Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress
International
Special Education Conference
Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity?
1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland
about the conference
programme
registration
accommodation
contact
|
Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland |
home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact |
Prof Helen Phtiaka
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
helen@ucy.ac.cy
Introduction
The concept of integration of children with special needs is part of a broader human rights model which supports the view that any kind of segregation is ethically wrong (Avraamidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000a). Integration was seen as an ethical issue involving personal rights and any society’s will to recognize these rights in an effective way. However , integration was initiated in a climate of superstitions and stereotypes against disability ( Perrenoud, 1997 in Zoniou-Sideri, 2000). In fact, it was initiated in societies which could not even bear disability aesthetically , in educational systems which formed their services according to the market ’ s needs and which were characterized by individualization , antagonism , inequality and failure, not only for disabled students but also for all those children who deviated even a little from its rules.
While integration was the main issue on the agenda when the international community discussed about disabled people ’ s right to an appropriate education around the end of the eighties, the concept of inclusion captured the field during the nineties (Vislie, 2003). Arguably, integration failed to produce the required effect of offering children with and without special needs equal educational opportunities (Phtiaka, 2002a). Although now the terms integration and inclusion may still be used simultaneously and alternatively, they do not mean the same. “Inclusion” has replaced “integration” in the dictionary of those who are concerned with disabled people on the basis of human rights ( Avramidis & Norwich , 2002; Phtiaka, 2002a). Moreover, the term inclusion has lately taken a broader social and political meaning , with the support for the principle of inclusion of all children in their neighborhood mainstream school (Croll & Moses, 2000). The implementation of this principle depends primarily upon a radical change of the mainstream school system (Croll & Moses, 2000). Under this perspective, inclusion is connected to equality as a social value in all sectors of social disadvantage, oppression and discriminations (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Barton (2000) argues that the meaning of inclusion captures issues of social justice, equality, human rights and abolishment of all forms of discrimination.
In the Republic of Cyprus , the educational system is at the stage of integration of disabled students in the mainstream schools after nearly twenty years of experimental and six years of institutionalized integration . However, within the framework of the current legislation on integration [ Law 113( I )/99], there is still the possibility for the running of special schools for children who are considered “exceptional” (Charalambous, 2004), in contrast with the philosophy of inclusion, where the one and only school will reassure equal opportunities for each child independently from his/her innate capabilities (Padeliadou, Kotoulas & Dardiotis, 1996). The above facts , in combination with the various practical problems have occurred , impose the need for fast changes so that integration does not fail. A second failure will have important consequences for the future of the practice and policy of special education in Cyprus ( Phtiaka , 2002).
The success of inclusion depends on the attitude of the people involved in its implementation. Teachers’ and head teachers’ attitudes are a determining factor in the success of disabled students’ inclusion in the mainstream school (Norwich 1994; Padeliadu & Lamproboulou, 1997). It seems that disabled students difficulties arise from the teachers’ negative attitudes (Lampropoulou, 1997). Other researchers mention that although teachers may agree on a theoretical level with inclusion, they have negative attitudes as far as its implementation is concerned (Cool, Semmel & Gerber, 1999). Teachers’ negative attitudes towards disability lead to low expectations from their students which result to decreased learning opportunities and low academic performance (Carrington & Brownlee, 2001). According to Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad, Slusher, & Saumell (1996) teachers who have no direct experience with integration , have very negative attitudes whereas those with more experience with disabled people adopt more positive attitudes towards integration (Avramidis and Norwich, 2002).
Another group which influences the success of inclusion is peers. It is a fact that disabled students’ peers’ attitudes as far as inclusion in mainstream settings is concerned influence their behaviour, acceptance and their successful social inclusion ( Norwich , 1994; Nikolaraizi & de Reybekiel, 2001). Vlachou (1997) reports that non disabled students separate people into two categories, the “normal” and the “disabled”. Studies concerning these attitudes have revealed controversial results. Peer acceptance is influenced by the kind of disability; the more severe and prominent the disability, the less the acceptance of the child ( Lewis, 1995; Nikolaraizi & de Reybekiel, 2001). In addition, younger children seem to be more willing to interact with their disabled peers whereas older children prefer the company of non disabled students (Kourea & Phtiaka, 2003), although other researches found that negative attitudes may be formed at an early age (Favazza & Odom, 1997 in Nikolaraizi & de Reybekiel, 2001). Other studies revealed that peer feelings towards disabled students are mostly pity or fear (Kyle & Davies, 1991; Pthiaka, Palmyri, Konstantinidis, Dorati, Katsampa & Nikodemou, 2004). Lipksy–Kerzner & Gartner (1997) found that non disabled students had negative attitudes towards disabled people but after the integration of disabled students in their school, they developed positive attitudes.
