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

AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS’ AND HEADTEACHERS’
BELIEFS ABOUT INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN TURKEY

Assist. Prof. Dr. Hakan SARI
Bulent DILMAC
Selcuk University, Egitim Fakultesi, Meram. Konya. 42090. TURKEY
hakansari@hotmail.com

Abstract

In the last two decades, important developments about education of children with special educational needs (SEN) have been observed in Turkey (Sari, 2003a: 114). There has been strong movement away from placement in segregated settings for children with special educational needs (SEN) towards greater inclusion in regular classes. Although inclusive educational practices have received varying degrees of commitment by educators in international arena the current trend in Turkey is not deinstitutionalisation of educational services by the inclusion of children with special needs into regular classrooms. However they are still educated in accordance with integrative understanding rather than inclusive understanding because of negative beliefs of headteachers and teachers, on inclusive education. Although in Turkish Special Education Legislation 2916 (1983) and then, the Special Education Regulation 573 (1997) in Turkey (Eripek, 2004) defined the types of education of children with SEN implementation of policy varies considerably between counties and the regions in Turkey. Therefore, this paper addresses the issues of headteachers’ and teachers’ beliefs about the inclusion of students with SEN into regular classrooms. The research method in this study was qualitative with which semi-structured interview technique was used and the data will be analysed in accordance with the ‘content analysis method’. The researchers felt that with the interviews, the beliefs of the educators could be exposed in detail. Therefore, the researchers in this study used semi structured interviews with eighteen teachers and five headteachers selected for this study from the Turkish mainstream schools. The findings of this study were analysed and the findings were presented in detail in the text.

I. Literature

Inclusion is a concept which views children with disabilities as true full time participants and members of their neighbourhood schools and communities (Philipps and et al. 1995; Uditsky, 1993). The inclusion philosophy proposes that there should not be a range of placements but rather all students should be educated with their peers in the same physical location. Inclusionists (Rouse and Florian, 1996; Miller and Savage, 1995) espouse that inclusive schools are based on the belief that the world is an inclusive with people who vary not only in terms of disabilities but in race, gender, and religious background. With inclusion, students come to the regular classrooms with all the specialised services they require. Sari (2003b) outlines the following principles of full inclusion:

• Placement in the neighbourhood schools,
• Zero rejection philosophy,
• Age and grade appropriate placements,
• No special classes or schools,
• Cooperative learning practiced and special education support given to regular education.

Philosophies regarding the education of children with a disability have changed dramatically in the last two decades in Turkey. There has been a strong movement away from placements in segregated settings for children with a disability towards greater inclusion in regular classes. This normalisation principle was introduced in 1980’s in Turkey. Since then, Turkish education authorities followed this lead away from the instituonalization of students with SEN towards integrating them into the schools (Sari, 2003a).

Although inclusive educational practices have received varying degrees of commitment by educators in the international arena (Mordal and Stromsatad, 1998; Westwood, 1997 and 1999; Adams, 1993); in Turkey, the current trends is for the deinstitualisation of educational services by the inclusion of children with SEN into regular classrooms (Sari, 2000). Implementation of the policy varies among the provinces. However, researches (Fluchs and Fuchs 1994) showed that while the concept of inclusion was commendable the problems associated with implementing inclusive practices in Turkey were impending its progress. A common view expressed by the Turkish researchers (Sari, 2000; Eripek, 2004) early 2000’s integration had been poorly managed and implemented in an ad hoc manner and was lacking in necessary support services and genuine collaboration between the key participants involved. Further, Sari (2000) suggested that special education in Turkey was viewed as a discretionary responsibility rather than core value of the system and this was unlikely to be altered even with a dramatic change in philosophy.

Major educational reforms such as the policy of inclusion have coincided with a changing and more complex role for educators in Turkey. For example, according to the teachers in Konya, they were being asked to perform miracles with limited resources and in the face of other obstacles, and they were held responsible for problems they cannot possibly solve given the existing societal and educational systems.

