Module

in
Foundations of Special and
Inclusive Education

Compiled by:

NIMFA B. PASTRANA, RPm, PhD

The compilers do not own any of the contents of this learning module. Due credits and acknowledgment
are given to the authors, internet sources, and researchers listed on the reference page. Such sources
are reserved to further explain concepts and cannot be credited to the compiler and the school. All
diagrams, charts, and images are used for educational purposes only. The sole objective of this
instructional material is to facilitate independent learning and not for monetary gains because this is
NOT FOR SALE.
 2020 Revision

LESSON 1
Understanding Diversity

TOPICS
Loden’s Diversity Wheel
Ability and Disability as a Dimension of Diversity

LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of the lesson, you should be able to:
• define diversity;
• explain different factors leading to diversity and their
implications;
• discuss differences in home language and the medium of
instruction in school;
• describe influences of gender and caste stereotypes on
children’s development; and
• discuss ways to promote equitable participation of all in
learning and play

Let us begin with a classroom where the teacher is linking classroom teaching learning with food eaten
by families during different festivals.

Classroom Scene

Nicole is excited today and is not able to concentrate on the classwork given to her by her
teacher. She is eagerly waiting for the lunch break as today, it is her turn to share her favourite festival
food and the details related to the festival with the entire class. This is how her teacher has linked the
lesson on food with daily lives of students. She has also attempted to sensitize students that different
people of different regions serve and eat different foods on festivals and special occasions. Let us reflect
on the classroom scene:

Processing Questions:
• Are all children of the class being involved in this activity?

INTRODUCTION
• Has the teacher been able to sensitize the children about the diversity in the class

Defining Diversity

The term diversity originated from the Latin word diversus which indicates differences. Diverse
means 'differing from each other' and 'made up of distinct characteristics, qualities, or elements'. Being
a large country with a large population, India presents endless varieties of physical features and cultural
patterns. It is a land of diversity in race, religion, caste, language, and so on. Within school also we see
various identities of race, gender, age and social status. Hence, we need to be equipped to address it in
the classroom. The case discussed in the beginning of this lesson, where Seema's teacher has initiated a
festival food sharing exercise to highlight cultural and regional differences is a simple initiative the
teacher has taken to make children aware of existing diversity among their peers besides linking the
curriculum with daily life. Diversity, therefore, consists of visible and invisible factors, which include
personal characteristics such as socio-economic background, culture, personality and workstyle. In
short, the term diversity indicates uniqueness or differences without any judgment attached to the
differences or unique characteristics. Diversity gives recognition, acceptance and respect to individual
differences, irrespective of the origin.

Children with different physical features may not affect the classroom processes directly but
may have implications for classroom dynamics. Like, tall children are often selected for sports,children
with a fair complexion may generate more appreciative comments whereas a particular colour or shape
of eyes may not be easily accepted by others. A child with fair complexion may be the first choice of the
teacher for the role of king/queen/fairy, making other children think that kings/queens/fairies are only
fair skinned. This creates stereotypes that are avoidable. Diversity in physical traits associated with race,
is a natural phenomenon and needs to be accepted

Multi-lingualism

With increased mobility of people in search of work and food, children from different
geographical regions speaking different languages end up studying together. With the Right to
Education, all children are expected to be in school.

Understanding Diversity

It has been observed that children struggle to follow the teaching taking place in the class due to
the divide between home and school language. Only when the medium of instruction in the school is the
same as the one used at home, can learning become effective. That is when the drop out rate will fall.
The divide between the medium of instruction and home language must be overcome by teachers
gradually by respecting and accepting the home language and building upon the strength in one
language to facilitate the learning of the second and third language. We all use language to
communicate with each other, but persons who cannot hear properly use sign language to
communicate. Similarly, persons with vision difficulties use Braille script to write and take notes. Thus,
we can say that another dimension of multilingualism is recognizing and valuing sign language and
Braille as a medium of communication just like any other language of the country.

Ethnicity: Ethnicity refers to belonging to a social group with common regional and cultural traditions.
This factor greatly impacts textbooks, curriculum, pedagogy as well as the school's day-to-day
functioning. Each ethnic group has its own customs, art and artefacts, clothing style etc. The child
belonging to these groups brings diverse and rich experiences to the classroom which can enrich the
peers as well. These local customs and traditions have direct bearing on the education system. The
textbook, curriculum, school working days, scheduling of holidays, school timings, medium of instruction
etc are all affected by ethnicity. It is also important to integrate the wide range of cultural arts and
artefacts in the curriculum and the everyday routines of the classroom. The school administration and
the teacher need to find ways and means to facilitate the learning experience of all children enrolled
and acknowledge their ethnicity. The teacher can organize special festivals, food day, dress day, story
day, invite parents and give out activity sheets, to sensitise children about the different ethnic groups in
the class.

Gender: The layman understands gender as male and female. Gender needs to be understood in terms
of social and cultural identity associated with being a boy or a girl. 'Sex' is a term closely related and
often used interchangeably with gender. Sex is a biological characteristic whereas gender is a social
characteristic. Biological characteristic of sex is determined by genes, hormones and male-female
reproductive organs. Understanding gender in terms of social cultural identity involves realizing the
expected social characteristics and behaviors expected from a boy or a girl. Children’s toy preferences
are significantly related to parental sex-typing, such as girls playing with dolls and boys participating in
sports.

Socio-economic status: This is one of the major factors responsible for diversity in the classroom. Those
belonging to lower or higher socio-economic groups need to be given due space in the textbooks,
curriculum and classroom activities. All children should be treated as equal irrespective of their socio-
economic background. Uniforms for school children were perhaps initiated with the same philosophical
assumption. The diversity due to socio-economic status is more apparent in those ECCE centres where
children are not expected to wear a uniform, leaving them free to dress in casuals or home wear or
home clothes. The diversity in the clothes worn by the children indicates a lot about the financial and
social status of the family. The same is also true about their school bags and the school stationery
(geometry box, lunch box, pencil, crayons etc).Diversity due to socio-economic status can be utilised as
teaching learning resource as each child brings with them their own experiences to the classroom which
can be shared and used for teaching learning.

Defining Diversity. The term diversity originated from the Latin word diversus which indicates
differences. Diverse means 'differing from each other' and 'made up of distinct characteristics, qualities,
or elements'. Being a large country with a large population, India presents endless varieties of physical
features and cultural patterns. It is a land of diversity in race, religion, caste, language, and so on. Within
school also we see various identities of race, gender, age and social status. Hence, we need to be
equipped to address it in the classroom. Diversity, therefore, consists of visible and invisible factors,
which include personal characteristics such as socio-economic background, culture, personality and
workstyle. In short, the term diversity indicates uniqueness or differences without any judgment
attached to the differences or unique characteristics. Diversity gives recognition, acceptance and respect
to individual differences, irrespective of the origin.

