Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress
International
Special Education Conference
Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity?
1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland
about the conference
programme
registration
accommodation
contact
|
Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland |
home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact |
Symposium Leaders
Ewald Feyerer (Paedagogische Akademie des Bundes, Austria) &Louise Hayward (University of Glasgow)
ewald.feyerer@phlinz.at lhayward@educ.gla.ac.uk
Symposium Participants
Walther Dreher (University of Cologne, Germany), Ewald Feyerer ( Paedagogische Akademie des Bundes in Upper Austria), Louise Hayward (University of Glasgow), Nicki Hedge (University of Glasgow), Miguel Melero (University of Malaga, Spain), Kari Ness (Hedmark University College, Norway), Andrea Platte (University of Cologne, Germany), Franz Schaffhauser (University of Eotvos Lorand, Hungary), Csilla Schiffer (University of Eotvos Lorand, Hungary).
Conference Paper Authors
Ewald Feyerer, Louise Hayward, Nicki Hedge & Kari Ness
The European Commission is strongly committed to the principle and practice of inclusion (eg Article 6a of the Amsterdam Treaty; Paragraph III.1 of the Social Action Programme 1998-2000, Com (98) 259). However, whilst European policy is clear, the policies of member states are more variable. The implications of European policy on Inclusion have not always been worked through into, for example, policies on education. The EUMIE consortium includes representatives from countries from old and new Europe. Partner institutions include Hogeschool van Arnhem (The Netherlands), University of Bremen (Germany), University of Cologne (Germany), University of Eotvos Lorand, Budapest (Hungary), University of Glasgow (UK), Hedmark University College (Norway), Paedagogische Akademie Linz (Austria), University of Malaga (Spain), Paedagogische Akademie Vienna (Austria). All partners believe that the creation of a more inclusive education community will depend significantly on effective professional development and that Masters’ degrees have a crucial role to play in this process.
The European Masters’ in Inclusive Education (EUMIE) project is an EU funded programme. Its central task is to develop a framework for European Masters’ degrees to support the commitment of the EU and of countries across Europe to Inclusive Education. It is intended that EUMIE will offer opportunities for professionals across Europe to broaden and deepen their understanding of the principles and practices of Inclusive Education. The EUMIE programme is contextualised in both European and Local Governmental legislation and has been designed to recognise the different systems which exist within individual countries for the education of beginning and qualified teachers, therapists and others in different forms of educational provision. The flexibility that lies at the heart of EUMIE is intended to enable the integration of transeuropean ideas and local circumstances.
This symposium will begin by introducing the new EUMIE degree programme and will identify the principles on which the degree programme is premised. This first paper will be led by Ewald Feyerer, from the Paedagogische Akademie in Linz in Austria and chair of the EUMIE consortium. He will reflect on the Inclusive Education policy context in Europe and will identify how the EUMIE framework has been developed to support these aspirations. In the second part of the symposium leading thinkers on Inclusive Education from across Europe will reflect on how ideas of inclusive education are being interpreted in different countries across the new Europe, focusing on how the future of inclusive education may emerge in very different political and economic circumstances. This paper will include contributors from Germany, Hungary, Norway, Spain and the UK. The third part of the symposium will be led by Louise Hayward from the University of Glasgow. In this part of the symposium all seminar participants will be invited to consider the future of European wide professional development.
This symposium is offered by representatives of a consortium of Universities and University Colleges from across Europe. All members of the consortium are committed to the idea of a more inclusive Europe and all believe that education, and in particular teacher education, has a key role to play in this process. Over the past ten years, members of this group have been involved in two major European funded programmes. The first of these, Integer, (http://integer.phlinz.at ) was targeted at Initial Teacher Education. The second, EUMIE (European Masters’ in Inclusive Education - http://eumie.phlinz.at), has built on the earlier work of Integer and has attempted to explore the possibility of developing a Masters’ programme in Inclusive Education that has currency across Europe. This, however, is a complicated business and during the course of the programme a range of issues has arisen that we would like to consider with others during this symposium. As a stimulus to thinking for the symposium this paper will explore the relationship between research, policy and practice in Inclusive Education in Europe. It will
In the symposium, participants will be invited to
Internationally, or at least in the policy statements of international bodies, there appears to be an ever strengthening commitment towards more inclusive societies and an ever strengthening recognition of the important role that education must play if such aspirations are ever to be realised. Definitions of what is meant by inclusion seem, however, to be developing over time. For example, many of the policy statements written in the 1980s and early 1990s seem to define inclusion as an issue concerned primarily with disability. The UN World Programme of Action (1983) argues that
‘Member states should adopt policies which recognize the rights of disabled persons to equal educational opportunities with others. The education of disabled persons should as far as possible take place in the general school system.’(art. 120).
Similarly, the World Declaration on Education for All (1990) demands that action must be taken
‘… to provide equal access to education to every category of disabled persons as an integral part of the educational system.” (art. 3.5).
