disability and inclusive education

8/13/2019 Disability and Inclusive Education

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disability-and-inclusive-education 1/32

Disability

And

Inclusive Education

A Paper prepared for the

InterAmerican Development Bank

Seminar on Inclusion and Disability

Santiago, Chile, March 16, 2001

Prepared by

Gordon L. Porter

“It is evident that there is a strong international trend towards developing education

systems to become more inclusive. … The transformative inclusion agenda is based on

the assertion of the same right to a quality education within their communities for all

learners. Thus it can be seen to concur with the task of Education for All.”

(UNESCO, 1999, p. 21)

February 2001



Disability

and

Inclusive Education

A Paper prepared for the

InterAmerican Development Bank

Prepared by

Gordon L. Porter

February, 2001

Acknowledgements:

I want to thank the following individuals for their assistance with this paper:

Cameron Crawford; Grace Duncan; Mary MacDonagh; Maria del Carmen

Malbran; Maria Amelia Vampre; Nadira Persaud; Roberto Madriz; and DianeRichler.

Gordon L. Porter: Gordon L. Porter is a Canadian educator active in promoting inclusive

educational practices for the last twenty years. Educated at universities in New Brunswick, Maine

and New York, he has been a teacher, school principal and school district director of special

education. Dr. Porter has taught courses on inclusive practice at McGill University, the University

of Calgary, and at the University of Maine at Presque Isle. He has written a number of articles

and book chapters on inclusion and has lectured on inclusive education in countries around the

world. Currently the President of Inclusion InterAmericana, he is a past president of the Canadian

Association for Community Living. Among his varied activities he was been a Visiting Fellow at

the New Zealand Institute on Mental Retardation, acted as a resource person to the Commissionon Special Education in South Africa, and provided leadership training for inclusion teams for the

Ministry of Education of Portugal. Gordon Porter was a keynote speaker at the Salamanca World

Conference on Special Education and represented Inclusion International at the World Education

Forum on EFA in Dakar, Senegal.



Table of Contents

Acknowledgements … p.1

Table of Contents … p. 2

Executive Summary … p. 3

Introduction … p. 4

1. The current situation … p. 6

1.1 Background … p. 6

1.2 Urban-Rural Inequities … p. 7

1.3 Separate Education … p. 8

2. Inclusive education: An emerging alternative … p. 10

2.1 The inclusion option … p. 10

2.2 An illustrative story: Case example from a Caribbean country … p. 122.3 Deficiencies revealed … p. 13

2.3.1 Inadequate policy and legislative provision … p. 14

2.3.2 Limited coordination of social and economic agencies with schools … p. 14

2.3.3 Inadequate administrative provision to ensure proactive leadership … p. 15

2.3.4 Limited accessibility and provision for physical support … p. 15

2.3.5 Inadequate school and classroom practices to support inclusion … p. 15

A. Critical factors for success … p. 16

B. Other pedagogical factors … p. 17

2.3.6 Inadequate training and re-training of teachers … p. 19

2.3.7 Inadequate funding … p. 20

2.4 Strategies to develop inclusive education … p. 21

2.5 Nurturing the inclusive model … p. 22

2.6 Partnerships with parents … p. 23

2.7 Case example: Sao Paulo, Brazil … p. 23

3. Disability and inclusive education: Today to The future … p. 25

3.1 Where we are today … p. 25

3.2 Getting Started … p. 26

3.3 The Future … p. 27

References … p. 28



Executive Summary

Educating children with disabilities is a modern-day challenge for the people of the Americas. Only a small

proportion (e.g. from 1% - to- 10%) of the children with special needs have ready access to schooling, andthose who do typically must attend a segregated school. Almost none of these children now have the

opportunity to attend a regular community school with their non-disabled peers. In non-urban areas thesituation is even worse

In practical terms, establishing more segregated schools is not feasible for most countries in the region. It isalso undesirable, from an educational standpoint. Money is better spent strengthening the capacity of

community schools to handle children with diverse needs. There is growing evidence that children withdisabilities learn better when they are allowed to go to a public school within their neighborhood. Often, it is

also the only realistic opportunity they will have to receive an education.

Inclusive educational practices are being endorsed internationally. The UNESCO sponsored ‘Education For

All’ initiative, states that all children, including those with disabilities and other special needs, are entitled toequity of educational opportunity. UNESCO and the OECD have also determined that inclusion is the

preferred approach to providing schooling for students with special needs. It is widely accepted that theconditions required to allow for successful inclusion are also those that contribute to overall schoolimprovement and high levels of achievement for all children.

As a result, inclusive education has received more attention throughout the region in the last few years.

There is movement toward more inclusive schooling in almost every country. Examples of good practice

exist, but the models need to be strengthened and made more systemic. The time is right for keystakeholders to invest in programs and initiatives that will help make schooling in home communitiespossible for all children.

Examples exist that illustrate the difficulties students with disabilities can encounter when their families seek

to include them in the regular education system of most countries in the region. But, there are other known

cases that give evidence to the opportunities that exist if parent-based groups and ministries work inpartnership to nurture new approaches and new models.

There are a number of initiatives that experts have identified as supportive of the move toward inclusion.

Some of the more crucial ones involve:• establishing pilot projects in individual schools or clusters of schools incorporating ‘best practices and

developing local strategies;• training a cadre of teachers and school principals so they, in turn, can train others;• paying teachers sufficiently so they can focus on teaching and be held accountable for student success;• providing teachers with training in classroom strategies so they can accommodate children with diverse

learning needs in regular classes;• staffing schools with support teachers to provide collaborative help to classroom teachers;• developing information packages on “best practices” and disseminating the knowledge;• creating education institutions that prepare new teachers for inclusion;• forming partnerships between schools, parent groups, NGOs, and government and professional groups in the

promotion of inclusion in schools and the community.

Education systems that exist for all children can be created with adequate funding targeted at communityschools. Segregation and exclusion has failed. Inclusion and the good educational practice that comes with

it offers hope to a region that needs to ensure educational equity and participation by all.



Disability and Inclusive Education

Introduction

The provision of education is a challenge for all countries. Establishing and maintaining a

quality educational system requires not only well-trained and motivated teachers andadministrators, but also large infusions of money to keep the system up-to-date and

relevant with rapidly changing societies and economies.

The emergence of the global economy has made the need for quality and effectivenesseven more essential. As a result, education programs and policies now rank high on

government agendas. For these policies to be effective they need to be directed to theestimated 85 million citizens in the Latin American and Caribbean region who have

disabilities. Their low rate of participation in the work force can be directly connected totheir exclusion from the education system. The resulting poverty and status of

dependence of persons with disabilities represents a significant squandering of human potential. It also unnecessarily causes persons with disabilities to live lives of neglect,

isolation and despair (CACL, 1997).

This paper focuses on a critical element of the education challenge: the effort to achieveequity for students with disabilities. These students have traditionally fared poorly in the

established educational system. While there is a record of achievement during the lastfew decades when it comes to teaching children with special educational needs, what has

been accomplished is tempered by the segregated settings in which it is routinely carriedout. The small proportion of the children who actually receive service compared to those

who technically qualify is also grossly inadequate. Progress toward full coverage for thechildren and the quality of instruction they actually receive has been poor.

Overall, however, the concept of “access-to-education” has evolved from a mere

privilege for some to a right for all, and expectations have been raised. Commitment touniversal education is now interpreted as requiring attention to all children, including

those with disabilities and other special educational needs.

Support for these principles can be found in the region itself. Nearly a decade ago, 150representatives from 34 countries in the Americas met in Nicaragua to develop a

framework for promoting the rights of persons with a disability. They included personswith a disability, their families, professionals and government representatives. Together,

they developed and endorsed the Declaration of Managua, signed December 3, 1993.

The Declaration of Managua states:“To ensure social well-being for all people, societies have to be based on justice,

equality, equity, inclusion and interdependence, and recognize and accept diversity. Societies must also consider their members, above all, as persons, and

assure their dignity, rights, self-determination, full access to social resources and the opportunity to contribute to community life (CACL, 1993).”



