Special Education and inclusion: the opportunities and challenges

A briefing paper

Educating students with special needs

A briefing paper on the future direction of Special Education and inclusion Overview of Special Education and inclusion
Special Education is as exceptional as the children it aims to support. When we refer to exceptional children we are discussing a group whose physical qualities and or learning abilities differ enough from the norm (higher or lower) that they require specialised programs of special education (Heward 2009). Special Education is exceptional as it is a multifaceted endeavor which aims to provide instructionally based intervention for exceptional children (Winzer and Mzurek 2005). Heward (2009) also advocates that Special Education has clearly defined goals, is individually planned, specialized instruction. Importantly he makes the point that this education needs to be regularly assessed to ensure evidence-based teaching methods are applied appropriately. Whilst there are many factors that influence our perspectives on Special Education (historical, cultural, legislative, social-political, instructional factors) the main focus of our perspectives should be on the unique individuals who require this specialist intervention and instruction.(module p.4&5). Special Education aims to meet the needs of these unique students in the best possible setting (Heward 2009).The constructs within which this education occurs are complex, varied and importantly, fluid (Yell, 2006 in Heward 2009 p. 17). The importance of fluidity in defining Special Education is related to the emergent nature of policy and practices being refined in light of past practices, definitions, legal policy development and research and which have been steeped in personal beliefs, legislation and organizational policy (p.38 Dempsey 2008). Heward (2009) summates that intervention can be preventive (avoid a potential problem becoming a disability), remedial (aim to remove the effects of the disability) or compensatory (teaching a substitute skill). Deciding whether and what to label the various disabilities for the purpose of communication, allocation of funding, grouping and educational discussion is yet another area within the auspice of Special Education that is fraught with difference of opinion. America prefers to refer to children who require special educational needs as children with exceptional needs where in Australia children with special needs is the preferred reference. The evolution of Special Education and the associated issues are well steeped in history of disability, dating right back to Roman times where people with disabilities were totally excluded. At the beginning of the eighteenth century educational programs commenced for people with disabilities through the Church. The awareness and responsibility for people with disabilities was heightened through the social, political and philosophical theorists and institutions were established. Education was not necessarily a focus. In Australia it wasnt until the late 1800s that responsibility moved from a nurture role to that of education. Until 1872, educational provision for people with disabilities moved from a voluntary provision to a government paid provision (U.S.Q. Study book, Unit EDU5321, p. 5-6).

Abigail Woldhuis Page 1

A significant turning point in Australian history of Special Education came in the nineteenth century with a significant shift in views of education for people with disabilities. Unfortunately funds diminished as the ideal of returning people with disabilities to normal settings was not easy. As recently as 1979, evidence suggests 30% of children in care were not being educated (U.S.Q. Study book, Unit EDU5321, p. 8). The 20th century saw a rekindling of intervention through improved educational programs and research. The problem of discriminatory mindsets was a central part of the problem of educating students with disabilities. A pivotal turning point was the Salamanca Statement of Principles, Policy and Practice on Special Needs Education from the UNESCO conference in 1994. The statement, based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948) and the United Nations Rules in Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (UN, 1993) states 5 principles providing the opportunity for the equal right to education for students with disabilities. The Salamanca Statement was a major turning point in the quest for advocacy for students with special needs. Since the Salamanca statement (1994) inclusion is considered the right of all children with special needs and the international trend is towards inclusion (Ruijs and Peetsma 2009). Inclusion refers to educating students with special needs in general classrooms (Heward 2009). Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) add that inclusion aims to keep these students out of segregated settings and allows specialists to bring the support to the child. Ruijs and Peetsma (2009 ) reviewed the effects of inclusion for the students (both those with disabilities and without) and commented that the debate as to whether inclusion is the best practice for all children is split and very difficult to measure due to variations in perception and understandings of groupings in relation to disability and policy on inclusion. It can be argued that inclusion has its core in specific conceptions of social justice, ethics and rights (Winzer and Mazurek 2005) which have come from the awakening of global awareness and promotion of equality. For education, Winzer and Mazurek (2005) point out that the effect of the move to inclusive schooling requires a change in school paradigm so that instruction and curriculum are appropriate to all children. The issue is complicated further by national, cultural, economic and political contexts. Winzer and Mazurek (2005) refer to 4 broad groupings which aim to encapsulate inclusive education limited, emerging, segregated but approaching inclusion and fully committed to inclusion. These groupings reinforce that inclusion is fluid. Decisions about the success of inclusion are difficult to make due emphasis that inclusion has on human rights and the lack of empirical evidence for inclusion for both mainstream children and those with Special Education needs (Ruijs and Peetsma 2009). In Australia, the Disability Standards for Education (2004) has stipulated that each state or territory is required to have legislation for children with special needs embedded in individual acts and policies (Forlin et al. 2008).

