You are on page 1of 32

Disability And Inclusive Education

A Paper prepared for the InterAmerican Development Bank Seminar on Inclusion and Disability Santiago, Chile, March 16, 2001 Prepared by Gordon L. Porter

It is evident that there is a strong international trend towards developing education systems to become more inclusive. The transformative inclusion agenda is based on the assertion of the same right to a quality education within their communities for all learners. Thus it can be seen to concur with the task of Education for All. (UNESCO, 1999, p. 21)

February 2001

Disability and Inclusive Education

A Paper prepared for the InterAmerican Development Bank Prepared by Gordon L. Porter February, 2001 Acknowledgements: I want to thank the following individuals for their assistance with this paper: Cameron Crawford; Grace Duncan; Mary MacDonagh; Maria del Carmen Malbran; Maria Amelia Vampre; Nadira Persaud; Roberto Madriz; and Diane Richler. Gordon L. Porter: Gordon L. Porter is a Canadian educator active in promoting inclusive
educational practices for the last twenty years. Educated at universities in New Brunswick, Maine and New York, he has been a teacher, school principal and school district director of special education. Dr. Porter has taught courses on inclusive practice at McGill University, the University of Calgary, and at the University of Maine at Presque Isle. He has written a number of articles and book chapters on inclusion and has lectured on inclusive education in countries around the world. Currently the President of Inclusion InterAmericana, he is a past president of the Canadian Association for Community Living. Among his varied activities he was been a Visiting Fellow at the New Zealand Institute on Mental Retardation, acted as a resource person to the Commission on Special Education in South Africa, and provided leadership training for inclusion teams for the Ministry of Education of Portugal. Gordon Porter was a keynote speaker at the Salamanca World Conference on Special Education and represented Inclusion International at the World Education Forum on EFA in Dakar, Senegal.

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3. 3.1 3.2 3.3 The current situation Background Urban-Rural Inequities Separate Education Inclusive education: An emerging alternative The inclusion option An illustrative story: Case example from a Caribbean country Deficiencies revealed Inadequate policy and legislative provision Limited coordination of social and economic agencies with schools Inadequate administrative provision to ensure proactive leadership Limited accessibility and provision for physical support Inadequate school and classroom practices to support inclusion A. Critical factors for success B. Other pedagogical factors Inadequate training and re-training of teachers Inadequate funding Strategies to develop inclusive education Nurturing the inclusive model Partnerships with parents Case example: Sao Paulo, Brazil Disability and inclusive education: Today to The future Where we are today Getting Started The Future References p.1 p. 2 p. 3 p. 4 p. 6 p. 6 p. 7 p. 8 p. 10 p. 10 p. 12 p. 13 p. 14 p. 14 p. 15 p. 15 p. 15 p. 16 p. 17 p. 19 p. 20 p. 21 p. 22 p. 23 p. 23 p. 25 p. 25 p. 26 p. 27 p. 28

Executive Summary
Educating children with disabilities is a modern-day challenge for the people of the Americas. Only a small proportion (e.g. from 1% - to- 10%) of the children with special needs have ready access to schooling, and those who do typically must attend a segregated school. Almost none of these children now have the opportunity to attend a regular community school with their non-disabled peers. In non-urban areas the situation is even worse In practical terms, establishing more segregated schools is not feasible for most countries in the region. It is also undesirable, from an educational standpoint. Money is better spent strengthening the capacity of community schools to handle children with diverse needs. There is growing evidence that children with disabilities learn better when they are allowed to go to a public school within their neighborhood. Often, it is also the only realistic opportunity they will have to receive an education. Inclusive educational practices are being endorsed internationally. The UNESCO sponsored Education For All initiative, states that all children, including those with disabilities and other special needs, are entitled to equity of educational opportunity. UNESCO and the OECD have also determined that inclusion is the preferred approach to providing schooling for students with special needs. It is widely accepted that the conditions required to allow for successful inclusion are also those that contribute to overall school improvement and high levels of achievement for all children. As a result, inclusive education has received more attention throughout the region in the last few years. There is movement toward more inclusive schooling in almost every country. Examples of good practice exist, but the models need to be strengthened and made more systemic. The time is right for key stakeholders to invest in programs and initiatives that will help make schooling in home communities possible for all children. Examples exist that illustrate the difficulties students with disabilities can encounter when their families seek to include them in the regular education system of most countries in the region. But, there are other known cases that give evidence to the opportunities that exist if parent-based groups and ministries work in partnership to nurture new approaches and new models. There are a number of initiatives that experts have identified as supportive of the move toward inclusion. Some of the more crucial ones involve:
establishing pilot projects in individual schools or clusters of schools incorporating best practices and developing local strategies; training a cadre of teachers and school principals so they, in turn, can train others; paying teachers sufficiently so they can focus on teaching and be held accountable for student success; providing teachers with training in classroom strategies so they can accommodate children with diverse learning needs in regular classes; staffing schools with support teachers to provide collaborative help to classroom teachers; developing information packages on best practices and disseminating the knowledge; creating education institutions that prepare new teachers for inclusion; forming partnerships between schools, parent groups, NGOs, and government and professional groups in the promotion of inclusion in schools and the community.

Education systems that exist for all children can be created with adequate funding targeted at community schools. Segregation and exclusion has failed. Inclusion and the good educational practice that comes with it offers hope to a region that needs to ensure educational equity and participation by all.

Disability and Inclusive Education

Introduction The provision of education is a challenge for all countries. Establishing and maintaining a quality educational system requires not only well-trained and motivated teachers and administrators, but also large infusions of money to keep the system up-to-date and relevant with rapidly changing societies and economies. The emergence of the global economy has made the need for quality and effectiveness even more essential. As a result, education programs and policies now rank high on government agendas. For these policies to be effective they need to be directed to the estimated 85 million citizens in the Latin American and Caribbean region who have disabilities. Their low rate of participation in the work force can be directly connected to their exclusion from the education system. The resulting poverty and status of dependence of persons with disabilities represents a significant squandering of human potential. It also unnecessarily causes persons with disabilities to live lives of neglect, isolation and despair (CACL, 1997). This paper focuses on a critical element of the education challenge: the effort to achieve equity for students with disabilities. These students have traditionally fared poorly in the established educational system. While there is a record of achievement during the last few decades when it comes to teaching children with special educational needs, what has been accomplished is tempered by the segregated settings in which it is routinely carried out. The small proportion of the children who actually receive service compared to those who technically qualify is also grossly inadequate. Progress toward full coverage for the children and the quality of instruction they actually receive has been poor. Overall, however, the concept of access-to-education has evolved from a mere privilege for some to a right for all, and expectations have been raised. Commitment to universal education is now interpreted as requiring attention to all children, including those with disabilities and other special educational needs. Support for these principles can be found in the region itself. Nearly a decade ago, 150 representatives from 34 countries in the Americas met in Nicaragua to develop a framework for promoting the rights of persons with a disability. They included persons with a disability, their families, professionals and government representatives. Together, they developed and endorsed the Declaration of Managua, signed December 3, 1993. The Declaration of Managua states: To ensure social well-being for all people, societies have to be based on justice, equality, equity, inclusion and interdependence, and recognize and accept diversity. Societies must also consider their members, above all, as persons, and assure their dignity, rights, self-determination, full access to social resources and the opportunity to contribute to community life (CACL, 1993).

