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

PRACTISING INCLUSION IN SLOVENIA:
ANALYSIS OF SOME SYSTEMIC, PROCEDURAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS

Introduction

The emerging social trends in modern societies result in new and transformed theoretical concepts which significantly influence the fundamental strategic issues in the field of education, i.e.: equal opportunities, access to education, lifelong learning, social cohesion, education of the deprived and children with special needs, quality and efficiency of education, etc.

The accelerated development of the system and legislative framework of education in Slovenia after the independence in 1991, occurred also on the basis of international declarations such as the United Nations' Convention on Children's Rights (1989), the Salamanca Declaration (1994), Education for all - UN (2000), ISEC conference »Including the Excluded« (2000), European conference on policies and legislation of Special Education (2001) etc.

The Republic of Slovenia (EU) education acts include the articles specifying the children with special needs, the parents' right to choose the school, the school's obligation to adapt the teaching process and equipment for them, and various educational programs for them. The legislation preserves the continuum of integrated and segregated settings, with the tendency towards inclusion but without a major reform in teacher training and education and with non-sufficient professional development and support for the teachers.

Legislation

But the debates in our country in the recent years about mainstreaming of the children with special needs because this is expected by the European Union and because the processes in the rest of the world run in the same direction, should not leave aside the Slovenia's culturally characteristic micro situation. Many aspects, such as controllable, transparent geographical and organizational circumstances, a two million population, a limited supply of special needs professionals, small numbers of children etc. make our situation completely different from the situations in larger nations. Sometimes this becomes comical: our national conferences and meetings on inclusion look almost like family reunions – same people, different places.

All this makes us special. Therefore we should not copy-paste imported models, no matter how they might be attractive, sophisticated, realistic, professional, underpinned by theory or even (limited) foreign funds. Such models may function primarily in Tasmania, New Zealand, Finland, Ontario, Scotland etc. - their countries of origin where they are completely suited to their environment (although we cannot deny their strong export potential, especially in English speaking countries).

First we should analyse the strengths and weaknesses of our practice both from the viewpoints of clients and service providers, apply local experience, tradition and knowledge, and sieve through numerous foreign models. What remains should be applied in practice and evaluated for effectiveness, not merely on the system level but also on the levels of learning of a pupil, a group and a school.

But nevertheless:   international and European dimensions have been incorporated in our new education legislation. In 1996 the Organisation and Financing Act, the Pre-school Institutions Act, the Primary Education Act, the Vocational and Professional Education Act and the Adult Education Act were adopted. Education of children with special needs is regulated mainly by the Act on Directing of the Children with Special Needs (i.e. program selection and placement)   (2000) , and in some elements by the Primary Education Act (1996).

Article 12 of the Primary Education Act (1996) enhances the possibility to find a way for the children with special needs to be integrated into the ordinary school program, so that "the school adapts the methods and forms of work to them and makes it possible for them to participate in additional lessons and other forms of individual and group help", whereas Article 49 declares the right of the parents to enrol their child with special needs in their local school. On the other hand, special schools and Development Units within ordinary kindergartens can be found on one side of the continuum of educational forms and provisions.

The Primary Education Act defines the following forms of support for the children whose special needs are expressed only mildly and who are not directed in the program according to the Act on Directing of the Children with Special Needs: supplementary instruction, the teachers' additional contact time with pupils for half an hour weekly and other forms of individual and group support.

The Act on Directing of the Children with Special Needs introduces new terminology, i.e. "children with special needs" instead of "children with developmental disorders". It specifies the population, the rights, the process of directing (streaming), the school's obligations, the professional support and the following educational programs to be provided for them:

• modified delivery of the program with additional professional support providing the same educational standard (a new provision introduced by this law),
• adapted same educational standard programs,
•  adapted lower educational standard programs, and
• special programs,

into which the children are directed by the Streaming Committees. The Act anticipates the inclusion of those children with special needs who can cope and attain national standards in an ordinary school by using additional expert support, adapted teaching techniques, special equipment, smaller groups etc. It also declares the obligation of the school to prepare an individualised education plan for a child with special needs within 30 days of the Official Statement. The new legislation thus preserves the continuum of integrated and segregated settings, with the tendency towards inclusion. The law enables inclusion of the child in an ordinary setting when the conditions for equal participation in the process are fulfilled. According to the child's special needs, the most appropriate setting and working method is chosen: from regular class with no additional professional help trough to a special school or institution.