Likewise the U.N. Standard Rules (1993) suggest that
“States should recognize the principle of equal primary, secondary and tertiary
educational opportunities for children, youth and adults with disabilities, in integrated settings. They should ensure that the education of persons with disabilities is an integral part of the educational system.” (Rule 6).
However, the U.N. Convention of the Rights of the Child (1989) heralded the emergence of a broader policy definition of inclusion, one where inclusion is concerned with the rights of each and every individual to belong to society, which
‘shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s [...] disability [...] or other status.” ( UN, 1989 art. 2.1).
This broader definition was extended in the UNESCO Salamanca-Statement and the Framework for Action (1994), which was signed by 92 governments, as well as 25 international associations. It
‘… call(s) upon all governments and urge(s) them to [...] adopt as a matter of law or policy the principle of inclusive education ...” (Statement, item 3).
Item 2 argues for the importance of inclusive schools:
‘.. regular schools within this inclusive orientation are the most effective
means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all; moreover, they provide an effective education to the majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness to the entire education system.’
The final report argues that
‘… The task for the future is to identify ways in which the school as part of that social environment can create better learning opportunities for all children and by this means to address the challenge that the most pervasive source of learning difficulties is the school system itself ¢ .” (Final report, p.15).
In policy terms, the European Union is also strongly committed to the concept of inclusion, although what is actually meant by inclusion is more difficult to discern. For example, in policy statements the European Commission consistently makes reference to social integration and highlights both the need for and the importance of positive action across Europe (e.g.: Article 6a of the Amsterdam Treaty; Paragraph III.1 of the Social Action Programme 1998-2000, Com (98) 259); announcement of the Commission towards equality of chances for handicapped people Com (96) 40 endg.; announcement of the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Komm (2003) 16 endg.).
In addition to a lack of clarity about how inclusion is defined, both wider international policies and European policy appear to express a clear desire for and commitment to more inclusive societies. However, to add to the complexity, the contextualisation of policy within individual member states is variable. There are likely to be a number of reasons for this. One factor is likely to be the very different political and historical contexts for inclusive education in different European countries. For example, memories of the impact of the exclusion of communities in Germany and Austria in the 1930s and 1940s or of the impact of communism on Hungary in the 1940s and 1950s have had deep impact on thinking within these countries. Similarly, the ways in which international policies on inclusion relate to policies on education vary considerably from country to country, as do the current school contexts of different countries. These are issues that we will consider later in this paper. However, it is clear that for a variety of reasons the experiences of individuals in relation to ideas of inclusion in countries across Europe are variable.
Within the European policy context, the term inclusion is used as if there were shared understandings of what it means, yet the language of inclusion itself is complex. For example, in Norway, in Spain and in the UK there are quite clear distinctions between the term integration and the word inclusion. Indeed the lexical choice is seen as a statement of where in the inclusion debate an individual stands. However, in German speaking countries and in Hungary the term integration is for some people synonymous with ideas of inclusion, whereas for others inclusion is a development from integration. Whereas in Norway, Spain, the Netherlands and the UK the terms hold different connotations. Integration is most commonly associated with bringing into a system children and young people traditionally on the margins of society. Integration in mainstream schools of students with disabilities or special educational needs has been on the agenda for a long time in many countries.
‘Planning for integration of children from special schools into ordinary schools often focused on the perceived abilities, disabilities and potential of students themselves and on the question: which students would benefit from integration? This has led to individual arrangements being made for students deemed suitable for integration, ranging from weekly visits to full-time basis, supported placement, special classes and units attached to ordinary schools. Frequently, “integrated” students have been assigned the status of “visitors”.’ (Armstrong, 1998 p. 53).
Inclusion in Norway, Spain and the UK is a more recent concept with very different connotations. In Germany, Austria and Hungary, integration is the term often used to describe the same concept.
In all cultures the idea, however labelled, is open to multiple interpretations. Any attempt to define inclusion becomes riddled with complexity. In an attempt to explore the various prisms through which the concept of inclusion might be viewed, Dyson and Milward (2000) identify a wide range of perspectives. For example, inclusion, they argue, is a term sometimes used to describe an educational system. In an inclusive educational system every child and young person would be offered comparable educational experiences, although these experiences might be offered in different kinds of school. Inclusion might also be taken to refer to a locality where a community takes full responsibility for the education of all children who live within that community, although education may take place in different kinds of school; or it might refer to the classroom, one where all learners are educated together. Inclusion is also used in relation to the idea of the curriculum, where the education of all children and young people is based on the same syllabus. Inclusion can also be defined in terms of learning experiences, in which all learners work together or which are designed to pursue common broad learning outcomes intended to enable all children and young people to play a full part in society. Dyson et al (2002) describe clearly the fundamental difference between integration and inclusion. Inclusive education, they suggest, is concerned with the participation of children and young people in key aspects of their school. Inclusion is not so much concerned with provision for one or other group of students as with student diversity. The central issue for schools is not that they have to accommodate a small number of atypical students into their standard practices, but that they have to respond simultaneously to students who all differ from each other in important ways – some of whom pose particular challenges to the school. Inclusion is, however, not simply about maintaining the presence of students in schools but about maximizing their participation in school.
