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

Inclusive Classes in Greece: New Names, Old Institutions

Athina Zoniou-Sideri, Panagiota Karagianni,
Eudoxia Deropoulou-Derou and Ilektra Spandagou

Dr. Athina Zoniou-Sideri is an associate professor at the Department of Early Childhood Education, University of Athens, Greece, email: asideri@ecd.uoa.gr

Dr. Panagiota Karagianni is a member of the Centre for Research and Practice in Inclusive Educational Programmes, Department of Early Childhood Education, University of Athens, Greece, email: pkarag@ecd.uoa.gr

Dr. Eudoxia Deropoulou-Derou is a member of the Centre for Research and Practice in Inclusive Educational Programmes, Department of Early Childhood Education, University of Athens, Greece, email: ederou@ecd .uoa.gr

Dr. Ilektra Spandagou is a member of the Centre for Research and Practice in Inclusive Educational Programmes, Department of Early Childhood Education, University Athens, Greece, email: keteep@ecd.uoa.gr

Abstract

In the last twenty years or so, inclusion has become the dominant discourse in the field of Special Education. At the same period, a move towards inclusive education policies has been evident in the Greek educational system. This move however, has been restricted mainly at the policy level, with the introduction of relevant legislation that has not been fully implemented. Following the progress of inclusive education in Greece, one can identify a number of theoretical and practical difficulties and contradictions related to the implementation of inclusive educational practices.

This paper explores the role of ‘inclusive classes’ in Greece and whether their role is facilitating or hindering inclusion.

An overview of the relevant legislation is presented. The main Education Laws (Law 1566/30.9.1985; Law 2817/14.3.2000) brought together special and general education creating new connections and points of tension. From this discussion becomes clear that inclusive educational policy can not be seen as separate from wider social forces demanding social and educational inclusion and thus, inclusion is not a technical issue but rather a political one.

The main focus of this paper is the role and function of ‘inclusive classes’ in pre-school and primary education. In the eighties the first ‘special classes’ in general schools were introduced aiming to improve the quality of education provided to this group of children. These ‘special classes’ were automatically renamed to ‘inclusive classes’ with the Law 2817. This renaming raises a number of questions about policy-making.

An exploration of the characteristics of students attending ‘inclusive classes’ and the professional profiles of teachers working in them is attempted. In addition, an analysis of the Curriculum used is provided. The emphasis of our critique is on the need for developing differentiated curricula based on the individual characteristics and needs of each student –moving beyond the dominance of age-based homogeneity that prevails in the Greek educational system- in order to ensure the successful inclusion of all students.

The study aims to highlight the tension between policy and practice, between legislation and implementation. In this tension the progressive rhetoric of policy is translated into reactionary practices. The existing practices do not allow for the voices of those excluded from education (and society) to be heard. At the same time, they do not give teachers (of both special and general education) the tools needed to promote inclusion.

We propose a framework of in-service training informed by critical pedagogy and the social model of disability, as well as the introduction of inter-disciplinary work in general education. The proposed framework does not differentiate the needs of ‘special’ and ‘general’ educators, and questions the practice of different pay-scales that creates false distinctions.  

Introduction

This paper presents a research project on exploring the practice of ‘inclusive classes’ (IC) as a form of promoting inclusion in the Greek educational system. The reason for undertaking this research is because information about inclusive classes, their scope, aims and operation, is scarce for a number of reasons that we will discuss later. However, the collection of information about inclusive classes and the ways that they operate was only one aspect of our interest in inclusive classes. Being involved in the research and implementation of pilot inclusive education programmes for a number of years, we have became increasingly concerned about the educational policies and practices that are presented as inclusive. Many of those policies and practices when implemented reproduce and reinforce existing inequalities of the Greek education system, and at the same time create new forms of stigmatisation and segregation.

This research project was initially designed as a qualitative piece of research with the use of interviews with teachers working in inclusive classes. Our aim was to collect in depth information about the actual working of the inclusive classes. However, very early on we realised that the lack of quantitative data both from official sources and research meant that there was a lack of an analytical framework in relation to which we could use the qualitative data. For that reason, the design of the research project was altered and a first stage of quantitative research was added. A questionnaire was delivered to 188 classes in the region of Attiki. This paper presents the results of the analysis of the returned 157 questionnaires (83,5 return rate). The next stage is to conduct interviews with a selected sample of the teachers in topics that were raised from the questionnaire.