FACTORS LEADING TO DIVERSITY AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS IN LEARNING

The large number of different cultures knitted together in such a close and perfect manner make
to accurately talk about diversity, especially in the classroom, we need to consider more factors like:

• Race

• Multilingualism

• Ethnicity

• Gender

• Socio-economic status

• Age

• Level of physical activities

• Religious beliefs

• Learning style

The list above is not exhaustive. Many more factors may be added to it. Let us now understand
how each of these factors generates diversity and also how it affects the teaching-learning environment
in our schools and classrooms. Race: Race is division of human kind on the basis of physical features like
height, weight, colour of eye, skin etc. as well as also on the basis of social behaviors, norms, customs
and practices. It is a classification system which is used to categorise humans into distinct populations or
groups by anatomical features related to body structure or physique. These are mostly hereditary,
passed on from parents to their children. These variations are due to geographical, historical, linguistic,
or religious belongingness.
TOPIC 1: LODEN’S DIVERSITY WHEEL

Source: Gardenswartz & Rowe, Diverse Teams at Work (2nd Edition, SHRM, 2003

This model has been Included as just one of the many models that have been developed to
Illustrate the various dimensions that can contribute to the complexity of cultural diversity. This model
Illustrates both the primary and secondary dimensions of diversity that exert an Impact on each of us at
home, work and In society. While each dimension adds a layer of complexity to Individual Identity, It Is
the dynamic Interaction among all the dimensions that Influences selfimage, values, opportunities and
expectations. Together, the primary and secondary dimensions of diversity give definition and meaning
to our lives by contributing to a synergistic, Integrated whole — the diverse person.
 Primary dimensions of diversity. The primary dimensions of diversity Include age, ethnic
heritage, gender, mental/physical abilities and characteristics, race and sexual orientation. These six
differences are termed core dimensions of diversity because they exert an Important Impact on our
early socialisation and a powerful, sustained Impact on our experiences, values, assumptions and
expectations throughout every stage of life.

Secondary dimensions of diversity. Key secondary dimensions of diversity Include, but are not
limited to, elements as Illustrated by the outer circle. Generally, secondary dimensions are less visible
and many contain a greater element of choice. Despite the presence of the term 'race' In everyday
language, and Its use In various policies and statements referred to throughout this toolkit, the new
Macquarie ABC Dictionary under 'usage' of the term states: Because the 19th century classification of
humans Into distinct races has been challenged scientifically, and has been misused, many now prefer to
avoid this term when referring to a group of humans, and to replace It with another term such as
'peoples' or 'community.

Activity

After spending time looking at the wheel, write down 5 things that describe who you are—the top
five things you think of when you think to describe yourself.

TOPIC 2: ABILITY AND DISABILITY AS DIMENSION OF DIVERSITY

This topic describes the tremendous diversity that characterizes students with disabilities. Most
of these students are eligible to receive special education services provided by the public schools. Yet, as
this chapter shows, one cannot really speak of them as a group in a meaningful way, except perhaps
with respect to the rights that all are accorded under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by virtue of their having a disability.

Some students with disabilities are never taken out of general education classrooms; others
never enter a regular school building. Some have very mild disabilities observed only in school settings;
others have multiple severe disabilities that affect many aspects of their lives. Some spend only minutes
each week with a specially trained teacher, others the whole day. Some graduate from high school with
a full academic courseload and go on to highly competitive colleges; others drop out of high school
entirely; and still others receive special diplomas or certificates of attendance. Some have parents who
are deeply involved in advocating and planning their individualized programs.

Meaningful discussion of standards, curriculum, assessment, and outcomes cannot occur

without some attention to the varied characteristics of these large numbers of children. This chapter
examines how their extraordinary diversity complicates efforts to identify and categorize children with
disabilities and to design effective educational policies for them. It also analyzes how disability variously
affects the school experiences of these students, the roles their parents play in that schooling, and the
possible implications for standards-based reform.
 LESSON II
FOUNDATIONS OF SPECIAL AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

TOPICS
1. Historical Foundations
2. Philosophical Foundations
3. Legal Foundations

LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of the lesson, you should be able to:
Trace the foundations of special and inclusive
education
Discuss the philosophy behind special and inclusive
education
Time Allotment – 6 hours

TOPIC 1: HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS

YEAR MILESTONE

1972 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board of Education (District of Columbia). These
cases established the right to education for students with disabilities and
found that denial of education violates the 14th Amendment.

1973 Vocational Rehabilitation Act (VRA) is a civil rights law prohibits

discrimination of individuals with disabilities in any program receiving federal
funding. This applies to students in public and publicly supported schools

1974 Educational Amendments Act cleared the way for increased Federal spending
for education of handicapped children

1982 Board of Education v. Rowley (New York). The Supreme Court defined “free
and appropriate education” and directed that public schools must provide
appropriate special education services.

1984 Perkins Act 10% of all vocational education should be provided in the LRE
secondary support is provided to students with disability

1990 American's with Disabilities Act (ADA)  gives civil rights protections to

individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the
basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion

2006 IDEIA regulations for school age youngsters implemented

2011 IDEIA regulations for babies and youngsters implemented

1965 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law in
1965 by President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who believed that "full educational
opportunity" should be "our first national goal."

1975 – Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act (EAHCA) was enacted and
required all public schools accepting federal funds to provide equal access to
education and one free meal a day for children with physical and mental
disabilities. Public schools were required to evaluate handicapped children
and create an educational plan with parent input that would emulate as
closely as possible the educational experience of non-disabled students.

1986 Education of the Handicapped Act Amendmen

1992 Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District

(New Jersey).  A federal district court ruled that a self-contained special
education class was not the LRE for a student with Down syndrome. The court
ruled that school districts were obligated to consider regular class placement
first, with supplementary aids and services, before considering alternative
 placements.

2004 - the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA)

2015 Every Student Succeeds Act advances equity by upholding critical protections

for America's disadvantaged and high-need students.

TOPIC 2: PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS

Philosophical Foundations of SPED

Inclusive education is a widely accepted pedagogical and policy principle, but its genesis has
been long and, at times, difficult. For example, in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
included statements about rights and freedoms that have, over the decades, been used to promote
inclusive educational practices. Article 26 of the Declaration stated that parents “have a prior right to
choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” This declaration later helped some
parent groups and educators to advocate for equal access to schooling in regular settings, and for
parental choice about where their child would be educated.

Following the widespread influence of the human rights-based principle of normalization, the concept of
inclusive education received major impetus from the Education of All Handicapped Children Act in the
United States in 1975, the United Nations (UN) International Year of Disabled Persons in 1981, and the
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2006. A major focus of the UN initiatives has
been the right of people with a disability to participate fully in society. This focus has obvious
consequences for the way education is provided to students with a disability or other additional
educational needs. For many years, up to the last quarter of the 20th century, the major focus for such
students was on the provision of separate specialized services, with limited attention to the concept of
full participation in society. Toward the end of the 20th century and into the 21st century, there has
been increasing acceptance, through parental action, systemic policy, and government legislation, of
inclusivity as a basic philosophical principle.

Both the type of instruction that should be provided to students with a disability and the  location of that
instruction in regular or specialized settings have been topics for advocacy and research, sometimes
with mixed and/or controversial conclusions.
 5 PRINCIPLES OF SPECIAL AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Principle 1: Diversity in the classroom enriches and strengthens education

Every student is unique and every group of students is different. Diversity in schools is a given.
Learners have different experiences, cultures, beliefs and values.