Subsequently, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (O.A.S.), adopted the Inter-American Convention On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Discrimination Against Persons With Disabilities (1999). This action by the O.A.S. recognized the reality that disability continues to be a significant obstacle to full participation in the social, cultural, economic and educational life of the region. The Convention declared that it is necessary therefore to encourage actions and measures to bring about a substantial improvement in the situation of persons with disabilities in the Hemisphere .1 Support for inclusive schooling has also come from several other international accords and declarations. In 1994, the World Congress on Special Education was held in Salamanca, Spain. Coordinated by UNESCO, 300 participants representing 92 countries and 25 international organizations discussed the issues and agreed on what is now known as the Salamanca Statement. The statement set forth the challenge to provide public education to all children, regardless of their physical, intellectual, emotional, social, linguistic or other conditions. Not only was this commitment made, the provision of this service was to be in ordinary schools. In 1999, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) completed an extensive study of special education practice in eight member countries. The OECD report concludes that on the basis of the results of this study (OECD, 1999): there is no reason to segregate disabled students in public education systems; instead education systems need to be reconsidered to meet the education needs of all students. The most detailed international study ever carried out, (the study) shows that all students, whatever the type and extent of their disability, can be successfully included in mainstream schools, as long as certain safeguards are ensured. This paper explores the question of disability and inclusive education in the Latin American and Caribbean region. We will examine three dimensions of the question: providing education to students with diverse needs, including those with disabilities, and the challenge of special education; obstacles and opportunities involved in creating inclusive schools; and, reflections on what the future holds for this issue in the region. As well, two case examples are used to illustrate the dimensions of the question. One highlights the difficulties and challenges families face as a consequence of separate education. The other demonstrates the opportunity to forge new initiatives toward inclusion that include partnership between government and community groups as a key element. Both cases provide a context for analyzing the policy and practice issues at the core of the disability and inclusion question and help point the way ahead.

Organization of American States, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY: Resolution adopted at the first plenary session, held on June 7, 1999.

1. The Current Situation

1.1 Background Even conservative estimates on the number of children in Latin America and the Caribbean with disabilities are large, and only a small number have access to school and other support agencies that promote growth and development. UNICEF estimates 11.6 per cent of children in Central America have a disability. Other studies advance higher projections for the region, including a study prepared by the Canadian Association for Community Living for the Inter-American Development Bank. The study, entitled "Integration of Persons with Disabilities into the Productive Workforce," places the percentage of children with a disability at 18 per cent (CACL, 1997). Using even the lower-range estimates, a simple demographic projection confirms there are millions of children with disabilities in the Americas. Unfortunately, only a small fraction gets the educational attention to which, as citizens, they are entitled. In a December 2000 document, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) notes: The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that only five per cent of disabled children in developing countries have access to supports or services of any kind, and that less than two per cent attend school. Physical and attitudinal barriers often prevent families and communities from providing these children with the same opportunities that non-disabled children have (CIDA, 2000). This is due mainly to the fact that the educational systems in the region do not have the capacity or the practices that would allow them to adequately meet the educational needs of this large population of children. It must also be noted that children with disabilities are over-represented in low-income families, even in developed countries such as Canada. It must also be recognized, however, one of the most serious obstacles to progress in the region is the absence of reliable and consistent data on educational efforts and educational outcomes. McMeekin (1998) has outlined this problem and observes: (T)here is not, however, a body of agreed-upon knowledge about what constitutes a good education statistics system.'' He acknowledges that progress is being made, with some countries making significant gains, particularly larger and more sophisticated countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Mexico. At the same time, however, many poor countries are lagging badly. Countries that are considered in-between" are making progress, but continue to have major problems. Having poor educational statistics means that it is difficult to get an accurate account of the facts. It makes the job of identifying problems and solutions almost impossible. Both UNESCO and the OECD are developing systems of indicators that may be of use, but the work is still a long way from being usable. In short, we are operating in the dark when it

comes to education facts and outcomes generally. If anything, information about special education is even more difficult to come by. What we do know is failure to ensure that children with special needs receive effective educational services results in their exclusion from the labor market and other forms of marginalization and dependency. The net result is that individuals with disabilities and their families live in poverty, and in many cases, the most profound levels of poverty. It even contributes to poor health later in life. Kisanji (1998) notes that in income-poor nations, "people who are currently being marginalized by education policies and practices, such as those with special needs, are likely to remain excluded from schooling for the foreseeable future unless radical reforms in the structure of education systems are contemplated and implemented. In a recent planning document, CIDA states: Quality basic education is a fundamental human right. However, many continue to be denied this right and the opportunity to enjoy its many benefits: better health, reduced fertility, higher productivity, increased family income, and the chance to live and work in dignity and make informed decisions about ones life (CIDA, 2000 B). 1.2 Urban-Rural Inequities Country profiles do not always accurately reflect the reality of the entire nation. In fact the diversity educational provision, coverage and quality within a nation may be more diverse that that between nations. The urban-rural factor is one that is of significant concern in the region. The difference in educational provision between urban areas and the remote country towns and villages is a factor that must be accounted for in reform initiatives. In Jamaica, children who live outside major urban areas are less likely to receive service. While children from Kingston and St. Andrews parishes make up half of the SOH student population, their statistical portion within the population as a whole is approximately 25 per cent (JAPMR, 2001). This urban-rural disparity pattern is all too common in the region as a whole. In Guyana, eight special education institutions operated in the country in 1996, and five were located in the capital city and its environs (IBE, Guyana--on-line). Further illustrating the inequity, OToole noted the capital city had 90 per cent of the provision in the special education area, but only 23 per cent of the population (OToole, 1995). In Uruguay, the situation is no better. De Lorenzo observed: All special services are located in urban and sub-urban areas, leaving the rural regions totally isolated from any kind of special service. Whether they are public or private, special education services

operate only in urban centres, rendering rural areas devoid of the appropriate aid (de Lorenzo, 1995). In a similar vein, Kochar and Gopal (1998) state that A in many developing countries, the deleterious effects of inadequate or inappropriate education are compounded by disparities in the quality of education as one moves from richer to poorer municipalities, from industrial to agricultural areas, and from coastal to interior areas (Kochar & Gopal, 1998).@ Moreover, there seems to be a consistently higher rate of disability among adolescents and youth in rural areas (UNICEF, 1999). The consequence is that policy makers ion the region must not just address the issue of the provision of special education services in urban areas as they do now. The resulting access to service provided for the privileged and urban few fails all moral and equity tests. Instead the focus must shift to the provision of educational services to all children, inlcuding the disabled, in all public schools, urban and rural, for the underprivileged as well as the privileged. 1.3 Separate Education The education system for students with disabilities in Latin America and the Caribbean is primarily based on special schools. This is true in all parts of the region -- large and more developed countries, as well as the smaller and less developed countries. The availability of special schools is limited, so much so that it represents a serious moral question. For example, in Nicaragua, in accordance with data published in 1999 by UNDP, the population with special educational needs amounted to 150,000 children. Their system could only accommodate 3,600 or 2.4 per cent, meaning the needs of 97.6 per cent of children with special needs could not be met. In Chile, Milicic and Sius (1995) report that traditionally, regular Chilean schools have marginalized children with special education needs (p. 169). They further note that special education has been oriented toward children whose disabilities are mild or moderate, ignoring children with more severe disabilities. (Further) most special education schools specialize in one type of disability, and very few receive children with multiple disabilities (p.172). They also report that Chile has not achieved a high degree of coverage, with approximately 300 special schools serving about 30,000 students. Disability projections indicate this is just a third of the number of children who need the service (p.172). In El Salvador, according to data gathered by Inclusion InterAmericana in September 2000, the number of school-age youths with disabilities was 222,000. Two thousand of these students attend courses at special schools, totaling 30 throughout the country. This means less than one per cent attend a special school or any school, for that matter. In Jamaica, children with moderate to profound levels of retardation are sent to schools operated with government funding by the Jamaica Association for Persons with Mental