The first part of this paper gives an overview of the current situation in Greece in relation to the inclusive education legislation together with a critical reading of its development in the last twenty years or so. The aim of this part is not only to present the current situation but also to create a context for a critical reading of the data presented. The second part of this paper presents the data of the study.

Old institutions

In the comparative literature on Special and Inclusive Education and especially that referring to quantified comparisons, Greece is usually located in the category of low numbers of students identified as having ‘special educational needs’ and of low ‘special provision’ (European Commission, 2000; OECD, 1999, 1995; Vislie, 2003). No matter what criteria are used for the categorisation of countries and of educational systems, it is a fact that the official data available for Greece shown than less than one per cent of the school population is educated in special education provision of any kind.

Historically, the low number of students identified with special educational needs and the low provision of segregated special education could be explained not due to an ‘integration movement’, but rather in relation to financial restrictions. Therefore, up to 1980 a small number of special schools existed for students with mainly normative categories of disability. In addition, a number of disabled children were placed either outside educational settings or did not receive any education at all.

The lack of a comprehensive special education infrastructure (special schools, services, specialists, etc) and of a segregation tradition could be an advantage in the development of inclusive policies and practices. But, as we argue it was a lost opportunity. The legislation of the last twenty-five years and mainly the Law 1143/81, Law 1566 and Law 2817 have not created the conditions needed in order to create an inclusive educational policy covering all aspects of education and based on the restructuring of the educational system.

The educational system in Greece has been competitive, knowledge and discipline orientated with strong emphasis on exams and qualifications. In parallel with the increased rhetoric around ‘difference’, ‘inclusion’, ‘representation’ and so on, the educational reforms of the last twenty years intensify the competitive, selective character of education emphasising knowledge acquisition and examination success.

Thus, the conflict between ‘inclusion’ and ‘intensification’ of education was resolved with the introduction of special classes. Special classes were first introduced at the beginning of the 80’s and, as Zoniou-Sideri (1996) argues, they quickly became the dominant model of special education provision, without any assessment and research of their effectiveness. In the academic year 1983-84 there were seven special classes, 602 in 1992-93 and more than 1000 in 2003-4 (there are no exact, official up-to-date data). With the Law 2817/14.3.2000 special classes were reformed -or as we perceive it ‘renamed’- to inclusive classes without any further change to their structure and operation. This ‘renaming’ is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is no substantial evidence to prove that special classes have been an effective way of promoting the education of disabled students and of students with special educational needs in general education. Secondly, the model of special classes consists an add-on policy that does not affect the overall structure of the schools and does not require schools to change their practices. Thirdly, the ‘idiosyncratic’ way in which special classes operate -in contrast to the formalised character of the Greek educational system- results in diverse models of operation that in cases is the consequence of the pressure by specific interested groups. For instance, there is anecdotal evidence that in cases students with Greek as a second language are admitted in special/inclusive classes after direct or indirect pressure by mainstream teachers, even though the law states that Greek as a second language is not a special educational need.

Finally and most importantly, the simple ‘renaming’ process that put into existence the ‘inclusive classes’ trivialises the whole concept of inclusion. Inclusion instead of being an important issue for educational debate and reform was put into practice by a simple ‘bureaucratic trick’, by the change of a name. In this way inclusion, in the form of inclusive classes, inherited all the negative aspects of special classes without any scope for real reform.

The operation of inclusive classes is to some extent unclear. Broadly speaking two types of inclusive classes can be distinguished. On the one hand in specific schools depending on the needs of the school or the area, an inclusive class is funded. This class is attended by students of the school that are assessed to have some ‘additional difficulties’ and cannot cope in the mainstream class. The attendance of the students is limited to specific hours per week and the students are educated for the most part in the mainstream class where they belong. This type of inclusive class is the dominant one.

