This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library] On: 14 July 2015, At: 08:40 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
International Journal of Inclusive Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20
Achieving inclusion of students with disabilities in Turkey: current challenges and future prospects a
a
Halis Sakız & Charlotte Woods a
Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Published online: 09 Apr 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: Halis Sakız & Charlotte Woods (2015) Achieving inclusion of students with disabilities in Turkey: current challenges and future prospects, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19:1, 21-35, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2014.902122 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.902122
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2015 Vol. 19, No. 1, 21–35, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.902122
Achieving inclusion of students with disabilities in Turkey: current challenges and future prospects ∗
Halis Sakız and Charlotte Woods
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK (Received 14 July 2013; final version received 25 February 2014) Developing inclusion in schools has been an objective for many countries in recent decades, giving rise to a variety of definitions, policy -making activities and school practices. This paper focuses on the attempts made towards inclusion of students with disabilities in Turkey. We start by introducing inclusive education and its parameters, and continue with recent trends in education in Turkey. Next, we discuss current progress in including students with disabilities within mainstream schools, and continue with the legislative attempts made to improve this position. After that, we discuss recent developments and challenges in the education and inclusion of students with disabilities, and conclude by noting several recommendations for realising their inclusion in Turkey. While the purpose of this paper is to investigate the inclusion of students with disabilities in the Turkish context, there is much of relevance to other international contexts going through similar developmental processes in terms of inclusion. Keywords: Turkey; inclusion; students with disabilities; policy
Introduction The idea of inclusive education has been gaining ground all over the world in response to the changing and increasingly diverse needs of heterogeneous student populations (Ferguson 2008; Savolainen et al. 2012). It is based on the belief that the right to education is a basic human right, and all children and young people, regardless of their individual characteristics and difficulties, should be served by schools in their communities (UNESCO 2001). Recently, the consensus view has been established as one that goes beyond school enrolment and ensures full participation of all students in school life (Erkilic and Durak 2013). Overall, developing inclusion in an education system involves positive attitudes in the community, strong educational frameworks that improve inputs, processes and environments to enhance learning both at the student and systemic level, completion of full cycle of education, and meaningful outcomes from educational experiences that target learning and the development of students (UNESCO 2009). From this perspective, the concept of inclusion is concerned with all learners; with a particular focus on those who have traditionally been excluded from educational opportunities, such as individuals with disabilities, children from ethnic minorities, girls, and rural populations. The inclusive education approach is particularly important for these groups and concerted initiatives have been made internationally to increase ∗
Corresponding author. Email:
[email protected]
# 2014 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
22
H. Sakız and C. Woods
participation of these individuals in schools. These are reflected by growing enrolment rates and the decrease in numbers of out-of-school children in many parts of the world. However, these efforts have not yet gained impetus worldwide, and major disparities among regions in terms of the number of children accessing schools remain (UNESCO 2009). Amongst the individuals who face educational exclusion, children with disabilities account for one third of all out-of-school children (UNESCO 2009). They are still either placed in separate classes and schools, where they are excluded from mainstream environments, or they are denied access to education of any sort (Thomas and Loxley 2007). For many students with disabilities, special education constitutes the major way of educating them, the practices of which are often associated with low expectations, uninspiring and restricted curricula focused on rote learning or irrelevant tasks, disjointedness from general education curricula, and negative student attitudes resulting from school failure and stigmatising segregation (Andrews et al. 2012; Meyen and Skrtic 1995). In reaction to these practices, inclusive education has gained power as an emancipatory practice which challenges much of the existing thinking in the field of special education and encourages a shared school environment for learners with different ability levels and characteristics (Armstrong 2002; Osgood 2005; Slee 2001; Thomas and Loxley 2007). However, inclusion of students with disabilities is not without challenges; achieving full inclusion can be difficult. Since the trends towards educating students with disabilities in mainstream schools have accelerated at the policy level internationally, the education of students with disabilities has in practice often not gone beyond the process of mere integration. Integration equates with the practice of adapting students with disabilities to the mainstream school environment without necessarily transforming school mechanisms to meet individual needs of students, regardless of their ability levels (Ainscow 2002). Full inclusion, in contrast, requires going beyond physical integration and suggests a process of school reform to respond to the diversity of pupils (Erkilic and Durak 2013; Gargiulo and Metcalf 2010). Achieving inclusion of students with disabilities requires that the difficulties they experience in schools are not explained simply in terms of their impairments (Oliver 1996). It also means that trying to fit them into schools which are dominated by traditional exclusionary practices that conceive of disability as a personal tragedy (the ‘medical model’ of disability) cannot help achieve inclusion (Shakespeare 2006). Instead, the more holistic ‘social model’ of disability is required, which considers the existing barriers within the school system, such as badly designed curricula, poorly trained teachers, inappropriate medium of instruction, and inaccessible buildings (UNESCO 2001). Departing from this more holistic understanding of disability, our aim in the present paper is to provide information and analysis on current policy and practice in the education of students with disabilities in mainstream schools in Turkey in relation to inclusive educational principles. However, while the purpose is to investigate inclusion in the Turkish context, much of the content will be relevant to other international contexts going through similar developmental processes in terms of inclusion. The fact that inclusion is heavily dependent on the conditions of a particular setting is acknowledged, and variety is noted among countries in the set of strategies they use in order to develop inclusion in their education systems (Ainscow 2002). However, a number of documents (UNESCO 2001, 2009) and research studies (Eleweke and Rodda 2002; Ferguson 2008) have underlined similar international trends especially
