Presented at ISEC 2000

Inclusive education as an innovation process in Flemish primary schools: a multiple case study

P. Ghesquière*, G. Moors*, B. Maes* & R. Vandenberghe**

Introduction

The Flemish Education Council, the advisory council for the minister of education, approved on July 1998 of their advice on inclusive education (Vlor, 1998). This advice consists of three parts: a theoretical framework, recommendations to the authorities and a supplement. By the theoretical framework the council wants to inform, sensitise and motivate the Flemish educational community in favour of inclusive education. In its recommendations to the authorities the council pleads that present and future educational developments and legislation should be evaluated by the concept of inclusive education. In the advice's supplement the conditions are listed and the items that special attention should be paid to in order to realise inclusive education. The Flemish Education Council assigned the section of Orthopedagogics and the Centre for Educational Policy and Innovation of the University of Leuven (Belgium) the task to check the relevance of its advice. In this paper we discuss the results of this study. For an extensive report we refer to the published research report (Ghesquière, Maes, Vandenberghe & Moors, 2000).

This study is embedded in the tradition of research in educational innovation. The implementation of inclusive education means that an innovation process should get started in a school. We analyse the specific implementation configuration of inclusive education in ten schools by investigating which factors influence the implementation of this innovation. In other words, one of the central questions is: how is inclusive education implemented and which factors support or hinder an optimal implementation process?

Conceptual framework

We will not discuss the concept of 'inclusive education'. For more information we refer to the advice (Vlor, 1998) where the concept's background and essential elements are studied in depth. We go deeper into the factors that further the implementation of this innovation process in schools.

To picture the realisation of inclusive education as an innovation, we use two conceptual models: the 'Model for the Analysis of an Innovation process' (AIP-model) (D'hertefelt, De Wever & Vandenberghe, 1994) and the conceptual model that was at the basis of the questionnaire 'Taking care of pupils with educational problems in primary education ' (Vandenberghe, Ghesquière, Maes & Luyckx, 1997).

The AIP-model

The 'Model for the Analysis of an Innovation Process' (AIP-model) is an approach that permits to closely follow and to picture in detail the innovation process in a school. On the one hand, the model intends to describe, explain and adjust an innovation process in a school. On the other hand, the model facilitates communication among all those involved in the innovation process (D'hertefelt, De Wever & Vandenberghe, 1994).

The AIP-model consists of three main parts (see Figure 1). In the first part the researcher gives a concrete description of what takes place in a school, in other words, how the school tackles the innovation assignment. The second part of the model contains a number of hypothetical explanations for the developments that have been described. These explanations may concern factors that are internal or external to a school. These last factors regard the school's environment or general policy. When giving explanations one must however bear in mind that a school is a complex organisation, where factors may influence each other, or where a factor may be of influence on another level of school functioning too. The last part of the model consists of a number of points the change facilitator should pay attention to; they are based on the descriptions and explanations that have been given. On this basis prospects can be made of meaningful interventions in the future (D'hertefelt, De Wever & Vandenberghe, 1994).

	Interpretation of the innovation assignment (1)	Class practice (2)	Innovation arrangement (3) Structures Support functions	Collective experience of efficiency (4)	Educational orientation of the teacher (5)
Concrete realisations
Explanations
Points of attention

Figure 1 The AIP-model: different components

As to the vertical headings, we may state that in an innovation process changes will occur on three domains, namely:

a) on the domain of the school team members' perceptions and opinions (heading 1, 4 and 5)
b) on the domain of the teachers' interventions in the classroom (heading 2)
c) on the domain of the school's performance as an organisation (heading 3) (D'hertefelt, De Wever & Vandenberghe, 1994).

For each heading descriptions, explanations and points of attention are given that are related to the data that are presented. This procedure allows us to make considered selections from the multitude of data. It concerns activities and events, as well as opinions and experiences. In this way the complex reality of the school that is involved in an innovation process can be reduced to a reliable and manageable description. The data that we have collected are analysed according to these headings. For further explanation as to the contents of these headings we refer to D'hertefelt, De Wever & Vandenberghe (1994).

