Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Inclusive Education andClassroom Practice
Summary Report
March 2003
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education
This report has been produced and published by the EuropeanAgency for Development in Special Needs Education
Extracts from the document are permitted provided a clearreference of the source is given.
All original reports from the 15 countries participating in thestudy, together with reports of all exchanges is available atwww.european-agency.org
This report is available in fully manipulable electronic formatsand in 12 other languages in order to better support access tothe information.
Editor: Cor J.W. Meijer, Project Manager for the EuropeanAgency for Development in Special Needs Education
Editorial support: Peter Walther-Müller, Working Partner of Switzerland
ISBN: 87-91350-23-9 (Print Version)
March 2003
European Agency for Development in Special NeedsEducation
Secretariat:Østre Stationsvej 33DK-5000 Odense C
DenmarkTel: +45 64 41 00 20Fax: +45 64 41 23 03
Brussels Office:3, Avenue Palmerston
BE-1000 BrusselsBelgium
Tel: +32 2 280 33 59Fax: +32 2 280 17 88
Web: www.european-agency.org
2
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................7
2 FRAMEWORK, GOALS AND METHODOLOGY OF THECLASSROOM AND SCHOOL PRACTICE PROJECT.............8
2.1 Framework....................................................................................8
2.2 Goals...............................................................................................9
2.3 Methodology..................................................................................9
3 SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS..................................................12
3.1 Conditions....................................................................................123.1.1 Teachers..........................................................................12
3.1.2 School..............................................................................14
3.1.3 External conditions..........................................................17
3.2 Effective practices.......................................................................193.2.1 The most challenging types of special needs..................20
3.2.2 Educational challenges within the context of inclusion....21
3.2.3 Effective practices within the context of inclusive
education..................................................................................21
4. CONCLUSIONS...................................................................33
EUROPEAN AGENCY WORKING PARTNERS ANDCLASSROOM PRACTICE NATIONAL EXPERTS.................34
3
SUMMARY
Based on an international literature review, case studies in 15European countries, expert visits in seven countries as well asvarious discussions involving experts and the agency workingpartners, a number of central ideas regarding the developmentof inclusive classrooms have been identified. It would beimpossible and naïve to take these results as precise steps forpolicy-makers, professionals or practitioners. There are manyways to Rome and in this sense adaptations to local andregional circumstances are always necessary. At best, thefindings could be regarded as possible strategies for improvinginclusion within schools. In addition, the country case studyreports and the reports of the exchange site visits provideelaborations upon some of these identified strategies.
A first conclusion of the study is that case studies and expertdiscussions reveal that inclusive classrooms do existthroughout European countries. The evidence also suggeststhat what is good for pupils with special educational needs(SEN) is good for all pupils.
A second main finding is that behaviour, social and/oremotional problems are the most challenging within the areaof inclusion of pupils with SEN.
Thirdly: dealing with differences or diversity in the classroomforms one of the biggest problems within European classrooms.
On the basis of the single, selective case studies and the sub-mitted country reviews, the following conditions seem to play acentral role for inclusive classroom practices:
• Inclusion depends on teachers’ attitudes towards pupilswith special needs, on their capacity to enhance socialrelations, on their view on differences in classrooms andtheir willingness to deal with those differences effectively.
4
• Teachers need a repertoire of skills, expertise,knowledge, pedagogical approaches, adequate teachingmethods and materials and time if they are to addressdiversity effectively within their classrooms.
• Teachers need support from inside and outside theschool. Leadership on the level of the head teacher,school districts, communities and governments is crucial.Regional co-operation between agencies and parents isa prerequisite for effective inclusion.
• Governments should express a clear view on inclusionand provide adequate conditions, which allows a flexibleuse of resources.
The findings regarding classroom practices reveal five groupsof factors that are effective for inclusive education:
Co-operative teaching Teachers need support from, and to be able to co-operate with, a range of colleagues within the school andprofessionals outside the school.
Co-operative learningPeer tutoring or co-operative learning is effective incognitive and affective (social-emotional) areas of pupils’learning and development. Pupils who help each other,especially within a system of flexible and well-consideredpupil grouping, profit from learning together.
Collaborative problem-solvingParticularly for teachers who need help in includingpupils with social/behavioural problems, a systematicway of approaching undesired behaviour in theclassroom is an effective tool for decreasing the amountand intensity of disturbances during the lessons. Clearclass rules and a set of borders, agreed with all thepupils (alongside appropriate incentives) have proven tobe effective.
5
Heterogeneous groupingHeterogeneous grouping and a more differentiated ap-proach in education are necessary and effective whendealing with a diversity of pupils in the classroom. Tar-geted goals, alternative routes for learning, flexible in-struction and the abundance of homogenous ways ofgrouping enhance inclusive education.
Effective teachingFinally, the arrangements mentioned above should takeplace within an overall effective school/teachingapproach where education is based on assessment andevaluation, high expectations, direct instruction andfeedback. All pupils, and thus also pupils with SEN,improve with systematic monitoring, assessment,planning and evaluation of the work. The curriculum canbe geared to individual needs and additional support canbe introduced adequately through the IndividualEducational Plan (IEP). This IEP should fit within thenormal curriculum.
6
1 INTRODUCTION
This report contains an overview of the findings of theClassroom and School Practice project. The project is focusedon revealing, analysing, describing and disseminatingclassroom practices in inclusive settings in such a way thatEuropean teachers can implement inclusive practices on awider scale in their classrooms. Furthermore, it addressesdecision-makers within the educational system by presentingthe necessary conditions for teachers to become inclusive intheir practice.
