

By eliminating the term ‘special education’ from the Education Act, the legislative assembly (or those who prepared the bill) were not only trying to be consistent with the policy of inclusive education, but also attempting to transfer power from the professionals to the parents and to widen parental choice. Eliminating the professional title of special educator was, for

298 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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

instance, designed to reduce the possibility of a student’s education being limited to instruction by such a teacher (Marinósson, 2011). Thus, depro- fessionalisation of the school was being achieved as part of a bill promoting inclusion. Other issues have also impacted the development of special edu- cation in recent years both directly and indirectly.

Neoliberalism versus Child-Centred Views

In the last few decades, the major change in Icelandic education policy has been away from state control of education towards local responsibility; away from curriculum guided by content towards one assuming that teach- ing is guided by objectives; from bureaucratic control of schools towards their self-evaluation and accountability; from a social pedagogy towards an individual, competitive one; from annual budgets to contractual manage- ment of schools; from a social to a technical conception of change and development; and from a central administration towards the devolution of responsibility for administration and finances monitored through perfor- mance indicators (Mýrdal, Jóhannesson, Geirsdóttir, & Finnbogason, 1999). This development conceals a number of complexities and contradic- tions. There appears, for example, to be a paradox inherent in the princi- ples of social inclusion on one hand and the policy of competition and accountability on the other. How does the decentralisation of decisions coincide with national testing and the monitoring of standards? How may standardised common goals coexist with ‘providing effective and efficient education for all students’? Are strong individuals and democratic commu- nities not best maintained through collaborative education? Is new knowl- edge not better produced through diverse perspectives rather than ‘more teaching’? The central question is how a small nation state, like Iceland, can sustain its success in the global market place and simultaneously main- tain a just democracy where different voices are listened to?

The Categorical versus the Contextual Model of Special Education

There is no legal basis for the categorisation of disabilities or special needs amongst students, but nevertheless there are several systems of cate- gorisation in use for administrative purposes: One is used by the State Diagnostic and Counselling Centre, another by the Equalisation Fund for

299Special Education Today in Iceland

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

Municipalities, a third by local authorities for use in their schools and a fourth is used by the State Social Security Institute.

It can reasonably be maintained that special education based on diagnos- tic categories builds on the categorical perspective, while inclusive education builds on the relational perspective. Persson (2003) is of the opinion that, although both models incorporate knowledge useful for students with spe- cial needs (see Table 4), they are both imperfect and that their proponents need to collaborate to produce a better one that takes us a step forward in search for a model that takes pedagogic practice better into account.

The categorical model represents an attractive choice for professionals as it is based on traditional principles of scientific research methodology and focuses on delimited areas of study, be that individuals or designated cate- gories or sub-categories of impairments. In comparison, the social or con- textual model represents a complex research field involving, for example, different participants’ perspectives (e.g. that of students, parents, teachers or assistants), a variety of processes and routines (e.g. processes of social construction and institutional routines), outcomes (e.g. of instruction) and cultures (e.g. of schools). Within this model, special needs and special

Table 4. Implications for Special Education Support Depending on Theoretical Perspective.

Categorical Perspective Relational Perspective

Ontology of

special needs

Special needs refer to actual

characteristics of individuals

Special needs are social constructs

Approach to

difference

Differentiating and categorising Unifying

Major

contribution

Mapping and systematising the

field

Problematising and deconstructing

the field

Disciplinary basis Establishing special education as a

‘scientific’ discipline

Establishing special education as a

social scientific discipline

Implication for

provision

Special provision Integrated/inclusive provision

Understanding of

special

educational

competence

Superior support directly related to

diagnosed difficulties among

students

Superior support for incorporating

differentiation into instruction

and content

Reasons for special

educational

needs

Students with difficulties.

Difficulties are either innate or

otherwise bound to the

individual

Students in difficulties. Difficulties

arise from different phenomena in

educational settings and processes

Source: Persson (2003).

300 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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 are looked at in the context of mainstream education and larger service systems thus overlapping with and facilitating links with other disci- plines (Persson, 2003). This chapter is written with the latter model in mind.

The Perennial Tension between Full Inclusion and a Variety of Provision

There is still disagreement as to whether to expect the mainstream school to cater for all educational needs of its students or to provide a diversity of educational offers and leave it to parents and guardians to decide what kind of schooling is most suitable for their children. Iceland’s Education Acts and the National Curriculum Guides reflect this dichotomy where the demands for a School for All is unequivocal but there still is an escape clause that provides for a special school or special class in individual cases. Some parents fight for the alleged right of their child to attend a special school although the school may not be authorised to accept him or her because the child is not disabled enough. Thus, the policy of inclusive edu- cation is enforced although parental choice (in collaboration with experts) is given a central place in the Compulsory School Act.

Inclusive Education: Ideology versus Practice

It would be incorrect to assume that a change in government policy towards inclusive education has been accompanied by a general change in pedagogic practice. The shift from a general child-centred perspective of the post-war years towards a whole school approach, characterised by col- laboration and democratisation combined with individualisation of instruc- tion seems not yet to be reflected in the classroom. Teachers are still fundamentally preoccupied with getting the content of the curriculum across to their student group (Óskarsdóttir, in press). According to a sur- vey conducted by the City of Reykjavı́k in 2011 around a third of compul- sory school teachers found it hard to follow the policy of inclusive education. They felt that funds, knowledge and time were lacking, but another third of the group thought it easy. The remaining third were neu- tral on this point (Svavarsdóttir et al., 2011).

The City of Reykjavı́k has a policy of inclusive education that it carries out partly by making funding of ‘special support’ for students conditional on the schools demonstrating that they follow the policy. This, however, is

301Special Education Today in Iceland

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 yet fully functional in Reykjavı́k or in other local authorities. Thus, the ‘bounty system’ in combination with the ‘base system’ as the two are used together in many municipalities for funding special support has a perverse incentive on the schools to identify a greater number of students with spe- cial educational needs and disabilities than otherwise would be the case. Furthermore, it entails escalating costs of expert diagnosis and assessment that could otherwise be used for supporting the school in its efforts towards inclusion. Icelandic authorities should seriously consider changing over to a needs-based system where educational needs are assessed according to the learning context.

How to Integrate Special Education in an Inclusive School?

It seems that the term special education is disappearing in official docu- ments concerning education in Iceland. It has perhaps outlived its useful- ness and is being replaced by the term ‘special support’ which covers educational support that entails additional resources provided within the inclusive school to all those who need it irrespective of the reason. Thus, it works towards greater equality.

Iceland needs a new model instead of the special education model that also replaces the ‘pure’ inclusion model. The country needs an approach that is helpful, transparent and easily understood instead of standing in the way of development. This should describe an inclusive school where indivi- dual needs are catered as part of daily school work (cf. the ‘irregular’ school proposed by Slee, 2011). There is no regular and exceptional in this school but variegated tasks to meet a diversity of interests, types of talent, culture, character and needs. For this to work all available knowledge is utilised: pedagogic, medical, sociological, psychological and managerial. Thus, expert knowledge is part of school work but geared towards the aims of education. Not surprisingly this is precisely what the 1974 Education Act stipulated among the aims of education. Perhaps Iceland will reach the unreachable before too long?

CONCLUSION

With its roots in the age of enlightenment, special education had its heyday as part of the construction of a welfare state after World War II as a mea- sure to remediate children’s problems, particularly children who were ill

302 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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

equipped for formal school work or from poor families. Over the years spe- cial education has been overtaken by developments in related fields, such as disability theory and ideas of inclusive education, equality, equity and democracy in the day-to-day work of the school. At the same time, the pro- portion of children who benefit from special support within their schools has risen constantly. In Iceland it has reached 27% and is still growing. This raises burning questions of the system’s adequacy in meeting every child’s learning needs. The usual culprits are all under scrutiny: families and their circumstances, the children and their problems, the teachers and their teach- ing and the schools and their system. It may reasonably be argued that the main reason for the increase in this proportion is how all these players understand and use the service on offer in flexible way. This is a sign of an increasingly inclusive system. Schools have started to see parents as colla- borators rather than customers or even adversaries and this is reciprocal; the children’s school problems also need to be seen in the context of their school work rather than independent of it; all teachers need to embrace the principle of inclusive education and prepare their teaching in light of a diverse group of learners. The school system has to see students’ educational needs as a general concept rather than tied solely to individuals and to provide resources for these to be met in the mainstream.

At the classroom level, there has been a lessening of identification and labelling of impairments or categories of impairments; however, at the administrative level there has been an increase in this trend. Under the influence of neoliberal policies, diagnostics and categorisation for the pur- pose of controlling the expenses of special education has been imported from the health system into the education system. This has, as far as identi- fiable disabilities are concerned, become a routine for deciding educational resources. It has replaced the principle of needs-based provision that is still, however, used for special needs that lie outside the disability quota. So the dilemma of equality of access to services in the face of limited resources is still very much present producing solutions such as the selection of indivi- duals into predetermined quotas.

In order to find a way out of the dilemma, Iceland needs to rethink its conception of special education’s role in the school system. Iceland needs to rethink the schools and their use of special education to solve their system-wide issues instead of focusing on the children. Special education needs to be integrated to an even greater degree into the mainstream work of the school by becoming part of the teachers’ teamwork. It should also function as an expert support service for individuals and groups to partici- pate actively in school work. This should be done in collaboration with the

303Special Education Today in Iceland

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

schools expert service operated by the municipalities. School work in gen- eral needs to be reoriented to a greater extent towards students’ potentials instead of their shortcomings. Special education will then lose its identity as a separate service and become a support service for all students.

This chapter has traced the history of special education in Iceland from its inception to the present day. Special education research in Iceland, pol- icy and legislation trends has been addressed. Information on the children with disabilities with respect to prevalence and types of disabilities has been presented, along with information on the practices of educating children with special needs. Teacher education has been addressed noting that Icelandic teacher education programs have followed the trend from segre- gated special education, through integration to inclusive education. The perspective of families of children with disabilities has been discussed. The chapter concludes with some of the ongoing challenges for special education in Iceland including the dichotomy of categorical and contextual responses to the diversity of student needs; the tension between inclusion and a cas- cade of provision and between the ideology and the practice of inclusive education. The role of special education in the inclusive school is still uncer- tain as it is vis-à-vis multicultural education but it seems that before long it will become part of the support system that serves all students.

NOTE

1. The Icelandic versions of the National Curriculum Guides were published in 2011.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful for the help we have received from a number of people in varying positions of administration and education around Iceland to pro- vide the picture of special education presented here.

REFERENCES

Bakel, M. V., Einarsson, I., Arnaud, C., Craig, S., Michelsen, S., Pildava, S., … Cans, C.

(2013). Monitoring the prevalence of severe intellectual disability in children across

Europe: Feasibility of a common database. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology,

6, 2013.

304 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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

Barnes, C., Mercer, G., & Shakespeare, T. (1999). Exploring disability. A sociological introduc-

tion. Cambridge: Polity press.

Bjarnason, D. S. (2004). New voices from Iceland: Disability and young adulthood. New York,

NY: Nova Science.

Bjarnason, D. S. (2010a). Social policy and social capital. Parents and exceptionality

1974�2007. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Bjarnason, D. S. (2010b). Gjenom labyrinten: Hva er (special) pedagogikk I et includerende

miljö? [Through the maze: What is (special) education in inclusive settings?]. In

S. Reindahl & R. S. Hausstatter (Eds.), Spesialpedagogikk og etikk: Kollective ansvar og

individuelle rettigheder. [Special education and ethics: Collective responsibility and indivi-

dual rights.] Lillehammer, Norway: Höjskoleforlaget.

Björnsson, K. (1991). Sálfræðiþjónusta skóla: þáttur hagnýtrar sálfræði. Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Háskólaúgáfan. Fræðsluskrifstofa Reykjavı́kurumdæmis.

European Agency for special needs and inclusive education. (2011). Complete country over-

view � Iceland. Retrieved from http://www.european-agency.org/country-information/ iceland/national-overview/complete-national-overview. Accessed on January 20, 2014.

Eurypedia. (2014). Compulsory school education: Statistics. In European encyclopedia on

national education systems. Iceland. Retrieved from https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/

mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Iceland:Educational_Support_and_Guidance. Accessed on

February 22, 2014.

Flóvenz, B. G. (2004). Réttarstaða fatlaðra [The legal status of people with disabilities]. Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Háskólaútgáfan.

Fræðslumiðstöð Reykjavı́kur. (2000). Stefna ı́ málefnum barna með ı́slensku sem annað tungu- mál ı́ grunnskólum Reykjavı́kur [Reykjavı́k school board’s policy on children with

Icelandic as a second language in Reykjavı́k schools]. Retrieved from http://www.grunn

skolar.is/fraedslumidstodin. Accessed on January 15.

Fræðslumiðstöð Reykjavı́kur. (2002). Stefna fræðsluráðs Reykjavı́kur um sérkennslu, 2002. [Reykjavı́k school board manifesto on special education.] Reykjavı́k, Iceland:

Fræðslumiðstöð Reykjavı́kur. Goodey, C. (1999). Learning disabilities: The researcher’s voyage to planet Earth. In S. Hood,

B. Mayhall, & S. Oliver (Eds.), Critical issues in social research. Power and prejudice.

Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Greiningar- og ráðgjafarstöð rı́kisins. (2014). The state diagnostic and counselling centre, home- page. Retrieved from http://www.greining.is. Accessed on February 22.

Guðjónsdóttir, H., & Karlsdóttir, J. (2012). Skóli án aðgreiningar og kennaramenntun. Tı́marit um menntarannsóknir, 9(1), 132�152.

Guðmundsson, O. O., Magnússon, Sæmundsen, E., Lauth, B., Baldursson, G., Skarphéðinsson, G., & Fombonne, E. (2013). Psychiatric disorders in an urban sample of preschool children. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 18(4), 210�217. doi:10. 1111/j.1475-3588.2012.00675.x

Gunnarsdóttir, H. (2009). Viljinn ı́ verki: Saga Styrktarfélags vangefinna 1958�2008. Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Ás styrktarfélag.

Gunnþórsdóttir, H., & Bjarnason, D. S. (in press). Conflicts between professional development and inclusive education among Icelandic compulsory school teachers.

Guttormsson, L. (1983). Bernska, ungdómur og uppeldi á einveldisöld: Tilraun til lýðfræðilegrar greiningar. [Childhood, youth and upbringing: An attempt at a demographic analysis.]

Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Sagnfræðistofnun. Háskóla Íslands.

305Special Education Today in Iceland

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.european-agency.org/country-information/iceland/national-overview/complete-national-overview

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Iceland:Educational_Support_and_Guidance

http://www.grunnskolar.is/fraedslumidstodin

http://www.greining.is

Guttormsson, L. (Ed.) (2008). Almenningsfræðsla á Íslandi 1880�2007, fyrra bindi (Vol. 1). [Public education in Iceland 1880�2007.] Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Háskólaútgáfan.

Halldórsson, A. M., Ólafsson, R. F., & Björnsson, J. B. (2013). Helstu niðurstöður PISA 2012. Læsi nemenda á stærðfræði og náttúrufræði og lesskilningur. [Findings from PISA 2012. Mathematics and science literacy and reading comprehension.] Reykjavı́k, Iceland:

Námsmatsstofnun.

Iceland Supreme Court. (2007). Court case collection. Retrieved from http://www.haestirettur.

is/control/index?pid=330. Accessed on February 22, 2014. Jahnukainen, M. (2011). The history and trends of inclusive and special education in Alberta

(Canada) and in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(5),

489�502. Jöfnunarsjóður sveitarfélaga. [Municipalities’ Equalisation Fund]. (2012). Málefni fatlaðra,

SIS matið. [The Supports Intensity Scale for people with disabilities]. Retrieved from http://www.jofnunarsjodur.is/malefni-fatladra/sis-matid/. Accessed on February 22, 2014.

Jöfnunarsjóðu sveitarfélaga [Municipalities’ Equalisation Fund]. (2014). Framlög til sveitarfé- laga vegna fatlaðra nemenda ı́ almennum grunnskólum [Contributions to municipalities because of students with disabilities in compulsory schools]. Retrieved from http://www.

jofnunarsjodur.is/framlog/grunnskolar/. Accessed on February 22.

Jónsson, G. (2009). Efnahagskreppur á Íslandi 1870�2000 [Economic crises in Iceland 1870�2000]. Saga, 47(2), 45�74.

Leiknisdóttir, A. M., Jónsdóttir, H. H., & Jónsdóttir, G. A. (2012). Mat á starfsbrautum fram-

haldsskóla [Evaluation of the ‘practical programmes’ in upper secondary schools]. A

report written for the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport 2011�2012. Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið.

Lög um fræðslu barna nr. 34. (1946). Law on the instruction of children. Lög um fræðslu barna nr. 94. (1936). Law on the instruction of children. Lög um framhaldsskóla nr. 80. (1996). Education act: Upper secondary schools. Reykjavı́k,

Iceland: Menntamálaráðuneytið. Lög um framhaldsskóla, nr. 92. (2008). Education act: Upper secondary schools. Reykjavı́k,

Iceland: Menntamálaráðuneytið. Lög um grunnskóla nr. 64. (1974). Education act: Compulsory schools. Reykjavı́k, Iceland:

Menntamálaráðuneytið. Lög um grunnskóla nr. 66. (1995). Education act: Compulsory schools. Reykjavı́k, Iceland:

Menntamálaráðuneytið. Lög um grunnskóla nr. 91. (2008). Education act: Compulsory schools. Reykjavı́k, Iceland:

Menntamálaráðuneytið. Lög um leikskóla nr. 78. (1994). Education act: Preschools. Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Mennta

málaráðuneytið. Lög um leikskóla nr. 90. (2008). Education act: Preschools. Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Menntamála

ráðuneytið. Lög um málefni fatlaðra nr. 59. (1992). Law on the affairs of people with disabilities. Reykjavik,

Iceland: Félagsmálaráðuneytið. Lög um menntun og ráðningu kennara og skólastjórnenda við leikskóla, grunnskóla og fram-

haldsskóla nr. 87. (2008). Act on the education and employment of teachers and principals

at preschools, compulsory schools and upper secondary schools. Reykjavı́k, Iceland:

Menntamálaráðuneytið.

306 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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.haestirettur.is/control/index?pid=330

http://www.jofnunarsjodur.is/malefni-fatladra/sis-matid/

http://www.jofnunarsjodur.is/framlog/grunnskolar/

Lög um opinbera háskóla nr. 85. (2008). Law on state universities. Reykjavı́k, Iceland:

Menntamálaráðuneytið. Margeirsdóttir, M. (2001). Fötlun og samfélag. Um þróun ı́ málefnum fatlaðra. [Disability and

society on the development of affairs of people with disabilities.] Reykjavı́k, Iceland:

Háskólaútgáfan.

Marinósson, G. L. (1999). Specialundiervisningens elever: Fra kategorisering til individua-

lisering � og tilbage [The students of special education: From categorization to individua- lisation � and back again]. In En skole for alle I Norden: 100 års samarbejde omkring undervisning av elever med særlige behov. [A school for all in the Nordic countries: One

hundred years’ collaboration on the education of students with special needs.]

Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordisk kontaktgruppe om specialunervisning.

Marinósson, G. L. (2005). Special education research in Iceland 1970�2002. Netla- veftı́marit um uppeldi og menntun. Retrieved from http://netla.hi.is/articles-in-english. Accessed on

February 22, 2014.

Marinósson, G. L. (2011). Responding to diversity at school. An ethnographic study.

Saarbrücken, Denmark: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.

Marinósson, G. L., & Bjarnason, D. S. (2007). Making sense of the educational contexts of

students with intellectual disability in Icelandic mainstream schools. Paper presented at

the European conference on Educational Research, Ghent, Belgium.

Marinósson, G. L., & Bjarnason, D. S. (2011). Þróun náms ı́ sérkennslufræðum við H.Í. [The development of post-graduate programme in special needs education at the university

of Iceland]. Glæður, 21(1), 34�40. Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2011a). Úrskurðir og álit. [Ministry of culture and

education. Rulings and reports]. Retrieved from http://www.urskurdir.is/Menntamala/

urskurdir/. Accessed on February 22, 2014.

Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2011b). Námskrá fyrir sérdeildir framhaldsskóla, Starfsbrautir. [National curriculum guide for special units in upper secondary schools.]

Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Author.

Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2012a). Aðalnámskrá leikskóla � Almennur hluti á ensku. [Icelandic national curriculum guide for pre-schools � General section.] Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Author. Retrieved form http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/publications/

curriculum/. Accessed on February 19, 2014.

Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2012b). Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla � Almennur hluti á ensku. [Icelandic national curriculum guide for compulsory schools � General section.] Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Author. Retrieved from http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/

publications/curriculum/. Accessed on February 19, 2014.

Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2012c). Aðalnámskrá framhaldsskóla � Almennur hluti á ensku. [Icelandic national curriculum guide for upper secondary schools � General section.] Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Author. Retrieved from http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.

is/publications/curriculum/. Accessed on February 19, 2014.

Mýrdal, S., Jóhannesson, I. A., Geirsdóttir, G., & Finnbogason, G. (1999). Governance and

inclusion in Icelandic secondary education: Emerging issues and stories. Paper pre-

sented at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association,

Montreal, Canada.

Ólafsdóttir, A. K. (2013). Brotið á fötluðum börnum [The rights of children with disabilities violated]. Vı́sir.is, 03, 19.

307Special Education Today in Iceland

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://netla.hi.is/articles-in-english

http://www.urskurdir.is/Menntamala/urskurdir/

http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/publications/curriculum/

Ólafsson, S. (2005). Disability and welfare in Iceland from an international comparative perspec-

tive. Reykjavı́k, Iceland: University of Iceland Social Science Institute.

Óskarsdóttir, G. G. (Ed.). (in press). Starfshættir ı́ grunnskólum við upphaf 21. aldar [Teaching and Learning in Icelandic Compulsory Schools at the Beginning of the 21st

Century]. Reykjavı́k: Háskólaútgáfan.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2000). Special needs

education: Statistics and indicators. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2013). Education at a

glance, 2013: OECD indicators. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/eag-2013-en.

Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2013%20(eng)–FINAL%2020%20June%

202013.pdf. Accessed on February 22, 2014.

Persson, B. (2003). Specialpedagogisk forskning i Sverige. Problemställningar, erfarenheter

och perspektiv [Special educational research in Sweden. Questions, experiences and

perspectives]. Psykologisk Pædagogisk Rådgivning, 40(2).

Reglugerð um nemendur með sérþarfir ı́ framhaldsskólum No. 230. (2012). Ordinance on students with special needs in upper secondary schools. Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Mennta- og

menningarmálaráðuneytið. Reglugerð um nemendur með sérþarfir ı́ grunnskóla No. 585. (2010). Ordinance on students

with special needs in compulsory schools. Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Mennta- og menningar

málaráðuneytið. Reglugerð um sérfræðiþjónustu sveitarfélaga við leik- og grunnskóla og nemendaverndarráð

ı́ grunnskólum. No. 584. (2010). Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Mennta- og menningarmálar

áðuneytið. Reglugerð um sérkennslu No. 270. (1977). Ordinance on special education. Reykjavı́k, Iceland:

Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. Reglugerð um sérkennslu No. 389. (1990). Ordinance on special education. Reykjavı́k, Iceland:

Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. Reykjavı́kurborg. (2012). Skóli án aðgreiningar og sérstakur stuðningur við nemendur

ı́ grunnskólum. Stefna skóla og frı́stundaráðs Reykjavı́kurborgar. [School and Leisure Board: Inclusive education and special support for students.] Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Skóla

og frı́stundasvið. Rosenberg, F., Hansen, D., Rudanko, J., Viggósson, G., & Tornquist, K. (1996). Incidence of

registered visual impairment in the Nordic child population. British Journal of

Ophthalmology, 80, 49�53. Sæmundsen, E., Magnússon, P., Georgsdóttir, I., Egilsson, E., & Rafnsson, V. (2014).

Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders in an Icelandic birth cohort. BMJ Open,

2013(3), e002748. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002748

Sigþórsson, R. (2013). Sérfræðiþjónusta við leik- og grunnskóla [Expert services for compul- sory schools and preschools]. In R. Sigþórsson, R. Eggertsdóttir & G. H. Frı́mannsson (Eds.), Fagmennska ı́ skólastarfi. [Professionalism in school work.] Reykjavı́k, Iceland:

Háskólaútgáfan og Háskólinn á Akureyri.

Sigurðardóttir, S., Þórkelsson, P., Halldórsdóttir, M., Thorarensen, O., & Vik, T. (2009). Trends in prevalence and characteristics of cerebral palsy among Icelandic children

born 1990 to 2003. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 23, 2009.

Sigurðsson, P. (1993). Þættir úr sögu sérkennslunnar. [Strands from the history of special educa- tion.] Reykjavı́k, Iceland: Þórsútgáfan.

308 GRETAR L. MARINÓSSON AND DÓRA S. BJARNASON

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

Slee, R. (2011). The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. London:

Routledge.

Statistics Iceland [Hagstofan]. (2013). Grunnskólinn: Nemendur sem njóta sérkennslu eða stuðn- ings [Compulsory schools: Students receiving special education or support]. Retrieved

from http://www.hagstofa.is/?PageID=2604&src=https://rannsokn.hagstofa.is/pxis/ Dialog/varval.asp?ma=SKO02107%26ti=Nemendur+sem+nj%F3ta+s%E9rkennslu+e %F0a+stu%F0nings+2004%2D2013+++%26path=../Database/skolamal/gsNemendur/ %26lang=3%26units=Fj%F6ldi/hlutfall. Accessed on February 22, 2014.

Stefánsdóttir, G. V. (2013). Atvinnuþátttaka fólks með þroskahömlun sem lokið hefur starf- stengdu diplómunámi frá Háskóla Íslands [The employment of young people who have

completed the semi-professional diploma program at the University of Iceland]. Tı́marit

um menntarannsóknir, 10, 85�103. Svavarsdóttir, H. B., Ólafsdóttir, S. B., & Logadóttir, H. (2011). Framkvæmd sérkennslu ı́

almennum grunnskólum. [Special education in mainstream schools.] Reykjavı́k, Iceland:

Menntasvið Reykjavı́kur. Tryggingarstofnun rı́kisins [State Social Security Institute]. (2012). Greiðslur til foreldra

fatlaðra barna [Payments to families of children with disabilities]. Retrieved from http:// www.tr.is/spurt-og-svarad/umonnunarmat/. Accessed on February 22, 2014.

UNESCO. (1990). World declaration on education for all and framework for action to meet basic

learning needs. Adopted by the World Conference on Education for All, Meeting Basic

Learning Needs, Jomtien, Thailand, 5�9 March. Paris, France: UNESCO. UNESCO. (1994). Final report. World conference on special needs education: Access and

quality. Salamanca, Spain, 7�10 June. UNESCO and the Ministry of Education and Science, Spain.

UNESCO. (2000). The dakar Framework for Action. Education for all: Meeting our collective

commitments. Adopted by the World Education Forum, Dakar, Senegal, 26�28 April. Paris, France: UNESCO.

United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York, NY: Author.

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=12&pid=150. Accessed on February 22, 2014.

WHO. (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Geneva,

Switzerland: World Health Organisation.

309Special Education Today in Iceland

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.hagstofa.is/?PageID=2604&src=https://rannsokn.hagstofa.is/pxis/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=SKO02107%26ti=Nemendur+sem+nj%F3ta+s%E9rkennslu+e%F0a+stu%F0nings+2004%2D2013+++%26path=

/Database/skolamal/gsNemendur/%26lang=3%26units=Fj%F6ldi/hlutfall

http://www.tr.is/spurt-og-svarad/umonnunarmat/

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=12&pid=150

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

UKRAINE

Alla Kolupayeva, Oksana Taranchenko and

Elyana Danilavichute

ABSTRACT

Special education today in the Ukraine is dramatically different than its early origins which stressed communal guardianship for persons with dis- abilities to its current movement to inclusive education. The journey to inclusive education was inconsistent due to a variety of elements such as the collapse of the Russian Monarchy, a series of different governments and social-political structures, World War II and membership in the USSR which stressed a unification of the education system. However, special education professionals who worked at the Special Education Pedagogy Institute of the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences continued to research and develop a philosophical instructional frame- work to educate students with disabilities that includes theoretical and practical aspects of inclusive education. This chapter provides a detailed description of this framework as well as prevalence and school place- ments aspects, classification and assessment parameters, and the impact of legislation for free public education. The chapter concludes with chal- lenges to inclusive education such as attitude modification, infusing

Special Education International Perspectives: Practices Across the Globe

Advances in Special Education, Volume 28, 311�351 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0270-4013/doi:10.1108/S0270-401320140000028017

311

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/S0270-401320140000028017

necessary teacher instructional strategies, and the incorporation of best practices from special education to regular education settings.

INTRODUCTION

Ukraine is country in Central Eastern Europe that is located in the south- eastern part of East European Plain. It has a population a little over 45 million. Until 1991, it was a part of the Soviet Union as one of the 15 Republics. In Ukraine, special education teaching had been in existence for a long time. During the early periods individual ideas and concepts emerged and then disappeared to reappear again in new forms. Eventually, these ideas and concepts grew into an independent field of special educa- tional practice and academic research. As this independent field grew, learning institutions, special schools and a formal special education system for persons with disabilities evolved in Ukraine. It should be noted that the evolvement of this special education system was a controversial process that followed diverse societal trends.

As in other countries, the education of persons with disabilities in Ukraine has developed as a result of an evolutionary process � from unconnected attempts at individual instruction, to group instruction, and later to separate learning institutions. For centuries the specific nature of the development of the education system for persons with disabilities in Ukraine was defined by the complicated history of the Ukrainian people and its struggle against enslavement, oppression, purges, imperialistic inva- sions by neighboring countries, and overcoming internal disunity (both social and territorial) through its territory being divided up between other states (Poland, Lithuania, Austria-Hungary, Moldovia, Russia, USSR).

Several distinct stages may be distinguished in the formation of a special education system for the education of persons with disabilities in Ukraine:

• Stage I (10th�first half of the 19th century) � establishment of church charity structures that operated as institutions under churches and monasteries.

• Stage II (first half of the 19th�early 20th century) � philanthropy and the first private institutions for different categories of children with disabilities.

• Stage III (till 1930s) � the regulatory framework was developed and structures established to create an education system for people with dis- abilities; assessment approaches were formalized as well as the relevant

312 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

screening practices to identify children and place them in different types of school.

• Stage IV (1930s�1950s) � the unification of the education systems in the USSR; institutionalization of a separate special education system for per- sons with disabilities and special needs; theoretical rationalization of seg- regated schooling for children with different types of disabilities and special needs; practical implementation of this approach in different types of school.

• Stage V (1950s�1990s): improvement and growth of the special school network; research-based refining of approaches to reflect advancements in science and technology.

• Stage VI (1990s � present): the development of the national education system; reconsideration of conceptual approaches to the education of persons with disabilities and special needs taking into account interna- tional legislation and social changes in the country; implementation of inclusive practices.

EARLY ORIGINS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

Communal Guardianship for Persons with Disabilities

In pre-Christian times pagan Slavs showed tolerance toward persons with disorders or injuries. At the end of the 10th century, a system of church- based charities began to emerge in the Kievan Rus’,

1 then an influential

European power. The state laws defined the groups of persons in need of help and those obligated to care for them. The adoption of Christianity in AD 988 with the extensive building of temples, churches, and monasteries started the age of charity work for persons with disabilities, which was institutionalized and regulated by the national legislation of the time. The monasteries maintained special institutions that provided care to such per- sons and, additionally, taught them basic literacy and handicrafts. Thus, as evidenced by historic and archive records, in the Kievan Rus’ children with disabilities were surrounded by the atmosphere of care and sympathy.

To a large extent the evolution of teaching ideas and education in Ukraine was influenced by the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the humanist ideas of the Enlightenment. This closely intertwined with the for- mation of cultural and ethnic solidarity, raising to a new level the self- awareness of the Ukrainian people as a distinct nation and reaffirming

313Special Education Today in Ukraine

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 uniqueness of its model for the education of the younger generation. In the 16th century literacy became more or less universal in the Ukrainian lands. Schools had orphanages attached to them for orphans and children with various disabilities under the patronage of the community (Taranchenko, 2013).

During the 17th and 18th centuries, with the strengthening of secular authorities, another form of care became widespread, which was provided by the state, alongside church-based care and private charities. The Agency for Poorhouse Construction, founded in 1670, oversaw these institutions that became homes for old people with physical disabilities and children. Some of them had special divisions that served orphaned children, blind children, deaf-mute children, and others together, where they were observed and studied, taught basic work skills, and skills for independent living in the community (Taranchenko, 2013).

At the end of the 18th century to the beginning of the 19th century insti- tutions and departments appeared that were directly responsible for charity work, as a new phenomenon in the evolution of social guardianship in the Russian Empire. The first and the most influential was the Office for Empress Maria’s Institutions which oversaw virtually all social care institu- tions in the country: hospitals, schools, shelters, asylums, poorhouses, etc. (in the late 1890s there were almost 300 charitable societies and institu- tions). Ninety-eight percent of school-age children did not receive any education in the Russian Empire (Siropolko, 2001; Taranchenko, 2013). For this reason (lack of a compulsory education system) and the existing social, political, and economic situation, the country had no edu- cational network for persons with hearing, visual, mental, and other disabilities.

First Private Institutions for Different Categories of Children with Disabilities

From the start of the 19th century, riding on a tide of enthusiasm for edu- cation in Ukraine, physicians, teachers, and public leaders increasingly paid more attention to the education of persons with disabilities. Segregated private schools were founded for deaf-and-blind children, and those with intellectual disabilities (10 schools for persons with hearing dis- abilities, 6 for children with visual disabilities) which followed a rather pro- gressive instructional approach, matching western European practices. For example, some schools had pre-school units, offered well-organized

314 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

vocational training programs, and applied the latest teaching methods. The instructional process was founded on the principles of nature-aligned edu- cation, continuity of teaching and learning (beginning from pre-school age), and drew on the individual characteristics of children to guide the selection of relevant teaching strategies. For instance, schools for children with hearing disabilities, in spite of the predominant speech-based instruction, used other modes of communication (sign language, finger- spelling) at the initial stages and when necessary to facilitate learning and create a supportive and natural environment for children (Kulbida, 2010; Taranchenko, 2007). Ukrainian schools were organized according to a family pattern: life and learning at school were structured in such a way as to help students acquire a broad range of skills for independent living in a wider community. Ukrainian teachers believed that the main purpose of schooling was to prepare people with disabilities for independent life in the community, and therefore, in addition to academic targets, they paid a lot of attention to their vocational training. This added a unique flavor to Ukrainian special education. The growing number of schools for persons with disabilities and the broader range of disabilities they served created the need to differentiate the student body. In the 19th century medical and educational professionals made considerable efforts to organize a system of education for persons with disabilities and carried out theoretical research and field studies to explore specific teaching approaches for different cate- gories of children. The cohort of academics and practitioners engaged in the discussion of various issues related to assessment, teaching and learn- ing, character building and socialization of children with developmental disorders included names that are now famous in Ukrainian education circles as well as, in some cases, internationally: Tarasevych (1922), Vladimirskyi (1922a, 1922b), Kashchenko (1910, 1912), Sikorskyi (1904), Maltsev (1902, 1910), Vetukhov (1901), Grabarov (1928), Leiko (1906), Sokolyanskyi (1925), Shcherbyna (1916), and others.

Regulatory Formalization of Education for Persons with Disabilities

After the collapse of the Russian monarchy in 1917, Ukraine had a number of different government and social-political structures (Central Council (Tsentralna Rada), Hetmanat, Western Ukrainian People’s Republic (ZUNR), Directorate, Communist Party of Ukraine, Soviet government). In 1919 the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic adopted a number of national policies (decrees) on

315Special Education Today in Ukraine

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

organizing public education in the Republic. According to these decrees, schools for children with disabilities became a part of the general state system of public education. Obviously, the turbulent politics and social hardships had an adverse effect on the existing schools for persons with disabilities. Moreover, some of these schools had to close down due to the lack of funding, staff, etc. The difficult social, economic, and political situa- tion continued to persist (lack of social stability for people to return to nor- mal life, warfare, destruction of infrastructure, hunger, and repressions). During this period, the number of homeless children and orphans went up to 1.5 million (Likarchuk, 2002; Taranchenko, 2007).

At the same time, it should be noted that during that brief period of national independence from 1917 and in the 1920s, the national system of education acquired its theoretical and teaching framework, which was based on democratic principles, and domestic and international best prac- tice. This became possible because of the administrative autonomy that Ukraine enjoyed for some time in education matters (Ukrainian and Russian education policies were not associated with each other).

The structures and working protocols of the education system for per- sons with disabilities were formalized in the regulatory act “Declaration of the Social Education Subdivision” of 1920 (People’s Commissariat of Education of USSR, 1922). The directives in this act were research-based, humanistic, underpinned by the concept of children’s rights and in tune with the most provisions of modern education laws and regulations, which indicates the advanced professional knowledge and progressive views of the Ukrainian developers of this policy. The Declaration stipu- lated that best practice from the assessment services (monitoring and placement offices) were to be disseminated across the republic and incor- porated into the education system for persons with disabilities. They were an early prototype of the Psychology, Medical, and Pedagogical Consultations (PMPC) and support services that continue to the present day and are described in greater detail below. Ukrainian academics and practicing teachers gave the highest priority to the organization of educa- tion for children and youth with disabilities such as: the need to ensure compulsory universal pre-school education; differentiation of children and setting up separate schools for each category; creating specialized assessment institutes; forming special education departments at universi- ties and founding institutes for teacher training; ensuring the continuity of education and adequate medical services; providing vocational training to youth with disabilities and creating vocational training schools for them.

316 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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 1 gives a brief statistical overview of the school network estab- lished for children with disabilities (i.e., “defective children” or “defective childhood” according to the terminology of the day) in 1924.

