Abstract: This article provides an overview of the developments of inclusive education in Europe. The challenges and progress are being discussed as well as the main trends in policies and practices. The consequences for teaching in mainstream classes are being addressed with a special focus on effective approaches in inclusive settings. It is argued that at the end the success and failure of inclusive education depends on the strategies and practices that teachers in ordinary classrooms use in order to deal with a heterogeneous class with a variety of learners.
Keywords: Inclusion, Inclusive Education, Special Education, Europe
Issue: 2/2010
This article addresses the current state of European policies and practices on the area of inclusive education. All of the data presented in this article has been gathered within the framework of the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education - an independent and self-governing organisation established by its member countries to act as their platform for collaboration regarding the exchange of information on development of provision for learners with special educational needs. The ultimate goal for the Agency is to improve educational policy and practice for these learners.
The Agency currently has national networks in 27 European countries[1] and is financed by the member countries' ministries of education and the European Commission Lifelong Learning Programme, as one of the 6 institutions pursuing an aim of European interest in the field of education (Jean Monnet Programme)[2].
The most important and recent policy document is the United Nations Convention on Rights of People with Disabilities (2006). Within the Convention, Article 24 is crucial for guiding work in educational policy and practice: States Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels ...
Most European countries have signed the Convention (although it must be noted not necessarily ratified the convention or signed or ratified the optional protocol - please see:
http://www.un.org/disabilities/countries.asp?navid=17&pid=16 for more details). At the moment of writing this article about 10 of the Agency's member countries have ratified the UN Convention and the Optional Protocol, one of which is Germany.
The Council Resolution of 2003 on Promoting the employment and social integration of people with disabilities and the Council Resolution, 2003, on Equal opportunities for pupils and students with disabilities in education and training are two of the main EU level statements that guide member states policies for special education.
Most importantly, all European countries have ratified the UNESCO Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action in Special Needs Education (1994). This collective statement is a major focal point special needs education work in Europe - it is still a keystone in the conceptual framework of many countries' policies. One extract from the statement is used repeatedly as a guiding principle in policy level debates: Regular schools with an inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all; moreover, they provide an effective education to the majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness of the entire education system. (p8)
All European countries agree that the key principles encompassed in the Salamanca Statement of equal opportunities in terms of genuine access to learning experiences that respect individual differences and quality education for all focused upon personal strengths rather than weaknesses, are those principles that should underpin all education policies - not just those specifically dealing with special needs education.
Definitions and categories of special educational needs and handicap vary across countries. Some countries define only one or two types of special needs. Others categorise pupils with special needs in more than 10 categories. Most countries distinguish 6-10 types of special needs. These differences between countries are strongly related to administrative, financial and procedural regulations. They do not reflect variations of the incidence and the types of special educational needs between these countries.
In almost every country the concept of special educational needs is on the agenda. More and more people are convinced that the medical approach of the concept of ‘handicap' should be replaced with a more educational approach: the central focus has now turned to the consequences of disability for education. However, at the same time it is clear that this approach is very complex, and countries are currently struggling with the practical implementation of this philosophy. Nevertheless, this topic, the description of disabilities in terms of educational consequences, is being debated in most European countries.
In relation to this discussion in more and more countries, using the assessment of pupils with special needs for the implementation of appropriate education is being developed. This is mostly done through individual education programmes (other terms are in use in the different countries, for example, Individual Educational Plan).
As expected, numbers vary considerably across countries. Some countries register a total of about 1% of all pupils with special educational needs, others register more than 10%. These contrasts in the percentage of registered pupils with SEN reflect differences in legislation, assessment procedures, funding arrangements and provision. Of course, they do not reflect differences in the incidence of special needs between the countries.
Information is also provided on the percentage of pupils educated in segregated settings (special schools and classes). All countries considered together, about 2% of all pupils in Europe are educated in special schools or (full-time) special classes. Some countries place less than 1% of all pupils in segregated schools and classes, others up to 6%. Especially the countries in northwest Europe seem to place pupils more frequently in special settings as opposed to southern European and Scandinavian countries.
The transformation of special schools and institutes into resource centres is a very common trend in Europe. Most countries report that they are planning to develop, are developing or have already developed a network of resource centres in their countries. These centres are given different names and different tasks are assigned to them. Some countries call them knowledge centres, others expertise centres or resource centres. In general, the following tasks are distinguished for these centres:
· provision for training and courses for teachers and other professionals;
· development and dissemination of materials and methods;
· support for mainstream schools and parents;
· short-time or part-time help for individual students;
· support in entering the labour market.
