ASPECTS OF THE INTEGRATION OF HANDICAPPED AND DISADVANTAGED

STUDENTS INTO EDUCATION.

EVIDENCE FROM QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DATA.

PETER EVANS OECD/CERI

JUNE 2003

Any comparative discussion concerning the integration or inclusion of students with handicaps into
education systems requires thought to be given to the types of students who are included under such a
heading. The term ‘handicap’ although used widely in French is not popular in other countries where the
term ’Special Educational Needs’ (SEN) is more commonly used. However the use of this term
complicates the matter even further when educational policy issues are paramount.

Work completed by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) at the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows that the term SEN is used very variably
across countries (OECD 2000, 2003). In some countries it refers only to students with disabilities, in others
it also includes those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. In yet others it includes in addition those
from ethnic minority backgrounds. Some countries also include gifted children under the SEN heading.

Further complexities arise from different definitions of particular handicapping categories in use in
different countries and differing numbers of categories used to gather statistical data.

In order to provide some order on this rather chaotic situation from the point of view of international
comparisons, OECD countries agreed to reallocate their own national categories into three cross-national
categories. These three categories are known as ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. A includes those students whose
disability clearly arises from organic impairment. B refers to those students who have learning difficulties
that may well be acquired for example through unsatisfactory experiences in and out of school and C to
those who have difficulties because of social disadvantage. What all of these three categories have in
common is that governments provide additional resources to help them access the curriculum. Annex 1
shows how countries allot their national categories into the cross-national framework.

Questions relating to the degree of integration can then be addressed to each of these categories in
turn. The main part of this paper will then address this issue, first through quantitative data on the
compulsory schooling period and second through data gathered during the course of case studies of
inclusion carried out in a number of countries.

Quantitative data

Chart 1 shows a breakdown of students in cross-national category A (i.e. those with clear organic
impairments) by place of education (special school, special class or regular class) for 15 countries – the
Flemish Community of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Luxembourg,

1
Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Japan, Spain, the United States, Italy, and Canada (New
Brunswick). The grey bars show the proportions in special school, the black those in special classes and the
white those in regular classes. It is abundantly clear from the chart that students with impairments in
category A, receive their education in very different locations in different countries. Thus in Belgium (Fl.)
almost all of these students are in special schools whilst in Italy and Canada (NB) almost none of them are.
There are many intermediate positions but for many of these children integration is not a reality.

Chart 1. Percentages of students receiving additional resources over the period of compulsory
education in cross-national category A by location

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Percentage

50% Regular classes

40% Special classes

Special schools
30%

20%

10%

0%
b
ep )

)
es
ic

Ki l and

ad l y
Sw urg

U Sp n
he nya

a
s

o
R (Fl

m e

B
en

m
nd

pa

te a in
xe nc

ic
G u bl

an Ita

(N
at
do

ex
ed
bo
ch m

N ma
rla

Ja
Lu Fra

St
n
ng

a
i

M
ze iu

F
er

d
C el g

et

ni
B

te

C
ni
U

a Students in special classes are included in special schools.

b Students in special classes are included in regular classes.
Sweden: Special schools are located in regular schools as a first step towards inclusion.
France: For the sake of international comparability French students administered by the Ministry of Health have been added to
this data provided by the Ministry of Education. This probably has the effect of slightly inflating the percentage in special
schools for France in contrast to other countries that have an unknown number of students outside the education system.

Chart 2 shows the position for students in cross national category ‘B’. Eleven countries were able to
provide data – Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Finland, the United States,
Mexico, the United Kingdom, Canada (NB), France and Spain. The data show that for these countries
special classes and special schools are used rather less than for category A students but nonetheless in
Germany, the Netherlands and France they are used quite extensively in contrast to other countries.

2
 Chart 2. Percentages of students receiving additional resources over the period of compulsory
education in cross-national category B by location

100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Regular classes
50% Special classes
40% Special schools
30%
20%
10%
0%

)
es
li c

d
g
s
ya

n
o

ce
B
m
nd

an

ai
ur

ic
ub

(N
an

at

do

an
ex

Sp
bo
la

nl

St
ep

ng
m

Fr
Fi

M
r

m
he

ad
er

d
R

Ki
xe

te

an
et
G

ch

d
ni
Lu
N

te

C
U
ze

ni
C

a Students in special classes are included in special schools.

b Students in special classes are included in regular classes.

