All against misdiagnosis

Transcription

1 All against misdiagnosis Sociologists, neurologists, economists, psychologists and special educators for inclusion Final Report Hungary Health Gábor ERÖSS, Anna KENDE with KNOWandPOL ORIENTATION 2 Márton OBLATH, Balázs BERKOVITS, Sára LEVENDEL, Júlia KOLTAI, Bea DÁVID, Bori FERNEZELYI, Judit GÁRDOS Public Action 1 WP 10 September Project n co funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Program

2 Table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION* LONG STREAM. PREHISTORY OF THE FROM THE LAST DESK PROGRAM (FLDP) Idea stream. Transnational knowledge, advocacy groups and problem setting POLICY STREAM. EVENTS OF THE PUBLIC ACTION Sociologists, doctors and special educators: the diagnosis issue The 2003 re-examination. Mainstreaming the pseudo-retarded Changes in the definition of SEN Legal regulations The normalisation. Inclusive pedagogy (everywhere) and exclusive centres (SEMC) in some places Interpretations A NEW PSYCHODIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT: THE WISC-IV TEST (LOCAL CASE STUDY) THE LOCAL STREAMS. THE STREET LEVEL BUREAUCRACY S REACTION: THE PLACEMENT AUTHORITIES THE 2007 RE-EXAMINATION. MAINSTREAMING THE PSEUDO-DYSLEXIC STUDENTS DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY AND NEUROLOGY: PROTOCOLS AND MONITORING Early intervention. Preventing SEN and spreading SEN-knowledge Dorsal stream. Hungary tomorrow : the Board of the wise and the Green Book (Critical Episode) CONCLUSION. A SOCIAL-EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY...67

3 9. COMPARISON ZONES Chronology (Comparison Zone Nr.1. ) Paradigm shift (Comparison Zone Nr. 2) Knowledges (in conflict) (Comparison Zone Nr. 3) Knowledge policy (Comparison Zone Nr. 4.) Knowledge & Policy constellations (Comparison Zone Nr. 5) Media (Comparison Zone Nr. 6) Local actors influence on the national level (Comparison Zone Nr. 7) International influences (Comparison Zone Nr. 8) Europe s role (Comparison Zone Nr. 9) Non-knowledge/ specified ignorance (Comparison Zone 10) REFERENCES, DOCUMENTS ANALYSED APPENDIX...117

4 1. Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION* The Public Action (PA) we have studied was aiming at better diagnosing and offering a better therapy of SEN-pupils 1, and for most decision makers and experts at the reduction of their number (i.e. the reduction of those labelled students). This PA includes the From the Last Desk Program (FLDP), the supporting actions launched as part of the (EU-financed) operative programs of National Development Plan I and II, as well as the re-examination (control testing) of thousands (2004) and tens of thousands (2007) children diagnosed with special educational needs during the previous years. It also includes the invention of relatively new, post-bureaucratic forms of regulation through knowledge: (1) the use of scientific research as a regulation tool (showing evidence of trespass, misdiagnosis and segregation on the local level) and above all, (2) the dissemination of knowledge in various forms toward street-level bureaucrats 2. The dissemination of knowledge can take different forms: launching institutions (the SEMC, the Special Education Methodological Centres) designed for diffusing knowledge and good practices, or fighting bad practices and promoting good practices at the same time (quality assurance through equality experts in charge of the LPEEOP); extending stateinitiated training programs (targeting both special educators and regular teachers ), introducing new tests and protocols, as well as new textbooks and teaching materials, etc. Because policy per definitionem often fails to teach implementers what they need to know to do policy. Instead, it identifies a network of nonstate policy professionals professional associations, academics, trainers, and consultants who disseminate policy and its entailments to implementers, acting as nonstate resources for getting policy done (Hill, Heather C). We will try to capture the emergence of new knowledge&policy constellations. Knowledge diffusion is far from being a top-down process. The importance of nonknowledge and specified ignorance (see: comparison zone Nr 10) on the national level leads to the search for local evidence and personal experience. Also the plans of the Government that upset practitioners (psychologists and special educators) contributed to * The authors themselves are or were more or less involved in the field under study. Anna Kende has published several studies in the Field of SEN, and was requested to be an expert in one of the sub-programs of FLDP, the standardization of a new Test; Gábor Eröss co-edited a book presenting empirical results of a SEN-research and was solicited as an expert by the Ombudsman for the Protection of National and Minority Rights, to assess the Ministry of Education s policies against school segregation, incl. SEN-policies. We wish to thank the research team Hungary Education for its help and cooperation. We wish to thank particularly Eszter Neumann for her help and her critical comments. 1 Special Educational Needs students (or pupils with special needs). See the list of acronyms at the end of our report. 2 The street level bureaucrats are, among others, those working as local special educational service providers (Medico-Psycho-Pedagogic Centres [Nevelési Tanácsadó] and Placement Authorities [Szakértıi és Rehabilitációs Bizottság] and the local governments. 1

