Special Education Today in Spain

Abstract

The focus of special education around the globe may be to provide specialized instruction to meet unique needs of children to help them achieve their full potential. However, each country around the globe may also have its own unique issues, barriers, legal frames, policies, and practices, as well as a history of its origin and evolution of policies and practices that govern special education in that country. This chapter describes how special education in Spain originated and evolved to its current state. It includes the following chapter sections: origins of special education in Spain; legislative acts; prevalence and incidence of various recognized disability areas; an overview of Spain's education system including special needs education; current assessment and intervention practices; teacher education practices; family involvement considerations; and future challenges to special education.

Full text

SPECIAL EDUCATION TODAY IN
SPAIN
Shaila Rao, Cristina M. Cardona and Esther Chiner
ABSTRACT
The focus of special education around the globe may be to provide spe-
cialized instruction to meet unique needs of children to help them achieve
their full potential. However, each country around the globe may also
have its own unique issues, barriers, legal frames, policies, and practices,
as well as a history of its origin and evolution of policies and practices
that govern special education in that country. This chapter describes how
special education in Spain originated and evolved to its current state. It
includes the following chapter sections: origins of special education in
Spain; legislative acts; prevalence and incidence of various recognized
disability areas; an overview of Spain’s education system including spe-
cial needs education; current assessment and intervention practices; tea-
cher education practices; family involvement considerations; and future
challenges to special education.
INTRODUCTION
The Government of Spain was a leader in organizing a conference on
inclusion in Salamanca, Spain in 1994. The conference in cooperation with
Special Education International Perspectives: Practices Across the Globe
Advances in Special Education, Volume 28, 147180
Copyright r2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 0270-4013/doi:10.1108/S0270-401320140000028012
147

the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) was represented by 300 participants, representing 92 govern-
ments and 25 international organizations. During the conference, the
Salamanca Statement or the Salamanca Statement on Principles, Policy,
and Practice in Special Needs Education and Framework for Action
(UNESCO, 1994) was adopted. The major tenet of the document is an
equitable education for all and a worldwide consensus on future directions
for special needs education. This conference was an impetus for Spain to
continue its leadership in inclusive education. Spain’s leadership was recog-
nized by the International Peto Institute in their the statistics published
after the 1995 conference of UNESCO in France which showed that Spain
was one of the leading European countries in terms of integrated education
(see Deak, 1999). The inclusive education movement in Spain had its roots
during the decade 19751985 via the work of the National Institute of
Special Education. This institute had as one of its major tenets the educa-
tional integration of students with special education needs and improve-
ment of the rights for people with disabilities. In a national overview
document about Spain’s special education practices, the European Agency
for Development in Special Education (EADSP) stated that the promotion
of inclusive education practices was enhanced by the Spanish constitution
which recognizes the right to education as one of the essential rights that
public powers must guarantee to every citizen (EADSP, 2009a). This was
quite a compliment because the EADSP is an independent and self-
governing organization established by Ministries of Education of its 28
member countries (Spain is a member) to act as their platform for colla-
boration in the field of special needs education. The EADSP overview
further states that the Spanish education system, set up in accordance with
the values of the Constitution, is inspired by three main principles:
a) Quality education for all students, regardless of their condition and circumstances. b)
Equity that guarantees equal opportunities, educational inclusion and non-
discrimination and that acts as a compensating factor for the personal cultural, eco-
nomic and social inequalities, with special emphasis on those derived from disabilities.
c) The transmission and application of values that favor personal liberty, responsibility,
democratic citizenship, solidarity, tolerance, equality, respect and justice and that also
help to overcome any type of discrimination. (https://www.europea-agency.org/coun-
try-information/spain)
The above perspective provides an introduction to this chapter which is
a description of special education in Spain today. This chapter will provide
readers with detailed information related to the following topics: an insight
into the origins of special education in Spain; a comprehensive perspective
148 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

on the development of special education in Spain; data on the prevalence
of students with special educational needs; impactful trends in educational
legislation and litigation; parameters related to teacher education and spe-
cial education training; prevailing educational interventions and policy,
standards, and research related to educational interventions; insightful
information about working with families who have children with special
education needs; and a synopsis concerned with the future challenges that
remain in the contemporary scene of special education in Spain.
ORIGIN OF SPECIAL EDUCATION IN SPAIN
The earliest origin of special education in Spain occurred during the middle
ages because of the influence of Christianity in the western countries.
During this period, Christianity affected all spheres of life and had an
impactful influence on society that lead to an important change in the prac-
tices carried out with people with disabilities. Christianity rejected the
infanticide of people with disabilities and adopted an attitude of under-
standing and care toward these people. This attitude prevented children
with disabilities from being eliminated but, at the same time it resulted in
an increase of people with disabilities being abandoned. To remedy the
increase in the abandonment of people with disabilities, society across
Europe built asylums and shelter to house these people. For instance, in
Spain, Pedro IV of Arago
´n, created in Arago
´n, Valencia and later in
Navarra, under the name of Pare d’Orfans, the first institution to shelter
orphan children after taking over the guardianship and education of these
children (Vicente & De Vicente, 2006). However, as time went by, the car-
ing and humanistic attitudes of politicians and the general population
changed into more radical positions in which people with intellectual or
mental illness were persecuted as they were considered to be possessed and
condemned to be burnt. This attitude and practice remained throughout
the Inquisition period which was established in Spain during the 15th
century.
Hope spring a new for people with disabilities with the start of the
Renaissance period. The Renaissance led a new way of understanding of
science and human development and behavior based on contributions and
important changes in scientific and medical conceptions. For instance,
human behavior was not explained based on under demonic premises.
Instead, the explanation of human behavior was based on nature and
149Special Education Today in Spain

the physical and biological processes of the body (Illa
´n & Arna
´iz, 1996).
Positively, during this time, some ecclesiastical institutions still took care of
poor people, orphans, indigents, and people with mental illness and intel-
lectual impairment. Unfortunately, the religious wars that took place at
that time undermined the power of the Church which consequently led to
the abandoning of many of these institutions (Vicente & De Vicente, 2006).
Interestingly, there were some private initiatives from prominent people of
that period who dedicated their lives and fortune to create hospitals and
shelters for socially disadvantaged people, such as Don
˜a Teresa Enrı
´quez,
Santo Toma
´s de Villanueva, and Miguel de Giginta. Fray Gelabert Jofre
´
deserves a special mention because he created a hospice for people with
mental illness in Valencia, which is considered to be the first psychiatric
hospital in Spain.
The Renaissance in Europe became a fertile environment for people
with humanist’s goals and perspectives. This was true in Spain also and the
pioneering figure of Juan Luis Vives (14921540) is especially remarkable
for his contributions to the special education. This humanist advocated for
the education of children with disabilities in special schools because they
were being separated from non-disabled children. His goal was to provide
them with individualized special education so that they could be educated.
To some extent, his educational ideas were a precursor to the 1970s’ idea of
an education for all handicapped children which occurred in the United
States and the United Kingdom (Vicente & De Vicente, 2006). Also, during
the 16th century Juan Huarte de San Juan considered that each person had
different talents and aptitudes, and that they should be assessed individu-
ally. Because of these ideas he is considered to be the father of Differential
Psychology and Vocational Counselling (Galino, 1968).
During the 16th and 17th centuries, one can find the first mention of spe-
cial education, and more specifically, the education of people with sensory
impairments. In fact, a highly important contribution for the education of
the deaf was put forth by the Spanish Benedictine monk, Pedro Ponce de
Leo
´n (15091584). This monk demonstrated that it was possible to
develop thinking/though processes and speech of deaf adults and children.
He considered that there was a causal relationship been deafness and mut-
ism and he developed the first oral method for the education of deaf peo-
ple. The social dissemination of the oral method took some years due to
the high cost at that time and there was difficulty using this oral method
with big groups (Jime
´nez & Vila
`, 1999). However, the method developed
by Ponce de Leo
´n crossed many territories and borders and eventually was
enhanced in 1620 by another Spaniard named Juan Martı
´n Pablo Bonet
150 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