Chart 3 reveals the position for students in cross-national category C. This time only nine countries
could provide data - the Czech Republic, Belgium (Fl.), Canada (NB) Finland, France, Germany, Hungary,
the Netherlands and Spain. With the exception of the Czech Republic the other countries almost
exclusively use regular schools for educating these students.

Chart 3. Number of students receiving additional resources over the period of

compulsory education in cross-national category C as a
percentage of all children in compulsory education

100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Regular classes
50% Special classes
40% Special schools
30%
20%
10%
0%
l)

)
li c

n
y
ce
B
(F

an
an

nd

ai
r
ub

(N

ga
an

Sp
m

rla
nl

m
ep

un
a

Fr
Fi
iu

er
ad

he
R

lg

H
G
an

et
Be
ch

N
C
ze
C

3
 The variations in type and extent of provision shown by this analysis support the importance of
breaking down the SEN group into a number of sub-groups if the educational policy issue of integration is
to be addressed. Clearly a pressure for integration will be most strong for cross-national categories A and B
and countries who make extensive use of segregated settings may well consider why this is necessary in
their countries but apparently not necessary elsewhere. This policy question is of great importance not only
because of the need for efficient use of resources, but also because of the stigmatising influence of special
schooling on students and their opportunities for employment and access to post-compulsory education
(see OECD, 1997, 1999). Social solidarity is also hardly strengthened by excluding some children from the
educational experiences normally received by the rest. If the data is broken down by individual
handicapping categories (e.g. Blind, Deaf, Physically Handicapped) similar outcomes result (OECD, 2000,
2003).

Gender

Chart 4. Gender ratio by location and cross-national category (period of compulsory education)

70

68

66
Median percentage of males

64

62
Disabilities

60 Difficulties
Disadvantages
58

56

54

52

50
Pre-primary Primary Low er secondary Upper secondary

Chart 4 shows what happens if the available data are broken down by gender. It shows that in all
cross-national categories and in all educational locations boys predominate. This is especially true in
categories A and B where a ratio of 3:2 is common. Many boys then experience a different form of
education to many girls and at the same time receive additional resources (through special educational
provision) to help them to access the curriculum. A number of interpretations of these data may be given:

a) Males are more vulnerable than females. There is some evidence that males are more vulnerable
than females throughout the developmental years to the effects of illness and trauma. Thus they have a
greater ‘natural’ need for additional supports in school. This outcome would be seen as equitable since
males objectively need more support.

4
 b) The successful education of males is given greater social priority than that of females. If this is the
case then the failure or low performance of males in school is less acceptable than for females and extra
resources are made available to lessen the effects and maximise performance. This outcome would be
inequitable for females.

c) Males externalize their ‘feelings’ in school more openly than females. And in so-doing make
themselves more likely to be identified and consequently labeled. Recent examples of extreme violence
perpetrated by males in schools highlights the point.

d) Schooling is becoming increasingly “feminised”. The greater proportion of female teachers in

schools especially during the primary years has been observed (OECD 2002). Also the increased emphasis
on the need for academic learning and the decreased need for standard ‘working class’ skills may be
moving schooling away from traditional types of male activity. The significant difference between males
with disabilities and those with difficulties noted above may well mirror these issues.

The data show that boys with disabilities and difficulties are less likely to be included in regular
classes than the equivalent girls. Further work is needed to determine the reasons for these gender
differences. Questions to consider include:

• Understanding what aspects of students’ identification may bias decisions in favour of males.

• Identifying the features of school functioning and decision-making may exacerbate problems thus
bringing them to the attention of the “authorities”.

• Establishing whether the distribution of resources is equitable. That is, should more support be
given to females?

Qualitative data from case studies on inclusion

Apart from gathering quantitative data OECD/CERI has also carried out intensive case studies on
secondary schools in a number of countries where good examples of inclusion are taking place (OECD,
1999). The European countries covered in this work were Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Italy and the
United Kingdom. Data was also gathered from Australia and the USA which serve to confirm the
European data.

In these countries in some places there are excellent examples of fully inclusive practices, but
unfortunately space precludes a full discussion. As a consequence, only some conclusions are reported.

The data given above show clearly that students with disabilities are educated usually in one of the
three locations identified. - regular classes, special classes or special schools and for many countries
segregated provision is still the norm. For a variety of reasons, the education systems of OECD countries
have grown up during a period in which segregating some students with special educational needs has been
seen to be necessary for the efficient functioning of the service for the majority of students. This has led to
the development of two systems, operating in parallel, with students with special needs being given
additional support to assist in their education.

