Abstract
Although integration was the main issue of the 1980's, integration of children with Severe Learning Difficulties (SLD hereafter) is still a matter of controversy. Legislation has decreed statements in favour of integration trying to provide social justice, but education practice has not been efficient and sufficient enough to follow them. The notion of integration is a complex process whose concept is associated with the aims of education and the ethos of the society in general.
The concept of integration as a process that gives the opportunity to SLD children to interact with their peers and participate in the educational and social life of school, has created a lot of confusion about the ways it can be achieved. The effectiveness of integration for SLD children can not be easily evaluated because the meagre empirical research, its methodological problems and the low incidence of such a population.
The main purpose of this paper is to clarify the notion of integration and its application to children with Severe Learning Difficulties into mainstream schools. The major arguments for and against integration of children with severe learning difficulties are going to be presented. The ways that integration of SLD children occur will be outlined. The extent and the effectiveness of mainstreaming of SLD children are going to be assessed, while the need for evaluation of integration on individual basis becomes apparent. Finally the elements of a realistic integration / inclusion are going to be discussed.
1. INTRODUCTION - SETTING THE SCENE
It was not until 1970 when the Education Act 1970 stated that all the children, without exception should be educated under the jurisdiction of local education authorities. This radical statement dictated that children who were previously labelled as "uneducable" and were under the responsibility of Health authorities could attend special schools (Leadbetter and Leadbetter 1993). This reform derived from the impact of the Civil Rights movement and its application to education. According to this movement, SLD children have the right to become independent adults and they should receive education that would maximise their potential towards that end (Jenkinson 1993).
Warnock report 1978 and the Education Act 1981, came into force in 1983, were important steps towards integration because they declared that there is a single population of children whose Special Educational Needs are defined not in terms of individual deficits or impairments but in terms of learning difficulties (Fish, 1989). Children with Moderate and Severe Learning Difficulties was the term that replaced the term Educational Sub-Normal (Moderate and Severe). The new term does not focus on an innate disability but on a difficulty in terms of learning. Nowadays, SLD children are children whose intellectual level is below the population average and they have a notable impairment in the ability to adapt to the demands of every-day life (World Health Organisation 1985). However the term SLD children is a fuzzy word because it involves a wide range of impairments. Although the low level of IQ is a common characteristic among SLD children, their quantitative and qualitative differences are diverse.
The cardinal, decisive step towards integration was given by the formulation of the National Curriculum and a declaration of the Department of Education and Science (DES 1989) according to which each pupil should have a broad and balanced curriculum differentiated by his/her particular needs. This meant that children with severe learning difficulties should receive a modified curriculum as their peers do. Although this statement does not clarify if they should attend Ordinary or Special schools, it indicates that SLD children have to be taught the same topics as the normal children. If the context of teaching is the same for all the children the question why SLD children should be taught in special schools rather than in ordinary is inevitable.
2. DEFINITIONS OF INTEGRATION
The term of integration is quite confusing because its meaning depends not only on the user but on the situations as well (MacGlynn and Phillips 1987). Integration has been applied in various ways in different conditions and thus there is not common understanding of what exactly it means. Hall(1992) claims that integration is "rather an umbrella term, meaning nothing in particular", whereas Leadbetter and Leadbetter(1993) consider it as a relative concept rather than a well defined recipe.
Most of the definitions of integration refer to it as a process during which an Ordinary school and a special group influence each other, interact and form "a new educational whole" (Hegarty 1981). Warnock committee 1978 outlines three main levels of integration:
However placement of SLD children in ordinary schools does not necessarily mean integration of these children into mainstream education. There are cases of full functional placements of SLD children that do not act as integration but as segregation. The quality of integration depends on the degree of the acceptance of SLD children from the school system. For this reason, Booth(1982) deems integration as a process and a goal simultaneously which could be described as a continuous of increasing participation in the whole educational and social life as children's needs are developed. Under these perspectives the term integration has been introduced because it presupposes the acceptance of SLD children. This should cause reformation and alterations of school in order to fulfil and meet children's needs.
