Home| Keynote Speeches| Workshop Papers| Other Documents
Inclusion is a new name for an old practice. Whether we call it mainstreaming, integration, or inclusion, the practice is the same: placing disabled people beside non-disabled persons for education, employment, leisure activities, and life. It is not a new idea in the field of visual impairment. In 1806, an Austrian educator, Johann Wilhelm Klein, advocated for placing blind children in local schools alongside their sighted peers (Koestler, 1976; Farrell, 1956) In the mid 1800's, there were blind pupils in sighted classes in Scotland, and by 1878, this practice had spread to Germany (Farrell, 1956). In 1879, twelve blind teachers in London were supervising 200 blind children in the city schools (Bledsoe, 1993).
In the United States, in the late 1800's, Samuel Gridley Howe, the Director of the Perkins School for the Blind, declared that blind children could be taught with sighted children in the regular schools, and that residential schools should "reject everyone who could be taught in the common schools" (Koestler, 1976, p.408). In 1900, parents in Chicago demanded education closer to home than the state's residential school , and classes for blind children were opened in the regular schools. By 1920, there were at least six other urban areas that had public school classes for blind children. Clearly, inclusion was an accepted educational philosophy for blind children long before any legislation mandated it.
If this was so, why did it gradually disappear in Europe? In the mid 1900's, both England and Scotland passed legislation that returned their blind students to residential schools, and this direction was followed by most other countries in Europe. The reasons for this change in direction were both spoken and silent. The verbalized rationale was that there were too few blind students to make the programs practical , too few teachers trained to work with the students, and a lack of special materials. The unspoken reasons were that administrators had no understanding of the unique learning needs of blind children, and these children were not being prepared adequately to survive socially and economically after their formal education was over. Moreover, society was not ready then to accept disability in the mainstream. It seems to me that nearly 50 years later, all of these reasons still exist, and we are still trying to solve the same problems.
In the United States, education for visually impaired children continued in the direction of inclusion, not so much because it was administratively condoned or philosophically accepted, but because we suddenly had a medical epidemic that produced more visually impaired children than the residential schools could accommodate. Public schools were flooded with visually impaired children, largely because parents wanted them at home. We were forced to face problems the rest of the world had legislated away, and we were forced to solve them as quickly as we could. Multiple teacher training programs began; materials and equipment were produced; and programs expanded to include rural areas. Itinerant teachers began providing support to local schools. The Pinebrook Report of 1954 described the state-of-the-art in service delivery at that time, and it is still a part of our national legislation - the continuum of placement options.
It is interesting to note that without the pressure from parents to have their visually impaired children attend a local school, these efforts might not have had the same urgency. It is also interesting to observe that large-scale mainstreaming for visually impaired students in the United States began more than 20 years before it was mandated by law for all disabled students. Our visually impaired students opened the door, and the rest of the disabled children were able to follow.
What did we learn from early efforts to include our visually impaired children in public schools? From efforts abroad, we learned that there must be enough specially trained teachers available, and that there must be an adequate supply of special materials and equipment. In the United States, we recognized that no single method of education is best for all visually impaired children (Carroll, 1961), and that "simply attending a neighborhood school with non-disabled peers does not insure integration" (Bina, 1993, p. 213). We learned that placing visually impaired children in regular classes does not make them like their peers, does not guarantee social interaction, and seldom works as well as it is supposed to work (Nixon, 1991). The reality is that some visually impaired students may not profit from mainstreaming. Placement must be decided on an individual basis, not on a state or district policy.
We learned that residential schools and public schools both have roles in the educative process, that they both have advantages and disadvantages, and that "both working together can contribute more to the building of a better educational program than they can by going their separate ways" (Scholl , 1993, p. 177). We leaned that educational placements for visually impaired children could shift between public and residential schools, at varying times in a child's life, and as his/her educational needs changed.
We learned that the attitudes, beliefs, and needs of parents are a powerful and promising force, but both educators and parents must be realistic, both about an individual visually impaired student's capabilities, and about societal barriers (Nixon, 1991). Legislating an educational philosophy does not always result in the realization of dreams.