Inclusion focused initially on the rights of the child with SEN to receive equal educational opportunities (Vaughn and et al. 1996; Malloy, 1994). The philosophy of inclusive education developed from a strong human rights and social justice. Inclusion was also based on the assumption that teachers would accept students with SEN into regular classes and be responsible for meeting their needs (The Turkish Special Education Legislation 573, (1997). Arceneaux (1994) suggested that although inclusion was derived from the normalisation philosophy it was more an ideological commitment than an empirically validated solution to educating students with SEN. It was also argued by Sari (2003b) that the original policy of inclusion was not intended to be suitable for all children. According to Floran (1988), there appeared little doubt that inclusion in Turkish schools made considerable demands on the regular class teachers. Currently, educators in Turkey are expected to accept changing policies and practices and accommodate the needs of all children placed in their classrooms, regardless of their own beliefs about these vicissitudes (Sari, 2003b).

To ensure the successful implementation of an inclusive policy which is a new policy for the Turkish special educators requires a person to be committed to it. This is particularly relies heavily on their own personal motivation (Rouse and Florian, 1996). In this regard, there appears where a person’s performance important in teaching profession to be a strong connection between a person’s beliefs and their commitment to a practice. Miller and Savage (1995) argued that a teacher’ beliefs may affect their commitment. They suggested that if a teacher was highly committed to something and also believed that they understood the problem then they were likely to ensure its success and actively seek resources to help them to cope with it.

Commitment to a policy of inclusion which is significant change in educational issues may be a reflection of educators’ beliefs about the philosophical bases upon which inclusion is grounded and their appraisal of the circumstances surrounding its implementation. Therefore, the aim of this study is first to explore head teachers’ and teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education in Turkey, second, to light on other researchers to found literature basis on the study.

II. Research methods

II. 1. Research method

In this research qualitative approach was preferred because the researchers wanted to explore the beliefs of the Turkish educators about inclusive education in Turkey. Semi structured interview techniques were administered to the participants with this approach to have rich and detailed explanation on the educators beliefs about inclusive education.  

II. 2. Sampling

The sample included 18 teachers and 5 head teachers who were selected from five schools. All educators who participated in this study were familiar with the inclusion process. In total, twenty three educators were selected as sample in accordance with the cluster sampling system in five schools.

II. 3. Data collection

Twenty three teachers and head teachers were interviewed for this study in Turkey. The researchers who developed semi structured interview form asked eleven issues to the participants. The respondents’ responses were recorded and then transcribed from the tape-cassettes.

II. 4. Data Analysis

The tape-cassettes were transcribed and the researchers read transcripts very carefully and reread responses drawn from the respondents with the interviews. Then, they were analysed in accordance with the content analysis. The findings below are presented in the next..

III. The Findings

The research findings are presented in this section.

III. 1. Identification and Assessment

Many teachers (21) reported that   they should be  assisted in the identification assessment of students with SEN   and for these, should work with the school administrators, teachers and parents to plan and design appropriate programmes for students with SEN.   They also stated that they should work with other teachers predominantly in a team teaching role. Some comments are:

‘Identification and assessment are very vital. You know we should try to include all the students in an effective way’ (Teacher 17; School C).

III. 2. Resources

Seventeen teachers stated that the education system in Turkey has always been not acceptable for a relatively high level of support for teachers and parents. There was not resource teacher who has received some form of postgraduate training in the education of children with SEN. Therefore, assistance and consultation are not provided for schools as it is expected. This service to schools has not been developed. According to them, assisting schools cater for those children including intellectually handicapped students who are experiencing difficulties in basic learning in regular classes regardless of the cause of such difficulties. Some comments are:

‘We are having   lack of resources   all the time. There is not   any system   which assist   teachers, parents and the students really’ (Teacher 13, School C).