Retardation (JAPMR). Children with mild retardation are the mandate of the regular public school. Founded in 1956, the private and segregated "School of Hope (SOH) program has 29 units spread throughout the country. They serve a total of 1,250 students. The association estimates that between 3,000 and 4,000 children are actually qualified for their programs (Duncan, 2001). The bottom line is that for every eligible child receiving service, two or three others who are eligible are not served. These examples demonstrate that the model of special education and special schools, first implemented in the developed countries, does not make an impact on children with special needs in most of the countries of the region. Despite their best intentions and careful planning, ministries of education have scarcely made a dent in the matter of universal coverage over recent decades, a period that included the United Nations' Decade of the Disabled. Children with special educational needs are still last in line and the least likely to be served adequately, despite the rhetoric and promise of successive governments. They are last in line because they are seen as defective and less deserving in a society that overemphasizes efficacy at the expense of equity. We have allowed the status of those with high cognitive ability to diminish the rights of others. The hierarchical model of merit is also found deeply entrenched within the disability field itself. Individuals with mild disabilities fare best, and those with physical disabilities are frequently seen as worthy. Those with intellectual disabilities, as well as other perceptual and physical disabilities are invariably the last to be considered and the last to benefit from public services. They have been systematically excluded from public education in the region. In addition, segregated education has entrenched a way of thinking that tends to perpetuate the segregation of people with disabilities throughout their life. Children who have been segregated at school tend to be kept separate as adults, through measures such as segregated work and recreation programs, and in segregated institutions including psychiatric hospitals and other inappropriate settings. Such arrangements are not consistent with the spirit of international declarations on human, economic and cultural rights, which are based on notions of full equality, inclusion and mutual respect. Most countries eventually discover that policies and programs which entrench segregation also perpetuate social isolation, loneliness and vulnerability with a wide-range of social harms. Arguably, the systematic separation of certain people from the mainstream of society, rips at the social fabric and dilutes the diversity of civil society as a whole. Application of the statistical information noted above provides a grim bottom-line for many, if not all, countries in the region. If countries were to proceed and try to achieve coverage sufficient for the entire population of students with special needs using the special schools model, the costs would be enormous. For example, in the case of El Salvador, there are now 30 schools serving approximately 2,000 students. To achieve full special-needs coverage on the same basis, approximately 3,300 special schools would have to be built and 23,000 special educators hired to join the 210 now employed. Unfortunately, the gap between provision and need is similar in most countries in the region.

Latin American and Caribbean countries are generally engaged in modernizing their educational systems. They are searching for quality, making technological improvements and attempting to extend coverage. Yet the special schools model is not compatible with the spirit, the goals or the vision of the educational reform process. On the contrary, it reinforces segregation and marginalization of people with disabilities. A small portion of the student population with special needs receive service but within a model that isolates and segregates them. The majority receives no education at all. This produces a situation entirely at odds with the values of a truly democratic society. It is difficult to reconcile an education system based on exclusion and segregation with democratic economic and social goals. The education system needs to be a pillar of the democratization process. To be left out of the education system entirely or to be segregated and isolated from peers, exacts a cost in lost knowledge and skill to the individual. The costs are clearly economic and effect income and standard of living. The cost of lost of relationships is harder to define, however, there is a human and relationship loss which effects people with disabilities throughout their lives, and one which spreads to families, peers, and the entire community. Income-poor countries, like most of those in the region, have devoted resources to the development of a special education model. The model is far from complete, however, in terms of coverage and the range of services available. They are now faced with a decision that is crucial. Do they continue to invest in the special education model or do they seek a change in direction? As they move toward achieving the goals of the "Education For All'' (EFA) initiative, the advantages of developing an inclusive community-based school model is gaining increased attention. The result of this decision and the direction each county takes will effect the lives of many children and their families.

2. Inclusive education : an emerging alternative

In numerous countries, the integration of students with special learning needs to mainstream education, has sparked a process of educational renewal that has greatly benefited the schooling system as a whole (Blanco, 1997). 2.1 The Inclusion Option Quite recently, inclusive education has appeared as the alternative approach to the challenge of provision with students with special needs. According to this model, students will be served in the regular public schools of the community. Students with special educational needs, including children with disabilities, will receive their education alongside their non-disabled peers. While this is considered an innovation, it is in fact true that in many cultural circumstances, it is also the traditional way to educate children. A Jamaican educator has observed that (H)istorically, we have always practiced the principles of inclusion in our educational system especially at the pre-school and primary levels (Duncan, 2001).


Carro (1996) of the Universidad de Vallodolid stresses that the benefits of inclusion are two way (between students with special needs and their regularly able peers) but most of us have not experienced this yet. Segregation restricts our understanding of each other. Familiarity and tolerance reduce fear and rejection. Inclusive education contributes to a greater equality of opportunities for all members of society. The benefits also include relationships and creativity that were not possible in the past (Carro, 1996).@ Jonsson (1995) supports and strengthens this argument. Inclusive education services allow children with disabilities to stay with their family and go to the nearest school, just like all the other children. This circumstance is of vital importance to their personal development. Interrupting a disabled child's normal development may have far more severe consequences than the disability itself (Jonsson, 1995).@ In countries where this model has been implemented, important progress has been made. It has been found that if implemented properly, inclusive school programs have the potential to: be less expensive to implement and operate than special education services; have a broader reach than traditional special education in terms of positive educational and social impacts on children; contribute significantly to the ongoing professional development and job satisfaction of educators; produce better morale and team effort in the school environment. Obviously each country has its own conditions and characteristics, therefore there are no recipes for the development of a unique inclusive education model. When properly researched, described and disseminated, however, effective strategies and practices can always be adapted to enrich indigenous processes in meaningful ways. Most countries are adept at adopting what works and leaving behind what does not fit local circumstances. A key challenge facing countries that have highly developed special education systems in their efforts to implement inclusive education, is the process of transitioning resources away from special education services. Difficulties inherent in this process are major deterrents to wider implementation of inclusive education. These difficulties, however, should not be overstated. With the right partners at the table, this transition process can be effectively managed. But, it does take time and it might require some additional investment. In countries with very limited spending on special education services, the challenge will be to generate new money to enhance the effort. As is usually the case with innovative ideas, the thought of implementing the inclusive education model generates fear and resistance, mainly from special educators who wrongly view the proposal as a "menace" to their jobs. At the same time, many regular teachers doubt and resent the possibility of having children with special needs in their classrooms. They feel, for good reason, they are not prepared. The implementation of the model may also require a great deal of extra work for them.