Development of Differential Diagnosis and Educational Intervention

The key question during those years was how to identify “defective” chil- dren and study the nature and pattern of their development, how to explore ways of providing social, medical, pedagogical, and psychological support. In addition, research in medicine, psychology, and pedagogy boosted the advancement of the new academic field of pedology (child development) that encompassed a multitude of teaching, psychological, medical, and social issues and combined different areas of study. In the 1920s, pedology became the dominant experimental science about the child. It drew on the theories of Decroly, Dewey, Montessori, Lay, Meumann, Key and laid the foundations for further pedagogical research by Ukrainian scholars and teachers (Vladymyrskyi, Zaluzhnyi, Makarenko, Protopopov, Rusova, Sokolyanskyi, Tarasevich, Chepiga, and others), who were inspired by the concept of progressive education. These ideas were the most conducive ones to create supportive settings to facilitate learning and the all-round development of children with disabilities.

Of particular interest are studies that explored approaches to the classifi- cation of children with disabilities. The first publications on this issue had a significant impact, and the titles and content of the articles reflect the think- ing of the time: “Classification of defective children” (Tarasevych, 1922), “Defective individual in the context of social education” (Vladimirskyi, 1922a), “Person in the general change of events” (Vladimirskyi, 1922b).

Table 1. Schools for Children with Various Impairments and Student Numbers in 1924.

No. Category Number of

Schools

Number of Children

in Those Schools

1. Juvenile offenders (or “morally defective” according

to the accepted terminology of the time)

17 534

2. Children with intellectual disabilities 11 440

3. Deaf-mute children 9 525

4. Blind children 6 224

Total 43 1,723

317Special Education Today in Ukraine

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 new approach to the classification of children with disabilities was pro- posed by Tarasevych (1922), reflecting his long-term studies. He assumed that children with deficiencies in psychological and/or physical development make up the group of “defective children.” In his view, the group also includes children without any disabilities, but with specific traits in their psychological-physical organization or health conditions which impede a per- son’s development. Tarasevych emphasized in particular that different types of disability were not equivalent socially and pedagogically. Based on this, Tarasevych identified three groups of “defective” children: children with phy- sical disabilities, children with sensory disabilities; and children with neurop- sychic disabilities. Even before the theoretical reasoning by Vygotsky (1924), he deliberated on secondary manifestations of disabilities and the range of factors that complicate the disability pattern. In Tarasevych’s view, the diver- sity of the types of neuropsychological disorder depends on a number of complicating factors (adverse environment, upbringing, various health condi- tions, etc.). Recognizing the dependency of different types of primary neu- ropsychological disorder on the localization, nature, and degree of organic disorders in neuropsychological domain, he distinguished, specifically regard- ing intellect, four degrees of disability of increasing severity. He argued per- suasively that a delay or disorder in mental development had different causes and discriminated between children with mental disabilities, educationally neglected children and children with developmental delays caused by various unstable conditions which manifested themselves at an early age and influ- enced the child’s development (Tarasevych).

According to Tarasevych (1922), the purpose of educational and psycho- logical assessment is to identify the causes of the disability that is the pri- mary disorder responsible for the disability. Thus assessment might involve a medical and psychological examination of the child as well as a review of his/her prior experiences and family background. This assessment data would subsequently be used to select appropriate educational approaches and instructional strategies for such children. He also believed that in selecting learning content and instructional strategies it was essential to differentiate secondary symptoms, which are due to adverse effects of the surrounding environment and poor education, and the primary disorder caused by congenital or acquired organic disorders. This idea formulated by Tarasevych became fundamental for implementing differential assess- ment, designing research into different types of disabilities, and in selecting educational intervention strategies.

Tarasevych (1922) also stressed the significant diversity within each category of children with disabilities. He postulated that an individual’s

318 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

psychological constitution, the structure of disorder within the intellectual, psychic, and education development will be different in each individual case and, consequently, different educational interventions may be required to compensate for the disability of a particular child; likewise, the prog- nosis for further development may vary from one child to another.

These insights into the role of different factors in the structure of the dis- order and how they influence child’s development, enabled Tarasevych (1923) to suggest specific approaches to teaching and learning, and formu- late the goal, objectives, and methods of special education. The above con- cepts are also present in later research conducted by other academics. For example, they are reflected in Boskis’ (1959) thinking, specifically in her psychological-pedagogical classification of children with hearing disabilities that is described in more detail below.

Another noteworthy piece of research during the same period is that of Vladimirskyi (1922a, 1927), who also emphasized the need for a compre- hensive study of disabilities. In particular, he pointed out that “defective- ness” in a person is conditioned by quantitative and/or qualitative deficits in their experience, which becomes incomplete or distorted in nature. Hence, it is necessary to study a child thoroughly and in every aspect, com- pare his/her performance with the data about inherited and acquired experiences, determine what was missing in their past experience in order to gradually fill this gap in the course of education. So, academics and practitioners focused on studying the child with a disability and their social environment in order to influence the child’s experience and transform that environment to support his/her development (Sokolyanskyi, 1928a, 1928b; Tarasevych, 1927, 1929; Vladimirskyi, 1927).

The main functions of the medical and pedagogical offices included a review of child’s medical history data, clinical assessments, examination of the central nervous system, physical development, etc. During that time the first attempts were made to determine biological, constitutional, psycholo- gical and social factors at the heart of a child’s disability and to design therapies and teaching strategies to influence these factors.

The works by Ukrainian researchers published during that time period underlined the need to start medical and pedagogical preventive measures and special education interventions from an early age. They presented find- ings from experimental research involving clinical studies of children with intellectual and psychological disabilities; considered the issues of etiology and anatomic-morphological disorders that cause mental retardation. Based on these findings the authors generally concluded that mental retar- dation is a typical, but not the only, feature of impaired psychological

319Special Education Today in Ukraine

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 of a child with the respective disability. They went on to state that a central nervous system disorder, being the cause of mental retarda- tion, quite often affects the sensory-motor mechanisms of mental activity, as well as the emotional and volitional sphere.

In research, priority was given to somatic-neurological, psychological, and pedagogical aspects to identify the patterns of a child’s psychological development; explore and record the specific features of the disability and compensatory abilities of a child with mental retardation. They indicated the need to study children with intellectual disabilities in the dynamics of their development as part of teaching and learning, which is vital for under- standing individual differences. These ideas were fundamental for con- structing a research-based framework for the new education system and for designing the curriculum and a new set of teaching approaches for students in special schools for children with intellectual disabilities.

In 1921 two instructors from the Kharkiv School for the Blind � Przhyborovska and Slyeptsov � created a Ukrainian version of Braille’s point ABC that made it possible for children to learn in their mother ton- gue. The leading Ukrainian experts in the education of blind children (Leiko, 1901, 1906, 1908; Shcherbyna, 1927; Sokolyanskyi, 1928a, 1928b; and others) developed teaching strategies for different groups of students with visual disabilities (including deaf-and-blind children).

In their efforts to ensure that children with mental and physical disabil- ities received specific training to prepare them for independent life in the community and provide them with the necessary social skills, Ukrainian academics initiated a wide-ranging program of theoretical and methodolo- gical studies to look into the general patterns and peculiarities of a child’s development. These studies were conducted by the employees of medical and pedagogical offices. To this end they were gathering and analyzing data on the mental and physical development of children, exploring various educational intervention strategies that helped master the school curricu- lum and acquire practical skills. Every potential candidate for placement in a special school underwent the assessment process. For this purpose, medi- cal and pedagogical offices designed tools for medical, psychological, and pedagogical assessment.

In the 1920s, a distinctive assessment network was established in Ukraine, consisting of medical and pedagogical units, observation and pla- cement offices, special collector institutions, medical and pedagogical offices, and research and pedological centers. The network operated all over the republic and became an integral element in the structure of the national education system for persons with disabilities. It may be described

320 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

as the prototype of the contemporary support services provided to students with disabilities in schools. At that time, the network performed all the relevant functions: statistical recording; assessment (both short-term and long-term in specially organized classrooms and schools); research; consul- tation and advice (for parents, regular and special school teachers); profes- sional training and awareness-raising (arranging training courses, practical internships, conferences and seminars); design of research-based guidelines and curriculum materials, diagnostic tests and techniques (e.g., related to occupational guidance); development of integrated initiatives, psychologi- cal and didactic principles of comprehensive education for urban and rural schools (separately); study of children’s groups, etc. In addition, Ukrainian scholars and practitioners experimented with placing children with disabil- ities in the same classrooms with their typically developing peers in regular schools (although society was not yet ready for it). Methodological guide- lines were developed for regular school teachers to equip them with specific strategies and techniques that are effective with students with disabilities. The achievements of this network later made it possible to differentiate within and further expand the regular education system and the system of education for persons with disabilities as a separate part of it. This is evi- dence of a quite original and progressive approach to establishing a national system for the education of persons with disabilities at that time and demonstrates the novel way of thinking within the cohort of Ukrainian scholars (Vladymyrskyi, Grabarov, Sokolyanskyi, Tarasevych, Sikorskyi, Kaschenko, Leiko, and many others).

At the center of the Ukrainian education system was the idea of social education for children from 4 to 15 years of age. This approach was based on the increasing influence of the community on the child’s life. It included healthcare provision, and education and character development in the course of academic learning that was combined with extra-curricular activ- ities. This model was underpinned by national traditions and relied on the use of best national and international educational practice in schools. A children’s community was envisioned as the main type of learning setting for children (this format of “social education” was chosen specifically to address the pressing issue of homeless and orphaned children). Such a com- munity would combine different types of learning and extra-curricular facilities under one roof (pre-school, school, and extra-curricular center). The plan was to provide social education not just to orphans, but to cover all children, including those with disabilities. The existing institutions for children with disabilities were in fact implementing this model in practice, so they were to be smoothly integrated into this new system. This period

321Special Education Today in Ukraine

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

was crucial for establishing the regulatory framework for education. Following the Resolution “On introducing compulsory universal primary education in Ukraine” adopted by the Central Committee of the Communist Party in 1930, universal compulsory education became a legal norm. In 1931 the People’s Commissariat for Education of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic passed the Resolution “On introducing compul- sory universal education for children and adolescents with physical defects, mental retardation and speech defects” (1931).

At the start of the 1930�1931 school year, Ukraine had 25 special schools for children with mental disabilities including: 6 special non- residential schools, 17 special boarding schools; 2 children’s communities (4,470 children) and 1 pre-school for children with speech disabilities (the school only opened in 1937, since before that speech disabilities were addressed through a clinical approach and fell under the responsibility of professionals with medical qualifications, while the psychological and peda- gogical dimensions of speech support were just emerging). In total, 7,628 children aged between 6 and 13 were identified as having hearing disabil- ities, while only 1,100 of them were receiving education (Likarchuk, 2002; Siropolko, 2001; Taranchenko, 2013). In 1932, that number increased to 8,400, and 24 schools served 1,445 students (including segregated class- rooms in regular schools). Children with visual disabilities were placed at special boarding schools for the blind or separate classrooms in regular schools (see Table 2).

During that time, the unification of the education system was underway in the USSR which marked the transition to the administrative command methods in education management, led to its final centralization and set a new course � toward a Soviet education system where all teaching and learning was indoctrinated with Soviet ideology. In those years and later the majority of Ukrainian scholars were declared “enemies of the people” (on various charges) and their works were destroyed as “anti-Soviet.” As a consequence, their ideas and know-how regarding differential assessment, specific teaching and learning strategies for different age groups of persons with disabilities were practically rejected; the prototype of the service

Table 2. Schools for Children with Visual Disabilities, 1932�1937. 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937

Special boarding schools 5 12 14 16 18 21

Segregated classrooms 39 95 114 133 141 175

322 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

network (medical offices, collector institutions, etc.) that existed only in Ukraine and offered support to children with disabilities in the course of their education was undermined; academic and experimental research cen- ters that designed and piloted new tools and models, provided training and professional development to teachers were closed down. The policy paper “The second five-year plan: targets for defective childhood” (Direktyvy VKP(b) (Directives of the All-Union Communist Party), 1932) was adopted as a supplement to the Resolution “On introducing compulsory universal education for children and adolescents with physical defects, men- tal retardation and speech defects” passed by the People’s Commissariat for Education in 1931. It laid down the directions for special education teaching and the education system for children with disabilities in the Ukrainian USSR. This policy identified the Moscow Defectology Institute as the single authority in the field with the responsibility to design the theo- retical framework for the education of this group of children. Since all poli- cies of that level were construed as absolute commands, and given rather serious difficulties at the Ukrainian Institute of Physical Defectiveness in 1930s (that was later shut down), it was the academics from the Moscow Research Institute of Defectology who initiated studies into the develop- ment and education of children with disabilities (Direktyvy VKP (b) (Directives of the All-Union Communist Party), 1932).

The period between 1930 and 1941 saw the introduction of compulsory primary education and universal seven-year basic education. Universal compulsory education for children with hearing and visual disabilities was to be provided through the expanding network of special schools with increasing student numbers, the creation of separate schools for children and adolescents who were deaf, blind, had other hearing and visual disabil- ities (letter of instruction from the People’s Commissariat for Education of the Ukrainian SSR dated April 1934 “On expanding the network of schools for persons with physical defects, mental retardation and speech disorders in 1934 in the view of universal compulsory education for defective children”).

The years of the third five-year plan (1938�1942) were about preparing for and surviving the Second World War. The greater part of the national budget was channeled to the needs of the army, whereas education was funded residually and mostly from local budgets. Still, the school network continued to grow:

• During 1937�1938 Ukraine had 49 schools for children with hearing dis- abilities (5,281 students); 82 literacy schools were run for illiterate youth

323Special Education Today in Ukraine

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

with hearing disabilities; 1 school for children with speech disabilities (100 students);

• In 1940 there were 65 schools for deaf children, 1 school for children with hearing disabilities (who became deaf from an older age) serving the total student body of 8,145; 4 schools for deaf-mute children had class- rooms for students who lost their hearing at an older age;

• In 1941 the number of schools grew further to 83 schools for deaf chil- dren (9,419 students), 1 school for children with hearing disabilities (182 students), 3 pre-school children’s communities (200 children), 93 schools for adults (3,000 persons), 17 schools for blind children (957 students), 1 school for children with visual disabilities (182 students), 3 schools for children with speech disabilities (251 students), 4 schools for children with behavior problems (578 students).

During this period, Boskis (1959, 1969, 1972) and her team conducted research into psychological and physical development of children with hearing disabilities to design a new didactic model for their special educa- tion. Between 1920 and 1930, Boskis worked at the Jewish school for deaf- mute children (from 1931 � at the Institute for Experimental Research in Defectology under the People’s Commissariat for Education of the RSFSR; from 1944 � at the Defectology Research Institute of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR). She had extensive experi- ence of observing and teaching diverse groups of students with hearing dis- abilities at that stage of her academic career in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. This enabled her to learn about the latest methods designed by the leading assessment and audiology experts, take part in the meetings of Ukrainian hearing specialists (Tarasevych, Sokolyanskyi, Vladymyrskyi, and others). This professional background prompted her interest in creating a pedagogical classification of children with hearing dis- abilities who were at the heart of her research. Considering that the major- ity of works authored by Ukrainian researchers were not published for ideological reasons, it was the Boskis (1972) classification that eventually became accepted and further promoted (Marochko & Hillig, 2003).

The pedagogical typology of children with hearing disabilities suggested by Boskis (1972) was based on certain general assumptions that describe peculiarities in the development of a child with impaired sensory receptors. She argued that in the case of a partial defect, in order to determine the nature and structure of development it is first of all necessary to: discrimi- nate the norm from pathology; differentiate between total and partial defects; identify the unique secondary anomalies with impaired receptor

324 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

partially functioning; study the conditions that determine peculiarities in the abnormal development of functions impaired at the secondary level; identify the techniques to help compensate for and adjust to the defect that may be applied to different forms of partial hearing disability; design tools to assess secondary defects as opposed to similar primary defects; etc. (Boskis, 1959, 1969, 1972). These principles made it possible to describe a category of children with partial loss of hearing (or hard-of-hearing).

With speech being the closest function dependent on the auditory analy- zer, all studies on the development of the hard-of-hearing led by Boskis (1959) took into account the interaction between hearing and speech. She noted that impairments in speech development in a child caused by a hear- ing disability can be observed even with a hearing loss of 15�20 dB. Hence, it was suggested to use this measure as a conventional boundary between a hearing disability and normal hearing in a child. Using it to assess a hearing disability (the capacity for speech development with the respective degree of hearing) helped to find a solution to another problem � how to draw a line between deafness and significant loss of hearing in order to provide differentiated instruction for children. As the same time, Boskis (1969) observed that speech development depends not just on the degree of the primary disorder, but on a number of other factors as well: the age when hearing became impaired, the pedagogical environ- ment created for the child after the impairment occurred, and his/her indi- vidual peculiarities. Taking all these other factors into account, a clear differentiation was made within deaf and hard-of-hearing groups to ensure an appropriate pedagogical environment and specially organized instruc- tion. Deaf children were divided into two categories:

1. deaf children with no speech (who lost their hearing at early age) who lost their hearing at an early age and did not acquire any speech skills;

2. deaf children with speech preserved (who lost their hearing at a later age).

Two categories for children with partial hearing disabilities were proposed:

1. hard-of-hearing children with well-developed speech and minor speech shortcomings;

2. hard-of-hearing children with serious impairments in speech development.

Boskis (1972) suggested a conceptually new definition of the term “hard-of- hearing children.”

325Special Education Today in Ukraine

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

This psychological and pedagogical research revealed the dialectic inter- action between biological and social factors in the development of child’s psyche. At the most fundamental level, it confirmed the importance of spe- cial speech instruction as a key factor for providing relevant developmental interventions in this category of children, helping them master the basics of sciences and live full lives in their communities. This research laid a theore- tical foundation for further exploration of issues related to special educa- tion of children with partial hearing disabilities in the decades to come.

However, this period was also marked by a clash of theoretical views on the differentiation of children with hearing and speech disabilities. Over a period of 15 years, and simultaneously with Boskis’ (1959, 1969, 1972) research, Shklovskyi (1938, 1939) was establishing his theory of cortical deafness with the central assumption that many children with hearing dis- abilities have a cortical brain dysfunction. He argued that in all cases when hearing loss is combined with a profound speech disorder it was not just a loss of hearing, but a separate kind of disorder, whereby the hearing dis- ability is the result of a cerebral lesion that disturbs the normal functioning of the cerebral cortex in auditory-and-speech areas. Shklovskyi (1939) named this disorder “combined auditory-and-speech lesions.” He con- tended that a previously unknown category of children had been discovered and “brought through from their practically deaf-mute condition.” Based on this theory, he created a distinct classification of persons with hearing disabilities that was actively promoted within the educational practice of educating children with hearing impairments and in the system of schools for children with disabilities.