Nowadays, integration has been described in numerous ways according to the variety of arrangements that it presupposes. Its main patterns are outlined by Booth(1981) and Hegarty(1981) and a SLD child may attend:
In the case of SLD children the most common form of provision is the development of links between special and mainstream schools (Jowett et al. 1987). SLD children individually or in groups visit a mainstream school on a regular basis. They participate in certain activities e.g. Physical Education, Arts Education in order to be socially integrated with their peers (Steele et al.1992). Nevertheless, there are cases of children with Down's Syndrome who experience a functional kind of integration. However,Wyton(1993) cited by Farrell (1994) found that only 6 out of 27 local authorities in England and Wales report that they have SLD children fully integrated.
3. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF INTEGRATION
Arguments in favour of integration, regardless the severity of learning difficulties, derive from socio-political concepts and empirical research.
Integration is considered as a matter of social justice and democracy because it wipes out discrimination and social isolation (Leadbetter and Leadbetter 1993). According to the ethical dimension of integration, SLD children have the right to education, the right to equality of opportunity and the right to participation in community. The philosophy of normalisation stresses their right to experience a normal life, attend their neighbourhood school and receive education in ordinary settings. They should be exposed to equal opportunities as the other pupils and they should be taught to live in autonomy (Wolfensberger 1983). Their societal integration with their peers make them valuable, worthwhile persons who could play an active not passive role in groups. Thus, SLD children must be treated in supplement ways and receive additional provision in order to overcome their difficulties and contribute to the society (Hegarty 1987). Their exposure to ordinary education settings does not necessarily create advanced expectations for their attainment but initiates child to develop practical skills for his/her self-care or communication with the others (Jenkinson 1993).
Proponents of integration usually stress the inefficiency of special schools and they claim that special schools offer an inferior education in terms of academic grounding and of adequate preparation for life after school. Special schools presented to be overprotective and underdemanding. Low expectations of teachers do not give SLD children the opportunity to achieve their potential. Moreover special schools are far away and require the children to be transported every day. In addition to this, children are kept artificially sheltered in special schools and they are not exposed to daily reality(Leadbetter and Leadbetter 1993). This isolation creates many problems and SLD children can not be easily socialised and prepared for adult life (Galloway 1979). These aspects reveal that Special schools are not suitable for achieving the aims of education which lead to a diverse development of personality and preparation for adult life. They imply the closure of the special schools. However, these arguments are simplistic generalisations. They turn a blind eye and they insult the hard work that is being done in many special schools. Moreover the closure of the special schools would restrict parents' freedom to decide about the kind of child's education.
Another argument in favour of integration emphasises that the majority of SLD children can not achieve their maximum capacity because of the deprived environment of special schools, where the interaction between pupils is limited and not reinforced (Brown 1981). Supporters of integration claim that learning depends on the quality of interactions in which children are involved. SLD children need an enriched environment in order to come in touch with ordinary pupils and normal behaviour. Under these conditions they found meaningful an attempt for communication and response to the environmental stimuli (Aherne 1990).
Other arguments acting in favour of integration report its positive results to SLD pupils, to the whole class, to the teacher and the society according to empirical research.
When SLD children attend mainstream schools, they learn to interact socially with their peers and create friendships in natural conditions (Jupp 1993). They are taught to follow certain rules of behaviour and do not overact. The also learn to imitate modelling behaviours and develop socially accepted attitudes appropriate to their age(Alper 1992). Researches conducted by Cullican (1992)and Steele and Mitehen(1992) indicate a positive effect of integration in the maturity, self-confidence, socialisation of SLD children. They also seem not to suffer from isolation, exclusion, rejection and neglect. These outcomes were enhanced in integrated settings more than in segregated conditions, whereas the educational outcomes were equivalent to both situations.
Integration is mutually beneficial for both SLD and normal children. Their coexistence in ordinary schools make them learn new skills and alternative ways of communication e.g. Braille or Sign language. They form their values and do not adopt negative attitudes towards people with special needs. They accept the difference and they do not become discriminative. They develop "valuable, social, emotional and personal perspectives (Alper 1992). They are daily exposed to facts and incidence that prepare them for the realities of life. They may play certain roles and undertake responsibilities that make them mature.