Within the EUMIE group, the idea of inclusion in education has much in common with Dyson (2000). It is concerned with all learners. EUMIE builds on the guiding principle of the Salamanca Declaration, stating that
‘schools should accommodate all children regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other conditions. This should include disabled and gifted children, street and working children, children from remote or nomadic populations, children from linguistic, ethnic or cultural minorities and children from other disadvantaged or marginalised areas or groups.’ (UNESCO 1994: para.3 )
Inclusion is not only an issue of disability, neither is it primarily an issue of place; it is about the qualities of the learning environment for all those who take part. Inclusive education is concerned with
‘….providing appropriate responses to the broad spectrum of learning needs in formal and non-formal educational settings. Rather than being a marginal theme on how some learners can be integrated in the mainstream education, inclusive education is an approach that looks into how to transform education systems in order to respond to the diversity of learners. It aims to enable both teachers and learners to feel comfortable with diversity and to see it as a challenge and enrichment in the learning environment, rather than a problem’ (UNESCO, 2001: section ll).
‘It’s normal to be different’ is the EUMIE motto. It refers to the fundamental assumption underlying inclusion that diversity is valuable and to be celebrated. It implies a world where everyone is valued and where their contribution is seen to be valuable; a world where everyone’s life is less rich if any one person or community is not part of it.
‘ The important thing is that human beings, in their individuality, should be educated to “live together”, to analyse, to reflect on their uniqueness and become capable of being enriched by diversity” (UNESCO, 2001).
Within the EUMIE consortium inclusion is concerned with the reduction of exclusion and inequality of opportunities, not only for disabled students, but for all learners. The focus is not what is wrong with the child but what needs to change to ensure that each learner’s right to the best education possible is upheld. Inclusion is concerned to enable all learners to participate fully in the culture of the school. It is about promoting policies that are concerned with all learners and practices that enable all learners. The realisation of such a vision for all learners will involve changes and modifications in content, approaches, structures and strategies in schools (Booth and Ainscow, 2002). It is premised on a conviction that it is the responsibility of the education system in each country to educate all children (UNESCO, 1994). It will thus also involve changes to national policies, particularly to policies such as assessment policies that traditionally have had a significant impact on learning and on the ways in which learners are categorised (Hayward & Hedge, 2005, Hutchinson & Hayward, 2005). It will also involve changes to the process of change, developing inclusive approaches to innovation that live by inclusive principles (Hayward et al, 2004, Hayward & Hedge, 2006 in press). Inclusion is a process in which cooperation and democracy are crucial for all learners, children, young people, parents, teachers, carers, policy makers or researchers. In the inclusive school everyone is learning, children and young people, parents and professionals: no learner is a ‘visitor’ and all are full participants.
In this section of the paper we consider the different contexts within which ideas and policies are being developed in practice in three European countries, Austria, Norway and Scotland.
To understand the development of inclusive education in Austria it is necessary to track developments from the 1960s, when both the education system and provision for special educational care in Austria were restructured. That structure has remained constant since then and forms the context for the growth and development of inclusive education.
In Austria, children begin school when they are 6 years old. There are nine years of compulsory education, beyond which there are a number of further educational opportunities, for example, apprenticeship, vocational trade schools, upper secondary technical schools, etc. Young people who have been identified as having special educational needs are entitled to 12 years of education. There are five main types of school in Austria.
Volksschule : Primary (elementary) school (1 st to 4 th form / grade)
Hauptschule : Lower secondary school, 5 th to 8 th form / grade)
Gymnasium : Lower secondary level, 5 th to 8 th form, open only to primary school leavers who are considered by their teachers to be “capable”, qualified to benefit from academic education.
Polytechnische Schule = Polytechnical School (9 th form / grade) for pupils who will not remain in education after the 9 th form
Sonderschule = Special school or attached educational special class (1 st to 8 th form). There are 11 different forms of special school, organised by category, eg, for moderate learning difficulties, severe and complex learning difficulties, communication disorders…)
Until 1993 if children were deemed not to be capable of benefiting from mainstream education, perhaps because of physical or psychological disabilities, they were transferred to a special school. The particular school selected was related to the individual’s disability. The procedure for the transfer into a special school was articulated within educational legislation (in § 8 of the compulsory school legislation) It was intended that an application for a child to enter a special school could be made by parents, by an educational psychologist or by a doctor. The decision as to whether or not a child would be admitted to a special school was taken by representatives of the regional school board, ie, by government.