This diversity is something all teachers come across. It can present challenges for teachers,
students and their parents. It also creates opportunities for growth and better connection in personal,
social and academic achievement.

Two central questions to ask are:

● How can schools and teachers create welcoming and focused environments that include,
motivate and challenge all learners?
● Do teachers have high expectations of learning, effort and engagement for all their students?

Inclusive educators are those who draw on the knowledge and experiences of their students. They
question their own beliefs about student learning. They are flexible and ready for a challenge. And most
of all, they embrace diversity in their classroom.

Principle Two:    A strength-based and personalised curriculum

Strength-based approaches are a key principle of inclusive education. They recognise each student has
inherent strengths and talents. These strengths, as well as a student’s specific needs, should be placed
at the centre of curriculum planning and implementation. This optimises opportunities for both teachers
and student learning.

A strength-based and personalised curriculum improves:

● student engagement
● motivation
● academic outcomes for all students.

This approach celebrates diversity and difference, and facilitates opportunities for personalised learning.

Principle Three: Student engagement, agency and voice

Seeking the perspectives of students ensures they make a meaningful contribution to their
schooling and educational experience. The ability to have a voice influences both student participation
and agency. Student roles are often consultative, rather than active, even when matters directly affect
them. The key to listening well is to have a belief in students’ capabilities, and to develop relationships
of trust and respect. It’s not one-sided: students need to trust their teacher too.
When students are given a platform to share their voice, schools gain insider knowledge and better
understand the student experience. It sends a clear message that student engagement is important.

But how do you make this authentic?

● Facilitate multiple different ways for young people to be heard, regardless of their ability.
● Consider tools such as drawing, writing, talking, paintings, photographs, and videos to express
agency.
● Ask students, as critical stakeholders, to identify indicators of what an inclusive school looks like
and measure the school against them.

Principle Four: Engaging with all your critical stakeholders

An inclusive education is one where all students of all capabilities have the opportunity to grow
and learn. This means providing each student and parent with access to accurate information on their
learning through ongoing formative and summative assessment of each student’s progress.

Schools can also model positive behaviour and feedback, while still offering areas of
improvement. For example, low reading confidence can be turned around with sharing positive stories
of school success where students have improved or progressed.

Over time, this approach creates a positive community perception of the school and raises
awareness about a positive school culture.

Principle Five: Inclusive teachers need commitment, knowledge and practical skills

Good teaching is good teaching for all not just for some.Teaching in inclusive classrooms
requires teachers to have the 3Hs: the heart (commitment), the head (critical knowledge) and hands
(practical strategies).Teachers must be fully committed to include all learners. They need to understand
inclusive practices benefit all students, regardless if they have additional needs.

Inclusive education also benefits teachers. Strategies are used that make classrooms more
engaging, and it can lead to improved professional satisfaction.Inclusion requires teachers to
acquire critical knowledge and skills to teach students who differ in their abilities and their learning
styles.

It does not require teachers to become superhuman but it does require them to know about some of
the most powerful evidence-based teaching strategies that engage learners across the board:

● assessment for learning

● peer tutoring
● co-operative learning.

A teacher with the heart, head and hands of an inclusive teacher will be effective for all learners, not just
for those who need additional support. We must not forget that a teacher with all 3Hs need to be
adequately supported by the school leadership team to use and sustain inclusive practices.
 TOPIC 3: LEGAL FOUNDATIONS

LEGAL FOUNDATIONS OF SPECIAL AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

The Right to Inclusive Education: The International Policy Framework

The shift towards an inclusive approach to education was reflected at the 1990 World
Conference on Education for All, by which the problem of the exclusion of students with disabilities from
school systems was acknowledged. Following the Conference, the World Declaration on Education For
All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs (Jomtien Declaration) declared that ‘steps need to be taken to provide
equal access to education to every category of disabled persons as an integral part of the education
system.

The adoption in 1993 of the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons
with Disabilities provided for integration in mainstream schools affirming that education for persons
with disabilities should form an integral part of national educational planning, curriculum development
and school organization  and that education in mainstream schools presupposes the provision of
interpreter and other appropriate support services and adequate accessibility and support services,
designed to meet the needs of persons with different disabilities.  However, it also recognized that in
situations where the general school system does not yet adequately meet the needs of all persons with
disabilities, special education may be considered’ but should be aimed at preparing students for
education in the general school system.

It was not until the UNESCO World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and
Equality in 1994 that, for the first time, specific attention was paid to the right to inclusive education in
particular. Signed by 92 Governments, the resulting Salamanca Statement required mainstream schools
to provide quality education to all students, including students with disabilities, without discriminating
on the basis of the higher requirements of support thatthey may need. The Salamanca Statement
proclaimed that every child has unique characteristics, interests, abilities, and learning needs and
provided that ‘those with special educational needs must have access to regular schools which should
accommodate them within a child-centred pedagogy capable of meeting these needs’. It also asserted
that ‘regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating
discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving
education for all.

Subsequently, the Dakar Framework for Action on Education for All adopted in 2000 a World
Declaration on Education for All affirming the notion of education as a fundamental right and
establishing the new millennium goal to provide every girl and boy with primary school education by
2015. To this end, the Declaration stressed that education systems must be inclusive and respond
flexibly to the circumstances and needs of all learners. Children with disabilities were not explicitly
mentioned in this framework but implicitly included in references to most vulnerable and disadvantaged
children. However, it has been noted that the lack of reference to particular minority groups by name,
without consequently articulating strategies most appropriate for their inclusion, may have led to a
lesser response by governments than has been the case when addressing the needs of more clearly
stated groups.
SPECIAL AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES
An integrated legal and policy framework covering inclusive education should address all educational
sectors and levels. It needs to be comprehensive, coordinated and comprehensively address issues of
flexibility, diversity and equity in all educational institutions for all learners. Key elements to be
addressed are that its provisions:

• Comply with international human rights standards

• Include a clear definition of inclusion and the specific objectives it is seeking to achieve. Inclusion
principles and practices need to be considered as integral to reform, and not simply an add-on
programme. Provisions, for example, which define certain categories of children as ‘uneducable’ need to
be repealed.

• Guarantee children with and without disabilities the same right to access mainstream learning
opportunities, and assure access for individual learners to mainstream education and necessary support
services within all levels.

• Develop a policy framework for inclusive education at the central level that supports the policy,
practice and culture of inclusion across all levels of the mainstream education system.

• Ensure that policy, provision and support are consistent throughout the country.

• Introduce accessible monitoring mechanisms to ensure that policy, together with the requisite
investment, is actually implemented.

• Recognize the need for reasonable accommodations to support inclusion, based on human rights
standards, rather than on the efficient use of resources.

• Ensure that all legislation that potentially impacts upon inclusive education within a country should
clearly state inclusion as a goal.

• Provide a consistent framework for the identification, assessment and support required to enable
children with disabilities to flourish in mainstream learning environments.