(15791633) who wrote the first book about education of deaf children
(Reduction de las letras, y arte para ensen
˜ar a
`ablar los mudos, 1930).
Interestingly, this method was further enhanced during the 18th century in
Abbot L’Epe
´e in France where it was adapted to the French phonetics and
alphabet.
Despite Spanish educators being outstanding pioneers in the education
of the deaf during the 16th and 17th centuries, the further development of
special education practices and innovations did not materialize until the
second half of the 20th century. Thus for many years, Spain was far behind
other European countries with respect to special education practices and
policies. For people with hearing disabilities some education innovations
and programs continued to be initiated such as the one by Joan Albert i
Martı
´, who taught reading and writing to people with hearing impairments
and founded the “Royal School of Deaf-and-Dumbs” in 1802 in Madrid.
However, advances for other people with disabilities did not occur until the
20th century when a real interest the education of people with intellectual
and other disabilities emerged. Another helpful impetus to special educa-
tion occurred with the passage of The Public Instruction Act of 1857,
which is also known as Moyano Law (Ley Moyano). This Act established
compulsory education for children aged 6 to 9 years and initiated the crea-
tion of schools for deaf people. A number of decades after this Act In
1907, the siblings Francisco and Amador Pereira founded the “Pedagogical
Psychiatric Institute” for mentally retarded people with intellectual impair-
ments. A few years later, in 1911, local authorities established a “School
for blind, deaf-and-dumb and abnormal people” in Barcelona, and in 1914
the “National Board of Abnormals” was created.
These and other such initiatives were not enough for the progressive
development of special education in Spain and, despite the influence of the
pedagogical reform movements taking place mainly in Catalonia, and the
more innovative pedagogical principles from Europe, the new ideas “did
not crystallize into an adequate system for meeting the needs of handi-
capped children” (Garcı
´a Pastor, 1998, p. 46). Because the implementation
of the compulsory education elapsed slowly, special education was also
delayed. Thus, at the beginning of the 20th century special education was
poorly developed in Spain.
The development of special education was further delayed from 1936 to
1939 because of the Spanish Civil War which lead to the disappearance of
the pedagogical reform movements. Positively, private initiatives continued
to meet the needs of children with disabilities. For instance, in 1939 the
National Organization for Blind People (Organizacio
´n Nacional de Ciegos
151Special Education Today in Spain

Espan
˜oles, ONCE) was founded. Its contribution for the education and
inclusion of blind people in Spain has been outstanding. Further ONCE
continues today to strive for the promotion of inclusive practices and to
attend to the educational, vocational, and recreational needs of people with
visual disabilities. Lastly, since its foundation, the ONCE has created
schools for the blind in several cities such as Pontevedra, Alicante, Sevilla,
and Madrid.
Eventually with the passage of the Elementary Education Act in 1945
(LEP, 1945) an opportunity for special education to grow materialized.
This legislated Act created special schools for people with blindness, deaf-
ness, and intellectual impairment. About a decade after this Act in 1955 the
National Board of Special Education (previously named National Board of
Abnormals) proposed the development of a Plan for Special Education
that did not crystallize until 1978 (Garcı
´a Pastor, 1998).
In summary, the progress of special education in Spain during the 20th
century was slow and the events such as the Civil War and the subsequent
dictatorship of General Francisco Franco during his 35-year reign in the
century did not help its development. While there were a number of hope-
ful aspects and legislation, it was not until Public Law 14/70, General Law
of Education and Financing of the Educational Reform (LGE, 1970) was
enacted that the special education became part of the educational system.
OVERVIEW OF SPAIN’S EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
INCLUDING SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION
The legislative framework components governing and guiding the Spanish
education system comprises the Spanish Constitution (1978), the Organic
Act on the Right to Education (LODE, 1985) and the Organic Law of
Education 2/2006, May 3 (Ley Orga
´nica de Educacio
´nLOE, 2006) which
develops the principles and rights established in it (EADSP, 2009b).
Table 1 provides an overview of the stages constituting Spain’s education
system.
Similar to other countries around the world, legislative actions in the
1990s became a primary influence behind the major educational reforms in
Spain. For example, two governmental Acts, the General Educational
System Organizational Act or LOGSE in 1990, and Participation,
Evaluation, and Administration of Schools Organization Act, or LOPEG
in 1995 “culminated 30 years of continuous education reform that began
152 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

with LGE or the General Act of Education of 1970” (Arco-Tirado &
Fernandez-Balboa, 2003 p. 586). These Acts brought about significant
changes to the education system in Spain. Furthermore, the concept of
“special educational needs” and “integration of students with special
needs” in the mainstream classrooms that began in 1985 was strengthened
by LOGSE (Moliner, Sales, Ferra
´ndez, & Traver, 2011). The LOGSE
which regulates and governs special education within general plan educa-
tion, asserts that the incorporation special education into the mainstream
system and also introduced the concept of special educational needs. The
passage of this act also initiated integration of students with special educa-
tion need in mainstream establishments (schools) where the programs
offered needed to be adapted to needs of the students with special educa-
tional needs. The law also established that although students with special
educational needs could attend either mainstream or special education
establishments (schools), this should only be an option if their needs could
not be met in mainstream establishments. Special education schools are
Table 1. Stages Constituting the Spanish Education System.
Stages Brief Description
Preschool
Education: 03
years
Provided on a voluntary basis for families with a focus on early
childhood education
Infant Education:
36 years
Cost-free, voluntary and is the first level of school education organized
as a single three-year cycle.
Compulsory
Education: Free
of charge 616
years
Compulsory
Primary
Education
612 years,
three 2-year
cycles and is
cost-free
Secondary Education
Compulsory
Secondary
Education
(ESO) leading
to
Compulsory
Secondary
Education
certificate,
cost-free
1216 years
Bachillerato:
Compliments
ESO, with The
Compulsory
Secondary
education
certificate as a
prerequisite, 2-
years, and is
non-
compulsory
Specific
Vocational
Training:
Education to
prepare for
work in
specific
professional
field. Provides
an all-round
and practical
education,
and is non-
compulsory
Source: Complete National Overview Spain European Agency for Development in
Special Needs Education (2009b).
153Special Education Today in Spain

intended for pupils who are unable to be integrated into mainstream
schools. If there are no special education schools available, students with
special educational needs are then educated in special classes (special units)
within the mainstream centers (Spain- European Agency for Development
in Special Needs Education, 2009b).
Spain subscribed to the principles of inclusion early in the 1980s and
then carried out several educational reforms in order to transform a selec-
tive educational system into a more comprehensive one. Although these
reforms arrived a bit later than in other developed countries, in the last
three decades, a big effort has been made by the Government of Spain to
develop a legislative body in accordance with the international declarations
as regards to people with disability or with special educational needs
(Chiner & Cardona, 2013).
The first educational reform took place in the 1970s with Public Law
14/70, General Law of Education and Financing of the Educational
Reform (LGE, 1970). This law introduced important changes into the
Spanish educational system. The focus of these changes was incorporated
into Article 49 which was an adoption of the Spanish Constitution in 1978.
The changes of this Article lead led to a policy requiring schools to inte-
grate and educate people with disabilities. The effect of these changes was
enhanced after the death of General Francisco Franco.
In addition, the 1970 Education Act guided a significant reform in edu-
cation as it extended compulsory elementary education to children aged 14
years. Also, this act regulated secondary education and vocational training,
and led to the recognition of special education as part of the educational
system. However, during the 1970s, students with special educational needs
still attended school in segregated settings (self-contained classrooms inside
regular schools or special schools) with a parallel curriculum. According to
Illa
´n and Arna
´iz (1996), the 1970 Education Act should be considered as
the starting point of the national special education system. Unfortunately,
the provisions under this Act were too general and they were not fully
implemented.
Twelve years after the Education Act was passed, the Government of
Spain passed Public Law 13/1982, Social Integration of Disabled People
Act (LISMI, 1982). This law provided the process for the integration of
students with special educational needs into regular schools. The law is
considered a major special education landmark in all life aspects (society,
school, and work) for people with disabilities. The LISMI was inspired by
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded
Persons (United Nations [UN], 1971) and the Declaration on the Rights of
154 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

Disabled Persons (UN, 1975). It is a very progressive law which recognized
that the principles of normalization, social integration, community services,
and individualization in education and integration in schools will only be
possible if the society provides the resources and support services that is
necessary to meet the needs of people with disabilities (Jime
´nez & Vila
`,
1999).
In 1982, an additional legal disposition, namely, the Royal Decree 2639/
1982 of Arrangement of the Special Education (Real Decreto 2639/1982, de
15 de Octubre, de Ordenacio
´n de la Educacio
´n Especial) established three
different alternatives to integration: full integration, mixed integration, and
partial integration. However, the Public Law 13/1982, LISMI, required
more precision and in 1985, the Royal Decree 334/1985 of Arrangement of
the Special Education (Real Decreto 334/1985, de 6 de marzo, de
Ordenacio
´n de la Educacio
´n Especial), developed the LISMI established
guidelines to begin the integration process in Spain. This legal disposition
recognized that, among other aspects, (a) special education was part of the
general educational system, (b) special schools should coordinate and work
together with the regular schools, (c) schools should be provided with
resources and supports to avoid the segregation and to promote the inte-
gration of students with disabilities, (d) there is a need of assessment and
counseling, and (e) a need for the development of early intervention pro-
grams for children with disabilities was critical to the successful education
of young students with special needs. The Royal Decree 334/1985 also
marked the beginning of an eight-year experimental program for the inte-
gration of students with disabilities in general schools and classrooms.
The United Kingdom’s concept of “special educational needs” (SEN)
was gaining momentum in Spain at the same time. In fact the United
Kingdom’s Warnock Report (Department of Education and Science, 1978)
had a great influence on the Spanish educational policies and which culmi-
nated in an ambitious educational reform carried out in 1990 with the LP
1/1990, Organic Law of General Arrangement of the Educational System
(LOGSE, 1990). In general terms, the 1990 Education Act reaffirmed the
mandate of the Royal Decree 334/1985 stating that special education is to
be a part of the general education system with a common flexible curricu-
lum for all students. Further, curricular adaptations and educational differ-
entiation were to be made based on students’ educational needs. This new
concept of “special educational needs” resulted in a more comprehensive
and open education. Adopting this model necessitated that all schools
accept diversity while responding to the particular needs of each student.
Most importantly, the principle of inclusion guided the process of the
155Special Education Today in Spain

