This research examines how education for individuals with disabilities compares in elementary schools in the United States and Scuola Elementare in Italy based on case studies at Olympic Hills Elementary in Seattle, WA and Iqbal Masih in Rome, Italy. This research is significant because prior to national mandated special education legislation children with disabilities were excluded entirely from the public school system and from being educated with their peers, marginalizing them and distancing them from being active citizens within their respective countries’. However, the education systems in the United States and Italy differ in their methods of teaching individuals with disabilities. Italy is renown in the special education field because of their inclusion practices of educating students with disabilities with children without disabilities within a general classroom. United States, in contrast, favors and requires children with disabilities to be instructed both inclusively and separately by teachers trained in the disability area. The policies of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and No Child Left Behind are aligned to create a standard of achievement for students with disabilities. This research examines the drawbacks and successes of both models of education and identifies and discusses contradictions within the system.
Methods:
Service learning at Iqbal Masih in Rome, Italy and Olympic Hills Elementary in Seattle, Washington were most influential in my interest for conducting this research paper. These two case studies and the interviews conducted are limited examples of curriculum methods for individuals with disabilities and throughout my time in Italy I recognized that I could not necessarily generalize and withhold the same conclusions for all schools in the United States and Italy. However, the case studies provided me with much insight pertaining to the special education curriculum in the two countries. I had the opportunity to interview two teachers, Paula de Meo and Paula Arduini from Iqbal Masih and Jean O’Brien from Olympic Hills Elementary. Subsequently, I contacted Eugene Edgar, a special education professor at University of Washington who provided me with literature about the topic. From there, I completed a search on UW libraries about the special education policies within the United States and Italy. The combination of on-site field research and observation, interviews, and literary reviews allowed for an adequate investigation of the comparison of special education policies between the United States and Italy.
Findings/Literature Review:
The article “Inclusion Education in Italy” by John C. Begeny and Brian K. Martens was foundational in my research process. The authors expand on the dispute of inclusive education in Italy and show how advocates of inclusive education in the United States perceive the policy as exemplary. Begeny and Martens state that advocates for inclusion, “the practice of including all students-regardless of their abilities and backgrounds-in age-appropriate classrooms and schools that meet all students’ needs” (1) argue that, “inclusion can result in academic and social gains, better preparation for community living, and an avoidance of the negative effects caused by exclusion” (1). In addition, they show that inclusion promotes tolerance and acceptance of individuals with disabilities among typical students. In contrast, however, those who resist inclusion argue that, “general education is not prepared for inclusion, and fully inclusive education cannot be accomplished due to its inherent complexities.” Begeny and Martens expand on the reasons for the resistance in that insufficient empirical research has been executed to prove the effectiveness of inclusion, students with disabilities require more intense aid and intervention which is not accessible in a general classroom, and complete support and accommodations for the inclusion model must be apparent in schools and the attitudes of teachers and administrations for its’ effectiveness. These two standpoints exemplify the contrast of educational policies for students with disabilities in the United States and Italy.
The articles, “Teacher Attitudes in Italy After Twenty Years of Inclusion” by Cesare Cordoli, Alessandra Terreni, Thomas E. Scruggs, and Margo A. Mastropieri and “Observing Inclusive Education in Italy” by Robin M. Smith were foundational in my examination of the inclusion model of education within Italy. Smith introduces the foreground for the birth of education for students with disabilities in Italy in that the integration of students with disabilities into the school system emerged from the psychiatric deinstitutionalization of inpatients in Parma during the 1960’s. The purpose of the study conducted by Cordoli et al. was to “determine the nature of Italian teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion after 20 year of inclusion policies and practice” (1). The authors synopsize on the history of inclusive education in Italy in that Law 517 was enacted in 1977 which “sought to abolish the widespread use of special schools and special classes for students with disabilities and to replaces those practices with inclusive instruction in general education classes for all students.” The authors explain that students with disabilities are educated almost entirely in a general education class. The teacher receives assistance from a support teacher, or insegnante di sostengo, from 6 to 18 hours per week depending on the needs of the student. In her article, Smith states, “All teachers are involved in inclusive education for the whole class, with the special education teacher being available to all the children as well as consultant to both the regular teachers and the child with support needs.” Additionally, if the needs of the student with disabilities are not met in the general classroom, a separate resource instruction can be made available. Teachers who endorse inclusive teaching argue that, “inclusion enhances social skills, learning skills, and autonomy of students with disabilities, and tolerance and understanding of diversity in other children” (2). Inclusive education strives to promote a classroom and society free of rejection.
