Zorgplicht in het buitenland

faculteit gedrags- en maatschappijwetenschappen

orthopedagogiek

Zorgplicht in het buitenland Dit onderzoek is uitgevoerd in opdracht van de evaluatie- en adviescommissie passend onderwijs Dr. L. Batstra Prof. dr. S.J. Pijl 1 augustus 2011

Zorgplicht in het buitenland › 2


Inhoudsopgave Inleiding Methode Bevindingen Discussie en conclusies Literatuur

5 8 11 17 24

Bijlagen

27

Bijlage 1: Casus Kevin en casus Tina

29

Bijlage 2: De landenrapporten

35

Austrian report Flemish report German Report Irish report Norwegian report Scottish report Swiss Report

37 47 59 67 75 83 95


Bijlagen› 5

Inleiding

Met het verschijnen van de beleidsplannen met betrekking tot Passend onderwijs is ook het thema ‘zorgplicht’ geïntroduceerd in het onderwijs. Zorgplicht is beschreven als een resultaatsverplichting voor schoolbesturen. De besturen moeten zorgen voor passend onderwijs voor alle leerlingen. Zorgplicht geldt voor alle leerlingen die op de school worden aangemeld of die al zijn ingeschreven. Als de school niet in staat is passend onderwijs te bieden, kan in overleg met de ouders verwijzing naar een andere school plaats vinden. Dat kan ook een school voor Speciaal Basis Onderwijs of een school voor (Voortgezet) Speciaal Onderwijs zijn (MinOCW, 2010). Een leerling kan niet worden uitgeschreven op een school, voordat er een andere school bereid gevonden is de leerling daadwerkelijk te plaatsen (MinOCW, 2011). Belangrijk is dat de betreffende leerling een passend onderwijsaanbod ontvangt en dat zou bij voorkeur moeten worden aangeboden op de door de ouders gekozen school. De termen zorgplicht, passend onderwijs en inclusief onderwijs hebben raakvlakken, maar zijn geen uitwisselbare termen. Bij inclusief onderwijs gaat het om het maximaliseren van de participatie van alle leerlingen in het regulier onderwijs en het verwijderen van fysieke, intellectuele en sociale barrières voor de deelname aan regulier onderwijs (Allen, 1999). Om die maximale participatie te realiseren moet uiteraard elke leerling passend onderwijs worden geboden. De Nederlandse invulling van passend onderwijs laat echter alle vormen van separaat speciaal onderwijs intact en onderscheidt zich daarmee nadrukkelijk van inclusief onderwijs. Zorgplicht is een opdracht aan schoolbesturen. De besturen moeten passend onderwijs bieden aan alle leerlingen ingeschreven op de school en dienen terughoudend om gaan met verwijzen. Dat past op zich heel goed in het streven naar inclusief onderwijs, maar gaat minder ver. In de praktijk zullen de grootste uitdagingen voor zorgplicht, passend onderwijs en inclusief onderwijs vooral aan de orde komen bij beslissingen over het onderwijs aan leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte. Dat kunnen leerlingen zijn met beperkingen, met gedragsproblemen, met een andere culturele achtergrond, maar ook hoogbegaafde leerlingen. Zo


bezien is de doelgroep voor zorgplicht, passend onderwijs en inclusief onderwijs precies dezelfde. In de beleidsdocumenten wordt zorgplicht gezien als een formele verantwoordelijkheid van schoolbesturen. Schoolbesturen kunnen natuurlijk niet zelf zorgen voor passend onderwijs en moeten de uitvoering van die taak delegeren aan de schooldirectie en het leerkrachten team. Voor die twee partijen maakt de zorgplicht nog eens extra duidelijk dat ze de verantwoordelijkheid hebben voor het onderwijs aanbod aan alle leerlingen van de school. Zorgplicht zou het overdragen van die verantwoordelijkheid aan een andere school of organisatie moeilijker kunnen maken, maar het blijft mogelijk. Onder het vigerende beleid is het voor reguliere scholen betrekkelijk eenvoudig om leerlingen te verwijzen (en geplaatst te krijgen) op scholen voor Speciaal Basis Onderwijs (SBO) of scholen voor Speciaal Onderwijs (SO). Hoe gemakkelijk dat is, is af te lezen aan het aantal leerlingen dat naar dat type scholen gaat en nog meer aan de groei van het percentage leerlingen op vooral SO-scholen (Smeets, 2007; Veen, Smeets & Derriks, 2010). Door leerlingen te verwijzen dragen de reguliere scholen de verantwoordelijkheid voor het onderwijs aan leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte over aan meer gespecialiseerde collega’s. Leerkrachten doen dat veelal in de overtuiging dat de betreffende leerling beter af is met plaatsing in een gespecialiseerde setting en denken in het belang van de andere leerlingen in de klas te handelen. Of de betreffende leerling op middellange termijn echt beter af is en of de andere leerlingen in de klas ook van die verwijzing profiteren, is nog maar de vraag. In internationaal onderzoek naar de mechanismen die segregatie van leerlingen in het onderwijs in stand houden, duikt het thema leerkracht verantwoordelijkheid steeds weer op. Fulcher (1989) beschrijft leerkrachten als de echte beleidsmakers: zodra de deur van de klas dicht gaat zijn hun beslissingen bepalend voor de gang van zaken in de klas. De conclusie verwoord in veel studies is dat in veel landen leerkrachten in het regulier onderwijs aarzelen de verantwoordelijkheid voor leerlingen met beperkingen / gedragsproblemen te accepteren (Vislie, 2003; Ferguson, 2008). Ook in landen met een lange geschiedenis in inclusief onderwijs zouden


leerkrachten het liefst de verantwoordelijkheid voor deze leerlingen overdragen aan een andere leerkracht binnen (intern begeleider, ambulant begeleider, remedial teacher, leerkracht assistent) of buiten de school. Het is voor een overheid niet zo moeilijk zorgplicht op te leggen aan schoolbesturen. Echter, dat betekent niet dat daarmee zorgplicht is ingevoerd. Schoolbesturen kunnen zorgplicht alleen realiseren als ze kunnen vertrouwen op een directie en een team van leerkrachten dat in staat is de verantwoordelijkheid voor het onderwijs aan (vrijwel) alle leerlingen op zich te nemen. Die directie en het schoolteam kunnen dat alleen wanneer volstrekt duidelijk is wat van ze verwacht wordt en wanneer ze voldoende voorbereid zijn op die taak. Geforceerde invoering van zorgplicht zal leiden tot het opzetten van allerlei noodverbanden in scholen, die suggereren dat alle leerlingen passend onderwijs krijgen (Pijl & Frissen, 2009). In de praktijk kunnen bijvoorbeeld leerlingen met beperkingen / gedragsproblemen een groot deel van de schooldag worden toevertrouwd aan een leerkracht assistent. Naar buiten lijkt de school de zorgplicht serieus te nemen, maar feitelijk zorgt de minst gekwalificeerde leerkracht dan voor de opvang van mogelijk de meest complexe leerlingen. Als zorgplicht uitlokt tot ‘window dressing’ heeft het zijn doel gemist. In Nederland is geen ervaring opgedaan met het opleggen van een zorgplicht aan schoolbesturen en het voorbereiden van directies en leerkrachten op die taak. In veel landen om ons heen wordt nagedacht over inclusief onderwijs en worden maatregelen getroffen om zoveel mogelijk leerlingen regulier onderwijs aan te bieden. In die ontwikkeling naar inclusief onderwijs kan een maatregel als het invoeren van zorgplicht van besturen een rol spelen. De vraag is of in andere landen ervaring is opgedaan met het invoeren van een zorgplicht en hoe dat er eventueel uitziet. Die onderzoeksvraag is door de Evaluatie- en adviescommissie Passend Onderwijs (ECPO) aanbesteed en als een kleine internationale studie door het Instituut voor Orthopedagogiek van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen uitgevoerd.


Methode

Om de ervaringen met het invoeren van een zorgplicht in andere landen te onderzoeken is door de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen een kleinschalig project opgezet. Het project bestond uit twee fasen. In de eerste fase zijn experts uit acht Europese landen benaderd voor medewerking aan het onderzoek. Er is gezocht naar experts die goed op de hoogte zijn van het beleid en de implementatie van inclusief onderwijs in hun land. Experts in de volgende acht landen waren bereid deel te nemen: België, Duitsland, Ierland, Oostenrijk, Noorwegen, Schotland, Zweden en Zwitserland. De bedoeling was landen te selecteren die wat betreft de organisatie en opzet van het onderwijs aan leerlingen met beperkingen / gedragsproblemen onderling varieerden. Ierland, Noorwegen, Schotland en Zweden leken verder gevorderd te zijn met invoering van inclusief onderwijs dan Nederland. België, Duitsland en Oostenrijk maken een met Nederland vergelijkbare ontwikkeling door en Zwitserland leek nog een omvangrijk systeem voor separaat speciaal onderwijs te hebben. Een tweede overweging was dat de onderzoekers experts in die landen kenden die in staat waren een zinvolle bijdrage aan het onderzoek te geven. Het team van buitenlandse experts bestond uit: -

Prof Julie Allan, Universiteit van Stirling, Schotland;

-

Dr. Christian Liesen, Universiteit Zurich, Zwitserland;

-

Prof Johannes Mand, Universiteit Bochum, Duitsland;

-

Irene Moser, Hogeschool Salzburg, Oostenrijk;

-

Prof Katja Petry, Universiteit van Leuven, Vlaanderen;

-

Lena Thorsson, Zweden,

-

Dr. Joseph Travers, St Patrickscollege, Ierland; en

-

Dr. Christian Wendelborg, Universiteit van Trondheim, Noorwegen.

Deelname aan het project bestond in de eerste fase uit het schrijven van een rapport over de verantwoordelijkheid van leerkrachten en schoolbesturen in het eigen land voor leerlingen met extra ondersteuningsbehoefte. De experts zijn gevraagd om in enkele pagina’s de volgende onderwerpen te bespreken: -

de bestuursorganen van reguliere scholen en hun verantwoordelijkheden;


-

de financiering van onderwijs aan leerlingen met beperkingen (wie betaalt en hoe wordt het geld verdeeld over scholen);

-

de verantwoordelijkheid van de plaatselijke school voor leerlingen met extra ondersteuningsbehoefte, en de manier waarop dit eventueel wettelijk is vastgelegd;

-

de rol en rechten van ouders bij het kiezen van een school voor hun kind;

-

de verantwoordelijkheid van betrokken partijen wanneer een leerling verwezen wordt naar een (speciale) school binnen of buiten de eigen gemeente;

-

de mate waarin leerkrachttraining en –ondersteuning van belang wordt geacht en beschikbaar wordt gemaakt in het eigen land.

Daarnaast is de experts twee vignetten voorgelegd, waarin beschreven staat hoe er in het Nederlandse schoolsysteem waarschijnlijk omgegaan zou worden met a) een leerling met concentratie- en gedragsproblemen b) een ernstig zieke leerling met verstandelijke en lichamelijke beperkingen. De twee vignetten zijn gebaseerd op bestaande leerlingen en uiteraard geanonimiseerd. Gevraagd werd om te beschrijven hoe men in het eigen land zou omgaan met deze leerlingen. De eerste fase van het project leverde acht uitgebreide en informatieve verslagen op (zie bijlagen). De tweede fase bestond uit een studiedag op Schiphol van de acht experts uit verschillende landen, acht commissie leden en medewerkers van de ECPO en de auteurs. Het doel van deze dag was het bespreken en uitdiepen van de informatie in de rapporten uit de verschillende landen. Het programma bestond achtereenvolgens uit: -

presentatie van de voorzitter van de ECPO over het thema “Zorgplicht in Nederland”;

-

presentaties van de acht experts waarin de organisatie van zorgplicht in het eigen land beschreven werd en waarbij de andere experts en de Nederlandse beleidsadviseurs in de gelegenheid werden gesteld om vragen te stellen;


-

het in twee groepen bespreken van de in de rapporten beschreven thema’s (zie boven);

-

het plenair formuleren van do’s en don’ts voor het succesvol invoeren van zorgplicht in Nederland.

Het project is bedoeld om te leren van de ervaringen in andere landen met zorgplicht-achtige constructies. Het leren van ervaringen in andere landen heeft een aantal valkuilen. Het verzamelen van gegevens in internationaal vergelijkend onderzoek heeft natuurlijk praktische en logistieke problemen, zoals taal en afstand, maar het kernprobleem is de interpretatie van de ingewonnen informatie. De experts interpreteren en beantwoorden de vragen in het onderzoek (zie hiervoor) vanuit hun kennis over het eigen onderwijssysteem. Het is mogelijk dat ze de vragen uit de Nederlandse context niet helemaal begrijpen. Ook de onderzoekers lopen het risico de antwoorden van de experts te vlug in termen van de Nederlandse context te plaatsen en daarmee nuances te missen. Het was daarom belangrijk niet alleen de landenrapporten als input te gebruiken, maar ook de presentatie van de uitkomsten per land en de discussies tijdens de studiedag op Schiphol als input te zien. In de reacties op de presentaties en in de discussies daarna bleek ook dat de mogelijkheid door te vragen en informatie nog eens te controleren nuttig was om misverstanden op te ruimen. Desondanks presenteren we de resultaten van het onderzoek met enige terughoudendheid en als een eerste verkenning. Zeker wanneer conclusies uit dit onderzoek een rol zouden gaan spelen in de beleidsvorming in Nederland, is herhaling en verdieping van het onderzoek in één of enkele landen raadzaam.


Bevindingen

Opbouw van het verslag De bevindingen van het onderzoek worden samengevat onder de thema’s (zie ook vragenlijst): bestuur, financiering van onderwijs aan leerlingen met beperkingen / gedragsproblemen, verantwoordelijkheid van de school, positie van ouders, verantwoordelijkheden bij verwijzing, en leerkracht opleiding. Vervolgens wordt ingegaan op de reacties op de twee case beschrijvingen. Een en ander wordt afgesloten met een discussie paragraaf waarin mogelijk zinvolle aanpakken voor Nederland aan de orde komen. Bestuur van reguliere basisscholen In veel landen is de gemeente verantwoordelijk voor de basisscholen en is de schooldirecteur verantwoordelijk voor de dagelijkse gang van zaken (Noorwegen, Oostenrijk, Vlaanderen, Zweden en Zwitserland). In alle gevallen heeft de gemeente veel autonomie in het organiseren van het onderwijs. Het curriculum, de methoden en bijvoorbeeld het lessenplan kunnen verregaand bepaald worden door de gemeenten. In Duitsland zijn schooldirecteur, schoolinspecteur en het district verantwoordelijk. Daar is de gemeente alleen verantwoordelijk voor gebouwen en vervoer. In Schotland en Ierland ligt de verantwoordelijkheid bij onafhankelijke regionaal werkende onderwijsorganisaties. Financiering van onderwijs aan leerlingen met beperkingen Alleen Vlaanderen en Duitsland financieren het onderwijs aan leerlingen met beperkingen / gedragsproblemen ongeveer zo als dat in Nederland bij het leerlinggebonden budget gebruikelijk is. Deze drie landen kennen een open end financiering, waarbij geld direct van de overheid naar scholen en leerlingen gaat, als aangetoond is dat voor een individuele leerling aan bepaalde criteria wordt voldaan. De federale overheid in Oostenrijk gaat er van uit dat er voor 2.7% van de leerlingen een aanvullend budget nodig is. De district schoolbesturen verdelen de gelimiteerde middelen op basis van het aantal leerlingen met beperkingen / gedragsproblemen, de ernst van de problematiek en de situatie van de school. De centrale overheid in Schotland stelt algemene middelen ter beschikking aan 32 lokale besturen (Local Authorities). Deze


kunnen zelf beslissen hoeveel ze aan onderwijs willen besteden. Extra middelen voor onderwijs aan leerlingen met beperkingen / gedragsproblemen worden verdeeld op basis van aanvragen door de scholen. Bij die aanvragen gaat het niet zo zeer om de medisch / psychologische categorisering, maar veel meer om een aannemelijk te maken ondersteuningsbehoefte. Ongeveer 9% van de middelen voor het onderwijs wordt benut voor hulp aan leerlingen met beperkingen / gedragsproblemen. De variatie in de beschikbare middelen voor het onderwijs aan deze leerlingen is vrij groot. Het varieert van gemiddeld £401 in een bepaalde regio tot gemiddeld £1952 in een andere. In Ierland is de hulp aan leerlingen met betrekkelijk milde problematiek onderdeel van de gewone financiering, maar kan voor leerlingen met ernstiger problematiek een beroep gedaan worden op een landelijke organisatie (National Council for Special Education). In Zwitserland, Noorwegen en Zweden heeft de gemeente een kerntaak in de verdeling van middelen voor onderwijs aan leerlingen met beperkingen / gedragsproblemen. De gemeenten hebben veel vrijheid in de besluitvorming over onderwijs in het algemeen en ook over de inzet van extra middelen voor het onderwijs aan deze leerlingen. In nogal wat gevallen wordt een groot deel van de middelen direct doorgegeven aan de scholen zonder dat identificatie van het aantal leerlingen met beperkingen / gedragsproblemen nodig is. Een uitzondering wordt gemaakt voor leerlingen met zeer ernstige problematiek. Dan kunnen scholen een beroep doen op extra middelen en dan is ook een vorm van categoriserende diagnostiek nodig. De financiering van speciale scholen verloopt in deze landen niet via de gemeenten. Verantwoordelijkheid van de basisschool In veel landen is in de wet een min of meer duidelijke voorkeur voor inclusief onderwijs opgenomen. In Oostenrijk, Noorwegen, Zweden, Schotland en Ierland wordt ofwel het streven naar inclusief onderwijs expliciet genoemd of wordt dat impliciet gelaten maar is wel bepaald dat alle leerlingen in principe naar de reguliere basisschool in de buurt gaan. In principe, want overal wordt een escape ingebouwd voor leerlingen met ernstige beperkingen die waarschijnlijk niet gebaat zijn bij onderwijs in een reguliere setting. Dat is geformuleerd in termen van handelen in het ´best


interest´ van de leerling. Maar de hoofdlijn is dat de reguliere school in de buurt verantwoordelijk is voor goed onderwijs aan alle leerlingen. De school mag alleen in uitzonderlijke situaties een nieuw aangemelde leerling weigeren of een zittende leerling verwijzen. Zo´n afwijzing moet goed beargumenteerd zijn. Tegelijk met de duidelijke stellingname over de voorkeur voor de reguliere basisschool in de buurt, is bij wet geregeld dat uiteindelijk ouders de keuze maken. Dat botst in een aantal gevallen met de opgelegde keuze voor de reguliere buurtschool. Vooral in de grote steden kunnen ouders ook voor speciale scholen of klassen kiezen en een aantal ouders kiest daarvoor. Eventuele geschillen kunnen voorgelegd worden aan een commissie voor beroep. Vlaanderen en Duitsland kiezen niet duidelijk voor de school in de buurt en daar is de school waar de leerling onderwijs volgt verantwoordelijk. Die verantwoordelijkheid kan dus overgenomen worden door andere vormen van onderwijs als de betreffende leerling daar onderwijs gaat volgen. In Zwitserland ligt de verantwoordelijkheid bij de gemeente en niet bij de school. Leerlingen horen wat betreft hun onderwijs bij een gemeente en niet bij een school. Individuele scholen of leerkrachten teams kunnen om die reden niet verantwoordelijk gehouden worden. Positie van ouders In vrijwel alle landen betrokken bij deze studie worden ouders als serieus te nemen gesprekspartners beschouwd en wordt benadrukt dat hun oordeel telt. In de schoolkeuze, of dat nu om een keuze uit verschillende reguliere basisscholen of om de keuze regulier versus speciaal gaat, blijkt de vrijheid een school te kiezen echter beperkt te worden. In Vlaanderen en Zweden lijkt de keuze van ouders voor een school het minst ingeperkt te zijn. Ouders in Vlaanderen kunnen - in het geval hun kind voldoet aan de eisen voor indicatiestelling - kiezen tussen reguliere of speciale scholen. Scholen kunnen afzien van plaatsing en ouders kunnen daartegen in beroep gaan. Bij hardnekkig weigeren van de school volgt een boete. Ook in Zweden mogen ouders van leerlingen met beperkingen / gedragsproblemen kiezen tussen inclusief onderwijs in de reguliere school of een vorm van deels