This paper refers to two independent studies conducted in three schools in Cyprus aiming at exploring the attitudes of the two groups mentioned above.
Study 1
The study was conducted between February and April 2004 in a secondary school in Nicosia and aimed to investigate teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards the special students with special needs of the school. The main purpose of examining those two groups’ views was to investigate which were their attitudes and whether the teachers’ attitudes influenced those of the students. Specifically, the research questions were the following:
In the school there is one boy with Down syndrome studying in the first grade, one third grade boy with one side paralysis and one girl with hearing impairment also in the third grade, who has a cochlea implant resulting to 20% hearing loss.
The study used a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodology, with questionnaires, interviews and observation. Student attitudes were examined using semi-structured interviews, a questionnaire and observation in the classroom and during breaks. Teachers were also given a questionnaire (74 students and 16 teachers) with open-ended questions and their views were also collected through interviews (13 students and 4 teachers).
The data from the questionnaires was analyzed using the statistical program SPSS for descriptive statistics. Students’ answers in each question were encoded and grouped in the following three groups: (a) human rights model (e.g. “we are equals”, “we have equal rights”), (b) charity model (e.g. “I feel sorry for them”, “they need love”, “they are different”), (c) combination model (e.g. “they are humans like us and they need care”).
Teachers’ attitudes
Seven out of the sixteen school teachers believed that students with special needs should be educated in the mainstream classroom (mainstream school) whereas seven other believed that they should be educated in the mainstream school but in a special class. One teacher stated that those children’s place in the school system is in special schools and another teacher sees a combination of the first two options. Those teachers gave their views based on the arguments of socialization, special class’s benefits, negligence of students’ needs in the mainstream giving answers such us the following:
“In the mainstream school they are better socialized and they don’t feel the rejection of society. They feel parts of the whole, like the rest of the children.”
“ With the prerequisite that mainstream school includes in its design all children’s needs, then the mainstream classroom favours the development of all children.”
It is worth mentioning the case of one teacher, who believes in integration, but uses terminology that refers to the charity model: “Children, either with special needs or normal, develop feelings, they learn to love and to accept love.”
The arguments of teachers believing that students with special needs should attend a special class inside the mainstream school are based on the supposed benefits of a special classroom. However, W ade and Moore (1994) point that students attending special classes are isolated from their peers, something that was also revealed in Study 2, which will be presented later in this paper. In the present study, those teachers believe that “most of the lessons [in the mainstream classroom] don’t offer them anything”, or that in the special class “the student will have lessons that please him”, “they should attend the mainstream school so that they are not isolated and the special classroom in order to be handled more correctly and be provided with more help and attention”, “because they will be totally integrated in the whole (they will not feel isolated) and they will be in a classroom where they will progress and they might feel more self-confident.”
The teachers’ misunderstanding about students’ with special needs socialization is obvious; the moment these students attend a special classroom in the mainstream school, they will be stigmatized and labeled and this will become an obstacle to their socialization. Another teacher believes that students with special needs must be educated in special schools:
“At least on a first level, until teachers are trained; in the mainstream classroom their needs are probably neglected and usually the teachers don’t have the knowledge or the appropriate training in order to face those children’s specialties. This way , instead of helping them , they might harm them .”
Vlachou (1998) reports similar teacher beliefs.
Teachers’ answers varied concerning their readiness to respond to the needs of a student with special needs in their classroom; half of them answered positively and almost half felt uncertain (“I do not know”). The paradox in this case is that 6 out of the 10 teachers who have a student with special needs in their classroom feel uncertain whereas 3 out of 4 teachers who do not, answered positively, arguing:
“I shall treat that child as any other child in the class and with constant information from the « special teacher », I can face his/her needs.”
“During the last years I had students with special needs and I could respond to their needs , since , my personal interest pushed me towards training, following the recent literature and developments, I have more than ten years experience, which makes me ideologically positioned in the issue of integration and rights.”
It seems that when the teacher believes in the positive outcomes of the student ’ s with special needs placement in the mainstream classroom, then the possibilities for integration to succeed and for him/her to become accepted from his/her peers, are increased ( Panteliadou , 1995).
The teachers who felt uncertain about their readiness to teach students with special needs believe that they need more information and training and that it depends from case to case whether they can respond to the students’ needs or not.
