• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Special Needs Education and Inclusive Education – Training and Professional Qualifications

Position paper on initial and further and in-service training at the Universities of Education

Department I/8 Authors: Mag. Dr. Ewald Feyerer Mag. Dr. Claudia Niedermair Mag. Dr. Sonja Tuschel

Table of Contents

Introduction...... 4 1. Special Needs Education Today: Paradigm Shifts and Current Scholarly Discourse...5 1.1. Paradigms Which Are Currently Relevant to Educational Policies...... 5 1.2. International Agreements, National Laws...... 8 2. The Occupational Field of Special School Teachers: a Description of the Status Quo 10 2.1. The Educational System for Children with Special Educational Needs...... 10 3. Status Quo of Initial and Further Training of Special School Teachers...... 15 4. Demands on Future Initial and Further Training of Special School Teachers...... 16 4.1. Integrative Education: New Challenges for All Teachers...... 16 4.2. Specific Requirements for Special School Teachers...... 18 4.3. Organisation and Structure of the Study Programme...... 19 4.4. Summary of the Consequences for the Planning of the Study Programmes...... 21 Bibliography...... 24

3 Introduction

“The recently adopted second school package will launch the most profound and significant reform of compulsory school teacher training since the school reform of 1962, within which the teacher training academies were introduced to supersede the former teacher training institutions. The current reform also affects the initial and further training of the teachers who work in the field of special needs education. The working areas of special needs teachers have become more diverse due to the process of school development in the field of special needs education since the outset of joint education of children with and without disabilities, which will be referred to as integrative schooling throughout this paper. With this in mind, one of the fundamental questions to deal with will be which basic competences a prospective special needs teacher should have. (…) The new two-tier system of bachelor and master studies will also reingnite the smouldering discussion on the basic training of special school teachers. The question arises whether it would be good for special needs teachers first to become acquainted with the “normality” of teaching at primary school before committing themselves to the challenges of special needs education. Is it possible to impart the contents of the nine compulsory school grades and the disability-specific methodical and didactical competences at teacher training colleges in the same time which is provided for the training of primary school teachers? For the benefit of a uniform teacher training system in Austria it is not advisable to let only the respective study commissions deal with all these questions but rather to elaborate a consensus on basic standards.” (Hackl/Gruber 2006, pg. 1)1

This paper starts with a description of the underlying paradigm shifts in special needs education and the current situation of initial, further and in-service training of special school teachers. On the basis of a comprehensive analysis of the new requirements of the occupational field “support of children with special educational needs,” this paper gives recommendations on the future initial and further training of special school teachers at the new teacher training colleges.

1 Translator’s note: Most of the quotations in this paper were originally in German. 4 1. Special Needs Education Today: Paradigm Shifts and Current Scholarly Discourse

While the concept of “disability” including “learning disability” is used in everyday life as a completely understandable and easily communicable concept, it is a topic of controversy in scholarly literature. Differing paradigms are characteristic of the current discourse. From the point of view of education studies in recent years, a clear shift to the systemic-ecological paradigm, which is the basis for the integration of people with disabilities, has taken place. However, “disability” is not a clear-cut, unambiguous concept “because in its quality as a concept which bears the idea of difference (by labelling persons with it or attributing it to persons) it constitutively depends on the definer.” (Speck 1991, pg. 103)

“Disability” is mainly used as an indicator to refer to a specialness of human condition and social deviation. With this function it is used in various social systems and scholarly and scientific disciplines. Through its usage in educational, psychological, sociological and legal contexts it has become a normative concept for orientation, referring to a reality which is special, and which deviates from the “normal.”

Paradigms not only influence the way we think. They also form the basis for concrete actions in all fields of policies which affect both people with disabilities and their families. The attitude towards the issue of “disability/learning disability” governs the concrete action in the framework of legislation, the organisation of support for persons with disabilities, the individual actions of care workers and all involved in this field, the organisation of education and the actions of teachers.

Two equivalent paradigms coexist in current Austrian school legislation: the paradigm of integration/inclusion and the paradigm of segregation. At present, educational policies fail to prioritise one of the two systems/paradigms, which has led to regionally quite diverging developments of the educational offer and its organisation. The “newer” paradigm of integration/inclusion has not replaced segregation, but has been established differently as an additional and/or rivaling system.

Thus it is absolutely necessary to deal with these paradigms first because they establish the basis of the organisation of the educational offers.

1.1. Paradigms Which Are Currently Relevant to Educational Policies

1.1.1. The Paradigm of Segregation

Based on the predominance of medical concepts in the fields of therapeutic pedagogy and special needs education, which had prevailed for decades, disability was seen in terms of the “medical or individual-related paradigm” (BLEIDICK 1979, 68) as a disease with a particular cause and signs and symptoms, the recovery of which could only be reached through special therapies, special experts and in special institutions. According to this approach the affected person was declared to be an incompetent object and likewise treated. The introduction of special schools in the 19th century – or “Hilfsschulen” (assistance schools) as they were called at that time – was without any doubt an important historic landmark, bringing about the abolishment of social segregation and isolation of people with disabilities, 5 which had prevailed for centuries, and enabling children with disabilities to receive some degree of education in a “safe haven” taking into account their weaknesses, and finally resulting in the current situation that the right of children with disabilities to education and learning is no longer questioned. Children who are not admitted to general schools find a place at special schools, where they are generally cared for tenderly and appreciatively. However, the long practise of special schooling has led to the opinion in vast fields of therapeutic pedagogy, special needs education and education policy that special schools were the best and only possible place for learning for children who are considered to exhibit norm deviations. Although it is undisputed that within these “safe havens” high-quality and humanely valuable work is done, and that many pedagogical insights and methods have been gained and developed, still the fact remains that special needs education – under the pretext of special support – is still giving and obstinately defending the commonly accepted justifications which have led to the segregation of groups of children.

