Assessing students with learning disabilities Yeth

Assessing Students with Learning Disabilities
By Sue
http://specialed.about.com/cs/assessment/a/assessment.htm
Assessing students with learning disabilities can be a challenge. However, we must remember that
assessing is providing the child with an opportunity to demonstrate knowledge, skill and
understanding. For most learning disabled students, last on the list should be a pencil/paper task.
Below are a list of strategies that support and enhance assessment of learning disabled students.
 Presentation
A presentation is a verbal demonstration of skill/knowledge and understanding. The child
describes, shows and offers to answer questions about his/her task. Presentation can also take the
form of discussion, debate or purely question/response. Some children will need to speak in a small
group or in a one to one setting as LD students are often intimidated in this setting. However, with
ongoing opportunities, they will begin to shine.
 Conference
A conference is a one to one between the teacher an the student. The teacher will prompt and cue
the student to determine the level of understanding and knowledge. Again this takes the pressure
away from written tasks. The conference should be somewhat informal to put the student at ease.
The focus should be on the student sharing ideas, reasoning or explaining a concept. This is an
extremely useful form of formative assessment.
 Interview
An interview helps a teacher to clarify the level of understanding for a specific purpose, activity or
learning concept. A teacher would generally have questions in mind to ask the student to resond to.
Very insightful method but this can be time consuming.
 Observation
Observing a student in the learning environment is a very powerful method to assess. It can also
be the vehicle for the teacher to change or enhance a specific teaching strategy. Observation can be
done in small group setting while the child is engaged in learning tasks. Things to look for include:
does the child persist? give up easily? have a plan in place? look for assistance? try alternate
strategies? become impatient? look for patterns? Teachers need to be prepared for what they are
specifically looking for in an observational setting.
 Performance Task
A performance task is a learning task that the child will do while the teacher assesses his/her
performance. For instance: you might want to check some math problem solving by asking if 6 people
fit in one car, how many cars will be needed to transport 42 people? During the task, the teacher
could be looking for attitudes, skill, ability and evidence of risk-taking.
 Self-Assessment
We always want our students/children to be able to identify their own strengths and weaknesses.
Self-assessment will lead the student to a better sense of understanding of his/her own learning. The
student may need some guiding questions such as:
What did I do well on?
How can I improve upon______?
Where was my biggest strength/weakness?
There are a plethora of assessment strategies, I've merely focused on the ones that support the
learning disabled student.

Learning Disability Strategies –Strategies that Help Learning Disabilities
By Ann Logsdon
Learning Disabilities Expert
http://learningdisabilities.about.com/od/instructionalmaterials/qt/Learning-Disability-Strategies-Direct-Instruction.htm
Direct instruction is often a successful teaching strategy for a learning disability. Direct instruction is teaching
specific skills, rules, and strategies for reading and math in a clear and explicit way for a student with a learning
disability.Direct instruction breaks down learning into its most basic levels and teaches every skill and step
from point A to point B. Specifically, direct instruction involves:
 Teaching one new concept or skill at a time.
 Scripted or very specific procedures for teaching new concepts, practicing, and reviewing what
is learned.
 Step-by-step examples modeled by teachers or peers.
 A great deal of individual and small group practice with the teacher providing close supervision
of work and feedback to the student to ensure he understands and can complete each task
presented.
 Corrective feedback is immediate to keep children engaged, caught up, and progressing.
 Frequent checks to ensure that students have maintained the skills and can use them in new
learning situations.
Strategies that Help Learning Disabilities
By Ann Logsdon
http://learningdisabilities.about.com/od/instructionalmaterials/qt/Learning-Disability-Strategies-scope-and-
sequence.htm
Scope and Sequence Instruction - Students withlearning disabilities often respond well to scope and
sequence instruction. Scope and sequence instruction is the systematic teaching of concepts beginning with
the most basic bits of information and gradually progressing through and building on more complex skills. For
example, in math, some of the most basic concepts are:
 number recognition;
 counting;
 recognition of differences in size;
 recognition of differences in numbers of objects in groups; and
 more than and less than.
In scope and sequence instruction in this example, skills would be taught in a specific
sequence starting with the first ideas students must understand before moving to more complex
skills such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. As learning disabled students
progress through the material, teachers ensure that each skill is mastered before moving on.

Learning Disability -What is a Learning Disability?
By Ann Logsdon
http://learningdisabilities.about.com/od/learningdisabilitybasics/f/Learning-Disability-What-Is-A-Learning-Disability.htm
Question: Learning Disability - What is a Learning Disability?
If you suspect a learning disability, it is important to know what it is and what it is not. A learning
disability, as defined in the U.S., is not a lack of intelligence. In fact, many people with learning
disabilities have average to above average intelligence. Further, it is possible to begifted and also
have a learning disability.
Answer: A learning disability is a severe weakness in ability to learn a specific skill such as reading, writing,
math, or expressive or receptive language. A learning disability is not a deficit in general intellectual ability.
What Are Learning Disabilities?
http://learningdisabilities.about.com/od/whatisld/a/whatissld.htm
What are learning disabilities? Learning disabilities are neurological differences in processing information
that severely limit a person's ability to learn in a specific skill area. That is, these disorders are the result of actual
differences in the way the brain processes, understands, and uses information. Everyone has differences in
learning abilities, but people with learning disabilities have severe problems that persist throughout their lives.
There is no "cure" for learning disabilities.Special education programs can help people cope and
compensate for these disorders, but the learning disability will last a lifetime.Learning disabled
people may have difficulty in school or on the job. These disabilities may also impact independent living
and social relationships.
Learning disabilities are usually first noticed when children begin to fail in school. Parents and
preschool teachers are often the first to see early signs of learning disabilities.Children may
have difficulty learning basic skills in reading or understanding reading. Difficulty writing, math, or
language may also signal a problem. Some students may easily learn basic skills but have difficulty
applying skills in problem solving or higher level school work.
Living with learning disabilities can be a painful struggle for both the parents and the child. In
many cases, parents are relieved to find an answer when children are diagnosed. The diagnosis is
reassuring because it leads to additional support in school through specially trained teachers
and special education programs.
Students with learning disabilities will also have individual education programsdeveloped to
address their needs.
Children who qualify as learning disabled are supported with specially designed instructionbased
on each child's unique strengths, weaknesses, and learning styles.
Learning disabilities are believed to be caused by neurological differences in the way the brain
processes information. Simply put, a person has a learning disability when his ability to learn an
academic area is much lower than expected for his level of intelligence. It is a common misconception
about learning disabilities that people who have them cannot learn or are less intelligent than their
peers. Actually, this is not the case. People with learning disabilities are actually as intelligent as their
peers. In fact, it is even possible to have a learning disability and be gifted as well. The actual difference
is that people with learning disabilities learn differently and may need a variety of instructional practices
to learn effectively.