In addition to literature reviews, service learning and interviews with two teachers from Iqbal Masih were supplemental to my research process pertaining to special education in Italy. Iqbal Masih accepts enrollment of all children with all levels and abilities. There are no programs or classrooms for special learning because they only want to promote inclusion. Paula de Meo, a fourth grade teacher at Iqbal Masih, a Scuola Elementare in Italy provided me with insight about inclusive education. For the past ten weeks I have been volunteering and observing in her classroom once a week. She agrees with the inclusive model because it allows the students with disabilities to interact with peers their age and feel equal. Paula informed me that there are two students in her classroom with disabilities, both of whom receive special assistance for five to nine hours per week, depending on the case. She said, “Its better to keep them in the class, but you need to have someone to help you to manage the whole class.” She has one insegnante di sostengo in her classroom helping her to aid the students with special needs and the other students as well. She said, “If you take the kids out then they feel different and the other kids see them to be different” showing that the inclusion is imperative for students with disabilities to feel a sense of community and for the peers to learn tolerance and acceptance.
I also volunteered in the classroom of Paula Arduini who teachers 1st grade at Iqbal Masih. She also informed me of the benefits of inclusive teaching. From my observation and my discussions with Paula, she informed me that Franco,* a six-year-old first grader in her classroom, is diagnosed with Angelmann syndrome, which is characterized by developmental and intellectual delay. Franco requires the assistance of an insegnante di sostengo, Pietro who has worked in special education for fifteen years. Pietro and Paula informed me that Franco has “difficulty in coordination of movements” and he cannot speak. Paula said, “We use all kinds of communication like sign language. We help him to point to pictures, words, and to press keys of the computer. The child is able to communicate in every way.” After explaining to me about the process of educating Franco they proceeded to demonstrate their method. Pietro wrote words down on the chalkboard, such as “bano”, “autofficina”, “cucina”, and “giardino.” Paula called the attention of the class and Pietro continued with his demonstration. Pietro read the words aloud one at a time while Franco, with the physical guidance of Pietro, would point to the words stated. Franco identified each word correctly, and after each word, the class would clap with appraisal. Paula continued to tell me that Franco does the same subjects of the other students, but the exercises are prepared for him.” She continued, “The pupils help him and play with him and are very patient with him.” Throughout my service learning, the feeling of warmness and community were palpable in her classroom. At the end of the interview Paula said, “We work as a team, me Pietro, the children in the class, and Franco” demonstrating the teamwork and community based aspect of inclusive teaching.
The article, “Achieving Equity in Special Education: History, Status, and Current Challenges” by Russell J. Skiba et al. and the publication “History: Twenty-Five Years of Progress in Educating Children With Disabilities Through IDEA” by United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services were foundational in my research of education for individuals with disabilities in the United States. Skiba et al. identify the reasons for emergence of special education in the United States and the progress of development of the policy since. The first national special education legislation, Education for All Handicapped Child Act, now known as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in the United States emerged from the strategies used by advocates during the civil rights movement for equality. The treatment towards African Americans within the education system was equated with the treatment towards students with disabilities. The publication “History: Twenty-Five Years of Progress in Educating Children With Disabilities Through IDEA” state that prior to the enactment of this policy, “U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding certain students, including children who were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed or mentally retarded” (1). Further, Skiba et al. demonstrate that IDEA was enacted in 1975 and has since then received reauthorizations, the most recent being in 2004 by President George W. Bush. IDEA states, “(1) Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.” This act is mandated in public school districts in the United States but faces some barrier to achieve success.
With the reauthorization of IDEA, Bush additionally aligned the policy with the No Child Left Behind policy. The article, “No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students with Disabilities” by Antonis Katsiyanna, Mitchel L. Yell, and James G Shiner has additionally been foundational in my research of education for students with disabilities in the United States. The authors argue that the alignment of NCLB and IDEA is contradictory because NCLB focuses on the group of students, whereas IDEA focuses on the individual student. According to the authors, NCLB focuses primarily on the outcomes of teaching and holds states, school districts, and teachers accountable for the achievement of their students. This accountability system financially “rewards and sanctions” schools based on student achievement or lack there of. The authors convey that that Bush and the Congress made certain that students with disabilities would be included in the accountability because of the risk that these students could be ignored. This is a highly controversial topic as a student with disabilities achievement level may require alternative assessment to reveal a well-rounded depiction of the student’s success, which may be denied by the state. Furthermore, if an alternative assessment is approved, some states do not allow the student to graduate with a regular diploma. The authorization of this policy creates a pressure to teach within a framework to test, rather then to teach for the student’s necessary or deserved needs.