separaat speciaal onderwijs. Op het platteland van Zweden valt echter niets te kiezen. Kiezen is een 'luxe' voor stadsbewoners. In Noorwegen, Schotland en Ierland kunnen ouders in principe wel kiezen voor een reguliere school, maar botst dat snel met de bepaling dat alle leerlingen naar de lokale school gaan. De keuze voor regulier versus speciaal is alleen aan de orde als vaststaat dat een leerling voldoet aan de gangbare indicatie criteria. De beslissingsbevoegdheid van de ouders in die situatie varieert nogal. In Vlaanderen lijken ouders dan veel zeggenschap te hebben, terwijl in bijvoorbeeld Oostenrijk, Ierland en Schotland een beslissing over de (reguliere of speciale) school voor een leerling met beperkingen / gedragsproblemen door een lokaal of nationaal orgaan wordt genomen. Ouders kunnen daar eventueel tegen in beroep gaan. Als het beroep wordt toegekend zijn er - net zoals in Vlaanderen - geen sancties waar de ouders iets aan hebben (Ierland). Wellicht daarom zoekt men in Schotland naar vormen van mediatie bij meningsverschillen en tracht men beroepsprocedures te vermijden. Ook in het Duitse verslag wordt opgemerkt dat schoolinspecteurs daar beroepsprocedures vermijden. Overigens lukt het daar de relatief goed opgeleide ouders het best om beroepsprocedures te vermijden en hun kind op een inclusieve school te krijgen. In Zwitserland hebben ouders geen zeggenschap in de keuze van een basisschool. Ouders kunnen wel een plaatsingsverzoek indienen. Er zijn (vrijwel) geen mogelijkheden voor beroep. In veel landen is het heel gebruikelijk om voor leerlingen met beperkingen / gedragsproblemen een handelingsplan op te stellen en dat regelmatig te herzien. In die landen betrekt men ouders bij het opstellen en evalueren van het plan. Bij wet is geregeld dat de ouders beroep kunnen aantekenen tegen (onderdelen van) het handelingsplan of het niet maken van een plan. Verantwoordelijkheid bij verwijzing Bij verwijzing van een leerling met beperkingen / gedragsproblemen neemt de nieuwe (reguliere of speciale) school de verantwoordelijkheid over in Vlaanderen, Duitsland en Zweden. In Zwitserland en Noorwegen blijft de gemeente waarin de leerling woont verantwoordelijk en in Schotland blijft de verantwoordelijkheid bij de regionale onderwijs autoriteit. In


bijvoorbeeld Schotland en Noorwegen blijven de gemeente of de regionale onderwijs autoriteit ook aansprakelijk voor alle onderwijskosten, het vervoer en het eventueel benodigde internaat. Dit geldt niet voor plaatsing op een van de nationale speciale scholen. Ondersteuning en opleiding Extra ondersteuning en opleiding van leerkrachten zou een voorwaarde voor invoering van de zorgplicht kunnen zijn. In geen van de landen rapporten is de koppeling tussen ondersteuning en opleiding enerzijds en de invoering van zorgplicht anderzijds gelegd. Geconcludeerd moet worden dat enkele landen (Noorwegen en Schotland) wel een regeling hebben die lijkt op zorgplicht, maar er bij de invoering vanuit zijn gegaan dat de ondersteuning en opleiding van leerkrachten voldoende is. Dat staat haaks op de veelvuldig gemaakte opmerking dat de reguliere opleiding van leerkrachten onvoldoende aandacht besteedt aan het onderwijs aan leerlingen met beperkingen / gedragsproblemen. Leerkrachten moeten het op dit terrein hebben van Master opleidingen en nascholing. Case beschrijving Kevin De case beschrijving schetst de meest waarschijnlijke gang van zaken rond Kevin (concentratie en gedragsproblemen) in het Nederlandse onderwijssysteem. Die gang van zaken blijkt heel goed voorstelbaar te zijn in Zwitserland, Duitsland, Vlaanderen en Oostenrijk. Het lijkt er op dat men in Oostenrijk meer moeite doet om de leerling geschetst in het vignet binnen het regulier onderwijs te houden en na plaatsing in het speciaal onderwijs weer terug te laten stromen naar regulier onderwijs. De reacties in de andere vier landen hangen af van de woonplaats van de leerling. Hoe dichter bij een grotere stad hoe groter de kans op verwijzing naar een special school of een reguliere school met een extra programma. In Noorwegen en Zweden blijft de leerling waarschijnlijk in de reguliere school en is de schooldirecteur verantwoordelijk voor een adequaat onderwijsaanbod. Er is gerede kans dat de school een extra (parttime) leerkracht of assistent aanstelt voor de opvang van Kevin. Die opvang zal er toe leiden dat Kevin een deel van de tijd uit de klas gehaald wordt en individueel of in een kleine groep onderwijs krijgt. Schotland heeft een


eigen case ingediend, maar lijkt aan te sluiten bij de gang van zaken in Ierland, Noorwegen en Zweden. Case beschrijving Tina De case beschrijving van Tina (verstandelijke en lichamelijke beperkingen) geeft aan dat na een periode reguliere basisschool het schoolteam moeite heeft met de te groot wordende achterstand van Tina ten opzichte van de andere klasgenoten. Verwijzing naar een school voor speciaal onderwijs volgt. In lijn met de voorgaande casus zal het systeem op ongeveer vergelijkbare wijze reageren in Zwitserland, Duitsland, en Vlaanderen. De rapporten met betrekking tot Ierland, Oostenrijk, Noorwegen en Zweden geven aan dat voor Tina een oplossing gezocht wordt in het regulier onderwijs. In een grotere stad zijn er mogelijk binnen het regulier onderwijs meer opties voor Tina dan op het platteland, maar ook plaatsing op een school voor speciaal onderwijs is dan een optie.


Discussie en conclusies

De discussie en conclusies zijn opgebouwd uit de thema’s –varianten van zorgplicht, financiering, financiering van ‘low-incidence’ beperkingen, variatie in aanbod en zorgplicht en leerkracht opleiding. Elk van deze onderdelen wordt afgesloten met enkele aanbevelingen voor het succesvol invoeren van zorgplicht in Nederland. Varianten van zorgplicht De Nederlandse ideeën over zorgplicht vinden we tot op zekere hoogte terug in landen als Zweden, Oostenrijk en Ierland. Daar is de lokale school verantwoordelijk voor adequaat onderwijs aan alle leerlingen, maar gaat bij verwijzing de verantwoordelijkheid over naar de nieuwe school. Zorgplicht is consequenter doorgevoerd in Noorwegen en Schotland. De regeling in deze landen gaat verder dan de Nederlandse opvattingen over zorgplicht. Het verschil is dat daar ook bij verwijzing buiten de gemeente of regio, de gemeente (Noorwegen) of de regionale onderwijs autoriteit (Schotland) verantwoordelijk blijft. Het hebben van verantwoordelijkheid voor alle leerlingen die in het voedingsgebied van het betreffende bestuursorgaan wonen (een zorgplicht) gaat in Noorwegen en Schotland samen met financiële verantwoordelijkheid. De verantwoordelijke besturen moeten bij verwijzing buiten het voedingsgebied het onderwijs betalen volgens de normen en gewoonten van het bestuur van de nieuwe school. Daarbovenop komen eventueel reis- en verblijfkosten. Die financiële consequenties zijn een goede stimulans om dat type verwijzingen te voorkomen en de problemen op te lossen in de eigen regio. Die consequentie van zorgplicht is in Nederland vooralsnog niet aan de orde geweest, maar wellicht het overwegen waard. Stel besturen met een zorgplicht ook financieel verantwoordelijk voor het onderwijs aan alle leerlingen. Dit betekent dat zij bij verwijzing buiten het voedingsgebied het onderwijs betalen volgens de normen en gewoonten van het bestuur van de nieuwe school. Financiering Zorgplicht hebben voor in principe alle leerlingen in het voedingsgebied en tegelijk afhankelijk zijn van een door de centrale overheid verstrekte


leerling gebonden budget gaan niet samen (zie ook Frissen, 2005). Een bestuur kan geen verantwoordelijk nemen zonder ook de instrumenten te hebben om die verantwoordelijkheid naar eigen inzicht uit te oefenen. Het ligt dan ook voor de hand om de speciale hulp aan leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte als een vorm van throughput financiering (Meijer, Peschar & Scheerens, 1995) ter beschikking te stellen aan het (regionale) bestuur. Bij throughput financiering verstrekt de centrale overheid de financiering voor onderwijs aan leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte op grond van een aantal betrekkelijk gemakkelijk vast te stellen indicatoren. De indicatoren kunnen bestaan uit bijvoorbeeld het totaal aantal kinderen in een bepaalde leeftijdsrange in een regio, het percentage kleine scholen en/of de regionale uitgaven aan bijstand. Het feitelijke aantal leerlingen met bijvoorbeeld verstandelijke beperkingen of ADHD doet voor die vorm van financiering niet ter zake. Aangenomen wordt dat het percentage leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte in elke regio ongeveer gelijk is. Het Weer Samen Naar School – beleid past al een vorm van throughput financiering toe. In dit beleid gaat een deel van de middelen direct naar het samenwerkingsverband en gaat de rest naar de Scholen voor Speciaal Basisonderwijs. Ook in de WSNS financiering is het indiceren van leerlingen niet nodig voor de financiering van het onderwijs aan de leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte. Open vraag is nog of het moet gaan om voor het onderwijs aan leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte geoormerkte financiering of dat alle middelen in één lumpsum naar de schoolbesturen gaan. Het Noorse rapport geeft aan dat vrijwel alle middelen van de regio direct doorgegeven worden aan de scholen. In het algemeen is het niet gebruikelijk dat de overheid de middelen voor alle leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte naar de gebruikers brengt middels alleen throughput financiering. Met throughput financiering kunnen middelen van de overheid naar een tweede niveau actor gebracht worden, bijvoorbeeld een regio of een groot schoolbestuur (Elstar, 1992). De regio zal vervolgens via een vorm van input financiering de middelen verder verdelen over de gebruikers. Input financiering is afhankelijk van een opgave van bijvoorbeeld het aantal leerlingen dat een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte heeft. De toekenning van het leerling gebonden budget in Nederland is een


vorm van input financiering op landelijk niveau, maar input financiering kan ook lokaal georganiseerd worden. Als de overheid de middelen voor onderwijs aan leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte middels throughput financiering naar de regio brengt en de regio het vervolgens over scholen verdeeld middels inputfinanciering, is de landelijke indicatiestelling overbodig geworden. De regio kan de huidige indicatiestelling overnemen en zo de middelen over scholen verdelen, maar kan ook de verdeling van middelen baseren op de bevindingen van handelingsgerichte diagnostiek en de effecten van in een handelingsplan neergelegde werkwijzen (Pameijer & Beukering, 2004). Een dergelijk vorm van indicatiestelling is niet veel meer dan een interne manier om extra hulp op de goede plaats te krijgen en leidt minder gauw tot het labellen van leerlingen. Feit blijft dat input financiering het labellen van leerlingen uitlokt en scholen verleidt tot het aanvragen van zoveel mogelijk financiering. Zo bezien resulteert inputfinanciering in ongewenste –of volgens Frissen (2005) soms zelfs perverse- effecten. Het maximaal benutten van de mogelijkheden van het leerling gebonden budget mag scholen en leerkrachten niet verweten worden. Zij hebben voor individuele leerlingen getracht optimale onderwijsomstandigheden te realiseren binnen de spelregels van de input financiering van het leerling gebonden budget. Het is overigens nog maar de vraag of een lichte vorm van input gestuurde indicatiestelling binnen de scholen vallend onder een schoolbestuur nodig is. De Zweedse suggestie is om ook binnen een groep scholen onder een bestuur af te zien van inputfinanciering en ook daar te kiezen voor throughput financiering. De verdeling van middelen voor leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte wordt dan niet gebaseerd op geïndiceerde leerlingen, maar de middelen worden gebruikt om een supportteam aan te stellen dat de leerkrachten ondersteunt in het onderwijs aan leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte. Dan is indicatiestelling en labelen vervangen door een gesprek tussen leerkrachten en het supportteam over de noodzaak en mogelijkheden voor hulp aan leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte. Do’nt blame the teacher. Leerkrachten werken in een bepaalde setting en maken gebruik van de mogelijkheden die die setting ze


biedt. Als – zoals bij het leerlinggebonden budget – het eindresultaat teleurstellend is, is dat niet de schuld van de leerkracht, maar van een fout ontworpen setting. Laat (extra) geld niet afhangen van een kind gebonden diagnose. Gebruik de middelen voor onderwijs aan leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte om een supportteam voor de scholen op te zetten. Financiering van ‘low-incidence’ beperkingen Veel landen (bijvoorbeeld: Schotland, Ierland, Noorwegen of Zweden) hebben weliswaar als norm dat het bestuur verantwoordelijk is voor alle leerlingen uit het voedingsgebied, maar maken een kleine uitzondering voor leerlingen met buitengewoon ernstige en complexe problematiek. De centrale overheid gaat er van uit dat die leerlingen een uitzonderlijk groot beroep zouden kunnen doen op de extra middelen voor speciaal onderwijs wat ten koste zou kunnen gaan van de hulp aan de overige leerlingen met minder ernstige problematiek. Nadeel daarvan is dat dat toch weer leidt tot een vorm van landelijke indicatiestelling met alle kansen op groei van uitgaven. Het is dan van belang de groep zo goed mogelijk af te bakenen, maar de ervaring met afbakening van groepen in de leerling gebonden financiering zijn niet bepaald bemoedigend. Dat zou pleiten voor het toch decentraal financieren van het onderwijs aan deze groep. Zet een deel van het totale budget apart voor kinderen met zeer ernstige beperkingen. Variatie in aanbod Als besturen het onderwijs aan leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte met ‘eigen’ middelen kunnen opzetten, zullen er ongetwijfeld verschillen in aanpak tussen regio’s ontstaan. Het ene schoolbestuur kan besluiten een speerpunt te maken van het onderwijs aan hoogbegaafden, terwijl de andere inzet op het aanpakken van gedragsproblemen. Verschillen kunnen ook in de hand gewerkt worden door omgevingscondities. Zo zijn er in de dichtbevolkte gebieden meer varianten en mengvormen van regulier en speciaal onderwijs dan in de dunbevolkte gebieden. Vaak is in de dunbevolkte gebieden de reguliere school het enig


beschikbare aanbod. De landen rapporten geven verschillende voorbeelden van dat type onderlinge verschillen. Nu zijn de verschillen in bevolkingsdichtheid in Nederland niet zo groot, maar dit type verschillen kan ook ontstaan doordat besturen verschillende visies ontwikkelen op het onderwijs aan leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte. Zo kan een bestuur besluiten dat niet elke leerling altijd fulltime in een reguliere of speciale setting hoeft te zitten, maar ook kan participeren in tussenvormen als het Groep In School model (GIS) in Almere (Pijl, Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). Wanneer besturen niet alleen verantwoordelijk zijn voor onderwijs, maar bijvoorbeeld ook voor transport, gebouwen en materialen en de vrijheid hebben daarbinnen accenten te leggen, kan de variatie in aanbod verder toenemen. Met de invoering van het leerling gebonden budget in Nederland is onder meer beoogd de beschikbare middelen rechtvaardig te verdelen. Alle leerlingen met een bepaalde indicatie kregen precies even veel leerling gebonden budget. De stille aanname was dat dat ook zou leiden tot een vergelijkbaar onderwijs aanbod binnen scholen. Dat is nooit serieus onderzocht, maar het lijkt niet waarschijnlijk dat alle scholen op identieke wijze het budget ingezet hebben. Variatie in aanbod is er vermoedelijk ook nu al. Accepteer variatie in onderwijs- en organisatievormen. Zorgplicht en ouders Zorgplicht is vooral een taak voor besturen en scholen, niet voor ouders. Ouders en leerlingen zijn wel direct betrokken bij beslissingen over zorgplicht. In veel van de hier beschreven landen wordt hoog opgegeven over de belangrijke rol van ouders in de schoolkeuze en de invulling van het onderwijs aan hun kind. In de praktijk echter vallen de keuze vrijheid en de inbreng van ouders nogal tegen. Ouders weten de weg naar een beroepsprocedure niet allemaal te vinden en ook door ouders gewonnen beroepsprocedures leveren niet altijd het gewenste resultaat op, bijvoorbeeld omdat er geen sancties bestaan op het negeren van de uitkomsten van het beroep door scholen. Hoog opgeven over de belangrijke


rol van ouders zonder ouders in staat te stellen die rol uit te voeren is op zijn minst verwarrend, zo niet inconsequent. Leg vast wat de positie van ouders is in passend onderwijs en geef ouders de middelen om die positie in te nemen. Zorgplicht en leerkrachtopleiding Hoewel zorgplicht niet in de allereerste plaats bedoeld is inclusief onderwijs te bevorderen, zou een bijeffect kunnen zijn dat minder leerlingen verwezen worden naar separate vormen van speciaal onderwijs. Nu maken veel scholen en leerkrachten nog dankbaar gebruik van die speciale voorzieningen. Inclusief onderwijs wordt dan afgedaan als niet realistisch, een slecht verhulde bezuiniging, mogelijk schadelijk voor alle partijen en gelet op de onvoldoende training van leerkrachten - als bijna onverantwoordelijk. De verslagen van de acht landen betrokken bij dit onderzoek laten zien dat leerkracht opleiding wel als een belangrijk thema wordt beschouwd maar dat in het algemeen de basisopleiding van leerkrachten niet of nauwelijks voorbereid op het onderwijs aan leerlingen met een extra ondersteuningsbehoefte. Er wordt wel gediscussieerd over de benodigde aanpassingen in de basisopleiding van leerkrachten, maar dat heeft in niet veel landen al geresulteerd in een nieuwe invulling van het curriculum voor die opleidingen (Florian, 2010). De wel noodzakelijk geachte herziening van de basisopleiding van leerkrachten is in geen van de landen een reden geweest (nog) niet te beginnen met de invoering van zorgplicht-achtige bepalingen en van inclusief onderwijs. In eigenlijk alle landen wordt ingezet op de ondersteuning van de leerkracht in de werksituatie. Er wordt van uit gegaan dat in de samenwerking met een supportteam veel kennis kan worden overgedragen en dat de meer formele vormen van opleiding een minder grote rol hoeven te spelen. Hoewel de basisopleiding van leerkrachten een belangrijke voorwaarde lijkt voor het invoeren van zorgplicht, hoeft niet gewacht te worden totdat de leerkrachtenopleiding aangepast is. Leerkrachten kunnen bijgeschoold worden. Hierbij is het belangrijk om vraaggestuurd te werken. Train of ondersteun leerkrachten in de school, dus op hun werkplek. De ervaring leert en onderzoek wijst uit dat training buiten de


schoolsetting weliswaar nieuwe kennis genereert, maar dat deze kennis niet automatisch ingezet wordt in de dagelijkse praktijk (Jones & Chronis-Tuscano, 2008; Sawka, McCurdy & Mannella, 2002). Daarvoor is ondersteuning en coaching nodig.


Literatuur

Allen, J. (1999). Actively seeking inclusion. London: Falmer. Elster, J. (1992). Local Justice. How institutions allocate scarce goods and necessary burdens. New York: Russel Sage Foundation Ferguson, D.L. (2008). ‘International trends in inclusive education: the continuing challenge to teach one and everyone.’ European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23 (2), pp. 109-120. Florian, L. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10, 137–203 Frissen, P.H.A. (2005) Van maakbaarheid naar autonomie en variëteit. Tilburg: KUB. Fulcher, G. (1989). Disabling policies? A comparative approach to education policy and disability. London: Falmer. Jones, H.A. & Chronis-Tuscano, A. (2008). Efficacy of teacher in-service training for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in the Schools , 45(10), 918-929. Karten, T.J. (2010). Inclusion strategies that work. New York: Sage. Meijer, C.J.W., Peschar, J.L. & Scheerens, J. (1995). Prikkels. De Lier: ABC. MinOCW (2010). Passend onderwijs. Kamerstukken II, 2009/2010, 31497, nr 19. MinOCW, (2011). Voorstel van wet, W2647. Pameijer, N. & Beukering, T. (2004). Handelingsgerichte diagnostiek. Leuven: Acco. Pijl, S.J. & Frissen, P.H.A. (2009). What policy-makers can do to make education inclusive. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37, 3, 366-377. Pijl, S.J., Skaalvik, E.M. & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Students with Special needs and the Composition of Their Peer Group. Irish Educational Studies, 29, 1, 57-70 Sawka, K.D., Mccurdy, B.L. & Mannella, M.C. (2002) Strengthening Emotional Support Services: An Empirically Based Model For Training Teachers of Students with Behavior Disorders. Journal of emotional and behavior disorders, 10 (4), 223-232.


