ISSUES AND TRENDS IN

SPECIAL EDUCATION
Introduction

A glimpse from the past

As we all know by now that the term ‘Special education’ is commonly used to
define the practice and approaches of education for students with special needs,
for example various learning problems, issues regarding mental health, any or
particular disabilities (physical or developmental). In special education, thoughts
and application, and the way it is executed actually varies with each nation and
region, but most developed nations do recognize the significance of the field.

The existence of special education is solely for students with special needs, so
that they can achieve their academic goals just like any other students. As SEN
learners have various unique needs, and they learn and interact in various ways
compared to other students, the approaches used are quite different from the ones
used for ‘non-SEN’ population, and even vary greatly within the SEN students
itself. The strive to balance the needs of the special learners, when put against the
needs of the larger student population, has been a debatable subject. While the
final aim of any educational system is to ensure that all students achieve their
academic goals, and SEN learners should be no exception, the needs of every
other learner cannot be compensated. This particular field, thus, not only
addresses the challenge of educating students with special needs but also focuses
on the ways which can be included in the entire educational system to serve the
society in the best possible way.
If we look back at its history, Special Education originates in the 18th century.
Before that, individuals with disabilities were not taken into consideration. There
were superstitions regarding them and were often mistaken as being possessed,
cursed, or simply labelled idiots, or stupid. With the onset of the 18 th century (also
known as the enlightenment period), ideas regarding education started coming to
light.

This period of enlightenment influenced the field of special education in so many

ways. To begin with, Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) published Emile,
which is his work regarding children’s education. In his book, Rousseau
expressed that learning should happen in accordance with a child’s cognitive
speed, with nominal external stimuli, which is known to praise social roles, and
wealth. This very idea of instructing children according to their own pace set the
path going for several educators.

During the 19th century, special education as a field, became more profound. With
efforts from some notable personalities, some of who took action regarding the
issue of special education and also established the first school for deaf individuals
in 1817. The institution was named ‘American Asylum for the Education of the
Deaf and Dumb’, and in present times it known as the ‘American School for the
Deaf’.

Samuel Gridley Howe is a person of importance in the history of special

education. Howe was concerned about the education of blind learners, and in
1829, he started the first school for blind kids in the United States. Currently, the
school is known as the ‘Perkins School for the blind’, located in Massachusetts.
He was also the founder of the ‘Massachusetts School for Idiotic and
Feebleminded children’ in 1848.

After such instances, other states started opening institutions with an objective to
edify differently abled children. A school was inaugurated in Albany in 1851,
following which in 1853 the Pennsylvania Training School for ‘Feebleminded
Children’ was made accessible as well. In 1857, the ‘Institution of the
Feebleminded Youth’ opened up in Ohio and the first school for children who
were delayed or held back in terms of progress or development, was opened in
Connecticut in 1858. With education for specially abled kids gaining more and
more importance with passing years, the Association of Medical Officers of
American Institutions for Idiotic and Feebleminded Persons was established in
1876, and in 1878 two more special education classes came up in Cleveland.

The 20th century is set apart by the application of laws to safeguard and guarantee
disabled people’s rights to education.

Cut to present day scenario, the prospects for individuals who are exceptional
have underwent a lot of alterations. Well, quite dramatically, in accordance with
a significant growth in public awareness and consideration, present social
philosophy intentions to provide such individuals with education and lifestyle as
close to normal as possible.

Although the lines are blurring in diagnosis, pedagogy, and instruction between
a general education classroom and special education approaches to instruction,
there is always a continual scarcity of special education teachers. With this
scarcity of special education teachers, there is a gradual movement toward team
teaching or co-teaching.

The classroom is changing. The focus of educators is becoming more about

supporting students who face trauma, catastrophic events, multiple disabilities,
and special talents, all without the benefit of a clear diagnosis. This is leaving
general education classroom teachers responsible for a greater need for
understanding of student learning.
The way that students are served through special education initiatives is
evolving, as it should. To think about the constantly evolving state of special
education, and try to name only the five key issues is a tough job! The changing
landscape of special education and the impacts these changes may have on
current and future practices is a topic that consistently makes the news. Issues
such as school reform, inclusion, standards assessment, disability classification,
and many others can all be viewed from multiple perspectives. Strong opinions
are voiced and researches are going on to deal with these differing viewpoints.

Let us go deeper into some of the latest issues that are currently trending in the
domain of special education.

Early Intervention and Prevention

Traditionally, early intervention has referred to steps taken when children are in
the birth to five-year-old ago range. However, when referring to special
education needs, there is increasing focus on providing early intervention to
students as symptoms of various disorders begin to manifest. So, when we
speak of early intervention and prevention here, we could be talking about early
childhood intervention, but we also need to consider interventions for older
students. Early intervention and prevention can be used to target symptoms at
the onset of the abnormal behavior, no matter what age the student is.
Recognizing concerning academic and social behaviors early and then quickly
providing supports and tools to address them can lessen or even negate the need
for more involved interventions later.

Technology

As technology continues to substantially alter the classroom, students with

Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are especially targeted for extra
support. By leveraging technology, classroom instruction can be enhanced with
individual learning occasions, which allows teachers greater flexibility for
differentiation in instruction through blended learning opportunities and the
variety of Web-based, evidence-based practices. No longer are students stuck in
a classroom they don’t understand, learning at a pace they can’t keep up with.

Trauma-Informed Teaching

Students and teachers are often faced with dire situations far outside their
control. Managing these situations and addressing the emotional impact can
make day-to-day instruction feel trivial in comparison. How do you face a
traumatic event and continue to learn fractions?

Each student reacts to trauma in his or her own way. While there is no clear-cut
set of cues to spot, there are many resources describing possible signs of trauma
to keep an eye out for. There is different kind of behaviors that you might
observe in students affected by trauma.
These students are dealing with issues that are far outside of the classroom, yet
impact learning. How students deal is unique to them, but they do not qualify
for special education services immediately. Knowing the signs and resources is
a first step to managing a general education classroom with these special
students.

Students who face trauma certainly require special accommodations. Their

world and work are significantly impacted by forces outside of their control.
There are behaviors we can look for and resources we can put in place, but as
educators, and often participants of the same catastrophic events, we need to be
aware of the resources and act as part of the solution, not the only solution.

Twice-Exceptional Students

One of the challenges teachers face, other than all other problems, is providing
material that is appropriate in content and grade level for every child. When
discussing students with special needs, this can often refer to age-appropriate
and skill-appropriate content. There is another population of students that must
be reviewed with an eye toward their special needs. These children often get
lost, and because of their talents, these students often find themselves hiding in
the “average” populations.

In education, students who qualify for gifted programs as well as special

education services are described as “twice-exceptional” learners. Twice-
exceptional (or “2E”) students demonstrate significantly above-average abilities
in certain academic areas but also show special educational needs, such as
ADHD, learning disabilities, or autism spectrum disorder. Because their
giftedness often masks their special needs, or vice versa, they are sometimes
labeled as "lazy" or "underperforming," even though that is not the case.
Educators recognize that 2E students exist—often in the shadows—of the
classroom. However, the real challenge is how to accurately identify these
students, understand the challenges that they face, and implement whole-child-
based strategies to best support them. Savvy teachers are now learning how to
allow these students to experience the same opportunities available for gifted
students, learn in ways that highlight their strengths, and address their
challenges at the same time.

Teacher Licensure

There is a shortage of teachers across the country, and in some states, it’s
becoming a critical shortage. Teachers of special education are in especially
short supply. There are various reasons for this, but they include lower
enrollments in teacher training programs specific to special education and an
alarmingly high exit rate for special education teachers.

Because of the significant and growing need for teachers, alternative licensure
programs have evolved. Especially for individuals starting a second career in
teaching, accredited private training programs are a great alternative for the
licensure programs. While these programs can help place more teachers in the
classroom, some professionals question their quality and the preparedness of
these newly licensed teachers who get certified.

Some schools have also started to fill special education positions with teachers
having either no prior education experience or having only general education
experience. In this case, provisional licensure is provided to these newly hired
teachers. However, due to the unique challenges of special education and the
need for specialized training in the field, a common problem with this approach
is teacher retention and burnout.

Placement
The debate about where a student with disabilities is best served is one of the
most volatile issues in special education. The controversy stems from whether
full inclusion in general education classrooms or placement in a continuum of
alternative settings offers a more effective learning environment. This is a
particularly difficult and subjective issue with compelling arguments on both
sides.

In the full-inclusion model, all students—regardless of an identified disability,

health needs, academic ability, unique service needs, and potentially, the
preference of a parent or student—are educated full-time in a general education
classroom in their neighborhood school. Typically, general education and
special education teachers work together and, in some cases, specialists like
occupational or speech therapists work within the classroom environment as
well. Proponents of this model believe that pulling a child out of the classroom
is unequal and deprives all students of valuable learning opportunities. They
focus on the value of social interaction and argue that the benefits of a full-
inclusion classroom extend to both general and special education students.

IDEA has officially mandated six generally recognized placements:

 full-time in a general education classroom

 part-time in a special education resource room
 full-time in a special education self-contained classroom
 in a separate special education school
 at a residential facility
 homebound or in a hospital

Inside one of these six placements are the least restrictive environment for a
special education student, where he or she will be best able to achieve academic
gains and success. It is believed that full-time placement in general education is
appropriate and beneficial for many students but not all. Instead, each child
should be evaluated and placed individually. It is indeed incorrect to view
placement as a universal issue and place every child in the exact same
environment without investigating his or her unique needs.

Parental Support

We have talked at great length about some of the issues that students and
teachers are facing within special education. Many of these topics are outside of
the identification of diagnosis and recognition of special ed disabilities and
guaranteed services. However, one common theme we have not discussed is the
approach that must be considered when meeting with parents. You, as their
child’s teacher, may be the very first person to indicate that there is an issue
with their precious baby. Starting the conversation is hard—you can be met
with tears or terror. The main thing to consider is that this is their child and that
you only know one small piece of the puzzle.