Even a new type of school was created for children “brought through from their practically deaf-mute condition” (which existed for several years). Thus, deaf-mute children, children with late deafness, partial hear- ing loss, and other disabilities were placed in the same classrooms. This practice impeded the differentiation of schools and led to confusion among teachers and education authorities. However, the efforts to restore the dif- ferentiated system of schools for persons with hearing disabilities persisted. Eventually, the truth of Boskis’ (1959) views was officially recognized and Shklovskyi’s (1939) theory refuted as invalid. Thus, the system of special schools for children with hearing disabilities relied on the psychological and pedagogical typology of persons with hearing disabilities designed by Boskis. Policies adopted at this stage enabled a clearer definition of cate- gories and groups of children with hearing and speech disabilities. In addi- tion to the categories of children with hearing disabilities in Boskis’ typology, children with combined hearing and speech disabilities

326 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

(combination of hearing disabilities with aphasia) were isolated in a sepa- rate group. Based on this classification, schools for children with speech disabilities served children with aphasia, stutter (when they could not attend regular schools) and other severe speech disabilities.

The final stages of introducing universal education and the further devel- opment of differentiated schooling for persons with disabilities were halted by the Second World War. This war became an immense disaster for the Ukrainian people (in 1945 the population of the Ukrainian SSR was esti- mated at 27.4 million people compared to 41.7 million in 1941) and inflicted grave economic damage (Petrovskyi, Radchenko, & Semenenko, 2007). Still, once Ukrainian territory was taken back, the network of spe- cial schools began its gradual renewal.

In those years, the Ministry of Education of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic obliged local departments of people’s education to com- plete the implementation of universal compulsory education for children with disabilities. The resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian SSR “On measures to provide universal education for children with hearing, speech, vision and mental disorders” (1950) and other policies specified the types of schools for children with disabilities. Also, they set out a streamlined system of schools that was supposed to provide educa- tion separately to groups of students differentiated according to the nature of their disabilities and ensure the continuity of such education (these levels of schooling, i.e., primary, lower, and upper secondary, exist to this day).

After Stalin died in 1953, Ukrainian society experienced certain trends toward liberalization touching upon all aspects of Soviet society. In addi- tion, the scientific and technical revolution that was getting underway required a transformation in the economy, hence the need for skilled work- ers and better qualified mid-level staff, which called for reforms in educa- tion. Yet, contrary to the liberalization process, Moscow maintained its control over practically all spheres including scientific research (in 1955 the Ukrainian Defectology Research Institute was closed down, which affected the progress of Ukrainian special pedagogy).

However, even under these circumstances steps were made (a series of orders and resolutions issued at the government and departmental levels) to improve the education system for persons with disabilities. In the 1950s, the network of schools for different categories of persons with disabilities expanded considerably; there was further differentiation; special classrooms were organized in factory apprenticeship schools; special pre-schools opened and segregated classrooms for different categories of children with disabilities were established at regular pre-schools. This growth is illustrated

327Special Education Today in Ukraine

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 Table 3 using the schools for children with visual disabilities as an example.

Similarly, positive dynamics were observed in the network of schools and pre-schools for children with hearing disabilities:

• school year 1952�1953 � 50 schools (6,231 students); • school year 1953�1954 � 55 schools (7,328 students); • school year 1954�1955 � 63 schools for deaf children, 2 for hard-of-

hearing children (with a total of 7,155 students); • school year 1966�1967 � 56 pre-school classrooms at 19 boarding

schools (674 children), 10 schools for hard-of-hearing children (1,500 stu- dents), 35 schools for deaf children (5,600 students) (Taranchenko, 2013).

In the late 1950s, special classrooms appeared at vocational schools and special schools to train students with disabilities who, on the completion of such training, went into jobs at enterprises run by the deaf society or the blind society. Steps were taken to further enlarge the vocational training system. Special vocational schools for persons with disabilities were estab- lished under the Ministry of Social Welfare and special classrooms were organized at regular vocational schools. So, it may be said that in the early 1960s the right of persons with disabilities to vocational education, special secondary education and higher education was enshrined at the legislative level and implemented in practice. The first such classroom for persons with hearing disabilities opened at the Kyiv Training School for Light Industry in 1958. A year after a similar classroom was created at the Kharkiv School of Engineering and at the School for Mechanical Wood Processing in Zhytomyr in 1960.

Table 3. The Network of Schools for Children with Visual Disabilities, 1955�1961.

School Year Total

Schools for blind children

1955�1956 14 (1,075 students) 1959�1960 8 (894 students) 1960�1961 8 (904 students)

Schools for partially sighted children

1955�1956 4 (355 students) 1959�1960 6 (559 students) 1960�1961 6 (721 students)

328 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

Advancements in Special Education Teaching and Legislative Directives (1960�1990)

The period between the 1960s and 1990s was marked by significant chal- lenges in the development of Ukrainian special education teaching even though there were restrictions in the selection of research themes and quotas placed on degree candidates and doctoral theses. Nevertheless, this period saw advancements in special education. Ukrainian researchers and practitioners drafted a policy framework for special schools (the “Provision on special schools for children with different developmental disorders,” curricula, syllabi, etc.) to ensure sustained teaching and learning process in these settings. Basic sets of teaching and learning materials were designed (textbooks, teacher’s guides, other teaching and learning aids). During these years the majority of persons with disabilities of all age groups were covered by special school and pre-school services (Taranchenko, 2013).

The decades of 1970s�1980s witnessed continued encroachment on the national interests of Ukraine from the central authorities and increasing government centralization. The Ukrainian SSR became a large field for uncontrolled initiatives by central institutions against the background of a growing economic and social crisis. During this period, the first steps were made to draft new education legislation. In 1973 the new law “On approv- ing the fundamental principles for the legislation if the USSR and the Union Republics regarding people’s education” (1973) laid down the basic principles and objectives for the public education system. For example, this law stipulated that special schools and boarding schools were to provide their students with appropriate education, therapy and training for socially useful work. In 1974 the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian SSR passed the corresponding Law of the Ukrainian SSR “On People’s Education.” It envisaged creating special pre-schools for children with disabilities and spe- cified the respective staffing and class-size policies. It also contained provi- sions on establishing special evening schools and correspondence schools for persons with disabilities who were employed in the national economy and special classrooms at regular schools (for working young people). In addition, in the 1970s higher education institutions resumed the practice of providing separate group instruction for persons with disabilities.

One of the most pressing problems in the 1970s�1980s (and, in fact, during the following decade) was the quality of education actually provided to most students with hearing disabilities during their 10�12 years of spe- cial school. When they graduated, at the age of 19 years as a minimum, their knowledge and skills were just at the lower secondary level. This

329Special Education Today in Ukraine

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

hampered their transition to active working life. Consequently, some of them dropped out after the end of primary education. Often special school graduates had inadequate levels of general and speech development and lacked the skills to proceed to vocational training and continue their educa- tion at evening classes organized at special or regular schools or vocational schools which, in addition to vocation training, also taught the upper sec- ondary curriculum. This created a challenge for researchers to find ways to significantly improve the attainment levels of special school students. To respond to these challenges, a number of measures were suggested that included improving school practices and creating opportunities to provide complete secondary education in the following couple of years. The pro- posed strategy for special schools was to continue to operate as a unique learning setting, taking into account the peculiarities of students with dis- abilities rather than copying the respective stages of regular school educa- tion. The transition to compulsory universal secondary education required substantial improvements in the educational content offered to students with visual disabilities, hearing disabilities, mobility problems, and speech and language disabilities (Taranchenko, 2013).

In the early 1980s, the Ukrainian SSR entered a new stage of social, political and economic development, initiated by the spread of democratic ideas in society. These trends were directly relevant to pedagogical science and the education system that, too, embarked on a new phase of develop- ment. These years were characterized by the school reform that started in practically all developed countries (which moved into post-industrial socie- ties). The USSR also had to launch a period of reform, since the disparities in the education levels of the population and scientific advances between the Western world and the “country of full-fledged socialism” were quite obvious.

On the whole, the evolution of the special education system to serve per- sons with disabilities during the Soviet period may be described as compli- cated and quite controversial, since it was happening in a closed and authoritarian society. The growth of the special school network and the dif- ferentiation of educational services for persons with disabilities were very slow; and in fact during this period it became a closed system with some partial integration observed in vocational and tertiary education. The gov- ernment policy and the economic system of the USSR based on administra- tive command and central planning held back the progress of Ukrainian special education, which could have worked as a catalyst and driving force for the evolution of the education system for persons with disabilities during that period.

330 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

From Totalitarianism to Inclusion: Toward Irreversible Progressive Changes in Education

The disintegration of the Soviet empire, of which Ukraine was a part up to 1991, and the fall of the totalitarian communist regime have led to a gra- dual value shift within the Ukrainian state. It began to reconsider its view of human rights, children’s rights, and the rights of persons with disabil- ities. This reconsideration laid the foundation for a new social philosophy were the Ukraine citizens accept holistic approaches to social relationships, acknowledge the rights of minorities, including the rights of persons with disabilities.

After gaining independence, Ukraine declared that it recognized the key international legal instruments regarding persons with disabilities. However, national policy is still largely compensatory in nature and mainly focuses on providing some small financial assistance and services. Until recently, making actual changes to various aspects of life to meet the needs of persons with disabilities and enable their successful integration into the community wasn’t formulated as an objective.

Both the general public and the authorities describe the state of the Ukrainian special education system that has been serving the majority of children with special needs and the prospects for its development as being in crisis. “Criticism was and is expressed regarding the social labeling of children with special needs as ‘defective’ or ‘abnormal’; the failure of the special education system to cover the total student body that require its ‘services’ (e.g., it does not reach children with profound disabilities or pro- vide specialized psychological and educational support for children with milder disabilities); its rigidity and one-option approach to the provision of special education services; and the supremacy of the academic curriculum over the personal development of the child” (Kolupayeva, 2009). Ukrainian legislation regarding persons with disabilities formerly contained a range of legal norms. These norms: were formalized in different policy documents enacted at different times; were related to different categories of persons with disabilities; and are conflicting and inconsistent. All this cre- ated challenges for practical implementation.

Until a few years ago, in Ukraine children with various special needs were educated within the special education system. This system consists of a network of differentiated schools and other settings that operate in inno- vative formats (e.g., rehabilitation centers, recreation centers, social and pedagogical centers, social, medical and pedagogical centers). In Ukraine, the responsibility for special schools for children with disabilities and

331Special Education Today in Ukraine

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 needs falls under the auspices of different government ministries. Therefore, such schools are funded separately from different sources. Also, this situation created a certain degree of isolation, because these facilities operate as treatment centers where children stay for a month or as educa- tional settings where children are placed for the entire period of their schooling. It also affects material and technical resources in these learning institutions, the provision of teaching and learning aids, and staffing. The Ministry of Education and Science is responsible for special schools and pre-schools, psychological, medical and pedagogical support centers, edu- cation and rehabilitation centers. Recreation centers, early intervention centers, and children’s homes fall within the remit of the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Social Policy maintains children’s orphanages, social and pedagogical rehabilitation centers, and special children’s homes. The lack of integrated responsibility for settings for children with special needs poses a range of problems, because these departmental barriers hinder efforts to create a complete register of children with special needs and to establish an integrated system of social and pedagogical assistance and support.

The Ukrainian special education system is characterized by vertical and horizontal structures. The vertical structure is based on age groups and the levels of schooling accepted in regular education. The horizontal structure takes into account the psychological and physical development of a child, his/her learning needs and the nature of the disability. The vertical struc- ture is determined by age group:

• early childhood (from 0 to 3 years); • pre-school (from 3 to 6�7 years); • school and vocational training (from 6�7 to 16�21 years).

During the early childhood period (0�3 years) children stay with their families, at pre-schools and orphaned children are placed in children’s homes. Children with various disabilities can access specialized services at early intervention centers, rehabilitation centers, psychological, medical and pedagogical support centers and at special pre-schools. For pre-school children with special needs there are special pre-schools, pre-schools that provide compensatory intervention services, special classrooms at regular pre-schools, pre-school classrooms at special schools, and rehabilitation centers.

The horizontal structure of the special education system in Ukraine consists of eight types of special learning settings: for children with severe hearing disabilities (including deaf children); for children with hearing

332 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

disabilities; for children with severe visual disabilities (including blind chil- dren); for children with visual disabilities; for children with severe speech disabilities; for children with musculoskeletal disabilities; for children with intellectual disabilities, and for children with psychological disabilities.

The experience of Ukrainian special schools demonstrates a number of achievements within such learning settings, such as a good pool of material resources; well-established processes for providing rehabilitation interven- tions; vocational training, arrangements for academic learning and recrea- tion. But alongside these undeniable positive aspects, it is important to highlight the weaknesses of the modern special education system, as described below.

• Due to its unified nature the special education system fails to meet the learning needs of all students with disabilities. It impedes the use of syllabi that could offer multiple options for teaching and learning and makes it more difficult to change or add to the existing curricula, as required.

• Being the main type of special learning settings today, special schools create an isolated environment for children with disabilities, which have multiple social implications of a negative nature, for example, alienation of families from the education and upbringing of their children; social immaturity of students; limited opportunities to acquire life skills.

• The teaching and learning process at special schools lacks social and practical aspects. As a result, students graduate with low social and eco- nomic skills; have difficulties in understanding social norms and rules; lack independent living skills, etc.

• Because of limited individualization and the lack of a student-centered approach in teaching and learning, students experience emotional and personal challenges, have an inadequate view of their own characteris- tics, strengths and capabilities.

• As a result of ineffective therapy and interventions students fail to develop communication skills and experience feelings of social withdra- wal and isolation.

• The lack of licensed instruments for psychological and educational assessment creates difficulties in making the right decisions regarding placement and appropriate organization of teaching and learning.

• In addition, there is a gap in theoretical and methodological guidelines, teaching and learning materials that can be used with children who have severe and atypical disabilities and require additional educational, inter- vention and rehabilitation services.

333Special Education Today in Ukraine

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

PREVALENCE AND SCHOOL PLACEMENTS

According to the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, there are currently 396 special schools serving 60,000 children and young people. Also, this Ministry maintains 40 education and rehabilitation centers for children with different disabilities, 142 special pre-schools and 1,200 special classrooms at regular pre-schools with a total of 45,000 children.

The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy operates 298 rehabilitation centers: 208 of them provide early rehabilitation services to children with disabilities, while the remaining 90 are concerned with medical, social and vocational rehabilitation. Additionally, children and young people with dis- abilities can access rehabilitation services at 46 social and psychological rehabilitation centers which, also, come under the Ministry of Labour.

In Ukraine there are no complete state statistics about children with spe- cial needs because of interdepartmental barriers, the lack of a single catego- rical classification, and a variety of approaches to keeping a record of such children. According to the statistics of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, in 2010 there were over 160,000 children with special needs. However, the data of Psychological, Medical and Pedagogical Consultations (PMPCs), which are based on medical assessment as well as psychological and educational evaluation, show that the total number of children with physical and/or mental disabilities who require developmental interventions in the country is 1,194,031 (or 15% of all children in Ukraine).

In Ukraine, a significant number of children with special educational needs don’t receive any special services and can’t access support to meet their needs. Apparently, this may be attributed, inter alia, to the fact that in the not so recent Soviet past the two education systems � regular and special � divided up their areas of responsibility. In this situation, children with minor disabilities, who were not identified in time and did not have access to special educational support, were placed in regular schools that could not offer appropriate psychological and educational services. This “spontaneous integration” is fully typical for Ukrainian schools of today (Kolupayeva, 2009).

On the other hand, the larger numbers of children currently being identi- fied as having special needs may be explained, first of all, by improved assessment practices. These improvements were a direct result of demo- cratic trends and reforms in education. These progressive developments also affected the PMPC system, the selection functions of which, set out back in Soviet times, were changed to advice and consultation. PMPCs

334 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

take an objective and unbiased approach to collecting statistical data thanks to a certain degree of autonomy and independence that the majority of these structures enjoy at the regional level, being separate legal entities rather than divisions of the respective oblast education authorities. This situation is observed in many regions of Ukraine, for example, in Crimea, Volyn, Dnipropetrovsk, Zhytomyr, Kirovograd, Lugansk, Lviv, Poltava, Ternopil, Kharkiv, Cherkassy, Chernivtsi oblasts, and in the City of Sevastopol.

THE IMPACT OF LEGISLATION FOR FREE

PUBLIC EDUCATION

After Ukraine became independent, the grassroots integration processes were boosted by the adoption of the Law “On Education” (1991) that sti- pulates the right of Ukrainian citizens to free education in public schools and pre-schools irrespective of any specific characteristics, including health conditions (Article 3); the Law “On Comprehensive Secondary Education” (1991) that states that “Parents or persons acting in their place are entitled to: choose educational settings and formats of education services for their underage children …” (Article 29); the Law “On the Protection of Childhood” (2001) that prohibits the discrimination of children with dis- abilities and children with special mental or physical needs; as well as other legal instruments that enshrine the right of the parent to choose an educa- tional setting for their child. A considerable number of parents have exer- cised this right, clearly, not wanting their children to be in a boarding school that is often located far from their community, sometimes in another oblast, or because an appropriate boarding school does not exist. The economic crisis of the 1990s also did not assist the process of placing children in special schools, since some of them were restructured for a dif- ferent function or closed down, while the remaining ones faced funding shortages. As a consequence, increasing numbers of children with special needs went to regular schools and pre-schools � the arrangement termed as “spontaneous integration.” It should be noted, that for the country as a whole there are generally no official statistics on the numbers of children with disabilities in regular schools. So, in Ukraine large numbers of chil- dren with special needs attend regular schools (and pre-schools) as part of the process of so-called “spontaneous” integration. This situation brought to the surface issues regarding their teaching and learning as well as the necessary special supports, which required immediate solutions.

335Special Education Today in Ukraine

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

MOVEMENT INTO INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Vygotsky (2003) stressed the importance of integration processes in educa- tion. He pointed to the need to create an education system that would seamlessly combine special education and regular education for children without disabilities. He further emphasized, that, “With all its advantages, our special school system has one key fault of enclosing its students … in a narrow circle of the school, creating a cut-off and self-contained world where everything is adjusted and adapted to the child’s defect, focuses his/ her attention on their bodily deficiency and does not prepare him/her for real life. Rather than help the child out of this isolated world, our special schools generally foster skills that lead to more isolation and enhance his/ her segregation. Due to these shortcomings it is not just the general educa- tion of the child that is paralyzed, but special training, too, almost comes to nothing” (Vygotsky, p. 96).