Subsequently, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (O.A.S.),adopted the “Inter-American Convention On The Elimination Of All Forms Of

Discrimination Against Persons With Disabilities (1999).” This action by the O.A.S.recognized the reality that disability continues to be a significant obstacle to full

participation in the social, cultural, economic and educational life of the region. The

Convention declared that “ … it is necessary therefore to encourage actions and measuresto bring about a substantial improvement in the situation of persons with disabilities inthe Hemisphere …”.

1

Support for inclusive schooling has also come from several other international accords

and declarations. In 1994, the World Congress on Special Education was held inSalamanca, Spain. Coordinated by UNESCO, 300 participants representing 92 countries

and 25 international organizations discussed the issues and agreed on what is now knownas the “Salamanca Statement.” The statement set forth the challenge to provide public

education to “all children, regardless of their physical, intellectual, emotional, social,linguistic or other conditions.” Not only was this commitment made, the provision of this

service was to be in “ordinary schools.”

In 1999, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)completed an extensive study of special education practice in eight member countries.

The OECD report concludes that on the basis of the results of this study (OECD, 1999):

“ … there is no reason to segregate disabled students in public education systems; instead education systems need to be reconsidered to meet the education

needs of all students.

“The most detailed international study ever carried out, … (the study) … showsthat all students, whatever the type and extent of their disability, can be

successfully included in mainstream schools, as long as certain safeguards areensured.”

This paper explores the question of disability and inclusive education in the Latin

American and Caribbean region. We will examine three dimensions of the question:• providing education to students with diverse needs, including those with disabilities,

and the challenge of special education;• obstacles and opportunities involved in creating inclusive schools;

• and, reflections on what the future holds for this issue in the region.

As well, two case examples are used to illustrate the dimensions of the question. Onehighlights the difficulties and challenges families face as a consequence of separate

education. The other demonstrates the opportunity to forge new initiatives towardinclusion that include partnership between government and community groups as a key

element. Both cases provide a context for analyzing the policy and practice issues at thecore of the “disability and inclusion” question and help point the way ahead.

1 Organization of American States, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY: Resolution adopted at the first plenary

session, held on June 7, 1999.



1. The Current Situation

1.1 Background

Even conservative estimates on the number of children in Latin America and theCaribbean with disabilities are large, and only a small number have access to school and

other support agencies that promote growth and development. UNICEF estimates 11.6 per cent of children in Central America have a disability. Other studies advance higher

projections for the region, including a study prepared by the Canadian Association for Community Living for the Inter-American Development Bank. The study, entitled

"Integration of Persons with Disabilities into the Productive Workforce," places the percentage of children with a disability at 18 per cent (CACL, 1997).

Using even the lower-range estimates, a simple demographic projection confirms there

are millions of children with disabilities in the Americas. Unfortunately, only a small

fraction gets the educational attention to which, as citizens, they are entitled. In aDecember 2000 document, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)notes:

“The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that only five per cent of

disabled children in developing countries have access to supports or services of any kind, and that less than two per cent attend school. Physical and attitudinal

barriers often prevent families and communities from providing these childrenwith the same opportunities that non-disabled children have (CIDA, 2000).”

This is due mainly to the fact that the educational systems in the region do not have the

capacity or the practices that would allow them to adequately meet the educational needsof this large population of children. It must also be noted that children with disabilities

are over-represented in low-income families, even in developed countries such asCanada.

It must also be recognized, however, one of the most serious obstacles to progress in the

region is the absence of reliable and consistent data on educational efforts andeducational outcomes. McMeekin (1998) has outlined this problem and observes: “(T)here is not, however, a body of agreed-upon knowledge about what constitutes a good

education statistics system.'' He acknowledges that progress is being made, with somecountries making significant gains, particularly larger and more sophisticated countries

such as Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Mexico. At the same time, however, many poor countries are “lagging badly.” Countries that are considered “in-between" are making

progress, but continue to have major problems.

Having poor educational statistics means that it is difficult to get an accurate account of the facts. It makes the job of identifying problems and solutions almost impossible. Both

UNESCO and the OECD are developing systems of indicators that may be of use, but thework is still a long way from being usable. In short, we are operating in the dark when it



comes to education facts and outcomes generally. If anything, information about specialeducation is even more difficult to come by.

What we do know is failure to ensure that children with special needs receive effective

educational services results in their exclusion from the labor market and other forms of

marginalization and dependency. The net result is that individuals with disabilities andtheir families live in poverty, and in many cases, the most profound levels of poverty. Iteven contributes to poor health later in life.

Kisanji (1998) notes that in income-poor nations, "people who are currently being

marginalized by education policies and practices, such as those with special needs, arelikely to remain excluded from schooling for the foreseeable future unless radical reforms

in the structure of education systems are contemplated and implemented.”

In a recent planning document, CIDA states:

“Quality basic education is a fundamental human right. However, many continueto be denied this right and the opportunity to enjoy its many benefits: better

health, reduced fertility, higher productivity, increased family income, and thechance to live and work in dignity and make informed decisions about one’s life

(CIDA, 2000 B).

1.2 Urban-Rural Inequities

Country profiles do not always accurately reflect the reality of the entire nation. In factthe diversity educational provision, coverage and quality within a nation may be more

diverse that that between nations. The urban-rural factor is one that is of significantconcern in the region. The difference in educational provision between urban areas and

the remote country towns and villages is a factor that must be accounted for in reforminitiatives.

In Jamaica, children who live outside major urban areas are less likely to receive service.

While children from Kingston and St. Andrews parishes make up half of the SOH student population, their statistical portion within the population as a whole is approximately 25

per cent (JAPMR, 2001). This urban-rural disparity pattern is all too common in theregion as a whole.

In Guyana, eight special education institutions operated in the country in 1996, and five

were located in the capital city and its environs (IBE, Guyana--on-line). Further illustrating the inequity, O’Toole noted the capital city had 90 per cent of the provision in

the special education area, but only 23 per cent of the population (O’Toole, 1995).

In Uruguay, the situation is no better. De Lorenzo observed: “All special services arelocated in urban and sub-urban areas, leaving the rural regions totally isolated from any

kind of special service. Whether they are public or private, special education services



operate only in urban centres, rendering rural areas devoid of the appropriate aid (deLorenzo, 1995).”

In a similar vein, Kochar and Gopal (1998) state that A …in many developing countries,

the deleterious effects of inadequate or inappropriate education are compounded by

disparities in the quality of education as one moves from richer to poorer municipalities,from industrial to agricultural areas, and from coastal to interior areas (Kochar & Gopal,

1998).@ Moreover, there seems to be a consistently higher rate of disability among

adolescents and youth in rural areas (UNICEF, 1999).

The consequence is that policy makers ion the region must not just address the issue of the provision of special education services in urban areas as they do now. The resulting

access to service provided for the privileged and urban few fails all moral and equitytests. Instead the focus must shift to the provision of educational services to all children,

inlcuding the disabled, in all public schools, urban and rural, for the underprivileged aswell as the privileged.

1.3 Separate Education

The education system for students with disabilities in Latin America and the Caribbean is

primarily based on special schools. This is true in all parts of the region -- large and moredeveloped countries, as well as the smaller and less developed countries. The availability

of special schools is limited, so much so that it represents a serious moral question.

For example, in Nicaragua, in accordance with data published in 1999 by UNDP, the population with special educational needs amounted to 150,000 children. Their system

could only accommodate 3,600 or 2.4 per cent, meaning the needs of 97.6 per cent of

children with special needs could not be met.

In Chile, Milicic and Sius (1995) report that “ … traditionally, regular Chilean schools

have marginalized children with special education needs (p. 169).” They further note thatspecial education has been “ … oriented toward children whose disabilities are mild or

moderate, ignoring children with more severe disabilities. (Further) … most specialeducation schools specialize in one type of disability, and very few receive children with

multiple disabilities (p.172).” They also report that Chile has not achieved a high degreeof coverage, with approximately 300 special schools serving about 30,000 students.

Disability projections indicate this is just a third of the number of children who need theservice (p.172).