It is important from the beginning that you are part of the one unified team that
supports students in the best way possible. At the end of the day, you and your
students’ parents want the best for the children, and it’s important to remember
that. As teachers play the most important role in students’ lives, so ensure that
you’re making your voice heard; on the other hand, be sure that you’re listening
to what parents have to say. Keep children’s best interests in mind. Remember,
you are an advocate, but they are the parents. Create a plan that you can all
agree on— one that will benefit the students in every possible way.

Overall, special education is becoming a more normalized experience for the

students. Our tech-hungry culture is the perfect backdrop for the tools that these
special education learners need to succeed in K-12 classrooms.

If we take a look at the current global perspective regarding the field of special
education, we will notice a varying range of principles and systems put into
place to make things work smoothly. Let’s take North America for example.

REFORMS IN EDUCATION AND IN SPECIAL EDUCATION - NORTH

AMERICA
In the last couple of decades, reforms in the special education sector have
become a major issue in North American education. Two distinct concepts can
be seen in reform efforts - one is raising standards for all students; the other
being equity for the learners.
While reforms in special education are not novel, modern-day perspective of
special education is deeply involved in reform efforts and is being stressed to
modification by both internal and external forces. Introduction of inclusive
schooling is one of the indicators of current reform mandates.
Over the years, past four decades to be precisely, there has been a steady growth
in the numbers and proportions of learners with disabilities receiving their
special education while being enrolled in general education classes and schools.
During the 1950s and 1960s, integration was the commonly used term to refer
to the edification of students with uniqueness in a general classroom
environment. During the 1970s, mainstreaming came into being. Under the
principles of mainstreaming, the education of children having any kind of
learning, behavioural, physical, or other issues were conducted with normally
developing peers to the greatest possible extent. The level of integration
depended on the unique patterns of strengths and weaknesses in each child. The
notions and morals of inclusive schooling for students with special needs came
into being in the 1980s.

Defining Inclusive Schooling

The current emphasis is on inclusive schooling. Although there are various
perceptions regarding the term, it basically explains that every learner is to be
educated in the classrooms or schools they would attend if they were not
exceptional. Schools should adapt an inclusive mentality and welcome students
with all types of diversity.
The concept of inclusion is both evolving and changing with each passing day.
The contemporary movement hosts an array of theoretical positions in regards
to the underlying philosophy, the relationship of those targeted for inclusion, the
characteristics of the general educational provision, and the means in which
supports are provided.
Here, inclusion is defined as “a system of equity for students with
exceptionalities that expresses a commitment to educate each child to the
maximum extent through placement, instruction, and support in the most
heterogeneous and appropriate environment.”
Assessing Inclusive Schooling
Inclusion is, by far, the most critical part of SEN and there isn’t an area in
special education more difficult than it. The root of the difficulties originates
from the fact that inclusion is both a philosophy as well as a practice. While the
philosophical part is fairly accepted, the major hitches arise with the attempt to
translate the principles to effectual and school-based service delivery models.
Philosophical aspects that support inclusive schooling comprises overall school
reform, civil rights, educational justness, and the complexities of a double
system. However, several barricades exist with regard to inclusion and there
remain conflict-ridden debates among educators, policy makers, and parents as
well.
Implementing inclusionary practices successfully is a major obstacle to
institutional systems of today. The barriers to inclusive schooling consist of:

 educator expectations, attitudes, and acceptance of inclusive schooling;

 the abilities of general and special educators;

 deficiency of supports and amplified workload for educators;

 external forces;
  funding;

 lack of empirical research evidence.

Although inclusion is an approach, there are certain principles that underlie

successful practices. These include:

 positive teacher attitude

 supportive school administration

 resources and personnel to support teachers and help SEN children

 curriculum matching the unique needs of individual learners

 accurate and ongoing assessment

 social incorporation of students with special needs

 co-operation among regular teachers, special education personnel,

classroom paraeducators, and other support services

 parental support

 team approaches where different people share information and expertise

TYPICAL INCLUSIVE SERVICES IN CANADA

Schools in Canada are gradually heading towards an inclusive environment.
However, extensive variations in practice are noticed across the country.
Whereas some parts have adopted complete inclusion, while the remaining part
continues to approach the idea of inclusion on an individual basis.

Legislation
‘Law’ creates a system of rules and regulations that relates to the conduct and
etiquette of individuals along with society as a whole. School law explains the
manner in which institutions function. In recent decades, legal issues including
both litigation and legislation, had a startling impact on the special education
sector. Among several factors, parental pressure encouraged and advanced
litigation and legislation. It has been a remarkable feat that court rulings in
favour of extraordinary individuals made way for the passage of legislation that
clearly spells out the duties and role of the school system and the rights of
learners who are exceptional.

Legislation in the United States

The most noteworthy and significant legislative enactment in the United States
was the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. It mandated that young
individuals with special needs must be edified in an environment that is least
restrictive, with an Individual Education Plan (IEP) developed, maintained, and
evaluated for every child’s unique needs. States need to undertake non-
discriminatory testing, confidentiality, and guarantee due-process measures for
all children with disabilities and their parents/guardians.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 safeguards equal prospect
and access to every individual with disabilities, within and without the
institutional structure. Title V of the Rehabilitation Act, commonly known as
Section 504 (1974), is a civil rights law that protects children and adults from
discrimination. In schools, it ensures that learners can partake in educational
programs. Schoolchildren not included under other laws, such as individuals
with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), are served under
Section 504. Gifted and talented learners were initially addressed in PL 95-561,
the Gifted and Talented Children's Education Act of 1978, currently known as
the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 1988.
PL 94-142 underwent several amendments and reauthorizations since its
passage in 1975. In 1986, PL 99-457 encompassed preschool children. In 1990,
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) included Autism and
Traumatic Brain Injury to categories for exceptionality and reformed the
terminology of the enactment to people-first language. The latest amendment to
the IDEA is PL 109-446, which came into effect in 2004, and whose full effect
is yet to be determined. Also, it is to be noted that while the 2002 No Child Left
Behind Act is not directed toward SEN children, it does tug these young
individuals further into high-stake testing.

Legislation in Canada

The movement is toward the facility of mandatory special education legislation

in Canada. At present, all the provinces and the three territories have some form
of legislated responsibility for the education of children who are exceptional,
but the breadth of services varies.
Legislative activity has a tendency to focus on children with any form of
disabilities. Children who have been identified as gifted, have not fared as well
in the legislative field.
Trends and Movements
Several trends and movements may be observed in today's field of special
education. These comprise of, but are not limited to, the below discussed issues.

 Expansion of Services

Contemporary special education is reaching down to encompass pre-schoolers

who are at risk or with disabilities, and reaching up to aid adolescents in
transitioning into adult life.

 Multicultural Special Education

Current data shows that public schools are met with upsurging linguistic and
cultural diversity. A consequence of these demographic changes is that the
system of special education is gradually serving learners who are in the
procedure of acquiring a second language or those coming from home
backgrounds that varies culturally or linguistically from the general Canadian
majority.
Multicultural education is the solution adhering to the needs of learners from
varied cultural or linguistical backgrounds than the majority. Students with
uniqueness are also in need of multicultural perspectives infused into the
curriculum. Educators need to celebrate the first language and culture while
building a second language and accommodating to the new culture.

 Early Intervention

Early identification and early intervention are both broader concepts of early
childhood special education, and are two of the most hopeful areas of modern
special education sector.

o Early identification is used to recognize children with prevailing

disabilities, who are at risk for complications, and those
experiencing any lags or delays.
 o Early intervention defines the founding of educational and
support services for children and infants who are at risk for
disabilities, and their families.
 Transition

Transition programs are designed in a way to ease the conversion of adolescents

with disabilities into the adult world.

 Parent Involvement

Teachers should emphasis more on parental involvement if they are willing to

augment the educational experience for their learners. When parents are
involved in their ward's education as partners, parents appear to grow a sense of
value that connects itself to children along with a positive academic
consequence.

 Technological Advances

Noteworthy advances in many sectors of technology have brought major

developments in the lives of people with disabilities. Learners now benefit from
both instructional and assistive technology.

 Assessment Practices

Assessment is way designed to present a detailed view of a child's unique

pattern of strengths and weaknesses in a range of areas. Of late, it has been
witnessing major advances in assessment practices that include who administers
measures, where they are administered, the procedures used, and the range of
tools.
There are various types of assessment, which puts diverse strategies and
personnel to use. The key areas are screening, specific (psycho-
educational) assessment, and intensive or medical diagnosis. Measures overlap
and complement each other, and each offers important information regarding a
child's present and past functioning along with their potential.

 Screening

Screening is a term that is used in both the fields of medicine and education and
refers to the evaluation of large groups of children to find those performing
above or below the standard. Screening is designed to distinct at-risk children
from those functioning within acceptable limits.
Screening devices in the educational sector include observations, past records,
interviews, developmental checklists, skill inventories, behaviour-rating scales,
teacher-made tests, criterion-referenced tests, curriculum-based assessment, and
group achievement tests.

 Specific Assessment

Psycho-educational evaluation provides additional information on children

considered as high-risk in the screening phase. The diagnostic process should
confirm or deduct the existence of a problem and aid in determining the apt
treatment and intervention for identified children.
Tests actually are precise and structured measures that attempt to prompt
particular responses that a child might not reveal spontaneously. Direct testing
concerns testing children across an array of relevant domains. Several tests used
in psycho-educational assessment are norm-referenced. Most of these cover a
variety of developmental fields and include skills within each area.
IQ tests provide an intelligence quotient. The most critical perception
underlying IQ tests is that of a normal distribution, i.e., a range of scores that
vary from the average by predictable totals.