On the other hand, teachers trying to meet the demands of a variety of SLD children, adopt more flexible teaching methods and techniques that benefit the whole class because they approach an issue from different angles. They develop a diverse approach to knowledge and they advance methods of transmitting information to the pupils (Leadbetter and Leadbetter 1993). They also have the opportunity to teach humanistic topics and understanding of difference setting aside the ignorance or pity.
Supporters of integration of SLD children claim that educational goals can be promoted not only by equality but by fellowship as well. They are optimistic and they propose that full integration of SLD is a big step but it is worthwhile a try despite the fears of failure, as the fear of drowning does not frustrate novice swimmers.
4. ARGUMENTS AGAINST INTEGRATION
Arguments against integration come from some parents, teachers and professionals who prefer segregation rather than integration. Although they are not in opposition to the idea of integration, they claim that its goals in terms of SLD children can not be achieved in practice because the ability gap is great. They show trust to segregation because of its effective and already testified existence. It is acknowledged the additional needs of SLD children and it is claimed that the supplementary provision can be better attributed in segregated settings.
Parental reservations towards integration derive from the belief that SLD children are unprotected in mainstream schools. They worry that their child is going to be a subject of teasing, bulling by the other children (Hanline and Halvorsen 1989). They also want to protect them from failure and the inevitable comparison with the rest of the class. They believe that their low-achievement may have negative effects on their self-confidence and self esteem. In other words parents want to protect their children of realising their difference or they do not want to expose to the public their child's difference. Some of them they don not feel comfortable making comparisons between their children and their peers. They usually emphasize on the small size of class, the greatest resources and the special equipment of the special class (Jenkinson 1993). They also underline the better individual teaching and assistance that the special schools offer and the family like atmosphere that makes SLD children feel more comfortable. The notion, which is not always true that a "specialist training" in a "special" environment by a "specialist" makes parents believe that a special class is the suitable solution for their child (Leadbetter and Leadbetter 1993). They are afraid that teachers in Ordinary schools can not meet the child's needs because they are not experienced enough, which is plausible. They lack the experience of working with SLD children and they do not have the appropriate knowledge to cope with some odd behaviours (Hanline and Halvorsen 1989).
Some teachers adopt negative attitudes towards integration because of unwillingness to face the challenge (Jupp1993), whereas others believe that there is no effective and efficient management (Leadbetter and Leadbetter 1993). They acknowledge their inadequate knowledge and training for undertaking such a great responsibility. They also claim that such a dramatic innovation requires adequate "funding and planning" in order to have a successful result. A shortage of money and personnel makes impossible for every school to have a special self-contained classroom or a resource classroom and enough support teachers or support workers (Bernard 1979). Moreover the cost of modifications that required is very big (Galloway 1979). Alternation of physical environment and adaptation of practicalities that facilitate access to the curriculum are impossible to be made in every school because of the high budget.
Professionals stress the importance of meeting SLD children's special needs rather than their special educational needs. Their reasons for recommending a placement in a special school vary. These may be due to a realistic knowledge of child's needs and a well balanced decision or may be derived from prejudice and fear of losing their authority and their professionalism (Leadbetter and Leadbetter 1993).
Many people believe that integration of SLD children is going to be in detriment of normal children because teacher will have to slow down the rate of teaching. Moreover some claim that the presence of a SLD child in the classroom may distract the attention of the rest of the class because of the noise or the odd behaviours. Others believe that it will be a painful and frightening experience for peers to come in touch with severe abnormal behaviour (Hulley 1978). Some others concerning SLD children, claim that discrimination and stigmatisation is not going to cease if SLD children move to ordinary schools. They may be marginalised within the classroom. Integration does not necessarily means an automatic removal of label or stigma and do not lead subsequently to an integration of SLD children (Galloway 1979). The differentiation of the curriculum is likely to create subsequent isolation because the additional provision that SLD children receive may be interpretated as special.