On the other hand, when for the inclusion of a student with a specific disability additional resources are needed, an inclusive class is funded in a school. In cases only that student may compose the population of the inclusive class, but in other cases a small number of other students with similar or different disabilities or special educational needs are added to the class. In this case the student(s) may spend more time in the inclusive class and less time in the mainstream group were they belong (especially in pre-school education). According to the Ministerial Degree 102357/G6/1.10.2002, the attendance of students in inclusive classes should not be more than 10 hours per week. Only in exceptional cases and after the decision of the Centre for Diagnosis, Assessment and Support the time period could increase.

Methodology

The questionnaire used in this study was designed by the writers of this study based on pilot interviews with teachers working in inclusive classes. The aim of the questionnaire is to gain general information about the inclusive classes under the heading of a) characteristics of teachers; b) characteristics of students; c) scope and operation; d) comparison of special and inclusive classes.

Due to the explorative nature of the questionnaire the majority of the questions are open ones allowing space to the teachers to describe the specific processes that apply in each inclusive class. Thus, from the 22 questions (plus an additional question for comments), seven are close questions, five are yes/no ones with space for further clarifications, and the remaining ten are open questions. The answers to the open questions were codified and the data were analysed with the use of SPSS.

The questionnaire was personally delivered to each pre-school and primary school where there is an inclusive class according to the lists provided by the Ministry of Education and covering all the region of Attiki including Athens and Pireaus. This process was selected in order to increase the number of returns. The majority of completed questionnaires were completed on the day of delivery, but in a small number of cases they were collected on a later date.

From 188 questionnaires that were delivered, 157 were returned completed (83,5 return rate). The reasons for no completions were a) refusal of the inclusive class teacher, b) absence of the inclusive class teacher on the day that the questionnaire was delivered, c) the inclusive class at the specific school is not operating this year.

Presentation of the data

The teachers

Table I presents the characteristics of the teachers in relation to gender and profession (with the exclusion of one missing case). There is an equal representation of men and women in the sample with 78 in each group. However, there is a clear distinction between pre-school and primary school teachers. This is due to the fact that the number of inclusive classes is over-represented in primary education. Another interesting detail is that the two male pre-school teachers work in primary education inclusive classes. This means that out of the 157 teachers only 6 are currently employed in pre-primary education.

As far as the education of the teachers is concerned 148 (72 men and 76 women) hold a teaching degree of general education and have completed a two-year in-service course in Special Education. 37 (19 men and 18 women) teachers hold a Special Education university level degree. Finally, 16 (9 men and 7 women) hold a post-graduate degree in Special Education.

An interesting finding is the years that teachers work in education in general and in inclusive classes in particular (Table II). 76 (48,7% of the valid percentage) of the teachers have more than twenty years of teaching experience. However, 65 teachers (42,5% of the valid percentage) work in inclusive classes between 1-5 years. This means that the teachers working in inclusive classes are not in general ‘new teachers’ and the great majority of them have previous experience of working in general education. This finding is explained by the facts that teachers in order to undertake the two-year in-service course in Special Education needed five years experience in general education, and until recently there was not an independent university department of Special Education in Greece.

As it was already mentioned the majority of the teachers working in the inclusive classes have a general education background. To the question whether the role of the inclusive class teacher is differentiated to that of the general education teacher, 124 (79%) teachers answer yes. The reasons for this differentiation are firstly the specialised support that they provide to students (103 teachers) and secondly the different timetable that they have (16 teachers).

The students

The total number of students attending the inclusive classes is 2.172. The number of students attending each inclusive class range from 1 to 25 (mode: 12, 13,6%). Table III shows that inclusive classes are attended mainly by 11-15 students (74 classes) and 16-20 students (49 classes).

As far as the distribution of the students in primary education grades, there is a representation of all six primary school grades. However, there is a slight increase in the representation of the second and third grade and a decline from the fourth to the sixth grades (1 st grade: 107; 2 nd grade: 143; 3 rd grade: 145; 4 th grade: 133; 5 th grade; 6 th grade: 108; N: 151, excluding pre-school inclusive classes).