In times of fiscal restraint, inclusive education services are politically and fiscally more sustainable than parallel systems of special education. It is politically more sustainable because the services are intended to benefit all students. The services are not perceived by taxpayers as an expensive "add on" which cater primarily to special interest lobbies in the disability sector. The services are fiscally sustainable because the goal of inclusive education is to achieve optimal pedagogical results for every public dollar invested in education. Overall such services cost a fraction of the amount required to maintain a dual and distinct network of regular schools and special education schools. The case described below, illustrates the effects of separate education on individuals and families. It also provides a context for an analysis of the policy issues and the educational practices that are part of the current system. 2.2 An Illustrative Story: Case Example from a Caribbean Country
Several years ago, a national Association for the Mentally Retarded held a weekend seminar on disability, human rights and community living. It attracted up to 80 parents, teachers, social workers, officials and dignitaries, however, only a few individuals made it to all the sessions. Two participants who did attend every session were a mother, Joyce, and her son Thomas, a delightful youngster with a big smile and an engaging personality, who had both a physical and learning disability. Joyce was a single mother raising Thomas, soon to turn six, as well as a younger daughter. At a sparsely attended morning session, Joyce found herself in a setting where she felt comfortable enough to reveal her personal dilemma. Joyce told of a compelling crisis looming over her life and the lives of her children. Thomass special needs, and particularly his physical disability left him unable to walk. His situation was compounded by the fact that Thomas did not have a wheelchair. He was able to move about on his own by crawling, or when conditions made it possible, by using a wooden platform mounted on wheels. The rest of the time Joyce had to carry him. Joyce lived right across the street from a regular public school in the city. At the time, Thomas was near the end of his year in kindergarten in this neighborhood school. Joyce said she had asked the school principal if he could attend and since a kindergarten teacher had agreed to have him in her class, permission was given. This arrangement allowed Thomas to be taken to school by his grandmother who lived with Joyce and her two children. With grandmother able to get Thomas to school and also provide child-care for Willa, Joyce was able to have a full time job. This job required Joyce to leave home early in the morning to travel to the work site across the city. Things were working out well. But she had just learned that her good fortune was about to end. Joyce was very worried about the news she had just received from the school authorities. The principal had advised her that Thomas would not be able to attend the school the following year. It turned out there were two problems. First, the classrooms for Grade 1 students were on the second floor and there was no way to transport Thomas. His physical disability made accessibility a barrier. But, there was another problem that was only revealed when Joyce pressed the issue with the school principal. She was finally told that none of the first grade teachers were willing to have Thomas in their class. The school principal seemed helpless and


said he could do nothing about this. Joyce met with an official from the ministry of education but no help with the accessibility issue or the teacher acceptance issue was offered. In fact the only alternative the official offered Joyce was to enroll Thomas in a special education school on the outskirts of the city. Since no transportation to the school was provided, the only way for Thomas to get there was for Joyce to accompany him on a public bus for the one-hour journey each way. And this is where Joyce faced a crisis, one many parents and families in the region face. If Joyce took Thomas to school by public bus in the morning, she would be unable to get to her job on time. And not only that, to get him home in the afternoon, she would have to be at the school at 2:30 p.m. to again accompany him on the bus. Joyce had a tough and bitter choice. She had to either leave her son at home without an education, or she had to quit her job and try to transport him across the city to a special school for students with disabilities. Economically, there was no choice. Joyce needed to work. Thomass education was about to be brought to a halt after just one year. Joyces story highlights some of the obstacles that need to be overcome. But it also shows the opportunity that exists in every community for change and improvement. It just so happened that a journalist, well-known in the nation for highlighting the inequities of human rights issues, had been invited to sit in on the seminar. He used Joyces story as the lead in an article published a few days later. For Joyce and Thomas this coverage proved most helpful. The publicity provided government motivation that Joyce could not ignite on her own. Officials were instructed to help resolve the problem forthwith and they did. Thomas was assured of placement in the neighborhood school for the coming year and Joyces fears about his education and her family's livelihood were resolved.

It remains a fact, however, that the issues were resolved for Joyce and Thomas, and for them alone. It was also a short-term solution, since there was no assurance the matter would not come up again. Thomass educational future, and the educational future of children with circumstances similar to his, are left very much at risk in the absence of more substantial political resolve, as well as policy development and institutional change.
2.3 Deficiencies Revealed This case example illustrates many of the areas of difficulty that arise when access to the neighborhood public school is not assured. These deficiencies can be linked to several areas of potential difficulty, among them: inadequate policy and legislative provision; limited coordination of social and economic agencies with schools; inadequate administrative provisions to assure proactive leadership; limited accessibility and provision for physical support; inadequate school and classroom practices to support diverse learners; inadequate training and re-training of teachers;


inadequate funding for basic education and for support services for students with special needs;

These deficiencies need to be described and alternatives suggested from the growing experience with inclusive practice found in both developed countries and the Latin American and Caribbean region. 2.3.1 Inadequate policy and legislative provision The policy and legislative provisions for special needs education should be solidly anchored in the commitments made to Education For All (EFA) and equity in opportunity for every child. It is clear countries in Latin America and the Caribbean face serious challenges achieving the desired goals of the EFA initiative. No matter how difficult the challenges may be, the goals should include guarantees for students with special needs, including those with disabilities. In fact, the time could not be better for governments to seize on the EFA initiative to transform not just educational promise, but educational practice and outcomes. In country after country, the story is substantially the same. Education is not well supported and is producing inadequate results. Educational reform and restructuring is on the public agenda, but funding and progress are limited. While change in special education is discussed among the small group of parents and practitioners in the field, it is largely ignored and rarely seen as part of the larger agenda of reform. Progress requires that this be corrected, and suggestions for what is needed are both simple and direct. The public school mandate should require the education of all children, irrespective of their degree of diversity in learning needs, as well as physical or intellectual characteristics. The political and policy commitments should be seen as clear and consistent. Teachers and school principals must not be allowed to establish educational policy that is the proper domain of legislators and ministers. The fact that they are allowed to do so under the guise of professional competence and knowledge, as noted in Thomass case, is a sad commentary on the depth of understanding of this issue. 2.3.2 Limited coordination of social and economic agencies with schools The devastating effect on the total family unit is a factor that must be considered when agencies look at situations like the one Joyce found herself in. The cost in neglect and undeveloped potential for the child is the immediate effect of the denial of access to schooling. The economic and social results for the parent, other siblings and family members are equally relevant. The social and political interests of the community demand that political leaders and public officials create an environment where common sense and fairness prevail. Health agencies, social services departments and educational institutions should be structured and mandates to assure the holistic needs and interests of the child, the family and indeed the community are met. The cost of putting a mother out of work, and a family in an economic crisis, all for want of a receptive and effective school, is a price paid, not just by Joyce and her family, but over and over by many


families in the region. The construction of a community able to support families flexibly and responsively requires coordinated action, guided by clear principles of empowerment. 2.3.3 Inadequate administrative provisions to assure proactive leadership Legislative and policy provisions are important for the development of inclusive schools and supportive communities. The general principles must be backed up by operational strategies, however, that get the key officials and leaders in the bureaucracy to not only understand and comply with the policy but put their full skill and commitment behind implementing the policy. It is not unusual to see the promise of the most basic government policies remain unfulfilled because of bureaucratic opposition or inertia. If any area demands accountability, it is the education system that shapes our future as it shapes our children. The ministry of education should ensure that leaders in the system are fully knowledgeable of the rational for inclusive community schools and the social and educational benefits that will result from them. They must also be trained in the skills needed to make schools work well. Skrtic has suggested this leadership needs to be focused on adhocratic processes of problem identification and problem solving. He argues schools are institutions where the work is always unique. Thus the teacher needs to create new and unique strategies to meet the needs of the diverse student population attending the school on ongoing basis (Skrtic, 1991). 2.3.4 Limited accessibility and provision for physical support To accommodate diverse student needs the educational system must have the benefit of funds to support accessibility. Buildings must be made accessible for those in wheelchairs, and it must be recognized that building ramps, accessible washrooms, wide doorways and so on is just the beginning. The provision of personal support from an assistant also needs to be available if the school is to be able to accommodate students with multiple and severe disabilities. Most schools are not equipped or staffed to meet these needs and achieving the goals of EFA, and thus of inclusion, will be difficult until they are met. 2.3.5 Inadequate school and classroom practices to support diverse learners The challenge for school leaders seeking to successfully manage change, is to create conditions where what is known about best practices, can be put to work to benefit children. Pedagogical knowledge, and information on what practices make a school work well, are readily at hand.


