Dita Nīmante, Dr. paed

University of Latvia

Pedagogical and Psychological Department,

Address: Jūrmalas gatve 74/76, Rīga, LV -1083,

e –mail: ditas@latnet.lv; dita.nimante@lu.lv

Research/ teaching interests: Inclusive education, clasroom management.

Perceptions, possibilities and implementation of inclusive education in

the Latvian context

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of

Vienna, 28-30 September 2009

Annotation

Although the processes taking place in past fifteen years in education in Latvia

overall should be considered as positive, specially concerning the rights of children with

special needs and their possibilities in education system in Latvia into essence in linear

section seem positive and oriented towards development, they are not unambiguous; they

also reveal a certain contradiction. The contradiction is formed between the relatively

politically advanced (by joining diverse international declarations and other international

documents) move towards inclusive common society and education, which is accessible

to all in Latvia, on the one hand, and the practice of general comprehensive school, on

the other hand, where it is still problematic to ensure the educational needs of the children

with special needs, thus also the accessibility of education and implementation of

inclusive education in practice.

The author of the article evaluates critically one of the possible reasons why

inclusive education of special needs children in general education is not being promoted-

the insufficient link between the aims stated in the education policy documents and the

content included in the documents regulating education that results in either actions or

inactivity of those who are implementing education.

Introduction

The recognition of the diversity, the previously existent norms, taking down the

traditions, acknowledgement of the rights of all and everyone and the rights to be like you

are and to live as you consider right is the reality of the post-modern society. This

development stage of the society possesses its uniqueness, which is characterized by

globalization processes, the “shrinking” of time and space, repletion of information,

multiculturalism, feminism and pluralism. At the same time it includes the change of

paradigms of the modernism or “falling out of it” (Skrtic, 1991). As Skrtic maintains,

“postmodernism represents the reconceptualization of the nature of knowledge itself”.

(Skrtic, 1991, p. 18) Besides the ideas of postmodernism express the conviction that “the

society has to provide benevolent conditions so that all individuals regardless their

belonging to a particular group of population could develop full-fledged – even if the

group is small and is not “economically” perspective. (Jermolajeva, 2002, 198). Thus the

issue whether all individuals, especially those who have been historically “outcast” or

“rejected” by the society are ensured the necessary conditions for a wholesome life,

became the topicality of the postmodern society.

Although the processes taking place in past fifteen years in education in Latvia

overall should be considered as positive, specially concerning the rights of children with

special needs and their possibilities in education system in Latvia into essence in linear

section seem positive and oriented towards development, they are not unambiguous; they

also reveal a certain contradiction. The contradiction is formed between the relatively

politically advanced (by joining diverse international declarations and other international

documents) move towards inclusive common society and education, which is accessible

to all in Latvia, on the one hand, and the practice of general comprehensive school, on

the other hand, where it is still problematic to ensure the educational needs of the children

with special needs, thus also the accessibility of education and implementation of

inclusive education in practice.

Research question

Is there any coherence between the understanding of inclusive education, the

defined possibilities of including children with special needs and their implementation in

practice, which has been expressed in statements of 35 pedagogues, education planning

documents, normative documents of education as well as in data obtained in interviews in

5 general comprehensive schools?

Methodology of research

Theoretical methods – analysis of theoretical literature.

The obtained qualitative data were analyzed in AQUAD 6 environment (Program

for analyzing qualitative data, Huber, Universität Tübingen, 1990–2007), using the

primary mathematic statistic methods and in SPSS 16 environment, using non-parametric

statistic methods (test of Kolmagorov-Smirnov, correlation ratio of Spearmen ranking).

Theoretical findings

Winzer the history of special education and development in special education

entitles as humanization of whole society. (Winzer, 1993, XI) Humanization of society in

education is reflected in the concept of inclusive education. Therefore inclusive education

should be looked upon in the context of diverse processes – from isolating to segregative,

from integrating to inclusive, which is historically grounded. They include the

development of perception about children with special needs, the expansion of rights for

children in the context of general education, understanding the “norm” and “non-norm”

of the society as well as the development of society‟s understanding on the whole. The

degree of ensuring everyone‟s possibilities – from isolating to inclusive – should be

perceived as providing broader possibilities for children with special needs to acquire

education as well as for the children themselves to become full-fledged members of the

society.

The inclusive education is based on the values of humanism, it is the reflection of

the social model in practice, represents the ideals of a democratic school, is child-centred,

which supports and concentrates on the educational needs of every pupil in social context

of school, by ensuring the accessibility of education to everyone, the belonging and

participation in all aspects connected with the school life as well as the development and

achievement of every child in effective and qualitative process of education.

The scheme of “Hierarchy of inclusive education” provided by UNESCO

(UNESCO, 2005) becomes very useful, where we can find the visualization of processes

described above. The ladder represented in the scheme symbolizes the way of children

with special needs from isolation to segregation, integration and inclusive education.

Children with special needs have been perceived differently in every footstep; every

developmental footstep solved historically different problems and overall reveals a

complex process of the society development. Hofsaas refers this complex process to

education. He entitles this development (from isolation to segregation, integration and

inclusive education) as four step evolution of inclusive education from anthropological

perspective. (Hofsaas, 2008) He calls those steps: educational exclusion, educational

segregation, educational integration and educational inclusion. Every stage of those

processes in education is characterized by the efforts to solve definite objectives; each

following one is the basis for the development of further processes, for the exchange of

thoughts and for increasing the understanding of children with special needs in the

society, which is followed by concrete actions in education –in the formations of

receiving the education services and in the format of implementing the teaching/learning

process.