In El Salvador, according to data gathered by Inclusion InterAmericana in September

2000, the number of school-age youths with disabilities was 222,000. Two thousand of these students attend courses at special schools, totaling 30 throughout the country. This

means less than one per cent attend a special school or any school, for that matter.

In Jamaica, children with “moderate to profound levels of retardation” are sent to schoolsoperated with government funding by the Jamaica Association for Persons with Mental



Retardation (JAPMR). Children with “mild retardation” are the mandate of the regular public school. Founded in 1956, the private and segregated "School of Hope” (SOH)

program has 29 units spread throughout the country. They serve a total of 1,250 students.The association estimates that between 3,000 and 4,000 children are actually qualified for

their programs (Duncan, 2001). The bottom line is that for every eligible child receiving

service, two or three others who are eligible are not served.

These examples demonstrate that the model of special education and special schools, firstimplemented in the developed countries, does not make an impact on children with

special needs in most of the countries of the region. Despite their best intentions andcareful planning, ministries of education have scarcely made a dent in the matter of

universal coverage over recent decades, a period that included the United Nations'“Decade of the Disabled.” Children with special educational needs are still last in line

and the least likely to be served adequately, despite the rhetoric and promise of successive governments.

They are “last in line” because they are seen as defective and less deserving in a society

that overemphasizes efficacy at the expense of equity. We have allowed the status of those with high cognitive ability to diminish the rights of others. The hierarchical model

of merit is also found deeply entrenched within the disability field itself. Individuals withmild disabilities fare best, and those with physical disabilities are frequently seen as

worthy. Those with intellectual disabilities, as well as other perceptual and physicaldisabilities are invariably the last to be considered and the last to benefit from public

services. They have been systematically excluded from public education in the region.

In addition, segregated education has entrenched a way of thinking that tends to perpetuate the segregation of people with disabilities throughout their life. Children who

have been segregated at school tend to be kept separate as adults, through measures suchas segregated work and recreation programs, and in segregated institutions including

psychiatric hospitals and other inappropriate settings. Such arrangements are notconsistent with the spirit of international declarations on human, economic and cultural

rights, which are based on notions of full equality, inclusion and mutual respect. Mostcountries eventually discover that policies and programs which entrench segregation also

perpetuate social isolation, loneliness and vulnerability with a wide-range of socialharms. Arguably, the systematic separation of certain people from the mainstream of

society, rips at the social fabric and dilutes the diversity of civil society as a whole.

Application of the statistical information noted above provides a grim bottom-line for many, if not all, countries in the region. If countries were to proceed and try to achieve

coverage sufficient for the entire population of students with special needs using thespecial schools model, the costs would be enormous. For example, in the case of El

Salvador, there are now 30 schools serving approximately 2,000 students. To achieve fullspecial-needs coverage on the same basis, approximately 3,300 special schools would

have to be built and 23,000 special educators hired to join the 210 now employed.Unfortunately, the gap between provision and need is similar in most countries in the

region.



Latin American and Caribbean countries are generally engaged in modernizing their educational systems. They are searching for quality, making technological improvements

and attempting to extend coverage. Yet the special schools model is not compatible withthe spirit, the goals or the vision of the educational reform process. On the contrary, it

reinforces segregation and marginalization of people with disabilities. A small portion of

the student population with special needs receive service but within a model that isolatesand segregates them. The majority receives no education at all. This produces a situationentirely at odds with the values of a truly democratic society. It is difficult to reconcile

an education system based on exclusion and segregation with democratic economic andsocial goals. The education system needs to be a pillar of the democratization process.

To be left out of the education system entirely or to be segregated and isolated from

peers, exacts a cost in lost knowledge and skill to the individual. The costs are clearlyeconomic and effect income and standard of living. The cost of lost of relationships is

harder to define, however, there is a human and relationship loss which effects peoplewith disabilities throughout their lives, and one which spreads to families, peers, and the

entire community.

Income-poor countries, like most of those in the region, have devoted resources to thedevelopment of a special education model. The model is far from complete, however, in

terms of coverage and the range of services available. They are now faced with a decisionthat is crucial. Do they continue to invest in the special education model or do they seek a

change in direction? As they move toward achieving the goals of the "Education For All''(EFA) initiative, the advantages of developing an inclusive community-based school

model is gaining increased attention. The result of this decision and the direction eachcounty takes will effect the lives of many children and their families.

2. Inclusive education : an emerging alternative

“In numerous countries, the integration of students with special learning needs tomainstream education, has sparked a process of educational renewal that has

greatly benefited the schooling system as a whole (Blanco, 1997).”

2.1 The Inclusion Option

Quite recently, inclusive education has appeared as the alternative approach to the

challenge of provision with students with special needs. According to this model,students will be served in the regular public schools of the community. Students with

special educational needs, including children with disabilities, will receive their educationalongside their non-disabled peers. While this is considered an innovation, it is in fact

true that in many cultural circumstances, it is also the traditional way to educate children.A Jamaican educator has observed that “ … (H)istorically, we have always practiced the

principles of inclusion in our educational system especially at the pre-school and primarylevels (Duncan, 2001).”



Carro (1996) of the Universidad de Vallodolid stresses that “… the benefits of inclusionare two way (between students with special needs and their regularly able peers) but most

of us have not experienced this yet. Segregation restricts our understanding of each other.Familiarity and tolerance reduce fear and rejection. Inclusive education contributes to a

greater equality of opportunities for all members of society. The benefits also include

relationships and creativity that were not possible in the past (Carro, 1996).@

Jonsson (1995) supports and strengthens this argument. “Inclusive education services

allow children with disabilities to stay with their family and go to the nearest school, justlike all the other children. This circumstance is of vital importance to their personal

development. Interrupting a disabled child's normal development may have far more

severe consequences than the disability itself (Jonsson, 1995).@

In countries where this model has been implemented, important progress has been made.

It has been found that if implemented properly, inclusive school programs have the potential to:

• be less expensive to implement and operate than special education services;• have a broader reach than traditional special education in terms of positive

educational and social impacts on children;• contribute significantly to the ongoing professional development and job satisfaction

of educators;• produce better morale and team effort in the school environment.

Obviously each country has its own conditions and characteristics, therefore there are no

recipes for the development of a unique inclusive education model. When properlyresearched, described and disseminated, however, effective strategies and practices can

always be adapted to enrich indigenous processes in meaningful ways. Most countries are

adept at adopting what works and leaving behind what does not fit local circumstances.

A key challenge facing countries that have highly developed special education systems in

their efforts to implement inclusive education, is the process of transitioning resourcesaway from special education services. Difficulties inherent in this process are major

deterrents to wider implementation of inclusive education. These difficulties, however,should not be overstated. With the right partners at the table, this transition process can

be effectively managed. But, it does take time and it might require some additionalinvestment. In countries with very limited spending on special education services, the

challenge will be to generate new money to enhance the effort.

As is usually the case with innovative ideas, the thought of implementing the inclusiveeducation model generates fear and resistance, mainly from special educators who

wrongly view the proposal as a "menace" to their jobs. At the same time, many regular teachers doubt and resent the possibility of having children with special needs in their

classrooms. They feel, for good reason, they are not prepared. The implementation of themodel may also require a great deal of extra work for them.



In times of fiscal restraint, inclusive education services are politically and fiscally moresustainable than parallel systems of special education. It is politically more sustainable

because the services are intended to benefit all students. The services are not perceived by taxpayers as an expensive "add on" which cater primarily to special interest lobbies in

the disability sector. The services are fiscally sustainable because the goal of inclusive

education is to achieve optimal pedagogical results for every public dollar invested ineducation. Overall such services cost a fraction of the amount required to maintain a dualand distinct network of regular schools and special education schools.

The case described below, illustrates the effects of separate education on individuals and

families. It also provides a context for an analysis of the policy issues and the educational practices that are part of the current system.

2.2 An Illustrative Story: Case Example from a Caribbean Country

Several years ago, a national ‘Association for the Mentally Retarded’ held a weekend seminar on

disability, human rights and community living. It attracted up to 80 parents, teachers, social

workers, officials and dignitaries, however, only a few individuals made it to all the sessions.