In the diagnosis of learning disabilities, the discrepancy is usually determined
throughassessment to determine the child's intelligence quotient, or IQ score, and hisachievement
test scores in specific academic areas of reading, math, and written language. Language processing,
listening comprehension, and oral expression may also be assessed.
A complete review of the student's educational history is conducted to rule out other possible
explanations for the difference in skill development and IQ before a learning disability is diagnosed.
Early detection and intervention for learning disabilities are critical. If you suspect your child has a
learning problem, find out how to recognize common signs of or a potential disability.
Are Learning Disabilities Biological?
True learning disabilities (LDs) are believed to be an organic type of disability resulting from
neurological processing problems that cause difficulty with learning and applying skills in one or more
academic areas. Evidence suggests that a child's chances of having a learning disability increase when
parents or other relatives also have learning disabilities. This suggests that heredity may play a role in
some cases. However, there are other possible causes of LDs that can be prevented in some cases.
Do You Suspect a Learning Disability?
If you suspect your child may have a learning disability, learn how to make a referral for assessment for your
child. These articles will walk you step by step through the referral process for an evaluation to determine if your
child has a learning disability or other type of educational disability.
Exceptional children
Designation for students who have different educational needs than the average child. Many children in exceptional children’s (EC) programs
have physical, mental, or social disabilities, but in North Carolina academically gifted children are also classified as EC.
Additional information
Every child has the legal right to a free and appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment possible. EC programs are designed to meet each child’s educational
needs. Examples may include:
 A deaf child may be able to participate in regular classes with the help of a sign language interpreter.
 A mentally disabled child may need a specialized academic curriculum but may still be able to participate in physical education with other
children his age.
 A child with an autism spectrum disorder may benefit from specific training in social skills.
 A student with learning disabilities may need extra time to complete standardized tests.
 An academically or intellectually gifted student may benefit from additional educational challenges.
EC programs provide these services and accommodations.
Students are often referred for possible EC placement by their teachers. Before a student
enters the EC program, efforts should be made to meet his or her needs in the regular
classroom using general education resources. If a team of educators and the student’s
parents agree that EC placement should be considered, an assessment is then conducted to
determine whether the student qualifies. School psychologists, speech therapists,
occupational therapists, and EC facilitators may assess different aspects of the student’s
functioning. Teachers are usually asked to contribute their understanding of the student’s
behavior, academic progress, strengths, and weaknesses.

If the student qualifies and enters the EC program, classification must be reviewed every
three years to determine whether the student requires different services or should exit the
program. Temporary accommodations (e.g., for a child who has been injured or hospitalized)
do not require EC placement and can instead be provided under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
An individualized education plan (IEP) is designed for each student classified as disabled.
The IEP specifies the services and accommodations the students will receive, how much time
the student will spend with non-disabled peers, and the student’s goals for the coming year.
IEPs are revised annually. Teachers should be familiar with their students’ IEPs.
Each child classified as having a disability is served by an EC program is classified under
one of the following terms, which are specified by the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA).
 Autism
 Behavioral-Emotional Disabilities
 Deaf-Blindness
 Hearing Impairment
 Multiple Disabilities
 Mental Disabilities
 Orthopedic Impairment
 Other Health Impairment
 Specific Learning Disabilities
 Speech/Language Impairment
 Traumatic Brain Injury
 Developmental Delay
 Visual Impairment
Students classified as academically or intellectually gifted are served not under IDEA but
under state guidelines. Their services have state rather than federal funding. Students are
placed in a gifted program based on academic performance and academic or social need.
Each gifted student is served through an annually reviewed Differentiated Education Plan
(DEP) or Individual Differentiated Education Plan (IDEP), which lists the learning
environments, content modifications, and special programs available to the student during
that year.
Examples and resources
 LEARN NC offers a collection of articles on teaching diverse learners.
 The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Exceptional Children’s Division.
Strategies for Teaching Exceptional Children in Inclusive Settings.
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED394263
Meyen, Edward L., Ed.; And Others
 The 20 chapters of this book on teaching students with disabilities in inclusive settings are arranged into four parts
on curriculum and instruction, assessment,classroom management,and collaboration. Individual chapters and their

authors are: (1) "Curriculum Considerations in an Inclusive Environment" (Cynthia D. Warger and Marleen C.
Pugach); (2) "A Focus on Curriculum Design: When Children Fail" (Deborah C. Simmons and Edward J.
Kameenui); (3) "Standards for All American Students" (James G. Shriner et al.); (4) "Curriculum-Based
Collaboration" (Victor Nolet and Gerald Tindal); (5) "Considerations in Teaching Higher Order Thinking Skills to
Students with Mild Disabilities" (Prisca R.Moore etal.); (6) "Searching for Validated Inclusive Practices:A Review
of the Literature" (Joseph B. Fisher et al.); (7) "Co-Teaching: Guidelines for Creating Effective Practices"(Lynne
Cook and Marilyn Friend); (8) "Classification and Dynamic Assessment of Children with Learning Disabilities"
(H. Lee Swanson); (9) "Performance Assessment and SpecialEducation: Practices and Prospects"(James A.Poteet
et al.); (10) "Curriculum-Based Measurement and Problem-Solving Assessment:Basic Procedures and Outcomes"
(Mark R. Shinn and Dawn D. Hubbard); (11) "Current Dimensions of Technology-Based Assessment in Special
Education" (Charles R. Greenwood and Herbert J. Rieth); (12) "Portfolio Assessment and Special Education
Students" (Caren L. Wesson and Robert P. King); (13) "Peacemakers: Teaching Students To Resolve Their Own
and Schoolmates' Conflicts" (David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson); (14) "Constructive Classroom
Management" (Betty Epanchin et al.); (15) "Discipline in Special Education and General Education Settings"
(Deborah Deutsch Smith and Diane Pedrotty Rivera); (16) "Classroom Influences on Aggressive and Disruptive
Behaviors of Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders" (Richard E. Shores et al.); (17) "Practical
Questions about Collaboration between General and Special Educators" (Peggy T. Reeve and Daniel P. Hallahan);
(18) "A Collaborative Model for Students with Mild Disabilities in Middle Schools" (Alan E. White and Lynda L.
White); (19) "The General Education Collaboration Model: A Model for Successful Mainstreaming" (Richard L.
Simpson and Brenda Smith Myles); and (20) "Rethinking the Relationship between Consultation and Collaborative
Problem-Solving" (Marleen C. Pugach and Lawrence J. Johnson). (Individual chapters contain references.) (DB)
Functional Behavior Assessment
INTRODUCTION
Functional Behavioral Assessments have been used to try to determine why individuals exhibit specific
behaviors and how the environment interacts with the individual and those behaviors. Although this method
of analyzing behavior was developed with the autistic and severely developmentally delayed population, it can
easily be used to look at any individual with problem behaviors.
The reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires that a Functional Behavioral
Assessment be conducted if a behavior was a manifestation of the disability or, as appropriate, for other
disciplinary removals. Although a Functional Behavioral Assessment is not required until the student has been
removed from school for specific circumstances, best practice is to perform such an assessment for any
student with disabilities who has problem behavior. This would lead to proactively creating interventions to
help the student learn more appropriate behavior. A positive behavior intervention plan is also required by
IDEA.
The Individual Education Program Team (IEP team) is responsible for developing an assessment plan to
address problem behavior. During the IEP team meeting, the target behavior should be specifically identified
and decisions should be made about exactly who will conduct each component of the Functional Behavioral
Assessment, when the assessment will be completed and when the IEP team will meet to discuss the
assessment and to create proactive behavioral interventions.
Components of a Functional Behavioral Assessment
Any Functional Behavioral Assessment must include these steps - identify and define the specific
problem behavior; collect information about the occurrence of the behavior through observation, systematic
data collection, and interviews of the child, parents, and staff; identification of the antecedent events and
consequences surrounding the behavior; identification of the function or purpose of the behavior; and
development of a hypothesis about the behavior. Once the assessment is complete, interventions can be
created based on the hypothesis and other relevant information. Each of these steps is explained in more
detail below.
Identify and Define the Specific Problem Behavior
When a student with a disability begins to exhibit behavior that is significantly impeding the learning of
that student or other students or is resulting in a change of placement for that student, the Individual
Education Program Team should meet to look at the specific problem behavior. The team must agree what
behavior is creating the greatest problem. At this meeting the behavior must be defined in observable,

