JP INCLUSIVE EDUCATION - Final Report

“REGIONAL SUPPORT FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION”
Final Report
Budget line: 2012 IPA

Contribution Agreement: 2012/308-048
Reporting Period:
1 January 2013 – 30 November 2015
March 2016
Contact Disclaimer
For further information please contact: This technical report does not necessarily reflect
official positions of the Council of Europe, the
Division of Cooperation and Capacity Building European Union or of the parties the
Education Department instruments referred to.
Directorate General for Democracy
Council of Europe
Strasbourg, France
Tel: +33 3 88 41 20 00
Email: sophie.ashmore@coe.int
Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 2 of 46

Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations
1. Executive summary ............................................................................................................................5
2. Summary of the Action ........................................................................................................................7

2.1 Project data ...............................................................................................................................7
2.2 Summary of objectives and expected results ...........................................................................8
2.3 List of project activities .............................................................................................................9
3. Achievement of objectives and expected results..............................................................................9

3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................9
3.2 Expected Result 1: Pilot inclusive eschools.............................................................................10
3.3 Expected Result 2: Increased awareness of benefits of inclusive education .........................21
3.4 Expected Result 3: Enhanced capacities of policymakers ......................................................25
3.5 Expected Result 4: Improved teacher competences ..............................................................33
3.6 Expected Result 5: Progress on the removal of concrete barriers for vulnerable groups......37
3.7 Sustainability of the Action .....................................................................................................39
3.8 Monitoring and evaluation .....................................................................................................40
4. Observations on project implementation .......................................................................................41

4.1 Partners and cooperation with other organisations .............................................................41
4.2 Visibility ...................................................................................................................................41
4.3 Lessons learned and reccomendations for follow up action ................................................43
5. List of Annexes ..................................................................................................................................46

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CDPPE Steering Committee for Education Policy and Practice

CoE Council of Europe
DoA Description of Action
EC European Commission
ER Expected Result
ETF European Training Foundation
EU European Union
EUD European Union Delegation
FGs Focus Groups
IR Inception Report
IEPs Individual Education Plans
IT Information Technologies
LSE London School of Economics
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NEPC Network of Education Policy Centres
OVIs Objectively verifiable indicators
ROM Result-oriented monitoring
SB Steering Board
SDP School Development Plan
SEE South East Europe
SEN Special Education Needs
STE Short-term Expert
VET Vocational Education Training
WG Working Group

1. Executive Summary
Cultural, religious, linguistic, ethnic and socio-economic diversity are amongst the most visible
characteristics of South East Europe. However, profound economic and societal changes in South
East Europe have brought rapid and large growth in social inequalities, as well as new forms of social
exclusion and segregation that needed to be addressed.
Non-enrolment, early school leaving, dropping-out and irregular attendance have been common
regional challenges for the region. Varying but significant numbers of children and young people
(most of them being Roma children and children with disabilities) have not been enrolled in school at
all for a variety of reasons including evident discrimination. Many other children, especially those
from certain minorities and from economically and/or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds,
drop out during compulsory education or leave school at the earliest opportunity.
This project was conducted at the regional level, thereby accentuating the role of education and
training in the promotion of social inclusion, tolerance, intercultural dialogue and non-discrimination
in South East Europe as a whole. Beneficiaries have explicitly expressed their willingness to work
together and to cooperate in the field of inclusive education at the regional level, as evidenced by
the reports of the series of meetings of the regional policy network and by the exchange of
communications during the consultation process led by the European Training Foundation.
A regional approach to inclusive education was well justified due to the similarity of the social,
political and economic contexts and challenges shared by the beneficiaries, as well as in the light of
the common challenges and objectives for the region as a whole in the context of the EU
enlargement process. The national education systems, in particular, have similar structures and have
undergone similar reforms, all of them struggling to ensure equality of opportunity to the diverse
groups of learners. These commonalities, coupled with the shared needs, similar priorities and
limited resources, suggested that regional cooperation, exchange of experience and learning can
promote more efficient implementation of inclusive education at national level, while offering
significant economies of scale of intervention.
During the project implementation, the regional approach proved its added value: cooperation
served as a driving force in exploring the similarities of the social, political and economic context with
view to engaging into joint actions when addressing common issues such as segregation and
vulnerability. The beneficiaries benefited from pooling of regional expertise and from policy learning
at regional level.
The project intervention focused on activities based at 49 pilot schools coupled with policy and
awareness-raising measures that aimed to promote further the concept of inclusive education as a
major reform principle and feasible practice in South East Europe. The grassroots activities placed a
strong focus on teachers and schools, since schools are the focal points of inclusion / exclusion and
teachers are the key figures in these processes. The pilot schools were also involved at the regional
level in the elaboration and development of a Tool to upgrade teacher education practices for inclusive
education, as well as implementing inclusive approaches and practices through 49 individual school
projects supported by a small grants scheme.
The project also included capacity-building measures for key stakeholders at macro - meso- and micro-
level of education provision and governance. It enhanced skills and know-how for practicing inclusive
education by targeting stakeholders from different sectors: public authorities/administrations dealing
with education issues at beneficiaries at both central and local level; practitioners – schools principals,
school board members, teachers and pedagogues; academia and research communities, including
teacher educators and researchers in the field of education; and civil society organisations, including
parents’ associations.

The project established three regional platforms: PolicyNet - an overarching platform for policy
dialogue, and SchoolNet and TeacherNet for mutual learning and exchange of experience. The
networks worked in a complementary and synergetic way in order to facilitate reflections on
developing regional policy recommendations for inclusive education. As a major input for the debate in
the regional platforms the project provided grassroots experience from the 49 pilot schools and the
policy recommendations were endorsed by the three networks. The project even went beyond the
expected results and supported beneficiaries to develop actions plans for the implementation of the
regional policy recommendations. At the time of preparing the final report some beneficiaries (Albania,
Montenegro, Serbia and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) had reported that specific
policy recommendations have been already incorporated into their national education strategies and
other policy documents.
Considering the limited awareness of the general public of inclusive education and/or the narrow
understanding of the concept by professional communities, the project launched a visibility campaign
to promote inclusive education and to highlight its added value for the education systems, for learners
and for societies in general across the region. The campaign also contributed to fighting negative
attitudes, stereotypes and prejudices. A documentary, TV and radio programmes based on real cases
from pilot schools, the involvement of regional celebrities to convey the message, “Inclusive Day”
events and other activities were part of the project engagement to raise awareness on the benefits of
inclusive education.
The project has achieved its overall objective and purpose by accomplishing the expected results
against OVIs (objectively verifiable indicators) which are formulated as outputs and analysed in the
following sections. To achieve the results, a total of 94 activities were carried out during the
implementation including 15,000 stakeholders in the baseline and in the final study, and over 5,500
participants involved in other activities. Additionally over 24,600 participants (school staff, students,
parents and local community members) were directly involved in the implementation of the 49
school projects. As members of the project Steering Board declared at several occasions, this project
brought regional mobilisation of inclusive education in South East Europe.

2. Summary of the Action
2.1. Project data
Title of the Action Regional Support for Inclusive Education in SEE
Project Budget € 5 165 650
Project Funding European Union (EU), Council of Europe (CoE)
Project Duration 35 months
CRIS Number 2012/308-048
Commencement Date 1 January 2013
Beneficiaries Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia,

“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Kosovo*1
Beneficiary Institutions Ministries of Education in each Beneficiary
Contracting Authority The European Union, represented by the European Commission
Implementing Organisation Council of Europe (CoE), Directorate General of Democracy
Target beneficiaries Ministries and local authorities of education and training in

each beneficiary, teachers, school professional staff, parents,
community and media. The final beneficiaries are teachers and
pupils from the 49 pilot schools
* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration
of Independence.

2.2 Summary of objectives and expected results
Overall objective To enhance - in line with the Beneficiaries’ commitments to EU

accession and Council of Europe standards2 - social inclusion and
social cohesion in the region by promoting inclusive education
and training.
1. Setting up regional support mechanisms and resources for

Specific objectives
pilot inclusive schools
2. Raising awareness of the benefits of inclusive education for

the general public as well as decision makers
3. Enhancing the capacities of policymakers for designing and

implementing inclusive education policies
4. Improving teacher competences and practices for inclusive

education
5. Making progress on the removal of concrete barriers for

vulnerable groups including through stronger partnerships
within a co-ordinated framework
Expected result 1
Pilot projects for Inclusive schools successfully implemented in
the region.
Expected result 2
Awareness of the benefits of inclusive education achieved for
general public as well as decision makers
Expected result 3
Enhanced capacities of policymakers for designing and
implementing inclusive education policies
Expected result 4
Improved teacher competences and practices for inclusive
education
Expected result 5 Progress on the removal of concrete barriers for vulnerable

groups including through stronger partnerships with other EU
funded projects as well as international organisations in South
East Europe within a co-ordinated framework
2
In particular the European Social Charter and the New Strategy and Council of Europe Action Plan for Social Cohesion (approved by the
Committee of Ministers on 7 July 2010).

2.3 List of project activities
The list of project activities can be found in appendix (annex 1).
3. Achievement of objectives and expected results
3.1. Introduction
The aim of this final narrative report is to inform how and to what extent the EU/CoE joint project
“Regional Support for Inclusive Education” in South East Europe achieved its expected results and
what impact it has made in the area of inclusive education in the region.
At the origins of this project was the belief that despite the lack of quick-fix solutions for the complex
historically and politically rooted causes of social and educational exclusion in South East Europe,
efficiently applying what the concept of inclusive education entails could play a key beneficial role in
addressing these issues both in the short and in the long run. This assumption was based on key
findings from a regional report3 that was produced as part of the European Training Foundation’s
(ETF) Social Inclusion through Education and Training project carried out in South East Europe
between 2008 and 2011, from the discussions of the ETF facilitated regional policy network4 during
the project regional meetings in Pula (2009), Şanlıurfa (2010) and Torino and Ohrid (2011), as well as
from the consultations with the ad hoc Task Force5 that was set up in 2011 with the aim of enhancing
the involvement and the ownership of the beneficiaries over the design of the “Regional Support for
Inclusive Education” project.
The consultation process resulted in a very comprehensive and ambitious description of action
including interventions and networking on both, grassroots and a policy level and applying vast range
of activities from peer learning, exchange of experience and good practices, capacity building,
awareness raising and a small grant scheme for 49 pilot schools. The project was implemented within
the agreed timeframe of 35 months with a budget absorption with over 90% (total budget of € 5 165
650). During the last year of the implementation, a range of additional activities were agreed with EU
and implemented by the project team in a timely and effective manner.
The following section provides an overview and analysis of the achievements and impact per each
expected result defined in the description of action.
3
European Training Foundation. Teachers for the future – Teacher development for inclusive education in the Western Balkans, Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities, Turin, 2011
4
This open network includes representatives from public institutions, academia, research community, think tanks, community-based
organisations, NGOs from South East Europe and Turkey. Other members of the network come from the European Commission’s DG
Enlargement, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Delegations of the European Union, the Regional Cooperation
Council (RCC), the Council of Europe, the European Agency for Special Education, the Roma Education Fund (REF), the Open Society
Institute (OSI), OECD, South East European Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning (SEECEL), UNICEF, Fundación Secretariado Gitano (FSG) and
many distinguished experts from public institutions and NGOs from EU Member States.
5
Members of the Task Force were representatives of governmental institutions, non-governmental actors and academia, as follows:
Albania: Prime Minister’s Office (Education Adviser to PM); Bosnia and Herzegovina: Agency for Pre-primary, Primary and. Secondary
Education of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Croatia: Ministry of Science, Education and Sports; “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”:
Ministry of Education and Science; Montenegro: University of Montenegro; Serbia: Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit,
Government of the Republic of Serbia; Turkey: Ministry of National Education.; and Kosovo*: Kosovo Education Centre;