The project is mainly focused on primary education; however,an extension to the secondary phase is now being conducted.
The study consists of three phases. In the first phase aliterature review has been conducted in the participatingcountries in order to reveal the current state of the art ofeffective inclusive practices. In addition, an international (mainlyAmerican) literature review was conducted in this phase. Thispart of the project addresses the question: which practices haveproven to be effective in inclusive education?
In the second phase, an attempt has been made to selectconcrete examples of good practices and to describe them in asystematic way. In the final phase, exchanges between differentcountries have been organised in such a way that transfer ofknowledge and practices are maximised.This report is the synthesis of all three phases.
Readers interested in the documents that form the basis of thisreport are referred to the Inclusive Education and ClassroomPractice section of the Agency website: www.european-agency.org /IECP/IECP_intro.htm where the followingdocuments can be found:
1. The International Literature Review on classroompractices
2. The reports of the Exchanges in seven countries 3. The Country Reports from the participating 15 countries
7
2 FRAMEWORK, GOALS AND METHODOLOGY OF THECLASSROOM AND SCHOOL PRACTICE PROJECT
2.1 FrameworkThe focus of the study is effective classroom practices withininclusive education. Generally, it can be assumed that inclusiveeducation mainly depends on what teachers do in classrooms.Of course, what teachers do in classrooms depends on theirtraining, experiences, beliefs and attitudes as well as on thesituation in class, school and factors outside the school (localand regional provision, policy, financing and so on). However, itis the teacher that has to implement inclusion into daily lifepractice and therefore (s)he is the decisive factor.
The way in which teachers realise inclusion within theclassroom can take different forms. It is the goal of this study todescribe these various approaches and to make them availablefor others. To identify various models of dealing with differencesin classrooms (also known as ‘differentiation’, ‘multi-levelinstruction’ and other terms) thus forms the main task of theproject. However, it should be clearly noted that the existenceof different models of dealing with differences in classroomsdepends not only on teacher factors but also on the way inwhich schools organise their educational provision and on otherexternal factors.
The main question for this study is: How can differences in theclassroom be dealt with? Additionally, it also attempts toprovide an answer to the question: which conditions arenecessary for dealing with differences in classrooms?
The target group for this study is defined in terms of all thosewho can influence practices in education. Educational practicesdepend heavily upon teachers and other professionals. Theyare the group who can implement changes that are stated bypolicy-makers and educational advisors. The centre of attentionfor this study is therefore upon the work of teachers. However,we try to reach them in an indirect way.
8
It can be assumed that they mostly learn from significant keypeople in their immediate environment: colleagues andprofessionals in or around the school. Thus, the target group isteachers but, for dissemination strategies, the emphasis shouldbe placed upon the professionals in or around schools who aresignificant for teachers.
2.2 GoalsConsequently, the main task of this study is to provide keypeople with knowledge about possibilities for handlingdifferences in the classroom and to inform them about theconditions necessary for the successful implementation ofthese. The project attempts to answer a few questionsconcerning inclusive education. In the first instance, it is arguedthat an understanding of what works within inclusive settings isnecessary. Furthermore, it is felt that a deeper comprehensionof how inclusive education is working is needed. Thirdly, it isimportant to know why it is working (the conditions).
The study was confined to the primary school level, i.e. the agegroup of 7–11 years old. A replication of the study will focus onthe secondary school phase.
2.3 MethodologyDifferent types of activities have contributed to answering thequestions. As a first step, the study has resulted in a report witha literature-based description of the different models and theconditions necessary for those models. Both the methodologyand the results of the literature reviews are describedextensively in the publication: Inclusive Education and EffectiveClassroom Practice, which was published as an electronic andfree downloadable book (Middelfart, 2001). The goal of theliterature phase was to reveal what was working in inclusivesettings. The emphasis is here on how teachers manage tocope with a variety of pupils including pupils with SEN. Thisimplies a strong focus on the classroom practice. However, asmentioned before, external conditions should not be overlookedwhen studying classroom practices.
9
For the second phase, the case studies, the focus is on how itis working and what is needed to get it working. It was agreedthat countries select two examples of practice, one of whichconcerns approaches towards pupils with challengingbehaviour. The member countries of the European Agencyhave analysed examples of good practices within their countriesand have described these examples from ‘inside out’. Theyhave been asked to focus on the classroom practice itself andto point mainly at factors within the curriculum. However, it isnecessary to describe not only the characteristics of theprogramme, but also the context of and conditions for theprogramme: especially those conditions and context-variablesthat are regarded as necessary for implementing andmaintaining the programme. These conditions and contextvariables may lie at several levels: the teacher (the necessaryteacher skills and knowledge, the necessary teacher attitudesand motivation), the classroom, the school, the school team, thesupport services, financial and policy issues and so on. Thedescriptions that were submitted did indeed take these intoaccount. At this second stage of the project, examples of goodpractice in 15 countries have been selected, described andanalysed.
Finally, through a programme of exchanges experts havevisited, analysed and evaluated examples of practice in order toreveal the most important features of innovative classroompractices. Through visits to different locations where inclusiveeducation is practised and discussions with the expertsparticipating in these visits, a more qualitative and broadercomprehension of what, how and why inclusion is working hasbeen achieved.
