CC BY
1PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
ОГЛЯД ПРАКТИЧНИХ АСПЕКТ1В НАВЧАННЯ Д1ТЕЙ З ОСОБЛИВИМИ ПОТРЕБАМИ У МЕЙНСТРИМ1НГОВИХ ЗАКЛАДАХ ОСВ1ТИ В КРА1НАХ ЗАХ1ДНО1 СВРОПИ НАПРИК1НЦ1
ХХ СТОЛ1ТТЯ - НА ПОЧАТКУ ХХ1 СТОЛ1ТТЯ
1ванова О.В.
астрантка кафедри загально'1 педагогiки та педагогiки вищо'1 школи Харювський нацюнальний педагогiчний утверситет
iMeHi Г. С. Сковороди
PRACTICAL ASPECTS REVIEW OF SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION AT MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS IN WESTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AT THE END OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY TO THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
Ivanova O. V.
post-graduate student of general pedagogy and high school pedagogy department Kharkov national pedagogical university named after H.S. Skovoroda
Анотащя
У статп проаналiзовано практичш аспекти навчання дггей з особливими потребами у мейнстримшго-вих школах кран Захвдно! £вропи напришнщ ХХ столитя та початку XXI столитя. Особливо щкавим е той факт, що проблеми, з якими зштовхуються звичайш вчителi, в основному практичш, отже, вони пе-реважно намагаються знайти тi вщповщ, як1 слiд застосовувати найближчим часом. Щоб впливати на по-всякденну практику, основну увагу слiд придшяти асистентам у школах, котрi мають вирiшальне значения для звичайних вчителiв. Включення значною мiрою залежить ввд ставлення вчителiв до особливих дней та наявними для них ресурсами. Щоб таких дней було включено у мейнстримшгове навчання, вчителi намагаються тдвищити рiвень ресурсу та диференцшвати дiтей залежно вiд кiлькостi та типу доступних ресурсiв. Окрiм того, устшне включення дiтей з ООП значною мiрою залежить вiд вищезгаданих факто-рiв.
Abstract
In the article it is analysed practical aspects of special needs education at mainstream schools in Western European countries at the end of the twentieth century to the beginning of the twenty-first century. It can be of particular interest that problems classroom teachers face are mostly practical, thus they predominantly try to find those answers to be applied in the near future. To influence daily practice, the focus should be done on school assistants who play a crucial role for general teachers. Inclusion greatly depends on teachers' attitudes towards special children and on the resources which are available for them. To make such children included into main education, teachers try to increase the resource level and differentiate children depending on the quantity and type of resources accessible. Furthermore, a successful inclusion of children with SEN considerably depends on the factors mentioned.
Ключов1 слова: навчання дней з особливими потребами, мейнстримшгова школа, звичайний вчи-тель, навчальний план, аудиторна практика.
Keywords: special needs education, mainstream school, general teacher, curriculum, classroom practice.
The classroom practice is of peculiar interest for the special educational needs (further - SEN) field as it is straightforwardly focused on practical aspects of special needs education. Thus, it can greatly influence the sphere of special education, especially classroom teachers.
It can be debated that problems teachers face are mostly practical. Besides, they predominantly try to find those answers to be applied in the near future. It can also be claimed that teachers are not interested in problem-solving developed in other countries [11]. They generally keep themselves to the loop where they are able to find answers to the questions. Thus, they consult professionals and colleagues at or close to mainstream schools. If teachers are interested in a more systematic approach to a certain problem, they attempt
to find answers, reading corresponding books or reports, attending conferences, seminars or courses. Subsequently, it is improbable for a teacher to confer with international resources to address their problems [2]. To influence daily practice, the emphasis should be put on professionals at schools who are important for general teachers.
Inclusion considerably depends on teachers' attitudes towards children with SEN and on the resources which are available for them. As studies indicate [2-4], the former has been put forward as a decisive factor when ensuring broader schools participation in inclusion. Unless mainstream teachers accept education of special children as an integral part of their work, they will try to assure special teachers to take responsibility
for such pupils. Subsequently, they will arrange implicit segregation at school (for example, organizing special educational classes).
