04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Inclusive Support for Students With Special Educational Needs – Disparities in the Implementation and Allocation in Switzerland
Matthias Wicki, Fabian Setz, Sergej Wüthrich, Caroline Sahli Lozano
Bern University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Presenting Author: Wicki, Matthias;
Setz, Fabian
Following the legal requirements at international (UN-BRK, 2006) and national level in Switzerland (BehiG, 2004), learners with special educational needs are increasingly being taught in mainstream classes. In most educational systems, special measures exist with intend to support inclusion of students with special educational needs in mainstream schools. In Switzerland, the most common inclusive school measure for learners with mild disabilities is “inclusive support” to develop or improve knowledge, skills, behaviours, cognitions, or emotions. Inclusive support is given by a special education teacher for one or several hours per week and either within the mainstream classes (e.g., team teaching) or outside the classroom in individual or group setting.
Due to the federal system in Switzerland, the education system and the implementation of integrative measures is to a large extent in the responsibility of the cantons (i.e., the states). Nonetheless, the work of the cantons is not entirely separate but coordinated by the special education concordat (EDK, 2017). However, due to lack of binding guidelines in terms of the concrete implementation, there are considerable disparities in the implementation, designation, allocation, and funding of integrative measures across cantons (Sahli Lozano et al., 2021a). Further disparities may also exist within cantons, as school districts and even teachers have some degrees of freedom when it comes to the implementation and allocation of integrative school measures.
These disparities can have consequences in two broad areas. Firstly, disparities may lead to educational inequalities. It is possible that comparable learners benefit from inclusive support to a very different extent depending on their canton of residence, or that the distribution of resources influences whether "comparable learners" are integrated into a regular class or attend a special class (Luder, 2021; Sahli Lozano et al., 2021a). Secondly, the disparities complicate research on inclusive support, as findings may not directly be comparable across cantons and even within a canton the implementation of inclusive support and its target population can be heterogeneous.
In this presentation, we will explore the extent to which inclusive support is allocated and implemented throughout Switzerland and within one single canton (using the example of the canton of Bern).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe overview of the disparities of inclusive support across the cantons in Switzerland is mostly based on existing publications (Sahli Lozano et al., 2021a, b) and grey literature. It is aimed at the international audience to give a brief introduction concerning inclusive support and other inclusive school measures in Switzerland.
To take a closer look at disparities within a canton and the heterogeneity population of students who receive inclusive support, data from a longitudinal study on the opportunities and risks of inclusive school measures in the canton of Bern were used (Sahli Lozano, 2018). The baseline assessment was performed during fifth or sixth grade of primary school (mean age: 12.4 years) and the follow-up during the second or third year of lower secondary school (mean age: 15.3 years). Data was available for 1018 students in the baseline study and for 2053 students at the follow-up (491 students participated in both waves of the study).
At baseline and follow-up teachers were asked to indicate for each student, whether they received inclusive support or another inclusive school measure. Amongst others, teachers also indicated the reasons why students received inclusive support, how many hours of inclusive support were used per week or how inclusive support was specifically implemented in their class. Also, at both waves of data assessment, students participated in standardized tests (Stellwerk) on the academic performance in maths and language (German) and their intelligence was assessed using a cultural fair intelligence test (CFT-20R).
Descriptive analyses were used as the research questions were mostly explorative and the sample sizes were often too small, to have enough test-power to find significant differences.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAt primary school level 6.5% (n=66) of students received inclusive support, at secondary level it was 3.2% (n=65). The implementation of inclusive support in the Canton of Bern was very heterogeneous (e.g., combination with other special education measures, number of available lessons, form of teaching). It was also found that the learners receiving inclusive support differed greatly in terms of cognitive and academic performance characteristics.
When looking at the group of learners with IS, it became apparent that the measure is implemented very differently in terms of resources and the combination with other measures. Furthermore, the group of learners with IS is very heterogeneous in terms of performance characteristics and does not receive IS consistently over time.