Although the theoretical literature offers different interpretation of these issues,

especially about separation of „integration‟ and „inclusive education‟, learning more

about the understanding of this processed expressed by the following authors (Reynolds,

1962; Booth, 1983; Wood, 1984; Harris and Associates, 1989; Ainscow, 1995; Thomas,

Walker, Webb, 1998; Florian, 1998, Thomas, Loxley, 2001; Booth, Ainscow, 2002;

Lindsay, 2003; Swain, Cook, 2005; Gibson, Blandford, 2005; Henley, Ramsey, Algozzine,

2006; Ainscow, 2007; Florian, 2007; Lindsay, 2007) it is possible to summarize several

features which are characteristic to each step of the process as it can be seen in the table.

Table1. Isolation, integration, segregation, inclusive education

Features

Isolation Seclusion, complete separation

Key words: isolation, secluded, outside

Segregation A way how child‟s special needs are being accommodated.

Aim: to ensure education to children with special needs, but when implementing the education

process in a separated environment, when separating children from other by certain features and

concentrating them in one “safe” environment, envisaging “specialized” and “professional”

assistance and care. Medical model in practice.

Format: to establish separate schools, separate classes.

Key words: a child with special needs: visually impaired/blind children, hearing impaired/deaf

children, learners with disturbances in physical development, learners with mental developmental

disturbances, learners with somatic illnesses, learners with language disturbances, learners with

psycho neurological illnesses, learners with delay in psychic development and learning difficulties;

special education – special school, special class, special assistance, special service, to separate, to

unite according to special or particular needs.

Integration Uniting again separate, previously separated parts.

Aim: to ensure the rights of children invalids and to make their life as “normal” as possible in

order to ensure ordinary home and school life as long ass it is possible.

Format: “to place” children with special needs, who for some reasons were isolated and segregated

from the general comprehensive educational institution, into the system of general comprehensive

education. It is based on the opinion that children with special needs have rights to learn in general

comprehensive school. Equality as regards the age.

Key words: a child with special needs: visually impaired/blind children, hearing impaired/deaf

children, learners with disturbances in physical development, learners with mental developmental

disturbances, learners with somatic illnesses, learners with language disturbances, learners with

psycho neurological illnesses, learners with delay in psychic development and learning difficulties;

a child with special needs: problem children, children with troubles, non-standard children,

difficult children; integration by including in general comprehensive school; ensured rights to

learn in general comprehensive school; the school accepts, welcomes, offers, ensures, provides;

possibilities of social integration, second chance education possibilities for children with special

needs; correction programs; integration possibilities; education for children from social risk

groups in a separated environment.

Inclusive education Accommodation of individual needs of every and each child in social and inclusive

environment. The rights of every child to education.

Aim: to change the existing policy of general comprehensive schools (the culture of school,

teaching and learning) by increasing the quality of education, so that the school encouraged the

accessibility to education for all, by ensuring the educational needs of every child, by reducing any

obstacles for any child.

All children are winners as the support and “good, qualitative teaching” is organized for all

children.

Key words: a child, everyone, every child and youth, all children, all; educational institution,

school; the possibilities of everyone to get education; accessible environment for everyone,

accepted; participating, involving, joining; ensuring all the individual needs; achievement, results,

development; for everyone’s progress and development, the suitability of the environment to all;

ensuring development possibilities for everyone; participation of all; accessibility to qualitative

education for all; the rights of everyone; ensuring all kinds of achievement; programs accessible

to everyone; education involving all.

The perception of the above mentioned processes made a theoretical background for

the research

Empirical data processing

The task of data processing was to perform a profound analysis of the inclusion

possibilities of children with special needs in general comprehensive schools of Latvia

and to define the regularities by analyzing the understanding of the inclusive education

that teachers had expresses in their statements, the possibilities that are substantiated in

legislative and normative documents and the implementation as it was revealed in the

data obtained from interviews carried out in 5 general comprehensive schools.

In order to perform the study, texts of their fragments were selected from the

following documents:

a. 35 statements on inclusive education by teachers (hereafter in the text –

statements);

b. interview with the principal of Riga Secondary school Nr. 84 (hereafter in the text

– interviews);

c. interview with the representatives from Smiltene gymnasium administration

(hereafter in the text – interviews);

d. interview with the principal of Šķibe primary school (hereafter in the text –

interviews);

e. interview with the principal of Vaivari primary school (hereafter in the text –

interviews);

f. interview with the principal of Sabile secondary school (hereafter in the text –

interviews);

g. Law on education, 1999 (hereafter in the text – documents);

h. Law on general education, 1999 (hereafter in the text – documents);

i. Conception of development of education for years 2002 – 2005 (hereafter in the

text – documents);

j. Guidelines on the development of education 2007 – 2013 (hereafter in the text –

documents);

k. Regulations on State standards in basic education and subject standards in basic

education, 2006 (hereafter in the text – documents);

l. Model program of special basic education for learners with special needs, 2005

(hereafter in the text – documents);

m. Model program of special education for learners with special needs who are

integrated in general basic education and general secondary education, 2003

(hereafter in the text – documents).