Procedural factors

The most relevant questions related to stalemating procedures (for the direction and placement of the child) are the following: Who fills in a claim for the beginning of the stalemating procedure? Who and in which cases files a recommendation for the beginning of the stalemating procedure? What are the steps of the procedure?

The stalemating procedure begins when the parents of a child put in a claim. After the regional unit of the Board of Education receives the filled-in form (a claim), they request a written report about the child from his or her school or kindergarten. In the next step they meet with the parents, inform them about the report, the procedure that follows, and about the programs for the children with special needs. The parents are also informed about their rights and duties. The claim and the report are then forwarded to the professional committee.

The professional committee prepares a statement of professional opinion (experts' assessment of the child's development and special needs) after a meeting with the parents, a direct check-up and observation of the child, after consulting teacher's, special educator's, social worker's, psychologist's and medical documentation obtained from the relevant institutions. Before issuing the statement of professional opinion, the professional committee must consult the professional staff of the kindergarten, school or institution where the child will be directed (placed) because the inclusion of the child with special needs in a kindergarten, school or institution must ensure the conditions that are a good basis for his or her successful work.

After the regional unit of the Board of Education receives the statement of professional opinion, they inform the parents about it and issue a written order (the official statement). It specifies the educational program in which the child is directed, the amount and mode of the delivery of additional expert support, the kindergarten, school or institution where the child will be placed, the potentially reduced size of the group, and staffing, working space, equipment and other modifications and conditions which should be ensured for the education of the child. The official statement also specifies the period that should not be longer than three years for re-considering the placement appropriateness. The regional unit of the Board of Education considers the appropriateness of the placement based on the opinions obtained from the child's kindergarten, school or institution, and that of the professional committee.

When the parents do not agree with the procedure or refuse to put in a claim, a kindergarten, school, health centre, centre for social work or another institution attended by the child may put in a claim for the beginning of the procedure (fill in the form) when this is necessary according to their judgement. They have to attach the report on the child and provide other documentation for further decision-making at the professional committee and the authorized regional unit of the Board of Education that is in charge of the procedure. They have to consider the claim, the preliminary opinion of the professional committee and other facts and circumstances and find out whether to begin the procedure or not. When necessary, the authorized regional unit of the Board of Education may begin and run the procedure according to the official duty (without the parents' consent). When this is not necessary, they inform the claiming institution that the beginning of the procedure is denied.

Financing the system

For a country with limited resources but ongoing development, it is quite understandable that the cost-benefit paradigm is coming in focus, emphasizing the need to evaluate effectiveness, reduce costs, implement new models of financing, set new priorities etc.

At least two parameters are important for the analysis of different financing systems and their influence on education of children with special needs:

1. Targeting the recipients of finance (pupils, parents, ordinary and special schools, clusters of schools, counselling centres, local communities, municipalities, regions).
2. Investment indicators:

• Financing input (financing based on needs)

It is based on recognized, expressed or measured needs. It may be related to the numbers of children with special needs in schools, local communities or regions, or to other criteria, such as: poor achievement, number of deprived pupils, drop-out...

• Financing the production process (the educational processes)

It is not based on the needs, but on the provision and development of educational activities and services in schools, local communities or regions. It depends on the enrolment and other participant-related criteria. Important here are control and accountability, and to some extent the outputs that are not essential but often included in this financing system.

• Financing output (i.e.: financing based on the results of the education process). Financing is distributed according to the output that is defined on different levels, i.e.: drop-out (the smaller drop-out rate, the more money), final results (the better results, the more money) etc.

These investment indicators have different influences. Financing input demands a needs analysis; financing output expects certain results; and the production process does not strengthen the inputs and outputs but tries to develop and produce certain services and support systems. The three models may positively or negatively affect the expected development: e.g.   financing input based on poor results encourages the attainment (the higher numbers of unsuccessful or pupils with problems, the more money); financing output may strengthen the transfer of children with expected poor results, whereas financing the production process may result in ineffectiveness as the money comes in irrespective of the accomplished work.