Aspects of special-needs provision

The components of the AIP-model are completed with elements that we have borrowed from the conceptual model that was used for the construction of the questionnaire 'Taking care of pupils with educational problems in primary education' (Vandenberghe et al., 1997). This model assesses the capacity of schools to extend their special-needs provisions making use of two triads. The first triad distinguishes three components of the extension of special-needs provisions: the vision, the activities and the organisational aspects. The second triad contains three actors that play an important role in the concrete realisation of special-needs provision: the teacher, the school team and the principal. Figure 2 gives a schematic presentation. When we combine these two triads we obtain nine fields of interest for the analysis of the extension of special-needs provisions in a school, for organisation as well as activities and vision must be realised by all three actors (Maes, Vandenberghe & Ghesquière, 1997).

Figure 2: Components and actors in the extension of special-needs provisions

The organisational component concerns the measures that are taken to realise care for pupils with educational problems. They may be on a meso-level (e.g. team meetings, referral procedures) as well as on a micro-level (e.g. classroom management). The activities are the concrete actions taken by the teacher, the school team and the principal. They may be preventive as well as curative for the educational problems of pupils. For each of the actors we can distinguish a number of important activities. Co-operating and guaranteeing the continuity of care are the school team's central assignments concerning the extension of special-needs provisions. The central activities of the individual teacher in this context are: monitoring the pupils' achievements, differentiating the curriculum when necessary, pointing out educational problems, analysing them and finding remedial measures in the classroom. The principal's task on this level is in the first place to initiate, support and follow up the necessary structures and procedures. The last to play an important role is the vision on special-needs provision. It is the teacher's, as well as the school team's and the principal's appraisal of the significance and the content of the care for pupils with educational problems that to a great extent defines the concrete shape that is given to that care. Based on that vision activities are developed and organisational measures are taken (Maes et al., 1997).

The consistency of vision, organisation and activities determines to a great extent the success of the extension of special-needs provisions. Moreover, it is necessary that their content is complementary for all three actors. The measures taken at the level of the school as an organisation or in the school team create the conditions for the realisation of this assignment in the classroom. But when the teacher fails in the concrete realisation in his classroom, the measures at the school level will have little effect. Conversely, activities in the classroom will have little effect, if there is no clear school policy on this matter. The principal has an important task in guaranteeing these complementarities. He/she must play an initiating and supportive role towards the teacher as well as towards the school team. He/she makes it possible to create the necessary support structures and procedures in order to implement the vision that has been developed (Maes, Vandenberghe & Ghesquière, 1999).

Research design

Research method

In this study we have opted for qualitative empirical research in the sense that Smaling (1987, p. 244) gives to it, an empirical research strategy whereby the data are mostly collected informally and whereby the data-analysis is not quantifying. The most important and pragmatic argument for this option was the presence of little scientific knowledge about this subject. We used a multiple case study method (Stake, 1995, 1998). Whereas in the past case studies were considered to be just a means to generate hypotheses for quantitative research, nowadays they are considered to be fully-fledged research methods on condition that a number of quality requirements are met (see e.g. Ghesquière & Staessens, 1999; Lincoln & Guba, 1990; Merriam, 1998). In our research project we have taken different measures in order to meet the requirements of reliability and validity. For more information we refer to the report (Ghesquière, et al., 2000).

Using semi-structured interviews with all persons concerned (principals, teachers, representative parents...) we try to obtain a detailed description of the innovation process. Special attention is paid to factors that further or obstruct the inclusion of children with special educational needs. The questions in the interview have been derived from the two conceptual models that we have described and are grouped around six topics: the vision on inclusive education, activities in the school, activities in the classroom, co-operation with external support agencies, internal support and consultation, efficiency expectations. We distinguish two kinds of questions. On the one hand we gather information on specific and objective events in school asking informative questions, such as: "Are there multidisciplinary moments of consultation taking place in school?" On the other hand we ask evaluative questions about the interviewee's opinion or experience, such as: "What is your opinion on co-operation with the parents?"

Firstly the data of each separate school are processed via a 'within-site' analysis. Afterwards we use a 'cross-site' analysis to find similarities and differences between the different cases (Miles & Huberman, 1984). In this way we expect to find some critical success factors for inclusive education. In this paper we deal especially with the results of the horizontal analysis.