Many emphasize the nature of the SLD children characteristics slow learning rate, difficulties in maintaining knowledge and skills that have been acquired, difficulties in generalisation of information (Snell 1987). They claim that these characteristics are incompatible with the iconic method of teaching which is mostly used in ordinary schools. SLD children need a lot of practice, overlearning and interactive method of teaching in order to overcome their difficulties. Special classes or units give high priority to life skills and self-help rather than to cognitive development, because these are considered basic for their survive in society. Special classes follow the behaviouristic approach of learning which meet better the SLD needs because of the structure of individual objectives, task analysis and repetition of activities. Individual instruction and individual plan objectives are questionable if can be accomplished in ordinary schools (Bernard 1979;Brinker 1984). Furthermore high priority is given to life skills and self help rather than to cognitive development.
The opponents of integration are pessimistic and they believe that integration of SLD children is too good to be true. They also insist that the old testified provision does not include any risk of failure. Thus it is a safe solution.
5.INTEGRATION OF SEVERE LEARNING DIFFICULTIES CHILDREN IN PRACTICE
Although Education Act 1981 decreed that all LEAs should be in favour of integration, each LEA could decide in which way it could achieve integration. The responses varied widely. Many LEAs encouraged integration, but few provided the necessary resources and support (Ford 1992). This led to an increase of segregation of SLD children according to statistical evidence (Hegarty 1981). However, Chazan et al (1980) cited by Booth (1981) reveals that the number of SLD children in Special schools has more than trebled in the last twenty years. Although this paradoxical result does not prove that integration of SLD children has not been increased, it implies that the rate of integration is extremely low and its effectiveness is ambiguous.
There is no published evidence of official estimates of integration of SLD children because all children are considered as a global population with special educational needs. The extent and the evaluation of integration of SLD children are difficult to be estimated because integration is a concept and it is not something measurable. Moreover limited research evidence and methodological problems do not allow generalisations.
Swann (1988) proposed as measurements the proportion of SLD children in special schools and the proportion of SLD children with statements that attend ordinary schools. According to these premises, there is a small swing 8% of SLD children from special to ordinary schools. However, this estimation fails to take into account placements that are not on a full-time basis (Lewis 1993).
SLD children is a heterogeneous population which consists of different groups of people with diverse difficulties and needs. The mean of the integrated SLD children may be misleading because the extent of integration of one population may raises the mean of the whole population and it is difficult to pinpoint where the progress occurs. In particular children with Down's syndrome (who consist the one third of the SLD population) receive an initial placement into mainstream schools up to 80% (Lorenz 1995). This number raises the mean of Integration of SLD children in general.
In addition to this it is worthwhile to be mentioned that this number is misleading for the duration of integration. Although there is an increased tendency to place children with Down's syndrome in nursery and junior school, they face a failure of mainstream placement in the ages between 7-9 (Lorenz 1995). There is also a decrease in integration of older children (Moorcroft-Cuckle 1993). This occurs because in early years the ability gap between SLD and normal children is not so apparent. Moreover children have not developed prejudices and they accept difference more easily. At this stage of individual development both the SLD and normal children seem to have the same needs for play and communication is primitive. This number decreases gradually in primary and secondary education (Mittler 1991). Generally speaking the younger the SLD child the higher the probability of integration because adaptation is easier at the very beginning of life when there are no formed prejudices. In addition to this it is worthwhile to be mentioned that this number is misleading for the duration of integration. Although there is an increased tendency to place children with Down's syndrome in nursery and junior school, they face a failure of mainstream placement in the ages between 7-9 (Lorenz 1995). There is also a decrease in integration of older children (Moorcroft-Cuckle 1993). This occurs because in early years the ability gap between SLD and normal children is not so apparent. Moreover children have not developed prejudices and they accept difference more easily. At this stage of individual development both the SLD and normal children seem to have the same needs for play and communication is primitive. This number decreases gradually in primary and secondary education (Mittler 1991). Generally speaking the younger the SLD child the higher the probability of integration because adaptation is easier at the very beginning of life when there are no formed prejudices.
