Introduction In the last 15 years considerable changes have been taking place in education, that are mostly based upon reconceptualization of what "special education" means and whether it should be considered as a separate area of concern (Ainscow, 1989). As a consequence of this changing climate the ideology of inclusion came out as the most recent innovation in the field of special education and education generally. Actually, the inclusive philosophy is not a new idea. It has its deeper roots in liberal and progressive thoughts about the declaration of human rights and it goes beyond the narrowly school-based considerations, to the ideal of an inclusive society (UNESCO, 1994).
Low (1997) argues that the term inclusion and "inclusivism" means more than the simple integration of disabled people in mainstream schools and society. It is an idea, or even better, an ideal that takes into consideration all the children as a whole and focuses on changes in schools and systems into a whole school, rather than on re-placement of the child from the special to mainstream setting ( Wedell, 1995 ; Porter, 1995 cited in Thomas et al., 1998 ; Booth et al, 1998).
The process for the effective implementation of inclusion is very complex and requires reorganisation and reconstruction of a number of components of the educational system. Those adaptations may vary for each individual child, but definitely some of them refer to a wider and more general spectrum. For example, Gregory (1996) refers to (a) environmental arrangements (e.g. physical layout of classes, equal access everywhere, playground adaptations etc.), (b) material and equipment arrangements (e.g. access to them by all children, individualisation of materials where needed, facilitation of interaction, chance for selection of materials etc.) (c) programme arrangements (e.g. flexible and sometimes individual programmes always in the context of the general curriculum with differentiation of goals and objectives) and (d) staff development arrangements (e.g. teachers training, collaborative planning and teaching etc.).
Special education in Cyprus, in recent years, is at a critical stage of changes. A new legislation for integration (MEC, 1999) has been very recently approved, and as a result the educational system until now has been officially segregating, even though integration was taking place unofficially in many situations. Nowadays, procedures for the establishment of a new policy are taking place. However, there are a number of children who after parents' struggles, were transferred from the special schools to general education. Unfortunately, schools were not prepared enough for this change, and consequently in many cases results were not the expected ones (Nicolaides, 1993; MEC, 1996). It would be interesting to examine the different backgrounds and practices of special and mainstream schools and how these affect the transition towards inclusion.
Aim
The aim of the study was to present, analyse and compare the philosophy and practice of a special and a primary mainstream school in Cyprus and finally to examine how these two can change towards an inclusive philosophy.
Methodology
The two schools were selected in order to respond to the traditional term of a "special" and a "mainstream/ordinary" school. For the collection of data three methods were used: non-structured participant observation, diaries and interviews. Non-structured participant observation took place three days per week for three months and included observation in the classroom. During this observation the researchers observed the instruction and assisted the teacher in the classroom. In addition to this, each researcher kept diaries based on observation. Finally interviews were loosely focused on basic points and included interviews with headmasters, members of the staff and students.
Comparing the two “worlds”
Historical Background
The schools were both public. The special school is the only school of its kind whereas the primary school is a school of the district area. The government founded the special school after the great pressure of a charity club and the contribution of the municipal of the town. The primary school was founded with the contribution of the parents committee and the church due to the increasing needs of the area. One can see here the difference in the rights and interests of the two groups of children. For the students of the primary school education was a vested interest and a natural consequence after the growth of the number of students while the students of the special school had to ask for their rights through charity (Barton, 1993).
Buildings and Equipment
Firstly it worth noting that special school is located away from the center of the town and being the only school of its kind in Cyprus it is not accessible for all its students. According to Roaf and Bines (1989) most of the times buildings and locations are not chosen according to the needs that they should serve but according to the interests of external factors. Moreover a decentralized school does not allow children to have strong bonds with their community or other children of their neighborhood since they go to different schools (Vlachou, 1997). On the contrary primary school being located in the center of the town is accessible for all the children of the neighborhood. Concerning the buildings and equipment it was noticed that the special school doesn’t take advantage of all its rooms and equipment whereas there is lack of rooms and equipment in the case of the mainstream primary school.
Enrollment procedures
Enrollment procedures are for both schools according to legislation. Ages of 3-18 years and the specific impairment are the enrollment criteria for the special school, and ages 6-12 years and the district area are the enrollment criteria for the mainstream school.
Philosophy and Policy
Even though for both schools there is a curriculum defined by the ministry of education, the special school doesn’t follow this curriculum completely and believe that there is a need to compose a separate curriculum. On the contrary the national curriculum defined by the ministry of education is blindly followed by the mainstream school. Concerning the expectations from students, teachers of the special school have low expectations from their students and emphasize on their disability instead of their abilities (Driscoll, 1994). On the other hand teachers of the mainstream school have high expectations from their students. Finally it was noticed that in the primary school there were celebrations for every occasion while in the special school there were no celebrations due to lack of interest.