Key debates and controversies about Special Education and inclusion

With a global movement towards schools which are inclusive, consideration needs to be given to the challenges raised as a result of implementation. Whilst inclusion is aimed at providing equal opportunities for all children, the outworking of these programs needs to be carefully monitored and assessed to ensure that schools are able to achieve appropriate goals for all children. The Salamanca Statement of 1994, being a relatively recent document, has far reaching implications across the world for inclusion but the reality in practice is open to context, social, financial and political influence. Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) point out that there are insufficient evidence-based conclusions for any one specific country to make conclusions about inclusive education. Whilst principles may be constructed, practice and results are still in their relative early stages are specific to context. With such a wide range of abilities and disabilities within any one classroom, school, country, the job of any teacher in an inclusion classroom it multifaceted and complex. Mock and Kauffman(2005) contest the emphasis placed on the location of special education as opposed to the quality of instruction provided. One of the aims

Abigail Woldhuis Page 2

of the Full Inclusion Model is to prevent segregation to foster acceptance of all people yet they believe this to be an oversimplification of a complex issue. By redesigning schools for inclusion, there is the more serious problem of not understanding the complexity of school environments and in aiming to provide inclusion, these schools will actually exclude children further in the inclusive context (Mock and Kauffman, 2005). On a more social, acceptance level, Ruijs and Peetsmas (2009) review showed that although results indicate that in inclusive settings, there is more of an acceptance of children with special education needs by those without, but that children with special education needs are still viewed in a less positive light by their peers than their general ability peers. Different contexts bring different challenges to which model of inclusion is possible. Two main inclusion models currently exist full inclusion and partial inclusion. Some theorists argue that flexibility in location of schooling may include the use of variable schooling settings (through collaborative arrangements) to support inclusion is acceptable and benefits all students (Wedell 1995; Rijs and Peetsma 2009). Others feel the notion of full inclusion is delusional as the environment and extra demands placed on the teacher render the education of students with special needs ineffective (Mock and Kauffman 2005). There is also the concern of the children who do not fit easily into either scenario and are then generally overlooked in the classroom as their needs are not distinct from the norm to cause concern. These arguments can be linked to the effectiveness of the teaching (Mock and Kauffman 2005) as opposed to the setting of instruction. Many teachers in inclusive settings feel that without Special Education training they have an inferior ability to support children with special education needs (Forlin et.al 2008; Mock and Kauffman, 2005; Wedell 1995). With the emphasis on personalized learning, bringing specialists in to work with children with special needs and the facilitation of teacher aides all come under the umbrella of a teachers job description in an inclusive environment. It can be argued that the time, criteria needed to plan and asses for children with special needs comes at the cost of quality education for all (Wedell 2005). Wedell (2005) comments that effective teaching for those with special education needs is relevant for effective teaching of all students, regardless of disability. Recognising all learners as active participants becomes a more complex task and requires a movement away from attaching stigmas to students with special needs and questioning of traditional practices and programming. It is clear that support for teachers in inclusive settings needs to well planned, suited to the individual teacher and relevant to the particular context rather than with broad generalizations of principles and practices. Effective collaboration strategies need to be maintained and monitored and the whole school community must be supportive of the arrangement. Ensuring that all children have their needs met and no child is disadvantaged through inclusive education is important. Ruijs and Peetsmas (2009) meta-analysis of the academic and socio-economic effects of inclusion, concluded that there were more positive findings in favour of inclusion than negative. There is very little research into both the academic and social effects on high and low achieving students without special education needs. Many studies into inclusion have been conducted but with such wide variations worldwide about the reality of inclusion and the variance in disability definitions, there is a need to gather empirical evidence so that decisions on inclusive education be mainly based on evidence instead of the ideals in the human rights debate. (p.68 Ruijs and Peetsma 2009). Cultural and linguistic differences present a possible significant barrier in the effective delivery of Special Education. Xu and Filler (2008) comment on research proving high levels of parental involvement have positive effects on academic performance, attitudes, behavior and success of intervention programs. Collaborating effectively with these families allows teachers to be privy to a wealth of information about a student that they would never be able to access in the classroom It also allows the parents to be proactive in constructing and facilitating the educational goals of their children. Successful collaboration requires open minded participants and willingness to explore other belief systems and cultural backgrounds for the benefit of the students (Heward 2009).

Abigail Woldhuis Page 3

Specific to an Australian context, Forlin et al. (2008) assessed the concerns of 228 teachers in Western Australia in relation to the effective implementation of inclusive education. Amongst those concerns are administration, workload in modifying programs and curriculum materials and effective collaboration with other staff members. In the classroom their research indicated that managing behaviours, lack of resources, lack of support staff, insufficient funding, large class sizes and personal belief in their own competency affect their ability to offer successful inclusive practice. Most general classroom teachers have not had any formal Special Education training and thus inadequate to provide the best inclusive practices in their classroom for all students.