III. 3. Curriculum

Most of the teachers and head teachers (20) reported that the establishment of teaching objectives and priorities, programming to ensure maximum student outcomes, the use of appropriate teaching strategies, methods of monitoring and evaluation and the techniques of behaviour management are clear. However, it is reported that    many children with SEN need individualised Education Programme and many teachers in most of the schools do not know how to prepare it. Some comments are:

‘I do not really how to develop Individualised Educational Plan which is really important I believe.   Even if you know how to develop it, we have lack of facilities to be able to implement it in the classroom’ (Teacher 4, School A).

III. 4. Support Services

According to all head   teachers and the teachers participated in this study  support services   (educational psychologists)   were not funded by   the government. However, most of the teachers   stated that all the schools have lack of facilities for the support.   The comments are:

‘In fact, we do not have specialist support teachers and a unit established in the LEA or somewhere else’ (Teacher 14, School C).

‘Our school is not supported to provide for children   with   SEN’ (Headteacher1, School A)

III. 5. Consultation given by Educational psychologists

Many teachers (14) stated that school counsellors are educational psychologists. The teachers were unhappy about given consultation to students and to themselves and to parents as well.   Some comments are:

‘I am unhappy about given consultation to me when I ask something about something which is related particular issues to children   with SEN’   (Teacher 12, School C).

III. 6. Limitation of Special educators

Most of the teachers and head teachers   (20) stated that regular education classrooms afforded students with SEN significantly for more opportunities and  instruction in basic skills, language arts, academics, and interactive learning formats than did the segregated classroom. In examining goal achievement of students with SEN. many teachers achieved their goals within the regular education classroom. However some students did not achieve a substantial number of goals in a variety of areas including academics, social skills, motor development, career preparation, and functional living skills because of having a of special educators. Comments from the teacher are:

‘My school does not   have specialists   in special education   teachers’ (Teacher   8, School B)

‘As a head teacher, I requested LEA’s to send me some specialists to support the students but nobody has come here for years’(Head teacher 3, School   15).

III. 7. Increased participation in decision making

Fifteen teachers stated that collaborative team should be formed to support each student’s unique programme. Teams should be composed of family members, friends, education personnel, and ancillary support special education consultant, and subject teachers may  include an occupational therapist, speech and language therapist, physical therapist, vocational counsellor, psychologist, school social worker, medical doctor, nurse or instructional aids. However, they have lack of team work.   Some comments are:

‘As many schools do, my school has lack of team work because of not having legislation to held some legal posts on this’ (Head teacher 3, school A).

III. 8. Good availability of resources

All the teachers and head teachers (23) stated that inclusion should be appropriate for all students to be included in regular classrooms; otherwise some students actually will get worse because of lack of resources.  They also stated that resources for effective instruction are needed by the students with SEN should be provided within the context of the regular school environment. According to them, some students need for highly specialised services such as speech therapy and physiotherapy which can only be delivered outside of the regular classroom. These highlight students’ needs and interrupt the flow and routine of the regular classroom.  Comments from the participants are:

‘Resources, resources and resources…, because of having lack of resources what can we do? That is enough’ (Teacher 16, School C).

‘We are fed up with not having resources really’ (Head teacher 4, School D).

III. 9. Better job satisfaction and positive teachers’ attitudes

Many teachers and head teachers (19) believed that the level of class teachers’ satisfaction and attitudes during the inclusion while trying to maintain personal competence, personal self respect, personal caring towards others, ethical behaviour respect for the students at high and affection for others should be well. Not only did educators believed that coping with the target child was stressful but in addition,  they also considered that coping with the child in inclusive education during inclusion was also stressful. Educators’ beliefs about the severity of stress associated with inclusion varied between teaching status, gender, school, and actual involvement in inclusion programme. When consideration was given to the severity of the disability it was apparent that acceptance levels were only high for the child who exhibited a mild or moderate disability and then only for part time placement in the regular classroom. While educators believed that the child with a mild physical disability they should be placed part time in the regular classroom. They also believed in the part time inclusion of a child with a mild intellectual disability but only three of them considered that the full time placement of a child with an intellectual disability was viable.