These differences within the canton of Bern can be explained by the high degree of autonomy of the schools in designing their offers and relatively open cantonal guidelines (Hangartner & Heinzer, 2016). In particular, the allocation of resources by a pool funding model and the associated possibility of using part of the resources for inclusive support for the running of special classes influences the implementation of IF in the canton of Bern.
Furthermore, the identified disparities can lead to inclusive support in different extent, form and quality for comparable learners depending on their school location and thus to educational inequalities.
Research in this topic area must consider the differences within the learner group with inclusive support as well as the different implementation of inclusive support.
ReferencesBundesgesetz über die Beseitigung von Benachteiligungen von Menschen mit Behinderungen (Behindertengleichstellungsgesetz, BehiG), SR 151.3 (2004). https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20002658/index.html
Hangartner, J., & Heinzer, M. (Hrsg.). (2016). Gemeinden in der Schul-Governance der Schweiz: Steuerungskultur im Umbruch. Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13092-3
Luder, R. (2021). Integrative Förderung in der Schweiz.
Sahli Lozano, C. (2018, September 10). Chancen und Risiken integrativer Massnahmen (ChaRisMa) [Projektwebseite]. Ein Forschungsprojekt der PHBern - die deutschsprachige Pädagogische Hochschule. https://www.phbern.ch/charisma-chancen-und-risiken-integrativer-massnahmen/aktuelles.html
Sahli Lozano, C., Crameri, S., & Gosteli, D. A. (2021a). Integrative und separative schulische Massnahmen in der Schweiz (InSeMa) Kantonale Vergabe und Umsetzungsrichtlinien. Edition SZH/CSPS. www.szh-csps.ch/b2021-01
Sahli Lozano, C., Crameri, S., & Gosteli, D. A. (2021b). Integrative und separative schulische Massnahmen der Schweiz. Eine interaktive, digitale Landkarte. Stiftung Schweizer Zentrum für Heil- und Sonderpädagogik. https://www.szh.ch/de/phberninsema#/
Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren [EDK]. (2007). Interkantonale Vereinbarung über die Zusammenarbeit im Bereich der Sonderpädagogik. https://www.edk.ch/de/themen/sonderpaedagogik
UN-BRK. (2006). Übereinkommen vom 13. Dezember 2006 über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderungen. https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20122488/index.html
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
School Change in General Education for Students with Special Educational Needs: Estonian Case
Helen Urmann, Marvi Remmik
University of Tartu, Johan Skytte Institute of Political Studies, Estonia
Presenting Author: Urmann, Helen;
Remmik, Marvi
Systemic school change of students due to changing demographics or personal factors (change of residence, conflicts) are just some of the reasons why students have to change schools.The transition from one school to another is a stressful change for every student, as they have to adapt to the new school environment as well as the social network (Graham & Hill, 2003).According to Cauley and Jovanovich (2006), changing schools means for a child to adapt to a new, often larger school environment, with new fellow students and teachers, with different academic expectations. At the same time studies have shown that the student`s age, gender and special educational needs also play an important role in adapting to the new school environment (Anderson et al, 2000; Evans et al, 2018; Hebron, 2018; Makin et al, 2017; McCoy et al, 2020).
The effect of changing schools can be manifested in the decline of academic results and abilities, and difficulties in psychosocial coping, which is why it is important to consciously support the students' school change – to uphold students’ academic performance and social well-being. This is particularly important for students with special educational needs, who have been shown to be at an increased risk for mental and physical coping difficulties.
School- and teaching-related effects, such as teaching strategies, in-school support system, and preparation play an important role in helping students adapt with the changes (Evans et al., 2018). Also, support from parents is relevant for adapting with the situation (Serbin et al., 2013). Thus, positive social network and support system are essential when supporting students’ school transition, especially for students with special educational needs.