The following countries have been selected as hosts for theexchanges: Ireland, Austria, Germany, Iceland, Finland,Greece, Belgium (French Community).
The exchanges were held in autumn 2001.
10
Different sources of information are used for the presentation ofthe findings. In the first place the findings of the literaturereviews (both national and international), secondly, thedescription of all the sites in the 15 participating countries andthirdly the information regarding the exchange activities wereused for this goal. In this way a holistic approach to the issue ofclassroom practice was achieved, relying on both research anddaily practice.
11
3 SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS
3.1 ConditionsAs pointed out before, our focus is on the classroom. The goalof this study was to find approaches within the curriculum thatwork within inclusive classes. The goal was not to provide a de-tailed overview of all the conditions that should be met in orderto implement inclusive education, nor to draft the steps thatshould be taken in order to ‘build’ an inclusive school. Our in-terest was to focus on the features of an inclusive curriculumand to demonstrate these for a wider audience. But, having saidthis, inclusive education does not take place in a vacuum andthe study has gathered information concerning the prerequisitesfor inclusive education. Not only the (research) literature thathas been studied, but also – and mainly – examples of goodpractices and discussions between experts, revealed that anumber of clear conditions needed to be met. Below an indicat-ive overview of the necessary conditions is presented.
3.1.1 TeachersOf course, inclusion largely depends on teachers’ attitudestowards pupils with special needs, on their view on differencesin classrooms and their willingness to deal with thosedifferences effectively. Generally, the attitude of teachers hasbeen put forward as a decisive factor in making schools moreinclusive. If class teachers do not accept the education of allpupils as an integral part of their job, they will try to ensure thatsomeone else (often the specialist teacher) takes responsibilityfor pupils with SEN and will organise covert segregation in theschool (e.g. the special class).
Iceland:‘In order to guarantee a minimum of positive teacherattitude, the teacher has to accept having a severelyhandicapped pupil in his class.’
12
‘Another requirement which the school head regarded asnecessary was that a teacher should be prepared tohave a pupil in her class who was severely mentallyretarded and to be prepared to work with anotherprofessional present in all classes.’
The case studies suggest that teachers who are committed toinclusion often refer to pupils with severe educational needs aspositive assets to the classroom rather than ‘problems toovercome’.
However, positive attitudes are not enough for dealing withdifferences in classrooms. Teachers also need adequatemethods and materials but also the time available for instructionand knowledge and skills acquired through training (ITT andIST) and experience. All these are relevant when handlingdifferences in classrooms.
Teaching pupils with special needs in the mainstreamclassroom no doubt implies adaptation of the standardcurriculum. Teachers are confronted with the question of how toinstruct these pupils. Pupils with special needs may requiremore instruction time or other learning methods andprofessional knowledge. In that case, teachers will feel the needfor more time, materials and knowledge. Generally, this can beachieved in two ways: by an increase in resources (more timeallocated to teachers) or by re-arranging available resources(alternative use of available time).
Increasing available time (e.g. through the use of educationalassistants) or enhancing teachers' professional knowledge (e.g.by IST, colleagues or consultation teams) are ways ofincreasing the necessary resources for inclusive education, butteachers may also need to rearrange available resourcesacross the pupils in the classroom. Teachers can, for example,encourage above-average pupils to work more independently,to work with computers and to help each other (peer tutoring),so that more teaching time is left for pupils with special needs.
A final important issue at the teacher and classroom level is ateacher’s sensitivity and skills in order to enhance significant
13
social relations between pupils. Particularly for pupils with SEN(and their parents), meaningful interactions with non-disabledpeers are of the utmost importance. The teacher should havethe right attitude, but also needs a good understanding of howto develop these interactions and relationships.Greece:
The case of A (behavioural and developmental disorder– autism; 14 years; boy; 4th grade primary school). Thecase study describes the following output of theinclusion, pointing to he crucial importance of socialinclusion into the mainstream class and the essentialcontribution of teachers (and other staff) to achieve thisinclusion.
'A. shows a full response to the programme. His schoolsocial life has improved amazingly within the last sixyears. It has been well accepted by everyone involvedthat this is due to the long duration of the programme,where he always had his support teacher: on the onehand to encourage him in a wide range of activities, andon the other hand to inspire him with confidence. Apartfrom the total acceptance by the peer group, A. hasmade friends and participates in school activities such asgames and theatre plays.’
‘None of the pupils has expressed negative feelingsabout A’s presence in the class. On the contrary, theyseem to have thrived on the challenge of activities andteaching strategies implemented to help A. and to havebecome more sensitive to other people’s difficulties.’
3.1.2 SchoolIt is clear that caring for pupils with SEN is not only a questionof the necessary resources at classroom level. It should berecognised that the organisational structure at the school levelalso determines the amount and type of resources teachers canuse in teaching pupils with special needs. Flexible support from
14
inside the school, for example through colleagues, the headteacher, and/or a specialist teacher is needed.
Support can also be made available through other supportservices such as school advisory centres or special visitingsupport staff. In some countries co-operation between(mainstream) schools means additional resources can beprovided for the care for pupils with special needs. It is clearthat the creative strengths, knowledge and expertise, as well asthe facilities of a group of schools, exceed those of a singleschool. The ability of co-operating schools to find ways tohandle special needs may be essential for integrating pupilswith special needs into mainstream settings. Some of the projects that have been described and analysedfor this study pointed at the fact that co-operation betweenschools is crucial.