Smeets, E.F. (2007). Speciaal of apart. Onderzoek naar de omvang van het special onderwijs in Nederland en andere Europese landen. Nijmegen: ITS. Veen, I. van der, Smeets, E., & Derriks, M. (2010). Children with special educational needs in the Netherlands: Number, characteristics and school career. Educational Research, 52(1), 15-43. Vislie, L. (2003) ‘From integration to inclusion: focussing global trends and changes in western European societies’, European Journal of Special Needs Education 18(1), pp. 17


Bijlagen› 27

Bijlagen

Bijlagen › 28

Bijlagen › 29

Bijlage 1: Casus Kevin en casus Tina

Bijlagen › 30

Bijlagen › 31

Casus 1: Gedragsproblemen Algemene gegevens: Naam leerling Leeftijd Schoolloopbaan

: Kevin : 9;10 jaar : regulier basisonderwijs: groep 1-2-3-4-5 cluster 4 onderwijs: groep 6 (huidige groep)

Thuissituatie: Kevin woont samen met zijn moeder, stiefvader en zusje in een dorp dat 20 km buiten Groningen ligt. Met zijn biologische vader heeft Kevin al ruim zeven jaar geen contact. Thuis gaat het met ups en downs. Soms gaat het goed en luistert Kevin naar zijn ouders, op andere momenten gaat Kevin constant in verzet. Kevin accepteert geen gezag van volwassenen en gaat vrijwel altijd tegen regels in. Als Kevin zich thuis aan regels moet houden, of als hij iets moet doen wat hij niet wil, kan hij erg boos worden. Hij uit zijn boosheid vaak door te schreeuwen, te schelden en spullen kapot te maken. Betrokken hulpverlening: Sinds kort gaat Kevin drie middagen per week na schooltijd naar een Boddaertcentrum. Als doel wordt daarbij gesteld dat Kevin leert om zijn emoties te reguleren en dat hij sociale vaardigheden leert toe te passen. Sinds een half jaar is er Intensieve Pedagogische Gezinsbegeleiding (IPG) in het gezin, met als doel de ouders te ondersteunen bij de opvoeding en hen meer opvoedingsvaardigheden eigen te laten maken. Schoolsituatie: Kevin heeft groep 1 t/m 5 doorlopen binnen het regulier basisonderwijs. In groep 5 verslechterde het gedrag van Kevin. Hij had geen klik met de leerkracht, mede waardoor Kevin vaak de strijd aan ging en er veelvuldig conflicten waren. Kevin is in de loop van het schooljaar in een bovenbouwgroep geplaatst, omdat deze groep kleiner en rustiger was dan zijn eigen groep. In deze bovenbouwgroep ging het redelijk goed. In de laatste weken voor de zomervakantie liet Kevin echter meer verzet en boosheid zien. Er werd besloten om over te gaan tot middagschorsingen, met als gevolg dat Kevin alleen nog maar ’s ochtends naar school ging. Leerontwikkeling: Kevin is met alle vakken op niveau, alleen bij rekenen is sprake van een kleine achterstand. De laatste periode van het afgelopen schooljaar ging de leerontwikkeling van Kevin steeds meer lijden onder zijn gedrag. Kevin ging zo vaak in verzet, dat hij niet meer toekwam aan het maken van zijn schoolse taken. School heeft de indruk dat Kevin over voldoende capaciteiten beschikt om de achterstand bij rekenen in te lopen. Er is geen intelligentieonderzoek bij Kevin afgenomen. Sociaal-emotionele ontwikkeling: Bij Kevin zijn de diagnoses ADHD en ODD vastgesteld. Deze diagnoses werden door een kinderen jeugdpsychiater vastgesteld toen Kevin 7 jaar oud was. Herbevestiging van deze diagnoses vond plaats toen Kevin 9 jaar oud was.

Bijlagen › 32

De ADHD bestaat uit druk gedrag (geluidjes maken, hardop nadenken), impulsiviteit (voor beurt praten) en snelle afleidbaarheid. Dit gedrag is verbeterd sinds Kevin medicatie gebruikt. De opstandigheid staat nu meer op de voorgrond, zowel thuis als op school. Kevin accepteert geen gezag van volwassenen en houdt zich niet aan regels en afspraken. Hij liegt veelvuldig en legt bij conflicten vrijwel altijd de schuld bij een ander. Daarnaast schreeuwt en scheldt hij vaak. Kevin reageert op school sterk op wat er om hem heen gebeurt, roept vaak door de klas en is geneigd andere kinderen van het werk te houden. Met name in vrije situaties, zoals op het plein, gaat het vaak mis doordat Kevin wil bepalen wat er gebeurt. Kevin raakt snel in conflict met andere kinderen, waarbij hij reageert met schoppen en slaan. Het lukt hem niet om conflicten met woorden op te lossen. Na afloop van een conflict lukt het Kevin niet om zijn eigen aandeel te benoemen. Kevin heeft weinig aansluiting met zijn klasgenoten en heeft geen vriendjes in de groep. Af en toe speelt hij met andere kinderen, maar meestal is hij alleen. Reden aanvraag cluster 4 indicatie en aanmelding cluster 4 onderwijs: Er wordt besloten tot aanmelding bij cluster 4 onderwijs, omdat school handelingsverlegen is. Kevin heeft vaak conflicten met leerkrachten en medeleerlingen en is vaak storend aanwezig in de groep. Daarnaast gaat zijn leerontwikkeling steeds meer lijden onder zijn gedrag. De wens van ouders is dat de leerontwikkeling van Kevin gestimuleerd wordt binnen het cluster 4 onderwijs, zodat hij zich naar zijn mogelijkheden kan ontwikkelen. Daarnaast hopen ouders dat Kevin gezag leert aanvaarden en dat hij in contact met andere kinderen de inbreng van de ander meer leert respecteren.

Bijlagen › 33

Casus 2: Lichamelijke beperking Algemene gegevens: Naam leerling Leeftijd Schoolloopbaan

: Tina : 10 jaar : regulier basisonderwijs: groep 1-2-3-4-5 cluster 3 onderwijs: groep 6 (huidige groep)

Thuissituatie Tina woont met haar vader en moeder in een middelgroot dorp vlakbij een grote stad. Toen ze 4 jaar oud was is een goedaardige tumor geconstateerd (craniopharyngoom, gezwel aan hypofyse). Er zijn periodes dat de tumor groeit en ze bestralingstherapie krijgt. De tumor wordt regelmatig middels MRI gecontroleerd. Tina heeft in de afgelopen jaren veel verzuimd van school, deels vanwege belastbaarheid en deels omdat moeder moeite heeft met de ziekte en alle gevolgen. Moeder houdt haar dochter makkelijk thuis. De vermoedelijke overbescherming is lastig te doorbreken en te bespreken. Hulpmiddelen en hulpverlening Tina gebruikt veel medicatie: groeihormonen, medicatie voor haar verstoorde hormoonhuishouding en medicatie vanwege het feit dat haar lichaam zelf geen stresshormoon produceert. Ze is groot voor haar leeftijd en kampt met fors overgewicht. Ze heeft een forse O-stand aan de benen en door het overgewicht ook last van haar knieën. Ze is daar onlangs aan geopereerd. Deels vanwege fysieke beperkingen en deels vanwege haar angst om te vallen gebruikt Tina een rollator. Voor langere afstanden is ze afhankelijk van een rolstoel. Tina heeft fysio- en ergotherapie onder schooltijd. Schoolsituatie Tina ging naar groep 1 van de reguliere basisschool toen de tumor geconstateerd is. Direct na de diagnose is een rugzak voor lichamelijk gehandicapte (LG) kinderen aangevraagd (2004). Omdat de basisschool veel in de zorg aan Tina investeerde, is later een indicatie voor Meervoudig Gehandicapte (MG) mensen aangevraagd. Drie deskundigen zorgden op de basisschool voor extra begeleiding: een Remedial Teacher (RT), een Motorisch Remedial Teacher (MRT) en een assistent. De school past verschillende methoden toe: Veilig leren lezen, rekenen middels ZuidVallei, Schrijven op Maat, en extra ontwikkelingsmaterialen. Het leren is zo vertraagd dat de school steeds de planning bij moet stellen. Een Ambulant Begeleider van REC 3 organiseert elk half jaar een klankbordgroep bespreking op school met ouders. Leerontwikkeling Tina spreekt traag en met een zwakke, hoge, monotone stem. Ze beweegt traag en heeft een sterk vertraagd werktempo en een zwak auditief geheugen. Op de reguliere basisschool had ze heel veel extra tijd nodig en haalde ze zwakke scores op toetsen. Tina is psychologisch onderzocht door de behandelend neuropsycholoog. Er is een nonverbaal onderzoek afgenomen omdat deze

Bijlagen › 34

test aangepast kan worden aan werktempo en (minder tijdslimieten) en er meer instructie mogelijk is. Haar IQ is volgens de Snijders Oomen Nietverbale Intelligentietest (SON 6-17 jaar) <70. Als ze nog meer tijd krijgt komt ze tot beneden-gemiddeld niveau. Het verwerkingstempo is erg laag. Geheugentaken gaan net beneden-gemiddeld, maar het leren van nieuwe stof gaat erg moeizaam. Ze heeft een redelijk goede concentratie en aandacht. Het onderzoek laat een cognitieve achteruitgang zien ten opzichte van 2004. Sociaal-emotionele ontwikkeling Op het plein en tijdens spontaan spel is de spelvorm vaak te snel voor Tina en kan ze niet meedoen. Ze is op het plein bang om omver gelopen te worden. Ze is wel goed gemotiveerd. Ze werd op de basisschool geaccepteerd door de kinderen, die ook rekening met haar hielden. In het kringgesprek ging het te snel voor haar. Ze heeft 2 tot 3 keer meer tijd dan anderen nodig om haar verhaal te vertellen. Buiten school had en heeft Tina weinig sociale contacten, ze zit ook niet op een club of sport. Reden aanmelding cluster 3 onderwijs Tina heeft tot medio 2008 regulier onderwijs gevolgd, maar maakte de overstap naar het speciaal onderwijs, mytylschool, met de ingang van schooljaar 2008-2009. Ze raakte te ver achter, haar tempo van leren en spelen is te traag om aansluiting te houden met andere kinderen op de reguliere school. Tina zit nu op de mytylschool (cluster 3 onderwijs) in een groep voor moeilijk lerende kinderen. Het programma sluit goed bij haar aan, maar ze heeft nog steeds veel therapie onder schooltijd. Ze is ook nog steeds erg onzeker. Als leerkrachten en begeleiders haar vertrouwen geven en stimuleren durft ze bepaalde situaties aan te gaan. Ze is dan erg trots als ze nieuwe dingen heeft geprobeerd.

Bijlagen › 35

Bijlage 2: De landenrapporten

Bijlagen › 36

Bijlagen › 37

Austrian report Irene Moser

1. Which are the governing bodies for regular schools (school director, school board and municipality) and what roles and responsibilities do they have? The construction and maintenance of schools belongs principally to the competence of the municipalities and, in some cases, of the provinces. Staff resources are deployed by the federal government, and are administered by the provincial governments. Austria has different types of schools: The Grammar Schools (for pupils from 10-18) are mostly financed by the federal government and sometimes by the provinces. The primary schools (6-10) and modern secondary schools (10-14) are financed by the municipalities. Special Needs Support in Schools of General Education / Inclusion Inclusive education for pupils with special educational needs is currently legally regulated in primary, lower secondary school, and in the lower grades of schools in general secondary education. Mainstream schools are obliged to take organizational and didactical measures to meet the special needs of these children at school. This obligation of schools is followed up by the inspectorate. There are inspections eg. in the federal country (province) of Salzburg. This is very similar to OFSTED inspections. A team of inspectors visit the school for a few days and give feedback by a report and in a conference. This report is not published and parents are not informed about the inspections in the schools. After this inspection the head master of the school is obliged to enhance the work in the school in a certain period of time. The Teacher Colleges (Pädagogische Hochschulen) support the teachers via seminars and school development moderation. Three models of joint education are applied: Inclusive classes: Pupils with and without special educational needs are instructed in all, or almost all lessons by a team of teachers. (mainly two teachers) Classes with support teachers: Mainstream classes where one or two pupils with SEN receive extra support by a special school teacher for a few hours per week (depending on their disability). Co-operation classes: Primary, lower secondary and pre-vocational school classes are generally separated from special school classes in terms of organization. The teachers involved agree upon a plan according to which pupils are instructed together, either some of the time, or all the time. This means that classes in special schools co-operate with classes in primary or secondary schools. The students in the special schools are administrated by the special schools and the mainstream schools students are administrated by the primary or secondary schools-even if they work together all the time.

Bijlagen › 38

The head master of each regular school is responsible for the quality of teaching instruction, e.g. by inspecting lessons of teachers, supporting team settings, maintaining school development. S/he is obliged to send a yearly report to the school board, concerning the qualitative standards for children with special educational needs. Source: Circular letter of the Ministry for Education, 2008: http://www.cisonline.at/index.php?id=319 (German only) In Austria, students with SEN do not need to meet the standards for regular students, which are going to be tested on a national level at the end of the 4th and 8th school year. The local board and the schools are obliged to meet organizational and instructional standards. Source: Circular letter 2008: http://www.cisonline.at/index.php?id=320 The District School Board According to Article 8 (1) of the Compulsory Education Act, the district school board must issue a SEN statement for a child provided that due to physical or psychological disabilities this child is not capable of following instruction in primary or lower secondary school or in pre-vocational school without receiving special educational support, but is nevertheless capable of attending school. The statement is needed for obtaining additional funding. Many experts are not satisfied with this regulation. It costs a lot of time and money to assess children with learning deficits and the assessment criteria are not objective and valid enough. To obtain money, the report must be very deficit oriented and does not include a support plan or development plan for the child. Additionally it is not allowed for teachers to read the report unless the parents agree upon. Experts are convinced that the time should be used for assessment for learning. (see assessment report of Austria – Agency project) The Special Education Centers issue opinions which form the basis for decision-making by the District School Board on whether a child presents special educational needs. With opinion we refer to a report describing the conclusions of an assesment in order to decide on eligibility for special needs funding. In addition, expert opinions can be used which have been issued by public health officers or school psychologists, or persons who hitherto have cared for the child in education or therapy. According to Article 27a of the School Organisation Act, Special Education Centres are special schools that have the task to provide and co-ordinate measures of special education using other methods (Eg: an additional support teacher, additional rooms or therapies, street worker, additional material, equipment and barrier free entrance and stairs ….) to ensure that children with special educational needs can also be educated in the best possible way at mainstream schools. What does other methods mean? The Co-ordinative Tasks of Special Education Centres Special Education Centers have the task of providing and coordinating all measures of special needs education to ensure through inclusive education

Bijlagen › 39

that children with special educational needs can be educated at mainstream schools in the best possible way. These tasks include: -

The issuing of expert opinions to identify special educational needs (special needs opinion)

-

Co-operation with regional schools of compulsory education, other Special Education Centers, school authorities, the district school inspector, the special school inspector, regional non-school institutions etc.

-

Support of inclusive education through educational and organizational counseling, assistance for the setup of teacher teams

-

Information for parents, public relations, exchange of experience and further training

-

Administration http://www.cisonline.at/index.php?id=37&L=de (German) and http://www.cisonline.at/index.php?id=37&L=1 (English)

2. Who provides special needs funding and how is it forwarded to / divided over schools? The federal government provides the provinces with funding for additional staff resources for special needs education (for 2.7 percent of all pupils aged between 6 and 15). The municipalities are responsible for additional equipment required for children and adolescents with special educational needs. Special measures, such as therapeutic support and devices, are funded by the provinces on the basis of the Provincial Disability Acts. The school boards of the districts decide how many teachers/ lessons are deployed to the regular schools. This depends on the number of children with SEN in the region, the regional prerequisites (e.g. one child with SEN in a school which is far away from other schools might get more resources to maintain in an inclusive setting, very small classes in the country side might get less resources) and on the disabilities of each child. The local inspectors of the school boards, the head masters of the resource centers and the head masters of the local schools try to find the best possible support for the students with SEN in the school districts. The local practice is differing in the Federal Provinces.

3. Is the local school responsible for students with special needs? Is this prescribed in law or community regulations? The local school is responsible for the quality of teaching instruction in cooperation with the special needs centres (as written above). §9 SchOG (School organisation act § 9: tasks of primary schools) Teachers are obliged to write individual support or educational plans for each child with SEN. These plans have to be controlled by the head masters

Bijlagen › 40

of regular schools or head masters of the special centres. The student is administrated by the local school. 4. Which roles and rights do parents have concerning the choice of school for their child? Do parents have access to court for appeal? Parents can choose by law if they want to send their child to a special or mainstream setting. They do not have the right to choose the school, if the child has SEN. It is the local school board’s responsibility to find a (mainstream) school, which can meet the needs of the child. If parents are not satisfied with the quality of schooling or placement or do not accept the decision by the local school board, they can appeal at the federal school board. 5. How are responsibility issues dealt with in case of referral of a student with special needs to other (special) schools in or outside the catchment area? If a child with SEN in a regular school (supported by a peripatetic teacher) does not meet the goals of the curriculum, or has severe troubles to work in bigger groups/classes due to behavioural problems, several options are offered: Support by a school psychologist, by a speech therapist or by a teacher for children with emotional and behavioural disorders and in some schools by a street worker. In some Federal Provinces, the school board offers additional “one to one” support by a trained person for children with EBD. (S/he must not necessarily be a teacher) The repetition of a school year might also be an option for this pupil. There are also extra support courses offered to children for several months, who do not meet the goals of the curriculum. For children with severe disabilities, extra support is offered by school assistance (trained persons for children with SD) and advice by special schools centres for children with severe disabilities or learning problems. If the need of the child cannot be met in a regular class, the school board (local inspector) with support by the special centre is responsible to refer a child to a special school setting. The parents have to agree upon this decision. Problems for teachers and schools, why they cannot meet the demands of children with SEN The reasons for dissatisfying inclusions are manifold. Some of them shall be described as followed. The amount of lessons for team teaching or for extra support in the class room is often very limited. In classes with support teachers, extra support is given in general for three or four lessons a week for children with learning disabilities. In inclusive classes, there is often a “melting pot” of students with migrant background, behavioural problems and children with SEN (up to eight children with SEN in a class up to 25 children). Sometimes there are not enough trained teachers to cope with situations like this or the system is collapsing by too many difficulties. Additionally, there is still a tendency to hand over responsibilities to experts, if children do not fit into the system. The paradigm shift from a deficit oriented view to a resource oriented is on its way, but not state of

Bijlagen › 41

the art in all schools and for all teachers. The attitude that the system has to cope with the children’s abilities or disorders has to be developed. As you have written in the project outline, there is also in Austrian regular schools a lack of awareness that children with SEN are their responsibility. As long as there are institutions where children can be excluded, teachers are often convinced that these institutions offer the best possible provision. (Although investigations show other results) There are few measures to hinder teachers in handing over responsibility. The local inspector can e.g. refuse a SEN statement. Then the schools are forced to solve the problems without additional resources. The inspections and school development initiatives might be also an instrument to push the abilities of organisations and teacher to cope with “their” pupils. According to the UN convention, the Ministry feels some pressure to raise the inclusion rates and this has some impact on the federal counties. Actually in Salzburg, there is an initiative called “Masterplan”. All representatives (stake holders) of different schools meet in working groups to think about how to enhance the inclusion rate on a qualitative and quantitative level. We’ll see if this has any impact on the pedagogical and organizational development towards more inclusion. 6. Are teacher training and support regarded as prerequisites for making teachers responsible? If this applies: what training and support are made available? In Austria the teacher’s attitude is often the same. They do not feel prepared and not enough trained to work with SEN children. In primary and secondary schools, teachers have to include children with SEN in their classes, and teach them according to the individual curriculum. They cannot refuse if the head master arranges an inclusive class. In practice, the headmaster tries to find teachers who work voluntarily and like to teach in teams. This is not always the case, especially in secondary schools. The more students with SEN are included in one school, the more problems are to find good teams. Starting in October 2007, the training of teachers for compulsory schools of general education and occupational schools is to be provided at teacher training colleges. Study programmes for teachers at primary, lower secondary, pre-vocational and special schools, and vocational schools provide scholarly well-founded and job and practice-oriented training. In the framework of initial and in-service training, teachers can gain additional qualifications and attend subject and topic-specific courses to gain more insight into an area of specialty. Teachers are obliged to enroll in courses 15 lessons a year. Normally they choose seminars from a course book which is offered by the teacher training colleges and paid by the state. (schools do not need to pay for the further training of their teachers) The teacher is also allowed to visit courses offered by other institutions, if these courses meet the pedagogical criteria. The Training College also offers long term training, starting from 6 to 60 EC. Eg. there is a further training offered by a lot of Colleges called “Inclusion” or “Heterogeneity” with an amount of round about 20 ECTS. Attached you will find the curriculum we offer.