There are many researchers that have indicated that integration is beneficial for SLD children in terms of social competence, language development and behaviour modelling (Jupp 1993; Cole 1991; Steele et al 1992). Brinker et al (1984) found a positive correlation between the increase of interactions of SLD children and their peers and SLD children's educational skills.
Nevertheless there are several studies shown that a placement of SLD children in ordinary school does not lead to positive consequences. Brinker (1978) and Gresham (1981) present a number of studies indicate that the interactions between SLD children and their peers are limited and negative. SLD children were not accepted, were stigmatised. Mattson (1994) also claims that SLD children are subjected to passive behaviours and they do not develop an expected autonomy in decision-making and in fulfilment of every day activities. Ware et al (1992) claim that SLD children are recipients of the interactions and not equal participants. However Cole et al (1992) support that integration is beneficial for SLD children who have a relatively high performance. On the other hand segregation seems to be more appropriate for the less able SLD children because they can interact with each other more frequently.
Integration is a concept and it has differential effects according to the aptitude of children's needs. Different SLD children respond in a different way to integration because of their individual characteristics. Moreover there are some confounding factors that cloud different effects e.g. different teachers, pupil ratio and level of difficulty of activity that is to be taught.
Both proponents and opponents of integration of SLD children agree that the changes that occurred in legislation were not sufficient enough to create an analogous reform in educational practice (Booth and Potts 1983). There was inadequate funding, planning and time of awareness (Bovair 1989). The movement towards integration of SLD children should be carefully and gradually planning. It is important not only the "normal" children to be prepared but also the SLD children should fulfil three substantial criteria: social awareness of peers, situational understanding and acquisition of some effective strategies (O'Connell 1994). On the other hand this attitude creates many problems about the selection of children that should be transferred to an ordinary school. Wherever there is an arbitrary cut-off point, subjective choice of specialists offer a solution, which is not always the right decision.
6. DISCUSSION
Children with severe learning difficulties have not only quantitative differences in comparison with their peers, but also qualitative differences between their categories. They do not constitute a homogeneous group of people and each SLD child should be considered individually. Although they are equal to the normal children, their differences and their difficulties should not be overlooked. For these reasons author's view is that there is no single answer whether integration is good or bad. The crucial point is for whom. Even though socio-political issues support integration regardless of severity of difficulties, what is beneficial for the child may not be coincide. There are cases of children who are screaming or self-injured. It is difficult for them to be incorporated into a regular class.
Individual differences among different SLD children should be taken into consideration before a placement. SLD children who have high capacities and abilities should be integrated in regular schools. However, the most realistic solution for the education of the majority of SLD children at the present time seems to be their segregation in ordinary schools. A placement of SLD children in resource classes or units in ordinary schools serves their locational and societal integration and provides them with the appropriate care and teaching. SLD children can interact with their peers during combined activities and they are not excluded from the social life of school. The individual-based and well -structured learning assessing the strengths and weakness of each child may lead to the planning of their education and the fulfilment of their basic needs. Moreover all the children become aware of the differences that exist among people and do not become prejudiced.
It is an illusion for someone to believe that such resource classes can be provided in each neighbourhood school because of the bewildering cost. The creation of magnet schools that could provide a quality of education for SLD children seems to be the most promising solution. This reform is acknowledged that can not happen overnight. The lapse of time until the realisation of this reform may be necessary for people to rethink about difference and guarantee provision for SLD children who leave school. The prosperity of integration does not depend only on resources but also on morale of the society.
7. References
Aherne, P., Thornber, P. and associators (1990) Communication for all. London: Fulton Publish.
Bernard, G.S. and Rzzo, J.V. (1979) Special children:An integrative approach. London: Scott Foresman and company Ltd.
Booth, T. (1981) Demystifying integration. In: W. Swann (ed) The practice of special education. Basil Blackwell: Open University Presss.
Booth, T. (1982) Special Biographies. Milton Keynes: Open University.
Booth, T., Potts, P. (1983) Intergating special education. London: Blackwell.
Bovair, K. (1989) The special school: A part of, not apart from the education system. In: D. Baker, and K. Bovair, Making the special schools ordinary? Vol. London: Falmer Press.