Since 1984, there have been a number of attempts to develop inclusive education through innovative school developments. In 1993 inclusive education was first included in the mainstream school legislation, stated in the revised § 8 of the compulsory school legislation. From this point a statutory assessment of special educational needs (= SonderPaedagogischer Förderbedarf) was introduced. One major change was the introduction of the right for parents to choose where their child was to be educated. If parents want to have their child with special educational needs educated in the mainstream schools, the school authority in the first instance has to offer the child a place in the nearest local school able to cope with the specific special educational needs identified. This parental right to choose was introduced gradually: each school year another form (grade) was added. Thus inclusion was made possible through legislation at primary school and lower secondary level (grade 1 to 8) However in form 9 and beyond there is no legislative framework. Here a young person seeking to be educated in an inclusive context would have to seek particular schools using innovative approaches. Innovative approaches are more common in Polytechnical Schools, since the current government has little enthusiasm for inclusion at upper secondary level (vocational trade schools). However, there is provision within mainstream school legislation (§ 14) to declare particular children or young people as ‘unfit’ to benefit from education, eg, because of health problems or if it is not possible to discern developmental progress. This judgement that one is ‘unfit’ must be reviewed on an annual basis. Until 1993 children and young people could be identified as ‘educationally incapable’. It was possible for children or young people to be categorised as incapable for their entire school education. These children spent their school time at home or in the kindergartens of large institutions for people with disabilities.
Development of inclusive education in Upper Austria
Austria has national educational legislation to which all Federal States must conform. There are ways in which the development of inclusion is similar in each federal state but there are also significant differences in the ways in which national legislation has been interpreted in local contexts. In this section I would like to explore the development of inclusion in Upper Austria, as an example of how national legislation has been interpreted in one of the nine federal states.
From its earliest stages, the development of inclusion in Upper Austria was greatly influenced by experiences in neighbouring European countries, especially by models of inclusive education developed in Italy and innovative initiatives developed in schools in Bremen by Georg Feuser (University of Bremen and member of the EUMIE consortium). In 1984 smaller support classes (= Kleinklassen, Förderklassen) were initiated in four primary schools. This approach was extended and by session 1988/89 had been introduced to all schools of the district (Urfahr and Surroundings). This model, similar to the cooperative teaching model (= Kooperationsklasse), was limited to this one county. The first four inclusive classes (= Integrationsklassen) were initiated in 1989/89 in response to parental pressure exerted by the parents of a child with Down's Syndrome. Their struggle with school authorities was typical of the struggle faced by many other parents during the early 1990s. However, the culture in Austria was changing quickly and increasing numbers of teachers and education authority representatives agreed to introduce inclusive classes into their schools. In this way the number of inclusive classes developed rapidly. In 1988/89 there were 4 inclusive classes in Upper Austria; by 1993/94 there were 92 such classes (legalisation of inclusion by the 15 th school organisational law amendment); by 1998/99 there were 315 inclusive classes and the most recent statistics available indicate that in 2002/03 there were 412 inclusive classes.
The following graph indicates the changes in the numbers of children and young people educated in mainstream and special schools in Upper Austria.
During the school year 2002/03, 65.4 %, or 3130 of the 4782 children identified as having special educational needs were included in mainstream schools in Upper Austria. During the early years, from 1991-99 there was a very steep increase in the numbers of children and young people in mainstream schools. However, in the last three years the numbers have remained fairly constant.
The graph which follows illustrates for the school year 2002/03 the different types of school attended by the 3130 children being educated in mainstream schools in the different models of inclusion.
Hauptschule (lower secondary level) there were twice as many children with
special educational needs educated as there were in primary schools. About a tenth of all pupils in integration classes were children who attended integration classes at special schools. The advantage of this approach was that special schools were also attended by children not identified as having special educational needs. Thus special schools got a glimpse of a mainstream school. The disadvantage was that it reinforced the idea that inclusion was really only for children with minimal special educational needs.
Inclusive education and teacher training
In 1990/91 the Paedagogische Akademie des Bundes in Upper Austria created the first programmes for the continuous professional development of teachers working in inclusive classes. During the early nineties courses about inclusive education were gradually introduced to initial teacher education. But there was no coherent programme for all teachers teaching children with and without special educational needs in Austria. Therefore The Paedagogische Akademie applied for the project INTEGER (see also http://integer.phlinz.at), relating the application to the objectives of the Salamanca Declaration:
“Within inclusive schools, children with special educational needs should receive whatever extra support they may require to ensure their effective education. Inclusive schooling is the most effective means for building solidarity between children with special needs and their peers.” (UNESCO, Salamanca Declaration 1994, page 61).
