Evaluation of the Status of Inclusive Education in Law and Practice in Turkey   and the European Context

Abstract

Inclusive education is defined as education practice in which the needs of individuals with special needs are determined, accompanied by the guidance of individualized education program and the provision of the necessary supportive education services, and with their peers in general education classes. While national and universal legal regulations state the right to education of the individual as the most basic right, inclusive education in which the vast majority of individuals with special needs are involved is also legally secured. The aim of this study is to descriptively examine the situation of inclusive education related legal regulations and laws in practice in Turkey and Europe. In this direction, the Google Academic search engine was first screened with the keywords "mainstreaming law" and” inclusion law". In addition, screening was carried out by the authors with the keywords "mainstreaming" and “inclusion" in the National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education. Besides, the database of Eskisehir Osmangazi University Library has been screened online with the “inclusive education law”, “inclusive education act”, “inclusive education Europe”, “inclusive education policy” and “inclusion” keywords. Some countries examined in this study were Turkey, United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Greece and Lithuania, and although inclusive education is based on laws and regulations in those countries, problems and shortcomings are observed in implementation. On the contrary, in other countries examined in this study, Italy and Ireland, it can be said that there is no problem in the implementation of regulations. It is considered that through such practices including arranging class size of an inclusive classroom for students with special needs, supporting those inclusive classrooms with support teachers educated in the field of special education, having schools the responsibility to prepare individualized education plan for students and evaluate the achievement of the targeted goals at the end of the school year, providing in-service training to principals and teachers, preparing internet based educational software to reach the information easily, getting support of the non-governmental organizations for works related to special education such as in the Irish example more successful implementation of inclusive education practices will take place.

Keywords

• Inclusive Education, Legal Regulations in Special Education, Descriptive Analysis.

Evaluation of the Status of Inclusive Education in Law and Practice in Turkey   and the European Context

Abstract

References

1. Akcan, E. (2013). Genel eğitim sınıflarındaki kaynaştırma öğrencileri için Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı tarafından belirlenen eğitim-öğretim etkinliklerinin uygulanma düzeyinin araştırılması (Unpublished master’s thesis). Istanbul: Istanbul University.
2. ASP [Ministry of Family and Social Policy]. (2005). Law number 5378 on individuals with disabilities, Official Gazette dated 01.07.2005 and numbered 25868.
3. Çerezci, Ö. (2015). Okul öncesi eğitim kurumlarında yapılan kaynaştırma eğitimi uygulamalarının kaynaştırma kriterleri açısından değerlendirilmesi (Unpublished master’s thesis). , Ankara: Gazi University.
4. Dede, Ş. (1996). Salamanca declaration. Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 2(2), 91-94.
5. Diken, İ. H., and Batu, S. (2010). Kaynaştırmaya giriş, in İ. H. Diken (Ed.), İlköğretimde kaynaştırma (pp. 2-23). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
6. DiNuovo, S. (2012). Rethinking inclusion and its conditions: A reply to Giangreco, Doyle & Suter. Life Span and Disability: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15(2), 75– 83.
7. Drudy, S., and Kinsella, W. (2009). Developing an inclusive system in a rapidly changing European society. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(6), 647-663.
8. Engsig, T. T., and Johnstone, C. J. (2015). Is there something rotten in the state of Denmark? The paradoxical policies of inclusive education–lessons from Denmark. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(5), 469-486.

9. Eripek, S. (2007). Özel eğitim ve kaynaştırma uygulamaları in S. Eripek (Ed.), İlköğretimde kaynaştırma. Eskişehir: Anadolu University.
10. European Agency. (2018a). National Organisation of Provision. Retrieved from https://www.european-agency.org/national-policy-and-provision
11. European Agency. (2018b). Italy. Retrieved from https://www.european- agency.org/data/italy
12. European Agency. (2018c). UK (England). Retrieved from https://www.european- agency.org/data/united-kingdom-england
13. European Agency. (2018d). Denmark. Retrieved from https://www.european- agency.org/data/denmark
14. European Agency. (2018e). Ireland. Retrieved from https://www.european- agency.org/data/ireland
15. European Agency. (2018f). Sweden. Retrieved from https://www.european- agency.org/data/sweden
16. European Agency. (2018g). Spain. Retrieved from https://www.european- agency.org/data/spain
17. European Agency. (2018h). Greece legal system. Retrieved from https://www.european- agency.org/country-information/greece/national-overview/legal-system
18. European Agency. (2018i). Lithuania. Retrieved from https://www.european- agency.org/data/lithuania
19. Genova, A. (2015). Barriers to inclusive education in Greece, Spain and Lithuania: Results from emancipatory disability research. Disability & Society, 30(7), 1042- 1054.
20. Giangreco, M. F., and Doyle, M. B. (2012). Integrazion escolastica in Italy: A compilation of english-language resources. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 8(1), 63–105.
21. Göransson, K., Nilholm, C., and Karlsson, K. (2011). Inclusive education in Sweden? A critical analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(5), 541-555.
22. Güzel, N. (2014). Kaynaştırma öğrencisi olan ilköğretim öğretmenlerinin kaynaştırma eğitimine ilişkin yaşadıkları sorunlar (Unpublished master’s thesis). İstanbul Yeditepe University. Retrieved from http://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi (Thesis No. 355918)
23. Inclusion Ireland. (2014). Annual report 2014. Retrieved from http://www.inclusionireland.ie/sites/default/files/attach/basic-page/512/203185- inclusion-ireland-final.compressed.pdf
24. Kabakçı Yurdakul, I. (2013). Veri toplama araçlarında bulunması gereken nitelikler in A. A. Kurt (Ed.), Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri, Eskişehir: Anadolu University.
25. Kanter, A. S., Damiani, M. L., and Ferri, B. A. (2015).The right to inclusive education under international law: Following Italy's lead. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 17(1), 21-32.
26. Mastropieri, M. A., and Scruggs, T. E. (2004). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
27. MEB [Ministry of National Education]. (1997). Decree law on special education no. 573, Official Gazette dated 06.06.1997 and numbered 23011.
28. MEB [Ministry of National Education]. (2001). Regulation on guidance and psychological counseling services, Official Gazette dated 17.04.2001 and numbered 24376.
29. MEB [Ministry of National Education]. (2006). Regulation on special education services, Official Gazette dated 31.05.2006 and numbered 26184.
30. MEB [Ministry of National Education]. (2008). Inclusive education practices, Circular number 2008/60 dated 02.09.2008 and numbered 3601.
31. MEB [Ministry of National Education]. (2009). The project of dissemination of inclusive education in preschool period, Circular numbered 2009/06, dated 24.08.2009 and numbered 3802.
32. MEB [Ministry of National Education]. (2015). Opening resource room, Circular number 2015/155 dated 18.09.2015 and numbered 5157845.
33. MEB [Ministry of National Education]. (2018). Official statistics. Retrieved from http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/resmi-istatistikler/icerik/64
34. Melekoğlu, M. A. (2014). Characteristics of inclusive classrooms in Turkey. Topical Issue: Inclusion from Around the World, 15(2), 24-30.
35. Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative fundamentals for the consumer (4th edition). Boston: Pearson.
36. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey. (2009). Convention on the rights of the individuals with disabilities, Official Gazette dated July 14, 2009 and numbered 27288.
37. Norwich, B. (2014). Changing policy and legislation and its effects on inclusive and special education: A perspective from England. British Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 403-425.
38. Petrella, M. (2015). Italy – Ways of inclusion in law and at school. Retrieved from https://www.uni-frankfurt.de/53397339/Inclusion-Italy.pdf
39. Sadioğlu, Ö. (2011). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin kaynaştırmaya ilişkin sorunları, beklentileri ve önerilerine yönelik nitel bir araştırma (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bursa: Uludag University.
40. Salend, S. J. (2008). Creating inclusive clasrooms: Effective and reflective practices. Upper Saddle River: NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
41. Sucuoğlu, B., and Kargın, T. (2006). İlköğretimde kaynaştırma uygulamaları; yaklaşımlar, yöntemler, teknikleri. İstanbul: Morpa Kültür Yayınları.
42. Tsokova, D., & Becirevic, M. (2009). Inclusive education in Bulgaria and Bosnia and Herzegovina: Policy and practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24(4), 393-406.
43. Vuran, S., and Yücesoy, Ş. (2003). Türkiye’de özel gereksinimli bireylere yönelik hizmetlerin yasal yapılanmasında Avrupa Birliği’ne uyum çabalarının yansımaları. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(1), 141-158.
44. World Health Organization. (2011). World report on disability. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/en/
45. Zeybek, Ö. (2015). İlköğretim okullarındaki İngilizce öğretmenlerinin kaynaştırma uygulamalarına ilişkin görüş ve önerileri (Unpublished master’s thesis). Eskisehir: Anadolu University.