Bijlagen › 42

Moreover, teacher training colleges have the task of pursuing occupational and application-oriented research. Apart from research and training, teacher training colleges also have the opportunity to co-operate with other institutions of research and education, such as universities and universities of applied sciences at home or abroad in order to create the appropriate curricula and courses to provide the best possible offer for students.

Bijlagen › 43

1. Kevin If there is a boy like Kevin in our schools the parents, the teachers or headmaster of the regular school would ask for additional support. Without the statement SEN, support teachers for children with EBD called “Beratungslehrer”, work with the student, the teachers and parents and cooperate with other institutions like the youth welfare centre, police, associations who care for the children in the family and the school board. If the child acts aggressive against other students or to himself and there is too much danger for others or for the pupil himself, he can be suspended from school for a maximum of four weeks. (Schulunterrichtsgesetz / school act § 49) In the case of ADHD and ODD some therapeutical/medical centres offer help and diagnosis for children with EBD (emotional behavioural disorders) mainly for psychological and medical assessment. The child can stay in the centre for some weeks, is thought there by special trained teachers and diagnosed by a multidisciplinary team. If medication is needed, the child’s reaction is controlled daily. During these observation weeks, the teachers keep in touch with the regular school to continue the work plan for this pupil. Pupils with severe emotional and psychological problems and those who suffer from severs crises are treated in the psychiatric centre for children and adolescents by doctors and psychologists. In the morning, they attend classes which are affiliated to the hospital. (e.g.: http://salzburg.heilstaettenschule.at/index1.htm) If more support is needed in school, a statement “SEN” is unavoidable. According to the law, a physical or psychological disability is the precondition for such a statement. The centre for special needs education (headmaster or a teacher trained in assessment) is responsible to write an opinion from a pedagogical point of view. An additional report by other experts like school psychologists, medical doctors etc. can be asked for by the school or by parents. The parents have to agree to further diagnostic investigations. If this statement is given by the local school board, the boy will be supported by an extra teacher who is trained to work with children with EBD for some lessons a week. If this measure is not sufficient, in some Federal Counties one to one support is given to the child by a person employed by the county school board for a limited time in the regular setting. If the parents agree on the referral to a special school for children with EBD, the child is thought in small classes, often by two teachers with additional training. (Sozialpädagogische Schulen or Sondererziehungsschulen) The schools offer afternoon care, close cooperation with support institutions and medical centers in the region and close communication with parents, if possible. Additional therapies like hypo therapy or dogs in the class room are arranged by the school. The aim is to refer the child to the regular setting as soon as possible.

Bijlagen › 44

2. Tina In Austria, the parents have the right to choose the setting for their child. If the parents prefer an inclusive setting, a modern secondary school has to offer additional help by a support teacher. The procedure for a SEN statement is the same as explained in Kevin’s case. In the cities, severe disabled children attend integrative classes, where other children with SEN are included as well in the same classroom with up to 25 pupils. This guarantees the full time support by an extra teacher for all the lessons. Afternoon care depends on the demands of the parents in the community, but is often arranged by the community or the local school board. For Tina, the special teacher would work according to the syllabus of a special school for children with learning disabilities. The special teacher is obliged to write an individual support plan which is developed in cooperation with the main responsible class teacher and other subject teachers. The parents should be partners in planning the EDP. Although the goal is not to reach the curriculum for regular secondary schools, there is a big gap between the emotional and cognitive development of children without and with SEN. Social inclusion is not always so easy where adolescents hit puberty. Teaching in teams and the social education must be focused very strongly to avoid social exclusion for children like Tina. Physical therapies or occupational therapy must be organized by the parents themselves in the afternoon which is offered in hospitals or by private organizations. The health insurance pays most of the costs and parents get additional family allowance monthly by the state. The situation on the country side is even a bit more difficult. Inclusive classes and afternoon care are not always available due to fewer children with SEN in the villages. Mothers still tend to work part time or stay at home, to offer warm meals and care in the afternoon. Very often, parents choose a special school for their severe learning disabled child when s/he enters the secondary phase. Tina would probably attend a small class where trained teachers with additional staff care for and teach children and adolescents. After noon care is offered obligatory. The schools are very often well equipped with living rooms to train practical skills, snoozelen rooms, swimming pools and other therapeutic provision. As you can imagine, this full provision is very helpful for full time working parents. Statistics show, that the divorce rate of parents with severe disabled children is higher compared to families without such difficulties. Single mothers often have to cope with difficult financial situations. As described at point 5, modern secondary schools cannot always meet the demands of the children with severe learning problems.

Bijlagen › 45

Source: http://www.bmukk.gv.at/schulen/bw/bbs/ba_kindergartenpaedagogik.xml Teacher Training and In-service Training of Compulsory School Teachers The six-semester university study courses comprise a workload of 180 ECTS; students graduate as teachers for one of the four types of compulsory schools in the area of general education (primary school, lower secondary school, special school, and pre-vocational school). Students graduate with the degree ‘Bachelor of Education’. Since 2001, teachers have been required to accomplish further training of 15 lessons per year. Courses can be provided by the teacher training colleges, in-school, regionally or supra regionally. Teachers can attend further training free of charge. It is funded by the federal government and the provinces. Initial and Further Training of Special School Teachers a. Training at teacher training colleges to obtain the special school teacher qualification: the studies for special school teachers comprise the field of special education with the focus on inclusive education. Apart from courses dealing with aspects of human sciences, didactics, school-related and complementary studies, modular courses with a focus on disabilities are provided. b. Training programmes provided across provinces for teachers are inservice programmes to convey methodical and special educational competences (for example, for children with hearing disabilities or deaf children, children with physical, visual or behavioural disabilities). During further training, the teacher training colleges provide regional and supra- regional seminars and courses with different disability-related or topical focuses. In 2006 the Ministry of Education drafted a position paper on the training of special school teachers which can be downloaded in German and English from http://www.cisonline.at/index.php?id=36&L=1 (English) or http://www.cisonline.at/index.php?id=36&L=de (German) More information is available at: http://www.european-agency.org/countryinformation/austria

Bijlagen › 46

Bijlagen › 47

Flemish report Katja Petry

Making schools responsible for students with special needs: Situation in Flanders a. Which are the governing bodies for regular schools (school director, school board, municipality, etc) and what roles and responsibilities do they have? In Belgium, different governing bodies at the national, regional and local level are in charge of regular schools. These governing bodies each have their own roles and responsibilities and can be structured in a hierarchical way. The organization of this hierarchy is mainly based on one of the main principles of Belgium’s education legislation, i.e., the constitutional freedom of education. Under this principle, any natural or legal person is entitled to set up schools (the inrichtende machten (organising bodies) or, in basisonderwijs (elementary education), the schoolbesturen' (school boards)) and to organise and base them on confessional or non-confessional ethics or on specific pedagogical or educational principles. General administration at national level: the federal state Since 1989, the Flemish Community has been in charge of matters of education and is therefore responsible for the administration of education in its language area. From that moment, almost all responsibilities in relation to the educational system transferred to the Communities. Nevertheless, there are still some federal competences with regard to regular schools: the beginning and end of compulsory education, the subdivision into different levels of education, the minimum requirements for diploma conferrals and and teachers' pensions (Euridyce Flemish Community, 2010a). General administration and management at regional level: the Flemish Community Within the Flemish Government, it is the Minister for Education who is responsible for nearly all aspects of the education policy from nursery to university education. Every year, the Flemish Government receives a fixed financial contribution for education from the Federal State. In addition, the Flemish Government also has other forms of revenue, such as regional taxes and their own income, part of which is allocated to education. (Eurydice Flemish Community, 2010b, p. 4) Within the Flemish Government, the Education and Training policy area comprises of the DOV, Departement Onderwijs en Vorming (Department of Education and Training), headed by the secretary-general and in charge of policy support; 5 agencies who look after policy implementation under the guidance of a general administrator: AgODi, Agentschap voor Onderwijsdiensten (Agency for Educational Services), (covering elementary, secondary and part-time artistic education, the pupil guidance centres, the inspectorate and guidance); AHOVOS, Agentschap voor Hoger Onderwijs, Volwassenenonderwijs en Studietoelagen (Agency for Higher Education, Adult Education and

Bijlagen › 48

Study Allowances); AOC, Agentschap voor Onderwijscommunicatie (Agency for Education Communication); AGIOn, Agentschap voor Infrastructuur in het onderwijs (Agency for Infrastructure in Education); and, as of 1 May 2009, AKOV, Agentschap voor kwaliteitszorg in onderwijs en vorming (Agency for Quality Assurance in Education and Training). a governing council where consultation takes place between the Minister and the 6 leading officials; VLOR, Vlaamse Onderwijsraad (Flemish Education Council) as the strategic advisory council, which a.o. issues advice on all preliminary draft decrees and education-policy reports and documents to be presented to the Flemish Parliament. VLOR also systematically organises consultation between all the education actors and social partners who all have a seat on the VLOR board. (Eurodyce Flemish Community, 2010b) General administration and management at local level At the local level, we distinguish governing bodies and school clusters, educational networks and Local Consultation Platforms. 1. Governing bodies and school clusters The ‘governing body’ (or school board) is a key concept in Flemish education. The governing body is responsible for one or more schools and is comparable to a board of directors in a company. Governing bodies enjoy considerable autonomy. They are entirely free in choosing teaching methods and are allowed to base their education on a certain philosophy or educational view. They can also determine their own curriculum and timetables as well as appoint their own staff. However, schools that want government recognition or funding must meet the attainment targets. In addition, schools must have sufficient teaching materials and be established in habitable buildings that comply with safety provisions and hygiene standards. (Department of Education and Training, 2008, p. 12) Furthermore, as of 1 September 2003, schools must organize themselves in school clusters. A school cluster is a collection of different schools of the same level of education (nursery, primary and secondary education) , which work together at various levels (logistics, education provision, …). The schools may belong to the same or different governing bodies and belong to the same or different educational networks. (Department of Education and Training, 2008, p. 23) 2. Educational networks For support, representation in advisory and policy bodies and the protection of interests of affiliated schools, various groups of governing bodies have set up a representative umbrella organisation, which is called onderwijsnet (educational network). An educational network often takes over some of the responsibilities of governing bodies. For example, they draw up their own curriculum and timetables. This means that the governing bodies concerned surrender some of their autonomy to the networks. The educational umbrella organisations receive a budget for further training of staff from the

Bijlagen › 49

pupil guidance centres, the pedagogical counselling services and boarding schools, as well as for specific further-training initiatives of their own pedagogical project. There are three distinct, main educational networks: GO!, the onderwijs van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap (FlemishCommunity Education), which is funded by the Flemish Community and organised by Raad GO! and the 28 scholengroepen (school groups) (composed of elementary and secondary schools); it educates 14.3 % of all pupils in nursery, 14.4 % of all pupils in primary and 16.6 % of all pupils in mainstream secondary education; Gesubsidieerd officieel onderwijs (subsidised official education), is organised by cities, municipalities and provinces and is subsidised by the Flemish Community. It caters for 23.1 % of all nursery-school pupils, for 22.6 % of all primary-school pupils and for 7.9 % of all mainstream secondary-education pupils. Here, the municipal and provincial councils are the organising bodies. In the Brussels-Capital Region, the Flemish Community Commission pursues a cross-network education policy which complements the Flemish Community policy. It also acts as the organising body for a number of subsidised Flemish schools located within the Brussels-Capital Region; Gesubsidieerd vrij onderwijs (subsidised private education) is organised by private-law organising bodies and is based on a specific denomination (Catholicism, Judaism, Protestantism) or on a nonconfessional philosophy of life or even on a specific pedagogical or educational principle (the so-called alternative schools). These schools are recognised and subsidised by the Flemish Community and are attended by 62.6 % of all nursery-school pupils, by 63.0 % of all primary-school pupils and by 75.5 % of all mainstream secondary-school pupils. The overall majority of these schools belongs to the Catholic educational network. Flanders has very little commercial private education; In fact, commercial private education is neither recognized nor subsidised. 3. Local Consultation Platforms or LOP (lokaal overleg platform) ‘Local discussion platforms are created on the level of municipalities or regions. The participants of these platforms are schools, governing bodies, guidance centres representatives of parents, teachers and pupils representatives of the target groups, and so on. The aim is to discuss the unequal opportunities for pupils and youngsters in the area and to discuss proposals of referral from one school to another (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2003, p. 20). b. Who provides special needs funding and how is it forwarded to/divided over schools? General situation Under the Belgian constitution, access to education is free of charge up to the end of compulsory education. The Flemish Government finances both regular education and special education. The Government provides funding for staffing (a teaching-period package) and for a operational-resources education budget. Each school receives, depending on the number of pupils/students, a teaching-period package (elementary and special

Bijlagen › 50

education) or a number of teaching periods (secondary education). These periods or hours can be used and distributed between the levels, education forms, courses of study, etc, in accordance with the specific needs. Each school also receives a operational-resources education budget which is partly (20%) based on social pupil characteristics (see GOK) and partly (80%) based on school characteristics (level, type, educational form and area of study). The operational-resources education budget and the teaching-period package are put at the disposal of the school board. The school board has a lot of freedom in using these resources (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 1999, p. 40; Eurydice Flemish Community, 2010b, p. 113). Financing of special needs education Besides regular education, Flanders also offers special education which is subdivided into types depending on the nature and the severity of pupils' disabilities: 6 types at kleuteronderwijs (nursery education) level; 8 types of special primary education, and 4 education forms at secondary level (Eurydice, Flanders’ synopsis, 2010). For each of the 8 types of special needs education and the four educational forms in special secondary education, the number of teaching hours, the amount of hours for support personnel (therapists, nurses, pedagogical, psychological and social staff) and the working budget are calculated based on specific standards. Each type and educational form has its own coefficient for the conversion of the number of pupils into a certain amount of capital periods. The co-efficient is most favourable for pupils with a visual or hearing impairment. Recently, To support special-education schools catering mainly for pupils with behavioural and/or emotional disorders, an extra support corps (22.5 fulltime assignments) has been set up to cover school years 2008-2009 up to including 2010-2011. This corps is composed of orthopedagogues, psychologists and other experience experts (Eurydice Flemish Community, 2010a, p. 433). Finally, transport between home and school is free of charge for those pupils who attend the nearest special school where the type or educational form the pupil needs is organised (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 1999, p. 40-42). Within mainstream education, 3 support projects have been developed: • GON, geïntegreerd onderwijs (integrated education), is a collaboration between mainstream and special education aimed at giving youngsters suffering from a disability and/or learning or behavioural problems an opportunity to attend a number of or all classes or partake in certain or all activities in a school for mainstream education (every level except university),on a temporary or permanent basis. In the case of full integration, the pupil attends all classes and partakes in all activities provided by mainstream education. In the case of partial integration the pupil follows mainstream education for a minimum of two half days a week. GON support is provided by a school for special education. To this end, the institution receives: - an integration allowance which is a.o. used to cover the travel expenses of staff members travelling from the special school to the mainstream school.

Bijlagen › 51

-

a GON package to appoint GON counsellors to provide guidance for teachers in mainstream education where the pupils attend school (collegial consultation) and to support the pupils and/or parents. The package depends on the education-type certificate and on the degree of disability: moderate or severe.

Type severe emotional and/or behavioural problems (type 3) physical disability (type 4)

Moderate 2 hours, 1year

Severe 2 hours, 1year

2 hours, 2 years

visual (type 6) or aural disability (type 7) severe learning disabilities (type 8)

2 hours, 2 years

2 hours, every year 4 hours, every year 1 or 2 hours, 1 year

-

1 or 2 hours, 1 year

To optimise GON for pupils suffering from autism, extra teaching periods (elementary education) and guidance hours (secondary education) have been allocated; these will remain on offer and will even be extended during the 2009-20010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. (Eurydice Flemish Community, 2010a, p. 445-446)

ION, inclusief onderwijs (inclusive education) supports the integration of pupils with a moderate or severe intellectual disability (type 2) into mainstream primary and secondary education. It caters for up to 100 children suffering from a moderate or severe intellectual disability attending mainstream education by providing them with individual pathway guidance (Eurydice Flemish Community, 2010b, p. 11). Pupils must also be fully and permanently integrated into mainstream education. Special education-type-2 schools catering for ION pupils receive: 5.5 supplementary teaching periods/teacher-teaching periods per pupil; a fixed index-linked annual integration allowance of 250 euro per pupil (to cover the travel expenses of the support teacher). Thanks to these additional resources the class teacher, the team and the pupil have access to pedagogical and didactical support which should allow for the pupil's optimum integration within the regular class situation and for his/her full participation in the classes and activities. (Eurydice Flemish Community, 2010a, p. 446) Under GOK, gelijkeonderwijskansenbeleid, (the equal educational opportunities policy), elementary schools and secondary schools which, in the 1st stage of secondary education, cater for at least 10% and in the 2nd and 3 stages of secondary education for at least 25% of pupils who meet one of the five equal education opportunities indicators, can qualify for supplementary

Bijlagen › 52

teaching periods or extra teacher hours. In elementary education, schools have the option of appointing a special-needs coordinator. The number of special-needs coordinator hours they are allocated depends on the school's number of qualifying pupils. (Eurydice Flemish Community, 2010b, p. 11). In addition, Flanders has also made specific arrangements for its migrant pupils: • Under OKAN, onthaalonderwijs voor anderstalige nieuwkomers (reception education for foreign mother tongue newcomers), 1,450 nonDutch speaking newcomers and children residing in open asylum centres attending mainstream elementary education and 1,839 pupils attending mainstream secondary education can avail of supplementary teaching periods (Eurydice Flemish Community, 2010b, p. 11). Decision making processes concerning funding of special education The centres for pupil guidance or other acknowledged services decide on the admittance of pupils into special education. Parents receive a certificate that is based on a multidisciplinary research on the needs of their child. This certificate declares what type of special needs education fits the pupil’s needs, and is needed for the enrolment in a special school. The enrolment in a special school automatically makes resources available. The same procedure applies to the admittance to integrated education and inclusive education. For projects within the policy of extending special needs provision in mainstream schools and the educational priority policy, the following procedure is followed: the school supplies information about the presence of the target group and the plan of action related to the project priorities determined by the government in a yearly application. The administration checks whether the application meets the requirements. After this, a committee of members of the administration, the Education Inspectorate and external experts evaluate the applications and grants extra teaching hours based on the size of the target group, the quality of the proposed plan of action, the evaluation by the inspectorate of the use of extra teaching hours in the previous year, the available budget and the number of pupils in the school. The extra teaching hours are earmarked. (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 1999, p. 42) c. Is the local school responsible for students with special needs? Is this prescribed in law or community regulations? Both the Law on Special Education of 6 July 1970 and the Elementary Education Decree of 25 February 1997 define special education in first instance by referring to the difficulties and the incapability of mainstream education to look after the optimum and personal and social development of all children, rather than to the disabilities of the child. The Elementary Education Decree reads: ''it is education which, on the basis of a pedagogical project, provides pupils whose overall personal development cannot or cannot be sufficiently ensured within mainstream education with an appropriate education, upbringing, care and therapy on a temporary or permanent basis” (Decree of 25 February 1997). This means that the local school is responsible for a pupil with special needs unless it is incapable to look after the overall personal development of that pupil. On that terms a