Paragraphs 45 and 46 also state:
“Specialized training in special needs education leading to additional qualifications should normally be integrated with or preceded by training and experience as a regular education teacher in order to ensure complementarity and mobility. The training of special teachers needs to be reconsidered with a view to enabling them to work in different settings and to play a key role in special educational needs programmes. A non-categorical approach encompassing all types of disabilities should be developed as a common core, prior to further specialisation in one or more disability-specific areas.” (UNESCO, Salamanca Declaration 1994, p 70f).
Our vision is not to develop a super-teacher, who is educated to deal with children and young people of all ages and in all subjects. The objective is rather to educate teachers who will learn together on common courses and also have opportunities to develop areas of specialism. These are teachers who will develop the competences necessary to work in inclusive schools, for example:
Considering these necessary capabilities and competences, which teachers need in order to realise inclusive education of high quality, a curriculum was worked out. It was implemented in the new study plan of the Paedagogische Akademie des Bundes in Upper Austria in 2000/01.
Furthermore we believed that inclusion in Austria would, in addition, need professionals who had opportunities to develop greater expertise in inclusive education. These people, eg, teachers, school heads, administrators, should have the chance to study at Masters’ level to help to grow inclusive education in Austria. The EUMIE programme has provided us with a way to develop these ideas within a broader European context. We hope it will allow educational professionals in Austria to work with colleagues from other cultures to develop a broader view of what inclusive education might become. In cooperation with other teacher education institutions, eg, the Paedagogische Akademie des Bundes in Vienna and Graz, we intend to offer the full EUMIE Masters’ programme as soon as the restructuring of teacher education in Austria is completed.
Inclusion in Norway
The concept of inclusion was introduced in Norwegian schools in 1996. There had been a legal requirement to integrate children with disabilities or special needs since the mid 1970s. From that point there was one law for the education of all children, and no school could deny the enrolment of any child from their catchment area. But even after the introduction of integration as a legal requirement, there remained a continuum of alternative placements on a full or part-time basis available to students with a ‘statement’. Also in the 1970s the notion of adapted education for all, irrespective of ability, gender, ethnicity, social class, etc., was introduced. The intention of adapted education was to meet the demands of diversity in the integrated school by adapting the curriculum, methods, organisation, etc., to all students’ needs.
During the years that followed schools and teachers were encouraged to reduce the number of 'statements' in use and to educate students with special needs in the ordinary classroom along with other students. State special schools were abandoned in 1991. Local experts, as well as regional and national centres in special education, had the role of supporting schools in their efforts to adapt their education to all. However, despite these inclusive aspirations, there are still some local special schools. Research has also revealed that withdrawal programs for students with special educational needs are still common and that adaptation of education is often limited (Haug et al. 1999, Haug 2004).
The concept of inclusion introduced in The National Curriculum (KUF, 1996) is a broad one, even though it is not very concrete. Inclusion is defined as participation in the academic, social and cultural community of the school (ibid.). Adapted education, where all children and young people are educated within the one school, is identified as an important indicator of an inclusive school. There is a small number of groups of students who are specifically referred to in the National Curriculum, eg, children with special needs or with a minority language and cultural background. Increasingly in official documents the term inclusion is used in connection with minority groups where formerly the term ‘integration’ was used (White Paper no 49 (2003-2004).
Despite the introduction of inclusion in the National Curriculum, there appear to have been few significant changes in the organisation of special education. The percentage of students receiving special education in mainstream schools has remained relatively stable at between 5% and 6% (NOU 2003). In 2002/2003 approximately 0.3% of the students in compulsory education attended special schools (UFD 2004).
However, some schools and municipalities now choose to see student support as part of the general funding and organisation procedures in schools. In this way they avoid to a large extent formal labelling of ‘special’ students. To support this development, there was a proposal from a public committee (NOU 2003) to remove the right to special education that currently exists in the Norwegian Education Act. In its place it is proposed that the right to adapted education for all should be strengthened and additional support should be available as and when required. This proposal and the arguments underpinning it may in some respects be compared to the ideas behind the Regular Education Initiative (REI) in the US in the 1980s (Will 1986, Smith 1998, Kauffmann and Hallahan (eds),1998). It may also be seen in the context of the current debate on inclusion in other countries, for instance the discussion about the Additional Support for Learning Bill in Scotland in 2003 (Allan 2004, Scottish Executive 2004). The main stimulus for this proposal in Norway has been evidence that the existing system of special education does not seem to ensure equality for the students in question. There are gender, ethnic and geographical biases in the use of ‘statementing’. The committee was of the opinion that the right to extra resources for individual students who had a 'statement' was proving to be a barrier to real inclusion. It was perceived that there was little incentive for schools to adapt their educational practices as long as they were able to solve their educational problems by assigning students to special education. However, the proposal to strengthen adaptation of education and abandon the right to special education was extremely controversial, as demonstrated in reactions during consultation the removal of the special education paragraph was not approved by the Storting (parliament) (White Paper no. 30, 2003-2004). Nevertheless, an overarching theme of this White Paper entitled ‘Culture for Learning’ is that education should be equitable and inclusive. At the same time the Paper is concerned with raising standards in education and questions are already being raised about areas of potential conflict in trying to achieve these aspirations.
