Search results

This chapter describes the status of past and current special education, inclusive education, and Low-Incidence Disabilities (LID) in South Korea by introducing historical background, legal development, and current trend. Four main areas related to special education in South Korea are highlighted: the historical background and legal development of special education; current laws relating to special education; inclusive education and LID; and the future of LID support in South Korea. This chapter will provide valuable information for those who want to become more knowledgeable about the current status of special education and inclusive education for learners with LID in South Korea.

A shift from a medical model to a social model of including learners with disabilities has occurred over the past 25 years (Stella, Forlin, & Lan, 2007). This shift has impacted both preservice teacher preparation and in-service teacher professional development. This chapter utilizes a conceptual framework built on the work of Forlin and colleagues (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2009; Sharma, Forlin, Loreman, & Earle, 2006; Stella et al., 2007) to guide teacher preparation and professional development. This conceptual framework provides a model for (1) addressing attitudes and perceptions; (2) increasing knowledge of disability policies, laws, and evidence-based practices for providing instruction in inclusive settings; (3) and increasing experiences with individuals with disabilities, including experiences within inclusive settings. In addition, the framework incorporates aspects of the context within which inclusion is to occur. Implications include recommendations for teacher training and professional development to improve inclusive education for learners with LID.

Changes are occuring at a startling fillip in our society and our world. One of the changes is the need to revamp how persons with disabilities are treated and educated. In the United States of America, laws have been pulmulgated to reduce the plight of learners with disabilties. As a result, myriad intervention strategies have been instituted to identify, assess, label, place, and educate these learners. However, some interventions continue to be very traditional. To go beyond tradition and adequately maximize the fullest potential of learners with disabilties, we must value the “specialness” of special education as a powerful intervention program, listen to new voices with new ideas, and debunk deficit thinking that are prejudicial, especially in helping people with disabilities to survive in our competitive society. Interestingly, the chapters in this book have exposed the different intervention options for learners with disabilities. Clearly, without innovative interventions for these learners, special education will be a failure.

Vocational Education and Training (VET) prepares citizens to participate in the labour market, but requires continuous development to adapt to the impacts of global trends, to become more attractive and relevant, to support lifelong learning, to encourage creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship, and to become more inclusive. European legislation and structural funds improved VET for people with SEN and/or disabilities, for example in the case of the European qualifications framework (EQF) and the national qualifications frameworks (NQFs). NQFs often lead to the development of a national qualifications catalogue, specifying training standards for all, including people with SEN/disabilities, yet with the challenge to achieve the right balance between the flexibility and the standardisation requirements of programmes and procedures. A recent European Agency project investigated the key aspects of VET programmes for learners with SEN and/or disabilities in 26 European countries and identified success factors that contributed to auspicious VET and transition to employment for learners with SEN and/or disabilities. These factors will finalise this chapter showing, in an inclusive design perspective, that they benefit all learners.

This chapter explores some of the complexities involved when undertaking research at an international level in the area of “inclusive” education and “special needs” education. The complexities encountered by researchers working in these fields, mirror many of the challenges that comparativists in education studies find themselves addressing. Drawing from earlier investigations and from reports by international organizations, this chapter highlights some of the dilemmas and challenges that researchers face when considering inclusion and special needs education in different countries. Differing interpretations of “inclusion” are discussed and then contrasted with thinking around “special needs” practices. The chapter moves forward to analyze how the adoption of differing theoretical frameworks can influence the way that “disability” is conceptualized and therefore how inclusive and special needs education are interpreted and then put into practice. The chapter argues that cross-cultural work opens up opportunities for further development and learning in this field. We further argue that such cross-cultural work can become a mechanism to instigate fundamental change in education.

This chapter highlights aspects that are high on the agenda of the financing inclusive education debate: the need to re-think resource allocation mechanisms, the issue of empowerment, the way funding mechanisms support inclusive education, and the importance of appropriate governance and accountability mechanisms. It focuses on critical factors of financing that support the right to education, as outlined in Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) (United Nations, 2006), in a context of financial constraints and explores issues in the policy-practice gap in relation to both national- and European-level policy priorities and objectives. It draws on existing literature on modes of funding, on past research conducted by the European Agency and on the conceptual framework developed within a new European Agency study on current policy and practice in this field.

Within today’s information and knowledge society, learners with disabilities and/or special education needs (SEN) are among the groups most likely to encounter barriers to accessing and using ICT, while at the same time the essential purpose of using ICT in education for learners with disabilities and/or SEN is to promote equity in educational opportunities.