In designing the questionnaire we debated about how to enquire the specific disabilities and special educational needs of the students attending the inclusive classes. We opted for an open question allowing the teachers to use the definitions they use in their practice. Thus the aggregated categories presented on Table IVa are based on teachers’ descriptions and some of them, for instance ‘cognitive and emotional immaturity’, are problematic in their definition and meaning.

What becomes apparent from Table IVa is the prevalence of Specific Learning Difficulties. In 150 (95,5%) of the inclusive classes, student(s) assessed as having Specific Learning Difficulties attend. A similar finding in relation to the prevalence of Specific Learning Difficulties is found in the Pedagogical Institute (2004) research project mapping the field of Special Education in Greece. The second category is that of Learning Disabilities in 96 (61,6%) of the inclusive classes.

Table IVa makes apparent a concern that has been raised in relation to the operation of inclusive classes; as a way of taking out of the mainstream class students who are considered ‘difficult to teach’ and thus, reinforcing the teaching tradition of catering for an ‘ideal average student’. In this way inclusive classes are mainly ‘remedial classes’ where students are taught knowledge in a differentiated way, while differentiation is not applied in the mainstream class.

When the teachers were asked whether there are students in their classes that do not have a disability, 107 (68,1%) of them gave a positive answer and 72 of them mentioned Specific Learning Difficulties, 10 students with Greek as a second language, 9 Behaviour Difficulties and 9 remedial teaching. The answer to this question reinforces once more the conception of the inclusive classes as a place for Specific Learning Difficulties. In a system where parents, teachers and students need to struggle for limited resources, the label of ‘specific learning difficulties’ may be a way for getting access to some additional attention that is not available in the mainstream class. In turn, the prevalence of specific learning difficulties in inclusive classes creates a specific professional identity for the teachers which may be inflexible (or even negative) to the inclusion of students with other needs or disabilities.

Finally, 123 (78,3%) teachers reported that they know cases of students that were fully included in the mainstream class after attendance at the inclusive class. In Table IVb a visual comparison is attempted with the categories given by teachers in relation to the current attendance at their classes. Even though the figures are not comparable in any statistical manner, it is interesting to note the low number of teachers that report the full inclusion of students with Learning Disabilities, and also that the category of ‘deprived socio-economic background’ does not appear in Table IVa, but it is stated by 14 teachers in the case of full inclusion after inclusive class attendance.

The operation of the inclusive classes

A central issue in relation to the operation of the inclusive classes is the curriculum. The part-time mode of attending, the emphasis on the teaching of the basic skills (writing, reading and arithmetic), and the lack of guidance about the composition of groups or about the individual educational plans for each student are all connected to the curriculum. The question referring to the curriculum was the most problematic to design.

In the Greek educational system, Curriculum refers to the National Curriculum accompanied by guidance books for the teachers and textbooks for the students. However, there is not a corresponding official curriculum for inclusive classes. Thus, referring simply to an official, legal and prescriptive curriculum the question is meaningless. Our concerns about the specific question were justified by the pilot study. All the teachers filling in the questionnaire at that stage raised the issue of the clarity of that question and considered it difficult. The ‘difficulty’ of the question, in our view, is due to the fact that the teachers do not consider the knowledge that they use as professionals and teach to their students as a ‘curriculum’ since they understand curriculum in the restricted form of the National Curriculum.

Instead of ‘simplifying’ the question by either replacing the term ‘curriculum’ with ‘teaching methods’ or by giving a list of options for the teachers to use, we made the informed decision to leave the question open and give the teachers an opportunity to reflect upon it. It is interesting that twenty teachers did not answer this question at all.

After coding the teachers’ answers, six different categories emerged (Table V). Some teachers use more than one of the following types of curriculum in combination or depending on the situation. Most teachers follow an individual approach to the Curriculum responding to the needs of specific students. Another important finding is that 23 teachers (14,6% of the sample) do not use a ‘curriculum’, which raises important issues about how they design their practice.

The complex issue of the curriculum in the process of inclusion in Greece is also highlighted by another research study in which participated 650 teachers of general and special education. 128 (19,7%) teachers stated that differentiate the curriculum and from those only a 20% they often use differentiation (Zoniou-Sideri et al., 2004a).

Another way to explore the limitations of the curriculum in the inclusive classes is to enquire if it is diffused in the mainstream class. Students attend the inclusive class for only a small part of their time in the school. The role of the inclusive teacher is not only to work with individual students or group of students for a specific amount of time every week, but also to co-operate with the teachers of the mainstream classes. The answers to the relevant question give an indication of the limitations of this co-operation. The majority of teachers co-operate with the mainstream teacher in the specific subjects of Greek language and Mathematics (88 and 84 teachers accordingly, with 83 teachers giving both answers). 56 teachers co-operate with the mainstream teacher in most activities, 21 teachers in non-teaching activities like celebrations, 16 in physical education, 11 in play time, 22 in other unspecified activities and 3 teachers state that they never co-operate. Even though there is some level of co-operation, it is not consistent and focuses on the two subjects that teachers consider important in relation to the basic skills.

Scope of the inclusive classes

The scope of the inclusive classes is explored in two different questions. The first question asks the main reason that students attend these classes and the second question the overall scope of the IC. In both questions a student-centred perspective is evident. Students are seen as lacking knowledge, skills, or as possessing negative characteristics which hinder their ‘normal’ inclusion in the educational system. In Table VI the reasons that according to the teachers students attend IC are presented.

In relation to the second question, for the large majority of teachers (143 teachers, 91%) the overall aim of the inclusive classes is the inclusion to the programme of the mainstream class. Other answers that the teachers give is social inclusion (46 teachers, 29,3%), acquisition of writing skills (28 teachers, 17,8%) and daily skills (23 teachers, 14,6%). Again all the aims given by the teachers are student-centred and thus do not challenge in any way the existing structure of the school.

The assessment process and external services

The decision for a student to attend the inclusive class has three aspects. The first aspect refers to the school and as 126 teachers state, the class teacher or the teachers’ committee refer the student to the inclusive class. Further point of reference according to 72 teachers is the inclusive teacher. The Educational Counsellor who is responsible for that area could initiate the process (according to 15 teachers). A second aspect is services outside the school; 65 teachers mention the Centres for Diagnosis, Assessment and Support (K.D.A.Y) and 54 teachers the Medico-pedagogical centres. The third aspect concerns the parents (143 teachers) since according to the law they should consent to this decision.

The heavy work-load of the Centres for Diagnosis, Assessment and Support and of the Medico-pedagogical centres means that they cannot meet promptly all requests for assessment. Thus in many cases the decision for attending an inclusive class may be taken at the school level without external assessment (which may or may not take place at a later time).

As far as the co-operation of teachers with external services and specialists, there is a range of services and specialists that the teachers co-operate with. However, the number of teachers (Table VII) that state that co-operate with them are low. On the one hand, 74 teachers (47,1%) co-operate with psychologists and on the other hand 31 teachers (19,7%) do not have any co-operation with services/specialists.

Difficulties

When the teachers are asked what the main difficulties that they are facing with in their educational practice are, the two more common answers are co-operation with parents and with specialists and authorities (48 teachers respectively for each type of co-operation and 12 teachers mentioning both). In relation to the discussion above, it is interesting that while 34 teachers mention the educational materials and textbooks as a cause of difficulty, only 11 teachers mention the curriculum (Table VIII).

107 (68,1%) of teachers state that they want to change something in the operation of the inclusive classes. The most common answer is co-operation with specialists and authorities (52 teachers) with infrastructure and resources coming second (43 teachers). It is interesting that 9 teachers mention shared teaching in the mainstream class (Table VIII). A model of inclusion in which mainstream and special teachers will work together with a diverse group of students, interchanging roles and responsibilities and designing and using a differentiated curriculum appropriate for all students, does not seem to be part of the conception of inclusive education in the framework of inclusive classes.