In order to ensure the validity and equity of the qualitative study, the obtained

data were processed and analyzed in the AQUAD 6 (Program for qualitative data

analysis, Huber, Universität Tübingen, 1990–2007 environment with the aim to reveal

the regularities (See Table 2). Data were only partly reduced during data processing.

Texts from interviews and statements were preserved intact, and parts from the texts from

normative documents of education were reduced and only those fragments from the text

that were identified as applicable to the issues under the research were included in

processing. All texts and text fragments were “placed” in AQUAD 6 environment

according to the requirements of the program.

Data processing was organized in two steps

1. Primary coding of data.

Data coding according to its structure is organized in hierarchy including four

meta-codes: isolation, understanding of segregation, integration, inclusive

education that reflects the historical or anthropological understanding of the

development of inclusive education and the development of processes. Meta-

codes include a more detailed system of sub-codes (73 sub- codes), which in its

turn includes the interpretation of 4 levels: understanding, including problems,

possibilities and implementation. (look appendix 1) Coding was performed

according to the developed scheme which was based on theoretical findings, more

precisely, the keywords which indicates the isolation, integration, segregation and

inclusive education. It was done by two researchers in order to reduce the

subjective understanding of the text. Separate parts of the text – the content units-

were coded according to the content during the coding process. (see table 2;3)

Table 2 Card of the cods

Izolācija/

Isolation

Segregācija/

Segregation

Integrācija/ Integration Iekļaujoša izglītība/ Inclusive

education

Izpratne/ understanding

iek_izgl_ spec_i izg_spec_int_izp izg_ip_vis_izp

ikv_iesp_iatt_izp katr_att_apst_izp

katr_iesp_att_izp

ieklau_vide_izp katr_iesp_izg_izp

vis_iesai_i_izp

vis_indva_n_izp

vis_pie_kval_izpr

vis_pie_vienl_izpr

vis_piemer_izp visi_pie_izp

katr_ties_izg_izp

t.sk. problēmas/ problems

izol_pr izg_spec_int_pro izg_spec_pie_pr

izg_spec_sp_izp

izg_spec_atb_nre

izg_spec_int_pro izg_socr_iek_pr

izg_ip_prob

izg_2iesp_prob

visi_pie_pr visi_sas_pr

vis_pie_inti_rne

Iespējas/

possibilities

izg_spec_int_mer

izg_spec_pie_me

izg_spec_sp_ies spec_pie_inti_mer

izg_spec_int_ies

izg_spec_int_ies

izg_spec_int_mer

izg_kor_pr_mer izg_kor_pr_ies

izg_ip_pie_mer

izg_ip_atb_mer

iek_soca_maz_mer

visi_pie_mer

katr_ties_izg_mer katr_iesp_att_mer

katr_iesp_izg_ies

katr_iesp_izg_mer vis_iek_kv_pie_mer

vis_iek_pie_mer

vis_pie_inti_mer

visi_kva_mer

visi_peej_prog-iesp

visi_soc_iek_mer katr_att_mer

Realizācija/

implementation

izg_spec_int_rea

izg_spec_pr_rea

izg_spec_sp_rea kor_pr_sekm_rea

izg_spec_atb_rea

izg_ip_pr_real

soc_int_real

izg_spec_int_rea izg_kor_pr_rea

izg_ip_atb_rea

kor_pr_sekm_rea izg_2iesp_rea

vis_pie_kval_real

vis_pie_inti_rea

vis_kva_real katr_iesp_att_rea

katr_iesp_izg_rea

vis_iek_pie_real vis_iesai_i_rea

vis_iesp_sekm_rea

visi_indvaj_int-real izg_ies_ta_rea

Table 3 Acronym explanation

Izolācija/ Isolation

Izpratne, tai skaitā problēmas/ understanding, problems izol_pr – izolācija, problēmas/ isolation, problems

Segregācija/ Segregation

Izpratne/ understanding iek_izgl_ spec_i – iekļaujoša izglītība kā speciālā izglītība izpratne/ inclusive education as special education, understanding

Tai skaitā problēmas/problems:

izg_spec_int_pro - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām integrējot, problēma/ education for children with special needs by integrating, problem

izg_spec_pie_pr - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām pieejamības problēma/ education for children with special needs,

accessibility problem izg_spec_sp_izp - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām, speciālā izgl., izpratne/ education for children with special needs,

special education, understanding

izg_spec_atb_nre - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām, atbalsta nerealizācija/ education for children with special needs,

support problems

Iespējas/ possibilities:

izg_spec_int_mer - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām integrējot, mērķis/ education for children with special needs by integrating, aim

izg_spec_pie_me- izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām, pieejamības mērķis/ education for children with special needs,

accessibility, aim izg_spec_sp_ies - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām, speciālā izgl., mērķis/ education for children with special needs,

special education, aim

spec_pie_inti_mer - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām interešu izglītības pieejamība/ education for children with special needs, accessibility of out of school education.

izg_spec_int_ies - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām integrācijas iespējas./ education for children with special needs by

integrating, possibilities Realizācija/ implementation:

izg_spec_int_rea - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām integrācijas realizācija/

education for children with special needs by integrating, implementation. izg_spec_pr_rea - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām sp. programmu realizācija/ education for children with special needs,

implementation of special educational programmes

izg_spec_sp_rea - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām speciālās izgl. realizācija/ education for children with special needs,

implementation

kor_pr_sekm_rea - korekciju programmu sekmīga realizācija/ correction programs, implementation

izg_spec_atb_rea - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām atbalsta realizācija/ education for children with special needs support, implementation