In addition to literature reviews, service learning and interviews were supplemental to my research process pertaining to special education in the United States. The mission statement for Olympic Hills states, “At Olympic Hills, we believe hands-on learning is the best way to challenge every child. We are a certified Advanced Learning Opportunity school, which means that above-grade-level activities are integrated into daily classroom experiences for all students.” I spent a six-month period volunteering in a kindergarten classroom. The teacher, Ms. O’Brien had 27 students assigned to her classroom, three of them requiring special assistance. Although the policy for special education in the United States is intended to be least restrictive, it is difficult when the students with individuals are required to meet a standard and are generalized in the same category as a typical student of the same age. One of the students with disabilities in Ms. O’Brien’s classroom was Paul, * a 5 year-old diagnosed with autism. He spent much time in Ms. O’Brien’s classroom, without the assistance of an aid. He was given individual attention outside of the general classroom in a resource room with other students with disabilities. Due to the fact that Paul did not receive extra attention in the general classroom, he had a difficult time understanding and completing the tasks. In addition, from my observations, Patrick caused a disturbance to the other students in the classroom. During my time volunteering for Ms. O’Brien it was evident that she supported Paul attending a charter school that specialized in educating individuals with autism.
Doria Hathorn, a third grade teacher at Browns Point Elementary School in Tacoma, Washington provided me with much commentary and information pertaining to special education in the United States. This proved to be beneficial to my research process because it allowed for a comparative of dialogues between the teachers at Iqbal Masih and a teacher at an elementary school in the United States. Doria said, “ Special needs kids need something more when meeting standards” correlating with the No Child Left Behind Policy. She explained that the mandated policy of having the students with disabilities included in the standards with the typical students proves to be very difficult because it generalizes the needs of individuals with disabilities. Furthermore, Doria informed me that, “In the United States they don’t want to draw attention to the student with special needs” as an avoidance of labeling them as different. She then continued to explain to me that at Browns Point Elementary there is a resource room where kids with special needs get pulled out and another room that is self contained for kids that are severely delayed.
The article, “Teacher Attitudes in Italy After Twenty Years of Inclusion” by Cordoli et al. has been supplemental in my research pertaining to the comparison of education for individuals with disabilities in the United States and Italy. The authors state, that although disagreements about the benefits and drawbacks of inclusive teaching are disputed between the two schooling systems, “responses of teachers from both Italy and the United States on personal support items suggest that both sets of teachers generally believe that including students with special needs in general education classrooms requires far more support than schools are presently providing (9).” However, the authors state that teachers in Italy have a more positive perception of inclusive education than the United States, “who are generally less experienced in accommodating students with diverse learning needs in general education classrooms” (2). Their conducted study examined attitudes of teachers towards inclusive teaching after 20 years and revealed that 74.3% of teachers in Italy conveyed a willingness to teach children with disabilities within the general classroom, compared to only 49.3% of teachers in the United States. However, only 22.3% of teachers in Italy agreed that they had sufficient training and skills necessary for teaching students with disabilities in the general classroom. It is evident from my the articles and my first hand accounts with interviewing and service learning that inclusive teaching is advantageous but also receives criticism.
Discussion
From my research, it is apparent that recognizing cultural differences between the two countries is imperative when analyzing the achievement and success of the methods used to educate individuals with disabilities. From my perspective of having solely a ten week period to study and observe education in Italy from lectures and volunteering at Iqbal Masih, the two schooling systems differ in that the Italian education institution focuses mainly on the avoidance of marginalizing individuals with disabilities and labeling them as being different whereas in the United States the focus is more directed towards having the students reach a mandated academic standard.