3.2. Expected Result 1: Pilot inclusive schools
Expected result Indicators

 7 school networks established in beneficiaries
Pilot projects for  Accompanying research teams attached to national school networks
inclusive schools  Western Balkans school-based research findings contribute actively to
successfully the European and international debate on inclusive schools
implemented in the  Number of capacity-building activities conducted within the established
region national and regional networks
 Schools approaches developed and implemented to encourage the
presence, participation and achievement of all learners
 Evidence and expertise on enduring and meaningful implementation of
change at all levels, from macro to micro, from political aspiration and
practices to that of schools, communities and society in general
Extensive grassroots support was provided to 49 pilot schools in the region to increase their
understanding of the concept and benefits from inclusion and to strengthen their capacities to create
better inclusive school environments. A regional network of inclusive schools (Inclusive SchoolNet)
was established for mutual learning and sharing of experience supported by a relevant web-platform.
Grassroots evidence from the implementation of the pilot projects was brought to the policy level
and incorporated into policy recommendations.
To achieve an open and transparent pilot school selection process, a decision was made to publish a
call and invite all interested schools who met the criteria to apply to participate in the project. The
call for expression of interest was published on the Council of Europe’s website, beneficiaries’
Ministries of Education websites and the information was disseminated to European Union
Delegations, NGOs and other relevant institutions and networks in SEE. A motivated and diverse
group of 49 pilot schools was selected out of 392 applications (3 primary, 2 vocational and 2 general
secondary schools in each of the 7 beneficiaries).
The selection was conducted by a committee in each

beneficiary composed of representatives from Ministry
of Education, EUD and the CoE. Each of the pilot
schools selected 5 team members (principals, teachers,
pedagogues, psychologists, parents, local community
representatives, etc.) to be part of the school team.
These teams were then integrated into one network
consisting of 245 members. The Inclusive School
Network was officially launched on 6 November 2013
during the launching conference in Tirana.
Photo: 1: Geographical location of 49 pilot schools

Schools signed a joint commitment and
reconfirmed their agreement to work
towards successful implementation of
the project. From that moment on,
SchoolNet started to evolve into a
functional and learning platform for
exchange of professional experiences and
networking. Through the project, the
network also encouraged ownership of
the change in schools related to inclusive
practice, policies and culture; it cultivated
strategic thinking, dissemination and the
promotion of results among members
with the emphasis of the importance of
involving students, parents and local
community in school life and decision
making.
The first year of the project was focused

on establishing regional partnerships
among the schools and among the
institutions, a process which proved quite
challenging considering the contexts of a
fragmented South East Europe and the
legacy of years of conflict and political
instability. Even though education is not a
highly politicised issue, trust and mutual
understanding on a professional and
human level needed to be established before joint activities took place.
Most of the schools had some experience as partners or participants in different projects but very
few schools had the skills and knowledge to plan projects from the very beginning, how to timely and
strategically implement and report project activities. Thus, extensive day-to-day support was
provided to the 49 school teams by the local partners from the Network of Education Policy Centres6
(NEPC). NEPC partners in each beneficiary were local organisations with pools of experts that had
extensive experience in inclusive education, project planning and implementation, strategic planning
and research and the development of educational policies. The role of NEPC was to conduct an
assessment of school needs through participatory action research with all stakeholders (students,
parents, education staff and community representatives); to provide capacity building and day-to-
day support to pilot schools for the development of project proposals for schools; and to support
schools in the implementation of their projects and the development of their sustainability plans.
6
NEPC – Network of Education Policy Centers. NEPC is a formal international network of education policy centres consisting of 23
institutional members in 18 countries and 4 individual members. http://www.edupolicy.net/

The starting point for the design of schools
projects was the results from the Baseline
Figure 1: Survey constructed around the “Index for
Average Index for Inclusion by type of school Inclusion7” and carried out by LSE
(based on a scale of 1 to 5)
Enterprise8. National research teams
interviewed 10,000 respondents to capture
the nature, extent and level of awareness
of inclusive education by students,
teachers, principals, parents and the local
community. According to the results, the
overall value of the Index for Inclusion for
49 pilot schools and all stakeholder groups
was 3.66 (Figure 1). This was just above the
average value of ‘3’ on the scale of 1 to 5
which indicated that the schools in South
Eastern Europe were, on the whole, not
highly inclusive and that there was a
significant amount of policy work that needed to be carried out to improve the inclusiveness of the
school system as a whole.
Another observation from the survey was

related to the variations in perceptions Figure 2:
on inclusiveness among “internal” and Index for Inclusion by stakeholder group
“external” stakeholders, that is, variation (based on a scale of 1 to 5)
in the responses provided by those who
work in the school (principals and
teachers), those who attend school
(students) and those have an important
external stake in it (parents). The chart on
Figure 2 shows that on the whole
teachers and principals displayed a much
higher perception of inclusiveness in their
schools than students and parents did.
While this bias could have certainly been
expected due to the fact that those who
work at schools perceive themselves
being inclusive, it was still something that
deserved policy makers’ attention to understand what the source of this “perception gap” was.
Following the baseline study, accompanying research teams were attached to national school
networks and more than 1700 stakeholders (principals, teachers, students and parents) organised in
196 focus groups were steered through the process of self-assessment and prioritising needs to
improve inclusive school practices. Assessment was conducted to measure to what extent the
culture, policies and practices of the schools are inclusive, what the main problems and barriers to
inclusion are, and crucially, what types of support are needed for the schools to become more
inclusive and sustainable.
Results from the focus groups confirmed the findings from the baseline survey, that is, that there was
a certain gap in understanding of the inclusive practice and culture among parents, teachers,
7
Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2002) Index for Inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools, Centre for Studies
on Inclusive Education (CSIE)
8
Through an open tendering procedure LSE Enterprise was contracted to carry out the Baseline and Final survey of the
Project.

students and local community representatives. In most of the schools, participants (especially
parents and students) stated that it was the first time anybody asked for their opinion about culture
and practice in the school. Many also stated that discussions in the focus groups helped them to
understand that inclusion is a much broader concept than just including children with disabilities in
mainstream schools, and that the process of inclusion itself involves many different actors such as
parents and local community at a whole. Teachers also emphasised lack of skills to provide learning
support to specific groups of children, and expressed the need for further capacity building. This
evidence strongly suggested that in the school projects, the emphasis should also be made in
promoting the values of inclusion in the entire local community, involving parents and students in
project activities to ensure participation in decision-making processes, additional support given to
vulnerable children, and capacity building of teachers and school staff.
Focus group discussions also revealed the existence of some non-inclusive practices and a few
examples of such practices reported by the schools staff, parents and students are given below, as
well as some examples of interventions undertaken within the schools’ projects to address the
identified challenges. Also, a few teachers are quoted as testimonials of the change that occurred
during and after the project implementation:
Non inclusive practices reported in the focus groups:

 Teachers are often selective or partial and do not support all students equally or according to
their needs.
 Schools apply the same assessment criteria also to students with disabilities in areas where they
need an individualized approach, thus, there is lack of adjustments in curriculum and teaching.
Example of intervention:
Some schools organised training for teachers on how to create Individual Education Plans for
children who need additional support (“Isuf Gjata” Korçe and “Mustafa Efubović – Sejh Jujo”,
Mostar). Schools reported that students had shown great improvement thanks to the IEPs.
Sunchica Belinska-Andov, Teacher, Vocational School “Boro Petrushevski” Skopje

“For me, the most dramatic change is in my personal approach when dealing with different
students’ needs. It is important that every teacher understands that every child is different and it is
our responsibility to find the best and most creative way to meet those needs.”

 Separate schooling of ethnic minority students in “satellite” schools that are seen as less
important, or establishing the “two schools under one roof”. In reality these two units /schools
neither communicate nor cooperate.
Collaboration and joint activities between the main and satellite school in the multi ethnic primary
school “Joakim Krcoski” Volkovo, Skopje involved all 554 students, 27 parents and grandparents,
and 41 teaching staff.
Gordana Nestorovska, School psychologist, “Joakim Krcoski”

“As changes occur to all involved in the project, changes have also occurred in my approach, in my
understanding and in the way of interacting with students, teachers and parents. Personally, I have
become more sensitive to the needs of students, I now understand students with special
educational needs better and I spend more time in consultation and talking to parents.”

 Placing Roma students separately from other students in class.
Mentoring support provided by high-achieving students to Roma students in a Homework Club,
primary school “Jovan Jovanović Zmaj”, Vranje.
School Team, primary school “Jovan Jovanović Zmaj”, Vranje

“Teamwork, mutual support, better connection between feelings and actions, better peer support
among students, commitment, responsibility, work-sharing, empathy, openness to problem-solving,
understanding the beauty of diversity, changing attitudes towards education, improved learning,
raising-awareness in inclusive education, improved inclusive school culture, policy and practice,
respect for the child rights, greater participation of students and parents. The school is not the
Boogeyman, we are better people!”

 Lack of a strong stand on violence or bullying, lack of security measures to make the school a
safe place for students.
Training and workshops with students and staff on anti-bullying measures and the creation of the
“Peace Club”, primary school “Dëshmorët e Kombit”, Vraniq/Vranic
Irmete Basha, Principal, primary school “Dëshmorët e Kombit”, Vraniq/Vranic

“As a School principal, I shared my experience with other principals from local and regional schools
involved in the project and this helped me in creating more efficient management of the school.
Inclusion is now the mission and the vision of our school”.

 Top-down decision making without soliciting opinion of staff, students and parents.
Drafting amendments to the school Code of Conduct and to other school policies with the support
and participation of the students’ parliament, teachers, parents council, school board and NGOs in
“VII Beogradska gimnazija”, Belgrade.
Miroslav Markićević, Director, “VII Beogradska gimnazija”, Belgrade

“Thanks to the project, our school has become a better place to live and work for all teachers and
students. We have learned to see the diversity of our students not as an obstacle but as a challenge
to encourage our students to do their best”.

 Lack of measures to improve accessibility of schools for students with special needs and
students from socially disadvantaged families, lack of practices that would confirm the school’s
openness towards marginalized groups.
Pre-school courses for Roma students enrolling in the first grade, preparatory classes and free
medical examinations for Roma students who did not have access to pre-school check-ups in primary
school “Mileva Lajović-Lalatović” from Nikšić.
Radmila Pejović, School Teacher, “Mileva Lajović-Lalatović” from Nikšić

“I want to change the mind-set of people who still don’t understand the importance of inclusive
education. Our school is a good school. A good school is one that is good for everyone. We have a
safe environment, we recognise and respect differences and we value the importance of parental
involvement in the school life. The parents have all recognised that and they are happy to enrol their
children in our school. WE WILL KEEP ON GOING!”

