Introduction
Teaching students with disabilities has gained prominence in education systems of various countries of the world. Special education for students with disabilities varies from one country to another depending on government policies, education requirements and policies, and cultural backgrounds. The backgrounds and cultural influence of learning among students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia and USA differ. This makes the process of teaching children with disabilities different in USA and Saudi Arabia. The purpose of this literature review is to provide the views of various scholarly studies and research as well as other sources regarding teaching students with disabilities in United States and Saudi Arabia. The essay begins with the history of special education or learning among students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia and United States. This will include factors that affect programs and services for teaching students with disabilities in the two countries.
Teaching students with disabilities in USA
Teaching students with disabilities originated from the US in 1900s. During those early stages of special education in the US, many dedicated education professionals taught students who were slow learners, deaf and/or blind in segregated classrooms. The segregated classrooms were located in either public school buildings or separate schools. It was necessary in those early times to establish the people who should indeed be segregated. Alfred Binet developed an individual test of intelligence to determine the students who were intellectually capable of attending regular schools and those who needed special education (Salem, 2013). This study which was initially started in France was revised and standardized in US in 1916 by Lewis Terman of Stanford University (Cortiella, 2011). This test enabled professionals in education for students with disabilities to identify students who did not exhibit intellectual capability.
Between 1920 and 1960, several States in USA permitted the establishment of classes to teach students with disabilities (Hardman et al, 1998). However, public schools were highly selective because there were limited programs available for the high number of children with disabilities in the US within that period. Services for children with mild emotional disorders were established in 1930s. Separate classes were also provided for students with physical disabilities. During this period local and national level organisations were created and expanded for the entire population, and a higher number of people and institutions in the US participated in the debate to educate individuals with disabilities in public schools. President J.F. Kennedy made efforts to expose the needs of people with disabilities to the public (Hardman et al, 1998). He was then backed by civil rights movements which demanded the integration of minorities and into society. This led to establishment of the movement of integrated education of students with disabilities. The public and parent-groups became increasingly active in enabling education for students with disabilities.
The law also supported the movement for education and integrated environment for people with disabilities. In Brown vs. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court made a decision in support of free education for students with disabilities in public schools. It was established that segregation based on race violated the principle of equal educational opportunity. Cortiella (2011) suggests that the case set a good basis for the understanding that every individual has a right to public education regardless of gender, race, or disability.
Following Brown vs. Board of Education, funding for special education programs and training increased. Price (2009) suggests that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 which allowed for funds to be set aside for public schools was amended to set aside funds specifically for students with disabilities. Federal legislations passed in 1970s also supported integration of people with disabilities into the society through equal education. The laws provided that children with disabilities should enjoy education in the least restrictive environment. In this case, “least restrictive environment” means that children with disabilities should be educated together with other students without disabilities to the highest possible extent. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 1973 provides that any individual with disability should not be denied any program or activity funded by the government, whether public or private (Alquraini, 2013). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 provides additional requirements for compliance by institutions and school district that do not benefit from federal aid.
By 1975, half of the entire population of disabled children in the US was either educated inappropriately or completely excluded from the education system. This changed when Education for All Handicapped Children Act, currently known as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was signed into law by President Ford in November 1975. Under the IDEA which is still operational up to now, children with disabilities have the right to be taught individually through the Individual Education Program (IEP). The children are also required to get free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Education for All Handicapped Children Act was changed to IDEA in 1997. Forlin et al (2001) suggest that IDEA shifted the focus of the law from access to public education to the provision of measureable and meaningful programs for every individual with disability.
These legislations indicate that teaching students with disabilities in the US is highly protected and supported by the law. The IDEA defines the entire system of teaching students with disabilities in USA (Olson & Platt, 2004). Supported by school and public participation, IDEA lays foundation for an effective and appropriate system of education for children with disabilities. It encourages the measurability of the outcomes of special education in both private and public schools.
In the US, children with disabilities are taught objectively. The schools and other educational programs lay down measurable annual goals with regard to students with disabilities (Olson & Platt, 2004). The relevant authorities including teachers are also engaged in regular assessment and measurement to determine the progress of students with disabilities. Teaching children with disabilities in US is not the responsibility of teachers alone; parents also participate in the development of their children’s Individual Education Program (IEP). There is also an innovation of participation throughout the special education process. Teaching students with disabilities in the US also involves mandatory reporting of goal progress to parents. In case a student with disabilities does not make sufficient progress towards the attainment of IEP goals, the plan is revised and changes in the teaching process are initiated (Test et al, 2005). This shows that teaching students with disabilities in the US is a strategic process with good planning, progress monitoring, and change management. In all these activities, inclusion and participation are essential elements for the appropriateness and efficiency of the IEP.