International Journal of Inclusive Education
23
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
among developing countries in areas such as legislation, conceptualisation of inclusion, and practices of educational institutions. Therefore, this paper not only provides an image of the way towards inclusion in Turkey, but also offers an illustrative case of a developing country with relevance to international contexts where attempts to develop inclusive education are at an early stage of development. Recent trends in education in Turkey Turkey, as a rapidly developing country, has been going through a process of social and economic development, especially for the last 15 years. Thanks to its rich historical background and geographical location as a bridge between Asia and Europe, it has close relationships with surrounding regions, including Eastern Europe, Western Asia, Russia and the Middle East. The population of Turkey reached 75,627,384 in 2012, and it is expected to exceed 84 million by 2023 (Turkiye Istatistik Kurumu [TUIK] 2013a). Financial indicators have been indicating improvements in the economic conditions of the country, with per capita income rising to US$ 10444 in 2011 from US$ 5477 in 2006; and an annual growth rate of 8.5%, thanks to which it ranked second in the world in terms of economic growth rate in 2011 (Hazine Kontrolorleri Dernegi 2011). Rapid socioeconomic development in Turkey is encouraging attempts in the Turkish education system to provide educational services for individuals who were marginalised in the education system and community (Melekoglu, Cakiroglu, and Malmgren 2009). There has been a movement towards increasing the schooling rate by targeting individuals who are either at risk of exclusion and those already experiencing exclusion from the education system (TUIK 2013b). Among this group of individuals, there are several attempts to target girls, especially in the rural areas, and children of migrant families, or of those with a low socioeconomic status. The progress achieved by these steps has been demonstrated on the net schooling ratio as of the 2012/2013 educational year. This reached 98.86% in primary (an increase of 14% over 15 years), 93.09% in lower secondary (an increase of 40% over 15 years), and 70.06% in higher secondary (an increase of 35% over 15 years) levels (TUIK 2013b). In order to accommodate this increase in the student population in the last 15 years, the capacity of schools has been increased both in terms of material and human resources. According to the Ministry of National Education (Turkish: Milli Eg˘itim Bakanlıg˘ı (MEB)), there are now 75,324 schools (state and private), 25,305,960 students and 944,000 teachers in these schools in the 2012/ 2013 educational year (MEB 2013). Among attempts to improve the overall education system in Turkey, the emphasis placed on the education of individuals with disabilities has been considerable. In the past, children with disabilities were excluded from school and considered as unable to benefit from any form of education (Ozgur 2004). Currently, the percentage of students with disabilities within the whole population is 12.29%, and the literacy rate among them is 63.67%; whereas the literacy rate is 83% for the whole population (OZIDA 2006). However, governmental policies that aimed to combat the social and educational exclusion of individuals with disabilities, and increasingly favourable public attitudes have increased the number of these students who were enrolled in a school (special education and mainstream schools). Enrolments reached 252,025 in 2013 (MEB 2013) from 132,943 in the 2009/2010 educational year (MEB 2010a).
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
24
H. Sakız and C. Woods
Current progress in including students with disabilities within mainstream schools In Turkey, education of students with disabilities has historically been based on provisions offered in special education institutions, and these practices still occupy a major space in public opinion and shape political will (Melekoglu, Cakiroglu, and Malmgren 2009). Although inclusion has recently been defined as an objective by the Ministry of National Education, its conception as an independent field with its own principles and practices has been far from universally embraced in policy circles. For example, policy describes the inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream schools as ‘maintaining education of students with disabilities together with students who develop normally, based on the principle of having equal access to the same educational provision and by means of providing them with special educational services’, making reference to education offered by government-financed rehabilitation centres, and part-time education in special education classrooms within mainstream education (MEB 2010b, vii). This and other statements like it (MEB 1997, 2004), give the impression that inclusion is almost understood as a branch, with its associated practices, within the field of special education (Erkilic and Durak 2013). Controversially, the definition also shows that Turkish education policy does not seem to recognise an inconsistency in promoting special educational services, associated with the medical model of disability, as a means of achieving the inclusion of students with disabilities, predicated on the social model. This evidence corroborates the notion that when the Ministry refers to ‘inclusion’, it is actually referring to a process that would more commonly be referred to as ‘integration’ by advocates of inclusionary practices. The Ministry’s view of inclusion sees it as a process that works alongside special educational provision in order to help students with disabilities integrate into the school (MEB 2010b). In Turkey, all educational activities at the pre-primary, primary, lower secondary and secondary levels are controlled by the Ministry of National Education. All activities concerning education of students with disabilities are supervised by the General Directorate of Special Education Guidance and Counselling Services. The directorate supervises the institutions which have a role in the practice of educating students with disabilities through local branches. These institutions are mainstream schools, which consist of mainstream classrooms and special education classrooms, special education schools, and guidance and research centres where students go through a process of educational diagnosis before they are placed in schools. The current structural arrangements of the general and special education systems increase ambiguity about inclusive education in Turkey. The fact that there is not a separate branch in the Ministry of National Education which is responsible for inclusion, and that all activities regarding inclusion are managed by a special education department, shows that inclusive education has not yet been perceived in terms of its holistic philosophy. Inclusion, again, is perceived as a separate programme among other programmes under the umbrella of special education. This lack of clarity in the organisation of inclusive education further adds to confusion about the implementation of inclusion in Turkey (Erkilic and Durak 2013). Identification and placement of students with disabilities in both special education and mainstream schools in Turkey is performed by regional guidance and research centres, which are supervised by the General Directorate of Special Education Guidance and Counselling Services and its local branches. Upon referral by
