Search results

There has been a policy for including pupils with severe, profound and multiple learning difficulties in mainstream schools in England since the 1980s. However, effective inclusive education has proved to be very difficult to achieve in practice. Currently, there is a mixed economy of special and mainstream schools offering inclusive education, and we argue that the place of education is less important than the quality of that education. Ideally, pupils with S/PMLD would be educated in their own local communities, alongside their non-disabled peers, but this situation is not yet established in English schools.

This paper aims to fill the gap in social sciences research on parents’ strategies in navigating preschool education in Russia. It focusses on the barriers that children with developmental disabilities and autism face in preschool education in Russia and highlights the emerging facilitators of inclusive education.

It uses a modified labelling approach analysing strategies of withdrawal and resistance. The research included semi-structured interviews with parents of children with Down syndrome, Rett syndrome and autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in 2013–2014 and 2018–2019 and semi-structured interviews with professionals in Tatarstan, Russia. The data analysis was based on constructivist methods and grounded theory.

Although Russian law guarantees equal access to education for every child and requires the development of inclusive education, children with developmental disabilities, including autism, are often stigmatised at the preschool stage, both in special needs and mainstream institutions. Parents use various strategies to navigate access to preschool education and try more than one strategy from secrecy and withdrawal to resistance. Parents challenged the mainstream educational structures in Kazan and established groups for children with autism in some mainstream kindergartens and classes in mainstream schools.

There should be informational support for parents with different options for special needs education, providing integrative and inclusive education. It is necessary to increase the number of trained specialists in special needs and mainstream kindergartens in Russia for children with developmental disabilities and ASD. More study is required to overcome stigmatisation and increase tolerance towards persons with developmental disabilities in Russia both on a national and local level.

The research findings can be useful for countries which have recently recognised ASD and do not have inclusive preschool educational practices and where labelling towards children with developmental disabilities is still common. The study recommends that resources are required to provide free or affordable preschool education for children with developmental disabilities. It is also crucial to help parents navigate preschool education and select the best options for each child’s needs.

This study’s findings add value to the importance of addressing the stigma towards people with disabilities within professional groups and broader society, which form barriers for preschool education and in some cases result in withdrawal from preschool education. To overcome the stigmatisation of children with developmental disabilities in preschool education, it is necessary to establish modern targeted pedagogical approaches and training for professionals and informational campaigns for the broader audience.

The paper is novel as there was no sociological research into preschool education of children with developmental disabilities in Russia. It argues that the parents’ experiences are much broader than just interactions with special needs or mainstream education. Parents navigate across special needs institutions, specialised groups in mainstream and private kindergartens, mixed groups in mainstream kindergartens and home education with various strategies from secrecy and withdrawal to resistance and challenge. Preschool education for children with developmental disabilities in Russia is hindered by a lack of professional resources and the stigma embedded into professional and societal responses.

This chapter considers the current status of inclusive education in New Zealand in relation to the UN's Agenda 2030 initiative and Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4). It outlines the history of the development of special education and inclusive education in New Zealand and provides a critique of policies and practices regarding education for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Policies on inclusion are considered in relation to those in other developed countries, and recommendations are made for future policy and practice for the education of children with SEND.

This chapter aims to shed light on some aspects of instructional collaboration with the purpose of providing further understanding of how teachers collaborate and what hinders their collaboration in Saudi inclusive and mainstream schools. Instructional collaboration among teachers in Saudi educational settings has not been thoroughly reviewed, nor has it been adequately considered as an essential component in assuring the implementation of inclusive education. The voice of two special education teachers and two college professors are presented and discussed in order to explain and clarify aspects of instructional collaboration. The last part of the chapter delineates proposed changes that may motivate teachers and aid them in developing a clear understanding of how to practice instructional collaboration in inclusive and mainstream settings, namely, provision of professional development for special and general education teachers, endorsement of legislation and regulations to promote instructional collaboration, and development of teacher education programs.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the findings of a review of the Learning Advice Service which provided mainstream learning opportunities and individual support to people using mental health services. The service was decommissioned after 15 years due to service reconfiguration and cost-cutting.

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with members of the Learning Advisor’s caseload by a researcher with no affiliation to the NHS or the Institute of Mental Health and no connection to the clients. The researcher also transcribed and analysed the interviews. This ensured that there could be no personal or positive bias. The clients faced significant mental health challenges and used the Learning Advice Service to facilitate and support their entry into mainstream learning.

The service enabled individuals facing significant mental health challenges to gain access to adult, community, distance and further and higher education facilitated by individual advice, guidance and support. They were able to broaden their sense of identity beyond that of someone using mental health services and to widen their social and educational base.