 Lack of support for students at risk of dropping out.
Additional support to Roma students, especially girls who are at the higher risk of drop out including
home visits to students families to ensure parental support to school attendance in Vocational School
“Gospodarska škola” from Cakovec.
Zdenka Visnjić, Librarian, Vocational School “Gospodarska škola” from Cakovec

“During the project, it was wonderful to see how barriers were falling towards Roma students. The
level of their confidence is higher than before”.
The few examples stated above suggested that changing school practices (particularly teaching
practices) was the key to encouraging schools to become more inclusive. Around 95% of the schools
interventions included some form of teacher and other educational staff training and capacity
building.

These are the main types of interventions in the schools projects:
Types of interventions in 49 school projects
As the lack of awareness on inclusion was also among the challenges identified by the schools, the
majority of school projects incorporated some form of awareness rising activities in various forms,
such as, radio shows, short films, roundtables, public school activities, leaflets, open school shows,
etc. At the end of the project teachers reported increased understanding of the term inclusion and
positive implications of inclusive education to their school and local community. These changes in
practice and culture were then reflected in school policy documents such as the Strategic Plan for
Development of Inclusive School and Sustainability Plan. All school initiatives through the school
projects were documented in the Catalogue of School Projects available on the Project Website and
disseminated to the all participants during the project’s final conference.
It is important to state that the schools did not simply use the most traditional methods of teacher
trainings such as seminars and workshops but they also organised open classes, mentoring meetings,
peer exchanges and study visits to other schools from the region. Many schools also involved other
schools from their community that were not part of this project. Peer learning and exchange has
been identified by the schools as the most beneficial method for mutual learning, thus region-to-
region peer learning was applied. A group of school team members and policy-makers from South
East Europe participated in a study visit to The Greater Region (Saarland, Lorraine, Luxembourg,
Rhineland-Palatinate, Wallonia and the French Community of Belgium, and the German-speaking
Community of Belgium). During the study visit participants gained knowledge and increased
understanding about inclusive education policies and practices in the regional context. Given the
interest from all parties, a reciprocal visit of practitioners from the Greater Region to SEE was
organised in Belgrade. The project also organised study visit to Turkey with the aim of increasing
their knowledge about how schools can become more inclusive by creating a democratic school
culture. Experiences were shared with Turkish schools from the joint EU/CoE project “Democratic
Citizenship and Human Rights Education in Turkey”. Also, several peer learning exchanges took place,
between schools from SEE and the Greater Region and among the pilot schools from SEE.

During the implementation of school projects, the schools faced various challenges, some of an
administrative and others a programmatic nature.
A few administrative challenges such as centralised financial and procurement procedures in some
beneficiaries caused some delays in grant disbursement. For example, in Kosovo* school grants had
to be transferred through municipal banks accounts, and in “the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia” through special accounts of their National Bank, thus schools went through lengthy
process signing special contracts with the National Banks. In some schools, complex procurement
procedures required by the municipalities postponed some activities related to the purchase of
equipment and minor civil works (e.g. Kosovo* where municipal authorities required schools to go
with municipal procedures of procurement and via municipal bodies used companies pre-selected by
the municipalities). However, despite all these above mentioned situations all school activities were
implemented within the duration of the project.
It was also observed by the project team and reported by the NEPC that the majority of the schools
had a lack of experience in financial management. Thus the project team developed the
Administrative and Financial Guide to help schools to plan, monitor and report their spending, and to
ensure transparency, accuracy and compliance to the CoE rules and procedures. The Guide was
translated into local languages, and the schools reported that it was a very useful tool for the
schools’ project implementation.
In order to ensure sustainability of the project actions

in the schools and to enhance schools capacities for
policy planning, schools were also given support in
creating a strategic School Development Plans (SDP)
for the period 2015 - 2018 . The plans were also
developed through a participatory process involving
all relevant stakeholders. SDPs reflected priorities set
by the school teams and most of the priorities
referred to: improving communication and
cooperation at all levels and among all stakeholders,
their involvement in the school decision-making;
strengthened parent and student involvement in
decision-making; improvement of school facilities, equipment and assistive technologies;
professional development of the teachers and diversified approach to teaching; awareness-raising
activities, etc. Policies against bullying and violence, peer support and education, embracing
diversities and child rights were either introduced or improved through the process of developing
SDPs.
The real impact this project has made in the pilot schools
“After the implementation of this
and their communities is the change which occurred in
project, I personally see the world
school philosophy and democratic culture. The evidence of
differently, with more in-depth
this change is reflected in schools development plans.
awareness that we are all part of a
Analysing the priorities set up in the 49 SDPs plans, it
whole. Our school became much
becomes evident that they reflect the results this project
better in every sense of the word”
expected to achieve. Some of the priorities and actions
Misim Gegić, School Principal
schools identified are listed below:
 Increase the active involvement of school staff and other stakeholders in identifying school
priorities;
 Provide equal chances and opportunities for all students regardless of their origin and
performance level;

 Strengthen parent-teacher-student cooperation to overcome the difficulties and challenges
faced in school;
 Increase involvement of parents in school issues and activities (siblings and grandparents can
also be involved);
 Improve school policies in order to combat discrimination and respect and celebrate diversity;
 Support students with learning difficulties through the implementation of additional support
classes in different subjects;
 Encourage and improve cooperation among students regardless of their origin, ethnicity,
religion, socio-economic status, etc;
 Consistently assess the professional development of teachers for an effective teaching process
that supports learning and the development of each student;
 Encourage teachers’ involvement in the implementation and documentation of inclusive
practices for a more effective teaching and learning process;
 Increase awareness among all stakeholders on the important role of students in the decision-
making process;
 Ensure efficient and continuous monitoring of the success of an inclusive school;
 Establish close cooperation with the community and mobilise all community resources in order
to improve life and assure equal opportunities for all students;
 Improve student safety and help each child feel welcome and safe in school;
 Improve conditions for learning and remove barriers and obstacles for students with disabilities;
 Prevent drop out of students through fair enrolment policies and additional support measures;
 Ensure school’s accessibility;
 Organise a motivating learning environment and provide didactic materials adjusted to all
children;
 Provide opportunity for all students such as those from remote schools and students with
disabilities to become involved in extracurricular activities, etc…
SDPs are true testimonials of what has changed in the schools and they reflect the new vision of the
schools on inclusive education. Change in approach and philosophy of the school leadership and staff
can be also realised from the fact that toward the end of the project they referred to the vulnerable
children not any more as “those” children but “our children.”
“The project helped us to reach our goals. We addressed two main issues: to attract girls as a
valuable source for our society and to raise awareness on consequences from school drop-out.
Results are visible in both areas. We also improved our school conditions by making renovations
which created a warm school environment for all students”.
Fabian Saraçi, School principal
.
Also, based on the monitoring and evaluation visits to pilot schools conducted regularly by the
project team and the NEPC, the following positive changes related to the school culture, practice and
policies have been documented:
 Better understanding of inclusion. Overall, the understanding of the concept of inclusion has
improved in all schools including the perceptions of the benefits of including all learners into
mainstreaming education.
 Increased school capacity to plan, implement and monitor activities for improving their school’s
inclusiveness. Schools also developed skills to enable them to seek external funding for their
initiatives. Many schools reported that they had applied and received funds for other school
projects due to the knowledge they gained from this project. Some schools reported newly
established partnerships in the area of inclusive education within the Erasmus + programme
with other pilot schools or schools from the EU.

 Schools gained skills for evidence-based policy planning. Many school teams stressed that one
of the most important things they learned within the project was strategic thinking when it
comes to planning for inclusion. These new skills became part of the school culture and
functioning on different levels: from development of project proposals, schools development
plans, to the development of school policies. Evidence-based planning barely existed in schools
and through this project the schools learned how to collect and analyse data relevant for
decision and policy-making.
 Parent and student involvement in the school planning and decision-making become a regular
practice. Through the baseline survey, discussions in the focus groups and involvement of all
stakeholders in the project activities, schools recognised the importance of a participatory
approach and of partnerships. For some schools this project enabled for the first time the
inclusion of students and parents in any decision-making, while some schools created
mechanisms through their projects (students’ parliament, parents associations, etc.) to obtain
the continuous support and participation of the most important stakeholders in the school.
Based on the interest and feedback from

the schools that school development
planning was one of the most valuable
activities in the project, toward the end
of the project (in September 2015), an
additional 35 new schools, 5 per
beneficiary, were trained on developing
SDPs. School teams from the new 35
schools were guided through the process
of developing their own plans. Project
activities and the SchoolNet were
presented to the new schools and they
joined the existing regional network. The new schools were connected with the pilot schools and
were provided additional information regarding available funding for the future, possible donors and
partnerships including information about regional and EU networks they can be part of.
One of the goals of the SchoolNet was to ensure that existing grassroots and newly developed
inclusive practices are embedded in the regional policy recommendations and beneficiaries’ action
plans. SchoolNet members participated in all major activities within the TeacherNet and PolicyNet,
thus contributing actively to the design of the policy recommendations on inclusive education in
South East Europe. Representatives of the SchoolNet also took an active part in the design of the
Tool to Upgrade Teacher Education Practices for Inclusive Education.
Apart from the results reported above, the projects had numerous added values mainly due to the
enthusiasm and commitment of the people from the pilot schools and all those involved in the
continuous efforts to improve and to share knowledge and practices. Some of the added values are
listed below:
 A wider and more open education space was created through this project which involved not just
pilot schools from seven beneficiaries but also schools and institutions which hosted numerous
project activities and peer exchange visits, such as schools and institutions from the Greater
Region (Germany, France, Belgium (French Community) and Luxemburg), Slovenia, Turkey,
United Kingdom/Scotland and Switzerland. Thanks to the region-to-region peer exchange and
other joint activities, educationalists from other parts of Europe had the chance to engage in
mutual learning and create a joint network for cooperation.

 Through the project’s participatory approach and encouragement of the involvement of many
actors in the project activities, schools reported that team work had been significantly improved
in other school activities as well.
 The participation of students and parents in decision-making and the planning of school activities
was new to many pilot schools. The schools reported significant improvement of parental
interest in overall school life and they become more supportive for organising joint initiatives.
 As a regional project, much of the communication had to be conducted online. For project
proposal development, monitoring and reporting activities school staff had to use the computer.
Many of the school staff reported that due to the project they started using email accounts
regularly and started using online teaching tools and internet as a resource for learning and
sharing. The use of ICT in the classroom greatly improved by using assistive technologies and
smart boards.
 49 pilot schools became hubs for sharing knowledge to the surrounding schools. Ministries in
some beneficiaries (for example Montenegro) have already developed plans on how to continue
activities beyond the project life using the seven pilot schools as mentors and increasing and
strengthening the school network.

