Keywords

1 Introduction

Inclusive education implies the process of ensuring high-quality education for all, irrespective of differences. The development of inclusive education is a crucial component of bringing to life an inclusive society in which schools and human resources play a vital role. Global educationpolicies have been focusing on inclusive education for over 30 years. Following the UNESCO (1994, p. 8) statement that reads ‘mainstream schools with an inclusive orientation are the most effective means for the achievement of education for all’, inclusive educationhas become one of priorities for national educationpolicies. Based on international legal documents and initiatives (the UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child 1989; UNESCO2000, 2008, 2009; and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006), individual countries have created national educationpolicies, as well as legislative and legal frameworks, intended to ensure the rights of all children to education in mainstream schools.

Ensuring a legal framework is the first step in the development of inclusive education. There remains a need for more vigorous implementation, the removal of obstacles, and the provision of high-quality education for all. This especially relates to the achievements of students with special educational needs (SEN).1 The policy at the EU level implies the inclusion of students with SEN into mainstream schools, based on the concept of exercising the human right to education. Although there are 15 million children with SENin the EU (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, Country Data 2010), the implementation of inclusive education has thus far not yet been achieved at the expected level.

Topping (2012) pointed out that inclusion needs to imply more than merely a physical presence of students with SEN in mainstream schools, as it would need to empower those students to successfully access the curriculum. Consequently, it is important to ensure support, individualised and differentiated teaching approaches or instruction (Mittler 2006), as well as school management and leadership focused on inclusive education (Devecchi and Nevin 2010; Shevlin and Rose 2017). Analysing, monitoring and the comparative research of inclusive education (Armstrong et al. 2009; Alquraini and Gut 2012; Watkins et al. 2014; Watkins and Ebersold 2016) are significant for the further development of inclusive policies and practices in Europe. Therefore, the objective of this chapter is to suggest a conceptual framework for its benchmarking.

2 Inclusive Education—Implementation Challenges

Against the backdrop of EU inclusion education policy, identification of both the obstacles and challenges in its implementation is imperative. Some of the most important challenges can be found in discrepancies in the terminology related to educational inclusion used in different EU member states, as well as in varying legislative frameworks across Europe. This affects the understanding of the relevant concepts and makes it more difficult to comparatively analyse inclusive education. In addition, some countries have not been able to ensure the full and actual implementation of inclusion, which exists at a declarative level only. The management and leadership of schools are considered to be yet another challenge to the actual implementation of inclusion, as principals play an important role in the implementation of inclusive education (Shevlin and Rose 2017). Investment in human resources, primarily in principals and teachers, by providing effective professional training programmes and opportunities for high-quality professional development, constitutes one of the prerequisites of inclusive education. Teachers and principals require additional resources and support, which should be provided by school districts and local communities (Meijer 2001; Ainscow 2005).

Inclusive education should reach all the way to the classroom. Teacher attitudes, preparedness and the competences required for facing differences in the classroom are considered as critical success factors of inclusion in the classroom (Jordan et al. 2009; Meijer et al. 2003; Mittler 2006; Topping 2012). Teachers should develop relevant pedagogical approaches, methods and materials for the implementation of inclusion (Meijer et al. 2003), but, they should primarily serve as informal leaders within the school community (York Barr et al. 2005).

3 Research Methodology

The benchmarking of inclusive education in Croatia, Portugal and Italy was based on the model by Kyriazopoulou and Weber (2009), which defines the indicators of inclusive education at three levels. These are: the macro level (the legislative framework for the implementation of inclusion, investment in the professional development of teachers and principals); the mezzo level (the school or the management and leadership of the inclusion-oriented school); and the micro level (the classroom and teacher or teacher attitudes, understanding of inclusion, implementation and ensuring support).

The research was conducted during 2017 by using the focus group method with education stakeholders in three small European countries: Portugal, Italy and Croatia. Two focus group discussions were held in each group with an average length of three hours. The discussions with participants addressing the issue of inclusive education lasted fifteen hours.

The topics of inclusive education addressed during the focus group discussions were divided into several areas, addressing identical topics and using identical questions for all the groups (Kitzinger 1994), where the participants were free to expand on the topics in terms of their own insights and/or experiences of inclusive education (Clifford et al. 2016, p. 146). The criterion for participation in the focus group discussions was experience in teaching children with SEN at a school that had adopted an inclusive approach to education (formally or informally). Furthermore, the groups in Croatia and in Italy included the participation of principals, external experts and relevant representatives of state administration. All the participants showed a high level of motivation for work in inclusive education and were previously professionally acquainted and/or had cooperated in the field of inclusive education. The discussion primarily focused on the interaction of the participants and an exchange of opinions in order to more easily identify differences in attitudes and experiences (Kitzinger 1994).