(A) Critical Factors for success For schools to achieve a high degree of success with all children, the day-to-day expectations of the teacher have to be reasonable. Several critical factors effect a teachers capacity to achieve successful outcomes with students. In a paper entitled, Investments to Improve Childrens Educational Outcomes in Latin America, presented at the Year 2000 Conference on Early Childhood Development sponsored by the World Bank and held in Washington in April 2000, J. Douglas Willms reported on several factors relevant to quality schooling and inclusive practice. This data was based on the results of the Primer Estudio Internacional Comparativo (PEIC), the first international study of its kind in Latin America. The 13 countries involved were Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Chile, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, and Venezuela. While all Caribbean countries were not represented, the number of participants was large enough to represent the region as a whole for purposes of analysis: Class Size: Nearly 46 per cent of all children in the region were in classes larger than 25. Comment: It is not uncommon to find classes ranging in size from 40 to 50 students throughout the region. Clearly, this is too many children for one teacher to handle. Even an excellent teacher would struggle to adequately provide for all. Class size needs to be reduced and the teaching loads of instructors made more realistic. Teachers Working One Job: It was discovered that 47.5 per cent of students attended schools where their teachers had more than one job. Comment: A significant number of teachers work at two jobs, which is the result of low pay and schools operating two sessions of classes each day. The consequence is diminished student success, given that teachers are unable to take part in meetings with colleagues directed toward instructional improvement and school enhancement. Opportunities for teachers to meet and work with parents is also reduced. No Ability Grouping: Only 38.7 per cent of all the children in the region were in schools that did not practice ability grouping. Comment: Willms established that heterogeneity tends to produce higher levels of achievement for students as a whole. Inclusive education practice goes hand in hand with achieving high levels of heterogeneity. Positive Learning Environment: 51.3 per cent of students in the region were in schools that employed an index rating the learning climate. Comment: School climate is an important indicator of the sense of community and commitment to mutual benefit by a class of students. The teacher plays an important role in establishing expectations and modeling appropriate standards. Inclusion of students with special


needs, particularly students who have been excluded from school or isolated in segregated programs, requires a high emphasis on achieving a positive school and classroom climate. Strong Parental Involvement: A parental involvement index was derived from questions asked of parents. It was determined that 53.8 per cent of children in the region were enrolled in schools where strong parent involvement was found. Comment: Achieving successful inclusion with students with special needs is closely tied to teachers and parents working together. A general climate where a parentteacher partnership exists eases the transition to inclusive practice.

(B) Other Pedagogical Factors In addition to the elements identified above, there is a range of other factors that have emerged as critical in the many schools and classrooms where inclusive education has been successfully implemented. Some of the most common are described below: School Support Strategies: Teachers working in inclusive classrooms face many challenges on a daily basis. They require support in a number of ways. Blanco and Duk (1995) point out there is increasing effort in the region to integrate the special subsystem of education into the regular system. There is a purposeful steering of special education resources into regular schools to support greater degrees of inclusion for students with special needs. Indeed, if inclusion is to be successful, educational managers need to assure that there are varied and systematic supports available to the teacher,. The Support Teacher: One of the most promising approaches in supporting classroom teachers with inclusion is to provide support from a collaborating teacher. In many cases, this teacher is a former special education teacher given a new mandate and role. Instead of providing direct service to students, the support teacher places emphasis on providing professional assistance in planning and teaching strategies to the classroom teacher. This assistance may be focused on meeting the unique learning needs of the students or on developing classroom strategies and activities for day-today use. Support teachers also , assist in working with parents, and they may deal with outside agencies involved with the child. They help the teacher with all the other complications associated with providing high quality instruction to special needs students in a regular class (Porter, 1991). Yet, the collaboration must go beyond teacher and support teacher. Blanco (1997) has described the need to establish a collaborative working scheme among teachers, teachers and specialists, teachers and parents and among the students themselves. The support teacher can also facilitate more structured sharing among teachers who work in the same school. One means of achieving this involves teachers helping teachers through problem solving teams that focus on practical and site specific strategies. Support teachers can be trained to facilitate the meetings and teachers learn

how to act cooperatively to help each other improve their teaching practices (Porter, 1994). It is also important the school principal or director be involved in the collaborative process of planning and review (Perner, 1991). Modeling effective teamwork in the adhocratic manner suggested by Skrtic can help teachers feel comfortable within this new approach. The Classroom Assistant: Many children with special needs have physical, behavioral and, in some cases, learning needs that can be effectively met by the oneon-one assistance of a classroom assistant. The assistant can be a paid staff member with some degree of special training or, in some circumstances, may be a parent or a volunteer contributing their time to help students achieve success. Whatever the status, a second or perhaps even a third adult in the classroom can be a significant help for the teacher. Schools have institutionalized the model of one teacher for each class, but there is nothing sacrosanct about this approach. If an additional adult is needed, the means to make one available needs to be identified. This approach adds considerably to the flexibility that the school needs to adapt supports to meet the needs of various students. Successful school programs provide this flexibility, perhaps in different ways, but the availability of support for the teacher is assured (Porter & Stone, 1998). New Ways of Teaching: Another essential element to accommodate students with diverse needs in regular classes is for teachers to utilize a variety of innovative and flexible teaching strategies. Multi-level instruction is one formulation developed to meet this requirement (Collicott, 1991) Multi-level instruction has been defined as follows (Perner & Porter, 1998): An approach to classroom instruction and curriculum organization that emphasizes provision of appropriate learning opportunities for students with varying levels of academic skills through the same core lesson. This approach suggests consideration by teachers of the (a) underlying concept of the lesson, (b) method of presentation by the teacher, (c) method of practice by the student, and (d) method of evaluation. The model requires the teacher to consider a number of alternatives in terms of teacher presentation and student practice. Among the choices typically identified are: modes of activities (Wood, 1992); the type of questions asked and the thinking skills required of students (for example utilizing Blooms cognitive levels (e.g. knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation) which sets out levels of the cognitive domain (Bloom, 1969); student learning styles (e.g. visual, auditory and/or tactile); degree of participation (e.g. full or partial); reference to the theory of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983), which encourages reference to student skill in seven identifiable types of intelligence,


should be utilized and nurtured in the classroom (e.g. logical/mathematical; verbal/linguistic; visual/spatial; bodily/kinesthetic; musical/rhythmical; interpersonal, and intrapersonal). Multi-level instruction and similar models of pedagogy are required to open the class to varied and flexible activities to stimulate student learning. Students are thus allowed some choice in how they demonstrate their learning and practice new skills. This approach has proved to be a useful way to support teachers in developing new instructional strategies (Perner, 1993). Flexible Curriculum: The rigidity of school curriculum is a major concern when it comes to serving students with special needs in schools throughout the region. In some cases, curriculum rigidity followed by grade retention is a prime cause of drop outs among populations of students from low socio-economic groups, minority groups and others at-risk. Over emphasis on high academic standards and achievement lead to high drop-out (rates) and grade retention, low attendance rates, and poor learning achievement in many Latin American countries (Artilles et al, 1995). Inflexible curriculum, combined with poor quality of education, requires an investment solely to keep repeaters in the system, an expense that in turn is not invested in dealing with learning difficulties (Palacios, 1999). While curriculum outcomes and goals are needed to shape expectations for most students, a responsive school program must also be capable of making reasonable accommodations for students who require them. The receptiveness of school personnel, and for that matter the public and parents, for this flexibility needs to be strengthened. Blanco and Duk observed that, open and flexible curricula are a must if the various needs of students are to be met and the different social and educational settings wherein the teaching learning process takes place, are to be taken into account ( Blanco & Duk, 1995). They further note that schools should move toward the elimination of the differentiated curriculum and the creation of a single curriculum for the whole student population flexible enough to allow for the necessary adjustments and (to) respond to the students differences (Blanco & Duk, 1995). The multi-level teaching approach is designed to achieve exactly this result, and together with other instructional strategies, such as cooperative learning and activitybased learning, give teachers several tools to accomplish their goals (Porter & Stone, 1998). Flexible curriculum can also assist schools in reducing the high proportion of students in the region who are forced to repeat grades. 2.3.6 Inadequate training and re-training of teachers Teachers need thorough pre-service training and on-going in-service training opportunities to make inclusive education a success (Perner & Porter, 1998). Teaching is a profession of ever changing demands and the need to develop new skills and approaches to use with students is considered essential. In much of the region, teachers