Two participants who did attend every session were a mother, Joyce, and her son Thomas, a

delightful youngster with a big smile and an engaging personality, who had both a physical and

learning disability. Joyce was a single mother raising Thomas, soon to turn six, as well as a

younger daughter.

At a sparsely attended morning session, Joyce found herself in a setting where she felt

comfortable enough to reveal her personal dilemma. Joyce told of a compelling crisis looming

over her life and the lives of her children. Thomas’s special needs, and particularly his physical

disability left him unable to walk. His situation was compounded by the fact that Thomas did not

have a wheelchair. He was able to move about on his own by crawling, or when conditions made

it possible, by using a wooden platform mounted on wheels. The rest of the time Joyce had to

carry him.

Joyce lived right across the street from a regular public school in the city. At the time, Thomas

was near the end of his year in kindergarten in this neighborhood school. Joyce said she had

asked the school principal if he could attend and since a kindergarten teacher had agreed to have

him in her class, permission was given. This arrangement allowed Thomas to be taken to school

by his grandmother who lived with Joyce and her two children. With grandmother able to get

Thomas to school and also provide child-care for Willa, Joyce was able to have a full time job.

This job required Joyce to leave home early in the morning to travel to the work site across the

city. Things were working out well. But she had just learned that her good fortune was about to

end.

Joyce was very worried about the news she had just received from the school authorities. The

principal had advised her that Thomas would not be able to attend the school the following year.

It turned out there were two problems. First, the classrooms for Grade 1 students were on the

second floor and there was no way to transport Thomas. His physical disability made

accessibility a barrier. But, there was another problem that was only revealed when Joyce

pressed the issue with the school principal. She was finally told that none of the first grade

teachers were willing to have Thomas in their class. The school principal seemed helpless and



said he could do nothing about this. Joyce met with an official from the ministry of education but

no help with the accessibility issue or the teacher acceptance issue was offered.

In fact the only alternative the official offered Joyce was to enroll Thomas in a special education

school on the outskirts of the city. Since no transportation to the school was provided, the only

way for Thomas to get there was for Joyce to accompany him on a public bus for the one-hour

journey each way. And this is where Joyce faced a crisis, one many parents and families in theregion face.

If Joyce took Thomas to school by public bus in the morning, she would be unable to get to her

job on time. And not only that, to get him home in the afternoon, she would have to be at the

school at 2:30 p.m. to again accompany him on the bus. Joyce had a tough and bitter choice. She

had to either leave her son at home without an education, or she had to quit her job and try to

transport him across the city to a special school for students with disabilities. Economically,

there was no choice. Joyce needed to work. Thomas’s education was about to be brought to a halt

after just one year.

Joyce’s story highlights some of the obstacles that need to be overcome. But it also shows the

opportunity that exists in every community for change and improvement.

It just so happened that a journalist, well-known in the nation for highlighting the inequities of

human rights issues, had been invited to sit in on the seminar. He used Joyce’s story as the lead

in an article published a few days later. For Joyce and Thomas this coverage proved most

helpful. The publicity provided government motivation that Joyce could not ignite on her own.

Officials were instructed to help resolve the problem forthwith – and they did. Thomas was

assured of placement in the neighborhood school for the coming year and Joyce’s fears about his

education and her family's livelihood were resolved.

It remains a fact, however, that the issues were resolved for Joyce and Thomas,

and for them alone. It was also a short-term solution, since there was no

assurance the matter would not come up again. Thomas’s educational future, and

the educational future of children with circumstances similar to his, are left very

much at risk in the absence of more substantial political resolve, as well as policy

development and institutional change.

2.3 Deficiencies Revealed

This case example illustrates many of the areas of difficulty that arise when access to the

neighborhood public school is not assured. These deficiencies can be linked to several

areas of potential difficulty, among them:• inadequate policy and legislative provision;• limited coordination of social and economic agencies with schools;

• inadequate administrative provisions to assure proactive leadership;• limited accessibility and provision for physical support;

• inadequate school and classroom practices to support diverse learners;• inadequate training and re-training of teachers;



• inadequate funding for basic education and for support services for students withspecial needs;

These deficiencies need to be described and alternatives suggested from the growing

experience with inclusive practice found in both developed countries and the Latin

American and Caribbean region.

2.3.1 Inadequate policy and legislative provision

The policy and legislative provisions for special needs education should be solidly

anchored in the commitments made to “Education For All” (EFA) and equity inopportunity for every child. It is clear countries in Latin America and the Caribbean face

serious challenges achieving the desired goals of the EFA initiative. No matter howdifficult the challenges may be, the goals should include guarantees for students with

special needs, including those with disabilities. In fact, the time could not be better for governments to seize on the EFA initiative to transform not just educational promise, but

educational practice and outcomes.

In country after country, the story is substantially the same. Education is not wellsupported and is producing inadequate results. Educational reform and restructuring is on

the public agenda, but funding and progress are limited. While change in specialeducation is discussed among the small group of parents and practitioners in the field, it

is largely ignored and rarely seen as part of the larger agenda of reform. Progress requiresthat this be corrected, and suggestions for what is needed are both simple and direct.

The public school mandate should require the education of all children, irrespective of

their degree of diversity in learning needs, as well as physical or intellectualcharacteristics. The political and policy commitments should be seen as clear and

consistent. Teachers and school principals must not be allowed to establish educational policy that is the proper domain of legislators and ministers. The fact that they are

allowed to do so under the guise of professional competence and knowledge, as noted inThomas’s case, is a sad commentary on the depth of understanding of this issue.

2.3.2 Limited coordination of social and economic agencies with schools

The devastating effect on the total family unit is a factor that must be considered when

agencies look at situations like the one Joyce found herself in. The cost in neglect andundeveloped potential for the child is the immediate effect of the denial of access to

schooling. The economic and social results for the parent, other siblings and familymembers are equally relevant. The social and political interests of the community

demand that political leaders and public officials create an environment where commonsense and fairness prevail. Health agencies, social services departments and educational

institutions should be structured and mandates to assure the holistic needs and interests of the child, the family and indeed the community are met. The cost of putting a mother out

of work, and a family in an economic crisis, all for want of a receptive and effectiveschool, is a price paid, not just by Joyce and her family, but over and over by many



families in the region. The construction of a community able to support families flexiblyand responsively requires coordinated action, guided by clear principles of

empowerment.

2.3.3 Inadequate administrative provisions to assure proactive leadership

Legislative and policy provisions are important for the development of inclusive schoolsand supportive communities. The general principles must be backed up by operational

strategies, however, that get the key officials and leaders in the bureaucracy to not onlyunderstand and comply with the policy but put their full skill and commitment behind

implementing the policy. It is not unusual to see the promise of the most basicgovernment policies remain unfulfilled because of bureaucratic opposition or inertia. If

any area demands accountability, it is the education system that shapes our future as itshapes our children.

The ministry of education should ensure that leaders in the system are fully

knowledgeable of the rational for inclusive community schools and the social andeducational benefits that will result from them. They must also be trained in the skills

needed to make schools work well. Skrtic has suggested this leadership needs to befocused on “adhocratic” processes of problem identification and problem solving. He

argues schools are institutions where the work is always unique. Thus the teacher needsto create new and unique strategies to meet the needs of the diverse student population

attending the school on ongoing basis (Skrtic, 1991).

2.3.4 Limited accessibility and provision for physical support

To accommodate diverse student needs the educational system must have the benefit of funds to support accessibility. Buildings must be made accessible for those in

wheelchairs, and it must be recognized that building ramps, accessible washrooms, widedoorways and so on is just the beginning. The provision of personal support from an

assistant also needs to be available if the school is to be able to accommodate studentswith multiple and severe disabilities. Most schools are not equipped or staffed to meet

these needs and achieving the goals of EFA, and thus of “inclusion,” will be difficultuntil they are met.

2.3.5 Inadequate school and classroom practices to support diverse learners

The challenge for school leaders seeking to successfully manage change, is to create

conditions where what is known about “best practices”, can be put to work to benefitchildren. Pedagogical knowledge, and information on what practices make a school work

well, are readily at hand.