3.3 Expected Result 2: Increased awareness of benefits of inclusive education
Increased  Improved perceptions, awareness and support of the general public for
awareness of inclusive education
benefits of  Increased awareness among relevant authorities and stakeholders of the
inclusive policies and practices of inclusive education, with particular emphasis on
education pilot schools
achieved for  Expertise and information on CoE/EU, regional and country inclusive
general public as policies and practices in education and training and society in general
well as decision  Enhanced open and constructive debate on rifts and gaps between policy
makers and practice for inclusive and cohesive societies in the region, benefitting
of experience from the pilot schools
 Enhanced visual and action research on inclusive educational practices at
school/community/country/region
The narrow understanding of the concept of inclusive education even by professional communities
presented a great barrier towards inclusion in all 7 beneficiaries. The project conducted a number of
activities (study visits, peer meetings, workshops and conferences) as well as used variety of social
media tools (web-platform, website, newsletter, Facebook page) to promote the notion of inclusive
education and to increase the understanding of the benefits of the concept. By sharing and
publicising positive messages and by documenting actual success stories from pilot schools, the
project focused on raising awareness and fighting negative stereotypes, prejudices and attitudes. The
message what is an inclusive school became the visual
identity of all project activities and it was also adopted by
all networks (School, Teacher and Policy) as a message with
a vision of an inclusive school.
The notion of "inclusiveness" had different meanings in

different beneficiaries’ contexts. Most beneficiaries placed
an emphasis on Roma inclusion when practicing inclusive
education; others gave priority to ethnic inclusiveness and
practiced an "integrated education" concept instead of
inclusive education. Some beneficiaries addressed the issue
of inclusion of children with special needs or gifted children
in mainstream education. The project recognised this
challenge and addressed it successfully on both the
beneficiary and the regional level.
The implementation of project activities through a regional approach fully involving almost 600
members of the regional networks (School, Teacher and Policy) encouraged actors in the
beneficiaries to shift the approach of inclusion from a targeted narrow vulnerable/marginalised
group to a broader approach of the inclusion of all vulnerable groups in the education system. The
project succeeded to increase a common understanding on the concept of inclusive education for the
members of three networks and for the general public by raising awareness on the benefits from
inclusive education using real cases from the pilot schools.

Great emphasis was also put on the visibility of project
activities, including both the issue and EU/CoE support,
This project has changed and information, news and results from all activities
the thinking and attitudes (surveys, peer learning events, study visits, EXPO for
towards the concept of inclusion, regional conferences, network meetings,
inclusion. The word publications, etc.) were made available to the general
inclusion no longer public by use of web-platform, website, newsletter,
creates hostility. Inclusion Facebook, etc.
is a model of work, a way
of life and behaviour, In order to capture the nature, extent and level of
mutual cooperation and awareness on inclusive education and to determine
support…” Jovan whether and how the perception of inclusion in education
Jovanović Zmaj, Djurdjevo across the region has changed, the project entrusted the
School Team London School of Economics Enterprise to conduct two
rounds of surveys. The baseline study was carried out in
April-May 2014 before the start of interventions in the pilot
schools. The final survey was carried in May 2015 following
the implementation of the pilot projects in 49 schools. Each survey involved more than 10,000
stakeholders - school staff, pupils, parents and representatives from the local community in all 7
beneficiaries.
Index for Inclusion in the baseline and final survey
3,95 Comparison of the results from the

3,90 final survey with those from the
3,85 baseline survey revealed that the
3,80 overall value of the average Index for
3,75 Inclusion increased from 3.74 in year
3,70 Round 1 2014 to 3.81 in year 2015 (on the scale
3,65 Round 2 from 1 to 5). Though the figures
3,60 showed an increasing trend still it
3,55 confirms that perceptions and
awareness are very difficult to change,
and it is a slow, long and very
demanding process. The final cross-
beneficiary and seven beneficiaries’
reports of the final survey are attached to the annex of this report.
Through the process of self-assessment and through the focus group discussions, pilot schools
recognised the need for raising awareness on the benefits from inclusive education as a high priority
issue thus 90% of the pilot schools included some form of raising awareness activities in their school
projects. Activities designed targeted local communities and educational authorities, but they also
referred to school staff, students and parents. Various forms of activities were carried out in the pilot
schools including publications, the organisation of public events, producing newsletters, radio shows
and videos, organising workshops, exhibitions, roundtables, etc.

To value the achievements of the region in
the area of inclusive education, the “Expo
for Inclusive Education” was organised
during the 2nd annual conference in Zagreb,
on 28-29 October 2014. The event was a
unique opportunity for the beneficiaries to
share their accomplishments and the
progress made in their efforts to make
their schools inclusive. Over 260 positive
initiatives on inclusive education were
displayed during the Expo, and participants
exchanged ideas and good practices. The
full list of Expo initiatives per beneficiary is
attached to the annex 10 to this report.
A broad range of social media tools were also used by the project to ensure increased visibility of all
initiatives and to raise awareness on the topic of inclusion.
A multilingual, informative project leaflet was

produced and disseminated to all partners, pilot Number of Facebook followers
schools and other interested parties. A project
website http://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/inclusive- November
2013 2014 2015
education was designed at the project’s earliest january

stage and was regularly updated with news, December
publications, success stories, interviews, videos January Data
and other resources. A Facebook page was also December
created and was regularly maintained and November
updated. Five issues of the project newsletter
were produced during the lifetime of the project 0 2000
and were disseminated via email to over 700
target recipients.
The project web platform or community

of practice was also used for raising
awareness of the members of the three
regional networks, partners and
associates in the project. Although the
main goal of the platform was to provide
a space for online learning and exchange
between the project participants, it also
promoted positive messages for inclusive
education. The platform had 284
members who were engaged in 36
discussions and uploaded 141 documents
and photos.
A 10 min film documenting the major project activities and achievements has been produced in all
beneficiaries’ languages. The film was shown at the final conference and it is available on the
resources page of the project website.

The slogan “We all smile, but differently!”
was chosen as the awareness raising
campaign9 message, and celebrities with
a positive image in a society from each
beneficiary were identified to convey the
message in a video clip. This video clip
was used during the awareness raising events, but also shared and viewed on YouTube more than
950 times within the last three months of the project, (see resources page of the project website).
Educational TV and radio programmes on inclusive education were produced featuring good
practices from the pilot schools. These TV and radio programmes touched upon the real life stories
behind the project and the changes it was bringing to the school and the community. These
programmes were published on the project’s website: (see resources page) and were handed over to
the Steering Board members for publishing on ministry websites and for further distribution to
stakeholders in each beneficiary. The documentaries were also broadcasted on Bosnia and
Herzegovina BiH TV on 7 and 14 November 2015.
The Euronews channel produced an 8 minute special documentary on inclusive education, focusing
on two pilot schools from the project. The documentary entitled “No Barriers at School” was filmed
in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina and showcased how pilot projects in schools in
Pljevlja and Mostar had changed the lives of the children, families and the teachers involved. The
premiere broadcast of the documentary took place on 27 May 2015 and since then it has been
broadcast 12 times and in 13 languages (see resources page). The documentary generated 14,511
page views on Euronews digital properties and close to 5,900 unique users. The article was shared
430 times: 368 times on Facebook, 32 times on Twitter, 10 times on LinkedIn and an extra 20 times
on various others sharing services. Close to 1,700 streams of the video were started.
As one of the final activities under the awareness-raising campaign, “Inclusive day” events were
organised on 3 October 2015 in all 7 beneficiaries. It created a strong synergy effect since the events
were held at the same time – midday – in the main public squares of the 7 capital cities. Pupils from
the host pilot schools performed a cultural programme for the general public and promotional
materials were disseminated.
9
Through an open tendering procedure the company Dokument Sarajevo was contracted to carry out the awareness campaign of the
project

The “Inclusive day” events were widely promoted through social media. Information was published
on project’s website and Facebook, websites of the CoE offices in Tirana, Sarajevo and Belgrade, EUD
Tirana Facebook and twitter, and other websites of the Delegations of the EU in the beneficiaries. In
total 87 features about the “Inclusive day” were published and aired in local and regional media. Out
of that number 14 were print media articles, 19 TV features and 54 web/portals based texts.
As a part of the campaign, regional TV Al Jazeera Balkans hosted three project participants in their
studios in Zagreb, Belgrade and Sarajevo. Guests in the show “Kontekts” were Lana Jurko, NEPC
Executive Director; Snežana Vuković, Steering Board Member from the Serbian Ministry of Education,
Science and Technological development; and Misim Gegić, Director of a pilot school from Hadžići.
They talked about the benefits of inclusive education and how the project’s interventions helped in
raising awareness in the schools and their communities. TV show "Kontekst" was broadcast 7 times
(5 October 2015 at 21h30 and 23h05; 6 October 2015 at 8h30, 11h30 and 15h30, 10 October 2015
at 8h30 and 11 October 2015 at 9h30).
All the above-mentioned activities are evidence that awareness of the benefits of inclusive education
for the general public and decision makers has been increased. Many quotes from the project
participants related to their increased awareness are also documented in the publication Catalogue
of School Projects. Furthermore, the project website remains active on the CoE website after the
project completion with all the documents and resources available for download; CDs with the
educational TV programmes were handed over to the relevant beneficiaries’ Ministries and
distributed to over 200 people during the final conference; and the documentary film was given to
the Steering Board members to take it forward for broadcasting in their national contexts. All this
evidence describes to some extent the real impact this project has made in understanding the
concept and raising awareness on inclusive education in the region.

3.4 Expected Result 3: Enhanced capacities of policymakers
Enhanced  Establishment of a regional, sustained, cross-institutional professional

capacities of policy network (Inclusive PolicyNet)
policymakers for  Number of conducted capacity-building/policy-learning activities for
designing and Inclusive PolicyNet
implementing  Frequency and level of networking/exchanges of information and
inclusive experience between the participants in the regional network
education policies  Enhanced capacities of policymakers for designing and implementing
inclusive education reforms at school and system levels
 Inclusive education promotion featured in important policy documents
based on evidence of pilot schools
The Inclusive PolicyNet served as an overarching platform that brought together representatives of the
Inclusive SchoolNet and Inclusive TeacherNet, as well as other relevant stakeholders to act jointly in
the area of inclusive education public policy. Due to the cross-sectorial composition of the network and
with support from the project, participatory models of policy design were promoted through
consultation, exchange of knowledge, ideas and experience.
The series of peer meetings, workshops, study visits and working meetings at both beneficiary and the
regional level, supported by networking, capacity building and policy learning activities led to enhanced
capacities of policymakers for designing and implementing inclusive education policies.
Analysis of the legislation and practices on inclusive education in SEE was the starting point for the
work of the policy component. To understand the policy situation in the field and to identify the main
barriers for inclusive education, the project carried out a comprehensive review of the policy
documents as well as intense discussions and brainstorming with more than 160 stakeholders, experts
and organizations working in the area of inclusiveness. Following this broad consultative process, an
expert group met in Belgrade on 1-2 October 2013 to discuss the role of the regional PolicyNet. In this
meeting, leading experts from each beneficiary presented overviews of the existing policies,
implementation gaps and main challenges in inclusive education. Good practices from EU countries
were also presented and discussed.
The meeting concluded that in general education laws and policies recognise the educational rights
of all, but that there are still policy gaps related to processes such as teaching and assessment
methodologies, teacher education (pre-service and in-service), quality assurance / supervision /
inspection as well as inclusive school and classroom level practices and inputs which relate to human
resources, curricula, infrastructure and financing which would support inclusion and learning for all.
The following main barriers for implementing inclusive education were identified:
 Different and to some extent unclear definitions of the term inclusive education which led to the
lack of unified understanding among the various stakeholders on the concept of inclusive
education.
 Lack of evidence-based data to inform policymakers. Isolated cases of good inclusive practice
existed in the region but they were not systematically recognised, documented and
disseminated.
 Lack of thematic dialogue among the stakeholders such as a low level of inter-sectorial
cooperation and insufficient information exchange among the different actors (kindergartens,
schools, resource/community centres).