Teaching children with SEN in mainstream classrooms undoubtedly differs from 'regular' programs. Teachers face an issue of how to properly train them. Extra instruction time, learning methods and professional knowledge can be required by children with special needs [12]. Consequently, teachers will feel an urgent need to search for more time, additional materials and specialized knowledge. It can be generally prevailed in two ways either by increasing resources, namely to find more time for teachers, or by redistributing available resources, namely to differently utilize accessible time.
Augmenting available time (e.g. educational assistants applying) or improving teachers' professional knowledge (e.g. consulting groups) are ways to enhance resources indispensable for inclusive education. However, teachers can also be required to redistribute the available ones among all children without any exception in the classroom. They can persuade average healthy pupils to independently work, especially with computers, thus assisting each other. As a result, more teachers' time is remained for children with SEN.
To make special children included into mainstream education, teachers try to increase the resource level and differentiate children depending on the quantity and type of resources accessible. Furthermore, a successful inclusion of children with SEN considerably depends on whether resources are available or not in mainstream classrooms [12]. Besides, it can be stated that the second feature is how teachers differentiate them among all pupils without any exception.
The last crucial issue to be indicated at the teachers' and classroom level is educators' sensitivity and skills to make all children's social relations significant. Moreover, interactions with healthy peers are particularly meaningful both for children with SEN and their parents. Teachers should not only have right attitudes, but also good understanding of how to enhance such relationships and interactions. Thus, teachers' attitudes and values, their knowledge and skills, available instruction time, teaching methods and materials are apparently important conditions to provide special needs education at mainstream schools.
The literature evidence is that different accents or balances within regular programs or more intensive teaching can be required by children with SEN. For example, the review of Jordan, Jones, & Murray [7] on educational interventions of children with autistic disorders claims that critical facets involve both those general to healthy and special needs pupils, like parents' participation and their social interaction, and also those directed to special needs and learning style of pupils with autistic range. There can be used visual perception and accurate teaching generalized strategies.
Other indication comes from the latest review on acquiring literacy for pupils with severe SEN [5] suggesting that there were few children groups required radically diverse teaching. Nonetheless, teachers had to know the impact of a development or language delay
on how special children would react on the general curriculum. Since children with visual impairment could inaccurately apply language, it was meaningful for teachers to refine their skills to generate comprehension. Besides, children with particular SEN often required a curriculum that was differently balanced from that of healthy peers focusing on one aspect of literacy or that was differently paced not simply taking into account a certain development delay.
A study conducted at the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) [3; 8] examined the general prerequisites necessary to create classrooms able to involve children with SEN. Additionally, it highlighted that, despite the quality of separate classrooms practice, inclusion would not be possible for all pupils without any exception in a community, if schools did not take the responsibility to set up appropriate conditions for effective classroom practice. There were relevant conclusions done as follows:
• schools were provided with a budget to be allocated thus ensuring more flexible and appropriate support for teaching staff;
• proper coverage and experience levels regarding classroom support were most efficiently provided by a group of teachers and learning support assistants;
• grouping children due to their abilities in an age cohort was considered to make the most effective resources usage as support could be aimed at lower abilities setting;
• learning support personnel were estimated within classrooms and requests for them surpassed the hours available;
• there were learning support with teachers attached to discipline departments, there were more opportunities for the latter to consider all children's needs, to develop working schemes and to discuss separate cases in order to make decisions on coordinated approaches;
• learning support teachers worked most efficiently when being involved with all children without any exception in a whole class rather than just with selected individuals;
• discipline teachers needed some encouragement to reckon the implications of obtained information about children with SEN;
• various differentiation approaches were regarded as suitable depending on the subject: in English by results; in science by various levels of working schemes; in mathematics by personalised schemes;
• teaching strategies were mainly extended of those already applied, like 'good teaching,' but not particular approaches to peculiar difficulties.
Moving from special to mainstream schools, European studies have marked out children with SEN placed both in mainstream and special schools. It is highlighted that such placement is only a starting point [10-11]. Furthermore, it is crucial to monitor and estimate children's experience within mainstream classrooms to ensure whether they are involved into relevant teaching and learning. Studying the process of closing special schools and placing all children without any ex-
ception into mainstream schools with some staff assisting led to a large number of data. Consequently, of particular interest to classroom practice the following can be differentiated:
• those who support certain children should have accurate directions of managing and collaborating in a team with the class teacher;
• children were involved by a variety of classroom strategies like changing the lesson format, arranging groups, altering the way of delivering instructions, adapting targets, applying different materials, granting alternative tasks;
• social bonds in inclusive classrooms were strengthened by thoroughly structured joint actions, cooperation opportunities, changed classroom structure and organization, systems for ensuring peer cooperation (peer tutoring, friends' circles, etc.);
• mainstream teachers get on-going assistance and support regarding children with SEN inclusion;
• applying non-engaging time to joint planning between general teachers, assistants and coordinators should be essential.
The study conducted by Bennett & Cass [1] is worth alluding as it was remarkable to track the experience of five children with SEN while primary-secondary transferring. It showed that the quality of children's experience in mainstream classrooms of secondary schooling was pledged by lack of the curriculum maintenance and poor skills assessment and lack of work extending. Only two of five special children were more engrossed into class work at general school than at special one. It was proved that successful inclusion into classrooms, when children with SEN moved from segregated to mainstream schools, depended on very close bonds between those schools. There were also considered transfer of valid records about achievements, abilities and learning styles; thorough planning of curricula; and efficient differentiation of both assessment and curriculum at mainstream schools.
Hornby [6] affirms that the existing literature reviews on integration are ambiguous considering the efficiency of inclusive programs which are inclined to have partial impacts. The author concludes that there is no proof of inclusive practices efficiency. Particularly remarkable is lack of studies revealing the inclusive programs outcomes to significantly enhance the lives of children with SEN. He claims that policy advances the empirical data to support it. In most cases, the evidence has not indeed been gathered. The consensus on 'favourable prerequisites' for classroom practice confirmed in international studies [9; 11] is generally at a wider level viewing encouraging school ethos; adequate in-service education; sufficient material and human resources.
One of the issues in Western European countries is the lack of overall measures to evaluate comparative progress. These are commencing to be developed, applied and improved [4] and there is augmenting focus on measuring special children's outcomes. It is supposed that the revised "Code of Practice" will transfer
emphasis from the 'initialpurpose' (namely the identification process and needs assessment) to the 'end result' (namely the definition and evaluation of outcomes and attainments). It has further been strengthened by regards defining budgets to be available to support children with SEN. Though attention is drawn to those activities which are paid from means intended for special children, much less attention is given to the 'initial purpose' results. Thus, such activities are justified in terms of identifying children's needs rather than in terms of intervention effectiveness.
To sum up, it should be indicated that moving from special to mainstream schools, Western European countries have marked out children with SEN placed into both types of schools. It is stated that such placement is only a start point. Further, it is significant to observe and evaluate children's experience within general classrooms to assure whether they are engaged into pertinent teaching and learning. Examining the process of closing special schools and placing all children without any exception into mainstream schools with assistants supporting could result in relevant data increasing and outlining new horizons to improve the issue.
References
1. Bennett, N., & Cass, A. From special to ordinary school. London: Cassell, 1989.
2. Centre for the Study of Inclusion (CSIE). Index for inclusion. Bristol: CSIE, 2000.
3. Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) The national literacy strategy: Framework for teaching. London: DfEE, 1998a.
4. Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) Supporting the target-setting process. London: DfEE, 1998b.
5. Fletcher-Campbell, F. Literacy and special educational needs: A review of the literature. London: DfEE, 2000.
6. Hornby, G. Inclusion or delusion: Can one size fit all? Support for Learning, 1999, Vol. 14(4), P. 152-157.
7. Jordan, R., Jones, G., & Murray, D. Educational interventions for children with autism: A literature review of recent and current research. DfEE Research Report RR77. London: DfEE, 1998.
8. Lee, B., & Henkhusens, Z. Integration in progress: Pupils with special needs in mainstream schools. Slough: NFER, 1996.
9. Manset, G., & Semmel, M. Are inclusive programs for students with mild disabilities effective? A comparative review of model programs, Journal of Special Education, 1997, Vol. 31(2), P. 155-180.
10. Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., & Butcher, K. How effective is inquiry learning for students with mild disabilities? Journal of Special Education, 1997, Vol. 31(2), P. 199-211.
11. Thomas, G., Walker, D., & Webb, J. The making of the inclusive school. London: Routledge, 1998.
12. Wilson, J. Some conceptual difficulties with 'inclusion', Support for Learning, 1999, Vol. 14(3), P. 110-112.
