INTRODUCTION
Inclusion in Portugal can still not be considered a completely established educational practice. This is mostly due to a necessity of change in teachers' and other educational agents' attitudes, to insufficient human and material resources, to an insufficient preparation of teachers and other educational agents in view of the demands of an inclusive system, to the lack of collaboration among professionals, to the poor parent-school relationship and to the lack of appropriate legislation which prevents the gradual implementation of an efficient educational system for special education. However, as shall be observed further on, programs for children and youths with special educational needs (SEN) have increased significantly in number although we still can encounter situations related to segregation and integration. This indicates that the system is committed to improving and expanding its assistance services to these students.
But before moving to the primary focus of this paper, we would like to give you an overview of the Portuguese educational system.
GENERAL LINES OF THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
In terms of the Portuguese Basic Law (Lei de Bases do Sistema Educativo- 1986) and subsequent legislation, the educational system (Figure 1) embraces:
Figure 1- Portuguese educational system
1. Pre-school education complements the educational role of the family. Parents requesting it can enroll their children in a pre-school educational program at a public or a private institution, up to one year before the children attend school.
2. School education embraces basic, secondary and higher education, and integrates special modalities (special education, professional training, adults teaching, distance learning and teaching of Portuguese language in foreign countries) and includes leisure time activities.
The basic education is universal, compulsory and free of charge. Its duration is nine years with an entry-level age of six years. Its aim is to ensure a basic level of general education of the Portuguese population.
It embraces three sequential cycles:
- 1st cycle, 4 years: global teaching, for which a single teacher is responsible;
- 2nd cycle, 2 years: the teaching is divided into 6 inter-disciplinary areas, mainly with a teacher for each area and including the teaching of a foreign language;
- 3rd cycle, 3 years: unified curriculum, combining different vocational areas, developed in a system of a teacher for each subject or group of subjects.
Secondary education is organized in courses that each three years, focussing its orientation mainly on the active life or on the furthering of studies. There is interchangeability between both cases.
Higher education embraces University teaching. It can confer a bachelor (licentiate), master and or a doctoral degree. At the Polytechnic level it can confer a bachelor (licentiate) degree and or a Diploma in specialized higher studies (equivalent to the licentiate degree).
3. Extra-school education is part of in a permanent education perspective and embraces the following activities:
a. adult alphabetization and basic education
b. cultural and scientific improvement
c. up-dating professional training and development.
SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED TO CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS
For some years up to 1994, the responsibility for special education was mainly the responsibility of two ministries: the ministry of education (ME) and the ministry of Labor and Social Security.
Both ministries offered services to children and youths with special educational needs (SEN). With the Declaration of Salamanca (1994), Portugal tried to alter the way it responded to the needs of special education by starting to implement an inclusive system. However, we still believe that much has to be done in order for most of the students with special educational needs to be included in regular schools. The evolution of inclusion is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2- The evolution of inclusion (Correia, 2000).
Some statistical information of special education in Portugal
According to the data supplied by the Instituto Nacional de Estatística /National Institute of Statistics, we find that Portugal has an average student population of 1.600.000 (INE, 1996). Based on this figure, Table 1 compares the total number of children and youths with special educational needs with the number of such children and youths actually receiving assistance from the system.
Table 1- Estimate of the total number of children and youths with SEN and the number actually receiving assistance
| Estimated population 0-16 years old (INE) |
Population with SEN | Population with SEN being served |
| 1600000 | 192000 | 45912 |
| 100% | 12% | 2,9% |
A first analysis of the data suggests a rather considerable difference between the size of the population with SEN receiving assistance (24% of the total number of the population with SEN) and the size of the population with SEN not receiving assistance (76% of the total number of the population with SEN). Nevertheless, the increase in the number of special education services offered in the country during the last few years is noteworthy.
Regarding the population receiving assistance (45,915), Figure 3 indicates the number of students assisted in integrated schooling, special schooling and other types of support structures:
Figure 3- Population with SEN receiving assistance (Conselho Nacional de Educação/National Education Council- NEC, 1998)
We may note that 20,4% of the population with SEN (9,396) students, are receiving assistance in special schooling and other types of support structures; 79,6% of the population with SEM (36,519) students, are receiving assistance in integrated schools.
If we consider the number of students assisted and analyze the numbers by categories, we encounter various situations (Table 2).
Table 2- Assisted students by category (NEC, 1998)
| Students with SEN assited | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
On one side, the data indicate that the assistance for hearing and visual impairment has grown substantially over the years. It is expected that within a few years virtually all cases related to these two areas will be attended to.
As for assistance to physical disabilities, it is within the range of the estimated percentages found both in surveys done by foreign educational departments and in studies carried out by international researchers. This means that, in terms of assistance, the majority of the population with physical disabilities is being attended to in one way or another, despite the differences that still persist from district to district.