Almost all teachers disagree with the statement that “a student’s with special needs integration in the mainstream class might have negative consequences on the other students’ learning”, in contrast with the teachers in Study 2. Three teachers believed that sometimes, the negative outcomes are for the disabled student as he/she is neglected by his/her teachers as their priority is the other children. Vlachou (1997) reports similar statements in her research. Other teachers, although they disagreed with the above statement, used segregating terminology (“normal students”, “they have to live in our world”).
Most teachers (62%) believe that other students treat their disabled peers the same as their other peers, whereas only 38% claims that they are isolated, which seems to be what actually happens in reality, according to the observation data. Also, half of the teachers view that disabled students have more non-disabled friends than disabled whereas 28% claims the opposite. Some teachers of the first group based their answers on the charity model, such as “I believe that they hug with love those children, they help and protect them.” Statements like that might promote the development of similar attitudes on behalf of the students, and particularly of “parental attitudes” and not feelings of true friendship ( Shevlin & O ’ Moore, 2000). The above findings confirm Vlachou’s (1998) belief that a lot of effort is still needed in order to overcome the “caring” and “protection” myth on which segregation policy is based.
Students
Students’ answers referring to the charity model include phrases such as: they are innocent, harmless, or disgusting, helpless people, unhappy, sick, weird, introvert, lonely, they have a problem, they need help/care/love/affection, they are children with special abilities. On the other hand, students’ answers within the framework of the human rights model include the following phrases: “they have the same rights as we do, we are the same, we are equals, no one is perfect, we don’t have differences”.
Almost all students seem to believe that we must be friends with people with special needs, although the observation and the interviews showed that the above are mostly “empty” words. This is obvious if one looks at the students’ explanations. Less than one third of the students’ answers refers to the human rights model (30%), one third to the charity model (35%) and one third (35%) to the combination model, which shows their confusion. Charity model answers in this question were like the following: “[We must be friends with people with special needs] so that they feel that we love them. If we reject them, they will feel bad and we will harm their psychological health”, “because one day they might have something and we must take care of them”, “ because they need to feel like normal people , to be near all these that normal people live, and above all, they need to be happy.” Students who gave answers that refer to the human rights model stated: “Because they are humans too, and they have equal rights,”, “because none is below the others, we are all equals.” Students believing we must not be friends with people with special needs, explained that “ I don’t find it normal, I don’t have anything with sick children but I feel that we belong to different worlds”, “ I don ’ t know why I believe that I can’t be with them, probably because I could not speak to them and get them to understand me”, “because they don’t understand anything nor can they do anything.” Another group of students gave a combination model answer, such as “It doesn’t matter if they have a problem, because they also have a place in this world. They are like us , so we must help them and take care of them in every way ”, “ they are like us , they are just a little bit sick .” , “they are children too, and it doesn’t matter if they are a little weird, they could also play some games with us ”. These answers indicate that while students consider children with special needs as equals, with equal rights, they also have formed in their minds the picture of a sick, weird child, with deficits which we -the real people- must help to feel like us.
Almost all students know that there are students with special needsin their school. Moreover, 38% of the students said that they have friends with special needs, while the rest answered negatively. Those who have friends with special needs, stated that “We must help them and be with them” or “They are adorable and they become easily our friends” or even that “They have good manners and they are good friends” (charity model). Other students who have friends with special needs, have different views, such as “I don’t make discriminations and I feel them the same as my other friends.”, “I don’t differentiate my friends in these matters; none is perfect”, “We don’t have differences setting us apart but on the contrary, we have more things in commons.” The last students, giving answers categorized in the human rights model, seem to be ready to accept people with special needs, ignoring the label “special needs” that society has imposed, and their arguments with contrast those of the students in the charity model; they ignore their peers “problem” whereas the others focus on that, and they talk about their commonalities while the others concentrate on differences.
In the last question, student’s answers were mostly located in the charity model or the combination answer and only 23% percent gave answer that could be placed in the human rights model. Those students believe that people with special needs are “Humans like all of us, we have nothing more than them and they have nothing more than us”. Charity model answers (51%) were further categorized in the following sub-categories:
- “Idealization” (18%): “the best children I have ever met”, “cute, good-hearted, children that you easily feel for”, “good friends and the most innocent people in the world”, “I believe that we have no difference, but on the contrary, they are more polite and more reasonable than us.” The characterization “ more reasonable” contrasts with other students’ views who believe that children with special needs “ just can ’ t think rationally” or “ they have a problem in their mind ”, as children in Lewis’ research claim: children with special needs were different because « they had something wrong with their brains » ( 1995, p. 105).
