Nisreen M. Anati
Al Ain
University of Science and Technology
Abstract
The United Arab Emirates
is devoted to inclusive education, which
respects the right for all learners, regardless of their strengths or
weaknesses in any area, to become part of the mainstream school. This study describes the current practices that
shape the nature of inclusive education in UAE schools from theteachers’
perspective. Data drawn from the questionnaire that was directed to 26
teachers in UAE private and public schools indicated that such teachers were
concerned about inclusive education in their schools. Teachers’ dissatisfaction
was due to a lack of qualified special
education professionals to deal with students with disabilities, a lack
of proper training for teachers in mainstream classrooms, a lack of knowledge
about inclusion among senior-level administrators, a lack of financial support
for resources and services specifically in private schools, and a lack of
awareness of the inclusion issues that students with and without disabilities
may face in inclusive settings.
The
entire structure of special education services has been undergoing significant
change over the past 20 yearsin
the UAE. Globally, several laws have been issued across different countries in
the world to maximize the participation of students with disabilities in
mainstream schools (Salend, 2005). However, special needs educators had never
reached to an agreement on the extent and nature of including students with
disabilities in mainstream schools. Three major beliefs were proposed as a
result of this debate among educators to include students with disabilities in
mainstream schools: restricted belief (resists inclusion); least restricted
belief (allows inclusion under certain conditions); unrestricted belief
(accepts inclusion with no or few restrictions), (Friend & Bursuck, 2002).
Many educators questioned the belief that students who
needed extra services should routinely be pulled
out to receive them in a separate environment such as a resource room or a
special education classroom (Stanovich, 1999; Salend & Duhaney, 1999;
Wladron & McLeskey, 1998). They stressed that pull-out services are stigmatizing and cause fragmentation of
learning (Friend & Bursuck, 2002). Some educators argue that it is
extremely feasible to provide almost all necessary supports for students with
disabilities in general classrooms when teachers and school professionals are
effectively trained and well prepared to work with such students and related
concerns are tackled (Pearman, Haung, & Mellblom, 1997). As a result of
this belief, the inclusion philosophy was proposed by such educators as an
alternative for the mainstreaming assumption which hypothesizes that settings
determine the quality and quantity of services. According to Friend and Bursuck
(2002), inclusion stands for the philosophy that students with disabilities should be fully integrated into general
education classrooms as long as they are making progress toward the achievement
of IEP goals, even if they cannot meet classroom or content demands (p.4).
Some educators such as Ryan and Paterna, (1997) and Wilson, (1999) added that
inclusion comprises physical integration, placing students with disabilities in
the same classroom as non-disabled peers; social integration, nurturing student
relationships with peers and adults; and instructional integration, teaching
students based on their needs and not on a predetermined set of curricular
standards (as cited in Friend & Bursuck, 2002, p. 4)
Proponents of inclusion such as Schattman and Benay
(1992) found that students with disabilities in an inclusionary setting are
exposed to talented teachers, refine new social relationships with the same-age
peer group, and experience more quality programs in a regular education
classroom. Stainback and Stainback (1990) concluded that inclusion is an
appropriate instructional model because students with disabilities are accepted
and supported by their peers and other members of the school community while
having their educational needs met.
On
the other hand, there are some educators who are concerned about inclusion.
They argue that students with disabilities involved in inclusionary teams make
small and moderate gains in academic and social settings. Teacher time is taken
away from the other students in the inclusive classroom. Some teachers lack the
training, resources and other necessary supports to teach students
with disabilities. Teachers have to take more time when planning lessons
in order to adapt the lesson to the student or students with special needs
(Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1995; Cohen, 1994; Tornillo, 1994; Lieberman,
1992). Opponents of inclusion further noted that classroom management is harder
because of the addition of more students, students with disabilities were monopolizing an inordinate amount of
time and resources and, in some cases, creating violent classroom environments
(Sklaroff, 1994, p. 7). One additional concern is that students with
disabilities may not feel comfortable because they feel that they are different
from other students (Sklaroff, 1994).
Stronger
concern about and resistance to inclusion has been raised by Skrtic (1991). He
argued that special education system emerged precisely because of the non-adaptability of regular classrooms and
that, since nothing has happened to make contemporary classrooms any more
adaptable ..., [inclusion] most likely will lead to rediscovering the need for a
separate system in the future (p. 160).