Since inclusive education is a complex topic that includes a large number of areas and variables (Powell and Single 1996), the focus group method was used to collect qualitative data on inclusive education, focusing on the critical benchmarking policy aspects at the three selected levels of comparison (Kyriazopoulou and Weber 2009). The critical benchmarking policy aspects were grouped as follows:

Macro level:

  • Legislative framework.

  • Professional development of teachers and principals (Pivik et al. 2002; Akalin and Sucuoglu 2015).

Mezzo level:

  • School management and leadership in inclusive education (Saraph et al. 1989; Ainscow and Sandill 2010; Leithwood and Riehl 2003; Soodak 2003; Polat 2011; Ingram 1997).

  • Support/co-operation amongst key stakeholders and competent bodies (Ainscow et al. 2000; Di Paola and Walther Thomas 2003; Polat 2011).

Micro level:

  • Positive inclusive experiences (Sindik 2013; Subotić and Anđić 2016; Fejgin et al. 2005; Ainscow 2005; Winter and O’Raw 2010).

  • Teacher attitudes towards inclusive education (Avramidis et al. 2000; Fakolade et al. 2017).

  • Differentiated instruction (Slee 2011; Mitchell 2007).

  • The social aspect of differentiated instruction (Arnesen and Lundahl 2006; Harris et al. 2009; Martı́nez et al. 2001).

Table 1 presents the framework based on the previously described model by Kyriazopoulou and Weber (2009), including the indicators for each of the policy aspects.

Table 1 Framework for determining the level of implementation of inclusive education
Full size table

4 Research Results

4.1 Macro (National) Level

CROATIA—The Constitution of the Republic of Croatia guarantees the right to education for all under equal conditions and in accordance with their capabilities. The Ordinance on Primary and Secondary Education of Students with Developmental Difficulties (Official Gazette, 24/2015) defines different types of difficulties, based on which students are provided with a specific form of education, an adequate programme, and relevant assistance. Croatia has a formal legislative framework, with somewhat outdated terminology and an inadequate understanding of the concept of inclusion. Legal norms are defined very broadly, lacking concrete measures and activities, as is the responsibility for implementation. This has been confirmed by the focus-group participants, who warned about the formalistic approach to inclusion and a lack of focus on implementation. During their initial education, teachers are insufficiently trained for inclusive education, and this is also the case at the level of continuous professional training programmes for teachers and other stakeholders. Since there is very limited organised exchange of experience, there is a sense of being all alone in the practice of inclusive education. Nevertheless, sharing professional experience on their own initiative in inclusive education has helped some teachers to change their practice and has contributed to their professional development.

In conclusion, notwithstanding that Croatia has a regulated legislative framework intended to define the right of all to education, there is no systematic implementation of inclusive education. Greater focus on this issue and investment in effective and targeted professional training programmes for teachers are an imperative, as is the reorganisation of work in schools by profiling specialised teachers and actual support that should be provided for the implementation of inclusive education.

PORTUGAL—Decree Law No. 35/90, 319/912 prescribes the inclusion of all students with SEN in the mainstream education system. Since 1997, Portuguese law has been using the term inclusion, and the legislative framework provides comprehensive guidelines for implementation and defines the actions intended to remove obstacles and promote the development of quality (Decree-Law 20/2006, 3/2008). Mainstream schools are provided with support from the national network of ICT Resource Centres for Special Education and from the Resource Centres for Inclusion (RCIs), which were previously special schools for students with SEN. With professional training programmes, teachers can enrol in one- or two-year tuition programmes and specialisations. Teachers at all education levels are eligible to apply for additional professional training in order to expand their knowledge and skills. Many do apply, since initial teacher training does not provide all the competences required for the implementation of inclusive education. The focus-group participants pointed out the importance of different types of professional training programmes, the direct exchange of experiences related to classroom practice, as well as professional support provided by experienced colleagues or mentors. They were simultaneously aware of their changes in attitudes, as well as the sense of personal professional achievement and the need for them to be paired with formal development opportunities.

In conclusion, Portugal has a solid legislative framework defining actions for the removal of obstacles and the development of high-quality education. There is also a quality support network in place. Professional training programmes are well-organised, with opportunities for specialisation, professional development, and training.