On the contrary, the assistance provided for mental retardation, learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, and multiple disabilities is much lower than the estimates made by the same foreign authors. The reading of the data points to the poor support to these students with SEN. It reveals a rate of assistance that is clearly insufficient.
In terms of grade school assistance, and considering the data from the NEC (1998), we find that it is in the basic school that more children are provided with help (58%). This is followed by pre-school (8%) and secondary education (3.5%), and lastly by those supported at home (2.1%) as shown in Figure 4.
This situation indicates that it is at the primary level that the assistance to students with SEN is greater, followed by the pre-school level, the secondary level, and finally, those whose SEN are attended to at home. Concerning the lower percentage of attendance at pre-school level, this may be linked to the shortage of proper structures for early identification of children "at risk" and also to the fact that the pre-school network is still developing.
Figure 4- Support structures by level of education (NEC, 1998)
SUPPORT STRUCTURES
Now that we have considered the population with SEN in Portugal, we would like to go back to Figure 3. We may note that the support to SEN students is given mainly through mainstreaming in regular schools. This does not mean that all students are placed in the regular classroom. Our system still follows the integration model. This model considers different placement levels (least restrictive environment) according to the severity of the problem(s). In this way the system seems to attend the students with SEN using a Deno type "Cascate" (Figure 5).
Figure 5- Educational Continuum (Correia, 1997).
However, there are a considerable number of special schools that are assisting the more severe cases as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6- Number of students assisted in special schooling (NEC, 1998).
Considering again the integrated schools (regular schools), the assistance to students with SEN is given mainly by teachers (with and without specialization) who are distributed at the levels of the educational system as follows (Table 3).
Table 3 - Number of teachers by level of education (NEC, 1998)
| Pre-school | 1st Cycle | 2nd and 3rd Cycle | Total | ||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
| 647 | 1798 | 370 | 2815 |
As we can see, the number of specialized teachers is still very low. This reflects an accentuated shortage of qualified teachers. If we consider that the related services are almost non existent (only a few psychologists and therapists working in the field of the integrated education), then the assistance to SEN students, at all levels of education, is by far not sufficient, and in many cases even non-existent.
As far as the special schools are concerned, there are 115 special schools that assist 9396 students with SEN being supported by 1397 teachers, 106 psychologists, 99 therapists, 80 special technicians and 607 teachers' aides (Table 4).
Table 4- Number of teachers and related personnel in special schools (NEC, 1998)
| 115 special schools | ||||||||||
|
In a recent study Martins (200) we concluded that:
- teachers considered inclusion a movement aiming at restructuring schools and general education classrooms in order to provide better education to all students, including those with special needs;
- teachers supported the inclusion of students with special needs in the regular educational environment. They considered that inclusion is desirable from an educational point of view, and that students with special needs have the right to be in regular schools;
- the majority of the teachers, however, supported the provision of a continuum of educational placements addressing the special needs of students. Generally, systematic variability in support for Inclusion appeared to be due mostly to the severity level and disability category of the students with special needs who are mainstreaming;
- teachers need support in teaching classes that include students with special needs. This support consists of the establishment of a common school philosophy, the provision of strong leadership, adequate support with regard to material and human resources, professional training, and collaboration.
Bearing what has been said until now in mind, and despite the efforts made by the system to follow the Declaration of Salamanca, it can be concluded that:
- The reality of inclusion in Portugal is far from constructing a solidified system capable of responding to the needs in this area. We are still living in a system whose educational policy seems to be focused on integration;
- The assistance at all levels of education is not sufficient and, as far as learning disabilities, language disorders, and emotional disturbance are concerned, the number of students attended to is still small compared with the total estimated;
- The number and training of teaching staff at pre-school, preparatory and secondary school level is clearly not sufficient;
- The number of technicians working in integrated education is rather small, and the number of therapists, psychologists, and other related personnel in this area is even smaller;
- Parental involvement is almost non-existent;
In view of the above, a lot still remains to be done:
- it will be necessary to redefine strategies and to seek solutions leading to a policy in which the "regular school" becomes more and more responsible for the education of all students, including those with SEN.
- As we are still far away when it comes to inclusion, it is still necessary to redefine strategies and to seek solutions leading to a policy in which the "regular school" becomes more responsible for the education of all students, including those with SEN.
However, there are a number of factors that we consider relevant in the implementation of an inclusive system. Some factors are the attitudes of all those involved in education, the training of teachers, the importance of collaboration among educators, among educators and parents, and the amount of human and material resources allocated, to mention just a few.
Our research indicates that in the case of Portugal the strategies for the implementation of inclusion need a new orientation.
FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
As professionals in the area of Special Education we propose the following model. We considered it feasible and adequate to answer to the needs of students with SEN.