Teaching students with disabilities in the US also requires accountability in order to enhance student achievement in the special education system. Accountability is enhanced through increased participation in statewide assessments of progress by students with disabilities. In order to manage funds and resources intended for teaching students with disabilities, teachers in US have been encouraged to use research based programming. Teaching students with disabilities in the US engage their students in statewide assessment in order to enhance accountability for students with disabilities (Hardman et al, 1998). Special education in the US also involves hiring of highly qualified teachers, especially those who are specialized in special education. The main purpose of hiring highly qualified teachers and encouraging accountability in special education is to tighten achievement gap for students with disabilities, especially those who are considered to be at high risk.
Students with disabilities in US are also taught in an integrative manner – they are brought together with other students without disabilities and given the opportunity to interact with them in both classroom work and extra-curriculum activities. IDEA also provides an alternative model of teaching students with disabilities in the US (Alquraini, 2013). This includes Response to Intervention (RTI) which involves the provision of high-quality instruction and interventions based on the need of each student with disabilities. RTI also requires constant progress monitoring in order to enable teachers to make appropriate changes in instruction or goals. Furthermore, it entails the application of child response data to important decisions.
Instead of sending students with disabilities to special education, US system emphasizes on preventing the occurrence of learning gaps and addressing academic and behaviour issues before they occur. The key issue in educating students with learning disabilities in USA is the focus on results. In this regard, educational plans are designed to include research-based programming. IEP teams also write annual goals; providing measurable goals, mechanisms of monitoring progress, and initiating changes if progress is not realized. Salem (2013) suggests that US system of teaching students with disabilities focuses less on procedural compliance and more on results.
The current system of learning among children with disabilities in US involves inclusive education whereby children with special needs are integrated into regular classrooms. It also entails a process of enabling an inclusive space for all learners regardless of their disabilities. As opposed to integration and special education approach, the current inclusion approach in US education system focuses on quality; it entails a change in the entire school environment to accommodate the needs of all students (Salem, 2013). There are to school reforms that have been pursued in US: service provision and ethic of care and support. These reforms mainly address issues affecting children with disabilities in terms of school infrastructure and environment. Service provision targets at meeting the basic needs of all the children while ethic of care and support ensures that the school environment is safe and comfortable for all the children.
Inclusive teaching among children with disabilities in the school system also focuses on building partnerships between schools and the community. In order to meet the needs of children with disability in a school system, teachers and other supporters of such children operate within a given policy and practice provided by the IDEA and the school systems. Teachers in the US engage in inter-sectoral teacher training to give them more skills and knowledge to teach students with disabilities more effectively (Teigland, 2009). They also promote classroom management by ensuring that all activities are directed and controlled efficiently.
Some scholars have come up with arguments in support of the inclusive approach of teaching students with disabilities in the US. Lujan (2006) argues that inclusion is a rights-based approach which ensures that the right of children with disabilities to access education is upheld. This system enables children with disabilities to disassociate themselves with the situation of being Special Education Needs children. Under the past system of special education where children with disabilities were taught separately, children would feel stigmatized. Inclusion enables them to realize that they can perform well in education just like other children without disabilities. Inclusion increases confidence and self-esteem among children with disabilities, and reduces stigmatization; hence leading to improved performance by such children.
Teaching students with disabilities also involves the use of technology in providing services to such students as suggested by IDEA (Alquraini, 2013). In this case, students with disabilities are provided with assistive technology (AT) which is composed of both services and devices. This technology is important because it enables students with disabilities in US to learn and the school administrations and teachers are able to meet the needs of every student with disability in IEP and transition plan. Alquraini (2013) suggests that the main aim of technology based and inclusive teaching for students with disabilities is to provide educational services in such a way that their unique needs are met. State personnel in US allocate funds to professionals who teach children with disabilities so that they can use the funds to integrate technology effectively with teaching strategies. Alquraini (2013) also claims that technology in schools enables children with disabilities to access the general curriculum and improve their teaching methods.
Alquraini (2013) also suggests that teachers who teach children with disabilities in USA are provided with information and effective training by their states. IDEA empowers states to use funds to improve the quality of Special Education Needs teachers. With integrated technology, skilled and well trained teachers are able to meet the needs of each student with disability in their schools.
Alquraini (2013) argues that IDEA is the central element in teaching students with learning disabilities in USA because it guides the entire processes and procedures involved in teaching such children. IDEA enhances good quality of special education services for students with disabilities in USA. Educational services required by IDEA for teaching students with learning disabilities include appropriate educational setting, transition services, educational goals and results of students with learning disabilities, and intervention programs.
The effect of IDEA on educational setting for students with disability is that increased number of students is receiving education in a general setting and few of them are still taught in separate education settings. In 2004-2005 academic years, students with disabilities who were taught in an inclusive setting amounted to 80% of the entire population of students with disability (Alquraini, 2013). Students with disabilities who attend public schools in United States have increased significantly due to the implementation of IDEA requirements across the entire education system of the US. Furthermore, IDEA has led to improved academic performance among students with disabilities. Research indicates that reading skills for elementary students with learning disabilities in inclusive educational settings improved by 31.7% and their mathematics skills improved by 23.9% in 2005-2006 (Alquraini, 2013).
Cook (2004) observes that the implementation of IDEA requirements in educational settings for students with disabilities also increases the participation of parents in activities that affect the education of their children. Therefore, it is clear that IDEA enhances improved quality of teaching students with disabilities in United States.
The problem in teaching students with disabilities in US is that the level of assistive technology used to help such students is low. Cortiella (2011) suggests that only an estimation of 25% to 35% of students with disabilities in USA is provided with assistive technology. States and the federal government still need to increase their assistance for children with disabilities in terms of assistive technology.
Teaching students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia
Although there is legislation in Saudi Arabia that enhances the rights of students with disabilities to receive appropriate special education services, teaching students in the country lacks the quality that USA’s educational setting for students with disabilities has achieved (Alquraini, 2013). This is caused by some of various issues that affect the country’s education system.
Special education was introduced in Saudi Arabia in 1958 when a blind man named Sheikh Al-Ghanem learned how to use the Braille learning system to read and write from a blind friend from Iraqi. The Saudi blind man introduced the Braille system to a few other Saudis who were attending regular public schools in the Kingdom. For two years, the system was used privately and it proved to be very useful for students with learning disabilities. One of the government schools in the Kingdom started to use the Braille system at night so that blind students could attend their regular classes during the day and Braille instruction classes during the night. The government supported this system and offered space and materials to support blind students who were willing to use the Braille system (Alquraini, 2013). The system was so successful that the government decided to introduce special education in the Kingdom.
Saudi’s Ministry of Education started special education program in 1960. The challenge with the system at that time was that education system was mainly dominated by men. The first government-supported training institute for students with disabilities admitted male blind students. This institute was the Al-Noor Institute in Riyadh. Hallab (2011) argues that this institute formed a strong foundation for special education in Saudi Arabia, although it also exacerbated discrimination against girls and women in teaching students with disabilities.
In order to overcome the problem of gender discrimination, the first school for blind girls was initiated in 1964. Special education also expanded in the same year after the introduction of the first deaf school, the Al Amal Institute in Riyadh. Resources and facilities for blind students also expanded to five institutions. The first institute for students with mental disabilities, Al-Riaih Institute, was started in 1971 (Dukmak, 2010). The department of special education in the Ministry of Education was upgraded in 1974 to General Directorate. Three units were initiated to spearhead the teaching of blind, mentally challenged, and deaf students. The three units were required to oversee the implementation of educational programs for each of the three groups of blind students.
Resources for teaching students with disabilities expanded as new special education institutions were opened in various provinces depending on the needs of each province. By 1987, special education institutions had increased to 27 throughout the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Recently, the number increased to 54 (Alquraini, 2013). These institutions include 10 schools for the blind, 16 schools for the mentally retarded and 28 schools for deaf students.
The responsibility of protecting and promoting the rights of students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia is shared by the Ministry of Education and the General Secretariat of Special Education (Dukmak, 2010). Ministry of education provides and oversees educational programs and curricula while the General Secretariat of Special Education initiates and directs technical and social programs required for students with learning disabilities. The Ministry of Education also participates in enhancing education for students with learning disabilities by providing integrated medical and psychological counseling and treatment services. This is part of the overall rehabilitation programs of the Ministry of Education.
Until 1990s, there had been little focus on the quality of services delivered for students with learning disabilities in Saudi Arabia (Hallab, 2011). After 1990s and beyond, teaching students with disabilities improved significantly as service delivery was given special attention. Service delivery for students with disabilities has recently experienced qualitative and quantitative progress in Saudi Arabia. Institutionalization is no longer considered as an appropriate approach to provide education to children with disabilities, although it is still widely used in the Kingdom.
The most recent development in teaching students with development in Saudi Arabia is the introduction/integration of special education programs into regular schools (Dukmak, 2010). Some of the special education programs in regular schools include specialized teachers and consultation, resource rooms, and self-contained classrooms. Previous institutions for students with learning disabilities are currently being transformed to carry out various functions such as in-service training, alternative service delivery for students with severe conditions, and provision of information and support centers.
From the above information about special education in Saudi Arabia, it is clear that teaching students with disabilities in the Kingdom still faces some challenges. Alquraini (2013) argues that the special education services in Saudi Arabia are still in the stage of development. In an attempt to improve special education services in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Special Education Department under the Ministry of Education, with the support of professionals from some universities reviewed the policies of USA’s IDEA regarding special education services. As a result, the Regulations of Special Education Programs and Institutes (RSEPI) were introduced in 2001 to regulate teaching of students with disabilities in the Kingom.
RESPI adopted various factors in the IDEA of USA including least restrictive environment, transition services, multi-disciplinary teams, IEPs, etc. REPSI upholds the rights of students with disabilities to access free and appropriate education. Schools are required to educate students with disabilities in a setting of general education, considering other alternatives of special education services. RESPI requires that various education services should be implemented with disabled students in the real world (Dukmak, 2010). However, implementation of services in the real world is faced with several problems. Unlike US where the provisions of IDEA are implemented successfully in the school education system, Saudi Arabia has not been able to implement the provisions of its own RESPI successfully.
Alquraini (2013) argues that what is experienced in the real education system of Saudi Arabia with respect to students with disabilities is different from the regulations provided by RESPI. This is because implementation of the policies is hampered by several challenges. First, Saudi legislations lack effective safeguards to guarantee students with disabilities and their parents high quality of education services. The regulations do not provide clear indication of which department is responsible for implementation of RSEPI.
RSEPI provides that students with disabilities should be educated in general education setting. In reality, teaching students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia takes place in different settings depending on severity and nature of disability. For example, students with cognitive disability, deafness and blindness are taught in special classrooms in public schools. Such students interact with other students in extra-curricular activities such as arts and sports. Students with severe disabilities also get their education in special schools which do not meet their individual needs (Dukmak, 2010). Furthermore, students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia are taught using special curriculum that is designed to suit each type of disability.
Alquraini (2013) observes that children with disabilities in Saudi Arabia do not get an opportunity to join further education after completing middle school. Those who get slim chances to proceed with education join vocational training centers which are also limited. RSEPI requires that teaching students with learning disabilities in Saudi Arabia should entail providing educational services in general education setting supported by a resource room teacher who gives individual instructions to the student. However, most students are still taught in either special classroom in public schools or in special schools.
Regulations of special education in Saudi Arabia also require relevant authorities to provide related services to students with disabilities (Murphy et al, 2004). Currently, related services such as transport, psychological services, and counseling are available in various schools. However, the educational system of Saudi Arabia still lacks some related services for students with disabilities such as physical therapy, medical services, and speech and language therapy.
In terms of evaluation and assessment for students with learning disabilities in Saudi Arabia, the assessment and evaluation procedures outlined in Saudi legislation are clear and detailed. However, teaching students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia are not evaluated or assessed adequately. Tools of assessment such as IQ tests and academic scales are not adapted to the cultural position of the kingdom (Nuzhat et al, 2011). Teachers and other professionals involved in teaching students with disabilities do not have the right approach to assess students in order to determine their unique special education needs. Special education teachers and school specialists attempt to assess students with disability but there is no multidisciplinary team to do so. Therefore, it is difficult to address the special education needs of each student with disability in Saudi Arabia.
Neither regulations nor practice underscore technology as an important element in teaching students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia. The schools in Saudi Arabia are not equipped with assistive technology services or devices to be integrated in effective teaching strategies (Alquraini, 2013). As a result, students with disabilities are not able to live independently or access the general education curriculum.
Al-Jadid (2013) suggests that the effectiveness of educational programs for children with disabilities on the children, families and the community at large is questionable and debatable. Al-Jadid questions the ability of such programs to change the attitude of members of the community towards people with disability. However, Al-Jadid (2013) appreciates the fact that special education services for students with disabilities has enabled them to obtain good quality education services for students in the least restrictive environment. Al-Jadid (2013) argues that despite these achievements, there are still a lot that need to be done in order to improve the quality of educational services for students with disabilities in Saudi Arabia.
Generally, the quality and level of education services among children with disabilities in Saudi Arabia are poor. This explains why it is very difficult to implement the regulations provided by the RSEPI which regulates the processes and procedures of teaching students with disabilities in the Kingdom. Special education services do not have a proper manner of implementation because RSEPI do not proper explanations, and approach to key issues (Al-Eithan et al, 2010). Furthermore, there is no proper system of accountability that may guide the implementation of RSEPI. Families of students with learning disabilities in Saudi are also not equipped with reliable information about the rights of their children to obtain high quality of special education as highlighted by RSEPI.
Conclusion
From the above literature review, it is clear that education services for children with disabilities in USA is different in many ways from the educational services given to children with disability in Saudi Arabia. However, there are also a few similarities between the education services of the two countries’ education for children with learning disabilities. Special education started much earlier in USA than Saudi Arabia. Regulations that guide education for people with disabilities in USA are provided by the IDEA. Saudi Arabia adopted some regulations from the IDEA and included them in their regulatory body RSEPI.
Literature has shown that teaching students with disabilities in US and Saudi /Arabia are guided by the purpose to provide free and appropriate education services for children with disabilities. Most of the contents of the IDEA and RSEPI are similar. They have guidelines on provision of individual education plan (IEP), related services, transition services, etc. The two regulatory bodies also require educational institutions to provide least restrictive environments for children with disabilities. The differences between teaching students with disabilities in USA and Saudi Arabia are seen in terms of the implementation of regulations provided by IDEA and RSEPI. The quality of educational services in USA is higher than the quality of educational services in Saudi Arabia. The system of education in USA is inclusive systems whereby students with disabilities are taught along with regular children in order to enable them interact. On the other hand, students with learning disabilities in Saudi Arabia are taught in separate classrooms in public schools or in special schools. Literature has shown that USA’s approach in teaching students with disabilities sis more inclusive than Saudi’s approach.
References list
Al-Eithan, M.H., Robert A.A., and Al-Saeed A.H. (2010).Mood problems of mothers with disabled children in Saudi Arabia: A preliminary prospective study. Saudi Med J, 31, 1161-1165.
Al-Jadid, M.S. (2013). Disability in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Medical Journal, 34(5), 453-460
Alquraini, T. (2013). Legislative rules for students with disabilities in the United States and Saudi Arabia: A Comparative Study. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 2(6), 601-614
Cook, B. G. (2004). Inclusive teacher’ attitudes toward their students with disabilities: A replication and extension. The Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 307-332
Cortiella, C. (2011). Th e State of Learning Disabilities. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Dukmak, S. (2010). Research Section: Classroom interaction in regular and special education middle primary classrooms in the United Arab Emirates. British Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 39-48.
Hallab, D. (2011). Teaching Special Education in Saudi: A Lebanese Woman’s Perspective. Accessed August 28, 2013 from http://www.peacexpeace.org/2011/11/teaching-special-education-in-saudi-a-lebanese-womans-perspective/
Hardman, M.L., McDonnell, J. and Welch, M. (1998). Special Education in an Era of School Reform. Washington, DC: Federal Resource Center.
Forlin, C., Jobling, A., & Carroll, A. (2001). Preservice teachers’ discomfort levels toward people with disabilities. The Journal of International Special Needs Education, 4, 32-38.
Lujan H, DiCarlo S. (2006). Too much teaching, not enough learning: what is the solution? Adv Physiol Educ. 30(1), 17-22.
Murphy R, Gray S, Straja S, Bogert M. (2004). Students learning preferences and teaching implications. J Dent Educ., 68(8), 859-866.
Nuzhat, A., Salem, R.O., Quadri, M.S.S, and Al-Hamdan, N. (2011). Learning style preferences of medical students: a single-institute experience from Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 70-73
Olson, J. L., & Platt, J. M. (2004). Teaching children and adolescents with special needs (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Price, A. (2009). Best Practices in Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities. Calgary, AB: Calgary Learning Center.
Salem, A.A. (2013). The Impact of Teaching Academic Education Course of Children with Special Needs in the Ordinary Schools on Students’ Attitudes toward Inclusion of Disabled Children. Journal of Education and Learning, 2(2), 112-125.
Teigland, C. (2009). What inclusive education means for overall student achievement. The Connections of Association of Person with Severe Handicaps, 35(3), 12-14.
Test, D.W., Fowler, C.H., Wood, W.M., Brewer, D.M., & Eddy, S. (2005). A conceptual framework of self-advocacy for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 43-54.
