Integration and Inclusion in Terms of Special Educational Needs Provision - Essay Example

?The difference between Integration and Inclusion in terms of Special Educational Needs provision in the UK Outline Introduction. 2. The History of Special education needs 3. Definition of special education needs 4. Inclusion 5. Integration 6. From Integration to Inclusion 7. The process of inclusion 8. Responding to the Difference 9. Conclusion. 10. List of references. Introduction In this essay I will be examining the difference between integration and inclusion related to special education needs provision in the UK. I will start with a brief introduction of its history and developments and end with the discussion itself. History of Special education needs The history of special needs dates back decades ago, but the documented cases were evident in the beginning of the 20th century where ideas about the provision of education for children with special needs were based on a medical model of ‘defects’. This model was mainly focused on difference rather than nor­mality, on illness rather than well being, and particularly on the ‘problem’ with the child (Lewis, 1999). Deficit rather than potential was used to categorize children with various needs. Therefore, the special education needs began with the establishment of separate special schools for children with special needs and required an extra care. The educational reforms of 1944 In 1944, significant educational reforms were developed; most of them were targeted to cater the educational need of each and every child. This educational act also addressed the needs and requirements that were thought essential to fulfill the emerging need for special education. However, this pact had some drawbacks associated with it such as it did not liberate the needs of those with special needs as it did for the normal children. It still used the medical model of disability where deficit rather than potential was used. Special schools were still seen as the most appropriate option for those with special needs to educate such children. The 1944 act still referred to children who ‘suffered from a disability of mind or body’, and so clearly focused on special schools’ as catering the educational need for ‘handi­capped’ children.   Education through the 1960s and 70s In the 1960s and 70s, behavioral psychologists rejected the medical model in favor of the operant conditioning technique. The approach stressed the work with children with spe­cial needs moved towards an approach favored by behaviorist psychologists. They criticisized the medical approach and saw the operant technique more adequate since it stressed the importance and risks associated with the problems and issues related in fulfilling the needs of special children by putting that responsibility on teachers (Lewis, 1999). The behaviorist technique turned out to be very helpful as it was directly effective in helping the children as well as in suppressing their particular difficulties with more understanding. De?nition of Special Educational Needs Children have special educational needs if they suffer during the process of learning which naturally raises the need for the development of a special educational provision for them. Children encounter learning difficulty if they: a) face a greater difficulty in learning as compare to the other children of the same age group; or b) have a disability which keeps them away or hinders them from facilitating themselves from the use of educational services of a kind generally provided for children of the same age group in schools and other institutes within the vicinity of the local education authority; c) are under obligatory school age and come within the de?nition at a) Or b) above or in case if the special educational provision was not developed for them. Children must not be discriminated on having a learning difficulty only on the basis of language or any form of language they speak at home which maybe different from the language or medium in which they will be taught. Special educational provision means: a) for children of 2 or over, educational provision which is additional, or otherwise different from, the educational provision made generally for children of their age in schools maintained by the LEA, other than special schools in the area; b) For children under 2, educational provision of any kind. For children under 2 this includes a complete guidance and support to help parents to enable them to assist their children. The lack of clarity and relativity in the understanding of these official de?nitions that unavoidably leads to misunderstandings and confusion that would cause difficulties in early year’s policy and in its implementation related to early identi?cation and evaluation of special education needs. The special educational need for a child can vary from area to area, on the basis of setting and even it can greatly differ from room to room within the same early education environment. It also depends on the facilities offered and on the level of difficulty perceived by one child as compared to the other one. The situation gets more complex and complicated if a child falls not only in the special education needs group but if it also falls under the group may be termed as ‘disabled’ according to the de?nitions present the Children Act 1989 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. De?nitions in the Children Act 1989 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 are: “A child is disabled if he is blind, deaf or dumb or suffers from a mental disorder of any kind or is substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity or such other disability as may be prescribed. (Children Act 1989: 17.11)” “A person has a disability for the purposes of this Act if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. (Disability Discrimination Act 1995: 1.1)” Inclusion The legislation might specify that inclusion in simple terms is the provision targeted to provide education to all children without discrimination within the same setting, i.e. the same school building. Armstrong et al (2000) in Moran and Abbot (2001) have defined inclusion as the measures which can enhance the involvement or contact between a disabled student or students under such conditions or policies along with those studying in conventional educational institutes or schools. Ainscow (1999) in Dyson & Millward (2000) have also described the actual meaning of this term as a practice of involving the activities and movements of such students from special settings to conventional environments for their better development. However, many educationalists have different opinions on this practice which contradict greatly with the definition and explanation of the term by the above mentioned scholars and sociologists. Another definition of inclusive from Bailey (1998) in Clark et al (1998) is that this particular term refers to any group of students who are either discriminated for acquiring educational facilities or those who are pointed out as different are granted access to educational treatment in order to create justice for such students in society. On the other hand, we have the supporters of ‘full’ inclusion; they are the people who believe that education should be provided to