04. Inclusive Education
Paper
School Inclusion and the Role of Special Educational Needs Teachers in Germany, Sweden, and Norway
Carolina Dahle1, Lisa Marie Wolf2, Heidi Wimmer3
1USN, Norway; 2TU Dortmund, Germany; 3Stockholm University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Dahle, Carolina
From an international perspective, national school systems have been significantly affected by several global trends since the end of the 20th century. One has been the powerful movement towards an inclusive school for all, represented by the Declaration of Salamanca in 1994, and accelerated by the UN-Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2006. It is written that “all children should learn together, wherever possible, regardless of any difficulties or differences they may have. Inclusive schools must recognize and respond to the diverse needs of their students, accommodating both different styles and rates of learning and ensuring quality education to all through appropriate curricula, organizational arrangements, teaching strategies, resource use and partnerships with their communities” (UNESCO, 1994, p. 11).
With the ratification of the Salamanca-Declaration and the UN-CRPD, states and federal states (in Germany) are obliged to provide an inclusive school system in which pupils with and without impairments or disabilities are taught in joint schools and classes. Although educational contexts vary greatly from country to country, similar regulations must be implemented internationally. The “fuzzy concept of inclusion” (Artiles & Dyson, 2005) has to be included and transferred into practice in different historically developed education systems. In the chain of international guidelines, national and finally local implementation (Abrahamsen & Aas, 2019), national and regional educational stakeholders have to interpret regulations, which leads to many variations of inclusive education not just internationally, but also in a national and regional frame (Badstieber & Moldenhauer, 2016).
A central stakeholder, especially in the local implementation, are special educational needs teachers (SEN-teachers), who support pupils and teachers in mainstream schools with their specific expertise. However, due to different definitions of inclusion and the importance of national and local contexts, it is not determined how inclusive schooling, and the roles of SEN-teachers look like. Accordingly, it is hardly possible to clarify what these highly specialized teachers should be educated for in terms of inclusive schooling for all pupils. Due to their important role in the implementation of school inclusion, the study presented focuses on the training and role of special education teachers in particular.
In line with the purpose of the study our research questions are:
1. How do the (inclusive) school system contexts and histories of inclusion of the three countries differ from each other?
2. How is “special educational needs” defined and operationalized?
3. What role do SEN-teachers play in the implementation of school inclusion?
4. How are SEN-teachers educated for those roles and tasks?
From a national perspective, international comparisons give the opportunity to take a look at alternative regulations and implementations. Furthermore, comparative approaches enable important contextual factors to be identified and social and political constructions - such as "inclusive school" and "special needs" - to be scrutinized (Biermann & Powell, 2014). From a German perspective, Nordic countries in particular serve as "main sources of innovation" (ibid., p. 683). The comparison made in this article between Germany, Sweden and Norway is intended to provide an impetus to look beyond national borders and open our eyes to alternative approaches of implementation strategies as well as SEN-teachers´ roles and education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedGermany, Sweden, and Norway are particularly interesting for a comparison, as the three countries have different historically developed educational traditions, but similarities in recent educational reforms (Wermke & Prøitz, 2021). The educational systems in these countries put high emphasis on learning outcomes and the personal growth of pupils (Grissom et al., 2018) but work with different approaches. While the two Scandinavian countries are focusing on a local school for all, Germany is a country with a historically anchored and highly sophisticated special school system combined with a teaching profession specifically designed for this pur-pose. Therefore, the respective country-specific school system contexts and different professionalization of SEN-teachers must also be taken into account.
According to the research questions, the country comparison is based on four dimensions. The study starts with (1) an analysis of the different school system contexts and the history of inclu-sion before it (2) focuses on definitions and operationalization of “need for support”. The analysis will furthermore examine (3) the tasks of SEN-teachers in Germany, Sweden, and Norway and at the end (4) compare the academic education and training of SEN-teachers. Statistical figures (about special educational needs support, inclusion, exclusion rates), legal regulations (school laws, ordinances), state and university-specific training regulations for special needs teachers and current findings on their tasks and roles in school inclusion serve as the basis. In addition, current research on the roles and tasks of special education teachers in inclusive schools was consulted in order to take a look at implementation in practice.