Both
opponents and proponents of inclusion can find convincing research to support
their respective views. Today many research studies exist to show positive and
negative results for both special and general education students, including
academic and social benefits and consequences. Currently, the philosophy of inclusion appears to be
debatable; some are in agreement with this educational philosophy (e.g.,
Schattman & Benay, 1992; Stainback
& Stainback, 1990; Friend & Bursuck,
2002) and others are against it (e.g., Skrtic, 1991; Sklaroff, 1994; Baker,
Wang, & Walberg, 1995; Cohen, 1994; Tornillo, 1994; Lieberman, 1992). It is
up to the country’s legislation to support or oppose the practice. If the
country is in agreement with the values and merits of inclusion, then it will
facilitate the process of implementing it across its schools by providing the
necessary support needed for the establishment of efficient inclusion.
Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and students with
disabilities were found to be a critical factor in inclusive practices (Salend,
2005; Friend & Bursuck, 2002; Bender et al., 1995; Scruggs &
Mastropieri, 1996). However, the findings from previous studies have been
mixed. El-Ashry (2009) reviewed several studies that identified teachers’
attitudes toward inclusion, and then he classified their attitudes into three
groups; negative, positive, and neutral:
Some researchers have found that general education
teachers were not in favor of inclusion (Coates, 1989; Gersten, Walker, & Darch,
1988; Larrivee & Cook, 1979; Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, & Lesar, 1991).
Similarly, in their 1996 review, Scruggs and Mastropieri found that ten
studies, only 33% of general education teachers agreed that the general
education classroom was the best social or academic placement for students with
disabilities, although about two thirds of the participants supported the
concept of inclusion. On the other hand, other researchers reported that
teachers had more positive attitudes toward inclusion (Avramidis et al., 2000a;
Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Navin, 1996; Ward et al., 1994; York,
Vandercock, MacDonald, Heise-Neff, & Caughey, 1992). In addition, few
researchers reported that teachers had uncertain or neutral attitudes (Bennett,
Deluca, & Bruns, 1997; Leyser & Tappendorf, 2001) (p. 23).
Generally
speaking, inclusion protects students’ human right to be educated with peers,
maximize the potential of most students, and is the ultimate goal whenever
possible. Later in this section, the issue
of including students with disabilities in mainstream schools will be addressed
from the United Arab
Emirates’ perspective.
According
to the UAE Ministry of Education, the development of education in the UAE started effectively in 1962, where the
number of schools then was barely 20 schools, in which less than 4000 students
studied, mostly male students (2011, Para. 1). Upon the exploration of Oil
and the beginning of development, the UAE focused a lot of attention on
education. The country sat a plan to raise the rate of nationals in the
educational sector into 90% by the year 2020. Several departments were
established to ensure the right of education for all without discrimination;
women, adults, young youths, and students with special needs are welcomed in
the UAE schools. Consequently, a special department was established in the
Ministry of Education to cater for children with special needs, to empower them
for positive contributions to their communities. This department started to
record some success such as: The
establishment of a special farm runs completely by a group of physically
challenged students. The farm was called Zayed Agricultural
Center for the challenged
(Ministry of Education, 2011, Education in UAE, para. 15). The project
received huge attention and praise on an international level.
The
United Arab Emirates (UAE) has always been keen to provide all means of
comprehensive welfare for people with special needs in the field of education.
Federal Law No. (29) of 2006 is the first
law to be issued in UAE to protect the rights of people with special needs
(Abu Dhabi Government, 2011, para. 1). The UAE Ministry of
Education released a School for All or General Rules for the
Provision of Special Education Programs and Services guidebook in 2010 in
collaboration with the UAE Ministry of Social Affairs, with information and
rules about special needs education in the UAE. The handbook also includes
certain sections about the country’s vision toward the inclusion philosophy.
Particularly, article 13 of the same law (Law No. 29 of 2006) comes in
agreement with educators’ principles of effective inclusion. It emphasized that
the UAE Ministry of Education shall be committed to secure the complete
participation of students having disabilities in mainstream schools (Abu
Dhabi.ae, 2011a). According to the UAE Minister of Education, Inclusive education means that all students
in a school, regardless of their strengths or weaknesses in any area, become
part of the school community (Hassan, 2008, p.8).
Although there are several supportive attempts that
are made to promote effective inclusive education in the UAE schools, there are
some challenges that are in the way. My contact with teachers in inclusive
schools indicated that such teachers bemoan the fact that their schools and
staff were not ready yet to include
students with disabilities. Consequently, it became my goal to conduct this
study to describe the experiences and perspectives of a sample of UAE teachers
towards the inclusive education in the country. Another goal was to highlight
the current practices that are shaping the process of inclusive education in
UAE.
Over the past few years, a great number of students
with disabilities were integrated into public and private schools, as well as
in nurseries throughout the UAE. In a major renovation of special education
policy, the Ministry of Education published that it is to develop special needs programs in 110 public schools
(Lewis & Shaheen, 2010, para. 1). Private schools will also be required to
accept children with mild and moderate disabilities, though they will be
permitted to charge higher fees to fund the development of their own special
education programs. The General Secretariat Executive Council Emirate of Abu
Dhabi reported that many students from Abu Dhabi Rehabilitation and Care Center
for People with disabilities have been integrated into public schools this year
[2010] in addition to 23 students who had no previous schooling…In addition, 15
students have been integrated into higher education institutions (Lewis &
Shaheen, 2010). It was posted on ADEC’s official website on 1/3/2010 a total of
173 students with special needs have been integrated into Abu Dhabi’s
mainstream schools (Tahnoon, 2011, para. 5). The available data indicated
that the number of inclusive schools in the country is increasing.
It is important to mention here that the governmental
(public) schools are free for citizens and compulsory for students aged 6–12. Non-UAE
nationals may attend governmental schools as fee-paying students. Governmental
schools are gender-segregated, but private schools are co-educational. It is
worth mentioning here also that the UAE Ministry of Education is responsible
for all levels of government schooling, as well as supervision of the private
sector. Private schools at all levels must be licensed by the Ministry and
their programs accredited. About 25% of total government expenditure is
directed towards education. There is also a large network of private schools
operating at all levels on a fee-paying basis (Abu Dahbi.ae, 2011b).
Method
Participants
The study targeted 26 teachers in 26 schools; this
sample represents 30 % of the total number of inclusive schools in Abu Dhabi, UAE. All
teachers in the inclusive schools received a letter from the researcher to
invite them to participate in the study. The sample was randomly selected from
the list of those who positively responded to the invitation. The majority of
the teachers and students in these schools were Muslim-Arabs with diverse
socioeconomic status.
Teachers. The sample included 26 teachers in 26
inclusive schools in UAE. An application had been submitted to Abu Dhabi
Education Council (ADEC), UAE to allow me to carry out a survey of teachers who
teach in inclusive settings. An IRB approval was obtained from ADEC to survey
teachers in any of the participant schools. The Council also sent a memo to all
participant schools to cooperate with the researcher upon request. Teachers
were invited to contact me if they were interested in participating. Teachers
were assured that participation was voluntary, and they signed consent forms.
No incentives were offered. All expect two teachers in this sample were
Muslim-Arabs, Arabic was their first language and English was their second
language. Only two teachers were Americans with English tongue.
Schools. The sample included 26 randomly selected
governmental (public) and private schools (9 private and 17 governmental)
across all cycles (elementary, preparatory, and secondary). The sample,
unintentionally, included six female schools, ten male schools, and ten
co-educational schools.
Instrument
The researcher created a bilingual English-Arabic
survey to target teachers who were involved in teaching students with
disabilities in UAE inclusive schools. The participant teachers would select
the language of their preference. The responses expected were identical for
both languages. The survey began with five general questions to gather information
about the participant schools (e.g., school’s name; location; sector
(public/private); level (elementary, preparatory, secondary); and category
(male, female, co-educational). Section two of the survey asked eight general
questions about inclusion in UAE schools. Each question had a stem that started
with the statement Place a tick next to…,
and each question was followed by a number of choices to select from. All the
questions ended with this choice: Other,
this option was included to allow the respondents to add any further items if
they needed so. The following were the stems of the questions included in the
survey: (a) Place a tick next to the kinds of disabilities that the students in
your school have; (b) Place a tick next to the inclusion services that are
implemented in your school; (c) Place a tick next to the staff who is/are
responsible for teaching students with disabilities in your school; (d) Place a
tick next to the special education professionals if employed in your school;
(e) Place a tick next to the educational tools, equipment, or services if
available in your school; (f) Place a tick next to the accommodations that are
made in your school’s
buildings to facilitate the movement of students with disabilities; (g)
Place a tick next to the professional
development courses or training programs that you received to teach students
with disabilities; and (h) Place a tick next to the item that represents your
overall perspective toward inclusion as an educational philosophy.
Procedure
Twenty-six schools were randomly selected from the
seventy-five inclusive schools in Abu Dhabi-UAE. The researcher contacted these
schools and invited teachers to contact her if they were willing to share their
experiences as teachers in inclusive education. At least one positive response
was received from each school to end up with 26 participants from 26 distinct
schools. The 26 respondents were teachers of children who were either fully
included in general education classes or were in self-contained settings in
general education schools and were included to a lesser degree in some classes.
The participants were either general classroom teachers or special education
teachers. All expect two teachers in this sample were Muslim-Arabs, Arabic was
their first language and English was their second language. Only two teachers
were Americans with English tongue.
Survey Distribution
After an IRB approval from Abu Dhabi Education Council
(ADEC), was obtained, to survey teachers in the participating schools, and after
these schools received a memo from ADEC- requesting them to allow the
researcher to carry out the survey in their schools, the researcher would send
an invitation, via E-mail or phone, asking these teachers if they were
interested in participating in this study. Once their acceptance to answer the
survey was received, the researcher would visit their schools in order to
conduct the survey. All respondents could read and answer the questionnaire
within 30 minutes.
Data Analysis
This descriptive study was conducted to shed the light
on the nature of inclusive education in UAE schools. The primary data
collection instrument used in this study was a bilingual Arabic-English survey
to target teachers in inclusive settings. After the data collection had been completed,
the data were analyzed qualitatively in four major steps of data translation:
(a) initial tabulation and coding; (b) separate analysis of individual and
groups of questions; (c) counting and analyzing the responses using designed
tables; and (d) synthesis, interpretation, and discussion of results. Each
question in the survey was followed by a number of choices to select from.
Simply, the researcher would count the number of responses made by the
participant teachers next to each choice.
To analyze the responses drawn from the questionnaire, a table was made
for each question to count the number of responses placed next to each item.
For example, one of the questions asked if the school was private or
governmental. For this question, the table had two columns: column one had the
title Private School and column two
had the title Governmental school.
Next, the researcher would refer to that particular question across all the
surveys to place a tick under column one if the respondent chose Private School or a tick under column
two if the respondent chose Governmental School.
Later the number of ticks that were marked by the researcher in each column
would be tallied to conclude that the sample included 9 private schools and 17
governmental schools. This process of placing classified data into tables
facilitated the process of data interpretation. For data interpretation, a
separate analysis of individual and groups of questions was made. The units of
meaning were compared with each other and subsequently grouped with similar
units of meaning.
Based on the responses made on each question in the
survey the following five major themes emerged to describe the nature of
inclusive education in UAE public and private schools: (a) the existence of
students with disabilities in mainstream schools and the kinds of disabilities
they have; (b) types of teachers and school professionals in the inclusive
schools; (c) learning tools, equipment, and electronic services; (d) school
services and accommodations designed to facilitate the mobility of students
with disabilities; and (e) professional development courses and training
programs for staff to improve their experiences in inclusive settings.
To enhance reliability and internal validity,
appropriate sampling techniques were used and build a trail of evidence (hard
copies of the answered surveys with raw data, schedules of schools’ visits,
electronic messages with respondents, data reduction and data construction
products, soft copies of tables created for data analysis). In order to have
error- free results, the data analysis procedure was repeated two times by the
researcher.
Results
This descriptive study was conducted to shed the light
on the nature of inclusive education in UAE schools. The survey covered five
major areas to describe the nature of inclusive education in UAE public and
private schools: (a) the existence of students with disabilities in mainstream
schools and the kinds of disabilities they have; (b) the availability of
qualified teachers and school professionals in the inclusive schools; (c) the
availability of necessary learning tools, equipment, and electronic services;
(d) the availability of school services and accommodations designed to
facilitate the mobility of students with disabilities; and (e) the
accessibility of professional development courses and training programs for
staff to improve their experiences in inclusive settings.
Students with
Disabilities
Referring
to the questionnaire, all participant teachers emphasized that their schools
included students with different disabilities. Table 1 below classifies such
types of disabilities:
Table 1. Types of Disabilities in UAE Schools
Type of Disability
|
Number of Students
|
learning disabilities
|
10
|
speech or language impairments
|
7
|
emotional impairments
|
2
|
autism
|
3
|
hearing impairments
|
5
|
visual impairments
|
8
|
orthopedic impairments
|
2
|
attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder
|
10
|
The
data indicated that these UAE schools mainly included students with mild and
moderate disabilities. None of the respondents reported the existence of the
following severe disabilities in their schools: traumatic brain injury (TBI);
multiple disabilities; developmental disabilities; deaf-blindness; and mental
retardation. Participant teachers expected that their schools will include more
students with disabilities in the coming few years.
Inclusive
Services
The
questionnaire discussed the types of inclusive services and the kinds of
educational placements implemented in the participant schools. The list of
inclusive educational services that were implemented in the participant schools
were as shown in Table 2 below:
Table 2. Kinds
of Inclusive Educational Services in UAE Schools
Kinds of inclusive educational services
|
Number and sector of schools
|
Option 1. Full-time special education classroom
(restrictive educational placement, moderate educational need).
|
2, Governmental
|
Option 2. Special education classroom with part time
in general education classroom (restrictive educational placement, moderate educational
need)
|
5, Governmental
|
Option 3. General education classroom, placement
with resource room assistance (restrictive educational placement, moderate
educational need)
|
2, Governmental
|
Option 4. General education classroom, placement
with itinerant specialist assistance (least restrictive educational
placement, mild educational need)
|
2, Governmental
|
Option 5. General education classroom placement with
collaborative teacher assistance (least restrictive educational placement,
mild educational need)
|
2, Governmental
2,
private
|
Option 6. General education classroom placement with
few or no supportive services (least restrictive educational placement, mild
educational need)
|
4, Governmental
7,
private
|
Note: The list of inclusive educational services &
educational placements was adapted from Salend’s continuum of educational
services (2005, p 13).
It
is important to mention here that the participant schools used a continuum of
educational placements ranging from the highly integrated setting of the general
classroom to the highly segregated setting where instruction is delivered in
special education classrooms or resource rooms. It is no surprise that the
majority of the private schools in this sample placed special needs students in
the general education classrooms because it is the least costing program. Such
private schools cannot afford the expenses for employing additional personnel
or for providing any supportive curricular services and facilities in their
schools. For example, few or no special education professionals were employed
in the participant private schools as the regular teachers were usually the
only personnel who were in charge of helping and teaching their special needs
students.
School
Professionals
The participant teachers were also asked to identify
the special education professionals employed in their schools. The teachers’
responses were as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. The kind and Number of Special Education
Professionals Employed in the Participant Schools
Professionals
|
No. Governmental sector
|
No. Private sector
|
Total No.
|
Special education teachers
|
14
|
2
|
16
|
Audiologists
|
0 (available upon request)
|
0 (available upon request)
|
0
|
Counselors
|
8 (visit schools on a regular basis)
|
0
|
8
|
Occupational therapists
|
0 (available upon request)
|
0 (available upon request)
|
0
|
Psychologists
|
17
|
9
|
26
|
Recreational therapists
|
0 (available upon request)
|
0 (available upon request)
|
0
|
Social workers
|
17
|
9
|
26
|
Speech-language pathologists
|
8 (visit schools on a regular basis)
|
0
|
8
|
Teacher assistants
|
5
|
2
|
7
|
It is no surprise that the schools which placed
students in least restrictive environment to be the ones which also assigned
the teaching responsibility to the general classroom teachers because such
schools include students with mild educational needs. The questionnaire also
addressed the availability of other professionals who may work collaboratively
with the school team to diagnose, plan, teach, and assess students with
disabilities. According to the teachers’ responses, none of the schools in this
sample employed audiologists, occupational therapists, or recreational
therapists; however, they might be available upon request. Eight schools
indicated that itinerant speech-language pathologists may visit schools on a
regular basis (once a week) or upon request. The same applies to counselors who
may be consulted if needed. As for the following professionals: psychologists
and social workers, they were usually available in each school in the UAE, and
they had a share in the inclusion process.
Training Experiences
In regard to training, data drawn from the
questionnaire indicated that almost two thirds of the participants received
some training. On the other hand, the in-service teachers indicated that they
had not taken the necessary training to facilitate their roles as teachers in
inclusive schools. In many cases, participant teachers were unsatisfied about
the sketchy training sessions that they had received. They expressed their
urgent need for more specialized intensive courses and training programs on the
proper care for students with disabilities.
Tools and Equipment
As for the availability of special equipment and tools
in the participant schools, the data drawn from the questionnaire indicated
that the accessibility of the developed tools and equipment is limited in these
schools. The participant teachers were asked to place a tick next to the items
that were available in their schools and the responses were as shown in Table
4.
Table 4. Learning Tools and Equipment
Tools &
Equipment
|
Availability
in Schools
|
Special
laptops
|
available in
2 schools
|
Smart Boards
|
available in
3 schools
|
Data Shows
|
available in
15 schools
|
Braille
Printers
|
available in
1 school
|
Electronic
Magnification Kits
|
available in
3 schools
|
Portable
Magnifiers
|
available in
3 schools
|
Talking
calculator
|
available in
2 schools
|
Perkins
Braille
|
available in
2 schools
|
Tactile
globe
|
available in
1 school
|
Derbi Share
Language Test Kit
|
available in
1 school
|
When
participating teachers were asked to identify if other tools, equipment, or
services existed in their schools, they listed the following: FM, I Pad,
AirWriter, large screen TV, Solo liberty low
vision aids, and various manipulatives such as ORT stories, blocks,
balls, play dough, etc. Interestingly, almost all of the schools that claimed
the availability of supportive services and electronic educational tools and
equipment were from the governmental sector. It is obvious that the Ministry of
Education is paying special efforts to develop successful inclusive environment
in the governmental schools, however less attention had been made to support
the private sector.
Accommodations
Concerning
the design of the school building, seven teachers responded that their schools
have ramps for wheel chairs. No other accommodations were described by the
participant teachers. The rest of the respondents in this sample reported that
their schools were not really designed to include students with disabilities.
Teachers’
Perspective
Surprisingly,
when the participant teachers were asked to express their overall perspective
toward the philosophy of inclusive education, all except three teachers agreed
that it is a positive step toward the future of special education in UAE.
However, all participant teachers were more likely to support inclusive
education when: (a) Schools employ a team of specialized professionals to deal
with inclusive issues; (b) Schools create warm learning environments by
emphasizing the values of diversity among students with and without disabilities
and in the whole society; (c) Schools are supported with all necessary
developed learning tools, equipment, and electronic services; (d) Schools
design their classrooms and the whole school building to facilitate the
mobility of students with disabilities; and (e) Schools promote ongoing
specialized training for teachers and other professionals to develop
professionally.
Discussion
Data
drawn from the questionnaire that was directed to 26 teachers in UAE inclusive
schools indicated that the participant schools used a continuum of educational
placements ranging from the highly integrated setting of the general classroom
to the highly segregated setting where instruction is delivered in special
education classrooms and resource rooms. This finding is consistent with
previous research results (Salend, 2005; Friend, & Bursuck, 2002), they
suggested full or partial placement in general classrooms based on student’s
special needs and disability status. El-Ashry (2009) found in his study that
many Egyptian teachers claimed to support inclusion. However, these teachers
believed in the importance of maintaining separate settings based on the
students’ academic performance and based on the severity of students’
disabilities. Indeed, similar concerns were raised by the teachers in the
present study.
In
regard to the number of students included in mainstream schools, data showed
that the number of students ranged from three to ten in each school. It is
relatively a small number; however, the number is increasing every year since
UAE had adopted the philosophy of inclusion in 2006. It was reported in the Al
Manal specialized magazine that the UAE Ministry of Education works endlessly
to adjust 600 schools [to become
inclusive schools], which represents 62% of the population [schools], in the
coming three years (Al Manal, 2011, para., 2). This attitude of including a
small number of students with disabilities in mainstream schools is consistent
with other studies that described inclusion in Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine; they
reported that these Arab countries implemented inclusion in a limited number of
schools at the experimental levels, later on, the number would be increased
gradually (Alghazo, Dodeen, &Algaryouti, 2003; Gumpel & Awartani, 2003;
Romi & Leyser, 2006).
Data
also showed that the types of disabilities that the students had were mainly
moderate and minor. None of the participant schools in the present study
included students with severe disabilities. This finding affirms the previous
research results that schools are more inclined to include students with minor
and mild disabilities than students with more severe intellectual and emotional
and behavioral disabilities (El-Ashry, 2009; Wladron, & McLeskey, 1998;
Ward et al., 1994). This specific attitude might be based on a common belief
that students with mild disabilities require less modification of curriculum
and instruction (Mastropieri &, Scruggs, 2000). It is reasonable for UAE
schools, which had not implemented inclusion for long, to include students with
minor disabilities until they become competent to include students with severe
disabilities- such children need special care and attention.
In regard to training and professional development
opportunities, all the teachers who participated in this study were concerned
about the available trainings. Although there is evidence that positive
attitudes about inclusion correlate with feelings of being well prepared
(Mastropieri &, Scruggs, 2000; Bender et al., 1995), all teachers in this
study reported a lack of confidence and unpreparedness to teach in inclusive
classrooms. All what they received were sketchy training sessions which did not
necessarily prepare them to teach in inclusive settings. This is hardly
surprising given that the structure of their general education program did not
include a single course about exceptional learners in general or inclusive
education in particular. Previous literature has documented the positive effect
of special education coursework and professional training in relation to
teachers’ perspectives toward inclusion and increased awareness of techniques
for successful inclusive practices (as cited in El-ashry 2009; Carroll et al.,
2003; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Shade & Stewart, 2001; Shippen,
Crites, Houchins, Ramsey, & Simon, 2005). It is necessary that UAE
undergraduate programs consider including courses on teaching exceptional
learners in inclusive settings. In a study by Bender et al., (1995) a positive
correlation was found between teachers attitudes and the number of courses
taken in teaching students with disabilities.
Although
research emphasized that ongoing observation and evaluation by specialists are
essential elements for improving students’ learning (Mastropieri &,
Scruggs, 2000; Hines & Johnston, 1997), the participant teachers reported
that their schools lacked special education professionals and personnel. For
example, none of the schools in this sample employed audiologists, occupational
therapists, or recreational therapists.
The
participating teachers in the present study were unsatisfied due to a lack of
necessary educational resources, tools and equipment in their classrooms.
Similarly, previous studies reported that teachers considered the absence of
appropriate materials and equipment in general education schools as barriers to
successful inclusion (Alghazo, Dodeen, &
Algaryouti, 2003; El-Ashry, 2009).
The majority of the schools in this sample were not
efficiently designed to facilitate the movement of children with exceptional
disabilities. Although previous research has documented the relationship
between successful inclusion and efficient accommodations in school’s physical
environment (Salend, 2005; Mastropieri &, Scruggs, 2000; Salend, &
Duhaney, 1999), teachers reported that insufficient accommodations were made to
support inclusion. The only accommodation that was reported by the participants
in this sample was ramps for wheel chairs. No other accommodations or services
were described by the respondents.
In regard to the teachers’ overall perspective toward
the concept of inclusion, the participating teachers shared the same
perceptions about inclusion with other teachers in other earlier studies. The
primary findings are that teachers agree in principle with the goals of
inclusion, but many do not feel prepared to work in inclusive settings
(Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000; Hines & Johnston, 1997). May be this is
due to the fact that inclusion is relatively a new practice in the UAE and
teachers are not necessarily capable of dealing with the inclusion issues.
Conclusion
In order to get a clear image of the nature of
inclusive education in UAE schools, it is necessary to conduct a study that
describes the issues related to inclusion from teachers’ perspectives. A bilingual Arabic-English questionnaire was
developed to target teachers in 26 public and private schools in the UAE. The
results drawn from this questionnaire indicated that a variety of public and
private organizations under the umbrella of the UAE Ministry of Education are committed to secure the
complete participation of students having special needs in mainstream schools.
Generally speaking, the participant teachers in this study agreed in principle
with the concept of inclusion, yet they lacked confidence and preparedness to work
in inclusive settings. Their dissatisfaction about the
inclusion process in the UAE schools was due to a lack of appropriate training
for teachers in mainstream classrooms, ignorance about inclusion among
senior-level administrators, a general lack of funding for resources and
training, and a lack of society awareness regarding the issues they may face
during the inclusion process. These findings are consistent with those of other
studies conducted in other countries. For example, Alghazo, Dodeen, and Algaryouti
(2003) found that Jordanian teachers, in general, are concerned about teaching
in inclusive settings for the lack of professional development training to
teach in inclusive environments. Similarly, Palestinian and Egyptian Arab
teachers reported anxious attitudes toward inclusion at both in-service (Gumpel
& Awartani, 2003) and pre-service (El-Ashry, 2009; Romi & Leyser, 2006)
levels due to their limited expertise to teach students with different
disabilities. This attitude might be attributed to the fact that inclusion is a
relatively new phenomenon and it is less widely practiced in the Arab countries
as compared to Western countries like the US, Germany, and Canada. In their
cross-cultural study, Leyser and colleagues (1994) found that teachers in the United States and Germany expressed the most positive
attitudes toward inclusion.
Data
showed that none of the UAE schools included students with severe disabilities
(e.g., severe mental impairments or emotional impairments). Some of the
teachers in this study expressed concerns about the inclusion of such types of
disabilities as they need extra support and effort during the teaching process.
Similarly, Romi and Leyser (2006) found that although teachers supported
inclusion and believed in the benefits of inclusion for all students, they
expressed concerns about behavior problems and management issues in inclusive
settings. Although inclusion in the UAE still at the experimental level, it
would be insightful to study how students with and without disabilities accept
each other in the inclusive classroom. This would be an important study because
teaching strategies that utilize peer assistance are integral part of the
inclusive settings.
Participant
teachers did emphasize that there is a great need for extra efforts to create a
culture of team work, one hand can’t clap.
They added that the UAE inclusive schools should encourage the effective
involvement of special need students, parents, school professionals, educators,
and community stakeholders in the inclusion process. It’s only by team work
spirit that we will be able to achieve the ultimate goal of the UAE Ministry of
Education, to craft a School for All
and to ensure that no student with disability is left behind.
References
ADEC. (2010). ADEC organizes a training program on the use of
special needs equipment [Press Release file]. Retrieved from http://www.adec.ac.ae/English/Pages/PressRelease.aspx.
Alghazo, E. M., Dodeen, H., &
Algaryouti, I. A. (2003). Attitudes of
pre-service teachers towards persons with disabilities. College Student
Journal, 37(4), 515–522.
Abu
Dahbi.ae. (2011a). Federal Law No. (29) [Service Topics file]. Retrieved from
http://www.abudhabi.ae/egovPoolPortal_WAR/appmanager/ADeGP/Citizen?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=P1200125611281857352633&did=231072&lang=en
Abu Dahbi.ae. (2011b). Abu Dahbi
Education System [Service Topics file]. Retrieved from
http://www.abudhabi.ae/egovPoolPortal_WAR/appmanager/ADeGP/Citizen?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=p19654&lang=en
Al Manal 251st.
(2011, February 28). News. Al Manal Magazine, 251. Retrieved from http://www.schs.ae/news/newsDisplay.aspx?NewsID=120
Baker, E.T., Wang, M.C., & Walberg,
H.J. (1995). Synthesis of research: The effects of inclusion on Learning. Educational
Leadership, 52 (4), 33-34.