Bijlagen › 53

school can refuse enrolment of a pupil with special needs or refer a newly enrolled pupil to another school. This is stated in the section on freedom of choice of school and right to registration in the Decree on equal educational opportunities I of 28 June 2002. This entails the fundamental right of each pupil to registration in the school of their choice and in the location of their choice. The Decree declares that a ground for refusal is related to special needs pupils in terms of education, therapy and care who wish to enrol in mainstream education schools. The local governing body will then need to demonstrate that the school's resources cannot meet the pupils' specific needs in terms of education, therapy or care. (Eurydice Flemish Community, 2010a, p. 51). In every case of refusal or referral, schools have to give a written statement to the parents and the chairman of the local consultation platform (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2003, p. 20). The LOPs, local consultation platform for equal opportunities in education, were set up to help implement the equal educational opportunities policy at local level. d. Which role and rights do parents have concerning the choice of school for their child? Are they involved in discussing the programme and support for their child? Do parents have access to a court for appeal? As indicated above (question c), in Flanders, there is a freedom of choice of school. This entails that each pupil has the right to enrol in the school of his/her (parents’) choice. Even in case of a referral to special education, parents have the right to send their child to a mainstream school (Department of Education and Training, 2008, p. 25). Only in a strictly limited number of cases, a school can refuse an enrolment or refer a newly enrolled pupil to another school (Department of Education and Training, 2008, p. 12). When parents disagree with the reasons why their child was refused, they can file a complaint with the Committee on Pupils’ Rights within 30 calendar days of having been notified of the refusal. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Committee on Pupils’ Rights will rule within 21 calendar days on whether or not the parents' have a valid case and inform and advise the Flemish Government by registered letter accordingly. If the Committee rules that the school did have the right to refuse the child, the local consultation platform will be asked to find an alternative suitable school. If the Committee is of the opinion that the school had no valid reason to refuse the child, a fine can be imposed on the school, unless it is willing to register the child after all. (Eurydice Flemish Community, 2010a, p. 444). Every province also has its own CABO, Advisory Commission for Special Education which has the powers to exempt pupils from compulsory education, to dispense with the age limits, to move pupils from a mainstream school to a special school and vice versa, to move pupils to a different, more suitable special school and to grant pupil the facility of being educated at home on a permanent basis. Aside from parents and adults with a disability or his/her legal representative, advice may also be sought by a member of the inspectorate, a principal or a physician from the pupil guidance centre (CLB). If parents or an adult with a disability refuse to cooperate or completely disagree with a CABO decision they have the option of lodging an appeal. (Eurydice Flemish Community, 2010a, p. 449)

Bijlagen › 54

Parents are, as much as possible, involved in the programme and support for their child. In special education (separate special schools), schools are required by law to set up an individual education plan (Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Departement Onderwijs, 2007). This individual educational plan is drawn up by the class council, in consultation with the CLB and, if possible, also in conjunction with the parents (Eurydice Flemish Government, 2010a, p. 452). When children are admitted to ‘integrated’ or ‘inclusive’ education, an integration or inclusion plan must be in place. This inclusion plan is the result of consultation among all parties involved: the pupil or his or her parents, the mainstream school, the school for special education and the counselling centres (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2003, p. 25). An integration plan contains a.o. a description of the problems and the type of assistance asked for by the pupil, the parents and the school team; the substance of the collegial support (team-oriented action), pupil-oriented action and parent-oriented action; the plan of activities (intensity, evolution throughout the school year, the disciplines involved, location...); adjustments to equipment and material support (special learning tools); and mobilisation of the pupil guidance centre (CLB). The pupil guidance centres (CLB) are available for mainstream and special education and are a service financed by the government. Pupils, parents, teachers and school management teams can call on the CLB for information, help and guidance on learning and studying, school career, preventive health care and social and emotional development (Department of Education and Training, 2008, p. 36). In addition, from the school year 2010-2011, school regulations across all schools in Flanders will prescribe the need for a declaration of commitment between the school and parents. Parents will be required to sign this upon registration. This declaration of commitment will contain clear guidelines concerning parents' evenings, minimum school attendance, participation in what the school offers in terms of counselling and a positive commitment where the Dutch language is concerned (Eurydice Flemish Government, 2010a, p. 47) Finally, in mainstream education, regular, individual school reports provide pupils and parents with information on the child's results, its progress, learning behaviour and personal development.(Eurydice Flemish Government, 2010a, p.162) e. How are responsibility issues dealt with in case of referral of a student with special needs to other (special) school in or outside the catchment area? Parents are responsible for the registration of their children. If it comes to the attention of the administration that a child has not been registered, the parents have to explain themselves and are reminded of their responsibility. Legal action can be taken if they do not assume their responsibility (Decree of 25 February 1997). Schools who refer a student with special needs to another school, whether within or outside the catchment area, are no longer responsible for that student.

Bijlagen › 55

f. Are teacher training and support regarded as prerequisites for making teachers responsible? If this applies: what training and support regarded as prerequisites for making teachers responsible? If this applies: what training and support are made available? Support to teachers is mainly provided by specialist teachers from special schools and consultants from Centres for Pupil Guidance. They provide information, advice and support to the class teacher. It is possible to find remedial teachers working as school staff members. They mainly support pupils presenting short-term difficulties, but more and more providing direct support to class teachers and the school, trying to co-ordinate provision of support, working methods and educational programmes.(Special Needs Education in Europe, 2003, p. 27) During 2007, teacher training was thoroughly reformed. From 1 September 2007 a distinction is made between 3 clusters of teacher-training programmes. The integrated teacher-training programmes, organised by university colleges, which integrate subject-specific and pedagogicalteaching components throughout the entire 3-year training programme. Specific teacher training in addition to or after a subject-specific study itinerary or professional experience, organised by university colleges, universities and centres for adult education (CVOs). Advanced Bachelor’s programme special education and Advanced Bachelor’s programme special-needs provision in mainstream schools and remedial teaching which provide further perfection or specialisation and which are accessible to all staff in education. To be able to function as a fully-fledged beginning teacher, each graduate must have acquired the relevant basic competences (description of knowledge, skills and attitudes). These basic competences enable the teacher to grow into the professional profile (description of knowledge, skills and attitudes of teacher when practising his profession). The professional profile was updated by the Decision of the Flemish Government of 5 October 2007. It is a common profile for all teachers and is based on archetype functions described in the Decree of 1996 concerning teacher training and in-service training, namely the teacher being: guide in the learning and developmental processes educator content expert organiser innovator and researcher partner of parents/carers member of a school team partner of outsiders member of the educational community participant in culture.

Bijlagen › 56

In the operationalization of this profile, a lot of attention has been given to teaching students with special needs. (Eurydice Flemish Community, 2010a, p. 355). Finally, every year, schools must draw up an in-service training plan. This plan must be approved by a local committee, or failing this, the general staff assembly. It specifies in a coherent manner all training efforts that are aimed at developing the knowledge, skills and attitudes of staff at the institutions. Once these needs have been identified, a short or long-term priority plan may be drawn up. The legislation takes a broad view of inservice training as long as it can be demonstrated that the funded initiatives will contribute to the teacher’s professionalisation. Both management and all the staff members of a school can essentially call on in-service training funds. Though, proof that further training will benefit the member of staff’s assignments is required. Schools may refund the teachers’ transport and registration fees. In-service training is subject to the free-market principle. Institutions are free to select an in-service training organisation of their choice for the in-service training of their staff, and can, for this purpose, consult the in-service training database (Eurydice Flemish Community, 2010a, p. 444).

Bijlagen › 57

Vignette 1: Kevin (9;10 years) Children diagnosed with ADHD and ODD will stay in mainstream education as long as possible. The class teacher would receive some support from the special needs co-ordinator within the school and from the consulent of the pupil guidance centre. However, mainstream schools often indicate that they are not capable of dealing with students with behavioral disorders. The chances of being referred to a special school are high. Kevin would be referred to a special school, type 3, suited for students with behavioural/emotional problems. Recently, the number of students admitted to a special school type 3 is expanding rapidly. In the special school, Kevin would receive education, (para)medical support and psychotherapy. In special education, parents are closely involved. Kevin’s parents would be adviced to get home counseling / support at home. After nine monts, Kevin could return to mainstream education with some support from a teacher in special education. However, integrated education for children with behavioural disorders is no common practice. Vignette 2: Tina (10 years) Tina, a student with a tumour and a physical disability, would also remain in mainstream education as long as possible. She would receive 4 hours of education at home provided by the mainstream school after 21 days of absence because of sickness or for every nine half days of absence because of a chronical illness. When she is at school, she would receive some support from the special needs co-ordinator within the school. Specific measures would be taken (e.g. physical education would no longer be part of her curriculum, more time for taking exams,...). The class teacher would also receive some support from the special needs co-ordinator within the school and from the consulent of the pupil guidance centre. Within the framework of integrated education, Tina could also get support from a teacher of a special school type 4, suited for children with physical disabilities (2-4 hours/week). However, to be entitled to integrated education, a comprehensive assessment is necessary. One of the conditions of integrated education is the educational level of the student. If the educational level of Tina is more than two years behind of the peer group, integrated education would no longer be advised. She would be full-time referred to a special school type 4. In the special school she would receive education and (para)medical support.

Bijlagen › 58

References Department of Education and Training (2008). Education in Flanders. The Flemish educational landscape in a nutshell. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/publicaties/eDocs/pdf/120.pdf European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2003). Special education across Europe in 2003. Trends in provision in 18 European countries. Retrieved from http://www.europeanagency.org/publications/ereports/special-education-across-europe-in2003/special_education_europe.pdf European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (1999). Financing of special needs education. A seventeen)country study of the relationship between financing of special needs education and inclusion. Retrieved from http://www.europeanagency.org/publications/ereports/financing-of-special-needseducation/financing-of-special-needs-education Eurydice Flemish Community (2010a). Flemish Eurydice report 2010. Organisation of the education system in the Flemish Community of Belgium 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/eurydice/downloads/national_dossier_EN_2 010.pdf Eurydice Flemish Community (2010b). National synopsis of the educational systems and current reforms in Europe. Belgium – Flemish Community 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/eurydice/downloads/SummarySheets_BE_NL_2009-2010-%20ENG_DEP.pdf The Flemish Government (2008, May). Integratie van leerlingen met een matige of ernstige verstandelijke handicap in het gewoon lager en secundair onderwijs (ION)[Integration of students with moderate or severe intellectual disabilities in regular primary and secondary education (ION)]. Brussels: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/edulex/database/document/document.asp?d ocid=13998 The Flemish Government (2003,September). Geïntegreerd onderwijs (GON)[Integrated education (GON)]. Brussels: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/edulex/database/document/document.asp?d ocid=13422 Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Departement Onderwijs (2007). Van handelingsplanning tot handelingsplan in het buitengewoon onderwijs. Brussels: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/dvo/buitengewoon/handelingsplan/webinfo_ handplan_2007_09.pdf

Bijlagen › 59

German Report Johannes Mand

Germany is a federal republic. And there are significant differences in special education and inclusive education policy. In the Federal State of Saxony-Anhalt for example a high 8.6 % of all students attend special schools (0.45 % inclusive education). Schleswig-Holstein has a lower percentage of special education students (3.54 % special education; 1.68 % inclusive education). This report describes the situation in North-Rhine Westphalia, a federal state with about 18 million inhabitants. It consists of the Ruhr region (in the past known for its coal mines and steel industry), the Rhineland and Westphalia, with towns like Dortmund, Essen, and Cologne. The capital is Düsseldorf. Special education students and inclusive education students in the Federal States of Germany (Hinz, A.: Gemeinsamer Unterricht [Inclusive Education at School]. In: Eberwein, H., Mand, J.: Integration konkret. Stuttgart 2009, 203 [Good practice in inclusive education]) all students classes 1-10

special school

Inclusive education

special educational needs

Bavaria

1361643

60169 = 4,42 %

8576 = 0,63 %

68745 = 5,05 %

Berlin

291226

13008 = 4,47 %

6597 = 2,27 %

19605 = 6,73 %

Brandenburg

193121

11546 = 5,98 %

4531 = 2,35 %

16077 = 8,32 %

Bremen

62597

2641 = 4,22 %

2152 = 3,44 %

4793 = 7,67 %

Hamburg

152868

7361 = 4,82 %

1310 = 0,86 %

8671 = 5,67 %

Hesse

624514

26701 = 4,28 %

3227 = 0,52 %

29928 = 4,79 %

RhinelandPalatinate

438030

16819 = 3,84 %

2521 = 0,56 %

19340 = 4,42 %

Saxony

290803

20094 = 6,91 %

2588 = 0,89 %

22682 = 7,8 %

SaxonyAnhalt

174628

14773 = 8,46 %

862 = 0,49 %

15635 = 9,53 %

Thuringia

164431

13161 = 8,00 %

2021 = 1,23 %

15182 = 9,23 %

Germany

8416136

408085 = 4,85 %

76261 = 0,91 %

484346 = 5,75 %

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will soon generate changes in German special education / inclusive education policy. Giving new names for special schools (from “special school“ [Sonderschule] to “Support school” [Förderschule] to “competence centre”) and starting special school careers not in special schools in some regions are seen to be the first steps. But nobody knows which changes will come about and when this will happen.

Bijlagen › 60

a. What are the governing bodies (school director, school board, municipality) for regular schools? In North-Rhine Westphalia the governing bodies are: School director, school inspectorate, district government, state government of North-Rhine Westphalia. The municipality has to build schools, has to pay for the buildings, and has to pay for bus and taxi costs of SEN students who need this service. The school director is responsible for operating the school on a daily basis. b. Who provides special needs funding and how is it allocated to schools? Special needs funding is provided by the Government of North-Rhine Westphalia. Parents or primary/secondary schools can apply for special education or inclusive education for children with disabilities. A teacher from the regular school and the special are appointed to collect and analyse diagnostic data. The local school inspector (in most regions there is only one school inspector resonsible for all inclusive education /special education per municipality) makes his decision after interviewing the parents. Without these formal application procedures there will be no provision of special education and no inclusive education. And there are no fixed quotas. If there are students with special educational needs, the government pays special education teachers About 2 additional teacher hours per week per SEN student are provided in inclusive education. Schools can apply for more teacher hours for students with severe impairments. But decisions about additional hours are affected by tight budgets. Special education teachers who work in inclusive education often teach in two or more schools for a number of hours per week. SEN expert reports and recommendations in Germany are often substandard. And there are only a few rules for diagnostic procedures at school. In real life the school director of the local primary school and the director of the special school have a decisive influence in the provision of SEN funding to the schools. It is nearly impossible to provide inclusive education without support of the local school director of the primary school. And if the special schools don´t want their teachers to teach in the local schools in an inclusive education setting, it is nearly impossible to provide inclusive education in the primary school. c. Is the local school responsible for students with special needs: is this prescribed in law or in community regulations? If the local school and the school inspector prefer inclusive education, the local schools are responsible for students with special needs. Inclusive education students are students of the local school, although special education teachers from the local special school teach in the local school. In regions with small special schools high inclusive education rates can cause the closure of special schools. These responsibilities are prescribed in regulations of the federal state (“Ausbildungsordnung Sonderpädagogische Förderung”, Regulations pertaining to the provision of special needs education).

Bijlagen › 61

d. Which role and rights do parents have concerning the choice of school for their child? Do parents have access to a court to appeal decisions taken by the educational authorities? The school inspector has the right to decide about defining special educational needs, referral to special school or referral to inclusive education. In fact most of the school inspectors don´t like court cases. This means: If parents know their rights, and if they are seen to be able to take legal action against the decision of the school inspector, most of the school inspectors will decide in favour of inclusive education. Defining special education students and inclusive education students in Germany (NRW) parents or school

application to initiate the SEN procedure

school inspector

begins the procedure, orders reports

primary school teacher special school teacher school medical service

collect and analyse diagnostic data, write report, talk with parents

school inspector

interviews with parents, decides (special educational needs, referral to special school, referral to inclusive education)

parents

accept the decision or enter an appeal; if this is turned down legal action against the decision is possible

The published data of the government show that poverty and high percentages of migrants lead under these conditions to high rates of special education for students with learning difficulties (IQ 70-85). Economic success leads to high rates of inclusive education (Mand 2006, 110 f.).

Bijlagen › 62

high unemployment figures

high Percentage SEN students with learning difficulties

low rents of very old house flats

low rents of old house flats

high percentage of special school students with learning difficulties

Unemployment figures X SEN Students with learning difficulties (IQ 70-85)

r

p

towns

.508

.013

23

Rent per squaremeter of very old house flats -.454 .039 21 X special school students with learning difficulties Rent per squaremeter of old house flats X -.454 0.039 21 Anteil Förderschüler LB Mand, J.: Integration fur die Kinder der Mittelschicht und Sonderschulen fur die Kinder der Migranten und Arbeitslosen? (Inclusive education for middle class students and special schools for the children of migrants and of the unemployed ). In: Zeitschrift fur Heilpädagogik 57 (2006 c), 109-115

In regions with high rents per square meter for new-built house flats, in regions with high percentages of migrants and in economic successful regions there are are high rates of SEN students with behaviour problems (p .017 / p. 0.034) or high rates of special school students with behaviour problems (p .0007). e. How are responsibility issues dealt with in case of referral of a student with special needs to other (special) schools in or out of the catchment area? The school inspector makes a decision on the application of parents. The new school takes over all responsibility for the student.

Bijlagen › 63

Are teacher training and support regarded as prerequisites for making teachers feel responsible for SEN students? If this applies: what training and support are made available? Special needs education in Germany has been understood in the 20th century as special school education. Only a few university departments are interested in teaching inclusive education. Primary school teachers very often have quite inadequate knowledge about special education / inclusive education. Special schools and special education departments in the universities are very often not interested in providing training and support for inclusive education. Special education and inclusive education on the one hand and education for primary schools on the other hand have traditionally been taught in different university departments. However, if primary or secondary schools do want inclusive education training, they can have school based teacher training - for about one or two days per year. And it is possible to attend teacher training in teacher training institutions of the government or in training institutions of the teachers’ union (GEW) or training institutions of teachers’ lobby groups.