In Ukraine the implementation of an inclusive approach to the educa- tion of children with special needs started over 10 years ago. The main driv- ing force for putting the ideas of inclusive education into practice were the parents of children with disabilities and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) which advocated inclusion and lobbied the authorities to proceed in this direction. The Ukrainian Step-by-Step Foundation and the National Assembly of Persons with Disabilities were and are particularly active in this field. The Institute of Special Pedagogy, a unit within the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine (NAPSU), initiated govern- ment reforms in the Ukrainian system of education for persons with special needs. The researchers from this Institute developed theoretical and metho- dological principles to support inclusive education in Ukraine. These prin- ciples are based on the new methodology of education development and include: education for persons with disabilities as a priority; democratic transformation of education through the transition to shared public and private management of education; continuity of education to create oppor- tunities for life-long learning for persons with disabilities; variable forms of education services to offer a choice of educational options; individualiza- tion based on a system of assessment measures; and collaboration between all social institutions � families, schools and communities. The vision behind these reforms was developed in the course of long-term cooperation with Canadian experts launched by the Ukrainian Resource and Development Centre, an institute within MacEwan University led by Dr. Roman Petryshyn. This cooperation helped to study international best practice in inclusive education, to analyze them and identify the key

336 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

priorities in introducing an inclusive model in Ukraine, as the next evolu- tionary stage in the development of the national education system. The Canadian experience of educational transformations proved highly valu- able for Ukraine where education reforms are currently underway. It can offer new insights into ensuring equal access to quality education and inclusion. The Canadian education system has moved from the complete exclusion of persons with special needs from the education system to full recognition and acceptance of their differences, acknowledgment of the necessity to meet their educational needs and provide the relevant supports (Andrews & Lupart, 2000; Loreman, Deppeler, & Harvey, 2010).

The analysis of theoretical research, experimental evidence and best practice in including children with special needs within regular schools in Canada has been of great importance. In spite of the diverse types and levels of educational settings, inter alia for students with special needs, edu- cation systems are one of the essential elements in the existing global model of social order. This model is attractive to countries that overthrew their totalitarian regimes. It is also relevant for Ukraine today, when considering the challenges and opportunities that arise in attempts to find solutions to urgent educational and social problems.

A detailed study of foreign experience in implementing inclusion in schools helps to streamline the modernization of the national education system in order to upgrade and align it with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006). There is a growing understanding of the deep conceptual under- pinnings that are reflected in the theories of social justice, human rights, the role of social systems in human development, social constructivism, structuralism; the ideas of information society and social criticism (Loreman et al., 2010). Based on these theories and ideas, education is increasingly viewed as a common good that involves providing equal access to this social asset. The path to overcoming social inequality lies in education that creates opportunities for individuals to take a meaning- ful place in society, and the understanding of this fact becomes crucial. It is broadly acknowledged that people with special needs should be able to achieve appropriate levels of academic training, acquire social experi- ences and relevant competencies, and develop social adaptation skills that constitute functional literacy, according to UNESCO. Society recog- nizes the importance of these objectives, which proves its readiness to move forward in this direction. This conclusion is also supported by the first positive outcomes of the individualized teaching and learning model that is being introduced in regular neighborhood schools to help children

337Special Education Today in Ukraine

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

with special educational needs deal with their social and academic challenges.

Today, inclusion is gradually gaining an equal formalized place in the education system supported by the conceptual rationale mentioned above; by new inclusive policies developed at the national level; by systemic mea- sures to manage and promote the national strategies of educational inclu- sion; and through awareness campaigns to disseminate the idea of inclusion. For example, in 2001 the Ukrainian Ministry of Education launched a nation-wide experimental program to facilitate social adapta- tion and the integration of children into their local communities through inclusive education. The program was initiated by the Ukrainian Step-by- Step Foundation, and the Special Pedagogy Institute of the National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine provided academic supervi- sion and advice. The Canada-Ukraine Project “Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities in Ukraine” began in 2008 (its education compo- nent was managed by Yuri Konkin, MacEwan University). The purpose of this five-year initiative (2008�2013) was to bring about changes in the atti- tudes of government officials, schools and NGOs toward people with spe- cial educational needs. The effects of these changes were demonstrated in two pilot regions: Lviv oblast and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Simferopol City). The analysis of the project outcomes and the resulting suggestions on the specific nature of inclusive education processes in Ukraine had a considerable impact on the design of key national policies. The project participants directly contributed to the drafting of these poli- cies in collaboration with the relevant government agencies. A series of changes introduced in 2010 to the Law of Ukraine “On Comprehensive Secondary Education” opened the way for regular schools to set up special and inclusive classrooms to educate children with special needs, which sig- nified the new formal status of inclusion in national policy. Further achievements included the “Concept of the development of inclusive educa- tion” adopted by the Ministry of Education, Science, Youth and Sports of Ukraine, and later, in August 2011, the “Procedure of organizing inclusive education in regular schools.” Both documents were developed by leading professionals from the Special Pedagogy Institute.

It is noteworthy that at the beginning of the 21st century Ukraine experienced a wave of spontaneous basic inclusion, or rather integration, when parents started to exercise their constitutional rights by placing their children with disabilities into neighborhood schools. However, at the time Ukraine did not have adequate learning materials or teachers or teacher aids, who were prepared to provide adequate support in inclusive settings.

338 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

Approximately 130,000 children with disabilities were placed into main- stream schools as a result of such spontaneous integration.

It is only recently that the country started to introduce full inclusive edu- cation enhanced by necessary resources and supports. A total of 22 schools in Ukraine take part in the inclusion pilot project, which was launched by the Ministry of Education several years ago. The Canadian-Ukrainian pro- ject “Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities in Ukraine” (2008�2013) proved to be a powerful catalyst for dissemination of inclusive education across the country, particularly in two pilot regions, Crimea and Lviv oblast. For example, over 50 schools in Crimea started to provide education in inclusive settings in 2012�2013.

CHALLENGES TO INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Attitude Modification

Putting inclusive principles into practice “may involve not only a change in the way our schools are structured and work, but also in the attitudes of many special and regular education teachers who view their job as to edu- cate a certain ‘type’ of student” (Loreman et al., 2010). Therefore, a national policy on inclusive education will need to address both social and organizational barriers. To overcome them it is necessary to improve pro- fessional teacher training, raise the awareness of parents and the commu- nity about special education, adapt school facilities to suit the special needs of children and develop research-based methodological guidelines and other support materials for teaching and learning. All these elements “come together” in the classroom where such a child is placed. Here success will depend on the style or method used to present new information, which becomes the basis for selecting the appropriate teaching and learning stra- tegies. In this context it is essential to acknowledge that every child in the classroom has his/her own interests and abilities, preferences in processing new information, which follow from his/her individual learning style. Therefore, Ukrainian education is currently moving away from the tradi- tional “authoritarian” instructional approach (that was dominant until the 1990s), that viewed the teacher as the “subject” and a student as the “object” in the teaching and learning process and led to “subject-object” relationships in the school. This structure of relationships resulted in a set of standard curricula that was the same for all students; the teacher

339Special Education Today in Ukraine

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

communicated with all students in the classroom as a homogeneous group; there were uniform expectations to knowledge and behavior; there were generally rather strict discipline codes and rather few cases of understand- ing the essence of the student-centered approach. It is important to empha- size that the position of the student as an “object” of pedagogical influence envisages a specific type of teacher-student interaction. In this type of rela- tionship, the stakeholders assume specific roles: the teacher as manager and student as a subordinate. It also assigns a certain degree of power that results in strategies based on authority (obligation) and manipulation (sup- pression of individual’s will). In such circumstances the teacher, thanks to his/her position, achieves obedience relatively easily; and his/her will is per- ceived by students as such that requires immediate and unquestioning sub- mission. This atmosphere is not conducive to creativity in the classroom, and later, in lower and upper secondary grades, the authority of power works less and less because teenagers start to look at the teacher through the lens of his/her professional and personal qualities.

In the light of modern views on teaching and learning, a student- centered, or humanistic, pedagogical interaction takes a central place and shapes the core of a fundamental innovation in the education field. A stu- dent becomes a “subject” and the “subject-object” relationship is replaced by the “subject-subject” one that is based on collaboration between the adult and the child. Instead of “brining the values of the society to the child” an alternative approach is growing in popularity � “travelling with the child towards the values of society.” In this respect, priority is given to the development, rather than the shaping of inherent qualities. Guided by the capabilities and needs of students, the modern teacher organizes truly collective learning, delegates some of his/her functions to them, encourages self-direction, and in this way stops being the central figure in the pedagogical process. This facilitates personal development and helps avoid situations in which the teacher manipulates a child, because effective pedagogical interaction is based on the four principles identified by Orlov (2002). The first principle involves the dialogical nature of such interaction, which means that the teacher gives up his/her “superior position” and accepts the rules of collaboration � this creates a foundation for mutual understanding. The second principle � the issue-based nature of pedagogical interaction � changes the functions of both the teacher and the student. According to it, the task the teacher has is no longer to instruct and purpo- sefully shape the desired qualities in a child, but rather to nurture motiva- tion to explore new things, support personal growth by creating opportunities for him/her to actualize their knowledge, perform moral

340 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

actions, and formulate issues independently. The third principle � persona- lized nature of pedagogical interaction � means that the teacher should cre- ate a supportive environment for students to adequately express their feelings and talk about their experiences, perform actions that do not fit in the standard roles of “manager” and “subordinate,” which helps to get rid of the “masks” imposed by these roles. The fourth principle � individualiza- tion of pedagogical interaction � involves studying each student’s capabil- ities, designing the learning content and selecting teaching and learning strategies that are age-appropriate and take into account students’ indivi- dual differences.

So, without any doubt, the inherent features of humanistic pedagogical interaction � its dialogic nature, individual orientation, and therefore crea- tivity � make it unique. It relies on the humanistic paradigm that is based on the ideal of the unlimited creative potential of the individual and his/her freedom. This paradigm helps one to grasp the purpose of one’s existence and fosters an intrinsic feeling that makes them match their actions with the duty to mankind and leads people toward altruism. More and more Ukrainian educators recognize that pedagogical interaction between the teacher and the students founded on the best humanistic ideas is the ideal basis for successful inclusion in a particular classroom.

Developing a Philosophical Instructional Framework

To support inclusion in regular education settings, a supporting philosophi- cal framework was designed, drawing on the theoretical and methodologi- cal guidelines suggested by Professor Alla Kolupayeva (see Kolupayeva, Danilavichute, & Lytovchenko, 2012; Kolupayeva & Savchuk, 2011; Kolupayeva & Taranchenko, 2010). Additionally, a set of teaching and psychological tools was compiled and the relevant knowledge and skills were shared with the staff of pilot schools #3 in Simferopol and #95 in Lviv during a series training activities specially organized by the Canada- Ukraine “Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities in Ukraine” project. Although a vital piece of progress in technical terms, it was only the first step toward innovative transformation of school structures. The second step was to find effective teaching and learning strategies for an inclusive setting. It helped to answer the question, “How to meet the learn- ing needs of every child and promote maximum academic achievements in a diverse classroom where all students have their individual abilities, inter- ests and needs?”

341Special Education Today in Ukraine

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

Therefore it was important to acknowledge and master the practical aspects of another key principle in humanistic pedagogical interaction, the leading role of which was recognized at the level of international inclusive practice long ago. This principle is differentiation (Loreman et al., 2010) that essentially means taking into account individual strengths and needs in one way or another when dividing students into groups to work separately during a lesson. Following on from this principle, in the two pilot schools mentioned above teachers organized differentiated learning activities to help bring the instruction as close as possible to the learning needs of students and their individual differences (Taranchenko, Naida, & Kolupayeva, 2012). Teachers in differentiated classrooms learned to vary the instructional strategies to enable every student to maximize their abil- ities when working in a group of peers who are selected based on the com- mon individual typological characteristics in their development (i.e., their abilities, interests, the level and the speed of intellectual processes, preferred ways of receiving, processing and reproducing information).

Thanks to the positive experience of the pilot inclusive education pro- grams, differentiation came to be viewed as a tool to implement a student- centered approach that presupposes the design of an individual educational trajectory, taking into consideration the subjective experiences of the child, his/her values and preferences, and enables the actualization of the personal function in the process of solving learning problems. Today the inclusive education teacher should know, and be able to use, a variety of strategies to differentiate learning within the classroom. Planning and implementing differentiated lessons happens in several stages: identifying the criteria to group students for differentiated activities; using these criteria for prior assessment; dividing students into groups based on the assessment results; selecting differentiation tools; designing multi-level learning activities for the groups; differentiating certain stages of the lesson; monitoring student progress within the groups and using this evidence to change the group composition and/or the nature of differentiated activities. Moreover, in a differentiated classroom the elements of the didactic system (aims and objectives, content, methods, activity formats and expected learning out- comes) may vary for different groups in the course of instruction. Today, self-determination and self-actualization of the individual come to the fore in the teaching and learning process. Moreover, it should be noted that in the light of the educational trends described earlier, individual instruction may be seen as a variant of differentiation (when the teacher or teacher assistant may interact with only one student for some time or a student may interact with a learning aid, for example, a computer, textbook, any

342 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

other didactic source, etc.). The main advantage of individual instruction is that it helps to fully adapt the content, methods and pace of instruction to suit the child’s strengths and needs, monitor his/her gradual progress from “not knowing” to “knowing” and adjust the teaching strategies, as required.

Necessary Teacher Instructional Strategies All the above gives an idea of the range of knowledge and skills that the teacher is expected to have and to formulate the question that naturally arises before every beginning teacher, “What instructional strategies are the most effective in inclusive classroom settings?” The attempts to answer this question have led to the conclusion that, on the whole, the first and fore- most objective of the teacher is to identify learning situations that are rele- vant for the child. Such situations should create opportunities for him/her to act within his/her capabilities, while relying on the teacher’s assistance (that the latter provides in a sensitive way, i.e., mostly without appearing to do so, or, when necessary, in a clearly friendly manner), and to achieve meaningful positive outcomes. This line of reasoning demonstrates that any strategy must be based on a pedagogical framework that ensures a balance between the resources that the child needs to complete a learning assign- ment and the resources that can be offered by the teacher taking into account rather limited opportunities of the classroom environment (Danilavichute, Lytovchenko, & Kolupayeva, 2012).

According to Vygotsky (1991), instruction should “lead” the develop- ment and stimulate it. This becomes possible only when we consider factors such as: patterns of mental development, age, individual differences and needs of students, as discussed earlier. This approach forms the basis of the most effective instruction models known in Ukraine and internationally, that is, planned incremental development of mental actions and concepts (Galperin, 2002); development of theoretical thinking (Davydov, 2008; Elkonin, 1989); highest effectiveness of instruction to facilitate multi- faceted student development (Zankov, 1981); problem-based learning (Lerner, 1974); programmed instruction (Skinner, 1989; Talyzina, 1998); student-oriented instruction and personal development through education (Rogers, 1969); pedagogy as a factor in the child’s psychosomatic health (Steiner, 1975); sensory development (Montessori, 1977), and social interac- tion in learning contexts (Rubtsov, 1996). Each of these theories offers its own answer to the aforementioned question about the most effective instructional strategies in inclusive classroom settings.

343Special Education Today in Ukraine

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

CONCLUSION

In this chapter, particular attention was given to an analysis of the subsys- tems evident in special education in Ukraine. These subsystems dominated Ukrainian special education and were concerned with specific categories of children with special need, that is, children with hearing disabilities, chil- dren with visual disabilities, children with intellectual disabilities, children with speech and language disabilities, children with musculoskeletal disabil- ities, children with delayed psychological development, children with infan- tile autism, children with complex disabilities, children with reactive states and internal conflict experiences, and children with psychopathological behaviors. The starting point in the design of these special education sub- systems is the teaching about the structure of the disability: the primary and secondary disorder, the possibility to use the child’s compensatory capacities and draw on them to plan teaching and learning activities. It is important to underline the fact that all these subsystems are based on the deep understanding of the patterns in a child’s development according to the ontogenetic sequence in the development of the components of mental and physical domains. Secondly, they reflect the special needs of the indivi- dual determined by a certain type of developmental disability. Special edu- cation teaching contains elements of all the above subsystems and its best practice often becomes the core of innovations that find their place in regu- lar education. Experimental evidence in special education teaching shows that some instructional methods, which are only now being criticized by regular schools, received similar negative feedback from special schools long ago. Teaching that relies solely on explanations and examples (when the teacher imparts information to the student, while the latter remains a passive recipient of it) was pronounced ineffective due to the specific nature of teaching and learning of children with special needs (Danilavichute et al., 2012).

Based on the in-depth analysis of good practices of supporting children with a variety of special needs within the special education system, the aca- demics from the Special Pedagogy Institute of the NAPSU found that the experience accumulated over many years by special education professionals should be used as a resource to establish a national model for designing and implementing the teaching and learning process in inclusive settings. The validity of this conclusion was substantiated by the results of training conducted for regular education teachers from pilot schools to equip them with the necessary knowledge and skills in the area of special pedagogy. This training was organized as an experimental initiative within the

344 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

Canada-Ukraine project. Later the participants applied this knowledge and these skills in their daily practice and integrated them smoothly with the advanced pedagogical approaches mentioned above. This established a pre- cedent which provided the impetus for the design of the relevant theoretical and methodological tools to support the education of children with special needs and to seek practical formats to enable the transfer of best practice from special schools to regular education settings. This strategy helped to maximize the available in-country capacity taking into account existing educational traditions and to implement the necessary innovations in a consistent (evolutionary) way.

On the whole, the content of the theoretical and practical resources of inclusive education reflects educational trends and approaches that gained international popularity over recent decades and attained their leading posi- tions due to their universality. A profound understanding of the philosophy of inclusion and the distinct nature of its development in our country, the efforts to define its place and grasp its role within a unified education system provide the key to start thinking about how to design the teaching and learning process, taking into account the needs of children who follow a typical development process and children who develop at their own indivi- dual pace within a common educational environment. The search for ways of organizing effective pedagogical interaction between the teacher and the students in the inclusive classroom has created a range of options that based on different pedagogical models and their constituent parts. They have been tried and tested through practice in many countries and may be applied in various combinations. The best examples of protocols for using these peda- gogical models and their constituent parts based on international experience and the first steps in the design and implementation of inclusive education made by the pilot schools within the Canada-Ukraine Project have con- firmed that the strategies presented in the latest research and methodology publications produce significant positive results. At the same time, it should be pointed out that the innovative movement that is gradually gaining trac- tion in Ukrainian education includes a number of specific features, and, therefore, further research is required to analyze and summarize existing good practice. Moreover, particular attention needs to be paid to the practi- cal aspects of implementing professional collaboration between regular edu- cation and special education professionals. The experience accumulated by special education teaching over many decades can offer rational solutions to ensure that related services for children with special needs are provided in inclusive settings; to help design efficient protocols for using qualified special education staff as a resource to assist with assessment and interventions.

345Special Education Today in Ukraine

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 example, resource centers are now being established at schools for chil- dren with special needs. This gives an opportunity to restructure special schools while preserving their core function, which is to educate children with similar disabilities/special needs, and offering parents of children with special needs a choice in deciding where to send their children. Such an evo- lutionary approach to educational modernization is valuable and the opti- mum one for the country, because it respects traditions with a long history and a large number of followers, and time is an important factor in chan- ging those beliefs and attitudes. Increasingly popular are the Inclusive Resource Centres that have databases of available special services, their location and providers; they also keep case records with comprehensive information about children with special needs who would like to be included in their neighborhood schools. In our view, the emerging Ukrainian model of inclusive education, as a result of the daily practice and research con- ducted by the Special Pedagogy Institute of the NAPSU, will provide a sound foundation to improve the existing instructional strategies and create new ones for inclusive settings. Such is the long-term goal for the develop- ment of this sphere of social life in Ukraine.