are not adequately trained. In some countries primary level teachers require little, if any, training beyond secondary school. Willms reports that only 54.8 per cent of students in the region were considered to have well-trained teachers (Willms, 2000). Blanco has identified the key weakness of training initiatives in the region as the focus on individual teachers in discreet areas without attention to school-wide initiatives that involve every teacher. (E)very country is allocating considerable material and human resources to the formation of teachers capable of responding to the different challenges posed by the various educational reforms underway. Regrettably, the results so far obtained are not encouraging, since formation has not translated into significant modification of teaching practices. Teachers trained in isolation, fail to produce significant transformations in the school culture (Blanco, 1999). In a study of inclusive education programs in member countries, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), found that the training of all those involved was a key to success (OECD, 1999). Among the skills identified as essential were adapting curriculum, using a variety of instructional strategies, identifying individual needs, skill in collaboration and problem solving, the development of individual educational plans and monitoring student progress. 2.3.7 Inadequate funding of basic education and support services for students with special needs Sufficient funding for full basic education is not ensured in many countries in the region. While commitments have been made to correct funding deficiencies and inequities, concrete results are not yet evident. The inequity in funding supports for students with special educational needs is even more glaring than for general education. Significant portions of the student population are simply not considered a part of the population eligible for schooling (e.g. the case from Argentina). Thus, the question of what can be done must be asked. The basic principles of effective financing are quite simple, although recognizably more difficult to implement. Critical elements of an effective financing policy include the following (Porter, 1995): 1. Provide sufficient funding to schools for quality basic education. 2. Establish class-size guidelines that are realistic, with a target not in excess of 25 to 40 students per class. 3. Pay teachers enough to demand one full day of professional work, including time for planning, meetings and personal improvement. 4. Recognize the additional cost of providing for a diverse group of students in regular classes and in regular schools and provide funding to meet this need through: 4.1 Salaries for professional support teachers; 4.2 Funds for assistants to the teachers; 4.3 Funds for modifications to facilities, as required;


4.4 Funds for individual supports that may be required by specific students. 5. Provide funding for staff training and public education. While there are many considerations and complications required to effectively execute such a plan, constructive action to achieve these goals would be a step in the right direction. 2.4 Strategies to Develop Inclusive Education Too often the proposals for inclusive education initiatives result in debate and discussion among those in the special education and disability fields. In this setting, there are many disagreements and a high degree of heated rhetoric on all sides. The fact is the discussion is largely wasted in this context. Inclusive education is a topic for those engaged in the general education system. It is among regular school principals and teachers that the discussions need to occur. One of the mandates of the EFA programs in the region is to achieve for acceptance of diversity. Schools must be challenged and empowered to meet the educational needs of the children in their communities just as the families of these children are challenged to provide the best possible family life. Schools need to focus on the fact that just as the family has obligations to each child, the school community has an obligation to each family and thus every child. In many cases special educators with a vision for inclusion are found at the forefront of the struggle for inclusive schools. For these special educators developing inclusive options for children is seen as pursuing best practices for their students. Officials and political leaders are always looking for the most effective programs that produce the best results and that make the most beneficial use of the limited funding available. In some countries this is a key motivator for reform related to special education. Spending on segregated special education is clearly inadequate to meet the needs of students with special needs in the region. Increasing this spending by three or four times, and in some cases up to 10 times the current level of spending, would still not meet all of the need. And, it is ironic that making these extra investments would merely reinforce the idea the general education system does not have to deal with children who are different. This would logically result in even more children being rejected from regular schools. For example in The Netherlands, special education provision eventually reached the point where fourteen types of special schools provided segregated education to students judged to have special needs before the reform process was initiated (Meijer, 1994). Countries in the region have very little extra money available to spend on education. Regular schools and the general education program needs whatever additional investment can be made in them. By mandating an inclusive general education program, money can be focused almost entirely on improving the capacity of the program to serve all the children typical children and their peers with special needs. The added policy benefit is that the money now going to segregated special education, as well as the increases likely to be added over time, can be added to the pool of resources available to raise the


standards of practice in regular classrooms in community schools. In this way, the social benefits of the investment will be available to the population as a whole. 2.5 Nurturing the Inclusive Model Basic education for all requires assuring access, permanence, quality learning, and full participation and integration of all children and adolescents, particularly for members of indigenous groups, those with disabilities, those that are homeless, those that are workers, those living with HIV/AIDS, and others.2 ( EFA, 2000) There is now a consensus that inclusive education is an alternative to the whimsical effort to develop segregated special education programs throughout the region. The statement above from the regional meeting in Santo Domingo held to finalize the action plan for nations in the Americas was presented at the World Forum on Education for All in Dakar, Senegal in April 2000. This represents a clear affirmation of the inclusion principle and a vision statement that will challenge the current status quo of segregation and neglect. According to this new model, children should be educated in the educational centers of his or her town or village, whether or not he or she has a disability or is different in any way. Schools that have implemented this model have made important progress. Nevertheless, as is usually the case with innovative initiatives, the prospect of implementing the inclusive education model generates fear and resistance, mainly from teachers who are fearful the training and support they will need will not materialize. Many regular teachers doubt the practicality of the strategy and resist the idea of having children with special needs in their classrooms. They genuinely feel that they are not prepared for this challenge and they fear that the implementation of this model will mean a great deal of extra work for them. Many special educators are also fearful of inclusion. They are concerned that managers may see inclusion as a means to eliminate their jobs and save money. Others wonder if they have the knowledge and skill needed to assist regular class teachers with inclusion. Obviously each country has its own conditions and characteristics, therefore there are no recipes for the development of a unique and inclusive education model. But when disseminated and known, good practices, like those discussed above, can always be adapted in order to enrich similar processes that take place in other parts of the world. Each and every country has taken positive steps in this direction. It is important to disseminate and multiply such steps.

2.6 Partnerships with Parents


From the Santo Domingo EFA Regional Framework For Action (Education For All in the Americas, February 10-12, 2000).