This has had the effect of creating, first, a regular system which does not feel it has to adapt to the
needs of all children, and second, a special system which collects the rejects and with considerable
additional resources, often in segregated settings, attempts to remedy the failings of the first. Neither of
these outcomes is desirable and neither is commensurate with current views on equity and students' rights.

5
 Inclusion is a process which attempts to correct these developments through changes to the structure
and functioning of educational systems and school practices to the benefit of all students. Bringing
together the legal and financial frameworks covering regular and special education and making the unified
system responsible for all students are fundamental goals that challenge the education/special education
dualism.

The case studies show that inclusive schools are learning organisations in which teachers are adapting
their pedagogies to the diversity of learning demands presented by individual children. Schools do not
operate in a vacuum, and inclusion also implies changes in the way teachers and other professionals are
prepared through pre-service and in-service training.

This does not mean that these reforms can be achieved with none of the usual special education
resources, quite the contrary. But it does mean that the locus of control and the organisation of these
resources must change and become a whole school issue. This outcome has implications especially for
funding and training.

A feature of inclusive systems is that schools are more self-contained in the way in which they
provide additional support for students with special needs. This can take the form of:

• Additional flexibility in the establishment of class sizes and in their composition.

• Immediate support for regular class teachers from specialist teachers within the school and
from assistants.

• The reduction of teacher/student and adult student ratios.

• Increased skills in curriculum differentiation and the development of more flexible

pedagogies through the shared preparation of assessments and the writing of individual
education programmes.

• Corporate curriculum development, including the making of curriculum materials to meet

special educational needs.

These strategies are preventive by nature, that is, they help to stop failure and create an environment
which avoids the need to teach to the mean. The process provides increased flexibility for all staff, and
within it special needs teachers and assistants can play a more general role throughout the working of the
whole school.

The role of external services

Inclusive schools are supported by external services but attention needs to be given to how these
services operate. For schools to be able to respond quickly and effectively to learning needs then they must
have the skills in-house. In the most effective inclusive models, this means that a crucial feature of the way
support services work is to empower the school-based personnel to solve their own problems through
enskillment and on-going in-service training. In many effective systems parents and other community
members are also involved.

6
Training

In the schools studied training was a key to success and the training of teachers and other
professionals was followed up in some detail. However in general terms teachers appear to be ill-prepared
for this work and this as an area in need of considerable development.

Costs

In the cases conducted in this study, disabled students cost two to four times as much as non-disabled
students when educated in mainstream schools and rather more if in special schools. In Italy for instance
2.4% of students were described as handicapped and their education cost about four times more than that
of non-handicapped students. In the United Kingdom, in one school it was 2.5 times higher for 3% of
students. For systems as a whole special schools were more expensive than regular schools by a ratio of
about 1.2:1. Although in Reykjavik in Iceland the ratio was nearer 5:1 reflecting the severe nature of the
disabilities contained in their special schools and where inclusion is strongly developed. By contrast a
careful comparison of a special school and a regular secondary comprehensive school in the United
Kingdom showed that the regular school was more expensive.

These findings, however, must be treated tentatively and they need replication. What they point to is
the importance of analysing costs in the context of different educational governance policies such as
decentralisation. They also argue for giving greater consideration to the links between the costs and the
effectiveness of different settings about which there is little if any available data.

Among the countries visited, there has been a trend in recent years towards the devolution of the
management of funding, from central government to regions, from regions to districts, and in some cases to
individual schools. Where the extent of devolution of funds for ordinary education differs from that for
special education, this can influence the extent to which inclusive education occurs. If funds for ordinary
schooling are borne from district budgets but those from for special schooling are managed at regional
level, as in parts of Denmark for example, districts may be tempted to press for special schooling for their
more expensive students. In contrast, in Colorado in the USA, it emerged that the devolution of funding for
both regular and special education down to the level of the individual school can enhance inclusive
education if allocations truly reflect costs.

Clearly the role of funding for inclusion is very important and has been addressed more fully in
Meijer (1999) where similar issues are discussed. Nevertheless, funding is far from the whole picture in
terms of developing inclusive education and may well be of low importance in actual political decision-
making given the relatively small difference in costs between inclusive and segregated provision noted in
this study. However, a great deal more work is needed in this area before strong conclusions can be drawn.