The way forward for Special Education

Debate continues about what constitutes best practice to achieve the best result for each individual student. Progression has occurred from a time where students with special needs were excluded entirely to a time when these students are to be included in the general classroom and society gaining wisdom from history is important for the continued evolution of Special Education (Kauffman 1999). There is a strong call for empirically based research in key areas of Special Education. Central to the future of Special Education are the aims to allow for specialised development of programs, practices and principles. This research needs to be culturally sensitive and the interpretation of its results grounded in evidence and experience rather than social commentating and emotion. Heward (2009) writes, whilst some evidence based research is starting to emerge, the gap between research and practice needs to be narrowed. Each year spent on arguing theories without practical application is another year of a childs life that hasnt necessarily delivered the best possible practice. Research, Learning Support Teams, resources/ specialised equipment and specialists are expensive. The mandate is for schools to become inclusive in their practice (Salamanca Statement, 1994) but is limited by funding. The needs and costs involved in inclusive practice have risen substantially, yet the funding has not (Vaughn and Schumm 1995). Governments need to inject funds into research and schools. Schools need to modify environments, employ Special Education teachers to assist with the development of collaborative frameworks with families, specialists, schools and outside services to devise the most appropriate IEP for individual students. The implementation of this collaboration requires teachers with a good working knowledge of qualifications in the area of Special Education. Teachers desire further training to equip them with the skills necessary to achieve best practice for all students in their care, requiring funding which is drastically under proportioned (Kauffman 1999; Forlin et.al 2008; Wedell 2005). The future of Special Education is most certainly closely linked to the principles and practices of inclusion. Perception is yet again changing to incorporate the view that it is not necessarily the place where this instruction takes place but rather the quality of that instruction that is central (Kauffman 1999). Consistent evaluation and altering of models and procedures of inclusion is essential for the future advances of Special Education (Vaughn and Schumm 1995). To expect that one model of inclusion suits all students ignores individuality and cultural backgrounds (Xu and Filler 2008). Many models, such as Universal Design for Learning, are in place at present and reap positive results but with the changing needs of students, society and the world, models like these cease to become effective without constant evaluation and reviewing of practice (Vaughn and Schumm 1995). More attention and training in the area of differentiated curriculum is essential in equipping teachers with the skills necessary for arranging learning for individuals and allowing for the flexibility of continuum of services for students whose disabilities (Vaughn and Schumm 1995). Special Education needs to stay focused on the point of its existence the students that benefit from it. In the quest for the most efficient model, the best practice, the ideal setting, the collaborative balance, educators must ensure that the students in their care are making academic progress and developing skills that transition

Abigail Woldhuis Page 4

them to adult life (Heward 2009; Vaughn and Schumm 1995). Responsible inclusion makes use of the wealth of information that can be gained from parents, irrespective of culture or differences (Xu and Filler 2008). Developing models and frame works where families can benefit from inclusion and in reciprocation, they can contribute to building effective IEPs for students are also important future considerations for Special Education (Heward 2009). Flexibility in the education system may well be a solution to the dilemmas associated with Special Education (Wedell 2005). This flexibility Wedell refers to, incorporates conceptualisation of curriculum, teaching practices, principles, valuing individual students, collaborative models, construction of models of teaching, government involvement in policy setting and grouping of students. Care needs to be taken that in an attempt to make all things equal, that Special education is not so redefined that it removes the essential services from the very children it is designed to equip with skills for life (Mock and Kauffman 2005). Of high importance is ensuring that with the increase of the volume of students requiring special education instruction, that the goal posts of what is considered a significant deviation from the norm are not adjusted to suit political agendas but that students are truly considered and valued as individuals, being offered quality instruction that allows them to be the best that they can be.

Abigail Woldhuis Page 5

References:

Dempsey, I. (2008). Legislation policies and inclusive practices. In P. Foreman (Ed.), Inclusion in action (2nd ed., pp. 37-62). South Melbourne, VIC: Thomson Learning Australia. De George-Walker, L. & King, P. (2010) EDU5321 Educating Students with Special Needs: Module One, Foundations of Special Education. Toowoomba: University of Southern Queensland Forlin, C., Keen, M., & Barrett, E. (2008). The concerns of mainstream teachers : coping with inclusivity in an Australian context. International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 55 (3), 251-264. Retrieved from Informaworld database. Heward, W. L. (2009). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (9th ed.). Ohio: Pearson. Kauffman, J. M. (1999). Commentary : Today's special education and its messages for tomorrow. The Journal of Special Education, 32 (4), 244-254. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. Mock, D. R., & Kauffmann, J. M. (2005). The delusion of full inclusion. In J. W. Jacobson, R. M. Foxx, & J. A. Mulik (Eds.), Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities : fad fashion and science in professional practice (pp. 113-128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ruijs, N. M., & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4 (2), 67-79. Retrieved from ScienceDirect database. UNESCO. (1994) The Salamanca statement and frame work for action on special needs education. UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28 (5), 264-270. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. Wedell, K. (2005). Dilemmas in the quest for inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 32 (1), 3-11. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. Winzer, M., & Mazurek, K. (2005). Global agendas in special education : a critique, Educational Practice and Theory, 27 (2), 7-24. Xu, Y., & Filler, J. (2008). Facilitating family involvement and support for inclusive education. The School Community Journal, 18 (2), 53-71. from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7727/is_200810/ai_n32302167/?tag=content;col1.

Abigail Woldhuis Page 6