Analyses of different models of financing of education of children with special needs in the European Union countries (Meijer 1999; Vrhovski Mohoric 2004) showed that the model itself has a strong influence on the flexibility in organizing different forms of special assistance. Where there is more emphasis on financing special institutions, there is less effort in finding forms of inclusive education that are between the mainstream and special school systems.

Different systems of financing also affect the development and the effectiveness of education of children with special needs. Some countries (e.g. Austria) report that their systems increase the numbers of children with special needs, some countries (e.g. Belgium, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands) argue that their systems impede inclusive practice, and others warn (e.g. Liechtenstein) that changes in the financing system result in gradual development of inclusion processes and annulation of the negative consequences of the developments in this area.

In the countries with direct input financing systems (where more pupils in special schools are allocated more money), there is more stigmatisation, more pupils in segregation settings,

a higher gradation of costs, which are to a great extent due to non-educational purposes, such as diagnostics, legal action etc., and less inclusion. Other consequences include:

• the parents want more financial means for the children with special needs,
• special and »regular« schools want to be allocated the majority of available means,
• schools in general prefer money than challenging pupils.

Similarly, in the system of financing input (the users), the “regular” schools are interested in enrolling pupils with special needs and their allocated money, as they want to be able to teach smaller groups (and increase the number of groups) but do not want the children who would increase the workload. On the contrary, in the countries with strong, decentralized systems of financing (e.g. Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark), the communities and municipalities make decisions based on consultations with school counsellers or Counselling Centres. The distribution of means is transparent which allows planning financial consequences (such as:   more means allocated to segregated educational settings affects the sums for »regular« schools and for inclusion).

Interestingly, some countries report about highly effective systems (disregarding costs), arguing that taxes, diagnostics, court cases etc. are not funded from education budget. Some countries demand regular reports on results obtained by public means, and practise inspections of costs and attained goals   (in focus are the allocation, interventions and modes of support, more rarely the attained results) (Meijer 1999).

In Slovenia, the financing system for special schools (for the institutions that implement adapted primary school programs and special programs) is characterized by the following:

There exist only public special institutions and schools. Public educational institutions are financed by the State and by the founding local communities/municipalities, on the basis of grouping and staffing norms and standards set by the Minister of Education   (in consensus with the Minister of Health). The standards define the staff’s workload, the teaching workload for the principal and deputy, the criteria for setting up the Counselling Service, the school’s library, accountancy, secretarial and technical service, group size, material expenses allowance, and standards for the premises and equipment, basing on the number of pupils and groups (i.e. financing input). Special needs are taken into consideration and may modify some standards in agreement with the administrative body.

State budget covers staff salaries, basic health insurance, pension fund, tax, material costs, maintenance and investments in the equipment and premises, compulsory field trips and the transport and schooling for the children and adolescents with special needs who have the Statement.

The input from the local community depends on the population numbers. The local community independently budgets the school (amounts and purposes) according to their own criteria after its board analyses the school’s annual financial plan. The local community provides means for the public space and equipment costs, other material costs (competitions, extra-standard costs, public workers etc.), maintenance and investment, pupil transport and planned non-routine costs.

In 2000, the following recommendation based on the OECD Report on national educational policies was presented to Slovenia: the current developmental objective should be a transparent system based on results and that we should regularly measure the outputs in all parts of the system. A hierarchy of measurements on the national, regional, local and institutional level is essential for the general audit of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the system. Obviously, financial formulas are one of the criteria for evaluating the adequacy of education (and other professional support) for the children with special needs. Other criteria include: change in social status, roles, changed views, standpoints, values and behaviours.

A move of the system from inputs to outputs is one of the important factors for improving quality and effectiveness of an educational system. A gap between the vision and the reality of an individual or of a system thus calls for a complex analysis of ideological-philosophical and ethical grounds, and for an analysis of societal (cultural, political, economic) conditions for the implementation of an educational policy. A common question used to be: Can investments in educational inputs increase outputs?, whereas the basic question frequently asked by modern economists of education is: What is the most cost-effective way for improving outputs and keeping in mind the ethical aspects of education?