The analysis is conducted with qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2022). This method for the analysis was chosen because it offers a rule-guided behavior, which makes the collabora-tion of several researchers easier. Furthermore, the QCAmap software make it possible to work simultaneously with the documents. The research group agreed on similar documents from the three countries, like legal documents and regulatory documents on inclusive education, statistical figures, provided by governmental institutions and regulations for academic education. Furthermore, the research group agreed on deductive categories, based on the research questions and dimensions and finally categorized the documents. Specifying categories are for example inclusion rates, the assessment of special educational needs, regulations of duties of SEN-teachers, requirements for the admission to the study program, study content and possible specializations. The results are summarized in a table to enable an easy-to-read comparison.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe school systems of the three countries are characterized by different inclusion histories and strategies. In Germany, the historically anchored separate schooling of pupils with impairments and disabilities is maintained even during the expansion of inclusive schooling options. Differentiation and allocation of special needs is constitutive and legitimizing. In Sweden and Nor-way, school systems are less oriented towards performance-based institutional segregation of pupils. Accordingly, significantly fewer pupils attend a special school (Nondal et al., 2018).
A differentiation of developmental areas to be supported - similar to the German “Förderschwerpunkte” (support priorities) - is also reflected in Norway and Sweden in possible specializations of special needs teachers, but there are no formal assessment procedures - in the sense of an official act - in which the pupils are assigned special needs and on the basis of which special support is granted. In Norway, for example, special educational support is pro-vided in six phases, which begins with the identification of unsatisfactory learning outcomes, includes an assessment by specialized professionals and the decision for or against special educational support, as well as the development of an individual learning plan by the school and its evaluation. It is therefore a basically similar process but based less on labeling and formal files.
The training of SEN-teachers differs, among other things, in the necessary prerequisites (un-dergraduate or postgraduate studies) and mandates granted. In Sweden, there are two special education professions (speciallärare and specialpädagoger) with specific functions within the school. The task of specialpädagoger (special educators) is primarily to provide systemic ad-vice to schools and teachers on inclusion and special educational support, while speciallärare (SEN-teachers in a narrow sense) work primarily directly with pupils (von Ahlefeld Nisser, 2014). A look at the current state of research in Germany shows that SEN-teachers fulfill both functions in inclusion.
ReferencesAbrahamsen, H. N., & Aas, M. (2019). Mellomleder i skolen [Middle leaders in schools]. Fag-bokforlaget.
Artiles, A. J., & Dyson, A. (2005). Inclusive education in the globalization age: The promise of comparative cultural historical analysis. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education (pp. 37-62). Routledge.
Badstieber, B. & Moldenhauer, A. (2016). Schulleitungshandeln in inklusionsorientierten Schulentwicklungsprozessen [School principalship actions in inclusion-oriented school development processes]. In U. Böing & A. Köpfer (Eds.), Be-Hinderung der Teilhabe. Soziale, politische und institutionelle Herausforderungen inklusiver Bildungsräume (pp. 209 - 219). Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.
Biermann, J. & Powell, J. J. W. (2014): Institutionelle Dimensionen inklusiver Schulbildung – Herausforderungen der UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention für Deutschland, Island und Schwe-den im Vergleich [Institutional dimensions of inclusive school education – challenges of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for Germany, Iceland and Sweden in comparison]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17, 679 – 700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-014-0588-0
Grissom, J. A.; Blissett, R. S. L. & Mitani, H. (2018). Evaluating School Principals: Supervisor Ratings of Principal Practice and Principal Job Performance. Educational Evaluation and Poli-cy Analysis, 40(03), 446 – 472. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718783883
Mayring, P. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysis: basics and techniques]. Beltz.
