McMillin

Educating those who are Different: A Comparison of Inclusion and Related Special Education Practices in the United States and Europe

All children (are to) be provided with a free and appropriate education.- IDEA, 1975 (Hunt, 2011)

Throughout the years, tending to those children who are identified as having special needs has become a key element in terms of schooling. Before several different policies were enacted in various countries, children with special needs were rarely included in mainstream classrooms and not recognized as equals. However, a shift began to occur. For example, when the IDEA policy was revised in the United States in 1990, it not only emphasized that compliance with the LRE (Least Restrictive Environment) is not only expected, it is obligatory but also, children with special educational needs were to be placed in the general education classroom, to the maximum extent possible (Hunt, 2011). This, in turn, led to the birth of inclusion practices in, specifically, United States schools. General education teachers are learning how to accommodate for these particular students and coming up with the best methods possible to give these children the education they deserve. The idea of inclusion was something I have seen time and time again in the United States schools, considering I was beginning school when inclusion first took off, but more importantly because I had a learning disability during my early

McMillin childhood years. I had Audio Processing Disorder, which made it much more difficult to

learn verbally and hearing English felt like hearing a second language. Without inclusion practices, the laws enacted, and the accommodations I was provided, I may not have had the opportunity to learn alongside my peers without disabilities. Also, inclusion practices have risen during my college career as a preservice early childhood educator. I have taken classes on how to differentiate or modify lessons to fit all different types of learners. This has led to applying these skills into my lesson plans, which links to inclusion because I have had to take into consideration all different types of learners, special needs or not. Furthermore, I have learned about different types of disabilities, accommodations that could be used, and the laws that protect children with special needs. This was the idea I had in mind about inclusion when I went abroad to Europe to observe in the Austrian and Luxembourg schools. While observing, I noticed that inclusion practices truly varied based on the countries I visited. For instance, there was less evidence of inclusion in Austria versus the Luxembourg schools. In Austria, I noticed one instance where there are two groups in German and Mathematics divided into healthy children and special needs groups for those types of instruction (Austria Notes). Also, in another school, I observed special needs students have different work and they sometimes work together (Austria Notes). While Austria was differentiating their material to fit these particular students, there was little evidence of the students with special needs working with other students, which goes against inclusion. In Luxembourg, I saw more inclusion practices being used. For example, one teacher used differentiation in terms of lessons such as lesson booklets differentiated by

McMillin color (Luxembourg Notes). Also, another group of team teachers in another school modifications for students who struggle such as a child in a classroom who has a time

tracker in order to keep her on task while she writes (Luxembourg Observations). These examples have shown that children with learning difficulties and special needs are incorporate in the regular classrooms with modifications; it is clear that these children are given as much of an opportunity as children without disabilities. With this in mind, I gathered research from various other countries in Europe to see what their view of inclusion practices were, and if it matched my observations. Based on the research Ive gathered, it did help further my point that truly varies by country. However, most countries in Europe are moving towards inclusion, but it is a slow process. There are a few countries that are either stuck in the segregation or mostly the integration phase of special education. Furthermore, some countries in Europe are having a difficult time understanding how inclusion truly works. However, an international policy titled the Salamanca Statement was written in 1994 and applied to most European countries, which has allowed me to look at inclusion policies in both the United States and Europe in a different light. Taking all of my research into account, the evidence I have found on United States inclusion practices and various European (i.e. Germany, Scotland, the United Kingdom, and various others countries) inclusion practices shows varying opinions on how these practices are implemented, if at all, and the positive and negative viewpoints of inclusion in both areas of the world. However, I have come to realize that for the most part inclusive education practices have only marginally been accomplished in the U.S. (Hunt, 2011).

