Preparing teachers for inclusive education in cyprus

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 513–522 www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Preparing teachers for inclusive education in Cyprus Panayiotis Angelides , Tasoula Stylianou, Paul Gibbs School of Education, Intercollege, 46, Makedonitissas Avenue, P.O. Box 24005, Nicosia 1700, Cyprus

Abstract In this study, we explore the following questions: (a) How do Cyprus universities that educate teachers respond to the challenge of inclusive education? Are the programmes of these institutions designed on the basis of the principles of inclusive education? What are the barriers that prevent student teachers to develop inclusive practices? How universities could help their student teachers to develop inclusive practices? These questions were investigated through qualitative data.

In particular, the case study of a higher education institution in Cyprus was developed. The analysis of these data indicates certain factors that act as barriers in the development of inclusive practices by student teachers. These factors are related to the curricula, the notion of inclusion and to the different levels of culture. Developing these factors, we present at the same time particular suggestions for overcoming these barriers. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Inclusive education; Teacher education; Cyprus

1. Introduction In the light of changes in thinking and practice that are currently occurring throughout the world in the area that is traditionally called ‘special education’, Cyprus, like many other countries, is reviewing and developing its educational system in an effort to increase the participation and learning of those children who are considered to have special educational needs. From May 1st 2004, Cyprus officially becomes a member of the European Union. With this in mind, the concept of inclusion is likely to replace the concept of integration as an educational priority as it has done in other EU Corresponding author. Tel.: +357 22357661;

fax: +357 22357665.

E-mail addresses: Angelides.p@intercollege.ac.cy, Kakiag@globalsoftmail.com (P. Angelides).

member states (e.g. England, Norway). Before proceeding further it is important to make a distinction between the terms ‘inclusion’ and ‘integration’. Although these terms are sometimes used inter-changeably and while their distinction is not so obvious, they still have some differences. ‘‘‘Integration’ implies something done to disabled people by non-disabled people according to their standards and conditions—an assimilation model’’ (CSIE, 2002, p. 2). It also implies that the goal is to integrate someone who has been excluded from the mainstream back into it. ‘‘‘Inclusion’ better conveys a right to belong to the mainstream and a joint undertaking to end discrimination and to work towards equal opportunities for all pupils’’ (CSIE, 2002, p. 2).

Like many other countries in the world, Cyprus is in a process of expanding provision for previously marginalised children through policies of inclusion.

0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.11.013

ARTICLE IN PRESS 514

P. Angelides et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 513–522

Our position, which is revealed throughout this paper, is that inclusive education is a positive development. However, we recognised that this is a debateable position and would point to Avramidis and Norwich (2002) for an interesting discussion, because there are stakeholders who consider inclusion as a negative development.

Under the current system of education in Cyprus many pupils who experience difďŹ culties within schools (and many of those are pupils who have been integrated from special schools) are marginalised or even excluded from teaching. During the last decade the government of Cyprus has encouraged and supported the education of children considered as having special needs within the mainstream educational system. Furthermore, a ‘special’ teacher for the support of these children has been placed in almost all schools. In most cases ‘special’ teachers are part timers and cover two or three schools per week The traditional ďŹ eld of ‘special’ education, not only in Cyprus but in many other parts of the world as well, faces one of the deepest challenges in its history: it is merging with ‘mainstream’ education (Booth & Ainscow, 1998a). This means that children who may in the past have been served primarily by ‘special’ teachers in segregated settings are increasingly becoming the concern of every educator. Mainstream schools have to be transformed in ways that will increase their capacity to respond to all children. The implication of this is that all teachers have to modify their practice in order to be able to teach effectively children who are considered as having ‘special needs’ and to put into operation policies of inclusion. New teachers who enter the teaching profession should acquire similar practices.

This analysis gives rise to questions for Cyprus universities such as:

How do universities that train teachers respond to the challenge of inclusive education?

Are the programmes of these institutions designed on the basis of the principles of inclusive education?

What are the barriers that prevent student teachers from developing inclusive practices?

How could universities help their student teachers to develop inclusive practices?

Based on these questions, we tried to investigate in depth the response of the Cyprus university sector

to the challenge of inclusive education. In this study, we attempted to answer the above questions and, using these answers as a stimulus, we present suggestions for change in the structures and curriculum of universities that train teachers in order to improve the inclusive practices of their students. We developed the case of a university that educates teachers and the participants were around a hundred 3rd and 4th year students.

At the beginning, we discuss the term ‘inclusive education’ and then we connect it with teachers’ education. After this, we present the methodology we used and our data analysis. Through this analysis a number of themes arose and they were related to factors that appear to prevent student teachers from developing inclusive practices. We developed these themes and supported them with data. At the end, we conclude with some suggestions for overcoming these barriers and a number of questions for further research.

2. Inclusive education The idea of inclusive education has dominated the development of curricula as well as the development of the educational systems of many countries in the world. However, the notion of inclusive education is different from country to country, even within the same educational systems (Booth & Ainscow, 1998a). Inclusive education does not simply refer to the placement of children with special needs into mainstream schools, but it is also concerned with the conditions under which we can effectively educate all children (Barton, 1997). Sebba and Ainscow (1996), for example, deďŹ ne inclusive education as the process with which schools try to respond to all pupils as individuals, reviewing the organisation and provision of their curriculum.

Inclusive education in a sense is the practice that provides school experiences to children with special needs in the same school and classrooms they would attend if they did not have special needs. It is the process during which all children, regardless of their abilities and needs, participate in the same school (Thomas, 1997). The main purpose of this process is the education of all children regardless of differences, problems, and difďŹ culties. This can be considered as a school for all. Such a school accepts all children, understands their individuality, and responds to their individual needs. A school for all is a place where every child can develop according to his or her abilities, skills, and talents.

ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Angelides et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 513–522

Booth and Ainscow (1998b) go a step further and see inclusive education with a wider lens: Inclusion and exclusion are as much about participation and marginalisation in relation to race, class, gender, sexuality, poverty and unemployment as they are about traditional special education concerns with students categorised as low attainment, disabled or deviant in behaviour (p. 2).

Inclusive education, then, is related to participation and learning, to the acceptance of difference, to the school as a whole, to democracy and to society in general. Inclusive education means that all children have the right to attend the school of their neighbourhood. Inclusive education is not limited into certain groups of pupils but it is addressed to all stakeholders (pupils, teachers, parents, etc.). In this education all voices should be heard and changes should come to the school system as well as to pupils as individuals. Inclusive education is related to school cultures, to the educational policy in general and to social justice. Most important though is that inclusive education is a continuous process and not just a stage that we can reach at a certain moment.

3. Teacher education and inclusive education Of course, teacher education is not something that we could easily determine. It is a wide term and it cannot be limited to education provided by universities. The largest part of teacher education takes place in schools where teachers learn through their experiences with other teachers, parents, pupils and the curriculum. Learning is life long, not only for teachers but also for the trainers of teachers.

The initial education of teachers influences significantly their future practice and it is important to highlight that teachers have a significant role to play in the success of inclusive education. Given this statement, the task of universities that educate teachers becomes even more trying (see Ferguson, 2000; Nes, 2000).

Although we have already spelled out that our approach to inclusive education is not focused on children considered as having special needs we have to make clear the roles of two groups of teachers: ‘special’ and ‘regular’ teachers. In most countries of the world, education is divided into ‘special’ and ‘regular’ education, something that impacts upon teacher education where teachers are again divided

515

into ‘special’ and ‘regular’ categories. In Cyprus there is no university that educates ‘special’ teachers. All graduates are considered as ‘regular’ teachers. In the educational system, however, we meet both categories. Most members of the category ‘special’ teachers do not have any further qualifications, they have just attended some seminars and they became ‘special’. The rest have degrees from countries outside Cyprus. This division creates problems regarding the ways in which higher education institutions and also schools, deal with inclusive education.

4. Methodology In Cyprus there are four higher education institutions that train teachers. However, only the University of Cyprus has the title ‘university’ while the rest institutions are called ‘colleges’. At the time of writing there is a White Paper in the House of Parliament outlining the basis upon which colleges can be evolved into universities. Thus, in this paper we do not discriminate between the titles of institutions and we only use the terms ‘university’ and ‘higher education institution’.

At the beginning of this project we intended to work with all four higher education institutions in Cyprus that educate teachers. To answer our questions, we began with studying the curriculum of all those institutions and we took 20 interviews from different stakeholders (8 lecturers and 8 students—2 from each institution—and 4 policy makers). Analysing our first data (we present below how we analysed them) we reached the conclusion that there was no differentiation between the institutions on issues of inclusion, and generally that they apply similar policies and practices. This homogeneity allowed us to focus our attention on one institution, where we would work collaboratively, in more depth and in greater detail, with students and lecturers in order to find ways of helping students to develop inclusive practices. This approach favoured the case study guideline of Yin (1994). We selected the School of Education within our own institution, Intercollege, because we could have better access to the research field and to the people involved in the project. Moreover, Intercollege is the biggest higher education institution in Cyprus.

All three of us work at Intercollege. The first two authors (P.A. and T.S.) coordinate the department of practical training at the School of Education and

ARTICLE IN PRESS 516

P. Angelides et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 513–522

they were the ones who collected all the data. The third author (P.G.) joined the team later, during the data analysis.

As a first stage, we began systematically observing our 3rd and 4th year students (considering that they have developed their practice better in relation to 1st and 2nd year students) in the schools they were doing their practical training. Each observation took 40–50 min (one teaching period). Through observation we collected critical incidents (for more information on how to collect and analyse critical incidents, see Angelides, 2001), which contained elements that we considered they were related to marginalisation, exclusion and good inclusive practices. These incidents were discussed and analysed with the student involved immediately after the incident had occurred (after the lesson was finished), in order to develop a better understanding of the incident that occurred in the classroom. Furthermore, when other people were involved in it, directly or indirectly (i.e. teacher of the class or the head of the school) we interviewed them as well. During 1 academic year we observed over a hundred students, some of them two or three times, and we analysed around 30 critical incidents.

The critical incident analysis is a technique by which certain outsiders (e.g. inspectors or academics) collect, analyse and interpret critical incidents that have occurred in a classroom, and then, in collaboration with teachers from a school, explore how that interpretation could inform improvement efforts. Critical incidents are not necessarily (as the term might imply) sensational events involving noticeable tension. Rather they can be relatively minor incidents, everyday events that happen in every school and every classroom. Their criticality is based on the justification, the significance and the meaning given to them by the outsider. Once a critical incident is noted, the outsider immediately proceeds with its analysis by interviewing the teacher and the child or children involved. For this process, no specific interview structure is needed, just knowledge about the event that has occurred. Having interviewed those involved in the critical incident, the outsider puts together a composite picture, using the different perceptions of the different stakeholders. In this way, we deliberately set out to consider the various explanations and interpretations of the actions of teachers in order to gain a better understanding of their taken-for-granted assumptions. As a result, we can go behind teachers’ actions in order to explore

factors related to the life of the school that might have shaped their practice and driven their responses. This technique could be useful to researchers and those within schools who are interested in identifying the details of practice, since it offers an efficient means of probing into the deeper working assumptions of stakeholders.

Besides classroom observation all students had to submit a portfolio to the department of practical training as a part of their assessment, containing 15 lesson plans in different subjects. For every lesson plan that they had put in practice students had to write a page-long critical reflection on their lesson, considering the successfulness of their aims, changes that they would do to their lesson in the case they would teach it again, provision of equal opportunities to all children etc. (Schon, 1983). We studied all portfolios carefully, paying particular attention to those critical reflections that were related to the lessons in which we picked up critical incidents.

In this way, we understood better the practices of our students as well as their needs for improvements in terms of inclusive education. At the next stage, we chose 10 students whom we encouraged to use (certain lesson plans, certain aims and materials) during their teaching practice in order to develop inclusive practices (see Ainscow, 1998; Ainscow, Howes, Farrell, & Frankham, 2003). The students were selected on the basis of their interest in becoming involved in the project, and whether the head of the school and the teacher of the class agreed to participate in our research. After each lesson we observed, we discussed the results of the lesson with the student in terms of the issues we were studying. Having then a clear picture of the teaching practices of our students we conducted 10 interviews with 10 lecturers of our university that taught lessons related to inclusive education (e.g. teaching methodology of different subjects, philosophy of education, educational psychology, etc.).

For stimulating the discussion during the interviews we used issues that had arisen from the analysis of our students’ teaching practice. Interviews lasted about 1 h each.

Data collection and analysis in qualitative research are two parallel and inseparable processes (see, Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The reason we separate them is to help readers understand our way of working. Thus, the process of data analysis began from the 1st day of our involvement in this research. We were looking for patterns that were repeated and they were

ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Angelides et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 513–522

related to barriers for inclusive teacher education.

For these patterns we collected further data. All together they became sub-categories that we tried to support with data. At the end, by studying all of our data, some other, more general themes arose. These themes became our major categories, which we grounded our data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

5. Barriers for inclusive teacher education Analysing our data, a series of factors kept appearing again and again. These factors seemed to act as barriers to student teachers developing inclusive practice, and they actually prevented the provision of inclusive education by the institution that trained teachers. These factors were then categorised into three themes that we analyse and substantiate below.

6. Curriculum The curriculum of higher education institutions regarding inclusive education seems to be possessed by conservatism and to be governed by the psychological approach, which is dominated by theories that try to change children as individuals and not schools as social institutions and the way they are organised. The term ‘inclusive education’ is not referred to in any of the lesson curricula of the institution we studied in depth, while often the term ‘special education’ is used (in lessons related to what we traditionally call ‘special education’). In addition, in the curriculum of these lessons as well as in pedagogical lessons the terms ‘special needs’, ‘equity’, ‘democracy’ and ‘equal rights’ are referred.

These terms, however, do not seem to be related to inclusive education. In the curriculum of psychology lessons we met terms like ‘deviant’ and ‘normal’ that seem to divide pupils rather than helping towards the inclusive education.

Although inclusive education is highlighted, in certain lessons it seems that the medical–pathological model dominates, something that establishes even more the traditional views on special education. Thus, some children are considered ‘different’ and are not considered as being among the responsibilities of mainstream teachers. A number of lessons’ curricula appear to imply inclusive practices but it is not sure whether the knowledge and values described are taught to students. A possible reason behind this fact is that what is implied might not be completely clear to lecturers.

517

Another possible reason, that is reinforced by the lecturers comments, is that the government’s existing policy is not inclusive, something that influences their teaching and drives them to teach the subject matter in a traditional way. A lecturer, for example, told us: In my classes I teach notions that are related to inclusion as you defined it, but I do not teach inclusive education itself y There is a problem, I believe, that prevents the teaching of inclusive education. Since the Ministry of Education [through the department that is responsible for evaluating private higher education institutions in Cyprus] obliges us to teach certain topics, or at least to have them in our curriculum; these topics are mainly related to psychology, where the philosophy of intervention is rather divisive, then it is difficult to teach inclusively, given that we are not all specialists in inclusive education.

Furthermore, the theoretical background of many lecturers comes from the field of psychology (a science that charges individuals with whichever disability), a fact that might contribute to their reluctance for having an inclusive approach to their teaching.

The issue of curricula in teacher inclusive education has been discussed by some other researchers (e.g. Ballard, 2003; Booth, 2003). Nes and Stromstad (2003), for example, criticise certain curricula in Norway for not referring to inclusive education but only to special education, something that happens in Cyprus universities’ curricula as well.

7. The notion of inclusive education Analysing our data we found that there was a great variety in the ways the people involved in our research understood the term ‘inclusive education’.

There were different interpretations and different means of dealing with the issue. A large group supported the view that inclusive education emerges from the field of ‘special’ education, a number of others that it deals with education of the disabled, some others that its main concern is children categorised as having special needs, and a few that the term means the movement of some children from ‘special’ to ‘regular’ schools. In addition, we heard views that inclusive education is related to foreigners, or to those that experience ‘problems’ in schools, or to those who have ‘learning or mental problems’. There were, of course, some lecturers

ARTICLE IN PRESS 518

P. Angelides et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 513–522

who claimed that one aim, among others, was to educate teachers that are able to teach in schools for all. Ainscow, Farrell, and Tweddle (2000) found similar result. They studied the role of Local Educational Authorities in England and they found that different stakeholders in schools understood inclusion differently.

Confusion regarding the notion and interpretation given to inclusive education seemed to prevail in the Ministry of Education as well. The senior officers of the Ministry as well as a series of documents they sent to schools and the university do not seem to have a common notion for inclusive education. In addition, the views of the members of the Ministry of Education evaluation teams that evaluated the university’s programmes, varied in terms of the issue of inclusive education. Given the fact that private universities in Cyprus have to submit all their programmes to the Ministry of Education for evaluation, the confused views of the senior officers of the Ministry on inclusive education that came as feedback for the submitted programmes, created even more confusion about the context and the terms used in these programmes.

This confusion, in relation to the fact that the curriculum was not clear in terms of inclusive education, seemed to lead lecturers not to teach the values of inclusion, but to transfer to students confused messages. A lecturer stated that:

prepared to confront situations of uncertainty, like the above, in their professional lives.

I cannot give a definition for inclusive education but I teach issues of equity, antiracism and multicultural education. The point is that inclusive education does not appear clear in the curriculum and we do not have a common policy as a university. Each one teaches whatever they want and sometimes we contradict each other.

The way of my teaching was determined in a great degree by the teachers I observe to teach in the classes I do my practical training. Even if in some cases I disagree with the practice of the teacher, because she contradicts with what I learned at the university, most of the times I do the same and little by little I assimilate it to my practice y When the teacher of the class do not pay much attention to children who experience difficulties and ‘runs’ with the high achievers, or ignores children that are for different reasons marginalized, or even their attitude towards the different is negative, then it is very difficult for me, the student, to come and change them.

Students, in their turn, transfer this confusion to their practice and stated that their attempts to provide inclusive education actually created emotions of insecurity. A student said in particular: Whenever I try to apply inclusive practices as learned in the university, I begin to be afraid and not to be sure whether what I do is right. In one course [that is related to inclusive education] we learned to do it this way, in the other differently, in the school the teacher does different things, what should I finally do?

Ballard (1999) reached a similar conclusion, who further noted that student teachers should be

8. Two levels of cultures Another important theme that seemed to prevent inclusive education was culture. We viewed culture at two overlapping and interrelated levels: first, the level of school cultures where students do their practical training, and then, the level of the university culture. We could also see another more general level, that of the culture of Cyprus but we did not examine this level because we considered we had insufficient data in studying it in depth.

At the level of school culture, the values and beliefs of the headteachers of schools, the teachers and pupils of the classrooms where our students did their practical training seemed to act as a barrier in the development of inclusive practices by our students. These cultures seem to be directed by the pathological model and they reproduce ideas that some children are different, their presence prevents the teaching of the rest of children, and that they should not be taught within the classes of their peers.

Many students emphasised that their practice is in a great degree determined by their mentors—the teachers of the classes in which they do their practical training. For example:

The clash between the students’ needs to implement certain practices and the absence of it in schools is something, which has been discussed in the literature (e.g. Evans, 2002; Lima, 2003; see also, Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000). Evans (2002), for example, reports data, which illustrate how socially constructed norms in relation to behaviour and achievement are reproduced in the classroom;

ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Angelides et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 513–522

the political environment where teaching is delivered simultaneously creates and enforces dominant discourses of difference.

We can take this argument further, however. We can add the possible impact of the historical context through which what we today call ‘inclusive education’ in Cyprus was developed. Despite the fact that we have already made clear that our approach towards inclusive education does not focus on special education it would be wrong to deny that inclusive education as a term has arisen through the development of the term of special education. Historically, special education in Cyprus has taken place in segregated settings, with ‘special’ and ‘regular’ teachers having completely different roles. Even today they come under different divisions at the Ministry of Education. There are three inspectors for special education responsible for all ‘special’ teachers while the ‘regular’ teachers come under the responsibilities of the ‘general inspectors’. This division creates different job tasks and different understandings of their roles in schools, which might a factor that shapes the teacher’s practice and constitutes a serious barrier for implementing inclusive education.

The following vignette reinforces our argument about the level of school cultures as a barrier to developing inclusive practices by our students.

This story took place in a pre-primary school class with 23 children, aged 4–5 years old. The children were sitting in a circle and in front of them was standing a fourth year student teacher, Stella. Behind her was the board with many pictures of bees on it.

All the children, except a boy, had their faces painted as bees. The lesson began y All the children wanted to speak. They wanted to say what they saw on the board. There was a little confusion when I heard (TS) from my left a continuous noise. The boy who was not painted as a bee began moving in rhythm forward and backwards and his chair was bouncing the floor.

‘Quiet y’ shouted the student. The rest of the children became quiet. Only the boy continued to bounce his chair on the floor moving forward and backwards in rhythm. Stella continued the lesson with the accompaniment of the noise.

At some point I felt the children sitting next to the boy becoming resentful. ‘Whew y!’ said a blond girl. ‘Achilleas you are very noisy’ she shouted very angrily and turned to Stella.

519

‘Mrs Stella, Achilleas is very noisy y I can’t stand him y’ Achilleas seemed to be returning from nowhere. He turned and looked at the girl with an empty sight and stopped moving.

Stella continued the lesson without any comment. Achilleas began moving slowly-slowly. He did not make any noise. His neighbouring girl touched him on his shoulder. She looked like she wanted to tell him: ‘Sit quiet y’ Achilleas did not pay attention to her and continued moving more quickly. Then almost all the children complained. ‘Mrs Stella, tell him to stop’. They looked like they were begging their teacher. Stella then for first time talked to Achilleas in a very calm way. ‘Achilleas don’t make noise please’.

Achilleas turned towards Stella with an expressionless glance and stopped moving. Stella continued the lesson. She began calling children one by one to try honey and honeycomb. All children were very excited and went to try.

Achilleas stayed where he was and began moving slowly and rhythmically. The noise that his chair was making was not disturbing anybody anymore y They were all busy!

Discussing with the student after the lesson she revealed that the head of the school suggested to her not to paint Achilleas’ face because, as she told her ‘even if she paints him or not it won’t make any difference’. The head told us that Achilleas often disturbs the class and she tries to isolate him in order to have a better lesson. The teacher of the class agreed with the head and added that when she does not involve Achilleas in her lesson it goes better. On this issue, Angelides, Charalambous, and Vrasidas (2004) argue that the attitudes of teachers shape children’s attitudes towards children who are marginalised. It seems that this happens in the above story. All these together shape the classroom culture that seems to influence the student. She said in particular: I can’t come into confrontation with the school, the teacher, the head and the children. We have learned different things [at the university], I know it, but I have to adapt myself to the situation y What it makes me to be afraid is that this practice [of marginalisation] becomes part of my practice y I catch myself applying it sometimes.

At the level of the university culture it seemed to be contradicting elements regarding inclusive education. Intercollege has perhaps better buildings

ARTICLE IN PRESS 520

P. Angelides et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 513–522

than any other higher education institution in Cyprus, it has all the facilities and a special policy for people with disabilities and a larger number of foreign students (approximately 25%). The latter fact reinforces multiculturalism, students are in contact with individuals from different cultures speaking different languages, and generally we considered it as positive for the development of inclusive attitudes by the students we were studying.

However, in the School of Education while we were studying in particular the teaching language is Greek and there are few foreign students whereas in most of the other departments the teaching language is English. We considered this might influence the positive attitude of our students towards international children.

The university culture might also be influenced by the government’s general policy on higher education. The institution of preliminary examinations, according to which some students secure entry at the University of Cyprus or the Greek Universities, where attendance is free, seems to create a climate of division between students. Some students from our university considered themselves as unsuccessful since they did not manage to gain entry to the state universities where attendance is free. Conversely, a number of students from the University of Cyprus considered themselves as successful because they passed the examinations they are, they claimed, at the best higher education institution in Cyprus. This situation, perhaps unconsciously, cultivates in students anti-inclusive trends, who in their turn transfer these trends to their practice.

Booth (2003) and Ware (2003) pointed out the culture of universities as a barrier to inclusive education. Booth (2003) analyses the situation of his own university regarding inclusive education while Ware (2003) presents, among others, the situation in a number of American universities.

9. Overcoming barriers These barriers acted as a stimulus for thinking in order to find solutions and ways for overcoming them. We conclude with the following suggestions: Given what we spotted above by analysing the curriculum of the institution we studied in depth, improvement in the curricula of higher education institutions that educate teachers could significantly contribute to the development of inclusive teaching practices in students. Our first suggestion is that the curricula of universities should pay more attention

to certain theoretical and philosophical matters that are related to issues of difference (e.g. Foucault, 1967) and to the philosophical background of what we call ‘special education’ (e.g. Skrtic, 1991) in order to enable future teachers to scrutinise and analyse the existing views and stereotypes (special needs, racism, sex, race, socio-economical situation). This is something that is not existent in the curriculum of the institution we studied. Thus, future teachers can go behind certain events and situations, and discover the historical, social and cultural contexts in which they took place (Armstrong, Armstrong, & Barton, 2000). In a similar vein, Ballard (2003) argues that: Inclusive education is concerned with issues of social justice. This means that graduates entering the teaching profession should understand how they might create classrooms and schools that address issues of respect, fairness and equity. As part of this endeavour they will need to understand the historical, sociocultural and ideological contexts that create discriminatory and oppressive practices in education. The isolation and rejection of disabled students is but one area of injustice. Others include gender discrimination, poverty and racism (p. 59).

It is also important that teachers are able to critically analyse their practice in order to be able to detect factors that act as barriers to inclusive education (see Ainscow, 2000; Angelides, 2002). In our data we have seen different factors that act as barriers to inclusion, so it is important that teachers are able to find and scrutinise them. Angelides (2003a) argues that a significant reason for which teachers fail to provide inclusive education is because they are not able to identify and pay attention to details. The implication of this for teacher education programmes is that if teachers manage to pay attention to and consider those particular details it may help them to provide more inclusive practice. If they develop the ability to identify and pay attention to little and seemingly insignificant details they will then be able to translate them into more inclusive practice.

In our effort to find ways of minimising or overcoming the barriers that seem to prevent inclusive teacher education we believe that it is important for future teachers to think about the issue of the role of special education as it functions in Cyprus today, as well as the issue of the government’s policy for special education. The

ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Angelides et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 513–522

culture of schools as we experienced it throughout our study seemed to be related to historical factors and how traditionally special education functioned.

Recently, the House of Parliament passed a new law on special education (Cyprus Republic, 1999), which pays attention to the right of all pupils (focusing on children classified as having special needs) to go to their neighbourhood schools and attend the same general education classrooms as their peers, having the support and accommodation they need. This law uses the term ‘special needs’— something that might be divisive. Moreover, the policy that is followed by the government is also divisive. As we have already said above, the Ministry divides teachers into ‘special’ and ‘regular’ ones, they belong to different departments and the pupils who are categorised as having special needs are taught in segregated settings (in special classes and special units). The directions that ‘special’ teachers receive from the Ministry are to teach their pupils on an individual basis in their ‘special’ class.

All these together reinforce the culture of segregation that prevails in schools in Cyprus and, in turn, prevent the inclusive practice of student teachers.

The thought and discussion on these issues, therefore, will help future teachers to deconstruct the norms of segregation that prevail in schools and enable them to provide more inclusive education.

As we have seen in the data the policy of universities, and the policy of our institution that we studied in depth in particular, for inclusive education and the way they set their curricula seem to suffer. Most of the times their form and context are determined by the requirements of the evaluation teams that assess universities. It is important, therefore, that the policies and curricula are determined on the basis of the principles of inclusive education. In addition, through all the curricula of the different lessons an inclusive trail could be traced. It can be achieved with the participation of all involved (lecturers, students, administrators, member of the practical training team) in decisionmaking.

Our last suggestion is to develop partnerships between universities and schools, and academics and teachers in order for schools to be helped to develop more inclusive practices. Working with schools and teachers in this project we appreciated the power of collaborative inquiry. Through collaborative research, in which all the teachers of a school will be involved, with the help of a certain academic as a critical friend, the practice of teachers

521

will be analysed, something that can help the development of more inclusive practices by teachers (see Ainscow, 2003; Angelides, 2002, 2003b). It can help schools to develop collaborative cultures that can gradually lead to inclusive cultures.

References Ainscow, M. (1998). Teacher education as a strategy for developing inclusive schools. In R. Slee (Ed.), Is there a desk with my name on it? The politics of integration. London: Falmer Press.

Ainscow, M. (2000). Reaching out to all learners: Some lessons from international experience. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(1), 1–19.

Ainscow, M. (2003). Using teacher development to foster inclusive classroom practices. In T. Booth, K. Nes, & M. Stromstad (Eds.), Developing inclusive teacher education (pp. 15–32). London: Routledge/Falmer.

Ainscow, M., Farrell, P., & Tweddle, D. (2000). Developing policies for inclusive education: A study of the role of local educational authorities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4(3), 211–229.

Ainscow, M., Howes, A., Farrell, P., & Frankham, J. (2003).

Making sense of the development of inclusive practices.

European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(2), 227–242.

Angelides, P. (2001). The development of an efficient technique for collecting and analyzing qualitative data: The analysis of critical incidents. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(3), 429–442.

Angelides, P. (2002). Understanding the role of reflection in critical incidents: A strategy to develop more inclusive practice. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 4(3), 343–353.

Angelides, P. (2003a). The missing piece of the puzzle called ‘provision of equal participation in teaching and learning’(?).

Sygxroni Ekpaideysi, 132, 107–114 (in Greek).

Angelides, P. (2003b). Using collaborative models of inquiry for teacher professional development. Improving Schools, 6(1), 20–28.

Angelides, P., Charalambous, C., & Vrasidas, C. (2004).

Reflections on policy and practice of inclusive education in pre-primary schools in Cyprus. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19(2), 211–224.

Armstrong, F., Armstrong, D., & Barton, L. (Eds.). (2000).

Inclusive education: Policy contexts and comparative perspectives. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(3), 277–293.

Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration and inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147.

Ballard, K. (1999). Concluding thoughts. In K. Ballard (Ed.), Inclusive education: International voices on disability and justice. London: Falmer Press.

Ballard, K. (2003). The analysis of context: Some thoughts on teacher education, culture, colonization and inequality. In T. Booth, K. Nes, & M. Stromstad (Eds.), Developing inclusive teacher education (pp. 59–77). London: Routledge/Falmer.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 522

P. Angelides et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 513–522

Barton, L. (1997). Inclusive education: Romantic, subversive or realistic? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(3), 231–242.

Booth, T. (2003). Views form the institution: Overcoming barriers to inclusive teacher education? In T. Booth, K. Nes, & M. Stromstad (Eds.), Developing inclusive teacher education (pp. 33–58). London: Routledge/Falmer.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (Eds.). (1998a). From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education. London: Routledge.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (1998b). From them to us: Setting up the study. In T. Booth, & M. Ainscow (Eds.), From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education. London: Routledge.

CSIE. (2002). Inclusion Information guide. Available at: http:// inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/csie/students02.htm Cyprus Republic. (1999). The education and training of children with special needs law 113(1)/99. Nicosia: The official gazette of the Republic.

Evans, R. (2002). Ethnography of teacher training: Mantras for those constructed as ‘other’. Disability and Society, 17(1), 35–48.

Ferguson, D. L. (2000, July). Reforming initial and ongoing professional development: Trends and examples. In Proceedings of the fifth international special education conference, Manchester, UK. Foucault, M. (1967). Madness and civilization: A history of madness in the age of reason. London: Tavistock.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. London: Weidenfield and Nicolson.

Lima, J. A. (2003). Trained in isolation: The impact of departmental cultures on students teachers’ views and practices of collaboration. Journal of Education for Teaching, 29(3), 197–218.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Nes, K. (2000, July). The inclusive school and teacher education: About curricula and cultures in initial teacher education. In Proceedings of the fifth international special education conference, Manchester, UK. Nes, K., & Stromstad, M. (2003). Creating structures for inclusive development in teacher education. In T. Booth, K. Nes, & M. Stromstad (Eds.), Developing inclusive teacher education (pp. 116–129). London: Routledge/Falmer.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Sebba, J., & Ainscow, M. (1996). International developments in inclusive schooling: Mapping the issues. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(1), 5–18.

Skrtic, T. M. (1991). Behind special education. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

Thomas, G. (1997). Inclusive schools for an inclusive society.

British Journal of Special Education, 24(3), 103–107.

Ware, L. (2003). Understanding disability and transforming schools. In T. Booth, K. Nes, & M. Stromstad (Eds.), Developing inclusive teacher education (pp. 146–165). London: Routledge/Falmer.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.