‘I feel myself under pressure but I believe being a special educator gets me very much happy’ (Teacher 18, School E).

IV. Discussion

This research has identified a wide range of problems such as lack of resources, difficulties over enrolment, inadequate physical access, inappropriate or poorly adapted curriculum, insufficient pre-service teacher training, shortages of trained resource personnel, inadequate cooperation between departments or agencies and lack of concern for the views of parents and caregivers in the process of consultation and decision making which may be seen as barriers to the provision of appropriate and effective programmes for children with SEN.

When considering the importance of these research findings, there is a need to be cautious about generalising them to other countries. This research however, revealed several major findings regarding educators’ beliefs about the pedagogical shift in the education of children with SEN  away from segregated towards greater inclusive placements. Educators in Turkey believed that inclusion was stressful for the regular class teacher that they had little control over decisions regarding implementing the policy and that inclusion was not suitable for all children because of educators’ severity of stress, self esteem control and acceptance of inclusion. The educators felt the stress of inclusion to be considerably more severe. This is similar to findings by Kircaali-Iftar (2001) who reported that the teachers in regular school experienced greater stress than special education teachers. There is a question that educators in Turkey had minimal control over placement decisions. According to the experienced findings, educators seemed to be more reluctant to accept children with SEN into regular classes. Although educators were more accepting of a child with physical handicap rather than an intellectual disability this was only for the child with a mild or moderate learning difficulties and for part time placement in a regular classroom. This requires educators to ensure that all children achieve their potential when educated in the regular classroom. While educators have a responsibility to cater for the needs of all children their beliefs regarding acceptance of inclusive practices may affect the degree to which they carry out that duty.

V. Conclusion and Implication for Practice

Outcomes for students with SEN can be improved through the careful implementation of inclusive education. Success can be based on thoughtful administrative planning, the use of formative programme evaluation, and collaborative teaming approaches to the design and implementation of individualised educational programmes. Positive outcomes for regular education students and students with SEN can be achieved with a careful implementation of inclusive education.

Despite the difficulties associated with the implementation of inclusive education policies, there is a great deal of philosophical agreement about the rights of children with SEN who need to have equal opportunity. Schools and teachers need to be creative in promoting the ideal of inclusion. This ideal can be achieved when schools restructure and remain sensitive to individual students’ needs and explicitly teach skills to students. Supportive classroom teachers and administrators are critical to the successful teaching of students in inclusive settings. Teachers and head teachers’ behaviours, attitudes and skills together with peer acceptance of individual differences are important factors for successful inclusion of all students, as recommended in the Turkish Ministry of National Education Legislation 1739 (1973). In accordance with the research findings, the implications for practice raised from this study are presented in the following:

Teachers and head teachers should:  

• Be sensitive to students’ academic and emotional needs,
• Negotiate goals and expectations with students as much as possible,
• Make the intent of activities clear  to students, as stated in Sari (2002),
• Select, adapt and sequence learning contents to suit individual needs,
• Use a wide range of teaching approaches and pace to meet the students needs,
• Teach strategies to students actively,
• Set appropriately challenging tasks,
• Modify materials and assessment to suit the students’ needs,
• Adapt instruction to appeal to different learning styles,
• Monitor teaching programmes and students’ learning continually,
• Develop positive attitudes towards students with SEN,
• Be a commitment   to work collaboratively by sharing responsibilities and expertise,
• Develop productive links with outside agencies and services,
• Update teachers’ professional development continually,
• Liaise with parents,
• Adapt differentiated curricula and teaching methods to  meet the students’ academic needs,
• Model and make thought processes overt,
• Set realistic goals in collaboration with students,
• Promote students’ active role in the learning process for making decision and taking risks,
• Give the students sufficient practice to ensure mastery of skills,
• Use different teaching strategies which match students’ cognitive abilities so that a task is analysed to ensure that students have the skills to be able to complete.

REFERENCES

Adams, J. (1993). ‘Including special education services in the general school curriculum’, NASSP Curriculum Report, 22 (5), 1-5.

Arceneaux, M.C. (1994). ‘A secondary school’s experience: It is inclusion, or is it school Reform’ A Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Person with Severe Handicaps, Atlanta, GA, December 7-10, 1994). (ERIC Documents Service No. ED381960)

Eripek, S. (2004). ‘Meeting the Needs of Children with SEN’  (Unpublished Master Course Notes), Anadolu University, The Institute of Educational Sciences

Floran, L. (1998) ‘An examination of the practical problems associated with the   implementation of inclusive education policies’.   Support for Learning. 13, 105-8

Fluchs, D.; Fuchs, L. (1994). ‘Inclusive school movement and radicalization of special education reform’,Exceptonal Children, 60(4), 294-309.

Miller, K. J.; Savage, L. B.(1995). ‘Including general educators in inclusion, Reaching to the Future: Boldly Facing Challenges in Rural Communities’, Conference Proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES) (Las Vegas, Nevada, Marc 15-18, 1995) (ERIC Document Service No.ED381322).

Mordal, K. N.; Stromsatad. (1998) ‘Norway: adapted education for all’. in T. Booth and M. Ainscow (Eds) From them to US: An International Study of Inclusion in Education, London: Routledge.

Philipps, I., Sapona, R. H.; Lubic, B.L (1995). ‘Developing partnership in inclusive education: one school’s approaches’.Intervention in School and Clinic. 30 (5), 262-272.

Rouse, M.; Florian, L. (1996). ‘Effective inclusive school : a study in two   countries’, Cambridge Journal of Education 26(1): 71-85.

Sari, H. (2000). ‘An analysis of the policies and provision for children with   SEN in England and Turkey’ (Unpublished EdD Thesis), England: Oxford Brookes University, Westminster Institute of Education.

Sari, H. (2002). ‘Işitme Engelli Çocukların Eğitimlerinde Kullanılan İletişim Yöntemleriyle İlgili Öğrenci   Görüşlerinin Değerlendirilmes’i, XI. Ulusal Özel Eğitim Kongresi Bildirileri, Konya (Turkey): Eğitim Kitabevi

Sari, H. (2003). ‘Successful Implementation of inclusive education in Turkey’ in Hui, M.C. H; Downson, C.R.; Moont, M.G. (2003). Inclusive Education in the New Millennium, Hong Kong & Macau:  ACEI

Sari, H. (2003). Strategic suggestions related to teaching children with SEN, Ankara (Turkey): PegemA Publishing.

The Turkish Ministry of National Education Legislation 1739 (1973). Ankara: The Ministry of National Education Publication.

The Turkish Special Educational Needs Legislation 2916 (1983). General Directorate of Special Education and Counselling and Guidance Services, Ankara: The Ministry of National Education Publication.

The Turkish Special Educational Needs Legislation 573 (1997). General Directorate of Special Education and Counselling and Guidance Services, Ankara: The Ministry of National Education Publication.

Uditsky, B. (1993). ‘From Integration to inclusion: the Canadian experience’, in R. Slee (Ed.). Is there a Desk With My Name on It? The Politics of Integration,  London: Falmer Press.

Vaughn, S.; Schumm, J.; Jallard. D, B.; Slusher, J.; Samuell, L. (1996) Teachers’ views of inclusion. Learning Disabilities,Research and Practice, 11. 96-106.

Westwood, P. (1999). ‘Moving Toward Inclusion in Hon Kong? Proceed with Caution: A Personal Viewpoint’.Hon Kong Special Education Forum. 2(1) 29-38.

Weswood. P. (1997). Commonsense Methods for Children with Special Needs (3 rd edn). London: Routledge.

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