Some of these centres have a national level task, especially with respect to certain specific target groups (particularly milder special needs); others have a wider and more regional level task.
A few countries have already gained some experience with resource centres (Austria, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland, for example); others are implementing the system (Cyprus, Portugal). In some countries special schools are obliged to co-operate with mainstream school in the catchment area (Spain), or special schools supply ambulant or other services to mainstream schools (Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, the UK).
The role of special schools in terms of inclusion is, of course, strongly related to the education system of the country. In countries with almost no special schools, like Norway and Italy for example, their role is structurally modest (in Norway, 20 of the previously state special schools, are defined in terms of regional or national resource centres). In Cyprus, the 1999 Special Needs Education Law demands that new special schools must be built within the boundaries of a mainstream school to facilitate contacts and networking and, where possible, promote inclusion.
In countries with a relatively large special needs education system, special schools are more actively involved in the process of inclusion. In those countries co-operation between special and mainstream education is key. However, in those countries voices are heard that special schools are threatened by the process of inclusion (Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, France for example). This is a more or less direct consequence of having a relatively large special school system: on the one hand, co-operation of special schools in the process towards inclusion is necessary; on the other hand, the inclusion process itself is a direct danger for them. At the same time, inclusion in these countries is difficult to achieve, since mainstream schools are more or less used to transferring their problems to other parts of the school system, the special schools. Besides, specialist teachers and other professionals working in the special school system often consider themselves to be the experts on special educational needs and usually think that they fulfil the need and challenge the notion of inclusion. It is extremely difficult to change such a status quo.
Of course, this transformation implies huge consequences for special needs education. Briefly, pupil based educational institutes have to switch into support structures or resource centres for teachers, parents and others. Their new task is to give support to mainstream schools, develop materials and methods, gather information and provide it to parents and teachers, take care of the necessary liaison between educational and non‑educational institutions, and give support when transition from school to work takes place. In some cases special educators and special schools arrange short-term help for individual pupils or small groups of pupils.
Most countries use individual educational programmes for pupils with special needs. This document presents information on how a mainstream curriculum is adapted, and what are the necessary additional resources, goals and evaluation of the educational approach. Adaptations can take different forms and in some cases, for specific categories of pupils, they may even mean omitting certain subjects of the general curriculum.
Recent views on inclusion have stressed the fact that inclusion is in the first place an educational reform issue and not a placement issue. Inclusion starts from the right of all pupils to follow mainstream education. A few countries (for example, Italy) have expressed this clearly in direct and legal terms and they have changed their educational approach so as to offer more provisions within mainstream education. Of course, the different approaches are narrowly correlated to the current position of special needs education in those countries.
The countries, aiming at providing SEN facilities within the mainstream school, stress the view that the curriculum framework should cover all pupils. Of course, some specific adaptations to the curriculum may be necessary. This is mostly done in terms of an individual educational programme. It is clear that in almost all of the countries the individual educational programme plays a major role for inclusive special needs education. It is one of the current trends across Europe to use such an individual document to specify the pupils' needs, goals and means, and to detail the degree and type of adaptations to be made to the mainstream curriculum to evaluate the progresses of the concerned pupils. It may also serve as a ‘contract' between the different ‘actors': parents, teachers and other professionals.
Another topic in the field of special needs and the curriculum is the provision of special needs at the secondary level. Inclusion generally progresses well at the primary education level, but at secondary level serious problems emerge. It is well known that an increasing topic specialisation and the different organisation of secondary schools result in serious difficulties for inclusion at the secondary level. Generally the ‘gap' between pupils with special needs and their peers increases with age. It should be stressed that the topic of inclusion at the secondary level should be one of the main areas of concern. Specific problem areas are insufficient teacher training and less positive teacher attitudes.
Attitudes of parents are largely determined by personal experiences. Thus, positive experiences with inclusion are quite rare in countries where the facilities are concentrated in the special school system and not available for the mainstream schools. However, if mainstream schools can offer these services, parents soon develop positive attitudes towards inclusion (Pijl, Meijer, Hegarty, 1997).[3] The media can also play an important role here (as the experience in Cyprus has shown).
Parental choice is an important issue in Austria, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, the Netherlands and the UK. In these countries, parents generally assume that they have the legal right to express a preference for the school they would like their child to attend. In other countries the role of parents seems to be rather modest. In Slovakia, for instance, although parental opinion is needed, the decision for the transfer of a pupil to a special school lies within the competence of the headmaster from the special school.