Bijlagen › 64

Appendix: Name Age School career

Vignette 1 Justin 11;4 elementary school special school for behaviour and learning problems during first year now grade 5 in a class for students with severe behaviour problems (with four pupils)

Home situation Justin lives at home with his mother, a five-year-old brother, a new-borne sister, two dogs and five snakes. He does not know his father. And there has been no adult male in Justin´s family for years. Justin’s family lives a very isolated life in a village near a small town in North-Rhine Westphalia. His mother is jobless. She does house-cleaning work, but she needs to conceal this from the employment centre. Since referral Justin has attended his new school very regularly, hardly missing a day. But his mother has refused to have any contact with the special school for the past three years. Perhaps Justin´s mother can´t tolerate the thought that there are behavioural problems in her family. So Justin and his mother agree: Justin has no special educational needs. His teachers can´t interact with him in the right way. They think the special school is the wrong school for Justin. Support Justin attends school five days a week from 8.00 h to 13.00 h. There is no additional support for Justin in the afternoon. Justin’s teachers think that psychotherapy would be very important. His mother does not think so. The family is well known in the youth welfare office. Justin´s mother does not want any contact to the social workers. Because there is not enough money to give support for all problem families in town, the youth welfare office tries to manage the situation by looking the other way. School situation Role taking and moral judgement competence are the most important problems for Justin. He is not able to understand what is going on in the classroom. He very often has no idea about aims and feelings of students and teachers. Very often he thinks that there´s no justice in his school. And when this happens he attacks everybody who could possibly be responsible for this situation with all the might he has. If older students bully him, if he does not understand the rules of school, if he hears his insulting nick-name (“fish mouth“) he loses control completely. In this situation he is able to attack students who are much older than him (up to 10th graders). Some of them like to see Justin fighting. So there are a lot of conflicts every day. Learning process Justin´s literacy competences are not well developed. He is able to read short sentences. He writes like a second grader with problems in phonological awareness. In arithmetic there are only a few problems. Under other circumstances he would be seen as a dyslexic child. His writing tests data are bad (percent rank < 2%). His IQ is low (IQ 89, HAWIK). And therapy for dyslexic children is not paid for special school students. The best

Bijlagen › 65

thing a teacher can do is to avoid conflicts in the classroom. In these situations Kevin is able to read or write for a few minutes. Sometimes he likes to do some arithmetic tasks. His reading competences and writing competences have improved in the last few years. But development is very slow. Social development There are only a few diagnostic data. Justin has no friends in school. In the afternoon he plays at home with his brother, watches TV or plays video games. The teachers use behaviour therapy techniques (reinforcement, token system) and talk with Justin about aims and affective states of students and teachers one hour per week. After three years special education he shows slow development in role taking. Some days Justin is able to understand the affective states of other students, if there have been no conflicts at school. Reason for referral to a special school Justin´s first school was a Christian private school. Other families choose this school because of the conservative educational setting. Within a few weeks after school started the situation went badly wrong. Justin attacked other students and his teacher. The problems soon became worse. After two months nearly every primary school teacher in the small town had heard of the problems. And so no school director accepted Justin as a pupil. A referral to the special school was the only way to avoid home schooling. Appendix: Name Age School career

Vignette 2 Max 14;7 referral to special school after special education kindergarten grade 1 – 8 special school for pupils with physical disabilities

Home situation / situation Max lives with his parents and a eight-year-old sister in a pretty privately owned home in a suburb of a town with about 200 000 inhabitants. A twenty-year-old sister moved to a flat of her own a year ago. His father is a technical assistant in a small factory. His mother works as a care nurse for elderly people (20 hours per week). At home Max needs constant attendance. His parents applied for personal assistance in the afternoon or during holidays. But they have not been successful. Support There is no additional support after school. School situation The school begins at 8.00 h and it ends at 15.30 h. There are 11 students in his form. They are taught by three teachers (one full time teacher, two teachers with half-time contracts). A “Zivi” (young person doing alternative work to military service) and a female trainee give additional assistance for 10 hours a week Max´s impairment has been diagnosed as a left side hemi-paresis. In the morning he has to take epilepsy medication to suppress seizures. He wears ortheses for his feet and needs glasses. He wears a surgical corset. A one-

Bijlagen › 66

hand wheel chair gives him mobility. And he is a smart wheelchair driver. Because of his high risk usage of his wheel chair he should wear a helmet in school. He uses a type of stationary support frame for part of the day. At school his motor development is trained by using a walker device. His problems are seen as a severe disability with mental retardation (IQ < 60) and with severe behaviour problems (auto aggressive behaviour, shouting). Learning process Max speaks in short sentences. He counts to three, but does not understand sets of numbers. He can´t read, but he is able to understand pictograms. There are modest improvements in motor abilities. In two years he will begin attending a sheltered workshop. There are only very limited prospects for independent living. Cognitive development is not stable. Progress noted in school seems to have vanished after the school holidays. Social development Max knows the names of students and of his teachers and he is happy to meet them in school. His verbal interaction competences are low. Max has no friends, but it seems that he does not miss social contact. Reason for referral to a special school Max started his school career in his special school, because his parents wanted this. There is no full time inclusive school in his town. And it would be complicated for the parents to bring their children to therapy sessions in the afternoon. So Max´s parents are very content with the local special school.

Bijlagen › 67

Irish report

Dr. Joseph Travers Special Education in Ireland The vast majority of primary schools In Ireland are State-aided parish schools. In recent years multi-denominational national schools, each under the patronage of a limited company without share capital, have been established in response to local parental demand. Most primary schools are under the patronage of the local Bishop. In 1975 a system of boards of management was established for primary schools. The introduction of boards of management provided opportunities for a partnership of parents, teachers, Patrons’ representatives and community representatives in the task of school management. Ireland has around 130 special schools, which cater for under 1% of the total student population. Subject to the Rules for National Schools and to the Constitution of Boards and Rules of Procedure and to circulars issued from time to time by the Minister for Education and Skills, boards of management are responsible for the direct government of their schools. The second-level education sector comprises secondary, vocational, community and comprehensive schools. Secondary schools are privately owned and managed but schools receive grant funding from the state and teacher salaries are paid by the state. The trustees of the majority of these schools are religious communities or Boards of Governors. Vocational schools and community colleges are state owned and administered by Vocational Education Committees while community and comprehensive schools are managed by Boards of Management of differing compositions. Funding for special educational needs is channelled through two sources. At primary level each school is given additional staff (learning support/resource teacher) based on a general allocation model, which is weighted according to school size, gender makeup and whether the school is in an area designated as disadvantaged. Such teachers provide support to children with high incidence special educational needs and funding is provided centrally from the Department of Education and Skills (DES). In relation to additional support for children with low incidence special educational needs, schools must apply separately for each child to the National Council for Special Education, a statutory body. The application must include an external professional assessment and will be assessed by one of the Council’s Special Education Needs Organisers. Based on this assessment, the school may receive additional “resource teaching hours” and/or the services of a special needs assistant to deal with the care needs of the child. The Council administers resource allocation within Department of Education and Skills policy parameters. At post primary level the general allocation model does not operate and all additional resources for assessed special educational needs are administered through the National Council for Special Education, again within DES policy.

Bijlagen › 68

The Education Act (1998) outlines all children’s right to an appropriate education. This was the first piece of legislation in the Irish context guaranteeing the right to education of all children with special educational needs. In the Irish educational system there is a strong presumption, though qualified, in favour of inclusive education for all children. This is underlined in the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act (EPSEN) (2004): A child with special educational needs shall be educated in an inclusive environment with children who do not have such needs unless the nature or degree of those needs of the child is such that to do so would be inconsistent with— a. the best interests of the child as determined in accordance with any assessment carried out under this Act, or b. the effective provision of education for children with whom the child is to be educated.(Section 2) While this act has been passed by the legislature and the above section has been commenced, many aspects of the Act have been deferred including the right to an education plan following assessment. In addition, the National Council for Special Education set up under the Act has as one of its functions “to ensure that a continuum of special educational provision is available as required in relation to each type of disability”; Section 20 (1) (g). Combined with the above, there is a qualified right for parents to choose a school for their children. This is contained in the Education Act (1998), which has as one of its objects: to promote the right of parents to send their children to a school of the parents’ choice having regard to the rights of patrons and the effective and efficient use of resources; Part 1 6 (e) The National Council for Special Education also has powers to designate a school for a child with special educational needs. The Council employs Special Educational Needs Organisers (SENOs) who have responsibility for organising the support mechanisms for children with special educational needs. Under section 10 of the EPSEN Act (2004), the Council may, of its own volition or, in the case of a child whose education plan has been prepared on the direction of the Council by a SENO, at the request of the parents, designate the school which a child with special educational needs is to attend. In making such a decision: the Council shall have regard to the needs of the child concerned, the wishes of the child’s parents and the capacity of the school to accommodate the child and to meet his or her needs, including that capacity when the school has such additional resources made available to it as the Council recommends to the Minister (which recommendation the Council may, by virtue of this subsection, make).

Bijlagen › 69

However, schools have a right of appeal against this designation. Section 9 of the Education Act (1998) sets out the function of a school. These include inter alia : ensure that the education needs of all students, including those with a disability or other special educational needs, are identified and provided for; A Board of Management of a school shall make arrangements for the preparation of a school plan and ensure that it is regularly reviewed and updated. The school shall state the objectives of the school relating to equality of access and participation including access by pupils with disabilities and special needs. Schools are required under the terms of the Education Act to publish their admissions policy, including that regarding admission to the school of children with disabilities. They are prohibited by the Equal Status Act from discriminating against children with a disability in relation to admission. In commenting on this the Report of the Task Force on Autism (DES, 2001) states that Discrimination between children in relation to the way education is provided for them is a legal option only when safety is at issue, or when the continued viability of conditions for the delivery of the service on a group basis is at issue. Schools are to ensure that principles of equality and the right of parents to send their children to a school of their choice are respected in the general context of the effective and efficient use of resources and the rights of school patrons. Under the terms of the Education Act, a refusal by a school to admit a student may be appealed by a parent to the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science. But, “Neither the Equal Status Act nor the Education Act, however, specifies enforcement mechanisms in respect of the above legislative provisions” (DES, 2001, p.313). The above appeal procedure in the Education Act (1998) was subsequently amended in 2007 to require an appeals committee, operating under Section 29, to take account, inter alia, of the educational interests of other students in the school, as well as the student who is the subject of the appeal; the maintenance of a school environment supportive of learning; the safety, health and welfare of teachers and staff; and the safety, health and welfare of other students. Three High Court judgements have been made in respect of judicial review proceedings taken by schools against decisions that have been made by Section 29 committees. The Minister for Education and Science has lodged an appeal against one of these judgements to the Supreme Court. In the meantime the Department of Education and Science has written to the Irish National Teachers Organisation (INTO) which is the teacher union representing primary teachers, stating that pending the outcome of this appeal, the role of a Section 29 Committee is confined to reviewing whether a school Board of Management applied its own policies correctly and lawfully and in a reasonable and rational manner (INTO, 2011). Under the EPSEN Act (2004), a child with special educational needs is entitled to an education plan and parents would have an input into this plan. It must contain goals for the child and must be reviewed at least once a

Bijlagen › 70

year. Parents also have the right of appeal to the Special Education Appeals Board. While most schools have such plans in place this part of the Act has not been commenced and therefore it is not currently mandatory. In practice, in terms of actual transfer from mainstream to special schools in Ireland the following trends are apparent. While the number of children attending special schools has reduced substantially in the last decade there are increases in some specific areas. The population of special schools has changed to more post primary children reflecting parental concerns with finding suitable mainstream provision for such children. In addition, the nature of special educational needs has changed in special schools with children with more complex needs and challenging behaviour making up more of the student intake than heretofore (Ware et al., 2009). Another key development is parental interest in autism specific special educational provision, particularly applied behaviour analysis (ABA) and this has led to the creation of new special schools in this area. However, Department of Education and Skills policy favours an eclectic approach to pedagogy for children with autistic spectrum disorders. In terms of teacher education the Teaching Council regulations for teacher education state that preparation for teaching children with special educational needs should receive substantial input. Current provision varies widely from institution to institution. All teachers (mainstream and specialist) are educated together in Ireland at initial teacher education level and can specialise at post graduate level. The Department of Education and Skills support seven teacher education institutions in the provision of post graduate diplomas for teachers in specialist positions (learning support/resource teacher in a mainstream school, special class and special school teachers). The courses are of oneyear part-time duration and involve substitution cover for eight weeks face to face tuition and all programmes include teaching practice. However, the programmes are optional with 340 places each year. However, there are over 9,000 teachers in specialist positions in Irish schools. The Department also supports the Special Education Support Service which provides short courses and professional development support to schools. It has provided many programmes in the area of Autistic Spectrum Disorders and teachers have been released to attend these courses. The support services which the Minister for Education can provide for schools and for students with special educational needs and their parents include assessment, psychological, guidance and counselling services; technical aid and equipment; adaptations to buildings to facilitate access; home tuition and transport.

Bijlagen › 71

Vignette 1 Name: Tina Referral to a special school for pupils with physical disability Depending on what part of the country Mary lived in there could be a different response. In this case, the option of a special school would only apply if she were within commuting distance of a city. In such a case, Tina could be referred to a special school for children with physical disabilities. The referral could come through a hospital care team, through Tina’s family doctor or through an approach to the school by Tina’s parents. In Ireland, special schools for children with physical disabilities are usually located in a combined school and clinic setting. Following referral, a decision to offer Tina a place in the school would be based on the outcomes of an assessment by the clinical team. Once placed in the school, Tina would be entitled to support from the various clinical departments on an assessment of needs basis. The school would also provide a free transport service to and from the school. During her time in the school, Tina’s placement would be kept under review and the possibility of her returning to mainstream education would be kept under consideration. If Tina were to return to a mainstream school, she would have the option of coming back to the special school should the mainstream placement prove to be unsatisfactory. In a mainstream school, based on her assessment, Tina would be entitled to x hours of resource teaching support up to a maximum of five hours per week. This could be delivered in-class, in small group withdrawal or in a one to one situation or combination of all three depending on her needs. The resource teacher would support the class teacher in differentiating the curriculum for Tina and lead the implementation of goals in her individual education plan. She would also have been assigned a full time special needs assistant who would support her care needs and support her in the school yard situation. Vignette 2 Kevin Referral to a special school for pupils with behavioural difficulties In Ireland there is a difference in support provision depending on whether the child has a high incidence special educational need (defined as mild or borderline mild general learning disabilities, specific learning disability or mild behaviour problems) or low incidence special educational needs which include moderate, severe and profound general learning disabilities, sensory impairments, autism and emotional disturbance. Kevin would likely be diagnosed with emotional disturbance or severe emotional disturbance. In his local primary school this would entitle him to 3.5 hour or 5 hours weekly resource teaching support in addition to whatever supports the school could offer from within its general allocation of support staff who are given primarily to cater for pupils with high incidence special educational needs.

Bijlagen › 72

In addition Kevin would have the services of a full time special needs assistant who would work with the class teacher and resource teacher to address his care needs. If this arrangement was not working out the school or parents could request a review of the provision from the National Council for Special Education. Other options that could be considered would be attendance at a special class attached to another school in the city. This class would have a student teacher ratio of 8-1. The other option would be a special school, only available in some cities, again with a ratio of 8-1 but with additional therapeutic supports available. Services would not automatically transfer at post primary level and a new assessment would be done. Some second level schools have access to the National Behaviour Support Service which can provide intensive individualised behaviour support in specialised units attached to schools.

Bijlagen › 73

References Department of Education and Science.(2001). Educational Provision and Support for Persons with Autistic Spectrum Disorders: the Report of the Task Force on Autism, Dublin: The Stationery Office. Government of Ireland. (2000). Equal Status Act, 2000. Dublin: The Stationery Office. Government of Ireland. (2004). Equality Act, 2000. Dublin: The Stationery Office. Government of Ireland. (2004). Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Bijlagen › 74

Bijlagen › 75

Norwegian report Christian Wendelborg

a. Which are the governing bodies for regular schools (school director, school board, municipality, etc) and what roles and responsibilities do they have?. b. Who provides special needs funding and how is it forwarded to / divided over schools? The state bears the overall responsibility for the Education Act with regulations, contents and financing of primary and secondary education and training. The County Governors are to act as links between the Ministry of Education and Research and the Directorate for Education and Training on the one hand and the education sector in municipalities and counties on the other. The County Governors are responsible for supervision and dealing with complaints related to regulations, participation in quality development, information, guidance and various administrative matters. The municipalities are responsible for operating and administering primary and lower secondary schools, whereas the county authorities are responsible for upper secondary education and training. This apply for all children and students – with or without special needs. Legislation and regulations, including the National Curriculum, form a binding framework, but within this framework the municipal and county authorities, schools and teachers can influence the implementation of the education and training. Each school has a head teacher and various boards, councils and committees, which is funded by the municipality or county. (http://www.udir.no/upload/Brosjyrer/Education_in_Norway.pdf) c. Is the local school responsible for students with special needs? Is this prescribed in law or community regulations? The Education Act (Section 8-1) stats that Primary and lower secondary school pupils have the right to attend the school that is closest to where they live or the school designated for the catchment area where they live. The local school is responsible for proper education for each and all pupil at their school. Parents can apply for or accept other options. According to The Education Act (Section 9a-2) all pupils are entitled to a workplace adapted to their needs. The school shall be equipped to provide for the needs of the pupils at the school who have disabilities. d. Which role and rights do parents have concerning the choice of school for their child? Are they involved in discussing the programme and support for their child? Do parents have access to a court for appeal? In Norway, children cannot be placed outside the local school without parents consent. Parent’s perceptions towards school placement have been found to vary according to the characteristics of the child. The Education act (Section 5-5) requires that a child that has special education needs also should have an individualized education plan, set up in collaboration with the child and his/her parents. Twice a year, the school is required to make a

Bijlagen › 76

written report on the activities related to the individualized education plan. Parents can appeal to The ministry of education represented by the County Governors for individual decisions in the primary and lower secondary education and for individual decisions concerning special educational assistance prior to compulsory school age. e. How are responsibility issues dealt with in case of referral of a student with special needs to other (special) schools in or outside the catchment area. In 1975 The Special School Act was embodied into the general Education Act, and municipalities became responsible for the education of all children. The municipalities are therefore responsible in case of referral of a student with special needs to other (special) schools in or outside the catchment area. The municipality in which the student lives is responsible and pays for student with special needs in or outside the catchments area. There are several catchment areas in each municipalities and when a student are referred to a school outside his or hers catchment area, he or she is mainly still in the same municipality. The Norwegian education act states that when due consideration for the other pupils so indicates, a pupil may under special circumstances be moved to a school other than the local school. Before a decision is made to move a pupil, other measures shall have been attempted. Children with disabilities cannot, according to the education act, be moved to another school by the reason of his or hers special educational needs, without parents’ consent and after an expert assessment (by the EducationalPsychological Service). f. Are teacher training and support regarded as prerequisites for making teachers responsible? If this applies: what training and support are made available? The training of general school teachers does not have much on special education needs, if anything. Haug (2004) discussed two tracks in teachers’ curriculum: the normal track and the special track. In the normal track special education issues are not present, whereas in the special track teachers are expected to be special education teachers – which involve questions about disability and learning problems, most typical teaching methods related to specific types of disability or learning problems. The formal requirement for becoming a special education teacher is further education in special education, but in some areas of the country, people with this education is a shortage. There are no requirements for becoming a teacher’s assistant (except a certificate of conduct from the police). g. The appendix (1) comprises of two vignettes describing how the schoolsystem in the Netherlands most likely would deal with 1. a student with concentration and behaviour problems and 2. a student with serious physical disabilities due to a traffic accident. Please describe using the same student characteristics how the schoolsystem in your country most likely would deal with these students.

Bijlagen › 77

To answer this question, it is necessary to give the reader some insight in the Norwegian setting. The following quote from Wendelborg & Tøssebro (2008) describes the main ideas and development related to inclusive education: Pijl and Mejer (1991) identified three different models or approaches in educational policy related to children with SEN; a ‘two track’ approach characterised by a distinct division between the regular and special education system, a ‘one-track’ approach where policies and practice favour inclusion of all children, and a ‘multi-track’ approach which has a variety of options ranging from inclusion to special schools. During the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s Norway changed from a two-track to a one-track model. Before 1975, the state ran the special schools, whereas municipalities were responsible for general primary education, that is, all other children. In 1975, a legal and administrative integration took place. The Special School Act was embodied into the general Education Act, and municipalities became responsible for the education of all children. However, special schools did not disappear. Some were transferred to municipalities whereas others continued to be run by the state, providing education that was purchased by municipalities. However, inclusion policies and ideology were gradually strengthened. In the late 1980s, legislative changes gave every child the right to attend their local school and to belong to a regular class together with their peers, but parents could apply for or accept other options. In 1992, all state run special schools were closed with the exception of schools for sign language students. The ideology was that special education should take place in a classroom setting together with peers at the local school. Municipalities with many inhabitants, which in Norway is highly correlated with population density, has an impact on whether children with disabilities are being placed in special schools or classes. This is consistent with what Meijer and De Jager (2001) between different countries. This means that how the Norwegian schoolsystem most likely would deal with students as described in the vignettes, depends on in what part of the country the student lives. As Meijer and De Jager (2001) pointed out, having separate school system for children in sparsely populated areas are inconvenient and thus the solution may be to give special (segregated) education within the local regular school.