Too great a degree of autonomy may threaten developmenttowards inclusive schools. The support for pupils with specialneeds should be co-ordinated between schools, especiallywhen the size of schools is generally small.
Austrian exchange report:‘In general terms we doubt whether school-basedautonomy can respond to the needs of the weakermembers of society, if there are no clear-cut directivesset by the law or the school inspectorate.’
‘Although the autonomy of schools is generally viewedas a highly positive factor (encouraging staff at schoolsand teacher training institutions to become more self-reliant), the definition of quality standards and thus amandatory approach for the inclusion of pupils andadolescents with SEN is considered a necessity. Toomany diverging interests are an obstacle to the successof inclusion, if schools are allowed excessive leeway.’
Special attention should be given to the role of the head teacheror senior managers. Not only is the head teacher important forthe provision of all kinds of support to teachers, but also his or
15
her leadership is a decisive factor in inclusive education. He orshe is often the key person that can implement changes inschools and initiate new developments and processes. Themain responsibility here is to organise a team approach and tomaintain focus on key issues.
The use of resources within schools should be organised in aflexible way. Our examples of good practice demonstrated thatschools should have many degrees of freedom in usingfinancial resources according to their own wishes and views.Bureaucracy should be avoided to the largest extent and alsopupils with no or minor special needs should be able to profitfrom resources within classes or schools if needed or wished bythe teacher.
Sometimes it is necessary to pay attention to small groups ofindividuals with special needs. The evidence suggest that somewithdrawal session may, in fact, enable a pupil to be maintainedin the mainstream classroom and teachers do sometimes makeuse of arrangements outside the classroom. It is Important thatthese arrangements have a natural and flexible character andare not only used for certain pupils with special needs but also,occasionally, for all pupils in the classroom.
The criteria that should be used when offering part-time specialprovision to pupils are that they should be: (1) as early aspossible; (2) as flexible as possible (if one approach is notworking, choose another); (3) as ‘light’ as possible (withoutnegative side effects); (4) as close as possible (thereforepreferable within the mainstream class and within themainstream school); and (5) as short as possible.
The involvement of parents in inclusive schools should not beunderestimated. They should not only be seen as ‘clients’ ofeducation but also as ‘participants’. It is crucial that their needscan be addressed as well and they often need a person uponwhom they can rely. They should have a significant role andvoice and be informed concerning all details of the planning,
16
implementation, evaluation and the structure and content of theco-operation, especially regarding co-operation between theschool, outside agencies and other professionals.
Furthermore, parents play an active role in the development,implementation and evaluation of IEPs. On some occasionsthey can serve as ‘a pair of extra hands’ in or outside theclassroom.
3.1.3 External conditionsPolicy and fundingInclusion in schools is greatly supported where there is a clearnational policy on inclusion. For the process of implementationof inclusive education, the government should firmly supportinclusion and make clear what the goals are for the educationalcommunity.
Furthermore, governments should create the conditions forinclusion in education. More specifically, funding arrangementsshould facilitate inclusive education and not hinder them.Necessary provisions should be made available in a flexibleand co-ordinated way. Funding arrangements and theincentives that are included in these arrangements play adecisive role as was demonstrated in the Agency studyFinancing of Special Needs Education (1999).
The case study of the UK refers to ‘perverse incentives’:‘that is, the situation whereby schools that are using thefull capacity of existing resources in terms of teacherexpertise, strategies and time, and thereby containingpupils’ SEN and assisting their learning are indirectly“punished” for this by being ineligible for additionalresourcing on account of the lack of evidence that thepupil’s needs are sufficiently severe. This appeared to bethe case to a certain extent at this school. Through therigorous application, monitoring and review ofprogrammes, pupils were maintained in mainstreamclasses when, in other situations, they might not havebeen.’
17
The exchange report of Belgium (French Community) alsopoints to the problem of the differences of funding betweenspecial and mainstream schools as an obstacle for inclusiveeducation:
‘The difficulty which one faces is that integrated pupilsare likely to lose the benefit of the means compared toplacement in special schools.’
A so-called throughput-model at the regional (municipality) levelseems to be the most successful funding option. In such amodel, budgets for special needs are delegated from centrallevel to regional institutions (municipalities, districts, schoolclusters). At regional level, decisions are taken as to how themoney is spent and which pupils should benefit from specialservices. It appears to be advisable that the institution, whichdecides upon the allocation of special needs budgets, first canmake use of independent expertise in the area of special needsand secondly has the tools to implement and maintain specialiststrategies and services.
It is apparent that inclusion can be more easily achieved withina decentralised funding model as compared to a centralisedapproach. From a centrally prescribed plan, too much emphasismay be put on the organisational characteristics of that specificmodel without inclusive practices being realised. Localorganisations with some autonomy may be far better equippedto change the system. Therefore, a decentralised model is likelyto be more cost-effective and provide fewer opportunities forundesirable forms of strategic behaviour. Nevertheless, it isobvious that the central government concerned has to specifyclearly which goals must be achieved. Decisions concerning theway in which such goals are to be achieved may than be left tolocal organisations.
LeadershipLeadership is of the utmost importance. Policy-makers, not onlyat a national level, but at the level of communities, school
18
districts or school clusters, have an essential role in translatinggovernmental policy into practice and implementing it. Alsowithin school leadership there is a prerequisite for effectiveinclusive education.
Our study shows that promotional activities may be required toenhance the motivation and enthusiasm of all parties involved.Inclusion needs support from outside the school and, especiallyin early phases of development, the promotion anddemonstration of good practices may allay fears and removescepticism.
Regional co-ordination and co-operationOur findings show that co-ordination and co-operation betweenall involved agencies (health, social, educational, psychological)outside the school and between the school and parents is to thebenefit of pupils with SEN. Additional help should be provided ina planned and orchestrated way.
3.2 Effective practices
The countries that participated in the classroom practice projecthave, albeit in very diverse ways, reported about their bestpractices in inclusive education. In this chapter the synthesis offindings will be presented alongside three topics. In the firstplace it is important to reflect systematically upon the type ofspecial needs that bring the most challenges to the dailypractice of teachers and other professionals. Here the focus ison the characteristics of pupils who are being included (orexcluded). In other words: which groups of pupils cause themost problems within mainstream settings?
Secondly, it is intended to provide an overview of thechallenges within education processes itself: what are the main(educational) problems in countries concerning the issue ofclassroom practice within mainstream classrooms that includepupils with SEN? Countries have reported an extensive
19
overview of the current challenges within education whenattempts are made to achieve inclusive education.
Thirdly, and this refers to the main task of the current study,countries have provided an answer to the question related tothe educational practices and factors that were found to beeffective for inclusive education. The findings regarding theexamples of good practice contributed to a more detailed focuson how these interventions and factors are being shaped anddealt with in daily practice.
3.2.1 The most challenging types of special needsIn answering the question concerning the most challengingtypes of special needs, countries have reported in a notsurprisingly unanimous way. Behaviour, social and/or emotionalproblems are mentioned by almost all countries as being thebiggest challenge within the area of inclusion of pupils withSEN. This includes problems relating to unmotivated pupils andto disaffection.
Of course quite a number of countries report difficulties inanswering the question that is put in terms of pupilcharacteristics. Within most special education policies such anapproach is rejected in favour of a more environment-interactiveapproach to SEN. It is within the educational context wherechallenges are being met and where the need for interventionsis centred, instead of putting child characteristics at the centreof the debate. Although this position is in accordance with othercurrent views on special needs, a view that is shared widelywithin member states of the European Agency, the WorkingPartners reported the fact that the biggest challenges relate topupils with behavioural problems.
Some countries referred to other – and sometimes very specific– types of special needs that were considered to be challengingwithin the area of inclusive education. Examples of these wereADHD, dyslexia, autism, specific learning and writing difficulties,mental and intellectual disabilities, severe hearing impairments
20
and multiple disabilities. However, only a few countriesmentioned these, whereas the position of pupils with all sorts ofbehavioural and emotional difficulties was generally reported asbeing challenging.
3.2.2 Educational challenges within the context of inclusionHandling or dealing with differences or diversity in theclassroom forms one of the biggest challenges within Europeanclassrooms. Inclusion can be organised in several ways and ondifferent levels, but in the end, the teacher has to deal with alarger diversity within his or her class and has to adapt orprepare the curriculum in such a way that the needs of allpupils, those with special educational needs (SEN), giftedpupils and their peers, are sufficiently met. In other words,handling diversity is the key issue at the classroom level. Whendealing with differences in the class, teachers need an extrapair of hands or extra support from either colleagues (or specialeducation teachers) or other professionals. At times a pupil withSEN needs specific help or instruction that cannot be given bythe teacher during the daily classroom routine. Here otherteachers and support personnel come on to the scene and theissue of flexibility, good planning, co-operation and teamteaching forms a challenge. This is not only relevant at the levelof the classroom in the case of co-operative teaching, but alsoon the school level. In some cases professionals from regionalsupport services are needed and this amplifies the need forflexibility, good planning, co-operation and co-ordination.Inclusive education implies more than just dealing with diversityin classrooms. It leads to the challenges of co-teaching(classroom level), team teaching and the need for good co-operation between teachers on the school level and co-ordination with professionals from other support services.
3.2.3 Effective practices within the context of inclusiveeducationThe study points to at least five groups of factors that seem tobe effective for inclusive education. Both the literature studyand information regarding examples of good practicedemonstrated the importance of these factors. Generally,findings in literature and opinions of experts show that pupils
21
(with and without special needs) and teachers do profit from theapproaches elaborated below.
Co-operative teachingThe study reveals that inclusive education is enhanced byseveral factors than can be grouped under the heading of co-operative teaching. Teachers need to co-operate with and mayneed practical and flexible support from a range of colleagues.Both for the development of academic and social skills of pupilswith SEN this seems to be an effective way of working. Clearly,additional help and support needs to be flexible, well co-ordinated and planned.
The Norwegian description reveals that the teams dealing witha class are a very important element. The work with a class ishighly co-ordinated.
‘The teachers are distributed with one team at each formlevel so that the pupils don’t have too many adults torelate to. The team covers all subject areas at each formlevel. This is one of the measures designed to create asecure framework around the pupils. Teachers withsupplementary training in special education are alsoplaced in these teams, and do not form a segregatedspecial education team.
‘After two and a half years, one of the teachers describedday-to-day life as follows: “One must always think veryconsciously about what one is doing. Instruction isstructured with fixed routines. The teachers must be veryaware of where the different pupils have their place inthe classroom. Instruction is teacher-controlled; there arefew free activities in the course of one teaching period.There must always be an adult present. If the group isdivided into two groups, one adult must be present inboth groups.”’