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
International Journal of Inclusive Education
25
schools, these centres carry out educational diagnosis usually based on students’ academic performance. As a result of the assessment process, schools and families have to be informed about the strengths and weaknesses of their students. Based on this information, families can receive guidance and counselling regarding the needs of their children (Melekoglu, Cakiroglu, and Malmgren 2009). Schools are required to provide their students with appropriate individual services in a rich school environment. The identification and placement of students with disabilities depend on medical and educational diagnoses which are carried out according to the guidelines of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Aksut 2001). Based on these, the MEB (2010b) identifies eight groups of students with disabilities whom they think are appropriate to receive inclusive education. These are individuals with: (1) mental impairment; (2) hearing impairment; (3) visual impairment; (4) orthopaedic impairment; (5) language and speech impairments; (6) specific learning disabilities; (7) autism; and (8) attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder. The above classification of the Ministry of National Education and the ongoing practice of educating students with disabilities in mainstream schools indicate a strict category-based placement which shapes the educational practice in mainstream schools. Along similar lines, it can be argued that this categorisation is not in line with the social model from which inclusive education is derived (Oliver 1996). Further, it excludes some other individuals who might experience physical and emotional difficulties which are not identified by the classification of the Ministry and international medical organisations. Recently, the Ministry of National Education has defined three ways of implementing inclusion of students with disabilities (2010b, 18): (1) full-time inclusion; (2) part-time inclusion; and (3) reversed inclusion. In full-time inclusion, where the majority of students with disabilities are educated, students are enrolled in mainstream schools and mainstream classrooms. They are educated according to the regular curriculum. In part-time inclusion, students are enrolled in special education classrooms located in mainstream schools where they spend most of their time with their disabled peers. Based on their level of attainment, students who can follow the regular curriculum are educated within the principles of this curriculum. However, others are educated according to individual education plans (IEP) which must be inspired by the regular curriculum and include objectives appropriate to their individual attainment level. Finally, reversed inclusion takes place in special education schools where students without disabilities, if they prefer, can be educated with their disabled peers in special education classrooms (MEB 2010b). In addition to the ways of implementing inclusion, the Ministry of National Education lists principles of inclusion as the following: . . . . . .
Students who need special education have the right to receive education with their peers and in the same institutions. Inclusive education is an inseparable part of general and special education. Services are not planned according to impairments; but educational needs. Decision -making processes are based on family-school-educational diagnosis. Starting inclusive education at an early age is crucial. Inclusive education recognises individual differences.
26
H. Sakız and C. Woods .
. . .
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
.
Benefitting from sensory inclusion is crucial (e.g. supporting a student with limited vision to use this ability to write, instead of teaching him/her the Braille alphabet). Inclusive education requires volunteerism, love, patience, and effort. Inclusive education must be provided with normal people and in natural environments. Inclusive education aims to make the student part of the community. Inclusive education is based on school-family and environmental collaboration (MEB 2010b).
Although some of these principles are in line with the political will to move towards a more inclusive education system, the fact that they are proposed within the context of regulations that define education in special education schools and classrooms (part-time and reversed inclusion) as a means of providing inclusive education raises ambiguity. This situation indicates that inclusion is perceived, again, as a type of integration of special education into mainstream schools in a separate form but within a shared environment (Erkilic and Durak 2013). Legislation on the education of students with disabilities in mainstream schools The history of passing legislation relating to the education of students with disabilities in mainstream schools dates back to 1983, when the idea was introduced to the Turkish education system by the Law on Children who need Special Education (No: 2916). While the law was specifically designed to introduce the principles of special education and specify the institutions responsible for its maintenance, Article 4 in the law stated the obligation of mainstream schools to educate students with disabilities on the condition that students are able to cope with the requirements of mainstream schools (Kargin 2004). Placing the responsibility on students, the law referred to the integration of students with disabilities and not to their inclusion. It also included ambiguities in terms of the students who are considered appropriate for education within mainstream schools, and the ability level that they have to possess in order to be placed in such schools. In 1990s, the movement towards educating students with disabilities in mainstream schools accelerated. First, adherence to international frameworks, including the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO 1994) through which 92 governments and 25 international organisations stated their commitment to develop inclusive education in their education systems, affected the subsequent raft of activities aiming to educate students with disabilities in mainstream schools. Second, the publication of the Special Education Regulation (No: 573) in 1997 clarified issues concerning education of students with disabilities in mainstream schools. As well as emphasising the need to do so, the regulation explained the roles of the main bodies responsible for implementing this process. The regulation underlined that schools were expected to implement IEP in order to provide education appropriate to students’ needs and to monitor their development. In the new millennium, the Ministry of National Education continued attempts to educate students with disabilities in mainstream schools by aiming to create inclusive schools for them. In 2004 and 2008, the Regulation for Inclusive Practices (2004/2007), and the Regulation for Educational Practices through Inclusion (No: 2008/60) were published, respectively (MEB 2004, 2008). The Regulation for Educational Practices through Inclusion (No: 2008/60), which is the most recent