Accountability

Accountability is an important, necessary and growing element of education systems. However, if

special education systems are not factored in at the outset this can create further obstacles to inclusion.
Regular schools may be discouraged from taking on special needs students who are likely to perform
poorly in examinations. While this may be true for some special needs students, the evidence suggests that
inclusive practices in fact improve the performance of non-special needs students. This may in part be due
to the increased attention given to curriculum differentiation and pedagogy which generalises to all pupils.

General conclusions and some caveats

This paper has shown the differences that exist in some OECD countries in including students with
various learning needs into compulsory education. It is clear that there are large differences between

7
countries and large differences in the type of provision made. There are also many more males with
disabilities than females - a common ratio being 3:2 males to females. It then described some issues
relating to effective inclusive practices based on studies on secondary schools in a selection of OECD
countries. In these countries inclusion is happening - sometimes nationally as in Italy other times locally as
in the United Kingdom. Reliable time-series data do not exist, but the author has the impression that in
many countries there has been at best slow progress towards inclusion over the past few years despite
positive policies and for European countries at least European Union (EU) directives.

There are three caveats related to full inclusion which emerged from these studies. The first is
essentially political. It would seem that at present many parents would prefer their disabled children to
attend segregated schools. In governance models, where choice is emphasised, in the present circumstances
there would seem to be no option but to maintain some segregated provision. The cost appears not to be
prohibitive. However, this decision has to be set against the inhibitive effect such an option would have on
reform processes and the practicalities of maintaining the systems of education and special education.

The second caveat relates to students with severe emotional and behavioural problems who present a
danger to other students. The ever-increasing number of violent students appearing at younger and younger
ages seems to be a widespread international phenomenon. If such problems cannot be prevented by or
contained in the school then other forms of provision will be needed. However, the study in the UK
suggests that with well-structured, consistent and fair disciplinary procedures rates of exclusion for poor
behaviour can be reduced. Furthermore, in Canada (New Brunswick) the schools and support services
work together to keep students with emotional problems in the school.

The third caveat comes from the disabled students themselves, who pointed out that from time to time
they would like to be able to mix with other students with the similar disabilities. It would be desirable if
provision to meet this human need for solidarity were made available.

REFERENCES

Meijer, C. O. R. (1999) European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Le financement
des besoins spécifiques en éducation. Une étude des relations entre le financement des besoins
spécifiques en éducation et l’intégration. Middlefart, Denmark.

OCDE (1997) L’enseignement post-obligatoire pour les personnes handicapées.OCDE, Paris.

OCDE, (1999) L’insertion scolaire des handicapés. Des établissements pour tous. OCDE, Paris.

OCDE, (2000) Besoins éducatifs particuliers : statistiques et indicateurs. OCDE, Paris.

OCDE (2003) Incapacités, troubles de l’apprentissage sociaux: statistiques et indicateurs pour l’accès au
cursus scolaire et pour l’équité. (En preparation) OCDE, Paris.

8
 ANNEX 1

Allocation of categories of students with disabilities, difficulties, disadvantages included in the resources definition to cross-national
categories A, B, C

Country Cross-National Category A Cross-National Category B Cross-National Category C

Belgium (Flemish 1. Minor mental handicap – Type 1 3. Serious emotional and/or behavioural 12. Educational priority policy
Community) problems – Type 3
2. Moderate or serious mental handicap 13. Reception classes for pupils who do
– Type 2 8. Serious learning disabilities – Type 8 not speak Dutch

4. Pupils with a physical handicap 10. Extending care 14. Travelling children
– Type 4
11. Remedial teaching 15. Children placed in a sheltered home
5. Children suffering from protracted by juvenile court
illness – Type 5
16. More favourable teacher/pupil ratio
6. Visual handicap – Type 6 in the schools of the Capital region
of Brussels
7. Auditory handicap – Type 7
17. Additional resources for schools in
9. Support at home for children who are some municipalities around the
temporarily ill Capital region of Brussels and at the
linguistic border between the
Flemish and the Walloon regions

Canada-Alberta 1. Severe mental disability (Code 41) 2. Severe emotional/behavioural disability

(Code 42)
3. Severe multiple disability (Code 43)
10. Mild/moderate emotional/behavioural

9
 4. Severe physical or medical disability disability (Code 53)
(Code 44)
11. Learning disability (Code 54)
5. Deafness (Code 45)
17. Gifted and talented (Code 80)
6. Blindness (Code 46)