Other students gave a combination answer (19%) and others gave unclear answers, with statements like “I believe that they are children too so if I had a friend with special needs I would help him/her”. Thus, it seems that only one fifth of the students have developed an acceptable attitude towards his/her peers with special needs, whereas half of the students have a charity attitude.
Most of the younger students say that they are friends with their peers with special needs. Second and third grade students mostly answered that they help them when they ask for help or they have nothing to do with then . The above results support the view that the younger the students are, the more they tend to answer what is the ideal thing to do rather than what they do in reality , as observation contradicts this high percentage of the answer “we make friends with them” of the first graders. It was expected that students of the third grade would keep more company with their peers with special needs, because there are two of them in the third grade whereas in the first grade there is only one. This can be explained by the fact that the child with the cochlea implant is not considered child with special needsby her peers and thus, they did not think of her when answering the questionnaire. Whereas, the other two students with special needshave prominent characteristics, a fact that leads to more negative attitudes ( Lewis, 1995).
Another related finding is that almost none of the younger students avoids people with special needs, whereas the older students had the more negatives attitudes as 31% of them answered that they avoid them because they are afraid of them, they disgust them or they are embarrassed. However, the observation revealed that students with special needs do not have as many friends as the other students say, especially the younger. So older students may simply be answering more honestly than first graders. Moreover, whereas third graders had the highest percentage in the human rights model in most of the questions, in others, they seem to differentiate themselves from people with special needsin a negative manner, in contrast with the charity attitudes of the younger children.
Most cases of idealization of the special needs condition were found among first and second graders (27% and 33% respectively) whereas third graders gave answers of charity model (18% “they have a problem” and 28% “they need help/love”). In these last questions, students’ answers within the human rights model were not influenced by the students’ age.
Study 2
This qualitative study was held out to examine the attitudes of principals, teachers and pupils about the integration of children with special needs into mainstream schools. Moreover, it explored if and to what extent, attitudes of principals and teachers influence those of pupils.
For the purposes of the specific research, a case study took place in two primary schools of Limassol, during the period October – November of 2004.
The data collection involved interviews of principals, teachers, and pupils with and without special needs, as well as by non participant observation. The observations were divided in three parts: during the lesson time in classes where the pupils with specials needs were integrated, during the support period given by special teacher to the pupil with special needs and finally in the break time.
The two schools had 31 classes. The children with special needs attended 16 out of the 31 classes. Totally, in both schools, there were 23 children who where assessed by the County Committee of Special Education as children with special needs. Support was given to 22 pupils either by special teacher or speech therapist. The mother of one child had refused support. Under these circumstances , the research focused on those 22 children . For each class , 15 overall , in which a child with special needs belongs , the teacher and 4 students (2 boys and 2 girls) were interviewed. Moreover, interviews were conducted with principals and special teachers who supported children with special needs attending mainstream classrooms.
Totally, the sample consisted of 3 principals (2 female and 1 male ), 3 special teachers (2 female and 1 male ) , 15 teachers (13 women and 2 men) and 60 pupils (30 boys and 30 girls). In these 60 pupils , there were included 7 children with special needs. All names used are pseudonyms for anonymity purposes.
Before the presentation of the results, the disabilities of children must be mentioned. In the first school there were 11 children with Learning Difficulties (8 boys and 3 girls), 1 boy with Mental Retardation combined with Hyperactivity and Epilepsy and 1 girl with Cerebral Palsy and Mobility Difficulties. All children were fully integrated into mainstream classes. Contrary to this, a special unit operated in the second school. The unit contained six children. From these, one boy with vision problems attended kindergarten, a girl with Down Syndrome studied partly at third level mainstream classroom, another girl with Mental Retardation attended a fourth grade classroom, a girl with Cerebral Palsy combined with Mental Retardation participated in a fifth grade class and finally a boy and a girl with Down Syndrome attended a fifth level class. In that school there were also 3 children with Learning Disabilities (2 boys and 1 girl) and 1 Hyperactive girl. These four children were fully integrated in mainstream classes.
The following questions were set :
Results
The matter which needs to be pointed out initially is that there is a variety of opinions concerning the definition of integration. Some of the teachers and two principals believe that “integration means the seating of children with special needs into mainstream schools”. In the same way, some others add the social aspect of the integration “integration is the seating of children with special needs into mainstream classes for socialization purposes”. There was also an opinion expressed by three mainstream teachers. For them, “integration means the seating of children with special needs in special units of the mainstream schools and attending mainstream classrooms only for few lessons just for socialization purposes”. This definition contains a paradox of how integration can be promoted by segregated education . Barton and Tomlinson (1984) ( in Vlachou , 1998) assert that under these circumstances , a “ special ” protective educational environment is offered, an environment which has no commonalities with the challenges and the complexities of a usual one.