McMillin In order to best develop the similarities and differences of inclusion between the United States and Europe, each countrys policies and practices need to be fully examined, beginning with the United States. Throughout the years in the United States, the special education system has given children with disabilities much greater access to

public education, established an infrastructure for educating them, helped with the earlier identification of disabilities, and promoted greater inclusion of these children alongside their nondisabled peers (Aron & Loprest, 2012). However, despite these advances, many problems remain, including the over- and under identification of certain subgroups of students, delays in identifying and serving students, and bureaucratic, regulatory, and financial barriers that complicate the program for everyone involved (Aron & Loprest, 2012). There are many pros and cons with the inclusion system in the United States that need to be examined carefully. The road to inclusion as a special education practice in the United States began as early as the 1950s with the court case Brown v. Board of Education (BOE). This particular case in 1954 overturned a 60-year law that had, until then, endorsed separate schools for black and white children, and thus declared that separate is not equal (Hunt, 2011). It goes on to also mention while the success of Brown v. BOE and its association with the forthcoming special education law remains controversial, there is little doubt that historical links between Brown v. BOE and PL 94-142 (and later IDEA) are often presented and maintained throughout special education literature, maintaining political and historical links among them (Hunt, 2011). The idea that this famous court case was stating that schools needed to become segregated brought on awareness for not just African-Americans, but other minority groups, such as those with special needs.

McMillin Awareness for those with special needs gained more attention when the civil

rights movement in the 1960s began taking shape. It led to a major shift in the disability rights movement (Aron & Loprest, 2012). Furthermore, in 1965, Congress creates the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (Hunt, 2011). The creation of the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped was a big step; however, according to the article Disability and the Education System, before the 1970s, no major federal laws specifically protected the civil or constitutional rights of Americans with disabilities (Aron & Loprest, 2012). When the 1970s did come about, a series of court cases related to children with disabilities such as PARC v. Pennsylvania and Mills v. D.C. BOE, (which) rule(d) in favor of children with disabilities and their families, and their right to an education (Hunt, 2011). By 1973, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 came about, which banned recipients of federal funds from discriminating against people with disabilities. For the first time, a federal law stated that excluding or segregating an individual with a disability constituted discrimination (Aron & Loprest, 2012). This particular law led to an even more important law protecting those children with disabilities. It is known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which was first established in 1975. IDEA established the rights of children with disabilities to attend public schools, to receive services designed to meet their needs free of charge, and, to the greatest extent possible, to receive instruction in regular education classrooms alongside nondisabled children and these core substantive rights at the heart of IDEA are embodied in the phrase, a free, appropriate, public education in the least restrictive environment (Aron & Loprest, 2012). IDEA was later revised three times: in 1990, 1997, and 2004. In the

McMillin

1990 revision, a requirement was added, which is that each state examines the outcomes of students with disabilities (Hunt, 2011). Most importantly, the revision in 1997 focused on improving students access to the general education classroom and curriculum (Aron & Loprest, 2012). Thus, the practice of inclusion was born. Since the 1990s, these (revisions to IDEA) United States polices have highlighted the integration, mainstreaming, and/or inclusion of children with disabilities into general education classrooms (Hunt, 2011). This, in turn, correlates with the rise of special education. By 2002-03, more than 5.5 million public school students aged 6-21 received special education services (13.5%). (Powell, 2009). Also, these figures signal the increased access to public schooling for children with disabilities as well as elaborate classification systems of SEN (Special Educational Needs) (Powell, 2009). Because of these rising numbers, general education teachers are now more than ever expected to modify their lessons, team-teach with special educators, and make the proper accommodations necessary, especially since the last revision of IDEA in 2004. This particular revision mandated that the academic goals of students with disabilities must reflect the state mandated curricular goals of non-disabled students, and further mandated that all students, without exception, must participate in state-wide assessments, further cementing the need for all children to have access to, participate in, and progress through the general curriculum (Hunt, 2011). Now these students were required to be part of testing, just like anyone else. While according to one article, inclusive education practices have only marginally been accomplished in the U.S. (Hunt, 2011), there is an argument that inclusion in the United States is not all it seems to be. According to one article titled