Bender,
W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers’ attitudes toward
increased mainstreaming: Implementing effective instruction for students with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28,
87-94.
Cohen, O. (1994, April 20). Inclusion
should not include deaf students. Education Week, 35.
Etscheidt, S.K, & Bartlett, L.
(1999). The IDEA amendment: A four-step approach for determining supplementary
aids and services. Exceptional Children, 65, 163-174.
El-Ashry, F. (2009). General
education pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion in Egypt.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0024244/elashry_f.pdf
Friend,
M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2002). Including students with special needs: A
practical guide for classroom teacher (3rd ed.). USA, Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Gumpel,
T. & Awartani, S. (2003). A comparison of special education in Israel and Palestine:Surface
and deep structures, Journal of Special Education, 37, 33–48.
General Secretariat Executive Council
Emirate of Abu Dhabi.
(2010). ADEC Provides Educational
Equipments [Government News file] Retrieved from
http://gsec.abudhabi.ae/Sites/GSEC/Navigation/EN/MediaCentre/government-news,did=153746.html
Hines, R. A., & Johnston, J. H.
(1997). Inclusion. In J. L. Irvin (Ed.), What current research says to the
middle level practitioner (pp. 109-120). Columbus,
OH: NMSA.
Hassan, H. (2008). Inclusion in the
UAE [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Policy_Dialogue/48th_ICE/Presentations/IBE_ICE_Workshop_3B_Presentation_EN_Hanif_Hassan_Nov08.pdf
Lieberman, L. M. (1992). Preserving
special education…for those who need it. In W. Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting
special education: Divergent perspectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Leyser,
Y., Kapperman, G., & Keller, R. (1994). Teacher attitudes toward
mainstreaming: A cross cultural study in six nations. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 9, 1-15.
Lewis, K. & Shaheen, K. (2010,
May 21). Schools told to make room for special needs pupils. The National.
Retrieved from
http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/education/schools-told-to-make-room-for-special-needs-pupils#
Mastropieri, M. A.,
& Scruggs, T. E. (2000). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for
effective instruction. Upper
Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Ministry of
Education. (2011). Education in the UAE. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.ae/English/Pages/UaeEdu.aspx.
Pearman, E. L., Haung, A. M., &
Mellblom, C. I. (1997). The inclusion of all students: concerns and incentives
of educators. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities, 32, 11-20.
Ryan, S., & Paterna, L. (1997).
Junior high can be inclusive: Using natural supports and cooperative learning. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 30 (2), 36-41.
Romi,
S.& Leyser, Y. (2006) Exploring inclusion preservice training needs: A
study of variables associated with attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs. European
Journal of Special Needs Education. 21(1), 85-105.
Stanovich, P. J. (1999). Conversations
about inclusion. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31 (6), 54-58.
Salend, S. J., & Duhaney, L. M. G.
(1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and without disabilities and
their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 114-126.
Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating inclusive
classrooms: Effective and reflective practices for all students (5th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Scruggs,
T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of
mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional
Children, 63, 59-74.
Schattman, R., and Benay, J. (1992).
Inclusive practices transform special education in the 1990's, The School
Administrator, 49 (2), 8-12.
Stainback, W. & Stainback, S.
(1990). Support networks for inclusive schooling. Baltimore: Brookes.
Skrtic, T. M. (1991, May). The special
education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational
Review, 61(2), 148-206.
Sklaroff,
S. (1994, January 12). A.F.T. urges halt to ‘full inclusion’ movement. Education
Week, p. 7.
Tornillo, P. (1994, March 6). A
lightweight fad bad for our schools? OrlandoSentinel.
Tahnoon,
N. (2011). Special needs students [News Catalog file] Retrieved from
http://www.adec.ac.ae/NewsCatalog/Forms/DispForm.aspx?ID=110
Wladron, N. L., & McLeskey, J.
(1998). The effects of an inclusive school program on students with mild and
severe learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 395-405.
Wilson, B. A. (1999). Inclusion:
Empirical guidelines and unanswered question. Education and Training in
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, 119-133.
Yssel, Nina; Engelbrecht, Petra; Oswald, Magdalena;
Eloff, Irma; and Swart, Estelle. (2007). Views of inclusion: A comparative
study of parents’ perceptions in South Africa
and the United States.
Remedial and Special Education, 28, 356-365.
Ward,
J., Center, Y., & Bochner, S. (1994). A question of attitudes: Integrating
children with disabilities into regular classrooms? British Journal of
Special Education, 21, 34–39.
Very nice blog and thanks for sharing the information with us.
ReplyDeleteSchools in Dubai