Report
| www . ICEVI - Europe . org Report |
|
[ Previous: Report on theme 1: Communication ] [ Table of Contents ] [ Next: Report on theme 3: Classroom management ]
The first discussion related to the state-of-the art situation of integration systems in various countries in Europe.
Representatives split into three subgroups exchanged their experiences and worries. After the group discussion, speakers from each subgroup summarized what was said during this stage.
Individual presentation of legislation (theory) and accomplishment of the laws followed. Each representative was asked to share their data with the others.
In France special schools are still in operation. It is parents who choose type of schools they want their children to attend. Training is organized by Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health. In-service training for visually impaired learners need to be increased: Braille, psychology, geography.
Latvia cannot close special schools because of social background. Parents urge for integration. One of the concerns is the fact that parents, whose children attend mainstream schools, do not seek assistance and support from specialists. They claim that the setting is sufficient for effective education of their children.
Latvia's neighbour, Estonia has prepared and introduced the bill that makes regular schools accept children with disabilities. Despite sanctions that may be imposed on reluctant schools, these refuse to have disabled learners.
In Holland, where money in a 'backpack package' follows the learner, parents have a free choice of where to educate their children. It was parents that started the trend to send children to mainstream schools. The new legislation that was introduced in August 2001 allows children with any disability but deaf to decide on their educational career. Mainstreamed learners are taken care of by special Pedagogical and Social Institutions located in local communities/municipalities.
Poland boasts of a free choice for parents to send their children to a desired type of school. Schools are legitimate to receive extra money. Parents are the ones that push integration.
Even though Finland has a decent system of integration, there are still many places without itinerary teachers. Municipality provides basic support. Counseling is based on regions. School are state-subsidized. Current figures show 650 children in inclusive settings..
To summarize the accounts of representatives the following conclusion could be drawn:
The discussion on organizational aspects began with listing down additional questions that would form a basis for the output of talks.
The following questioned were posed prior to open discussions:
Steve McCall initiated the individual presentations and an open discussion by providing the group with information regarding the historical and current situation in integration.
In the UK a big report on special needs students was worked out in 1970s. 1981 brought new laws stating that children with special needs have all rights to be educated in mainstreaming. Schools should include children with special needs in their classes. Along with the introduction of the inclusive system, many itinerant services were established in the UK. They grew up separately from special schools. They are not based in special schools. It is local authority that has its own center. Because of decentralized system of providing services to blind learners, a rigid system of inspection to ensure equal service in all locations.
In 1990, a new law was introduced in Lithuania confirming that all children are educatable. In 1998 special education bills were passed defining forms of education that are available. Services offered to blind learners in integrative environments are available but quality is questionable. Currently there only two totally blind children that are completely mainstreamed (out of 238 low-vision learners in mainstream schools). Teacher consultants are based in Rehabilitation Centers, Training Center for Teacher of VI, or Social Center. Every municipality employs one specialist.
In Finland every blind child attends a mainstream school. Local authorities provide all necessary means. Original special school were made into resource centers that are obliged to offer assistance and support. Three types of services are available: counseling teachers, training for teachers and assistants, temporary education courses for children in need. Itinerant teachers and Counseling Teachers are paid by state. Now, because more municipalities pay for ITs, contacts with the Resource Centers and parents and schools is looser. However, still Municipality has to buy services from the Resource Centers. Nevertheless, for municipalities it is cheaper to employ a teacher who doesn't have to be well qualified.
In Estonia the law imposes the obligation to accept disabled by mainstream schools. These, however, are not prepared for visually impaired students. Officially, there no Itinerant Teachers. What is offered is on-the-spot training for children, as well as advice for parents. Estonian integration receives foreign financial support.
In Norway, in 1998 new school law covering all children and whole education was introduced. It was based on the Chart of Human Rights. Communities can give the children appropriate means. All special schools turned into Resource Centers. Every community by law has pedagogical and psychological services paid by the state. Courses and accommodation as well as visits in mainstream schools with visually impaired learners are free of charge.