Integrācija/ Integration

Izpratne/ understanding izg_spec_int_izp - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām integrācijas izpratne/ education for children with special needs,

integration, understanding

izg_ip_vis_izp - izglītība bērniem ar īpašām vajadzībām vispārizglītojošā skolā izpratne/ education for children with exceptional needs in regular school, understanding

Tai skaitā problēmas/ problems

izg_spec_int_pro - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām integrācijas problēmas/ education for children with special needs by integration, problems

izg_socr_iek_pr - izglītība bērniem no sociālā riska grupām, iekļaušanās problēmas/

education for children with exceptional needs (children at social risk), integration problems izg_ip_prob - izglītība bērniem ar īpašām vajadzībām problēma/ education for children with exceptional needs, problems

izg_2iesp_prob – otrās iespējas izglītības problēmas/ second chance education possibilities, problems Iiespējas/ possibilities:

izg_spec_int_ies - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām integrācijas iespējas/ education for children with special needs by

integration, possibilities. izg_spec_int_mer - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām integrācijas mērķis/ education for children with special needs by

integration, aim

izg_kor_pr_mer – izglītība korekcijas programmā mērķis/ education in correction program‟s, aim izg_kor_pr_ies - izglītība korekcijas programmā iespējas/ education in correction program‟s, possibilities

izg_ip_pie_mer – izglītības bērniem ar īpašām vajadzībām pieejamības mērķis/ education for children with exceptional needs, aim

izg_ip_atb_mer – izglītība bērniem ar īpašām vajadzībām atbalsta mērķis/ education for children with exceptional needs, support, aim Realizācija/ implementation:

izg_ip_pr_real – izglītība bērniem ar īpašām vajadzībām programmu realizācija /education for children with exceptional needs,

implementation of programs soc_int_real – sociālās integrācijas realizācija/ implementation of social integration

izg_spec_int_rea - izglītība bērniem ar speciālajām vajadzībām integrācijas realizācija/ education for children with special needs by

integration, implementation izg_kor_pr_rea – izglītība korekcijas programmās realizācija/ correction programs‟, implementation

izg_ip_atb_rea - izglītība bērniem ar īpašām vajadzībām atbalsta realizācija/ education for children with exceptional needs,

implementation of support kor_pr_sekm_rea – korekcijas programmu sekmīga realizācija/ correction programs, implementation

izg_2iesp_rea – otrās izglītības iespēju realizācija/ second chance education implementation

Iekļaujoša izglītība/ inclusive education

Izpratne/ understanding

ikv_iesp_iatt_izp – ikvienam iespējas izaugsmei un attīstībai izpratne/ every one has an opportunity for development and growth,

understanding katr_att_apst_izp - katra attīstības apstākļu nodrošināšanas izpratne/ creation of development condition for everyone, understanding

katr_iesp_att_izp – katra iespēju un attīstības nepieciešamības izpratne/ necessity of opportunities and development for everyone,

understanding ieklau_vide_izp – iekļaujošas vides izpratne/ inclusive environment, understanding

katr_iesp_izg_izp – katra iespējas izglītoties izpratne/ educational possibilities for everyone, understanding

vis_iesai_i_izp – visu iesaistīšanās izglītībā izpratne/ everyone is includes in education, understanding vis_indva_n_izp - visu individuālo vajadzību nodrošināšanas izpratne/ ensuring of individual needs for everyone, understanding

vis_pie_kval_izpr – visu pieejamības kvalitatīvai izglītībai izpratne/ accessibility to education for everyone, understanding

vis_pie_vienl_izpr – visu pieejamības vienlīdzības izpratne/ equality of accessibility to education for everyone, understanding vis_piemer_izp – visu piemērotības izglītībā izpratne/ eligibility of education to everyone, undestanding

visi_pie_izp – visu pieejamības izglītībai izpratne/ accecability of education to everyone, understanding

katr_ties_izg_izp - katra tiesības uz izglītību izpratne / the rights to education for everyone, understanding iek_soca_maz_mer – iekļaušana sociālā riska mazināšanai, mērķis/ inclusion for reducing social risk, aim

tai skaitā problēmas/ problems

visi_pie_pr - visu izglītības pieejamības problēmas/ accessibility of education to everyone, problems visi_sas_pr - visu sasniegumu nodrošināšanas problēmas/ achievement for everybody, problem

vis_pie_inti_rne - visu pieejamības interešu izglītībai nepietiekama realizācija/ accessibility of out of school education to everyone,

problems

iespējas/ possibilities:

visi_pie_mer - visu pieejamība izglītībai mērķis/ accessibility of education for everybody, aim

katr_ties_izg_mer - katra tiesības uz izglītību, mērķis/ everyone right to education, aim katr_iesp_att_mer - katra iespējas attīstīties, mērķis/ possibilities for development for everyone, aim

katr_iesp_izg_ies - katra iespējas izglītoties, iespējas/ possibilities for education for everyone, aim

katr_iesp_izg_mer – katra iespējas izglītoties, mērķis/ education possibilities for everyone, aim vis_iek_kv_pie_mer – visu iekļaušana, kvalitatīva pieejama, mērķis/ everyone included, qualitative and accessible, aim

vis_iek_pie_mer - visu iekļaušana, pieejamība, mērķis/ inclusiveness, accessibility for all, aim

vis_pie_inti_mer - visiem pieejama interešu izglītība, mērķis/ out of school education for everyone, aim visi_kva_mer – visiem kvalitatīva izglītība, mērķis/ qualitative education for everyone, aim

visi_peej_prog-iesp – visiem pieejamas programmas, iespējas/ programs‟ for everyone, possibilities

visi_soc_iek_mer - visiem sociālā iekļaušanās, mērķis/ social inclusion, aim katr_att_mer – katra attīstība, mērķis/ development of everybody, aim

realizācija/ implementation:

vis_pie_kval_real - visiem pieejama kvalitatīva izglītība, realizācija/ accessibility of education for everybody, implementation vis_pie_inti_rea – visiem pieejama interešu izglītība, realizācija/ out of school education for everyone, implementation

vis_kva_real – visiem kvalitatīva izglītība, realizācija/ qualitative education for everyone, implementation

katr_iesp_att_rea – katra iespēju attīstīšana, realizācija/ development of everybody, implementation katr_iesp_izg_rea - katram iespējas izglītoties, realizācija/ possibilities for education for everyone, implementation

vis_iek_pie_real - visiem iekļaujoša pieejama izglītība, realizācija/ inclusiveness, accecabiliy for all, implementation

vis_iesai_i_rea - visus iesaistoša izglītības realizācija/ inclusiveness for all, implementation vis_iesp_sekm_rea – visu iespēju sekmīga realizācija/ education possibilities for everyone, implementation

visi_indvaj_int-real – visu individuālo vajadzību un interešu realizācija/ everyone right to education, implementation

izg_ies_ta_rea - izglītības iespēju tiesību uz attīstību realizācija/ everyone right to education, implementation

Adjustment of code system to the selected texts. Primary coding. Texts were

correlated with codes. The table of codes was defined more precisely.

Determining the mutual connection of the data: frequencies, subordination,

superordination, chain or overlapping, linkages.

2. Secondary coding

Secondary coding was carried out after obtaining the initial results to confirm the

results of primary coding and to expand the interpretation. Thus secondary coding

was performed resulting in coding the meta-codes – understanding, possibilities

and implementation on the basis of developed table of codes.

Determining the mutual relations: frequencies, chains, linkages.

In order to generalize the obtained results, the data were processed in SPSS 16

environment, revealing the correlations.

Main results

Processing data in AQUAD 6 environment, at first the division of frequency was

determined, i.e., the frequencies. Frequencies were determined for each meta-code:

isolation, segregation, integration, inclusive education, as well as in more detail according

to codes. As it is seen from the tables of code frequency, then all meta-codes (isolation,

segregation, integration, inclusive education) can be actually found in the selected

fragments of the text, which represent the understanding of isolation, segregation,

possibilities, implementation, the understanding of integration, possibilities,

implementation, as well as the understanding of inclusive education, possibilities,

implementation. However, there are also some differences. Firstly, one can find all meta-

codes in some text groups (documents, interviews, statements), but in other groups some

codes are not found. Thus, for example, the isolation code was found only in the text

group – documents. Secondly, in some text groups one can observe a pronounced

dominant as regards some meta-code. Thus, for instance, the statements presented the

most pronounced dominant – integration (18) and inclusive education (15). School

interviews revealed the main direction dominant – integrative (23 code units) and

inclusive education (20 code units). When analyzing the numerical frequency of codes in

meta-codes, it was stated that from all 5 general comprehensive schools most codes of

implementing the inclusive education were identified in the interview with the principal

of Riga Secondary school Nr. 84 (11 code units). In comparison with other schools: Šķibe

primary school – 8, Vaivari primary school – 4, Sabile Secondary school - 4 .

This makes us think why implementation of inclusive education is comparatively

more frequently identified in Secondary school Nr. 84. This would need a further more

profound research. However, one hypothesis stems out of these interviews – no

segregatively integrative programs are implemented in this school and the school

regardless the formal and informal difficulties has been able to find solutions not to

license such segregatively integrative programs but has ensured a diverse pedagogical

support to the children at school.

The frequencies we have discovered help to find confirmation to the main

dominant and trend in the education policy and normative documents. The documents

reveal the most pronounced dominant – segregation (50 code units (see table 9) and

integration (72 code units). As it was stated, the ideas of inclusive education are mainly

represented in the education policy documents – all together 21 code unit, in documents

regulating education – only 9 code units. Besides the education policy documents include

both the understanding of inclusive education (9 code units) and foresees the possibilities

(22 code units), yet the documents regulating education do not include the understanding

of inclusive education (0 code units) and the possibilities of the inclusive education are

limited (10 code units) as well as no implementation is foreseen (1 code unit). Look for

illustration in table 4.