The dilemma about the system of financing education of children with special needs is even more difficult, especially when measuring the relation between inputs and outputs/results, or evaluating the transformation of inputs (pupils, teachers), via educational processes (curriculum, methods, management and administration), into outputs (objectives of the education sector, certain levels of educational institutions, the number of successful pupils, gained characteristics).

As research has shown (Vrhovski Mohoric 2004), the current system in Slovenia is not transparent and does not provide the answer to the question: What is cheaper and what is more cost-effective – inclusive or special education?

Evaluation of the outputs (objectives and results) compared with inputs implies the following:

• good and well-trained staff (emphasis here has moved from the sum allocated to continuous professional development to what they can do for appropriate teaching and problem-solving),

• access to additional support services (children with special needs can be supported by: a social worker, therapist and/or doctor, counselling, extracurricular activities and so on, not only from education money),
• flexibility (of programs and of financing),
• social policy (fighting deprivation, exclusion, unemployment),
• procedural safety measures (due to child's complex needs, expensive and demanding education),
• inter-agency co-operation and budget balancing,
• planning and evaluation (of effectiveness and quality) with suitable evaluation instruments.

The OECD analyses show that despite persistent inequality in the field of education, well-planned and directed measures for the equalization of learning and educational opportunities have positive outcomes.

The reform of education of children with special needs was originally in line with the democratic interpretation of equal opportunities in education requiring that all children who are capable of learning learn enough to participate in democratic processes. But the contrast between the vision and the abilities of an individual on the one hand, and the system on the other, calls for a complex analysis of social conditions for the realization of specific educational policies (the questions concerning the implementation of inclusion in practice): the organization and financing of the selected state schools for the education of children and adolescents with special needs, and some systemic, procedural and organizational factors.

Such complex change affects the complete educational system, including the special schools, and is closely related to planning, leadership, organization, implementation and evaluation at the system level through to an individual school level and an individual service user.

The process of developing inclusion occurs on several levels:

• at the level of the Slovene society (including civil society and non-governmental organizations);
• at the level of the national system of education (service network: accessibility, quality, co-ordination, transferability, financing; collaboration with the health and social security systems; continuing professional development of pre- and school tachers, school counselling service professionals, headteachers and principals; staffing and labour issues);
• in the education field (primary teaching, special education, rehabilitation education, pre-school education, leadership in education);
• at the sector level (pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, special education);
• at the organizational level (school, kindergarten, boarding unit as an organization) and
• at the individual level (by each of us personally and at work).

Inclusion is not a single act but a process

General issues

Analysis of a day-to-day practice in ordinary schools shows that only the program with modified delivery with additional profesional support is implemented in local schools. This means limited or no choice of setting for the parents of children with mild to moderate special needs who can only choose from adapted (lower educational standard) programs, which are traditionally implemented in a district Primary School with Adapted Program. This was also stated in the international Report of the Committee for Children's Rights on the Fulfilment of Children's Rights in Slovenia (January 30, 1994, CRC/C/15/Add.230, Art. 23, 42), namely that the Act on Directing of the Children with special Needs (2000) is only partially realized, because some programs are only implemented in special schools (e.g. the adapted lower educational standard program) which is in contradiction with the law.

The special schools are in the process of searching their new roles in the field of education of children with special needs owing to smaller enrolment in special schools, inclusion, parental choice, and increased needs of mainstream schools (in terms of specialist staff, teaching devices and equipment, support and supervision, coaching in specialist techniques and methods, professional development etc.).

Between mainstream and special education there is much space for (further) development of old and new connecting structures in our country, such as learning support centres, resource centres, counselling centres, counselling teams, emergency teacher support, know-how demonstrators, inclusion consultants, maybe »emergency« phone-lines for the teachers and so on.

Schools and inclusion

Integrated pupils themselves and research have shown that classical integration is not enough.

The teachers and special and rehabilitation educators have been very critical. Sitting in the same classroom of course does not mean inclusion. More professionalism, tolerance and reorganization are needed. This takes long-term processes of change in mentality and a thorough change in values.

The implementation of such complex change in the system moving towards inclusive education demands a lot of effort put in answering an endless list of constantly emerging questions. The role of the head teacher or principal is very important, especially his or her attitude, views and inventiveness in bringing in the right people, providing good work conditions and staff development.