Priority policy issues in primary education:
 Teachers training to strengthen capacities to

recognise and offer support tailored to different Priority policy issues in general secondary
learners’ needs
education:
 Encourage individuals from vulnerable groups to
become teachers themselves
 Establish resource centers with mobile
 Attention paid to students at risk of drop-out
teams of professionals to assist teachers
 Introduce modules on inclusive education
in every teacher initial training programme
 Improve information system on available
support measures for inclusion
Priority policy issues in VET:
 Introduce professional orientation and

guidance/counselling
 Develop stimulating mechanisms for
teachers
 Mentor students in transition from one
education level to another, help in job
searching
These issues presented by the experts group were taken as a basis and as a framework for further
analysis of the policy gaps both at the beneficiary and regional level.
The process continued during the regional conference “Embracing diversity through education” held
in Tirana in November 2013. A workshop on policy was organised and participants from all
beneficiaries mapped out policy gaps and implementation challenges by education level (primary,
secondary general and secondary vocational). Identified gaps were then grouped under the themes
of (a) access to education, and (b) quality of education.
In order to analyse further the gaps and priorities identified during the conference, seven policy
teams were established in beneficiaries, each team including ten members, representing the key
stakeholders (Ministry of Education, Ministry of Social Affairs, VET sector, inspectorate, teacher
training institutions, TeacherNet and SchoolNet, parents representatives, and NGOs). The main task
of the beneficiary policy teams was to discuss the gaps and to prioritise them per level of education.
Following the broad consultation
process at the beneficiary level, all
“The PolicyNet has an overarching role in connecting all the 70 members of the PolicyNet got
components of the project and it is crucial for all the together in Sarajevo on 6 March
beneficiaries. It truly connects the main stakeholders: policy 2014 and agreed upon the common
makers, teachers, schools and others. Although we have been priority policy issues relevant for the
working closely, still we have been working in parallel.” - whole region. The event also was
Ognen Spasovski, policy focal point, Assistant Professor, used to mark officially the
Department of Psychology Ss Cyril and Methodius University establishment of the regional
of Skopje PolicyNet as a platform for policy
dialogue and share of professional
experience and learning.

The PolicyNet regional approach proved its added value. The cooperation served as a driving force in
exploring the similarities of the social, political and economic contexts in the seven beneficiaries in
order to address the common challenges for putting inclusive policies into practice.
The Inclusive PolicyNet continued its work in thematic working groups per level and type of
education (primary, general secondary and VET). The main objectives of the working group meetings
were to further discuss the policy priorities identified at each level and type of education and to start
drafting the policy recommendations for each of these priorities.
The thematic working groups meetings were supported with the evidence-based suggestions from
the following studies and researches on how to improve the education policies in the region to make
schools more inclusive:
 the baseline study measuring the nature, extent and level of awareness of inclusive
education in 49 pilot schools;
 the results from the 196 focus groups with the key stakeholders conducted to provide
evidence for a more targeted and needs-based support for the creation of the school
development plans and development of school projects;
 the inclusive education policy mapping report; and
 the synthesis report integrating the key findings and recommendations from the baseline
study and focus groups with analysis of the interventions designed by the pilot schools.
In addition, evidence from school activities, in particular from the design of the School Development
Plans, was also considered in drafting the policy recommendations.
As the result of this highly participatory process, the draft policy recommendations on inclusive
education in South East Europe region were designed. Most of the draft recommendations referred
to all education levels (primary, general secondary and VET) but there were also specific issues
related to each education level. The recommendations common to all levels of education were
related to improving teacher competences, partnership with parents and local communities, and
cross-sectorial cooperation. Access to education was mainly relevant to general secondary education,
while in the VET, specific issues were linked to the meeting the needs of the labour market, tracer
studies and career development.
Draft policy recommendations per level of education identified by the PolicyNet:
Policy recommendations on inclusive primary education
 Increase schools’ capacity to create inclusive environments by raising awareness at school and
community levels on the benefits of inclusive education; developing school level policies through
school development plans which will be based on self-evaluation and external evaluation and
will include partnerships with parents and community; ensuring the participation of students in
developing school policies.
 Improve teaching practices by tailoring initial and in-service teacher training to prepare
teachers for diversity in the classrooms; providing training and capacity building to schools and
teachers with particular emphasis on teachers’ ethics; developing a peer support system.

 Formalise inter-sectorial and inter-institutional cooperation in the area of inclusive education
by enhancing vertical and horizontal cooperation between different education stakeholders;
establishing tripartite bodies (Education, Health and Social Protection); harmonising and
operationalising terminology related to inclusive education (disadvantaged, vulnerable, Special
Education Needs (SEN) etc).
 Develop system of support in inclusive education (national, regional, local, school level,
classroom level) by making enrolment policy flexible and inclusive for disadvantaged students;
transforming special schools and institutions into resource centres for schools; establishing
psycho-social services in the schools; formalising peer networking.
 Develop framework for monitoring and evaluation of inclusive education (inclusiveness) in

schools
Policy recommendations on inclusive general secondary education
 Redefine enrolment policy by making it more flexible and inclusive for disadvantaged students
primarily from underprivileged groups; developing school level policies for inclusion.
 Increase parent involvement by strengthening the parents’ council capacities; involving parents
from disadvantaged groups; organising capacity building activities (brochures, workshops,
debates, etc.) and awareness-raising activities; improving school clime and culture.
 Improve teaching practices by tailoring initial and in-service teacher training to prepare teachers
for diversity in the classrooms; providing training and capacity building to schools and teachers
with particular emphasis on teachers’ ethics; developing a system of teacher support.
 Formalise inter-sectorial and inter-institutional cooperation in the area of inclusive education

by enhancing vertical and horizontal cooperation between different education stakeholders;
establishing tripartite bodies (Education, Health and Social Protection); harmonising and
operationalising terminology related to inclusive education (disadvantaged, vulnerable, Special
Education Needs (SEN) etc).
 Develop framework for monitoring and evaluation of inclusive education (inclusiveness) in

schools.
Policy recommendations on inclusive vocational educational and training
 Professionalisation of school management by strengthening professional competencies of

school management and other employees in the development and improvement of policy,
culture and practice of inclusive education.

 Improve teaching practices by tailoring initial and in-service teacher training to prepare teachers
for diversity in the classroom; providing training and capacity building to schools and teachers
with particular emphasis on teacher ethics; developing a system of teacher support.
 Update VET curricula by aligning them in terms of inclusion between and across beneficiaries in
order to prepare young professionals with skills applicable in wider regional markets.
 Increase cross-sectorial cooperation by establishing collaboration with school boards and

employment offices; increasing community participation; organising targeted VET fairs and
forming school-business partnerships with local companies.
 Increase VET career opportunities earlier in the system by establishing peer mentoring schemes,
developing policy and practice that systematically foster a climate favourable to children in
choosing their future profession based on their abilities, needs and interests carefully blended
with the market needs, and not simply on their parents’ choice.
These draft regional recommendations designed by the regional thematic working groups were
further discussed and validated at the beneficiary level and the feedback from the policy teams in the
7 beneficiaries has been incorporated into the final text. At the final stage the regional PolicyNet
adopted the policy recommendations common and relevant to all levels and types of education:
 Increasing the schools’ capacity to create inclusive environments;

 Improving teaching competences;
 Developing system of support in inclusive education;
 Developing framework for monitoring and evaluation of inclusive education (inclusiveness) in
schools;
 Redefining enrolment policy especially in secondary schools;
 Formalising inter-sectorial and inter-institutional cooperation.
During the 2nd regional PolicyNet conference held in Skopje in May 2015, members of the PolicyNet
signed the pledge “to advocate the implementation of policy recommendations on inclusive
education in their policies and systems”, and with this ceremony they formalised their commitment
to act together to create inclusive societies.
The process of designing the policy recommendations is illustrated on the scheme below:

Beneficiary Policy Teams
Identify priority issues and challenges
at national level
Regional Policy Network Regional Policy Network

Incorporate feetback received Agree on common regional
from Beneficiaries teams' policy issues
Agree on final policy Mainstream good practices
recommendations ready for Design draft policy
endorsement recommendations
Beneficiary Policy Teams

Validate relevance of the regional
policy recommendation in their
national contexts
The process continued in each beneficiary with series of meetings, led by the relevant ministries, on
how to incorporate regional policy recommendations in the beneficiaries’ laws, regulations and
strategies at the both, school level and national level.
As a result of these meetings, the policy action plans have been developed in each beneficiary with
concrete actions, measures, recourses and timeframe for implementation. Some of these actions and
measures include, but are not limited to:
 Development of School Development Plans (SDPs) based on the principles of the Index for
Inclusion;
 Changing the existing and/or passing new legislation, including bylaws, in order to develop a
concept of compulsory five-year-long teaching studies;
 Creating relevant teaching plans and programmes at teaching faculties;
 Developing and strengthening partnership between teaching faculties and pedagogical

institutes;
 Establishing a procedure for the enrolment of students with special educational needs
(number of students enrolled in certain types of programmes) into secondary education;
 Establishing a national tripartite body to foster inter-sectorial cooperation among the

Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, and Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare;
 Creating a common database (Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, and Ministry of

Labour and Social Welfare), etc.
The commitment for inclusive education and for regional cooperation demonstrated by the
beneficiaries during the process of developing the policy recommendations, as well as their
determination to incorporate them into their policy documents, laws and regulations raised
prospects for the sustainability of the project results.

By the time of developing the final report a number of examples have been documented by the
beneficiaries: the newly established group for social inclusion within the Ministry of Education,
Science and Technological Development in Serbia has been preparing a strategy and action plan for
inclusive education, and the group will incorporate the measures and actions from the Action Plan
developed by the Serbian policy team. The Action Plan developed by the policy team from “the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” has been ratified by the Ministry of Education, as has the
Action Plan developed by the Montenegrin policy team. The Albanian National Strategy of Education
2015-2017 addresses inclusive education as a priority as it is stated in the Strategy that “the
challenge we have to affront is setting up an inclusive system of education that offers equal
opportunities for all (students), by concurrently respecting individual differences”. The ministerial
order for enrolment has given priority to disadvantaged groups in high schools and vocational
schools.
All the above evidence shows that the capacities of policymakers for designing and implementing
inclusive education policies have not only been enhanced by the project intervention, but the results
from their efforts have been incorporated into national policy documents, and thus the project
results went beyond those expected.
“I wish to praise the importance of the project because it was an excellent opportunity to learn by
exchanging experiences with others. It provided us with the chance to analyse and reflect on what
we have created in our ministries, how appropriate these policies are and what needs to be
changed or supplemented in order to enable an easier and quicker practical implementation.” –
Lulavere Behluli, Head of Division for Special Education Needs in the Ministry of Education,
Science and Technology of Kosovo* and member of the Steering Board