We recognized that integrated placements without preparation seldom works. The school (both regular teachers and administrators) must be informed and receptive, and the child should have the tool skills that will enable him/her to compete with sighted peers (Bishop, 1990). Social needs must be addressed through preparation of sighted peers and the readiness of the visually impaired student to interact age appropriately. When social skills are not addressed during placement planning, isolation within the mainstream can occur (Hoben & Lindstrom, 1980). Research supports that social skills are primary factors leading towards success in inclusive settings (Bishop, 1986); if they are inadequate, the visually impaired student may end up becoming a lonely, isolated adult.
Have we learned anything else about inclusion in more recent times? Decidedly "yes," and a number of themes emerge from the literature worldwide (Al-Ghanim, 1989; Bina, 1993; Bishop, 1986, 1990, 1996; Brohier, 1989; Crespo, 1989; Hatlen, 1993; Holbrook, 1996; Kadmon, 1989; Kinos, 1993; Lebech, 1990; Lewis, 1994; Orlansky, 1989; Pagliano, 1989; Rosney, 1989; Saez, 1989; Schulze, 1989).
1. Integration begins within
the family. The attitudes of families are powerful forces that can mean
the difference between success and failure at school, especially when the
placement is in an integrated setting. There is no longer any doubt that
a strong, secure family can do much to prepare a visually impaired child
for life in the sighted world. Early intervention by professional educators
can support families, can enlist their reinforcement of school learning,
and can help them act as their child's first advocate. Parents who understand
the limitations as well as the possibilities of inclusive school settings
will be able to help make more informed decisions about placements.
2. Legislation can give
strength to efforts towards integration. In countries where there are no
compulsory education laws, or none for visually impaired children, it is
harder to implement innovative programs. In some countries, accepted "public
policy" may allow the inclusion of visually impaired students in public
educational environments, but unless that policy becomes law, there is
little strength in it. If inclusive educational settings are a goal, then
any efforts towards getting that philosophy legislated will certainly support
that idea and give it more power.
3. The most effective inclusion
occurs when certain conditions are present:
a. The visually impaired
student must have acquired the skills needed to compete with sighted peers.
"You don't learn to swim by being thrown into the water" (Bina, 1993, p.
213). Pushing integration before a student has the skills to be successful
there, only invites failure, lowered self-esteem, and isolation. The capabilities
of the student should be carefully evaluated before a placement decision
is made, and any serious deficits remediated before placement (Bina, 1993;
Bishop, 1990; Hatlen, 1993). Mainstreaming is a difficult enough process
by itself; it is neither fair nor reasonable to expect a visually impaired
child to succeed in this setting unless he/she has the necessary tools
and skills to do so.
b. The receiving school
(where the inclusion is to take place) must have cooperative and willing
administrators, flexible and receptive regular teachers, and a basic understanding
of the unique ways a visually impaired child learns. The characteristics
of the regular school are often taken for granted, but classroom teachers
and school administrators do not leave their personal biases at the school
's front door; if no efforts are made to change any negative feelings,
the visually impaired student will feel their effects sooner or later.
Time spent in educating regu1ar school personnel will have benefits for
the student later on.
c. There must be adequate
special materials and equipment. There is almost universal agreement that
the special materials and equipment needed by a visually impaired student
in a regular school are essential to success. The problem is not so much
in accepting this idea as in obtaining the materials/equipment. Many of
these are expensive, and there may be few if any funds set aside for obtaining
them. Every creative effort to acquire the necessary materials and equipment
should be explored.
d. There must be support
from specially trained teachers. It has been said many times that mainstreaming
only works when the regular teachers have support from a special teacher.
The lack of these special teachers is a worldwide problem, more serious
in some countries than others. Where there is no teacher preparation program,
the supply of special teachers is diminished. This is an urgent problem
that merits attention from educators worldwide.
e. Parents must be involved.
Parents should be involved in the educational process at all levels, but,
unfortunately, too many parents are left out of this process. Sometimes
it is by choice because parents defer judgment to the educational experts,
but it can also be because the school views parental involvement as interference.
Every effort should be made to establish open communication between professionals
and parents from the beginning, building trust and respect on both sides.
More progress can be made when a team agrees than when it argues.
f. There must be a variety
of placement choices, and the freedom to use these options as needed. The
continuum (or array) of placement choices is rarely complete at any given
time or place. It is certainly an ideal to work towards, however, remembering
that programs should always fit the student, not students fitted into existing
programs. Any given option can be a restrictive learning environment at
any given time if it offers minimal opportunity for learning success. Placements
should always provide the special skill instruction that will assure success
in future settings. It is the challenge of the placement team to find the
site where the student may get what he/she needs at that point in time.