ITALY—The Italian Constitution guarantees the right to education for all and points to the obligation of the state to remove obstacles intended to limit the freedom and equality of citizens. Irrespective of the fact that educational integration commenced in the 1970s, the law dating back to the 1990s (Framework Law on Assistance, Social Inclusion and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [104/92]) is considered the backbone of the educationof students with SEN in Italy. But implementation extends beyond the letter of the law, encompassing educational strategies, organisation and goals, including learning by example, communication and socialisation. In Italy, as well as in the other analysed countries, the attendance of professional training programmes is an obligation of school staff. The focus-group participants were satisfied with the enacted legislative framework and, even more so, with the support provided by experts, both internal and external. The available formal professional training programmes and lectures are relatively satisfactory, yet the quality is not uniform, which leads to reliance on informal learning.

In Italy, there is a tendency for all children, irrespective of differences, to be included in mainstream schools and the state is obligated to remove obstacles to inclusion. The law enables the implementation of inclusive education, although a significant part is played by informal learning and exchange of experiences which seems to have an impact on the quality of the system.

4.2 Mezzo (School) Level

CROATIA—According to data released by the Croatian Bureau of Statistics (2015), the number of students included in mainstream primary schools during the academic year 2014/2015 stood at 321,310, whereas the number of those included in primary schools for children with developmental difficulties reached 1,688, i.e. as much as 0.52% of the entire student population were segregated. This is in line with the findings of the UNICEF Office for Croatia (Bouillet 2014, p. 8): ‘…there are many obstacles to achieving social inclusion of children with developmental difficulties, whilst many children unjustifiably spend the most important period of their lives placed in institutions….’

The focus-group participants pointed out that negative teacher attitudes towards children with SEN are still present in schools, partly due to the stereotypical view of the need for such students to be placed in specialised institutions. Another reason can be found in the teachers’ perception of not being sufficiently professionally competent for teaching children with SEN. Teachers are also concerned about the absence of professional support and leadership provided by principals and other education leaders. Some examples include: insufficient recognition of and lack of credit given to individuals who actually implement inclusion; an insufficiently expressed inclusive orientation of the school; and leadership that does not provide motivation for inclusion. Information exchange is inconsistent, which proves to be alarming and demotivating. Cooperation with stakeholders in the educational process, primarily parents, was highlighted as another problem. Innovative methods of inclusion depend exclusively on individual initiative and on the support provided by the leaders of an individual school. These methods most frequently imply more work and preparation, and there is no general or unreserved support for such work. Excuses for the lack of support can usually be found in the formal plans and objectives of the school, which regularly do not include the inclusive dimension of education.

In sum, Croatia currently records a discrepancy between the existing laws on inclusive education and the number of children segregated in special schools due to the lack of systematic school leadership and support, as well as inadequate access to information and the lack of innovation and cooperation with parents.

PORTUGAL—According to the European Commission report (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, Country Data 2010), only 0.2% of Portuguese students are segregated. One of the most important reasons for such success can be found in the availability of resources, as a large number of special schools have been assuming the role of resource centres since 2008, as well as providing support and developing quality in inclusive education. A professional development model is also in place, leading to the qualification of Special Education Teacher.

In addition, comprehensive changes are being implemented in the organisation of education and in school practice. The role of school leadership is emphasised, as awareness of the importance of inclusion depends on the amount of information exchanged with the school leadership. Planning inclusive education activities is frequently based on individual teacher reports, without an integrated approach and strategic focus. Nevertheless, all the planned processes and activities are regularly evaluated and innovative methods in the implementation of inclusion are accepted if they can be placed within the framework of existing laws. Cooperation is an important factor in improving the quality of inclusive education, which especially concerns cooperation with the local community, relevant bodies and parents. All students with developmental difficulties have tutors selected from among the existing teachers, usually by school principals. All teachers and tutors cooperate and communicate with parents, teachers and other school stakeholders, even on the formal level, by providing written reports. Nevertheless, there are differences in inclusive practices, primarily between small (most frequently rural) and large (urban) environments.

Portugal is assessed as a small country with an advanced level of inclusive education, supporting both innovative approaches and cooperation with key school stakeholders interested in inclusion.

ITALY—According to the European Commission report (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, Country Data 2010), only 0.01% of Italian students with special needs attend special schools. Besides the medical care system, schools are also involved in the early identification of difficulties. There is an obligation for schools to define pedagogical and didactic measures required for a personalised programme of education. Schools need to remove all obstacles and offer all programmes (including the use of information and communications technologies) in a manner appropriate to the requirements of all students. At the school level, the principal and teaching staff have responsibility to ensure the quality of inclusive education, including the preparation of a formal annual plan which is evaluated at the end of the academic year. Schools constantly need to monitor and assess the effectiveness of inclusion.

