Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

The Education of Children with Intellectual Disabilities in Iceland
- Two case studies of preschools working towards inclusion-

Elsa Sigridur Jonsdottir elsasig@khi.is
Hrönn Palmadottir hropalm@khi.is
Iceland University of Education
Stakkahlid, 105 Reykjavik, Iceland

Introduction

The purpose of the study is to gather data about the education of children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities in preschools, primary schools and upper secondary schools in Iceland. The main research question is: „How does the school system respond to the educational needs of children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities and how can these responses be explained?“

The research approach is both qualitative and quantitative. This paper deals with findings from the qualitative study of preschools . Case studies in two preschools were conducted. In both of them the ideology was inclusive and they had a long experience of working with children with disabilities. Still they were different in some areas. In one of the schools, Star City School, the staff relied mostly upon the evaluations and the opinions of experts when decisions were made about curriculum and planning of teaching. In the other school, Moon City School, the teachers were confident of their own ideology and made their decisions based upon their knowledge and beliefs. Although these two preschools were different there were several issues where the staff dealt with the same controversies.

Concepts like responsibility, decision making and power will be discussed. The role of parents in decisions regarding IEP (individual education plan) and other arrangement concerning their children will be addressed as well as attitudes of staff towards disabled children and their parents.

Background

The rights of disabled children and adolecents to education in mainstream schools are stated in curricula, regulations, statutes and international conventions (Aðalnámskrá leikskóla, 1999; Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla, 1999; Aðalnámskrá framhaldsskóla 1999; Lög um leikskóla nr.78/1994; Lög um grunnskóla nr.66/1995; Lög um framhaldsskóla nr.80/1996; Lög um málefni fatlaðra nr.59/1992; Samningur Sameinuðu þjóðanna um réttindi barnsins 1992, Salamancayfirlýsingin 1994). According to Law on Preschools (Lög um leikskóla nr.78/1994, 15, gr.) preschool children with disabilities or with emotional and social difficulties are entitled to professional support and training in the preschool.

Almost all children with disabilities aged 1-6 are now in preschools. The history of preschool education in Iceland reaches back to the 1920s. In the beginning and for many years children with disabilities were not included in preschools as they were either at home with their parents or in institutions. In 1961 The Association for the Aid of the Mentally Disabled established a day care nursery for young children with intellectual disabilities. Later in 1975 and 1977 two preschools in the Reykjavik area organised special settings within their schools for children with disabilities (Traustadóttir, 2000). Gradually people understood that it was necessary for these children to be among other children and participate in their play and preschool programmes . Children with disabilities were therefore gradually integrated into mainstream settings. From year 1990 the drive towards inclusive education intensified. Now there are no special preschools or settings for disabled children in Iceland apart from one day care center in Reykjavik for children with severe and multiple disabilities. Many of those children attend half day programmes in mainstream preschools. In the last two decades there has been a rapid development in preschool education. In the year 1994 the preschool was officially defined as the first level of education in Iceland. The discourse of professionals has more and more dealt with the ideology of inclusion and the arrangement of special education in the preschools.

Theoretical framework

In Iceland there are a few studies of preschool education from the nineties which have thrown some light upon what is going on in the preschool. Bjarnason, D.S. (1998) researched attitudes of the staff in several preschools in 1986 and again ten years later in 1996. She found that attitudes towards integration of disabled children have become more positive, especially the attitudes of assistants who work in the preschool. Another study shows that ideas about special education and the role of the teacher are different among the staff in the preschool. Some teachers believe that education should focus upon the child’s deficiencies while others consider more important to focus on children’s strength and social competence (Jónsdóttir, 1999). Einarsdóttir’s findings (1999) that participation of preschool staff in play is limited and the children are often alone in their play raise the question of whether children with disabilities get sufficient support in the playgroup. Research which focused on interaction and play showed that children who had communication problems got little support in their play with their peers. On the other hand they got more individual support in groupwork which was supervised by adults (Pálmadóttir, 2001). Clearly more knowledge is needed about ideas and beliefs of staff, arrangement of teaching of children with disabilities as well as partnership with parents.