education of all students with special educational needs, and since 1990, all
students, regardless of their educational needs, must be taught in regular
classes together with their peers. Only when this is not possible will stu-
dents learn in self-contained classrooms within the regular schools or spe-
cial schools.
The new demands of the 1990 Education Act led to the revision of the
previous Royal Decree 334/1985 that was finally replaced by the Royal
Decree 696/1995 for education of students with special educational needs
(Real Decreto 696/1995, de 28 de abril, de Ordenacio
´n de la educacio
´nde
los alumnos con necesidades educativas especiales). This new document
included some changes such as (a) the use of the concept of students with
special educational needs instead of special education students, (b) the
introduction of educational response to gifted students, (c) the gradual
transformation of special schools into special education resource centers,
(d) the replacement of the individual development programs (PDI) by the
individual curricular adaptations (ACI) which made adapting the official
curriculum at different levels possible, depending on the context and the
students’ needs, and (e) the diversification of the multidisciplinary teams in
general, special and early intervention. Following the general guidelines of
the LOGSE mandate, each Autonomous Community developed its own
legislative body which has been, in some cases, interpreted and applied dif-
ferently in each region (Garcı
´a Pastor, 1998).
The subsequent laws enacted after the LOGSE (Public Law 10/2002 and
Public Law 2/2006) only introduced minor changes (mostly centered on ter-
minology) regarding the education of students with special needs. The
Public Law 10/2002, Organic Law of Quality of Education (LOCE, 2002)
introduced the generic term “specific educational needs” to refer to several
groups of students, such as foreigners, gifted students, and students with
special educational needs. This last group of students with specific educa-
tional needs included students with physical and intellectual disabilities,
sensory impairments or severe personality and behavior disorders. The cur-
rent Education Act, the Public Law 2/2006, Organic Law of Education
(LOE, 2006) refers to “students with specific educational support needs”
and includes students with special educational needs derived from a disabil-
ity, behavior disorders, or gifted students and students with a late entry to
the Spanish educational system. The 2006 Education Act also included a
section on policies to avoid educational inequalities based on ethnicity and
social, economic, cultural, or geographical factors.
The above legislative acts and educational reforms allowed Spain to pro-
gress a long way in twenty years in its efforts to promote inclusive
156 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

education. Although its implementation started late in the 1980s, today
Spain is considered to have one of the most inclusive educational systems
in Europe. However, the current Government which is run by the conserva-
tive party, Popular Party (Partido Popular), is preparing a draft of a new
Education Act, the Organic Law of Improvement of the Quality of
Education (Ley Orga
´nica de Mejora de la Calidad Educativa, LOMCE)
which contains important changes in the organization of the educational
system which may affect the education of students with special needs. This
law has been questioned for its neoliberal principles. It has the risk of pro-
moting inequality among students from different social backgrounds and
with diverse abilities. Moreover, the current new millennium worldwide
economic and financial crisis has affected the Spanish economy strongly
and has prompted the Government to carry out significant cuts in educa-
tion. These cuts include a reduction in teachers, a considerable increase in
the student-teacher ratio, a diminishment in resources and supports that
are provided to schools, and a reduction in the number of programs attend-
ing to diversity.
Table 2 provides the reader with a framework of various pieces of legis-
lation within the last three decades of the 20th century and the first decade
of the 21st century that have influenced development of inclusion in Spain.
The 1990 Education Act is probably the most important educational
reform enacted in the Spanish educational context, especially in regards to
the education of students with special educational needs and their inclusion
in the general education system. Although the term inclusion was not
included in the text, the LOGSE mandate shared the principles of inclusive
education that later many countries subscribed to after the publication of
the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs
Education (UNESCO, 1994). A May 2012 report by the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on children with special
education needs (SEN) in OECD countries contended that “despite inter-
national consensus on the right of children with SEN, and efforts to find
an international definition agreed by all countries, data on children with
SEN are still being collected according to national definition” (OECD,
2012, p. 1). The report highlighted two main issues in terms of reporting
prevalence of students with SEN. The first issue is that some children’s
SEN are not recognized and the second being reported data covers only the
national definitions. Understanding how special educational needs are
decided and defined within the Spanish educational system will be a precur-
sor to understanding issues and challenges that exist in attempting to state
the number of students with special educational needs included in general
157Special Education Today in Spain

Table 2. Framework of Legislation Leading to Inclusion in Spain.
Year Law Influence
1970 General Law of Education and
Financing of the
Educational Reform (LGE)
•Introduces the special education as part of the
educational system.
•It establishes that the special education will be
provided in general schools and special schools.
1978 Spanish Constitution •Recognizes the right of all citizens to education.
•It establishes the need of planning, rehabilitation,
and integration of people with disabilities.
1982 Social Integration for the
disabled people Act (LISMI)
•Attends to personal, medical, school, and work
issues of people with disabilities.
•Integrates special education in the general
educational system.
•It is based on the principles of normalization,
integration, community services, and
individualization.
1985 Royal Decree 334/1985 of
Arrangement of the Special
Education
•It develops the demands of the LISMI.
•It represents the beginning in the practice of the
school integration in Spain.
1990 Organic Law of Arrangement
of the General Educational
System (LOGSE)
•Introduces the concept of “special educational
needs.”
•It is based on the principles of normalization and
school integration.
•Promotes the use of curricular adaptations and
diversifications to attend to the SENs.
2002 Organic Law of Quality of
Education (LOCE)
•Replaces the concept of SENs for “specific
educational needs.”
•It is based on the principles of normalization, non-
discrimination, and integration.
2003 Law on Equal Opportunities,
Non-Discrimination and
Universal Access for People
with Disabilities
•Compliments the 1982 Act on Social Integration of
Disabled People (LISMI). Marked an unambiguous
shift in Spanish disability policy toward a human
rights perspective based on the social model of
disability.
•One of the measures was setting of basic guidelines
for the educational framework to ensure pupils with
handicap achieved general objectives of education to
the maximum extent.
2006 Organic Law of Education
(LOE)
•It is based on the principles of equity in education,
normalization, inclusive education, and non-
discrimination.
•Introduces the term of “students with specific
educational support needs.”
Note: Students with Special Educational Needs Included in General Education in Spain.
158 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

education system. The OECD (2012) reported the definition of SEN in
Spain is “Students with SEN refer to those who require certain support
and specific educational attention due to disability or serious behavioural
disorder, either for a period or throughout the whole of their schooling.
The schooling of these students in special education centers will take place
only when their needs cannot be met by the special needs provisions avail-
able in mainstream schools” (p. 10).
The Organic Law of 2006 (LOE) differentiates support for three distinct
groups of students: students with special educational needs, high ability
(gifted) students, and students with a late entry into education system.
•Students with special educational needs (SEN) as per the definition
above are further classified into the following categories according to
Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports: hearing disability, motor
disability, intellectual disability, visual disorders, pervasive developmen-
tal disorders, and severe behavioral and personality disorders.
•Students with High Intellectual Abilities: Students receiving curricular
adaptations for an extended, enriched curriculum, flexible schooling
options, and/or participation in extracurricular enrichment.
•Students from other countries who may have joined the Spanish educa-
tion system and are enrolled in courses offered to students who are at a
lower age or grade level. Schools provide necessary support to students
who may have language problems and difficulty integrating into the nor-
mal classes according to their age.
The 2006 Organic Law of Education stipulates procedures to be followed
for identification of children with SEN and requires that only teams of qua-
lified personnel should carry out identification and evaluation process and
decide subsequently on a program, support needs, or a plan for students.
The qualified teams may include speech therapists, audiologists, psycholo-
gists, guidance counselors, social workers, and teacher consultants,
appointed by regional education authorities (Teese, Aasen, Field, & Pont,
2006). Such needs are to be established with necessary input from and con-
sultation with parents, teachers, and administrators from the educational
establishments. Students with special education needs identified by the
team of experts have a choice of attending either special education estab-
lishments or mainstream establishments with appropriate adaptations
made to the curriculum to meet the needs of these students. The following
section reports some statistics on the enrollment of students with SEN in
various educational establishments (schools), including students with SEN
who are integrated/included.
159Special Education Today in Spain

The Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (MECD), Government of
Spain released a report in July 2013 about students with special education
needs in the year 20112012. According to the reported statistics, during
20112012 year the total number of pupils who received care and support in
the three categories defined by LOE (students with SEN, students with high
intellectual disabilities/gifted and students with a late entry in schools)
amounted to 399,083 students or 5.1% of the total student population. Of
these 117,385 students or 1.48% were students with disabilities integrated
into regular schools. This category includes those integrated into public regu-
lar schools and private regular schools. A total of 32,233 students were in spe-
cial schools or special units within the regular schools, which again included
both public special schools and private special schools and special units
within public regular schools and special units within private regular schools.
Table 3 provides longitudinal data for school years 19992000 to
20102011 of students with special educational needs in various schools.
The categories of special needs included hearing impairments, motor/
physical impairments, mental/intellectual/cognitive impairment, visual
impairments, and autism/other developmental disabilities, and other multi-
ple disabilities including pervasive developmental and behavioral disorders.
The number of students with special educational needs fully integrated in
regular education schools and in regular education classes increased by
7,610 over the period between 19992000 and 20122013 with an increase
of 4,896 in the reported number of students with special educational needs
who were in special schools and in special education units within the general
education schools in the same period. The inception of inception of Public
Law 13/1982 (LISMI, 1982) had a positive effect on the number of students
identified as having special educational needs who were in special education
schools and/or in special education units within regular schools in the pre-
vious decade. An overview of longitudinal data (19901991 to 19992000)
reported a remarkable decrease, from 42,329 students in 19901991 school
years to 27,321 students in 19992000 school years (Cardona, 2009).
According to the July 2013 report by the Ministry of Education,
Culture, and Sport Government of Spain (MECD) for the school year
20112012, the total number of pupils who received care and support in
the three categories defined by LOE (students with SEN, students with
high intellectual disabilities/gifted and students with a late entry in schools)
amounted to 399,083 students. Of these 149,618 were students with various
disabilities. The prevalence of various disabilities reported within this stu-
dent population was 70,594 students or 47.2%, the highest percentage
occurred with cognitive/mental/ intellectual disabilities, followed by 43,644
160 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

Table 3. Students with Special Educational Needs in Schools in the 21st Century.
School Year % of total school population fully integrated
Overall Total of All
Students in Education at
Different Levels and in
Different Public and
Private Regular Schools
Total Number of Students with
Special Educational Needs
Integrated in Regular Schools in
Regular Classes at Different
Levels
Total Number of Students with Special
Educational Needs in Special Schools and
in Special Education Units within the
Regular Schools (Includes Public Schools
and Private Schools)
20112012 7,923,293 117,385 1.48 32,233
20102011 7,782,182 110,383 1.41 31,043
20092010 7,608,292 111,034 1.46 30,643
20082009 7,443,625 107,998 1.45 30,819
20072008 7,241,299 106,320 1.47 29,427
20062007 7,088,662 104,793 1.48 28,871
20052006 6,983,538 107,410 1.54 28,665
20042005 6,933,472 109,823 1.58 28,145
20032004 6,903,063 117,582 1.70 27,799
20022003 6,843,646 123,960 1.81 27,057
20012002 6,830,185 116,456 1.71 27,090
20002001 6,882,363 114,844 1.67 27,334
19992000 6,972,500 109,775 1.57 27,337
Source:Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports-Government of Spain (2013a).
161Special Education Today in Spain

students or 29.2% with pervasive developmental disorders. Other disabil-
ities reported included 12,878 students with physical disabilities/motor
impairments, 7,288 students with hearing impairments, 3,000 students with
visual impairments, and 10,222 students with multiple disabilities.
ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS FOR SPECIAL
EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
The Public Law 2/2006, Organic Law of Education (LOE, 2006) stipulates
that the identification and evaluation of students with special educational
needs will be carried out by multi-professional (multidisciplinary) teams.
These teams assess students’ needs, as well as all the relevant elements
regarding the teaching-learning process. The evaluation of the student and
the context is to be done to help professionals make decisions about the
type of schooling, the special education provisions, and the curricular adap-
tations that are necessary for the personal, intellectual, social, and emo-
tional development of the students.
In order to fulfill the requirements of the Public Law 2/2006, the
Ministry of Education published in Order EDU/849/2010 of arrangement in
2010 regulations governing the education of students with specific educa-
tional support needs. According to this Order the student’s assessment is to
be conducted by the school counselor with the cooperation of teachers, par-
ents, and other professionals.
The school counselor gathers information about (a) the student (e.g.,
individual traits, personal and social development, curricular competence,
learning styles), (b) the school context (e.g., school and classroom organiza-
tion, student’s relationship with the professionals and peers), and (c) the
social and family context (e.g., family and environment information, par-
ents’ expectations, and relationship with school, and community resources).
For this purpose, the professionals use informal instruments, measure-
ments, and procedures that they consider necessary to collect information
about the students and their context, especially, systematic observation,
questionnaires, interviews, samples of school works, and class tests.
Once the assessment has been carried out, the school counselor writes a
report which reflects the current developmental and educational profile of
the student. This a confidential document that includes all the information
about the student and his or her context, the instruments used for assess-
ment, the main results and conclusions of the assessment, the specific
educational support needs, the expected organizational and curricular
162 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

measures to be adopted, and the personal and material resources that will
be necessary. It also provides recommendations for the education of the
student with special educational needs that includes specific adaptations to
the curriculum.
An assessment report indicating such needs for curricular adaptations
and the type of schooling that may be a better match for the educational
needs of the student is a requirement for any adaptations to be provided. In
conclusion, a student being transferred to any special education school is
required to have a complete schooling report to help find a good match for
the student’s ability and needs. This schooling report includes (1) a final
assessment report prepared by multidisciplinary team specifying student’s
present level of performance, student’s abilities, needs, and needed modifica-
tions, (2) recommendations for educational approaches that will better
respond to the student’s needs, and (3) recommendations for specific other
equipment and resources. The comprehensive report concludes with a
recommendation for the best fit (special school, special unit with a general
education school, or a general education classroom) to meet the child’s
needs determined by the multidisciplinary team, including the type of
resources needed, thus justifying the placement recommended.
To avoid referrals that may lead to unnecessary and stigmatizing formal
and comprehensive assessments, teachers are expected to adapt their
instruction to the particular needs of each student in collaboration with the
school counselor and other professionals (e.g., the special education tea-
cher). Teachers may adapt their teaching strategies and the curriculum as
long as the elements of the core curriculum (objectives and curricular con-
tents of each level) are not significantly modified. And only when all these
general accommodations are not sufficient to respond to students’ educa-
tional needs, a formal assessment will be conducted by the school counselor
(Gine
´& Ruiz, 1991;Ruiz i Bel, 1988). Teachers need to have documentation
of previous assessment results and measures adopted in the classroom to
respond to student’s needs and documentation to justify the need of a for-
mal assessment.
PROVISION, SUPPORTS, AND EDUCATIONAL
INTERVENTIONS
Considering the trend in the last decade where inclusion has become a pre-
ferred model for the education of all students, the key question is how the
163Special Education Today in Spain

Spanish educational system organized to meet the needs of learners identi-
fied as having disabilities or severe special educational needs (SEN).
According to the European Agency for Development in Special Needs
Education (2009a), the Spanish educational system supports a multi-track
structure in the sense that students with disabilities and/or severe educa-
tional needs can be enrolled: (1) in mainstream schools with almost full
inclusion into all school activities and following the school core curriculum;
(2) in self-contained special education classrooms for students in need of
ongoing educational support in some periods of their timetable combined
with mainstream classes; and (3) in special schools, both public and/or pri-
vate schools.
In the first approach (inclusion), students with disabilities or special
educational needs spend all, or at least more than half, of the school day
with students who do not have special educational needs. Because inclusion
can require substantial modification of the general curriculum most schools
use this approach only for selected students with mild to moderate
special needs for which is accepted as a best practice (Echeita et al., 2009;
Verdugo & Rodrı
´guez-Aguilella, 2012). Specialized services may be pro-
vided inside or outside the regular classroom, depending on the type of ser-
vice. Students may occasionally leave the regular classroom to attend
smaller, more intensive instructional sessions in a resource room or to
receive other related services that might require specialized equipment or
might be disruptive to the rest of the class, such as speech and language
therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, rehabilitation, or
counseling.
Self-contained special education classrooms or mainstreaming refers to
the practice of educating students with disabilities in classes with non-
disabled students during specific time periods based on their skills. These
classes are exclusively for students with special needs such as deafness,
severe intellectual disabilities or personality disorders. The students in this
setting usually do not get to spend any time with their non-disabled peers.
Although these students attend the same school where regular classes are
provided, they spend almost all instructional time exclusively in a separate
classroom for students with specific needs. If their special class is located in
an ordinary school, they may be provided opportunities for social integra-
tion outside the classroom.
Recently, the overall number of special schools in Spain has tended to
decrease (Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport, Government of
Spain, 2012). While some special institutions have been transformed into
164 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

resources centers, others have been dismantled as a result of inclusive poli-
cies but still exist. The public administration gives students the necessary
support from the beginning of their schooling or as soon as they are identi-
fied as having special needs. The schools develop the curriculum through
Individual Educational Plans (IEP), which have to take into account the
student’s needs and characteristics.
Since the introduction of the Organic Law 2/2006 of Education (LOE,
2006), inclusion has been a key principle within the Spanish educational
structures at different levels, recognizing the need to fit provisions to a wide
range of needs and students’ abilities, motivation, mother tongue, etc. The
Organic Law 2/2006 of Education establishes the concept of “pupils with
specific need of educational support” which includes students with special
educational needs, gifted students, and immigrant students/pupils who
were incorporated late into the Spanish education system. The law is based
on the following basic principles: (1) quality education for all students; (2)
equity for equal opportunities, inclusion and non-discrimination; and (3)
flexibility to adapt education to special needs, interests, aptitudes, and
expectations.
A key component of the definition of “special educational needs”
(SEN) in the Spanish legislation is that children have special educational
needs if they require additional provision or different supports that are
not normally available in schools. With the introduction of the term “spe-
cial need of educational support,” increasingly, the population of children
with disabilities is no longer defined in terms of categories of need, but
inextricably linked to resourcing (European Agency for Development of
Special Needs Education [EADSNE], 2013). This has opened the way to
greater inclusion while placing the emphasis on funding rather than on
educational issues.
In Spain as in most countries across Europe, learners seen to have
“special or additional” needs that are assessed to ascertain the level and
nature of support required. Agencies usually use national systems of classi-
fication or categorization to identify problems and assess students’ educa-
tional or supports needs. Recommendations emerging from the Spanish
Minister of Education, Culture, and Sport, Government of Spain (2012a)
advocate a move away from any form of classification system that leads to
labeling and/or placement based on categories toward of an understanding
of what benefits the students. In this sense, the Ministry recommendation is
to use ordinary measures for attending to diversity, such as successive levels
of curricular adaptation, or organization and delivery of support activities
165Special Education Today in Spain

in regular settings before using more specific measures of support. Once
ordinary measures have been applied and have proved to be insufficient to
respond to the educational needs of a student, the education system consid-
ers a series of extraordinary measures: for example, significant curricular
adaptations, curriculum diversification, repeating a cycle or school year,
and ultimately social guarantee programs. Other specific support measures
are: alterations of school building facilities, additional support provided by
specialist teachers, specific teaching methods or materials for students hav-
ing sensorial (visual, auditory) disabilities or other specific needs, reduced
class sizes, support specialist teachers, or special arrangements for assess-
ment and evaluation. There is also the possibility of prolonging schooling
up to the age of 18 years.
To meet the needs of the students with disabilities in inclusive class-
rooms, teachers usually emphasize instruction in functional academics and
daily living, social, and vocational skills. To teach these skills, teachers
use a variety of teacher-directed, student-directed, and peer-mediated
approaches. Teachers-directed models include: (a) task analysis to deter-
mine prerequisite skills and component skills (what skills are needed to
complete the task); (b) modeling, a method in which the teacher demon-
strates the behavior to be learned, and facilitates mastery by providing
much practice, reinforcement, and feedback; or (c) scaffolding, an approach
that can be defined as an adjustable and temporary support. In addition,
educators are increasingly facilitating students’ use of self-regulation proce-
dures, such as self-monitoring, self-administering consequences, and self-
instruction to promote student independence. Further, given the context of
large heterogeneous classes, reflective teachers are increasingly using peer-
mediated procedures to provide additional practice and individual help to
students with and without disabilities. One such arrangement is peer tutor-
ing, a technique that under certain conditions has been shown to benefit
both tutor and tutee academically, behaviorally, and socially. Specific
examples of peer tutoring in the areas of reading and math with Spanish
students are reported by Cardona, Reig, and Domene (2000) and Cardona
(2002) respectively. These researchers used class wide peer tutoring
(CWPT) to accommodate the diversity of reading and math abilities of
Spanish students in a bilingual programs that included students with mod-
erate intellectual disabilities.
Additionally, the inclusion of students with disabilities in general educa-
tion classrooms has resulted in increased interest among educators in pro-
cedures that promote academic improvement and skills and enhance the
social acceptance of these students. Recent reviews of methods suggest
166 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

that teachers in Spain are increasingly using mastery learning (Martı
´n,
Torres, Santaolalla, & Herna
´ndez, 2013;Torres, 2013), computer-assisted
instruction (Cascales, Martı
´nez, & Laguna, 2013;Navarro & Camu´ s,
2013), cooperative learning (Herna
´ndez & Olmos, 2011;Pujola
`s, 1997), and
co-teaching (Devesa, 2004). However, little information exists regarding
teachers’ perceptions of within-class instructional adaptations. With this as
a focus, Cardona (2003) examined how teachers (kindergarten, elementary,
and secondary) perceive such adaptations in terms of feasibility, effective-
ness, and desirability of implementation. This researcher found that
instructional adaptations have a moderate teachers’ acceptance and that
although a majority of the teachers believe that are feasible and effective
only a minority perceive them as desirable. In another study, Cardona and
Chiner (2006) found that teachers reported a limited use of instructional
adaptations which significantly differed among kindergarten, elementary,
and secondary school teachers. Cardona and Chiner indicated that a possi-
ble interpretation for this finding is that teachers were not involved in sys-
tematic consultation or collaboration with support personnel and viewed
most of these adaptations as incompatible with the prevailing structure of
the general education classroom. Other explanations could be that teachers
had specific concerns involving availability of supports and time for plan-
ning and implementation.
In summary, educational goals for students with disabilities emphasize
readiness skills at younger ages and functional academics and vocational
training at older ages. After finishing the compulsory secondary educa-
tion, all students, including special education students, receive a certificate
with the number of years of study and the grades they have received in
the different subjects with non-prescriptive and confidential guidance
regarding their academic and professional future. In addition, provision
has been made (LOCE, 2002; LOE, 2006) for students with disabilities
who finish basic education without having reached the objectives of com-
pulsory secondary education to continue their schooling under three dif-
ferent vocational training-related options: (1) social guarantee programs
adapted to their personal circumstances as well as to their level of skills
and development, (2) special social guarantee programs specially designed
for students with disabilities wishing to continue schooling beyond com-
pulsory education (ESO), and (3) transition to adult life programs (initial
vocational training) for those students with disabilities associated with
more severe and permanent disabilities. The special social guarantee pro-
grams have the same structure as the social guarantee programs designed
for students without disabilities but are organized around the following
167Special Education Today in Spain

areas: basic training, training and career guidance, vocational training,
complementary activities, and educational guidance. On the other hand,
transition to adult life programs are programs designed for students with
more severe disabilities who are unable to take advantage of the two
other training alternatives. These programs, which are generally provided
in specific special education schools, last two years but they may be
extended to three years.
As a result of the above process of schooling, the Spanish Government
aims to increase the opportunities and participation of young with disabil-
ities in employment and full participation in their communities. Therefore,
a variety of vocational training and employment approaches have been
available since the passage of Public Law 13/1982, Ley de Integracio
´nde
los Minusva
´lidos (LISMI, 1982). These approaches include the following:
(1) protected employment in occupational canters; (2) sheltered workshops,
structures environment where a person receives training a works with other
workers with disabilities on jobs requiring relatively low skills; and (3) sup-
ported competitive employment. Despite this specific legislation that pro-
motes access to regular employment, a low percentage of people with
disabilities (36.6%) work in inclusive environments (Colectivo IOE
´, 2003;
Instituto Nacional de Estadı
´stica [INE], 2012;Jorda
´n & Verdugo, 2011;
Pallisera, Vila
`, & Valls, 2003). In reality, several studies (Caleidoscopia,
1996;Ferna
´ndez, Arias, & Gallego, 1999;Fundacio
´n Equipara, 2008) that
have examined employment rates of people with disabilities has shown
that: (a) there are low social expectations for about employability, and (b)
that family members and professionals negative expectations about
employability of people with disabilities may be real barrier to attaining
and keeping jobs. With this in mind, Go
´mez (2013) studied the employ-
ability beliefs and perceptions of 118 families, 54 educators and 60 people
with intellectual disability belonging to a non-governmental association
from the Valencian Community and found that families, educators
and people with a disability believe that only some people with intellectual
disability can work and that family fears can affect real possibilities of
their employability. Although current employment figures and perspectives
may look bleak (Colectivo IOE
´, 2003;INE, 2012), evidence also
shows (Caraban
˜a, Lo
´pez de la Nieta, & Andreu, 2006) that employers are
taking a more favorable attitude toward hiring workers with disabilities.
Thanks to these employers’ efforts, many people with disabilities are
achieving levels of independence in employment that were never thought
possible.
168 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

In conclusion, as has been largely recognized, inclusive education and its
implementation may differ depending on the context in which it is devel-
oped and implemented but the literature (Alexander, 2012;European
Agency for Development in Special Needs Education [EADSNE], 2011,
2013) has shown that there are common elements across different contexts
as to “what works” in helping all learners to succeed. In the context of the
Spanish educational system, these elements include:
•Changes in the whole educational system, rather than simply where learners with dis-
abilities are educated.
•The need to increase the capability of regular schools and develop their competence
to benefit all learners.
•The importance of listening to learners and their families in the organization of any
additional support.
•The development of inclusive attitudes and beliefs in teachers and the will to take
responsibility for all learners.
•The importance of distributed leadership to ensure a positive culture and ethos in all
schools.
•The importance of networking and collaboration in providing support at all levels
(community, school, and individual).
•The development of equitable funding approaches which aim to improve the school
system for all learners through collaboration, rather than providing an incentive to
identify and label learners (p. 63).
Ultimately, inclusion involves changing the culture and the organization of
regular schools and the communities they serve in order to ensure the full
participation of all learners (Mittler, 2000).
TEACHER EDUCATION FOR SPECIAL AND
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Preparing new teachers to be “inclusive” educators requires so much more
than the addition of a special education course or a specific intervention
module. To be successful in this effort, teacher educators must develop
expertise to deal with contentious issues and address their own personal
deeper values and attitudes. Special and inclusive education is different
terms. Both terms have roots in the worldwide campaign to achieve educa-
tion for all but its meaning differ. According to Florian (2009), special edu-
cation has focused on those things that are additional to and different from
169Special Education Today in Spain

that which is otherwise available, while inclusive education has focused
on extending the scope of the ordinary school to accommodate a greater
diversity of learners ensuring their meaningful participation in the
culture, curriculum, and community of mainstream schools. In any case,
prospective teachers require a bachelor’s degree with an emphasis in
Special Education to qualify as a special education teacher at a public
school.
Spain has a decentralized system of teacher education and certifica-
tion. Each Autonomous Community and University is responsible for
initial certification and credentialing of its teachers. In a decentralized
system, the central government, in this case, the Ministry of Education,
governs almost all aspects of the teacher education and verification pro-
cess. The Ministry sets minimum guideline entry and exit requirements,
as well as curriculum content for teacher education programs. While
the Autonomous Communities and their respective institutions of
higher education monitors compliance with these guidelines there has to
be an adaption of the state core program to their particular needs and
demands. Therefore, in Spain, the Ministry of Education and the
Department of Education of the diverse Autonomous Communities share
responsibility for teacher education and certification, but higher educa-
tion institutions (universities) develop from these guidelines their own
programs.
Types of Institutions that Prepare Teachers
Prospective teachers in Spain have to complete a four-year undergraduate
program for initial certification. Teacher education programs are offered
by public universities and private universities and almost all of them pro-
vide initial teacher certification in two majors (kindergarten education and
primary education). Teacher certification in secondary and high school
requires all prospective teachers to complete a master’s program for initial
certification.
Entry Requirements
The majority of teacher education programs require a minimum GPA in
high school (grades C or above) and a pass on an entrance examination
(Selectividad). Performance on both is combined into a university entrance
170 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

score which is determinant to be accepted or not in one of the two major
teacher education programs (kindergarten or primary education). Also,
Spain has entry requirements based on students’ performance in secondary
school. Each student has a university entrance score that is calculated
based on marks obtained on assessments and examinations in high school
and results from university entry examination. Each university sets its own
cut-off scores, acceptance being more competitive for kindergarten than
primary education.
Teacher Education Curriculum
The curriculum content of the four-year undergraduate programs is deter-
mined by individual teacher training institutions (universities) within the
context of state and community accreditation policies. Institutions typically
require 60 ECTS credits per year to complete 240 credits during the four
years.
A typical undergraduate teacher education program (e.g., Maestro:
Primary Education) consists of 240 credits (1 credit =25 hours of student
work at the university): 60 ECTS credits of general studies (core courses),
100 ECTS credits of professional studies and certification teaching (core
courses), 30 ECTS credits of electives courses and mentions (specialization),
44 ECTS credits of practicum (student teaching and other field-based
experiences), and 6 ECTS credits Final Degree Project. To obtain a men-
tion in Special Education, prospective teachers are required to take 18
ECTS common courses for the itinerary (three 6 ECTS compulsory
courses and two 6 ECTS elective) (see Table 3 for the mention of Special
Education).
A teacher education program in special education (e.g., Maestro,
Emphasis in Special Education) consists of 240 ECTS credits. On average,
60 credits of general studies (core courses), 100 ECTS credits of major
credits (courses in certification teaching subject area and professional stu-
dies), 12 ECTS credits of electives courses and 18 ECTS credits for the
mention (special education), 44 ECTS credits of practicum (student teach-
ing and other field-based experiences), and 6 ECTS credits Final Degree
Project (FDP).
Teacher training programs in kindergarten or primary education majors
have similar structures. All are composed of at least 240 credits distributed
between common core courses, courses in certification teaching subject
171Special Education Today in Spain

area, student teaching and other field-based experiences, elective courses,
and FPD (Table 4).
Exit Requirements
In Spain, exit standards for the undergraduate training programs of
Maestro include completion of required courses, passage of classroom
examinations with adequate PGA (above C), and a Practicum composed of
field activities (observation in classes, assisting teachers, and collaboration
in extracurricular activities) and student teaching. The length of time
required for the Practicum is a semester approximately. This Practicum is
supervised and evaluated by selected teachers of the schools and staff from
the higher education institutions.
Degree Earned
Upon completion of the teacher education program undergraduates are
awarded a bachelor degree (Diploma of Maestro). Depending on the major,
students can obtain the following degrees:
•Maestro: Kindergarten Education.
•Maestro: Primary Education.
With emphasis in: Music Education, Physical Education, Foreign
Language Education, Special Education, and Speech Therapy depending
on the institutions.
Table 4. Common Courses for Teacher Certification (Maestro: Primary
Education, Emphasis in Special Education).
Plan 2012 (University of Salamanca, Spain): Itinerary of Special Education
Course # ECTS Credits
Minor common courses
Disability studies 6
Response to diversity: students with disabilities 6
Psychological disorders 6
Minor electives courses
Behavioral interventions programs 6
Communication and speech intervention programs 6
Teaching maths to students with special educational needs 6
172 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

FAMILY AND PARENT INVOLVEMENT
Parents have a crucial role to play in the education of their children with
disabilities in Spain. This role is guaranteed by law (LISMI, 1982;LOE,
2006) which requires the school system to ensure that parents have the
opportunity to participate in the educational decisions affecting their chil-
dren with special needs education. Special education legislation, namely,
Public Law 13/1982 (LISMI, 1982), stipulates that parents of students with
disabilities are entitled to the following rights to: (1) a free and appropriate
public education for their children; (2) an independent psycho-educational
evaluation when placement and program decisions have to be made; (3) a
notice before the multidisciplinary team initiates or changes the identifica-
tion, evaluation, or placement of the child; (4) give or withhold consent
before an evaluation is conducted and before initial placement in made in
special education; (5) revoke consent at any time; (6) request an impartial
due process hearing to question identification, evaluation, or placement of
the child; (7) have a full and individual evaluation of the child’s educational
needs in all areas related to the suspected disability conducted by a multi-
disciplinary team; and (8) have their child educated in regular schools and
classrooms to the maximum extent possible with a continuum of alternate
placements and supplementary services such as a resource room or itinerant
instruction. In addition, this law stipulates that when a student is identified
as having a disability, parents or guardians must be involved in developing
individualized education program (IEP) and that the school should make
every effort to provide their child with the necessary services and supports
needed so that their child can be taught with children who do not have
disabilities.
Parent and family responsibilities are less clearly defined in the law than
are parental rights but strong recommendations exists for how schools can
develop partnerships with families such as: engaging in quality communica-
tion; inviting parents to participate in schools activities; soliciting parents’
input on decisions about their child’s education; or empowering parents to
take action that addresses their own needs. Some of these partnerships can
be developed thorough the Association of Mothers and Fathers (AMPA)
at their child’s school, however, these partnerships will only be successful
with strong commitment and collaboration.
Despite these requirements of collaboration between schools and
families as stipulated by law, many parents have little or no involvement
in their children special and/or inclusive education process. They often
attend their child’s Individualized Education Program meeting but have
173Special Education Today in Spain

little or no involvement in developing objectives or interventions
(Antequera et al., 2008). Quite frequently, families have also reported that
they were not given choices to participate or reporting that their children
are not receiving the kind of services they need (Go
´mez, 2013). However,
there are several other schools where professionals, specialist personnel,
regular and special education teachers, and families work together.
Inclusion Europe (2006) described one such example of good practices fol-
lowed by Padre Jero
´nimo Elementary School. This school has been practi-
cing and striving to enhance their integration program for students with
special needs since the year 19871988. The school encourages active par-
ticipation by all stakeholders in education of students with special educa-
tion needs specifically, parents and families. Some specific ways this
school involves families are by: informing them how the school works
with their children; by inviting them to participate in the follow-up and
evaluation of the educational process of their children; and by providing
them with proper information at the end of every school year and, most
crucially, at the end of the school attendance (Inclusion Europe, 2006,
pp. 910).
To promote family involvement in the lifelong learning of their children
with disabilities parents in recent decades have engaged in united efforts,
and sought awareness regarding their child’s education, care, and guidance
by creating national, regional, and local associations. Calvo, Regueiro, and
Ramirez (2011) published a resource guide that provides information about
various organizations and associations which band together to share pro-
blems and promote awareness regarding needs and education of children,
youth, and adults with disabilities. It is an excellent resource for individuals
with various disabilities and their families. Each page in the document lists
details of organizations/associations including contact information, types
of services individuals with disabilities and families can expect, and their
outreach activities. https://www.uclm.es/to/fcsociales/pdf/GuiaPersonasDis
capacidad.pdf.
The Spain’s State Board of Education in their Proposals for
Improvement 2012 Report on the State of the Spanish Education System
called for greater involvement of families in education states that “social
participation in general, and students’ parents, mothers in particular are
one of the fundamental pillars of education” (Ministry of Education, 2012,
p. 21). In recognizing the direct positive correlation between family involve-
ment and student success, the report also called for setting avenues for
schoolfamily/parent communication. Another recommendation from the
report stresses the need to provide a wider choice of centers of education
174 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

for children with disabilities and greater autonomy and freedom for parents
to choose the centers they deem best for their children.
FUTURE TRENDS AND CHALLENGES
Now that Inclusion is a reality in the Spanish educational system, more
attention should be paid to the quality of the process of inclusive educa-
tion. Administrators, professionals, and the school community should be
aware that inclusion is not just having students with special educational
needs in the ordinary schools and classrooms, but also the full participation
of these students in all the activities that are taking place in their school
and social context (Inclusion International, 1996). To achieve real inclusion
of all students, administrators, professionals, and the school community
must guarantee equal opportunities to these students and be able to
respond adequately to their special educational needs in order to fully
develop their personal, social, educational and vocational development.
For this purpose, professionals, and especially regular education teachers,
must believe in inclusion and understand it as a right. Positively, research
has shown that teachers in Spain hold positive attitudes toward inclusion
(Chiner & Cardona, 2013). Teachers have been found to generally agree
with the concept of inclusion, but they also think that it is not easy to
implement due to the lack of: time, resources, supports, and training
(Chiner & Cardona, 2013). This latter aspect may hinder the right condi-
tions to promote inclusion and can lead teachers to a discouragement that
will negatively affect the students’ learning and development. Another
study conducted by Chiner and Cardona (2012) also showed that, despite
the positive attitudes toward inclusion, teachers do not adapt their instruc-
tion sufficiently to meet students’ special needs. Further Chiner and
Cardona pointed out that teachers usually implement general adaptations
oriented to the whole group rather than more specific inclusive practices. In
other words, they usually provide accommodations that are easy to
implement.
In light of the above, the schools educational administration should pro-
vide teachers with enough resources and supports, as well as necessary pre-
service and in-service training through professional development courses
on inclusion and specific instructional adaptations to attend students’ spe-
cial educational needs in inclusive classrooms. Special attention should be
paid to secondary education teachers. These teachers are well trained in
175Special Education Today in Spain

specific subjects, such mathematics, history, and science, but they have very
little knowledge about teaching, and more specifically, teaching students
with special educational needs. Currently, prior to becoming secondary
education teachers, they must complete a sixty-credit program, teaching
strategies (especially in their specific subject area) and, in some cases diver-
sity strategies. However, this training is clearly not enough for secondary
education teachers to feel prepared to address students’ special education
needs. Given this situation, higher education programs should include
more credits related to teaching students with special educational needs in
order to prepare teachers to be more sensitive toward diversity and be con-
fident to adapt their instruction to the specific needs of each student.
CONCLUSION
In spite of the significant progress made to date in Spain’s inclusive educa-
tion practices, it still has a system based on a continuum of services that go
from total inclusion in regular classrooms to the segregation in special edu-
cation schools. The decision of placing the student is often based on cate-
gories of disabilities, forgetting the principles of the special educational
needs concept. The LOE (2006) mandates that students must be placed in
regular classes and schools, and only when that is not possible, they will be
taught in special education units or schools. However, the latter policy
makes the mandate ambiguous and subject to different interpretations.
Therefore, it is critical that administrators work on developing what was
initially stated by the LOGSE (1990): promoting special schools as resource
centers, more than direct teaching schools, and including most of the stu-
dents in ordinary schools.
REFERENCES
Alexander, R. (2012, May). International evidence, national policy and classroom practice:
Questions of judgment vision and trust. Closing session keynote given at the third Van
Leer international conference on education “from regulation to trust”, Jerusalem, Israel.
Antequera, M., Bachiller, B., Caldero
´n, M. T., Cruz, A., Cruz, P. L., Garcı
´a, F. J., …Ortega,
R. (2008). Handbook for the education of students with specific need of educational sup-
port due to intellectual disability. Sevilla, Spain: Junta de Andalucı
´a.
Arco-Tirado, J. J., & Fernandez-Balboa, J. (2003). Contextual barriers to school reform in
Spain. International Review of Education,49(6), 585600.
176 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

Bonet, J. P. (1930). Reduction of words and the art of teaching mute people how to speak.
Madrid, Spain: Beltra
´n.
Caleidoscopia. (1996). Personal and social factors of the employment of people with
disabilities. Madrid, Spain: Real Patronato de Prevencio
´n y Atencio
´n a Personas con
Minusvalı
´a.
Calvo, S. M., Regueiro, E. M., & Ramirez, A. P. (2011). Guide of associations for people with
disabilities. Universidad de Castilla la Mancha. Retrieved from https://www.uclm.es/to/
fcsociales/pdf/GuiaPersonasDiscapacidad.pdf
Caraban
˜a, J., Lo
´pez de la Nieta, M., & Andreu, S. (2006). Analysis of interactions and impact
of the Spanish educational system on the labour market: The case of pupils with special
educational needs with particular reference to students with intellectual disabilities. In
J. M. Iba
´n
˜ez (Ed.), Libro verde sobre los itinerarios hacia el empleo de los jo
´venes con dis-
capacidad intelectual (pp. 73352). Badajoz, Spain: Aprosuba.
Cardona, C. M. (2009). Current trends in special education in Spain: Do they really reflect leg-
islative mandates of Inclusion? The Journal of International Association of Special
Education,10(1), 410.
Cardona, M. C. (2002). Adapting instruction to address individual and group educational
needs in math. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,2(1), 116.
Cardona, M. C. (2003). Classroom change and inclusion through/via instructional adapta-
tions. Revista De Investigacio
´n Educativa,21(2), 465487.
Cardona, M. C., & Chiner, E. (2006). Use and effectiveness of instructional adaptations in
inclusive classrooms: A study of perceptions and training needs of teachers. Bordo
´n,
58(3), 524.
Cardona, M. C., Reig, A., & Domene, D. (2000). Theory and practice of instructional adapta-
tions. Alicante, Spain: Universidad de Alicante Press.
Cascales, A., Martı
´nez, M. J., & Laguna, M. I. (2013). Methodology to work with tablets
with students with specific needs of educational support in regular classrooms. In
M. C. Cardona, E. Chiner, & A. Giner (Eds.), Investigacio
´n e innovacio
´n educativa
al servicio de instituciones y comunidades globales, plurales y diversas (pp.
718724). Alicante, Spain: AIDIPE (Asociacio
´n Interuniversitaria de Investigacio
´n
Pedago
´gica).
Chiner, E., & Cardona, M. C. (2012). Teachers’ use of inclusive practices in Spain. The
International Journal of Learning Diversity and Identities,19(1), 2945.
Chiner, E., & Cardona, M. C. (2013). Inclusive education in Spain: How do skills,
resources, and supports affect regular education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion?
International Journal of Inclusive Education,17(5), 526541. doi:10.1080/13603116.
2012.689864
Colectivo IOE
´. (2003). The employability of people with disabilities. Barcelona, Spain:
Fundacio
´n La Caixa.
Deak, A. (1999). Children with special educational needs: The position in Spain. International
Peto Institute. Retrieved from epa.oszk.hu/01400/01428/00004/pdf/0402-Deak-Spain.
pdf
Department of Education and Science. (1978). Special educational needs. Report of the com-
mittee of inquiry into the education of handicapped children and young people (The
Warnock report). London, UK: HMSO.
Devesa, M. C. (2004). Effects of co-teaching in learning to read and write in 5-year-old stu-
dents. Trabajo del perı
´odo de investigacio
´n (suficiencia investigadora) del programa de
177Special Education Today in Spain

doctorado “Atencio
´n a la Diversidad en A
´mbitos Educativos”. Universidad de
Alicante, Alicante, Spain.
Echeita, G., Verdugo, M. A., Sandoval, M., Simo
´n, C., Lo
´pez, M., Gonza
´lez-Gil, F., & Calvo,
I. (2009). FEAPS opinion about the process of educational inclusion. Siglo Cero,39(4),
2650.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSP). (2009a). Special
needs education within the education systems: Spain. Odense, Denmark: Author.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSP). (2009b). Teacher
education for inclusion: International literature review. Odense, Denmark: Author.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSP). (2011). Teacher
education for inclusion across Europe: Challenges and opportunities. Odense, Denmark:
Author.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSP). (2013).
Organization of provision to support i nclu si ve e du ca ti on : Li te ra tu re r ev ie w.
Odense, Denmark:
Author.
Ferna
´ndez, D., Arias, E., & Gallego, L. (1999). Enterprise culture: Employers’
motivation for the inclusion of people with disabilities. La Corun
˜a, Spain: Fundacio
´n
Paideia.
Florian, L. (2009, July). Special and inclusive education in Europe. Session keynote given at
11th IASE biennial international conference on special education, broadening the horizon:
Recognizing, accepting, and embracing differences to make a better world for individuals
with special needs, Alicante, Spain.
Fundacio
´n Equipara. (2008). 2008 Equipara report: Observatory for improving the labour equity
of people with disabilities. Barcelona, Spain: Author.
Galino, M. A. (1968). History of education: Ancient and middle ages. Madrid, Spain: Gredos.
Garcı
´a Pastor, C. (1998). Integration in Spain: A critical review. European Journal of Special
Needs Education,13(1), 4356.
Gine
´, C., & Ruiz, R. (1991). Curricular adaptations and school educational project. In
A. Marchesi, C. Coll, & J. Palacios (Eds.), Desarrollo psicolo
´gico y educacio
´n, III.
Necesidades educativas especiales y aprendizaje escolar (pp. 337349). Madrid, Spain:
Alianza Editorial.
Go
´mez, J. M. (2013). Beliefs and perceptions of employability of people with intellectual disabil-
ity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain.
Herna
´ndez, A., & Olmos, S. (2011). Collaborative learning methodologies through technologies.
Salamanca, Spain: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
Illa
´n, N., & Arna
´iz, P. (1996). Historical evolution of special education: Background and
current situation. In N. Illa
´n (Coord.), Dida
´ctica y organizacio
´n en educacio
´n especial
(pp. 1343). Ma
´laga, Spain: Aljibe.
Inclusion Europe. (2006). Towards inclusive education: Examples of good practices of inclusive
education. Brussels, Belgium: Inclusion Europe and European Commission.
Inclusion International. (1996). Inclusion: News from inclusion international. Brussels, Belgium:
Author.
Instituto Nacional de Estadı
´stica. (2012). Employability of people with disabilities. Series
20082011. Retrieved from http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=/t22/
p320/serie&file=pcaxis
Jime
´nez, P., & Vila
`, M. (1999). Special education and diversity education.Ma
´laga, Spain:
Aljibe.
178 SHAILA RAO ET AL.

Jorda
´n, de U. B., & Verdugo, M. A. (2011). Evolution of supported employment in Spain
(19952010) and adjustment to the quality standards of EUSE. Retrieved from http//
sid.usal.es/idocs/F8/FDO25798/Informe_INICO_ECA_1995-2010.pdf
LEP. (1945, July 18). Act of elementary education. Boletı
´n Oficial del Estado.
LGE. (1970, August 6). Act on education and financing of the educational reform. Boletı
´n
Oficiadel Estado.
LISMI. (1982, April 20). Act on social integration of people with disabilities. Boletı
´n Oficial del
Estado.
LOCE. (2002, December 24). Organic act on educational quality. Boletı
´n Oficial del Estado.
LODE. (1985, July 4). Organic act on the right to education. Boletı
´n Oficial del Estado.
LOE. (2006, May 4). Organic act on education. Boletı
´n Oficial del Estado.
LOGSE. (1990, October 4). Act on general arrangement of the education system. Boletı
´n Oficial
del Estado.
LOPEG. (1995, November 21). Organic act on the participation, evaluation, and administra-
tion of schools. Boletı
´n Oficial del Estado.
Martı
´n, J. F., Torres, J., Santaolalla, E., & Herna
´ndez, V. (2013). The competence of learning
to learn: Teacher perceptions of its development in elementary and secondary school in
the community of Madrid. In M. C. Cardona, E. Chiner, & A. Giner (Eds.),
Investigacio
´n e innovacio
´n educativa al servicio de instituciones y comunidades globales,
plurales y diversas (pp. 776786). Alicante, Spain: AIDIPE.
Ministry of Education. (2012). The figures of education in Spain. Madrid, Spain: Author.
Minister of Education, Culture, and Sport-Government of Spain. (2012). Proposals for
improvement 2012 report on the state of the Spanish education system. Retrieved from
http://www.mecd.gob.es/dctm/cee/informe2012/pm2012cee.pdf? documentld =0901e72b
8145b4f3
Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport-Government of Spain. (2013a). Report on non-
university education: Students with special educational needs, 20112012. Retrieved from
http://www.mecd.gob.es/servicios-al-ciudadano-mecd/estadisticas/educacion/no-univer-
sitaria/alumnado/matriculado.html
Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport-Government of Spain. (2013b). Report on non-
university education: Students enrolled 20002011. Retrieved from http://www.mecd.
gob.es/servicios-al-ciudadano-mecd/estadisticas/educacion/no-universitaria/alumnado/
matriculado.html
Mittler, P. (2000). Working towards inclusive education: Social contexts. London: David Fulton.
Moliner, O., Sales, A., Ferra
´ndez, R., & Traver, J. (2011). Inclusive cultures, policies and prac-
tices in Spanish compulsory secondary education schools: Teachers’ perceptions in
ordinary and specific teaching contexts. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
15(5), 557572.
Navarro, A., & Camu´ s, M. (2013). The interactive whiteboard in the educational process of
students with specific learning disorders. In M. C. Cardona, E. Chiner, & A. Giner
(Eds.), Investigacio
´n e innovacio
´n educativa al servicio de instituciones y comunidades
globales, plurales y diversas (pp. 10801087). Alicante, Spain: AIDIPE.
OECD. (2012). Child well-being module, CX3.1, special education needs. Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/social/family/
50325299.pdf
Order EDU/849/2010. (2010, March 18). Order on the educational arrangement of students with
specific needs of educational support and the regulations of school counselling services.
Ministerio de Educacio
´n, en las ciudades de Ceuta y Melilla. Boletı
´n Oficial del Estado.
179Special Education Today in Spain

Pallisera, M., Vila
`, M., & Valls, M. J. (2003). The current situation of supported employment
in Spain: Analysis and perspectives based on the perception of professionals. Disability
and Society,6(18), 797810.
Pujola
`s, P. (1997). A methodological and organizational classroom proposal for diversity.
Aula de Innovacio
´n Educativa,59,2327.
Royal Decree on Arrangement of the Education of Students with Special Education needs.
(1995, June 2). Boletı
´n Oficial del Estado.
Royal Decree on Arrangement of the Special Education. (1982, October 22). Boletı
´n Oficial
del Estado.
Royal Decree on Arrangement of the Special Education. (1985, March 16). Boletı
´n Oficial del
Estado.
Ruiz i Bel, R. (1988). Individualized teaching techniques. Madrid, Spain: Cincel.
Teese, R., Aasen, P., Field, S., & Pont, B. (2006). Equity in education thematic review: Spain
country note. Proceedings of Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development
(OECD). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/spain/36361409.pdf
Torres, B. (2013). Alternative assessment strategies for children with disabilities in inclusive
classrooms. In M. C. Cardona, E. Chiner, & A. Giner (Eds.), Investigacio
´n e innovacio
´n
educativa al servicio de instituciones y comunidades globales, plurales y diversas
(pp. 11521158). Alicante, Spain: AIDIPE.
United Nations. (1971, December 20). Declaration on the rights of mentally retarded persons.
General Assembly resolution 2856(XXVI).
United Nations. (1975, December 9). Declaration on the rights of disabled persons. General
Assembly resolution 3447(XXX).
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (1994). The Salamanca
statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris, France: Author.
Verdugo, M. A., & Rodrı
´guez-Aguilella, A. (2012). Inclusion in Spain from the perspective of
students with intellectual disability, families, and professionals. Revista de Educacio
´n,
358,4556. doi:10.4438/998-592X-RE-2010-358-086
Vicente, A., & De Vicente, M. P. (2006). An approach to the history of special education.
Murcia, Spain: Diego Marı
´n.
180 SHAILA RAO ET AL.