3.5 Expected Result 4: Improved teacher competences
 Methods and tools for teacher development produced, including teacher

training modules and the establishment of a regional network (Inclusive
TeacherNet as integral part of Inclusive SchoolNet)
Improved teacher  Enhanced preparedness and capacities of teachers in the 49 pilot schools
competences and for dealing with learner diversity
practices for  Implementation of developed methods and tools in the 49 pilot schools
inclusive  Developed materials, methods and tools reviewed and proposed for
education implementation at a wider number of schools and community
 Frequency and level of networking/exchanges of information and
experience between the participants in the regional net
Both the results from the survey and focus groups revealed that teachers are the key agents in
implementing inclusive education principles and practices and they play a crucial role in enabling
inclusive and welcoming learning environments for all students regardless of their socio-economic
and cultural backgrounds. In a rapidly changing environment, particularly in the social and
technological context, teachers are confronted with numerous new challenges and demands that
require the development of appropriate competences and skills. A complete shift from traditional
teaching methods and techniques to inclusive contemporary approaches including the integration of
the ICT in formal learning situation, growing professionalisation and increased responsibility for
professional development were sought as issues of foremost importance in realising inclusive
education. There was a common challenge recognised by all stakeholders and supported by evidence
that teachers in South East Europe were lacking appropriate competences and practices to deal with
inclusive education, and there was a continuous need to improve. Even in cases when teachers were
provided professional development training, the transfer of knowledge from what was learned in the
training to what was applied in the classroom setting remained insufficient. There was a general
agreement that knowledge and competences that teachers gained in initial, in-service or mentorship
programmes needed to be integrated in order to have an impact in practice10.
Considering the above-mentioned needs and gaps, the work of the teacher support component of
the project was focused in improving current teacher competences and practices for inclusive
education through various methods and tools.
The project established a regional inclusive

TeacherNet with constant composition of 35 teachers
per Beneficiary thus 245 teachers in total, coming
from primary, secondary general and VET schools. The
goal of the network was to enable the exchange of
information and best practices through mutual
learning and peer review. Representatives from the
inclusive TeacherNet participated in the activities of
the SchoolNet and PolicyNet, and they contributed
actively to the design of the policy recommendations.
This network aimed at contributing towards creating
more inclusive schools by focusing on teachers’ professional development. One of the tasks of the
TeacherNet was to develop a common vision of an inclusive teacher and to contribute towards
10
Mapping existing quality education training programmes within South East Europe, Summary Report. Judith Hollenweger, September
2014.

improvement of current practices related to teacher
education. Study visits, peer meetings, roundtables,
seminars, workshops and web platform were
considered to be an efficient way of exchanging good
teaching and learning practices among the teachers
from the network.
Significant findings related to inclusive teaching in the

region were provided by the baseline survey which
revealed that teachers and principals from the pilot
schools displayed a much higher perception of
inclusiveness in their schools than students and parents did11. The survey also showed that both
primary schools and VET schools tended to have more inclusive teaching practices than general
secondary, while about one third of general secondary and one fifth of VET schools had neither an
inclusive school atmosphere nor inclusive teaching practices and policies.
Parallel to the baseline survey, the focus groups set up in the schools served the purpose of providing
more targeted and needs-based support for the creation of school development plans and the
development of school projects. The findings of the baseline study, schools self-assessment and
focus groups commonly highlighted the lack of teacher competences to deal with inclusiveness, and
the need for capacity building and teacher training in inclusive education in every beneficiary. Some
examples of non-inclusive practices were reported, such as that teachers were often selective or
partially and did not support all students equally or according to their needs. Nepotism, prejudice,
students’ faith or political sympathies playing a role in how support was given (or not given) by
teachers12, were also indicated as non-inclusive practices.
The need for improvement of teacher competences was further identified in the analysis of
interventions proposed by all 49 pilot schools; the most widespread intervention favoured by all
school types was the need for the improvement of teacher competences with regards to inclusive
values and approaches. Capacity building and training of teachers was carried out in at least by 57%
of the schools. Activities included the development of teachers’ competences and practices regarding
inclusion modules, training on student-centred teaching methods and the development of Individual
Education Plans, training on the approaches of social inclusion and other similar topics with the main
focus on improving teacher competences to deal with inclusion.
As a result of these capacity building activities, teacher trainings and peer learning reported by the
school teams, teachers have significantly improved their competences for tailoring teaching
practices; they increased their understanding and skills in working with vulnerable and marginalised
groups and students from socio-economically disadvantaged families, as well as with students with
learning difficulties. Teachers become more informed and aware of the benefits of inclusive
education as well as of using contemporary ICT techniques in the classroom especially for dealing
with students with learning difficulties.
The outcomes of the school projects also revealed a shift in teachers’ mind-sets, thus they started to
consider diversity as an advantage rather than a challenge for the school and community. Changes
were documented in the teachers’ skills to adjust teaching methods to the needs of different
students. As a consequence of this intervention, students increased their capacities to learn in
various inclusive ways with the support of their parents and peers, and the schools improved their
inclusive policies by involving the community in school life.
11
EU/CoE Project “Regional Support for Inclusive Education”. LSE Enterprise (2014). “Carrying out a baseline and final survey in pilot
schools through participatory action research”. Cross beneficiary report.
12
Maria Golubeva “Support to Pilot Schools for Implementing Inclusive Education Policies and Practices”, Analysis of focus groups.

In addition to the above mentioned, teachers made good use of the available tools put at their
disposal by the project such as active engagement in online discussions and forums through the
multi-purpose web platform/community of practices. They widely used this platform as a social
space for networking, knowledge-sharing, problem-solving and promotion of good classroom
practices which enabled usage of ICT and learning from each other’s experiences.
These outcomes from the school projects were further supported by the findings of the final survey
which revealed that teachers were more helpful with students’ problems in all schools levels.
Students reported a substantial and significant improvement in the way teachers treated them
equally13.
The project also produced a Tool to Upgrade Teacher Education Practices for Inclusive Education as a
result of an intensive one year joint work of the members of the TeacherNet and international
experts from Zurich University of Teacher Education and University of Edinburgh.
The first step towards the development of this Tool was a mapping study and analysis of teacher
training programmes for inclusion by a team of international experts in consultation with teachers
and teachers’ trainers across the South East Europe. A mapping study analysed 36 existing
programmes and consulted 42 stakeholders. Findings showed that there was a diversity of existing
teacher training modules in inclusive education in the region, but the process of professional
development of teachers (pre-service, in-service and mentorship teacher training) was fragmented
and seen as three distinct activities.
Aiming for a participatory and interactive process, these findings were shared, discussed and
endorsed by the members of the regional networks at the 1st and 2nd regional TeacherNet conference
in Skopje and in Tirana in June and July 2014. All members of the network jointly emphasised the
need for an overall framework for teacher education for inclusion in South East Europe. They
suggested that instead of creating new modules and programmes, it would be more beneficial to
upgrade existing programmes for teacher education practices for inclusiveness by developing an
innovative and guiding Tool to promote the development of transversal competencies for dealing
with diversity in classrooms.
A 14-member working group composed of representatives from the three regional networks was
established to support the work of international experts from Zurich and Edinburgh Universities in
developing this Tool. Field experiences from the school projects, concrete examples and lessons
learned from the practice were incorporated in the Tool with the goal of making it a more practice-
oriented method.
The main purpose of the Tool is to strengthen the professionalism of teachers in order to promote
participation and learning in all students, to bring attention to the practices in school, to facilitate
dialogue between schools and teacher education, and to highlight the need for capacity building in
educational systems. The Tool aims at equipping teacher training providers during all stages of
professional development from initial, continuous to mentorship training programmes with
innovative steps on how to design training for inclusive education. While focusing on practice, it
serves as a self-reflection Tool for practitioners to bring the learner, curriculum and context together
in providing quality education.
The Tool is divided into three main parts, of which the first part of the Tool introduces the reader to
the objectives and the context in which this Tool was developed. The second part which consists of
the core of the Tool describes the process of upgrading existing teacher education activities by
aligning them with the practical requirements of inclusive education. The third part of the tool
explains the framework for inclusive practices of what good practices teachers need to learn to
13
EU/CoE Project “Regional Support for Inclusive Education”. LSE Enterprise (2015). “Carrying out the baseline and final
survey in pilot schools through participatory action research”. Cross beneficiary report.

become inclusive practitioners during all stages of professional development: from initial, continuous
to mentorship training programmes.
This Tool and all the interventions of the project were in line with the regionally developed policy
recommendations related to improvements of teachers’ competences common to all levels of
education: primary, general secondary and VET.
The Tool was translated into beneficiaries’ languages and it became a living document available at
the project website. The Tool was disseminated in the beneficiaries to be used by training institutions
and training providers. In order to sustain the results of the project’s efforts and to ensure synergy
among the international organisations, it was agreed that the Tool be used by the UNICEF Trainer-of-
Trainers Modules on Inclusive Education14 and the European Agency for Development in Special
Needs and Inclusive Education. The Tool was also uploaded to the UNICEF website.
Testimonials from the participating teachers provide further evidence for the results this project has
achieved and the impact it has made.
“This project has improved my personal knowledge of inclusive education as well as approaches in my
work in the educational process. Teachers and expert staff have learned about the benefits of
inclusive education, improved their competences, and adopted specific ways of working as well as
additional guidelines that will facilitate learning of the students from marginalised areas” - Mustafa
Dzafić, school principal of the primary school “Mustafa Ejubović – Sejh Jujo”in Mostar.
“The competences and practices of teachers were improved and cooperative and interactive teaching
has been enriched with new didactic and supervisory mechanisms, assistive technology, ICT and
renovated space adapted to the needs of teachers, students and their parents” - Slavica Naumovska,
school psychologist, mixed- general and vocational secondary school “Taki Daskalo” in Bitola.
“After implementation of the school project, personally, I can say that my professional competences
are much stronger and that I’m more professional
in my work. On the school level there has been a
change in strengthening inclusive culture and
openness of the school to the local environment” -
Radica Blagojević-Radovanović, teacher, primary
school “Aleksa Dejović” in Sevojno.
“In our school teachers had trainings through this

project and it changed the way they work with
vulnerable children, and they learned how to
overcome difficulties they had encountered in the
education of children. The communication
between the teacher and the parent has
improved. I am proud to be part of this project” - Anka Posavc, school principal from primary school
“Okučani” in Okučani.
“Our attitude towards diversity has changed!” – The school team from the mixed secondary school
“Beso Basic” in Plav.
“The project brought visible positive changes especially in the methodological advancement in
inclusion of students in the educational process” - Zeqir Hashani, school principal, general secondary
school “17 Shkurti” in Obiliq/Obilić.
14
UNICEF modules complementary to the work on the Tool to be found here: http://www.inclusive-education.org/basic-page/unicef-
trainer-trainers-modules-inclusive-education

3.6 Expected Result 5: Progress on the removal of concrete barriers for vulnerable groups
Progress on the removal of  Frequency and level of networking/exchanges of information

concrete barriers for and experience between the projects in the region
vulnerable groups including  Demonstration of co-ordinated approach to remove barriers
through stronger partnerships between the participants in the regional net
within a co-ordinated
framework
As presented in the achievements of the results from 1 to 4, the project made visible progress on
removing barriers for vulnerable groups by ensuring common ground for mutual learning, building
synergies and applying holistic approach.
Removing the concrete barriers for inclusion from different perspectives is elaborated in details
under the previous sections (from school, teachers and policy perspective). In general, the main
focus of the project intervention was to remove the following barriers:
 Lack of understanding of the concept of inclusive education by the stakeholders, from policy
makers to teachers, parents and students;
 Lack of thematic dialogue among stakeholders and lack of awareness of benefits of inclusive
education;
 Lack of teacher competences to deal with diverse learners;
 Lack of parental involvement in the school decision-making process and the absence of local
community participation in school planning.
“Inclusive education is a quality education. It is not an education focused on those who face some
difficulties but it is an education that gives everything to everyone and which provides equal
chances to every child in the system” - Snežana Vuković, Steering Board member.
The Steering Board played a crucial role in the project’s efforts to remove these barriers. Members
demonstrated genuine commitment in liaising with like-minded initiatives to ensure the promotion
of the concept to other relevant stakeholders in education: institutions, international organisations,
NGOs, etc.
In order to build on existing knowledge and

“ETF is an EU Agency that works in the experience on inclusive education in the CoE
context of EU external relations policies, to Member States, cooperation and partnership with
human capital development, defined as CoE relevant institutions and committees was
work that contributes to the lifelong established, including the Parliamentary Assembly
development of individuals’ skills and (PACE), the Human Rights Commissioner’ Office
competences through the improvement of
and the Steering Committee for Educational Policy
vocational education and training
and Practice (CDPPE). Partnerships were also
systems. We work very closely with the established with academic institutions such as LSE,
countries and follow them over the years.
the University of Edinburgh and Zurich University;
We have in-depth knowledge and analysis as well as with organisations such as the European
of what is happening. This project fits in
Training Foundation (ETF), the European Agency
very well with the bigger picture and the for Inclusive Education, UNICEF, and other regional
work we are doing in the countries.” - Lida partners. The project built on already existing
Kita, European Training Foundation work and resources created by other partners and
acknowledged this work.