According to the principals the issues which contribute to the success of the institution are: “the teachers’ training, the suitable treatment on the part of the educators as well as the acceptance of children with special needs from their peers”. Likewise, Bailey & Plessis (1997) in their own research, found out that the two important things for a good implementation of integration in principals’ point of view is the staff, material, building resources and educators’ training. Despite the educators’ training, special teachers claim that “the existence of more proper criteria and the conduction of more suitable evaluation can lead to a more effective implementation of the institution”. As they argued “there are some types of disabilities which cannot be integrated into mainstream schools because they can not benefit from mainstream education”. This finding is in absolute agreement with the Vaughn et al (1996) study . According to them, special teachers are worried how the mainstream school is going to fulfill the needs of children with special educational needs. Similarly, mainstream teachers face their training and the acceptance of children with special needs by their peers and themselves as essential factors for the success of the institution. Additionally , two teachers underline that “ the appropriate building and technical equipment which support the children, are crucial for the effectiveness of the integration”.
Another important result is that principals and teachers did not perceive the term “ special needs” in the same manner. Most of them considered that children with special needs are those ones with disabilities ( mentally and physically ) , while one teacher believed that learning disabilities are also placed among special needs. It must be pointed out that according to the Law 113(1)/99 – article 2 (1), child with special needs is that one with profound “severe learning or special learning, functional or adjustment difficulties, which are caused by physically or mental or cognitive inadequacies”. Some of the teachers, who did not include learning difficulties in the category of special needs, claimed that:
“Children with learning difficulties should not be placed in special education, because on the basis of my previous experience, they managed to correspond on the class level. Indeed, in some cases I had pupils with learning difficulties who were very good students”
(Mary, mainstream teacher)
The above findings are in contrast with the structures of the Law 113(1)/99 which state that a child has “learning, specific learning, functional or adjustment difficulty, if it has considerably bigger learning or adjustable difficulty beside to the majority of its peers” (article 2). It is noted that the diagnosis of learning difficulties is problematic, while it is possible, in the same class, children who have similar cognitive difficulties, some of them to belong to the special education and some others not.
There is no official training or in-service education for the educators, except for the special teachers who are informed on integration issues in a better organized way. A brief information note was sent to principals and mainstream teachers by the Ministry of Education in the form of a curricular. In addition to this , there are also some teachers (3 in total ) who participated in seminars about integration with their own initiative. It seems by the declarations of the educators that the absence of knowledge and appropriate provision constitute an obstacle for the effective handling of children with special or learning needs.
Furthermore, there is a belief that children with severe impairments, because of their personal weakness (personal tragedy theory - Barnes, 1994), cannot attend their neighbourhood school. In optimum conditions, they can study in special units, which are located in mainstream schools. Of course, there are some teachers who adopt even more dividing trends and argue that not only they cannot participate in the neighbourhood school, but they have to attend institutions, where there is appropriate staff and provision. Although the law states that children with special needs can attend their neighbourhood school, however, according to principals and teachers the mainstream school can not fulfill this role. Writing for the Cypriot context Symeonidou (2002) has argued that individuals with disabilities are faced by prejudice and are considered second class citizens. Therefore, there is a dominant perception in Cyprus: persons with disabilities must have a distinctive type of education and treatment.
Principals and educators have negative views about the integration of children with severe impairments in mainstream schools , as they do not believe they can benefit from mainstream educational practice. It can be said that principals’ and teachers’ attitudes are influenced by the nature and severity of impairment, a finding which agrees with the results of Study 1. This finding comes also to compliment the research of Center, Ward, Parmenter & Nash (1985).
Another important finding is the notion of principals and teachers, according to which children with special needs , except for those with learning disabilities , cannot participate in lessons carried out in mainstream classes since they find it difficult to match the level of the class.