Lack of funding within mental health services to continue this type of work limits research which would further explore the value of mainstream education in the recovery of people with a mental health diagnosis. While this cohort was small because of funding and staffing constraints, it would be possible to generalise to a larger scale, using flexible person-centred ways of working if the will, staffing and funding were made available. Further research is certainly indicated as current practice has moved away from mainstream inclusion to discrete provision with associated limitations.

The practical implications include the development of autonomy and the development of a sense of identity that is separate from a mental health diagnosis and where appropriate to gain qualifications and further the student’s knowledge.

Social implications include broadening one’s experience, developing communication skills in a broad context, transferable skills, independence and strengthening one’s sense of identity separate from a mental health diagnosis.

Individuals from a variety of educational and other backgrounds who expressed an interest in pursuing education in mainstream facilities were encouraged and supported in doing so in flexible and individual ways. It appears to be more usual that people using mental health services are encouraged to learn in groups comprising other people using such services, frequently on mental health service premises with associated limitations.

The purpose of the chapter is to give an overview of special education in Iceland, historically and with reference to modern use of terms, research, policy, legal trends and funding. Recent data is provided on demographic developments amongst children in Iceland and detailed account is given of practices in schools, including collaboration with parents and teacher education. Finally some issues and challenges are discussed that still remain to be solved with respect to meeting the special needs of students in school. One of the findings is that only 1.3% of students attend special schools and special classes and that the term special education has outlived its usefulness except perhaps in the context of the three segregated special schools that still remain in the country. Official papers have replaced it with the term special support. Despite a diversity of views and practices the main implication is that a new model of education is required, in line with that proposed by Slee where the needs of individuals are served in all schools and the binary thinking related to regular versus special education is no longer necessary.

Poland’s political and economic transformation after 1989 brought the logic of the neoliberal market into the educational system. These changes, however, were far from the real liberal free market and instead relied on bureaucratic and technocratic local-level apparatus as well as supranational supports (the EU). Moreover, instead of enhancing post-socialist education to bring them up to the level of the core territories, this process pushed education out to the (semi?)periphery. The purpose of this paper is to present selected examples of alternative non-mainstream models of education.

Elements analyzed include: non/academic discourses, with particular emphasis on academic texts, media material and public debates concerning the topic in question.

Two related fields and levels ought to be distinguished: the descriptive level, focused on presenting non-mainstream educational institutions and initiatives, within the socioeconomic context of Poland’s post-socialist transformation; the normative level, with recommendations for policymakers, NGOs and educational activists.

Appreciation of systems parallel and alternative to the neoliberal and technocratic mainstream education system in Poland, with a view to encouraging both policymakers to recognise and develop such initiatives, and members of Polish civil society to create and participate in such forms of education.

Most scholars focus on mainstream education, with a number of exceptions, largely those engaged in the parallel models. This neoliberal model of education is accepted or critically examined, but its technocratic base is not recognised. This text is therefore ground-breaking in that it describes the real mechanisms of the Polish educational system in transition and provides a normative account and recommendations.

Despite an enormous growth of the literature and research on inclusive education during the last two and a half decades, theory and practice on inclusive education are still inconsistent across the education systems worldwide. It is defined, conceptualised and practised differently across diverse socioeconomic contexts and groups of scholars and practitioners. While some promote educating all students in a mainstream classroom setting irrespective of their abilities and physical, emotional and behavioural challenges, others emphasise improving the overall quality of education for all children from diverse backgrounds. Given that education is a multidimensional social enterprise, promoting a single perspective at the cost of others or merely emphasising the role of schools and teachers may hardly result in improved education outcomes and guarantee equal learning opportunities for all. This chapter will critically review the relevant theory and discuss the different approaches to inclusive education. Then it will discuss the potential challenges to inclusive education across the education systems. Finally, the chapter will offer an inclusive way forward for improving the quality of education for all children, irrespective of their backgrounds, in mainstream schools in multicultural contexts.

Over the last decade, there has been a significant increase of students with intellectual disabilities attending mainstream primary and secondary-level education in the Republic of Ireland (McConkey et al., 2017). Despite this increase, it appears that comparatively few of these students successfully transition to further/higher education and/or employment opportunities. This chapter examines typical transition support/guidance provided to students with intellectual disabilities as they prepare to complete their post-primary education in a mainstream setting. Using data from a study of school principals and school personnel responsible for career guidance and transition planning, the findings show guidance is limited for students with intellectual disabilities. Instead of being the responsibility of career guidance counsellors, guidance and transitions planning for students with intellectual disabilities are viewed as being the role of other personnel such as the school SENCO. By assigning this responsibility to special education roles in the school, students with intellectual disabilities may run the risk of having narrow and limited career options presented to them. This study raises serious questions about the effectiveness of mainstream schools in facilitating this critical transition stage for students who have intellectual disabilities.