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
International Journal of Inclusive Education
27
regulation, aimed to specify the measures that must be taken by schools and other relevant institutions to develop successful inclusive practices in schools. The main foci for attention included: (1) enrolling all students who are able to be educated in mainstream schools and sustaining their presence in schools at all levels; (2) disseminating the responsibility to maintain inclusive practices to all staff members, including class teachers, counsellors, special education teachers, teachers from other branches, and school administrators; (3) considering the needs of students from each disability group and conducting a realistic assessment for each child; (4) opening a resource room for students with disabilities to provide them with individual and group education as needed, and improving the conditions of existing special education classrooms; (5) taking care of students with disabilities, especially those with severe mental impairment and autism, during the whole process of their presence at schools and providing free transportation for them; (6) keeping records of students with disabilities who are enrolled in mainstream schools; and (7) ensuring their entrance to the national secondary school exams if they wish. The regulation also provided a list of suggestions and relevant materials for teachers whose schools educate students with disabilities. The suggestions consisted of classroom management strategies, ways of sustaining constructive relations with students and creating a welcoming classroom climate, strategies for designing rigorous assessment procedures, and alternative ways of planning of education based on individual needs. In contrast to the first laws and regulations which referred to the education of students with disabilities in mainstream schools, the most recent regulations (MEB 2008, 2010b) seem to include more elements of inclusive education, although they fail to capture a complete understanding of inclusive principles and practices. In addition, the policies and regulations developed to create inclusive schools have not introduced explicit aims for promoting inclusion in school regulations and other guidelines for practise in management, teaching, and learning in Turkish schools. All legislative attempts which actually aimed to develop inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream schools have addressed the need for special educational practices (category-based medical diagnosis, rehabilitation programmes, inclusion in special education classrooms, etc.), while at the same time prescribing mainstream environments and practices for these students. It seems plausible that difficulties in implementation may stem in large part from the policy position of identifying and maintaining inclusive educational practices under the umbrella of and integrated into special education. Recent developments in the education and inclusion of students with disabilities Up to now, the increase in the population of students with disabilities in mainstream schools is considerable, rising from approximately 20,000 in 2000, to 161,295 in 2013 (Figure 1). Such a dramatic and rapid increase required the Ministry of National Education to take measures in order to accommodate the increasing numbers of students with disabilities in these schools. First, within a period of five years, the number of schools across all phases reached 70,405 in 2012; from 56,388 in 2007. Second, the trend in the number of teachers displayed a similar tendency and increased from 679,880 in 2007 to 807,549 in 2012 (MEB 2007, 2012). Parallel to this increase, the number of the guidance and research centres increased from 93 in 2006 to 212 in 2011 (MEB 2007, 2011). Similarly, 1690 teachers were working in these centres in 2011, whereas this number was 440 in 2007 (MEB 2007, 2011). Considering the
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
28
H. Sakız and C. Woods
Figure 1. Number of students with disabilities in mainstream schools between 2000 and 2013. Note: Compiled from data available at: http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/resmi-istatistikler/icerik/64. Accessed May 4, 2013.
rapid growth in the population of students with and without disabilities, these attempts can be considered important steps to alleviate the workload of teachers and decrease the number of students per classroom; while providing more opportunity for the staff to conduct more robust and holistic assessment in guidance and research centres. In Turkey, the Ministry of National Education requires that the education of students with disabilities who are enrolled in mainstream schools must be based on the regular curriculum (MEB 2010b). However, it is crucial for the successful implementation of inclusion programmes that the education system supports a curriculum at the service of the students and not the other way around. Departing from this perspective, curricular reforms have been made with two basic aims since 2005: (a) shifting the focus from the teacher and subject to the student; and (b) upgrading the level of educational provision (Nayir, Yildirim, and Kostur 2009). In order to realise these aims, several competency areas were defined for educators and these included: considering students’ needs, interests, and wants; the process of teaching and learning; monitoring progress; and relationships with parents and community. These core competencies implicitly suggest that educators are not only responsible for students’ personal and academic development but also for establishing a democratic social environment, promoting tolerance, diversity and inclusion in schools, and helping parents become powerful actors within the school system (Aksit 2007). Although a proportion of Turkish society is yet to be fully persuaded of the benefits of educating students with disabilities in mainstream schools and there is a major ambiguity about how their inclusion can be achieved (Rakap and Kaczmarek 2010), understanding of the fact that inclusion requires active participation of all stakeholders is captured (MEB 2010b). Therefore, attempts by the Ministry to promote education of students with disabilities in mainstream schools have exceeded the legislative stage and started to target stakeholders through publications, public seminars, and in-service training for professionals. This trend is now reflected on in-service training sessions arranged by the Ministry and given to professionals during the seminar period, which takes place in summers. In addition, teachers, administrators, and counsellors are
International Journal of Inclusive Education
29
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
seeking ways of including families and parent organisations into the process and enhancing their currently limited contribution to the process of educating their children in mainstream schools. Such activities have been given priority to engender more positive attitudes among stakeholders and to ensure the commitment of professionals and families to develop the inclusion of students with disabilities.