7. Severe communications disorder

(Code 47; ECS only)

8. Mild mental disability (Code 51)

9. Moderate mental disability (Code 52)

12. Mild/moderate hearing disability

(Code 55)

13. Mild/moderate visual disability

(Code 56)

14. Mild/moderate communication

disability (Code 57)

15. Mild/moderate physical/medical

disability (Code 58)

16. Mild/moderate multiple disability

(Code 59)

Canada – British 1. Visual impairments 2. Specific learning disabilities 13. English as a second language
Colombia
3. Deaf/Blindness 7. Mild intellectual disabilities 15. Aboriginal education programme

4. Multiple disabilities 9. Mild to moderate behaviour disorders,

including rehabilitation
5. Hearing impairments
11. Gifted
6. Autism
12. Learning assistance
8. Moderate to severe to profound
intellectual disabilities

10
 10. Severe behaviour disorders

14. Physical disabilities or chronic health

impairments

Canada – New 2. Communicational 1. Behavioural exceptionalities 7. Immigrant

Brunswick
3. Intellectual

4. Physical

5. Perceptual

6. Multiple

Canada - 1. Intellectual disabilities 3. Social, emotional or behavioural

Saskatchewan disorder
2. Visual impairments
6. Learning disabilities
4. Orthopaedic impairments

5. Chronically ill

7. Multiple disabilities

8. Deaf or hard of hearing

9. Autism

10. Traumatic brain injury

Czech Republic 1. Mentally retarded 7. Students in hospitals 11. Socially disadvantaged children,
preparatory classes in regular
2. Hearing handicaps 8. Development, behaviour and learning schools
problems
3. Sight handicaps

4. Speech handicaps

11
 5. Physical handicaps

6. Multiple handicaps

9. Other handicaps

10. With weakened health (Kindergarten

only)

Finland 2. Moderate mental impairment (MOMI) 1. Mild mental impairment (MIMI) 17. Remedial teaching for immigrants

3. Most severe mental impairment (SMI) 7. Emotional & social impairment (EI)

4. Hearing impairment (HI) 9. Speech difficulties

5. Visual impairment (VI) 10. Reading and writing difficulties

6. Physical and other impairment (POHI) 11. Speech, reading and writing
difficulties
8. Other impairments
12. Learning difficulties in mathematics

13. Learning difficulties in foreign

languages

14. General learning difficulties

15. Emotional and social difficulties

16. Other special difficulties

18. Remedial teaching

France 1. Severe mental handicap 15. Learning difficulties 14. Non-francophone students

2. Moderate mental handicap 16. Disadvantaged children - ZEP

3. Mild mental handicap

12
 4. Physical handicap

5. Metabolic disorders

6. Deaf

7. Partially hearing

8. Blind

9. Partially sighted

10. Other neuropsychological disorders

11. Speech and language disorders

12. Other deficiencies

13. Multiply handicapped

Germany 2. Partially sighted or blind 1. Learning disability 13. Travelling families

(No statistical data of the large groups
3. Partially hearing or deaf 7. Behavioural disorders available, but programmes are
provided)
4. Speech impairment 10. Unknown, no information
14. German for speakers of other
5. Physically handicapped 12. Remedial instruction languages
(No statistical data of the large groups (No statistical data of the large groups
6. Mentally handicapped available, but programmes are provided) available, but programmes are
provided)
8. Sick

9. Multiple handicaps

11. Autism
(No statistical data of the large groups
available, but programmes are provided)

Greece 1. Visual impairments 6. Learning difficulties 8. Socio-economic/cultural educational

difficulties

13
 2. Hearing impairments 7. Multiple impairment

3. Physical impairment

4. Mental impairments

5. Autism

Hungary 2. Pupils with moderate degree mental 1. Pupils with mild degree mental 8. Children of minorities
retardation retardation
9. Disadvantaged pupils/Pupils at risk
3. Pupils with visual disabilities

4. Pupils with hearing disabilities

5. Pupils with motoric disabilities

6. Pupils with speech disabilities

7. Pupils with other disabilities

Ireland 1. Visually impaired 5. Emotionally disturbed 10. Classes of children of travelling

families
2. Hearing impaired 6. Severely emotionally disturbed
13. Young offenders
3. Mild mental handicap 15. Pupils in need of remedial teaching
14. Children in schools serving
4. Moderate mental handicap disadvantaged areas