all the students on the basis of equality without creating any segments that would make them feel left out (CSIE, 2003). Such people propose that all the essential components for learning and other educational facilities should be made available within the classrooms that would ultimately result in bringing the change in the overall environment of the classroom. Tilstone et al (2000) says that an inclusive school should be categorized on the learning ability of the students according to their level of understanding and it should not be discriminated on any specific basis. Therefore the meaning of inclusion varies from people to people. Dyson & Millward (2000) believed that it is established and very much dependent on the factors such as history, culture and politics of the specific system or of an organization in which it is being implemented. However, recently there has been much argument on the concept of inclusion that it is aimed solely on disability which gives it a narrow meaning (Wearmouth, 2001). Integration The term ‘integrated’ as defined by the Department of Education for United Kingdom (2000), describes the schools or such institutes which utilize all characteristics present in a school environment which provides equal recognition as well as promote equal expression of the two most important traditions including other cultures in United Kingdom to promote educational justice and equality among the students. The majority of schools established in this state are for students of one or other belonging to the two main traditions, i.e. Protestant or Roman Catholic. Therefore, integrated schools completely support and encourage the registration of students belonging from both the traditions and of none to be pushed to learn together under any circumstances. On the other hand, outside United Kingdom the term integration holds a complete different meaning as it is implied to the placement of children having difficulties in education and learning. Armstrong (1998) in Moran & Abbott (2001) defines integration as a system of introducing students with special educational needs in traditional schools on either a full or part-time basis, or within segmented groups within the same environment. For example in Switzerland, the term integration means providing education and other learning facilities to both handicapped and non-handicapped students without creating any discrimination but providing an extra support to the children who are physically challenged in the same classroom (Armstrong, 2003). From integration to inclusion Although the proposal of educating children with physical disabilities along with their physically and mentally perfect friends is not a recent one (Heward & Lloyd-Smith, 1990), the Warnock Report (DES 1978) asserted that children with such disabilities should be supported with the basic requirements they might need and they should be granted an access to education with their friends. Consequently, the 1981 Education Act established a general duty on LEAs to enroll as many children as possible who were disabled and had been receiving education in such special institutes or schools into traditional public schools to decrease the level of discrimination build against them from previous acts or plans. Initially, the 1981 Act introduced a new way for the integration or mixing up of preschool children with special educationa needs into other conventional or normal nursery schools and classes. However, this idea failed and did not gain popularity on a large scale. Just recently, it has been analyzed that the government has assured to support the idea of the regular enrollment of the children in their local or district schools for granting access to all the children without any division as well as the government has also made it clear that such steps would be re-considered, if the conditions or circumstances would become impossible at any point (DfEE, 1997). It also has recommended that children with special education needs should actively participate in all the curricular activities. The original Code of Practice (DfE, 1994) has suggested that the needs and the requirements of the students with special education needs will be met in all traditional schools and they would be given equal opportunity to access and facilitate themselves in such schools along with their friends without any hindrance. The revised Code (DfES, 2001) re-assures the primary principle behind this proposal which would assure that these schools will fulfill the requirement to meet the special education need. Integration is a common term that holds many different meanings. The word ‘integrate’ means placing someone back to their original position from where they were excluded. In simple words, here this word refers to the placement of the children from special educational need into the ordinary settings and bridging the societal and educational gaps for them. Positive attitudes have been seen from the people who support the idea of integration of such children those who are facing the hardships either from being physically challenged or having difficulties in learning as compare to other children. On the other hand, we have some people who seriously condemn to this idea and favors for the restoration of previous policies (Hegarty, 1993; Sinclair-Taylor, 1995). However, we cannot assure that the placement of such children who are faced with many difficulties in early education environment would result in developing the integrated activities by such students. However, there are some more complicated interpretations that observe this “integration” as a process or an approach rather as a situation where these students are granted access to excel with normal students in a given environment. A very serious question was raised by Slee (1993) that inquires on the understanding of the actual meaning of integration in terms of an outsider who is coming in an already existing setting or in other words this can be viewed as establishing an atmosphere where all the new comers or the outsiders would be welcomed by the other students. This has raised concerns for majority of the young students as compare to the perspective that focuses on delivering the needs for special education. This is not just a question raised but this also focuses on giving the best of education to all the children without creating any social injustice and discrimination. However, we can say that both the terms; ‘integration’ and ‘inclusion’ are inter-related in understanding but appears different when it comes on the real implementation of the terms. The process of inclusion Inclusion is different in its meaning and implementation from integration, when it comes on focusing either on fulfilling the educational needs in early childhood stages or it could be any other reason. Inclusion is flexible and dynamic in nature and its state: ‘Inclusive education is not targeted towards the integration of the discriminated and ignored groups in terms of organizing and placing (Barton, 1999). First of all it is important to understand that inclusion should be considered as an approach or a standard, it could be a way of supporting a culture. Secondly, inclusion should be taken as an end product or it could be set as a non- separated structure of early years’ education