With the expansion of the special school system in the second half of the previous century, however, the disadvantages of special schooling have become ever more apparent (cf. BURGENER-WOEFFRAY/JENNY-FUCHS/MOSER-OPITZ 1993, 66 et sqq.):

 stigmatisation and labelling, which imply a lower value for society, fewer social contacts and finally lead to social exclusion;  against all expectations, special schooling does not compensate for “performance deficits” through the work in small groups of affected children and special support (cf. the studies of Haeberlin 1991 and Wocken 2006);  reduced self-esteem, since at special school the self-perception of children with disabilities is mainly directed at their deficits, their deviance from normality, their defects and weaknesses;  the deprivation of developmental opportunities on the one hand through the reduction of learning contents through a “safe haven pedagogy,” and on the other hand through the reduction of crucial social contacts, which rather prevent a positive development of social and emotional character traits;  and finally, social inequality, as BEGEMANN (1984) und PROBST (1973) have sufficiently shown.

1.1.2. The Paradigm of Integration

Although the medical paradigm has become antiquated from the point of view of education studies (cf. FRAGNER 1983, 80 et seq.), it remains – together with the lack of willingness of people without disabilities to deal with the issue of disability – the top reason for the segregation of persons with disabilities in everyday life. According to that persons with special needs should be put in special institutions for special support to promote, attend and possibly heal them. From this point of view it seems to be just natural to segregate these people to be able to re-integrate them later on. This defect-oriented approach of therapeutic pedagogy and special needs education, which among other things becomes apparent in the enshrinement of a highly differentiated Austrian special school system, today faces an ecosystemic attitude, which, adhering to the WHO definition, does not consider disability as a trait of a certain person but rather as a socially determined consequence of individual impairment or any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity (disability). Accordingly, handicap “is a disadvantage for a given individual, resulting from an impairment or a disability, that limits or prevents the fulfilment

6 of a role that is normal (depending on age, sex, and social and cultural factors) for that individual.” Within this paradigm, selection and separation are not seen as the logical consequence of a disability, but as the handicap itself. For his/her development each child needs sufficient input from his/her social and material environment and his/her ecological system, which promotes his/her learning and development within a dialectical interaction process. If children are not properly integrated into their ecosystem and thus do not get sufficient input to deal with their concrete environment, then they are handicapped. SANDER (1994, 105) claimed in this context, “We can speak of a handicap when a person is – due to an impairment or restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity – insufficiently integrated into his/her complex person- environment-system. Such an ecosystemic concept of handicap has the advantage that the focus is put immediately on the process of integration of the respective person into his/her concrete environment, which creates educational opportunities. Because even if impairment and restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity are beyond educational influence – as is often the case – the very handicap, that is, the insufficient integration, can be addressed through educational provisions. The individual environmental conditions can be changed in a way that the person in question is less handicapped than before.” From Sander’s point of view, handicap does not mean a permanent, genetically predetermined defect, but rather a condition of being human which is subject to change influenced by social action and participation. Integration at school is therefore an indispensable means to change the prevalent separation of persons with disabilities in our society in the long run and to provide the necessary bases for a comprehensive social integration of all people. In other words: the means and the end must be the same. Persons with disabilities must no longer be categorised, selected and separated according to their symptoms, but should be regarded as individual persons in the context of their biographic and social environment. The starting point for support should not be the deficits, but the abilities of the pupils.2 Defects or disorders such as trisomy-21, autism, tetraplegia or sensory disorders are as substantial aspects of human existence as health, beauty, youth or illness, aging, death or the intellectual abilities of a genius. Therefore, to accept and promote the diversity of human existence, to treat every person with the same dignity and to confer everyone the same rights, irrespective of their intelligence, mobility, language skills etc must be an endeavour. Equality, and not similarity is one of the fundamental principles of integration.

1.1.3. The Paradigm of Inclusion

Recently, the concept of inclusion – “education for all” – which has emerged from US/Britain, has gained ground in the German speaking countries. According to MITTLER (2000, 10 et seqq.) inclusion is characterised as follows:

 Each child/person has the right to be a full member of society, irrespective of his/her abilities or inabilities. Thus, the question of his/her capability of being integrated has become obsolete.  Inclusion is not about a majority that integrates a minority under certain circumstances, but aims at “equal rights to be different” (PRENGEL 1994, 96).

2 The paradigm shift “away from defects towards abilities” can be seen quite clearly also in the new formulation of the WHO-definition (ICF – International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, WHO 2001), which replaces impairment with body functions, disability with activity/achievement and handicap with participation. 7  Difference is thus not only confined to the characteristics “with or without disability” but is referred to the whole bandwidth of social diversity.  Heterogeneity is considered to be normality and is thus seen as the starting point for learning about and through differences.  It is not the child with his/her special educational need that is in the focus of educational interventions, but the whole class system – and this approach brings about institutional and structural interventions instead of individual-centred measures following individual education plans. Likewise, resources are not to be allocated in a child-related, but rather in a school-related way.  As a consequence, pupils are not categorised according to their deficits, and instead of individual curricula and education plans, binding structures comprising joint reflection and planning processes within the respective team of teachers are implemented.  A common curriculum for all, which is individually adapted, is the basis for education.

If we take the paradigm shift from segregation via integration to inclusion seriously, educational work and policies will have to face new challenges, which are all related to the same basic problem: the dialectical dissolution of equality and difference of all people. Since we live in a diverse and multicultural society it is the paramount task of school to convey the competences which are necessary for living in a humane, democratic and solidary society to all children.

1.2. International Agreements, National Laws

The discourse on education studies and policies has also been reflected in a high number of international and national statements, declarations, treaties and laws as a basis for the development of educational policies, e.g.:

 in the UN World Programme of Action 1983  in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989  in the Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities 1993: “States should recognize the principle of equal primary, secondary and tertiary educational opportunities for children, youth and adults with disabilities, in integrated settings. They should ensure that the education of persons with disabilities is an integral part of the educational system.”  in the enshrinement of integration in the Austrian school system (primary school) 1993  in the UNESCO SALAMANCA Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education 1994, which calls upon all governments and urges them to “adopt as a matter of law or policy the principle of inclusive education […] regardless of individual differences or difficulties” (point 3) and which states that “regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all.”  in the 1994 KMK-Recommendations (Conference of the Ministers of Education of the German länder) on special educational support in German schools, which among other things no longer attach the task of special needs education to special schools, but aims at “the education of young people with disabilities … as a joint task of all schools” (pg. 3) and thus is seen as a Copernican revolution in the organisation of special needs education.