Research group

The research group consists of ten regular primary schools that in a particular way give shape to inclusive education. The operational definition of the target group assumed by the Flemish Education Council was that it should be regular primary schools that admit children who normally would be referred to a school for special education. The choice of the schools is based on the principles of 'theoretical sampling', this means that the research situations are not chosen to create a representative sample, but to maximise the variance of the data (Guba, 1981). We have taken into account the following aspects: the children's special needs, the circumstances of inclusion, the educational network (grant-aided free schools, local authority schools and community schools), geographical distribution, the presence of a Freinet school and of a school with a very large number of immigrant pupils. Table 1 gives an overview of the schools according to educational network and province. Table 2 shows how the inclusive procedure is given shape.

Table 1: Schools in the research group according to educational network and province

Table 2: Overview of the inclusive procedure in the research group

Although in our opinion the selection of the research group is inspired by the idea of integration rather than by that of inclusion, it however allows to reach with reasonable success the research objective, namely the identification of the critical success factors for this educational innovation. But surely other examples exist, where inclusive education is given a totally different shape.

Research results

Interpretation of the innovation assignment

Taking into account the strong segregation tradition in special education in Flanders -in 1999 about 5.80% of all pupils in primary education are enrolled in a segregated school for special education-, most regular schools in our research sample have a positive attitude towards inclusive education. The respondents state that regular schools have to create opportunities to take care of pupils with special educational needs. However there is a difference in beliefs about which pupils are to be taken care of. Most schools say they put in a great effort to take care of pupils with specific learning difficulties. Teachers as well as principals state that these pupils should get better chances in regular education. They try to make this come true by differentiating at the classroom level, by extensive use of remedial teaching, by specific support activities or by co-operating with schools for special education or extramural services. Two schools are even organising a preparatory first grade for pupils with a developmental delay at the age of six. Another school uses individual curricula, so that the pupils may progress through the subject matter at their own level and in their own pace. However if the results are insufficient, it is yet decided to refer to special education.

As to pupils with a physical or sensory handicap, most respondents are positive about their inclusion in regular primary schools. Teachers however request specific support. Being unfamiliar with the handicap sometimes seems to obstruct regular education. As to pupils with mental retardation, the opinions are very diverse. This disagreement is to be found not only in schools without pupils with mental retardation, but also in schools where such pupils are enrolled. For many respondents the threshold to inclusive education is defined by the pupil's intellectual capacities. The gap between the capacities of the pupil with a handicap and those of the other pupils in the same group may not be too big. The pupil should to a certain extent be able to follow the regular classroom curriculum. That is why in a school, that has enrolled some pupils with mild mental retardation, the teachers are not in favour of inclusion because the regular curriculum is disturbed too much. In their opinion these pupils are not offered all necessary chances for an optimal development. The attitude towards pupils with behavioural problems is also ambivalent. We observe that the schools that accept pupils with behavioural problems already have a population that causes a number of problems. It is remarkable that a few teachers do not see much difference between the pupil who in the context of inclusive education is taken care of and the other pupils.

The positive attitude towards inclusive education is often intensified by a rather negative attitude towards special education. Respondents often justify their efforts in favour of inclusion by referring to the stigmatising effect of special education. They think that it is important for children to go to school in their own environment, together with children from their neighbourhood. They feel that it would be beneficial for the parents too that they are offered another solution than special education. In their opinion inclusive education is very good for parents who have difficulties accepting the handicap of their child. However the rather negative attitude towards special education vanishes when teachers feel that they are no longer able to teach adequately with a special-needs child in their classroom. In that case, they emphasize the positive features of special education: small classes, individual attention, adequate support to the pupil and a paramedical framework.

The interpretation of inclusive education as an innovation assignment is closely connected with its start. The principal plays a very important role here. Although he/she must propagate a clear vision about care for pupils with special educational needs, the principal must also be open to opinions and attitudes of his personnel. If there is no consultation prior to inclusion, the innovation process will have no easy start. Successful inclusion requires clear consultation and thorough information in advance of all those concerned. Obviously inclusion is meant to take a number of years. So the teachers of the higher classes must also be open to these innovations. The resources of all teachers must be taken into account at this consultation. After all, they must realise inclusion in their classroom. In schools where the principal has not taken this into account, there is a lot of resistance against this innovation.

Consultation -formal as well as informal- among colleagues, with the principal and with external counsellors also plays an important role when it comes to accepting inclusive education as an innovation assignment. It helps teachers to feel supported, to deal with their problems in co-operation with others. It gives them a feeling of shared responsibility. In schools without a culture of consultation, inclusive education turned out to be a greater problem for the teachers than in the other schools.