No single placement should be a permanent placement, unless the student
can learn successfully in that setting.
g. There must be peer support
groups of other visually impaired students. It is becoming increasingly
clear that totally separating a disabled child from other similarly disabled
children can have serious negative effects. Inclusive settings often result
in a disabled child being the only one in the class who is impaired. Contact
with other similarly impaired students helps to alleviate the feeling of
being different. Educators have found that summer camps, retreats, encounter
groups or just putting a child in touch by phone, letter, or E-mail with
another similarly disabled child can ease the stigma of difference. Positive
role models (e.g., a competent, older visually impaired child or adult)
can also fill the need for "someone like me" to talk to. Adolescents especially
seem to need this special peer contact, and every attempt should be made
to provide it in some way.
Now that we have a pretty
good idea what it takes to make inclusion work, I would propose ten strategies
to facilitate the inclusion process:
1. Be sure you have a clear
idea about what constitutes inclusion. It is not a single system for visually
impaired students, but a goal to be reached; it is one option among the
array (Bina, 1993; Lewis, 1994). Be sure you can explain the difference
between inclusion as a placement and inclusion as a goal.
2. Collect data about the
child, the receiving school, the family, and the community before making
a placement decision (Bishop, 1990). An ecological assessment can help
in deciding which factors are present or absent, and whether an integrated
placement is likely to be successful or not. We should not be intentionally
exposing our visually impaired students to possible failure when we, as
educators, may be able to anticipate the probable outcome in advance.
3. Clarify the difference
between preparation for graduation and preparation for life (Alonso, 1990;
Bina, 1993; Bishop, 1996; Hatlen, 1990, 1993). Many main streamed visually
impaired students leave school without independent living skills, self-esteem,
social skills, and useful job skills, and they are poorly motivated towards
employment (Alonso, 1990). Their integrated education may have addressed
only academics, and left out the necessary survival skills learned spontaneously
by their sighted peers. The acceptance of an additional "core" curriculum
(Bishop, 1996; Hatlen, 1990, 1993), which must be taught outside the integrated
classroom, may be the single biggest challenge for educators. We may need
to allow after-school scheduling by itinerant teachers, or add Saturday
school and summer school. However it is done, it must be done, or we will
not be preparing our visually impaired students adequately to function
within an integrated society. Part of the extra competencies needed by
many of our visually impaired students are social skills - the natural,
personal interaction with others that vision loss seems to diminish. At
least two studies have documented the need for social skills as an instructional
area (Sacks et al , 1992; Hoben & Lindstrom, 1980), and both have suggested
an indirect, cooperative approach to learning them. The cooperative learning
experience can pair a visually impaired student with a sighted student,
or makes the visually impaired student a member of a learning team; creative
materials are provided so that dialogue and social interaction must be
used to complete an assignment. This cooperative learning approach can
be easily utilized in an integrated setting, and may become a required
instructional technique for our mainstreamed visually impaired students.
4. Educate parents. There
is no longer any question about the value of parental contribution and
participation in the educational process. The challenge now is how to educate
parents, so that they understand their vital role and can participate as
informed members of the team. Workshops, retreats, parent-to-parent contacts,
and parent newsletters have all been tried successfully.
5. Increase the number of
specially trained teachers available. University-based teacher preparation
programs are the ideal . In the absence of such programs, special teachers
may have to be "home-grown. That is, selected, competent, regular teachers
would volunteer to participate in training provided by either a visiting
professor or by correspondence, and would agree to become a local special
teacher at the end of their training. Informational packets, correspondence
courses, videotapes, or distance learning (by satellite, TV, Internet,
etc.) could provide the basic information, and worksheets or written assignments
could be exchanged by mail with university personnel who are knowledgeable
about visual impairments. This challenge must be met if inclusion is to
work!
6. Increase the sharing
of professional knowledge (Barraga , 1989). Since most communication of
knowledge (new ideas and practices) commonly comes through universities
or teacher preparation programs, the scarcity of these programs outside
the United States may present one of the larger challenges in information
sharing. As the capabilities of technology expand, however, perhaps a database
could be developed, with at least one access point in every country. Although
this idea may sound ambitious, the technology explosion may help the dream
be realized sooner than we think.