Bijlagen › 78

Vignette 1: The case of Kevin The Norwegian education act states that when due consideration for the other pupils so indicates, a pupil may under special circumstances be moved to a school other than the local school. Before a decision is made to move a pupil, other measures shall have been attempted. When necessary, the pupil may be moved to a school outside the municipality, but not if this requires the pupil to leave home or if transport between home and school thereby becomes unreasonably long. Kevin lives in a rather large municipality in which there is access to special education schools and alternative schools. The term alternative school refers to segregated social pedagogical schools which offer education to children with rather large behavioral or motivational problems. Alternative schools differ from special schools for children with learning difficulties and are mostly for pupils in lower secondary school (8 to 10th grade, 13-15 years old) and there is just a handful alternative schools in Norway for children attending primary education (1 to 7th grade, 6-12 years). This means in Kevin case that he most likely will not be referred to a special or alternative school as long as he attends primary education. The regular school Kevin attends to, would together with Kevin parents, refer Kevin to the municipality’s Educational-Psychological Service, which every municipality is required to have. Kevin would most likely, after an expert assessment (by the Educational-Psychological Service), have been classified as eligible for special education. The expert assessment by the EPS should state Kevins education aims and should be adapted to the Kevins needs and abilities, and the total number of school hours should be the same as for other children of the same age. Kevin would also get an individualized education plan, set up in collaboration with the his parents. Kevin will most likely get assigned a special education teacher or a teacher assistant at the local school. However It seems to be the case that special education very frequently is provided “out of class”. In 2009-10 51853 pupils (8,4 per cent of all pupils in primary and lower secondary school) received special education (some few hours, others many) , of whom 7464 was alone with a teacher during special education and 33128 was in a small group with other students with special education needs. Thus, about ¾ were “out of class” (Source: Compulsory education information system). Kevin would probably get his education at the local school but not always together with his classmates. As Kevin grows older he would likely get more hours of special education and hours with teacher assistance and fewer hours in a regular class. Vignette 2: The case of Tina Tina lives in a sparsely populated municipality and there are no special schools or educational offerings besides the regular local school. In Norway, there are few pupils who are in segregated educational facilities solely because of mobility difficulties and Tina would probably begin her educational career at a regular school no matter the population density of the municipality. However, according to the Education Act (section 2-1), the Patient Rights Act (section 6-4) and a Regulation on Children in Health Care Institutions (Forskrift om barns opphold i helseinstitusjon), if Tina is frequently absent from school due to illness, she has the right to tuition in hospitals, at home or at other institutions (Legard 2009).

Bijlagen › 79

However, Tina’s cognitive abilities seem to deteriorate and she starts to fall behind compared to other students in her class. The growing difference between Tina and her classmates makes it more challenging for Tina’s schools and teachers to provide satisfactory learning that is adapted to the child’s characteristics, interests, abilities and learning needs, and as a consequence Tina becomes not adequately provided for in regular class teaching. To remedy such a situation schools use school assistants extensively to support teachers and students , with the result that the responsibility for teaching Tina is delegated to special educators and school assistants who often do not have any knowledge of the class as a whole. Attitudes and behaviour in regular schools and teachers may easily lead children with special needs towards the special teacher’s domain (Wendelborg & Tøssebro 2008). While the use of special education and teacher assistants is important in giving satisfactory education to Tina, findings suggest that the practice of special education and teacher assistants are negatively related to classroom participation (Wendelborg & Tøssebro 2010a). Findings also shows a strong positive relation between classroom participation and social participation with peers (Wendelborg & Tøssebro 2010a), which suggests that special education and teacher assistants may hinder special needs students in gaining access to the same social benefits as their peers Delegating and derogating responsibility for student teaching to special educators and teacher’s assistants is contradictory to the promotion of an inclusive school system. Assigning teachers with limited knowledge about the rest of the class, and limiting opportunities for direct dialogue between the main class teacher and parents further marginalise Tina’s social position in her class. Comments on both Kevin and Tina cases There have never been a large number of pupils in special schools/arrangements in Norway. Evidence suggest that the number of all pupils in segregated facilities has declined from about 0,8% in the 1960s to about 0,5% from the mid 1990s (Wendelborg 2010). This has been considered low in European comparison (Vislie 2003). After 2005, the number of pupils in special groups or schools has increased, to more than 1% in 2006-07 and 1,3% in the year 2008-09 (Source: Compulsory education information system). It is disputed to what extent the changes are due to new reporting routines and to what extent it reflects real changes. The number of pupils in segregated facilities has anyhow been rather stable over the last decades, irrespective of an outspoken inclusion policy and there seems to be an overall increase in use of special schools and classes in Norway during the last decade especially for children with social- and/or behavioural problems (Jahnsen, Nergaard & Flaatten, 2006). Research findings in Norway suggest that there are few children with disabilities who are moved from regular schools to special schools or classes in the course of primary school. After the initial separation into special schools or classes upon entry to primary school years, there is no gradual removal from regular schools into special schools or special classes. However in the transition from primary school to lower secondary school many children are being moved from regular schools to special schools. This means that in Kevin and Tina cases, they may be moved to segregated

Bijlagen › 80

educational facilities as they grow older (if there is a such facilities located in their municipality). It seems like in regular schools in Norway, that the class teacher is seen as having responsibility for the ordinary pupils, while special educators and teacher’s assistants are responsible for ‘the special ones’. As Kevin and Tina grow older they will get more hours of special education, and at the same time there seems to be a shift in practice from special education practised within the arena of the regular classroom to special education outside that arena as children grow older. (Wendelborg & Tøssebro 2010b). It can be argued that there is a development towards a covert segregation within regular schools.

Bijlagen › 81

References Haug, P. (2004). Hva forskningen forteller om integrering og inkludering i skolen. I J. Tøssebro (Red.), Integrering och inkludering (s. 169198). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Jahnsen, H., Nergaard, S. E. & Flaatten, S. V. (2006) I randsonen : forekomst og organisering av smågruppetiltak for elever på ungdomstrinnet som viser problematferd og lav skolemotivasjon [In the border area: prevalence and organisation of small group initiative for pupils in lower secondary schools who show problematic behavior and low school motivation ] Porsgrunn: Lillegården Kompetansesenter. Legard, S. (2009). Pathways from Education to Work for Young People with Impairments and Learning Difficulties in Norway. Country background report. Oslo: AFI. www.afi.no Meijer, C. J. W. & De Jager, B. (2001) Population density and special needs education, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 16 (2): 143148. The Patient Rights Act Lov om pasientrettigheter (pasientrettighetsloven). LOV-1999-07-02-63 The Education Act (Lov om grunnskolen og den vidaregåande opplæringa (opplæringslova)), LOV-1998-07-17-61 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. Wendelborg, C. & Tøssebro, J. (2008): School placement and classroom participation among children with disabilites in primary school in Norway: a longitudinal study, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23 (4): 305 – 319. Wendelborg, C. & Tøssebro, J. (2010a): Educational arrangements and social participation with peers among children with disabilities in regular schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, iFirst article (1-16) Wendelborg, C. & Tøssebro, J. (2010b): Marginalisation processes in inclusive education in Norway – a longitudinal study of classroom participation. Disability and Society, 25 (6), 701-714 Wendelborg, C. (2010): Å vokse opp med funksjonshemming i skole og blant jevnaldrende. [Growing up with disabilities at school ad among peers]. Trondheim, Norges Teknisk Naturvitenskapelige Universitet, NTNU. Institutt for sosialt arbeid og helsevitenskap. PhD Avhandling.

Bijlagen › 82

Bijlagen › 83

Scottish report Julie Allan

Rules, regulations and practices for referring students with special needs from regular to special schools or settings a. Governing bodies for regular schools Regular schools are managed by a Headteacher who is accountable to the officers and elected members of the Education Authority in which it is based. The Headteacher is also accountable to the Scottish Government, Members of the Scottish Parliament and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate in Education (HMIE). This last strand of accountability is exercised through school inspection and through a system of school level self monitoring known as How Good is Our School? There are no governing bodies or school boards in Scotland, but schools have a legal obligation to supply information and guidance to Parent Councils (see section on parents). b. Special needs funding The Scottish Government pays an annual grant to each of its 32 Local Authorities and each Local Authority decides how much it will allocate to education. Education authorities then allocate budgets to schools but still retain control of these. Funding allocations to schools are calculated on a per capita (per student) basis, with additional support needs attracting extra funding. This extra funding is accessed through a process of Staged Intervention, a process which requires schools to assess children with additional support needs, consider the support required for them and to demonstrate their efforts to provide this support from within the school, before seeking additional funding. Levels of spending on special education, including funding for children with additional support needs in mainstream schools and those in special schools, vary across Education Authorities, ranging from an Island Education Authority (Shetland) spending £1952 per child in the population on special education to a rural Education Authority (South Ayrshire) spending £401 per child in 2008-2009. A total of £509,085 was spent on special education in Scotland in the same period, approximately 9% of the total spending on school education. c. Responsibility for students with special needs Under the terms of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (Amended 2009), responsibility for special needs lies with the Education Authority. This legislation introduced the new terminology, ‘additional support needs’, which replaces ‘special needs’ and which is intended to be a much broader concept. Additional support needs are the needs of individual children for support over and above, or different from, that which is normally provided within a regular school. The Additional Support Needs legislation was also significant in ending a system of assessing and recording children with significant special educational needs (similar to statementing in England and Wales). The recording system was tied to resource allocation for special educational needs and was considered unfair because of the different patterns of assessment

Bijlagen › 84

within different Education Authorities. The introduction of Co-ordinated Support Plans to replace the system of assessing and recording has, however, attracted criticism from various groups, including parents and teacher organisations (Allan, 2009; 2010). There is a ’presumption of mainstreaming’ within the Standards in the Scotland Schools etc Act 2000, whereby the Education Authority is expected to make provision for a child with additional support needs to be educated in a regular school unless there are ’exceptional circumstances.’ Education Authorities must also produce an ’accessibility strategy’ indicating how they will increase children’s participation in the school’s curriculum, improve the physical environment of the school and improve communication with disabled pupils (Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils’ Educational Records) (Scotland) Act 2002). The ’presumption of mainstreaming’ has been embedded in the legislation in Scotland since the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, but has co-existed with the rights of parents to choose a school for their child. These two aspects are not always compatible, that is, parents may seek a special, rather than a mainstream, placement. The co-existence of a mainstreaming presumption and parental choice within the legislation has led to an expansion of the population of children as having additional support needs rather than a movement of children from special into mainstream schools. The Education Authority must make ‘adequate and efficient’ provision for additional support for children within its own authority unless this would incur an ‘unreasonable’ expense. Whilst the Education Authority is responsible for ensuring adequate provision is made for children with additional support needs, schools are expected to be able to provide this additional or extra provision from within their own resources. Where children’s additional support needs are such that they require support that is external to the school (for example physiotherapy, speech therapy or occupational therapy), there is a legal duty upon Local Authorities to prepare a Co-ordinated Support Plan. This statutory document contains details of the child’s additional support needs, the individuals required to provide this support and a nomination of the school to be attended by the child. The Co-ordinated Support Plan is reviewed annually by the Education Authority. Schools are expected to follow the procedures within Staged Intervention before seeking to have a Coordinated Support Plan opened for an individual child. d. Parents The terms of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 allow parents to challenge Local Authorities decisions to prepare a Coordinated Support Plan for a child, their refusual to prepare such a document or the school placement. Parents can do this through mediation, independent adjudication and an Additional Support Needs Tribunal. The numbers of parents in Scotland proceeding to a Tribunal is very small. Following the introduction of new legislation in 2006 (Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006), parents and carers are now automatically members of the Parents Forum for their School and have the right to set up

Bijlagen › 85

a School Parent Council. The Parent Council consists of parents selected by Parent Forum members and is involved in supporting the work of the school, gathering and representing the views of parents, promoting contact between the school, parents and community, appointing senior staff and fundraising for the school. The school must provide the Parent Council with information and advice on matters relating to children’s education. Parents can exercise choice over the school for their child by making a what is known as a ‘placing request’. They may request a regular or special school in the area in which the child lives, a special school in another area (or education authority) or a special school in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. The education authority in which the child lives must grant the request unless the school or year group is too full, the school is considered inappropriate for the child’s additional support needs or the placement conflicts with the education authority duties to educate a child in a mainstream school. Where a placement request is made outside of Scotland, the local authority can refuse if the child’s needs can be met within a school in Scotland or if the costs of the placement are considered unreasonable. If a placing request is refused, the parents have the right to appeal. The appeal is heard by the Additional Support Needs Tribunal where the pupil has a Co-ordinated Support Plan or an education appeal committee if there is no Co-ordinated Support Plan. e. Referral of students with special needs to other (special) schools in or outside the catchment area Where a child is referred to a school outside the local authority in which they live, it is the local authority in which the child lives that is responsible for funding the placement, including the transport costs and residential costs where necessary. Scotland has seven special schools which are funded directly by the Scottish Government, known as ‘grant-aided schools’. The justification for these schools is that they provide for needs that are so specific, for example children with cerebral palsy, visual impairment or hearing impairment, that it would be uneconomic for any one authority to fund them. These schools may often provide highly specialized health provision alongside educational support and may offer residential accommodation. Grant-aided schools are expected to provide provision on a national basis, enabling children from throughout Scotland to attend, although five of the seven schools tend to draw its pupils from the Education Authorities that are closest to them. f. Teacher training and support Initial teacher education programmes provide a generic introduction to special educational needs and inclusion and specify teachers’ responsibility for meeting the needs of all children, under the terms of the additional support needs legislation. This, however, is limited, especially within the one year postgraduate programme for secondary teachers, the most common form of teacher education provision. The Standard for full registration and entry into the teaching profession (GTC, 2002) includes a requirement that teachers will be responsible for all children with additional support needs and must ‘value and promote fairness and justice, and adopt anti-discrimination practices in all regards, including … disability’ (GTC Scotland, 2002a). Within Scotland, teachers can undertake additional

Bijlagen › 86

generic training within the Chartered Teacher Programme. This training provides an additional masters level qualification providing they meet the General Teaching Council’s Standard for Chartered Teacher and entitles them to a salary increase. Within this programme, inclusive education and collaboration with teachers and other professionals is a key component. Specialist teachers of children with additional support needs needs can undertake additional training, but this is not mandatory. Specialist training is available for teachers of the hearing and visually impaired but access to this has gradually given way to a preference by Education Authorities to support more generic forms of training. Education Authorities provide inservice training relating to inclusion and additional support needs and teacher education institutions offer Continuous Professional Development (CPD) courses. A resource – in the form of a national framework for inclusion - has been recently developed by all of the teacher education providers in Scotland, funded by Scottish Government (Scottish Teacher Education Committee). This framework is aimed at teacher education providers, students, teachers and individuals following advanced professional courses such as the Chartered Teacher Programme. It outlines core values of inclusion and equity and provides information and guidance, through reflective tasks and an encouragement to consider barriers to inclusion, on how teachers can support children with a range of needs effectively. There is also an electronic repository of resources for meeting specific needs as well as a ‘toolkit’ for assessing dyslexia.

Bijlagen › 87

Appendix: Name Age School career

Vignette 1 Peter 11 Regular primary school with additional support unit

Home situation Peter lives with his parents and has one sister in a small village in the North East of Scotland. His parents find his behaviour at home very difficult to manage his difficulties cause some tension between his mother and father. His mother is the main contact with the school and welcomes the recognition of Peter’s problems and the support that is provided. His father, on the other hand, does not accept that Peter’s problems are anything more than the expressions of a normal young boy. Support Peter spends 75% of his time in a regular classroom and 25% in an additional support unit. This ratio is altered, however, when Peter is exhibiting particular behavioural problems, with him spending more time in the behavioural support unit. Within the unit, Peter receives small group support in the basic skills of reading, writing and numeracy. Within the classroom, an additional support needs teacher assists the class teacher for some of the time. She provides support to Peter and other students with additional support needs. School situation Peter has attended mainstream primary school from the age of 5 to 11 and staff feel that they are managing well. The staff particularly appreciate the flexibility to increase the time Peter spends in the special unit as and when they consider it necessary. They are concerned, however, about Peter’s transition to secondary school, where they anticipate less flexibility, and fear that his behaviour will be difficult for teachers to manage and will lead to isolation from his peers and possibly bullying. Learning process Peter is working at a lower level than his peers, but is progressing through the curriculum. His written language skills are limited and his poor concentration means that he often performs tasks incorrectly or does not complete them. Social and emotional development Peter has no formal diagnoses although he has been assessed as having additional support needs. His mother has requested a diagnosis of ADHD but this has been discounted by the Clinical psychiatrist to whom he was referred. The staff consider it likely that Peter does have ADHD and would also like a diagnosis to be made because of the additional resources it would release. Within the classroom, there are episodes of ’bizarre’ behaviour, where Peter uses odd language and threatens self harm or the harm of his classmates. He is also inclined to refer to himself as a ’spastic’. Staff and students collude in ignoring this behaviour when it occurs. Appendix: Name

vignette 2 Susan

Bijlagen › 88

Age School career

11 Regular primary school with additional support unit

Home situation Susan lives with her parents and two brothers in a small Scottish town. Her accident received a great deal of local publicity and there was considerable public support while she recovered in hospital and on her return to school. Susan’s parents have been actively campaigning for support for their daughter and for road safety training for all children. Support Following Susan’s accident, and prior to her return to mainstream primary school, a Co-ordinated Support Plan was opened for Susan. This statutory document details Susan’s additional support needs and the resources – in the form of specialist staff – required to meet her needs. These include occupational, speech and physio therapy as well as some support within the classroom from an additional support needs teacher. The support is not detailed as specific amounts of time, a point of contention for Susan’s parents. Susan receives two hours of physiotherapy two days a week and five hours of occupational therapy, spread over three days, but this can vary according to the availability of the specialists who are in short supply. She attends speech therapy at the local hospital on a weekly basis. Susan’s mother has been battling with the Education Authority to increase the support for her daughter and has recently involved the press. The school staff take the view that whilst the additional therapeutic support is valuable for Susan, it is reducing the amount of time she can spend on curricular activities and is therefore limiting her educational progress. School situation Susan returned to the primary school she had attended throughout her school career, after a nine month absence following her accident. She spends the first hour of each day in the learning support unit, with the expectation that this will gradually be reduced. The rest of her time is spent in the mainstream classroom, but she is extracted for physiotherapy and occupational therapy and has to leave the school to attend her speech therapy. Learning process Susan is making excellent progress in recovering her speech and her memory (short and long term) is improving gradually. She is an able child who still holds to her ambition to be a teacher. She may not regain the ability to walk and her teachers take the view that if this is the case, it would be better to focus on her academic achievements rather than continuing to invest so much on specialist therapies. Social and emotional development Susan’s dependency is a source of concern to the staff in the school. She has cultivated a set of relationships with her peers which involve them doing whatever she asks of them and the staff regard this as unhelpful. Her peers seem eager to help her, but she appears to lack strong friendships and has not remained close to the friends she had prior to her accident.