NOTE

1. Kievan Rus’ is the name of the early feudal state with the center in Kyiv that rose between the 7th and 9th centuries and existed till the mid-13th century. It was one of the influential powers of its time and had a significant impact on the develop- ment of the European civilization. However, starting from the mid-12th century its political unity was gradually undermined and, eventually, disintegrated into 15 prin- cipalities and lands. The name “Ukraine” (edge, border area) means the territory that was formally the central part of Kievan Rus’ of the 11th�12th centuries.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Special acknowledgment to Tetiana Klekota who translated this chapter.

REFERENCES

Andrews, J., & Lupart, J. (2000). The inclusive classroom: Educating exceptional children.

Calgary, Canada: Thomson Learning.

346 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

Boskis, R. M. (1959). Osnovnye tipy uchashchikhsia s nedostatkami slukhovogo analizatora i

osnovania ikh rasdelnogo obuchenia v spetsialnykh shkolakh [Main groups of students

with impaired auditory analyzer and rationale for their separate education in special

schools]. Obuchenie i vospitanie glukhikh. [Education of the Deaf.] Moscow, Russia:

Prosveshcheniye.

Boskis, R. M. (1969). Printsypy diagnostiki anomalnogo razvitia rebenka pri chastichnom

defekte slukha [Principles of assessing anomalous development of a child with partial

hearing defect]. Defektologia. [Special Education.], 1, 18�26. Boskis, R. M. (1972). Pedagogicheskaya klassifikatsia shkolnikov s nedostatkami slukha

[Pedagogical classification of school students with hearing impairments]. Defektologia.

[Special Education.], 1, 10�19. Danilavichute, E. A., Lytovchenko, S. V., & Kolupayeva, A. A. (Eds.). (2012). Strategiyi vyk-

ladannia v inkliuzyvnomu navchalnomu zakladi: Navchalno-metodychnyi posibnyk. Seria

Seria “Inkliuzyvna osvita.” [Instruction strategies in inclusive classroom. Training and

methodological guide. Inclusive education series.] Kyiv, Ukraine: ASK.

Davydov, V. V. (2008). Vidy obobshchenia v obuchenii. [Types of generalization in education.]

Kyiv, Ukraine: Direkt-Media.

Direktivy VKP (b). (1932). i postanovlenia sovetskogo pravitelstva o narodnom obrazovanii: Sb.

Dokumentov za 1917�1947 gg./Sost. N. I. Boldyrev [Directives of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the resolutions passed by the Soviet government in

the area of people’s education: Collection of documents adopted between 1917 and 1947.

Compiled by N. I. Boldyrev]. Moscow, Russia: Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the

Russian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Elkonin, D. B. (1989). Svyaz obuchenia i psikhicheskogo razvitia detei [Links between teaching

and psychological development in children]. In D. B. Elkonin (Ed.), Izbrannye psik-

hologicheskie trudy (pp. 78�94). [Selected works on psychology.] Moscow, Russia: Academia.

Galperin, P. Y. (2002). Lektsii po psikhologii. [Lectures on psychology.] Moscow, Russia:

Academia.

Grabarov, A. N. (1928). Osnovnye dostizhenia v oblasti izuchenia detskoi defectologii i borba

s nei za 10 let [Major achievements in the study of childhood defectology and efforts to

overcome it over 10 years]. Voprosy pedagogiki. [Issues in the field of pedagogy.], 3�4, 89�104.

Kashchenko, V. P. (1910). Defektivnye dyeti shkolnogo vozrasta i vseobshchee obuchenie.

[Defective school-age children and universal education.] Moscow, Russia: Tip,

Typography of Amoldo-Tretiakovskogo School for the Deaf and Mute.

Kashchenko, V. P. (1912). Istoricheskyi obsor i sovremennoye sostoyanie vospitania i obuche-

nia defektivnyhk detei v Rossii [Historical background and modern state of education

and upbringing of defective children in Russia]. In V. P. Kashchenko (Ed.), Defektivnye

deti i shkola (pp. 255�277) [Collection of articles “Defective children and school.”] Moscow, Russia: Publishing House of K.I. Tikhomirou.

Kolupayeva, A. A. (2009). Inkluzyvna osvita: Realii ta perspektyvy. Monographia. [Inclusive

education: Realities and prospects. A monograph.] Kyiv, Ukraine: Sammit-Knyga.

Kolupayeva, A. A., Danilavichute, E. A., & Lytovchenko, S. V. (2012). Profesiyne spivrobit-

nytstvo v inkluzyvnomu navchalnomu zakladi: Navchalno-metodychnyi posibnyk. Seria

“Inkluzyvna osvita.” [Professional collaboration in inclusive schools. Training and metho-

dological guide. Inclusive education series.] Kyiv, Ukraine: ASK.

347Special Education Today in Ukraine

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

Kolupayeva, A. A., & Savchuk, L. O. (2011). Dity z osoblyvymy osvitnimy potrebamy ta organi-

zatsia ikh navchannia. Vydannia dopovnene ta pereroblene: Nauk.-metod. posib. Seria

“Inkluzyvna osvita” (Rev. ed.). [Children with special educational needs and how to orga-

nize their education. A methodological guide. Inclusive education series.] Kyiv, Ukraine:

ATOPOL.

Kolupayeva, A. A., & Taranchenko, O. M. (2010). Dity z osoblyvymy potrebamy v zagalnoos-

vitnyomu prostori: Pochatkova lanka. Putivnyk dlia pedagogiv: Navchalno-metodychnyi

posibnyk. Seria “Inkluzyvna osvita.” [Children with special needs in regular education set-

tings: Primary education. Handbook for teachers: Training and methodological guide.

Inclusive education series.] Kyiv, Ukraine: ATOPOL.

Kulbida, S. V. (2010). Teoretiko-metodologichni zasady vykorystannia zhestovoi movy u

navchanni nechuyuchykh: Monographia. [Theoretical and methodological foundations of

using sign language in the education of deaf people. A monograph.] Kyiv, Ukraine:

Poliprom.

Leiko, K. (1901). O razvitii vneshnikh chuvstv u slepykh [On the development of external

senses in blind people]. Slepets. [The Blind.], 8, 85�87. Leiko, K. (1906). O pravovom polozhenii slepykh v Rossii [On the legal status of the blind in

Russia]. Slepets. [The Blind.], 7, 121�135. Leiko, K. (1908). K psikhologii slepykh [On the psychology of blind people]. Slepets.

[The Blind.], 4, 61�65. Lerner, I. Y. (1974). Problemnoe obuchenie. [Issue-based learning]. Moscow, Russia: Znanie.

Likarchuk, I. L. (2002). Ministry osvity Ukrainy: V 2-kh t. � T. 1 (1017�1943 rr.). Monographia. [Ministers of Education in Ukraine. In two volumes. Vol. 1 (1017�1943). A monograph.] Kyiv, Ukraine: Eshke O.M.

Loreman, T., Deppeler, J., & Harvey, D. H. P. (2010). Inclusive education: Supporting diversity

in the classroom. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Maltsev, A. A. (1902). Istoria i nastoyashchee sostoyanie prizrenia dushevnobolnykh v

Poltavskoi gubernii. Dis. d-ra meditsyny [Historical perspective and the current state of

care for mental patients in Poltava province. Doctoral dissertation in medicine], V.P.

Meshchersky Typography, Saint Petersburg, Russia.

Maltsev, A. A. (1910). Uchilishche-khutor glukhonemykh v Aleksandrovske, Ekaterinoslavskoi

gubernii (1903�1910). [Training school-farm for deaf-mute people in Aleksandrovsk set- tlement of Ekaterinoslav province, 1903�1910.] Aleksandrovsk, Russia: Typography of the Training School-Farm.

Marochko, V., & Hillig, G. (2003). Represovani pedagogy Ukrainy: Zhertvy politychnogo teroru

(1929�1941). [Ukrainian pedagogues persecuted for political reasons: Victims of political terror (1929�1941).] Kyiv, Ukraine: Naurovyi svit.

Montessori, M. (1977). Education for human development. New York, NY: Schocken Books.

Orlov, A. B. (2002). Psikhologia lichnosti i sushchnosti cheloveka: Paradigmy, proektsii, prak-

tiki: Ucheb. posobiye dlia stud. psikhol. fak. vuzov. [Psychology of personality and essence

of individual. Paradigms, perspectives and practices, Study guide for psychology students.]

Moscow, Russia: Akademia.

People’s Commissariat of Education of the Ukrainian SSR. (1931). Postanova Kolegii NKO

URSR “Pro zagalne oboviazkove navchannia defektyvnykh ditei ta pidlitkiv”

(10.07.1931 r.) // Buleten Narodnogo Komisariatu osvity URSR [Resolution of the

Collegium of the People’s Commissariat of Education of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist

Republic “On compulsory universal education of defective children and adolescents” of

348 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

July 10, 1931]. Bulletin of the People’s Commissariat of Education of the Ukrainian

Soviet Socialist Republic, p. 49.

People’s Commissariat of Education of USSR (1922). Zbirnyk dekretiv, postanov, nakaziv, roz-

poriadzhen’ po Narodnomu Komisariatu osvity USSR. [Directives, Resolutions, Orders,

and Instructions adopted by the People’s Commissariat of Education of the Ukrainian

Soviet Socialist Republic.] Kharkiv, Ukraine: Soviet Socialistic Republic.

Petrovskyi, V. V., Radchenko, L. O., & Semenenko, V. I. (2007). Istoria Ukrainy:

Neuperedzhenyi pogliad: Fakty, Mify, Komentari. [History of Ukraine: An unbiased view:

Facts, myths, comments.] Kharkiv, Ukraine: Shkola.

Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become. Columbus, OH:

C. E. Merrill Pub. Co.

Rubtsov, V. V. (1996). Osnovy sotsialno-geneticheskoy psikhologii. [Fundamentals of social and

genetic psychology.] Moscow, Russia: Institute of Practical Psychology and Voronezh,

NPO MODEK.

Shcherbyna, A. M. (1916, March 16). Neudovletvorennaya potrebnost slepykh v prosveshche-

nii [The unmet need for the blind for education]. Russkie vedomosti. [Russian Bulletin.],

62, A2�A3. Shcherbyna, A. M. (1927). Rol’ vrachei v dele vospitania slepykh [The role of medical profes-

sionals in the education of the blind]. Trudy 1-go Vsesouzh. s’yezda glaznykh vrachei.

Proceedings of the 1st all-union congress of ophthalmologists. Moscow, Russia

(pp. 72�75). Shklovskyi, M. L. (1938). Printsypy komplektovania shkol dlia detei s rasstoistvami slukha i

rechi [Guidelines for placing children to special schools concerned with hearing and speech

disorders]. Abstract of the report made at the pan-Russian meeting on the issues related

to education and upbringing of deaf-and-mute children. Moscow, Russia.

Shklovskyi, M. L. (1939). Klassifikatsia i differentsialnaya diagnostika rasstroistva slukha i

rechi v detskom vozraste [Classification and differential assessment of hearing and

speech disorders in children]. In M. L. Shklovskyi (Ed.), Klassifikatsia i differentsialnaya

diagnostika glukhonemoty, glukhoty i tugoukhosti. [Classification and differential assess-

ment of deaf-muteness, deafness and partial hearing loss (Part 1).] Leningrad, Russia:

Kargosizdat.

Sikorskyi, I. A. (1904). O lechenii i vospitanii nedorazvitykh, umstvenno otskalykh i slaboumnykh

detei. [On treatment and education of underdeveloped, mentally retarded and weak-minded

children.] Kyiv, Ukraine: I.N. Kurshev & Co.

Siropolko, S. (2001). Istoria osvity v Ukraini. [History of education in Ukraine.] Kyiv, Ukraine:

Naukova dumka.

Skinner, B. F. (1989). The school of the future. In B. F. Skinner (Ed.), Recent issues in the ana-

lysis of behavior (pp. 85�96). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Sokolyanskyi, I. (1925). Pro metodyku pratsi v komdytgrupakh i ustanovakh sotsvykhu [On

the methods of organizing work in children’s community groups and social education

institutions]. Radianska osvita. [Soviet Education.], 12, 23�35. Sokolyanskyi, I. P. (1928a). Ustanova dlia slipoglukhonimykh na Ukraini [The institution for

blind deaf-mutes in Ukraine]. Vsesvit, 21, 14�15. Sokolyanskyi, I. P. (1928b). Deshcho z osnovnykh pytan’ radianskoi pedagogiky [Selected

main issues of Soviet pedagogy]. Radianska osvita. [Soviet Education.], 12, 6�12. Steiner, R. (1975). The education of the child in the light of anthroposophy. London: Rudolf

Steiner Press.

349Special Education Today in Ukraine

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

Talyzina, N. F. (1998). Pedagogicheskaya psikhologia. [Pedagogical psychology.] Moscow,

Russia: Akademia.

Taranchenko, O. M. (2007). Systema spetsialnogo navchannia ditei zi znyzhenym slukhom v

Ukraini (istorychnyi aspect): Monographia. [System of special education for children

with hearing impairments in Ukraine: A historical perspective. A monograph.] Kyiv,

Ukraine: LITO.

Taranchenko, O. M. (2013). Rozvytok systemy osvity osib z porushenniamy slukhu v konteksti

postupu vitchyznianoi nauky ta praktyky: Monographia. [Development of the education

system for people with hearing impairments: A retrospective view on the evolution of

theory and practice in Ukraine. A monograph.] Kyiv, Ukraine: O.T. Rostunov.

Taranchenko, O. M., Naida, Y. M., & Kolupayeva, A. A. (Eds.). (2012). Dyferentsiovane

vykladannia v inkliuzyvnomu klasi: Navchalno-metodychnyi posibnyk, Seria ”Inkliuzyvna

osvita.” [Differentiated instruction in inclusive classroom: Training and methodological

guide, Inclusive Education Series.] Kyiv, Ukraine: ASK.

Tarasevych, M. M. (1922). Klassifikatsia defektivnykh detei. [Classification of defective

children.] Kharkov, Ukraine: Glavsotsvos NKP.

Tarasevych, M. M. (1927). Odeskyi krayevyi collector dlia defektivnykh ditei [Odesa regional

collector institution for defective children]. Shlyakh osvity. [The Path of Education.], 10,

147�152. Tarasevych, N. (1929). Odeskiy likarsko-pedagogichnyi cabinet [Medical and pedagogical

office in Odesa]. Shlyakh osvity. [The Path of Education.], 8�9, 142�146. Tarasevych, N. N. (1923). Pedagogicheskie instituty, kak samostoyatelnye nauchnye tsentry

[Pedagogical schools as independent research centres]. Put’ prosveshchenia. [The Path of

Education.], 4, 126�149. United Nations. (2006). United Nations treaty collection 15: Convention on the rights of persons

with disabilities. New York, NY: United Nations.

Vetukhov, V. (1901). Uchilishche glukhonemykh v Kharkove. [School for deaf-mute people in

Kharkiv.] Kharkov, Russia: Prosveshcheniye

Vladimirskyi, A. V. (1922a). Defektivnaya lichnost v idee sotsialnogo vospitania [Defective

individual in the context of social education]. Prosveshchenie i iskusstvo. [Education and

arts.], 2�3, 54�66. Vladimirskyi, A. V. (1922b). Lichnost v obshchei tsepi yavlenii [Person in the general change

of events]. Put’ prosveshchenia. [The Path of Education.], 3, 10.

Vladimirskyi, A. V. (1927). Kabinet indyvidualnoi pedagogiky v Kyevi [Centre of individua-

lized pedagogy in Kyiv]. Shlyakh osvity. [The Path of Education.], 10, 144�147. Vygotsky, L. S. (1924). K psikhologii i pedagogike detskoi defektivnosti [On psychological

and pedagogical approaches with defective children]. In L. S. Vygotsky (Ed.), Voprosy

vospitania slepykh, glukhonemykh i umstvenno otstalykh detei (pp. 5�30). [Issues of edu- cating blind, deaf and mute and mentally retarded children.] Moscow, Russia: SGON

NKP.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1991). Problema obuchenia i umstvennogo razvitia v shkolnom vozraste [The

issue of education and mental development in school age]. In L. S. Vygotsky (Ed.),

Pedagogicheskaya psikhologia (pp. 374�391). [Educational psychology.] Moscow, Russia.

Vygotsky, L. S. (2003). Printsypy vospitania fizicheski defektivnykh detei [Principles of educat-

ing physically defective children]. In L. S. Vygotsky (Ed.), Osnovy defektologii

(pp. 56�72). [Fundamentals of special education.] St. Petersburg, Russia: Lan’.

350 ALLA KOLUPAYEVA ET AL.

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

Zakon Soyuzu Radianskykh Sotsialistychnykh Respublik “Pro zatverdzhennia osnov zakono-

davstva SRSR I soyuznykh respublik pro narodnu osvitu” [The Law of the Union of

Soviet Socialist Republics “On approving the fundamental principles for the legislation

of the USSR and the Union Republics regarding people’s education”]. (1973).

Radianska Shkola (Vol. 9, p. 3) [Soviet School].

Zakon Ukrainy “Pro okhoronu dytynstva” [The Law of Ukraine “On the Protection of

Childhood”]. (2001). Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady (Vol. 30, p. 9) [Gazette of the

Ukrainian Parliament].

Zakon Ukrainy “Pro osvitu” [The Law of Ukraine “On Education”] (1991). Vidomosti

Verkhovnoi Rady (Vol. 34, p. 7). [Gazette of the Ukrainian Parliament].

Zakon Ukrainy “Pro zagalnu seredniu osvitu” [The Law of Ukraine “On Comprehensive

Secondary Education”] (1991). Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady (Vol. 28, p. 3). [Gazette of

the Ukrainian Parliament].

Zankov, L. V. (1981). Obuchenie i razvitie [Education and development]. In L. V. Zankov

(Ed.), Khrestomatia po vozrastnoi i pedagogicheskoi psikhologii (pp. 21�26). [Reader on developmental and pedagogical psychology.] Moscow, Russia: Moscow State University.

351Special Education Today in Ukraine

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 RUSSIA

Iuliia Korolkova

ABSTRACT

Recently, the interaction of mass education and the education of people with disabilities has been widely discussed in Russia. This is positive aspect because for a long time these systems were isolated from the other. There are a lot of reasons for such isolation including the political processes in Russia, the peculiarities of the educational system, and the education and training of general and special education staff.

Lately, some positive tendencies in the development of special education have developed; however, it still needs to be accelerated. For example, recently, a series of legal documents defining the fundamental rights of people with disabilities have occurred as well as the adoption of a state regulatory policy in relation to them. The new law on education, which clearly defines the concepts that had not been fixed in any normative act earlier, has come into force and has improved the opportunities for peo- ple with disabilities not only to provide secondary education but also to expand the opportunities for vocational education for them. However, there is still a lot of work to be done.