Timetable
Both schools follow the same timetable. However it seems that the special school doesn’t follow strictly this timetable as far as it concerns the subjects included in this timetable. They give more emphasis on technical subjects since they think that the academic skills of most of their students are low (Flouri, 1992).
School Administration
The hierarchy of the special school’s administration is as follow: school headmaster, head teachers and teachers. On the other hand the mainstream school has school headmaster, headmaster assistants and teachers. The headmaster of the special school has no teaching duties and is responsible for other services and the coordination of the integrated students. On the contrary the headmaster of the mainstream school has teaching duties and is responsible for the management of the school. As a consequence the second one is more involved in and concentrated on the management of the school itself (Pasiardis, 1996).
Moreover, assessment is an important factor for the improvement of a school. That’s why there are regular inspections by the Ministry of Education. Unfortunately it seems that the ministry of education “forgets” the special school.
Teaching Staff
The teaching staff of the special school consisted by ten teachers. Some of them were specialized on the specific impairment and some were not. Sixteen teachers composed the teaching staff of the mainstream school – the support teacher included. It was noticed that in both schools there was cooperation among the teachers in terms of teaching material, methods etc. This is one form of collaboration, important for the development of effective classroom practice (Walther-Thomas et al., 1996). Finally it should be mentioned that staff of the special school remains the same for many years whereas staff of the mainstream school changes often, a fact that gives the opportunity for renewal of ideas and methods.
Students
The special school is a small school with less than thirty students, most of them boys and the mainstream school is a big school with more than three hundred students, almost equal number of boys and girls. Both school have mixed ability classes including a few children with multiple handicaps in the case of the special and a few integrated children with special needs in the case of the mainstream school.
The students of the special school prefer their school instead of the mainstream school mostly because of their low self-esteem and their feeling of failure. Consequently they do not have ambitions for further education in contrast to the students of the mainstream school who feel proud of their school and have high ambitions for further education (Costaridou-Euklidi, 1994).
Relationships with other agents
Other schools
Even though there are children integrated, the two schools have no close relations. They only exchange visits in terms of socialization. This creates a climate of pity from the students of the mainstream school and a climate of low self-esteem and exclusion of the students of the special school.
Parents
The parents of the special school do not have a parents’ committee concerning the needs and activities of the students within the school, as the parents of the mainstream school do. Instead there is a parents’ association that deals mostly with the students’ human rights and legislation.
Integration
Generally both schools have a positive attitude towards inclusion only if it is well organized. Only a few teachers that still believe in the unique role of special school oppose to the integration of children in the mainstream school thinking that it threatens their educational status (Adams, 1990). As far it concerns students’ attitudes, as mentioned before students of the special school prefer their school than the mainstream and they are suspicious about integration (Soder, 1992 ; Wade and Moore, 1993). Pupils of the mainstream school seem to have positive attitudes towards their integrated peers, probably influenced by the charity model that affects society in general (Tomlison, 1982). Finally it seems that even though students are integrated in the mainstream school, the school does not have a policy for integration, yet, since the headmaster does not even conceder of the support teacher as a regular member of the staff.
Ethos
The ethos of an organization is usually defined by the general atmosphere and image given. Both schools give the feeling of a friendly climate. In special school this is reinforced by the fact that students do not have a school uniform.
In terms of ambitions, in special school there is a feeling of defeatism accompanied by no control and loose management. On the contrary in the mainstream school there is a feeling of high self-esteem probably due to the well-structured rules and formality in management (Pasiardis, 1996).
To sum up it seems that special and mainstream school are two different schools with two different philosophies, different needs of foundation, different curriculum and teaching approaches, different way of administration and different attitudes. The main question here is whether those two different philosophies can work together towards inclusive schooling.
Towards Inclusion
As mentioned at the beginning, the aim of the study was to examine how these two philosophies can be combined to lead to the transition towards inclusive schooling which:
"is about a philosophy of acceptance; it is about providing a framework within which all children - regardless ability, gender, language, ethnic or cultural origin - can be valued equally, treated with respect and provided with equal opportunities at school" (Thomas et al, 1998, p. 15).
In order to accomplish this we have to coordinate all the factors involved in the educational process, which are discussed in detail further on.