Bijlagen › 89

References Allan, J (2010) Questions of inclusion in Scotland and Europe. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25 (2), 199-208. Allan, J (2008) Inclusion for all? Scottish Education: Third edition: beyond devolution. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. General Teaching Council Scotland (2002) Standard for full registration. Edinburgh: GTC. Scottish Teacher Education Committee (2010) National framework for inclusion. Accessed at http://www.frameworkforinclusion.org/index.php

Bijlagen › 90

Swedish report Lena Thorsson

A school for all in Sweden The Swedish school system is characterized by very high ambitions and aims to include the absolute majority of children and youth in the regular school system. The development started during the 1960s with a compulsory school reform. The basic principle guiding all Swedish education is ”a school for all”. The education of all pupils is stated in the same school act since 1994. The educational system is based upon the philosophy that all pupils have the same right to personal development and learning experiences. This right is stated in paragraph one of the Education Act. (Includes children with severe intellectual and physical disabilities) The inclusion of all pupils within this principle is crucial and the rights of pupils in need of special support are not stated separately. There is a shared responsibility for education between the parliament, the government and the municipalities. The parliament sets the education act and general curricula and decides about major school reforms. The government has the overall responsibility for the education that is they give the framework in terms of national goals, regulations and national improvement initiatives for education. The National Agency for Education is the central administrative authority for the Swedish public school system for children, young people and adults, as well as for preschool activities and child care for school children. The Agency also has responsibility for coordinating national initiatives for pupils with disabilities, setting up learning conditions and takes care of issues relating to pupils who have just arrived in Sweden. The Agency for the Schools steers, supports, follows up and evaluates the work of municipalities and schools with the purpose of improving quality and the result of activities to ensure that all pupils have access to equal education together. The Schools Inspectorate is the central Swedish agency responsible for the supervision of preschool activities, the welfare of schoolchildren, schools management and adult education. The Schools Inspectorate ensures that local authorities and independent schools follow existing laws and regulations. The aim of the Schools Inspectorate is to ensure the equal right of all children to a good education, in a safe environment, where everyone can achieve their maximum potential and at least pass in all subjects. The National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools are coordinating the government’s support for special needs education. The aim is to ensure that children, young people and adults with disabilities will be able to develop and receive an education based on equality, participation, accessibility and companionship. The agency’s function is to offer support to school managements in matters relating to special needs education, promote access to teaching materials, and run the states special schools. Government and Parliament specify goals and guidelines for preschool and school through the Education Act, curricula etc. The National Curriculum states the leading values, the responsibility of different aspects of school activities and the educational goals. Within those limits each municipality sets up a plan for its educational system. Each school is accordingly bound

Bijlagen › 91

by national goals and leading values, but is free to organize its means to reach those goals as it chooses. All municipalities are bound by law to provide the provision of compulsory education, upper secondary education, pre-primary and child care take a major part. Municipalities are free to use collected taxes and state funding for whatever services and systems are judged to be best for their respective areas f. ex independent schools. Many municipalities delegate budgets directly to individual schools. Part of the budget is granted and follows each pupil to whatever school they choose, either municipal or independent. Money for extra support is normally not attached to different medical diagnoses. There is a variation in how money for extra support is set aside and divided in different municipalities. There are no general rules; it depends on the need of support for the pupil, which has to be stated in the action plan. And it also depends on the capability of teachers and the school to meet the needs, and of course their attitudes towards inclusion All parents have the right to choose which school their children should attend and they have to be involved in all matters considering their child in school. The current curriculum for compulsory schools does not use the word or concept of mainstreaming, but promotes the given that all pupils will be educated in regular classrooms. If this is not possible, then the school must indicate very clearly why other educational options for pupils should be considered. In the end it is the school inspectorate that need that information, but the parents have to agree to another placement. If the parents choose the school closest to home, that school has to meet the needs of all children. (If the pupil have severe intellectual disabilities the parents have a right to enroll the child in the special program BUT they can choose to enroll in a regular classroom.) This is an important philosophical standpoint for school organization and operation. Earlier debates focused upon prerequisites for integration. Now the focus has shifted to the need for justification for segregated options to be considered for pupils. The majority of pupils in need of special educational support are educated in general basic compulsory classes. If this is not possible, then the school must indicate very clearly why other educational options for pupils should be considered. There are a few State run special schools in Sweden. Three national and five regional special schools. For pupils with visual impairment combined with additional disabilities, deafness or hearing impairment combined with learning disabilities and severe speech and learning disorders. In all about 700 pupils. There are new regulations coming to make it easier to be flexible within and between the school systems. If teachers consider that they themselves have problems meeting the needs of a specific pupil a conference has to be held with the staff involved to find a solution to the difficulties. The schools have a pupil-welfare team made up of a representative of the local school-board, the pupil welfare staff, i.e. a nurse, psychologist, counselor and or SEN teachers. For each pupil in need of support an action plan has to be made in cooperation with parents, teachers and the pupil concerned. This plan, which identifies needs and provision to meet them, is continuously evaluated.

Bijlagen › 92

Due to the large degree of independence of the municipalities, special needs education can be organized in many different ways. Support could include variations of the following options: the classroom teacher can get counseling from a more experienced colleague or a special needs teacher at the school to be able to work within the frames of the activities of the larger group. Help can also be given by a resource team at the local municipality level. a special needs teacher works with the pupil concerned within the classroom. the pupil leaves the larger group for limited periods to work with a special needs teacher or to study in a special group in the homeschool groups for education of pupils in need of support can be located on another school in the municipality. Special needs resource center’s at the municipality level may be supported by an advisor at the National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools. Pupils with severe intellectual disabilities have a choice either; to attend a special program which has a separate syllabus where the learning takes place in smaller groups with other pupils with severe disabilities more or less included in the regular schools or in a regular group at the school. These special program groups can be located either in the regular school or in a separate building belonging to the school or in another school. There are about 12.000 pupils enrolled in the special program. The numbers has been getting higher the last 15 years. From 1.0 per cent to 1,4 per cent. The knowledge about the criteria’s for the special programs has to be very good in the municipalities. The quality of the assessment vary and the inspectorate has recently found too many pupils enrolled that don`t belong there. Enrolling in the special program can have big consequences for the possibility for further education and to get a job in the open market. Inclusions of pupils in need of support seem to be more frequent in smaller municipalities than in bigger cities in Sweden. One reason could be that there are not very many options in the near area to refer the pupil to and that the parents often prefer the school closest to their home. There is also an arising awareness of the importance of non-segregating solutions among parents and even among teachers and principals. Each school is responsible to give support to all pupils that have chosen that school. There are no formal prerequisites but all schools are expected to meet the needs of all pupils and adapt the education and because of that have teachers who are specialized in special education. In many schools inclusive education is given to pupils studying in the special program. If needed it´s also possible to follow the ordinary syllabi in some subjects and the syllabi of the special program in other subjects. Right now the government is establishing new laws to strengthen the quality in schools with focus on inspection of schools in municipalities, developing the knowledge in Swedish and math.etc. A new law will be

Bijlagen › 93

passed which can be seen as a segregating factor. It is now allowed to establish independent schools with a special focus on e.g. pupils with autism spectrum disorder. Stockholm In the Stockholm region lives 2 million people. (9 mill in the whole country of Sweden.)In the schools of Stockholm many pupils in need of special support get the support needed in the ordinary classrooms. Stockholm has a history with a large special organization for special groups that schools could refer pupils to. After a reorganization of the educational system these special groups are much fewer. One reason was probably that school costs for the special groups were high and the schools could organize support at the home school for less money. Together with an in service program for school directors and special needs teachers on inclusion a new trend to keep the pupils in the school and classrooms is reported. The city of Stockholm describe in the yearly development plan that the work of inclusion or non-segregation is very important. It is a variation in how far the Stockholm schools have reached to fulfill this but they mention that they experience a positive change towards inclusion. The schools have to accept all children that have chosen the school in their catchment area. Parents are however free to choose another school or an independent school which could be a regular school or a school who has specialized in e.g. autism, Freinet or Montessori etc. On the question of what the success factors are, the principals of the successful schools stress that; it is important that the city has a clear view on inclusion to rely on, the school has a vision on inclusion that all teachers at the school share. the principal is responsible for all children at the school. decision about support is taken in close cooperation with the parents. a good and thorough assessment, an action plan, continuous evaluation and follow up in small steps competent teachers in service training in special needs education continuous special needs counseling if needed. On the question of what could hinder inclusion, they mentioned that attitudes among teachers and principals are very important factors and above all if the parents aren´t satisfied and don´t agree to solve the problems in the school. They may prefer a segregated setting. There are a small number of groups or schools specialized in e.g. autism spectrum disorders in Stockholm. At the University of Stockholm all the programs in teacher education includes 8 weeks of special education with focus on inclusion and in addition specialization courses of different length. The government has recently invested money to raise teacher competence. All lot of shorter or longer courses has been offered to teachers. Other Universities have similar programs and special courses.

Bijlagen › 94

Case 1 If a school has a pupil in need of support, they are obliged to have a conference with the principal, the parents and the pupil welfare team and together with them set up an action plan. For pupils with the same problems as Kevin the plan is in small steps with the focus on the environment. The principal is responsible to see to that the teacher have or get the knowledge on Kevin’s disabilities, how to meet him, how to adapt the teaching and the environment to make the learning possible. Sometimes the special needs teacher has to work alone with pupils like Kevin to assess his abilities and then make a development plan with the classroom teacher. The teacher might need support with counseling to handle different situations. These are often very long processes. He apparently needs a highly structured learning environment maybe a one to one teaching. The principal is responsible for arranging the support needed for Kevin. If there are problems in the daily living the parents may have help from the social services. BUT it could also be a school that don´t have an inclusive agenda, and then it is likely that they tell the parents to investigate other school solutions. In most cases the “teaching problems” are solved at the school. Of course the parents can choose a special group for pupils with similar disabilities, if there are one, if they don´t agree on what the school is doing. It is a challenge for schools to meet the needs of adapted education for this growing group of pupils. Case 2. It seems most likely that if Tina couldn’t follow the learning pace as her classmates the teacher have to have a conference, see case one, together with the parents to make an action plan. If she meets the criteria for the special program she can either stay at the school, if she wish, and study with support using the syllabus for the special programs. If she prefers joining a group of pupils studying by the special program she will be offered that. (At her own school or at another school.) As mentioned before the parents makes the decision on where they want to place Tina. If they want to keep her at the regular school, the school has to adapt to her needs. In Stockholm (and in other municipalities) the school can get extra money for support and if needed her parents can apply for a personal assistant to help her with the daily life in school…and at home (Assisting her going to the bathroom to physical therapy, occupational therapy, after school activities etc.) Pupils with severe intellectual disabilities can attend a special program group during school hours and for afternoon activities join the regular group at school. All schools in Sweden have to have a whole day activity program for all children age 6-10. The school opens generally at 7 in the morning with preschool activities and after school hour’s activities until 17. The lessons are generally between 8 -14.00. in the lower ages. There are also in some places afternoon activities only for pupils enrolled in the special programs from age 10 and on.

Bijlagen › 95

Swiss Report Christian Liesen

Making a school responsible for student with special needs 1. Which are the governing bodies for regular schools (school director, schoolboard, municipality, etc.), and what roles and responsibilities do they have? Switzerland is a federal state that is organised in three political levels: the communes, thecantons and the Confederation. Communes are the smallest political units, there are 2'551 of the m at this time (the number is declining due to mergers of smaller communes). The next largest political units are the 26 states that unite to form the Confederation, known as cantons. The Confederation is the name given to the largest overarching political unit, the Swiss state1. The Confederation has responsibilities in those areas where it is granted powers by the Constitution – for example in enacting legislation that applies throughout the country. Tasks that are not expressly designated federal matters are the responsibility of the next lower political unit, i.e. the cantons. Under the Federal Constitution, all cantons have equal rights and a high degree of independence. Each of the 26 cantons has its own constitution as well as its own parliament, government and courts2. Education is among the policy areas where cantons hold sovereignty. They are responsible for the whole of compulsory schooling. The cantons enact school law and school legislation for regular schools as well as for special schools. The latter is a rather recent development as a result of constitutional reform. In 2006, the Federal Constitution was amended by article 62 which for the first time addressed school education as a federal issue. It states that The Cantons shall be responsible for the system of school education. They shall ensure the provision of an adequate primary school education that is available to all children. (…) The Cantons shall ensure that adequate special needs education is provided to all children and young people with disabilities up to the age of 203. In case cantons do not reach an agreement in educational matters that are of countrywide importance, it is now possible for the Confederation to intervene. Moreover, cantons are expected to be more uniform with regard to school enrollment and school attendance as well as to the duration, aims and reciprocal acceptance of the individual levels of schooling. Notwithstanding such expectations, the sovereignty in all matters educational remains firmly placed with the cantons. The main governing bodies for regular schools, however, are the communes. While some tasks are allocated to them by the Confederation and their canton, they also have their own responsibilities, including those relating to schools. — Federal Chancellery (2010), The Swiss Confederation – A brief guide 2010, p. 14–15. This brochure and other information is available at URL = www.admin.ch/org/polit/index.html?lang=en [2011-02-22]. 2 Federal Chancellery 2010, p. 14–15. 3 SR 101 Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation, Art. 62: School education, sec. 1–3. URL = www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/101/a62.html [2011-02-27]. 1

Bijlagen › 96

Communes are highly autonomous, which is why all cantonal frames of reference for schooling take communal autonomy into account. Communes are in charge of the regulation and provision of schooling under their jurisdiction, including hiring of personnel and allocation of funding. The communal schools are governed, in many cases, by an elected honorary board of laypersons, but communes may also professionalise communal autonomy by establishing school rectorates and / or by creating the post and role of a headmaster. In general, regular schools are authorised by the commune while private and special schools are authorised by the canton. 2. Who provides special needs funding and how is it forwarded to / divided over schools? Funding is provided by every canton but with a principle of shared costs (cost-splitting with the communes)4. The share of the cost that communes have to put up varies from canton to canton. As a rule, high-level provision of special education commonly implies a higher share of cantonal funding while low-level provision usually means a higher share of communal funding. High-level provision refers for instance to students with severe disabilities that are placed in special schools. Low-level provision refers to, say, supporting a child with mild problems in learning or language acquisition within the regular school (with or without involvement of special education staff). Between low-level and high-level provision exists a diverse range of intermediate measures with diverse funding mechanisms. Many cantons will pool the low-level provision of special needs education, that is, the cantonal share of funds is made directly available to the communes and the canton does not supervise its allocation at the communal level. While the canton (in the majority of cases) or sometimes the commune may earmark the directly available funds for specific educational purposes and target groups, it falls to the communes to identify the schools and students eligible for funding. By contrast, funds for highlevel provision of special needs education are virtually never pooled but assigned individually. The funding schemes in detail vary. A canton may meet all costs or a specified percentage only, and other funding sources are of increased importance (for example, insurances, charitable trusts and private parties), leading more often than not to a mixed financing. 3. Is the local school responsible for students with special needs? Is this prescribed in law or community regulations? The commune is the pivotal point of responsibility for students with special needs. Students pertain to their commune, not to a specific school or school unit. This is asserted in cantonal school law and by-law. 4. Which role and rights do parents have concerning the choice of school for their child? Are they involved in discussing the programme and support for their child? Do parents have access to a court for appeal? — See also the brief note on financing at European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2010), Country information for Switzerland – Financing (last modified March 29, 2010). URL = www.european-agency.org/countryinformation/switzerland/ nationaloverview/ financing [2011-02-23]. 4

Bijlagen › 97

Regarding school choice, parents of children and youth with special educational needs are generally on equal terms with other parents. They have no particular right to choose the place of provision and schooling and very little room (if any) for legal action. To take legal action, they would have to propose either that their child is discriminated against or that different places of schooling are not on a par in terms of the quality of provision required. Both propositions are not easily advocated. However, parents who are unsatisfied with their child's assignment to a school can usually request a transfer to another school. Communes are to be expected to examine their request thoroughly but will not always comply. Some cantons may allow for parents to have more to say in the matter. If parents can afford it, they may refer their child to a private special school. Parents who do so will have to accept at least a share of the costs and sometimes the full costs. A commune will usually accept private schooling as long as the best interest of the child is not affected. 5. How are responsibility issues dealt with in case of referral of a student with special needs to other (special) schools in or outside the catchment area? Regardless of a student's placement in low-, intermediate or high-level special needs education, and regardless of the place of schooling, the responsibility for the student stays with the commune he or she hails from (cf. Question 3). 6. Are teacher training and support regarded as prerequisites for making teachers responsible? If this applies: What training and support are made available? This question is not being raised in Switzerland. As explained, schooling in Switzerland is founded locally. In addition – and not mentioned before –, the people have extensive decision-making powers like in virtually no other country in the world, including the power to propose and to block constitutional amendments and lawmaking at all political levels5. These extensive decision-making powers lead to an emphasis on consensus and to a readiness for compromise as two of the most striking features of the Swiss political system and political culture6. This applies to schooling as well. Teachers are expected to deliver high quality instruction and to be able to take action in a highly professional manner, yet teacher training and support do reflect in some measure the broader consensus and compromises resulting from the democratic process. Whilst upholding professional standards, teachers need to be able to meet communal characteristics and regulations of schooling and school life. Consequently, responsibility is not being ascribed to them as actors and stakeholders as might be the case in more centralistic systems of schooling

— 5

6

Cf. Federal Chancellery 2010, p. 16–17. For a discussion from an international viewpoint, see OECD (2006), OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: Regulatory

Reform in Switzerland – Government Capacity to Assure High Quality Regulation. URL = www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/48/36279389.pdf [2011-03-01].

Bijlagen › 98

and education. Besides, to date the output of educational institutions and the impact of learning are no criteria in the management of schooling7.

— 7

See also the brief sketch of teacher training for special education at European Agency for Development in Special Needs

Education (2009), Country information for Switzerland – Teacher training / Basic and specialist teacher training (last modified July 21, 2009). URL = www.europeanagency.org/country-information/switzerland/nationaloverview/teachertraining- basic-and-specialist- teacher-training [2011-02-23].

Bijlagen › 99

Vignette 1 The Swiss school system would most likely deal with this case along the same lines as have been described in the vignette. Once school staffs feel they are out of options for educating the student, the case would be referred to the School Psychological Services (SPS). These services are in the majority of cases communally based but may also be cantonal or private. They are the primary body to evaluate the student's needs in order to determine eligibility for special education and related services. They may call in other services during the assessment process, such as child psychiatry or a pediatric clinic. SPS will also consult with school staff and with the parents. It will finally give its recommendation to the commune's school board for decision. – The details of the assessment procedure may vary considerably. To clarify, although there is no comprehensive practice of assigning students to special education, an assignment generally follows along the lines of application, assessment and decision. School staff, medical personnel, administrative bodies, guardianship bodies and sometimes parents may request an application. The case is then assessed by cantonal, communal or private Services such as School Psychology, Child Psychiatry, Paediatrics and other specialised services. Eventually, the commune's administrative body responsible for schooling decides whether the student is to be referred to special education or not. If the student is referred to special education, the case will be reassessed periodically. Regular schools can in most places resort to a range of services meant to address the special needs of a student but avoid his or her referral to a special school. Among these services are early childhood (special) education, counseling, language and psychomotor therapy, specialised support and training, family intervention, deployment of special education staff and the option to run special classes in the schoolhouse. In the case described – a student diagnosed with Attention Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, seriously worsened behaviour, negative impact on school performance and learning, little social contact (if any) with peers, many conflicts and disturbances in class, regular and integrative supportive measures maxed out –, referral to a special school seems the most likely option. 7 See also the brief sketch of teacher training for special education at European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2009), Country information for Switzerland – Teacher training / Basic and specialist teacher training (last modified July 21, 2009). URL = www.europeanagency.org/country-information/switzerland/nationaloverview/teachertraining- basic-and-specialist- teacher-training [2011-0223].

Bijlagen › 100

Vignette 2 The Swiss school system would most likely deal with this case along the same lines as have been described in the vignette. Like in Vignette 1, school staff would get the case going, and the School Psychological Services (SPS) would be the primary body for the assessment of the student's needs. Since the medical conditions described in Vignette 2 are not a conventional area of expertise of SPS staff, it would most certainly call in institutions with specialised medical and clinical knowledge. It is not uncommon for these institutions to be service providers as well: Unlike in the vignette, there are virtually no independent centers of expertise. Instead, interconnections on the institutional and / or personal level are commonplace. It must be emphasised that this is generally not seen as calling a sound professional assessment into question. In the case described – tumor in the pituitary gland, hormonal regulation disturbances, extensive medication, many surgeries, wheelchair and rollator, slow monotone voice, IQ < 70, slow processing speed, accepted in class but increasingly not able to participate effectively, learning gap widening more and more, regular and integrative supportive measures maxed out –, referral to a special school is the most likely option. Note that the student is likely to have had support from three different professions before this referral, namely by special education staff, speech therapy and psychomotor therapy. As mentioned, these therapies are part of regular school provision in many cantons. Outside of regular school provision, physiotherapy and / or occupational therapy are likely to have been employed.

Bijlagen › 101

References The National System Overview entry for Switzerland in the Eurybase database (http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/eurybase_en.php) is not available in English at this time but was used in the preparation of this report. The German version can be downloaded from www.ides.ch/dyn/bin/12961-13439-1-eurydice_10d.pdf [2011-02-20]. An more detailed overview of the Swiss education system (including special needs education) is available from the Swiss Education Server at http://educationscene.educa.ch/en/swisseducation-system-1 [2011-02-20].

Zorgplicht in het buitenland

Recommend Documents