Switzerland:
22
‘The resource teacher prepares materials, which theclass teacher can use if necessary. In addition there arediscussions/meetings with parents, the principal of thespecial education school, the class teacher and theresource teacher. Good personal relationships among allconcerned are a prerequisite for the success of thisintegrative project.’
Luxembourg: ‘Because of other children with problems integrated inthis class (children with mental deficiency, learningdisabilities and behavioural problems), this class is avery difficult one and the social pedagogue of the SREAsupports it for 10 hours per week, working with all thechildren who have special needs. During the shortphases of introduction of a new subject by the teacher,the support teacher takes care that children listen to theteacher, pay attention and understand what the teacherwants them to do. After this phase, the children have towork individually.’
‘The support teacher thinks that it is very important, thattwo persons are working in this classroom: there is moretime to work with each child individually and if one of thetwo teachers has a problem with a child, it is possible forhim/her to solve this conflict.’
Co-operative learningThe study shows that peer tutoring or co-operative learning iseffective in both cognitive and affective (social-emotional) areasof pupils’ learning and development. Pupils that help eachother, especially within a system of flexible and well-consideredpupil grouping, profit from learning together. Moreover, thereare no indications that the more able pupil suffers from thissituation, in terms of missing new challenges or opportunities.The findings point to progress within both the academic andsocial areas.
Netherlands:
23
‘Co-operative learning is even possible with the SENpupil being in the position of the “tutor”. The pupil withserious behaviour problems (named ’A’) also acts as atutor for younger pupils. Contrary to first expectations Ais extremely popular with his younger pupils. It is thetutor’s role to select a task and make sure that the groupstarts working and that eventual difficulties are takencare of. Since groups of pupils are working everywherein the school, it looks a bit chaotic and certainly in thebeginning A did not do anything. However, with someguidance A does a good job being a tutor.’
Portugal:‘Both class teacher and support teacher workcollaboratively full time in the class. They also createindividual curriculum activity planning for every child,including N. In case of need, all educational staffparticipate in finding the best way to solve a problem; attimes other actors can be involved. N receives greatsupport from his colleagues. Some of the work done withN is collaborative, and progress can already be seen.’
24
Belgium (Flemish Community): ‘This support teacher helps all the schoolteachers indealing with pupils with socio-emotional problems andbehavioural problems in general and especially with theinclusion of J (the boy with behavioural problems).’
‘The way the classroom is divided into eight sections,gives children the possibility of working in small,heterogeneous groups. The pupils help each other.During playtime all the children play together and learn totake each other into account. Especially for J, the otherchildren need to be more tolerant. On the other hand, theother children are in some ways a good example for J.’
Collaborative problem-solvingParticularly for teachers who need help in including pupils withsocial/behavioural problems, findings in our countries and in theinternational literature review show that a systematic way ofapproaching undesirable behaviour in the classroom is aneffective tool for decreasing the amount and intensity ofdisturbances during the lessons. Clear class rules and a set ofborders, agreed with all the pupils (alongside appropriateincentives and disincentives) have proven to be effective.
Iceland:A behaviour modification system is introduced andconsequently applied. Although the system wasintroduced on the initiative of one teacher, it illustratesthe importance of a well-co-ordinated implementation ofmethods, because behaviour modification won’t workotherwise.
‘Here we focus on an eight-year-old boy (P) who iscompleting his third year at school. He has beendiagnosed with ADHD, by medical diagnosis, and is onsome medication for hyperactivity. He lacksconcentration and has a short attention span in lessons.The teacher has to devote considerable time to keepinghis attention on his work, so that he will not fall behind in
25
his studies. He remains with the class throughout, and isnot removed from the classroom for special lessons.’ As P has a very disruptive influence on other pupils, shetried a behavioural modification system, which hasproved very effective.
‘If he loses two stars in one week, he is not allowed toparticipate in the last period on Friday, a free periodwhen the class does various enjoyable things.’
The UK literature report: ‘Circle time is widely practised in UK primary schools. Itinvolves regular timetabled slots in the curriculum whenteaching groups are given the opportunity to reflect onand share experiences, concerns, strengths andweaknesses and to discuss, and arrive at solutions to,issues of concern to the group. It is used to enhancegroup interaction and empathy, and to combat bullying(by encouraging children to respect their peers).Emphasis is put on strict adherence to rules (e.g. nocontribution must be derided, contributions should bemade in turn), with the group formulating the rules.’
France: ‘F systematically did the opposite of what the teacherasked him to do. This behaviour, characterised by cuttingoneself off from others, gradually extended to hisrelations with the other children. In the classroom hebecame increasingly disruptive, he spoke loudly,provoked the other pupils, opposed everything,constantly moved around, and threatened to takerevenge on anyone who attempted to stop histransgressions. He reached a stage at which he opposeseverything in the school, whatever the activities orteacher concerned. The interventions were intended, among things, toensure that:
26
• F would begin to be able to deal with rules withoutfeeling that he is danger;
• F would begin to be able to accept a minimumamount of rules; and
• to help him to be able to work while respecting therules that have been fixed.
These mediations were carried out in a re-educationalframework, which presupposes precise organisation andrules.
Organisation: regular sessions of a fixed duration, eachsession including a time for choice of mediation, a timefor carrying it out, and a time to speak about what hasbeen felt.
Rules: to do no harm to himself, to do no harm to anyoneelse, not to damage equipment, to put everything inorder when the session is over.
