Exploitation

The project partnership is actively promoting the Textile Heritage, from the Wooden Loom Weaving to Digital Art  project with the purpose to enhance its impact, foster its visibility and ensure its sustainability.

The websites that are already promoting this subject:

https://www.facebook.com/dare2wow.me

Padlet.com/venericlaudio/erasmus

claudioveneri.com

http://www.aetoithessalonikis.gr/european_e.html

EXPLOITATION MENAING INCLUSION

The Dare2Wow partnership strongly believes that the versitile textile industry presents an amazing potential for EVERYONE interested in the subject to embrace a professional career in this area. This is how it can be done!

THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY FOR PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

1. Introduction

2. Integration & school inclusion

3. The necessity of school inclusion

4. Conditions – criteria of success of the integration procedure

5. Activity 1

6. Activity 2

7. Bibliography

1. INTRODUCTION

According to Christofaraki (2012), modern concepts in Education Science consider special education an integral part of the entire education and not a separate sector. One of the major issues of concern in Special Education and Education Science in general is the inclusion of children with special needs in schools. A particular interest in European and international level, both in bibliography and research, has been developed regarding the capability of integration of children with disabilities in public education.

Practice has shown that the integration of children with disabilities or special needs in typical schools has multiple benefits, not only for the children but also for everybody involved in the educational process, teachers, “healthy” children, parents. Teachers develop a wider acceptance philosophy, they reject stereotypic categorization and exclusion and they also develop new skills for more comprehensive settlement of the class environment. While it is clear what an important step it is for children with disabilities to be integrated in school, since they are treated with equality, acceptance and respect, it is also important for the rest of the children because they socialize, the feel a sense of solidarity, respect and mutual support.

According to the World Health Organization (1980), disability is defined as the loss or reduction of the functional capacity or capacity to exercise an activity due to some kind of fault. So disability expresses the inability of a person to exercise everyday activities such as personal care, transportation, occupation or socializing. The term is different from the more general term impairment, which covers any deviation from the normal structure, physical or mental, and it is also different from the term handicap, which denotes the result of an injury or disability. The disadvantage expresses the inability of a person to perform an activity considered normal, and hence is connected with the requirements and the perceptions of society towards disability. Therefore, it is obvious that the disability is more of a social matter and not so much a private one (Oliver, 1990), and that is the reason why society itself should understand that most of the problems children and generally people with special needs face come from social organization and the interactions therein (Marks, 1999).

 Regarding the role to be played by modern Pedagogy and the modern school, it should be adapted to the needs of all children. Undoubtedly, a change and/or adaptation of the analytical and the school curriculum is needed, as well as the promotion of new teaching practices and the removal of negative attitudes of teachers towards children with disabilities, so that the special characteristics and the needs of every child are respected.

2. THE MEANING OF THE TERM “SCHOOL INCLUSION”

The notion of school inclusion could generally be defined as the process by with all children are educated to the greatest extent possible in an environment with as few restrictions as possible. (Biklen, 1985, Winzer, Rogow & David 1987). However, “the term inclusion is used to highlight the efforts made to eliminate the isolation and marginalization”. (Kypriotakis, 2001).

Nowadays, the dominant perception is that of inclusion, that is the effort “the problems of children with minor or major difficulties in learning and behavior to be treated in normal school and in the ordinary class, with the other children, other students, at all levels of education”. Besides, “the inclusion in the ordinary school is the first step to access and equal participation in all activities of social life”. People with special needs obviously face prejudices and racist behavior often, which positions them involuntarily in the “margins of society”. (Papaioannou, 1984).

In June 1994 the principle of “education for all” was formulated, when 92 governments and 25 international organizations signed the Declaration of Salamanca under the title “Principles, Policies and Practices in Special Education.” (UNESCO, 1994). There, among others, it is stated: … the guiding principle behind this framework means that schools should accommodate all children, regardless of physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other capabilities. This includes both disabled, and children with exceptional skills, children from linguistic, cultural or ethnic minorities, children from underprivileged or marginalized groups or regions. The most important point of the declaration is that the term inclusion (education for all) emerges, which is based on a philosophy of acceptance and respect to all children without putting parameters on inability.

According to J. Sebba and M. Ainscow (1996), the term inclusion “… describes the process during which school is trying to respond to all students individually by reviewing the organization and the delivery of the curriculum. Through this process, school increases its capacity to accept all students from the local society that wish to attend, and also reduces the need to reject”. In this way, the term goes beyond the limits of educational terminology and acquires a social and cultural meaning, since it includes and reflects the ideology and philosophy of a “society for all”. It becomes clear that the aim of this approach is that no student is left out of school, consequently leading to the effort to learn to live together with each other in a society of equal opportunities.

Nowadays the terms “integration”, “inclusion” and “co-education” are considered identical. Many use the terms integration, inclusion, normalization with the same, similar or different meaning, while others prefer the term “integration” instead of the term “inclusion” or use both with the same meaning, or consider integration as a condition for inclusion. (Tsinarelis, 1993). The term integration emerged mostly in the 50’s and 60’s and reflected the desire to move away from traditional practices and from any sense of exclusion and marginalization. According to Zoniou-Sideris (1996), the term integration “denotes the systematic placement of something into something else and the completion of the subject as an independent, integral part of a larger whole”. On the contrary, as Zoniou-Sideris (1996) supports, in inclusion the characteristics of the subject disappear, having been absorbed fully from the characteristics of the larger whole.