Teachers
It is difficult to reconstruct the whole educational system at once. That’s why it is important to give emphasis on the basis, which is teachers’ attitudes (Phtiaka, 1996). In order to have teachers that believe in inclusion teachers’ training must include inclusive education subjects (Tilstone and Upton, 1993 ; Vlachou, 1997). This will help teachers to develop self-confidence in order to face each student’s needs.
In addition to this, collaborative or co-operative teaching is considered by many researchers as a very important support model for inclusive education (Walther-Thomas et al., 1996 ; Coben et al. 1997 ; Salend et al., 1997) and as a response to the increasing demands in school changes (Daniels et al., 1993). Consequently, it essential for teachers (support and mainstream teachers) to cooperate in planning teaching and even assessing. This could be accomplished with the help of both mainstream and special schools which may bring together their staff for cooperation and exchange of ideas (Thomas and Feiler, 1988). This will lead to variation and differentiation of teaching approaches responding to students diversity.
Management
Another key issue in the development of education is management. An inclusive school needs a good management plan in order to ensure the continuity of services. An important part of a good management plan is funding which mainly concerns the well-planned allocation of the existing resources. The key stakeholder to the above is the headmaster who is recommended to have studies on school management, believe in the ideal of inclusion and communicate the vision of inclusion to the staff (Pasiardis, 1993 ; Kerzner-Lipsky and Gartner, 1996).
Curriculum
Inclusive school means inclusive curriculum. An inclusive curriculum must be a flexible and broad curriculum that aims to the response to diversity of the needs of every single student in a classroom (Barton, 1988 ; Lewis, 1992 ; Bines, 1993). To accomplish this there is a necessity for changing all the areas of the curriculum: content, which emphasizes on the development of skills and not only knowledge, materials that give the teacher the opportunity for greater diversity in activities and assessment that should be suitable for the different learning styles of the children, without the competitive and exclusive spirit of the traditional assessment (Feiler, 1988 ; Koutselini, 1997).
Parents
Inclusive education to be effective must also take into consideration parents' role. Parents should not be seen only through the role of an association or a committee, but as partners. There should be consultation of parents for the school's policy and practice and any change that takes place in the school. In addition parents should be involved in teaching procedures when possible (Wolfendale, 1988). Moreover there must be support services to help parents to face the needs of their children (Kerzner-Lipsky and Gardner, 1996). The special schools may support these services. Finally all the parents should belong to a united group.
Students
In an inclusive school all students should be accepted by each other and develop positive attitudes of cooperation. Consequently, they will feel that they belong to a united group (Wade and Moore, 1993).
Buildings and Equipment
According to Oliver (1988) whether a school is accessible to its students reflects the way society disables or enables people with impairments by the way it responds to those impairments. For a school to be accessible for all its students it should be a neighbourhood school with physical accessibility (ramps, lifts, rest rooms, parking place etc) and equipment for the needs of all students (Braille system, audio equipment etc).
Legislation
To bring into practice all the above we need a long-term policy with the provision of a legislation that will ensure the rights and the interests of all students; a legislation that will be inspired by the idea of an inclusive society (Barton, 1997).
Reaching for the stars
As mentioned at the beginning Cyprus is nowadays in front of a new change with the new legislation of 1999, that naturally causes dilemmas and challenges. However the institution of inclusion is quite far from reality. There are still a number of special schools and not a great number of students are integrated. As result there is a need to bridge the gap between the two processes with the necessary changes. If we are to become truly inclusive, the whole educational system must participate. This change needs leaders people who have a vision and believe that inclusion is feasible! The change should be a product of restatement of values and ideas and demand changing of roles of every stakeholder, school and service.
Building into good practice with quality and excellence for all in education, values such as equal worth and opportunities for all, equal rights, democracy and respect to diversity, should be the leaders in the development of practice for a new inclusive education and a new inclusive society. That's why we should not
References:
Adams. F. J. (1990). Special Education in the 1990s. London: Longman.
Ainscow, M. (1989) Special Education in Change: Themes and Issues. In M. Ainscow (Ed.) Special Education in Change. London: David Fulton Publishers in association with the Cambridge Institute of Education.
Barton, L. (1988). The Politics of SEN: an introduction. In Barton, L. (Ed). The Politics of SEN. London: The Falmer Press.
Barton, L. (1993). The Struggle for Citizenship: the case of disabled people. Disability, Handicap & Society, 8 (3), 235 - 248.
Barton, L. (1997). Inclusive Education: romantic, subversive or realistic? Inclusive Education, 1 (3), 231 - 242.
Bines (1993). Curriculum Change: the case of special education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 14 (1), 75 -90.