Concerning the question “ Do you think a teacher can satisfy the needs of all pupils in the class, despite the fact that some of them have disabilities?” almost all participants declared this to be impossible. They believe a teacher cannot teach children with special needs without specific knowledge and training. “ The huge number of pupils in each class” was another point mentioned , which operates negatively for the time allocated to a child with special needs integrated in a mainstream class. They denote: “ We are not going to drop the 24 [ children ] and deal with the child with special needs”. Additionally, some mainstream teachers (8 out of 15) and principals (2 out of 3), all coming from schools where special units operate, argue that the existence of a child with special needs impede the learning of their peers. The opinion of the other teachers and principal is that this is not true. Special teachers, hold a via media: some kinds of disability such as hyperactivity and behavioural problems affect the learning outcomes of pupils without special needs, while others like cerebral palsy and mental retardation do not.
Proceeding with the results of the research , it seems that schools have two different practices for the evaluation of children with special needs integrated in mainstream classes . Pupils with learning disabilities are evaluated in the same way as all the other students, while children with physical or mental disabilities do not get any evaluation at all. It is argued that the Ministry of Education does not support the educators, since it does not provide material and guidelines which help with the practical treatment of pupils with special needs according to disability.
Furthermore , a major difference emerged from the data of the two schools. In the school with the special unit, principals did not support teachers’ job, but in the second one the principal “is very supportive and helpful”. This fact in combination with the absence of a special unit from the school, perhaps make the attitudes of principal, teachers and pupils more positive. In their study Soodak, Podell & Lehman (1998) found that teachers are more willing to integrate and meet students with special needsin their classroom when they feel that the school principal has a supportive role and the school culture promotes cooperation and collectivity.
Regarding peer attitudes , one third of the pupils declared that they have friends with special needs (20 of 60 participants ). In most cases, they have built friendships with children with learning disabilities rather than other kinds of disability . However, there are also some pupils who develop interpersonal relations with children with mental retardation and cerebral palsy . Observation showed that out of 20 pupils who had declared so, only 14 had relations with children with special needs.
Nevertheless , the above finding does not apply to the pupils of the special unit. These children experience loneliness and marginalization . Kourea and Phtiaka (2003) mention that younger pupils (4-7 years old ) are willing to accept their peers with special needs , while older pupils prefer other classmates .
In total , it appears that peers accept children with learning disabilities more easily than those with other disabilities. In the school without a special unit, children with special needs were more accepted and had developed better interpersonal relationships with their peers. It is noticeable that peer attitudes become more negative with the increase of age.
One factor which prevents company with the children of the special unit is that, “Pupils with disabilities stay at their class with their escorts at break time”. This raises serious questions for the role of the escort in mainstream schools. Some pupils did not like to have any relation with people with special needs because they caused them feelings of disgust. In the best of cases pupils have relationships with the special unit children because they take pity on them as they are alone and have no one else to play with. In most cases , peers are possessed by feelings of mercy for children with special needs.
46 out of 60 pupils , define children with special needs as children who have some health problems or sickness :
“…are the individuals who are not healthy in their mind. Because of this problem , they might bother you… ”
( Aigli , 10 years old )
“ Persons with special needs are some children who face health problems. When I hear about them, I feel pity because they are not like us. They can not make things in the same way with us”
(Anna, 10 years old)
As a result , they believe that children with special needs need money in order to be cured . On the basis of this thought , they justify the existence of charity activities for children with special needs such as the Radio-Marathon, the biggest fund-raising campaign in Cyprus . Phtiaka (1999) underlies that Radio-Marathon serves specific interests , while the unions of disabled people have not been allowed to participate in the organization of the event , despite repeated attempts . In addition to this, Phtiaka et al (2004) notify that :
“ We must be concerned by the fact that at a time when the charity model has internationally been substituted by the human rights model , in Cyprus it remains the main mode of thinking regarding persons with special needs”
Another important finding is that children with learning disabilities are not considered children with special needs by their peers, in contrast with children with prominent impairments who comprise their definition of what children with special needs are.
Moreover, children with special needs are stigmatized by their social environment which marginalizes and depreciates them. Even more , sometimes it uses them as scapegoats . It seems that such reaction by peers, and in many cases by educators, is the rule for the treatment of disabled children.
It has been shown that the attitudes and the notions of the pupils reflect the attitudes and the perceptions of principals and teachers. More specifically, all participants (principals, teachers, pupils) believe that children with learning disabilities are not children with special needs. Furthermore, the negative attitudes held by principals and teachers are transferred to the pupils, who avoid any kind of interpersonal relations with children with special needs. Another important correlation is the feelings possessed by principals, teachers and children. Most teachers are of the opinion that children with special needs cannot gain from mainstream education and perceive the existence of a child with special needs as an unfortunate event. Some teacher s even declare that they feel sorry for these children . In their turn children without special needs look at their peers with special needs with pity , because they are born with a problem , a sickness , fact that leaves them out in the cold.