7. Physically handicapped 16. Children of refugees

8. Specific speech and language

disorders

9. Specific learning disability

11. Severely and profoundly mentally

handicapped

14
 12. Multiply handicapped

Italy 1. Visual impairment 8. Students with foreign citizenship

(No statistical data available)
2. Hearing impairment

3. Moderate mental handicap

4. Severe mental handicap

5. Mild physical handicap

6. Severe physical handicap

7. Multiple handicap

Japan 1. Blind and partially sighted 8. Students who require Japanese

instruction
2. Deaf and hard of hearing

3. Intellectual disabilities

4. Physically disabled

5. Health impaired

6. Speech impaired

7. Emotionally disturbed

Luxembourg 1. Mental characteristic 6. Learning difficulties 5. Social impairment

2. Emotionally disturbed children

3. Sensory characteristic

4. Motor characteristic

15
 Mexico 1. Blindness 8. Learning difficulties 10. Compensatory educational needs

2. Partial visual disability 9. Outstanding capabilities and skills 11. Communitary educational needs

3. Intellectual disability 12. Indigenous communitary educational

needs
4. Auditory or hearing disability
13. Migrant educational needs
5. Deafness or severe auditory disability

6. Motor disability

7. Multiple disability

The Netherlands 1. Deaf children 7. Learning and behaviour disabilities 12. Children from disadvantaged
backgrounds
2. Hard of hearing 13. Children in vocational training with
learning difficulties
3. Language and communication
disabilities

4. Visual handicap

5. Physically handicapped / motor

impairment

6. Other health impairments (No long

hospitalisation)

8. Profound mental handicap / severe

learning disabilities

9. Deviant behaviour

10. Chronic conditions requiring

pedagogical institutes

11. Multiply handicapped

Poland 1. Light mental handicap 10. Social disadvantages, behaviour

16
 difficulties
2. Multiple and severe mental handicap

3. Profound mental handicap

4. Blind

5. Partially sighted

6. Deaf

7. Partially hearing

8. Chronically sick

9. Motion handicapped

11. Autistic

Spain 1. Hearing impaired 7. Highly gifted 8. Students with compensatory

education needs
2. Motor impaired 9. Programmes addressed to students in
hospitals or with health problems 10. Problems addressed to itinerant
3. Visual impaired students
11. Learning difficulties
4. Mental handicap

5. Emotional/behavioural problems

6. Multiple impairment

Sweden 1. Pupils with impaired hearing, vision 4. Students receiving tuition in mother
and physical disabilities tongue (other than Swedish) and/or
Swedish as a second language
2. Students with mental retardation
5. Students in need of special support
3. Students with impaired hearing and (not included in other categories)
physical disabilities

17
Switzerland 9. Educable mental handicap – Special 1. Learning disabilities / introductory 5. Foreign first language
schools classes – Special classes

10. Trainable mental handicap - Special 2. Learning disabilities / special classes

schools – Special classes

11. Multiply handicapped - Special 3. Learning disabilities / vocationally

schools oriented classes – Special classes

12. Physical disabilities – Special schools 4. Behavioural difficulties – Special

classes
13. Behaviour disorders – Special schools
6. Physical disabilities – Special classes
14. Deaf or hard of hearing – Special
schools 7. Sensory & language impairments
– Special classes
15. Language disability – Special schools
8. Students who are ill / hospital classes
16. Visual handicap – Special schools – Special classes

17. Chronic conditions/prolonged 19. Others of the group “special

hospitalisation – Special schools curriculum” – Special classes

18. Multiple disabilities - Special schools

Turkey 1. Visually impaired (includes both blind 7. Gifted and talented

and low vision children)

2. Hearing impaired

3. Orthopaedically handicapped

4. Educable mentally handicapped

5. Trainable mentally handicapped

6. Speech impairment

8. Chronically ill

18
United Kingdom 1. Children with statements (records) of 2. Children with special educational
special educational needs needs without statements (records)

USA 1. Mental retardation 4. Emotional disturbance 14. Title 1 - Disadvantaged students

2. Speech or language impairment 7. Specific learning disability

3. Visual impairments

5. Orthopaedic impairments

6. Other health impairments

8. Deaf/blindness

9. Multiple disabilities

10. Hearing impairments

11. Autism

12. Traumatic brain injury

13. Developmental delay

19