measurable terms. "Threatens school personnel" is not an adequate target behavior. "Threatens school
personnel by aggressive posture, invading personal space, and using verbally threatening and abusive
language" is a specific target behavior. This behavior is both observable and measurable.
Plan the Assessment
Once the target behavior has been defined, the IEP team decides what information to collect about the
behavior, as well as how it will be collected. The team determines which parts of the assessment will be
completed by which members of the team. After the tasks are identified and distributed, the IEP team sets the
time and place for their next meeting in which they will look at the information.
Collecting Information
Information about the target behavior should be gathered from all available sources. Interviews should
be conducted with the relevant people - the student, the parents or other adults where the student lives, the
teacher, other school staff who work with the student, etc. During the interviews questions should be
addressed about when the behavior usually occurs, during which activities, who is usually around at that time,
where the behavior occurs, how often, and how long the behavior lasts. Find out what happened before the
behavior occurred and what usually happens as a result of the behavior. The interviews are also a good time
to identify the strengths of the student - what is the student good at doing, what are skills and interests that
have been demonstrated. This information can be very helpful in designing interventions as a result of the
assessment.
Direct observation of the student in the classroom can provide information about problem behavior.
During an observation, data can be collected in a systematic manner concerning the behavior and its setting,
the antecedents, the consequences, and possible reasons for the behavior.
A review of the written records about the student - the psychologicals, the Individual Education
Program, interventions, and other documentation - can be a valuable source of information. A review of
discipline records and incident reports can help look at the history of the behavior and what happened when
the behavior occurred in the past.
Analysis of the Data
Once the data is collected, the Individual Education Program Team meets to develop a hypothesis
concerning the target behavior. Information from the interviews, observation, and record review is shared
within the team. The team determines what usually precedes the target behavior and what appear to be the
consequences of this behavior. Then, using all the information, the team tries to determine the function or
purpose of the behavior for that student. Generally the student is either trying to get attention, something
tangible, or sensory stimulation or trying to get away from attention, something tangible, or sensory
stimulation. The team must be aware that one behavior may serve more than one function for the same
individual as well as more than one behavior may serve the same function for the same individual.
A hypothesis statement is agreed upon and written by the IEP team. The hypothesis is written in this
manner: when this occurs, the student does, in order to. "When this occurs" is a description of the
antecedents and setting information associated with the student’s problem behavior. "The student does" is a
description of the problem behavior. "In order to" is a description of the possible function of the behavior.
Here is an example of a specific hypothesis statement:
When David is presented with academic work in large or small group settings requiring writing,
multiple work sheets, or work that he perceives to be too difficult, he will mumble derogatory comments
about the teacher, refuse to complete his work, destroy his assignment sheet, and/or push/kick his desk or
chair over in order to escape academic failure in front of his peers.
Once the IEP team agrees on a hypothesis statement, they are ready to design specific interventions
for the behavior. The interventions should teach the students new behaviors and new skills which allow them
to fulfill the function of the behavior in a school appropriate manner.
OVERVIEW
A functional behavioral assessment is a method of looking at behavior to try to decide why the child
uses the specific behaviors and how the world around the child affects the child and the behaviors.

During disciplinary removals, as appropriate, or when the behavior is a manifestation of the disability,
the IEP team must conduct a functional behavioral assessment and implement a behavior intervention plan
for the child.
Steps included in a Functional Behavioral Assessment:
1. identify and define the problem behavior
2. collect information about when the behavior happens through
1. observations
2. data collection
3. interviews with child, parents, and staff
3. identify what happens before the child's problem behavior and what happens after the problem behavior
4. come to an agreement about the purpose of the problem behavior
5. develop a statement that explains why and when the IEP team thinks the child uses the problem behavior
Example of statement or hypothesis:
When the student is given school work which includes writing or work that he sees as hard, he will mumble
under his breath, refuse to complete his work, destroy the assignment sheet, and/or push/kick his desk over in
order to escape being a school failure in front of the other students.
The IEP team can complete the functional behavioral assessment at the first meeting if there is enough
information to decide the purpose of the behavior. Otherwise, the IEP team decides how to get the
information and when to meet to complete the assessment. Once the purpose of the behavior is decided, the
IEP team develops a behavioral intervention plan for the student. Positive Behavioral Supports
When the IEP is created: if a child has behavior that makes it hard for him or her to learn or for other
children to learn, the IEP team should consider including positive behavioral interventions, strategies and
supports to help the student improve the behavior.
Positive behavioral interventions, strategies and supports are not punishment. They are designed for
the specific child to try to help that child learn to change her or his behavior. They can include any of the
following and/or other ideas developed by the team:
1. teaching the child new, replacement behaviors
2. rewarding the child for using good behavior
3. helping the child learn what “triggers” the behavior and how to successfully avoid or get away from the
triggers
4. changing what happens around the child to promote good behavior
5. helping the child develop strengths at school
6. teaching the child to identify emotions
7. teaching the child to express emotions in school appropriate ways
8. identifying a caring adult that can give the child positive time at school
9. identifying difficult times for the child and planning for ways to support the child during those times
Behavioral Intervention Plans that are created after completing a Functional Behavioral Assessment should
also be designed to help the student change the behavior. The examples above would be useful for
intervention plans, also.