(A) Critical Factors for success

For schools to achieve a high degree of success with all children, the day-to-dayexpectations of the teacher have to be reasonable. Several critical factors effect a

teacher’s capacity to achieve successful outcomes with students.

In a paper entitled , “Investments to Improve Children’s Educational Outcomes in Latin America,” presented at the Year 2000 Conference on Early Childhood Development

sponsored by the World Bank and held in Washington in April 2000, J. Douglas Willmsreported on several factors relevant to quality schooling and inclusive practice. This data

was based on the results of the Primer Estudio Internacional Comparativo (PEIC), thefirst international study of its kind in Latin America. The 13 countries involved were

Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Chile, Honduras, Mexico,Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, and Venezuela. While all Caribbean countries were

not represented, the number of participants was large enough to represent the region as awhole for purposes of analysis:

• Class Size: Nearly 46 per cent of all children in the region were in classes larger than

25. Comment: It is not uncommon to find classes ranging in size from 40 to 50students throughout the region. Clearly, this is too many children for one teacher to

handle. Even an excellent teacher would struggle to adequately provide for all. Classsize needs to be reduced and the teaching loads of instructors made more realistic.

• Teachers Working One Job: It was discovered that 47.5 per cent of students attended

schools where their teachers had more than one job. Comment: A significant number of teachers work at two jobs, which is the result of low pay and schools operating two

sessions of classes each day. The consequence is diminished student success, giventhat teachers are unable to take part in meetings with colleagues directed toward

instructional improvement and school enhancement. Opportunities for teachers tomeet and work with parents is also reduced.

• No Ability Grouping: Only 38.7 per cent of all the children in the region were in

schools that did not practice ability grouping. Comment: Willms established thatheterogeneity tends to produce higher levels of achievement for students as a whole.

Inclusive education practice goes hand in hand with achieving high levels of heterogeneity.

• Positive Learning Environment: 51.3 per cent of students in the region were in

schools that employed an index rating the learning climate. Comment: School climateis an important indicator of the sense of community and commitment to mutual

benefit by a class of students. The teacher plays an important role in establishingexpectations and modeling appropriate standards. Inclusion of students with special



needs, particularly students who have been excluded from school or isolated insegregated programs, requires a high emphasis on achieving a positive school and

classroom climate.

• Strong Parental Involvement: A parental involvement index was derived from

questions asked of parents. It was determined that 53.8 per cent of children in theregion were enrolled in schools where strong parent involvement was found.Comment: Achieving successful inclusion with students with special needs is closely

tied to teachers and parents working together. A general climate where a parent-teacher partnership exists eases the transition to inclusive practice.

(B) Other Pedagogical Factors

In addition to the elements identified above, there is a range of other factors that have

emerged as critical in the many schools and classrooms where inclusive education has been successfully implemented. Some of the most common are described below:

• School Support Strategies: Teachers working in inclusive classrooms face many

challenges on a daily basis. They require support in a number of ways. Blanco andDuk (1995) point out there is increasing effort in the region to “integrate the special

subsystem of education into the regular system.” There is a purposeful steering of special education resources into regular schools to support greater degrees of

inclusion for students with special needs. Indeed, if inclusion is to be successful,educational managers need to assure that there are varied and systematic supports

available to the teacher,.

• The Support Teacher: One of the most promising approaches in supportingclassroom teachers with inclusion is to provide support from a collaborating teacher.

In many cases, this teacher is a former special education teacher given a new mandateand role. Instead of providing direct service to students, the support teacher places

emphasis on providing professional assistance in planning and teaching strategies tothe classroom teacher. This assistance may be focused on meeting the unique learning

needs of the students or on developing classroom strategies and activities for day-to-day use. Support teachers also , assist in working with parents, and they may deal

with outside agencies involved with the child. They help the teacher with all the other complications associated with providing high quality instruction to special needs

students in a regular class (Porter, 1991).

Yet, the collaboration must go beyond teacher and support teacher. Blanco (1997) hasdescribed the need to establish … “ a collaborative working scheme among teachers,

teachers and specialists, teachers and parents and among the students themselves.”

The support teacher can also facilitate more structured sharing among teachers whowork in the same school. One means of achieving this involves “teachers helping

teachers” through problem solving teams that focus on practical and site specificstrategies. Support teachers can be trained to facilitate the meetings and teachers learn



how to act cooperatively to help each other improve their teaching practices (Porter,1994).

It is also important the school principal or director be involved in the collaborative

process of planning and review (Perner, 1991). Modeling effective teamwork in the

“adhocratic” manner suggested by Skrtic can help teachers feel comfortable withinthis new approach.

• The Classroom Assistant: Many children with special needs have physical, behavioral and, in some cases, learning needs that can be effectively met by the one-

on-one assistance of a classroom assistant. The assistant can be a paid staff member with some degree of special training or, in some circumstances, may be a parent or a

volunteer contributing their time to help students achieve success. Whatever thestatus, a second or perhaps even a third adult in the classroom can be a significant

help for the teacher. Schools have institutionalized the model of one teacher for eachclass, but there is nothing sacrosanct about this approach. If an additional adult is

needed, the means to make one available needs to be identified. This approach addsconsiderably to the flexibility that the school needs to adapt supports to meet the

needs of various students. Successful school programs provide this flexibility, perhaps in different ways, but the availability of support for the teacher is assured

(Porter & Stone, 1998).

• New Ways of Teaching: Another essential element to accommodate students withdiverse needs in regular classes is for teachers to utilize a variety of innovative and

flexible teaching strategies. Multi-level instruction is one formulation developed tomeet this requirement (Collicott, 1991) Multi-level instruction has been defined as

follows (Perner & Porter, 1998):

An approach to classroom instruction and curriculum organization that emphasizes provision of appropriate learning opportunities for students with

varying levels of academic skills through the same “core lesson.” This approach suggests consideration by teachers of the (a) underlying concept of the lesson, (b)

method of presentation by the teacher, (c) method of practice by the student, and (d) method of evaluation.

The model requires the teacher to consider a number of alternatives in terms of teacher

presentation and student practice. Among the choices typically identified are:ß modes of activities (Wood, 1992);

• the type of questions asked and the thinking skills required of students (for example utilizing Bloom’s cognitive levels (e.g. knowledge, comprehension,

application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation) which sets out levels of thecognitive domain (Bloom, 1969);

• student learning styles (e.g. visual, auditory and/or tactile);• degree of participation (e.g. full or partial);

• reference to the theory of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983), whichencourages reference to student skill in seven identifiable types of intelligence,



should be utilized and nurtured in the classroom (e.g. logical/mathematical;verbal/linguistic; visual/spatial; bodily/kinesthetic; musical/rhythmical;

interpersonal, and intrapersonal).

Multi-level instruction and similar models of pedagogy are required to open the class

to varied and flexible activities to stimulate student learning. Students are thus allowedsome choice in how they demonstrate their learning and practice new skills. Thisapproach has proved to be a useful way to support teachers in developing new

instructional strategies (Perner, 1993).

• Flexible Curriculum: The rigidity of school curriculum is a major concern when itcomes to serving students with special needs in schools throughout the region. In

some cases, curriculum rigidity followed by grade retention is a prime cause of dropouts among populations of students from low socio-economic groups, minority

groups and others at-risk. Over emphasis on high academic standards andachievement lead to “… high drop-out (rates) and grade retention, low attendance

rates, and poor learning achievement in many Latin American countries (Artilles et al,1995).” Inflexible curriculum, combined with poor quality of education, “… requires

an investment solely to keep repeaters in the system, an expense that in turn is notinvested in dealing with learning difficulties (Palacios, 1999).”

While curriculum outcomes and goals are needed to shape expectations for most

students, a responsive school program must also be capable of making reasonableaccommodations for students who require them. The receptiveness of school

personnel, and for that matter the public and parents, for this flexibility needs to bestrengthened. Blanco and Duk observed that, “… open and flexible curricula are a

must if the various needs of students are to be met and the different social andeducational settings wherein the teaching learning process takes place, are to be taken

into account ( Blanco & Duk, 1995).” They further note that schools should move“… toward the elimination of the differentiated curriculum and the creation of a

single curriculum for the whole student population flexible enough to allow for thenecessary adjustments and … (to) … respond to the students’ differences (Blanco &

Duk, 1995).”

The multi-level teaching approach is designed to achieve exactly this result, andtogether with other instructional strategies, such as cooperative learning and activity-

based learning, give teachers several tools to accomplish their goals (Porter & Stone,1998). Flexible curriculum can also assist schools in reducing the high proportion of

students in the region who are forced to repeat grades.

2.3.6 Inadequate training and re-training of teachers

Teachers need thorough pre-service training and on-going in-service trainingopportunities to make inclusive education a success (Perner & Porter, 1998). Teaching is

a profession of ever changing demands and the need to develop new skills andapproaches to use with students is considered essential. In much of the region, teachers



are not adequately trained. In some countries primary level teachers require little, if any,training beyond secondary school. Willms reports that only 54.8 per cent of students in

the region were considered to have well-trained teachers (Willms, 2000).

Blanco has identified the key weakness of training initiatives in the region as the focus on

individual teachers in discreet areas without attention to school-wide initiatives thatinvolve every teacher.

“… (E)very country is allocating considerable material and human resources tothe formation of teachers capable of responding to the different challenges posed

by the various educational reforms underway. Regrettably, the results so far obtained are not encouraging, since formation has not translated into significant

modification of teaching practices. … Teachers trained in isolation, fail to produce significant transformations in the school culture (Blanco, 1999).

In a study of inclusive education programs in member countries, the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), found that “… the training of allthose involved was a key to success (OECD, 1999). Among the skills identified as

essential were adapting curriculum, using a variety of instructional strategies, identifyingindividual needs, skill in collaboration and problem solving, the development of

individual educational plans and monitoring student progress.

2.3.7 Inadequate funding of basic education and support services for students with

special needs

Sufficient funding for full basic education is not ensured in many countries in the region.

While commitments have been made to correct funding deficiencies and inequities,concrete results are not yet evident. The inequity in funding supports for students with

special educational needs is even more glaring than for general education. Significant portions of the student population are simply not considered a part of the population

eligible for schooling (e.g. the case from Argentina). Thus, the question of what can bedone must be asked.

The basic principles of effective financing are quite simple, although recognizably more

difficult to implement. Critical elements of an effective financing policy include thefollowing (Porter, 1995):

1. Provide sufficient funding to schools for quality basic education.2. Establish class-size guidelines that are realistic, with a target not in excess of 25 to 40

students per class.3. Pay teachers enough to demand one full day of professional work, including time for

planning, meetings and personal improvement.4. Recognize the additional cost of providing for a diverse group of students in regular

classes and in regular schools and provide funding to meet this need through:4.1 Salaries for professional support teachers;

4.2 Funds for assistants to the teachers;4.3 Funds for modifications to facilities, as required;



4.4 Funds for individual supports that may be required by specific students.5. Provide funding for staff training and public education.

While there are many considerations and complications required to effectively execute

such a plan, constructive action to achieve these goals would be a step in the right

direction.

2.4 Strategies to Develop Inclusive Education

Too often the proposals for inclusive education initiatives result in debate and discussion

among those in the special education and disability fields. In this setting, there are manydisagreements and a high degree of heated rhetoric on all sides. The fact is the discussion

is largely wasted in this context. Inclusive education is a topic for those engaged in thegeneral education system. It is among regular school principals and teachers that the

discussions need to occur. One of the mandates of the EFA programs in the region is toachieve for acceptance of diversity. Schools must be challenged and empowered to meet

the educational needs of the children in their communities just as the families of thesechildren are challenged to provide the best possible family life. Schools need to focus on

the fact that just as the family has obligations to each child, the school community has anobligation to each family and thus every child.

In many cases special educators with a vision for inclusion are found at the forefront of

the struggle for inclusive schools. For these special educators developing inclusiveoptions for children is seen as pursuing “best practices” for their students.

Officials and political leaders are always looking for the most effective programs that

produce the best results and that make the most beneficial use of the limited fundingavailable. In some countries this is a key motivator for reform related to special

education. Spending on segregated special education is clearly inadequate to meet theneeds of students with special needs in the region. Increasing this spending by three or

four times, and in some cases up to 10 times the current level of spending, would still notmeet all of the need. And, it is ironic that making these extra investments would merely

reinforce the idea the general education system does not have to deal with children whoare different. This would logically result in even more children being rejected from

regular schools. For example in The Netherlands, special education provision eventuallyreached the point where fourteen types of special schools provided segregated education

to students judged to have special needs before the reform process was initiated (Meijer,1994).

Countries in the region have very little extra money available to spend on education.

Regular schools and the general education program needs whatever additional investmentcan be made in them. By mandating an inclusive general education program, money can

be focused almost entirely on improving the capacity of the program to serve all thechildren – typical children and their peers with special needs. The added policy benefit is

that the money now going to segregated special education, as well as the increases likelyto be added over time, can be added to the pool of resources available to raise the



standards of practice in regular classrooms in community schools. In this way, the social benefits of the investment will be available to the population as a whole.

2.5 Nurturing the Inclusive Model

“Basic education for all requires assuring access, permanence, quality learning,and full participation and integration of all children and adolescents, particularly for members of indigenous groups, those with disabilities, those that are

homeless, those that are workers, those living with HIV/AIDS, and others.”2

( EFA, 2000)

There is now a consensus that inclusive education is an alternative to the whimsical effort

to develop segregated special education programs throughout the region. The statementabove from the regional meeting in Santo Domingo held to finalize the action plan for

nations in the Americas was presented at the World Forum on Education for All in Dakar,Senegal in April 2000. This represents a clear affirmation of the inclusion principle and a

vision statement that will challenge the current status quo of segregation and neglect.

According to this new model, children should be educated in the educational centers of his or her town or village, whether or not he or she has a disability or is different in any

way. Schools that have implemented this model have made important progress. Nevertheless, as is usually the case with innovative initiatives, the prospect of

implementing the inclusive education model generates fear and resistance, mainly fromteachers who are fearful the training and support they will need will not materialize.

Many regular teachers doubt the practicality of the strategy and resist the idea of havingchildren with special needs in their classrooms. They genuinely feel that they are not

prepared for this challenge and they fear that the implementation of this model will meana great deal of extra work for them.

Many special educators are also fearful of inclusion. They are concerned that managers

may see inclusion as a means to eliminate their jobs and save money. Others wonder if they have the knowledge and skill needed to assist regular class teachers with inclusion.

Obviously each country has its own conditions and characteristics, therefore there are no

recipes for the development of a unique and inclusive education model. But whendisseminated and known, good practices, like those discussed above, can always be

adapted in order to enrich similar processes that take place in other parts of the world.Each and every country has taken positive steps in this direction. It is important to

disseminate and multiply such steps.

2.6 Partnerships with Parents

2 From the Santo Domingo EFA Regional Framework For Action (Education For All in the

Americas, February 10-12, 2000).



Parents are the most consistent advocates for their child’s best interests. In manyinstances parent-based groups, some formal and national in scope, others small, informal

and highly specific in their goals, are making a significant difference in the movementtoward inclusive educational programs.

In an analysis of developments in the region, Blanco (1997) has noted the importance of partnerships in building the conditions for progress.

“The formulation of policies designed to help disabled individuals requires a global,integrative and participative approach that involves various institutions. The

Intersectoral Plans developed must involve the different Ministries, and must rely on the participation of Parents Associations and Organizations for the Assistance of the

Disabled.” - (Blanco, 1997)

One of the most promising opportunities for partnership exists between parent groups andeducational authorities. In many cases parents have had to create their own schools to

meet the educational needs of their children. Examples of this kind exist in mostcountries in the region. Just as parent groups have been part of the effort to create the

separate schooling model, they can also be part of the effort to create inclusive schools.The case below provides an instructive example of this prospect.

2.7 Case Example – Sao Paulo, Brazil

Inclusive Education Project:

APAE3 Sao Paulo’s Role in Creating Inclusive Schools

Context APAE Sao Paulo (APAE SP) is a large and mature NGO with a proud history of accomplishment

recognized both within Brazil and internationally. APAE SP has operated a school for students

with intellectual disabilities for many years. Recently, the student population reached 600

children. APAE SP’s educational leaders have long recognized that many more children should

be served. But, they also recognized that APAE SP does not have the capacity or the resources to

support each child who needs service, and the prospect of doing so in the future appears dim.