Holland offers new legislation law on regional expertise center supplying support backpack that goes to parents. No firm results are available as yet since it started in August 2001. Resource Centers buy an services from Itinerant Teachers, buy special equipment, the rest of the money is spent by parents. It is a fixed amount of money independent of age and location endowed annually. The money however is not given in the form of cash or checks, but in a form of services and allowances. Schools have to accept disabled children. When parents need advice they can turn to Itinerant teachers or Resource Centers to find out what available service are.
Slovak educational system still relies old law from 1984. Nonetheless, changes are being introduced. Blind and low-vision students have been educated in special schools. For past two years parents have shown their interest in mainstreaming, but mainly in secondary education. At the moment there are no blind pupils in elementary schools.
Special Pedagogical Advisory covering all disabled people are entitled for support from Special Educational Centers. The idea is to establish new local Resource Centers, yet now the system is not backed up by sufficient financial resources. Special School are planned to turn into Regional Research Centers.
In Latvia blind learners had attended only special schools until 1996. Since then, new forms of education, including mainstreaming have been offered. 5 Special schools are now being reorganized into training centers. 198 students are already in integration. Blind learners and their parents are getting help, but parents sometimes refuse it. Parents have a free choice of type of school for their children. Training Centers can offer Itinerant Teachers, along with technical aids (free of charge).
In Poland all children have had a legal right for equal education since the early 1990s. Mainstream schools are obliged to accept visually impaired children. However it can be different. Parents have the right to choose the best type of school for their children. Poland also has a network Pedagogical-Psychological Centers that advice on how to educate children. The system is based on subsidies that are granted by local authorities. Integration schools in Poland receive more funds and are allowed to organized classes with smaller number of pupils. Teacher assistants are additionally employed to support subject teachers. Current figures show that 3000 low-vision and blind learners are educated in different forms of schooling. Looking into the future, a hot debate is carried out to decide where to base Resource Centers: Special Schools or Pedagogical-Psychological Centers.
Historically, in France first education was established in private, mostly religious, schools and only one state school. In 1975 a law was passed declaring that everyone has a right for education. 1975 is also the beginning of mainstreaming with support teachers, Itinerant Teachers and special schools. Special schools must provide service for autonomous schools. The system is supervised by Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education. Many teachers in primary schools are already trained, but not in secondary education. Still unanswered seems to be a question on the future of residential schooling.
As a conclusion of the day a map of money distribution system was sketched to graphically present the information.
SCHEMESteve McCall presented standards that operate in the UK. Set of Standards in SEN (special educational needs) are divided up into two major groups:
In the UK it is mandatory to have special qualifications to teach in special education. Students first qualify as regular teachers. After a minimum of 3 years' experience in mainstream schools, they can choose from two training programs: distance education program lasting for 2 years and based in Birmingham (to get to the course you have to be working with VI children), or in-service program (teachers stay in their work during the course). Teachers also have to cover two training weeks a year. Materials are mailed to the teachers. Each learner will have a regional supervisor qualified in the field. They also have meetings in their region. Trainings prepare teachers to work in every setting.
Students at the Academy of Special Education in Warszawa, Poland, have special teaching practice in special schools. 2-year post-graduate studies for in-service are also offered.
The French training system offers two kinds of training: university graduates do a one-year specialized training the Resource Centers along with training at schools.
An in-service training controlled by the Ministry of Health lasts one week training and is done in Paris. First students cover a theoretical part, then they write a memo about their experience, double assessment - exam, then they are examined from geography, technology and M&O. In-service is also for teachers without previous experience in the field of VI. Training is financed by community, special department of Ministry of Health, social welfare.
In Latvia those working with the visually impaired have degrees in special education.
Courses in special subjects related to visual impairment are offered to already qualified teachers. It is also possible to get a degree in special education as the second specialization. Every year teachers do a 72-hour update course. Students pay for the postgraduate studies themselves.
In Norway, the educational system is being revised. The old system took eight years to become a qualified special teacher: after 4 years of general teacher training, students took one year as a special needs educator, followed by 1 year of education in impairment, eventually doing 2 years of MA. Now they want to reduce the program to 5 years: 3 years to BA + 2 year special course.