Review of the Present Situation in Special Needs Education
PREFACE
In 1988 UNESCO published the Review of the Present Situation of Special Education, presenting
information gathered in 1986-1987, covering issues related to policies, legislation, administration and
organisation, teacher education, financing and provision for special needs education. The Review was widely
disseminated and served as a reference to a number of studies, seminars and other national activities. In view
of the incessant demand for information of this nature, reflecting on trends and developments in this domain,
UNESCO carried out an up-date of the review in 19931994. Ninety Member States were initially contacted to
contribute to this exercise, sixty-three* of which responded. Replies were received from countries representing
the different world regions as follows: thirteen from Africa, sevenfrom Arab States,twenty-one from the Europe
Region, thirteen from Latin America and the Caribbean, and nine from Asia and the Pacific. The information was
collected by means of a questionnaire (Annex I) completed by the division or unit in the Ministry responsible for
special education. Notwithstanding the constraints imposed by this method of compiling information, the
Review represents a unique distillation of information on practice worldwide, and will be of assistancetopolicy-
makers, administrators and educational specialists. The Review is to be seen as part of UNESCO's contribution
to the monitoring of the Standard Rules of Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities with
respect to education. Part I provides a summary and analysis of the information received and highlights present
trends. On a number of issues comparison is made between the two situations as reported in 1986 and 1993.
While this part informs on developments, it also provides indications for future planning. Part II consists of the
summary of all the country replies presented in a uniform plan corresponding as closely as possible with that of
Part I. Readers interested in legislation issues can refer to the document Legislation Pertaining to Special Needs
Education, UNESCO, 1995.
SPECIAL EDUCATION POLICY
Most countries provided some information on policies but varied greatly in the amount of detail offered.
Extreme care is necessary in interpreting this information as a result. Further interpretive difficulties arise from
the nature of the information itself - basic concepts like integration and early intervention have widely different
meanings - and from the significance attached to policy statements. This latter caveat refers, for example, to
the diverse ways in which policy objectives are used; on the one hand, they can set out a framework for
monitoring current provision whereas, on the other, they may offer no more than aspirations for the future.
Within the policy statements themselves, the most common strand related to developing the individual's
potential. This was often couched in general terms (reach optimum potential - Sri Lanka; develop potential to
the full,and further socialand vocational integration - Costa Rica).Other formulations were more specific:Egypt
referred to eliminating the effects of handicap, developing students' self-confidence, equipping them with daily
living skills and providing the experience necessary for them to adapt to society, as well as integrating them in
mainstream schooling and then society; Thailand referred to promoting self-reliance, developing the ability to
work with other people, urging an awareness of responsible citizenship and facilitating a normal life in society.
Many of these statements had a presumption in favour of integration, whether in terms of seeking to develop
individuals within the least restrictive environment (Spain) or working towards maximum participation in adult
life. Most statements referred to children and young people with special educational needs in a general way,
sometimes spelling out an intention of providing an appropriate education for all students. When target groups
were specified, this tended to be in terms of categories of handicap. It may be worth noting that the United
Arab Emirates was the only country to make explicit reference to providing appropriate education for pupils
with behavioural difficulties, though other countries did of course encompass these in their general
formulations. A second strand within policy statements related to underlying principles. Many countries'
statements implied that integration was a key principle but a small number spelled out their guiding principles
explicitly. Bahrain referred to three sets of principles - democratic, economic and human. Saudi Arabia
emphasised the need to take account of Islamic 9 teaching and societal values. Canada Alberta based policy on
a philosophy of equality, sharing, participation, and the worth and dignity of individuals. Denmark, Norway and
Spain drew attention to the underlying principles of normalisation of services, integration, participation and
decentralisation. A third strand of policy had to do with the steps deemed necessary in order to secure
appropriate education for pupils with special educational needs. Australia Queensland spelled out what was
required at school level - flexible programmes, academic organisation and structural arrangements, all provided

within a framework of inclusive curriculum practices. Romania also emphasised curricular flexibility, adding in
the need to provide appropriate legislative and administrative underpinning and to run pilot projects. Chile's
policy aims included preventing disability, facilitating disabled persons' access to rehabilitation programmes,
supporting innovation in education and encouraging research. China and Jamaica shared a policy objective of
reforming teacher training in special education and encouraging teachers to follow careers in special education.
Both countries alsohad quantitative targets regarding schoolprovision for pupils with specialeducationalneeds,
elaborated as a five-year plan in the case of Jamaica. A few countries set out more extended lists of policy
objectives. Two examples will serve as illustrations. In Kenya, policy was concerned with defining the skills and
attitudes required by the target population, early intervention, awareness of the needs of those with disabilities,
provision of specialised facilities and measures for preventing impairment. In Zimbabwe, policy guidelines
covered early detection and intervention, integration, development of local training facilities, procurement of
equipment, development of resource centres, provision of support and monitoring services, and assistance for
non-governmental organisations. The policy statements offered by countries in the present survey were broadly
similar to those made in the 1986 survey, although the brevity of the information supplied makes comparison
difficult. One apparent difference relates to the emphasis on the individual and meeting his/her needs; while a
constant theme of policy statements throughout, it seemed to be less central a feature in the 1993 statements
or, at least,to be seenmore within a framework of general educational reform. The 1993 statements were more
likelyto draw attention to systemvariables such as curriculum and teacher training, and to locateimprovements
in special educational provision within broader educational reform. LEGISLATION The first question put to
countries on legislation was whether the regulations covering general education were deemed to apply to
children and young people with special educational needs. As Table 1 shows, most countries did include special
needs provision in the same regulatory framework as general education. The ten countries which did not were
all developing countries. For the remaining eight countries the question did not apply since there was no
legislation governing education or the requisite information was not provided. 10 Table 1 General education
legislation deemed to apply to children with special educational needs
Two-thirds of those responding excluded some children; in addition, a further five countries (Ethiopia,
Lesotho, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka and Uganda) did not have compulsory education so it is likely that there
was substantial de facto exclusion in these as well. The most common reason given for excluding particular
children was severity of disability; this was often unspecified but in some cases reference was made to severe
learning difficulties or to multiple handicaps. A few countries indicated that the number excluded in this way
was relatively small. About one-third of the countries reporting exclusions gave practical considerations as
opposed to legislative requirements as the reason - scarcity of resources, especially in rural areas, insufficient
or unsuitable schools, lack of trained staff, unwillingness of regular schools to accept pupils with severe
disabilities. In three countries - Barbados, Italy and Kenya - parental choice was cited as a reason why some
children were excluded from the public education system. Table 2 Countries excluding children with special
educational needs from the public education system
The vast majority of countries responding had legislation in place governing special educational
provision, ranging from comprehensive enactments covering most aspects of provision to outline requirements
focused on particular areas such as the authorisation of special schools or administrative guidelines regarding
integration. In some countries (Austria, France, Italy) the relevant legislation grew up over a period of time as
needs came to be recognised; in others (Canada Alberta, Canada New Brunswick, Israel, Jordan, Republic of
Korea, Spain) there was a single comprehensive piece of legislation which incorporated the main legislative
requirements. Another variable is the extent to which special educational provision was encompassed within
general educational legislation(Denmark, Finland, New Zealand)or, more commonly, was the subject of specific
extra legislation. Legislation also varied in the age range covered: primary was the sector most likely to be
covered, followed by secondary, with pre-school and tertiary less commonly covered. Legislative coverage
ranged over identification, assessment, categories, forms of provision, integration, curriculum and pedagogy,
resourcing, administration, duties of school and district authorities, monitoring arrangements, teacher training
and parental rights. Three countries - Ethiopia, Côte d'Ivoire and Lesotho - had as yet no legislation governing
special education, though in each case there were plans to introduce legislation. In a number of other countries,
notably developing countries, it was recognised that existing legislation was inadequate or out-of-date, and
amendments were being prepared. The proposed legislative reforms covered a very wide range of topics. By far
the most common, however, were integration and matters to do with building up special needs provision in
regular schools. Other frequently mentioned topics were pre-school provision and early intervention, teacher