Issues and challenges in the education and inclusion of students with disabilities Education of students with disabilities in mainstream schools has been a highly emphasised phenomenon in the Turkish education system recently; with political and practical attempts that aim to create more inclusive schools. However, the available evidence suggests that a complete understanding of the philosophy of inclusion has not yet been fully achieved and reflected in both public and professional opinions. Also, recent research findings have shown that strong positive attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities are far from universal among the general public and among school staff in Turkey (Polat 2001; Rakap and Kaczmarek 2010). However, a considerable amount of literature underlines that the development of inclusive education systems is unlikely unless there are strong positive attitudes towards inclusion (Antonak and Larrivee 1995; Polat 2001; UNESCO 2001). Despite several practical attempts to improve the conditions of mainstream schools by building new schools and increasing the number of teachers, problems still remain. For example, the number of students per staff member is still not as low as that of developed countries. Despite increasing numbers of teachers and schools, the average number of students with disabilities per class teacher is four, and the average number of students in a primary class is still 30. In populated areas it can be as high as 43 (Table 1), although this number might be higher or lower depending on the population of a particular region (MEB 2013). Also, teachers still have to manage classrooms with large numbers of students; and usually without sufficient knowledge of flexible teaching-learning methodologies that can help them in working with students with disabilities (Sucuoglu, Akalin, and Sazak-Pinar 2010). Further, despite an overall increase in the number of students with disabilities educated in mainstream schools, this increase is uneven in terms of educational levels (Egitim Reformu Girisimi 2011). According to recent statistics by the MEB (2013), increase at primary and lower secondary levels is promising whereas the growth in Table 1.
Average number of students per mainstream classroom in Turkey in 2013. Levels
Regions Turkey Istanbul Southeast Anatolia Centraleast Anatolia West Anatolia Mediterranean
Primary/lower secondary
Secondary
30 43 38 32 30 30
31 37 38 32 30 33
Note: Compiled from data available at: http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/resmi-istatistikler/icerik/64. Accessed May 1, 2013.
30
H. Sakız and C. Woods
Table 2. Number of students with disabilities in different levels of mainstream schools in 2010 and 2013. Number of students Educational level Primary (Grade 1– 4) and Lower secondary (Grade 5 –8) High school (Grades 9– 12) Total
2010
2013
84,580 7775 92,355
147,048 14,247 161,295
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
Note: Compiled from data available at: http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/resmi-istatistikler/icerik/64. Accessed May 2, 2013).
the population of students with disabilities in mainstream secondary schools is still low (Table 2). A reason for this situation might be the lower schooling ratio in secondary education and the fact that until recently compulsory education covered only the first uninterrupted eight years of primary education. However, with law No. 6287 by the Turkish Grand National Assembly, compulsory education will gradually be extended to 12 years as of 2012/2013. Over time, this extension is expected to reduce the dropout rate of students with disabilities after the first eight years, and to accelerate their entry to secondary schools where they can continue receiving education in mainstream schools. In Turkey, ensuring access of all students with disabilities regardless of the type and severity of their impairments has not yet been fully achieved (Melekoglu, Cakiroglu, and Malmgren 2009). One major reason for excluding some students with disabilities might be to expect students to possess the ability level required to cope with the institutional requirements of mainstream schools. As a result, students with mild disabilities have often been thought as the best candidates to be educated in mainstream schools. However, students with social and behavioural difficulties, mental and cognitive impairments, hearing impairments, autism, and visual impairments are not usually considered as ‘able’ to join and benefit from education in mainstream schools (Ozgur 2004). This leads to referral of these students to special education schools, which are still considered by guidance and research centres to be the best places to educate students belonging to these disability categories. In Turkey, there is evidence to suggest that the assessment process in guidance and research centres is not always effective. First of all, the medical approach, which requires strict categorical diagnosis and overlooks the influence of environmental factors, often, makes it difficult to conduct a holistic assessment and to focus on the educational needs of students. In focusing on the symptoms and aiming to identify the impairment, often via testing as a single method, significant educational decisions are made as a result of an overly narrow assessment process (Yildiz et al. 2012). The assessment process can be even more critical when professionals are poorly prepared. At present, there are no specific criteria in place in Turkey to assess staff competence before they start working in guidance and research centres. It therefore, seems likely that some staff are poorly prepared to conduct assessments and make critical decisions. The situation deteriorates when parents are not included in the assessment and decisionmaking process. Parents, whose rights are already limited to consent-giving for assessment, are usually kept out of the process, and placement decisions are often made regardless of their suggestions. Finally, the implications of the assessment process in
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
International Journal of Inclusive Education
31
terms of how it will affect the child’s education after placement are usually overlooked. Lack of cooperation between guidance and research centres and the schools where students are placed can result in placing them in mainstream schools, without communication among professionals and comprehension of the assessment results by teachers of diagnosed students (Yildiz et al. 2012). Despite a curricular reform in Turkey, some problems still exist in ensuring access of students with disabilities to the regular curriculum. First, the recent curriculum reform in Turkey has not yet been fully understood, nor fully reflected in classroom practices (Nayir, Yildirim, and Kostur 2009). The feeling predominates among educational organisations that the reform was rushed, not discussed at sufficient length or in sufficient breadth and also that outcomes of the piloting process, including teacher opinions and modifications suggested based on these, were not responded to or disclosed publicly (Aksit 2007; Nayir, Yildirim, and Kostur 2009). Instead, new materials and guidance were sent to schools, and educators were asked to put them into practice with immediate effect. According to Aksit (2007), teachers recommended the incorporation of changes to pre-service teacher education courses. To be able to implement the new curriculum as intended and to facilitate teacher adoption, teachers considered it essential to discuss, evaluate, interpret, and understand the new content, objectives, and teaching strategies. In Turkish mainstream schools, another barrier to participation of students with disabilities in the regular curriculum is the replacement of the regular curriculum by poorly prepared IEP which include few, simple, and mostly behaviour-based objectives, and underestimate student potential (Rea, McLaughlin, and Walther-Thomas 2002). In most schools there is high reliance on IEPs; but these plans are often either not prepared or not implemented in the expected way. For example, recent studies in Turkey (Egitim Reformu Girisimi 2011; Kuyumcu 2011) have shown that the activity of preparing and implementing IEPs took place for less than half of the students with disabilities, though students in these schools were expected to be educated mainly with reference to the objectives written on these plans. Rather than preparing and implementing these plans in order to guide the process of organising support services appropriate to students’ individual needs, and planning curricular accommodations to facilitate student access to the curriculum, these plans seemed to replace the content of the regular curriculum (MEB 2010b). Recommendations and conclusion In Turkey, among overall attempts to improve schools to serve students who were especially marginalised and excluded from the education system in the past, the emphasis placed on the education of students with disabilities in mainstream schools has been observable. However, the resilience of special educational practices, as well as barriers in all aspects of the system (within school, community, and national policies) currently makes it difficult to achieve full inclusion of students with disabilities. However, there are some steps that might advance the process of inclusion for this group. First, the term ‘inclusion’ needs to be discussed, clarified, and adopted by policy-makers, educators, governmental and non-governmental organisations, and social actors. More widely shared understandings among key stakeholders are a prerequisite for long-term sustainable policies at the national and local level to address the lack of understanding of, and support for inclusion of students with disabilities in Turkish society at large.
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
32
H. Sakız and C. Woods
In addition, in order to enhance commitment and positive attitudes of professionals towards the inclusion of students with disabilities, two broad strategies are required. First, the roles of school staff need to be clarified, promoted, and supported through effective school leadership (Dyson 2006). Second, ways of collaborating and networking with school staff, other schools, families, and guidance and research centres should be developed, through which staff can share expertise and mutually support each other (Ainscow and Howes 2006). Lack of trained class teachers, counsellors, assessment staff, and schools/classes is currently one of the biggest challenges. In order to overcome these difficulties; (a) the trend to increase the number of mainstream schools, teachers, counsellors, and technological facilities needs to continue, (b) teacher education faculties need to offer courses that might focus on inclusion, disability, and diversity, and include classroom-based practices that promote inclusion; (c) in-service and pre-service training activities need to accelerate and target more teachers, school counsellors, assessment staff, special education teachers, and administrators, and (d) more financial support should be allocated to mainstream schools to be able to offer better education services for their students. Currently the narrow range of activities undertaken during assessment is limited to testing as a single technique. Significant educational decisions are based on simple classification and categorisation of the disabilities of the students whereas inclusion requires multidimensional assessment procedures with multiple techniques and aims that allow understanding of the context of each child’s disability comprehensively (Yildiz et al. 2012). It seems plausible that additional assessment methods such as parental reports, observation and developmental checklists; and additional assessment purposes such as screening, description of current skills, curriculum planning, classification, and progress monitoring can help guidance and research centres develop more inclusive and integrated services for each child. Although there have been reforms in the national curriculum in Turkey, these reforms have not yet ensured full participation of students with disabilities in the implementation of the curriculum. In order to go beyond the point of mere physical integration and include them within classrooms more successfully; (a) teachers would benefit from support in developing and using various strategies for flexible teaching and learning, and in differentiating instruction according to different abilities and individual needs (Heacox 2002), (b) objectives on IEP should not replace the curriculum content but should reflect students’ educational needs and include objectives which go beyond behavioural aims and extend the student’s academic potential (Ainscow 2002), and (c) a priority for schools needs to be working towards implementing the regular curriculum in a way that provides a balance between the social and individual needs of students (Beveridge 2002). Research on inclusion in Turkey, especially from the perspective of students with disabilities, is limited. The major focus for researchers has historically been special education. Some of this research has acknowledged the growing importance of inclusion (Akkok 2000; Melekoglu, Cakiroglu, and Malmgren 2009). However, so far the research has not offered adequate coverage of trends in the area or analysis of inclusion as an independent field. Currently, there is therefore need for more research: (a) investigating the case of inclusion in Turkey within international trends, (b) providing knowledge of students with disabilities, their characteristics, and educational needs, (c) documenting empirical knowledge of ways of educating students with disabilities in mainstream schools and achieving positive academic, social, and emotional
International Journal of Inclusive Education
33
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
outcomes, and (d) critically reviewing the nature and content of government policy on education of students with disabilities. To conclude, governmental and educational efforts to include more students with disabilities in mainstream schools and classrooms promise better educational results for students in Turkey. However, results have been uneven up to now. Just as some students within the student population as a whole are denied a fully inclusive education on the grounds of gender, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, some individuals within the population of students with disabilities fare less well than others. Yet there are reasons to be optimistic that schools and communities in the long term will further challenge exclusionary practices and push forward systemic improvements that will ultimately realise schools and classrooms that are more genuinely inclusive of all children.