A critical success factor is recognised in specialised resources, especially the decentralised, multi-disciplinary network of support centres. This support also includes those responsible for school management.

Italy, as a country with the lowest percentage of students segregated in special schools, shows significant potential for the development of inclusion in schools. This is evident in the level of inclusion awareness, which is regarded as self-evident, as well as in the organisation of expert support for school staff. Planning, monitoring and evaluation practices confirm that Italy belongs to the group of European countries with the most advanced level of inclusive education.

4.3 Micro Level—Implementation of Inclusive Education in the Classroom

CROATIA—The Croatian focus-group participants have a high level of general support for inclusion in education, although they interpret inclusion as an additional burden on individual teachers. Teachers do not consider themselves sufficiently trained and are uncertain about the support provided by their schools. They unanimously agree that inclusion at the lower levels of the education system becomes pointless, since the inclusion of students with SEN is frequently not continued at higher levels of education. It is clear that teachers cope with professional challenges and obligations in different ways. Furthermore, different types of difficulties faced by students were emphasised, as was the insufficient number of expert associates, teaching assistants and the obstacles encountered in most schools. According to the participants, all of the above represents a huge burden for the implementation of inclusive education in their classrooms.

In conclusion, there is declarative support for inclusion in Croatia, without any actual commitment to implementation. Positive experiences, as well as the positive attitudes of a proportion of teachers toward inclusion, were recorded. Unfortunately, personalised instruction and social support depend on the competences and attitudes of individuals.

PORTUGAL—According to the focus-group participants, inclusion is a topic that is not particularly discussed in Portugal, as it is ‘an absolutely common occurrence in schools’. Cooperation among individuals in student and teacher groups, as well as between teachers and students, is widely held to be the purpose of inclusion. Negative attitudes towards students with developmental difficulties are unacceptable and are disapproved of. Value-based attitudes are followed by specialised knowledge, obtained from specialised training, relating, for example, to the preparation of differentiated curricula. The curricula focus on achieving the full potential of children, and not only at a declarative level. In order to successfully implement inclusion, a long-term positive relationship between teachers and students needs to be ensured. This relationship becomes particularly important when students transition to another educational level, which, unfortunately, does not always happen in practice.

In sum, a very high number of students with SEN included in mainstream schools can be linked to the high level of understanding of inclusive education. Teachers feel competent in preparing differentiated curricula, while the organisation of work is characterised by flexibility, which is extremely important for the effective implementation of inclusive education.

ITALY—In Italian classrooms, most teachers believe that students with SEN belong to mainstream schools. In addition to positive attitudes toward inclusion, formal planning is recognised as a considerable contribution to a positive environment for children.

The education system acknowledges the role of specialised teachers, providing support at the classroom level, while teachers at all levels and school leaders are provided with specialised professional training in inclusive education.

These success factors, singled out by the focus-group participants, contribute to a positive school climate, and point to key stakeholders assuming joint responsibilities for inclusive educational practices. Teachers are trained in differentiated instruction in the literal sense of the word, which further leads to the conclusion that the positive experiences of inclusion in Italy are more frequently the rule than the exception.

5 Conclusion

With reference to the framework for the comparison of inclusive educationpolicies and practices (Table 1), this chapter has presented differences in the implementation of inclusive education in three small European countries. Although the legislative frameworks have been formally harmonised, substantial differences have been identified in the dimensions of their implementation. In addition, the countries vary in terms of the availability and quality of the professional training and development of teachers and principals, as well as in ensuring specialised resources and support. Managerial activities/school leadership and the level of innovation can also be linked to successful inclusive education, as indicated by the number of segregated students. It is also important to point out that regulations at the macro level (legislative framework) do not necessarily imply the successful implementation of inclusive education in practice, as evidenced by the comparison of the implementing frameworks in the three analysed countries. Positive practical experiences in developing inclusion are not sufficiently drawn upon to improve education practices, which is especially the case in Croatia.

The popular belief that the micro level (the inclusive classroom) is decisive for inclusive education is not confirmed by our results which show that the mezzo level (the inclusive school) is the accelerator for the development of inclusive practices, based on already harmonised national policies.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Concerning the discrepancy in terminology linked with students with special educational needs in the EU member states, the term special educational needs (SEN students) is used in this chapter to refer to all the groups of students with special educational needs, in accordance with the laws of the EU member states.

  2. 2.

    An overview of laws related to inclusive education is available at https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/Portugal%20Analysis_CPRA.pdf.