Parents are the most consistent advocates for their childs best interests. In many instances parent-based groups, some formal and national in scope, others small, informal and highly specific in their goals, are making a significant difference in the movement toward inclusive educational programs. In an analysis of developments in the region, Blanco (1997) has noted the importance of partnerships in building the conditions for progress. The formulation of policies designed to help disabled individuals requires a global, integrative and participative approach that involves various institutions. The Intersectoral Plans developed must involve the different Ministries, and must rely on the participation of Parents Associations and Organizations for the Assistance of the Disabled. - (Blanco, 1997) One of the most promising opportunities for partnership exists between parent groups and educational authorities. In many cases parents have had to create their own schools to meet the educational needs of their children. Examples of this kind exist in most countries in the region. Just as parent groups have been part of the effort to create the separate schooling model, they can also be part of the effort to create inclusive schools. The case below provides an instructive example of this prospect.
2.7 Case Example Sao Paulo, Brazil Inclusive Education Project: APAE Sao Paulos Role in Creating Inclusive Schools

Context APAE Sao Paulo (APAE SP) is a large and mature NGO with a proud history of accomplishment recognized both within Brazil and internationally. APAE SP has operated a school for students with intellectual disabilities for many years. Recently, the student population reached 600 children. APAE SPs educational leaders have long recognized that many more children should be served. But, they also recognized that APAE SP does not have the capacity or the resources to support each child who needs service, and the prospect of doing so in the future appears dim. The Plan In 1999, APAE SP initiated a project to include students with intellectual disabilities in regular schools throughout the City of Sao Paulo. Approximately 100 children were enrolled in 32 regular schools, both public and private, throughout the city. APAE SP provided staff support and leadership to this process. The project was extended to more students and more schools in the year 2000. Key Elements

Associaco de Pais e Amigos dos Excepcionais (APAE).


n Vision and leadership: the vision and leadership for this project has been provided by several of the founders of the agency, Dr. Antonio Clemente Fillho and Maria Amelia Vampre, as well as several other directors and the senior staff of APAE SP. n Staff support: the professional staff involved in the project are good teachers, with experience working in the segregated classes of APAE SP. Nearly a dozen teachers were selected to act as resource and support staff to the project. They are knowledgeable in special education practices and have shown a real commitment to their task. n Regular school cooperation: the teachers in the regular schools all agreed to participate in the project. They have all sought to serve the children well and to work cooperatively with the support teachers from APAE SP. They welcomed the extra assistance and training provided and asked for more intensive joint planning with the support teacher and the childs parents. School directors have also played an important role in the process. It is clear that the most successful experiences have been where the involvement and participation of the school director has been high. n Support Strategies: one of the key elements of the APAE SP project is the delivery of support to teachers in the cooperating schools. It was recognized from the start that simply sending the children to the regular schools with no support was not an appropriate action. The regular classroom teachers would require help from a support teacher with the knowledge and skills needed to make the initiative a success. Teachers have needed help in solving the problems and difficulties that have predictably arisen, including behavioral, curricular, instructional and social problems. n Training: the teachers involved in the project have been provided with training opportunities, but all agree more is needed. It is noteworthy that theory and philosophy were well covered but practical strategies and concrete methodology were not given sufficient attention. n Parents: the APAE SP inclusion project has given parents the opportunity to develop a vision of the benefits their children will gain from an inclusionary school program. They are being encouraged to ask questions and collaborate with other parents. Parents are being empowered to play a key and vital role in the project and increasingly the need for parental involvement and participation in the process is emphasized. n Ministry Partnerships: the municipal government of Sao Paulo has been a supportive sponsor of the initiative. It has provided extra teaching positions to APAE SP to carry out the initiative. In addition to cooperation with the municipal department of education, APAE SP has sought the support of the federal ministry of education. Conclusion The goal of the present initiative is to identify and support a cluster of schools, public and private, that successfully include students with special needs, especially those with intellectual disabilities. The practices used by these schools will be identified and shared as best practices or exemplars.. The project serves its most useful purpose by providing support for the long-term goal of making every school inclusive. This goal is at the heart of the mission of parent groups such as APAE SP. With the success of the project, public officials responsible for education are being asked to build on these examples and thus fulfill their responsibility to provide an education for every child,

including those with special needs. As a consequence, this project that involves just a few children in Sao Paulo, has the potential to make a real difference for countless other children. APAE SP has committed itself to make this inclusive education project a success. The project will only succeed, however, if other crucial partners give it support and build on the initiative.

3. Disability and Inclusive Education: Today to The Future

The attention being given to inclusive education as a strategy for school reform and improvement, as well as the assurance of participation and equity for students with special needs is ever increasing. There is little evidence that this is a fad. Indeed it is increasingly evident that the vision of an inclusive and welcoming community school, that is effective and nurturing is one that few stakeholders can resist. 4.1 Where We Are Today Most countries in the region have committed themselves to the goals of equity and inclusion through international agreements and the EFA process. Turning these commitments into reality is a more difficult task. It seems that the opportunity for progress depends on policy-makers who view the inclusive community school as a crucial element of the general effort toward educational reform and restructuring, rather than as issue of practice in the field of special education. There are signs that this is happening throughout the region. In October 2000, the Council of Ministers of Education of the states of Central America met in Antigua, Guatemala. They invited a delegation from Inclusion InterAmericana to meet with them and discuss opportunities to use inclusive education as a mechanism for reform and improvement. The meeting was made possible by the initiative of the minister of education from El Salvador, a country that had welcomed a partnership with Inclusion InterAmericana to reform its special education practice. The host ministry of education in Guatemala also had strong ties to the NGO and parent sector. The discussions between the ministers and members of Inclusion InterAmericana focused on the need for greater provision, as well as the need to maximize the effect of limited resources. It was agreed that for most students with disabilities in the Central American region, assuring access to the local public school was the only reasonable way to assure access to any educational experience. The ministers agreed to an on-going process to develop examples of inclusive schools, and to build on the practices and innovations found to be successful. The council of ministers and Inclusion InterAmericana are currently working on a plan to provide teacher training and in-service and production of informational materials to assist teachers and parents in this area (Inclusion InterAmericana, 2000). Another positive initiative has been taken by several rectors of pedagogical universities in


Central America. With leadership from a university rector in Honduras, they have agreed there is a need to prepare teachers for the diversity that schools will accommodate in the future. They have begun discussions on a plan of action with Inclusion InterAmericana and the Roeher Institute of Canada. This initiative and others hold promise for progress in teacher preparation for inclusive schooling (Roeher, 1999). We can expect the movement toward inclusive educational practices to continue. Some initiatives will no doubt be modest in scope and be limited to creating a new option for the provision of special education. Others may be more ambitious and include the goal of inclusive schools a component in the actions to modernization and reform public education. Stakeholders can work together so that the commitment and capacity to serve all children can be nurtured and supported in every school in every community.. 4.2 Getting Started For inclusion in education systems to advance, it must be viewed as a right of citizenship. It is an expression of personal freedom that unfortunately not all children enjoy. Yet the ability to provide this opportunity to every child is well within grasp. A truly inclusive education system is not achieved overnight. Many of the necessary reforms are systemic and require considerable investment in human, financial and material resources. Funding for research and development in the area of special needs education is often hard to secure, but desperately needed if successful models are to be identified. Examples of good practices need to be gathered and circulated in pamphlets, books, manuals, videos and on the Internet. This dissemination of knowledge to teachers, parents and other stakeholders is vital. Some jurisdictions also invest in pilot projects as a cost-effective way to test a model for inclusion. This allows for trial runs in a school, or clusters of schools, before all children in a neighborhood zone are served. To inspire leadership, it is important to introduce inclusive education programs for teachers, so they are prepared to accommodate students with diverse needs in regular classes. This builds knowledge about children with special needs, including disabilities, and provides them with practical training in pedagogical practices and instructional strategies. Eventually, a cadre of informed and skilled educational leaders, school managers, school principals and directors will take form. They will be trained to take the day-to-day actions needed to transform schools through inclusive practices. Partnerships between government and community-based action groups are highly productive. Community, national and regional partnerships are both desirable and achievable. They need to be nurtured where they now exist and created where they do not. Partnerships among national and international agencies dedicated to children with special needs also should be strengthened. Disability rights groups, parent advocacy groups, social movements and faith based groups should be encouraged to link together for this common cause.


4.3 The Future The opportunity to create communities where all children are permitted to learn together in inclusive schools is a realistic one. The Educational For All initiative has significant moral support as well as political and economic backing. It thus provides a context to link the provision of education to children with disabilities to the broader effort for equity and full coverage to children and youth. This future will only become a reality when public policy requires every public school to provide a quality education to every child including those with special needs and disabilities. The steps needed to provide this have been explored in this paper. It is now time to move forward with determination so this goal can become a reality in the decade before us.