Research (Kaiser 2004) has shown that primary school heads were unconvincing in implementing change in their schools, also due to a lack of information from the Ministry. At present, the schools face many problems and inconsistencies in the modified program delivery with additional professional support providing the same educational standard. The teachers, school counselling professionals and others bumped into so many obstacles that they helplessly complained and blaimed the child, the parent, another member of the staff, the Ministry or the legislation.

Evident from the same research is the fact that the heads lack knowledge about inclusion and legislation regulating the education of children with special needs. The Ministry had not paid much attention to the role of head teachers and ordinary school staff. As the reforms imposed or initiated externally are failing if they disregard the situations and people in particular schools, the Ministry of Education should have taken more responsibility for working on the reform together with the head teachers, and through them, with school staffs.

The analyses of interviews and questionnaires (Kaiser 2004) showed that the heads were uncertain, a bit doubtful and confused. They were very reluctant in answering the question whether they agree with inclusion of children with special needs in primary schools. Of course they all agreed because this is expected from them. But indirectly they expressed many dilemmas (whether this is the best choice for the child), dissatisfaction with longlasting and complicated administrative procedures (written consent from the parents, Statement procedure, approval of the Ministry etc.) and work overload (official forms, reports, meetings, visits, leading teams and so on). Apathy, insecurity and confusion could transfer to the staff room. All this results from a lack of information and from inexperience with children with special needs.

School policy

When discussing systems change affecting organizational culture and processes in educational institutions, we have to pay attention to the shared vision of the school staff.   Without a vision of a direction for the efforts of everyone involved, there will be frustration, a fragmentation of services, confusion, a higher rate of staff burnout, low work morale, unpleasant climate, inefficiency, poor results, damaged public image, low cost-effectiveness etc. The child will of course pay the highest price.  

Our research about organisational factors of inclusion (Trtnik Herlec and Pulec Lah, 2004) included a questionnaire to find out the opinions of the school management (72 respondents). We asked them whether their institution needs a policy on inclusion of children with special needs and what are the most important steps they should make for the vision to become a reality. Their views differed according to different cycles of schooling:

86 per cent of the primary school management and only 55 per cent of the secondary (for the pupils from 14 to 18) expressed that their schools needed a whole-school policy on inclusion. It should be noted here that only very few Slovene primary schools already have it.

Table: The percentage of the school management positively answering the question whether their institution needs a policy on inclusion of children with special needs

The views about the need for developing the school policy and strategic thinking about inclusion differ and are quite complex. They reflect:

• the awareness of the management about conceptual foundations of inclusive education and the legislation,
• their attitudes toward inclusion of the children with special needs in “regular” educational settings,
• their experience in inclusion of the children with special needs (the numbers of included pupils, the problems that had occurred in the process of inclusion…).

Many heads of schools are aware that it does not suffice to sit the child in the classroom, buy some tools and devices and (by applying to the Ministry) ensure additional expert’s support.

They emphasised that without the right provider, favourable climate in the school and in the country, without conviction that integration/inclusion is good for the child, and without the support by the system, we can only talk about inclusion as a »modern idea«, proclaimed humane by the majority and introduced to follow highly developed democratic social systems.

The policy on inclusion of children with special needs will have to include the following elements or steps of action, which are ranked by the above mentioned respondents according to the importance and necessity in their institution (Trtnik Herlec and Pulec Lah, 2004):

• to train the teachers for detecting children with special needs, assessing them and working with them effectively,
• to train the teachers for individualized planning and teaching,
• to take into consideration the individual needs of the staff who work with the children with special needs and continue professional development (team work, communication, working with parents…),
• to define all the staff roles and responsibilities as regards inclusion,
• to inform and include the parents in planning, implementing and evaluating the process of inclusion,
• to prepare a protocol for detection, effective work and evaluation of the progress for working with the children with special needs,
• to provide support for the teachers’ use of variegated   methods, tools and techniques,
• to appoint the inclusion co-ordinator,
• to prepare a digest or a list of all accessible sources of support (legislation, Counselling Centres, societies and associations, professionals, trainers, references, internet sources).
• and to train the non-teaching staff as regards inclusion.