The purpose of the study was to find out how students with special educational needs are supported in school change in Estonian schools.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo understand the effects of school transition for students with special educational needs, and the practices of supporting students in this process, management, teachers, support staff, and parents of students with special educational needs were interviewed. In total, 40 people were interviewed. Interviewees associated with 14 different schools – selected via purposive sampling to collect information both from the “transitioning from” and transitioning to” schools – shared their experiences. Semi-structured individual and group interviews were conducted, each interview lasting around 1.5 hours. Interviews were recorded by the permission of interviewees, transcribed, and analysed using qualitative inductive content analysis technique.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe study showed that a lack of support staff, big number of students needing (special) support –, and absence of shared rules and guides, means school transition has not been systematically supported. Support systems are in place in some schools; however, this initiative has come from the schools themselves and can vary in different institutions.
Good practices supporting students’ transition involved collecting and sharing information about the students’ strengths and weaknesses so that the school the student transitions to has already an idea, which aspects should be monitored and supported more. At the same time, much of this information sharing between the schools’ specialists come down to parents’ willingness to co-operate, especially when it comes to students with special needs. Events between the different schools and visit days helped to ease the fears of both parents and their children.
Support staff highlights transitioned students should be monitored more closely right after the transition. This helps with addressing or preventing problems.
Also, parents, teachers, and support staff found it easier for students with special educational needs to adapt in smaller school environments – although smaller classes for students with special educational needs are in place also in bigger schools, there is still a big crowd of people attending school, which might be more anxiety inducing or disturbing for these students.
The study showed that there is no systematic approach to supporting school transition nor are there any guidelines for schools’ staff to follow for supporting students in this process. More systematic approach would come in handy especially for students with special educational needs, who might experience the already difficult process more intensely. Furthermore, more systematic and student-center approach would require more support staff.
ReferencesAnderson, L. W., J. Jacobs, S. Schramm, and F. Splittgerber (2000). School transitions: Beginning of the end or a new beginning. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 325–39.
Cauley, K. M., & Jovanovich, D. (2006) Developing an EffectiveTransition Program for Students Entering Middle School or High School, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(1), 15-25.
Evans, D., Borriello, G. A., & Field, A. P. (2018). A review of the academic and psychological impact of the transition to secondary education. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1482.
Graham, C. & Hill, M. (2003). Negotiating the Transition to Secondary School. Scottish Council for Research in Education, Edinburgh.
Hebron, J. S. (2018). School connectedness and the primary to secondary school transition for young people with autism spectrum conditions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 396-409.
Makin, C., Hill, V., & Pellicano, E. (2017). The primary-to-secondary school transition for children on the autism spectrum: A multi-informant mixed-methods study. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 2.
McCoy, S., Shevlin, M., & Rose, R. (2020). Secondary school transition for students with special educational needs in Ireland. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(2), 154-170.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Political-administrative Barriers to Educational Inclusion in Galicia (Spain)
Manuela Raposo-Rivas1, Manuel Joaquín Cotrina García2, Olalla García-Fuentes3, Isabel Fernández-Menor4
1University of Vigo, Spain; 2University of Cádiz, Spain; 3University of Vigo, Spain; 4University of Sevilla, Spain
Presenting Author: Cotrina García, Manuel Joaquín
The fundamental task of educational institutions is the integral development of every person from an inclusive point of view. In this approach to the 21st century school, not only the family and the community are a necessary and essential pillar, but also the guidance counsellors and teachers specialised in Therapeutic Pedagogy and Hearing and Language Therapy. Their work goes beyond the integration of appropriate knowledge, skills and abilities, as it involves managing complex situations and having competences that allow them to face the continuous changes that schools and society demand, while at the same time having the necessary material and human resources (Martínez Garrido et al., 2010).
The first step towards the achievement and scope of inclusive education, in the words of Souto (2021), is undoubtedly to have legislative instruments available, as these incorporate specific mandates that oblige public authorities to promote quality education for all people and provide the necessary resources for this purpose.