In Holland special teachers start their careers as ordinary teachers after 4 years of colleges. Itinerant teachers are special teachers. They take a 2-year course in special needs, 1 year for visually impaired, or other disabilities, 1 year to become a visiting teacher. IT program includes management of problems in accepting blindness. Training is given by specialists from Special Schools.
The major question for the day was what are the implications for training. It was decided that only a framework for training system can be tailored, because different systems will be applicable in different questions. Due to various stages of inclusion systems, organization of training will differ. Therefore what is necessary to set up is competencies and skills that a successful itinerant teacher should possess.
Prior to the discussion about implications, conclusions of the previous day were brought back. Differences in training special teachers, skills that such a teacher should be equipped with. Personal characteristics of a competent visiting teacher were also reminded (see detailed list in 4.2).
Subsequently, the representatives listed down people that should receive special training. The groups ranged from neighbours and schoolmates of the blind to specialist VI teachers.
Who needs specialist training (VI)
Before the division of the above groups and content of training were worked out, Sidsel Brondmo of Norway read some of the questions and answers from a survey done in Norway to blind people:
Q1 What do teachers need to know about VI: general knowledge of the blindness, knowledge of implications on physical, cognitive, social and language development; independence; knowledge of ADL, M&O; Braille, methodology of teaching, how to include the blind child in the class and school. Differences in methodology between blind and fully sighted leading to inclusion, knowledge of special equipment, how to use computers with Braille display, how to teach arts and crafts, math, PE (especially with other peers).
Q2 How can the center help: courses in center as well as at schools combining theory and practice. Training with blindfolds for better understanding. Discussions with blind people. Close contact with RC.
Q3 What should teacher know about blindness: that they are quite different from the sighted, with individual needs, the teacher should know Braille, + the knowledge of the equipment.
Q4 What special knowledge and skills should be offered to teach effectively: reading from the blackboard, good skills in M&O, know his subject and how to adapt it, how to use computer peripherals, contact between teacher and students not too close.
Q5 Which things about blindness should be discussed: everything takes more time, the best situation when the equipment is where it belongs. Don't use their PC without their permission, give some info about Braille, don't pity the blind.
Other aspects: referring to the blind by the first name, don't touch them without warning, don't lower requirements.
The group brainstormed a long list of competencies and skills that successful visiting teachers ought to possess:
in-depth knowledge: eye-conditions and its effects on learning/teaching;
multidisciplinary team work; assessment skills - eg. vision assessment; training skills
interpreting info for teachers; knowledge of different age groups; adapting mainstream environment; social interaction skills ;advocacy skills; local support networks + laws + rights; funds; leisure time management; report writing/legal documents/drawing upon; agreements/plans for education; low vision aids; Info Tech troubleshooting; prioritizing: listing children you want to see; case load management skills; negotiation skills, diplomatic, tactful; managing with stress
Personality traits of a candidate for itinerant teacher: emotionally secure, flexible, positive attitude, self confident, assertiveness, initiative, self-starters, sense of humor, well organized, outgoing, good communicator, empathy, credible, creative, common sense, respect for others
The conclusions were presented in the form of a circular graph with centrally embedded fields. The innermost field represents the most basic training, going outwards to the most specialist one.
Framework for 'training'
SCHEMEcontent:
Level 1: General knowledge
Level 2: General knowledge + more
Level 3: Must be well-defined: with the following skills included into the curriculum
multidisciplinary team work; assessment skills - eg. vision assessment; training skills
interpreting info for teachers; knowledge of different age groups; adapting mainstream environment; social interaction skills; advocacy skills; local support networks + laws + rights; funds; leisure time management; report writing/legal documents/drawing upon; agreements/plans for education; low vision aids; Info Tech troubleshooting; prioritising: listing children you want to see; case load management skills; negotiation skills, diplomatic, tactful; managing with stress.
The group carried out discussion in two modes, either all together, or in subgroups. When split into smaller groups, each team assigned a speaker that after individual talks reported back to all the other representatives. Days two and three were initiated with capitalization of previous days' discussions. The group was skilfully managed and led by both chairpersons.