Key change agents

The key agents of change in schools are the teachers and the head. The decisive factors are professional development and support from the head and colleagues.

It should be noted that in Slovenia there exists only one middle management position, that of the deputy head (assistant principal). Thus, we have no deputies for pastoral care, no staff development co-ordinators and no SENCOs (special educational needs co-ordinators). All responsibilities for these domains remain with the principal (head teacher). In larger schools and kindergartens, children with special needs have traditionally been in the custody of their own Counselling Service consisting of one or two full-time professionals: educational psychologists, special educators, speech therapists, social workers or pedagogues. School Counselling Service has been the motor of all integration processes, working with the child with special needs, his peers, his family, his teachers, peripatetic specialist support, special schools, and last but not least, with the school management.

By the nature of their job, the head teachers have the power and authority within their organisations for long-term processes, such as developing school cultures that promote collaboration, inclusion and learning for all.

The head teacher takes up an important position in accommodating the school to the pupils with special needs and working with them:   »The head is more of a background person, almost unnoticeable. He or she works slowly, step by step, and sometimes makes a step back in order to run before taking a leap over the next obstacle. S/he provides the organizational adaptations in the school and funds to make individual work possible.

But more importantly, the head has crucial influence on the »climate« and attitudes of the school to the pupils with special needs. S/he has an important influence upon whether the teachers accept this kind of work as a challenge or a turmoil.   S/he keeps track with the processes of working with the pupils with special needs and makes the right priorities and emphases in the work of teachers. S/he influences the system of school values as a whole by his or her own attitude and values and can even have influence on the parents' attitudes to these questions,«   emphasizes the head of one of the Slovene primary schools. (Paj, in: Trtnik Herlec 2002, p. 220).

The results of our research about organisational factors of inclusion (Trtnik Herlec and Pulec Lah, 2004) (72 respondents) include the following analysis of current problems and weaknesses as percieved by the school management:

Systems threats:

Insufficiently considered and defined concept and policy strategy on the national level causing problems in implementation. The schools are left on their own which is not right because the task should be worked on professionally and with full support from the state.

Insufficient and vague official guidelines on inclusion of children with special needs.

Issuing the official statement on the basis of one-time observation of a child (static diagnostics) results in general and less useful recommendations for practical work with the child. A member of the Streaming Committee should spend a full day or two in the child's group or classroom; s/he should communicate with the child's teacher and take part in the whole procedure for a longer period of time before finishing the assessment and making recommendations.

Long duration of the process of streaming/program selection and insufficient communication with the child's school.

Increased workload: no systematically scheduled time for team meetings and counselling; all this and more comes as additional workload for the teachers and their good will.

Insufficient system support, supervision and evaluation.

Insufficient availability of training and professional development programs for inclusion of children with special needs.

Organization problems:

Increased pressures on teachers: it is difficult to ensure equal conditions for learning to all the pupils if the teachers do not have additional professional support in the classroom and if the class size is not reduced.

Schedule organisation is extremely complex, especially in the third cycle of the primary school.

In-coming statements during the school year: additional professional support is not always available and there is a problem with the official systematization of newly required posts during the school year.

Financial and staffing issues:

Shortage of special education teachers and others qualified for providing additional professional support to teachers, especially in smaller and rural towns and regions (e.g. Prekmurje area).

External professionals (visiting teachers) take more time to establish contacts with the child and school staff; it is better to have a special education teacher or a similar professional on the staff.

Inappropriate providers of additional professional support: often the school appoints their part-time teachers without specialist training and thus solves labour problems (creates a new full-time work post); some schools cannot find appropriately trained teachers for additional professional support.

Insufficiently trained educators: if we want to slowly move to real inclusion of children with special needs, the educators have to be trained in individualised and pupil-centred teaching, planning individualised education plans, working in teams and collaborating/working with the parents of children with special needs.

Negative attitudes of some teachers to the children with special needs.

Working space problems for additional professional support, owing especially to the prevaling »pull out« system and individual coaching and support offered to the pupil with special needs.