7. Increase access to equipment
and materials. Since the problem here is primarily money, the solution
may be simply those who have it helping those who don't. Often, no one
knows what is needed, by whom, and where. A central clearinghouse might
be the solution. Someone in an international organization, such as ICEVI,
might be willing to collect lists of needs and lists of those who have
materials to give; the needs could be matched with the available materials,
and exchanges made. Ads in journals or newsletters might also be possible
solutions.
8. Track graduates (Alonso,
1990; De La Garza & Erin, 1993; Geruschat, 1993; Hatlen, 1993). Several
educators have suggested that schools should find out where their graduates
end up. Are they at home and unemployed? Have they been assimilated into
their community? Are they socially active? Since employment and community
integration should be reasonable outcomes of educational programs, it might
be a good idea to see if these programs are actually doing what they think
they are doing. If not, analyze why not. Are the students employable? Do
they have adequate travel skills? Can they live independently? Are their
social skills acceptable? Any of these deficits might be traced to weaknesses
in the school programs, and could give direction for improvement.
9. Use facilities more creatively
(McEwan, 1992; Scholl , 1993). There is increasing discussion in professional
journals and at professional meetings about the changing role of the residential
school. The cooperative attitude that seems to be developing between residential
schools and public schools is indeed a good sign. Each has unique assets,
and together they could provide a better array of placement choices than
either could alone. Although the public schools can provide the inclusive
settings, the residential schools could contribute functions that would
enhance inclusive placements. Residential schools could act as diagnostic
centers, resource and research centers, demonstration schools, and short-term
placements. They could provide professional training institutes, professional
outreach consultation, summer school programs, low vision clinics, and
enrichment programs. Public schools, on the other hand, could expand the
use of their facilities to include after-school recreation for mainstreamed
students, special tutoring, job-readiness testing and training, and adult
continuing-education courses which visually impaired adults could attend.
The assets of both public and residential schools must be used more cooperatively
and less competitively to obtain the most efficient benefits.
10. Continue to break down
societal barriers and modify public attitudes about blindness and visual
impairment (Augusto & McGraw, 1990; Verplanken et al, 1994). The changing
of attitudes is a complex issue because it involves both knowledge and
emotion. Simply providing more information is not effective until blindness
is humanized. Talking to a blind person and getting to know him/her touches
the emotional, or "gut level" of attitudes. In school programs, we can
prepare our students to be good examples by teaching good posture and gait,
good grooming, the use of facial expression to express emotion, body language
and gestures; we can help to extinguish negative mannerisms, and can teach
good conversational skills. When our visually impaired students are placed
in inclusive settings, they will present a more positive appearance, both
to peers and adults. The better we prepare them to be competent, capable,
confident, independent, and employable, the more acceptable blindness will
become as a trait instead of a disability and the more inclusion will work.
The philosophical appeal of inclusion is its opportunity for equality and its supposed preparation for life. However, the most excellent academic setting without attention to other aspects of development does not provide preparation for life, and simply placing visually impaired students in regular schools without providing support staff and equipment that allows learning at the same level as other children is not equal opportunity (Brohier, 1989). We need to heed the lessons of the past 100 years in the education of visually impaired children, and not repeat the mistakes. We owe it to our visually impaired children to truly give them equal opportunity to learn, and to prepare them for full inclusion in their communities and in society.
REFERENCES
Al-Ghanim, A. (1989). Blindness and educational services for blind persons in the Middle East Region. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 83, 13-15.
Alonso, L. (1990). Educational reform: The responsibilities of mainstream administrators. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 84, 347-349.
Augusto, C. & McGraw, J. (1990). Humanizing blindness through public education. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 84, 397-400.
Barraga, N. (1989). Perspectives on working with visually impaired persons worldwide: Looking forward. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 83, 84-87.
Bina, M. (1993). Do myths associated with schools for students who are blind negatively affect placement decisions? Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 87, 213-215.
Bishop, V. (1986). Identifying the components of success in mainstreaming. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 80, 939-946.
Bishop, V. (1990). Educational placement decision-making: An ecological model. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 84, 350-353.