McMillin Special Education in the United States and Germany, even as half of all American students in special education remain in the general classroom for most of their school day, considerable differences between states remain. Nationally, still a quarter of all special education students are separated for most of their school day or segregated the

entire day (Powell, 2009). Also, up to a third of all students spend some portion of their school day in special education classrooms (Powell, 2009). This shows that while inclusion is really in full swing, there are still some gaps in the inclusion system because some students are not spending full days in general education classrooms. Furthermore, since they are required to be placed in the least restrictive environment possible, some of these students may not be able to be incorporated into general education classrooms for a full day. However, the biggest criticism towards the United States inclusion practices lies in relation to IDEA 2004, which was described above as mandating all students to participate in statewide assessments (Hunt, 2011). In the article titled, Salamanca Statement and IDEA 2004: possibilities of practice for inclusive education, the author argues, many scholars in the field (of special education) agree that little advancement is evident in the discourses afforded by PL 94-142, IDEA, and IDEA 2004 (Hunt, 2011). Critics of this particular policy view that testing is taking more importance than integrating those students with special needs into general classes. For example, they state that IDEA 2004 is a textual alignment between special education policy and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the preoccupation is with access to testing and not access to curriculum or participation in educational opportunities (Hunt, 2011).

McMillin One last highlight to take into consideration is the notion that maybe special education practices in the U.S. are unintentionally promoting exclusion. For instance,

the possibilities of practices afforded by IDEA 2004 relate to the condition of exclusion (rather than inclusion) from the regular educational environment and thus implies that there are circumstances under which the most restrictive environment would be appropriate (Hunt, 2011). I find this to be particular interesting because my prior knowledge of inclusion is to provide the least restrictive environment possible. I never would have considered the notion that inclusive education is not mention at all throughout the most current special education laws, especially because inclusion and using the least restrictive environment are highly encouraged. Now that the United States inclusion practices have been fully examined, it is time to focus on the European inclusion practices and what the countries involved are doing to make this happen. As Ive stated previously, I took real notice based on discussions with colleagues and my observations in Austria and Luxembourg that practices truly vary based on country, with Austria having little evidence of inclusion practices and Luxembourg having more evidence of inclusion practices similar to the United States. Some countries are making small steps towards inclusion while others are not making as much progress. In order to support my observations Ive made during my time abroad, Ive found evidence and data from other European countries such as Germany, Scotland, the United Kingdom, and various others. Again, some of these countries inclusion practices are very similar to one another and some are quite different. Unlike the United States, inclusion in Europe is a slow process. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, integration was the method of choice. According to one article, integration

McMillin was demanding rights to schooling and education for disabled children (Vislie, 2003). However, they (children) in most countries did not have this right. Due to their disability, they were either provided for in other institutions (social, medical, etc.) or not in any institution at all (by category, excluded as not educable) (Vislie, 2003). This was shown to be an issue because integration did no have much focus on teaching and learning or on classroom process, which led to special education becoming a real concern in all countries (Vislie, 2003).

One policy that would shape European special education came into affect in 1994 was the Salamanca Statement. The conference with World Congress on Special Needs Education took place in Salamanca, Spain, hence the name of the policy. Adopted by 92 governments and 25 organizations, this policy is the first to bring children with disabilities to the fore, and to offer a clean outline of inclusive education as the vehicle for strategies outlined in Education for All (Hunt, 2011). Also, student abilities and strengths take centre stage, inclusive education is defined and indicators of quality of participation in education are offered and all children regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic, or other conditions. This should include disabled and gifted children, street working children, children from remote or nomadic populations, children from linguistic, ethnic, or cultural minorities and children from other disadvantaged or marginalized areas or groups (Hunt, 2011). The Salamanca Statement not only addressed students with disabilities, but those with other barriers, making it a unique policy, which is something the United States does not have. However, while this statement would help countries go towards inclusion, it is up to each nation state to determine the actual endorsement and enactment of each policy (Hunt, 2011).

McMillin 10 As the statement says above, it is each nation states decision on how to enact policies related to special education. In a particular study found in the article From integration to inclusion: focusing global trends and changes in the western European societies by Lise Vislie, a study was done with SEN (Special Educational Needs) students in different countries in 1990 and again in 1996. Fourteen European countries were examined in the study: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden. While it is an older piece of data, it still holds extreme value into how European societies practice inclusion today. The first table (see Figure One) examines the percentages of recorded SEN students of total student populations in compulsory education (1990 and 1996) in 14 European countries (Vislie, 2003). Huge differences between countries relative number of special education students recorded exists in this set of data. For example, Norway is an example of a non-categorical system, where students with special educational needs are neither categorized in the law nor in the curriculum (Vislie, 2003). However, the percentage of recorded SEN students is surprisingly high in Norway (Vislie, 2003). Some other countries such as one I personally observed in, Austria, had 2.6% recorded SEN students in 1990 and 3.7% in 1996, a 1.1% increase (Vislie, 2003). On the contrary, Finland had 17.1% recorded SEN students in 1990 and 15.0% in 1996 (Vislie, 2003). While the latter is uncertain, this shows a 1.9% decrease of recorded SEN students. Another table (see Figure Two) examines students in segregated school provisions as percentages of total populations in compulsory education in 14 European countries (Vislie, 2003). In other words, (the table) concerns the groups not included in

McMillin 11 mainstream education, that is the students in separate special education provisions- a segment of compulsory education still existing in the western school system (Vislie, 2003). Furthermore, (the table) is constructed on two sets of data for a comparison regarding the proportion of students of compulsory school age in segregated provisions, that is either special schools or classes, respectively in 1990 and 1996 (Vislie, 2003). According to the data, the highest percentages of students in segregated provisions at both registration points (more than 3.5 percent) are noted for The Netherlands, Germany and Belgium, (1.3%, 0.6%, and 0.3/0.1% increases of students in segregated provisions respectively) while the lowest percentages are noted for Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden (data estimate uncertain, data estimate uncertain, 0.7%, 0.7%, and 0.8% decreases of students in segregated provisions respectively) (Vislie, 2003). With Austria (the only country I visited included in this data), there was a 0.2% increase in segregated provisions, which was not as surprising due to the lack of inclusion practices I noticed while observing in the schools. In addition, (see Figure Three) segregated provisions (1990-96): an illustration of trends in the period for each of the 14 countries was taken into account based on the results of Table 2 (Vislie, 2003). The observed percentages of students in segregated provisions are here divided into five groups and the countries then placed in their respective groups according to data registrations in 1990 and in 1996 (Vislie, 2003). In the less than 1.0% category, Greece, Italy, and Norway were the only ones with less than 1.0% in 1990, later joined by Spain, Sweden, and Portugal in 1996. Another item to take note of is the greater than 4.0% group consisting of nobody in 1990, but later Germany and The Netherlands joined this category in 1996. The upward moves registered for

McMillin 12 Germany and The Netherlands are remarkable. However, knowing that these countries are not practicing integration at all the figures mainly confirm that their policies are stable (Vislie, 2003). This is an interesting find because Germany and The Netherlands are not even on the move towards inclusion, let alone integration, which is extremely opposite of the United States. The author goes on to say, For Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, The Netherlands, and Sweden there is a high, almost perfect relationship between the percentages of recorded SEN students and the percentages of students in segregated school provisions (Vislie, 2003). That is, their percentile groups fit their systems of special education schooling, even if some countries like Germany practice segregation. The final and most important piece of data is table four (see Figure Four). The table is titled percentages of SEN students in mainstream classes (1990-96): data on 11 European countries (Vislie, 2003). This table discusses the percentage of special needs students in general classrooms in 1990 versus 1996. In 1990, Germany, The Netherlands, Austria, and Belgium did not organize any education in the mainstream for recorded SEN students, and in France it seldom occurred (Vislie, 2003). Also, at the next registration point, the situation is the same in these countries, with the exception of Austria, where an opening (at least) towards education in the mainstream can be observed (Vislie, 2003). This particular piece of data about Austria captured my attention, and I felt further proved my observations. I saw evidence of special education practices, yet they are not quite there yet, with only a 1.1% increase of mainstreaming SEN students over the course of six years. Another interesting piece of data in this table concerns Finland, where the difference over a period is a certain size and in the negative

McMillin 13 direction (a 1.2/2.2% decrease from 1990-1996) (Vislie, 2003). I find this particularly interesting because in class discussions, while we talked about how inclusion practices are a slower process in Europe, Ive never heard of a European country on the decline in terms of mainstreaming. With all of this data presented, it goes to show that there are some countries slowly moving towards inclusion whereas some of those are not quite there or not practicing it at all. One example of a country I further researched was Germany. In the article To Segregate or to Separate? Special Education Expansion and Divergence in the United States and Germany, it states, despite a multitude of local, national, and international reform initiatives, Germany continues to serve the vast majority of children with the special educational needs (SEN) in segregated special schools (Powell, 2009). This ties in correlation with the statistic that there is no increase or decrease in mainstreaming students in Germany. For Germany, there is no sign (of practicing at least integration) yet that its policy will change (Vislie, 2003). This is very different from the United States because segregated schools are not a big part of the country, especially for special education students. Another interesting point about special education practices in Germany is despite a growing diversity of organizational forms in the German states, there is as yet no significant continuum or cascade as in the United States, but rather the institutionally constituted either-or of special or general school (Powell, 2009). The author goes on to say, In Germany, 83 percent of all students with SEN were segregated in 2005. However, most students with SEN attending general schools spent most if not all of their school day in the general classroom, since few general schools have special education

McMillin 14 and classrooms. Unlike the more flexible and often temporary supports offered within American schools, children once diagnosed as having SEN in Germany attend special schools, rarely returning to general education (Powell, 2009). This is very interesting due to the fact that Germanys system is extremely rigid. It is almost unheard of currently in the United States to have special needs students be sent to another school. While Germany is more segregated and rigid, proving that there are some countries that are not on board for the inclusion, there are some countries in Europe who prove to be on the rise, yet not quite at where the United States is at. One example of these countries is Scotland. According to author Julie Allan of Questions of inclusion in Scotland and Europe, the inclusion of all children in mainstream schools has been adopted as a key educational policy in Scotland and across Europe. It is, however, a policy that has been experienced as challenging, not least of all because of uncertainty over its meaning, and which has met with some resistance (Allan, 2010). Tying into this statement is the lack of confidence that teachers have in themselves in Scotland. Teachers and their representative unions have recently asked why they should include and at what cost and teachers are increasingly talking about inclusion as an impossibility (Allan, 2010). While not all teachers are feeling negative about the idea of inclusion, they still expressed concern about whether mainstream schools were able to provide a suitable education for children with complex emotional needs (Allan, 2010). Teachers are worried that these students, particularly ones with emotional needs, are not going to be provided a good education. However, despite the resistance, statistics show a continuing upward trend in the proportions of children with additional support needs (the replacement term for special

McMillin 15 educational needs being placed in mainstream schools) but also an increase in the proportions identified as having additional support needs (Allan, 2010). It has risen from 3.7% to 4.4% in primary schools and from 3.4% to 4.3% in secondary schools. The one item to keep in mind is that the numbers of those placed in mainstream schools but spending no time at all in mainstream classes increased as well (Allan, 2010). While some of Scotland schools are on the slight rise towards inclusion but are not quite sure how to approach the practice, its neighbor, the United Kingdom, has also made some steps towards inclusion. In England and Wales (both apart of the United Kingdom), there has been a small increase of special needs students in mainstream classes, around 0.1-1.1% (Vislie, 2003). More particularly in the United Kingdom, there have been a great amount of programs developed. For instance, an English group of researchers developed a programme for inclusive education during the 1990s (the Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools) (Vislie, 2003). It developed a framework for inclusion practices in the United Kingdom, which includes starting with existing practices and knowledge, seeing differences as opportunities for learning, scrutinizing barriers to participation, making use of available resources to support learning, developing a language of practice, and creating conditions that encourage risk-taking (Vislie, 2003). However, like Scotland, there is still some hesitation. One critic describes the change and development in the UK to more inclusive schools as having potential for both progress and crisis: support for inclusion is perhaps the strongest ever, but tensions arise from different understandings of the inclusion process and from different value systems (Vislie, 2003). Again, the understanding of

McMillin 16 inclusion as a practice in Europe has hindered some countries from moving forward, which time and time again was brought up in class discussions. Overall, the differences of inclusion and related special education practices in the United States and Europe is quite present. The United States journey to inclusion has been a long one, steaming from the Civil Rights Movement. Laws such as IDEA have been in place for quite a while now and keeping students in the least restrictive environment possible is key (Hunt, 2011). However, the impact of having these particular students be included in testing has caused some controversy due to the fact it is considered to be more aligned with No Child Left Behind and not focusing on improving the curriculum. In Europe, based on research done since 1990, the rise to inclusion for some countries is slow, but getting there. Also, inclusion is sometimes non-existent. There are those countries such as Germany that extremely rigid and stick to segregation, or countries such as Scotland and the United Kingdom, while resistant, are making small steps to mainstream special education students into general classrooms. Connecting my research to my observations, Austria is very much like Scotland and the United Kingdom because while the country is making small steps towards inclusion and paying attention to their special education students, the schools are giving these students separate work and not encouraging children to learn alongside non-disabled peers. Furthermore, there are countries like Luxembourg that is making its way towards inclusion and is very much like the United States in the fact where it makes accommodations for its students and differentiates lessons to be taught to all kinds of learners. Again, it truly depends on the country.

McMillin 17 As a future educator of younger children, observing and later researching inclusion practices in both areas of the world has served me well. It was a great opportunity to see how each country handles including special education students because I will have to make accommodations for all different kinds of learners in my classroom. To see that parts of Europe are slowly moving towards inclusion is also wonderful to know because every child deserves an equal opportunity for a great education. Finally, as a child who had a learning disability growing up, this topic held special importance for me. The inclusion movement is making an impact across the world and will hopefully continue in years to come.

McMillin 18

Percentages of recorded SEN students of total student populations in compulsory education (1990 and 1996) in 14 European countries (Figure One) Citation: (Vislie, 2003) Country, Percentage of recorded SEN students 1990 (a), Percentage of recorded SEN students 1996 (b), Differences 1990-96 Austria 2.6, 3.7, (+),1.1 Belgium (FL/FR) 3.1, 3.5/3.9, (+) 0.4/0.8 Denmark 13.0 1213 (0) (?) England and Wales 1.9, 2.8, (+) 0.9 Finland 17.1, 15.0 (?), () 1.9 France 3.5, 2.6, () 0.9 Germany (FRG) 7.0, 4.3, () 2.7 Greece 0.9 (?), 0.8, (0) 0 Italy 1.3, 1.3, (0) 0 The Netherlands 3.6, 4.9, (+) 1.3 Norway 6.0, 6.5, (+) 0.5 Portugal n.a., 2.7, n.a. Spain 2.0, 1.7, () 0.3 Sweden 1.6, 1.7, (+) 0.1 Note: Belgium: FL = Flemish Community; FR = French Community; n.a. = data not available; (?) Students in segregated school provisions as percentages of total student populations in compulsory education in 14 European countries (Figure Two) Citation: (Vislie, 2003) Country, Percentage of students in segregated provisions 1990, Percentage of students in segregated provisions 1996, Differences 1990-96 Austria 2.6, 2.8, + 0.2 Belgium (FL/FR) 3.1, 3.4/3.2, + 0.3/0.1 Denmark 1.6, 1.7, + 0.1 England and Wales 1.3, 1.2, 1.3 0 Finland 2.8, 2.3, 0.5 France 3.3, 2.4, 0.7 Germany (FRG) 3.7, 4.3, + 0.6 Greece 0.4, 0.2, 0.8 (?) Italy n.a., 0.5, (?) The Netherlands 3.6, 4.9, + 1.3 Norway 0.7, 0.5 Portugal n.a., 0.7 (max.), (?) Spain 1.0, 0.3, 0.7 Sweden 1.0, 0.8, 0.2 Note: Segregated provisions = special schools/classes (educated outside the mainstream); for Greece, Italy and Portugal data were not available or inaccurate for estimating changes over the