A central question for us now is to determine what kind of teacher qualifications are needed to support the development of inclusive schools? What values, knowledge and skills should teachers acquire to enable them to support inclusion? (Booth & al. 2003). In Norway all student teachers ‘must learn how to adapt teaching materials and teaching methods to the different presuppositions of their students’ (National Curriculum of Teacher Education: 21). All students also undergo a compulsory introduction to special education. Further, there is a well-developed system in Norway of continual professional development in special and inclusive education. But, as we have seen above, so far these elements in teacher education have not been sufficient. A relatively long history of formal integration of disabled students in education has not led to a reduction in categorisation (‘statementing’). The situation in Norway is becoming more complex as there are now increasing numbers of learners with diverse languages and cultural backgrounds. We believe that there is now a need to offer Norwegian teachers a broader input, to see inclusion in new and trans-national contexts. Reconceptualisations of basic assumptions in the field on a post-graduate level are needed (Visli 2003). The EUMIE program represents such an input with its potential to offer students insights into inclusive education in countries across Europe. EUMIE offers opportunities for future partnerships beyond the project itself. In Norway we would like to take forward to EUMIE programme, eg, to establish a joint degree with other the universities of Glasgow and Malaga.
Inclusion in Scotland
There have been radical changes in Scottish Education over the past 30 years as the concept of inclusion has gradually been evolving. It was only in 1975 when the Education (Mentally Handicapped Children) Act 1974 became law that all children in Scotland were believed to be educable. However, the policy changes that followed from that point were swift and decisive. The publication of the HMI report in 1978 heralded a fundamental shift in thinking about the education of pupils with learning difficulties. This report went further than Warnock (DES, 1978) who had suggested that up to 20% of pupils might have special educational needs, to argue that up to 50 % of pupils were likely to experience difficulties with learning. The report’s most influential statement, however, lay in the suggestion that the major source of learning difficulties lay not within the child but within the curriculum; a deceptively simple statement, the implications of which were to tax educational communities internationally for the next thirty years.
Through the 1980s and 1990s a range of policy documents emerged to support the concept of inclusive education, nationally and internationally (UN, 1989, UNESCO, 1994, SOEID, 1998, SOEID 1999), although these documents emerged into a broader educational context where, what Paul Black (2001) describes as the driving up standards dream was dominant. Scotland’s schools became heavily influenced by target setting and by comparisons across schools. Attainment, narrowly defined, was perceived to be of crucial importance. Teachers began to believe that the standards agenda was more important than the inclusion agenda.
However, a changing political climate in the UK and the emergence of the new Scottish parliament in 1999 have contributed to a high public profile for social justice and for inclusive education. The Standards in Scotland’s schools Act 2000 states that all children are entitled to an educational experience that seeks to develop their personality, talents mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential. The Act also makes the presumption that all children will be educated in mainstream schools. However, there are exceptions to this presumption, eg, if mainstream education is not perceived to be suited to the child’s ability or aptitude. Thus the 2000 Act has been seen by some as a major step towards inclusive education and by others an Act that left many of the tensions around the special schools debate unresolved.
Scotland still has special schools and the debate about inclusive education still often centres on the issue of special schools. In 2004 the total school population in Scotland was 722,359; less than 1% (7012) of children were educated in special schools. The number has fallen from 7321 in 2003. The debate around the existence of special schools in Scotland is still contentious. There are still powerful parental influences for the retention of special schools. Often opposition to the proposed closure of a special school comes from parents whose children attend the school and there are still numbers of teachers who question the ability of mainstream schools to cope with the full range of diversity without compromising the quality of educational experiences of some children. On the other hand there are those who believe that inclusive education is not possible whilst special schools remain.
Undoubtedly, there is a strong political will to encourage inclusive education, whilst retaining a small number of special schools as part of the total provision. The development of Integrated Community Schools in Scotland, the drive towards more integrated services, eg, across education, health and social work are all attempts to enhance life chances for all of Scotland’s children. The HMIE report ‘Count Us In’ (2002) defined three characteristics of inclusion; creating an ethos of achievement for all, based on a broad and outward-looking view of the range of abilities and talents that young people possess; promoting success through removing barriers to learning of whatever sort and countering discrimination and promoting positive attitudes to diversity. Recently, the Chief HMIE (Chief Inspector of Schools)) for Scotland both recognised the widespread good practice and the challenges to inclusion in Scottish schools. The policy commitment to inclusion was clear.
‘Inclusion is not easy but it is also not optional. The problems it addresses
are real but not new, nor are they unique to Scotland. Future success means
that we must identify and learn from effective practice, both national and
international.’ (Graham Donaldson, Chief HMIE, Count Us In conference,
2004).
