Search results

The Ghana chapter on special education begins with the history of service provisions for persons with disabilities. It includes information on educational and rehabilitation services, special schools and integrated education. Detailed data is related concerning prevalence and incidence rates and special needs among the Ghana population. This is followed by a comprehensive section on regular and special education teacher roles, expectations, and training. An important aspect of Ghana’s special education is its movement towards inclusive education. The support for this movement comes from the Ministry of Education’s policy, namely, The Education Strategic Plan (ESP), which adopts inclusive education and promotes it as the future special education direction for the country. The chapter provides detailed information on the issues related to the implementation of the ESP plan, four models that have been developed for inclusive education, the progress and effort that Ghana has made towards inclusive education as well as significant challenges that are present.

According to the revised School Education Act enacted in April 2007, special needs schools in Japan are to provide education for enrolled students as well as any necessary advice or assistance requested by local kindergartens, elementary, junior high, and other schools so that they may educate students who require special educational support. This means that special needs schools must take on the role of special needs education (SNE) centers in the community. Specific assistance that can enhance SNE at elementary, junior high, or other schools, such as promoting understanding of students with disabilities, providing specialized guidance in the form of educational content and methods, and establishing a school support system, may be obtained from special needs schools. In elementary, junior high, and other schools, the number of faculty members and state of facilities and equipment are not always sufficient, and each school has limited support. Therefore, collaboration with special needs schools and medical and welfare institutions is important. This chapter provides a brief overview of the current SNE system in Japan and introduces the roles of SNE coordinators, current issues facing the system, and future perspectives of collaboration to better serve SNE.

Students with special needs in Indonesia can access education in either a special school or an inclusive school. In both systems, there are still many obstacles to ensuring the quality education for students. During the current pandemic crisis, these obstacles are getting worse. Some dramatic changes have been applied to national policies and daily learning practices at schools. Therefore, it is of interest to investigate the current situation of special and inclusive education in Indonesia. The study will be focussed on the ideology about special and inclusive education development, the strength and weaknesses of inclusive and special education programmes, and the strategies or models with which the Indonesian educational system will proceed in a VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity) world.

This chapter considers the development and current state of special education in New Zealand. The chapter provides a critique of current policies and practices regarding special and inclusive education for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). It describes how New Zealand has followed similar patterns to other developed countries with regard to how special education facilities and specialist teacher training have evolved, and how the trend towards inclusive education has progressed. It points out that New Zealand has gone further in the inclusion of children with SEND within mainstream schools than most developed countries and that, at the same time, there has been less development of provision for children with SEND in mainstream schools. That has led to a situation where many children with SEND, who are in the lowest 20% of achievers, are not getting the specialist help that they need. As a result New Zealand has one of the largest gaps between high achieving and low achieving children in the developed world.

Japanese lesson study (LS) is a professional development (PD) approach in which teachers collaboratively plan a lesson, observe it being taught and then discuss what they have learned. LS's popularity as an approach to teacher PD in the UK is growing, and it is used in both special and mainstream settings. This study explores whether LS is perceived and operationalized in the same way across special and mainstream settings.

This study arose as a result of collaboration between UCL Institute of Education academics (principle investigators) and three special school leaders using LS in their own schools (practitioner co-investigators), who together formed the research team. The team first explored the literature base for LS in special education. They then investigated special and mainstream schools using LS for teacher PD. Research tools included semi-structured interviews and an online survey. Participants were obtained through opportunistic sampling via the networks of schools available to the researchers.

There were several key differences between LS in special and mainstream settings. Special teachers felt LS had a more positive impact on subject knowledge than mainstream teachers, and this impact extended to support staff. Special teachers were more likely to carry out multiple research cycles than mainstream colleagues and to quickly build LS into the existing timetable. Mainstream teachers focused on individual pupils in LS to seek learning about pedagogy more generally, whereas general learning about pedagogy was seen as a secondary benefit to special teachers.

One of the limitations of the research is that participants are more positively inclined toward LS than the general population of their school, since those not interested in LS would be unlikely to take the time to engage with the research. It will be important to conduct more research into the use of LS in mainstream schools, as this study is one of very few exploring LS in this special context.