In conclusion, apart from just providing opportunities for placing a person in a a whole (integration), the children with special educational needs have every right to the same experiences as their peers that do not face difficulties. That is they have the need and the right to interact with these children, to provide integrated socialization experiences (inclusion).

1. THE NECESSITY OF SCHOOL INCLUSION

The role of school is to educate all children taking under consideration the particular skills and the personality of every child, in order to promote their development: educational, psychological and social. The discrimination, the categorization, the “labels” and the characterization don’t promote the modern role of school and certainly aren’t consistent with modern educational theory and practice. Thus, in the field of Special Education, the perception that children with special educational skills should be handled outside “normal schools” is reviewed. As Zoniou-Sideri (2000) supports: “Special schools remain “closed”. They are unable to find outlets and break the barrier of prejudice. They don’t present various composition, corresponding to that of social reality. They choose  their student population according to particular characteristics, which results to the exclusion of the students and their families, but also the exclusion of the special schools themselves”.

 The basis of this movement is due to the social values of fundamental justice and equality. The changes observed in moral, social and cultural values are reflected in educational thinking, which supports school integration and inclusion. Nobody can nowadays overlook the fact that children who face difficulties are given opportunities for further improvement and better experiences if they are incorporated in the “normal” class, and on the other side this movement promotes the positive interaction of all the students with those who have special educational needs.

A review of modern research of international bibliography proves a strong tendency to support the movement of school integration (rationale for integration), formulating many reasons and arguments. Progress has been made in education regarding the design of special programs, better infrastructure and educational theories and approaches.

• The classification and the exclusions are nowadays rejected on the ground that they adversely affect our own perception for people with special skills, but also their self-perception.
• Movements and reflections were dynamically expressed by parents’ organizations claiming social advantages of integration of students with special educational needs.
• The practice of school integration maximizes the potential of children with movement disabilities to develop social and linguistic skills. It also increases the opportunities for interaction with children that don’t face any disability, thus creating conditions of acceptance and mutual respect.
• The evaluation based solely on the results of psychological tests and the distinction and categorization of the students on this basis has been challenged regarding their validity and reliability.
• The variety within the same educational environment is strongly supported on the understanding that the content of educational programs and the analytical curriculum should be based more on individual differences than on the deviations from “normal” emanating from medical diagnoses.
• The development of social skills and those related to general knowledge and functionality of students with special educational needs is better completed in a training environment of integration and inclusion than in one of exclusion and separation.
• The belief that it is necessary to address children who face some difficulties with humanity has been widely accepted and is the basis of pedagogy beyond feelings of fear and pity.
• Special education should be treated as a part of general education and not as something alien from it is a perception gaining more and more supporters.

(Canadian Council of Ministers of Education, 1983; Canadian Education Association, 1985; Biklen, 1985; Winzer, Rogow & David, 1987; Florek, 1986; Stainback & Stainback, 1987).

2. CONDITIONS – CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS OF THE INTEGRATION PROCESS

An undoubtedly positive development in the Education area in general is the fact that in recent decades there is intense bibliographic and research interest in the process of integration of children with special educational needs in schools. In the same time, the growing movement to integrate children with disabilities in the general context of education was reinforced by laws and institutional decisions at international level. “The trend at the moment in the different member states of the European Union is to integrate children with special educational needs in mainstream schools, providing teachers with various forms of support in terms of personnel, materials and equipment" (European Commission, 1997).

So it becomes clear that the interest in school integration of children with disabilities and special needs in general is given, turning the issue into one of the most fundamental issues in educational planning in most European countries. However, it is certainly necessary to put a serious reflection on the qualitative assessment of the process of integration in order for the education to be effective and fulfill its primary goals.

According to mainly empirical data to be able to some extent to speak about successful outcome in the accession process, the following criteria-conditions should be fulfilled, at least in some degree:

• Engagement, participation and cooperation of all stakeholders in the planning of educational and integration process, involving teachers, parents, school administrators and administrative services.
• Training of educators in practice of integration programs for students with special educational needs.
• Assistance, support and information exchange between the teacher, mainly of the primary education and the special education pedagogue, especially the one who was responsible for the design and implementation of early intervention or rehabilitation program.
• Adequate counseling and support services from the Special Education school counselor, the school psychologist and the special rehabilitation staff, the physiotherapist (in case we deal with movement disabilities), the occupational therapist and the speech therapist.
• Change of the curriculum and its adaptation so that the needs are served and specific skills of students with physical and / or learning difficulties are promoted.
• Evaluation and redefinition of the redesigned project results, always with respect and relevance to the educational objectives set, both short and long term.
• Positive attitude, dedication and commitment of teachers, and removal of prejudice and stereotypes.
• Appropriate equipment, modernization of the infrastructure that every public school must have in place to address and support the educational needs of ALL children.
• Guarantee of parental intervention, so that there is a fuller treatment of the child's difficulties, which starts at home and continues in school.

Each of the above criteria has its own dynamics and its influence on the success of the integration program appears to have significant fluctuations. However, experience shows that the basis of success resides in the class and a basic factor is the teachers themselves, their background and their perceptions. Fullan and Milles (1992) characteristically support: “"This change requires knowledge, it is a journey where the problems are expected and welcome, where additional support is needed, where will and power are required to effect the change, which must be systematic and applied individually."

            According to Meister (2000) who has worked mainly in Germany, in order for the possibility of inclusion in educational and social process to exist, the following criteria should be fulfilled, at least to some extent:

• Proximity of residence: facilities (kindergarten, school, etc.) are in the area where the child resides.
• Arrangements of installations: installations accommodating mostly non-disabled children.
• Service and treatment: the disabled child is provided with services or treatment according to their needs.
• Integration therapy: the necessary special pedagogical, therapeutic, specialized in disability assistance is daily provided on the premises and is a component of the common life and learning.
• Conditions of the environment: the level of the personnel, the space capabilities and infrastructure qualify adequacy of facilities.
• Support: available additional personnel, according to the needs of a disabled child.
• Collaboration: everyone involved in the process work together and assist each other.
• Voluntarism: mixed education is a consequence of a conscious and voluntary decision of direct participants.
• Feedback / response: pedagogical practice followed by feedback / response or respectively counseling supervision and evaluation.
• Personal dignity: every child is treated as unique, with care and respect to their abilities and disabilities of. The foundation of Pedagogy is the orientation based on personality rather than its shortcomings.
• The entire student population: all children in an area going to the same school facilities, which means that no disabilities are excluded, regardless of their form and extent.
• Extension of social inclusion: the process of integration takes place beyond the boundaries of the kindergarten or school.
• Transition: the integration goes beyond the duration of study in kindergarten or at school.

Of course all this discussion on criteria for the success of the integration process presupposes the overall design of a new education policy, so as to achieve remodeling of the school and of the role of all stakeholders and services.

To summarize, we would say that undoubtedly is not possible to apply in practice all the requirements and criteria mentioned above, since it is quite difficult to coordinate all processes and simultaneously deal with all related school issues in general. Farrell (1997a, 1997b) argues that: "It is probably unrealistic to expect that all schools can meet the needs of all students in every neighborhood ... Not all schools with meet the necessary conditions for integration education. ". However it is a very important step to focus our attention on the school community management structures, the quality assessment of our work as teachers, the conditions for improving the role of the school and on changing our attitudes and stereotypes in order to have progress in the integration and generally the Pedagogical process and thus to treat the needs of the student population that is becoming increasingly complex.

3. ACTIVITY 1

Students are learning about sport cloths and are to use and understand their usefulness by playing practical games.

4. ACTIVITY 2

Students are learning the printing procedure and are to print stamps on cloths.

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Biklen, D. (1985). Achieving the complete school. Strategies for effective mainstreaming. NY: Teachers College Press.
• Canadian Council of Ministers of Education (1983). Survey of Special education in Canada, 1982-83. Winnipeg, MB: Candid Research and Council of Ministers of Education.
• Canadian Education Association (1985). Mainstreaming: Some issues for school boards. Toronto.
• Christoforaki, K. (2012). “prosvasis: Inclusion of children with disabilities in school process”.  
• European Commission (1997). The numbers – keys of education in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
• Farrell, P. (1997a). The integration of children with severe learning difficulties: a review of the recent literature. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 10 (1) 1-14.
• Farrell, P. (1997b). Teaching Pupils with Learning Difficulties. London Cassell.
• Florek, A. (1986). Integration – or bandwagon hypocrisy? British Journal of Special Education, 13 (2), 52.
• Kypriotakis, A. (2001). Pedagogy. A school for all children. Modern education and training concepts for children with obstacles in life and learning. Athens: Greek Letters.
• Marks, D. (1999). Disability, controversial debates and psychosocial perspectives. London : Routledge.
• Meister, H (2000). “Pedagogical - teaching theories and methods for integration» in Zoniou-Sideri, integration: utopia or reality.
• Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Basingstoke, New Hampshire: MacMillan.
• Sebba, J. & Ainscow, M., (1996). International Developments in Inclusive Schooling : Mapping the Issues. Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1996.
• Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1987). Integration versus cooperation: A commentary on “Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility”. Exceptional Children, 54, 66-68.
• Tsinarelis, C. (1993). The integration of people with disabilities. Myths and reality. Because difference is a right, 46-47, 18-29.
• UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education.
• Winzer, M., Rogow, S., & David, C. (1987). Exceptional Children in Canada Scarborough, ON : Prentice – Hall.
• World Health Organization (1980). The international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
• Zoniou - Sideris, A. (1996). The disabled and their education. Athens, Greek Letters.
• Zoniou - Sideris, A. (2000). Introduction in Zoniou - Sideris A. (Ed.) People with disabilities and their integration. Athens: Greek Letters, pp. 11-25.