Quite a number of factors can be interpreted as barriers for inclusion. In some countries the funding system is not enhancing inclusive practices (see Meijer, 1999). Not only the funding system may inhibit inclusion processes; but also the existence of a large segregated setting itself is a hindrance for inclusion. As shown before, in countries having a relatively large segregated school system, special schools and specialist teachers may feel threatened by the inclusion process. They fear that the survival of their position may be endangered. It is even more the case when the economic context is quite tense and finally their jobs may be in danger. In such situations it is very complex to debate inclusion on the basis of educational or normative arguments.
Other important factors are the availability of sufficient conditions for support within mainstream schools. If knowledge, skills, attitudes and materials are not available in the mainstream settings, inclusion of pupils with special needs will be difficult to achieve. An adequate teacher training (in initial teacher training or through in-service) is an essential prerequisite for inclusion.
What are the common trends in Europe? Has there been any progress on the issue of special needs education? What are the main challenges for the future? The most important developments within European countries in the last ten years are pointed out below.
Trends and progress
1. There is a movement in which countries with a clear two-track system of special needs education (relatively large special needs education system beside the mainstream system) are developing a continuum of services between the two systems. Furthermore, special schools are more and more defined as resources for mainstream schools.
2. Legislative progress regarding inclusion was achieved in many countries. This applies especially to countries with a big segregated special needs education system, which developed new legislative frameworks concerning SEN within the mainstream school.
3. A few countries have planned to change their funding system in order to achieve more inclusive services. In other countries, there is a growing awareness of the importance of an adequate funding system.
4. The transformation of special schools in resource centres has been continued in most countries. In some other countries this model is being initiated.
Challenges
1. In general, the tension between, on the one hand, the pressure for better outputs of schools and, on the other hand, the position of vulnerable pupils, is increasing. There is a growing attention in the society for the outputs of educational processes. One of the most explicit examples can be found in England where the publication of pupils' performance, by school, at the end of key stage assessment, including performance in public examinations at the end of statutory education (16+), has drawn much attention and discussion. The results are published by the media in the form of ‘league tables', by rank order to ‘raw' scores.
Of course, it is not surprising that societies generally ask for more outcomes and benefits. As a result, market thinking is introduced in education and parents start to behave as clients. Schools are made ‘accountable' for the results they achieve and there is an increasing tendency to judge schools on the basis of their outputs. It should be stressed that this development presents some dangers for vulnerable pupils and their parents. First, parents of children who are not identified as having special needs could tend to choose a school where the learning process is efficient and effective, and not hindered by slow learners or other pupils who need additional attention. Generally, parents want the best school for their child.
Secondly, schools are most likely to favour pupils who contribute to higher outputs. Pupils with special needs not only contribute to more variance within the class but also to lower average achievements. These two factors are a direct threat for pupils with special needs. This is especially the case within the context of a free school choice and the absence of an obligation for schools to admit all pupils within the catchment area. In this sense, the wish to achieve higher outputs and to include pupils with special needs can become antithetical. This dilemma needs serious attention. A few countries have pointed out this dilemma and it can be expected that others will follow in the near future. It is a clear area of tension that has to be addressed in order to protect the position of vulnerable pupils.
2. Inclusion at the level of secondary education is also an area of concern. Development of possibilities for (in-service) teacher training and positive attitudes are challenges for the near future.
3. A ‘rough' estimate of the percentage of pupils with special needs in European countries reveals that about 2% of all pupils are educated in segregated settings. It is difficult to assess to what extent progress has been made considering the number of pupils in segregated or inclusive provisions in European countries. However, during the last few years, countries with a relatively large special needs education system in segregated settings showed an ongoing increase in the percentages of pupils educated in special schools. Though exact figures are lacking, it could be said that not much progress has been made towards inclusion at the European level during the last ten years. On the contrary, the most reliable estimation tends to reveal a slight increase in segregation. Some countries still have to put their policies into practice. However, there is a general basis for optimism, especially in those countries that experienced an important growth in the number of pupils in segregated provisions, and which are now implementing promising policies.
The Classroom and School Practice project of the European Agency is focused on revealing, analysing, describing and disseminating apparently successful classroom practices in inclusive settings. The project is divided into two phases investigating primary and secondary education (see Meijer, 2003, 2005).