training and postschool provision. A few countries made mention of developing provision for particular groups
of pupils, special schools, assessment, peripatetic support, parental choice and funding mechanisms Categories
A majority of countries (36 of 63 providing information) defined categories of special educational needs in their
legislation. The modal number of categories was six (11 countries), with two countries - Saudi Arabia and United
Arab Emirates - defining only three categories and two - Italy and the Netherlands - defining ten. Of the 36, 18
defined the seven main categories given in the questionnaire - emotional and behavioural disturbance, mental
retardation/severe learning difficulties, physical/motor disabilities, visual impairment, hearing impairment,
language disorder and learning disabilities. When particular categories were not defined in legislation, the ones
most frequently omitted were emotional and behavioural disturbance, language disorder and learning
disabilities. Visual impairment and hearing impairment were very commonly included. Additional categories
defined in some countries included severe and multiple handicap, difficulties in relationships/autism, social
marginalisation,chronic illness and hospitalisation.12 Table3 Countries' use of categories of specialeducational
needs
Of the 27 countries not defining categories of special educational needs in legislation, six made use of
categories in various ways: Barbados listedcategories without formally defining them, Jamaicareferred to them
for purposes of assessment and placement, Mali recognised four categories in practice; Spain used categories
for certain administrative purposes such as resource allocation; United Republic of Tanzania accepted them in
practice; and Thailand used no fewer than eight categories in practice. ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANISATION
The national ministry of education was responsible for special educational provision almost everywhere (96%
of countries responding), either holding sole responsibility (38%) or sharing responsibilities with other ministries
or agencies (58%). The latter ministries were most likely to be the ministry of social welfare/social affairs/social
development or the ministry of health, in a number of cases both ministries jointly. In Bolivia special education
is the responsibility of the Ministry of Human Development which incorporates the Ministry of Health and the
Ministry of Education. Other ministries referred to less frequently were justice, internal affairs and labour. In a
few cases other agencies were referred to such as the State Secretariat for the Handicapped in Romania. This
contrasts with the previous survey when the ministry of education was responsible for special education in 83%
of countries responding (48 out of 58), and suggests a clear trend for children and young people with special
educational needs to be included within the same administrative arrangements as their peers.
The way in which responsibilities were shared was not generally reported but, in cases where it was, a
number of patterns emerged. The most common was for the ministry of education to be responsible for most
children with special educational needs, with another ministry, usually the ministry of health but sometimes a
social affairs ministry, taking on responsibility for a particular group. Examples of responsibility for children's
education falling outside the ministry of education include those with profound learning difficulties (Cyprus,
Egypt, Finland, Jordan, Syrian Arab Republic), those with physical and sensory impairments (Botswana, Brazil)
and those with emotional and behavioural difficulties (Israel, Kenya, Venezuela). Another pattern was for the
main responsibility to be vested in the ministry of education with a particular generic responsibility vested in
another ministry. For example, assessment and referral were sometimes the responsibility of the ministry of
health (Bahrain, Bulgaria, Ghana, Ireland, Israel); in Algeria the Ministry of Education was responsible for the
teaching of pupils with special needs but the Ministry of Social Affairs for the administration and resourcing of
special education; in Ghana the Ministry of Social Welfare was responsible for vocational training programmes;
and in Ireland the Ministry of Health was responsible for the provision of speech therapy. The two countries
where responsibility for special education fell outside the ministry of education - Côte d'Ivoire and Syrian Arab
Republic - located the responsibility within a social affairs ministry. In both cases some responsibilities were
shared with the education ministry. This is in striking contrast with the 1986 survey when 10 (out of 58)countries
located responsibility for special education outside the ministry of education. Education ministries were
responsible for special educational provision in almost every c o u n t r y, as noted above. The most common
administrative arrangement was to have within the ministry of education a separate department dealing with
special education. G e n e r a l l y, the special education system ran parallel to the regular school system, with
modifications as judged necessary, and the function of the special education department was to provide the
administrative structure for this parallel system.In some cases theagerange was divided up differently between
the two systems or the education system extended over different periods of time. There were other
organisational models. In some cases, special education was subsumed under the department dealing with
primary or basic education, reflecting the main thrust of special educational provision. In a few 14 cases, special
educational provision was administered as part of the regular education system without having a separate

administrative structure. Administrative decisions tended to be taken at various levels in the system but no very
clear pattern emerged, apart from a tendency for larger countries to devolve more to regional level. Several
countries distinguished between legislation and policy, which were set at national level, and issues of
implementation, which were regional and/or local responsibilities. While the administrative arrangements do
not appear to have altered a great deal since the previous survey, some changes may be noted. In particular, a
few countries had moved away from having special education administered separately. For example, Peru's
department of special education within the Ministry of Education was being replaced by a situation where
responsibility for special education was distributed throughout the Ministry. A total of 22 countries reported
having a mechanism for coordinating services for special educational needs at national level. In about one-third
of cases this co-ordination was provided by a special education department within the ministry of education,
often located within the department for primary or basic education, as in Malta, Mexico and the Philippines. In
other cases there was a free-standing agency which had a variety of functions: maintaining an overview of
developments relating to children and young people with special needs; initiating new legislation;
commissioning or conducting studies relating to disability; and, sometimes, taking account of services for adults
such as employment and rehabilitation. As previously, several countries indicated that steps were being taken
to set up a coordinating body where one did not exist. Special education was provided by the voluntary sector
in many countries. Seventeen countries made explicit reference to voluntary sector provision, and 10 affirmed
that there was: no provision made by voluntary bodies. Information was generally incomplete, but it would
appear that a considerable number of other countries had educational provision made by voluntary bodies.
When provision was made in this way, it was almost always subject to ministerial supervision and monitoring.
Several countries referred to a need for voluntary bodies to seek registration before setting up schools and
implied criteria that had to be met prior to registration. In a few cases teaching staff were supplied by the
ministry of education or teacher salaries were paid. SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PROVISION The pattern of special
educational provision was extremely varied. Respondents were asked to list the forms of provision available for
each category of special educational needs. A complex picture emerged, with wide variation in the extent to
which different forms of provision were available for the different categories. Taken overall, special schools
remained a predominant feature of the map of provision. The various forms of provision were not spread evenly
across the different categories: a range of options was 15 most likely to be available for those with mental
retardation/severe learning difficulties, hearing impairment, visual impairment and physical disabilities.
Respondents were asked to indicate whether and how children and young people with special
educational needs were recorded for official purposes. As Table 6 shows, in the majority of countries providing
this information children and young people were registered in disabilitygroups. Six countries - AustraliaVictoria,
Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Zambia - registered children but did not categorise them. with the
exception of Zambia, this reflects the fact that categories of specialeducational needs were not defined in those
countries, necessitating other recording mechanisms. In a sizeable number of Countries (16 of 54 responding),
no officialrecords were kept. This appeared to reflect in some cases arudimentary levelof provision but inother
cases a practical commitment to educating those with special educational needs within the mainstream and
without singling them out from peers more than necessary. Table 6 How pupils with special educational needs
were recorded for of official pur - poses
Integration was a declared policy in almost every country (Table 7). In a few countries this had been
adopted recently and implementation was clearly limited. The finding is remarkable none the less and indicated
the extent to which integration was almost universally espoused. The shift from the 1986 survey is worth noting
also: integration was official policy at that time in only three-quarters of the 58 countries responding (UNESCO,
1988).
Furthermore, it should not be assumed that the absence of a policy endorsing integration in the other
five Countries - AustraliaVictoria, New Zealand,Nicaragua,Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia - necessarilysignified
an orientation toward segregated provision. In Australia Victoria and New Zealand, for instance, this policy
absence went along with highly developed special educational provision where very few pupils in fact attended
specialschools. The support available to regular schools to enable them educate pupils with specialneeds varied
greatly, and details provided were somewhat sketchy. Classroom assistance was routinely mentioned, along
with various forms of additional pedagogical support. Access to external specialists was a further feature of
support, though inevitably it depended on the availability of the appropriate specialists. In-service training was
often perceived to be a valuable form of support for teachers in regular schools. Some Countries regulated the

provision of support by statute. Thus, in Austria the number of pupils in any integration class was limited to 20:
a maximum of four pupils with specialeducational needs and 16 other pupils. Links between specialschools and
regular schools were relatively common, with more than half the Countries responding reporting such links
(Table 8). These involved exchange of staff, pupils and materials to varying degrees. For example, Cyprus found
very good results as regards participation in common activities by children and co-operation between teachers.
A more ambitious form of linking is illustrated by Sweden where all special schools served as resource centres
to pupils, staff and parents in regular schools in their region; they arranged seminars, courses and study visits
for parents and teachers of pupils with special needs in regular schools.
Diversity of provision The diversity of provision is well illustrated by the figures on numbers of pupils of
compulsory school age enrolled in special schooling. The range extended from three per 10,000 pupils (United
Republic of Tanzania) at the lower end to 450 per 10,000 (Netherlands) at the top end. The information is
summarised in Table 9. The figures must be interpreted with caution because of differences in the
exhaustiveness with which the information was collected in different countries. They are useful, however, in
giving approximate orders of magnitude.
18 Of 48 countries supplying information, 33 reported having fewer than 1% of pupils in special schools.
Of these, six had less than 0.1% of pupils in special schools. With the exception of Canada New Brunswick (four
pupils per 10,000), these were all developing countries: United Republic of Tanzania (three), Sri Lanka (four),
China (seven), Honduras (eight) and Zimbabwe (eight). Low usage of special schools does not necessarily mean
an effective commitment to integration. In some countries such as CanadaNew Brunswick and New Zealand(30
per 10,000), it plainly did but in many others there was no evidence to suggest that this was the case. In some,
particularly developing countries, low usage of special schools was associated with low levels of provision
generally for pupils with special educational needs; many of them either did not go to school at all or attended
a regular school with little or no support. A limited comparison with the data gathered in the previous review is
possible. Table 4 in UNESCO (1988) gives the distribution of the number of pupils enrolled in special educational
provision as a percentage of school age population. Most countries in fact responded in terms of the numbers
of pupils in special schools, partly because these figures were the only ones to hand. If the small number of
countries providing a total including pupils receiving special educational provision in regular schools as well is
allowed for, a tentative comparison can be drawn. Since the number of countries providing the requisite
information was different in the two surveys, the figures in Table 4 in UNESCO (1988) and Table 9 have both
been converted into percentages, as shown in Table 10. This suggests a slight decrease in the proportion of
countries making very little use of special schools, with a corresponding increase in the proportion of countries
making more intensive use of them. To the extent that these represent real changes, they probably relate to
increased levels of special educational provision generally rather than a deliberate shift toward segregated
provision: the pupils contributing to the increase in special school numbers are more likely to have been
receiving education for the first time than to have come from regular schools. On the other hand, the decrease
at the top end of the table does point to a move toward integration. In the 1986 survey a quarter (26 per cent)
of countries providing information had two per cent or more of the school age population in special schools,
whereas in 1993 only ten per cent of countries made such extensive use of special schools. The contrast is
magnified, as explained, by the fact that some countries included in the 1986 returns pupils receiving special
educational provision in regular schools. This does not explainthe entire difference, however, and there appears
to be a trend for countries with a high level of special school provision to seek to reduce special school numbers
by building up provision in regular schools.
Service providers Table 11 indicates the proportion of special educational provision made by the state
education system in different countries. In addition to the 12 countries where all special educational provision
was made by the state education system, 11 of the 27 countries in the 80% - 100% range made virtually all
special educational provision within the state education system. Of the remaining 20 countries which provided
information, all except Bahrain and Croatia reported substantial provision made by voluntary bodies, churches
and other non-governmental organisations. In Cameroon, Lesotho and Mali, all or nearly all provision was made
in this way, and in seven other countries at least half of special education
was provided by non-governmental organisations. In a few countries a substantial amount of special
educational provision was made by government departments other than education: Bahrain (80 per cent),
Jordan (50 per cent), Croatia (40 per cent), Bolivia (29 per cent), United Arab Emirates (25 per cent). A

comparison with the 1986 survey indicates an increase in the proportion of provision being made within the
state education system. Table 12 compares the responses obtained in the present survey with information
abstracted from Table S in UNESCO (1988). The significant comparison relates to the proportion of countries
making at least 80 per cent of provision within the state education system, i.e. the first and second rows
combined. This shows two-thirds of countries (66 per cent) making provision at that level in 1993, as compared
with less than half (45 per cent) in 1986. There is a corresponding drop in the proportion of countries making
low levels of special educational provision within the state education system.
Pre-school Pre-school opportunities for children with specialeducational needs are summarised in Table
13. Just over half (54 per cent) of countries responding had provision for one child in ten or fewer; almost one-
third had no provision at all.Just over a quarter (28 per cent) had good provision for allrequiring it. Respondents
tended to give little information on the nature of their pre-school provision. Some countries referred to priority
groups: hearing impaired infants in Bahrain, those with severe learning difficulties in Chile and Finland, and
those with physical or sensory impairments in numerous countries. The availability of provision was determined
by geography in some countries: services tended to be more available to those living in urban areas than in rural
areas.
Comparison with the 1986 survey suggests aslightincreasein the availabilityof provision. The 1986 data
used three categories - limited or no provision, good provision for some, good provision for all. By combining
the two intermediate categories in Table 13, the two sets of data can be compared.
Table 14 displays the comparisons, showing a sizeable decrease, from 48 per cent to 31 per cent, in the
percentage of countries making no provision and a slight increase in the percentage of countries making
provision for most children. PARENTS Most countries acknowledged the importance of parents in matters
relating to special educational provision. Some gave them a central role in the assessment and decisionmaking
procedures, requiring their involvement in the process and seeking their assent to placement decisions. In N o
r w a y, for instance, parents' written approval was required 22 before any interventions were made. Denmark
gave parents the right to be involved at every stage - identification, assessment, referral and provision - and
their assent must be secured at each stage; the only exception permitted was when a child's development was
likely to be seriously affected. Parental choice was a central value in Australia Victoria: it was for parents to
choose the most appropriate educational setting for their child, and for the state to accept and support that
choice. In Zimbabwe, assessment was conducted only if parents agreed. Most countries did not in fact give
parents an absolute right to choose a particular form of provision for their child. Many, however, did have
procedures whereby parents could appeal against a placement decision and seek to have it changed, though in
some countries choice was severely constrained by the limited amount of provision actually available. Other
countries such as Botswana, Chile and Croatia, while not giving parents formal rights, encouraged professionals
to involve them as much as possible. Another pattern is illustrated by countries like Poland where parents were
not involved in the assessment or referral procedures but they could insist that any special education proposed
be provided in a regular school. In particular, a child could not be sent to a special school without the parents'
consent. A few countries - Cyprus, Finland, Zimbabwe - referred to the parents' role in their child's education,
e.g. drawing up individual educational programmes. A number of countries described various management and
other school-wide roles. This was particularly developed in Mexico and Venezuela where systems existed to
improve parents' understanding of special educational needs and facilitate their participation in decision-
making and programming. In Honduras the Parents' Federation was active at national level and had links with
similarfederations in other Central American countries. In E1 Salvador there has been an increasein the number
of parents' associations to support the education of children with special needs. An unusual situation prevailed
in Italy where parents must be consulted on the educational provision made for their child. If parents do not
wish their child to be certified as needing additional support, the school does not receive extra facilities for that
child. The situation regarding parental involvement reported here represents an improvement on the 1986 data.
While it is necessary to be aware of the gap between rhetoric and reality in an area such as this, parents seem
to have greater involvement in assessment and decision-making matters than previously and, most positively,
to be receiving support in some countries to pursue their involvement more effectively. TEACHER TRAINING
Many countries reported activity regarding teacher training for special education. A total of 28 countries
included some coverage of specialeducational needs within general initialteacher training; in 18 of these, every
trainee teacher received at least an introduction to special educational needs and in some cases rather more
than that. 23 A wide range of special education options was available in initial teacher training, with growing