Brinker, R.P. and Thorpe, M.E. (1984) Integration of severe handidapped students and the proportion of Individual Plan Objectives achieved. Exceptional Children, 51, 2, pp.168-175.
Brown, R.I. (1981) Development of integrated programmes for Mentally Handicapped persons:the present and the future. In:P. Mittler, Frontiers of knowledge in Mental Retardation. Vol 1. Baltimore:University Park Press.
Bruininks, V.L. (1978) Actual and perceived status of learning disabled students in mainstream programs. Journal of Special Education, 12, pp.51-58.
Cole, D. and Meyer, L. (1991) Social integration and severe disabilities:A longitudinal analysis of child outcomes. Journal of Special Education, 25, 3, pp.340-349.
Cole, K. N., Miles,P., Dale, P.S. and Jenkins,J.R. (1992) Effects of pre-school integration for children with disabilities. Exceptional Children , 58, 1, pp.36-44.
Cullican, D., Sabornie, E. and Grossland, C. (1992) Social mainstreaming of mildy handicapped students. Elementary School Journal, 3, pp.339-352.
Department of Education and Science (1989) National Curriculum: From policy to practice. London:HMSO.
Farrell, P. (1994) The impact of normalisation on policy and provision for people with learning difficulties. Paper presented to European Seminar on Mental Retardation, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Fish, J. (1989) What is special education? Open University Press: Milton Keynes.
Galloway, D.M. and Goodwin, C. (1979) Educating slow learning and maladjusted children:Integration or Segregation. London:Longman
Gresham, F.M. (1981) Misguided mainstreaming:The case for social skills training with handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 48, pp.422-433.
Hegarty, S. (1987) Meeting special needs in ordinary schools. London: Cassell.
Hegarty, S., Pocklington, K., Lucas, D. (1981) Educating pupils with special needs in the ordinary school. Windsor: NFER/Nelson.
Hulley, B., Hulley, T., Parsons, G., Madden, S. and Swann, W. (1988) Samantha. In: T. Booth, and W.Swann Including pupils with disabilities. Milton Keynes:Open University Press.
Jenkinson, J.C. (1993) Integration of students with severe and multiple learning difficulties. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9, 1, pp.27-39.
Jowett, S., Hegarty, S., and Moses, D. (1988) Joining forces:A study of links between Special and Ordinary schools. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Jupp, K. (1992) Everyone belongs: Mainstream eeducation for children with severe learning difficulties. London: Souvenir Press.
Leadbetter, J., Leadbetter, P. (1993) Special children meeting the challenge in the primary school. New York: Cassell.
Mattson, E. (1994) Disabled students' experience of dependence and autonomy in integrated-segregated environments. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9, 12, pp.119-124.
McGlynn, N., Phillips, G. (1987) Integrated pre-schooling; an overview of the literature. Educational Pcycology in Practice, 3, 2, pp. 38-41.
Mittler, P. (1991) Educating children with severe learning difficulties:challenging vulnerability. In: J. Tizard. Vulnerability and resilience in human development. Jessica Kwigsley Publications.
O'Connel, R. (1994) Proving integration works:How effective is the integration of students with PMLPS. In: J. Ware (ed) Educating children with profound and multiple learning difficulties. London:Fulton Press.
Snell, M.E. (1987) Systemantic instruction of persons with severe handicaps. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Steele, J., Mitchell, D. (1992) Special links with mainstream. Special Children, 55, pp. 14-16.
Turner, S., Sloper, P., Knussen,C. and Cunningham, C. (1991) Factors relating to self-sufficiency in children with Down's Syndrome. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 35, pp.13-24.
Ware, J., Sharman, M., O'Connor, S. and Anderson, M. (1992) Interactions between pupils with severe learning difficulties and the mainstream peers. British Journal of Special Education, 19, 4, pp.153-158.
Wolfendale, S. (1983) Social Role Valorisation: a proposed new term for the principle of normalisation. Mental Retardation, 21, 6, pp.235-239.
World Health Organisation (1985) Mental Retardation:Meeting the challenge. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
 |
 |