Most recently the 2004 The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) came into being. Within this Act there is a strong emphasis on the duty of the system to provide support as and when necessary to enable the all children and young people to have educational experiences of the kind proposed in the 2000 Act. Additional support for learning may be required by any child or young person at any point depending on circumstances that may include transitory situations, such as bereavement or bullying, and long-lasting ones, such as profound and complex additional needs. It may be short or for the whole of a pupil’s education. The implication of this is that mainstream schools will have to be able to support almost all pupils in the complex process of developing as learners and as persons, taking account, as required, of additional support that may be necessary to maximise their learning.
The 2004 Act is emerging into an era of major educational change in Scotland. Two new policy statements, heralding major changes in thinking about Scottish education, make an explicit commitment to inclusive education, A Curriculum for Excellence (2004) and Ambitious, Excellent Schools (2004). These new policy documents give teachers and schools the freedom to tailor learning; refer to challenging circumstances and the need to integrate all children’s services in Community Schools; and specifically identify sectarianism, discrimination and racism as ‘social evils’. Perhaps one of the most significant issues in terms of inclusive education is that these issues are raised in major curriculum and policy documents rather than one dealing specifically with inclusion.
For the past twenty years or more, there has been high quality professional development for teachers in Scotland, from short courses to Masters’ programmes but the culture of and context for inclusive education is changing fast and our professional development will have to grow and adapt to new circumstances. It is of crucial importance that Scotland does not become inward looking. Programmes like EUMIE offer opportunities for Scottish teachers to work with teachers from other cultures, to experience first hand what it is like to contribute to an inclusive educational community in Europe. Inclusive education has, by definition, to transcend national boundaries; to understand your own community as part of a wider world, to be part of a
community of professionals; to see the world as others see it. In the University of Glasgow, EUMIE has become part of the Chartered Teacher Programme, a Masters’ programme for teachers who wish to enhance their professionalism whilst remaining in the classroom as practising teachers.
Currently, Scotland is working towards more inclusive education recognising the complexity of that process. A recent paper from the Inclusive Education Reference Group of LT Scotland, the national curriculum body, (Spencer, 2005) suggests that growth towards a more inclusive educational system is characterised by facing a number of dilemmas, few of which are susceptible to quick and easy resolution. For example, there is a currently dilemma in Scotland about the rights of children who exhibit challenging behaviour and the rights of those in the same class who do not. Or the dilemma of the interpretation of policy, where the attitudes that people bring to policies on inclusion will influence their approach to policy development in practice, ie, people who genuinely do not believe inclusive education to be either desirable or practicable will seek to interpret the 2004 Act and other policies in ways that allow them to retain exclusive practices. Ideas, policies and practices in inclusive education need to be worked out locally by each teacher, each school, each education authority and by Scotland as a nation. Working with others internationally can only help in this process
In this paper we have attempted to provide an overview of the international context for inclusive education. We have reflected on ideas of inclusion and considered examples of the contexts for ideas and policies in three different European countries. In the symposium we will offer further case studies of the differing contexts for inclusive education in Europe, reflect on approaches within the EU to bring policy and practice into closer alignment using the EUMIE programme as a case study and invite symposium participants to consider the potential of and barriers to closer relationships across Europe of research, policy and practice in inclusive education
References
Allan, J. (2004): The Repetition of Exclusion. Paper presented at the seminar Critical Analyses Of Inclusive Education Policy, Mc Gill University, Montreal, July 19-21.
Armstrong, F. (1998): Curricula, `Management` and Special and Inclusive Education. In Clough, P. (ed.): Managing Inclusive Education. Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Black, P. (2001) ‘Dreams, strategies and systems: portraits of assessment past, present
and future’. Assessment in Education, 8(1), 65–85.
Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2002): Index for Inclusion. Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: CSIE
Booth, T., Nes, K. and Strömstad, M. (ed.) (2003): Developing Inclusive Teacher Education. London, New York: RoutledgeFalmer
Department of Education and Science (1978a) Special Educational Needs: Report of the committee of inquiry into education of handicapped children and young people. (The Warnock Report) London: HMSO
European Commission (1996). Announcement of the Commission towards equality of chances for handicapped people, Com (96) 40 endg. Available online at http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/disable/com406/index_de.htm
European Commission (1998). Amsterdam Treaty. Available online at: http://www.independentliving.org/docs3/edf98.pdf
European Commission (2003). Announcement of the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Komm (2003) 16 endg. Available online at http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/legisln/2003_16
Feuser, Georg (1995). Behinderte Kinder und Jugendliche zwischen Integration und Aussonderung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft
Feyerer, E. & Prammer, W. (ed.). (2000). 10 Jahre Integration in Oberösterreich. Ein Grund zum Feiern!? Beiträge zum 5. Praktikerforum. Schriften der Paedagogischen Akademie des Bundes in Oberösterreich, Band 10. Linz: Universitätsverlag Rudolf Trauner
Feyerer, E. & Prammer, W. (ed.). (2002). Eine kindgerechte Schule für alle. Beiträge zum 7. Praktikerforum. Schriften der Paedagogischen Akademie des Bundes in Oberösterreich, Band 14. Linz: Universitätsverlag Rudolf Trauner
Feyerer, E. & Prammer, W. (ed.) (2004). Qual-I-tät und Integration. Beiträge zum 8. PraktikerInnenforum. Schriften der Paedagogischen Akademie des Bundes in Oberösterreich, Band 16. Linz: Universitätsverlag Rudolf Trauner
Haug, P., Tössebro, J. og Dalen, M. (ed) (1999) Den mangfaldige spesialundervisninga. Status for forskning om spesialundervisning (Research status in special education). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Haug, P. (2004): Resultat frå evalueringa av Reform 97 (Results from the evaluation of Reform 97). Oslo: Norges forskningsråd (Norwegian Research Council).
Hayward, L., Priestly, M. & Young, M. (2004) Ruffling the calm of the ocean floor:
merging research, policy and practice in Scotland, Oxford Review of Education 30(3),
397-415.
Hayward, L. and Hedge, N. (2005). Travelling towards change in assessment.
Assessment in Education , 12(1), 55-76 1-38.
Hayward, L and Hedge, N. (2005 in press) Early Intervention for All: Back to Basics, International Journal of Early Education
Her Majesty’s Inspectors (1978) The Education of Pupils with Learning Difficulties, HMSO, Edinburgh
Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Education (2002) Count us in: Achieving Inclusion in
Scottish Schools , HMSO, Edinburgh
Hutchinson, C. and Hayward, L. (2005 in press) The Journey Sofar: Assessment for Learning in Scotland. Curriculum Journal
Inclusion International (ed.). (1996). The Journey to Inclusive Schools: An overview of Inclusive Education in six issues of GETTING there in the context of Salamanca Statement and framework for Action on Special Needs Education of UNESCO., Vol 3, published by Inclusion International, c/o International Disability Centre, 13 D, Chemin du Levant, 01201 Ferney-Voltaire, France
Kauffmann J.M., Hallahan D. (eds) (1995): The Illusion of Full Inclusion. Austin, Texas: pro-ed
KUF (Ministry of Church, Education and Research) (1996): Læreplanverket for den 10-årige grunnskolen (National Curriculum), Oslo.
KUF (Ministry of Church, Education and Research) (1998) National Curriculum for Teacher Education, in General Plan and Regulations for General teacher Education. Oslo.
NOU 2003:16 I første rekke (In the first place). Oslo: Norwegian Public Report.
Scottish Executive (2004): Report of the Consultation on the draft Additional Support for Learning Bill http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/rcasl-00.asp, December 2004
Scottish Executive Education Department (2004) A Curriculum for Excellence: The Curriculum Review Group Scottish Executive, Edinburgh
Scottish Executive Education Department (2004) Ambitious Excellent Schools Edinburgh, SEED
Scottish Parliament (2000) Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act (2000)
Scottish Parliament (2004) The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 200 0
Smith J.D. (1998): Inclusion. Schools for All Students. Wadsworth Publishing Company
Spencer, E. (2005 draft paper) Focusing on Inclusion and the Education (Additional Support for Learning (Scotland) Act 2004: an Inclusive Education Reference Group paper for reflection, LT Scotland.
UFD (Ministry of Education and Research) (2004): The Development of Education 2000-2004. Oslo: National Report of Norway.
UNESCO (1994). World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain.
UNESCO (2000): Overcoming Exclusion through Inclusive Approaches in Education. Conceptual paper for the Education Sector 2000
UNESCO (2001): International Conference on Education, Geneva, Final Report
UNESCO (2003). Overcoming Exclusion through Inclusive Approaches in Education. A Challenge & a Vision. Conceptual Paper. Available online at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001347/134785e.pdf
Vislie, L. ( 2003) Deconstructing special education versus constructing inclusive education – looking for international curricular trends: a study of European postgraduate (Master) programmes in the field . Paper EERA (European Educational Research Association), September , Portugal.
White Paper no 30 (2003-2004) Kultur for læring (Culture for Learning), Oslo.
White Paper no 49 (2003-2004) Mangfold gjennom inkludering og deltakelse (Diversity through inclusion and participation), Oslo.
Will M.C (1986): Education of Children with Learning Problems: A shared Responsibility. In Exceptional Children, Vol 52, 1986, p. 411-415.
This curriculum covers compulsory school age from 6-16 years. Nearly all learners this age are in public schools in Norway; in 2003/4 roughly 2 % were in private schools (UFD 2004). However, privatisation and parental choice of schools are now increasing.
home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |