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 |
Alison Kearney
Janis Carroll-Lind
Department of Learning and Teaching
Massey University College of Education
Private Bag 11 222
Palmerston North
New Zealand
a.c.kearney@massey.ac.nz
j.carroll-lind@massey.ac.nz
New Zealand’s first ever special education policy (originally called Special Education 2000) aims to create a world class inclusive education system that provides learning opportunities of equal quality to all students (Ministry of Education, 1996). To help achieve this aim, a new teacher position called Resource Teacher, Learning and Behaviour (RTLB) was created in 1999.
The data for this study is part of a larger research project that monitored and evaluated the Resource Teacher, Learning and Behaviour Initiative within the special education resourcing policy and was published in a report to the New Zealand Ministry of Education (Bourke, Kearney, Poskitt & McAlpine, 2001). A 22 item questionnaire was designed and piloted in early 1999, and in October of that year, this was sent to all RTLBs in New Zealand (743). In total, 518 questionnaires were returned, representing a 70% response rate. The data for this paper was sourced from the final question in the questionnaire. It asked RTLBs to list what they considered to be the main barriers or issues that affected their job performance and what they considered might be solutions to enhance their job performance.
The major barriers identified by RTLBs were: (1) resistance from teachers and principals; (2) confusion with the RTLB role; (3) inappropriate principal and teacher expectations; and (4) time constraints. A range of solutions to overcome these barriers were suggested by RTLBs, for example, ways to develop effective relationships with teachers; better provision of information and professional development; and reprioritising of funding.
Implications from this study are that consultation and collaboration do not happen naturally. A range of attitudes, skills and resources are vital if this model of service delivery is to be successful in meeting the needs of learners with learning and behaviour difficulties. However, as the range of learning and behaviour diversity in schools continues to grow, so too will the need for support based on models of consultation and collaboration. It is therefore vital that all those involved are aware of the barriers that can be associated with working within this framework as well as possible solutions to overcome these barriers. Listening to the voices of resource teachers is one way to do this.
INTRODUCTION
In 1996, New Zealand introduced its first ever special education policy originally called Special Education 2000 (SE 2000). This was essentially a funding and resourcing policy and consisted of seven major components: Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme (for students with high and very high needs, not met by other components of the policy); Severe Behaviour Initiative; Speech Language Initiative; Special Education Grant; Resource Teachers, Learning and Behaviour; Early Childhood Initiative; and an initiative for students with high health needs, sensory impairments or physical disabilities. Underlying these provisions was a professional development initiative. The aim of the policy was “to achieve over the next decade, a world class inclusive education system that provides learning opportunities of equal quality to all students”(Ministry of Education, 1996, p.2). As shown in figure 1, the three initiatives in the top of the triangle were designed for students with high or very high needs and those in the middle of the triangle, for students with moderate needs.
Figure 1. Special Education 2000
Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour
This paper discusses one aspect of the policy, the Resource Teacher, Learning and Behaviour (RTLB). The position of RTLB was created in 1999 to assist schools and teachers meet the needs of students with moderate learning and behaviour needs. There is approximately one RTLB to every 750 students in New Zealand (the figure of 750 includes all students, not just those with special needs). In 2001, there were 762 RTLB positions throughout New Zealand and approximately 35 of these positions were focused specifically on the needs of Mäori students. (Ministry of Education, 2001).
Most RTLB are highly experienced teachers (Education Review Office, 2004) however, all are required to undertake a two-year, part time training programme, designed and delivered by a consortium of New Zealand Universities. The programme consists of four papers, Te Raranga (School and Community Contexts); Te Kuhuna (Students in Contexts); Te Putanga (Classroom Contexts) and Te Huarahi (Professional Practice Portfolio). All papers have a Maori dimension integrated into them (Education Review Office, 2004).
There are five main themes guiding the practice of RTLB. These are:
(Ministry of Education, 2001, p. 5/2)
The New Zealand Ministry of Education (2001) maintains that an effective RTLB will carry out a variety of roles including assisting teachers to develop inclusive classroom environments; facilitating collaborative problem solving,; supporting individual students for brief periods to help staff establish appropriate programmes; using and supporting practices which are culturally appropriate; promoting effective partnerships; and working with teachers to adapt curriculum. Similarly, there are clear guidelines as to what RTLB are not expected to do. This includes teaching particular subjects, acting as remedial tutors or teacher aides, taking responsibility for an entire class, carrying out school duty responsibilities, providing counselling, truancy services or social work, making formal diagnoses of disabilities or reporting on any teacher’s abilities or skills (Ministry of Education, 2001).
METHODOLOGY
The study reported in this paper is part of a larger study that monitored and evaluated the effects of the policy, Special Education 2000. As part of this study an evaluation of the RTLB service was undertaken. All RTLBs in New Zealand were sent a 22 item questionnaire for which a 70% response rate was received. Specifically, this paper is based on one aspect of the questionnaire, that is, RTLBs perceptions of the major barriers to their successful job performance and their ideas for overcoming these barriers. Respondents were asked to list in a few words, what they considered to be the main barriers or issues that affected their job performance and some solutions or strategies to overcome these barriers or issues in order to improve their performance. Responses were recorded and analysed for common themes.
RESULTS
A number of barriers were identified to successful job performance. This paper will discuss the four most frequently reported barriers (and associated solutions) which were:
Within each of these themes, sub-themes were identified. Each theme and associated sub-theme will be discussed in order of frequency of identification by RTLBs.
Resistance from teachers and principals
Resistance from teachers and principals was the major obstacle identified by respondents. The types of resistance described by RTLBs included:
The main resistance encountered (the unwillingness or inability of teachers to make changes) included teachers not willing to change their teaching style and methods, to make adaptations to the learning environment, or to try new ideas. Many respondents commented that such teachers considered they did not need to make any adaptations to their teaching methods because it was the learner who should be making the changes. Examples of responses include:
Difficulty or an unwillingness to adapt the curriculum – teachers expecting students to all be doing the same.
Teachers’ reluctance to change – no matter what was happening in the class, some teachers refused to change their methods .
RTLBs reported resistance from teachers in the form of not fulfilling their obligations to planned and agreed on interventions. This also included teachers who dismissed suggestions of the RTLB believing that they would not work or that they had been tried before without success. For example:
Teachers’ dismissal of an idea by saying “We’ve done that!” end of discussion – this can prove very difficult as they expect new and instantly successful ideas.
Respondents also reported resistance to the idea of inclusion on the part of classroom teachers and school principals. Some respondents went as far as to say that there was a fear of inclusion and in some cases hostility towards it. Respondents reported that these teachers wanted the RTLB to take the student out of the classroom and provide a ‘quick fix’. Some RTLBs also reported that their model of ‘inclusive’ service delivery was still not well understood by some teachers and principals.
Promoting an unpopular alternative – Inclusion is not understood by the people at the chalk face.
Poor understanding of inclusion – teachers’ belief that students need to fit into an established programme rather than adapting programmes to meet their needs.
Teachers are still in the medical paradigm – inclusion is not yet adopted as a professional commitment.
Finally, RTLBs reported resistance from some teachers to their presence in the classroom. The reasons given included feelings of resentment, teachers fearing that they may be judged by RTLBs and that having an RTLB in their classroom was an admission of failure.
Resistance by teachers – They feel threatened by your input. They feel that they are on the line or ‘not coping’ or that they are not good enough or have done that already.
RTLBs believed that the most useful solution to overcoming barriers associated with resistance was to get alongside teachers to develop effective relationships with them. They believed that this would allow them to demonstrate and model effective practices. Other suggestions included providing information and professional development to principals and teachers, ensuring that they took every opportunity to consult with them and finally to just be content to take small steps towards a bigger goal.
Teacher expectations and confusion with the RTLB role
The second most common barrier identified by RTLBs was unrealistic teacher expectations and confusion with the RTLB role. The issues highlighted included:
These four issues identified by RTLBS are closely related. Many RTLBs highlighted the confusion by principals and teachers regarding the nature of the RTLB role. Respondents pointed out that not enough information had been given to schools clarifying the role of the RTLB (It should be noted however that this was before the Ministry of Education published their handbook outlining clear expectations regarding what constituted the main roles of the RTLB and what did not (Ministry of Education, 2001). RTLB also identified the issue of teachers wanting them to take the learner out of the classroom and ‘fix’ them. Respondents who identified this theme as a barrier also highlighted the difficulty of teachers and principals wanting RTLBs to work ‘hands on’ in a one-on-one role with the learner implementing a direct intervention rather than working from a consultative, collaborative model. Similarly, some RTLBs reported that teachers expected them to work in the role of a ‘teacher aide’. Indicative comments included:
Schools are unaware of the RTLB role – there is not enough information given to schools regarding the role of the RTLB.
The school is so big and staff believe we should take the child out and ‘fix’ the child. The school is working in the old paradigm.
Staff expectations – often they are straight up and say they are really after one on one time or a teacher-aide. Some people expect us to provide miracles in the shortest possible time (whereas miracles and behaviour changes take a little longer).
The most common solutions suggested by respondents were associated with communication. Respondents reported that regular and ongoing communication with schools was an effective way to break down misconceptions regarding their role. Suggestions for communication included presentations to staff at school staff meetings regarding their role and the services that they provided, offering in-service courses and regular newsletters to keep schools abreast of their work. Informal discussions with school staff about the RTLB role was also cited as a useful strategy to overcome this barrier.
Issues associated with the training of RTLBs
The third most common barrier identified by RTLBS was the training. The main issues were:
Respondents who identified the training as a barrier to being effective in their job highlighted what they believed was the inappropriateness of the training. These RTLB believed that the training was too ideological and there was not enough focus on practical strategies. For example one respondent wrote:
Narrow viewpoints espoused in the RTLB training courses. Little real understandings of the nature of many learning difficulties and emotional problems. Ideology bound training. Three favoured methods of dealing with each case. Cooperative learning, peer tutoring and appropriate cultural strategies for Maori students. All very glib and PC and while these strategies are useful they are not panaceas. NO training provided for those who have never worked with autistic, dyslexic or ADHD disordered students.
A further issue in the area of training for some RTLB was the difficulty balancing the demands of the training with the demands of their caseload. RTLBs reported that because of the requirements of the training, they found it difficult to provide a consistent service to schools or to establish a routine with them. They also reported having to restrict the number of students on their caseload because of their study commitments.
Training courses – absence from school 2-3 days every 3 weeks during university year cuts into the flow of programmes and fuels teacher dissatisfaction.
The demands of the training mean that we must restrict the numbers on our roll and therefore we are unable to deal with all suitable referrals.
Gaps in the training programme was a further issue identified in this theme. The most frequently cited gap was that of counselling training but also included ideas for working with students with severe behaviour needs and working with students with specific disorders such as autism and dyslexia.
Lack of knowledge/training in areas I am being asked to be involved in – Much of my work has been with children who are emotionally unstable i.e. need counselling. Teachers say they have the knowledge to adapt learning programmes etc. They need social workers and counsellors to work with these children and their families. I am concerned that these are not skills we will gain from our RTLB training.
The most common suggestion to overcome barriers associated with the training was changing the timing of the training. Suggestions were that it should occur in blocks at the beginning and end of the year rather than occurring throughout the year. It was thought that this would reduce the disruption to the RTLB duties and allow them to focus on the RTLB job during the year. Doing this would also ensure that there would be no pressure or distractions from the demands of the job while they were involved in the training courses.
Widening the timeframe to complete the training was another suggestion and some respondents thought it would be advantageous to train before working in schools at all. Further suggestions included keeping the caseloads low while RTLB were training, communicating to schools that the RTLB was involved in training so that teachers and principals could have more realistic expectations and making the training courses more practically based.
Time constraints
The fourth and final barrier to be discussed involves constraints around time. The two main issues identified were:
Of those respondents who identified time constraints as a barrier to their effective job performance, the issue of lack of teacher time for consultation was frequently cited. Many RTLB were aware of the heavy demands on teachers to attend other meetings outside of class time. This coupled with their responsibility to school supervision duties left little time for meetings with the RTLB. RTLB also highlighted the lack of release time available to teachers so that they could consult with the RTLB.
The class teachers being able to meet with me – very few teachers are given release time to discuss the issues and are always trying to squeeze meetings in around duties and other meetings.
The second issue in relation to time constraints was that of heavy demand on RTLB’s time. Respondents identified key tasks which they felt placed pressure upon them including time to think cases through, time to discuss cases with colleagues, time to meet with teachers as well as time to maintain up-to-date records, plan interventions and work on training requirements.
Time – time to think a case through carefully and plan fully. Time to discuss with teachers. Time to discuss cases with colleagues. Training requirements cut into time in schools – there is a tendency to make a full work load plus study.
The most common suggestion to overcome barriers associated with the demands on teacher’s time was that schools should provide adequate release time for teachers to meet with RTLBs. Other suggestions included RTLBs being flexible, scheduling meeting times to suit teachers and being well prepared for meetings so they did not take up too much time. Solutions to overcome the issue of the demands on RTLB’s time were less forthcoming but included keeping their caseload down to a manageable level and improving their time management skills.
DISCUSSION
The role of the RTLB is firmly based within an inclusive, ecological premise and works from a model of consultation and collaboration (Ministry of Education, 2001). For many New Zealand schools, this is a new way of meeting the needs of learners with moderate learning and behaviour difficulties, thus, it is not surprising that barriers and difficulties have arisen. RTLB reported resistance from teachers and principals as the biggest barrier to their successful job performance. The causes of resistance can be complex. Kampwirth (1999) reports that consultants can meet with resistance in schools because of a number of reasons. These include (1) the strength of habit where the old practices of teachers are firmly ingrained in their teaching repertoire and therefore are difficult to change; (2) teachers feel that their
competence may be questioned as they have called in a consultant because their practices have been unsuccessful; (3) teachers are overworked; (4) teachers and consultants have differing philosophical beliefs; (5) the consultant’s plan is poorly designed or delivered; (6) the teacher may feel that they do not have the skills to implement the planned intervention; and (7) there is inadequate system support for the teacher. Many of these factors were reported by the RTLB in this research.
One of the most common solutions to overcome resistance reported in the literature is that of effective communication (Dettmer, Thurston & Dyck, 2005). Respondents in this study also reported the use of communication as a key factor in overcoming resistant attitudes, emphasizing the need for effective communication at all levels of the education system. At the upper level, it is imperative that Government departments charged with implementing change communicate clearly and often to those involved, particularly teachers, principals and parents. In this study, RTLBs reported that principals and teachers did not understand the nature of the RTLB role and the inclusive paradigm from which they work. Dettmer, Thurston and Dyck (2005) have found that the starting point for successful consultation and collaboration is clear clarification of roles. As they point out “until educators become comfortable with the concepts of consultation, collaboration and educational teams, ambiguous feelings about it all may persist” (p. 14). More than just ambiguous feelings were reported in this study, with RTLBs reporting that some teachers thought they should be working from old models where special education teachers would remove a child from the classroom to remediate identified deficits.
Change takes time, particularly when that change necessitates a shifting of attitudes. The issue of attitude as a barrier was particularly evident in this study and attitude is often reported as one of the key determinants of successful or unsuccessful inclusion (for example Ballard, 1990; Berres, 1996; Henderson, 1997). One of the key attitudes is the commitment of teachers and principals to work in partnership with a range of people, while still accepting and taking on, the important role that they have to play in the successful inclusion of learners with special needs. It is this attitude that the RTLB in this study reported was often missing. While RTLB did recognize the role that they could play in communicating to principals and teachers, the nature of their job and the principles and practices of inclusion, they may not have been enough to facilitate successful collaborative partnerships between the RTLB and the class teacher. For the successful implementation of an initiative such as the RTLB, which requires a major shift in attitudes of some teachers and principals, professional development would seem to be a vital ingredient. While professional development was offered to all schools as part of the implementation of the SE 2000 policy and 80% of New Zealand schools participated in this, it appears that only one or two staff members from each school took part (Bourke et al., 2001). Further, when participants in this professional development were asked to report the effect this had had on their attitudes to special education and the policy, only 56% reported a positive change (Kearney & Poskitt, 2001). In addition, the role of the RTLB was not singled out as a component of the professional development offered to schools (Bourke et al., 2001).
These findings lend weight to the argument that collaboration is a vital ingredient of inclusion. If inclusive education is to become a reality in New Zealand and we are to achieve our Government’s aim of creating a world class inclusive education system, barriers to successful collaboration must be identified and overcome. Listening to the voices of RTLB who are working in this role is one way to do this.
REFERENCES
Ballard, K. (1990). Special Education in New Zealand: Disability, politics and empowerment. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 37(2), 109-124.
Berres, M. S. (1996). All children, all schools. In M. S. Berres, D. L. Ferguson, P. Knoblock & C.Woods (Eds.), Creating tomorrow's schools today. Stories of inclusion, change and renewal (pp. 1-15). New York: Teachers College Press.
Bourke, R., Bevan-Brown, J., Bevan-Brown, W., Carroll-Lind, J., Cullen, J., Grant, S., Kearney, A., McAlpine, D., Morton, M., Mentis, M., O’Neill, J., Poskitt, J., Prochnow, J., Stringer, P. (2001). Special Education 2000. Monitoring and evaluation of the policy. Phase three report. Report to the New Zealand Ministry of Education. Palmerston North New Zealand: Massey University.
Bourke, R., Kearney, A., McAlpine, D., & Poskitt, J. (2001). Special Education 2000. Monitoring and evaluation of the policy. The Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour initiative. Wellington New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Dettmer, P., Thurston, L.P., & Dyck, N. (2005). Consultation, collaboration, and teamwork for students with special needs. (5 th ed.) Boston: Pearson.
Education Review Office. Te Tari Arotake Matauranga (2004). Evaluation of the Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour Service. Wellington New Zealand: Education Review Office.
Henderson, D. (1997, 08/08/97). Heads hold key to exclusion rate. Times Educational Supplement.
Kampwirth, T.J. (1999). Collaborative consultation in the schools. Effective practices for students with learning and behaviour problems. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kearney, A., & Poskitt, J. (2001). Special Education 2000 professional development: A catalyst for change? New Zealand Principal, 16(1), 18-20.
Ministry of Education (1996). Special Education 2000 Newsletter (July 1996). Wellington New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education (1999). Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour. Information on RTLBs and clusters. s Wellington New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education (2001). Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour (Clusters). Effective governance, management and practice. Wellington New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand
home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |