LIST OF LITERATURE

Evaluation of the 'tips for autism' Professional Learning and Development Programme Publication Details
In June 2007, the Ministry of Education contracted a team from Massey University to evaluate tips for autism a professional development programme for people who work with and/or care for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The evaluation spanned three years. During the first year, the evaluation was copurchased by the Ministries of Education and Health and Child, Youth and Family (CYF), a service of the Ministry of Social Development. The focus in this first year was on 'tips extended', a pilot programme for those supporting children with ASD who were also in the care of CYF. The purpose of the 'tips' evaluation was to inform the future development of this programme which has been running in New Zealand since 2001, and to provide lessons for other ASD professional development initiatives. To achieve the objectives, the evaluation team was required to address a series of ten questions developed and prioritized by the Ministries of Education, Health and CYF. Author(s): J. Bevan-Brown, R.Bourke, P.Butler, J.Carroll-Lind, A.Kearney, M.Mentis Date Published: November 2011

Methodology
The evaluation used a mixed method design for the type of information sought, the data collection methods used and the interpretive approaches taken. Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used. The evaluation team used a participatory, collaborative approach. Stakeholders were consulted to ascertain what they considered were essential components of a professional development course on ASD and what were meaningful outcomes for them. The evaluation had a goal-free, needs-based, open-ended focus. Using a variety of data sources to ascertain the evaluative criteria enabled multiple stakeholder input and allowed for both intended and unintended effects

of

the

tips

for

autism

programme

to

be

identified

and

considered.

The evaluation consisted of four principal and one subsidiary component: needs assessment; case studies, quantitative data analysis; tips for autism programme information and documentation; and a brief literature review. Five data gathering measures and strategies were used. These were: written surveys/questionnaires, faceto-face interviews, observations, document analysis and Advisory Group and expert consultation. The report outlines which measures and strategies were used for each priority question over the three-year evaluation period.

Demographic Data
Twenty-eight courses containing 169 teams and 837 participants were evaluated over the three-year period. The largest group was school personnel (400), followed by parents/caregivers (199), key workers (157) and other (81). The courses were held in eight North Island and five South Island venues. The largest numbers were in the Auckland region, followed by Wellington and Canterbury.

Conclusions
As identified in the New Zealand Autism Spectrum Disorder Guideline , a range of individuals and groups from across the sector should have access to some form of professional development relating to children, young people and adults with ASD. The Guideline states that those who work or live with people with ASD can improve the outcome for those individuals if they have the necessary skills required through appropriate education (p. 192). For the sake of these individua ls, their families and whine ASD courses should be readily accessible and be of a high quality so that learning and outcomes can be maximized. This three-year evaluation showed that tips for autism is such a high quality course. http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/special_education/evaluation-of-the-tips-forautism

Collaboration Between General and Special Education: Making it Work

Defining the Issue Throughout the last decade, nearly every state in the nation implemented some type of standards-based reform. Sharing a common mission that all students should be held to high standards of learning, many states have dramatically restructured their educational systems in an effort to demonstrate greater accountability for student results. While most of these efforts have helped states to more clearly articulate what students should know and be able to do, they have also resulted in questions concerning the participation of students with disabilities in accountability systems. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA) (P.L. 10517) explicitly emphasize the importance of providing access to the general curriculum, so that students with disabilities can meet the educational standards that apply to all children. As a result, special education and general education teachers nationwide now find they need to develop new skills and strategies to meet these challenges. Signifying a period of genuine professional transformation, these changes are leading many in the field to reevaluate service delivery and collaborative partnerships needed to support students with disabilities in general education settings.

Legal Considerations
Schools are required to provide access to the general curriculum by giving students with disabilities the opportunity to achieve the same standards as all other students. IDEA stresses the importance of participation of students with disabilities in the general curriculum. In addition to IDEA, the recently passed Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) legislation, also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, (P.L. 107-110), seeks to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach or exceed minimum proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments (Sec. 1001, Part A, Title I of ESEA; 20 U.S.C. 6301). This includes participation in assessments used to

measure the achievement of all students at the same grade level (Sec. 1111, Part A, Title I of ESEA; 20 U.S.C. 6311 [b][3]). Like IDEA, it is anticipated that this legislation will become a major catalyst in influencing the way in which supplementary aids and services are provided in the context of the general education curriculum. As such, there will be a need to increase collaborative teaching initiatives among the entire array of instructional services (e.g., general education, special education, Title I) available to targeted populations.

Research Considerations
A significant challenge faced by all educators will be to maintain high educational standards for all students, while also ensuring that each childs u nique instructional needs are met. These goals need not be viewed as mutually exclusive. Standards can serve as the impetus for focused instructional planning for students with disabilities within the general education classroom, resulting in improved achievement. For example, McLaughlin, Nolet, Rhim, and Henderson (1999) reported that many special education teachers believe students have access to a wider array of learning opportunities as a result of standards-based reforms. In addition, they found that special education teachers felt that standards helped them focus their instruction and better define what is required of students. Research findings have suggested that rather than focusing on deficits, Individual Education Program (IEP) teams now have an opportunity to focus on helping students work toward high educational standards (Thompson, Thurlow, & Whetstone, 2001, p. 6). Implementation Considerations Despite findings indicating that standards can help students with disabilities to achieve, many special educators continue to voice concerns about how to effectively align standards with the individualized goals and objectives of the IEP. In the report, Educating One & All: Students with Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform (McDonnell, McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997), the Committee on Goals 2000 and the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities acknowledged that standards-based reform initiatives pose many challenges to special educators, especially in regard to implementation. For example: The complicated part is determining how to accommodate individual student needs and provide the special services that some may require, while still affording each student

appropriate access to the common curriculum and ensuring accountability for his or her outcomes (p. 176). Research (McDonnell et al. 1997; Sands, Adams, & Stout, 1995) also suggests that, in addition to facilitating inclusion, special education teachers need to develop a more consistent approach to determining curricula and appropriate content standards for students with disabilities. For example, to what degree should curricula be driven by the special educator and the planning team as opposed to being dictated by local curricular standards? A further challenge is for both general and special education teachers to acquire the capacity to identify and focus on skills a student needs to meet the standard. To accomplish this goal, some researchers have suggested creating a curriculum base that would provide guidance for teachers on how to include students with disabilities in the general education classroom (McLaughlin et al. 1999). A curriculum base generically refers to a set of agreed-upon curriculum practices designed to meet the needs of students in special education. According to Sands et al. (1995), the absence of establishing such a base that provides direction for special education programs only increases the likelihood that instructional decision-making and practices will continue to be haphazard and widely divergent (p. 69). Special educators mu st become more adept in content knowledge and curriculum development, and general educators must understand their role in implementing IEP goals and objectives that is, how to accommodate students with disabilities within the general education classroom. Jorgensen et al. (1997) observed that one of the problems associated with the implementation of standards-based reform and participation of students with disabilities is related to the type of curriculum available to students. Advocating for a preferred curriculum that is broad enough to work with a wide range of students, Jorgensen suggests that all teachers use some common curricular elements to design teaching and learning experiences that transcend philosophical differences and that result in a learning environment that challenges and supports all students (p. 5). Even though a number of effective collaboration strategies have been developed over the last decade, current research suggests that general educators are still more likely to interact collaboratively with other general educators than with special education staff (McGregor et al. 1998; Prom, 1999). Changing Roles

As states increase their efforts to implement standards-based curriculum for all students, educators of all types must develop a wider range of collaboration skills that facilitate cooperative planning and instructional activities. Recent developments indicate the beginnings of an infrastructure to support more collaborative efforts. For example, in their efforts to promote policies and practices to improve educational performance for students with disabilities, the Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002) recommended that teachers in general education learn about special education. This recommendation is consistent with the legislative priority, Unified System of Education, established by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, which focuses on the infusion of quality teaching on the part of both general and special education teachers. This priority explicitly acknowledges that the success of all children is dependent on the quality of both special education and general educationand that special education is not a place apart, but an integral part of education (NASDSE, 2002). Challenges In our current model of education, teachers typically maintain a high degree of autonomy and individual decision-making. This has historically been the case for both general and special education teachers. But now, many general educators feel they are being called upon to teach students with an increasingly diverse range of educational needs, and do not feel they are prepared to undertake such a responsibility (Monahan, Marino, Miller, & Cronic, 1997). Similarly, there appears to be growing concern among special educators that the individualized nature of specialized instruction is becoming increasingly diluted in the face of standards-based reforms. Regardless of how many professional development and training initiatives are implemented, a key factor in the establishment of a collaborative culture is administrative support at the local level. The findings of several studies (da Costa, Marshall, & Riordan, 1998; Bunch, Lupart, & Brown, 1997; Idol & Griffith, 1998) involving collaborative activities share a theme that school administrators are highly influential in shaping the school culture and are often looked to as a source of leadership necessary to cause systemic change. What Works There is no shortage of creative and innovative strategies to promote collaborative relationships between general and special education personnel. Even though effective ideas and strategies abound, the real problem is how to provide general and special

education

teachers

the

opportunity

to apply newly

learned

collaborative

and

instructional strategies in the classroom. It follows, then, that a long-term commitment must be made to provide the necessary training and technical assistance. This requires the active involvement of general and special educators and the support of school administrators. In recognition of the necessary prerequisites for effective collaboration, researchers at the Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota, and staff of the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning, Division of Special Education, have designed a training model that provides general and special education personnel with the collaborative planning and instructional skills necessary to meet the needs of students with disabilities within the context of high standards and educational reform. This model, Collaboration: Access to the General Education Curriculum (or, more simply, Applied Collaboration) represents a compilation of collaborative and instructional strategies that general and special educators can applyas a teamin the general education classroom. It should be noted that the Applied Collaboration model represents one specific approach with a clear focus on the applied aspects of teacher collaboration. Effective methods and strategies for collaboration have been developed by others (Cook & Friend, 1993; White & White, 1992; Bauwen & Hourcade, 1995; Walter-Thomas, Korinek, & McLaughlin, 1999), and it is likely that even more approaches will emerge in the future. Intended to be both interactive and dynamic, Applied Collaboration is a professional development training model in which teams of general and special educators work together to identify mutual goals and use negotiation skills to address the needs of students with disabilities. An important aspect of the training is that it is always delivered by a training team consisting of a general educator and a special educator. Within the general framework of the training, teams are provided with (a) collaborative strategies to increase communication and facilitate cooperative working relationships between special education and general education staff, and (b) instructional strategies in which teams learn about various teaching strategies (e.g., differentiated instruction, shared classroom management) that are practiced in the classroom setting. The model is quite simple and kept intentionally so: it relies on a few effective, yet easily implemented collaborative and instructional strategies. For example, Table 1 outlines the progression of activities in the Five Step Process (Minnesota Department

of Children, Families and Learning, Division of Special Education, 2002) that each team completes in order to make decisions regarding the instruction of students.

Table 1. The Five Step Process Activity Step 1: Review the Description standard, The collaborative general and special education task, and team communicate about the standard that students will encounter.

performance

curricular demands. Discuss the

learning This step is an opportunity to talk about the of placement of the student. Modifications may be discussed at this stage. on The general and special education teacher creatively explore the changes that will be implemented to allow the student to more fully participate in instruction. This step provides an opportunity for the

Step 2:

needs of the student and specific needs and concerns relevant to the the availability resources. Decide

Step 3:

accommodations for the student and determine for responsibility implementing them. Monitor, provide feedback. adjust, and

Step 4:

formative

collaborative team to determine who will be responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of the accommodation. Step five provides an opportunity for the

Step 5:

Evaluate students using collaborative team to clearly identify the target and established criteria. discuss how students will be evaluated in relation to the target.

T h e Five S t e p P r o ce ss re p re se n t s a sim p le b u t e f f ect i ve s t ra t e g y f o r b rin g in g ge n e ra l a n d sp e ci a l e d u c a t io n t e a c h e r s t o ge t h e r t o a d d re s s t h e a ca d e m ic a n d so cia l n e e d s o f st u d e n t s wi t h d isa b il it ie s in t h e

ge n e ra l e d u ca t io n se t t in g. T h i s p ro ce ss re co gn i ze s t h e u n iqu e ro le s a n d r e sp o n s ib i l it ie s a s we l l a s t h e e x p e rt ise t h a t e a ch t e a ch e r b r in gs t o t h e co l la b o ra t i ve r e la t io n sh ip . T h e Fi ve S t e p P ro ce ss , a s we l l a s o t h e r st ra t e gie s u se d i n A p p l ie d Co l la b o ra t io n , a re b a se d o n t h e p re m ise t h a t , i r re sp e ct i ve o f h o w e f f e ct i ve a p a rt i cu la r in st r u ct io n a l st ra t e g y m a y b e , it m u st st i ll b e p ra ct ice d a n d a p p lie d in t h e c la ss ro o m in o rd e r t o a d d t o t h e co l la b o ra t io n a n d in st ru c t io n a l s ki ll s a va ila b le t o t e a ch e r s. I n a su r ve y o f a p p l ie d co l la b o ra t io n p ilo t sit e s t h a t t o o k p a rt in t ra in in g, b o t h ge n e ra l a n d sp e c ia l e d u ca t io n t e a ch e rs f e lt t h a t t h e in f o rm a t io n p re se n t e d wa s r e le va n t t o t h e ir jo b ro le s. Fi gu r e 1 sh o ws t h e p e rce n t a ge s o f 6 7 t e a ch e r s in re sp o n se t o a qu e st io n a b o u t re le va n c y.
http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1097

Education for disabled people in China

A cco rd in g t o t h e l a t e st ce n su s, t h e r e a re 8 2 . 9 6 m i ll io n d i sa b le d p e o p le in Ch in a , a c co u n t s f o r 6 . 3 4 % o f t h e o ve ra ll p o p u la t io n . T h e re a re va r io u s p ro b le m s re la t in g t o t h e l i vi n g co n d it io n s o f t h e se la r ge g ro u p o f p e o p le . P ro p e r e d u ca t io n p la y s a cru c ia l ro le in so l vin g su ch p ro b l e m s.

Current Situation
O n e o f t h e b ig ge s t p ro b le m s Ch in a f a ce s re la t e d t o d i sa b le d p e o p le is t h e e d u ca t io n p ro b le m . Co m p a r in g wit h t h e la r ge n u m b e r o f d isa b le d p o p u la t io n , t h e re a re qu i t e f e w e d u ca t io n a l i n st it u t io n s f o r t h e m . Up t o 2 0 0 8 , t h e re a re o n l y 1 6 4 0 sch o o l s a n d in st it u t io n s sp e cif ica l l y f o r d isa b le d p e o p le ; a n d t h e re a re o n l y 4 6 t h o u sa n d t e a ch in g st a f f s in t o t a l.

A s t h e g ra p h a b o ve in d i ca t e s, [ 2 ] o n l y a b o u t 6 0 % t o 7 0 % o f t h e 6 1 4 ye a r s o ld sch o o l - a ge d ch ild re n ca n re ce i ve p ro p e r e d u ca t io n . Fo r d isa b le d p e o p le 1 5 ye a rs o ld a n d a b o ve , t h e re a re e ve n la r ge r d if f e re n ce s i n e d u ca t io n le ve l b e t we e n n o rm a l p e o p le a n d d isa b le d p e o p le . Mo st o f t h e d i sa b le d p e o p l e h a ve ve r y lo w e d u ca t io n l e v e l. Only 25% of them h a ve go n e to high sch o o ls o r h i gh e r [3] e d u ca t io n a l in s t it u t io n s .

A n o t h e r is su e d i re ct l y re la t e d t o e d u ca t io n is t h e e m p l o ym e n t ra t e . A s so m e o f t h e re se a rch e rs re p o rt , m o r e t h a n 1 0 % o f t h e d isa b le d p e o p le d o n o t h a ve a d e qu a t e f o o d a n d clo t h in g; a b o u t 4 0 % h a ve ve r y lo w in co m e ; a n d o n l y 2 5 % a re e m p l o ye d o n a f u ll -t im e b a sis. A m o n g t h o se wh o a re e m p lo ye d , 9 6 . 6 % a re m a n u a l wo rke r s , o n l y 3 . 4 % a re m e n t a l wo rke r s. T h e m a in re a so n b e h in d i s m o re t h a n cle a r, n o t we ll e d u ca t e d d isa b le d p e o p le ca n o n l y t a ke t h o s e m a n u a l wo rk s. Fu rt h e rm o re , e m p lo ym e n t st a t u s wi ll d ire ct l y a f f e ct p e o p le s in co m e . No rm a l f a m ilie s wil l t e n d t o h a ve 2 3 . 2 6 % h i gh e r f a mil y in co m e t h a n f a m ilie s wit h a t le a st o n e d isa b le d p e rso n . [ 4 ]

O t h e r t h a n wh a t is m e n t io n e d a b o ve , d i sa b le d p e o p le t e n d t o n e e d m o re p s ych o lo g ica l a n d m e n t a l h e lp t h a n n o rm a l p e o p l e a s we ll. T h e re is a lo t Ch in a co u l d d o t o im p ro ve in t h e e d u ca t io n re l a t e d t o d i sa b le d p e o p le .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_disabled_people_in_China

Persons with Disability in the Philippines (Results from the 2010 Census)
Reference Number: 2013-005 Release Date: Thursday, January 10, 2013 About 16 per thousand of the countrys population had disability
Of the 92.1 million household population in the country, 1,443 thousand persons or 1.57 percent had disability, based on the 2010 Census of Population and Housing (2010 CPH). The recorded figure of persons with disability (PWD) in the 2000 CPH was 935,551 persons, which was 1.23 percent of the household population. Among the 17 regions, Region IV-A had the highest number of PWD at 193 thousand. This was followed by the National Capital Region (NCR) with 167 thousand PWD. The Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), on the other hand, had the lowest number of PWD at 26 thousand.

Ten regions had proportion of PWD higher than the national figure. These were Region VI (1.95 percent), Region IVB and Region V (both 1.85 percent each), Region VIII (1.75 percent), Region II (1.72 percent), Region I (1.64 percent), CAR (1.63 percent), Region XI and Region VII (both 1.60 percent each), and CARAGA (1.58 percent).

There were more males than females among persons with disability Of the total PWD in 2010, males accounted for 50.9 percent while females comprised 49.1 percent. These figures resulted in a sex ratio of 104 males with disability for every 100 females with disability. Males with disability outnumbered females in the age groups 0 to 64 years. The largest excess in the number of males was in the age group 0 to 14 years with a sex ratio of 121 males per 100 females. On the other hand, there were more females with disability than males in the age group 65 years and over. This is because of the higher survival

rate of women than men. In this age group, there were 70 males with disability per 100 females.

Disability was highest among persons aged 5 to 19 years For every five PWD, one (18.9 percent) was aged 0 to 14 years, three (59.0 percent) were in the working age group (aged 15 to 64 years), and one (22.1 percent) was aged 65 years and over. Persons with disability were more likely to be in the ages 5 to 19 years and 45 to 64 years. By five-year age group, among the household population with disability, children aged 10 to 14 years comprised the largest age group (7.2 percent). This was followed by those in the age groups 15 to 19 years (6.9 percent), 5 to 9 years (6.7 percent), and 50 to 54 years (6.6 percent).

http://www.census.gov.ph/content/persons-disability-philippines-results-2010-census

LIST OFSTUDY
Effectiveness of Special Education: Is Placement the Critical Factor? Authors: Anne M. Hocutt Summary Research indicates that various program models, implemented both in special education and general education, can have moderately positive academic and social impacts for students with disabilities. However, no intervention has been designed that eliminates the impact of having a disability. With few exceptions, students with disabilities have not achieved commensurately with their nondisabled peers; even students with learning disabilities as a group have not been able to achieve at the level of low-achieving nondisabled students. In general, the most effective interventions for students with disabilities, whether in special education or general education settings, have employed intensive and reasonably individualized instruction, combined with careful, frequent monitoring of student progress. There is no compelling evidence that placement rather than instruction is the critical factor in student academic or social success. Further, studies have indicated that typical practice in general education is substantially different from practice in the model programs that showed greatest success for students with disabilities. The interventions

that were effective in improving academic outcomes for students with disabilities required a considerable investment of resources, including time and effort, as well as extensive support for teachers. The research does not support full-time inclusion for all students with disabilities. On the contrary, it appears that there is a clear need for special education. At the same time, given adequate resources, schools should be able to assist more students to be more successful in general education settings. Introduction Recently, both The Wall Street Journal ("Special Ed's Special Costs")1 and U.S. News and World Report ("Separate and Unequal: How Special Education Programs Are Cheating Our Children and Costing Taxpayers Billions Each Year") 2 accused special education of being costly, ineffective, and perhaps even immoral (for example, it promotes "segregation"). As noted by Fuchs and Fuchs,3 such articles in the media echo criticisms by some professionals in the field. Critics of current practices propose either a substantial decrease in or elimination of special education altogether so that students with disabilities will be taught in general education classes. This movement is called "inclusion," and it is controversial because of its emphasis on placement, that is, the classroom to which a student is assigned rather than what happens in that classroom. The purpose of this article is to review research conducted since 1980 which is directly relevant to inclusion, including research on the effectiveness of special education in general. The majority of the research reviewed here was funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the U.S. Department of Education. Selected older studies will be referenced as appropriate. Efficacy of interventions is assessed in terms of either academic progress or improved social-behavioral skills for students with disabilities. Overall, many models in both the special education and the general education classroom show moderate academic and social improvement for some special education students, though improvements have not been uniform or dramatic. Virtually all interventions showing positive impacts involved considerable additional resources. This article has four major sections. First, basic information about definitions, current student placements, and positions taken by various constituencies is presented. Second, data are provided regarding what typically happens in the general education classroom and in the special education classroom, emphasizing features salient to the needs of special education students. Third, data about outcomes for special education students are summarized. Although various interventions can have some positive impact on academic and social outcomes, no intervention reliably improves special education student performance to the level of

nondisabled students. The more effective interventions have employed an intensive and reasonably individualized approach to student instruction, combined with frequent monitoring of student progress. Fourth, interventions designed to facilitate inclusion of special education students in the general classroom are considered. The research does not support inclusion for all students with disabilities. At the same time, the research indicates that, given adequate resources, schools should be able to assist more students to be more successful in general education.

Current Placement and Constituent Groups

To understand the relationship between special education and general education, one must know the definitions of key terms, be aware of where special education students currently spend the school day, and understand the positions taken by various constituencies (including teachers, school boards, parents, and advocacy groups for the disabled) on the question of how placement should be determined for students with disabilities. Definitions: "Mainstreaming" and "Inclusion" Both mainstreaming and inclusion are concepts and movements, rather than precisely defined programs. Within this article, mainstreaming and inclusion will be defined as described below. "Mainstreaming" is the integration of children with disabilities with their peers in general education based on individual assessment. The term is associated with the least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and with the "full continuum of services" (see Box 1). That is, mainstreaming occurs when an interdisciplinary team (including parents) determines that, given all available placement options, a specific child should participate in general education for some part of the school day. "Inclusion" goes beyond mainstreaming in that it implies that most children with disabilities will be educated in the general education classroom for most, if not all, of the school day. "Full inclusion" means that all children with disabilities, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability, will be educated in general education: in a full inclusion system, separate special education placements would no longer exist. Both inclusion and full inclusion imply that other placement options would be severely curtailed or abolished. Current Placement Patterns Data from the most recent annual report to Congress5 of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) show that a variety of placements are used (see Figure 1). The percentage of students with disabilities served in the various placements has changed

very little over the past decade. Approximately one-third of special education students spend 80% or more of their school day in the general education classroom. Another one-third spend 40% to 79% of their day in general education. Approximately onequarter spend 0% to 39% of their time in general education, but their special education classrooms share a building with the general education classes. The remaining 5% to 6% of special education students are served in separate schools, residential programs, hospitals, or their own homes. Positions on Inclusion Many constituencies, representing people with widely differing disabilities, as well as professional organizations of teachers, school administrators, and professionals who work with students with disabilities, have issued position statements on inclusion through their professional or advocacy organizations. These positions have been categorized as follows:

unqualified enthusiasm for full inclusion and elimination of the continuum of special education services; enthusiasm for the philosophy of inclusion but support for the continuum of services and individual decision making; reduction of the special education system in size; support for "appropriate" (individually determined) inclusion, including a full continuum of placement options and services; concern that inclusion does not provide appropriate services for students with learning disabilities, vision impairment/blindness, or hard-of-hearing/deafness; and concern about responsibilities of general education teachers and effects of inclusion on all students, with recognition that diversity of placement options and teaching approaches is a strength of the current system.

To answer the question "What's 'special' about special education," it is necessary to compare special education with general education (see Box 2). This section summarizes OSEP-funded research, including: (1) descriptive studies of general education; (2) descriptive studies and data about special education; and (3) student outcomes. Common Practices in General Education Recent studies have described typical practice in general education, emphasizing those factors that are critical for students with disabilities, such as classroom instruction, teacher attitudes and referral decisions, and schoolwide issues. The results of these studies apply to all grades unless otherwise noted. Classroom Instruction Numerous practices in the typical general education classroom conflict with known effective interventions for students with special learning needs. Undifferentiated largegroup instruction appears to be the norm in general education.21 Individual assignments, small-group work, and student pairing occur, but much less frequently than whole-class

instruction. Teachers typically follow the sequence of lessons outlined in teachers' manuals and focus on content coverage.22 Students with disabilities in these classes may be expected to cover the same content at the same pace as nondisabled students. Middle and high school teachers monitor the work of nondisabled students at higher rates than they do the work of students with disabilities. Research suggests that teachers are more concerned about whether students demonstrate interest in a lesson and do not create discipline problems than they are about whether a particular student experiences difficulty learning. Research also indicates that general educators do not usually adapt lesson plans in response to individual student confusion or low achievement. When surveyed, teachers do not perceive themselves as having the skill for adapting instruction in ways that facilitate individual or small-group instruction. When teachers modify instruction, they may be more likely to make adaptations (for example, providing reinforcement and encouragement, establishing appropriate routines, and adapting classroom management activities and/or test situations) that do not require preplanning. They may be less likely to develop individual objectives, adapt curricular materials, use alternative materials, and/or adjust scoring and grading criteria for individual students. Teacher Attitudes and Referral Decisions The decision by the general education teacher to refer a given student for possible placement in special education is critical. In general, from 3% to 5% of the school-age population is referred in any given year, 92% of those referred are tested, and 74% of those tested are placed in special education. There may be biases in teacher referrals: males and African-American students are referred more often than other students. However, referred students have considerably lower reading achievement than those who are not referred. In deciding which children to refer for possible placement in special education, research shows that teachers consider their perception of the child's "teachability," the overall diversity of the classroom, and the philosophy and policies of the school district. Research also suggests that some teachers who are most effective at raising overall academic standards may have a lower tolerance for students with special needs.

Student Teachability. "Teachability" refers to the extent to which a student is alert, sustains attention in the classroom, and begins and completes work on time. A teacher's perception of a student's teachability plays a major role in the decision to refer. Other child characteristics that are related to this decision include language difficulties and behavioral problems, particularly aggression, opposition, and hostility. General education teachers will not tolerate disruptive and/or dangerous behavior. Classroom Diversity. General education instruction appears to be aimed at a relatively homogeneous group of students as teachers try to reduce "the sheer cognitive complexity of planning and instruction associated with broad ranges of student characteristics and abilities." Thus, teachers refer difficult-to-teach children who have serious academic and behavioral problems and who are markedly

different from other students in the class. Not surprisingly, many teachers are skeptical of proposals to return all children with disabilities to general education classrooms because coping with the difficulties these children present may take time the teacher now uses for instruction. School District Factors. Teachers refer at different rates depending partly upon contextual factors such as sources of available assistance, the way in which the teacher is evaluated by administrators, the restrictiveness of special education eligibility criteria used in the school district, and district requirements regarding prereferral intervention. Classroom Environment. A child's school failure and likelihood of being referred to special education are influenced not only by the child's own characteristics, but also by the manner in which the classroom operates. Research suggests that the classroom environment most conducive to school failure is one in which a student in academic trouble does individual seatwork while the teacher engages other children in the class in small-group work. Students engaged in individual seatwork receive minimal assistance or corrective feedback while working, increasing the likelihood of failure and consequent referral. Effective Teachers and Special Education Referrals. Researchers have found effective teaching behaviors to include: reviewing and checking the previous day's work, and reteaching if necessary; promoting initial student practice of new content and skills, and checking for understanding; providing corrective feedback; giving students an opportunity for independent practice; and conducting weekly and monthly reviews of progress. In theory, such close monitoring and feedbackintensive practice should be well suited to the needs of special education students, as well as to the needs of the general student body. Unfortunately, research on teacher attitudes suggests that some effective teachers may not be willing to accept students with disabilities. For instance, data from one study showed that elementary general education teachers who were considered most effective were also the least likely to accept students with maladaptive behavior or disabilities into their classroom, and those teachers had a lower sense of responsibility for dealing with students' problem behaviors. Data from two other studies indicated that teachers with the most effective instructional and classroom management techniques had the lowest tolerance for maladaptive behavior and the highest expectations for behavior and achievement, and would be most likely to resist placement of a disabled student in their classroom, especially if the student were deficient in self-help skills, required adapted materials, or had impaired language ability. Schools and School Systems The description of general education to this point has focused on classroom instruction and on reasons teachers refer students for special education. However, research also describes the context in which schools and school systems operate.

Schools' Capacity for Teaching Behavior Management Skills. Many students with disabilities have very poor social skills, and some have behavioral and/or emotional

disorders. Public schools often do not address social skills, and teachers have not been trained to use positive behavior management strategies rather than punishment. Mental health and other services are usually not available or, if available, are not integrated into the regular program. Higher Standards for Academic Performance. Further, schools and school systems are operating in a climate of increased accountability. Many reports and studies have accused the U.S. educational system of being mediocre. These reports have resulted in a national drive for excellence in education, generally interpreted as higher standards, more courses, and more homework. The focus is now on student outcomes, for example, higher scores on tests and increased high school graduation rates. Some states are using enrollments in advanced courses, the amount of homework given or completed and SAT scores as measures of school performance. These raised expectations occur in a climate of large classes and large teacher loads (for example, 150 students per day per teacher in secondary education). Consequently, it is not surprising that many special educators doubt that general education will be able to successfully educate more students with disabilities for more hours during the school day. Common Practices in Special Education Current data from the U.S. Department of Education show that class size in special education averages 15 students per teacher, smaller than typical general education ratios. Small classes facilitate more individual attention and small-group instruction. Also, more special education teachers have advanced degrees, with nearly 55% having a master's degree and 11% having an educational specialist or doctoral degree in comparison with 40% and 6%, respectively, for general education teachers. The special education curriculum is more oriented toward the development of functional skills, and the pace at which students cover materials is slower. As noted earlier, approximately 95% of special education students are educated in the public schools; these students spend an average of 70% of their time in general education settings (see Figure 1). Younger students are more likely than older students to be placed in integrated settings (that is, settings which have both general and special education students). Comparison of Instruction in General and Special Education Although a majority of studies comparing instruction in general and special education have found numerous differences, a minority of studies have found few differences. For instance, one study comparing special education, resource-room instruction with typical classroom instruction in reading and math found no significant differences in a variety of instructional practices, including teacher modeling, opportunity for student responses, amount of guided and independent practice, and pacing of lessons. Other studies have indicated that general and special education teachers perform similar instructional tasks. Teaching Strategies and Interventions For the most part, research shows differences between general and special education instruction, though findings have not been consistent across studies. Some comparison studies have focused on the differences in the teaching strategies and interventions used by general and special education teachers, and this literature consistently shows

differences. One study, which compared teacher planning and adaptation for students with learning disabilities, found that general educators preferred to use manipulative and audiovisual activities, while the special educators preferred detailed intervention programs designed for special education students, for example, direct instruction and cognitive strategy instructions. (Direct instruction and cognitive strategy instructions are described later in this article, in the section on inclusion efforts.) Another study of instruction for children with educable mental retardation (EMR) in general and special settings found that special educators showed more flexibility in selecting strategies with which to manage and monitor the classroom. Teacher Monitoring of Student Progress The research comparing teacher monitoring of student progress is also consistent in showing that general and special education teachers approach this task differently. General education teachers prefer to determine progress or success through informal observations in the classrooms; when tests are involved, they prefer tests directly based on material taught (as opposed to standardized tests such as the California Achievement Test). On the other hand, special educators are generally more databased. Further, with smaller classes, special education teachers can be more knowledgeable about their students and can tailor educational programs for specific students. Student-Teacher Interaction With regard to student-teacher interaction in the two settings, results are somewhat inconsistent. One study, which compared the interactions of students with learning disabilities with a group of nondisabled students in general education classes, found that the students with learning disabilities had more interaction with the teachers, but that the teachers asked academic questions and provided feedback more to the students without disabilities. Other researchers have found that the proportion of exchanges focused on academic content is greater in special than in general education. A study of beginning general and special education teachers also found that special educators monitored and praised their students with learning disabilities more than did general educators. During teacher-initiated interactions, the special educators were more likely to provide more answers to their own questions and less likely to ignore students' inattention or disruptive behaviors. A follow-up study with different general and special education teachers produced similar findings. Effective Teaching Literature Some studies comparing instruction in general and special education come from the effective teaching literature. Advocates for inclusion have often cited this literature because they assume that students with mild handicaps are essentially the same as low achievers and will respond well to the same interventions that have been effective with low-achieving students. This is a controversial assumption because recent research indicates that there are differences in brain structure and functioning between children with dyslexia (a common learning disability) and other children and that there is a biological and possibly genetic factor in some reading disabilities. (See the article by Lyon in this journal issue.)

One study compared instructional behaviors of general and special education teachers from the perspective of the effective teaching literature to identify behaviors that differentiated teachers whose students had high and low proportions of on-task behavior. Overall, special education teachers were more likely than general educators to monitor student behavior, praise, show positive regard, give the answer, and reject students' verbalizations. More effective general and special education teachers had materials ready, began lessons promptly, oriented learners to the lesson, made assignments more often, exhibited more teacher-directed than student-directed learning, praised student responses more, and had to manage student inattention/disruption less often. It appears that differences in instruction between general and special education teachers are common. Some of these differences may be a function of smaller class sizes; others may be related to teachers' professional training. Given the existence of these differences, it is reasonable to ask whether outcomes for students with disabilities are determined more by the setting in which they are educated or by what happens in that setting.
https://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=57&arti cleid=341&sectionid=2287

Special Education in the Philippines