Classroom environment and educational activities

We observe only minor adjustments to classroom environment and educational activities in classes where a pupil with special educational needs has been admitted. Most teachers continue teaching as usual. Especially for pupils with a physical or sensory handicap technical adjustments are made regarding their handicap. When there are children with e.g. an auditory handicap, the teacher always takes care that he/she turns his/her face to the pupil. No further adjustments are made in the general educational approach. For pupils with mental retardation there are nearly no changes. Teachers say that these pupils require some more individual attention, but that major changes to their regular educational activities are not needed. They mostly get extra support from an external therapist or volunteers. In one school the teacher does not get extra support at all. If there is a remedial teacher in the school or if an external expert or volunteer is involved, special-needs provision is largely given outside the classroom, in the form of individual support. In a few schools these activities are already largely taking place in the classroom, eventually in small subgroups.

In two schools educational activities have been altered rather drastically. New structures have been introduced to take care for pupils with educational problems. Pupils with a developmental delay at the age of six are taken care of in a preparatory first grade -with a curriculum in-between the last year of kindergarten and the first grade. Other pupils with problems are instructed making use of individualised curricula. In one of these schools the achievements of the pupils form the basis of all educational activities. Most of the time pupils are working in small groups. The composition of classes is not fixed. Subject matter is chosen depending on the pupils' level of achievement. All those concerned believe that by adapting class procedure in this way, more pupils can be taken care of in inclusive education.

In all schools the pupils are grouped in a traditional way, based on their age and staying in the same group for all subject matters during the whole school year. In most schools the class crossing initiatives are limited to creative activities or school journeys. In every school however first steps to differentiation can be seen, mostly by working in small groups or using contract work. This way of working however is mostly used to put the class at work after a classical assignment; this does not mean that there is real differentiation.

Innovation arrangements

The structures and the support functions that should further the introduction of inclusive education, are realised especially in the shape of consultation and/or co-operation.

In every school the pupils are discussed, mostly in the form of multidisciplinary consultation. The class teacher, the principal and a consultant of the school guidance centre attend this consultation. If there is a remedial teacher in the school, he/she may also be involved in this discussion. In one school even the teacher of the next grade is involved in the last discussions of the school year in order to guarantee the continuity of care.

In two schools however there is almost no co-operation with the school guidance centre. In their opinion this is due to the fact that they are very small schools and the consultant has to counsel too many schools. In the other schools it turns out that this service still uses the traditional educational vocational counselling-procedure. The consultants mostly simply confirm -by testing? the problems the school struggles with, but they cannot help solving them. In two schools the consultants of the school guidance centre say that they are gradually getting new assignments. The emphasis is shifting from a test-directed to a more consultative approach. The pupils monitoring system used by the teachers, largely replaces systematic testing of the pupils. The consultant is called on in cases of educational problems, to observe the pupil, to make a thorough diagnosis and to think of an adequate approach.

In all schools there are three formal parents' evenings per year on average. The parents furthermore have the opportunity to contact school on their own initiative or informally at the school gate. It is remarkable that the smaller the schools, the more use is made of this last possibility. The small scale and open character of some schools clearly make them more inviting to parents. In one school the contacts with parents are very frequent. The school invites the parents to take part in diverse activities. All in all the parents visit this school seventy five times a year.

In a number of schools of our sample, teachers were informed in advance of the inclusion experiment. In three schools there were also information meetings for the parents of the other children of the class. They paid attention to the child's handicap and to the concrete changes in the classroom activities. The parents of the pupil with the handicap sometimes gave part of this information. In general most parents reacted in a positive way. Some teachers however notice that not all parents are backing inclusion. As a consequence they are afraid of loosing some pupils if the school is continuing the inclusive procedure.

All those concerned always consider co-operation with a school for special education to be very constructive. Co-operation with private therapists or volunteers also is satisfying. External support sometimes is given in class, sometimes outside. This depends on the handicap and the extent to which the classroom procedure is impeded by individual support. In general the teachers are very positive about this external support. Conditions for a successful co-operation are mutual consultation and the teacher's acceptance of a second person in the classroom.

Educational orientation

Most teachers in our sample consider their role to be more that of transferring knowledge (subject matter orientation) than of guiding the development of pupils (pupil orientation). The teacher is the key person who decides on the content of the educational process. The pupils' contribution is rather limited. They are more or less encouraged to work independently and are involved in the planning of their working method. The teacher however defines the content. In three schools we have observed a more pupil-oriented approach. In one of these schools this educational orientation is a consequence of the pedagogy of Freinet.