McMillin 19 period; n.a. and (?) = data estimate uncertain. Segregated provisions (199096): an illustration of trends in the period for each of the 14 countries (Figure Three, based on Figure Two) Citation: (Vislie, 2003) 1990 (<1%): 3 countries (Greece, Italy, Norway); 1996 (<1%): 6 countries (Greece, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Portugal) 1990 (1-2%): 4 countries (Denmark, England and Wales, Spain, Sweden); 1996 (1-2%): 2 countries (Denmark and England and Wales) 1990 (2-3%): 2 countries (Austria and Finland); 1996 (2-3%): 3 countries (Austria, Finland, France) 1990 (3-4%): 4 countries (Belgium (FL/FR) and France); 1996 (3-4%): 1 country (Belgium) 1990 (<4%): No country; 1996 (<4%): 2 countries (Germany and The Netherlands) Percentages of SEN students in mainstream classes (199096): data on 11 European countries (Figure Four) Citation: (Vislie, 2003) Country, Percentage of SEN students in mainstream classes 1990, Percentage of SEN students in mainstream classes 1996, Differences 1990-96 Austria 0, 1.1, + 1.1 Belgium (FL/FR) 0, 0.1/0, + 0.1/0 Denmark 11.4, 1213, + 0.11.1 England and Wales 0.6, 0.60.7, + 00.1 Finland 14.2, 1213, 1.2/2.2 France 0.2, 0.2, 0 Germany (FRG) 0 (?), 0, 0 The Netherlands 0, 0, 0 Norway 5.3, 6.0, + 0.7 Spain 1.0, 1.4, + 0.4 Sweden 0.6, 0.9, + 0.3 Notes: The data available on SEN students in mainstream class education are less exact than the data on segregated provisions. For some of the countries the data are presented as best guesses. Greece, Italy and Portugal are omitted due to incomplete data.

McMillin 20

Works Cited Allan, J. (2010). Questions of inclusion in scotland and europe. European journal of special needs education, 25(2), 199-208. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5759450 2-89ec-425e-8d36-0e8e75081b7e@sessionmgr114&vid=3&hid=101 Aron, L. & Loprest, P. (2012). Disability and the education system. Future of children, 22(1), 97-122. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5759450 2-89ec-425e-8d36-0e8e75081b7e@sessionmgr114&vid=6&hid=5 Hunt, P.F. (2011). Salamanca statement and idea 2004: Possibilities of practice for inclusive education. International journal of inclusive education, 15(4), 461-476. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5759450 2-89ec-425e-8d36-0e8e75081b7e@sessionmgr114&vid=5&hid=101 Powell, J.J.W. (2009). To segregate or to separate? special education expansion and divergence in the united states and germany. Comparitive education review, 53(2), 161187. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=3f68df28 -4ef1-41ea-bf96-f5e49a9fcf9e@sessionmgr113&vid=3&hid=124 Vislie, L. (2003). From integration to inclusion: Focusing global trends and changes in western european societies. European journal of special needs education, 18(1), 17-35. Retrieved from

McMillin 21 http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/uv/isp/SNE4110/h06/undervisningsmateriale/Vislie From education 2003-1.pdf