The Plan

In 1999, APAE SP initiated a project to include students with intellectual disabilities in regular

schools throughout the City of Sao Paulo. Approximately 100 children were enrolled in 32

regular schools, both public and private, throughout the city. APAE SP provided staff support

and leadership to this process. The project was extended to more students and more schools inthe year 2000.

Key Elements

3 Associaco de Pais e Amigos dos Excepcionais (APAE).



n Vision and leadership: the vision and leadership for this project has been provided by

several of the founders of the agency, Dr. Antonio Clemente Fillho and Maria Amelia

Vampre, as well as several other directors and the senior staff of APAE SP.

n Staff support: the professional staff involved in the project are good teachers, with experience

working in the segregated classes of APAE SP. Nearly a dozen teachers were selected to act

as resource and support staff to the project. They are knowledgeable in special education practices and have shown a real commitment to their task.

n Regular school cooperation: the teachers in the regular schools all agreed to participate in

the project. They have all sought to serve the children well and to work cooperatively with the

support teachers from APAE SP. They welcomed the extra assistance and training provided

and asked for more intensive joint planning with the support teacher and the child’s parents.

School directors have also played an important role in the process. It is clear that the most

successful experiences have been where the involvement and participation of the school

director has been high.

n Support Strategies: one of the key elements of the APAE SP project is the delivery of support

to teachers in the cooperating schools. It was recognized from the start that simply sending the children to the regular schools with no support was not an appropriate action. The

regular classroom teachers would require help from a support teacher with the knowledge

and skills needed to make the initiative a success. Teachers have needed help in solving the

problems and difficulties that have predictably arisen, including behavioral, curricular,

instructional and social problems.

n Training: the teachers involved in the project have been provided with training

opportunities, but all agree more is needed. It is noteworthy that theory and philosophy were

well covered but practical strategies and concrete methodology were not given sufficient

attention.

n Parents: the APAE SP inclusion project has given parents the opportunity to develop avision of the benefits their children will gain from an inclusionary school program. They are

being encouraged to ask questions and collaborate with other parents. Parents are being

empowered to play a key and vital role in the project and increasingly the need for parental

involvement and participation in the process is emphasized.

n Ministry Partnerships: the municipal government of Sao Paulo has been a supportive

sponsor of the initiative. It has provided extra teaching positions to APAE SP to carry out

the initiative. In addition to cooperation with the municipal department of education, APAE

SP has sought the support of the federal ministry of education.

Conclusion

The goal of the present initiative is to identify and support a cluster of schools, public and private, that successfully include students with special needs, especially those with intellectual

disabilities. The practices used by these schools will be identified and shared as “best practices”

or exemplars.. The project serves its most useful purpose by providing support for the long-term

goal of making every school inclusive. This goal is at the heart of the mission of parent groups

such as APAE SP.

With the success of the project, public officials responsible for education are being asked to build

on these examples and thus fulfill their responsibility to provide an education for every child,



including those with special needs. As a consequence, this project that involves just a few

children in Sao Paulo, has the potential to make a real difference for countless other children.

APAE SP has committed itself to make this inclusive education project a success. The project will

only succeed, however, if other crucial partners give it support and build on the initiative.

3. Disability and Inclusive Education: Today to The Future

The attention being given to inclusive education as a strategy for school reform andimprovement, as well as the assurance of participation and equity for students with

special needs is ever increasing. There is little evidence that this is a fad. Indeed it isincreasingly evident that the vision of an inclusive and welcoming community school,

that is effective and nurturing is one that few stakeholders can resist.

4.1 Where We Are Today

Most countries in the region have committed themselves to the goals of equity and

inclusion through international agreements and the EFA process. Turning thesecommitments into reality is a more difficult task. It seems that the opportunity for

progress depends on policy-makers who view the inclusive community school as acrucial element of the general effort toward educational reform and restructuring, rather

than as issue of practice in the field of special education. There are signs that this ishappening throughout the region.

In October 2000, the Council of Ministers of Education of the states of Central America

met in Antigua, Guatemala. They invited a delegation from Inclusion InterAmericana tomeet with them and discuss opportunities to use inclusive education as a mechanism for

reform and improvement. The meeting was made possible by the initiative of the minister of education from El Salvador, a country that had welcomed a partnership with Inclusion

InterAmericana to reform its special education practice. The host ministry of education inGuatemala also had strong ties to the NGO and parent sector.

The discussions between the ministers and members of Inclusion InterAmericana focused

on the need for greater provision, as well as the need to maximize the effect of limitedresources. It was agreed that for most students with disabilities in the Central American

region, assuring access to the local public school was the only reasonable way to assure

access to any educational experience. The ministers agreed to an on-going process todevelop examples of inclusive schools, and to build on the practices and innovationsfound to be successful. The council of ministers and Inclusion InterAmericana are

currently working on a plan to provide teacher training and in-service and production of informational materials to assist teachers and parents in this area (Inclusion

InterAmericana, 2000).

Another positive initiative has been taken by several rectors of pedagogical universities in



Central America. With leadership from a university rector in Honduras, they have agreedthere is a need to prepare teachers for the diversity that schools will accommodate in the

future. They have begun discussions on a plan of action with Inclusion InterAmericanaand the Roeher Institute of Canada. This initiative and others hold promise for progress in

teacher preparation for inclusive schooling (Roeher, 1999).

We can expect the movement toward inclusive educational practices to continue. Someinitiatives will no doubt be modest in scope and be limited to creating a new option for

the provision of special education. Others may be more ambitious and include the goal of inclusive schools a component in the actions to modernization and reform public

education. Stakeholders can work together so that the commitment and capacity to serveall children can be nurtured and supported in every school in every community..

4.2 Getting Started

For inclusion in education systems to advance, it must be viewed as a right of citizenship.It is an expression of personal freedom that unfortunately not all children enjoy. Yet the

ability to provide this opportunity to every child is well within grasp.

A truly inclusive education system is not achieved overnight. Many of the necessaryreforms are systemic and require considerable investment in human, financial and

material resources. Funding for research and development in the area of special needseducation is often hard to secure, but desperately needed if successful models are to be

identified. Examples of good practices need to be gathered and circulated in pamphlets, books, manuals, videos and on the Internet. This dissemination of knowledge to teachers,

parents and other stakeholders is vital. Some jurisdictions also invest in pilot projects as acost-effective way to test a model for inclusion. This allows for trial runs in a school, or

clusters of schools, before all children in a neighborhood zone are served.

To inspire leadership, it is important to introduce inclusive education programs for teachers, so they are prepared to accommodate students with diverse needs in regular

classes. This builds knowledge about children with special needs, including disabilities,and provides them with practical training in pedagogical practices and instructional

strategies. Eventually, a cadre of informed and skilled educational leaders, schoolmanagers, school principals and directors will take form. They will be trained to take the

day-to-day actions needed to transform schools through inclusive practices.

Partnerships between government and community-based action groups are highly productive. Community, national and regional partnerships are both desirable and

achievable. They need to be nurtured where they now exist and created where they donot. Partnerships among national and international agencies dedicated to children with

special needs also should be strengthened. Disability rights groups, parent advocacygroups, social movements and faith based groups should be encouraged to link together

for this common cause.



4.3 The Future

The opportunity to create communities where all children are permitted to learn together

in inclusive schools is a realistic one. The Educational For All initiative has significant

moral support as well as political and economic backing. It thus provides a context to link the provision of education to children with disabilities to the broader effort for equity andfull coverage to children and youth. This future will only become a reality when public

policy requires every public school to provide a quality education to every childincluding those with special needs and disabilities. The steps needed to provide this have

been explored in this paper. It is now time to move forward with determination so thisgoal can become a reality in the decade before us.