Notes on contributors Halis Sakız is a doctoral research student at the University of Manchester. His research focuses on the education of students with disabilities with particular focus on their inclusion within mainstream schools. Dr Charlotte Woods is a senior lecturer at the University of Manchester. Her main areas of research interest are emotion in the workplace and educational leadership and policy.
References Ainscow, M. 2002. Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools. 2nd ed. London: Falmer Press. Ainscow, M., and A. Howes. 2006. “Leading Developments in Practice: Barriers and Possibilities.” In Improving Urban Schools: Collaboration and Leadership, edited by M. Ainscow and M. West, 35– 46. Berkshire: Open University Press. Akkok, F. 2000. “Special Education Research: A Turkish Perspective.” Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal 8 (4): 273– 279. Aksit, N. 2007. “Educational Reform in Turkey.” International Journal of Educational Development 27 (2): 129– 137. Aksu¨t, M. 2001. “Yeni bin yılın yeni eg˘itim merkezleri (OÇEM’ler) ve otistik bireylerin eg˘itimi ¨ [New education centres of the new millennium and education of autistic individuals].” AKU Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 3 (2): 56 –71. Andrews, J., D. Carnine, M. Coutinho, E. Edgar, S. Forness, L. Fuchs, D. Jordan, et al. 2012. “Bridging the Special Education Divide.” Remedial and Special Education 21 (5): 258– 260. Antonak, R. F., and B. Larrivee. 1995. “Psychometric Analysis and Revision of the Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming Scale.” Exceptional Children 6 (2): 139– 149. Armstrong, F. 2002. “The Historical Development of Special Education: Humanitarian Rationality or Wild Profusion of Entangled Events?” History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society 31 (5): 437– 456. Beveridge, S. 2002. Special Educational Needs in Schools. London: Routledge. Dyson, A. 2006. “Beyond the School Gates: Context, Disadvantage and Urban Schools.” In Improving Urban Schools: Collaboration and Leadership, edited by M. Ainscow and M. West, 117– 130. Berkshire: Open University Press. Egitim Reformu Girisimi [Education Reform Initiative]. 2011. Tu¨rkiye’de kaynas¸tirma/ bu¨tu¨nles¸tirme yoluyla eg˘itimin durumu [The situation of education via inclusion inTurkey] Accessed December 2012. http://erg.sabanciuniv.edu/sites/erg.sabanciuniv.edu/files/Turkiyede_ Kaynastirm a_Butunlestirme_Yoluyla_Egitimin_Durumu.pdf Eleweke, C. J., and M. Rodda. 2002. “The Challenge of Enhancing Inclusive Education in Developing Countries.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 6 (2): 113 – 126. Erkilic, M., and S. Durak. 2013. “Tolerable and Inclusive Learning Spaces: An Evaluation of Policies and Specifications for Physical Environments that Promote Inclusion in Turkish Primary Schools.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 17 (5): 462– 479.
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
34
H. Sakız and C. Woods
Ferguson, D. L. 2008. “International Trends in Inclusive Education: The Continuing Challenge to Teach Each One and Everyone.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 23 (2): 109– 120. Gargiulo, R. M., and D. Metcalf. 2010. Teaching in Today’s Inclusive Classrooms: A Universal Design for Learning Approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Hazine Kontrolorleri Dernegi [Association of Exchequer Controllers]. 2011. Ekonomik gostergeler [Economic indicators]. Accessed May 2013. http://www.hazine.org.tr/tr/index.php/ ekonomi/83-ekonomik-goestergeler Heacox, D. 2002. Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom. Minneapolis: Free Spirit. Kargin, T. 2004. “Kaynas¸tırma: Tanımı, gelis¸imi ve ikeleri [Inclusion: Its definition, develop¨ zel Eg˘itim Dergisi ¨ niversitesi Eg˘itim Bilimleri Faku¨ltesi O ment and principles].” Ankara U 5 (2): 1 –13. Kuyumcu, Z. 2011. “Teachers’ Problems and Solution they Suggest Related to these Problems in the Process of Development and Implementation of Individualized Education plan (IEP).” Master’s diss., Ankara University. Melekoglu, M. A., O. Cakiroglu, and K. W. Malmgren. 2009. “Special Education in Turkey.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 13 (3): 287– 298. Meyen, E., and T. Skrtic. 1995. Special Education and Student Disability. 2nd ed. Denver: Love. ¨ zel eg˘itim hakkında MEB (Milli Egitim Bakanligi [Ministry of National Education]). 1997. O kanun hu¨kmu¨nde kararname [Decree law on special education]. Accessed November 2012. http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/1041.html MEB (Milli Egitim Bakanligi [Ministry of National Education]). 2004. Kaynas¸tırma uygulamaları yonetmeligi [Inclusive practices regulation]. Accessed December 2012. http://www.egitimmevzuat.com/index.php/201012311723/2004/kaynatrma-uygulamalar20047-genelge.html MEB (Milli Egitim Bakanligi [Ministry of National Education]). 2007. National education statistics formal education 2006 –2007. Accessed April 2013. http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_ dosyalar/2012_12/06020711_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2006_2007.pdf MEB (Milli Egitim Bakanligi [Ministry of National Education]). 