This chapter considers two key issues:

• Legislation and policy focussing upon rights and entitlements to ICT as an educational equity issue;

• Access to appropriate ICTs within an accessible and sustainable ICT infrastructure for learners with disabilities and/or SEN.

Legislation and policy focussing upon rights and entitlements to ICT as an educational equity issue;

Access to appropriate ICTs within an accessible and sustainable ICT infrastructure for learners with disabilities and/or SEN.

In the chapter, how international and European level policy impacts upon the use of ICT in inclusive education will be discussed, followed by the presentation of a profile of a fictitious learner with disabilities who uses ICT as a key tool for accessing educational and inclusive learning opportunities. The case study will be used to exemplify the sorts of issues apparent in many different policy and practice situations across Europe.

Based on this discussion, a consideration of the use of ICT in inclusive education as a tool to enable all learners to be empowered in their learning is presented. This discussion leads to the identification of three potential policy levers that should be further exploited in attempts to address the digital divide and ensure all learners benefit from ICT as a tool for accessing inclusive learning opportunities:

1. Public procurement;

2. A widespread programme of training for all stakeholders;

3. School level policies and action plans for ICT.

Public procurement;

A widespread programme of training for all stakeholders;

School level policies and action plans for ICT.

Based on the aforementioned data, the risk index (RI) identifies the percentage of all students of a given racial/ethnic group in a given disability category. The RI is calculated by dividing the number of students in a given racial/ethnic group served in a given disability category (e.g. LD) by the total enrollment for that racial/ethnic group in the school population. The 1998 OCR data revealed risk indices for all racial/ethnic groups that were higher for LD than those found for MR. The NRC (2002) report stated that, “Asian/Pacific Islander have placement rates of 2.23%. Rates for all other racial/ethnic groups exceed 6%, and for American Indian/Alaskan Natives, the rate reached 7.45%” (p. 47). The second index, odds ratio, provides a comparative index of risk and is calculated by dividing the risk index on one racial/ethnic group by the risk index of another racial/ethnic group. In the OCR and OSEP databases, the odds ratios are reported relative to White students. If the risk index is identical for a particular minority group and White students, the odds ratio will equal 1.0. Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicate that minority group students are at a greater risk of identification, while odds ratios of less than 1.0 indicate that they are less at risk. Using the 1998 OCR placement rates, the LD odds ratio for American Indian/Alaskan Natives is 1.24, showing that they have a 24% greater likelihood of being assigned to the LD category than White students. Odds ratios for Asian/Pacific Islander are low (0.37). For both Black and Hispanic students, the odds ratios are close to 1.0. The third index, composition index (CI), shows the proportion of all children served under a given disability category who are members of a given racial/ethnic group and is calculated by dividing the number of students of a given racial or ethnic group enrolled in a particular disability category. Two underlying assumptions of the CI are that the sum of composition indices for the five racial/ethnic groups will total 100%, and baseline enrollment of a given racial/ethnic group is not controlled. More specifically, the CI may be calculated using the percent of 6- through 21-year old population with the racial/ethnic composition of IDEA and U.S. census population statistics. For example, if 64% of the U.S. population is White, 15% is Black, 16% is Hispanic, 4% is Asian, and 1% is American Indian these data not interpretable without knowing the percentage of the racial/ethnic composition with IDEA. Hypothetically, IDEA data may show that of the 6–21 year olds served under IDEA, 63% are White, 20% are Black, 14% are Hispanic, 2% are Asian, and 1% is American Indian. To calculate disproportionality, a benchmark (e.g. 10%) against which to measure the difference between these percentages must be used. If the difference between the two percentages and the difference represented as a proportion of the group’s percent of population exceeds +10, then the racial/ethnic group is overrepresented. Conversely, if the difference between the two percentages and the difference represented as a proportion of the group’s percent of the population is larger than −10, then, the racial/ethnic group is underrepresented.

In the United States, the mandate to provide access to general education curriculum standards for all learners is clear. This chapter provides an overview and a framework for making individualized and curriculum choices for learners with low-incidence disabilities and cognitive deficits. Topics covered include reconciling an ecological curriculum model with a standards-based framework and an expanded discussion on embedding individualized learning targets within the ongoing lessons, routines, and activities of inclusive classrooms. Carefully planned and implemented embedded instruction can provide a match between a student’s need for individualized instruction and the everyday practices of inclusive classrooms.

The term intellectual disability is broad and encompassing. Regardless of the severity of a child’s intellectual disability, early education is important. This chapter discusses educational considerations of young learners with intellectual disability. Specially, the chapter focuses on academics, life skills, social skills and social development, and behavior. Instructional content and instructional strategies are shared for these areas considering young children, although particular attention in paid to preschool and early elementary age students.