numbers of students electing to take them. For example, in Australia Victoria many three-year trained primary
teachers took a special education course of study in their fourth year of study; in Ireland, special education
options were taken by approximately 15% of students in training. Twelve countries confirmed that initialteacher
training contained no special needs coverage. The remaining 25 did not provide information but in some cases
it was clear that there was no coverage, either because teacher training was in a rudimentary state or because
special needs provision in regular schools was limited anyway.
Opportunities for in-service training relating to special educational needs were reported in 35 countries.
In 13 of these the opportunities for such training were extensive. Thus, Australia Queensland had open access
in-servicecourses in guidance training, learning difficulties,hearing impairment, vision impairment and multiple
impairment. Spanish teachers had regular access to courses and workshops on special educational needs. The
great majority of countries (47 of 65) reported specific arrangements for teachers specialising in special
education. In a few cases these were clearly limited and required teachers to travel to another country. In many
cases, however, substantial provision was available and was specifically regulated. Teachers specialising in
special education commonly had to be trained teachers with teaching experience in regular schools. The latter
was often required to be for two/three years' duration but in two cases - Greece and Sweden - teachers were
required to have had five years' teaching experience in regular schools before training as a specialeducator. The
courses on offer for those wishing to specialise ranged from one to five years in length; in a few cases successful
completion of an appropriate course was a pre-requisite for becoming a specialist. Courses could be taken on a
full-time or a part-time basis. Many were run by universities or teacher training establishments but some were
run also by advisory teams and special schools. Costa Rica and Kenya referred to distance education
programmes. 24 The situation described here regarding teacher training represents a substantial improveme nt
on that obtaining in 1986. Only a minority of countries reported coverage of special needs in initial teacher
training and even fewer had in-service opportunities in special educational needs for teachers in regular schools
(UNESCO, 1988). Comparative figures regarding training for teachers specialising in special education were not
available but it does seem likely that such specialist training is being accorded greater importance. FINANCE
Special educational provision was financed by a mixture of funding from the state, voluntary bodies, non-
governmental organisations and parents. State funding was the predominant source of funding: in 23 countries
(40 per cent of those providing the information) specialeducational provision was financed entirely by the state,
and in 13 others the state financed at least 95 per cent of provision. The six countries where the state was
providing less than half the cost of special educational provision were all developing countries. It may be noted,
however, that in many developing countries the state was providing all or almost all of the costs of the special
educational provision made.
These figures signal a clear improvement on the position reported in the 1986 survey At that time only
19 countries (out of 58) provided full funding from the state for special education. Voluntary bodies were the
major alternative source of funding, being referred to by 26 countries. In three (Lesotho, Malawi, Uganda) they
were the major source of special education funding, and in Ecuador, Indonesia and Uganda they provided 40
per cent of 25 the costs. Five countries made explicit reference to overseas aid (though it is possible that some
countries included such funding under voluntary bodies), with Papua New Guinea and Sri Lanka funding 50 per
cent of their special educational provision in this way. Parents were cited as a source of funding in 18 countries.
In a few cases this represented no more than two per cent of the total expenditure, but in seven countries
parents' contributions covered at least ten per cent of the costs for special educational provision; in Honduras
and Zimbabwe parents' contributions reached 35 per cent and 30 per cent respectively. The financial
information obtained in the 1986 survey was in a somewhat different form and direct comparisons are not
possible. It can be concluded, however, that there is a movement toward state funding and away from
dependence on the voluntary sector and parental funding. Full funding by the state was provided by fewer
countries (19 of 58) in 1986 and there was more frequent reference to voluntary sector (30 countries) and
international (9 countries) funding. Expenditure on special education as a proportion of total expenditure on
education was reported by 26 countries. Results are shown in Table 17. As might be expected, the countries
reporting a high figure were all developed (Canada New Brunswick, Denmark, Ireland, Norway). Other notably
high figures, all at five per cent, were reported by Botswana, Croatia and Egypt.
Very many countries, including those which did not report an expenditure figure, planned to increase
the level of spending on special educational provision. No country proposed reducing it, and the only countries
stating that there would be no increase were clearly committing a high proportion of their educational

expenditure to special educational provision already. The reasons for the increasing expenditure on special
educational provision ranged from the general - greater awareness of special educational needs and
commitment to meeting them - to quite specific proposals for improving provision. The latter included staff 26
training, employing more staff as class sizes were reduced, expanding provision in line with reduced infant
mortality and improved diagnostic procedures, expansion of early intervention programmes and improving
support to schools for integration programmes. Some countries experienced particular funding pressures -
immigration (Israel), need to maintain projects developed by aid agencies (Kenya), special school building
programme (Thailand) and parental pressure (United Arab Emirates). RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Respondents were asked to say what they perceived to be the main issues concerning the future development
of specialeducation in their country. Table18 summarises their responses. Five matters were clearly uppermost
in their minds: integration; early intervention; vocational education and transition from school to adult life;staff
development; and the provision/development of services.Each of these encompasses a wide range of concerns,
and inevitably there is some overlap between them. Integration includes basic provision of special education in
regular schools, curricular and pedagogical adaptation, support services for mainstream teachers, concerns for
particular groups and efforts to extend integrated provision into secondary and higher education. Early
intervention encompasses identification and work with parents in addition to the curricular and organisational
aspects of provision. Staff development is concerned primarily with teachers but includes other staff too; a
particular concern is the provision of in-service training for teachers in regular schools. The
provision/development of services was of major concern in some developing countries where the principal
effort was to establish a basic level of provision for the first time. Other topics receiving more than one mention
were the co-ordination of services, computer assisted learning, education of the hearing impaired, education of
the visually impaired, support services for schools and educational technology.
Comparison with Table 11 in UNESCO (1988) reveals a broadly similarpattern of concerns across the two
surveys. Integration and early intervention were the most frequently cited in both. Vocational education
seemed to have become a higher priority in the intervening years. The challenge of developing provision and
procuring resources also loomed larger. A very large number of research topics were cited and only a tentative
grouping of them can be attempted. (It is likely too that many respondents were selective in listing their
country's research effort.) Table 19 shows that integration was the most frequently cited topic followed by
curricular and pedagogical developments. The other topics cited with some frequency were early intervention,
aspects of educating the hearing impaired, aspects of educating the visually impaired and demographic studies.
There were some changes from the list of research topics cited in the 1986 study (cf Table 9 in UNESCO 1988):
integration and early intervention continued to receive emphasis, but the organisation of special education and
transition issues were mentioned less frequently while sensory impairment came to the fore. Table 19 Current
research topics
A final question to respondents was what aspects of other countries' experience they would like to know
more about. This produced a large number of responses, indicating a willingness to learn from the practice and
research of other countries. Analysis of these responses is instructive in revealing perceptions of development
needs. Table 20 summarises the most common responses. The congruence between the issues raised here and
those in Table 18 setting out concerns regarding the future development of special education is striking:
integration, early intervention, staff development and vocational education all feature in broadly similar WAYS.
CONCLUSION
Collating information from different countries is a challenging task. Interpreting this information within
a common framework is even more challenging.The effort is worthwhile, however; it enables countries to make
useful comparisons and to share information on policy and practice. On their own these activities may achieve
little, but in a context where the need for change is recognised they can be a powerful stimulus towards reform
and a support for it. The previous Review was in fact widely used and generated a great deal of positive
feedback. An overall comparison between the two situations -1986 and 1993 - reported here and in the previous
report allow for some guarded optimism. Most countries provided some information on policies but varied
greatly in the amount of detail offered. Special educational provision is more firmly located within regular
education, at school and the administrative levels, than before and has greater legislative underpinning. within
the policy statements themselves, the most common strands related to: developing the individual's potential,
integration and necessary steps for implementation. Regarding legislation, most countries did include special