8  in the 1996 prohibition of discriminating against persons with disabilities in Article 3 of the German Constitution  in the enshrinement of integration in the Austrian school system (lower secondary school) 1996  in the Luxembourg Declaration of 1996  in the prohibition of discrimination enshrined in the Austrian Constitution in 1997 (Article 7)  in the Council Resolution on equal opportunities for people with disabilities (2001)3in the Madrid Declaration 20034  in the modification of the Act on Vocational Training 2003  in the Act on Equalisation of Persons with Disabilities 2005

3 http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2003/oct/134_04_en.pdf 4 http://www.madriddeclaration.org/en/dec/dec.htm 9 2. The Occupational Field of Special School Teachers: a Description of the Status Quo

2.1. The Educational System for Children with Special Educational Needs

Children with special educational needs (SEN) basically have two options in their compulsory school education: Either they may attend a special school appropriate for their disability or a mainstream class at primary or lower secondary school. Integration in the ninth grade is still only possible at pre-vocational schools in the framework of pilot projects, which have to be applied for at the competent authorities every year, and do not exist in all Austrian provinces. The necessary legislation in this field is still missing.

Despite a uniform federal legislation, the situation is quite heterogeneous in Austria as far as integration and special schooling are concerned. In 2003 – ten years after integration became legally binding in primary school – e.g. in Styria 80% of children with SEN were attending mainstream schools, in Upper Austria the percentage was 61%, in Vienna 46% and in Vorarlberg 35%.5 In spite of the different developments in the individual provinces, we can take for granted that in the near future the occupational field of special school teachers will comprise special schools and integrative/inclusive education. These two occupational fields represent high and partly diverse challenges and requirements to be met by special school teachers.

2.1.1. The Occupational Field of Integration/Inclusion

Joint education of children with and without disabilities requires supportive framework conditions: fewer pupils in a class, additional teachers, education according to different curricula, adequate teaching materials and forms of teaching such as enhanced efforts towards open, child-oriented, interdisciplinary and individually designed education. In previous pilot projects several models were developed, which offered various provisions according to type and degree of the disability, to regional characteristics, but also to considerations of special needs education.

Two forms of how to integrate pupils with special educational needs have been established in Austria: - a certain number of SEN-pupils are taught in mainstream classes, supported by an additional (special school) teacher (“integrative class”); - single SEN-pupils receive provisions in mainstream classes, where they are taught together with their peers (“single integration”); this form is predominant in rural areas.

The federal provinces have enacted different regulations on the number of pupils and teacher deployment in integrative settings is concerned. (Cf. e.g. Integrationsratgeber BMBWK 2001, S. 26 [Integration guide of the Education Ministry 2001, pg. 26])

Work in Integrative Classes

5 These data are based on surveys by the Ministry of Education, Science and Cultural Affairs and have been processed and presented by Integration:Österreich. 10 In integrative classes of primary school, education is carried out by a team consisting of a special school teacher and a primary school teacher. These teachers are equal partners, and are responsible as a team for the teaching and education of all children. Though the special school teacher focuses on special educational support, he or she should not lose sight of the whole class situation. Teamwork comprises preparation, planning and carrying out of education, cooperation with the parents and all competent institutions and authorities. Also maintaining interdisciplinary contacts to these institutions and networking of all persons involved in school education is highly challenging for the teacher team.

It is also our goal to achieve joint education of all pupils of a class at the level of secondary education (lower secondary schools and lower grades of institutions of general secondary education [AHS]). In these schools organisation is more difficult due to the subject teacher system. Especially as far as the teacher team is concerned we have to make many efforts to find a satisfying solution. We try to keep the teacher team as small as possible, which means that subject teachers also have to teach subjects for which they have not received specific training. Besides, the bigger the team the more complicated it gets for each participating teacher.

Education in Classes with or without a Support Teacher – Single Integration

Classes with a support teacher differ from integrative classes insofar as the special needs teacher only attends the class lesson-wise, depending on the number of children with SEN and their type and degree of disability. The extent of support can range between a few lessons in case of a single child with SEN (single integration) or half a teaching post up to a full teaching post in case of several children with SEN, according to the respective province. Classes with support teachers mainly exist in rural areas, at small primary schools, since there the number of children with SEN which would be necessary for the full-time deployment of a second teacher is not given. From the point of view of the special needs teachers, this means that they have to work in several classes and sometimes even at several schools.

The lesson-wise support should be given by special school teachers who are specially trained for the required type of disability. In recent years appropriate training models or individual “types” of teachers have evolved, again according to the individual provinces. Apart from support teachers, who assist children with learning difficulties, the Austrian provinces have developed manifold peripatetic teaching models, e.g. peripatetic speech and language therapists, peripatetic teachers for children with auditive or visual disabilities, advisory teacher for children with difficult behaviour, etc.

Forms of Supportive Education According to the Viennese Model

With the following description of the Viennese model, we want to illustrate how diverse the different support systems – and thus also the occupational fields of special needs teachers – can be.

 Peripatetic speech and language therapists have been assisting children with speech and language disorders at regular schools since 1921.  There are two models for children with behavioural problems. Teachers of both models work with these children at mainstream schools. The teachers have received different

11 training and have a different educational approach (depth psychology versus behavioural psychology).  In Vienna, support teachers work with children with learning difficulties at primary schools.  The assistance teacher model was developed to support children with mother tongues other than German.  Some time later, the training for support teachers and assistance teachers was streamlined. The result was the model of the remedial teacher.  For children with physical and sensory disorders, a peripatetic assistance system with adequately trained teachers has also been developed.