This subject matter orientation shows very strongly in the above expressed reservations about the inclusion of children with mental retardation. According to quite a number of teachers, pupils who do not cope with the assumed subject matter do not belong in regular education. This vision is to a great extent connected with the interpretation of the recently installed Flemish educational standards for primary education. To the teachers these educational standards are an important obstacle for inclusion. Reaching the educational standards, according to them, imposes an important restriction on the degree to which pupils with educational problems can be taken care of, certainly when there is question of special needs.

Efficiency expectations

All respondents state that their activities in the framework of inclusive education have been a success. In one school the teacher indicates that it is not a complete success, but the principal and the parents are very satisfied with the obtained results. Nevertheless in each school the principal and the teachers testify that at the moment they are limited in their inclusive activities. A number of reasons are given. Each school in the first place has an urgent call for more personnel. Because classes have so many pupils, the teacher cannot spend much individual attention to them. The teachers believe that they cannot offer enough chances to pupils with special needs. In this connection the question of more subsidy arises. The schools that have realised new structures often do not have enough financial resources. The standards for the class size form a problem too. Each teacher declares that in the first place he/she feels limited in giving extra care, because there are another twenty pupils in the classroom. If the groups were smaller, there would be more possibilities.

Teachers often remark that they do not have enough expertise for these new assignments. It is taken for granted that teachers in special education have much more experience in supporting pupils with special needs. We may conclude that in initial and in-service teacher training more attention should be paid to special educational needs. Also in connection with activities such as monitoring, diagnostics and remediation the teachers say that they do not have much expertise. In most schools pupils with problems are quickly referred to the remedial teacher. For a diagnosis the consultant of the school guidance centre is often called upon.

Conclusion

These research results clearly show that in the schools concerned the first steps are being set in the direction of inclusive education, but the initiatives are still on a very limited scale and the realisations are very diverse. We must say that inclusive education in Flanders is in its very starting phase. Regarding the long and strong tradition of segregated special education, we must be positive about these first steps.

Each innovation in a school starts from the interpretation the team members give to their innovation assignment. In our sample almost all schools adopt some of the key ideas of inclusive education in their own educational assignment. It is also remarkable that this vision is not limited to a few teachers, but that the principal's vision together with that of the whole school team develops in this direction. We however wish to remark that in this vision children with a handicap still are considered to be a special group. Only two schools are already a step ahead and develop a totally new educational vision. They assume that pupils with a handicap and other children are not two groups that must be distinguished, but are to be placed on a continuum of heterogeneous educational needs. The teachers therefore must adapt their teaching to the needs of all pupils. In this vision children with a handicap no longer are an exception.

Curriculum differentiation takes an important place in the realisation of inclusive education. On this level too much diversity is to be noticed in our sample. Most teachers try to realise curriculum differentiation by using differentiating methods, such as working in corners and making use of contract work. We nevertheless think that they often limit themselves to that method without adapting goals, contents and evaluation methods to the individual educational needs. The didactical adaptations are therefore relatively limited and chiefly organisational. Two schools make an exception, one on the basis of Freinet's educational theory, the other on the basis of a very highly developed procedure for differentiation in the classroom.

The limited curriculum differentiation is very closely connected with the subject matter orientation of most schools. According to the teachers the educational standards and the imposed curriculum force them to reach the same assumed goals for all pupils in their class at the end of the school year. It is not the pupil but the subject matter that directs educational actions. This subject matter orientation nowadays largely interferes with care for children with mental retardation in regular primary education. Because these children differ from the other pupils of their class as far as their intellectual abilities are concerned, they are not able to reach the same goals. This probably explains why many teachers consider inclusion not to be attainable for children with mental retardation. We may say that inclusive education in Flanders is still interpreted as an integration project. Children have to adapt themselves to the curriculum, rather than the other way around.