5 1. Introduction their mobilisation, i.e. the mobilisation of their knowledge in the course of the PA (see: comparison zone Nr 7). The public action wouldn t have been initiated without the visits of leading special education scholars in malfunctioning special schools, and those ministerial decision-makers who had self-experienced segregation, or pursued successful innovative strategies on de-segregation/inclusion on the local level. Segregation of the Roma/Poor has been a major preoccupation of social scientists and educational experts for decades and of policy makers for at least 13 years (since 1996, the beginning of Bálint Magyar s first term as a minister) 3. Testing school readiness was seen as the medicalization 4 and psychologization of learning disabilities and behavioural disorders (attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder ADHD), and most of all: as an instrument of segregation (Oblath et al 2007; Kende 2006, Eröss 2008). But the Special Educational Needs (SEN) as a semi-autonomous policy field, allying medical, psychological, special educational and sociological expertise and educational governance, only emerged in , when V. Mohácsi became ministerial commissioner and the From the Last Desk Program (FLDP) was launched. We had two competing hypotheses in writing this Report. The first one granted sociology a dominant position as an expertise informing the Public action, putting equity and desegregation on the agenda, initiating research on local practices and policy implementation, gaining the top advisory positions, etc. The second hypothesis gave psychology the leading role: since the renewal of the psychodiagnostical methods was a crucial point of FLDP, plus early child development have gained more and more credit. We could quite safely say that the two disciplines were in competition throughout the PA. The picture is much more complicated though. First, sociologists as experts, partisans of desegregation of the SEN, gained wide attention among decision-makers who had themselves strong ties with sociology. Second, after a period of conflicts, sociology concluded a deal with special education under the auspices of the ministerial commissioner, in the name of inclusion. Third, they agreed with developmental psychology in the name of early child development support and early kindergarten programs. Fourth, they made economy an ally in the name of desegregation is worth, and accountability and evaluation protects the weak. Some sociologists became hyper-experts : in a privileged position, they are to choose other experts and the content of expertise. Indeed, sociologists seem to emerge as central actors of the knowledge & policy relationship in this part of Europe (Eröss et alii, 2007; Bajomi, Berényi & Neumann 2008: 38-39). 3 In the 1990s, the initiatives of the Soros Foundation and the EU-financed PHARE-projects also played an important role in preparing the equality turn, the emergence of policies targeting the Roma and, later, the disadvantaged pupils. 4 The diffusion of medical knowledge (categories) towards street level bureaucracy operates like this: So far we have been using ICD codes and until very recently the expert committees had included the assigned codes in their reports. It was a big surprise when the public officer actually asked why they thought these codes should be indicated. It is nowhere written. [...] By now all school directors interpret the ICD codes properly. (Á. Torda) 2

6 1. Introduction As a matter of fact, sociologists have denounced the misdiagnosis and segregation of disabled children for a long time. A window of opportunity opened for them in As advisors, they were in the position to select what they favoured in psychology (e.g. developmental psychology) and what they rejected (e.g. the IQ-tests in use). They imposed their reform: the renewal of diagnosis in general (standards and protocols constituted a consensual objective: the Placement authorities and Medico-psychopedagogic Centres agreed with the necessity to develop them) and the introduction of an intelligence test that is supposedly culturally not biased (not disadvantaging the Roma/the poor). All would have been impossible if it weren t for the special education scholars joining them (first as individuals, later the whole discipline as such), apporting their specific expertise and the idea of inclusion. Medical doctors (paediatricians and child neurologists) were also planned to be mobilised in the framework of the policy in order to reduce the number of SEN; but these attempts mostly failed. Most importantly, experts of all disciplines discovered the local level as a new dimension of politics and agreed on the importance of implementation/impact studies, as well as of (local) evaluation and quality control. Accountability appeared all the more consensual for it has been held by economists who validated the sociological agenda. Another mutual/consensual point was the early child development, monitoring and intervention, as a social, psychological mean of preventing SEN. One way or another, social scientists, special educators, psychologists, economists and to a lesser extent, physicians, transformed into experts formed a coalition to put their agenda forward. All in all, no coalition is possible without coalition partners, but sociologists were the firsts among equals. The Program s ars poetica was clearly defined in 2001 by three leading experts in the field, who happen to become close advisors of the new decision-makers, in Despite continuous efforts to avoid misdiagnosis, they say, Roma students are often segregated into special schools/classes, moreover: often it is solely based on the kindergarten teacher s opinion about their supposed capacities (Havas, Kemény & Liskó 2002: 29). The first idea was to strengthen the quality of the Placement authorities expertise. 5 The second major research finding that had a decisive role in the course of the public action is that of Neményi (2003), who directed her critique towards those experts sitting in the Placement authorities, precisely. She calls for standards and accountability, just like Havas and Bernáth (see below). They all have shown evidence that law isn t enforced, not to speak of equal chances to avoid special schools and classes. Politically speaking, the From the Last Desk Program (FLDP) was an initiative of the Ministerial Commissioner 6 for the Integration of Roma and Socially Disadvantaged 5 Placement authorities are also called expert committees, provision centres or Committees for Assessing Learning Abilities and Rehabilitation 6 For more details on the commissioner see: Hungary Education s Reports 3