 Standards Testing

Canadian jurisdictions are embracing province-wide testing for several grade

levels. There are possible accommodations for learners with special needs.
  Medical Assessment

To mention a few of the professionals who are involved at the medical level
include specialists, physicians, nurses, audiologists and ophthalmologists.

Current Trends in SEN in the UK and Europe

EFFECTIVE CLASSROOM PRACTICES

Dealing with diversity forms one of the biggest challenges within European
schools and classrooms. Inclusion happens in various ways and on different
levels; however, usually, it is the teachers who are given the responsibility to
handle the vast diversity of student needs within their school and classes.
Teachers need to adapt or prepare the curriculum in such a way that the needs of
all students - those with SEN and their peers - are sufficiently met.

Spain: Here, if schools intend to pay attention to the heterogeneous characteristics

of students, it is necessary that they think over such aspects as their organization
and performance, the existence of co-ordination and co-operative work among
teachers, the co-operation of the whole educational community, the use of
resources and educational practice

There are seven common groups of factors that seem to be effective for inclusive
education. They include: co-operative teaching, co-operative learning,
collaborative problem solving, heterogeneous grouping and effective teaching
approaches. In addition, two factors seem to be specifically relevant for
secondary education school level: home area system and alternative learning
strategies.
In the sections below, one can find the above mentioned seven factors that have
been illustrated with direct quotes from global reports from the country visits, the
case studies and the literature reviews.

1. Co-operative Teaching
Teachers need to co-operate with and need practical and flexible support from a
range of colleagues. At times a student with SEN needs specific help that cannot
be given by the teacher during the daily classroom routine. In such circumstances
other teachers and support personnel come on to the scene and the issues of
flexibility, good planning, co-operation and team teaching present the challenges.
The study suggests that inclusive education is enhanced by several factors that
can be grouped under the heading of co-operative teaching.
Co-operative teaching means full co-operation between the class teacher and a
teaching assistant, a teacher colleague or any other professional. A key
characteristic for co-operative teaching is that students with SEN do not have to
be removed from the classroom in order to receive support, but that this support
can be provided in the classroom. This kind of a teaching approach helps
stimulate a sense of belonging for the student, giving a boost to his or her self-
esteem, which in itself is considered to be a strong facilitator for learning. A
second feature of co-operative teaching is that it provides a solution for the
problem of teachers’ feelings of isolation. Teachers can learn from each other’s
approaches and provide appropriate feedback. As a result, co-operation is not
only effective for the cognitive and emotional development of students with SEN,
but it also seems to meet the needs of teachers.

Case study, Ireland: The school has a School Support Team that consists of the
Principal Teacher, the Deputy Principal, the guidance teachers, the learning
support teacher, the resource teachers and the Home/School/Community liaison
teacher. This team meets every week to discuss the needs of students with
behavioral and learning difficulties and to plan to meet these needs.

Case study, Austria: It was found that teamwork can only be successful with clear
communication and good knowledge on conflict management, to assign tasks and
for consultation with all players. This part of the work is particularly time-
consuming. However, teamwork and team teaching are extremely fascinating
aspects in the work of all players. They need to work closer together than ‘normal
secondary general school teachers’ was a crucial motivating factor for taking on
this task. Teamwork and the related exchange of experience are perceived as
immensely enriching.

2. Co-operative Learning

Students that help each other, especially within a system of flexible and well-
considered student grouping, benefit from learning together.

The study appears to show that peer tutoring or co-operative learning is effective
in both the cognitive and social-emotional areas of students’ learning and
development. In addition, there are no indications that the more able students
suffer from such situations in terms of lacking new challenges or opportunities.
There are several educational techniques where students work together in pairs.
They include peer tutoring, co-operative learning and peer coaching. Mostly, in
all of these concepts, the teacher creates heterogeneous pairs (and sometimes
trios) consisting of roles as tutor and student (and sometimes also an observer).
All students gets to play each role in the next role-play - the slow student also
plays the role of tutor. This approach has a significantly positive effect on the
self-confidence of students and at the same time it stimulates social interactions
within the peer group.
All students benefit from co-operative learning: the student who explains to the
other student retains information better and for longer periods and the needs of
the student who is learning are better addressed by a peer whose level of
understanding is only slightly higher than his or her own level. Studies show co-
operative learning approaches not only having positive outcomes, but also that
they are much easier to implement.

Expert visit, Sweden: We witnessed students discussing their tasks outside the
class hours, even during the breaks. To develop and experience empathy for their
special needs classmate, co-operation with them is indeed required. Students
experienced being together, listening to each other’s opinion while following this
approach.

International literature review: Peer tutoring sessions were planned twice a week
for fifteen minutes. Teachers were asked to form heterogeneous teams that
included three students of different performance levels. During the sessions each
student played the role of tutor, tutee, and observer. The tutor would select a
problem or task to be completed by the tutee and the observer provided social
reinforcement. The teacher developed assistance procedures.

3. Collaborative Problem Solving

Collaborative problem solving is the organized way of approaching unwanted

behavior in the classroom. This includes a set of clear class rules, agreed with all
the students alongside appropriate incentives and disincentives for behaviour.
Findings from country reports and the international literature review show that
the use of collaborative problem-solving techniques decreases the amount and
intensity of disturbances during lessons. It is emphasized that the development of
effective class rules are negotiated with the whole class and that these rules are
clearly visible in the classroom. In some of the case studies, the set of rules were
included in a contract to be signed by the students. There are several ways of
developing class rules, but the case studies point at the need for a designated
meeting at the beginning of the school year.

Expert visit, UK: An equal opportunities policy was employed and this was
openly displayed on classroom walls. A behavior code was also shared. Pastoral
lessons were held to reinforce these codes. School assemblies were used as a
platform for feedback on student behavior. Classroom and school rules were
negotiated with students. Parents were also called upon to support their child’s
compliance with the school code of practice. They had to sign an agreement to
pledge their commitment. These contracts with parents and students were signed
every school year.

Case study, Germany: At the end of the week, ‘Friday circles’ or the classroom
committee takes place, where all the important the events of the week are brought
up and discussed, if any problem arises then solutions too are developed together.
Teachers, as well as students, can express criticism, but also their joy and
experiences of success during the school week.

4. Heterogeneous Grouping
Heterogeneous grouping of students refers to the implementation of educational
settings where students of the same age stay together in mixed ability classrooms.
The basis of the concept of a mixed ability class is to avoid selection and to
respect natural variability in characteristics of students.
Heterogeneous grouping and a more differentiated approach to education are
necessary and effective when dealing with a diversity of students in the
classroom. It underlines the principle that all students are equal and that streaming
in secondary education contributes to the marginalization of students with SEN.
Advantages of this organizational approach are obvious at the cognitive and
especially emotional and social levels. It also contributes to overcoming the
increasing gap between students with SEN and their peers. Furthermore, it
promotes positive attitudes of both students and teachers towards students with
SEN. This finding throws light on the expressed needs of countries while
handling diversity within classrooms. And yes, heterogeneous grouping is also a
prerequisite for co-operative learning.

Expert visit, Norway: There are multiple ways the students are grouped; this may
be of various reasons – depending on what is happening in the school or the goals
the school tries to attain. At first all the students at the school are grouped by their
age into grade levels and then each grade level is grouped into two classes that
still collaborate very often. Learning groups of different sizes - beginning with
pairs and ending up with the whole class working together - are formed during
lessons.

Case study, Austria: The students work one third of the lessons with individual
weekly plans, subjects like biology or geography are mainly organized in
projects, sometimes in a cross-curricular way. Partner and group work dominate
the daily work. In German, math and English students are not separated in three
ability levels (3 different rooms) as usual. They are allowed to mostly they work
together on one topic in a common class as per their abilities.

5. Effective Teaching

Monitoring, assessment, evaluation and high expectations are the 4 things that
make up Effective Teaching. It is important to follow the standard curriculum
framework for all students. However, in many cases adaptation of the curriculum
is needed, not only for those with SEN at the lower end of the continuum, but for
all students. With regard to students with SEN this approach is defined and set
out within the framework of the Individual Educational Plan (IEP).
The case studies highlight important effective education approaches as being:
monitoring, assessment, evaluation and high expectations. All students benefit
from these approaches, but this is particularly the case for students with SEN.
Effective teaching approaches helps to lessen the gap between students with and
without SEN. It can be understood from the case studies that IEP must also be
included within the normal curriculum framework.

Case study, Spain: We start off with mainstream curriculum as a basis, slowly
introducing modifications, motivating to the students participate as much as
possible in the general learning experiences, so that they can feel integrated in the
school. It is crucial that the students are completely integrated in their ordinary
group. To give way for their integration, it is necessary that they participate in the
current activities of their group whereby they at least share three basic curriculum
subjects, the tutor lessons and the optional subjects with their classmates.

Case study, Iceland: Although the students spends most of their school time
included in the classroom a big part of the classroom teaching and learning
organization is individual teaching and learning. The students mostly work on
their own tasks or projects during language, art, Icelandic and mathematics. The
tasks that are done in the classroom are differentiated both in mathematics and
language. The students’ study materials are modified as per their needs.

6. Home Area System

In the home area system, the organization of the delivery of the curriculum
changes drastically. Students are required to stay in a common area with two or
three classrooms where they receive all education. A small team of teachers is
responsible for the education provided in the home area. As pointed out earlier,
the increased subject specialization and the particular organization of lessons
within secondary schools pose some serious difficulties for students with SEN.
The case studies show that there are more appropriate ways of dealing with this
issue. The home area system is an example of such model: students stay in a
particular area accommodating a small number of classrooms and a small group
of teachers who cover almost all subjects as a group task. For students with SEN
in particular, this supports their need to feel a sense of ‘belonging’. It also
contributes to the wish to provide a stable and continuous environment and to the
need to organize education in a non-streamed way. Finally, it enhances teacher
co-operation and it provides informal training opportunities for teachers.

Case study, Sweden: The school has about 55 teachers, divided into five teams of
10-12 teachers. Every team has responsibility for 4-5 classes. Each team is self-
governed economically with its own educational platform, a concrete plan of the
school’s vision. It means that the flexibility of ways of working, schedule and in-
service training for teachers might be dealt with differently in the five working
teams and amongst the students. The students are in mixed aged groups and two
teachers teach most of the theoretical subjects. Although the teachers are
specialized to teach one or two subjects, in this model they teach other subjects
as well. The reason for changing numbers of teachers in class was as the principal
says: “to get rid of a tough atmosphere and conflicts among students and between
teachers and students…”

Expert visit, Norway: The motto of the school is: all students in each class must
develop a string connection and belong physically, socially and academically as
one unit. The team of each class level consists of two to three class teachers, a
special educator, resource or subject teacher, and social educator and/or assistant.
The team shares an office, knows all the children and has a joint responsibility
for the class-level. The members of each team support each other, collaborate as
they plan the work and co-operate with parents.

Expert visit, Sweden: At the school a two-teacher model is used – in every class
there is a team of two teachers who are teaching together most of the time. All
subjects are taught by them, though they are not qualified for all of them. Apart
from the common teaching duties, these teachers observe children, assess them
and propose special support for their education, if needed. As a result, teachers
always have a partner to plan the process and the activities, get feedback and have
a competent partner to observe, evaluate and assess students.

7. Alternative Learning Strategies

The alternative learning strategies refers to teaching students the correct way to
learn and solve problems. Associated with this, schools give students greater
responsibility for their own learning. To support the inclusion of students with
special needs, several models that focus on learning strategies have been
developed over the past few years. In such programs students do not only learn
strategies, but also how to apply the right learning strategy at the right time. It is
argued that giving students greater responsibility for their own learning will
contribute to the success of inclusion in secondary schools. Information from the
countries suggests that a greater emphasis on giving the ownership for learning
to students is a successful approach.
Expert visit, Sweden: Students are managers of their own learning process. They
plan their working time; choose goals and levels and ways to reach goals (...)
Another example of building up the responsibility is the timetable. Starting times
of lessons in the morning are not strictly set, but there is a half an hour interval
and students can choose, but will stay longer after the lesson if they come later in
the morning.
Case study, Iceland: The school emphasizes enhancing the learning environment
and using multiple teaching methods. It is very important to the school staff to
have a positive relationship with the students, and that students are responsible
and independent in their learning behavior.
AFRICA

Africa is home to eighty per cent of the estimated 140 million out-of-school
children in the world, with majority of them being disabled girls and/or children.
One can say that an important factor that distinguishes disability in Africa from
disability in other contexts is the fact that a lot of disabilities can be traced to
poverty, poor nutrition and limited access to basic needs. The other main concern
includes the large-scale exclusion of children with disabilities from education.

As per various studies, education remains inaccessible to one in every hundred

children with a disability. The reason behind this can be explained by a number
of inter-related factors. First, there is not much encouragement from any quarters
regarding right to education of children with disabilities, which is all the more
important since it is easy to lose sight of it, especially at a time when public
expenditure is increasingly governed by market forces, and the instrumental view
of education is prevailing.

This document helps to draw the following lessons that we believe must be kept
close to the heart of law and policy makers and educational practitioners:

• All children are equal and must enjoy the right to equal opportunity without
discrimination;

• Every child with a disability must enjoy the rights to acceptance and education
as any other child;

• children with disabilities are different and are often called “the special ones”.
However, a special child always differs from another child, just like children
without any special abilities are different than one another. Hence, adequate
caution must be taken when putting children with disabilities into various groups

• Differences among children are bound to happen; but they should not be seen
as something defiant. Rather these are natural and enriching.
• Prevention and early detection of learning problems resulting from nutritional
deficiency/imbalance, chronic infection, and/or mild sensory impairment is more
effective and less costly than later, remedial measures;

• The educational process is likely to be facilitated by collaboration based on

mutual respect between educational establishments and structures and children’s
families and homes;

• Instead of embarking upon ‘inclusion’- oriented reform, special schools must

develop a broader outlook and take on new roles, whereas regular schools need
to revolutionize themselves at all levels of development;

• “Trial and error education” for all special children must be avoided at all costs

• The teacher’s is a guide to the child and not a mere instructor; she must help the
child through all possible means to make progress in their learning;

• The development of the child’s general communication skills is vital to facilitate

interaction between child and teacher – hence using communication media
appropriate for a child’s particular needs is crucial;

• To assess a special child’s academic performance and know about his potential
and difficulties and help improve those, there has to be focus on teacher-produced
diagnostic testing;

• Children with disabilities should not be punished for being disabled, or

for having any disciplinary problem related to their disability;

• Language must be non-offensive, without using any explicit language

• For children who have higher level of difficulties, a carefully modified

curriculum such as an IEP, is usually required for progress;

• Life after school must be identified and incorporated into the curriculum, to
prepare the young person for a better life in the future.
To ensure a better education and life thereafter for the special children, policy
makers must take the following steps into account:

• Guarantee a deep level of political commitment for equality and non-

discrimination;

• ensure equitable and adequate funding;

• Supply qualified teachers who are compassionate and committed to their roles;

• make individual schools as inclusive as possible;

• foster a fruitful engagement between homes and schools.

National laws and policies related to children with disabilities in Africa

Introduction

Africa with its large number of children with disabilities has failed to do anything
substantial for them except for only referring to them occasionally in, law and
policy documents, health, education and social development plans, and/or
poverty reduction programs. One can find National Plans of Action for children
in African countries sometimes referring to children with disabilities, but seldom
does anything concrete. This situation contributes to the neglect of these
children’s economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights – among which
rights education stands out as particularly important.

Since most laws reflect the cultural, economic, and political traditions of
particular countries, it is comes as no surprise that laws and policies on the
education of children with disabilities in Africa comprises of the highly detailed
and ‘legalistic’ US model as well as the general laws of developing countries,
which still has has a long way to go to address this topic. As rightly noted by
Combrinck:

“...an examination of legislation and policies on the national level brings us one
step closer to the question of whether children with disabilities are in practice
enjoying the benefits of the rights guaranteed under the international and
regional... frameworks”

In African countries, legal provisions related to the education of children with

disabilities are often elementary or non- existent ‘deficit’ or biomedical model of
disability, which perceives disability as a fault within the child, who is only
worthy of charity along with other discourses devaluing the child as an
independent entity. Further, the lack of a specific national policy on special
education in most countries has moved this sub-sector to the bottom of the list of
priorities in budget allocation and planning.

Some countries still have policies that provide the possibility for authorities to
deny education to some children, especially those with severe intellectual
disability. In other countries, the education of specific groups of learners is the
responsibility of an authority other than the ministry of education, whereby these
learners are discouraged to participate in mainstream education provision.

National Constitutions
Persons with disabilities in sub-Saharan African countries enjoy the rights of
disabled persons as part of their constitutional norms concerning the fundamental
human rights of the individual. There are constitutional provisions that address
the basic human rights of persons with disabilities, or have general provisions for
people with disabilities. For instance, article 15 of the constitution of Botswana
of 1966, as amended, prohibits discrimination against any person, and states
furthermore that no law

can contain any provision that is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect.
Similarly, no person can use the law to justify such discriminatory practices.

The Botswana constitution gives a comprehensive definition of discrimination,

as follows:

“...affording different treatment to different persons, attributable wholly or

mainly to their respective descriptions by race, tribe, place of origin, political
opinion, colour or creed whereby persons of one such description are subjected
to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of another such description are not
made subject or are accorded privileges or advantages which are not accorded to
persons of another such description.”

In Ethiopia, the ministry of education launched the Special Needs Education

Program Strategy in 2006 to ensure that all children, including pupils with special
education needs have access to quality education. According to the SEN program
strategy document, the responsibility for providing primary education for all
school age children, including pupils with special educational needs, rests with
woreda (the lowest administrative structure in Ethiopia’s federal government
system) education offices.

Although the Program Strategy does not mention learners with disabilities
specifically in its strategic aims, it talks almost exclusively about learners with
disabilities in its discussion of strategic priorities. The Program Strategy also
outlines the following concerns:

• Keeping special needs education within national and regional education sector
at early childhood, primary, secondary, technical, vocational and higher
education levels;

•developing guidelines and providing technical assistance to regions;

•introducing a special needs education course into all major pre/in-service teacher
education programs, with extra in-service training relating to disability for
teachers in special schools/classes and for other support teachers;

•co-operation with community-based rehabilitation programs;

•resource centres for education institutions to help in the identification of any

learning barriers and support students and teachers (e.g. with Braille and icT for
blind students, sign language interpreters for deaf students, etc.);

•ensuring that alternative basic education programs include children with special
educational needs.

The strategy document illustrates the potential interactions between the three
elements that characterize the proposed special needs education model, which are
as follows:

(1) mainstream schools;

(2) cluster schools, itinerant teachers, and special units/classes; and

(3) special schools.

Consequently, special schools will support cluster schools, which in turn will
support mainstream schools. At the centre of this model are cluster schools and
itinerant teachers, both of which support staff working in both regular classes and
special units/classes. The strategy states that only a minority of learners with
special educational needs will be educated within special schools. Perhaps the
most progressive and comprehensive policy document on the education of
children with disabilities on the continent – unparalleled even in other parts of the
world – is that of South Africa.