Special Education International Perspectives: Practices Across the Globe

Advances in Special Education, Volume 28, 353�373 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0270-4013/doi:10.1108/S0270-401320140000028018

353

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/S0270-401320140000028018

This chapter will present the system of special education in Russia as it has been shaped throughout the years and will describe the prospects for continued development and existing problems. It should be noted that the Russia’s disability system involves persons with physical and mental impairments for which it has been difficult or impossible to provide education in general education classes.

HISTORY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL

EDUCATION IN RUSSIA

In Russia, as in other countries, the historical development of a national system of special education was closely associated with (a) the socio- economic conditions in the country, (b) the level of cultural development of society, and (c) the legislation related to education. It is also important to note that the basis for the development of a national special education system in Russia and in the world is a reflection of the attitude of the state and the society of people with disabilities. On the basis of the above, the author describes five periods of special education evolution that cover a time span of two and a half millennia.

First Period: Intolerance to Understanding

The first period of evolution moved from aggression and intolerance to understanding of the necessity to care for persons with disabilities. A close examination of the history and culture of Kievan Rus’ indicates that the pagan Slavs did not show aggression and hostility toward people with dis- abilities which occurred in Western European societies, but rather treated them with compassion and tolerance. Furthermore, the Kievan princes treated orphans and the poor with mercy and persons with disabilities were cared for by the church and they were given some income. This treatment was connected to the Byzantine system of monastic charity that had been prepared by the national cultural traditions. Therefore, the hallmark of this period is that in Russia, unlike in Western Europe, the period of aggression and intolerance toward people with disabilities was replaced with under- standing, charity, and care.

This environment of charity was greatly enhanced by Peter I. He was responsible for creating a secular system of charity (Malofeev, 2010a,

354 IULIIA KOROLKOVA

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

2010b). His reign occurred during a period of forced and radical Europeanization of Russia. During this period, however, Russia lacked a broad network of church shelters and there was a lack of city governments. The lack of city governments stalled the European introduction of rest homes for the disabled. During this period there were no civil rights institu- tions or specialists to administer and supervise rest homes and secular and religious authorities stayed inactive. Positively, the above flaws were offset by a compassionate attitude of all social groups toward people with impairments.

Domestic zakonoulozhenie was the prevailing legal status. However, unlike Roman law and the subsequent European legislation, it did not address the status of people with severe disabilities until almost the 16th century. In fact, the first regulation of life for disabled people was intro- duced by “Stoglavy Sudebnik” (1551). It prescribed legislation aimed at protecting the “unblemished majority” from the “defective minority” by placing the deaf (believed to be bound by demons) in monasteries.

Second Period: Care of the Disabled

The second period of evolution covered the Russian society’s awareness for the need to care for the disabled as well the understanding to provide opportunities to teach deaf and blind children. This period saw the move- ment of persons with disabilities from living in community shelters to having individual learning experiences in special schools. The first educa- tional schools (Deaf �1806, Blind � 1807) were established in Petersburg when Alexander I invited the French visual specialist Valentine Hauy to Russia. While this movement began later in Russia than in Europe, it quickly ended in the national precedent for opening of the first special schools across Russia. Because there was a serfdom system in Russia at that time, it was almost impossible to discuss the social status of people with disabilities (Ermakov & Yakunin, 1990).

Peter I did not find much support in matters of charity for the disabled and budding innovations in the matters of state social policy withered dur- ing the reign of Anna Ivanovna. Unfortunately, everything conceived by the reformer remained on paper and the government forgot about it. After Peter, charity was not popular, and the charity traditions weakened, and the new ideas about care and creating learning opportunities could not take root.

355Special Education Today in Russia

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

With the arrival of Catherine the Great, the Russia government acquired all types of charitable institutions similar to those in Protestant countries. However, a genuine development of secular charity was difficult due to the vast territory of the Russian Empire and the absence of preconditions in the country.

Third Period: Development of Teaching and Special Schools

The focuses of the third period of evolution involved an awareness of teaching opportunities for children with sensory impairments, the recogni- tion of the right to education for children with abnormalities and the development of a special education system. These focuses started at the beginning of the 19th century. During this period, positive attitudes of the public toward people with disabilities occurred and the first specialized institutions for the blind and deaf children were opened (Ermakov & Yakunin, 1990; Golovchits, 2001). Funding for these institutions was through charity and was beyond the scope of the domain of the govern- ment. Positively, Alexander’s I liberal reforms led to a surge in charity. However, during the reign of Nicholas’, the network of charitable institu- tions slowed considerably due to restrictions of freedom and persecution for dissenters. The situation improved considerably with the reign of Alexander’s II and his reforms which included the abolition of serfdom, the establishment of municipal government, and the judicial reform. His reign created the development of philanthropy. Unfortunately, the development of special education was not under state control as such there was no regulatory framework.

At the turn of the 19th century, Russia experienced a growth in the num- ber of hearing and visual impairment specialists’. Because of the success by these specialists in working with hearing and visually impaired students, physicians, teachers, and community leaders decided to teach people with cognitive impairments (Zhigoreva, 2006). This state of affairs was consid- ered to be the beginning of a special education system in Russia. Once this occurred, legislation on universal compulsory primary education was passed. Furthermore, this universal conscription led to the inevitable reflec- tion by the government and society of the presence of children and adults with cognitive impairments. The organization of a network of educational institutions for children with cognitive impairments began shortly after the above legislation (Baryaeva & Zarin, 2001). Prior to this organization of institutions, no attempts by teachers were made to educate individuals with

356 IULIIA KOROLKOVA

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

cognitive impairments in Russia and any teaching that was carried out was by physicians. Positively, from this movement, the Russian Society of Psychiatrists organized a network of institutions for children with mental illness in 1908 (Aksenov, Arkhipov, & Whites, 2004).

Special education in Russia changed dramatically after the revolution of 1917. The revolution led to a change in the political system and Russia was in a crisis due to the civil war. The institutions which were established for children with mental illness were taken over by governmental agencies. All charity and philanthropy was strictly prohibited by the government. The new government saw the purpose of education of children with disabilities as an important political goal to develop them as socially useful citizens. Thus, the formation of Russian special education developed into a mon- archical socialist state with totally different values, goals and ethical standards.

Fourth Period: Understanding the Need for Special Education

The fourth period of special education evolution was concerned with its movement away from the awareness of the necessity of special education for certain categories of children with impairments to the understanding of the need of special education for all who needed it. This period, as well as the previous ones, is full of contradictions in the development and estab- lishment of special education. The main contradiction is that the Soviet Union announced the care for defective children a priority, but did not constrain the expansion of the network of special institutions.

This period is characterized by the widespread development and differ- entiation of the system of special education, the introduction of new types of educational institutions for children with disabilities, and the extension of the age range of special education up to preschool and after school. Unfortunately, the development of special education was interrupted twice by world wars. During this period, a national law on special education was not adopted in the USSR. Further, special education specialists were not evenly distributed across the country. For example, in some large regions, there are no special education institutions or speech pathologists. Also, there was a political tendency to keep a close secret on the state of special education system from the media.

However, the development of the special education field continued to grow against the backdrop of social and economic growth. For instance, research on the methods to diagnosis and remediate impairments was

357Special Education Today in Russia

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

undertaken, the need for education of children with all disabilities was recognized, and special educational institutions for children with disorders of the musculoskeletal system, emotional, and behavioral disorders were added across the USSR.

Classification System During this period, a classification evolved from the historically shaped sys- tem of educational institutions for children with disabilities. Classification focuses on a system of special education categories related to the specific characteristics exhibited. The classification includes the following disabil- ities categories: deaf; hard of hearing; late hard of hearing; blind; visually impaired; impaired function of the musculoskeletal system; emotional- volitional impairments; intellectual disabilities; cognitive impairments (learning difficulties); severe speech disorders; and complex developmental disabilities. Also, there is a more generalized classification, which is based on the grouping of the above categories of defects in accordance with the localization of them in a particular system of the body: physical (somatic) disorders (musculoskeletal system, chronic diseases); sensory impairments (hearing, vision); disorders of the brain (mental retardation, movement disorders, mental and speech disorders) (Aksenov et al., 2004).

Medical and social assessments determine the level of disability in accor- dance with which the individual rehabilitation program is built upon. Persons assigned to group one are considered disabled with persistent and significantly expressed body defects. They have deficits in the ability for self-care, movement, orientation in the surrounding environment, and the ability to control their actions may be impaired. Persons assigned to group two are disabled due to expressed and persistent health problems that lead to learning, employment, and self-care disabilities. Persons assigned to group three are disabled due to persistent but not significant or moderately expressed body impairments.

Types of Schools Beginning in the 1950s, the special education schools in Russia have been differentiated within five types, namely, deaf, hard-of-hearing, blind, visually impaired, and cognitively impaired. Since 1954, the number of spe- cial schools has doubled because of new types of education and training methods. Beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s, special elementary classrooms for children with cognitive impairments began to appear in reg- ular schools. At the end of the 1980s, the first experimental classroom for children with severe cognitive impairments appeared in regular schools. By

358 IULIIA KOROLKOVA

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

1990, the total number of special schools was 2,789 (approximately 575 thousand students) and the network of preschools developed rapidly and there are more than 300,000 children with developmental disabilities in these programs (Russian Ministry of Labor, 2013).

Fifth Period: Equal Opportunities and Integration

The fifth stage of special education evolution involved moving from equal rights to equal opportunities and from the “institutionalization” of students with disabilities to the integration of students with disabilities. The main focus during this period focused on the integration of the people with dis- abilities into social life. The onset of the fifth period was not a logical conti- nuation of the development of Russia society, but the result of one more reorganization of the government and a rethinking of the countries values. The government wanted to develop a special education model specially designed for Russia. This was due in part because in the previous period the system of special educational institutions and enrollment of children into special classes in regular schools, which was to a large extent modeled after the European model, was not achieved. From that endeavor, it became clear that Russia needed to develop its own model, which would promote integration but not result in a haphazard reduction of special edu- cational institutions.

In developing its domestic education pedagogy model, the scientific activities of Vygotsky (1896�1934) were considered. Vygotsky had laid the foundations of modern special education His fundamental theoretical prin- ciples included: (a) the concept of the structure of a defect (the basic defect and related disorders); (b) biological and social unity (at the prevailing social role) in the concept of “defect”; (c) the defect and the possibility of its compensation; (d) the idea of the unity of the laws of development of normal and abnormal children; (e) the conception of qualitative uniqueness in the development of an abnormal child; (f) the postulation of the uneven- ness and selectivity in intelligence impairments (in mental retardation); and (g) the unity of intelligence impairments and affect (in mental retardation) (Malofeev, 2010a, 2010b). These important theoretical conceptions were utilized by Russian researchers to establish: (a) the important principles of special education and diagnosis of abnormal development, (b) the principle of using detours in teaching and development, (c) collective education, (d) structural and dynamic study of mental activity, and (e) the all-around, comprehensive study of the abnormal child’s psychic state. Currently, these

359Special Education Today in Russia

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

principles are applied in Russia’s era of change and reform. This applies to the education of nondisabled children and those with disabilities.

PREVALENCE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

The variety of classifications to some extent hinders the statistical treatment of data of people with disabilities. Problematic is the fact that the term “children with disabilities” is applied to a sufficiently large number of students with various physical and psychological disabilities. Previously, reported data on persons with disabilities was carried out by describing a category of children with terms such as “mentally retarded children,” “emotionally disturbed children,” and “behaviorally abnormal children.” Nowadays, for ethical reasons these terms are not used because they under- mine the dignity of these children.

The prevalence of people with disabilities is important and interesting. Here are some statistics provided by the Ministry of Labor Decree for the last 5 years: the number of people with disabilities of Type I and III groups has been steadily increasing; and the number of people with disabilities in Group II has been reducing. From the data, one can assume that the reduc- tion in Group II is a positive tendency, however, one may need to consider the fact that in recent years the criteria of disability assessment has chan- ged, and this could have led to a redistribution of people over Groups I and III (Russian Ministry of Labor, 2013).

The Ministry’s data relating to children less than 18 years of age arouses ones attention. The data shows that in 2012 the number of children with congenital disorders is the most. While among children with behavior dis- orders it remains unchanged possibly due to the government’s greater emphasis of attention on early diagnosis and prevention of defects.

In 2012, 1.6 million Russian children (4.5% of the total number of chil- dren), belonged to the category of people with disabilities and need special education appropriate to their special educational needs. Of these, 352,900 children attend Groups (I, II, and III) and preschool educational institu- tions of compensating types. Moreover, 63.6% of these students with dis- abilities regularly communicate and interact with nonhandicapped children who are in preschool institutions. In total, 277,700 school age children with special educational needs go to special educational establishments for children with hearing, vision, musculoskeletal, speech impairments, and cognitive impairments. A total of 203,000 students go to special schools,

360 IULIIA KOROLKOVA

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

2,500 students are taught in comprehensive schools, 2,500 students needing long-term care are taught in 145 health educational sanatoriums, and 34,000 students are taught at home and in schools with individual instruc- tion. Only 38% of children with developmental disabilities are integrated into the regular education environment. Data provided by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation indicates that there is a growth of children attending regular educational institutions over time (Russian Ministry of Labor, 2013).

CURRENT SYSTEM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

IN RUSSIA

Today in Russia, the problem of educating children with disabilities is becoming increasingly more relevant because legislation acts mandate that a child with a disability has the right to be educated in special and compre- hensive schools or at home by their parents. A comprehensive school can offer a student with disability opportunities that include education in: (a) a regular class, (b) a class for remedial developmental training, (c) a class for children in need of special education, and (d) their home. There is consider- able education debate among Russian special education professionals regarding the best practice to educate students with special needs. Some experts say that there is a need for education in special environments while some would argue the opposite, defending the idea of educating them in conjunction with normally developing peers. Currently across the globe, the idea of integrating children with special needs into mainstream schools is widely implemented. Positively, various forms of integration (combined, partial, temporary, and full) have been developed in Russia as well. The positive evidence for integration as an approach to teach children with developmental delays, social deficits, and psychological and pedagogical conditions comes from a number of studies (Aksenov, Arkhipov, & Belyakova, 2001).

Currently in Russia, the most important philosophy in general and spe- cial education in particular, is humanization. This philosophy can be valu- able in overcoming the anonymity of special education. The philosophy stresses that schools make the student with a disability the center of atten- tion and incorporate educational strategies to meet needs and interests. Based on the requirements of modern life in Russia and the challenges of integrated education, the interests and needs of the students with special

361Special Education Today in Russia

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

needs and their parents becomes paramount to their future success in the community. Accepting this philosophy and emphasis, necessitates that teachers in Russia significantly upgrade the instructional intervention and adopt curriculum geared toward the students’ needs and interests. Knowing the current state of special education in Russia today, it is obvious that Russia needs to development of a new teaching ideology in the field of special education as well as redesigning the standard curriculum for children with disabilities.

The fact that the government’s attitude toward people with disabilities has changed is of special significance. Across the globe, the rights of chil- dren with disabilities are governed by domestic legislation, international conventions and United Nations agreements. The legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of education is in accordance with international standards that guarantees equal rights to education for people with disabil- ities and disabled people. As evidence of Russia’s compliance with these standards, Table 1 describes three approaches to teaching children with special educational needs.

Table 1. Approaches to Teaching Children with Disabilities in Russia.

1. Differentiated instruction for children with speech, hearing, vision, musculoskeletal, intellect

impairments, and with cognitive disabilities in special institutions.

There are eight types of special schools for different categories of children with

developmental disabilities:

• Special educational institution Type I (boarding school) for deaf children.

• Special educational institution Type II (boarding school) for hard-of-hearing children.

• Special educational institution Type III (boarding school) for blind children.

• Special educational establishments Type IV (boarding school) for visually impaired children.

• Special educational institution Type V (boarding school) for children with severe speech

disorders.

• Special educational institution Type VI (boarding school) for children with disorders of the

musculoskeletal system.

• Special educational establishments Type VII (boarding school) for children with cognitive

impairments.

• Special (remedial) educational establishments Type VIII (boarding school) for children and

adolescents that are cognitively impaired.

Children with moderate cognitive impairments are organized in Type VIII schools while

children with lower intelligence are organized in schools Types I�IV. 2. Integrated education of children with disabilities in comprehensive schools.

3. Conjoined education when children with special educational needs are taught in the

classroom with normal children (Kaliagin, Matasov, & Ovchinnikova, 2005).

362 IULIIA KOROLKOVA

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

Today, the Russian system of education for children with special educa- tional needs is on the verge of inevitable change. The educational integra- tion of students with special needs, for more than a decade, has been mainly put into practice in Russia through experimental transfer and adap- tion to domestic conditions and modification of some well-established and proven forms of educational integration from other countries. However, now the organization of special education for children with disabilities in regular preschool institutions, comprehensive and other educational institu- tions, together with other children is considered to be a priority.

INCLUSION AND STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN

RUSSIA

Today, Russia has more than 2 million children with disabilities (8% of all children). About 90,000 children have physical impairments, which makes their travel and access to social and educational resources difficult (Russian Ministry of Labor, 2013). To expand the access to education for children with disabilities who need to be taught at home, distance education of chil- dren with disabilities is being intensively developed in Russia. The systema- tic implementation of inclusive (conjoined) education is being introduced in Russia very slowly and irregularly. In some regions (Moscow, Samara, and Arkhangelsk), these processes have been well advanced while in other regions they are only beginning to emerge.

The Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation reported that from 2008 through 2010, inclusive education models were implemented on a trial basis in the educational institutions of various types in several Russian regions, including Moscow, Arkhangelsk, Samara region, the capital of the Republic of Buryatia, Ukhta (Komi Republic), the Republic of Karelia (Petrozavodsk, Sortavala), Tomsk, Voronezh, St. Petersburg, Khabarovsk, and the North Caucasus republics (Russian Ministry of Labor, 2013). The development of inclusive education in Russia is mostly carried out in partnerships between government agencies and non-governmental organizations. The initiators of including children with disabilities in the learning process in regular educational institutions were associations of parents of children with disabilities, organizations advocating for the rights and interests of people with disabilities, and professional societies and educational institutions.

Reforming of any social system, including special education, involves the development of the necessary legal framework for this process.

363Special Education Today in Russia

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

Nowadays, the inclusive education in Russia is regulated by (1) the Constitution of the Russian Federation, (2) the Federal Law “On Education,” (3) the Federal Law “On Social Protection of Disabled People in the Russian Federation,” and (4) the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In 2008, Russia signed the United Nations Convention “On the Rights of People with Disabilities.” In addi- tion, the Russian Health Ministry has developed a draft concept of the federal target program “Accessible Environment” for years 2011�2015. The concept of “accessible environment” includes not only the adaptation of the physical environment, but a number of other issues including teachers training, the change in the system of additional support, and support to the individual.

An examination of the state of higher education for people with disabil- ities in the Russian Federation reveals profound changes in its organization and content. These changes were caused by some sustained trends in social policy and the emergence of a new holistic and semantic vocational educa- tion endeavors. In Russia, only a small number of universities focus on teaching individuals with disabilities. The focus is mainly for students with sensory impairments or movement disorders. More than 24,000 people with disabilities are enrolled in state universities and more than 34,000 thousand are taught in special secondary schools (Russian Ministry of Labor, 2013). The question of university involvement in the professional self-determination of people with intellectual disabilities is being asked.

