1

Ideals and realities of the inclusion policies:the case of disabled children in a Nordic country

Jan TøssebroNTNU

Protecting and promoting the rights of persons with disabilities in Europe

European Council, Strasbourg, October 29-30, 2008

2

Inclusion and human rights

• The Child Convention

• The Standard Rules

• The Salamanca Declaration

• The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

• Two issues related to the human rights of disabled children:– Growing up at home/ in a family setting

– Inclusive education

3

Inclusion or desegregation:The critique of institutions and special schools

• They makes the problem worse– The labelling critique

– The psycho-social effects

• Unacceptable living conditions– The level of living/ living conditions

– Separate is not equal

• Lessons from international research– The study of effects

– The study of implementation and ideal-reality gaps

4

The new public-family division of labour:

• Growing up in the family – a basic pillar since the 1960s• Preferred alternative: foster homes• Public responsibility for:

– Day services (nurseries, schooling)– Economic support– Practical support (respite care, technichal aids, etc)– Habilitation, special education, health services

• Problems– Access to services– Coordination between services

• Families appear like most other families with children

5

Pupils in segregated schools/classes in 14 European countries. 1996. Per cent.

Source: Vislie 2003

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Spain

Italy

Norw ay

Greece

Portugal

Sw eden

England/Wales

Denmark

Finland

France

Austria

Belgium

Germany

Netherlands

6

Special education regimes (Mejier et al 1994)

• One track system– Most pupils in mainstream education– Examples: Italy, Sweden, Norway, Spain

• Two track system– Moderate no. of students classified as in need of special education

services– Nearly all “classified” children are segregated– Examples: Netherlands, Belgium, Germany

• Multi-track system– A range of options– Many children classified as in need of services– Most “classified” children in regular schools, some in special units– Examples: Denmark, USA

7

Norwegian experiences – nursery schools

• Admittance practice:– All are admitted; queuing or mandatory?

• Type of service/segregation:– 12 % in special units

– Variation in placement policy• Type of disability (children with multiple disabilities)

• Size of municipality (more segregation in large cities)

• Social participation– Rejection uncommon but situated interaction breakdown frequent;

• Special education – Non inclusive special education practices

– Appeals and complaints

• Parental satisfaction and support

8

Norwegian experiences – primary schools

• Education for all – Compulsory for 10 years

– Individual right for 13 years

– A right to special education and individually adapted education

• Type of school– Large majority of disabled children included, but some exceptions:

• Hearing impaired children

• Intellectually disabled children/ children with multiple disabilities

• Segregation linked to age and size of municipality

– Physical disability – the problem of accessibility

9

Segregation of intellectually disabled children by age/grade. Percent.

Source: Tøssebro 2003

81

5643

227

19

4457

7893

0 %

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Preschool Grade 1-4 Grade 5-7 Grade 8-10 Further ed.

Regular class Not regular class

10

Recent developments

• The growth of a new adaptation to ideal-reality gaps:– Fewer children are moved to special units as they grow older

– More ”included” children are taken out of class

– The move to special units as one grows older is replaced by out-of-class teaching – part-time segregation, appendix to a regular class

• Interpretation: Practical adaptations to the tension between the ideology of inclusion and traditional teaching and special education practices– Special education as safety valve

11

The problem of inclusion

• Exhibition of deviance

• No mum, please, give me at least a try

• The challenge may in particular be the relation between special and regular education, that the practice of special education should support rather than contradict the inclusion ideology