Nondal, T. J.; Cercel, R; Mearns, C. & Ahlström, M. (2018). Educational Systems for Inclusive Education in Norway, Romania, Scotland and Sweden. Learning Disability Practice Journal, 21 (5). https://doi.org/10.7748/ldp.2018.e1869
UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000110753?posInSet=4&queryId=N-EXPLORE-7799e6f7-5d6c-4d65-8b3c-21ce189688cd
von Ahlefeld Nisser, D. (2014). Specialpedagogers och speciallärares olika roller och uppdrag - Skilda föreställningar möts och möter en pedagogisk praktik [Special educators’ and special teachers’ different roles and functions – different ideas encounter the realities of pedagogical practices.]. Nordic Studies in Education, 34(04), 246 – 264. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn1891-5949-2014-04-03
Wermke, W. & Prøitz, T. S. (2021). Discussing the curriculum-Didaktik dichotomy and comparative conceptualisations of the teaching profession. Education Inquiry, 10(04), 300 – 327. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2019.1618677
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Understanding the Impact of Special Educational Needs Identification on Academic Progression in Wales: A Comprehensive Analysis
Cathryn Knight1, Emily Lowthian2, Tom Crick2, Carys Jones2, Sarah Rees2, Anna Rawlings2
1University of Bristol, United Kingdom; 2Swansea University, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Knight, Cathryn
A corpus of research considering the social impact of Special Educational Needs (SEN) identification on diagnosis and has shown mixed effects. Qualitative research highlights the benefits of SEN identification due to the alleviation of stigma, and access to support (Ingesson, 2007; Glazzard, 2010; Leitão et al., 2017), while quantitative research, shows a negative impact on academic self-concept (Polychroni, Koukoura, & Anagnostou, 2006; Knight, 2021). Scant research has been conducted which investigates the impact of SEN on academic outcomes, which also considers categories of SEN (i.e., ADHD) (Parsons & Platt, 2017). We aimed to understand i) what factors contribute to being identified with SEN, ii) the educational attainment of those with SEN (overall, and specific diagnoses, and iii) to explore the timing of SEN diagnosis on attainment.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedUtilising administrative population data from the SAIL Databank in Wales, we linked demographic, education and health data, resulting in a cohort of children born between 1 September 2002 and 31 August 2008 (n => 200,000 children). We use SEN identification as both an outcome, and an exposure in analysis, with any SEN, and specific diagnoses including ADHD, Autism, Dyslexia and Behaviour Emotional Social Difficulty. Educational attainment at age 7, 11, 14 and 16 was used as an outcome. Covariates included school-attendance, deprivation, birth characteristics, healthcare usage and individual characteristics. We employed longitudinal multi-level models using the glmmTMB package in R, the data consisted of unbalanced panel data over 16 years of life.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWe found that female children were less likely to be diagnosed with SEN (-1.73, -1.78 - -1.69), as were those who were breastfed (-0.58, -0.63, -0.54). Children born with a low birthweight (0.80, 0.70 – 0.90) or pre-term (0.19, 0.09 – 0.29) or in the summer (1.09, 1.04 – 1.15) were more likely to be identified with SEN. Greater deprivation (Townsend) was linked to a higher chance of SEN (1.53, 1.02 – 1.18) as were Free School Meals (1.41, 1.36 – 1.46). For attainment, any diagnosis of SEN had a negative relationship on achieving the educational benchmark at age 7, 11, 14 and 16 (-3.92, -3.97 - -3.87), adjusted for individual, birth and school characteristics.
Despite supportive policies, SEN remains to be an important contributor towards educational attainment, of which is shaped by socio-cultural factors, such as deprivation. This research contributes to the ongoing discourse on SEN policies, providing valuable insights for shaping future national-level policies and practices in Wales.
ReferencesIngesson, S. G. (2007). Growing up with dyslexia: Interviews with teenagers and young adults. School Psychology International, 28(5), 574-591.
Glazzard, J. (2010). The impact of dyslexia on pupils' self‐esteem. Support for learning, 25(2), 63-69.
Knight, C. (2021). The impact of the dyslexia label on academic outlook and aspirations: an analysis using propensity score matching. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 91(4), 1110-1126.
Knight, C., & Crick, T. (2021). The assignment and distribution of the dyslexia label: Using the UK Millennium Cohort Study to investigate the socio-demographic predictors of the dyslexia label in England and Wales. PLOS ONE, 16(8), e0256114.
Leitão, S., Dzidic, P., Claessen, M., Gordon, J., Howard, K., Nayton, M., & Boyes, M. E. (2017). Exploring the impact of living with dyslexia: The perspectives of children and their parents. International journal of speech-language pathology, 19(3), 322-334.
Parsons, S., & Platt, L. (2013). Disability among young children: Prevalence, heterogeneity and socio-economic disadvantage. Available: https://cls.ucl.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CLS-WP-2013-11-Disability-among-young-children-S-Parsons-L-Platt.pdf
Polychroni, F., Koukoura, K., & Anagnostou, I. (2006). Academic self‐concept, reading attitudes and approaches to learning of children with dyslexia: do they differ from their peers? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(4), 415-430.
StatsWales (2023). Education and Skills - Examinations and assessments. Available: https://statswales.gov.wales/Catalogue/Education-and-Skills/Schools-and-Teachers/Examinations-and-Assessments
UNESCO (2020). Inclusion and Education: All means all. Available: https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2020/inclusion
Welsh Government (2018). Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018. Available: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/anaw/2018/2/contents/enacted
|