The ease with which special schools can align LS to current practice due to greater flexibility of timetables and larger staff teams seems to result in a greater appreciation and “valuing” of the process in mainstream schools, where teachers seemed to feel their senior leadership teams had gone to extra lengths to enable LS to happen. LS seems to offer a framework within which senior leaders can prioritize such learning experiences for teachers, leading to positive benefits for pupils, teachers and the school, and is therefore a process worth considering both for special and mainstream school leaders.

The literature review found a limited number of studies of LS in a special educational needs and disability (SEND) context, all of which took place in the UK and focused on the impact of teacher participation in LS on teacher practice and pupil learning. All three studies show a positive impact and suggest that LS might have wider applications for both special schools and mainstream schools supporting SEND pupils. There has been no exploration of the different ways in which mainstream and special school teachers and pupils might experience or construct LS in their own contexts.

The future provision of education for pupils with special educational needs is at the heart of an international debate, and the inclusion of all pupils in mainstream schools (established as a goal in UK legislation) has been the subject of many papers and discussions. In this paper, the authors observe that, despite general acceptance of humanistic arguments, there remains a dearth of research into the efficacy of inclusive practices. In calling for more evaluation, they suggest that the role of special schools for pupils with the most complex learning needs has been overlooked, and that their potential expertise should be harnessed in the move towards inclusion. To make real progress, LEAs and others charged with responsibility for inclusion will need to ensure that the skills developed by teachers in special schools are retained for the benefit of a much larger population ‐ a key challenge in developing a more inclusive education system.

The international literature on the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs has been wide‐ranging, focusing mainly on curriculum and assessment, and social inclusion. The issue of funding has been mainly confined to discussions about the size of budget needed to support the resource needs of inclusion (e.g. the costs of additional teachers, support assistants or transport). Less attention has been given to the actual structure of the budget for special education. There has been greater interest in the strategic management of budgets and in the interaction of funding mechanisms at the national, local and institutional levels. This article discusses the effect of resourcing mechanisms for special education and draws on a study across Europe, and other studies based in The Netherlands, the USA and the UK. The strategic behaviours generated by different approaches are considered and the degree to which any particular strategy can influence the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs is assessed.

The chapter examines school administrator responsibilities to special education students and their families from case scenarios based on conflicts between parents and districts regarding services provided by schools to special education students. From these case studies based on real case law, readers are exposed to situations intended to pose questions as to whether administrators met their responsibility to ensure the rights of the special education students. Principals, superintendents, and special education administrators committed to work together to make their school environment and optimal place for children to learn. An equally important role for school administrators is to create and maintain cultures where faculty understand their advocacy role for all children, but in particular, those children most in need of support. Effective administrators hold themselves and other professionals in their district to high standards related to knowledge of school law, particularly special education school law; communication with parents and other professionals; and collaborations based on the value of what is best for the student. This chapter concludes with a section on ethical leadership or the values underlying administrative actions affecting individualized education program students, their families, and all students who are different whether due to socioeconomic status, cultural differences, or race.

Significant progress towards the provision of a more equitable and inclusive education system in Ireland has been made in recent years. Through an interrogation of the research that has influenced changes in national policy and practices, this chapter includes a discussion of associated literature, which addresses national inclusive education priorities in Ireland. Building upon a method for reviewing the literature applied in Ireland as part of a major longitudinal study (Rose et al., 2010), a discussion of the current situation is presented in relation to progress towards the Education for All Goals and key issues for further scrutiny are proposed.

Inclusive education is about creating beneficial environments for all students (Booth & Ainscow, 2011). Within Germany, the role of special education within inclusive schools has been widely discussed (Powell et al., 2016). Educators worldwide consider collaborative teaching between special educators and general educators to be a fundamental precondition for inclusive education (Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014).

The history of the German school system, however, is characterized by a rigorous division of special and regular schools that is reflective of broad divisions in teacher education. Since the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in Germany in 2009, more students with special educational needs, as well as special educators, have begun to attend and work in inclusive schools. While cooperation between general and special educators is a key to the development of inclusive schools, many teachers report that responsibilities are divided between special and general teachers, while various challenges exist regarding cooperation (Urban & Lütje-Klose, 2014). Nevertheless, dysfunctional cooperation can foster mechanisms of separation and exclusion even in “inclusive” settings (Idel et al., 2019).

The present chapter offers a reflection on the different roles of special educators and the current state of research on interdisciplinary and multiprofessional cooperation in inclusive schools in Germany. It also provides a discussion of relevant implications for the development of inclusive schools and teacher training.