Bishop, V. (1996). Teaching visually impaired children. Springfield,IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Bledsoe, C. (1993). Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe and the family tree of residential schools. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 87, 174-176.
Brohier, W. (1989). Equalizing opportunities for blind and visually impaired children around the world. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 83, 5-7.
Carroll, T. (1961). Blindness: What it is, what it does, and how to live with it. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
Crespo, S. (1989). The assessment of education for the visually impaired population in Latin America. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 83, 7-11.
De La Garza, D. & Erin, J. (1993). Employment status and quality of life of graduates of a state residential school. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 87, 229-233.
Farrell, G. (1956). The story of blindness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Geruschat, D. (1993). Employment and residential status of graduates from a residential school . Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 87, 234-237.
Hatlen P. (1990). Meeting the unique needs of pupils with visual impairment. RE:view, 22, 79-82.
Hatlen, P. (1993). A personal odyssey on schools for blind children. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 87, 171-174.
Hoben, M. & Lindstrom, V. (1980). Evidence of isolation in the mainstream. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 74, 289-292.
Holbrook, C. (1996). Children with visual impairments: A parents' guide. Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House, Inc.
Kadmon, H. (1989). Education of the blind and visually impaired population of Israel Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 83, 26-30.
Kinos, M. (1993). A camp for blind and sighted children in Finland. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 87, 153-154.
Koestler, F. (1976). The unseen minority. New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
Lebech, P. (1990). The Vordingborg model: Integration and rehabilitation of visually impaired persons in Denmark. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 84, 257-259.
Lewis, 5. (1994). Full inclusion: An option or a system? Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 88, 293-294.
McEwan, R. , Wier, S., & McBride, A. (1992). Upgrading the academic and job skills of blind and visually impaired adults in a public secondary school. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 86, 284-287.
Nixon, H. (1991). Mainstreaming and the American dream. New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
Orlansky, M. (1989). Education of blind and visually impaired children of North America and the Caribbean. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 83, 16-18.
Pagliano, P. (1989). Current trends in the education of children with visual impairment in Australia. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 83, 35-39.
Pinebrook Report (1954). New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
Rosney, B. (1989). Integration of visually impaired students in an Irish second level school. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 83, 46-47.
Sacks, S., Kekelis, L. & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1992). The development of social skills by blind and visually impaired students. New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
Saez, P. (1989). Integration of blind and visually impaired children: The philosophy. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 83, 54-56.
Scholl, G. (1993). Educational programs for blind children: A kaleidoscopic view. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 87, 177-180.
Schulze, H. (1989). Education and professional opportunities for blind persons in China: A European perspective. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 83, 60-63
Verplanken, B., Meijnders, A., van de Wege, A. (1994). Emotion and cognition: Attitudes toward persons who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 88, 504-511.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Beyond seeing and hearing: Teaching geography to sensory impaired children: An integrated based curriculum.(1992). National Council for Geographic Education, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Cooperative learning project: Evaluations and recommendations. (From the Reducing Isolation in the Mainstream project) (1980). Hennepin Technical Centers, 1820 N. Xenium Lane, Minneapolis, MN.
Cronin, P. (no date). A blind student in the regular primary classroom: Methods of teaching. Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Cronin, P. & Misso, N. (no date). Possible environmental modifications to school settings for visually impaired students. Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Gale, G. & Cronin, P. (1990). A blind child in my classroom: A handbook for primary teachers. Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Gallagher, P. (1986). Educational games for visually impaired and sighted children. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.
Levack, N., Hauser, S., Newton, L. & Stephenson, P. (1996). Basic skills for community living: A curriculum for students with visual impairments and multiple disabilities. Austin, TX: Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired.
Loumiet, R. & Levack, N. (1993). Independent living: A curriculum with adaptations for students with visual impairments. Austin, TX: Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired.
McConnell, J. (1984). Integration of visually handicapped students in industrial education classes: An overview. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 78, 319-323.
Pfisterer, U. (1983). Games for all of us: Activities for blind and sighted children in integrated settings. Royal Vistorian Institute for the Blind, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Pogrund, R. (1995). TAPS: Teaching age-appropriate purposeful skills: An orientation and mobility curriculum for students with visual impairments. Austin, TX: Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired.
Ponchilla, P. (1995). Access sports; A model for adapting mainstream sports activities for individuals with visual impairments. RE:view, 27, 5-14.