From my perspective, the special education system in the United States reflects contradictions and hypocrisy. NCLB is a system set up for failure that impedes on the success of students, teachers, and schools. It is more detrimental to the success of a school to remove resources and funds if the school does not meet the standards. Rather than removing funds, more money should be given to the school in need in order to improve the success of the students. This act promotes a never-ending cycle because schools that perform poorly are penalized by losing students and funds, and are therefore never able to regain strength or resources for improvement. In addition, schools in higher socioeconomic locations generally have more distinguished and successful public school institutions, and schools in lower socioeconomic locations do not have the resources and money that are available to the wealthier locations. Therefore, schools in lower socioeconomic areas are more likely to have a lower percentage of students meet the standards of NCLB. Generally, students attending schools of lower economic status, who do not meet the national standards, belong to marginalized groups. The relationship between the emergence of IDEA, in that it was influenced by the same strategies used to advocate equality during the civil rights movement, and the sanctions and divide of resources implemented by NCLB is contradictory and hypocritical. IDEA was implemented out of a desire for a transformation of societal institutions based on equality of all people whereas NCLB further marginalizes subordinate groups due to the punitive economic sanctions.
No Child Left Behind situates students and schools to fail, which is why, I more so agree with the inclusive method of teaching which promotes autonomy and equality. It is evident that exposure to new habits and to diverse people is mandatory in order to go through with the transformation of society into a society without dominance and acquiescence, which I found is the basis for the inclusive model of education for individuals with disabilities. In addition, it allows the individual with disabilities to gain a sense of community, support, and equality. However, the proximity of including individuals with disabilities within the general schooling classroom may be more beneficial for the social habits of the typical students rather than the students with disabilities because their academic advancements may be insufficient. This is especially evident in the data revealed in the study conducted by Cordoli et al. in that only 22.3% of teachers in Italy felt they had adequate training to teach individuals with disabilities. Depending on the individual case, the student with disabilities may not receive an adequate amount of direct academic attention without the interference of the other students in the classroom.
It is difficult to provide a conclusive statement regarding the two systems due to the limited lens I have on the subject. However, from my research I can assert that both systems prove to have contradictions, benefits, and drawbacks but that there is not an affirmative method to teaching individuals with disabilities because education cannot be generalized.
Conclusion
During my experiences volunteering in these diverse classrooms, I was able to see the differing techniques of educating an individual with disabilities between the two countries based on on-site observations and specific cases. Recognizing the cultural differences and social norms of both countries and the surrounding areas of the school was imperative for my foreground of conducting this research. Perhaps the complete inclusive method would not prove beneficial or sufficient in the United States because it may not provide the standards of academic learning or development that is perceived to be necessary. Furthermore, the methods utilized in the United States may not prove to be beneficial in Italy due to cultural focus of creating a community for the children. In theory, I believe that a combination of the two methods, inclusive and separate specialized teaching methods would best suit the needs of individuals with disabilities because it targets the social, community aspect of the classroom and also directs attention to the academic needs of the individual child. Reaching a balance of providing a socially diverse classroom where students learn to be compassionate and accepting of their peers in addition to providing the students with disabilities with the resources and attention needed to achieve academically proves to be difficult with financial budget cuts.
If I had more time to research this topic I would be interested to examine more schools within both countries. With the end of my research I have lingering questions. What are the expectations for individuals with disabilities once they reach beyond the education system in the United States and Italy? What are the opinions of the parents of children with disabilities on the teaching methods in the two countries? What are the difference between levels of happiness of students with disabilities in the two systems? With my continuation of studying education, I hope to see progress with the mandated policies of education that allows for equality for all children to receive the attention, and academic and social needs that they deserve.
Sources
Journal/Magazine Articles:
Begeny, J. C. ., & Martens, B. K. (2007). Inclusionary Education in Italy. Remedial and Special Education, 28(2).
Cornoldi, C., Terreni, A., Scruggs, T., &Mastropieri, M. (1998). Teacher Attitudes in Italy After Twenty Years of Inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 19(6).
Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., & Cuadrado, J. (2008). Achieving Equity in Special Education: History, Status, and Current Challenges. Exceptional Children, 74(3).
Yell, M. L., & Katsiyannas, A. (2006, March 1). The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students with Disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4).
Web Pages:
Smith, R. M. (n.d.). Observing Inclusive Education in Italy. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from http://www.miusa.org/ncde/stories/smith/?searchterm=None.
Handbook:
United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. History: Twenty-Five Years of Progress in Educating Children With Disabilities Through IDEA. Date of Publication Unknown. http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/history.pdf
Interviews:
D. Hathorn (personal communication, March 7, 2011)
P. Arduini (personal communication, February 24, 2011)
P. de Meo (personal communication, March 3, 2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment