Hipótesis Principal

The findings of many of the studies reviewed in this chapter indicate that the academic attainments of DHH students, whether taught in inclusive classrooms or in special classrooms, could be attributed to several factors, including differences in student-related and family characteristics (e.g. age of hearing loss onset, prior academic achievement and parental hearing status) and certain psychosocial and demographic-related variables. In a sense, this supports the argument that it is difficult to attribute any difference to the programmes themselves. This conclusion is supported by the assertion of Spencer and Marschark (2010) that there was little available evidence concerning academic achievement of deaf students enrolled in mainstream versus separate programmes.

Notwithstanding such uncertainty, the above review has identified several studies in favour of the integration/inclusion of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Overall, there seems to be a consensus in favour of the importance of integration for students with special educational needs generally and for DHH students as a part of this group. Some of these studies have also emphasised the importance of having clear-cut legislation that regulates the process of moving such students from special to mainstream schools and of providing all necessary human resources, teaching aids and other relevant prerequisites beforehand, to make inclusive education successful (Al-Musa, 2007).

114

However, this general feature of positive attitudes towards integration/inclusion of all special needs students was not unconditional and there were some reservations about its implications; for instance, more teachers were uncertain about the practicality of full inclusion. In addition, there were inconsistencies, whereby some studies found that participants’ attitudes towards integration were positively related to length of experience (Berryman, 1989; Center and Ward, 1987; Clough and Lindsay, 1991), gender (Aksamit, Morris and Leunberger, 1987; Eichinger, Rizzo and Sirotnik, 1991; Thomas, 1985), nature of disability (Center and Ward, 1987) or specialization (Sari, 2007), whereas others indicated a negative influence of these contextual factors and some found no relationship at all (Avramidis et al., 2000; Leyser, Volkan and Ilan, 1989; Rogers, 1987; Stephens and Braun, 1980; Elshabrawy, 2010). There was also some inconsistency between groups, with students showing positive attitudes towards integration (Hung et al., 2006), while teachers and administrators working at special schools tended to express relatively negative attitudes towards some inclusive practices and believed that there was little benefit for students either with or without SEN. In particular, it seems that teacher-related factors were inconsistent as a reliable indicator of teachers’ attitudes towards integration (Avramidis, 2001; Avramidis and Norwich, 2002; Elshabrawy, 2010).

Additionally, this review indicates that it is very important to provide mainstream schools with consistent support (Sari, 2007) and resources, in order to accommodate all the additional needs of students with special needs (Center and Ward, 1987; Clough and Lindsay, 1991; Myles and Simpson, 1989). This includes easy access to all classrooms, toilets, playgrounds, dining-rooms, teaching aids, lab materials, DHH user-friendly posters and banners with cued and alphabetical Arabic Sign Language, and other related resources would be provided, such as auditory training of specialized teachers, teaching assistants (El-Zraigat, 2013), in-service training and resource rooms where individualized education plans would be carried out. The availability of teaching materials is important (LeRoy and Simpson, 1996; Center and Ward, 1987), while itinerant teachers could give short courses in advanced sign language for special teachers and basic courses for generalist teachers and administrators.

It is usually advisable that education reform does not blindly replicate others’ experience of inclusion. It might take the form of a gradual systematic transfer of educational

115

experiences, leading to educational progress socially and academically compatible with the Saudi educational ethos, embedded within Islamic ethics. It could carry on from the point that others have reached, benefiting from their experience and avoiding known drawbacks (Elshabrawy, 2010). Norwich (2013) proposes that to achieve a level of conceptual reform and to address the multidimensional nature of inclusion, educators should distinguish ‘placement inclusion’ from ‘participation inclusion’ in order to make its implications more explicit. For instance, in Greece (as in Saudi Arabia) separate special classes in mainstream schools (presence inclusion) of SEN students are called ‘inclusion classes’ (participating exclusion), whereas in the UK withdrawal units for students with behavioural difficulties are called ‘inclusion centres’ (Norwich, 2013). Research has indicated that some educators working in special schools view temporary withdrawal to a separate setting as being ‘inclusive’ in the sense of facilitating access for SEN students to engage in learning the same curriculum as other students (Norwich, 2008). Norwich then suggests four dimensions and four levels of inclusion (Figure 3.2).

Presence Academic Participation Belonging: Social Participation Achievement National Local School 4 2 Class 3 1 1

Figure 3.2 Levels and dimensions of inclusion (Norwich, 2013)

This arrows indicate tensions in the meaning of ‘inclusion’ across the levels and dimensions:

- Class level: students with disability/difficulty might be included in terms of presence at mainstream school (placement inclusion) but not necessarily participating academically or socially (participating exclusion) (arrow 1).

116

- School level: students with disability/difficulty might be present at mainstream school (placement inclusion) but not necessarily feeling that they really belong there (belonging exclusion) (arrow 2).

- Local authority level: students with disability/difficulty study at separate locations from ordinary schools (placement exclusion) but are sometimes in the mainstream school system at local authority level (arrow 4).

- Presence dimension: students with disability/difficulty might be members of mainstream school (placement inclusion) but outside the mainstream classroom (academic exclusion) (arrow 3).

It is important for the GDSE, as the major stakeholder in Saudi special education policy- making, to learn lessons from other countries that have introduced DHH inclusive education. We should build on the successes of others, as evidence-based practice, not try to reinvent the wheel. For example, Table 3.8 lists UN documents concerning SEN- related legislation, policies and regulations.

Table 3.8 UN conventions affecting DHH inclusion

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNICEF, 1989) states that inclusive education should be the goal for the education of ‘children with disabilities’.

The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994) requires signatory nations to ensure that all their educational policies stipulate that disabled children attend the local school that would be attended if the child did not have a disability.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006), requires state parties to ensure that there is an inclusive education system at all levels (Article 24).

In the United Kingdom, the concept of inclusion in education goes back to the Warnock Report of 1978. Table 3.9 lists UK legislation and policy documents relevant to the education of children and young people with SEN and disabilities in mainstream schools.

117

Table 3.9 UK legislation and policy documents on SEN and inclusion

The Warnock Report on special educational needs (1978). The Education Act (1981).

The Excellence for All Children with Special Educational Needs Green Paper (1997), which emphasised educational commitment to the principle of inclusion.

The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA, 2001). Every Child Matters Green Paper (2003).

Warnock Report (2005).

Special Educational Needs Green Paper (Support and Aspiration: A New approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability, 2012).

However, it does not appear that legislation has led to the delivery of full/radical inclusive practices for all special educational needs students in the UK. In 2005, Baroness Warnock publicly specified what she had said before, that some special schools were needed. In 2011, the National Union of Teachers reaffirmed its “commitment to the goal and development of inclusive education” (Cheshire East Parents and Carers Voice Conference, 2012, p. 4). The Green Paper ‘Support and Aspiration; A new Approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability’ (2012) proposes changes to the current approach to providing support for SEND students, by “removing the bias towards Inclusion in education”. Some other literature provides detailed accounts and guidelines on approaches to developing effective inclusive policies and practices for all students, with and without SEN (Farrell & Ainscow, 2002; Booth & Ainscow, 2002; Ballard, 1999; Mittler, 2000; Audit Commission, 2002). These have been complemented by reviews of research in this area (Sebba & Sachdev, 1997; Harrower, 1999; Farrell, 2000). These publications focus on two main interrelated aspects that appear to be critical to the success and effectiveness of SEN inclusion: mainstream class teachers’ beliefs and experiences (Ward, 1994; Forlin, 1995; Davis, 2002; Ainscow et al., 2003) and the way in which support is provided to SEN students in the mainstream classroom (Farrell, Balshaw, & Polat, 1999; DfES, 2000; Balshaw & Farrell, 2002). Inclusion advocates talk of children’s right to be included in mainstream education, assert the wider personal and societal benefits of inclusion and describe education in special schools as segregated, discriminatory and oppressive (Cheshire East Parents and Carers Voice Conference, 2012).

118

Similarly, there are detailed regulations related to the provision of special education and inclusion policies in the USA, as presented in Table 3.10.

Table 3.10 US legislation and regulations on special education and inclusion

The Education of All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142, 1975).

Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA, P.L. 101-476, 1990) and its amendment (P.L. 105-17, 1997).

No Child Left Behind, IDEA (2004).

While these various Western and international documents go into considerable detail on the provision of inclusive education and other alternative placements for children with SEN and disabilities, DHH inclusion in Saudi Arabia is still in its early stages (Al-Musa, 2007). This implies a threefold need: for major infrastructure improvement, for an open theoretical and academic debate on the inclusion philosophy and its implications, and for steps towards inclusive education. More lessons should be learned in the form of organisational and legislative improvement at the various levels of the GDSE, the MoE and the thirteen LEAs regarding their policies towards DHH inclusion, mainstream programmes, CPD and in-service specialized development of teachers and administrators, moving towards a whole-school approach for better parental involvement, maintaining modern in-class support services and resources for DHH students, and consistent evaluation of successful mainstream programmes. Peneston (2012) argues that the MoE should support local authorities and mainstream schools as resources for providing in- service assistance as they transition those newly transferred teachers, which may lead to improved student outcomes. Furthermore, fundamental to ongoing professional development opportunities for new teachers and those transferred into DHH inclusive education are policies, procedures of mainstream school inclusive pedagogy, classroom modifications, behaviour management techniques and general classroom operations. Norwich (2013) suggests a model of inclusive pedagogy in terms of curriculum, knowledge and teaching strategies as interactive elements. The pedagogy in this model involves decisions about three elements of inclusive pedagogy as a generic term (Figure 3.3):

119

Figure 3.3 Model of pedagogy in terms of curriculum, knowledge and teaching strategies Curriculum here means what is to be learned, while knowledge refers to what is required to decide on teaching strategies, i.e. how to teach (sign language in case of DHH inclusion). The effectiveness and importance of this model is that it makes it easy to consider specialisation of one or more elements in the pedagogical model. This implies, for instance, that DHH students may require teaching strategies (sign language or bilingual approach) and knowledge specialization (the implications of D/deafness for teaching and learning) for mainstream teachers to support these students to learn in mainstream classrooms. The current study also found that some educators had unfavourable views of Deaf inclusion. This is consistent with the historical tendency for special schools to persist as a parallel, separate educational alternative for SEN students (Ainscow et al., 1999). This implies that newly qualified or transferred teachers need to be professionally well prepared, specially trained in sign language fluency and exposed to experiences of teaching differently in order to welcome diverse students and to change classroom practices from within (Ainscow, 2007).