The class teacher reported progress in learning, andespecially less conflictual communication with peers. Feven took the liberty of ‘moralising’ with other pupils. Onthe whole, he drew less attention to himself, acceptedpenalties when he was aware of having broken animportant rule, and no longer spoke of revenge.
Heterogeneous groupingHeterogeneous grouping and a more differentiated approach ineducation are necessary and effective when dealing with a di-versity of pupils in the classroom. Targeted goals, alternativeroutes for learning, flexible instruction and the abundance of ho-mogenous ways of grouping enhance inclusive education. Thisfinding is of high importance given the expressed needs ofcountries within the area of handling diversity withinclassrooms. Of course, heterogeneous grouping is also a pre-requisite for co-operative learning.
Sweden:
27
‘To mix different pupils has meant a lot for one pupil witha severe learning disability – he loves it when theteacher reads to the group, he loves drawing, he ishappy and sometimes he interacts in the group. He hasgrown in social, emotional, behavioural and academicterms.’
Ireland (exchange-report): ‘The class setting, as well as the non-teacher-centredapproaches, promotes co-operation among the pupilsnot only within the same sub-group but also within thewhole class. SEN pupils, according to teachers’comments, were placed in heterogeneous groups withpupils able to support and willing to teacher role-play.The pupils in general seemed familiar with differentiatedteaching and were well prepared to accept thedifference, cognitive or physical, even in cases whereSEN pupils were given a dominant role in class activities(e.g. the Down’s syndrome girl was the protagonist in aplay where her classmates happily participated). It isworth while to mention that in cases where specialresources were allocated to SEN pupils (e.g. computer),there was not any obvious reaction. The interpretationthat might be given is that pupils have been “educated”to be part of inclusion procedures, while they appear tobenefit from contact with the SEN pupils and areaccepting and tolerant of them. Teachers detect a verypositive attitude among other pupils and their parentstowards SEN pupils and a healthier attitude towardsdisability and a better understanding of its implicationsfor persons with disabilities.’
Finland: ‘The pupils have been divided into four heterogeneousgroups (named after colours). When necessary, any twogroups can be combined to make up a larger teachinggroup. The size of teaching groups depends on theschool subject concerned. For instance, in music,
28
science and arts learning takes place in larger groups,whereas mathematics and mother tongue are taught insmaller groups. Flexible timetables allow forarrangements where not all pupils are in the school atthe same time.’
‘In mathematics and mother tongue, pupils' different skilllevels have been taken into account, and smaller groupshave been formed accordingly. The purpose ofstreaming is to offer the pupils more individual instructionand keep up or improve their study motivation. Forexample, in mother tongue the pupils have beenorganised in teaching groups according to their readingskills so that one group addresses the grapheme–phoneme correspondence, while another group readsshort texts at the syllable level and the third groupexplores children's literature.’
Austria: ‘The basis of the concept of a mixed-age class is thejoint education of children with heterogeneous abilitiesfrom pre-school to the fourth grade in primary in oneclass. The goal is to avoid selection and to respectdiverse prerequisites and different learning speedsduring the whole time in primary school. Advantages ofthis organisational concept are obvious at the cognitiveand especially emotional and social levels.’
‘The pressure on parents, children and teachers isminimised. Every child can take five years if necessary tocope with the demands of the curriculum. The classteacher stays as a close contact person. Also the groupdoes not change dramatically, therefore socialrelationship can develop stable, especially for childrenwho tend to be “trouble” kids. Less skilled pupils don’tremain the weakest part of the group during four years,younger and automatically weaker children join thegroup. This fosters social learning processes, commonsupport and thus taking care of each other is part of thedaily routine. Gifted children get earlier access to satisfy
29
their interest because older students act as models andprovide support. Last but not least, the heterogeneousgroup supports challenging children, because there aremore options to retreat or to make friends withcolleagues who fit their individual development age.’
Belgium (French Community), exchange report: One of the strongest aspects of the visited project is,according to the experts: ‘The choice of teachingdifferentiation as a model of operation in the classes, thestrong interaction of work (always in the classes)between specialised and non-specialised personnel.’
Effective teachingFinally, the focus on effective education should be emphasisedhere: the findings of the effective schools and effectiveinstruction literature can be adapted to inclusive education:setting goals, education based on assessment and evaluation,high expectations, direct instruction and feedback. The casestudies further stress the importance of the use of the standardcurriculum framework. However, accommodation of thecurriculum is needed, not only for those with SEN at the lowerend of the continuum, but for all pupils, included the gifted. Withregard to pupils with SEN in most countries this approach isdefined in terms of the Individual Educational Plan. Animportant consideration out of our examples of good practice isthat the IEP should fit within the normal curriculum framework.
Germany: An IEP has been developed in all Länder and is alsoused to ensure individual support for each SEN pupil. Itprovides information about the education starting pointand conditions, the individual special needs anddiagnosis, the provision and possible placements, theco-operation and collaboration as well as thequalification of the staff.
Luxembourg:
30
‘Children receiving support are required to have anIndividual Educational Plan. On a national level astructure of this plan is defined with the following psycho-pedagogical paradigms: personal independence, verbaland non-verbal communication, basic school learning,cultural apprenticeship, psychomotor education, socialhealth and hygiene, affective and social development,personal responsibility, transition to professional life, freetime activities.’
Finally, our experts involved in the project also suggested thatthere could be the risk of there being too strong a focus onindividualisation within inclusive schools. Heterogeneousgrouping does imply forms of differentiation, where pupils areallowed to achieve different goals through alternative ways oflearning. But it should be stressed that this could be arrangedwithin an effective and targeted approach.
UK: The education of all pupils, also the ones with‘Designated Special Provision DSP’ is oriented by anational curriculum: ‘All pupils follow the NationalCurriculum. Long-term, medium-term and short-termplanning is done in year group teams of teachers fromthe mainstream classes and the special class. Both themainstream classes and the special class have a co-ordinator responsible for each subject of the NationalCurriculum: these work together. (While all Englishprimary schools would have subject co-ordinators, thesignificant factor here is the pairs of teachers workingtogether.) The work is then further differentiatedaccording to the needs of individuals and groups ofpupils. Pupils from the special classes might do only oneunit of a module, for example. The way in which theschool has been planning the curriculum toaccommodate different needs within one curriculum‘map’ is, in fact, the way which the Qualifications andCurriculum Authority (the government agencyresponsible for the National Curriculum in England andall associated assessment) has recently advocated in
31
guidance materials – for example, there can be commonobjectives with different activities, those activities forpupils with severe learning difficulties at a lower levelthan those for other pupils. Day-to-day work is discussedon a weekly basis and opportunities for integration forindividuals and groups are identified. When the pupilsmove between classrooms, as appropriate, they are thusfamiliar with the work taking place.’
32
4. CONCLUSIONS
Through an international literature review, case studies in 15European countries, expert visits in seven countries as well asvarious discussions involving experts and the Agency WorkingPartners, inclusive classrooms have been studied. The projectattempts to reveal, analyse, describe and disseminate effectiveclassroom practices in inclusive settings. The followingquestions were studied. In the first instance, an understandingof what works within inclusive settings is necessary.Furthermore, a deeper comprehension of how inclusiveeducation is working is needed. Thirdly, it is important to knowwhy it is working.
A main finding is that behaviour, social and/or emotionalproblems are the most challenging within the area of inclusionof pupils with SEN. Secondly: dealing with diversity in theclassroom forms one of the biggest problems withinclassrooms. Thirdly, our case studies and expert discussionssuggest that what is good for pupils with SEN is good for allpupils.
Finally, approaches referred to as co-operative teaching, co-operative learning, collaborative problem-solving,heterogeneous grouping and effective teaching seem to becontributing to the realisation of inclusive classrooms.
33
EUROPEAN AGENCY WORKING PARTNERS ANDCLASSROOM PRACTICE NATIONAL EXPERTS
Austria Ms. Irene Moser [email protected](Working Partner)Mr. Dieter Zenker [email protected] Ms. Claudia Otratowitz [email protected] Ms. Elisabeth Fritsch [email protected]
Belgium (Flemish Community)Mr. Theo Mardulier [email protected](Working Partner)Mr. Jean Paul Verhaegen [email protected] Ms. Dora Nys [email protected]
Belgium (French Community)Ms. Thérèse Simon [email protected](Working Partner)Ms. Danielle Pécriaux [email protected]
DenmarkMr. Poul Erik Pagaard [email protected](Working Partner)Ms. Grethe Persson [email protected]
FinlandMs. Minna Saulio [email protected](Working Partner)Mr. Eero Nurminen [email protected] Mr. Ole Gustafsson [email protected] Mr. Heikki Happonen [email protected]
FranceMr. Pierre Henri Vinay [email protected](Working Partner)Ms. Nel Saumont [email protected](Working Partner)
34
Mr. José Seknadjé-Askénazi [email protected] Ms. Marie-Madelaine Cluzeau
GermanyMs. Anette Hausotter [email protected] (Working Partner)Mr. Ulf Preuss-LausitzMr. Hans-Jürgen Freitag [email protected] Ms. Ellen Herzberg [email protected]
GreeceMs. Venetta Lampropoulou [email protected] (Working Partner)Ms. Antigoni Faragoulitaki [email protected] Mr. Emmanuel Markakis [email protected] Ms. Georgia Fantaki [email protected] Mr. Ioannis Spetsiotis
IcelandMs. Bryndis Sigurjónsdottír [email protected](Working Partner)Mr. Gudni Olgeirsson [email protected] Mr. Hafdís Gudjónsdóttir [email protected] Ms. Soffia Björnsdóttir [email protected]
IrelandMr. Peadar McCann [email protected](Working Partner)Ms. Marie Murphy [email protected] Mr. Michael Cremin [email protected]
LuxembourgMs. Jeanne Zettinger (Working Partner) [email protected] Ms. Pia Englaro [email protected] Mr. Michel Dostert [email protected] Ms. Jöelle Schmit [email protected]
The NetherlandsMr. Sip Jan Pijl (Working Partner) [email protected] Mr. C.J.F van Wijk
35
Ms. Ina van der Vlugt [email protected] Ms. Piet Douwsma [email protected]
NorwayMs. Gry Hammer Neander [email protected](Working Partner)Mr. Lars A. Myhr
PortugalMr. Vitor Morgado [email protected](Working Partner)Ms. Maria Da Graca Barreto Leal Franco
[email protected] Ms. Ana Montez Cadima [email protected]
SwedenMs. Lena Thorsson [email protected](Working Partner)Ms. Inger Tinglev [email protected] Mr. Raoul Elebring [email protected]
SwitzerlandMr. Peter-Walther Müller [email protected] Mr. Albin Niederman [email protected] Ms. Sonja Rosenberg [email protected]
United KingdomMs. Felicity Fletcher-Campbell [email protected](Working Partner)
36