2.1.2. The Occupational Field of Special School

According to Article 25 section 2 of the Austrian School Organisation Act (SchOG) the following special school types are provided:

a. General special school (for children with learning difficulties) b. Special school for children with physical disabilities c. Special school for children with speech and language disorders d. Special school for hard of hearing children e. Special school for the deaf (Centre for Educational Services for the Deaf) f. Special school for children with visual disabilities g. Special school for blind children (Centre for Educational Services for the Blind) h. Special school for children with behavioural problems i. Special school for children with severe disabilities

Section 4 and 5 of the SchOG also regulates the organisation of hospital classes (schools) and classes (schools) for children with multiple disabilities. Also the organisation of the special school system within Austria varies from province to province. Not all types of special schools exist in all provinces, and sometimes several types are combined at one location and specific classes are installed, such as classes for speech and language therapy or classes for children with severe disabilities at general special schools. The pre-vocational year at special school (with separate curriculum provisions) has been part of the educational offer since the school year 2000/01. (Article 24, Section 1 SchOG)

This overview illustrates the diversity of the competences of special school teachers and the demands placed upon them. Generally, the different curricula of compulsory school can be applied in all types of special schools. Normally, special school teachers at special schools work with the class teacher system. Despite low numbers of pupils, the class composition is highly heterogeneous. At general special school, teachers more often teach children who attend basic level II (grade 4-5) or upper level education (grade 6-8), because a child may only be determined to have a learning disability after all possible support measures have been exploited in primary school.

The ninth grade of special school serves for pre-vocational training and can be attended by pupils in their ninth year of compulsory education. They also have the opportunity to complete the 8th grade of special school that year and obtain a school leaving certificate. This offer is very well accepted. Support for job orientation for the children is therefore a central task of special school teachers.

12 In the individual types of classes or schools mentioned above special school teachers work as a team and/or are supported by care workers, assistants and teachers with special training for specific types of disabilities.

2.1.3. The Occupational Field of Special Education Centres

Special education centres were introduced in the context of the legal enshrinement of integrative/inclusive education, and have the task to guarantee the successful implementation of integrative/inclusive education in their function as competence centres and resource centres. Special education centres are special schools which have the task of providing and coordinating special needs provision for other types of schools to guarantee that children with SEN are also taught at general schools in the best possible way. (SchOG Article 27 a (1)). What is important in this context is that compulsory school teachers who are deployed at general schools and teach children with SEN have to be supported by the special education centres.

The occupational field of special education centres comprises further specific competences, especially in the area of counselling, team development and conflict management. Apart from support for teachers directly at the schools, special education centres also have the task of providing counselling for parents, and informing them about the educational possibilities for their children. The issuing of expert opinions and collaboration in the design of individual education plans are among the most important tasks of Special Education Centres, and require well-founded diagnostic knowledge.

2.1.4. Preview of the Future Occupational Field of Special School Teachers

 The main fields of activity will be integrative classes, higher grades of general special school and special school classes for children with severe disabilities. (Already more than 50% of all children with SEN are integrated, and a large number of new teachers will be deployed in integrative classes of lower secondary school or as support teachers.)  The integration of pupils into the labour world, and hence also their job orientation and preparation, will be another important aspect of the occupational field of special school teachers.  Special school teachers will become ever more important “key persons” for special needs support of pupils with SEN, and therefore must be qualified to find individual organisational solutions.  More intensive cooperation of special school teachers with other teachers and experts will be necessary.  For the issuing of expert opinions and for individual support of the respective child’s learning progress a high level of competence in the field of provision diagnosis and developmental psychology is expected.  Teamwork – especially in classes of lower secondary education – is a key element of successful integration/inclusion; experience with teamwork must have already been gained and reflected upon during teacher training.

2.1.5. Considerations Regarding a New Occupational Title

13 With regard to the occupational field described above, the occupational title “special school teacher” today can no longer be considered appropriate. Firstly, many special school teachers are already working in integrative education at primary and lower secondary schools, secondly, the term special school teacher does not allow for the paradigm shift from the medical to the ecosystemic approach in education studies: “Even the hitherto used job title ‘special school teacher’ is proof of this dilemma because I daresay that already more than half of this teacher group are no longer deployed at special schools. The same would, however, apply to ‘integration teachers,’ who should also have the qualifications to perform the role of a class teacher of a special school class.” (Hackl/Gruber 2006, 1) This discussion is also highly topical on an international level. For example decision makers in the Swiss canton of Lucerne are considering launching a training programme for a “teacher for integrative support” (www.bildungsplanung-zentral.ch; June 2005). In Austria we could change the job title to “remedial teacher” (instead of the current “ASO-teacher” [teacher of general special school]). A concept similar to the Swiss concept would also be fit for the developments in Germany, where today special needs experts mainly refer to “focuses of support” (focus of support on learning, focus of support on speech and language, etc.). Additional qualifications acquired in the framework of focus training could be called as follows:

“Remedial teacher with focus of support on speech and language” (instead of the previous speech and language therapist); “Remedial teacher with focus of support on intellectual development” (instead of the previous special school teacher for children with severe disabilities).

Related to the above mentioned types of special schools further focuses could be set, such as:

* focus of support on social and emotional development * focus of support on hearing * focus of support on vision * focus of support on motor function * focus of support on health.

These newly termed categories would emphasize the paradigm shift from defect-orientation to competence-orientation, still they disregard primary and lower secondary school teachers, who definitely also do excellent work in the field of support. In addition, the systemic aspect of the integration teachers’ occupation is not expressed by these concepts. The discussion of a new job title would further entail adjustments of all respective regulations in public service legislation. Given that such comprehensive changes cannot be implemented as soon as may be desired, and that the new Act on Teacher Training Colleges still provides for a “teacher training course for education at special schools,” in this position paper we pragmatically retain the term “special school teacher.”

However, it shall be emphasised once more that the discussion on new job titles must be taken up again in due time.