Comparison between inclusive and special classes

One of the things that interested us the most was to see if there is any perceived change after the reformed (renaming) of special classes to inclusive classes. From the 157 teachers of the sample, 92 had worked in special classes (before they were ‘renamed’ to inclusive classes). To the question whether there is a difference between special classes and inclusive classes, 32 teachers state that there is no difference between special and inclusive classes; 31 teachers that they have different name; 14 teachers that students with more serious disabilities attended special classes; 5 teachers that there is a lack of personnel in inclusive classes; and 4 teachers that students spent more time in special classes. It becomes evident from these answers that for the majority of teachers that had experience of both special and inclusive classes there is no apparent difference between them.

Conclusion: New names

The simple process of ‘renaming’ special classes to inclusive classes is a characteristic example of the way that inclusive education policy in Greece is implemented (see also Zoniou-Sideri, 2004; Zoniou-Sideri et al, 2004b; Vlachou-Balafouti and Zoniou-Sideri, 2000), leaving unchallenged the structures of general education and reproducing the selective and competitive characteristics of the educational system. Thus, inclusion as it is defined, to give just an example, in the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) is not achieved.

The inclusive class usually located in a small classroom, in an office or even a storage room converted to a classroom (Pedagogical Institute, 2004; Haralambakis, 2005), is a cheap and easy solution to the ‘problem’ of inclusion.

The findings of this study give an indication of the ‘isolation’ of the inclusive classes within the context of the school and of the educational system framework. The limited co-operation with the mainstream teachers which in most cases is subject-based rather than curriculum-based; the lack of co-operation with parents and specialists as reported by the teachers; the lack of a comprehensive curriculum; the ‘idiosyncratic’ nature of the inclusive classes, depending on the specific school, teachers and students; and finally the focus on ‘Specific Learning Difficulties’ and a remedial approach to education are some points of concern.

Finally, the fact that special teachers are paid on a different pay-scale receiving a ‘special education’ benefit, creates another separation between general and special/inclusive teachers.

This paper aimed to present the data from a research project on inclusive classes and at the same time to put forward a critical framework for theorising a different model of inclusive education policy and practice in the Greek educational system. Our model is based on the principles of the democratic school with common scope and aims for all teachers and students. For this model to be realised, a different type of training for both general and special education teachers based on the inclusivity of education, and a fundamental restructuring of the educational system is needed. A first step to this process is to reclaim the name and meaning of ‘inclusion’.

Bibliography

European Commission (2000) Key Data on Education in Europe 1999-2000, European Commission: Brussels

Haralampakis, M. (2005) Storage rooms….of special education!, Ta Nea, 17-01-2005 [in Greek]

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1999) Inclusive Education at Work: Students with Disabilities in Mainstream Schools, OECD: Paris

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1995) Integrating Students with Special Needs into Mainstream Schools, OECD: Paris.

Pedagogical Institute (2004) Report for the Action: “Mapping of Special Education”, Pedagogical Institute: Athens [in Greek]

UNESCO (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework on Special Needs Education, UNESCO: Paris

Visley, L. (2003) From integration to inclusion: focusing global trends and changes in the western European societies in European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 17-35

Vlachou-Balafouti, A. and Zoniou-Sideri, A. (2000) Greek policy practices in the area of special/inclusive education in F. Armstrong, D. Armstrong and L. Barton (eds.) Inclusive Education: Policy, Contexts and Comparative Perspectives, David Fulton Publishers: London, pp. 27-41

Zoniou-Sideri, A., Karagianni, P., Nteropoulou-Nterou, E., Papastaurinidou, G and Spandagou, I. (2004a) The meaning and role of the curriculum in the inclusive education of blind children in Greece, in A. Zoniou-Sideri and I. Spandagou (eds.) Education and Blindness: Current Trends and Perspectives, Ellinika Grammata: Athens [in Greek]

Zoniou-Sideri, A., Karagianni, P., Nteropoulou-Nterou, E., Spandagou, I. (2004b) Educational policy and inclusion, in Issues of Special Education, Vol. 26, Aug-Oct 2004, 23-35 [in Greeek]

Zoniou-Sideri, A. (2004) The necessity of inclusion: current questions and perspectives, in A. Zoniou-Sideri (ed.), Current inclusive perspectives, Ellinika Grammata: Athens, 29-53 [in Greek]

Zoniou-Sideri, A. (1996) Disabled people and their education, Ellinika Grammata: Athens [in Greek]

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