It clearly is encouraging that most teachers recognise the target group's special educational needs. They understand these pupils' need of individualised support. At present remedial teachers, special-needs provisions co-ordinators, integration-counsellors and volunteers are adequately attending to this need. Even when we admit that this is probably an inevitable part of the continuum of special-needs education, it is our experience that teachers expect practically all good from these 'external' experts. They often assume that they themselves are not able to offer sufficient support to the so-called 'inclusive' pupils. In doing so the teachers abdicate part of their responsibility. Other research however shows that expertise in special education empowers teachers in regular education to deal with special educational needs. Inter-collegial consultation seems to be an adequate method (Ghesquière et al., 1997). In order to realise the continuum of care for pupils and teachers, further development of a framework of internal and external support will be necessary. Schools for special education, school guidance centres and internal care co-ordinators or remedial teachers must here take on a new assignment. Further development of the vision that all pupils (including those with special educational needs) form one heterogeneous group may contribute to the teacher's responsibility for all pupils.

We still must not expect all good from the development of vision. In examples from practice we have clearly observed that teachers who are involved in inclusion experiments have encouraging experiences and gradually side with the ideas of inclusive education and at the same time become more professional in these matters. This convinces us that at the moment it is desirable and advisable to encourage and support projects in practice on that level. It would be a good thing for schools that follow creative paths on their way towards inclusive education, to be remunerated by the authorities. Inclusion must not be limited to the development of vision. Inclusion is something we must start with.

References

D'hertefelt, M., De Wever, H. & Vandenberghe, R. (1994). Het AIP-model. Een instrument voor begeleiding [The AIP-model: an instrument for support]. Schoolleiding en -begeleiding, aflevering 10, februari 1994.

Ghesquière, P., Maes, B., Hellinckx, W., Grietens, H. & Van Assche, V. (1997). De bijdrage van orthopedagogische en orthodidactische principes en methodes uit het buitengewoon onderwijs aan de zorgverbreding van het gewoon onderwijs (OBPWO 94.10). Eindrapport [The contribution of orthopedagogical and orthodidactical principles and methods from special education to the extension of special-needs provisions of regular education - Final report]. Leuven: K.U. Leuven, Afdeling orthopedagogiek.

Ghesquière, P., Maes, B., Vandenberghe, R. & Moors, G. (2000). Inclusief onderwijs als innovatieproces. Analyse van de succesfactoren in 10 praktijkvoorbeelden [Inclusive education as Innovation process. Analysis of the success factors in 10 cases]. Leuven-Apeldoorn: Vlor-Garant.

Ghesquière, P. & Staessens, K. (1999). Kwalitatieve gevalsstudies [Qualitative Case Studies]. In B. Levering & P. Smeyers (red.), Opvoeding en onderwijs leren zien. Een inleiding in interpretatief onderzoek [Learning to see education. An introduction to interpretative research]. (pp. 192-213) Amsterdam: Boom.

Guba, E.G. (1981). Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75?91.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1990). Judging the quality of case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative studies in Education, 3(1), 53-59.

Maes, F., Vandenberghe, R. & Ghesquière, P. (1997). Het diagnosticerend en remediërend vermogen van lagere scholen (OBPWO 94.01). Eindrapport [The diagnostic and remedial capacity of primary schools - Final report]. Leuven: K.U. Leuven, Centrum voor onderwijsbeleid en -vernieuwing i.s.m. afdeling Orthopedagogiek.

Maes, F., Vandenberghe, R. & Ghesquière, P. (1999). The imperative of complementarity between the school level and the classroom level in educational innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (6), 661-677.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Smaling, A. (1987). Methodologische objectiviteit en kwalitatief onderzoek [Methodological objectivity and qualitative research]. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. (PhD-thesis).

Stake, R.E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R.E. (1998). Case Studies. -In: N.K. Denzin & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. (pp. 86-109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vandenberghe R., Ghesquière, P., Maes, F. & Luyckx, E. (1997). Vragenlijst: Zorg voor leerlingen met onderwijsleerproblemen in het lager onderwijs [Questionnaire 'Taking care for pupils with educational problems in primary education]. Leuven: K.U. Leuven, Centrum voor onderwijsbeleid en -vernieuwing.

Vlor (1998). Advies over inclusief onderwijs [Advice on Inclusive Education]. Brussel: Vlaamse Onderwijsraad.

Correspondence address:
Prof. Dr. Pol Ghesquière
K.U. Leuven - Orthopedagogics
Vesaliusstraat 2 B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)
tel.: ++32 16 / 32 62 34
fax: ++32 16 / 32 59 33
e-mail: pol.ghesquiere@ped.kuleuven.ac.be

Index