Discussion
Quicke (1985, quoted in Vlachou , 1997) points out that children’s opinions reflect those of the culture in which they live and Lewis (1995) mentions that teachers often transfer unsuitable expectations for students with special needs to their peers. The results of the two studies support the above statements. Teachers in two of the three schools are negative towards integration of children with special needs in the mainstream school, although they seem to appreciate its necessity and usefulness. Moreover, teachers ’ attitudes are influenced by the kind and the severity of the students’ disability, variables which refer more to the child rather than them (Avramidis and Norwich, 2002; Vlachou, 1997). Almost all participants in the research ( teachers , head teachers , pupils ) do not consider students with leaning difficulties as persons with special needs. Moreover, the negative attitudes of the teachers are transferred to the students who avoid having interpersonal relations with their peers with special needs.
In addition, most of the primary school students as well as some secondary school students believe that children with special needs have a problem in/with their minds or that they are sick and they need others to take care of them. It seems that oppressive notions about people with special needs are transferred within the school environment not only by the teachers but also by the students (Padeliadou, 1995) as Cyprus society considers people with special needs as individuals who need to be “taken care of” and “loved” by others (Symenonidou, 2002). The predominance of the charity model in peers’ attitudes is due to charity activities such as the Radio-Marathon, described above (Phtiaka, 2002a) which society accepts and supports.
Most teachers in primary and secondary school state that training and in-service education on how to teach students with special needs is an important factor for integration’s success. Very few teachers feel ready to teach those students and this lack of knowledge as well as lack of appropriate resources and support in the mainstream school is a fact that concerns not only these teachers but also the parents of students with special needs ( Leyser & Kirk, 2004; Wong, Pearson, Ip & Lo, 1999).
According to the findings in the above research there is an obvious need for urgent change of the negative and charity attitudes of students without special needs towards their peers with special needs . Charity approaches to disability create a status of superiority against people with special needs ( Vlachou , 1997; Phtiaka , 1999) and impede integration’s success. Society must recognize everyone’s right t o be different and this mentality can be achieved by systematic intervention (Lampropoulou, 1997). Teachers’ role here is crucial, as it is their obligation to teach their students to respect multiplicity in humans and to recognize that all children have potential (Raschke & Bronson, 1999). Thu s , teachers must accept students with special needs, have expectations for them and continuously search for improvement of their instruction so as to respond to all children’s needs (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997). Concluding, teachers are the voice of change and the most crucial factor for integration to succeed (Panteliadou, et al, 1996).
References
Avraamidis, E., Bayliss, P. & Burden, R. (2000a). A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in one Local Education Authority. Educational Psychology, 20 (2), 191-211.
Barnes, C. (1994). ). Institutional discrimination, disabled people and interprofessional care. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 8 (2), 203-212.
Barton , L . (2000). Η πολιτική της inclusion , στο Ζώνιου - Σιδέρη A. (2000) ( επιμ .) Ένταξη : Ουτοπία ή Πραγματικότητα ; Η εκπαιδευτική και πολιτική διάσταση της ένταξης μαθητών με ειδικές ανάγκες, Αθήνα: Ελληνικά Γράμματα. [ The policy of Inclusion. In Zoniou-Sideri, A., Integration: Utopia or Reality? The educational and political dimension of students with special needs integration. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.]
Carrington, S. & Brownlee, J. (2001). Preparing teachers to support inclusion: the benefits of interaction between a group of preservice teachers and a teaching assistant who is disabled. Teaching Education, 12 (3), 347-357.
Center, Y., Ward, J., Paramenter, T. & Nash, R. (1985). Principals attitudes toward the integration of disabled children into regular schools. The Exceptional Child, 32 (3), 149-161.
Charalambous, D. (2004). Children with Special Needs Law 113( Ι )/1999: Its implementation in the Primary Education. In Gagatsis, A. Evaggelidou, A., Phtiaka, H., Kyriakides, L., Tsaggaridou, N. & Koutsoulis, M. (eds) Current Trends in Educational Research and Practice. Readings of the 8 th Pancyprian Conference of Cyprus Pedagogical Company. University of Cyprus, Nicosia, 7 – 8, May 2004, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Cool, B., Semmel, M. & Gerber, M. (1999). Attitudes of principals and special education teachers toward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special Education Journal, 20 (4), 199-207.
Croll, P. & Moses, D. (2000). Ideologies and utopias: education professionals’ views of inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education , 15 (1), 1–12.