• Introduce an obligation on local authorities to plan and provide for all learners, including children with
disabilities, within mainstream settings and classes, including in the most appropriate languages, modes
and means of communication.

• Provide guidance to education institutions on how to fulfil their duties through increased inclusive
education provision.

• Require the creation of partnerships and coordination between all stakeholders, including different
agencies, development organizations and NGOs, and specifically with parents and individuals with
disabilities
 LESSON III
MAKING SCHOOLS INCLUSIVE

TOPICS
1. Creating Inclusive Cultures
2. Producing Inclusive Policies
3. Evolving Inclusive Practices

LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of the lesson, you should be able to:
Discuss the characteristics of an inclusive school
Suggest policies addressing the needs of special
learners
Identify teaching practices appropriate for
special and inclusive learners
Time Allotment – 6 hours

TOPIC 1: CREATING INCLUSIVE CULTURES

Key Elements To Building An Inclusive School

Throughout the world, educators are seeking ways to create schools that promote justice and
enhance the learning and performance of all children. They are discovering that old patterns of
segregating students by race, gender, culture, language, and ability model oppression, reduce effective
learning, and prevent the development of relationships among diverse children. Innovative and
concerned educators are seeking to create inclusive schools where diversity is valued and children of
great differences learn together. This short paper outlines key elements necessary for building inclusive
schools. These strategies have been developed out of comprehensive literature review and the Whole
Schooling Research Project.

1. Include All students in learning together. The school and staff together make a commitment
that all students should be welcomed into the school and that teachers and other staff will work
to have inclusive classes, heterogeneously grouped where students who are gifted through
severely disabled learn, play, and work together. For this to occur and become part of the
culture of the school, the total staff must be committed to this as a value for children, be able to
articulate the reasons for their belief, be willing to defend this practice against detractors, and
be willing to struggle, learn, and seek answers when it doesn’t seem to be working for a
 particular child. In most schools, this will mean a shifting special education, gifted, at risk, and
other students from separate classes into general education; identifying the students who are
presently in separate special education, gifted, or other schools who would typically attend our
school and invite them back; and redesigning the role of specialists to provide support for
inclusive teaching.

Red lights
children in ability groups in class or children with special needs (learning disabilities, gifted, etc.)
clustered in general education classes.

2. Multi-level, authentic instruction for learners of diverse abilities. Schools are typically
structured along grade levels and teach using standardized materials as if all children in a
particular grade were at the same level. The reality, however, is that any class, whether
attempting to be inclusive or not, contains children functioning at 3-6 grade levels apart.
Inclusive schools, and the teachers and staff within them, embrace this diversity of ability and
make it part of the design of instruction. Rather than designing instruction around a narrow
span of abilities, inclusive teachers design their teaching intentionally allowing for students to be
at multiple levels of ability. The idea, however, is not to ‘make it easier for those kids who aren’t
at grade level’. Rather, inclusive teachers ….
▪ Design lessons at multiple levels
▪ That challenge students at their own level (zone of proximal development)
▪ Provide support and scaffolding so children can push ahead to their own next level of
learning.
▪ Using authentic teaching strategies that engage children in learning via activities that
relate to heir lives at home and in the community, that connect to the real world
▪ Engaging the multiple intelligences and learning styles of children so that multiple
pathways for learning and demonstrating achievement are available.
▪ Involving students in collaborative, pair or group work where they draw on each other’s
strengths.
Schools in which teachers teach in this way have few children whose needs are not met.
However, since staff are constantly learning, never getting it quite right all the time, there will often be
children for whom teaching is not working. Staff then figure a range of adaptations to the curriculum,
paying attention to what works and how this might be incorporated next time into an overall teaching
strategy

3. Build community and meet the needs of children with behavioral challenges. For children’s
minds to work well so that they learn, they must feel safe, secure, cared for. When they don’t
learning diminishes or ceases. Therefore, building community in the school is critical. This
involves many dimensions:
▪ Collaborative, supportive, respectful relationships among staff, parents, the community
– study groups, school teams that focus on different issues, team teaching, etc.
▪ Building structures in the classroom among children so they know one another help one
another – peer partners, circles of support, peacemakers (a program for conflict
 resolution where children are taught to resolve conflicts among one another under
teacher supervision and guidance), sharing of lives and feelings in talk, writing, the arts,
class meetings, and more.
Giving children choices and teaching them responsibility for choices – for example, children
going to the bathroom on their own (rather than a whole group lined up), selecting among
several classroom activities, allowing students to sit, stand, move around, lay on the floor, etc,
as they study or work together.
In such a school, ‘behavior problems’ are much less frequent. Children feel cared for, have
choices., do not feel constrained, and yet are intentionally taught responsibility in the process.
However, given the problems children have in their lives, students will still cause problems and
staff seek to respect children and develop proactive solutions.
Rather than viewing children as needing to be ‘controlled’, teachers understand that all
behavior communicates a message. When a child ‘acts out’, this is his or her way of telling staff
about something they need. The challenge is to help figure out what that need is and to help
them learn alternative strategies for meeting it. Glasser’s described five needs of human beings
that can provide a way to understand children:
(1) survival,
(2) love and belonging,
(3) power,
(4) fun,
(5) freedom

Most often, schools ignore many of these needs and actually create behavior problems in
their attempt to thwart children having these needs met. The goal in an inclusive school is to
create a school culture and specific strategies that help students meet their 4 needs in positive
ways. But what do staff in an inclusive school DO? Here are some simple but powerful steps.
Step 1: Clarify the behavior that is a problem. It’s also helpful to figure out why the behavior
is considered a problem. Are rules too rigid? Are children treated poorly so that they are
responding in kind? What can be done to help meet Glasser’s Five Needs?
Step 2. Why is the behavior occurring? What need does the behavior signal? These are the
questions underlying a good ‘functional assessment’. They are critical for only by answering
them do we understand the child and develop a way to meet needs. Other parts of this may
involve analysis of the following questions: What occurs before, during, and after the
problematic behavior? What is going on in the child’s life?
Step 3. Develop strategies to meet the needs of the child in more positive ways. Develop
these ideas with the child. Help the child to understand that the behavior is not good, we
understand and care, but there are other ways he can get what he needs. Develop an action
plan, do it, evaluate it.
Step 4. Evaluate how well the change worked. How do we know? Traditionally, we know an
intervention worked if the problematic behavior went away. In this case, the strategies only
worked if the needs of the child were met. Who determines this? The child.
School staff can do other things to deal with problematic behavior in a positive way. Some of these
include:

▪ Dialogue and joint planning with the parents.