Presumably social constructions influence their reactions to the children and their needs. People do not view, discuss or understand disability in the same way. Two contrasting approaches to disability have been prominent in the last decade. The medical or individual model has been prevailing for the larger part of the 20th century (Oliver, 1996; Traustadóttir, 2003). The model emphasises the need to diagnose physical or mental impairments and as well as the need for treatment, rehabilitation and care. The focus is on the deficiency which is considered the cause of the individual’s difficulties and a personal tragedy for the respective person. Diagnosis built upon the medical model gives information about the nature of the impairment and its consequences but only limited suggestions about how to arrange the education of the disabled children (Marinósson and Kristinsdóttir, 2004).

Different approach to disability is the social model (originally coming from Britain), which assumes the cause of the individuals problems to be the society’s failure to provide appropriate services and adequately take account of the needs of disabled people. Disability according to the social model is all the things that impose restrictions on disabled people, i.e. prejudice and discrimination, inaccessible buildings and transport systems, segregated education and exclusionary work arrangement (Oliver, 1996). The construct of disability thus refers to social oppression and discrimination corresponding to sexism and racism (Traustadóttir, 2003).

In the Nordic countries there is no one prevailing understanding of what disability means. Still some scholars argue that there are common ideas which the inhabitants share and these ideas focus upon the relationship between the disabled person and the environment. This relational model to disability emphasises two things, the adaptation of the disabled person to the environment and simultaneously adaptation of the environment to the disabled person (Traustadóttir, 2003).

The research

In the year 2002 The Iceland University of Education Research Centre received a request from The National Federation for the Aid of People with Learning Disability. The European Year of People with Disabilities was in 2003 and the Association wanted to celebrate the year by researching the education of children with intellectual disabilities. The parents’ original question was whether intellectually disabled children and adolescents were receiving as good an education as children without disabilities.  

The purpose of the study is to examine the responses by the state, local authorities, and individual schools to the educational needs of children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities, how these responses are explained and what improvements can be made.

The research approach is both qualitative and quantitative. The design of the qualitative part were case studies located within social constructivism. Eight school were selected, two from each school level, preschools, mainstream primary schools, special schools and upper secondary schools . The data was collected through participant observations in the schools and in-depth interviews with parents, teachers and other staff working in schools. The interviews were about one hour long and transcribed afterwards. Documents such as curriculums, laws and regulations were examined.

The research questions were directed at staff and pupils. Factors like funding, admissions, curricula, teaching, training and support for children were examined. Data was gathered about staff collaboration and division of labour as well as pupils’ social relations. Collaboration between home and school was an important part as well as collaboration with outer agencies. Last but not least transition between school levels and from school to work was studied.

In the quantitative part of the study questionaries are sent to all schools in Iceland where there are students with intellectual disabilities as well as to parents who have agreed to take part in the research.  

The preschools in the study were both in the Reykjavik area. In one of them there were 75 children in four settings and in the other 117 children in five settings, both of them built on inclusive ideology and children with disabilities had been there for years. Most of the staff had teacher training or other university education. The schools had a special post for a teacher who took care of all matters concerning children with special needs.

In one of the preschools, Star City School, there was a special setting for children with disabilities from the start but the children were integrated into the mainstream settings in 1990. In the school there is a long experience of working with disabled children and the staff show a great interest in their work. There is a tradition for social educators working along with preschool teachers and collaboration with experts is customary.

From the beginning the inclusive ideology was emphasised in the other preschool, Moon City School. The unique position of the school is the collective upbringing and education of disabled children and children without disabilities. The ethos of the school is to find ways to increase collaboration between different professions and adapt the methods of special education to the general preschool.

Findings

All preschool children with disabilities are diagnosed by the National Diagnostic and Advisory Center either before entering the preschool or later in their preschool years. Special support for these children is contingent on this diagnosis which gives information about the child’s impairment and its consequences.