Kourea , L . & Phtiaka, E. (2003). Students without specila needs attitudes towards their peers with special needs, integrated in the mainstream school. Nea Paideia, 107, 133 – 146.
Kyle, C. & Davies, K. (1991). Attitudes of mainstream pupils towards mental retardation: pilot study at a Leeds Secondary School. British Journal of Special ducation , 18 (3) , 103 – 106.
Lampropoulou , B . (1997). The views and experiences of deaf students from their attendance in special and mainstream schools. Sygxroni Ekpaideusi, 93, 60-69.
Leyser, Y. & Kirk, L. (2004). Evaluating Inclusion: an examination of parent views and factors influencing their perspectives. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51 (3), 271-285.
Lewis, A. (1995). Children’s understanding of disability. London, Routledge.
Lipsky – Kerzner, D. & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and School Reform. Transforming America’s Classrooms. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Nikolaraizi, M. & De Reybekiel, N. (2001). A comparative study of children’s attitudes towards deaf children, children in wheelchairs and blind children in Greece and in the UK. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 16 (2), 167-182.
Norwich, B. (1994). The relationship between attitudes to the integration of children with special educational needs and wider socio-political views: a US-English comparison. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9, 91-106.
Padeliadou, S., Kotoulas, B. & Dardiotis, K. (1996). Confirmations and results from the practical exercise in the framework of the course “Introduction in Special Education” of students of P.D.P.E. of Aristoteleio University of Thesaloniki. Sygxroni Ekpaideusi , 90/91 , 88-89.
Padeliadu, S. & Lamproboulou, V. (1997). Attitudes of special and regular education teachers towards school integration. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 12 (3), 173-183.
Phtiaka, H. (1999). Disability, human rights and education in Cyprus. In J. Armstrong and L. Barton (Eds), Disability, Human Rights and Education (pp. 176-192). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Phtiaka , Η . ( 2002a ). “ Is the Radiomarathon the model for the past, the present and future of special education in Cyprus?” Presentation in Seminar, 16th November 2002, Nicosia, University of Cyprus.
Phtiaka , H . (2002). “ How did we do it?” The first year of integration in Cyprus. In Gagatsis, A. Tsagaridou, N., Phtiaka, H. & Koutsoulis, M. (eds). Educational Research in the era of Globalisation. Readings of the 7 th Pancyprian Conference of Cyprus Pedagogical Company. University of Cyprus, Nicosia, April 2002, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Phtiaka, H. Palmyri, N., Constantinides, G., Dorati, M., Katsamba, P. & Nicodemou, T. (2004). Children with special needs and us...: Mainstream pupils attitudes towards their peers with special needs. In Gagatsis, A. Evaggelidou, A., Phtiaka, H., Kyriakides, L., Tsaggaridou, N. & Koutsoulis, M. (eds) Current Trends in Educational Research and Practice. Readings of the 8 th Pancyprian Conference of Cyprus Pedagogical Company. University of Cyprus, Nicosia, 7 – 8 May 2004, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Rasche, D. & Bronson, J. (1999). Creative Educators at Work: All Children Including Those With Disabilities Can play Traditional Classroom Games, www.uni.edu/coe/inclusion/preparing/
Shevlin, M. & O ΄ Moore A.M. (2000). Fostering positive attitudes: reactions of mainstream pupils to contact with their counterparts who have severe / profound intellectual disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15 (2) , 206- 217.
Symeonidou, S. (2002). A critical consideration of current values on the education of disabled children. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6 (3) , 217- 229.
Vaughn, J.S., Schumm, J., Jallad, B., Slusher, J. & Saumell, L. (1996). Teachers’ views of inclusion. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 96-106.
Vislie, L. (2003). From Integration to Inclusion: focusing global trends and changes in the western European societies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18 (1) , 17-35.
Vlachou, A. (1997). Struggles for Inclusive Education. Open University Press: Buckingham, Philadelphia.
Vlachou, A. (1998). The pedagogy of integration as a development of special pedagogical thought and practice. Presentation in Cyprus Group of Special Education Conference, 9 May 1998, Univeristy of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Zoniou-Sideri , A . (2000). The necessity for integration: considerations and perspectives. In Zoniou-Sideri, A., Integration: Utopia or Reality? The educational and political dimension of students with special needs integration. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.]
Wong, D., Pearson, V., Ip, F. & Lo, E. (1999). A Slippery Road to Equality: Hong Kong’ s experience of unplanned integrated education, Disability & Society,14 (6), 771-789.
home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |