Challenges of integration: implications for teacher education CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Paper to be presented at AARE Annual Conference Freemantle, W.A. November, 1993 Lyn Gow*, John Balla** and Cathy Reddacliff* * Faculty of Education University of Western Sydney, Macarthur ** Faculty of Health Sciences University of Sydney ABSTRACT This presentation examines some of the major challenges related to the integration of students with disabilities into the mainstream of education with an emphasis on the implications for teacher education. With the continued movement to integration in all states of Australia, teacher educators must be sensitised to the need to impart skills in individualisation of instruction in all content areas. Towards the year 2000, teacher education will witness the development of more and closer multidisciplinary partnerships with a shared vision relating to the need to include all students in the one education system. The need to prepare teachers for an uncertain future calls for more creative and flexible approaches to teacher education. If we want a clever country, we need clever teachers. Clever teachers are those who appreciate that good teaching is good for all students. The paper provides a review of the literature and describes innovative, creative and flexible approaches to teacher education which have been researched by the authors. Integration is one of the most significant challenges facing educators, other allied professionals and parents today. It is a central issue in the contemporary education of students with special needs in Australia, as indeed in other parts of the world. Integration policies have implications not only for students with special needs, but also for a range of other stakeholders, including parents, teachers, students, health and other allied professionals, indeed, the whole school community. It requires the restructuring and reconceptualising of education to cater for the entire range of individual differences. A diverse set of resources remains currently untapped in the allied professions and the wider community. Integration involves meeting the needs of all students in one school system, so that they can live and learn together in caring communities. The integration movement which was a reaction to the exclusion of students with disabilities from mainstream education, remains a controversial issue. It is based on the Principle of Normalisation (Nirje, 1985; Wolfensberger, 1972) which generally implies providing patterns of life and everyday living which are as close as possible to 'normal'. While the concept of integration seems simple and a worthy goal for education and community services, the implications of integration for teacher education have not always been well understood. "An issue of continuing importance is the question of which knowledge, behaviour and skills are needed by teachers and associated professionals to provide handicapped students with an appropriate education designed to meet their individual needs" (Leyser & Abrams, 1986: 173). How best to develop the knowledge, attitudes and expertise of pre-service teachers for including all students in mainstream classes is the challenge which is presented to teacher educators today. Recent ministerial directives in NSW have made the inclusion of a special education component in all undergraduate teacher training courses mandatory. Teacher education institutions must prepare beginning teachers for life in inclusive classrooms; life which is certain to be demanding. Neither their training nor their isolated teaching experiences have so far prepared pre-service teachers to meet the needs of an heterogeneous school population. Graduating teachers frequently report that they lack competence in individualising instruction, adapting curricula, behaviour management and communication (Leyser & Abrams, 1986). Three years spent in teacher training courses is precious little time in which to mould the kind of teachers that all children deserve. The challenge is long overdue for teacher training institutions to look seriously at what they do and how they do it! And, a challenge it will be; educational establishments, steeped in conservatism, are typically resistant to change and teacher training institutions are no exception. Tertiary educators have expertly maintained the status quo in their profession. Lectures, practicums and examinations have clearly been the norm of academic instruction and assessment. They epitomise the philosophies of competition, academic standards and excellence, unwittingly reproducing and reinforcing the dichotomous alternatives of pass/fail, inclusion/exclusion, best/worst, have/have not, clever/not clever, from one generation to the next. Mintzberg (1979) refers to this as convergent thinking aimed at perfection rather than divergent thinking aimed at innovation. Public schools are the mirror images of today's colleges and universities because school personnel are graduates of colleges and universities. Present school organisation tends to be rigid and compartmentalist; it does not respond well to diversity (Skrtic, 1991). "While our efforts to transform schooling and society through critical praxis in teacher education alone will not be sufficient...to accept things as they are or to assume we cannot have an impact is to render us impotent" (Ginsburg, 1988: 213). Schools of the twenty first century will need to be multipurpose institutions which cater flexibly for an increasing diversity and change in the school population. Technological advances and the economic climate of the last decade have had a wide-ranging impact on contemporary society. The number, age, entering qualifications and background of those wishing to train for a career in teaching has altered. "It became clear that the educational needs of the nineties called for creative changes if professional services were to be appropriately delivered" (Hewitson, McWilliam & Burke, 1991: 247). The major purpose of teacher education is to introduce pre- service teachers to the best that is known about how to educate all students. In higher education, regular education staff often have content area expertise while special education staff have the adaptive learning and behaviour management expertise needed by both regular and special educators. "Integrating and using this diversity of knowledge can improve teacher education and better prepare pre-service teachers to educate integrated populations" (Miller, 1991: 20). Good teachers, special or regular, are those who have competencies from which any child can benefit. As Forest (1987: 17) suggests, if we can put men and women on the moon, then "surely we can put a child into the real world of school and figure out a proper program". Pre-service teacher education must encapsulate the concept of teaching for individual needs along a continuum of ability levels. It is important for pre-service teachers to be able to practise the latest and best ideas available about how to teach, and develop their skills to the fullest potential. Alexander, Muir & Chant (1992) found that the aims of beginning teachers were essentially pragmatic; to become competent teachers for all the learners in their classrooms. Teaching Counts, a recent report by the Hon. Kim Beazley M.P., stresses the importance of developing the professional expertise of teachers in this country. If Australia is the clever country, then it needs clever teachers; clever enough to teach all of the students all of the time. Several basic questions arise which require urgent answers by tertiary educators: What are the skills required of good teachers in this country? Are there innate gifts which all teachers must have to be successful in the teaching profession? Can these "gifts" be identified prior to enrolment in teacher training? As Beazley notes, teachers count, but teacher education counts more. Do we have a vision of the direction which teacher education should take and is it a long-term vision? Have we laid the foundation for this vision and is it a shared one? The views of pre-service teachers about the education of students with special learning needs are influenced by encounters with teacher educators (Helldin, 1992). Teacher education institutions have a major role in empowering graduates and inservice professionals to: 1. develop (anti-bias) curriculum and quality instructional methods for students with a wide variety of personal characteristics and educational needs; 2. individualise instruction and be accountable for all children; 3. be eclectic (use a combination of best practices) in their approach to teaching but also be aware of the implications of more controversial programs; 4. develop positive attitudes toward accommodating diversity; 5. work collaboratively in with all stakeholders (including the students themselves); teaching can no longer afford to be an isolated profession (Sarason, 1971); 6. access support networks; 7. optimise the utilisation of community resources: ¥ volunteers ¥ grandparents ¥ service clubs ¥ universities ¥ other organizations; 8. be effective advocates for integration; 9. create caring cultures in schools; communities where teachers, parents and students learn together 10. be agents of change within schools; and 11. access exemplary practices and new policies; 12. be involved in action research Teacher education has been the target of a great deal of criticism, but in fairness, there are examples of good practice. Let's focus on what is working. In good teacher education programmes, teacher educators are involved in schools with pre- service teachers, showing them the finer points of individualised instruction and taking a personal interest in them. Good teacher educators provide appropriate models of good teaching practices, collaborative teamwork and commitment. Their lessons are well- prepared, well presented, informative, challenging and reflect best practice. Research should guide our practice as teacher educators (Adler, 1993: 160). In order to impart the skills required of graduating teachers, teacher educators need to be aware of the latest research, policies and exemplary international practices, in order to: ¥ find creative and innovative solutions for teacher education rather than relying on the traditional methods (i.e. lectures and practicums); ¥ be flexible and adaptable in a rapidly changing society, to keep abreast of new developments; and ¥ translate research into user-friendly terms. Research findings presented in professional jargon will rarely reach classrooms much less be adopted in them. Staff who are recruited to work in teacher education establishments should be those who are in touch with the reality of today's schools. Lecturers should be required to show evidence of relevant knowledge and recent experience in the school system (e.g. practicum supervision, curriculum development. Promotion in teacher education institutions should reinforce and encourage innovative action rather than number of years of service. Good teacher educators are those who maintain their teaching skills and keep themselves at the forefront of their field. They remain in touch with the latest pedagogy, technology, curriculum and instructional strategies. Flexibility in the assessment of staff for promotions should be evident. An overemphasis on involvement in administrative and committee activities ignores the fundamentals of good teaching examples. Student evaluations of staff should feature strongly in assessment procedures for promotions. Good teacher education programmes are flexible, responsive systems. There will be a continued need to educate staff for schools with specialised knowledge (e.g. administrators and facilitators with expertise in collaborative teaming and consultation). Good teacher education institutions are those who respond to changes in society by developing courses specifically designed to meet consumer needs. Of all the skills required of tertiary educators, the one which is in urgent need of development is the formation of collaborative partnerships. "People acting together as a group can accomplish things which no individual could ever hope to bring about" (Roosevelt). The cornerstone of successful inclusion is educational collaboration (Idol & West, 1991). In the past, teacher education establishments have seen few models of adult educators collaborating across disciplines or areas of expertise (e.g. with other professionals, paraprofessionals, advocacy groups or specialists). Tertiary educators need to be able to facilitate the development of collaborative teaming (Thousand, Fox, Reid, Godek, Williams & Fox; 1986). The Leisure Club (an ESCLATE1 initiative) at the University of Western Sydney, Macarthur is an example of a collaborative project where pre- service and in-service teachers can develop their skills in teaching and developing leisure activities for children with special needs. Collaborative partnerships with other universities can encourage the cross-fertilisation of ideas and the exchange of pre-service teachers and staff between these institutions. Although competition exists between universities for funds, staff and students, there is no reason why this competition cannot occur with a cooperative spirit. Another important collaborative partner which is often neglected is the media. The media is a resource which can be harnessed to improve the status of teachers in the community and disseminate the findings of educational research. Tertiary institutions are in a position to set an example for an inclusive society. Students who have previously been excluded may now be admitted through Open Learning and other innovative programmes. In times of rapid change teacher educators must be both activists and reflective observers of the world. Their vision of a more just society influences the extent to which professional preparation transforms into practice. Now, more than ever, we need to work together in teacher education, mindful that coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; but working together is success. As recommended by Thousand & Villa (1990), we need a united advocacy effort to promulgate national policy prohibiting segregated education for any child entering school in the twenty first century. We have seven years to further research and refine strategies for inclusion and personalised instruction, so that we can produce good teachers for all students. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions made by their colleagues, Jean Jenkin, Valentina McInerney and Nicki Levi (Faculty of Education, University of Western Sydney, Macarthur), to this paper and to teacher education. REFERENCES Adler, S.A. (1993). Teacher education: research as reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(2), 159-167. Alexander, D., Muir, D. & Chant, D. (1992). Interrogating stories: how teachers think they learned to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(1), 59-68. Commonwealth Department of Employment Education and Training, (1993). Teaching counts. A ministerial statement by the Hon. Kim C. Beazley, M.P. Canberra: Commonwealth Information Services: Australian Government Publishing Service. Forest, M. (1987). More education/integration. Downsview, ON.: The G. Allan Roeher Institute. Ginsburg, M.B. (1988). Contradictions in teacher education and society: a critical analysis. New York: Falmer Press. Helldin, R. (1992). The special teacher's competence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(5/6), 451-463. Hewitson, M., McWilliam, E. & Burke, C. (1991). Responding to teacher education imperatives for the nineties. Australian Journal of Education, 35(3), 246-260. Idol, L. & West, F. (1991). Educational collaboration: a catalyst for effective schooling. Intervention in School and Clinic, 27(2), 70-78. Leyser, Y. & Abrams, P.D. (1986). Perceived training needs of regular and special education student teachers in the area of mainstreaming. The Exceptional Child, 33(3), 173-180. Miller, D.E. (1991). Merging regular and special education teacher preparation programs: the integrated special education- english project (ISEP). Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(1), 19- 23. Nirje, B. (1985). The basic and logic of the normalisation principle. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 11, 65-68. Mintzberg, H. (1979).The structuring of organizations. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sarason, S. (1971).The culture of the school and the problem of change. Newton, MA: Harvard University Press. Skrtic, T. (1991). The special education paradox: equity as a way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61(2), 148-206. Thousand, J.S., Fox, T.J., Reid, R. Godek, J. Williams, W. & Fox, W.L. (1986). The homecoming model: educating students who present intensive educational challenges within regular education environments. Burlington, VT.: University of Vermont, Centre for Developmental Disabilities. Thousand, J.S & Villa, R.A. (1990). Sharing expertise and responsibilities through teaching teams. In: W. Stainback & Stainback, S. (Eds.), Support networks for inclusive schooling: interdependent integrated education. Baltimore, MD.: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalisation in human services. Toronto, Canada: National Institute of Mental Retardation. The commitment, skills, attitudes, curricula, instructional strategies and environmental factors necessary for successful integration must be validated through careful research. *what teachres fear The future will necessitate greater collaboration between all stakeholders, with the teachers being managers and facilitators of learning, accountable for both human and physical resources. * 1 ESCLATE (Education Support Centre for Learning and Teaching Enhancement) is a research centre for research on inclusion and quality of life enhancement for people with disabilities