Decisions concerning teaching and education

Decisions about teaching and education are made from different points of view in these two preschools. In Star City School the aims of the individual education plan are almost exclusively built upon the diagnosis of the child. First and foremost the emphasis is on the weaknesses of the child and the goal is to mend the child.

On the other hand in Moon City School more attention is paid to the teachers’ pedagogical analysis of the child in the programme. Ideas from all the teachers in the child´s settings are used as a basis for the child’s IEP. This information influences the aims of   the educational plan as well as the information from the Diagnostical Center.

The data show that both the preschools valued partnership with parents but still there are differences. It is for example evident in the making of IEP. In Star City School the parents were allowed to make comments about the plan but they seldom used that opportunity. In Moon City School the making of IEP was looked upon as a collaborative task between the staff and the parents and they were finding ways to increase their involvement in the programme, both in the making of IEP and in daily routines.

The findings show that the parents had little power in decision making regarding their children. In Star City School the staff believed the parents were more involved in the programme than the parents experienced themselves. The attitudes of some teachers implied that having a disabled child was a tragedy and the parents were in grief and therefore not quite capable of collaboration concerning   education of the children. Although the parents selected the preschool for their child in the beginning they seemed to know little about the children’s IEP and what was included in the special support their children received.

Attitudes and values

The parents were satisfied with the programme in both the preschools. Their children made progress and were happy at school. The expertise of the staff was highly valued by the parents and they had confidence in the teachers competence to educate their children. Although the parents were content with the school they felt that they should know more about what was going on and be more involved. The parents explained their lack of participation by work overload. Also they saw no reason to interfere while everything was going fine with their children.

In both the preschools the staff welcomed the disabled children and encouraged positive attitudes from the other children as this was a part of the inclusive ideology. However the preschools differed in their attitudes towards the children with disability. In Star City School the staff regarded the children’ stay in the preschool as a pleasant time. The children were protected and their stay in preschool was considered the only period in their life where they could take part on their own terms. There seemed to be a belief that children with disabilities will be marginalised later in mainstream school and society. The discussion of children’s right dealt with their right to training and support. On the other hand the focus in Moon City School was more on the rights of the disabled children to have their educational and social needs met in the school and community along with their peers. Several teaching methods have been developed to reach this goal. Children are grouped into cooperative learning groups and playgroups where social competence of the disabled children is emphasised.

In Star City School there was little emphasis placed on collaboration regarding transition to the next school level. But in Moon City school there is a tradition of collaboration with a special school in the neighbourhood and now they are developing collaboration on transition to mainstream primary school.

What is special education in preschools?

The programme and arrangement of teaching is of great importance, especially when disabled children are in the preschool. It is controversial whether children with special needs should be taken from the group to be trained individually. In both preschools this was occasionally done.   Still the staff tried to take one or two non-disabled children along to the training session. Clear emphasis was made on the importance of the child being in the group and learning from other children with support from the adults. This method demands more from the teachers and its success depends on the teachers’ competence.

Another controversial issue is responsibility. Who is responsible for disabled children in the preschool? Is it a collective task to take care of and teach disabled children or is it solely the responsibility of one person who is especially employed because of the disabled children in the programme?

Conclusion

The findings reveal different views and understanding of disability in those two preschools. In Star City School there was strong belief in the experts’ diagnosis and opinions which had great influence on planning of teaching such as the children’s IEP. The preschool is looked upon as support to families and even a social resource rather than educational institution. The ambition of staff is to take care of the disabled child in the present, but little effort is made to plan the education and possibilities for the future. The discourse was characterised by notions referring to training and mending the child rather than to education. These attitudes are in accordance with the medical model (Marinósson and Kristinsdóttir, 2004; Oliver, 1996; Traustadóttir, 2003).

On the other hand in Moon City School the staff’s pedagogical assessment of the disabled   child had equal power to the experts’ diagnosis when decisions were made about the education of the child. Constantly the staff are finding ways to strengthen collaboration between staff as well as with parents and developing the special education into the daily routines. Equality viewpoints characterise the discourse in the preschool. The prevailing understanding of learning is that it is an enduring process which can take time. This is in accordance with the social model (Marinósson and Kristinsdóttir; Oliver, 1996; Traustadóttir, 2003).