CURRENT ISSUES AND INDIVIDUALS WITH

DISABILITIES

There is still a big problem with the employment of people with disabilities. According to governmental statistics, the Russian Federation is home to about 10 million people with disabilities yet only 13�15% of them have permanent jobs. Moreover, the number of persons with disabilities, who have completed program of higher professional integrated education, that have employment does not exceed 60%.

There still remains the problematic issue of dilution of the concepts of “integration” and “inclusion.” Some experts state that these concepts are identical, but more and more practitioners are inclined to the position that they are different concepts, especially in the areas of focus. The

364 IULIIA KOROLKOVA

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

classification of defects is one of the challenging issues in special education and psychology in Russia. Mental impairments or lack of mental develop- ment may occur at any point in a person’s life, and can develop and grow over time. The defect can be eliminated or decreased (in whole or in part) with the help of medicine or educational intervention. Further related to this issue is the lack of statistical treatment data with children with disabil- ities. No absolutely clear and comprehensive statistics in Russia’s public records has yet been presented.

Social rehabilitation of people with disabilities is one of the most impor- tant and difficult tasks for the modern special education assistance system developed in Russia. Unfortunately, even with the positive trends in the development of special education, the public awareness of the problems people with disabilities have is limited. One of the critical problems is work- ing with the family of persons with disabilities. This problem is complicated due to the lack of special education specialists and the poor communication with the family by educational and health services providers. Therefore, parents, being in the situation of having a child born with special needs are often left to solve problems all by themselves. New service trends and mod- els of care that are occurring in global societies are increasingly requiring us to deal with these issues. Unfortunately, the existing system shows that teachers very often become involved with a child with special needs only when he/she is enrolled or is enrolling in the special educational institution. This practice often results in wasted educational time. Another important issue is when individuals with disabilities turn 18 years old. Under the current legislation anything done prior to the age of 18 years to help the student cannot be implemented after the child turns 18.

Today, there are a lot of citizens who were born and raised in the era of 1990s in Russia. We know it was not the easiest time for nonhandicapped citizens due to changes in the social system, values, lifestyles, mentalities, and education. For persons with disabilities it was even more difficult as they experienced a lack of concern by others, a lack of opportunities to enroll in educational institutions, or engage family members and others about work opportunities.

WORKING WITH THE FAMILY

Children with intellectual disabilities especially those with severe cognitive impairments are the most vulnerable in matters of socialization. Today,

365Special Education Today in Russia

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

these children are at a disadvantage because some comprehensive schools are not fully staffed with specialist such as psychologists and the majority of them dismissed social workers years ago. Therefore, a problem arises in how to organize the systematical work that needs to be carried out with the family when they are placed into a seemingly dire situation of caring for a child with a disability. Russia’s rehabilitation system does provide a signifi- cant set of services not only for children but also their parents, the family as a whole, and the wider environment. All the services are coordinated in such a way as to assist the individual and the family development and pro- tect the rights of all family members. Help is provided at every opportunity in the natural environment, namely, in the home with the family. However, this does not extend to families with children in institutions.

The rehabilitation system provides a comprehensive plan aimed at the development of the child and the whole family. The plan is developed together with parents, a team of experts, physicians, social workers, teachers, psychologists, and speech pathologists, when possible. For the successful implementation of the plan, a system of activities is worked out for each individual child and family. The activities consider both the health and development of the particular child and the family needs and opportunities. The plan is typically developed six months or for shorter periods, depending on the age and the conditions of the development of the child.

At the end of the plan period, the specialist, who coordinates services for the child and family, meets with parents to discuss the achievements, successes, and what was not achieved. After this meeting, the parents together with the specialist or specialists, design a plan for the next six- month period. Sometimes, parents do not express any desire to cooperate and do not ask for help or advice. Some parents consider rehabilitation services primarily as an opportunity to get a break for themselves as it relieves them from the responsibility of caring for their child and gives this responsibility to the school or rehabilitation institutions.

Psychological-Medical-Pedagogical Committees

In the context of working with families, as well as child support, the question of the child’s psychological and medical well-being occurs. Such special care matters are evaluated by the psychological-medical-pedagogical committees (PMPC). Special care as a new educational technology in Russia was developed by Kazakova (2009). She identified several sources

366 IULIIA KOROLKOVA

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 domestic special care system, namely, (1) the experience of comprehen- sive care and support for children in need of special education, (2) the experience of the special services providing psychological and educational various medical and social support to children (e.g., advisory services, remedial centers, diagnostic centers, service “Trust,” and crisis services), (3) the long-term work of psychological, medical, and educational guidance and commissions for children with developmental problems, (4) the experi- ence of coordinating, scientific and methodological expert boards to ensure appropriate development of the child in educational institutions, (5) the communication of studies of various major research universities and research centers, (6) the implementation of international programs to create a system of tracking students’ progress in the country, and (7) need for experimental and innovative work of groups of educators, psychologists, and special teachers (Kazakova, 2009).

The establishments of psychological-medical-pedagogical commissions (PMPC) are priority goals and objectives in Russia’s modernization of edu- cation. The accomplishment of effective PMPC requires the construction of an adequate system of comprehensive psycho-pedagogical, medical, social and legal support for children with problems in development and learning. Under the system of PMPC it is understood there is a three-level organiza- tional structure, which consists of: (1) at the regional level � State Regional psychological-medical-pedagogical consultation within the State educational institution for children in need of psychological, educational, medical and social assistance, which is central with respect to municipal PMPC; (2) at the municipal (district) level � municipal psycho-medical- pedagogical commissions, which are the principal in relation to the psycho- logical, pedagogical consultation of educational institutions; and (3) at the primary level (the level of educational institution) � psychological and pedagogical boards (Kazakova, 2009).

To qualify for the right to define the educational route for children with disabilities, the PMPC passes mandatory examination procedures that are established by the Department of Education. According to the results of the examination, PMPC receives a permit. The activities of the PMPC and its individual units are financed by the budget of the education system of the certain region, municipal (district) educational formations, as well as through the targeted payments on establishment and operation of PMPC. PMPC works in close contact with agencies and organizations of education, health, guardianship authorities, social security, internal affairs agencies and prosecutors, community organizations, and educational institutions providing assistance in the education and development of students and

367Special Education Today in Russia

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

pupils. The main purpose of PMPC is to provide help to children with developmental disabilities on the basis of a comprehensive diagnostic examination and evaluation of the special provisions for their education and adequate health care. Table 2 describes the activities and related tasks of PMPC.

The examination of children by PMPC is done at the municipal level by the recommendation of PMPC of educational institutions. However, it should be noted, in all cases, the consent of parents or legal guardians of the child, who are present during the examination of the child, is necessary. The examination is performed by specialists, individually or collectively. According to the results, a compiled collegial conclusion of PMPC together with the recommendations is issued, taking into account the opinions of each expert. The collegial conclusion consists of conclusions and recom- mendations. The conclusion is a document confirming the right of children and pupils with developmental disabilities to ensure optimal conditions for their education. PMPC commission’s conclusion is the basis for the enroll- ment of the child (only with the consent of the parents or legal representa- tives) in a special educational institution.

Table 2. Tasks Focused on by Activities of PMPC.

1. Timely detection, prevention, and dynamic monitoring of children with developmental

disabilities from 0 to 18 years of age.

2. Counseling the children and adolescents attending a PMPC; parents (legal representatives),

educational, health and social workers, directly representing the interests of the child in the

family and the educational institution on matters within the competence of PMPC.

3. Methodological support at the municipal level � PMP Consilium of educational institutions at the regional level � municipal PMPC.

4. The coordination of interaction of PMPC specialists with special care services of

educational institutions, parents (legal representatives) to achieve continuity of

rehabilitation.

5. Overseeing the implementation of the PMPC recommendations and monitoring the

dynamics of children’s development who have been screened under the PMPC.

6. The analysis of its own activities and the activities of PMPC and PMPC of educational

institutions at the municipal level and municipal PMPC activities at the regional level (by

order/request of the Office/district Department of Education/region).

7. To collect the data about the children and adolescents with developmental disorders.

8. To establish an information database of the institutions, to which parents (legal

representatives) may appeal for help when difficulties arise in diagnostic or the aid is

inefficient.

9. Participation in educational activities aimed at improving the psycho-pedagogical and

medico-social and legal culture (Kazakova, 2009).

Source: http://www.gks.ru/ (Federal Service of Governmental Statistics).

368 IULIIA KOROLKOVA

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 Educational System

The major components of the process of medical, social and pedagogical patronage are early diagnosis and early comprehensive care. Early diagno- sis and early educational assistance are pressing problems for Russia at the moment. Despite the attention of researchers to these problems, the devel- opment of the science of special education in general is in its infancy.

Russia also has a number of domestic scientists (e.g., Matyukova, Strebeleva, Pechora, Pantyukhina, and Frucht) who have made a number of methodological recommendations for the development of the science of special education. Their recommendations have focused on programs of early diagnosis and psychological educational assistance to children with developmental disabilities. These scientists have stressed the practical appli- cation in psychological, medical and social centers, psychological, medical, and pedagogical consultations (PMPC) (Levchenko & Prihodko, 2001; Strebeleva, Wenger, & Ekzhanova, 2002).

Unfortunately, there are very few institutions providing programs for early diagnosis and early intervention for children with developmental disabilities operating in Russia today. Positively, there is a wide enough differentiated network of preschools for special purposes that include the following: nursery-gardens, kindergartens, preschool children’s homes, pre- school groups in nursery-gardens, kindergartens and orphanages, as well as in special schools and boarding schools. During the formation and develop- ment of special preschools, scholars, and practitioners adopted traditional special education preschool structures, polices, and curriculum. The organi- zational principles of the special education preschool education are dis- cussed in the next section.

Children are recruited for the special education preschools based on their primary impairment. The special education preschools employ specia- lists such as special teachers (e.g., blind, deaf, and cognitive impairment), pedagogues for children with oligophrenia, speech therapists, and other health professionals (Mozgovoy, Yakovleva, & Eremina, 2006). The educa- tional process in the special education preschools is carried out in accor- dance with the special integrated training and education programs designed for each category of preschool children with developmental disabilities and approved by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation. Best practice special education standards are implemented in all special educa- tional establishments (Boryakova, 2000; Golovchits, 2001; Smirnov, 2003).

The educational institution designs and implements the curriculum and educational programs which are based on the characteristics of individual

369Special Education Today in Russia

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

developmental needs and abilities of children, taking into consideration the special educational standards. In recent years, special educational institu- tions for other categories of children with disabilities (e.g., Autistic spec- trum disorder traits, and Down’s syndrome) have been introduced. The graduates of special educational institutions (except school Type VIII) can receive a state sample of completion which confirms their level of education or a state certificate indicating they have meet the standards of the special educational institutions which they attended (Boryakova & Kasitsyna, 2004; Mamaychuk & Ilina, 2004; Nicholskaya et al., 2003).

By analyzing remedial developmental work with all categories of chil- dren, it should be noted that all educational institutions are trying to help all participants’ progress in their educational, social, and self-determinate goals. Also, the educational institutions work endlessly in solving the pro- blems of the child and family with the help of various experts. However, the amount of progress that can be made and the number of problems solved is highly correlated with how well the staff has been trained (Shevchenko, 1999; Ulenkova & Lebedeva, 2002; Vodovatov & Bumagina, 2000). Russia is making a serious effort to improve the higher education training of special and general education teachers and specialists. In fact, the entire Russian higher education system is being reformed and rebuilt. This process started after Russia joined the Bologna process. Prior to join- ing the Bolonga process, there existed a specialist degree in higher educa- tion. When a candidate completed this degree, the graduate received a diploma of a specialist. The graduate had the option of continuing their education at the postgraduate level where the graduate could enroll in doc- toral studies. Doctoral studies require the candidate to complete a thesis that is submitted to the Scientific Council which recognizes the right of the candidate to have a degree or a doctorate. Now, Russia has a multi-level system of higher education where a candidate can earn an undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate degree. The doctoral level of education has disappeared and its status is not fixed in Russia’s higher education regula- tions. With this change, the postgraduate school is now regarded as a stage of higher education. Also, students can earn either an academic bachelor degree or an applied bachelor degree. The applied degree is considered to be more practically oriented. It should be noted that this transition to the new system of higher education has led to a reduction of hours for a num- ber of academic subjects, including compulsory ones, while other subjects simply disappeared from the curriculum.

The system of staff specialist (remedial) training in special education evolved over a long period of time and has had difficult developmental

370 IULIIA KOROLKOVA

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

periods. Specialists training exist in several forms and as such there are sev- eral ways of getting qualifications as a special education specialist, namely, full-time (or day), evening and part-time training, or earning a qualification through upgrading courses and retraining.

It should be noted, that despite the fact that Russia has quite a number of ways of earning special education certifications, staff recruiting on the periphery is considered to be rather topical. For example, universities and institutes that are far from the center of the country don’t train all the neces- sary specialists. Therefore, experts working in the regions are retrained for special education. Positively, in Russia, all special education professionals need to improve their qualifications at least once every 5 years.

CONCLUSION

In general, special education in Russia has progressed a long way the past few decades, but it is still in its infancy. Some of the problems of special education in Russia are already being solved, but many still remain. For example, while education is becoming more accessible to people with dis- abilities there are many tasks that are not completed due to the introduc- tion of inclusive education. Also, full educational coverage for students with disabilities in rural regions remains problematic. Lastly, a shortage of special education specialists continues to exist and retraining of profes- sionals to be specialists remains difficult.

It is also clear that Russia does not have enough progressive-minded, academically proficient, culturally developed teachers and professors. Part of this is due to inadequate funding of education. Another aspect is the absence of a moral and spiritual stimulus. Being a special education profes- sional requires enormous commitment from those who have taken up these careers and not many people are able to perform such noble deeds every day. There is a need for the Russian government leadership to take owner- ship of these aspects and help move special education forward.

There is also a need for: (1) a broad public support of special education policy, (2) the restoration of governmental responsibility and a more active role of the government in this area, (3) the state to financially support pro- grams that are comprehensive, and (4) a more efficient use and coordina- tion of available resources. In addition, all Russian citizens need to develop ethical and moral responsibility for education in general as well as promote laws aimed at improving education. Positively, the recent documents

371Special Education Today in Russia

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

defining the development strategy of general education in Russia (“New School” national project “Education”) arouse a certain hope, as the intended objectives correspond to the needs of our society. Hopefully, the Russian modernization of education, in our case, special education, will not be in vain and soon everyone who works in this field or are its con- sumers will feel these improvements.

REFERENCES

Aksenov, L. I., Arkhipov, B. A., & Belyakova, L. I. (2001). Integration as an approach to

teach students with disabilities. In N. M. Nazarova (Ed.), Special pedagogy: Textbook

for teacher training university students (2nd ed.). Moscow, Russia: Publishing Center

“Academiya”.

Aksenov, L. I., Arkhipov, B. A., & Whites, L. I. (2004). Educating individuals with cognitive

impairments. In N. M. Nazarova (Ed.), Special pedagogy: Textbook for teacher training

university students (3rd ed.). Moscow, Russia: Publishing Center “Academiya”.

Baryaeva, L. B., & Zarin, A. (2001). Teaching children with intellectual impairments subject-

role-play: Guidance notes. St. Petersburg, Russia: Herzen State Pedagogical University

of Russia.

Boryakova, N. Y. (2000). A step in development. Children’s early diagnosis and correction of

mental retardation: Guidance notes. St. Petersburg, Russia: Gnom-Press.

Boryakova, N. Y., & Kasitsyna, M. A. (2004). Correctional and pedagogical work in the kinder-

garten for children with mental retardation (Organizational aspect). Moscow, Russia:

Tvorcheskiy Tsentr Sfera.

Ermakov, V. P., & Yakunin, G. A. (1990). Development, training and education of children with

visual impairments: Reference handbook for teachers. Moscow, Russia: Prosvescheniye.

Golovchits, L. A. (2001). Preschool surdopedagogy: Education and training of preschool children

with hearing impairment: Guidance notes for university students (pp. 252�261). Moscow, Russia: Humanity Publishing Center VLADOS.

Kaliagin, V. A., Matasov, U. T., & Ovchinnikova, T. S. (2005). How to organize psychological

support in educational institutions. St. Petersburg, Russia: LOIRO.

Kazakova, E. I. (2009). Basic techniques and technology in the work of the tutor. Samara,

Russia: The Academy.

Levchenko, I. Y., & Prihodko, O. G. (2001). Technology training and education of children with

disorders of the musculoskeletal system: Textbook for secondary teacher training institu-

tions. Moscow, Russia: Publishing Center “Academiya”.

Malofeev, N. N. (2010a). Special education in a changing world (Vol. 1). Textbook for teacher

training university students. Moscow, Russia: Prosvescheniye.

Malofeev, N. N. (2010b). Special education in a changing world (Vol. 2). Textbook for teacher

training university students. Moscow, Russia: Prosvescheniye.

Mamaychuk, I. I., & Ilina, M. N. (2004). Psychologist’s help to a child with mental retardation.

Scientific and practical guidance. St. Petersburg, Russia: Rech.

Mozgovoy, V. M., Yakovleva, I. M., & Eremina, A. A. (2006). Basics of oligophrenopedago-

gics. Moscow, Russia: Publishing Center “Academiya”.

372 IULIIA KOROLKOVA

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

Nicholskaya, O. S., Baenskaya, E. R., Liebling, M. M., Costin, I. A., Vedenina, M. Y.,

Arshatsky, A. V., … Arshatkaya, O. S. (2003). Autism: Age, characteristics and psycho-

logical assistance. Moscow, Russia: Terevinf.

Russian Ministry of Labor. (2013). Russian military of labor data. Moscow, Russia: Russian

Ministry of Labor.

Shevchenko, S. G. (1999). Correction and development: Organizational and pedagogical aspects:

Guidance notes for teachers working in remedial developmental teaching. Moscow,

Russia: Humanity Publishing Center VLADOS.

Smirnov, I. A. (2003). Special education preschool children with cerebral palsy. Textbook� Guidance notes. St. Petersburg, Russia: Detstvo-Press.

Strebeleva, E. A., Wenger, A. L., & Ekzhanova, E. A. (2002). Special preschool pedagogy:

Textbook. Moscow, Russia: Publishing Center “Academiya”.

Ulenkova, U. V., & Lebedeva, O. V. (2002). Organization of special psychological care for chil-

dren with developmental problems: Textbook for teacher training university students.

Moscow, Russia: Publishing Center “Academiya”.

Vodovatov, F. F., & Bumagina, L. V. (2000). Organization of activities of remedial educational

institutions: Textbook for secondary and university teacher training institutions.

St. Petersburg, Russia: Publishing Center “Academiya”.

Zhigoreva, M. V. (2006). Children with complex developmental disorders: Pedagogical

assistance: Textbook for university students. Moscow, Russia: Publishing Center

“Academiya”.

373Special Education Today in Russia

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