Partnerships enabled to bring a more holistic perspective to the South East Europe region and to
ensure that trends and approaches in inclusive education in wider Europe were shared with the
peers from SEE. Representatives from the CDPPE took an active part in the design and planning of
the regional events (annual conference, peer exchange, study visit).
Partnerships with the Robert Schuman Centre in Metz, France and Pedagogical Institute of
Rheinland-Pfalz in Trier, Germany brought significant relevant regional experience on inclusive
practices to the project’s pilot schools. What started off as a one-off initiative to organise a study
visit, has developed into the start of a long lasting partnership. Schools from the Greater Region
became part of the school network and joined the project web platform.
The project’s final conference held in Sarajevo 5-6 November

2015 was hosted by the Ministry of Civil Affairs of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, and was organised in the framework of Bosnia and
Herzegovina’s Chairmanship of the Council of Europe’s
Committee of Ministers.
The event attended by over 190 participants, highlighted the

project achievements towards inclusive education. Through the
sessions on removing barriers, raising-awareness, changing
approaches and planning the future, the participants discussed
and agreed on specific ways to sustain the results beyond the
project’s duration. Among others, some partnerships among
schools in the region were established with clear projects ideas
for implementation and funding under the Erasmus+ programme.
A list of all proposals is available in the report from the final
conference link.
The project accomplished the overall objective in strong partnership with all stakeholders by applying
a participatory approach in all activities, building synergies with similar initiatives in the region and
ensuring beneficiaries’ ownership of the action and results.

3.7 Sustainability of the Action
As reported in the previous sections the project had a number of important and concrete results and
made a real impact on a grassroots and policy level.
At the grassroots level 49 pilot schools from the region created inclusive school environments for all
children including those who are at the highest risk of marginalisation and exclusion; schools
changed their philosophy and culture toward diversity and inclusion; teachers increased their
competences in dealing with diverse learners; parents and local communities become involved in
school planning and decision-making; new school inclusive policies were introduced and made
sustainable through the school development plans; as well as raising awareness on the benefits of
inclusion. As reported by the schools and documented in the Catalogue of School Projects on
Inclusive Education, over 24,600 participants (school staff, students, parents and representatives
from local communities) participated directly in the implementation of the 49 school projects. In
addition, 15,000 stakeholders were involved in the baseline and in the final study and over 5,500
participants were involved in other project activities. 570 members of the three regional networks
had frequent communication, exchange of experience and peer learning activities. The project
mobilised and engaged significant number of actors who become empowered individuals and key
drivers to sustain the project results and to make further change in beneficiaries’ contexts.
At the policy level, the process of developing the policy recommendations on inclusive education
implied extensive inter-sectorial consultations on both the beneficiary and the regional level, which
resulted in enhanced capacities of PolicyNet members for designing inclusive education policies.
Beneficiaries developed actions plans for the implementation of the regional policy
recommendations and by the time of preparing the final report some beneficiaries (Albania,
Montenegro, Serbia and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) reported that specific policy
recommendations have been already incorporated into their national education strategies and other
policy documents, thus enabling sustainability of the project results and a real impact in terms of
ensuring quality education for all.
Strong ownership has been demonstrated by all those participating and benefiting from the project
starting from the school staff, students, parents and local communities, up to the relevant ministries’
officials, PolicyNet and Steering Board members. Such commitment, enthusiasm and motivation for
change are promising for ensuring the sustainability of the project results.
In the last session of the final conference in Sarajevo “Planning the future and sustaining the results”
with Steering Board members as panellists, participants came to concrete proposals for the
sustainability of the project’s results:
 Transform the networks into a regional teachers association that foster further reforms and
serve as a platform for share of experience and peer learning;
 Mentoring – 49 pilot schools are empowered to share knowledge with other schools in their
community and to serve as mentors for creating new inclusive schools;
 Creating stronger partnerships among schools in the region by jointly applying for EU-funded
programme on Education such as the Erasmus+ programme;
 Further foster regional cooperation in education and training and dissemination of good
practice;
 Continue, even informally, regional cooperation of the PolicyNet to share experience in the
implementation of recommendations on inclusive education.

3.8 Monitoring and evaluation
One result-oriented monitoring mission (ROM) was conducted from 25/02/2014 to 14/03/2014 by a
team for projects of external aid financed by the EU in Western Balkans and Turkey. Although the EU
ROM mission was meant to be a mid-term assessment, it was conducted only 14 months after the
project’s official start. The monitors evaluated the project in terms of the following criteria and the
project scored as follows:
Criteria Grading
1. Relevance and quality of project design B
2. Efficiency of implementation to date B
3. Effectiveness to date B
4. Impact prospects B
5. Potential sustainability B
Note: A = very good; B = good; C = problems; D = serious deficiencies
Generally the monitoring report was positive and the project was recognised as being conducted in a
transparent, accountable and consultative manner.
The key observations from the ROM report are:
“The project is progressing well. More time than originally planned was used to set up the
cooperation platform and ensure a participatory approach in all activities, causing certain delays.
Results related to practical solutions in Inclusive Education are yet to be delivered. The CoE uses a
political mandate to encourage beneficiaries’ Ministries of Education to advance in the understanding
of inclusion and to cooperate in the introduction of a broader approach to inclusive education”.
While the Council of Europe welcomed the findings, conclusions and recommendations reflected in
the monitoring report, it considered that equal attention was not paid nor was a full analysis made in
regard to developments in all seven Beneficiaries. As a result of that approach the monitoring report
placed too much emphasis on the situation in Kosovo* (two out of nine recommendations referred
to this Beneficiary) while the situation in BiH was not mentioned in the report. Furthermore, the CoE
considered that the findings and recommendations in regard to Kosovo* did not reflect the state of
implementation. Another disagreement with the monitoring report was a proposal to include a
clause which would make implementation of project results obligatory to the beneficiaries or impose
the recommendations on the beneficiaries. CoE clarified that the joint programmes or any other
instrument for pre-accession assistance do not have a mandate to impose or to insist that countries
implement the results of a project. In the education field, this is even more important as education is
considered a national competence (hence very few binding conventions) and is a sensitive topic in
any country. It was reiterated that the CoE does not impose but offers models and advice based on
the CoE intergovernmental programme and best practices in its Member States.
The CoE submitted a response on the results from the ROM report to the EU with specific arguments
elaborating why it disagreed or strongly disagreed on specific findings and recommendations from
the ROM. The CoE response was accepted by the EU.

4. Observations on project implementation
4.1. Partners and cooperation with other organisations
The project was implemented in strong partnership with Ministries of Education in the seven
Beneficiaries and members of the Steering Board took an active role in steering the project and
acting as “critical friends”. A high level of trust and confidence was built and maintained throughout
the project. On their own initiative respective Ministries hosted numerous project events and
participated actively in preparatory and follow up activities.
As a significant part of the project intervention was networking and building partnerships, the project
succeeded in establishing and maintaining a strong partnership with network members, other
international and regional organisations present in the region (UNICEF, USAID, Save the Children,
Regional Cooperation Council, British Council, World Bank); EU organisations and agencies (ETF,
European Agency for Inclusive Education, other EU projects implemented in the region); academic
institutions (University of Edinburgh, Zurich University), NGOs platforms and teacher training
organisations (Network of Education Policy Centers, Robert Schuman Centre in Metz and Pedagogical
Institute of Rhineland-Palatinate in Trier).
Cooperation and partnership with CoE relevant institutions and committees was also established
(Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), the Human Rights Commissioner’ Office and the Steering
Committee for Educational Policy and Practice (CDPPE).
The project benefited from the expertise of a number of regional and international short-term
experts. These experts were members of the working groups and worked with education experts and
teachers in delivering the project outputs. The international experts brought in European best
practices and provided invaluable insight into other education systems and educational practices in
different European countries.
The project was implemented with supportive and very professional co-operation with the
Contracting Authority.
4.2 Visibility
As a detailed report of the visibility actions was given under the expected results 2: Awareness raising
component of the project, this section provides a brief summary of the actions.
Visibility was ensured through the inclusion of the EU/CoE Joint Programmes logo on all publications,
materials, programmes, reports, letters, press releases etc. of the project. Joint Programme banners
and the European flag were displayed during all activities of the Project. The slogan “An inclusive
school is a school where every child is welcome, every parent is involved and every teacher is valued”
became the vision and the motto of the project. The EU and CoE contributions were mentioned
during the opening remarks of each activity by the CoE.
More specific actions to ensure visibility are as follows:
 Project leaflet - developed in English and in the six local languages in the region.
 Project website - was directly linked to the web platform, Facebook page and websites of all
Ministries of Education in the seven beneficiaries. It was regularly updated with news,
resource documents, podcasts, videos and documentaries from the activities. Sections on
videos, a three-part TV and radio programmes available in seven languages, and a promotional

celebrity clip and Euronews documentary “No Barriers at School” on inclusive education
published on the project website significantly increased the visibility of the project.
 Social Media - the project had a highly active Facebook profile, a YouTube and web platform.
The activities implemented were updated regularly on Facebook and on the project’s website.
Both the website and the Facebook profile were promoted during project events so the
number of followers increased steadily, reaching 1181 people at the end of the project.
 Newsletters - success stories from the pilot schools, interviews with school representatives,
steering board members and other partners, were the content of the project newsletters. Five
issues were published quarterly between December 2013 and June 2015, targeting from
between 300 to 700 recipients.
 Euronews documentary - “No Barriers at School” generated 14,511 page views on Euronews
digital properties and close to 5,900 unique users. The article was shared 430 times: 368 times
on Facebook, 32 times on Twitter, 10 times on LinkedIn and an extra 20 times on other sharing
services. Close to 1,700 streams of the video were started. The documentary was also
published on the DGNEAR Facebook page.
 Regional celebrities video clip, TV and radio programmes, an 8-minute documentary film
about the project
 Inclusive day - 87 features about the events were published and aired, out of that number 14
were print media articles, 19 TV features and 54 web/portals based texts.
 Publications – A catalogue of School Projects on Inclusive education in South East Europe and
Tool to Upgrade Teacher Education Practices for Inclusive Education
 Media Coverage - the project was featured in news items in the printed media and on TV.
Three annual regional conferences in Tirana, Zagreb and Sarajevo were widely covered by the
local media and press releases, interviews and press conferences were ensured during the
events.
Graphs showing the numbers of views of the documentary in total and per language, data on the
newsletter and statistics for Facebook (number of “likes”) are given below:
Views of 8-minute documentary per language

900 831
800
700
600
500 392
400
300 184
200 113
100 43 51 23 25
0

Recipients of Project's newsletter
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
December 2013 May September 2014 December 2014 June
2014 2015
Increase of Facebook 'likes'

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
November January January November
2013 2014 2015 2015
4.3 Lessons learned and recommendations for follow up action
Over 90 activities were carried out during the 35 months of the project duration, directly involving
more than 20,500 participants (school staff, students, parents, policy makers, university
representatives, NGOs and other stakeholders) in different actions (peer meetings, seminars,
workshops, trainings, focus groups discussions, surveys, study visits, awareness raising, conferences,
etc). Additionally over 24,600 participants (school staff, students, parents and members from local
communities) participated in the implementation of 49 school projects. The number itself suggests
that many challenges were encountered during the implementation of the project and lessons were
learned, both from the administrative and programmatic point of view.
The project design phase led by the ETF exercised a participatory approach of beneficiaries, their
involvement and active consultation, thus ensuring local ownership and increasing the prospects for
sustainability. On the other side the process resulted in a very ambitious and complex description of
action which in the design phase was planned for 5 year implementation period and a budget of over
5 million Euros.