Particularly in Spain, the current Organic Law 3/2020 of 29 December, which modifies Organic Law 2/2006 of 3 May, on Education (LOMLOE) establishes in its preamble the objective of reinforcing the equity and inclusive capacity of the system, with the aim of making effective the right of all people to inclusive education, with measures such as personalised attention, the prevention of learning difficulties and the development of reinforcement mechanisms.
In order to see how the aforementioned law is being put into practice in terms of inclusive education, the research project "What are we forgetting in inclusive education: A participatory research in Galicia", funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation (PID2019-108775RB-C41), was carried out under the National R+D+i Plan. Its aim is to investigate school inequality and exclusion as well as inclusive responses through the voices of the different actors in the educational field (tutors, specialists, families, associations, politicians...).
Within this research framework, the purpose of this work is to study in depth the perception of specialist teachers and counsellors on the political-administrative barriers in relation to resources, working conditions, the regulatory framework and administrative bureaucracy.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedQualitative research work has been carried out, the first phase being a descriptive-interpretative documentary analysis of the subject matter, taking into account the political and regulatory framework that regulates the professional performance of the counsellor and the specialists. Next, the information collected is contrasted with the professionals in the field using conversational techniques.
Thus, the technique used to collect information was the semi-structured interview through which the participants were able to reflect on their professional practice. To carry out the interviews, based on the research objectives, a preliminary script was prepared to determine the most relevant aspects to delve into based on the previous documentation work and a pilot interview was conducted to establish the suitability of the script (Kallio, Pietilä, Johnson, & Kangasniemi, 2016). The final version of the interview script was structured in seven dimensions: the regulations and the model of attention to diversity in the Autonomous Community; the action plans and protocols, collaboration with educational agents; the resources and training possessed and demanded, together with satisfaction with the role and the functions assigned. In this work, the first of these is the object of analysis: the political-administrative barriers that guidance counsellors and specialist teachers encounter in the performance of their profession.
A total of 9 people report on this aspect: 5 counsellors (4 women and 1 man) and 4 specialist teachers (women), all of them with extensive professional experience (more than 10 years) who carry out their professional work in nine educational centres in Galicia (a region located in the northwest of Spain).
With the information collected, a content analysis was carried out with the support of MAXQDA 2022 software.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results obtained reveal some fundamental aspects to be taken into account, highlighting that:
(1) the participants have difficulties in implementing educational policies on inclusion, that it is very complex for them to carry out inclusive education with the current teacher-student ratios, with training being an aspect that worries them due to the obstacles in access and offer of quality lifelong learning.
(2) the political-administrative barriers that the participants encounter in the performance of their profession are: current legislation and the decisions/actions of the educational administrations, resources, working conditions, the design and interpretation of the regulatory framework and administrative bureaucracy.
It is concluded that the administrative proposals are still far from the realities and needs perceived in the classrooms by the participants. At the training level, it is essential to develop quality plans and proposals that are accessible to all education professionals, both in initial and ongoing training.
At the same time, a key factor for the maximum growth of the potential of all learners are the roles and tasks performed by professionals. Consequently, they are a cornerstone for progress towards a truly inclusive education and society. Given the breadth of their functions, one of the challenges facing the profession is for the education administration to align the map of professional competences with the reality of the centres and the regulations in force (Fernández & Malvar, 2020).
ReferencesFernández Tilve, M. D & Malvar Méndez, M. L. (2020). Las competencias emocionales de los orientadores escolares desde el paradigma de la educación inclusiva. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 38(1), 239-257.
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of advanced nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.
Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de diciembre, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación (LOMLOE). BOE núm. 340, de 30 de diciembre, 122868 a 122953 https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2020-17264
Martínez Garrido, C. A., Krichesky, G. J., & García Barrera, A. (2010). El orientador escolar como agente interno de cambio. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 54, 107-122.
Souto Galván, C. (2021). La evolución de las políticas educativas: de la integración a la inclusión. Revista de Educación y Derecho, 1, 406-439. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=8215077
|