The centre of attention for the study has been the work of teachers. However, it was also recognised that teachers mainly learn and develop their practice as a result of input from significant key people in their immediate environment: the head teacher, colleagues and professionals in or around the school. These are the professionals who are therefore considered to be the main target groups for this study. The main task of this study has been to provide key people with knowledge about possible strategies for handling differences in the classroom and school and to inform them about the conditions necessary for the successful implementation of these strategies. The project has attempted to answer key questions concerning inclusive education. In the first instance, it is argued that an understanding of what works within inclusive settings is necessary. Furthermore, it is felt that a deeper understanding of how inclusive education works is needed. Thirdly, it is important to know why it is working (the conditions for implementation).
The study consists of three phases. In the first phase literature reviews have been conducted in the participating countries in order to reveal the current state of the art of effective inclusive practices. This part of the project addresses the question: which practices have proven to be effective in inclusive education? In the second phase, an attempt has been made to select concrete examples of good practices and to describe them in a systematic way. In the final phase, exchanges between different countries have been organised in such a way that transfer of knowledge and practices are maximised.
The first main conclusion is that inclusive classrooms do exist throughout European countries. The evidence also suggests that what is good for pupils with special educational needs (SEN) is good for all pupils.
A second main finding is that behaviour, social and/or emotional problems are the most challenging within the area of inclusion of pupils with SEN.
Thirdly: dealing with differences or diversity in the classroom forms one of the biggest problems within European classrooms.
The study shows that the following approaches appear to be effective in schools:
Ø Co-operative teaching
Teachers need support from, and to be able to co-operate with, a range of colleagues within the school and professionals outside the school.
Ø Co-operative learning
Peer tutoring or co-operative learning is effective in cognitive and affective (social-emotional) areas of pupils' learning and development. Pupils who help each other, especially within a system of flexible and well-considered pupil grouping, profit from learning together.
Ø Collaborative problem-solving
Particularly for teachers who need help in including pupils with social/behavioural problems, a systematic way of approaching undesired behaviour in the classroom is an effective tool for decreasing the amount and intensity of disturbances during the lessons. Clear class rules and a set of borders, agreed with all the pupils (alongside appropriate incentives) have proven to be effective.
Ø Heterogeneous grouping
Heterogeneous grouping and a more differentiated approach in education are necessary and effective when dealing with a diversity of pupils in the classroom. Targeted goals, alternative routes for learning, flexible instruction and the abundance of homogenous ways of grouping enhance inclusive education.
Ø Effective teaching
Finally, the arrangements mentioned above should take place within an overall effective school/teaching approach where education is based on assessment and evaluation, high expectations, direct instruction and feedback. All pupils, and thus also pupils with SEN, improve with systematic monitoring, assessment, planning and evaluation of the work. The curriculum can be geared to individual needs and additional support can be introduced adequately through the Individual Educational Plan (IEP). This IEP should fit within the normal curriculum.
The factors mentioned above are important at both primary and secondary education level. For secondary schools two additional effective approaches emerged:
Ø Home area system
In some schools the organisation of the delivery of the curriculum has been changed drastically: students stay in a common area consisting of two or three classrooms where nearly all education takes places. A small team of teachers is responsible for the education provided in the home area.
Ø Alternative ways of 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. Such programmes aim to teach students how to learn and to solve problems. Furthermore it can be argued that giving students greater responsibility for their own learning can contribute to the success of inclusion in schools.
The case studies have highlighted the importance of each single factor. However it should be emphasized that some of the case studies seem to have demonstrated that the combination of some of these approaches is important for effective classroom practice within inclusive secondary schools.
European Union (2003) Council Resolution of 15 July 2003 on promoting the employment and social integration of people with disabilities (2003/C 175/01)
European Union (2003) (Council Resolution of 5 May 2003 on Equal opportunities for pupils and students with disabilities in education and training) 2003/C 134/04: Journal officiel nr C 134 du 07/06/2003, p. 6-7
Meijer, C.J.W. (1999) Financing of Special Needs Education. Middelfart: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education
Meijer, C.J.W. (2003). Inclusive education and classroom practices. Middelfart: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
Meijer, C.J.W. (2005) Inclusive education and classroom practice in Secondary Education. Middelfart: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
Pijl, S.J., Meijer, C.J.W., Hegarty, S. (eds) (1997) Inclusive Education, A Global Agenda, London: Routledge
UNESCO (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000984/098427eo.pdf
United Nations (2006) Convention on Rights of People with Disabilities http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
All of the Agency documents listed above are available to download free of charge in various European languages from:
http://www.european-agency.org/site/info/publications/agency/index.html