Booth, T., Ainscow, M. and Dyson, A. (1998) Understanding inclusion in a competitive system. In T. Booth and M. Ainscow (Eds.) From Them to Us: An International Study of Inclusion in Education. London: Routledge.
Coben, S.S., Chase Thomas, C., Sattler, R.O. and Morsink, C.V. (1997) Meeting the Challenge of Consultation and Collaboration: Developing Interactive Teams. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 427-432.
Costaridou-Euklidi, A. (1994). Psychology of Motivation.
Daniels, H., Norwich, B. and Anghileri, N.C. (1993) Teacher support teams: An evaluation of a school-based approach to meeting special educational need. Support for Learning, 8, 169-173.
Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Feiler, A. & Thomas, G. (1988). Special needs: past, present and future. In Thomas, G. & Feiler, A. (Eds). Planning for Special Needs: A Whole School approach. Great Britain: TJ Press Ltd.
Feiler, A. (1988). The end of traditional assessment. In Thomas, G. & Feiler,A. (Eds). Planning for Special Needs: A Whole School approach. Great Britain: TJ Press Ltd.
Flouri, G. (1992). Curriculum for a New Era in Education. Athens: Gregory
Gregory, S.P. (1996) Inclusive education for pre-school children with disabilities. Support for Learning, 11, 78-82.
Kerzner-Lipsky, D. & Gartner, A. (1996). Incllusion, School Restructuring, and the Remaking of American Society. Harvard Educational Review, 66 (4), 762-796.
Lewis, A. (1992). From Planning to Practice. British Journal of Special Education. 19 (1), 24-27.
Low, C. (1997) Point of View: Is inclusivism possible? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 12, (1), 71-79.
Ministry of Education and Culture (1996) Document of Information for Special Education. Nicosia.
Ministry of Education and Culture (1999) ???
Nicolaides, S. (1993) Problems associated with the integration of children with special needs in Cypriot primary schools. Unpublished MEd. dissertation. University of Nottingham.
Oliver, M. (1988). The Social and Political Context of Education Policy: the case of special needs. In Barton, L. (Ed). The Politics of Special Educational Needs. London: The Falmer Press.
Pashiardis, P. (1996). Environmental Scanning in Educational Organisations: uses, approaches, sources and methodologies. International Journal of Educational Management, 40 (3), 5-9.
Phtiaka, H. (1996). Educational of teachers today in special education subjects: Challenges for the University of Cyprus. Presentation at the Second Pancyprian Educational Conference of Teachers: Education of children with special needs and integration in mainstream schools. University of Cyprus, Saturday, 17th of February, 1996.
Roaf, C. & Bines, H. (1989). Needs, Rights and Opportunities in Special Education. In Roaf, C. & Bines, H. (Eds). Needs, rights and opportunities. Great Britain: The Falmer Press,
Salend, S.J., Jounsen, M. Mumper, J. Chase, A.S., Pike, K.M. and Dorney, J.A. (1997) Co-operative Teaching. The Voices of two Teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 3-11.
Soder, M. (1992). Disability as a social construct: the labelling approach revisited. In Booth,T., Swann,W., Masterton, M. & Potts,P. (Eds). Learning for all 2: Policies for Diversity in Education. London: The Open University Press.
Thomas, G. and Feiler, A. (1988). Special Needs: past, present and future. In Thomas, G. and Feiler, A. (Eds). Planning for Special Needs. A Whole School Approach. London: Simon & Schuster Education.
Thomas, G., Walker, D. and Webb, J. (1998) The Making of the Inclusive School. London: Routledge.
Tilstone, C. & Upton, G. (1993). Enchancing the Quality of Provision. In Visser, J. and Upton, G. (Eds). Special Education in Britain after Warnock. London: David Fulton.
Tomlinson, S. (1982). A Sociology of Special Education. London: Roudledge and Kegan Paul.
UNESCO (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain, 7-10 June, 1994. New York: UNESCO.
Vlachou, A. (1997). Struggles for Inclusive Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wade, B. & Moore, M. (1993). Experiencing Special Education: What young people with special educational needs can teel us. Buckingham: Open University Press..
Walther-Thomas, C., Bryant, M. and Land, S. (1996) Planning for Effective Co-Teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 255-Cover3.
Wedell, K. (1995) Making Inclusive Education Ordinary. British Journal of Special Education, 22, (3), 100-104.
Wolfendale, S. (1992). Primary Schools and Special Needs: Policy, Planning, Provision. Great Britain: Biddles Ltd.
 |
 |