INDIA

INTRODUCTION

If we look into the Indian history, we will find that persons with disabilities in
India have coexisted with the general mass, but their treatment and attitudes
toward them may have been different at times but they were never excluded from
society by confinement in institutions. They could and have lived with their
families. If we look into the history of education, even the Gurukula Ashram
(educational institutes in ancient times) promoted the basic educational principles
of special education, for example, acknowledging the abilities and needs of each
pupil, individualization of teaching goals and methods to match their skills and
interests, and preparing them to meet the social expectations of their prospective
interests. The famous epic of Mahabharata provides evidence that King
Dhritrashtra was the king of the entire India although he was visually impaired.

EARLY STAGES OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

Coming to the present era, systematic efforts were put in to provide educational
and vocational opportunities to individuals with disabilities in India. Starting with
Christian missionaries in the 1880s, the charity model became part of the special
schools they established (Alur, 2002). For instance, formal educational
institutions were established for the blind in 1887, for the deaf in 1888, and for
mentally deficient in 1934 (Misra, 2000). After these were established in the late
19th century or early 20th century, we witnessed a growth in these institutions in
the latter half of the 20th century. After getting independence from Great Britain
in 1947, a systematic development of special education in India could be seen
with the establishment of 81 schools between 1960 and 1975. By 1979, the
number of special education centers touched 150. National Institute for the
Mentally Handicapped (NIMH) was built in 1986 and others soon after, which
led to the availability of trained personnel and suitable models of service and this
saw a significant growth of special schools for children with disabilities.

PREVALENCE OF DISABILITY IN INDIA

According to UNICEF Report in 2000 on the Status of Disability in India there

were around 30 million children that had some form of disability. Another report,
the sixth All-India Educational Survey reported that of India’s 2,000 million
school aged children (6 to 14 years), 20 million require special needs education
(Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), 2000). However, there is a discrepancy in
these numbers, but it is still clear that there are a large number of students with
special needs that require appropriate educational services. Recognizing the large
number of special needs population and regional disparities, the Government of
India has brought in policy reforms and strategies for special needs and inclusive
education. A lot of changes are conspicuous in the educational system of India
after the independence from Great Britain in 1947. The post-independence era
paved the way for the economic and social development policies and we can see
that in the last four decades there has been noticeable development in the entire
educational system in India through legislative measures as well as social welfare
activities.
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN ASIA

INDIA

Inclusive Education is a relatively new area but the Government of India has
made significant strides toward promoting inclusive education in its national
legislation and policies in the recent decades. There have been some key
initiatives in each decade in the last four decades for the development of special
education services for students with special needs in India.

The 1960s

The Indian Education Commission, widely known as the Kothari Commission

(Kothari, 1966), was the first statutory body which highlighted the issue of
children with disabilities in the Plan of Action in 1964 (Alur, 2002; Puri &
Abraham, 2004). It strongly emphasized the inclusion of children with disabilities
into regular schools. Elaborating on the allocation of funds for special children,
the commission proposed that:

The Ministry of Education should allocate the necessary funds and NCERT
should establish a cell for the study of handicapped children. The principal
function of the cell would be to keep in touch with the research that is being done
in the country and abroad and to prepare material for teachers. (Kothari
Commission, 1966, p. 124)

The Commission emphasized that (a) the education of children with disabilities
should be “an inseparable part of the general education system” (Azad, 1996, p.
4) and (b) it should be organized, not merely on humanitarian grounds, but also
on grounds of utility (Azad, 1996; Puri & Abraham, 2004). Apart from this, the
Commission set specific targets for four categories of disability to be achieved by
1986: education for about 15 percent of the blind, the deaf, and orthopedically
handicapped and 5 percent of the mentally retarded (Panda, 1996; RCI, 2000). In
addition, the Commission strongly proposed inclusive education as a model for
the delivery of educational services emphasizing that not only was it cost-
effective but would also enhance mutual understanding between children with
and without disabilities (Panda, 1996; Puri & Abraham, 2004). However, it was
apparent that not much had been achieved in realizing the targets set by the
commission (Azad, 1996); despite the fact that subsequent to the Kothari
Commission recommendations, the 1968 National Education Policy was
formulated, which had suggested: (a) the expansion of educational facilities for
children with physical and mental disabilities; and (b) to develop integrated
program to enable children with disabilities to study in regular schools (Jha,
2002).

The 1970s

The Ministry of Welfare launched the scheme for Integrated Education for
Disabled Children (IEDC) to overcome some of the difficulties faced by the
special education system in the country, particularly, limited coverage and a lack
of qualified and trained teachers (Dasgupta, 2002). The Central Government took
an initiative to provide 50 percent financial assistance to the State Governments
to implement the IEDC in regular schools.
The objectives of the IEDC were as follows:

- the retention of children with disabilities in the regular school system

- preschool training for children with disabilities

- counseling for parents

One hundred percent financial assistance was offered by the central government
to: -

(i) provide facilities for children with disabilities for books and stationery,
uniform, transport allowance, readers’ allowance for blind children and boarding
and lodging charges for these children residing in hostels

(ii) set up the resource rooms

(iii) resource teacher support in the ratio of 1:8 in respect of all disabled children
except those with locomotor disabilities

(iv) survey for identification of disabled children and their assessment

(v) purchase and produce instructional materials

(vi) train and conduct orientation of resource teachers and school administrators

(vii) provide salary of persons working in an IEDC Cell at the state level to
implement and monitor the program.
Until 1990, the scheme was implemented in 14 states. In 1999, the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting reported that the scheme was being implemented
in 26 states and union territories helping over 53,000 students enrolled in 14,905
schools. It has been noted that among all the states, Kerala has shown
significant progress in implementing this scheme where 4,487 schools were
implementing IEDC and serving 12,961 children (Puri & Abraham, 2004). The
overall lack of success of this scheme was attributed to a lack of coordination
among various departments toward its implementation (Azad, 1996; Pandey &
Advani, 1997). Furthermore, issues cropped up such as lack of trained and
experienced teachers; lack of orientation among school staff on the difficulties
of children with disabilities and their educational needs; and non-availability of
equipment and educational materials were stated as major contributory factors
in the failure of the program in Maharashtra (Rane, 1983). Consequently, in
1992, the IEDC scheme was revised to overcome some of its limitations. Under
the revised scheme, schools involved in the inclusion of students with
disabilities were entitled to 100 percent assistance and a full funding provision
was made for nongovernment organizations to implement the scheme.

The 1980s

The IEDC scheme was followed by the seminal year of International Year for the
Disabled Persons (IYDP) in 1981. The United Nations emphasized that all
nations should frame legislation for people with disabilities and that was the
major thrust of the year. India was one of the first signatories to the resolution
proclaiming the year 1981 as the “International Year for the Disabled Persons.”
India demonstrated its commitment toward people with disabilities by endorsing
the objectives proposed in the resolutions of the United Nations General
Assembly (RCI, 2000). In response to the United Nations initiatives, the Indian
Government enacted a series of legislations and policies to advance integrated
education in the country (RCI, 2000). The Indian Government in its Sixth Five-
Year Plan (1980 À 1985) considered inclusive education for children with
disabilities as a priority. There were increased funding for inclusive education
and supplementary policies, legislation, and programs which showed the
government’s dedication in this sphere. In particular, the provision of inclusive
education as an integral part of the education system by the Indian Government
is reflected in the National Policy of Education (NPE) (Ministry of Human
Resource Development, 1986) and Project Integrated Education for the Disabled
(PIED) (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1987). The 1986 NPE was
a major initiative of the Indian Government toward inclusive education for
students with disabilities (RCI, 2000). It envisaged a meaningful partnership
between the union and states (National Council of Educational Research and
Training (NCERT), 2000). The policy outlined specific steps “to integrate the
physically and mentally handicapped with the general community as equal
partners, to prepare them for normal growth and to face life with courage and
confidence” (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1986).

The NPE, under its all-encompassing objective of “Equal Education

Opportunity,” proposed the following measures for the education of children with
disabilities:

(i) “wherever it is feasible, the education of children with motor handicaps and
other mild handicaps will be common with others

(ii) special schools with hostels will be provided, as far as possible at district
headquarters, for severely handicapped children

(iii) vocational training will be provided to the disabled with proper arrangements

(iv) teachers’ training programs will be reoriented, in particular for teachers of

primary classes, to deal with special difficulties of handicapped children, by
including a compulsory special education component in preservice training of
general teachers (Dasgupta, 2002);

(v) voluntary effort for the education of the disabled will be encouraged in every
possible manner” (Jha, 2002, pp. 93 À 94). The NPE highlighted various issues
in relation to children with disabilities, such as, the magnitude of the problem, the
approaches to service delivery, the scheme of human and material resources, and
nature of linkages between various agencies, in special education, which created
the platform for serving children with disabilities as well as highlighted
“education as the right of the disabled child” (RCI, 2000). NCERT, following the
guidelines of NPE 1986 and with the assistance of UNICEF and the Ministry of
Human Resource Development (MHRD), launched PIED for children with
disabilities to strengthen the implementation of the IEDC scheme (Dasgupta,
2002). However, this project did not include children with intellectual impairment
within its scope (RCI, 2000). This project was undertaken in 10 states/union
territories of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Mizoram, Nagaland,
Orissa, Rajasthan, and Delhi. One of the highlights of this project was the training
of regular classroom teachers to work with students with disabilities. The teacher
training programs were provided at three levels: Level I: All primary school
teachers in the project area underwent orientation training for the duration of one
week; Level II: Ten percent of the teachers participated in an intensive six-week
training to equip them to handle children with a disability; and Level III: Eight to
ten teachers from each block completed a one-year multi-category training
program provided by the colleges of NCERT. These teachers were subsequently
placed in each project area to function as resource teachers for a cluster of schools
(Dasgupta, 2002; Jha, 2002). According to Azad (1996), PIED, resulted in both
regular school teachers and students becoming more receptive toward students
with disabilities. Azad added that over 9,000 teachers received training to
implement integrated education programs. The success of the PIED project led to
an increased commitment by the Department of Education to integrate students
with disabilities (Jangira & Ahuja, 1993).