14 3. Status Quo of Initial and Further Training of Special School Teachers

Basic Studies (Stage I) of Special School Teacher Training

The study programme for prospective special school teachers – similar to the programme for primary and lower secondary school teachers – comprises six semesters, and is concluded with a diploma. It is offered at almost all Teacher Training Academies (the study programme comprises 164 hours per semester equalling 180 ECTS). The focus of the study programme is put on learning disability including integrative/inclusive pedagogy. In addition, other branches of special needs education dealing with areas such as the education of persons with mental disabilities or persons with speech and language disorders can complement the study programme. After having completed this programme teachers are entitled to work at general special schools or in integrative classes. However, they can also be deployed in special schools for children with severe disabilities or in other types of special school.

Advanced Studies (Stage II): Diploma Studies for Special School Teachers at Primary and Lower Secondary Schools

Advanced studies for primary and lower secondary school teachers who want to obtain a diploma of special school education are also offered at many Teacher Training Academies and at some Pedagogical Institutes. Depending on the courses completed before, which can be accredited, the advanced studies comprise between 60 and 90 ECTS. Normally, the advanced study courses are offered in-service, and last about 2 semesters.

Further Training – Academy Courses

Academy courses on “Special School forCchildren with Behavioural Problems,” “Speech and Language Therapy” and “Education of Children with Intellectual Disabilities” are offered predominantly at teacher training academies, but also at pedagogical institutes, and generally comprise 60 ECTS. In most cases, prospective advisory teachers must have done some part or the complete programme of “Special School for Children with Behavioural Problems,” which is the precondition for further studies with the focus on self-awareness and supervision.

The training of teachers for the hard of hearing, children with visual and physical disabilities and of hospital teachers is offered through academy courses, which are organised on a federal level by the competent Pedagogical Institute: Education of the hard of hearing: PI/Lower Austria; education of children with visual disabilities: PI/Styria; education of children with physical disabilities: PI/Salzburg; hospital teacher training: PI/Upper Austria. These courses are in-service and comprise 60 ECTS.

Many requirements which have emerged due to recent developments (e.g. curriculum for the pre-vocational year) are treated either only too little or are not considered at all during basic training. This is why some teacher training academies have set up courses to fill this gap (e.g. job orientation, ICT in special needs education). These contents will have to be adequately laid down in the future study programmes.

15 4. Demands on Future Initial and Further Training of Special School Teachers

”As educators we have to acknowledge that it is normal to be different, (KANTER 1998, 3) and that commonality is the prerequisite for being able to accept difference (ANTOR 1988, 16).” (quoted by EBERWEIN 1994, 58)

4.1. Integrative Education: New Challenges for All Teachers

The paradigm shifts within education studies, the resulting changes in the Austrian school system and in the occupational field of special school teachers, and the related additional challenges must be reflected in state-of-the-art training within all study programmes of the future Teacher Training Colleges.

The whole concept of integration/inclusion inevitably implies that the roles of all teachers in compulsory education must be redefined. “Currently, the occupational self-awareness of special needs teachers is influenced by their work in special school through their career choice, their training, and most of all, their job experience. This means that these teachers assume on the basis of their day-to-day experience that it is they who take over the task of supporting children with special needs from the mainstream school system” (SCHÖLER 2000, 172).

It is one of the central tasks of the training of primary and lower secondary school teachers to stimulate them to discuss and reflect their own postures and concepts concerning the issue of disability critically to overcome segregating attitudes. Every student should get to know the relevant conceptual and operational approaches (paradigms) of special needs education and integrative/inclusive education, and their evolution in the historical context, and should be inspired to reflect upon the fundamental questions on ethics related to the respective paradigm, and to make deliberate value decisions.

Joint education of children with and without disabilities must be pupil-centred. The teacher is not primarily imparting knowledge, but accompanying pupils in their personal and individual development within their social community. The pupils’ different levels of attention, different paces of work, needs for exercise and communication cannot be eliminated as disturbing factors, but must be regarded as individual learning conditions, and be integrated in teaching to make sure that each pupil can develop successfully. Therefore, integrative/inclusive education now requires all teachers to develop the following social, emotional and professional skills (cf. FEYERER & FRAGNER 1994, 45):

 internal differentiation of a most heterogeneous group of pupils through individualisation  open, project-oriented and pupil-centred forms of education  usage and production of new teaching materials, design of learning environments  process-oriented support diagnostics (using appropriate tools) and the design of individual education plans  new forms of assessment, feedback and evaluation of achievements which record the individual pupil’s learning progress and his/her individual learning conditions  close collaboration with one or more teachers – teamwork  adapting oneself and reacting to the actions of the respective partner(s)  joint discussions of what has happened/will happen during education  reflection and adaptation of one’s own values, attitudes and action patterns

16  increased parental involvement  intercultural learning  promoting gifted students  gender education  interdisciplinary collaboration with other teachers, therapists and institutions within or beyond the school environment  autonomous and permanent further training via exchange of experience, literature, etc.  quality assurance and school development (e.g. using the Index for Inclusion)  public relations together with all school partners to positively influence public opinions

All teacher training courses should be designed in such a way that the above mentioned competences are not only taught, but can in fact be acquired. Because what is true for the learning of children is also true for the learning of students. Education can only be successful when the methods correspond to the intended goals. Apart from a change of the contents of teacher training the development of the organisation of the studies is also necessary, because integrative/inclusive teacher training must be oriented towards, and evaluated by the principles of an integrative/inclusive pedagogy (cf. FEYERER 1998, 38 et seqq.). Heterogeneity, cooperative and autonomous learning of common learning contents and internal differentiation by individualisation must also be substantial pillars of teacher training.

Thus special emphasis must be put on the link between theory, practise and person. The student teacher must not only be seen as the one who just applies given scholarly knowledge, but as a partner on his/her own responsibility in a bilateral communication and collaboration process. Although learning contents and forms are established by the external framework necessary for organisational matters, the students have diverse scopes of action within the system to be able to acquire specific competences according to their own interests, needs and skills.

“Active dealing with practical fields which are crucial for life” as the basis of self-reflexive and demand-oriented studies require participation of students in deciding the learning contents. For successful studying, it is necessary to fall back regularly on phases of reflection and planning of learning processes. The learning contents to deal with can be organised in modules to maintain an overview while at the same time retaining a high degree of flexibility. The design of project- and activity-oriented education with open forms of learning must not only be taught, but above all, learnt. Professors and lecturers thus have to apply the principles of integrative pedagogy themselves, and to make it possible for students to develop a culture of autonomous and flexible learning.

This approach also includes the aspect of team teaching, which is the most important factor of the success of integration at school. On the one hand, students should become aware of their own expectations, their opinions and attitudes in this respect, and should learn various communication strategies in a separate seminar. On the other hand, basic skills necessary for cooperation, such as candidness, critical faculties, and to acknowledge that everyone within the team is equal, should be part of everyday life through the organisation of the study programme.

Open and individualised education, which is both process and product-oriented, and does not regard learners just as recipients of the knowledge of others, but as producers of their own knowledge for and from practise, must thus consequently renounce knowledge testing, which is just aimed at control purposes. This does, however, not mean that achievements and evidence of attainment become obsolete. Performance and feedback should rather be adapted

17 to what is intended by the learning process. This implies that apart from autonomous work with corresponding literature manifold assignments such as the drafting of individual education and development plans for a child, the implementation and documentation of an own project together with pupils, the production of teaching materials, the planning of individualised levels of education, etc. must be tackled by the students. Students receive feedback from their lecturers, professors and their colleagues. In addition, they can become better aware of their individual teaching and learning strategies by keeping a learning diary.

4.2. Specific Requirements for Special School Teachers

In addition to the general requirements for all teachers described above, special school teachers must acquire in-depth knowledge of human sciences, education studies, subject- related studies and didactics, specific therapeutical and special needs methods for early detection, prevention and reduction of learning barriers in their training, and be able to apply them in practise. In order to achieve successful team-teaching of special school teachers and primary or lower secondary school teachers, both groups must bring along clearly differentiated knowledge and different competences. The special school teacher should, for example, be able to support children with learning difficulties, and promote their overall development either in special school or in integrative settings together with the class teacher working in that class. To this end it is also necessary to apply diagnosis procedures aimed at special support – apart from classic teaching methods, to maintain contact with the parents and external experts, write expert opinions, and support pupils and the respective experts at the interfaces (kindergarten – primary school, primary school – lower secondary school, school – job). Individual education plans as the basis for individualised support are elaborated together with the involved persons, and are evaluated on a regular basis. Support measures are normally applied within the class community, they can, however, also be employed individually, in groups or beyond the class community. Competence transfer and sensitisation for the manifold needs of pupils is made possible by targeted information and concrete cooperation.

4.2.1. Specific Contents of Special School Teacher Training

The basic training of special school teachers should prepare prospective special school teachers to teach children and adolescents with learning disabilities in general special schools and integrative settings. Apart from basic contents and competences comprising human sciences, subject-specific studies and didactics, special school teacher training must offer the following additional courses:

 basics of education studies on learning and behavioural problems such as: * critical analysis of the developments of theories for the support focuses “learning” and “social and emotional development” * the correlation between perception, thinking, communication and action * the organisation of teaching and learning, learning support materials * the psychological, social and occupational effects of special schooling  support diagnostics: the theory of cooperative support diagnostics and support planning, getting to know, and applying appropriate instruments for analysing the status quo of

18 learning, learning processes, development of individual education plans with the involved persons  in-depth contents of subject-related studies and didactics in the subjects German and mathematics: getting to know specific support offers (e.g. Marburg spelling training, Kiel reading skills training, Würzburg training for phonemic awareness)  in-depth subject-related contents and didactics concerning motion and sports for the musical-creative field (e.g. psycho-motor function, outdoor education, Jeux dramatiques)  specific methods of special needs education for early detection, prevention and elimination of learning barriers (e.g. assisted communication, TEACH, assistance in case of perception problems, sensory integration)  use of ICT in the framework of individual support, and for the reduction of existing barriers  subject-related contents and didactics for all subjects of lower secondary education  job orientation and vocational preparatory year: curriculum, phases and methods of the job orientation process, networking of school and labour world, assistance programmes, post- compulsory school qualification programmes; legal regulations  foreign language (English)  drafting of expert opinions to identify special educational needs, critical reflection on expert status, appropriate instruments and procedures for diagnosis  developing competences for counselling children, adolescents, parents and teachers; conversation techniques and methods, reflection on counselling situations; parental involvement  teamwork – team development: practising teamwork, promoting and obstructive factors; methods of team development  internal and external networks/offers of school (e.g. Special Education Centres, early support, clearing institutions, school psychology, mobile services); community work – community care

4.3. Organisation and Structure of the Study Programme

4.3.1. Introduction

The Salamanca Statement recommends in point 45 and 46: Specialized training in special needs education leading to additional qualifications should normally be integrated with or preceeded by training and experience as a regular education teacher in order to ensure complementarity and mobility. The training of special teachers needs to be reconsidered with a view to enabling them to work in different settings and to play a key role in special educational needs programmes. A non-categorical approach encompassing all types of disabilities should be developed as a common core, prior to further specialization in one or more disability-specific areas. Hence we can draw the conclusion that teachers of primary, lower secondary and special school, who are supposed to work together in a team, require at least a partially common training. Therefore, basic training without specific categories is necessary before specialising in special needs education. On this basis pedagogical approaches, skills and competences can be developed,

* which on the one hand allow for the reduction of dogmas, and thus leads in the long run to a child-centred and development-related pedagogy in compulsory education, and

19 * which on the other hand guarantee necessary special knowledge for targeted support of children and adolescents with special educational needs.

4.3.2. Basic Training of Special School Teachers

The future teacher training colleges should increasingly incorporate basic contents of special needs education and integration/inclusion into all types of teacher training courses, also in the context of specialised didactics for primary and lower secondary school teachers. Integration/inclusion and individualised support of children with learning and behavioural difficulties can only be implemented successfully when all teachers have adequate basic knowledge in this respect. In the framework of the project INTEGER, in which the federal teacher training academies of Vienna and Upper Austria participated, a curriculum was developed which suggests a “fundament of inclusive/integrative education” (http://integer.phlinz.at).

The first part of the study programme (1st and 2nd semester) should be organised in any case as an orientation phase by means of a basic educational module embracing all courses and subjects, within which basic skills and competences such as interdisciplinary cooperation, usage of ICT, barrier reduction concerning learning participation, social and intercultural learning and creativity can be achieved. The course offer should comprise a well-balanced mixture of subject-specific contents, practical phases and project-oriented courses to obtain the competences listed above.

From the 2nd part of the study programme onwards, the school-type specific contents will become more important. Nevertheless, it will be necessary to offer compulsory interdisciplinary courses throughout teacher training which enable prospective primary, lower secondary and special school teachers to collaborate effectively in integrative classes.

In order to enable special school teachers to acquire the utmost of competences and specialised skills within their six semester training, it seems reasonable to organise training in modules (compulsory and optional modules) which are partly interdisciplinary.

Phases of practical work in integrative classes (in teams together with prospective primary and lower secondary school teachers) are to be implemented already in the framework of the basic study programme to guarantee effective treatment of integration/inclusion in theory and practise.

By setting up nodes between teacher training and regional networks, a dynamic interchange process should be launched; teacher training colleges should become the venues for dialogue between teachers, students, practical experts, education policy makers and affected persons. At the same time, they could contribute an important share to public relations and lobbying for convincing decision makers from government and administration of the concept of integration/inclusion.

4.3.3. Further Training (College Courses)

Apart from initial special school teacher training, it will be necessary to offer in-service courses for teaching pupils with diverse types of disabilities. Adhering to the Bologna Declaration this further training should be organised in such a way that students will graduate

20 with an MA. Given the fact that the Act on the Teacher Training Colleges does not provide for this possibility, the following college courses should be offered on the basis of the existing teacher training academy courses:

College courses

 speech and language education (focus of support on speech and language)  education of children with severe disabilities (focus of support on intellectual development)  education of children with behavioural problems (focus of support on social and emotional development)  education of the hard of hearing (focus of support on hearing)  education of children with visual disabilities (focus of support on vision)  education of children with physical disabilities (focus of support on motor function)  education in hospitals (focus of support on health)

The individual college courses should be designed like the previously offered academy courses comprising 60 ECTS, and should be possibly organised in modules. If teachers want to become special school teachers in addition to the post they already hold (at primary, lower secondary or pre-vocational school), they have two possibilities: * a college course for teaching at special schools (focus of support on “learning”; previously advanced study programme, 60-90 ECTS), or * a college course for a certain type of special school (60 ECTS) and one of the basic modules of focus of support on “learning” (30-60 ECTS).

In accordance with the regulation explained above, special school teachers who wish to obtain further qualifications for teaching at compulsory schools must also be admitted to college courses. In addition to basic training for all compulsory school teachers, a positive development of integration/inclusion would surely be encouraged by programmes of further training on a master level. A corresponding curriculum was already implemented from 2001 to 2004 in the project EUMIE (European Masters in Inclusive Education) as the successor project to INTEGER6. In the framework of this European study programme, critical “multipliers of inclusive processes” are trained in diverse occupational areas (early support, preschool education, school, college, nurseries, private institutions for integration on the job, measures of the public authorities for social integration, public institutions). The realisation of such a master programme comprising 120 ECTS could become effective e.g. through a cooperation of several teacher training colleges.

4.4. Summary of the Consequences for the Planning of the Study Programmes a) Study Programme for Special School Teacher Training

 The initial training comprising six semesters (and 180 ECTS points) should enable future special school teachers to work at general special schools in integrative settings, and to play a key role in the support of children with SEN.  Training should be interdisciplinary, and organised in modules wherever this is possible.

6 The results of the projects INTEGER and EUMIE are available on the internet (http://integer.phlinz.at and http://eumie.phlinz.at). There, you will find more information on the projects and the collaborating partner universities and colleges. 21  Structure of the study programme: 1st part (1st + 2nd semester): Basic studies of integrative/inclusive education with a high degree (ca. 80%) of joint courses with students of primary and lower secondary school teacher training to acquire basic competences and a lesser degree (ca. 20%) of compulsory modules on the basics of special needs education. 2nd part: * 3rd + 4th semester: A higher degree of contents concerning special needs education as a general basis for work in special school classes and integrative systems (ca. 75%). Elective courses allow the setting of personal priorities. Interdisciplinary courses take place to a far lesser degree (ca. 25%) (e.g. practical course taking into account the aspects of heterogeneity; drafting of education plans) * 5th + 6th semester: Only a small share (ca. 5%) of joint courses together with students of primary and lower secondary school studies (school development, team teaching, research on integrative/inclusive practises and specific support measures); more freedom to set individual priorities (ca. 95%).  The specific contents are described under 4.2.1. b) Study Programme for Primary, Lower Secondary and Special School Teacher Training

 Basic skills and competences concerning integrative/inclusive education are to be included in all study programmes in terms of an “integrative/inclusive educational fundament,” and to be organised in such a way that groups from different study programmes can work together on the following issues:

* paradigm shifts * critical discussion and reflection of one’s own attitudes and concepts of disability * legal bases * overview of the different types of disabilities, and the resulting set of methods and didactics * basics of the educational support of children and adolescents with behavioural problems and learning difficulties (e.g. reading and writing difficulties, dyscalculia, ADHD) * differentiation and individualisation * support diagnostics and individual education plan * how to identify special educational needs * Special Education Centres * social learning * intercultural learning * gender education * school development and quality management

 Experts on human sciences, didactics and teacher training should cooperate through team teaching to impart the learning contents so that students can gain experience with this type of teaching, and reflect upon it. Alternative forms of evaluation and assessment should also be applied in courses where this seems to be appropriate.

22  In order to build the highest synergies possible, contents should be arranged in networks. The share of autonomous learning should be increased to promote investigative learning.

 Admission requirements and exam conditions must be organised in such a way as to enable students with disabilities to attend the study programmes of teacher training for primary, lower secondary or special school as well.

23 Bibliography

Begemann, E.: Schüler und Lern-Behinderungen. Zum pädagogischen Auftrag des Lehrers. Ein Studienbuch. Bad Heilbronn/Obb., 1984

Bleidick, Ullrich: Sonderpädagogische Grundlegungsprobleme. Kurseinheit der Fernuniver- sität Hagen, 1979

Burgener-Woeffray, Andrea/Jenny-Fuchs, Elisabeth/Moser-Opitz, Elisabeth: Integration von behinderten Menschen : Separation oder Integration? In: Behinderte in Familie, Schule und Gesellschaft 16 (1993) 4, S. 65–71

Eberwein, H.: Zur Bedeutung qualitativ-ethnographischer Methoden für die integrationspädagogische Forschung. In: Eberwein, Hans. (Hrsg.): Behinderte und Nichtbehinderte lernen gemeinsam. Handbuch der Integrationspädagogik. 3. Auflage. Weinheim; Basel: Beltz, 1994, 369 – 376

Eberwein, H./ Knauer, S.: Rückwirkungen integrativen Unterrichts auf Teamarbeit und Lehrerrolle. In: Eberwein, Hans. (Hrsg.): Behinderte und Nichtbehinderte lernen gemeinsam.

Handbuch der Integrationspädagogik. 3. Auflage. Weinheim; Basel: Beltz, 1994, 291 – 295

Eberwein, Hans: Zur Kritik des Behinderungsbegriffes und des sonderpädagogischen Paradigmas. Integration als Aufgabe der allgemeinen Pädagogik und Schule. In: Eberwein, Hans. (Hrsg.): Einführung in die Integrationspädagogik. Interdisziplinäre Zugangsweisen sowie Aspekte universitärer Ausbildung von Lehrern und Diplompädagogen. Weinheim : Deutscher Studien Verlag, 1996, 9 – 37 Empfehlungen zur sonderpädagogischen Förderung in den Schulen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 6.5.1994

Feyerer, E.: Integer – Ein europäisches Curriculumsentwicklungsprogramm für eine integrative Lehrer/innenbildung. In: Feyerer, E. & Prammer, W. (Hrsg.): 10 Jahre Integration in Oberösterreich. Ein Grund zum Feiern!? Beiträge zum 5. Praktikerforum. Schriften der Pädagogischen Akademie des Bundes in Oberösterreich, Band 10. Linz: Universitätsverlag Rudolf Trauner, 2000, 198 – 204

Feyerer, E.: Computer and Inclusive Education, In: Computers helping people with special needs : 8th international conference ; proceedings / ICCHP 2002, Linz, Austria, July 15 -22, 2002. Klaus Miesenberger … (ed.) – Berlin; Heidelberg; New York; Barcelona; Hong Kong; London; Milan; Paris; Tokyo: Springer, 2002, p. 64-67

Feyerer, Ewald; Fragner, Josef: Lehrer–Bildung als entscheidender Faktor für das Gelingen der schulischen Integration. In: Zeitschrift Behinderte in Familie, Schule und Gesellschaft, 17. Jg., Heft 1, 1994, 25 – 50

Feyerer, E./Miesenberger, K./Wohlhart, D.: ICT and Assistive Technology in Teachers Education and Training, In: Computers helping people with special needs : 8th international conference; proceedings / ICCHP 2002, Linz, Austria, July 15 -22, 2002. Klaus Miesenberger …(ed.) – Berlin; Heidelberg; New York; Barcelona; Hong Kong; London; Milan; Paris; Tokyo: Springer, 2002, p. 107-114

24 Feyerer, E./Prammer, W.: Gemeinsamer Unterricht in der Sekundarstufe I. Anregungen für eine integrative Praxis. Weinheim; Berlin; Basel: Beltz, 2003

Fragner, Josef: Der genormte Mensch hat sich in den Mittelpunkt gedrängt, in: Behinderte, 6. Jg., Heft 4/83, 38 – 45

Fragner, Josef: Eine Schule für alle inmitten von Ausgrenzung. In: Zeitschrift Behinderte in Familie, Schule und Gesellschaft, 22. Jg., Heft 1, 1999, 21 – 28

Hackl, Dagmar/Gruber, Heinz: Pädagogische Hochschulen – eine neue Lehrerbildung für Österreichs Pflichtschulen. In: Heilpädagogik, Jg. 49, Heft 2/2006, S. 1 - 6

Haeberlin, U.: Das Menschenbild für die Heilpädagogik. Bern, Stuttgart: Hauptverlag, 1985

Mittler, P.: Working Towards Inclusive Education. Social Contexts. London: David Fulton, 2000

Prengel, A.: Zur Dialektik von Gleichheit und Differenz in der Integrationspädagogik. In:

Eberwein, Hans. (Hrsg.): Behinderte und Nichtbehinderte lernen gemeinsam. Handbuch der Integrationspädagogik. 3. Auflage. Weinheim; Basel: Beltz, 1994, 93 – 98

Österreichische UNESCO Kommission: Pädagogik für besondere Bedürfnisse. Die Salamanca Erklärung und der Aktionsrahmen zur Pädagogik für besondere Bedürfnisse. Linz: domino texte, 1996

Probst, H. H.: Die scheinbare und wirkliche Funktion des Intelligenztests im Sonderschulüberweisungsverfahren. In: Abé, I. u.a.: Kritik der Sonderpädagogik. Gießen, 1973, 107 – 183

Sander, Alfred: Behinderungsbegriffe und ihre Konsequenzen für die Integration. In: Eberwein, H. (Hrsg.). Behinderte und Nichtbehinderte lernen gemeinsam. Handbuch der Integrationspädagogik. 3. Auflage. Weinheim; Basel: Beltz, 1994, 99 – 107

Wocken, H.: Andere Länder, andere Schüler, vergleichende Untersuchungen von Förderschülern in den Bundesländern Brandenburg, Hamburg und Niedersachsen, www. bidok.de, 2006

25

Load more

  25

Copy Link