2008. Kaynas¸tırma yoluyla eg˘itim uygulamaları yonetmeligi [Educational practices through inclusion regulation]. Accessed December 2012. http://mebk12.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/45/03/353203/ dosyalar/2012_12/26103815_kaynastirma.pdf MEB (Milli Egitim Bakanligi [Ministry of National Education]). 2010a. National education statistics formal education 2009 –2010. Accessed April 2013. http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_ dosyalar/2012_12/06020939_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2009_2010.pdf MEB (Milli Egitim Bakanligi [Ministry of National Education]). 2010b. Okullarımızda neden nic¸in nasıl kaynas¸tırma: Yo¨netici o¨g˘retmen ve aile kılavuzu [The why, how and what of inclusion in our schools: A guide for administrators, teachers and families]. Accessed November 2012. http://orgm.meb.gov.tr/alt_sayfalar/yayimlar/kaynastirma/kaynastirma.pdf MEB (Milli Egitim Bakanligi [Ministry of National Education]). 2011. National education statistics formal education 2010 –2011. Accessed April 2013. http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_ dosyalar/2012_12/06021014_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2010_2011.pdf MEB (Milli Egitim Bakanligi [Ministry of National Education]). 2012. National education statistics formal education 2011 –2012. Accessed April 2013. http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_ dosyalar/2012_12/06021046_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2011_2012.pdf MEB (Milli Egitim Bakanligi [Ministry of National Education]). 2013. National education statistics formal education 2012 – 2013. Accessed April 2013. http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/ meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2012_2013.pdf Nayir, O. Y., B. Yildirim, and H. I. Kostur. 2009. “Pre-service Teachers’ Opinions About Constructivism.” Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 1 (1): 848– 851. Oliver, M. 1996. Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Osgood, R. L. 2005. The History of Inclusion in the United States. Washington: Gallaudet University Press. Ozgur, I. 2004. Engelli cocuklar ve egitimi: Ozel egitim [Children with disabilities and their education: Special education]. Adana: Karahan Kitabevi. OZIDA (Ozurluler Idaresi Baskanligi [Principal Office for Disability Management]). 2006. Tu¨rkiye ozu¨rlu¨ler aras¸tırması temel go¨stergeleri [Turkish disability research main indicators] Accessed May 2013. http://www.engelsiz.hacettepe.edu.tr/belge/ozida.pdf
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 08:40 14 July 2015
International Journal of Inclusive Education
35
Polat, F. 2001. “Changing Attitudes of School Psychologists Towards Pupils With Special Educational Needs in Turkey.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 16 (1): 55– 64. Rakap, S., and L. Kaczmarek. 2010. “Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion in Turkey.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 25 (1): 59 – 75. Rea, P. J., V. L. McLaughlin, and C. Walther-Thomas. 2002. “Outcomes for Students With Learning Disabilities, in Inclusive and Pullout Programs.” Exceptional Children 68 (2): 203– 223. Savolainen, H., P. Engelbrecht, M. Nel, and M. Olli-Pekka. 2012. “Understanding Teachers’ Attitudes and Self-Efficacy in Inclusive Education: Implications for pre- service and inservice Teacher Education.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 27 (1): 51 –68. Shakespeare, T. 2006. “The Social Model of Disability.” In The Disability Studies Reader, edited by Lennard J. Davis, 197 – 205. London: Routledge. Slee, R. 2001. “Driven to the Margins: Disabled Students, Inclusive Schooling and the Politics of Possibility.” Cambridge Journal of Education 31 (3): 385– 397. Sucuoglu, B., S. Akalin, and E. Sazak-Pinar. 2010. “The Effects of Classroom Management on the Behaviors of Students with Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms in Turkey.” The Journal of the International Association of Special Education 11 (1): 64– 74. Thomas, G., and A. Loxley. 2007. Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion. 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press. TUIK (Tu¨rkiye Istatistik Kurumu [Turkish Statistical Institute]). 2013a. Nufus istatistikleri ve projeksiyonlari [Population statistics and projections]. Accessed May 2013. http://tuik. gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id¼39 TUIK (Tu¨rkiye Istatistik Kurumu [Turkish Statistical Institute]). 2013b. Egitim istatistikleri [Education statistics]. Accessed May 2013. http://tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id¼14 UNESCO. 1994. The World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Final report. Salamanca, Spain: Ministry of Education and Science, Madrid: UNESCO. UNESCO. 2001. Open File on Inclusive Education: Support Materials for Managers and Administrators. France: UNESCO. UNESCO. 2009. Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education. France: UNESCO. Yildiz, M., K. Yildirim, S. Ates, and T. Rasinski. 2012. “Perceptions of Turkish Parents with Children Identified as Dyslexic about the Problems that they and Their Children Experience.” Reading Psychology 33 (5): 399– 422.