Though the scope of action and the budget remained the same at the time of the signing the
agreement with EU, the timeframe for project implementation decreased to 35 months. During the
implementation the EU recognised the fact that the time implementation period was challenging for
such a large regional project involving a vast number of participants, and the prospects for non- cost
extension were discussed. Despite the positive feedback received regarding the extension, in March
2015 the EU decided that project should be completed within the agreed time and suggested the
implementation of additional activities to ensure full budget absorption. The decision put enormous
pressure on the project staff but in spite of all the difficulties the team succeeded in implementing all
planned and new activities and ensured over 90% budget absorption.
The lesson learned is that complex regional projects require a longer implementation period since
building networks, establishing partnerships, developing trust and confidence is a lengthy process.
When extensive numbers of actors are mobilised the project needs more time to keep the
momentum and to use the potential for making a real impact and a sustainable change. Furthermore
the specifics of the project have to be taken into consideration, and in this project it was the school
year calendar. Generally, school years in the region started on 1 September and ended at 10 June
with a break of almost one month in December – January during the winter holiday season. In
addition, secondary schools had school assessments (matura exams) at the end of the school year.
These moments limited the real time for productive work with schools to only 6 months. These
timelines were considered in planning the activities especially in peer meetings, study visits, and
capacity building activities with teachers when their active involvement and commitment was
essential for effective outputs.
This project piloted the new decentralised approach for joint programmes with staff members
deployed in CoE field offices in Belgrade, Sarajevo and Tirana. This affected activities in the inception
phase which needed much more intensive engagement. Support from the field offices was valuable
during the implementation phase, both in terms of political support (Heads or/and Deputy Heads of
Offices attending and contributing in the regional events) and in financial management (regular
financial reports received from the CoE office in Belgrade facilitated to a great extent the monitoring
and planning of budget expenditure).
The project with seven beneficiaries anticipated the involvement of large groups in most events and
it made it difficult to facilitate deep discussions. It was not always possible to meet all expectations
and to enable all those interested to be involved in all activities. To resolve this challenge the project
opted for balanced mix of national and regional events; work in plenary and workshops sessions;
specialised working group discussions; and a 360 degree approach in consultations and endorsement
of the project’s outputs. Continuous two-way flow of information and feedback from the Steering
Board ensured transparency, impartial representation of beneficiaries in all activities and the
participation of the “right” participants, those who have the potential to contribute and to share the
knowledge gained from the project activities afterwards with their peers. Furthermore, high visibility
of project activities and sharing information via website or web platform increased transparency and
obtained participants’ trust in the decisions made by the project team.
The project fully embraced the human rights approach in its implementation, incorporating cross-
cutting dimensions such as gender mainstreaming and civil society participation. This was achieved in
all components, starting from the grass roots level through the work with 49 pilot schools up to the
policy level in developing the policy recommendations.
Obtaining commitment from such a large number of participants and developing a sense of
ownership was another challenge. The grassroots participatory approach adopted by the project was
most likely not the easiest one, but proved to be the right approach to ensure the active engagement
of such a vast number of participants. Partners were not passive observers and recipients at events,
rather they were given tasks and were actively involved in all activities, starting from the self-
assessment exercise by the school teams and developing pilot projects at the grass roots level, to the

design of policy recommendations and discussions at the policy level. The trust and confidence built
during the first year between the project team and the stakeholders bore concrete results in the
following two years of the project’s implementation. There were many examples of partners’ ideas
and initiatives taken (for example the number of beneficiary policy teams meetings to discuss policy
recommendations), constructive feedback received (for example on the Tool to Upgrade Teacher
Education Practices) and follow-up noted (for example the inclusion of policy recommendations into
beneficiaries’ strategies and policy documents). All these observations ensured quality and
sustainability of the action.
Language and a lack of IT proficiency was a barrier to communication among pilot schools and
members of the three regional networks. Participants in the project communicated with each other
through various channels such as peer exchange meetings, online forums on the web platform,
Facebook and other social media tools, and were not always able to communicate in English or in all
languages of the region. The project encouraged schools to engage teachers proficient in English and
to involve students from the upper grades who speak English and have IT skills. Regarding the web
platform, the project included a built-in Google Translate tool thus enabling all participants to
communicate in the language they were most comfortable with. However, full use of web platform
was limited because of lack of IT knowledge and skills among teachers. The interest increased when
the project team started to use the platform as a tool to share documents teachers found relevant
for their daily work. The lesson learned was that there are always alternative methods to overcome a
specific challenge.
In spite of the complexity and all challenges the project was implemented within the agreed
conditions and without demand for addendum(s) to the signed contract.
The ideas for follow-up actions were discussed with the EU during the second half of the project
implementation and the proposals mostly came from the beneficiaries, Steering Board members and
schools:
 Regional intervention in the area of inclusive education shall continue due to the similarity of
the social, political and economic contexts, challenges shared by the beneficiaries and their
strategic goal for EU accession;
 Strengthening and/or institutionalisation of the three networks (SchoolNet, TeacherNet and
PolicyNet) into one Regional Network for Inclusive education in SEE shall be considered;
 In parallel with the regional support, more tailored assistance shall also be provided to the
beneficiaries. Capacities of the relevant Ministries shall be strengthened to take forward the
seven pilot schools as models of inclusive schools and to make them hubs or mentors for
others schools, thus multiplying the results of the action;
 Assistance shall also be provided to the relevant Ministries to ensure the implementation of
the policy recommendations on inclusive education as well as to establish a system of
monitoring and evaluation of the process.
Date report due: 30/05/2016 Date report sent:
Report signed by:
Matthew Johnson
Director of Democratic Citizenship and Participation
Council of Europe

List of Annexes
Annex 1 List of project activities

Annex 2 Inception report
Annex 3 Database of 392 school applications
Annex 4 List of SchoolNet members
Annex 5 List of TeacherNet members
Annex 6 List of PolicyNet members
Annex 7 Report from the 1st annual conference in Tirana
Annex 8 Baseline Survey
Annex 9 Summary of pilot schools projects
Annex 10 Initiatives on inclusive education presented at Expo for Inclusion
Annex 11 Contribution to European debates on inclusive schools and communities - networking
and sharing experiences
Annex 12 1st Regional PolicyNet Meeting Report
Annex 13 Inclusive Education Policy Mapping – Summary Report
Annex 14 Synthesis Report
Annex 15 Report from 2nd annual conference in Zagreb
Annex 16 Mapping report on existing teacher training programmes on inclusive education in
South East Europe
Annex 17 Tool to Upgrade Teacher Education Practices for Inclusive Education
Annex 18 Catalogue of School Projects on Inclusive Education in SEE
Annex 19 Minutes from the five meetings of the project Steering Board
Annex 20 Eight quarterly reports from the Network of Education Policy Centers
Annex 21 Final Survey
Annex 22 Report from 3rd annual and final conference in Sarajevo

JP INCLUSIVE EDUCATION - Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JP INCLUSIVE EDUCATION - Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“REGIONAL SUPPORT FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION”

Budget line: 2012 IPA

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 2 of 46

1. Executive summary ............................................................................................................................5

2. Summary of the Action ........................................................................................................................7

3. Achievement of objectives and expected results..............................................................................9

4. Observations on project implementation .......................................................................................41

5. List of Annexes ..................................................................................................................................46

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 3 of 46

CDPPE Steering Committee for Education Policy and Practice

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 4 of 46

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 5 of 46

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 6 of 46

2.1. Project data

Title of the Action Regional Support for Inclusive Education in SEE

Project Budget € 5 165 650

Project Funding European Union (EU), Council of Europe (CoE)

Project Duration 35 months

CRIS Number 2012/308-048

Commencement Date 1 January 2013

Beneficiaries Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia,

Beneficiary Institutions Ministries of Education in each Beneficiary

Contracting Authority The European Union, represented by the European Commission

Implementing Organisation Council of Europe (CoE), Directorate General of Democracy

Target beneficiaries Ministries and local authorities of education and training in

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 7 of 46

Overall objective To enhance - in line with the Beneficiaries’ commitments to EU

1. Setting up regional support mechanisms and resources for

2. Raising awareness of the benefits of inclusive education for

3. Enhancing the capacities of policymakers for designing and

4. Improving teacher competences and practices for inclusive

5. Making progress on the removal of concrete barriers for

Expected result 5 Progress on the removal of concrete barriers for vulnerable

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 8 of 46

The list of project activities can be found in appendix (annex 1).

3. Achievement of objectives and expected results

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 9 of 46

Expected result Indicators

The selection was conducted by a committee in each

Photo: 1: Geographical location of 49 pilot schools

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 10 of 46

The first year of the project was focused

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 11 of 46

Another observation from the survey was

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 12 of 46

Non inclusive practices reported in the focus groups:

Sunchica Belinska-Andov, Teacher, Vocational School “Boro Petrushevski” Skopje

Non inclusive practices reported in the focus groups:

Gordana Nestorovska, School psychologist, “Joakim Krcoski”

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 13 of 46

School Team, primary school “Jovan Jovanović Zmaj”, Vranje

Non inclusive practices reported in the focus groups:

Irmete Basha, Principal, primary school “Dëshmorët e Kombit”, Vraniq/Vranic

Non inclusive practices reported in the focus groups:

Miroslav Markićević, Director, “VII Beogradska gimnazija”, Belgrade

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 14 of 46

Radmila Pejović, School Teacher, “Mileva Lajović-Lalatović” from Nikšić

Non inclusive practices reported in the focus groups:

Zdenka Visnjić, Librarian, Vocational School “Gospodarska škola” from Cakovec

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 15 of 46

Types of interventions in 49 school projects

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 16 of 46

In order to ensure sustainability of the project actions

Regional Support for Inclusive Education – Final Report Page 17 of 46