Artilles, A., Trent, S., Hallahan, D. (1995). Special education for students with mild disabilities in Latin America: Issues and prospects. In A. Artiles and D. Hallahan (Eds.), Special Education in Latin America: Experiences and Issues, (pp. 251-284). Connecticut: Praeger. Blanco, Rosa, (1997). Integration and Educational Opportunities: A Right For All. In BULLETIN 44, December 1997. The Major Project of Education. (pp. 80-84). Paris: UNESCO. Blanco, Rosa, (1999). Towards Schools For All With The Involvement of All. In BULLETIN 48, April 1999. The Major Project of Education. (pp. 55-71). Paris: UNESCO. Blanco, Rosa, and Duk, Cynthia, Integrating Special Needs Students: Current and Prospective Status in Latin America and the Caribbean. In BULLETIN 38, December 1995, The Major Project of Education.(pp. 60-66). Paris: UNESCO. Bloom, B.S., (Ed). (1969). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives : The classification of educational goals. New York: David McKay Company Inc. CACL, (1993). Declaration of Managua. Partnerships in Community Living Conference, Managua, Nicaragua, December, 1993. Toronto: Canadian Association for Community Living. CACL, (1997). Integration of Persons with Disabilities into the Productive Workforce. Research Study for the Inter-American Development Bank Toronto: Canadian Association for Community Living. Carro, L. (1996). Focus group: What does inclusive education mean for families? The European Electronic Journal on Inclusive Education in Europe, 1 [Available] CIDA, (December 2000). CIDAs Social Development Priorities: A Framework for Action. (P. 5.) Ottawa, Canada. Collicott, J. (1991). Implementing Multi-level Instruction: Strategies for Classroom Teachers. In G. L. Porter & D. Richler, (Eds.) Changing Canadian Schools: Perspectives on Disability and Inclusion. Toronto, Ontario: G. Allan Roeher Institute. de Lorenzo, E. (1995). Special education services for rural areas in Uruguay: A Proposed Model. In A. Artiles and D. Hallahan (Eds.), Special Education in Latin America: Experiences and Issues, (pp. 115-138). Connecticut: Praeger.


Duncan, G., (2001). An Up-date on Special Needs Education in Jamaica. Information Paper. Kingston: JAPMR. EFA, World Education Forum, (2000). Education for All in the Americas: Regional Framework of Action. Santo Domingo, February 10-12, 2000. In The Dakar Framework for Action Education for All: Meeting our Collective Commitments. Dakar, Senegal: World Education Forum. Gardner, H., (1983). Frames of Mind. New York : Basic Books. Guijarro, R. B. (2000). Inclusive Education in Latin America. Paper delivered at the World Education Forum. Dakar. Inclusion InterAmericana, (2000). Strategies for promoting inclusive education in Central America. Discussion Paper for Council of Ministers of Education of Central American. Antigua, Guatemala, October, 2000. International Bureau of Education (IBE--online) World Data on Education, [Available: http// ] Jonsson, T., (1995). Inclusive Education. In NU News on Health Care in Developing Countries, 2/95, vol.9. [Available ] Kisanji, J. (1998). Threats and challenges to inclusive education in the South: The role of international cooperation. In International Journal of Developmental Education. [Available:]. Kochhar, C., & Gopal, M. (1998). Enhancing Participation, Expanding Access: The Double Axis of Sustainable Educational Development. [Available: ] McMeekin, Robert W., (1998). Education Statistics in Latin America and The Caribbean, UNESCO: BULLETIN 46, August 1998, p.12. Paris: UNESCO. Meijer, C. J. W., (1994). The Netherlands. In Meijer, C. J. W., Pijl., S. J., & Hegarty, S. (eds.). New Perspectives in Special Education: A Six Country Study in Integration. (pp. 95-112). London: Routledge. Milicic, N., Sius, M. (1995). Children with learning disabilities in Chile: Strategies to facilitate integration. In A. Artiles and D. Hallahan (Eds.), Special Education in Latin America: Experiences and Issues, (pp. 169-190). Connecticut: Praeger. O=Toole. (1995). Mobilising Communities. In Brian O=Toole and Roy McConkey (Eds), Innovations in Developing Countries for People with Disabilities, (pp. 85-104). Lancashire: Lisieux Hall.


OECD, (1999). Inclusive Education At Work: Students with Disabilities in Mainstream Schools, Paris: OECD. Palacios, M.A. (1999).Co-operation and basic education in Peru. [Available: ] Perner, D., & Porter, G. L., (1998). Creating Inclusive Schools : Changing Roles and Strategies, In Hilton, A. & Ringlaben, R. (Eds) Best and Promising Practices Developmental Disabilities. Austin, Texas: pro-ed. Perner, D., (1991). Leading the way: The role of school administrators in integration. In G. L. Porter & D. Richler, (Eds.) Changing Canadian Schools: Perspectives on Disability and Inclusion. Toronto, Ontario: G. Allan Roeher Institute. Perner, D., (1993). All students attend regular class in neighbourhood schools: A case study of three schools in Woodstock, New Brunswick, Canada. Research Report for the OECD, Integration in the School Project. Vaals: The Netherlands. Porter, G. L. (1999). The nurturing and growth of students with disabilities: A strategy. UNICEF Education Update, 2 (4). Porter, G. L. (1991). The Methods & Resource Teacher : A Collaborative Consultant Model. In G. L. Porter & D. Richler (Eds.), Changing Canadian Schools: Perspectives on Disability and Inclusion. Toronto : The G. Allan Roeher Institute. Porter, G. L. & Richler, D., (1991). Changing Special Education Practice: Law, Advocacy and Innovation. In G. L. Porter & D. Richler (Eds.), Changing Canadian Schools: Perspectives on Disability and Inclusion. (pp 9-34). Toronto : The G. Allan Roeher Institute. Porter, G. L. & Stone, J., (1998). The Inclusive School model: A Framework and Key Strategies for Success. In Putnam, J. W., (Ed.) Cooperative Learning and Strategies for Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity in the Classroom. Second Edition. (pp. 229-248). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Porter, G. L. (Producer). (1994). Teachers Helping Teachers : Problem Solving Teams That Work. [Video]. Toronto : The Roeher Institute & School District 12. Porter, G. L., Organization of schooling : achieving access and quality through inclusion, (1995), Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education.. Vol. XXV, No. 2, June 1995, (pp. 299-309). Paris: UNESCO. Roeher, (1999). Agreement for Partnership and Cooperation with Pedagogical University of Honduras. October 1999. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Toronto: Roeher Institute.


Schiefelbein, E.Corvalan, A. M., Peruzzi, S., Heikkinen, S., and Hausmann, I. (1995). Quality of Education, Development, Equity and Poverty in the Region, 1980-1994. In Bulletin 38, December 1995, The Major Project of Education. Paris: UNESCO. Skrtic, T., (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61(2), 148-207. UNESCO(1998). Primer Estudio Internacional Comparitivo. Santiago, Chile. UNESCO, (1994). Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO, (1998). Inclusive Education on the Agenda. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (1999). Salamanca: Five Years On: A Review of UNESCO Activities in the Light of The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO. UNICEF. (1999). An Overview of Young People Living with Disabilities: Their Needs and their Rights. New York: UNICEF. Willms, J. D. (2000). Standards of Care: Investments to Improve Childrens Educational Outcomes in Latin America. Paper presented at Year 2000 Conference on Early Childhood Development, (April 2000). World Bank, Washington, D.C. Wood, J. (1991). Adapting instruction for mainstreamed and at-risk students. (2nd ed.), Toronto: Maxwell MacMillan Limited.