needs provision in the same regulatory framework as general education; the most common reason given for
excluding particular children was severity of disability. The pattern of special educational provision was very
varied and a complex picture emerged, with wide variation in the extent to which different forms of provision
were 29 available for persons with disabilities. In the majority of the countries (96%), the national ministry of
education holds sole or shared responsibility for the administration and organization of services. Other
ministries sharing responsibility were mostly the ministries of health and social welfare/social affairs/social
development. State funding is the predominant source of financing, whilst other funding comes from voluntary
bodies, non-governmental organizations and parents. The different countries acknowledged the importance of
parents in matters relating to specialeducationalprovision, and some gavethem acentral role in the assessment
and decision-making process. There is a substantial increase in in-service teacher training relating to special
educational needs. The respondents identified five main issues concerning the future development of special
needs education in their country - integration, early intervention, vocational education, staff development and
provision of services. Much remains to be done and there is no room for complacency. Many countries face
fiscal and personnel constraints, and maintaining let alone increasing existing investment in special educational
provision will not be easy. A word of caution: even where resources are not the central issue, the pressures
created by the general school reforms taking place in many countries may reduce the priority given to special
educational provision. However, progress has been made, despite the many difficulties, and it is more
constructive to take encouragement from the successes and seek to build on them than to dwell unduly on the
difficulties. If a further review is conducted at the beginning of the new millenium, it is to be hoped that it will
show that children and young people with special educational needs are participating in regular schoolstoa far
greater extent than now and are receiving good education within them.
PHILIPPINES
Special education policy Children and young people with special needs should have equitable access to
educational opportunities and should have an education of high quality. Legislation The regulations covering
general education are deemed to apply to children and young people with special educational needs. No
children are excluded by legislationfrom the public education system. Primary, secondary and tertiary education
for special educational needs are covered by legislation. The main legislative provisions are contained in the
Education Act of 1982 which governs all levels of education, both public and private, in the country and has
specific provisions for special education. A further document, Policies and Guidelines for Special Education,
discusses special educational provision in more detail. There is also a Magna Carta for Disabled Persons which
provides for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities and their integration into the mainstream of society;
it has a section dealing specifically with special education. Nine categories of special educational needs are
defined: emotional and behavioural disturbance; mental retardation/severe learning difficulties;
physical/motor disabilities; visual impairment; hearing impairment; language disorders; learning disabilities;
gifted and talented; and neglected, dependent and abandoned. Special education is the responsibility of the
Ministry of Education (Department of Education, Culture and Sports), but some responsibilities are shared with
the Ministry of Social Welfare. There are currently four bills before the Senate relating to special educational
provision. All are concerned with expanding and improving the provision being made at the moment.
Administration and organisation The overall responsibility for the administration and supervision of special
education rests with the Department of Education, Culture and Sports in the Ministry of Education. The Bureau
of Elementary Education, through its Special Education Division, provides leadership and guidance over special
education programmes. The principal functions of the Special Education Division are policy formulation,
preparation of curriculum materials, human resource development, research and development, and liaisonwith
other agencies concerned with the education and welfare of children with special needs. 175 There is a policy
of decentralisation which means that regional and divisional officers are given responsibility for initiating and
implementing special education provision. The administration of special schools and special classes in regular
schools rests with the principals of those schools. Residential special schools are administered and supervised
at regional level, whereas special classes in regular schools are supervised at division level. Provision made by
voluntary agencies must conform to guidelines laid down by the Special Education Division. Such provision is
subject to supervision at national, regional or local level depending on its coverage and location. Special
educational provision School Children and young people with special educational needs are registered in
disability groups for official purposes. The forms of provision available to them are shown in the table.
________________________________________________________________ *i ii iii iv v vi vii

________________________________________________________________ Boarding special schools x x x x
x ________________________________________________________________ Day special schools x x x x x x x
________________________________________________________________ Special classes in regular
schools x x x x x x x ________________________________________________________________ Resource
room x x x x ________________________________________________________________ Support teaching in
regular classes x x x x x ________________________________________________________________ * (i)
Emotional and behavioural disturbance, (ii) mental retardation/severe learning difficulties (iii) physiical/motor
disabilities,(iv)visualimpairment, (v) hearing impairment, (vi) languagedisorder, (vii)learning disabilities.There
is a policy of encouraging integration. The document, Policies and Guidelines for Special Education, states that
'the ultimate goal of special education shall be the integration or mainstreaming of learners with special needs
into the regular school systemand eventually to the community'. The main forth of support available to regular
schools is that teachers from the Special Education Division act as consultants to regular teachers. There are
many links between special schools and regular schools, and there is a very strong relationship between regular
and specialeducation. 176 There are 20,655 pupils (0.2% of the school agepopulation) attending specialschools
at elementary level and a further 61,249 (0.6%) pupils with special educational needs attending regular schools
(1993). Special education facilities are provided mainly by the state education system, as shown in the table:
________________________________________________________ State education system 90%
________________________________________________________ Other government departments 4%
________________________________________________________ Voluntary agencies 6%
________________________________________________________ Pre-school There is little or no pre-school
provision for children with special educational needs. Parents Parents have the right to be consulted and to
participate in decision-making concerning placement in special education facilities. Most requests for
assessmentaremade by parents and school staff.Teacher training Teachers in regular schools have some access
to in-service education in special needs but this is limited. Priority has been given to the training of staff working
in special education. Special education teachers are required to have a specialist training in special education or
a graduate teacher training course which contains a substantial amount of instruction in special education.
There is also widespread provision of in-service training at national, regional and local levels. Finance Special
education is funded primarily by Government. There are optional contributions from voluntary organisations
and from parents. Research and development The main issues concerning the future development of special
education are: legislation affecting children with special educational needs; early intervention; normalisation;
177 systematic identification, diagnosis, assessment and evaluation; continuing and active parental
involvement; community integration; human resources development; vocational education; employment
schemes; restructuring special education; research; and advocacy and empowerment. The most important
current research projects are a national survey to determine the number of children with special educational
needs throughout the country and a project designed as an early intervention strategy. There is interest in
learning of other countries' experience regarding transition programmes for children and young people with
disabilities, vocational training programmes and staff development.

Assessing students with learning disabilities Yeth

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to Assessing students with learning disabilities Yeth (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessing students with learning disabilities Yeth