The 1990s

During this period, the GoI spurred various projects, schemes, and legislations to
reinforce inclusion programs. Some of the initiatives were: the National Policy of
Education-Plan of Action (NPE-POA) (1990 À 1992); the District Primary
Education Programme (DPEP) (Ministry of Human Resource Development,
1994); and perhaps the most significant of these initiatives was the passage of the
landmark legislation, The Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995. NPE (1986) was
revised in 1992 and is referred to as the NPE-POA (Ministry of Human Resource
Development, 1992). The revised act resulted from criticism of the 1986 NPE,
namely, due to its lack of commitment to the universalization of elementary
education for all children, especially for those with disabilities (Jangira & Ahuja,
1993). In contrast, the 1992 NPE-POA reemphasized the principle of integration
by stating that those children who may be enrolled in a special school for the
acquisition of daily living skills, plus curriculum skills, communication skills,
and basic academic skills should be subsequently integrated in regular schools
(Dasgupta, 2002). In addition, all basic education projects, such as, nonformal
education, adult education, vocational education, and teacher education schemes,
which are funded by the central government, should adhere to the principle of
integration (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1992). Two important
features pertaining to training issues in the NPE-POA (1992) were: (i) it focused
on the need for incorporating a module on the education of children with
disabilities as an integral component in training for educational planners and
administrators; and (ii) it upgraded teacher education, especially for primary
school teachers by introducing the “concept of teacher accountability” to the
students, their parents, the community, and to their profession as part of teacher
training programs. Furthermore, a resolution was made to set up District Institute
of Education and Training (DIET) to provide preservice and in-service education
to regular school teachers to enhance their skills to meet the needs of students
with disabilities in their classrooms. The NPE-POA made an impressive
commitment for universal enrollment by the end of the Ninth Five-Year Plan
(1997 À 2002) for children who could be educated in regular primary schools and
those who required being educated in special schools or special classes in regular
schools (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1992, p. 18).

The DPEP, a centrally sponsored scheme, was launched in 1994, with the ultimate
goal of achieving universal education. This program laid a special emphasis on
the integration of children with mild to moderate disabilities in line with the world
trends. The DPEP is noteworthy because it was the first time that primary
education had been delinked from the state (Alur, 2002). The DPEP in 1994 À
1995 with financial support from the World Bank, the European Community, and
the United Kingdom’s Overseas Development Agency, UNICEF, and the
Government of the Netherlands and the GoI became one of the largest programs
of the GoI in terms of funding. Approximately 40 billion rupees were budgeted
to fund this program in 149 districts, in 14 states.

In the last decade of the millennium, the turning point in the educational
provisions for children with disabilities in India was brought about by the
enactment of the landmark legislation titled, The Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act of 1995 (Ministry
of Law Justice and Company Affairs, 1996). The aforementioned Act was ratified
to give effect to the proclamation on the full participation and equality of people
with disabilities in the Asian and Pacific region to which India was a signatory at
the meeting to launch the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons 1993 À
2002 convened by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific
(ESCAP) held at Beijing on December 1 À 5, 1992. This Act, passed by the Indian
parliament seeks, inter alia, to create a conducive environment in the country to
facilitate equal participation and giving an opportunity to the disabled to join the
mainstream and contribute to the process of nation building. An essential aspect
of the legislation according to a number of authors (Kulakarni, 2000; Rao, 2000)
was the emphasis it placed on the inclusion of students with disabilities into
regular schools. For the first time, the inclusion of students with disabilities in
regular schools entered the realm of Indian jurisdiction. Consequently, one of the
essential features of this Act is that discrimination specifically against persons
with disabilities came under the purview of law through grievance redressed
machinery established at the central and state levels..
The National Trust Act was established as a statutory body under the Ministry of
Social Justice and Empowerment set up under the “National Trust for the Welfare
of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple
Disabilities” Act (Ministry of Law Justice and Company Affairs, 1999). This Act
further strengthened the PWD Act of 1995 and had provisions for students with
autism, intellectual impairment, and cerebral palsy.

The 2000s

A number of significant initiatives have taken place in the last decade that further
strengthened inclusion movement in India. Some of these initiatives included:
Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2000), The
Action Plan for Inclusion in Education of Children and Youth with Disabilities
(Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2005), National Policy for Persons
with Disabilities (Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2006), and
Inclusive Education of the Disabled at Secondary Stage (Ministry of Human
Resource Development, 2009a).

The Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (Education for All
movement) (SSA), which was implemented in 2000, set time-bound targets for
the achievement of Universal Elementary Education (UEE) by 2010. With a
premise of “zero rejection,” the program provided support for the inclusion of
children with disabilities in regular schools at the elementary level. SSA provided
an assistance of rupees, namely, 1,200 per special needs child per annum. This
money was allocated toward assistive devices, materials in alternative learning
formats, and anything else that would assist children with disabilities to be
included in mainstream classrooms. Under the scheme, over 2 million children
with disabilities were identified and over 1.5 million children with disabilities in
the age group 6 to 14 years were enrolled in regular schools. Under SSA, a
continuum of educational options, learning aids and tools, mobility assistance,
support services, etc. were made available to students with disabilities. This
included education through an open learning system and open schools, alternative
schooling, distance education, special schools, wherever necessary home-based
education, itinerant teacher model, remedial teaching, part time classes,
Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR), and vocational education.
The Action Plan for Inclusion in Education of Children and Youth with
Disabilities was an ambitious plan that was introduced by the Government to
promote the inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream schools. Under
this plan, the first level of intervention was offered through the Integrated Child
Development Services (ICDS) program. This program was designed for all
children aged 0 to 6 years, and it trained anganwadi workers to detect disabilities
in children at an early stage. In addition, this plan included a number of specific
objectives including the following: (a) providing home-based learning for persons
with severe, multiple, and intellectual disability, (b) modifying physical
infrastructure and teaching methodologies to meet the needs of all children
including children with special needs, and (c) providing training to preservice
teachers about inclusion concepts by including a module on inclusion in their
preservice teacher preparation programs and offering professional development
opportunities to existing teachers.
The National Policy for Persons with Disabilities (2006) recognized that persons
with disabilities are valuable human resource for the country and took the
initiative to create an environment that provided them with equal opportunities,
protection of their rights, and full participation in society. The focus of the policy
included prevention of disabilities, rehabilitation measures,
and physical rehabilitation strategies. More specifically it involved (a) early
detection and intervention, (b) counseling and medical rehabilitation, (c) the use
of assistive devices, (d) development of rehabilitation professionals, (e) education
for persons with disabilities, (f) economic rehabilitation of persons with
disabilities, (g) serving women and children with disabilities, (h) creating barrier
free environment, (i) issuing disability certificates, (j) providing social security,
(k) the promotion of NGOs, (l) carrying out research, (m) sports, recreation, and
cultural life, (n) making amendments and existing acts dealing with the PWDs.
SSA specifically supported inclusion of children with special needs at the early
childhood education and elementary education level and Inclusive Education for
the Disabled at the Secondary Stage (IEDSS) was introduced to provide
assistance to students with special needs at secondary level. The scheme for
IEDSS was therefore envisaged to enable adolescents with disabilities to have
access to secondary education and to improve their enrollment, retention, and
achievement in the general education system. Under the scheme every school was
proposed to be made “disabled-friendly.” IEDSS especially aimed to identify
students with disabilities at the secondary stage, provide 3,000 rupees per child
per annum for instructional materials, and set up model schools in every state to
develop replicable practices in inclusive education.
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act (Ministry of
Human Resource Development, 2009b) proposed free and compulsory education
to all children aged between 6 and 14 years. Also, the Act made it binding that all
public and private schools reserve 25 percent of their classroom seats for children
from “disadvantaged sections.” Section 3 of the law stated that “disadvantaged
sections” cover children with disabilities as specified under the PDA. In 2012, a
bill was passed by the parliament of India to amend the Act. This bill allowed
children with autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual impairment, and multiple
disabilities the benefit of choosing to study from home. The bill emphasized that
the “home schooling option” should not become an instrument for schools not
wanting to take these children in classrooms.
Source: Special Education International Perspectives: Practices Across the Globe
ISSUES IN SPECIAL AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN OTHER ASIAN
COUNTRIES

The Salamanca Framework for Action (1994) was integral to ASEAN’s

commitments towards inclusive education for children with disabilities. The
Framework proclaimed that education systems should meet the needs of the
wide diversity of children’s characteristics and needs. Children with disabilities must
have access to regular schools which should accommodate them within a
child-centred pedagogy. Although ASEAN countries recognise that inclusive
education is fundamental to the rights of every child, the conceptualisation of
inclusive education in ASEAN countries has yet to fully capture the principles of
inclusion enshrined in the Framework for Action.
ASEAN’s commitments towards inclusive education for children with disabilities
reflect in The Salamanca Framework for Action (1994). The Framework
proclaimed that education systems must be able to meet the needs of diverse
learners with varied characteristics. Children with disabilities must be allowed in
regular schools which should accommodate them using a child-centered
pedagogy. Although ASEAN countries recognize that inclusive education is
fundamental to every child’s rights, the conceptualization of inclusive education
in ASEAN countries has a long way to go to fully incorporate the principles of
inclusion as mentioned in the Framework for Action.
Inclusive education is regarded as the provision of education for children with
disabilities but there is limited emphasis on equipping regular schools with
adequate resources and support to provide this inclusive education.
■ In Malaysia, inclusive education entails the placement of children with disabilities
in an educational programme that is also attended by other children of a similar age.
A child’s suitability to attend a public school is determined by a three-month
schooling probation in the school (Special Education Regulation 2013; Zero Reject
Policy, 2019).
■ In Singapore, only children with mild special educational needs attend regular
schools while children who require higher levels of support and assistance attend
special schools (Ministry of Education, Singapore, 2019).
■ Thailand mandates that the government provides educational resources to
students of diverse needs but only those who can cope in regular schools are
deemed as having the right to education alongside other children (National
Education Plan, 2017-2036).
Inclusive education is regarded as the provision of education for children with
disabilities but there is limited emphasis on equipping regular schools with
adequate resources and support to provide this inclusive education.
■ In Malaysia, inclusive education entails the placement of children with disabilities
in an educational programme that is also attended by other children of a similar age.
A child’s suitability to attend a public school is determined by a three-month
schooling probation in the school (Special Education Regulation 2013; Zero Reject
Policy, 2019).
■ In Singapore, only children with mild special educational needs attend regular
schools while children who require higher levels of support and assistance attend
special schools (Ministry of Education, Singapore, 2019).
■ Thailand mandates that the government provides educational resources to
students of diverse needs but only those who can cope in regular schools are
deemed as having the right to education alongside other children (National
Education Plan, 2017-2036).
Inclusive education is aimed at an education for children with disabilities in
regular classrooms but there is not much initiative on equipping regular schools
with adequate resources and support to provide this inclusive education.

MALAYSIA

In Malaysia, children with disabilities are included with other children of similar
age in an educational program which is inclusive education. A child’s suitability
to attend a public school is determined by a three-month schooling probation in
the school (Special Education Regulation 2013; Zero Reject Policy, 2019).
Inclusive Education Program in Malaysia began in 1962, 1988 and 1999. These
differences in years are based on the type of target students with special needs. In
1962, the Inclusive Education Program was implemented for visually impaired
students (Tambi, 1997). In 1988, the program was implemented in Special
Education Integration Program with Learning Disabilities (Bosi, 2004). This
program is the largest contributor to increase enrollment in Inclusive Education
Program now. In 1999, Inclusive Education Programs was implemented in
technical schools (Shaari, 2005). In Malaysia, the Inclusive Education Program
is an education program for students with special needs who are educated in a
regular class at government schools or non-government schools for nearly all of
the day, or at least for more than half of the day (Malaysia, 2013). Studies related
to the Inclusive Education Program in Malaysia are not new. Several researchers
in previous studies have conducted it with a different focus. Some of the studies
include, “The Perceptions of Inclusive Practices in Malaysia” (Jelas, 2000);
“Malaysian Preschool Children with ADHD in Inclusive Setting” (Saad, 2003);
“Pilot Study Implementation of Inclusive Education in Malaysia (Bosi, 2004);
“Pilot Study on the Commitment and The Role of Teachers in The
Implementation of the Approach to Inclusive Education in Malaysia (Saad,
2005); “The Management of Inclusive Education Program in Technical and
Secondary Day School” (Shaari, 2005); and “A case study on Inclusive Education
Program Implementation for Autistic Pupils at a Primary School” (Muhammad
& Mahmud., 2010). In 2013, a guideline was issued by the Ministry of Education.
This guideline briefly describes the procedure for placing pupils in inclusive
classes, the age of pupils involved, the typical ratio of pupils and students with
learning disabilities in the inclusive classroom, and the responsibilities of relevant
parties (in school) in the implementation of Inclusive Education Program.

SINGAPORE

In Singapore, only children with mild special educational needs attend regular
schools while children who require higher levels of support and assistance attend
special schools (Ministry of Education, Singapore, 2019). Singapore formed a
dual education system that is now divided into two categories: mainstream
schools and special schools (Poon et al., 2013). Mainstream schools are
traditionally comprised of typically developing students while special schools are
responsible for educating students with disabilities. The MOE and National
Council of Social Services (NCSS) currently support 13 Volunteer Welfare
Organizations (VWO) in the administration of 20 special schools (MOE, 2015a).
As shown in Table 1, the special schools differ in programs and curriculum
designed to cater to distinct disability groups (e.g., autism, visual impairment,
multiple disabilities). In 2012, the MOE released Living, Learning, and Working
in the 21st Century: A Special Education Curriculum Framework (MOE, 2012)
providing special schools with a common curricular framework for service
delivery. Use of the framework is not mandated, however, and teachers and
schools can use a separate curriculum or plan their own based on student needs.
THAILAND

Thailand has made it compulsory that the government provides educational

resources to students of diverse needs but only those who can cope in regular
schools are deemed as having the right to education alongside other children
(National Education Plan, 2017-2036). In 2008, the Thai government approved
Education for Persons with Disabilities Act B.E. 2551[4]. The act states that
persons with disabilities have the right to education as follows: (1) free education
from birth or when a disability occurs, until the end of life, with education
technologies, accommodations, media, services and supports. (2) choose
educational services, institutions, systems, and types by considering ability,
interest, needs of the person with disability. (3) quality education with quality
standard and assurance including curriculum, instruction, assessment, appropriate
to the need of each type of disability and each person. The Education for Persons
with Disabilities Act does not provide a statement in support of education for
persons with disabilities in regular settings over special settings. However, for the
first time, the act states that persons with disabilities have the right to choose the
educational institutions or systems. Giving persons with disabilities the right to
choose is a significant progress as it empowers persons with disabilities in making
decisions regarding their own education.

PHILIPPINES

Research in the Philippines into inclusive education (Andaya et al., 2015)

emphasizes that the key to effective inclusion is the leadership support and the
positive attitude of teachers towards mainstreaming students with disabilities.
Another study in the Philippines shows that substantial teacher training is
required to support students with disabilities in regular classrooms. Although
teachers are ready to accept students with learning support needs, they feel that
they are ill-equipped and that inadequate resources will hinder effective inclusive
practices. Research conducted outside the capital, Manila, reports the limited
assessment strategies employed by teachers, hindering the adoption of inclusive
education to students with disabilities (Villamero &Kamenopoulou, 2018).

Inclusive education in the Philippines is being implemented by creating

programs that categorize learners according to their differences (DepEd, 2013,
2017). This action is considered exclusionary as it labels the learners with their
differences and segregates them from regular schooling (Slee, 2013). As pres-
ented by the data above, the large number of students with learning support
needs (including those with IDD) poses a challenge in Philippine education.
This suggests the greater need to support teachers in improving the achievement
of students in regular classrooms including students who are more at risk for
exclusion.
The Philippine Department of Education recently released the revised K to 12
basic education guidelines (DepEd, 2019). A new component of this document
is the Inclusive Education Policy Framework for Basic Education, released as
the Fifth Annex to the Basic Education Guidelines.
Inclusive education in the Philippines is being implemented by creating programs
that categorize learners according to their differences (DepEd, 2013, 2017). This
action is considered exclusionary as it labels the learners with their differences
and segregates them from regular schooling (Slee, 2013). A sizable number of
students with learning disabilities are a challenge in Philippine education. This
suggests the greater need to support teachers in improving the achievement of
students in regular classrooms including students who are more at risk for
exclusion. The Philippine Department of Education recently released the revised
K to 12 basic education guidelines (DepEd, 2019). The Inclusive Education
Policy Framework for Basic Education is the new area covered and released as
the Fifth Annex to the Basic Education Guidelines.
CHINA

Despite the increased attention to the preparation of special education teachers,

teachers with professional training in supporting students with disabilities in
mainstream class-rooms are still severely lacking, which can be more pronounced
in less developed areas (see, e.g., H. Wang & Wang, 2018; L. Wang & Huang,
2018; X.-M. Wang, 2018; Zhang, 2008).Notably, local universities/colleges,
professional associations, and parent organizations have started to train more
specialists in the past 5–7 years. In spite of these promising aspects, by
approximate calculation, using the figure of 2.46 million students with disabilities
aged 6–14 years, the rate for students with disabilities enrolling in compulsory
education in 2017 was 23.15%, which seems a long way to go toward the goal of
95% as stipulated in the second Special Education Promotion Plan (2017–2020)
(Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2017).
Source - https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/asiaresearch/documents/policy-briefs/sustainable-development-goals/policy-brief-sdg-tze-peng-
wong.pdf

INCLUSIVE EDUCATIONAL TRENDS IN NEW ZEALAND

“Inclusion is the philosophy that all people have the right to be included with
their peers in age-appropriate activities throughout life” (Miller & Schleien,
2006, p.11). The objectives of educational inclusion, according to Stainback,
Stainback, East, and SapponShevin (1994) is, “not to erase differences, but to
enable all students to belong within an educational community that validates
and values their individuality” (p.489). In New Zealand, special education is
well-defined in the Special Education Policy Guidelines as “the provision of
extra assistance, adapted programmes or learning environments, specialised
equipment or materials to support children and young people with accessing the
curriculum in a range of settings” (Ministry of Education, 2003).
Special Education Policy Principles

1. SEN learners have the same right, freedom and duties as their peers who
do not have special education needs.
2. The main emphasis of special education is to meet the unique individual
learning and developmental requirements of the learner.
3. Learners with identified special education needs have access to a fair
share of the available special education resources.
4. Coordination between parents and education providers is necessary in
overcoming the barriers to learning.
5. All special education resources are used in the most effective and
efficient way possible, taking into account parent’s choice and the unique
needs of the learners.
6. A learner's language and culture make for a vital context for learning and
development and must be taken into consideration in planning
programmes.
 7. SEN learners will have access to a continuous and unhindered education
from the time their needs are identified through to post-school options
(Ministry of Education, 2007b).

Assistance provided by the Ministry of Education to support institutions further

falls into two broadly defined categories (Ministry of Education, 2010b). The
first category is not related to individual learners but is rather supplied to the
school based on a roll and decile formula, or as in the case of the Enhanced
Programme Fund (EPF) regarding the number of learners identified as having
moderate special needs in the school. The second category assigns resources to
the school depending on the numerals regarding high or very high needs
learners attending that specific school.

There is a variety of available resources to support SEN learners. The resources

for SEN do not cover all of the assistance accessible by learners and schools for
SEN purposes, as some individually allocated resources are not publicized (e.g.,
Interim Response Fund, as well as additional support to some students covered
by ACC). Early childhood resourcing is for young individuals identified as
having high or very high needs and constitutes 5% of kids aged 0-5 years.
Moderate to high-level needs resourcing for children not eligible for Ongoing
and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme (ORRS) funding is provided to 4-6% of
school-aged students. Some assistance and resources in this division are
individually assigned, such as supplemental learning support and some are
school-based resources such as the Special Education Grant (SEG). The
Highest-Level Needs recognizes resources that are supplied to individual
learners identified as having very high to high level needs. 3% of school-aged
children approximately receive support in such a way.

The increasing percentage of kids with special educational needs attending their
local schools mirrors the trend of moving away from special schools, unit, or
special class placements, as a consequence from attitudinal and legislative
reforms towards inclusion over the last few years. However, NZ does still have
special institutes that assist and support students with high needs. These
comprises 28-day schools and 8 residential schools for students with hearing or
vision impairment, severe behavioural needs, or educational or social and
emotional needs with a sluggish rate of learning. In 2009, 0.4% of New
Zealand’s schoolchildren were enrolled in a special school. In contrast, the
OECD average was 2.53% of students. Some carefulness needs to be taken in
such instance when comparing such global data, as various countries will use
varied definitions for both students with special educational needs, and the
educational settings in which they learn.

An emerging and specialist training qualification was designed by the Ministry

of Education in an effort to respect the Ministry’s objectives and intention of
success for all (Ministry of Education, 2010b). The Post Graduate Diploma in
Specialist Teaching began in 2011 and teachers undertaking this qualification
specialise in one of the mentioned six areas:

 Autism Spectrum Disorder

 Blind and Vision Impairment
 Deaf and Hearing Impairment
 Early Intervention
 Gifted and Talented
 Learning and Behaviour

Studies have shown, time and again, that several educators in the classroom
setting, work hard to achieve the best possible results for the learners they edify.
However, they do not always possess the know-how or the support necessary to
acclimatize the curriculum to address the diverse needs of their learners. The
purpose is that this upcoming and new specialist teaching qualification will
amplify the pool of people with expert knowledge available to support students,
teachers and schools whenever required.

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA

The below mentioned guiding principles, based on the Australian Disability

Standards for Education (2005), reinforce the Australian government’s guidance
on planning personalised learning and support in schools:

1. Each and every learner can acquire knowledge

2. Every child has the right to a high-quality education

3. Skilled educators provide engaging and severe learning experiences for

the learners

4. A safe and stimulating environment conducive of learning is crucial to

allow students to explore and build their talents and achieve relevant
learning outcomes

5. For learners with disability and additional learning needs, practical

adjustments need to be made where required.

The significance of inclusion for every child is quite explicit in the Australian
Professional Standards for Teachers across a number of focus areas, in
particular: 1.5 Differentiate teaching to address the specific learning needs of
learners across the full range of abilities; 1.6 Strategies to assist full
participation of students with disability; and 4.1 Support student
participation (AITSL 2011).

The Australian Curriculum is inclusive in nature for learners

Students dealing with any form of disability are entitled to rigorous, relevant
and engaging learning prospects drawn from age-appropriate Australian
Curriculum content on the same basis as students without disability.

Throughout Australia, territories, states and systems apply inclusive practices,

after due comprehension, through the vision of their own curriculum, their
planning and reporting processes. At a nationwide level, the annual Nationally
Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability (NCCD
2020a) amasses data regarding Australian school students receiving a
modification to address any form/s of disability. This data collection requires a
strength-based approach to assist in resource allocation for special students.

The Disability Standards for Education necessitates that all Australian schools:

 safeguard learners with disability to enable them to access and participate

in education on the same foundation as students without disability

 make or provide ‘reasonable adjustments’ for students where necessary to

enable their access and participation

 offer reasonable adjustments in discussion with the learner and/or their

associates; for most learners, this implies to their parents, guardians or
carers.

The NCCD requests schools to reflect on the requirements of their learners and
to collect evidence of the level of adjustments they make to provide for their
unique and individual needs, along with providing information regarding the
extensive categories of students’ disabilities (physical, cognitive, sensory or
social/emotional). This permits institutes to plan in a better and strategic manner
and support teachers across the school to customise learning as per their
students’ requirements. Since 2018, the NCCD has assisted the Australian
Government in distributing funding/s by using this information to notify the
disability loading provided to schools.
As per the NCCD, approximately one in five (19.9%) schoolchildren across
Australia met with an alteration for their disability in 2019. As such, it is quite
transparent that inclusive education and supporting students with disability in
schools and classrooms is a top priority for all educators across institutes in
Australia. Students with disability are edified and instructed in a variety of
contexts as per the best interests of the student to ensure they can partake in a
range of educational proficiencies - specialist schools, specialist classes/units in
conventional schools and within typical classes in mainstream schools (Royal
Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with
Disability 2020). Such attention summarises values and ideologies of inclusion
and the duties of Australian teachers and school leaders in supporting full
participation of schoolchildren with disability in their schools. Rather than
deliberating on specific type/s of disability, the emphasis in this spotlight is on
the vast strategies intended at meeting all learners’ academic requirements.

Personalised learning and support

The main aim of inclusion is to develop processes of personalised learning and

support to aid students with disabilities in engaging with learning and schooling
in the same manner as their same aged counterparts.

Teaching practices

The accountability for instructing a student with disability is one shared by the
learner’s teachers, school and support systems. As part of applying pre-
confirmed ideas and adjustments, teachers are associated in the granular, regular
cycle of planning, teaching and monitoring their student’s development. As
schoolchildren come to the classroom along with a diverse range of learning
needs, educators need a richer set of strategies to draw upon to address these
necessities.

Working on an inclusive culture

Indications from a variety of sources continue to establish that learners having a
form of disability (and their families) go through exclusion, and in certain
instances, victimisation. For instance, an Australian survey conducted in 2016
comprising of over 70% of families of a learner with disability complained of
facing gatekeeping or experiencing restrictive practices in schools (Poed,
Cologon & Jackson 2020). It is concerning that physical, verbal and social
victimisation of learners with autism is described in responses to the Royal
Commission Education Issues paper (2020, p. 2).

Similarly, in a study conducted by Mission Australia, more than double the

number of young people (aged 15-19) with disability had faced some sort of
bullying in the last couple of years (43%) compared with individuals without
disability (19%). This involved physical bullying (e.g., hitting, punching) along
with cyberbullying (e.g., hurtful messages, pictures or comments). For these
young individuals, there is a noticeable and higher level of concern regarding
mental health, suicide, and bullying and emotional abuse when compared with
respondents who did not identify as living with a disability. This survey also
highlights that, young individuals with disability, are professionals in their own
lives and needs. When enquired about plans after school, the young individuals
living with disability showed much interest to attend university (48%), get a job
(40%), travel/have a gap year (24%), go to TAFE or college (20%), or get an
apprenticeship.

Programs and services designed for those with disability needs to be co-
designed by people with disability to provide a better perception. Schools have
the responsibility to play a key role in ensuring educational services and
programs supporting all the features of a young individual’s life. This includes
ratifying the Disability Standards for Education (2005), namely to “promote
recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that persons
with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the
community”. This goes past ensuring an environment conducive of learning,
one that is free from discrimination, harassment or victimisation on the grounds
of disability. It involves working to build a school community wherein all
members feel they fit in, are accepted by peers, can connect to friends and
supported by key adults. A positive lived experience of inclusion fosters a
school-wide culture of respect and belonging and provides a chance, quite
normally, for everyone in the community to know and celebrate the individual
differences. Teachers play a significant role in modelling expectations for
students with disability, which can influence the expectations and attitudes of
other students.

The aggregate of all the strategies and phases as mentioned above, when
implemented in an apt manner, provides for an inclusive school environment in
its truest sense, one where every student can get high quality educational
experiences.

As society, along with schools, work towards moving beyond historical patterns
of hiding or ignoring disability, it becomes all the more important to listen to all
the voices which includes learners with disability, their families, their peers and
those in the teaching sector, leadership and support roles. It should be
understood that each individual has unique learning needs and the challenge is
to find ways to best meet those, at the same time enlightening their experience
of learning, and offering the support each needs to build their confidence and do
their best.

OnLine Training (OLT) for SEN

Many Australian jurisdictions subscribe to this library of online supported

learning modules for educators who can register for courses including
Personalised learning, Understanding hearing loss, Speech, language and
communication needs, and Dyspraxia. There are numerous free short eLearning
courses for parents as well. (https://aus.oltinternational.net)

The Disability Standards for Education 2005 charge educators and institutional
groups to guarantee accessibility of education for learners with disability.
Accessibility implies going well beyond just access to school enrolment,
facilities, buildings, and education materials. It comprises access to the same
curriculum, teaching and educational opportunities as other schoolchildren of
similar age, and active participation in school activities such as excursions,
assemblies, or sports. Schools are also required to guard students with disability
from any kind of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. In total, schools
should be inclusive spaces where all students are afforded opportunities to
thrive.

Inclusive education encompasses leaders, teachers, students, their parents and

support teams working in sync to directly address the needs of each student. The
NCCD’s four elements of personalised learning, as mentioned below, form the
basis of an effective process to enhance the learning experience of learners with
disability:

1. consultation and collaboration with the pupil and/or parents or carers

2. evaluating and identifying the needs of the learner

3. providing reasonable adjustments to address the identified needs of the

student

4. monitoring and reviewing the impact of adjustments (NCCD 2020a)

Through careful observation or unhindered attention to the progress of student’s

learning, and the provision of proper adjustments, school leaders, teachers and
school communities can support learners in their endeavour to succeed.
Building a culture of inclusion is an important step towards the abolition of
discrimination against students with disability in Australian schools.