In the end we would like to summarise some factors which can hinder or facilitate inclusion in the preschool. The barriers seem to be the staff’s belief in the power of experts to mend the children. Limited understanding of critical concepts such as disability, impairment and special education. The parents are not participants in the preschool programme.

Facilitating factors include a welcoming attitude to disabled children. There is a professional ambition to educate disabled children and create cooperative learning groups and a play environment which strengthens social competence and friendship among children. There was also notable collaboration and togetherness amongst staff guided by a leader who is dedicated to the ideology of inclusion. It is also important that the aims of the school’s curriculum reflect the ideology and methods of inclusion.

References

Aðalnámskrá framhaldsskóla (1999). [National curriculum for upper secondary schools]. Reykjavík, Menntamálaráðuneytið.

Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla (1999). [National curriculum for compulsory schools].  Reykjavík, Menntamálaráðuneytið.

Aðalnámskrá leikskóla (1999). [National curriulum for preschools]. Reykjavík,  Menntamálaráðurneytið.

Bjarnason, Dóra S. (1998). Leikskóli fyrir alla. [Preschool for all children]. Ritröð uppeldis og menntunar. Reykjavík, Una.

Einarsdóttir, Jóhanna (1998). The role of adults in children’s play in Icelandic playschools. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 6, 2, 87-106.

Jónsdóttir, Elsa Sigríður (1999). Menningarlegur margbreytileiki í leikskólum:

Rannsókn á þátttöku tvítyngdra barna og barna með fötlun í leikskólastarfi . Óbirt M.A. ritgerð, Háskóli Íslands

[Multiculturalism in Preschools. A study of participation of bilingual children and children with disabilities]. Reykjavík, Master thesis. University of Iceland.

Lög um framhaldsskóla nr. 80/1996. [Law for upper secondary schools nr. 80/1996].

Lög um grunnskóla nr. 66/1995. [Law for compulsory schools nr. 66/1995].

Lög um leikskóla nr. 78/1994. [Law for primary schools nr. 78/1995].

Lög um málefni fatlaðra nr. 59/1992. [Law for issues of disabled people nr. 59/1992].

Marinósson, Gretar L. and Kristinsdóttir, Auður B. (2004). Hvað vitum við um menntun nemenda með þroskahömlun á Íslandi? [What is known about the education of children with intellectual disabilities in Iceland?]. Uppeldi og menntun,13 (2) 33-55.

Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability. From theory to practice. London, Macmillan Press.

Pálmadóttir, Hrönn (2001). Boðskipti í leikskóla. Athugun á boðskiptum barna með samskiptaerfiðleika og íhlutun fullorðinna. Óbirt M.ED. ritgerð, Kennaraháskóli Íslands. [Communication in preschools. Study of interactions of children with iffculties and the intervention of adults]. Reykjavík, Master thesis, Iceland University of Education.

Salamancayfirlýsingin og rammaáætlun um aðgerðir vegna nemenda með sérþarfir

(Salamanca, Spain 7.-10. júní 1994) (1995). Reykjavík, Menntamálaráðuneytið.

Samningur Sameinuðu þjóðanna um réttindi barnsins. [The UN Convention about children’s right ] (New York 20. nov. 1989) . Stjtíð C nr. 18/1992.

Traustadóttir, Rannveig (2003). Fötlunarfræði. Sjónarhorn, áherslur og aðferðafræði á nýju fræðasviði.[Disability Studies. Views, Emphasis and Research Methods]. Í Rannveig Traustadóttir (ritstj.), Fötlunarfræði. Nýjar íslenskar rannsóknir (bls. 17-54). Reykjavík, Háskólaútgáfan.

Traustadóttir, Rannveig (2000, júní). Saga sérkennslunnar í leikskólanum. [The history of special education in preschools]. Athöfn, 32 38-42.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact