Khara Burgess Special education and inclusion: the opportunities and challenges

Word count: 1868

Overview of special education and inclusion with a particular focus on Italy With cooperative involvement from national and international agencies, the movement of inclusion has come a long way over the last century. Often referred to as the antithesis to segregation, it has been prioritised in government policies due to individual rights becoming critical in the global trend towards social inclusivity. While this has involved general education systems, it has become particularly important for the education of those with special needs or special education, as it involves the practice of educating children with disabilities in mainstream classrooms, alongside children without disabilities, so they can interact in the same settings. Although these settings may be in a special or regular classroom, this has not always been an option for exceptional children who, prior to the beginning of the eighteenth century, were isolated from the mainstream.

By the mid-eighteenth century, due to combined efforts from the Church, sociopolitical and philosophical theorists, organisations were established to care for people with disabilities in Britain, the United States and Australia. Meanwhile, the growing need for a work force in factories stimulated these governments to increase universal education, even though the ultimate goal was for industrialisation. After WW2, progress in medical technology meant that better therapy for handicapping conditions and more efficient diagnosis and intervention procedures were developed. Furthermore, the new fields of psychology and sociology gave educators insight into exceptional people, especially their need for social interaction, and effective ways of ascertaining educational progress within intervention programs. While attention to people

with disabilities had increased, they were still segregated physically and academically with alternate (and inferior) educational programs in hospitals or separate schools.

A landmark event in the USA during the 1950s and 60s was the civil rights movement, particularly the Brown v Board of Education of Topeka case (1954), which questioned the racial separation of students and eventually led the US Supreme Court to declare that all children need equal access to education, including those with disabilities. In Britain, academic segregation was investigated in The Warnock Report (1978), which drew attention to the lack of educational programs for intellectually impaired children in long-stay hospitals, forming the basis of the 1981 Education Act. Although Australia began establishing special education in regular schools in the 1970s, the majority of institutionalised children in health departments were still receiving no education. On the contrary, the local context of Italy has been supporting inclusion in mainstream education as far back as the latter part of the 1960s. Part of a wider movement to challenge any kind of exclusion and gain equal opportunities, many fields like education, employment, health and welfare were reformed with the passing of a number of laws. In education, the official recognition of inclusion took place in 1971, with a more dramatic turning point in 1977 with the enforcement of Law 517, which saw the official closing of special schools that instructed compulsory education. With such a radical change of inclusion taking place across all aspects of Italian society, families became increasingly

aware of their childrens rights and have been continuously championing for the best solutions, in order to help create a mainstream school environment that positively supports inclusivity amongst students. Globally, parents have always been the prime advocacy for the rehabilitation of children with disabilities so they can reach their potential and become accepted members of society, and as inclusion has developed, they have become increasingly more involved in the process and decision-making related to education.

The terminology used to define the disabled has changed as a result of advocates who have seen the importance of placing emphasis on the person first as opposed to their disabilities. Even then, the term students with disabilities has more recently been replaced with more inclusive, appropriate terms such as children with exceptional needs (widely used in America) and children with special needs (widely used in Australia). These shift the focus from the disability to the educational needs of the individual, whether these are behavioural problems, physical disabilities or sensory impairments, or being gifted and talented. For Hunt and Marshall (2002), the distinct characteristic of special education is that the design of the educational program is tailored to the individuals unique needs.

With the aim of addressing the particular needs of people with disabilities at various stages of their life, a comprehensive legislation (Law 104) was passed in Italy in 1992. Regarding inclusive education, it stipulated that the right to education is not to be impeded by any kind of difficulties, that disabled children have the right to attend all mainstream classes of schools and universities, and

that they have the right to the provision of tools to fully develop their capacity and potential, through methods such as functional diagnosis or a personalised educational plan (Sidoli, 2008). This legislation was echoed in the USA in 1994 with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), which enforced principles of a non-prejudiced evaluation and the right to a free, suitable and individualized program of public education, within the most inclusive environment possible. Similarly, The Salamanca Framework for Action at the UNESCO conference in 1994 in Spain backed the global creation of inclusive education in ordinary schools that provide for differing needs.

Clearly, legislation has made a significant impact on education as a whole, and as Yell suggests (as cited in Heward, 2008), it is a dynamic process wherein the education of children with special needs is constantly open to change. Vianello (2002) believes that the overall triumph of Italian legislation and its model of inclusion has impacted and challenged the presence of segregated educational facilities in Europe and internationally.

Key debates and controversies about special education and inclusion To begin with, some educators contend that labelling an individual with a disability is a form of stigmatisation that only challenges their integration into the mainstream. Since it brings attention to the disability, it can lower selfconfidence or cause teachers to have lower expectations of the student, which can negatively impact the students overall performance (Heward, 2008). However, others contend that classifying is essential for individuals to obtain special education and social services. Ianes (2006) gives an example of this in

Italy, where children are only given access to special education, inclusive rights and individualized support if they are officially recognized and classified by the school system as having learning difficulties. In Kauffmans view (as cited in Heward, 2008, p. 12), no other interventions are possible without labels. This would seem to be the case in terms of conducting research or gaining resources, support and influencing legislation.

Secondly, the development of inclusion has meant that an increasing number of regular classroom teachers have had to teach children with special needs, which is problematic as many lack specific training in special education. Despite this, sufficient training is not being provided in many existing teacher education programs. In Italy, the amount of special education teachers has increased but so have the number of students with disabilities. Many of the regular teachers do not have specific training and similarly in the USA, general teachers complain that they receive minimal training or help when students with disabilities are placed in their class.

Another controversy relates to the children without special needs in an inclusive classroom. Some parents and educators believe that having students with disabilities weakens the overall educational level of the class but research has proved that this is not true. Cole, Waldron and Majd (2004) found that 334 students without disabilities in inclusive classrooms actually made advances in maths compared to another group of 272 students in a regular classroom. It could be said that the quality of instruction is the key to success, and that children actually learn more in inclusive classrooms because they learn about tolerance and diversity.

Finally, even though IDEA has increased exposure to the global rights of children with disabilities, its unclearly established concept of free appropriate education in the least restrictive environment (LRE) has been contentious. Some parents and educators believe that placing a child outside the general classroom is restrictive, while the majority considers permanent inclusion restrictive if it cannot wholly meet the needs of the child (Heward, 2009). The UK government is striving to have inclusive education as well as special and selective schools but critics like Booth (2000) argue that this compromises inclusion.

The way forward for special education An early intervention and inclusion at preschool programs should become the priority of education. Quality instruction at these early years would aid transition into primary school, by socially and academically preparing children for mainstream settings. Furthermore, if general inclusive education is to be successful, it needs well-prepared teachers who believe in the moral value of the policy. This can be fostered through training workshops for educators and relevant community members that emphasise the ways in which it can benefit all children due to the overall improvement of teaching methods. In Italy, many teachers agree that even children without disabilities need an individualized approach through unconventional methods and styles to cater for their diverse learning strengths and weaknesses. Therefore ongoing in-serve training and professional support programs should be provided which demonstrate the best didactic methods and instruments to teach all pupils efficiently in an inclusive setting. Alongside this, pre-service training of

teachers at college and university should consist of a compulsory subject in special education. This type of training has been undertaken in countries such as the USA and Australia, which have a successful history with inclusive education. Given the general trend towards inclusion in general education classrooms, and underequipped general educators, it is imperative that they work together with support teachers so as to increase the students chances of success in the education system. As Sidoli (2008) mentions, this is not always the case in Italy, because often the support teacher is regarded as sole responsibility for the child with disabilities. The divisions that exist need to be eradicated by engaging an interdisciplinary team of other helping professionals, whether in education or in the medical field. Even more important for enhancing the effectiveness of inclusive education, is an ongoing cooperation with families. As decision makers, research allies, support and assistance, families need to be regarded as equal partners with professionals. Considerable research has shown that educational programs are more successful when parents and families are fully involved in the process (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, Levine, as cited in Heward, 2008). Fundamentally, the need for accountability makes it important to build a large support system, between health care, education and the families of those involved in the process of inclusion. Since inclusion relates to respecting diversity, the classroom should be a place of co-operative learning. It is the responsibility of the school to encourage students and teachers to support each other through methods such as peer

tutoring, a buddy system, cooperative learning and co-teaching. This needs to extend to all areas, by encouraging those with disabilities to participate in any means possible with school and extracurricular activities. Concepts of tolerance, equality and diversity should become part of the general curriculum so as to help students appreciate their differences.

References Books Booth, T. (2000) Inclusion in Education, Education for All 2000 Assessment, International Consultative forum on Education, Executive summaries, Education for All, Paris, UNESCO, pp43-50

Heward, W.L. (2008) Exceptional Children: An Introduction to Special Education (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall

Hunt, N., & Marshall, K. (2002). Exceptional children and youth (3rd ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005) After high school: A first look at the post-school experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudianl Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI

Yell, M.L. (2006). The law and special education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall

Journal Cole,C. M.,Waldron, N.,& Majd, M.(2004).Academic Progress of Students Across Inclusive and Traditional Settings. Mental Retardation, 42(2), 136-144

Culham, A., (2003) Deconstructing normalisation: clearing the way for

10

inclusion. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability. 28, 1, 6578

Ianes, D. (2006), The Italian model for the inclusion and integration of students with special needs: some issues, Transylvanian journal of psychology, Special issue # 2, supplement # 1, p. 120

Kauffmann, J. M. (1999). How we prevent the prevention of emotional or behavioural disorders. Exceptional Children, 65, 448 468.

Vianello, R & Guiliana, T., Integrating Children with Disabilities in Italy, Children in Europe, No. 2, March 2002.

Websites Sidoli, R. (2008). Inclusive Policy in Italy. Retrieved 17 November, 2012 from http://centridiateneo.unicatt.it/cesi_Inclusive_policy_in_Italy_inglese.pdf

11

12

13