Table . 4 Frequencies, meta-codes

A B C D E F G H I J K L M

iek_ies 0 0 6 16 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

iek_izp 0 1 4 5 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

iek_real 8 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 11 4 4 0

int_ies 0 0 2 5 4 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 11

int_izp 0 0 0 4 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

int_real 2 3 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0

izol_izp 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

spec_ies 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 12

spec_izp 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

spec_real 1 0 5 4 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0

A: /intervSkibe

B: /intSmiltene

C: /izgattkonc

D: /izglattpamtnost

E: /izgllik

F: /iztparieklaujizgl

G: /notvalstsstand

H: /specpamatizglprogr1

I: /specpamatizgprogr

J: /interv84vsk

K: /intervaivari

L: /intSabile

M: /vispizgllik

Thus we may conclude that we have gained confirmation for the historical gradual

development of inclusive education also nowadays where the isolating, segregating,

integrating and inclusive education processes are being revealed. As the example of

Latvia shows, the process of inclusive education is not gradually developing. The above

described process is not linear; it does not ensure also an automatic result in the

development of the society – the implementation of inclusive education in practice as a

result of this process. Therefore the possibilities of children with special needs in

education can be realized simultaneously in different forms.

Some form of acquiring education could be placed at each stage in the scheme. The

possibilities of education system in Latvia for children with special needs are diverse.

Further, having adapted the UNESCO (UNESCO, 2005) scheme and supplementing it

with the forms of acquiring education for children with special needs in Latvian

education system, the following breakdown is offered (See Figure 1).

General comprehensive school, general comprehensive class

Comprehensive school, comprehensive class

Comprehensive school, integrative program in the class Inclusive

education

Comprehensive school, correction classes

Comprehensive school, special classes

Evening school/ Vocational schools

Institutions of social correction Integration

Comprehensive school, correction class

Comprehensive school, special classes

Elitist, specialized schools,

Special schools

Children being ill for a long time at home

Other institutions

Home-teaching, self-education

Segregation

Child at home, street

children „drop-outs”,

children not attending the

school

Isolation

Figure 1. Hierarchy of inclusive education in Latvia

When looking for links among the obtained data, firstly, we construed links

between the different historical understandings. The correlation was found in “Statements

about inclusive education”. The obtained connection was once more confirmed when

construing the link between different understandings and checking the meta-codes. For

illustration see table 5.

Table 5 Linkages, understanding, meta-codes

Preconstructed linkage structure:

iek_izp OR int_izp

AND spe_izp

Distance 1 or 2 -> 3: 5

File: iztparieklizglit.rtf-----------------------------------------

69: spe_izp

· Ir tā, kur sistēma dod iespēju saņemtās

zināšanas un prasmes pielietot dzīves

situācijās. /It’s when the system provides with opportunities received

knowledge and skills to use in real life situations.

· Izglītība, kas nodarbojas ar bērnu

integrācijas procesiem./ Education implementation by integrating children

· Izglītības saturs izstrādāts uz speciālo/

The content of education based upon special education

67- 67: int_izp AND 69- 69:

spe_izp

· Izglītība, kas nodarbojas ar bērnu

integrācijas procesiem/ Education implementation by integrating children

· Izglītības saturs izstrādāts uz speciālo/ The content of education

based upon special education

73- 73: iek_izp

77- 77: iek_izp AND 80- 80:

spe_izp

· Tā ir izglītība pieejama visiem./ Education for everyone

· Integrācija ar mērķi dot izglītību./ Education provided by integration

· Izglītība pielāgota bērnu vajadzībām./ Education adapted to child’s

needs

· Speciālā izglītība, kura dod iespēju/ special education which provide

an opportunity

78- 78: int_izp AND 80- 80:

spe_izp

· Integrācija ar mērķi dot izglītību./ Education provided by integration

· Izglītība pielāgota bērnu vajadzībām./ Education adapted to child’s

needs

· Speciālā izglītība, kura dod iespēju / special education which provide

an opportunity

79- 79: iek_izp AND 80- 80:

spe_izp

· Izglītība pielāgota bērnu vajadzībām./ Education adapted to child’s

needs

· Speciālā izglītība, kura dod iespēju / special education which provide

an opportunity

84- 84: iek_izp

88- 88: iek_izp

90- 90: iek_izp

92- 92: iek_izp

94- 94: iek_izp

5 confirmation(s)

The previously found correlations proved true and they revealed the understanding of

inclusive education in the context of Latvia: inclusive education is accessible to everyone,

it is adjusted to children‟s needs; it gives equal possibilities and its aim is the possibilities

of every person to apply the gained knowledge and skills in the life situations. It is being

implemented in the general educational system in education that ensures the integration

of children and it is based on the education content, which is worked out and oriented

towards the aims of special education. Each parent must have rights to choose the

educational institution for his/her child and the education institution and the society must

be ready to help the child creating a program and conditions appropriate for him/her.

Several other correlations were tested as the result of data analysis. Thus forming

the correlation between the understanding of inclusive education, possibilities and

implementation, another correlation proved true. It confirms that “Reduction of

differences for ensuring accessibility of qualitative general education to all children is

planned and is ensured from Grade 1 to Grade 6 by organizing pedagogical work with

pupils who have learning difficulties providing additional consultation. Thus policy

planning documents include the understanding that inclusive education, which includes in

itself the reduction of differences, the ensurance of quality and the accessibility of general

education, will be implemented in providing pedagogical support for pupils from Grade 1

to 6 giving additional consultations in the study process.

When forming correlations between the understanding of inclusive education and

implementation, another correlation proved true. The correlation confirms that

“Reduction of differences for all children to ensure access to qualitative general

education is planned”. In this case as we see the form on the practical level of

implementation, how “reduction of differences” will be realized in practice is not

disclosed.

Thus we may conclude from these data that the link between the planning

documents of education policy and the documents of regulating education, where the

practical realization of ideas should be reflected, has not been established. The analysis

reveals that the regulating documents ensure only one support form for the pupils who

have “learning difficulties”- it is organized from Grades 1 to 6 as additional

consultations. This leads to a crucial conclusion – the education policy documents include

the understanding about inclusive education and envisage possibilities and

implementation, yet the documents regulating education do not include the understanding

of inclusive education and the possibilities of inclusive education and neither the

implementation is indicated. Thus, as the data processing showed, no further correlations

are found with the school implementation level because schools do not implement the

understanding and possibilities included in the policy planning documents but the

understanding and possibilities included in documents regulating education.

The found correlations indicate indirectly and confirm that special education and

integration is supported in the legislative acts and is implemented in general

comprehensive school.

As it was found in the interviews with the representatives of school administration

from five schools, all schools underwent changes; only it is important to understand –

what kind of changes. The interviews show that changes may be different – both directed

to segregatively integrative process and in then direction of developing inclusive

education. At the same time it was found that formally the documents regulating

education stimulate segregatively integrative solutions but the solutions of inclusive

education are at the disposal of schools themselves or in the “hands of the schools‟, thus

subjective.

Analyzing the data in SPPS 16 environment several correlations were clarified.

Table 6

Correlations between perception of inclusive education, possibilities and

realization, perception of integration , possibilities and realization; perception of

segregation, possibilities and realization and perception of isolation.

iek_ies iek_izp iek_real int_ies int_izp int_real izol_izp spec_ies spec_izp

iek_izp ,280

iek_real ,040 -,103

int_ies ,620* ,057 -,165

int_izp ,185 ,768** -,005 ,065

int_real ,240 ,424 ,473 -,020 ,143

izol_izp ,530 ,471 ,326 ,352 ,613* ,504

spec_ies ,495 -,048 -,029 ,483 -,058 -,010 ,213

spec_izp ,486 ,887** ,094 ,229 ,800

** ,462 ,628

* ,130

spec_real ,514 ,181 ,713** ,169 ,051 ,694

** ,407 ,165 ,413

* Korelācija ticama pie 0.05 (divpusējās)

** Korelācija ticama pie 0.01 (divpusējās)

Table 7

Correlations between perception of inclusive education, possibilities and

realization, perception of integration , possibilities and realization; perception of

segregation, possibilities and realization and perception of isolation.

iek_ies iek_izp iek_real int_ies int_izp int_real izol_izp spec_ies spec_izp

iek_izp ,280

iek_real ,040 -,103

int_ies ,620* ,057 -,165

int_izp ,185 ,768** -,005 ,065

int_real ,240 ,424 ,473 -,020 ,143

izol_izp ,530* ,471 ,326 ,352 ,613

* ,504

*

spec_ies ,495* -,048 -,029 ,483

* -,058 -,010 ,213

spec_izp ,486* ,887

** ,094 ,229 ,800

** ,462 ,628

* ,130

spec_real ,514* ,181 ,713

** ,169 ,051 ,694

** ,407 ,165 ,413

* Korelācija ticama pie 0.05 (vienpusējās)

** Korelācija ticama pie 0.01 (vienpusējās)

It was proved that no correlations were found between the understanding,

possibilities and implementation of inclusive education. However, close correlation

was found between the understanding of inclusive education and the understanding of

integration (rs = 0.768, p < 0.01, close bilateral correlation) as well as between the

understanding of inclusive education and the understanding of special education (rs =

0.887, p < 0.01, close bilateral correlation). It confirms the development of the historical

understanding of inclusive education in the context of Latvia.

On average close correlation was found between the possibilities of inclusive

education and the possibilities of integration (rs = 0.620, p < 0.05, close bilateral

correlation on average); between the possibilities of special education and the

possibilities of inclusive education (rs = 0.495, p < 0.05, close bilateral correlation on

average) as well as a close correlation between the implementation of inclusive education

and the implementation of special education (rs = 0.713, p < 0.01, close bilateral

correlation), which, in its turn, confirms the previously obtained context of understanding

inclusive education in Latvia.

Conclusions and discussion

As it is stated in the report of the European Agency for Development in Special

Needs Education in 2003, “All European countries have already implemented or are

implementing at present the realization of such policy, which promotes inclusive

education.” (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2003, p. 12)

At the same time the logical question posted by scientists is just rights – why such a

phenomenon is being observed: although states have proponed inclusive education on the

political level, the practice is that it does not take place? Why the development process of

inclusive education is so slow? (Thomas, Walker, Webb, 1998)

There could be two answers.

Firstly,

As the example of education of Latvia shows, the anthropological process of inclusive

education is not historically completed; it is not a linear process; it does not ensure an

automatic result in the development of the society – the implementation of inclusive

education in practice. Thus the possibilities of children with special needs in education

can simultaneously be realized in different forms; thus also the understanding of inclusive

education can be segmented (the understanding about separate parts of the process, for

example, the understanding only about special education) or integrative (unites the

existing knowledge and forms new understanding, for example, about inclusive

education), as the current research proved. The found correlations indicate indirectly and

confirm that special education and integration is supported in the legislative acts and is

implemented in general comprehensive school As the practice indicates the views

whether and which stage of the anthropological process is the best for children with

special needs, and which form is the most appropriate, still are different. Thus we may

assert that the processes develop from isolation to inclusive education, firstly, is not

unambiguous, and secondly, they should be critically evaluated because in any case this

process will have individual social cultural context for each country.

Secondly,

Palmer, Redfern and Smith in their article„The Four P‟s of Policy”(Palmers, Redfern un

Smith, 1994) have precisely indicated that any “policy” whether that is the policy of

school or the education policy has to include all four “Ps”, i.e., Philosophy, Principles,

Procedures and Performances. Philosophy – relevant basic belief, values. Principles –

broad guidelines, include in themselves the planning level where the problems are found

out and responsibilities distributed. Procedures – action to be taken. Performances –

whether the planned actions work effectively. When analyzing the planning documents of

education policy and documents regulating education in Latvia from the point of view of

inclusive education it was revealed that both the understanding of inclusive education and

awareness of the problem are included on the education planning level. Thus the

philosophy of inclusive education is included. However, further analysis indicates that

“principles” and “procedures” are poorly represented in the regulating documents or they

actually are not included in order to ensure that the philosophy of inclusive education

could be implemented in practice. It was proved that no correlations were found between

the understanding, possibilities and implementation of inclusive education. Possibly, that

is one of the answers that substantiate the “slow” development of inclusive education in

Latvia. At the same time it also creates a wide set of contradictions for the future as the

process of preparing normative documents in Latvia is a very slow one, bureaucratic and

intransparent. Although lately there are certain changes when due to persistence of

parents‟ organizations the normative documents are being changed in order to ensure the

necessary “procedures” for the pupils‟ support in the study process. It gives hope that the

situation can change, though gradually.

References

1. Jermolajeva, J. (2002) Kultūra 20. gadsimta otrajā pusē. Gadsimta beigas.

Jermolajeva, J., Jermolajevs, V., Mūrnieks, A. Kultūras vēsture. Rīga : Raka.

190.–206. lpp.

2. Ainscow, M. (1995) Education for all: making it happen. Support for

Learning, 10, 4, p. 55.–147.

3. Ainscow, M (2007) From special education to effective schools for all: a

review of progress so far. In Florian, L. (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Special

Education. London : SAGE Publication, p. 146–159.

4. Booth, T. (1983) Integrating special education. In Booth, T., Potts, P. (ed.)

Integrating special education. Basil: Blackwell Publishes.

5. Booth, T., Ainscow, M. (2002) Index for inclusion. Bristol : CSIE.

6. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2003) Special

Education across Europe in 2003, Tends in provision in 18 European

countries, Brussels : EADSNE.

7. Florian, L (1998) Inclusive practice: what, why and how. In Florian, L., Rose,

R., Tilstone, C. London (ed.) Promoting Inclusive practices.: Routledge,

p. 13–27.

8. Florian, L. (2007) Reimagining special education In Florian, L. (ed.) The

SAGE Handbook of Special Education. London : SAGE Publication, p. 7–21.

9. Gibson, S., Blandford, S. (2005) Managing Special educational needs, Paul

Chapman Publishing.

10. Harris, L. And Associates (1989) The ICD survey III: A report card on special

education. New York : Louis Harris and Associates.

11. Henley, M., Ramsey, R. S, Algozzine, R. F. (2006) Teaching students with

Mild Disabilities. Pearson Education.

12. Hofsass, T. (2008) Teacher training for special education and inclusive

education – a contradiction? In Ţogla, I. (ed.) Teacher of the 21st century:

Quality Education for Quality Teaching. ATEE Spring University, University

of Latvia. Riga : University of Latvia Press. p. 13–22.

13. Lindsay, G. (2003) Inclusive education: a critical perspectives. In British

Journal of Special Education, 30 (1), p. 3–12.

14. Lindsay, G. (2007) Rights, efficacy and inclusive education. In

Cigman, R. (ed.) Included or Exluded? London: Routledge, p. 15–22.

15. Palmers, C., Redfern, R., Smith, K. (1994) The Four P‟s of Policy In Britissh

Journal of Special Education, Vol. 21, No.1., p. 4-6.

16. Reynolds, M. C. (1962) A framework for considering some issues in special

education. In Exeptional Children, 28, p. 367–370.

17. Skrtic, T. M. (1991, b) Behind Special Education: A Critical Analysis of

Professional Culture and School Organization. Denver : CO, Love.

18. Swain, J., Cook, T. (2005) In the name of inclusion. In Rix, J., Simmons, K.,

Nind, M., Sheehy, K. (ed.) Policy and Power in Inclusive Education London :

Routledge Falmer, p. 59–71.

19. Thomas, Loxley, (2001) Deconstructing special education and constructing

inclusion, Buckingham, Philadelphia : Open University Press.

20. Thomas, G., Walker, D., Webb, J (1998) The making of the Inclusive school.

London : RoutledgeFalmer.

21. UNESCO. (2005) Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring Access to Education for

All. Paris : UNESCO.

22. Winzer, M. A. (1993) The history of special education, Washington, D. C. :

Gallaudet University Press.

23. Wood, J. W. (1984) Adapting Instruction for the Mainstream. Charles E.

Merrill Publishing Company, A Bell & Howell Company.

This document was added to the Education-line collection on 14 December 2009