for the children. Thirdly, this term also emphasize on delivering the best of quality education to both the type of children without being biased and ensures that every children in the educational setting, is provided with equal attention, care and education. And last but not the least, inclusion in an extended meaning is focused more on societal norms and towards society with education as a standard pillar for developing a better societal structure (Barton, 1999). Responding to difference Inclusion recommends and is based on a culture of respect for each person or a child within the same educational structure. It is imperative to understand that an inclusive education structure appreciates and responds normally to all the different backgrounds. It takes diversity as a normal part of the society. It is more focused towards bringing the different cultures and communities and other social groups on a similar platform (Forest and Pearpoint, 1992). It is all about acknowledging and appreciating individuals without creating differences among the children. People who support inclusive educational structures or institutes believe that it provides a platform to all the children to communicate with each other, develop friendship with other children from different backgrounds and to ensure that all the children help each other in the process of learning and development through mutual co-operation (Hegarty, 1993). It has to be accepted that the expression of total inclusion is difficult and challenging. In other words, it would form a single system where all the resources would be available to facilitate all the children as well as system that holds all the basic components such as resources, experienced staff and other learning material that should be made available to all the children, no matter if they are physically challenged, blind or with any other difficulty (Lewis, 1995). Philosophically, there should not be any hindrances that may keep the children with special education needs away from acquiring the education in ordinary schools. We cannot ignore the fact that majority of inclusive schools help such children to study normally with other children regardless of their disabilities. On the other hand, it is also important for such schools to have a proper support in terms of managing their finances and funds for arranging resources, offering training to the teachers and maintaining the quality. Booth et al. (1997) also remind us that the basic concept behind inclusion is not limited to some particular group of children. This on broader scales denotes the means and mode of providing education to all the children. It is also worth-mentioning that these special educational needs are more focused on bringing the best of education to the children in their early years of development and learning (Ferguson and Asch 1989 cited in Ballard 1999). Armstrong (1999) highlights this point as a system that guarantees the right of education to all the children on the basis of equality and which helps them to contribute together in achieving their shared educational goals under the same environment regardless of any basis or factors that could discrimination among the groups. However, it will take time in its implementation in upcoming years but it will help in improving the quality of education, removing the obstacles and providing the education to all the young children without creating any differences (Dyson, 2002). It is hard to change the policies, the behaviors and systems however it is not hard to support a system similar to inclusive education which are aimed to promote better education to all the children regardless of any discrimination to build a better society for future Conclusions It has been concluded that majority of schools are focused towards the real practice of inclusion but its implementation is more similar to integration as discussed earlier. The approach developed for evaluating special needs through testing can be limited or it could be a narrow one and it would fail in addressing the problems related to need when looking at it from an individual’s perspective. Secondly we cannot ignore the chances of criticism that it would encounter that students would be given an extra but out of the way support which could help them to equalize in studies with other students. It is highly imperative to build a high level of improved co-operation between the staff Extra time should be avoided in writing E.Ps which means a little value to the teachers. It depends on the mutual co-operation between the staff members that how an effective E.P can be developed for teachers. We cannot ignore the fact that there is a need to develop an effective leadership and support for such children which would grant them easy access and help them in their part of struggle. The leadership needs to take effective steps that would help them to get the policy of inclusion accepted as well as they should be able to show others how to achieve their goals in this process to provide better special educational need to the children. These are some concerns where schools could expand their methodology to introduce the policy required to fulfill the special needs to become more inclusive. However on the other hand, as according to Dyson in the British Journal of Special Education (2001) that the discussion and argument on inclusion actually have emphasized on the inclusion of marginalized groups those who suffer from economic depression and a lower quality of life and that could raise some serious concerns in the society for them which would result in “integration” as a only solution in the process of fulfilling the special need of education in the long run. List of References Austin R, Abbott L Mulkeen and A Metcalfe (2003). The Global Classroom; collaboration and cultural awareness in the north and south of Ireland. University of Ulster/NUI Maynooth Clark C, A Dyson and Millward A (1998). Theorising Special Education, London Routledge. Craft A, (2000) Continuing Professional Practice; a practical guide for teachers and schools RoutledgeFalmer. DENI Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs 1996 DENI 1989 the Education Reform (United Kingdom) Order DES Circular to Boards of Management and Principal Teachers of National Schools Allocation of Resources for Pupils with Special Educational Needs in National Schools 2003 DFEE 1997 The Green Paper Excellence for all Children Dyson A. (2001) “Special needs in the twenty-first century: where we’ve been and where we’re going.” British Journal of Special Education Vol 29, No1. Dyson & Millward. (2000). Issues of Innovation and Inclusion London. Paul Chapman Publishing. HMSO 1995 The Disability Discrimination Act HMSO 1996 The Children’s Evidence Order Joyce B & Showers B (1999). “Improving in-service training; the messages of research.” Educational Leadership 37 (5), 379-85. Moran, A and Abbott L (2001). Developing Inclusive Schools. University of Ulster Tilstone C. Lacey, P. Porter J and Robertson C. (2000) Pupils with Learning Difficulties in Mainstream Schools. David Fulton Publishers. UNESCO 1994 The Salamanca Statement. Warnock Committee, 1978 The Warnock Report. Wearmouth J. (2001). Special Educational Provision in the Context of Inclusion. London: David Fulton. Read More