Archivo

VOL. 20, NO. 1, (January – April. 2016), ISSN 1138-414X (print edition). ISSN 1989-639X (electronic edition). Date of receipt: 04/06/2015. Date of acceptance: 10/19/2015.

Susana Rojas Pernia* and Patricia Olmos Rueda**. University of Cantabria and Autonomous University of Barcelona. Email: rojass@unican.es, patricia.olmos@uab.cat

ABSTRACT. Special Education Centers (CEE) were the only schooling option for children with disabilities until relatively recently. Social, economic, political, and educational changes in recent decades have led to a transformation of mainstream schools, but also of special education schools. Thus, while some CEEs have remained as organizations that welcomed and facilitated the learning of students—primarily—with intellectual disabilities, others have sought new ways to facilitate the learning of these students in mainstream contexts, giving rise to what we know as Resource Centers (CRR) and configuring themselves as core services in the process of building a more inclusive school. The development of the LOMCE (2013) necessarily compels us to consider the role that CEEs play within the framework of inclusive education and, therefore, to examine the conditions that favor or hinder the access, participation, and learning of all children in mainstream schools. This article addresses the work that some CEEs undertake as CRRs, considering their functions, the relationships between professionals, and reflecting on the work they are doing with the aim of building an inclusive school.

Keywords: inclusive education, resource centers, special education centers, collaboration, educational support

ABSTRACT. So far, Special Schools have been the only schooling alternative for many disabled children. The last decades’ social, economic, political and educational changes have helped bring the changes in the regular schools and also, in the special education school. So, while some special schools have remained as organizations that took mainly intellectual disabled students in and facilitated their learning, others have sought new ways for facilitating these students’ learning in regular contexts, leading to what is known as Resource Centres (RC). These are nuclear services in building an inclusive school. LOMCE development (2013) makes consider the role that special schools have within the framework of inclusive education and, therefore examining the conditions that help or hinder the access, participation and learning of all the children in the regular school. This article reflects on the work of some special schools as RC, thinking in its functions, the relations among professionals and reflecting on the work that these centres are developing in order to build an inclusive school. 

Keywords: inclusive education, resource centers, special education centers, collaboration, educational support

1. Introduction

The significant changes made in the Spanish Education System since the 1970s have shaped the educational cultures, policies, and practices of Mainstream Schools (CO), but also the cultures, policies, and practices of centers originally designed to support children who were not admitted to mainstream schools due to reasons of ability or behavior.

The initial development of that dual system in parallel (mainstream education and special education) was followed in the 1980s by the first experiences of integrating students with disabilities into mainstream schools. These first encounters between both types of educational services were the seed of collaborations that over time have led to very diverse educational experiences and situations. While some special education centers (CEE) remain as centers that serve children or young people who fall under the category of students with special educational needs (SEN) (mainly with intellectual disabilities, communication and behavioral disorders), others play a central role in the educational response provided to all students within mainstream educational contexts. As resource centers for mainstream schools, professionals intervene, advise, provide materials, or collaboratively train colleagues in mainstream settings. These experiences show that it is possible for students assessed with SEN to receive quality responses in mainstream schools (CO). Therefore, all children, including those with the greatest needs, can learn and participate in the same educational contexts. These are experiences that, as explained later, benefit families, professionals, and, consequently, students in general.

The LOMCE (2013) opens up a new educational landscape, and it is time to review and consider the work that professionals and educational centers (of both types) have done so far with the aim of building a single school for all. The new Law, in its Article 57, recognizes the Administration’s responsibility to ensure resources and provide the means to guarantee that all students can achieve their maximum personal development and proposes the possibility of establishing priority center plans to support centers that enroll students in situations of social disadvantage, which could be a stimulus for all public and subsidized centers working under the principle of inclusive education. However, it also promotes the specialization of educational centers, values the early assessment of students, and links educational quality with an increase in student academic performance. We know that the latter could lead to the presence of some students in mainstream educational centers not being interpreted as an opportunity for school improvement.

In this article, we reflect, based on some experiences that document the work of Special Education Centers (SECs) as Resource Centers (RCs) for educational inclusion, on the role that these services play in this process. Through a set of questions, we begin a journey from the origins and premises of special education (SE) to the transformation and improvement that collaboration between Mainstream Schools (MS) and SECs has meant for some centers. Undoubtedly, the transformation of some SECs into RCs was possible because the decisions made by the specific centers were shared by the MS. Therefore, and although the focus is initially on special education, its origins, and the premises that supported it, changes in the educational response to “special” students must always be understood within a broader social and educational framework.

2. Is it possible to continue thinking about specific centers for special children in the
21st century?

Special Education in Spain began to take shape in the early decades of the 20th century, a time when arguments began to be made about the need for teachers in the education of the deficient (Carreño, 2005). Considered uneducable by the ordinary system and a risk to the learning of children without disabilities and to society in the future, specific services and specialist professionals were the alternative that would guarantee a more adequate educational response for students with deficiencies (Franklin, 1996). The creation of these services was a humanitarian gesture, a way to compensate for the years of neglect to which these children or young people had been subjected, but also “an initiative designed to socially control a population considered threatening to the existing social order” (Franklin, 1996, p. 19). In addition to preparing children with deficiencies physically, intellectually, and morally, it was urgent to ensure the protection of other members of society.

The creation of special classrooms and schools served to respond to a portion of children who had been left out of regular education. The development of a professional intervention area began in our country, that of special education under medical control (Carreño, 2005; Cura, 2012; Franklin, 1996; Pérez de Lara, 2004). Attempts to explain the nature of the difficulties these children encountered and the design of special practices that educators would employ in segregated spaces helped to stabilize a discourse centered on the individual with a disability and their unavoidable rehabilitation. Following the tradition of other European countries, the education of children with disabilities in Spain was carried out under a model based on student categorization, the need to articulate individual responses based on the disability, or the search for these differentiated responses in specific spaces separate from others without disabilities (García Pastor, 1993). This model would maintain its status quo until new approaches to scientific knowledge and ethical-social transformation processes paved the way for educational inclusion as a desirable and necessary proposal (Pérez de Lara, 2004). In a work from the mid-nineties, Skirtc (1996) argued that the first criticisms of the traditional model in SE – of the type of segregated practices and their social consequences – were made by families, the main consumers and users of SE. This first crisis in special education served to introduce changes in educational practices that were legally reinforced and supported.

The 1980s in Spain inherited this change. As other countries—the US, the United Kingdom, Norway, or Italy—had done in the previous decade (Susinos, 2003), a set of regulations were approved in Spain to develop the principle of school integration (LISMI, 1982; RD 334/1985). Integration aimed to promote the joint schooling of all students, addressing their educational needs within the same system. It did not intend to eliminate Special Education, but rather for it to become part of the regular education system, so that it would not be exclusively identified with special centers and/or special students. From the integration model, the context is fundamental to understanding the difficulties students encounter and in seeking responses to the needs they present. The curriculum—and curricular adaptations—and support services—inside and outside of school—are core elements for the development of school integration (Arnáiz, 2003).

The principle of integration was forged in the discourse of applied research, as exemplified by the reports on the implementation process of integration that were produced (e.g., Álvarez et al., 1987; MEC, 1989) or the change in the content of the National Conferences of Universities and Special Education that had been held since 1984 (Pallisera, Jiménez, and Bueno, 1998). This was also reflected in educational practice, as shown by some experiences indicating how many children with disabilities benefited from being placed in regular schools, without forgetting the differences in the development of integration plans or projects across the country (Almansa and López, 1997; Caravaca, 1997; Vendrell, 1997).

The demands that some students with intellectual disabilities made of mainstream schools led to experiences of combined integration between Special Education Centers (CEE) and mainstream schools. Some of these experiences show how, in certain subjects, sometimes only during breaks, for a few hours a week or a day, students with intellectual disabilities shared the spaces, times, and material resources of mainstream schools with their peers without disabilities (Acebes, 2002; Chiva and Moyano, 1997; Magdaleno and Figueiras, 2003; Monereo, 2000; Solé and Piquero, 1994). What is important here is that some of these practices were the beginning of a path outlined in the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), in which Special Education Centers and their professionals would assume new functions as Resource Centers for Mainstream Schools (Carbonell, Capellas, Crehueras, Escudero and Milian, 2007; Carbonell, Batllori, Muñoz and Saltó, 2004; Castells and Font, 1997; Font, 1999, 2004).

However, it is possible to state that the changes in the organization and the type of practices developed in mainstream schools with integration did not serve to question the theoretical assumptions on which the previous model of special education was based. Within this framework, differentiating practices continued to be reproduced, adopting different names in the various Autonomous Communities (CCAA). Thus, the discourse of integration was accompanied by “new” practices that were reinforced through the regulation of theoretical discourse (Echeita, 2005; Martínez, 2002, 2005). More specifically, placement proposals were articulated that facilitated the development of programs and services parallel to the ordinary ones. The study conducted by Díez (1999; in Arnáiz, 2003) during two school years (1997/99) showed that only 14% of the time students received support, they did so within the classroom. Among the arguments put forward were professionals’ fear of working collaboratively, classroom structures that prevented the simultaneous work of several teachers, the requirement for coordination between professionals, or the emphasis placed on “instrumental learning.” In the classroom, many students began to do activities that had nothing to do with what their classmates were doing and/or were physically separated from the others to avoid distractions. As Skirtc (1996) argued, in no case did the criticism deeply question the dominant idea of disability as an individual condition or the uselessness of differentiating between disabled/non-disabled.

The recognition of inclusive education in the 1990s1 as a fundamental principle that should guide educational policies worldwide pushed for a rethinking of how schools had been responding to diversity (and not just to students with disabilities or SEN), ideologically and conceptually enriching previous approaches (Parrilla, 2002). Inclusive education questions the creation of specialized services or differentiated measures based on predefined categories, the expert organization of support, or the separation of quality and equity in education. Two principles are central: the recognition of education as a fundamental basic right for all students and diversity as an essential educational value (Ainscow, 2001; Arnáiz, 1996, 2003; Parrilla, 2002), which forces us to recognize that the rights of some people are being violated and that the difficulties experienced by students are the result of the way we have chosen to organize schools, as well as teaching styles and methods.

This new landscape has served as a framework for some Special Education Centers (CEE) and Ordinary Centers (CO) to continue with the necessary transformation in creating a school for all. We cannot analyze what has happened in the different Autonomous Communities (CCAA) and how different initiatives were legally protected, but it is possible to discover that during this period, some CEE have been configured as Reference Centers (CRR) for CO, facilitating the access and learning of children assessed with severe and permanent difficulties in mainstream classrooms.

At this point, and before clarifying what we mean by resource provider services for inclusive education, who benefits from this transformation, or what it entails, we want to state that experiences show that children with intellectual disabilities – including those who present greater challenges to education professionals – can learn and participate in mainstream schools with their peers (Agell, Sala and Torrent, 2009; Capellas, 2014; Carbonell et al., 2004, 2007; Font, 2004).

Therefore, what has been achieved compels us to continue in that direction. It is surprising that, after a century of history in responding to students with disabilities, one might consider the specialization of educational centers, meaning more Special Education Centers (CEE) and/or for these centers to be the ones to accommodate students with intellectual disabilities. Of course, it is not possible to ignore that the creation of certain spaces legitimizes the needs that some people have, without forcing us to question the why or what for of those spaces. As some authors have argued (Aiscow, 2001; Dyson, 1999; Saleh, 1999), recognizing the problem is the first step on the path towards an inclusive school.

3. Who are and would be the beneficiaries of the transformation of Special Education Centers (CEE) into Resource Centers (CRR) for inclusive education?

From the analysis of some of the experiences and after reviewing existing literature on the subject (Carbonell et al., 2007; Department of Education and ETI, 2006; DoE, 2001; Font, Castelis and Carbonés, 1995; Giné, 2001; James, 1997; Lambe and Bons, 2008; López-Torrijo, 2009), a common interpretative line can be deduced regarding what is understood by Special Education Centers (CEE) as Resource Centers (CRR) for inclusive education, what functions they adopt, and who benefits or could benefit from this conversion.

CEEs are conceived as support services with expertise in addressing the Educational Needs (EN) – especially severe ones – of students. The centers and the professionals working in them possess a wide range of knowledge, skills, good educational practices, or resources that they have developed and implemented in differentiated educational contexts. Therefore, the potential of these centers as references that provide other professionals and educational agents (teachers, management teams, families, etc.) with specialized support and resources in mainstream educational contexts is valued.

The conceptualization of CEEs as CRRs is key to educational inclusion and one of the conditions for ensuring that all students have access to, learn in, and participate in the same school context. As Font (2004) points out, “(…) Special Education must adopt the inclusive education model. That is, it must serve as an instrument, resource, and support for mainstream schools in order to reduce barriers to the participation and learning of all students” (p. 64). In this line of interpretation, the conversion of CEEs into CRRs has consequences for the way Special Education is organized.

The transformation affects both types of centers, mainstream and special. For the former, the placement of students who have so far been educated in segregated spaces requires a restructuring of the educational center, of what is done and how it is done. It demands substantial modifications in its organizational structure – professionals hitherto foreign to the center’s culture appear –, in curriculum planning – it invites a review of the type of content and its distribution–, and in the type of relationships established among the different educational agents within the school – among students, with families, and among professionals. Likewise, for Special Education Centers (CEE), their conversion into service providers for educational centers and their professionals also calls for a reorganization of their structures and professional functions. The consideration that resources should be where the students are and not the other way around demands new political and practical approaches in the COs.

The provision of educational support is expanded, falls on the entire school and, therefore, on those who will carry out the main educational activity, whether they are teachers or families. It is possible to define a wide range of functions that include advice and guidance to teachers and families in the CO, specialized training for the different educational agents, the provision of existing material resources and the creation of new ones, coordination in the development of educational practices in the CO and with other services, the joint implementation of individual or group programs, participation in the design and development of innovation or research projects, and the creation of informal work networks (see Table 1). The joint work of the teacher from the CEE with the tutor within the classroom in attending to students with SEN through what we know as co-teaching (Agelet, Bassedas and Comadevall, 1997; Alonso and Rodríguez, 2004; Duran, 2003) is one of the ways in which support is foreseen, but not the only one, nor the main one. Direct intervention on students with SEN in the mainstream or special classroom thus gives way to shared work between professionals with different training in the same classroom and with all students. Flexibility in the organization of physical space, available resources, and therefore, in who provides support and to whom it is provided, are undoubtedly substantial changes in the way support in classrooms has traditionally been understood. The contribution to professional development is evident in both directions.

Support as…	Directed to CO	It consists of…	Stages
Intervention	Students (with and without SEN)	Provide specialized support for a specific period of time
		Provide personal support to students with special educational needs (personal hygiene, feeding, access, transport) in various school activities
		Enable joint work in the mainstream classroom (two teachers or several adults in the classroom with all students)
Advising and training	Professionals CO (Guidance, specialist teachers or tutors)	Lead particularly complex assessments, consultancy and support for other colleagues
	Families	Provide information (methodological strategies, materials, student grouping, …) in the mainstream classroom
	Other centers or services	Provide information about specific programs, software, or other materials	Early Childhood
		Collaborate in the design and development of mainstream proposals for all students	Primary
		Provide training resources in specific areas (communication and normalization in the use of AAC, universal accessibility,…)	Secondary
		Assessment of educational priorities, support needs (intensity, duration, etc.)
Provision of resources		Design and development of materials in the different curricular areas
		Preparation of specific materials
		Search for new resources
Coordination		Informal support networks
		Innovation or research projects

The transformation of Special Education Centers (CEE) into Resource Centers for Inclusive Education benefits mainstream educational centers and society as a whole (Porter, 2014). Therefore, it can be stated that we are all direct beneficiaries. According to authors such as Lambe and Bones (2008), Rose (2000), or Rose and Coles (2002), the educational community – teachers, students, and families – is enriched by shared experiences with CEEs. 

However, the process is not without risks and obstacles. In the analyzed experiences, the main difficulties are associated with the attitudes and training of teachers. Likewise, it is important not to overlook that legislation, funding for Special Education (EE) – based on the number of children assessed with Special Educational Needs (SEN) – or the weight of tradition in EE can be a barrier to the development of a common school project for all children.

4. What characteristics do the transformation projects of CEEs into Resource Centers for Inclusive Education share?

Some of the first experiences of combined integration in the Spanish context exemplify the type of relationships that Ordinary Centers (CO) and Special Education Centers (CEE) came to establish (Monereo, 2000; Solé and Piquero, 1994). These were experiences in which some students with SEN were incorporated – in certain spaces and for specific periods of time – into Ordinary Centers, which made it necessary for the professionals involved to coordinate to understand what type of learning would take place in each center. This was a peripheral response that did not deeply affect the functioning, structure, or organization of educational centers – ordinary and special – but it served as a basis for what would come later. Subsequently, the debate on the need to review the work that Ordinary Centers had been doing with various groups traditionally excluded from compulsory schooling also led to rethinking the role of Special Education Centers (Porter, 2001; Porter and Stone, 2001).

Throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century, experiences emerged internationally (United Kingdom, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and South Africa) emphasizing the necessary support between special education centers and mainstream schools when discussing inclusive education (DfEE, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2012; Maguvhe, 2013; Motitswe, 2014; Porter, 2001; Porter and Stone, 2001; Rose and Coles, 2002; Schuman, 2011; Thomson, 2011). The national perspective also offers interesting experiences in Catalonia and Andalusia. In Catalonia, ASPASIM (Carbonell et al., 2004, 2007; Carbonell, 2014), the CEE L’Estel (Font, 2004), and the CEIP Els Xiprers project (Agell, Sala, and Torrent, 2009) are some examples. These are proposals where students with and without SEN “learn with and in” the same common learning space, i.e., in the mainstream school with the support of the special education center, which, as a resource center, provides direct support to students with SEN, technical support and advice to mainstream school professionals on issues related to resources and assessment, and support to families or legal guardians.

Thus, the first experiences of coordination between both mainstream schools and special education centers mentioned found continuity in legislative frameworks (LOE, 2006) and regional initiatives. For example, the 2008-2015 Action Plan of the Generalitat de Catalunya (Departament d’Educació, 2014) or the report from the Principality of Asturias on special education centers as resource centers for inclusion (Educastur, 2011) serve as examples. These initiatives make explicit the need to transform special education centers into providers of services, resources, and support programs for the inclusive education of students with SEN in non-restrictive environments (mainstream schools) and necessitate collaboration between the professionals of both centers.

Without ignoring that it would be possible to refer to other experiences that move in the same direction (but this is not the objective of this work), the ones mentioned highlight three conditions that favor the transformation of Special Education Centers (CEE) into Resource Centers for Inclusion (CRR) in inclusive education. Firstly, all experiences take as a starting point the right that all children have to receive a quality education in Mainstream Schools (CO) and the need to create a mainstream school capable of welcoming all students. As numerous authors point out (Ainscow, 2001, 2004; Parrilla, 2002; Porter, 2001, 2004; Sapon-Shevin, 1999, 2010, 2013; Slee, 2012; Susinos, 2009), diversity is an enriching element in educational centers and the difficulties they encounter in responding to differences in ability, culture, gender, or social background are a warning sign about the urgency of introducing changes in the school “architecture”. Special Education Centers cannot be an obstacle to the development of a more inclusive education system, but rather part of the solution. Therefore, it is of no value to debate about which place is most appropriate for some students or others, and it is necessary to analyze and review the barriers in Mainstream Schools that prevent the learning and participation of many students and how Special Education Centers become a support in that process.

Collaboration between both types of centers is another of the core aspects and the strategy that makes possible the support of external professionals to the CO in its different modalities, moving from intervention to advice, training, or resource provision. It is necessary to understand this collaboration from a school-centered curricular support model, focusing on teaching difficulties, teamwork in mixed support networks, and cooperation as a basic strategy of action that, therefore, overcomes the individual and therapeutic perspective of other advisory models (Parrilla, 1996, 2005). Undoubtedly, this process requires recognition by the Educational Administration and a significant degree of commitment between professionals from both centers. In this regard, for example, resolution EDU/4168/2010 from the Department of Education of the Generalitat de Catalunya selected 11 public special education centers and 23 subsidized ones to carry out support programs and services for mainstream schools that would promote the inclusion of students with disabilities. However, no analysis and evaluation of these experiences were conducted, which, as Carbonell (2014) points out, would have been “an excellent opportunity” to continue working from.

It would be necessary to thoroughly understand how the set of experiences carried out in recent years defines these processes – in working with students and other educational agents – without forgetting that each school is unique, as are the needs that arise within it and to which a response must be given.

Finally, experiences reveal where much of the essence lies, which is that practices evolve as shared learning stories (Ainscow, 2004). The importance of knowing and disseminating these experiences is not in what special education center professionals do in mainstream schools or in the type of activities they develop in isolation with students with special educational needs, but in the process of negotiating meanings among the people who have followed the path. Inclusion as a process requires time to build together and to listen to and recognize others as professionals. These are unique experiences that share a roadmap, but also have a unique history.

The establishment of a collaborative culture and shared learning facilitates the creation of mixed teaching teams (support teachers and mainstream classroom teachers) working in the same direction. But this, in turn, demands changes in teaching roles, the development of new teaching strategies, and above all, a change in values, norms, behaviors, and attitudes on the part of the entire educational community: students (McGregor and Forlin, 2005), management teams (Attfield and Williams, 2003), and teachers – also regarding their training (Flem and Keller, 2000; Hamilton-Jones and Vail, 2013; León, 1999; Lumadi and Maguvhe, 2012; Walton and Rusnzyak, 2014).

5. Optimization of structures and resources to continue advancing

Data collected for the 2015/16 school year show that many students still remain in a parallel system to the mainstream one, and that this figure has increased compared to the previous year (MECD, 2015). Furthermore, many voices have been denouncing for years that the school system is becoming a kind of market or “quasi-market” (Álvarez Uría, 1998; Cascante, 2000; Gimeno Sacristán, 2001; Torres, 2001). With education understood as a consumer good rather than a fundamental basic right, the freedom of choice of schools or greater school autonomy is upheld, and the need to establish evaluation tests that measure the level of students and, consequently, their teachers is argued. As education is transferred from the sphere of politics to the sphere of the market, where it is merely an element of individual consumption dependent on the merit and ability of students, some old ideas about the limitations faced by students with disabilities or special educational needs, among others, reappear. Therefore, it is necessary to continue working towards a school where all children learn together and to keep making proposals in that direction.

In this regard, greater determination and clarity are needed in the regulations to ensure that the proposals move in the desired direction. Inclusive education is one of the principles guiding the work of educational centers included in the LOMCE (2013), but there are no references to what Special Education Centers (CEE) could do as Resource Centers for Inclusion (CRR). It would be desirable that, in the same way that it is stated that the schooling of students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) should be done in Mainstream Schools (CO) “preferably”, references to CEEs should go beyond being the place where certain students are schooled and from which specific actions are implemented by certain professionals. Imaginative formulas are required that break with the way the educational response to students with and without SEN in COs and CEEs has traditionally been understood; formulas under which it is possible to recognize a review of the theoretical approaches on which educational policies and practices are designed (Skirtc, 1996). And a clear commitment is needed for the development, both in general regulations and in each of the Autonomous Communities (CCAA), of joint projects with COs or the implementation of working networks by zones that allow COs to benefit from the human and material resources accumulated by special centers. This can be a way to recognize the work that some of these centers have carried out over the years, while at the same time being a means to make possibilities visible both for those that continue to be CEEs or CRRs to Special Education in COs and for the latter.

Likewise, it is urgent to abandon the term CEE for Resource Centers for Inclusive Education (CREI) – not Resource Centers for Special Education (CREE). This is not a mere aesthetic or formal change, but an element to properly define what we are talking about. As Slee (2012) points out, the issue is “(…) although endless, it is very simple: the way we describe the world reflects certain ways of seeing things and determines our way of reproducing that world” (p. 152). The widespread and confusing use of certain words allows that, under the principle of inclusive education, practices are recognized in which the specialists of the CRR only attend to students with disabilities (not others) and/or in certain schooling modalities (e.g., combined), which does not contribute to the necessary restructuring of educational centers.

Similarly, based on the fact that each center is unique and improvement projects arise from an in-depth review of the needs that emerge and the set of priorities that the educational community sets for itself, it is undeniable that the shared experience of different projects is what allows us to see how these innovations or improvements take shape and imagine new possibilities. Therefore, it is necessary to move beyond the particular and the concrete so that there is informed and shared knowledge of what the CEE that are CRR for inclusive education are doing.

It is necessary to move towards the consolidation of a community of professionals who, collaboratively and from different contexts (mainstream schools, special education centers, universities, families, students, educational administration), address the challenge of educating all children in inclusive settings, and this can take shape through an educational network. The proposal should serve to: 1) develop exchange activities between special education centers that have initiated the transformation along with mainstream schools and those special education centers that remain in an integration or earlier model, inclusive; 2) design training spaces where complex issues are addressed, such as the incorporation of special education center professionals into mainstream schools or the organization of support for classrooms, teachers, or the center as a whole; and 3) investigate and research with the centers on what has been done and what could be done to ensure that resources are where the students who need them are, rather than students having to move to access resources. This would involve breaking the isolation in which some specialized services, both within and outside each autonomous community, might find themselves.

It would also be necessary to promote collaboration processes between schools in the same area and between these schools and other services. As some works argue (Agell, Sala i Torrent, 2009; Carbonell et al., 2007; Torrent, 2014), it is necessary to clarify who carries out each task and how. There needs to be time for coordination and close communication among all professionals involved. And it is important for the special education center professional to relinquish direct tutoring of students from the specialized center.

Finally, the work of these schools with other services, as “institutional partners,” will allow the development of new proposals that take what is being done in these schools out into the community and allow the community to participate in the construction of this single school for all (Parrilla, Muñoz-Cadavid, and Sierra, 2013). It is necessary to review how the inequalities that many children face within school are replicated outside of it and what means can be jointly articulated to prevent this.

6. Conclusions

The inclusive education model calls for a thorough review of what is done in schools to respond to all students, including those who remain enrolled in Special Education Centers (CEE). Therefore, it is necessary to question the model of education being defended or the goals that the school pursues, because depending on the answer, clearly some children will not have a place or it can be argued that the mainstream school is not the most suitable place for them. One cannot speak of the possibilities that one or several children have of learning in school if this analysis does not clarify what the school or professionals consider important, or what the conditions are under which the centers operate, which would be specified by the type of projects and initiatives that regional or state administrations prioritize.

Although various works – some of which are included throughout the article – argue and demonstrate how student diversity is a spur for the transformation and improvement of schools – also when students propose substantial organizational and curricular changes in schools – the discourse of fear has enormous power. That is, the fear reappears that the presence of some students will translate into a general delay in the learning of the rest of the group and a drop in their performance. The separation of students, logically based on the argument that everyone receives the best possible education, has consequences for both the students as a whole and the teaching staff. The justified differentiation and separation of students through all kinds of differentiating measures, including specific services, is reinforced by the specialization of teachers and their training. In this context, of course, the work that professionals from Special Education Centers (CEE) can do with and in Mainstream Schools (CO) is reduced to the provision of very specific strategies or resources so that some students can temporarily attend the CO. CEEs cater to students for whom COs have no solution and, in some particular situations, provide tools so that some can continue in the mainstream or special classroom of the CO.

The commitment to an inclusive school cannot be confined to technical decisions – forms of student assessment, types of grouping, or defining the roles of tutors and support specialists – it is necessary to start by recovering the discourse (Martínez, 2002) or, in the words of Gentili (2001), contributing to making visible what the normalizing gaze hides. The response to all students involves reviewing the type of policies and practices being developed in the CO to support any decision that strengthens the development of more inclusive systems. In this sense, Special Education Centers (CEE) as Resource Centers for Inclusive Education (CREI) become key pieces in the complex puzzle that are schools designed by and for all students.

7. Bibliographical references

• Acebes, S. (2002). How our special education classroom works within a school for all. In D. Forteza & M.R. Rosselló (Coords.), Education, diversity, and quality of life (pp. 345-350). Palma: Universitat Illes Balears.
• Agell, M.; Sala, G. & Torrent, J. (2009). Participation of all students, success, and school improvement. Analysis of the most relevant barriers and how to overcome them. In C. Giné, D. Durán, J. Font & E. Miquel (Eds.), Inclusive education. From exclusion to full participation of all students (pp. 63-79). Barcelona: ICE-Horsori.
• Agelet, J., Bassedas, E. & Comadevall, M. (1997). Some organizational models that facilitate the treatment of diversity, and alternatives to flexible groupings. Aula de Innovación Educativa, 61, 46-50.
• Ainscow, M. (2001). Developing inclusive schools. Ideas, proposals, and experiences for improving educational institutions. Madrid: Narcea.
• Ainscow, M. (2004). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change. Retrieved from http://ww2.educarchile.cl/UserFiles/P0001/File/CR_articulos/investigador/articles94457_recurso_1.pdf
• Almansa, C. & López, C. (1997). The integration of students considered “severe”: the case of Pablo. In P. Arnáiz & R. De Haro (Eds.), 10 years of integration in Spain: analysis of reality and future perspectives (pp. 237-261). Murcia: University of Murcia.
• Alonso, P. & Rodríguez, P. (2004). Two tutors in the classroom. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 331, 70-72
• Álvarez, K., Babio, M., Echeita, G., Galán, M., Martín, E. (coords.) & Rey, M. (1987). Evaluation of the school integration program for students with disabilities. Revista de Educación, extraordinary issue, 7-44.
• Alvarez Uría, F. (1998). Neoliberalism versus democracy. Madrid: La Piqueta.
• Arnáiz, P. (1996). Schools are for everyone. Siglo Cero, 27 (2), 25-34.
• Arnáiz, P. (2003). Inclusive education: a school for all. Málaga: Aljibe.
• Attfield, R. & Williams, C. (2003). Leadership and inclusion: A special school perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 30 (1), 28-33.
• Capellas, N. (2014). Role of special education centers as reference and resource centers in mainstream schools. In E. Carbonell (coord.), The challenge of learning. Technical conference Inclusive School in Catalonia (pp. 48-53). Barcelona: Aspasim, Barcelona.
• Caravaca, M. (1997). My experience with Nacho. P. Arnáiz & R. De Haro (Eds.), 10 years of integration in Spain: analysis of reality and future perspectives (pp. 221-235). Murcia: University of Murcia.
• Carbonell, E., Batllori, M., Muñoz, J. & Saltó, A. (2004). Inclusive education for students with severe barriers to learning and participation, also in Secondary education. Suports, 8 (2), 132-147.
• Carbonell, E., Capellas, N., Crehueras, M., Escudero, G. & Milian, M. (2007). Transformation of a special education center into a resource provider for the inclusive education of students with severe barriers to learning and participation. CEE Aspasim-20 years of a process. Àmbits de Psicopedagogia, 21, 37-43.
• Carbonell, E. (coord.) (2014). The challenge of learning. Technical conference Inclusive School in Catalonia. Barcelona: Aspasim.
• Carreño, M. (2005). Reflections on the why and the what for of the education of abnormal children’ according to the Spanish medical-pedagogical discourse of the early 20th century. Revista de Educación y Pedagogía, 17 (42), 31-44.
• Cascante, C. (2000). Comprehensiveness versus the educational market. Temps d’educació, 23, 199-210.
• Castells, M. & Font, J. (1997). L’Estel: an open center for the schools of the Osona region. In APPS, 4th Technical Conference on Special Education. Special Education: An Open and Diversified World (pp. 179-187). Barcelona: APPS.
• Cura, M. Del (2012). A board for the “abnormal”: first steps in public protection for children with intellectual disabilities in Spain (1910-1936). Asclepio. History of Medicine and Science, LXIV (2), 541-564.
• Chiva, C. & Moyano, M. (1997). Esclat-Escuela Itaca School Experience. In APPS, 4th Technical Conference on Special Education. Special Education: An Open and Diversified World (pp. 189-197). Barcelona: APPS.
• Department of Education (2014). Action Plan 2008-2015. Retrieved from https://creemoseducacioninclusiva.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Plan-de-Accion-2008-2015.pdf
• Department of Education & ETI (2006). The future role of the special school. Retrieved from https://creemoseducacioninclusiva.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/The-future-role-of-the-special-school.pdf
• DfEE (1997). Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs. London: Department of Education and HMSO.
• DfEE (1998). Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action. London: DfES Publications.
• DfEE (2001). Inclusive Schooling. Children with Special Educational Needs. London: DfES Publications.
• DfEE (2012). ‘Learning across the continuum’ a guide to collaborative practice ‘sharing practice: supporting inclusion’. London: DfES Publications.
• DoE (2001). Education White Paper 6. Special Needs Education Building an inclusive education and training system. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/polmos/Downloads/Parents%20Pamphlet%202004.pdf
• Duran, D. & Miquel, E. (2003). Cooperating to teach and learn. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 331, 73-76.
• Dyson, A. (1999). Equity as the path to excellence? Possibilities and challenges in inclusive education. In AAVV, Towards a school for everyone. Proceedings of the II Conference on Special Educational Needs in the Classroom (pp. 109-123). Barcelona: Ramon Llull University.
• Echeita, G. (2005). Critical perspectives and dimensions in diversity policies. Alambique, Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales, 44, 7-16.
• Educastur (2011). Special Education Centers as Resource Centers: An Inclusive Perspective. Retrieved from http://web.educastur.princast.es/personales/rubenvf/archivos/documentos/DosierCEEs%20como%20Centros%20de%20recursos.doc
• Flem, A. & Keller, C. (2000). Inclusion in Norway: a study of ideology in practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15 (2), 188-205.
• Font, J. (1997). L’estel: a center open to the schools of the Osona region. In APPS, 4th Technical Conference on Special Education. Special Education: An Open and Diversified World, November 7 and 8, Barcelona, 179-187.
• Font, J. (1999). Special education centers. Reality and perspectives. Aula de Innovación Educativa, 83-84, 15-18.
• Font, J. (2004). Schools that help each other. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 331, 63-65.
• Font, J., Castelis, M. & Carbonés, J. (1995). Support for school integration from a special education center. Analysis of an experience. Aula de Innovación Educativa, 45. Retrieved from http://www.grao.com/revistas/aula/045-presente-y-futuro-de-la-educacion-especial–habitos-ynormas/el-apoyo-a-la-integracion-escolar-desde-un-centro-de-educacion-especial
• Franklin, B.M. (1996). Introduction: Reading texts on disability. In B.M. Franklin (Ed.), Interpretation of disability (pp. 7-32). Barcelona: Pomares-Corredor.
• García Pastor, C. (1993). A common school for different children: school integration. Barcelona: PPU.
• Gentili, P. (2001). A lost shoe. Cuadernos de Pedagogía, 308, 24-30. Gimeno Sacristán, J. (2001). Educating and living together in global culture. Madrid: Morata.
• Giné, C. (2001). Inclusion and the Education System. III Congress on Attention to Diversity in the Education System. University of Salamanca. INICO. Retrieved from https://campus.usal.es/~inico/actividades/actasuruguay2001/1.pdf
• Hamilton-Jones, B. & Vail, C. (2013). Preparing special educators for collaboration in the classroom: preservice Teachers’ beliefs and perspectives. International Journal of Special Education, 28 (1), 56-68.
• James, F. (1997). The evolution and role of an effective support service. In APPS, 4th Technical Conference on Special Education. Special Education: An Open and Diversified World (141-157). Barcelona: APPS.
• Lambe, J. & Bones, R. (2008). The impact of a special school placement on student teacher beliefs about inclusive education in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Special Education, 35 (2), 108-116.
• León, M.J. (1999). Teacher training for a school for all. An analysis of the study plans for primary education and special education specialist teachers in Spanish universities. Profesorado, Journal of Curriculum and Teacher Training, 3 (2), 1-24.
• Law 13/1982, of April 7, on the Social Integration of the Disabled.
• Organic Law 8/2013, of December 9, for the Improvement of Educational Quality.
• Organic Law 2/2006, of May 3, on Education.
• López-Torrijo, M. (2009). The inclusive education of students with severe and permanent disabilities in the European Union. Relieve, 15 (1). Retrieved from https://www.raco.cat/index.php/RELIEVE/article/view/25100
• Lumadi, M.W. & Maguvhe, M.O. (2012). Teaching Life Sciences to Blind and Visually Impaired Learners: Issues to Consider for Effective Learning Mediation Practice. Anthropologist, 14 (5), 375-381.
• Magdaleno, L. & Filgueiras, M.J. (2003). Programming, evaluation and coordination in our shared schooling experience. GUIX. Elements of educational action, 299.
• Maguvhe, M. (2013). Perspectives of South African Special School Teachers on Special Schools as Resource Centers. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4 (14), 711-717.
• Martínez, B. (2002). Education in diversity at the dawn of the 21st century. In D. Forteza & M.R. Rosselló (Coords.), Education, diversity and quality of life (pp. 27-61). Palma: Universitat Illes Balears.
• Martínez, B. (2005). Measures for responding to diversity: possibilities and limits for school and social inclusion. Profesorado, revista de currículum y formación del profesorado, 1 (1), 1-31.
• Mcgregor, S.J.R. & Forlin, CH. (2005). Attitude of students towards peers with disabilities: Relocating students from an Education Support Centre to an inclusive middle school setting. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 1 (2), 18-30.
• MEC (1989). Evaluation of school integration. Madrid: MEC.
• MECD (2015). Data and figures. School year 2015/16. Madrid: Technical General Secretariat.
• Monereo, C. (2000). Snapshots. Madrid: Celeste.
• Motitswe, J. (2014). The Role of Institute Level Support Teams on Addressing Barriers to Learning and Provide Support in Schools. Are They Functional? Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5 (8), 259-264.
• Pallisera, M., Jiménez, P. & Bueno, J.J. (1998). Fifteen years of University and Special Education. Importance of professional meetings: “University and Special Education” (1984-1998) and its relationship with the training of education professionals. In R. Pérez Pérez (coord.) Education and diversity. XV National Conference on University and Special Education (pp. 11-24), vol. 1. Oviedo: University of Oviedo Publications Service.
• Parrilla, A. (1996). Support for the school: a collaborative process. Bilbao: Mensajero.
• Parrilla, A. (2002). About the origin and meaning of inclusive education. Revista de Educación, 327, 11-30.
• Parrilla, A. (2005). From collaboration to the construction of Networks: the role of psychopedagogy. In VVAA, Weaving networks from psychopedagogy (pp. 11-25). Bilbao: University of Deusto Publications Service.
• Parrilla, A., Muñoz-Cadavid, Mª A. & Sierra, S. (2013). Educational projects with a community vocation. Journal of Research in Education, 11 (3), 15-31.
• Pérez de Lara, N. (2004). The capacity to be a subject. Barcelona: Laertes. Porter, G. (2001). Critical elements for inclusive schools. Creating inclusive schools: a Canadian perspective based on fifteen years of experience. Suports, 5 (1), 6-14.
• Porter, G. & Stone, J. (2001). The six key strategies for supporting inclusion in school and the classroom. Suports, 5 (2), 94-107.
• Porter, G. (2014). Segregating children means segregating citizens. In E. Carbonell (coord.), The challenge of learning. Technical conference Inclusive Education in Catalonia. Barcelona: Aspasim.
• Royal Decree 334/1985, of March 6, on the Organization of Special Education.
• Rose, R. (2000). Classroom support: Using classroom support in a primary school. British Journal of Special Education, 27 (4), 191-196. Rose, R. & Coles, C. (2002). Special and mainstream school collaboration for the promotion of inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 2 (2). DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2002.00164.x
• Saleh, L. (1999). Inclusive education: consensus, conflict, and challenges. In AAVV, Towards a school for everyone. Proceedings of the II Conference on Special Educational Needs in the Classroom (pp. 2-21). Barcelona: Ramon Llull University.
• Sapon-Shevin, M. (1999). Celebrating diversity, creating community. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusive classrooms. A new way of approaching and living the curriculum (pp. 37-54). Madrid: Narcea.
• Sapon-Shevin, M. (2010). Because we can change the world: a practical guide to building cooperative, inclusive classroom communities. Boston: Sage Publications.
• Sapon-Shevin, M. (2013). Real inclusion: A social justice perspective. Revista de Investigación en Educación, 11(3), 71-85.
• Schuman, H. (2011). Education in the Netherlands, recent developments and the debate on integration and inclusion. Retrieved from http://www.icevi-europe.org/enletter/issue48-06.pdf
• Skirtc, T. (1996). The crisis in special education knowledge: A perspective on perspective. In B.M. Franklin (Ed.), Interpreting disability (pp. 35-72). Barcelona: Pomares-Corredor.
• Slee, R. (2012). The Extraordinary School. Exclusion, Schooling, and Inclusive Education. Madrid: Morata.
• Solé, N. & Piquero, C. (1994). Intermediate alternatives in the school integration of children with intensive special educational needs. In ACOEP, V Conference on Psychopedagogical Guidance and Attention to Diversity (pp. 175-179). Barcelona.
• Susinos, T. (2003). International overview of school integration. In R. Cano González (Ed.), Pedagogical Foundations of Special Education (pp. 343-365). Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
• Susinos, T. (2009). Listening to share: recognizing student authority in the project of an inclusive school. Revista de Educación, 349, 119-136.
• Thomson, CH. (2011). Collaborative consultation to promote inclusion: voices from the classroom. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17 (8), 882-894.
• Torrent, J. (2014). A shared experience of inclusive school. Facts and words. In E. Carbonell (coord.), The challenge of learning. Technical conference Inclusive School in Catalonia (pp. 76-80). Barcelona: Aspasim.
• Torres Santomé, J. (2001). Education in the time of neoliberalism. Madrid: Morata.
• UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca, 7-10 June.
• Vendrell, R. (1997). Longitudinal study of a case of integration – the mediator adult in the learning process -. In APPS, 4th Technical Conference on Special Education. Special Education: An Open and Diversified World (pp. 167-177). Barcelona: APPS.
• Walton, E. & Rusznyak, L. (2014). Affordances and limitations of a special school practicum as a means to prepare pre-service teachers for inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18 (9), 957-974. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.872203