References

Artilles, A., Trent, S., Hallahan, D. (1995). Special education for students with mild

disabilities in Latin America: Issues and prospects. In A. Artiles and D. Hallahan (Eds.),Special Education in Latin America: Experiences and Issues, (pp. 251-284). Connecticut:

Praeger.

Blanco, Rosa, (1997). Integration and Educational Opportunities: A Right For All. InBULLETIN 44, December 1997. The Major Project of Education. (pp. 80-84). Paris:

UNESCO.

Blanco, Rosa, (1999). Towards Schools For All With The Involvement of All . InBULLETIN 48, April 1999. The Major Project of Education. (pp. 55-71). Paris:

UNESCO.

Blanco, Rosa, and Duk, Cynthia, Integrating Special Needs Students: Current and

Prospective Status in Latin America and the Caribbean. In BULLETIN 38, December 1995, The Major Project of Education.(pp. 60-66). Paris: UNESCO.

Bloom, B.S., (Ed). (1969). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives : The classification of educational goals. New York: David McKay Company Inc.

CACL, (1993). Declaration of Managua. Partnerships in Community Living Conference,

Managua, Nicaragua, December, 1993. Toronto: Canadian Association for CommunityLiving.

CACL, (1997). Integration of Persons with Disabilities into the Productive Workforce.

Research Study for the Inter-American Development Bank Toronto: CanadianAssociation for Community Living.

Carro, L. (1996). Focus group: What does inclusive education mean for families? The

European Electronic Journal on Inclusive Education in Europe , 1 [Availablehttp://www.es/inclusion/texts/carro02.htm]

CIDA, (December 2000). CIDA’s Social Development Priorities: A Framework for Action. (P. 5.) Ottawa, Canada.

Collicott, J. (1991). Implementing Multi-level Instruction: Strategies for Classroom

Teachers. In G. L. Porter & D. Richler, (Eds.) Changing Canadian Schools: Perspectiveson Disability and Inclusion. Toronto, Ontario: G. Allan Roeher Institute.

de Lorenzo, E. (1995). Special education services for rural areas in Uruguay: A

Proposed Model . In A. Artiles and D. Hallahan (Eds.), Special Education in Latin America: Experiences and Issues, (pp. 115-138). Connecticut: Praeger.



Duncan, G., (2001). An Up-date on Special Needs Education in Jamaica. InformationPaper. Kingston: JAPMR.

EFA, World Education Forum, (2000). Education for All in the Americas: Regional

Framework of Action. Santo Domingo, February 10-12, 2000. In The Dakar Framework

for Action – Education for All: Meeting our Collective Commitments. Dakar, Senegal:World Education Forum.

Gardner, H., (1983). Frames of Mind . New York : Basic Books.

Guijarro, R. B. (2000). Inclusive Education in Latin America. Paper delivered at theWorld Education Forum. Dakar.

Inclusion InterAmericana, (2000). Strategies for promoting inclusive education in

Central America. Discussion Paper for Council of Ministers of Education of CentralAmerican. Antigua, Guatemala, October, 2000.

International Bureau of Education (IBE--online) World Data on Education , [Available:

http//www.ibe.unesco.org/ ]

Jonsson, T., (1995). Inclusive Education. In NU News on Health Care in DevelopingCountries, 2/95, vol.9. [Available http://dag.virtualave.net/Nuweb.htm ]

Kisanji, J. (1998). Threats and challenges to inclusive education in the South: The role of

international cooperation. In International Journal of Developmental Education.[Available: http://www.globalprogress.org/ingles/seminarios/Kisanji.html].

Kochhar, C., & Gopal, M. (1998). Enhancing Participation, Expanding Access: The

Double Axis of Sustainable Educational Development. [Available:http://www.edpolicy.gwu.edu/resources/enhancing/parta.html ]

McMeekin, Robert W., (1998). Education Statistics in Latin America and The Caribbean,

UNESCO: BULLETIN 46, August 1998, p.12. Paris: UNESCO.

Meijer, C. J. W., (1994). The Netherlands. In Meijer, C. J. W., Pijl., S. J., & Hegarty, S.(eds.). New Perspectives in Special Education: A Six Country Study in Integration. (pp.

95-112). London: Routledge.

Milicic, N., Sius, M. (1995). Children with learning disabilities in Chile: Strategies to facilitate integration. In A. Artiles and D. Hallahan (Eds.), Special Education in Latin

America: Experiences and Issues, (pp. 169-190). Connecticut: Praeger.

O=Toole. (1995). Mobilising Communities. In Brian O=Toole and Roy McConkey (Eds), Innovations in Developing Countries for People with Disabilities, (pp. 85-104).

Lancashire: Lisieux Hall.



OECD, (1999). Inclusive Education At Work: Students with Disabilities in MainstreamSchools, Paris: OECD.

Palacios, M.A. (1999).Co-operation and basic education in Peru. [Available:

http://www.rcp.net.pe/cti/education.html ]

Perner, D., & Porter, G. L., (1998). Creating Inclusive Schools : Changing Roles and Strategies, In Hilton, A. & Ringlaben, R. (Eds) Best and Promising Practices

Developmental Disabilities. Austin, Texas: pro-ed.

Perner, D., (1991). Leading the way: The role of school administrators in integration. InG. L. Porter & D. Richler, (Eds.) Changing Canadian Schools: Perspectives on Disability

and Inclusion. Toronto, Ontario: G. Allan Roeher Institute.

Perner, D., (1993). All students attend regular class in neighbourhood schools: A case study of three schools in Woodstock, New Brunswick, Canada. Research Report for the

OECD, Integration in the School Project. Vaals: The Netherlands.

Porter, G. L. (1999). The nurturing and growth of students with disabilities: A strategy.UNICEF Education Update, 2 (4).

Porter, G. L. (1991). The Methods & Resource Teacher : A Collaborative Consultant

Model. In G. L. Porter & D. Richler (Eds.), Changing Canadian Schools: Perspectives on Disability and Inclusion. Toronto : The G. Allan Roeher Institute.

Porter, G. L. & Richler, D., (1991). Changing Special Education Practice: Law,

Advocacy and Innovation. In G. L. Porter & D. Richler (Eds.), Changing CanadianSchools: Perspectives on Disability and Inclusion. (pp 9-34). Toronto : The G. Allan

Roeher Institute.

Porter, G. L. & Stone, J., (1998). The Inclusive School model: A Framework and KeyStrategies for Success. In Putnam, J. W., (Ed.) Cooperative Learning and Strategies for

Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity in the Classroom. Second Edition. (pp. 229-248).Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Porter, G. L. (Producer). (1994). Teachers Helping Teachers : Problem Solving Teams

That Work . [Video]. Toronto : The Roeher Institute & School District 12.

Porter, G. L., Organization of schooling : achieving access and quality through inclusion,(1995), Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education.. Vol. XXV, No. 2,

June 1995, (pp. 299-309). Paris: UNESCO.

Roeher, (1999). Agreement for Partnership and Cooperation with Pedagogical Universityof Honduras. October 1999. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Toronto: Roeher Institute.



Schiefelbein, E.Corvalan, A. M., Peruzzi, S., Heikkinen, S., and Hausmann, I. (1995 ).Quality of Education, Development, Equity and Poverty in the Region, 1980-1994. In

Bulletin 38, December 1995, The Major Project of Education. Paris: UNESCO.

Skrtic, T., (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence.

Harvard Educational Review, 61(2), 148-207.

UNESCO(1998). Primer Estudio Internacional Comparitivo. Santiago, Chile.

UNESCO, (1994). Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs

Education. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO, (1998). Inclusive Education on the Agenda. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (1999). Salamanca: Five Years On: A Review of UNESCO Activities in theLight of The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs

Education. Paris: UNESCO.

UNICEF. (1999). An Overview of Young People Living with Disabilities: Their Needsand their Rights. New York: UNICEF.

Willms, J. D. (2000). Standards of Care: Investments to Improve Children’s Educational

Outcomes in Latin America. Paper presented at “Year 2000 Conference on EarlyChildhood Development”, (April 2000). World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Wood, J. (1991). Adapting instruction for mainstreamed and at-risk students. (2nd

ed.),

Toronto: Maxwell MacMillan Limited.

disability and inclusive education

Documents