 ▪ Create a room where the child can go, under supervision, when he ‘needs a break’ to deal with
emotional stress. This can be the library, a support room, a secluded place in the class (like
under the teacher’s desk).
▪ Build social support for the child. Get a circle of support together of classmates who together
plan with the child and teacher, using MAPS for example, how to help him or her.
▪ Do a “Meeting Needs Audit” of the total school to determine how well the school is meeting the
five needs identified by Glasser for children in the building. Develop a range of activities that
may address discrepancies.
4. Provide support for teachers. Supporting teachers in working with students at multiple ability
levels, who have emotional and social challenges in their lives is critical. This is particularly
important as the shift towards building an inclusive culture in the school is occurring. Teachers
who are used to trying to teach at only one level have difficulty figuring out how to teach at
multiple levels. Even teachers who do this well sometimes don’t know that they do or what is
multi-level and what is not. A range of specialists are available to most schools to deal with
special needs and problems of children – social workers, special education teachers, bilingual
teachers, psychologists, nurses, occupational therapists, speech therapists, and others. In a
traditional school, most of these people work on their own with limited consultation with others
and pull children out of class for various services.
Special education teachers play an important role in an inclusive school. How this role develops,
however, can vary dramatically depending upon philosophy and purpose. Four roles are emerging out of
research related to in-class special education support by teachers and aides.

1. Remediation or enrichment – the goal is to ‘fix’ the child or ‘enrich’ the child’s experience, often in
pull-out classes or one on one work in the back of the general education class;

2. Adapting – teaching strategies are not questioned and if the ability of the child does not match
requirements, curriculum adaptations are developed – eg. Different worksheets, less work, more time
to do work.

3. Inclusive, multi-level, authentic teaching. Here the support teacher and general education teacher
work together to design lessons that engage children at multiple levels.

4. Teacher need. In this situation, a support teacher provides assistance to the teacher in strengthening
or areas of relative need in the teacher’s repertoire.

In quality inclusive schools, we put our focus on #’s 2 and 3. #1 has little place. #2 will be needed little as
teachers learn how to teach starting from children’s present abilities and strengths. In this way of
working the following are observed:

▪ The support team meeting weekly together to talk about children with special problems and
needs and brainstorm together how to deal with the issue.
▪ Scheduled meetings at least every two weeks between the general education teacher and the
specialists who are providing support in the classroom to develop plans on teaching together
and address concerns of specific children.
▪ Special education teachers (Inclusive Support Teachers) assigned to several rooms where they
collaborate with teachers. When we observe the room we would see the teacher or aide
working with all the students in the class while assuring that the students with special needs
were receiving the help they need. The special education and general education teacher would
work together with each taking responsibility for all students.
▪ General education teacher along with specialists – special education teacher, aide, speech
therapist, social worker – working together with small groups of children who are working on
different projects – centers, inquiry projects, and more.

Red lights

▪ An aide at the back of the class with a student with a disability,

▪ An aide or teacher sitting constantly with a student with a disability clearly working only
with him.
▪ Students in ability groups working with the special education teacher.
▪ A student with special needs separated from the rest of the class

5. Partner with parents. Parents of children with special needs have typically gone through much
with their children. In traditional schools, these parents receive much negative feedback from
the school. Their children are rejected and ‘sent away’ to special education classes or separate
schools. In an inclusive school, however, we turn this around by
▪ Parents are immediately invited to have their children in inclusive classes.
▪ Meeting with and listening carefully to what parents have to tell us about their children.
We seek to understand the child’s gifts, strengths, and needs, strategies that work, and
interests of the child from the parent.
▪ Welcoming their child into our classes. We communicate that we want their child in our
school and obtain their input for his or her educational plan.
▪ Invite the parent into the school and class. Make them welcome and a part of the school
family and community. q Insure that they are involved in the full life of the school.

Red lights
▪ Parents who must fight to have their children included in general education
classes in the school.
▪ Separate PTA for parents of children with special needs.
▪ Special nights just for children with special needs. They will be fully included in
any after school program or activity
▪ Teachers sending constant negative notes home to children without balancing
this with positive communications.
6. Decision-making and leadership: Leadership, Democracy, and Empowerment. Given the
amount of segregation in our society based on race, class, culture, and ability, it is not surprising
that building an inclusive school is a very challenging task. What is critical in this process are
these three elements that must be at the foundation of the decision making process of the
school.
 ⮚ Leadership. An inclusive school is first and foremost built on a vision of what is
good for children. Staff of inclusive schools care more about children than about
their place and power in the school bureaucracy, their salary raise this coming
year. These are important, of course. The needs of staff are critical. Yet, all is
driven by a vision of what helps children.
⮚ Democracy. School leadership must be foremost in helping to impel a vision for
children ahead. However, all school staff, parents, and children themselves must
have a voice in creating an inclusive culture in a school if it is to survive.
⮚ Empowerment. Similarly, all in the school must be empowered to take action to
make the vision of an inclusive school real. Power must not only be in the
‘office’ and principal, but all work towards this goal.

TOPIC 2: PRODUCING INCLUSIVE POLICIES

A human rights-based approach to inclusive education requires an understanding of inclusion as

an approach to education for all children, based on the provisions of both the Convention on the Rights
of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). It represents a
profound change in the way most education systems are conceived, necessitating a commitment to
creating systems and schools which respond to the needs of individual children, rather than forcing
children with different learning needs to comply with a rigid, pre-determined structure. In order to bring
about such a change, investment is needed in a broad range of measures to remove the barriers which
impede implementation of inclusive education and build the framework on which it can be sustained.

In this framework, you will see that there are a number of ‘building blocks’ that need to be in
place to support a rights-based approach to education for all children with disabilities. First, inclusive
education requires a broad-based acknowledgement and commitment from government, drawing on
the responsibilities of many different government departments to realize it. Inclusive education involves
the introduction of a comprehensive foundation of legislation, policies, strategies, guidance and services
to build the culture, environment and commitment necessary to remove the barriers to quality
education for all children with disabilities. Building on such a framework, investment is then needed in
specific measures for the education system to address:

● The right of every child to education, together with a systematic approach to identifying
and removing the barriers and bottlenecks that impede access.
● The right to quality education that provides a relevant curriculum delivered through a
pedagogy which reflects the different ways in which children learn, and creates a
learning space which includes rather than excludes children.
● The right to an education which is respectful of the cultural, protection and participation
rights of children − in other words, an environment in which they are safe, their physical
and emotional integrity respected and their voices heard and taken seriously.

ACTIVITY

You can use the following matrix to undertake a broad assessment of where progress
in the introduction of necessary legislation and policies, if any, has been made in the
Philippines. Once you have undertaken this assessment, it will help you identify the
legislative and policy priorities for action and which areas require action to move
forward in promoting inclusive education. PLEASE NOTE: the criterion in each box of
the matrix is there to provide indicative guidance of progress. Our country context may
not match it precisely, but you can use it as a general guide in formulating proposed
policies which you believe would be necessary to strengthen the implementation of
Special and Inclusive Education in the country
Guide Questions:

1. What policies are we championing? (Answer to this question should be backed up by research.
Include citation in a PAP format)
2. What are our weak points?
***Note: Answer to these questions should be backed up by research. Include citation in PAP format.

3. To address the weaknesses, what policies/programs/activities would you propose? Formulate a

policy paper using the following format:

Rationale/Situationer
Keep it short and concise. This section provides the background of the issue/problem
you would like to be addressed.

Problems Statement
Identify the issue/problem you would like to address. This can be framed in a form of a
question.

Objectives

Identify the objectives of the policy you are going to propose. Make use of the above
matrix as your frame of reference.

Options

Enumerate options and briefly describe each. The options will give the decision maker
the alternative or choices.

Analysis of Options

Do the options answer your objectives? Consider the positive and negative
consequences

Recommendations

Select the best option and recapitulate why it is the best. Does the recommendation
solve the issue/problem? Is it attainable and workable?

Note: Your policy paper should have a strong research background

TOPIC 3. EVOLVING INCLUSIVE PRACTICES

Extending access to education is part of a worldwide agenda. The Education for All
(EFA) initiative from the United Nations is an essential element of the Millennium Development
Goals, in part because education is seen as being crucial to human development, and also
because so many children do not have access to education UNESCO (2005). Across the world,
there are many reasons why children do not attend school, including high levels of mobility,
social conflict, child labour and exploitation, poverty, gender and disability. Many children are at
risk of not attending school, or of receiving a sub-standard education. In some parts of the world,
schooling is not available because of a shortage of school places, a lack of quality teachers, or
because schools are too far from where children live. Sometimes families choose not to send
their children to school because of fears about safety and security, the poor quality of schooling
or because of the economic costs. Such costs might include school fees, having to buy uniforms,
books and materials, and so-called 'opportunity costs' that arise when young people are not
economically active because they are in school.

Differences in access to, and outcomes from, education depend not only on children's individual
circumstances, but also crucially on the country in which they live and in many cases, where they
live within that country. In well-schooled, internationally successful countries, such as Scotland,
with its long history of compulsory school attendance, such concerns may seem irrelevant, but
even here, not all children are in school. And even when they are in school, some children do not
have positive experiences of education, nor do they have much to show for their time in school.
The so-called 'achievement gap' between those who achieve most and those who achieve least, is
a major concern in many countries, including Scotland (OECD, 2007). In response, new
initiatives such as More Choices, More Chances (SEED, 2006) have been introduced to tackle
this problem. In such countries, the concern is not only about access to schooling, but it is also
about ensuring meaningful participation in a system in which achievement and success is
available to all (Black-Hawkins, Florian & Rouse, 2007). But why is there such a long tail of
underachievement in many countries? Why do educational systems have institutional barriers to
participation and achievement? And why do so many teachers think that the problems that some
students have in learning should not be their responsibility because they have not been trained to
deal with these matters?

Throughout the world, there is an increased awareness of differences in access to and outcomes
of education. This has to be understood in the power of education to reduce poverty, to improve
the lives of individuals and groups, and to transform societies (e.g. Grubb & Lazerson, 2004).
Developing 'schools for all' is important because schooling is linked to human, economic and
social development goals. But at the same time, it is apparent that many school systems
perpetuate existing inequalities and intergenerational under-achievement. The reasons for this are
complex, but it often relates to deeply embedded attitudes to, and beliefs about, human
differences. Nevertheless, dealing with exclusion, marginalization and underachievement is not
only the right thing to do; it makes sound economic and social sense. Failure to develop schools
capable of educating all children not only leads to an educational underclass, but also a social
and economic underclass which has serious consequences for society now and in the future.
Therefore, the development of successful inclusive schools, 'schools for all' in which the learning
and participation of all children is valued, is an essential task for all countries. It is hardly
surprising therefore that tackling under-achievement and increasing inclusion are part of a
worldwide agenda. As a result of this interest, a series of national and international initiatives
intended to broaden participation for vulnerable groups of children have been enacted. These
include the United Nations Education for All initiative (EFA), which was launched in Jomtien,
Thailand in 1990, and the Dakar Declaration (UNICEF, 2000).

As previously mentioned, many countries have educational systems that work better for some
children than for others. These concerns have become more apparent because of concerns about
global competitiveness and the rise of the so-called 'knowledge economy'. In response, many
systems have introduced 'standards-based' reforms (McLaughlin & Rouse, 2000). The process of
mainstream education reform began in many countries in the mid 1980s when concerns about
economic competitiveness and the efficiency of school systems led to the introduction of
marketplace principles in education (Ball, 2006). Such reforms were underpinned by the idea
that competition and choice raise standards and accountability. However, it could be argued that
competitive environments result in winners and losers and that in such a climate, some children
may be seen as more attractive to schools than others. Children who are considered difficult to
teach and those who find learning difficult are at increased risk for exclusion when schools
operate in a competitive educational marketplace (McLaughlin & Rouse, 2000, Gillborn and
Youdell, 2000).

At the same time, but mostly independent of the 'mainstream' reform legislation, many countries
have enacted educational policies designed to develop their special education systems or to
encourage greater inclusion of children considered to have disabilities or difficulties. Examples
can be seen in a series of European Agency for the Development of Special Needs Education
(2006) and OECD (2005) initiatives and reports. At the national level, there is the Education
(Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 which points out that a child may require
additional support for a variety of reasons. It is clear that such legislation will have an impact not
only on the roles of teachers and schools but also significant implications for professionals
working in health, social work and other agencies.

In spite of a positive policy framework in many countries, achieving inclusion and reducing
under-achievement is a daunting task. The European Agency on the Development of Special
Needs Education (2006) reports that dealing with differences and diversity continues to be one of
the biggest problems faced by schools across Europe. It is suggested that difficulties in creating
schools for all are often associated with low expectations and aspirations, intergenerational
poverty and underachievement, and a belief by some that education is a privilege and not a right
that should be available to all. In addition, barriers to participation arise from inflexible or
irrelevant curricula, didactic teaching methods, inappropriate systems of assessment and
examinations, and inadequate preparation of and support for teachers. In some countries schools
are operating in a hostile policy environment that results in insufficient 'capacity' because of
restrictive school structures, a competitive ethos, negative cultures and a lack of human and
material resources. In turn these views lead to negative attitudes about learners who struggle, low
expectations and a belief that some children are 'worthy' of help but others are 'unworthy'
because their difficulties are their own (or their parents') fault.

It is important to reiterate that this broader policy context can affect the development of
inclusion. Mainstream educational reform initiatives designed to raise standards can be both a
facilitator and a barrier to the education of children with learning needs. In many cases these two
strands of policy development, inclusion on the one hand and higher standards on the other, do
not necessarily make comfortable partners. On the one hand it can be argued that higher
standards are good for all children because schools are held accountable for the progress of all
learners. On the other hand, it has been argued that the difficulties children experience in
learning are a consequence of unresponsive education systems. As a result children are often
seen as having 'additional support needs' when there is a discrepancy between what a system of
schooling ordinarily provides and what the child needs to support their learning. Thus the
professional focus tends to be on what is 'additional to or different from' the provision which is
generally available, rather than on what can be done to make schooling more accessible for all
(Florian, 2007).

In addition, there are persistent beliefs that when children find learning difficult, it is because
there is something wrong with them. The 'classic' special education view assumes that it is not
possible to include children with learning difficulties in mainstream settings because their needs
are different. The assumption that underpins this view is that it is desirable to group children
according to the nature of their abilities, disabilities or difficulties. There are those who claim
that because children are different, there will be a diversity of instructional needs. In turn this
requires teaching groups to be formed according to these perceived individual characteristics.
According to Kaufman et al. (2005), successful teaching of children who are different, requires
that they be grouped homogeneously so that special pedagogical approaches can be deployed by
teachers who have been trained to use them. It could be argued that when special education is
conceptualised in this manner, it is a barrier to the development of inclusion because it absolves
the rest of the education system from taking responsibility for all children's learning.

The research literature suggests that the implementation of inclusion policies has been uneven
(Evans & Lunt, 2002). Whilst there are many success stories to be told about inclusion (e.g.
Ainscow, 1997; Black-Hawkins, Florian & Rouse, 2007), there have also been failures and
difficulties. Such difficulties have been blamed on a variety of factors including, competing
policies that stress competition and ever-higher standards, a lack of funding and resources and
existing special education practices. It has also been suggested that one of the greatest barriers to
the development of inclusion is because most teachers do not have the necessary knowledge,
skills and attitudes to carry out this work (Forlin 2001).

Therefore, although inclusion is seen as important in most countries, experience tells us that it is
difficult to achieve for children with additional support needs for a number of reasons including:
 ● Uncertainty about professional roles and the status of teachers especially those who have
responsibilities for additional support needs
● A lack of agreement about the nature and usefulness of specialist knowledge
● Territorial disputes between professionals associated with certain 'special' practices
● Inadequate preparation of teachers and a lack of on-going professional development
opportunities.

Teachers' views of the inclusion task

The current context in which teachers are working is one of rapid change. All areas of education
have changed during the past decades, with major changes to the role of teachers, together with
the introduction of new approaches to the curriculum and assessment. In addition, the legislation
has seen changes in how difficulties in learning are conceptualised from special educational
needs to additional support for learning. These changes have involved the development of new
understandings about the interactive nature of children's needs and a shift in focus from 'what is
wrong with the child?' to 'what does the child need to support their learning?' Such developments
have substantially affected the professional identity as well as the roles and responsibilities of
many teachers. It also has implications for how teachers are trained and supported in their
professional development.

In Scotland, as in many other countries, there is currently very little time allocated within initial
teacher education programmes to cover issues of inclusion and additional support needs. Further,
with the exception of teachers of the blind and the deaf, there are no nationally mandated
qualifications for teachers of pupils with additional support needs. The General Teaching
Council (Scotland) is currently working on the development of a Framework for Recognition for
teachers of children with autism and dyslexia (perhaps with others to follow), and although
specialist courses are available in a number of universities, funding is scarce and many teachers
do not have the opportunity to pursue courses leading to higher-level qualifications in the area of
learning support and inclusion.

In addition, the rapidly changing policy context, together with uncertainty about how best to
organise provision leads to a range of understanding about the purpose and nature of the support
needs task. Provision varies from school to school and from local authority to local authority.
Therefore any exploration of the role, status and identity of teachers who teach children who
have support needs has to take into account the complexity of the task. Such complexity arises
from uncertainty about who these children are, the 'type' of needs they have, the range of settings
in which they are educated, the professional qualifications of the teachers themselves, how
teachers construct their own professional identity and how they should work with other adults as
well as children.

It is clear that teachers are crucial in building more inclusive schools. But how do they feel about
this task? And how do they perceive their roles, status and identity. Over the past few years I
have carried out one aspect of a large-scale study of the status of teachers in England for the
Department of Education and Skills (Hargreaves et al.. 2006). This strand of the research is
based on a series of focus group discussions with teachers designed to explore their perceptions
of working with children designated as having special educational needs (SEN). Although the
research was conducted in England where the policy context is somewhat different, there are
many resonances with the current situation in Scotland. The findings of this research inform the
sections that follow.

Teachers' roles and identities

The range of teachers who have responsibilities for learning support is wide, as are their
professional identities. Primary teachers are more like to see their identity as a class teacher first,
then as a learning support teacher second, whereas secondary learning support teachers probably
will have made a specific career choice and are more likely to have undertaken additional
professional development leading to qualifications. Thus, secondary teachers more commonly
describe themselves as 'a learning support teacher' than do primary teachers. Similarly, teachers
in special and local authority support services are more likely to have a clear professional
identity as 'support teachers'. There is considerable variation in status between learning support
teachers in different schools and local authorities. In some schools provision for learning support
is marginalised. In other schools, the principal teacher (PT) learning support will have significant
influence and a high level of management responsibilities, often as a member of the senior
management team. Although status is linked to pay and position in the management structure, it
is also associated with personal and professional credibility, knowledge, skills and
responsibilities.

Differences in professional identity are associated with whether the teachers have specialist
qualifications and have made deliberate career choices to work in this field. Many teachers who
have responsibility for learning support in primary schools see it as a stage in their career,
something they will undertake to get extra experience, or because 'it's my turn'. Several teachers
reported that they became interested in the work by accident or because it was available on a
part-time basis and it fitted well with other commitments when they returned to teaching.

The picture then is complex. Learning support teachers come from a range of different
professional backgrounds, their identity and status is influenced by a variety of factors including
by where and who they teach, their experiences and their qualifications. Nevertheless, a common
theme emerged throughout the focus group discussions with teachers. Most believe that they can
make a difference to children's lives. Many said they were motivated by a desire to help
vulnerable children, but they were frustrated that not all colleagues shared their commitment to
this task.

The nature of the work

The support for learning task is complex. In part this is because of the contested nature of the
concept of learning support outlined above and a lack of agreement about what constitutes best
practice. Given the rapidly changing policy context and a lack of shared understanding about
what constitutes good practice, it is inevitable that roles and responsibilities will vary between
schools. However, when mainstream teachers were asked about the nature of their roles and the
tasks they undertake, a long list was produced, it includes; teaching, assessing, counselling,
administrating, organising, liaising with external agencies, consulting with colleagues, providing
staff development, and managing other adults. Many reported tensions between the teaching
functions and management and consultancy functions of the role.

Such wide-ranging tasks require knowledge, skills and attributes that not all feel they possess.
One commented:

When I came into the work, it was to teach children. Now most of my time is spent working with
other adults, such as colleagues and assistants, external agencies and families. I have never
received any support in making this move, so whilst in some ways it has raised my status, it has
undermined my credibility.

Recent initiatives in integrated children's services, such as Getting it Right for Every
Child (SEED, 2006), are likely to mean that teachers will be undertaking more multi-agency
work with social services, school psychology services and health authorities. Most respondents
saw such initiatives as a positive development for vulnerable children, but also wondered
whether it would be properly funded and supported. Many respondents spoke of the difficulty in
managing the demands from colleagues, children and parents. One of the biggest challenges is
convincing their colleagues that there should be a shared responsibility for children who face
difficulties:

My colleagues always want me to deal with their problem pupils and I find it difficult to say no
because I don't want to see the kids struggling. I know that the more I agree to do this for them
the less likely they are to see it as their responsibility….it leads to a kind of learned helplessness
I suppose.

The overall picture is one of a rapidly changing field in which there is a lack of consistency in
the role and responsibility of many teachers of children with additional support needs. The nature
of tasks and responsibilities varies from school to school.  In part this variation arises from
differences between school policies and the perceived skills and attributes of teachers.  Many
however, speak of a role that is overloaded and confused.

Teachers of children with support needs cover a wide spectrum of professional roles and
responsibilities. Thus, the views of other teachers are complex and vary from context to context.
Crucially it seems to be the skills and attributes of the teachers themselves that seems to be the
determining factor when it comes to whether they have status in the eyes of their
colleagues. However, there was widespread consensus that teachers who do this work are held in
high esteem by parents and the community and most of them feel that they do make a positive
contribution to children's lives and learning.  Overwhelmingly, they expressed the view that
more sustained professional development opportunities would help raise the status of the work
and enable to work more effectively with, and through, colleagues in a consultative capacity.

Central to this task was widespread agreement of the need to reform initial education so that all
beginning teachers enter the profession better prepared to deal with diversity in their classrooms
and also more aware that they will be working with adults as well as pupils.

Teachers' roles in developing inclusion

Teachers are crucial in determining what happens in classrooms and there are those who would
argue that the development of more inclusive classrooms requires teachers to cater for different
student learning needs through the modification or differentiation of the curriculum (Forlin,
2004). For some, this approach has been interpreted as requiring individualisation. At it most
extreme, this view can be seen in the call for one to one teaching of students with learning
difficulties. Questions about the sustainability of such provision are rarely adequately
answered. Further, there are those who argue (e.g. Kaufman et al,. 2005) that there are specialist
teaching approaches for children with different kinds of disabilities and that specialist training is
required.  An unintended consequence of these views is that most mainstream teachers do not
believe that that they have the skills and knowledge to do this kind of work and that there is an
army of 'experts' out there to deal with these students on a one-to one basis or in small more
manageable groups.

Nevertheless teachers do have concerns about inclusion and many surveys have found that
teachers' attitudes towards inclusion are not particularly positive (Ellins & Porter, 2005). Further,
they express concerns about their lack of preparation for inclusion and for teaching all learners
(Forlin, 2001). But in settings where teachers are encouraged to try out a range of teaching
strategies, they report that they knew more than they thought they knew and, for the most part,
children learn in similar ways. Although some children might need extra support, teachers do not
distinguish between 'types' of special need when planning this support (Florian & Rouse, 2001). 
Many teachers reported that they did not think that they could teach such children, but their
confidence and repertoire of teaching strategies developed over time. This would suggest that by
'just doing it' teachers are capable of developing knowledge and positive attitudes to inclusion. 

I have suggested elsewhere (Rouse, 2007) that developing effective inclusive practice is about
not only about extending teachers' knowledge, but it is also about encouraging them to do things
differently and getting them to reconsider their attitudes and beliefs.  In other words, it should be
about 'knowing', 'doing', and 'believing'. But what might this look like in practice?

For many years, teacher development courses focused on extending knowledge and
skills. Courses would often concentrate on the characteristics of different kinds of learners, how
they should be identified and the current policy context. In addition they would cover the
specialist teaching strategies that should be used.  In other words these courses focused on:
Knowing about:

● Teaching strategies
● Disability and special needs
● How children learn
● What children need to learn
● Classroom organisation and management
● Where to get help when necessary
● Identifying and assessing difficulties
● Assessing and monitoring children's learning
● The legislative and policy context

It is important to point out that such content knowledge is important, but the evidence suggests
that it is insufficient to improve practice in schools because many teachers did not act upon this
knowledge when they returned to the classroom. It was clear that there was a big gap between
what teachers knew as a result of being on a course and what they did in their classrooms. In an
attempt to bridge this gap, initiatives have been designed to link individual and institutional
development.  In other words 'doing' has become an essential element of professional learning
and institutional development. In many cases this involves action-research type initiatives built
around school- or classroom-based development projects and new ways of:

Doing

● Turning knowledge into action

● Moving beyond reflective practice
● Using evidence to improve practice
● Learning how to work with colleagues as well as children
● Becoming an 'activist' professional

Although many action research initiatives to develop inclusion have had positive outcomes and
have resulted in changes to practice, it became apparent that some were 'content-free' and only
focussed on process. Others ran into barriers associated with negative and deterministic attitudes
about children's abilities and 'worth'. Sadly there are those who believe that some children will
never be able to learn those things that are important to their teachers. Further, there are teachers
who do not believe that they have the skills to make a difference, perhaps because they 'have not
been on the course', and they lack confidence. Therefore it is also important to consider how it
might be possible for teachers to develop new ways of:

Believing

● That all children are worth educating

 ● That all children can learn
● That they have the capacity to make a difference to children's lives
● That such work is their responsibility and not only a task for specialists.

Changing attitudes is difficult, particularly for those teachers' whose professional identities are
secure. If a teacher sees her/himself as a teacher of (say) chemistry or French, it is likely that the
subject they teach will play an important part in the construction of their professional identity.
Further, if their subject is seen as intellectually demanding, then why would they be expected to
have to teach it to all learners?  But it is not only subject specialist teachers in secondary schools
who have difficulty in redefining their professional identities. Some special needs teachers see
themselves as experts in dealing with children's difficulties in learning. It is an identity built
upon certain beliefs about specialist knowledge and skills for the work. In this view, other
teachers not only do not know how to do it, but they wouldn't want to do it if they did know how.
Inclusion threatens assumptions that some teachers have about many aspects of schools and
schooling. In particular it can threaten teachers' identity. If responsibilities are to be shared and
teachers are to take on new roles, then there have to be changes to the way inclusion is
conceptualised and a realisation that it can only be achieved if all teachers are supported in the
development of all aspects of this process; knowing, doing and believing.

But how might this be brought about? As pointed out earlier, the traditional way of attempting to
bring about developments in inclusion was to focus on improving teachers' knowledge and skills,
but this did not always work. Providing new knowledge has been seen as a necessary but not
sufficient condition. Equally it was not sufficient to establish 'content free' action-research
development projects as they often drift aimlessly. I have argued elsewhere (Rouse, 2007) that if
two of the three aspects of development (knowing, doing and believing) are in place, then it is
likely that other aspects will follow. In other words, if teachers acquire new knowledge and they
are supported in implementing new practice, using a 'just do it' approach, then attitudes and
beliefs will change over time. Equally if teachers already have positive beliefs and they are
supported in implementing new practices, then they are also likely to acquire new knowledge
and skills. Therefore, if two of the three elements of developing inclusive practice are in place,
the third is likely to follow.

A crucial element in the development of inclusive practice is better preparation of and

support for teachers that incorporates the elements outlined above. One way of conceptualising
this task might be to take the lead from Shulman (2004) who talks about the need to ensure that
training and induction in all the professions has three essential elements. He refers to these
elements as the 'three apprenticeships'. The first is the 'apprenticeship of the head': by this he
means the cognitive knowledge and theoretical basis of the profession; the second is the
'apprenticeship of the hand': this would include the technical and practical skills that are required
to carry out the essential tasks of the role; and the finally the 'apprenticeship of the heart': the
ethical and moral dimensions, the attitudes and beliefs that are crucial to the particular profession
and its ways of working.