Conclusion

Inclusion has always been a political and cultural issue. Therefore, it is closely related to internal political affairs, the debates on efficiency and effectiveness, and on leadership. Some parallels could be drawn here between the inclusion of children with special needs in the system of public education in Slovenia and the processes of the enlargement of the European Union. Slovenia, of course, has voted for full inclusion and membership. The frequently asked questions and expressed doubts by the Euro sceptics have always been similar to those of the advocates of two separate streams of education and inclusion-sceptics:   What is inclusion? Is it good? Why do we have to implement it? Don't we already have it? What is the essence of this change? What do we lose? What do we gain? Is it worth the effort? How will it affect me? What is the cost?

There are no schools without such sceptics in the staff rooms. It is important for the heads to take account of them and to include them in the debates. The organisation can learn a lot from them. They prevent it from rushing into something not everyone is ready for despite all the rhetoric and despite the inter- and national policies.

When we are ready for inclusion we will ask ourselves some new questions:

What don't we want to change? What can I/we do? What is in it for me/us?

Apart from the operational level with dilemmas about a variety of placements for these children and support for them, serious considerations have to be made by the professionals, communities, parents of the children with special needs and the public about a deeper and more significant change, a move from integration to the whole philosophy of inclusion, i.e. providing education for all children in their local schools and kindergartens by developing school cultures inclusive of all individual learners and their specific needs, not only the former categories of the children with a disability, handicap, disorder, problem or impairment, but each and every   individual child.

In order to move from integration, implying the assimilation of the special child to be more like everyone else, towards inclusion in the sense of accommodation of the school to suit each individual's need to learn and develop in the least restrictive environment, the schools in Slovenia have to practise: individualisation and use of specialist techniques, tools and equipment; collaboration, team work and colleague support, and inclusive culture.

Different systems of financing affect the development and the effectiveness of education of children with special needs. We will have to find the most cost-effective way for improving outputs (and keeping in mind the inputs, the processes and ethical aspects of education).  

References:

HELIOS II Programme (1996) European reflections: Enhancing co-operation between mainstream and special education. Thematic Group 9. The European Commission.

Kaiser, Z. (2004) Komuniciranje med Ministrstvom za solstvo in sport in ravnatelji o novi   koncepciji vzgoje in izobrazevanja otrok s posebnimi potrebami (Communication between the Ministry od Education, Science and Sport and the schools about the new special educational needs paradigm in Slovenia). Unpublished Master thesis. Manchester: The Manchester Metropolitan University.

Meijer, J. W. (1999). Financing of Special Needs Education: A Seventeen-country Study of the Relationship between Financing of Special Needs   and Inclusion. Middelfart: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.

Mittler, P. (2000). Inclusive Education. London: David Fulton Publishers.

OECD (1997). Indicators of Performance of Educational System. Paris.

OECD (1999). Education and equity in OECD countries. Paris.

OECD (1999). Education Policy Analysis 1999. Paris.

OECD (2001). Education at a Glance – OECD Indicators. Paris.

OECD (2001). EducationPolicy Analysis 2001. Paris.

OECD (2001). Investing in competencies for all. Meeting of OECD Education Ministers. Issues for discussion. Paris. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/20/1870557.pdf

OECD (2001). The well-being of nations. Paris.

Parrish, T., B., Chambers, J., G., Guarino, C., M. (Eds.) (1999). Funding special education. California: Corwin Press.

Parrish, T., B. (Ed.) (2001). Special education in an era of school reform. Special education finance. A product of the Federal and Regional Resource Centers Network.

Pijl, S.J. et al. (Eds.) (1997). Inclusive education: a global agenda. Routledge, London.

Special Needs Education in Europe. Thematic Publication. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, EURYDICE, 2003.

Trtnik Herlec, A. (Ed.) (2002). Vkljucevanje otrok s posebnimi potrebami – vloga ravnatelja, zbornik V. strokovnega posveta Menedzment v izobrazevanju, Portoroz, 2001. Ljubljana: Sola za ravnatelje.

Vrhovski Mohoric, M. (2004). Posebne potrebe in enake moznosti v procesu vzgoje in izobrazevanja. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Pedagoska fakulteta.

Zakon o usmerjanju otrok s posebnimi potrebami (2000). Ljubljana: Uradni list Republike Slovenije 54.

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