This model is based on the premise that all students, whenever possible, should attend the school of their residency or local community. This means that the "regular school" should become an "inclusive school" where we can find not only students without special needs but also students with special needs (see Figure 7).
Figure 7- Regular school student population
Taking into account this diverse student population and in order to address the needs of all students, mainly of students with SEN, we feel that the regular school should consider first the placement of the students with SEN (Figure 8), this being, whenever possible, the regular classroom.
Figure 8- Implementing an inclusive setting (Correia, 1997).
Starting from there, and according to the needs and strengths of every student, a collaboration team should develop, if necessary, an educational program to address those needs, that is to say that we should seek the so-called appropriate education defined as:
"education whose primary concern is to address the educational needs of all students, offering them a set of experiences which should be constructed taking into account their initial skills, their levels of performance, as well as their learning environments in order to maximize their social and academic learning" (Correia, 1996).
In order to achieve these goals, it is sometimes necessary that we seek extra assistance. That is, that we consult with specialists from different areas of knowledge. As such, it is important to talk about adequate services (special education and related services) that are needed to maximize the potential of the student. For us, then, Special Education and related services (Figure 9) should be a
"set of specialized support services that should be made available to SEN students in order to address their special needs and thus maximise their potential. These services should take place, whenever possible, in the regular classroom and should not only directly involve the students but should also be considered a modification of the learning environment that allows the student to benefit from an education appropriate to his needs and capacities" (Correia, 1997).
Figure 9- Specialized Support Services (Correia, 1997).
In this way, we feel that Special Education is a need, although its concept should not be one of a parallel system, but one that implies a set of educational services that should be there when needed. Taking into account the diversity of students that we want to see in our regular classrooms, we also feel that we need to consider a paradigm that will correspond to the needs of these students (Figure 10).
Figure 10- Model for addressing diversity (Correia, 2000)
This model for addressing diversity consists of three essential components: getting to know the student and their learning environments (Knowledge); developing appropriate planning; and effecting corresponding intervention.
The first component- getting to know the student and their learning environments (Knowledge)- is related to an identification of the individual students and their learning styles, of their needs, capacities, and interests, ..., and to the identification of the students' learning environments (academic, behavioral, social emotional, and physical). The aim of this component is not to label students but to help them to succeed in learning. To this end teachers should collaborate with other teachers, professionals and parents.
The second component- developing appropriate planning - should be based on the main curriculum. It can undertaken the school education project level, the preliminary evaluation level, and the I.E.P. level. A collaboration team or a multidisciplinary team should be responsible for this planning; the responsibility should never only be with the regular teacher and the special education teacher, as many times it seems to be the case.
The third component- developing effecting corresponding intervention - consists of three phases: the initial, the educational/comprehensive, and the transitional phase. The initial intervention phase is based on a preliminary student evaluation and takes into account the students' needs and characteristics, their level of performance, and their respective learning environments. It aims to minimize or suppress initial educational problems through minor curricular accommodations and environmental modifications. In this phase at least the regular teacher and special education teacher must collaborate, although, if necessary, they can collaborate with other professionals as well. The Educational/comprehensive phase must be supported by a comprehensive evaluation that takes into account the students as a whole, considering their level of performance in academic and social areas , their characteristics and needs, as well as their learning environments. It calls for the development of I.E.P.s based on curricular flexibilization, on major curricular accommodations; on individualized instruction; on cooperative learning and on the use of technologies. This phase needs the support of a multidisciplinary team and a set of specialized services. Finally, the transitional phase, aims at preparing the students for the transition to the working environment. It is designed for students who have not achieved the main curriculum goals, and due to their age (14 or older) and severe disabilities require special support which facilities their integration into the working environment. In this case transitional programs call for major curriculum adaptations, involvement of the students in community activities, cooperative learning, and individual attention from a multidisciplinary team.
In Portugal, we are still far from this perspective. In order for us to achieve the principles that the inclusion philosophy encompasses, we need, first and foremost, to change the attitudes of professionals, parents and the population in general. Only when we accept the principal of inclusion as one that will benefit all of us, we can depart to build an educational system that, by relying on collaboration and partnership, could effectively address the needs of all and every student.
REFERENCES
Correia, L.M. (2000). Diversidade na sala de aula. Diaporama. Porto: Porto Editora.
Correia, L.M. (1997). Alunos com NEE na classe regular. Porto: Porto Editora.
Correia, L.M. (1996). Apoios educativos. Escola/Informação, pp. 7-10.
Conselho Nacional de Educação (1998). Os alunos com NEE: subsídios para o sistema de educação. Lisboa: Conselho Nacional de Educação.
Martins, A.P. (2000). O movimento da escola inclusiva- atitude dos professores do 1º Ciclo do Ensino Básico. Tese de Mestrado não publicada. Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal.
 |
 |