7 1. Introduction Children, initiated in The public action and SEN policies since the launching of the program have gone through significant changes in terms of the knowledge-policy structure. In the period between 2002 and 2009 three different disciplinary fields sociology, special education and psychology received privileged positions in formulating SEN policies. The three disciplines gained their privilege in complex settings. With respect to the public action, a differentiation will be made between knowledge about the content and target group of the policy (the characteristics of SEN children and SEN definitions), and knowledge about the implementation of the policy (e.g. the persuasion of Placement Authorities 7 and other local actors in schools to change their categorizational practices), the knowing-how. The first type of knowledge originates from well-established disciplinary traditions, the latter from governmental knowledge, such as ideas from the new public management, as well as ideas and objects stemming from the field, including general assumptions on the behaviour of institutions and individuals. The two types necessary merge into the policy project, the knowing-how functions as the procedural knowledge part of the policy. What is disciplinary knowledge, and why is it important in our case? Some strong disciplinary traditions have gained access to ministerial departments from the beginning of the 2000 s. State knowledge (i.e. bureaucratic presumptions about who to be governed and how) have been replaced to a great extent by contesting sets of statements that have been formed in various disciplinary traditions (different sociological approaches, the somewhat reformed science of special education and psychology). That is to say, scientists and experts arrive into ministerial bodies ( postacademic researchers), or at least into important advisory positions, and try to push policy formation and implementation forward according to their own morphology of the social, formed by their respective disciplinary traditions, and according to their normative (often very political) position on issues such as segregation, inequalities, efficient pedagogical methods, etc. And while these competing knowledges were often articulated within academic settings for decades, now they serve as tools for political action (although they were never free of politics, for example, the analysis of the categorization of mental handicaps constituted a powerful critique of the communist regime [Berkovits & Oblath, 2008]). This is the point where the knowledge-policy constellation of expertise/advising becomes determinant. Although politics and policies in modern societies are always policies of knowledge with a claim for truth, it is was very unusual (in Hungary, at least) that academic disciplines (esp. sociology and psychology) can gain the significance and influence they gained in our field, which does not mean that they are put into practice as such. On the contrary, one can see a plethora of scientific approaches among 7 Called literally expert committees, patented for deciding whether or not a child has special educational needs and which school he/she has to attend. See: our Orientation 1 Report (Eröss et al 2007). 4

8 1. Introduction and between the different administrative bodies, which fail to communicate, furthermore, which even prescribe contradictory policy measures. This is due to the epistemological incongruences, to the diverging interests of knowledge brokers, to a lack of availability of good practices, to the inapplicability of available international good practice and sometimes also to different policy objectives. The diffusion of scientific thoughts and arguments in (special) education lead to the coexistence of incommensurable rationalities, i.e. scientific traditions that neither contradict nor converge. Which, in turn leads to the extension of the actors autonomy: they can make a strategic use of the scientific tradition which best fits with their interests and/or convictions. In this sense, at least at the street-level, evidence-based policy is rather an illusion. Every local case is a different case. Sometimes the policy objectives are the same, but the available knowledge content is different: the choice between scientific approaches is arbitrary and depends on many extra-scientific and also extra-policy factors (e.g. personal relationships, subjective preferences, access). Different scientists and experts try to figure out in what institutional forms would their knowledge become active in terms of concrete policy measures. Certain crystallized forms of interaction embody the disciplinary knowledge in the PA, or, in other words, actually accomplish the transformation process between science and politics, and lead to the emergence of formalized new knowledges (cf. Nassehi p. 5. and 8), which are a mixture of state and scientific knowledges. 5

9 2. Long stream. Prehistory of the from the last desk program 2. LONG STREAM. PREHISTORY OF THE FROM THE LAST DESK PROGRAM (FLDP) The prehistory as well as the consequences of the public action can be seen as a series of events, i.e. regulatory changes, structural changes and conceptual changes, or it can be interpreted as several parallel histories, each legitimately connected to, influencing or influenced by the program itself. This stems from the fact that the program had a mixture of interpretations and receptions, it was built upon hybrid knowledge, a mixture of bureaucratic and scientific discourse, and had distinct phases built upon different knowledge-policy constellations. It can be seen as a success, as well as a failure, as a turning point in the education of Roma/ SDS 8 / SEN children, as well as a sign of nochange. The different interpretations are lined up in a certain pattern. The pattern is determined by the position of the seven sets of actors 9, but it does not represent seven different stories. Mainly we see three identifiable stories by (1) policy makers, (2) independent social science researchers, and (3) researchers, practitioners in education and special education. The three types of stakeholders have different interests, goals and apply different discourses in interpreting the events. And while it is challenging to distinguish these three different viewpoints, we must acknowledge the weaknesses of this system immediately. We see personal overlaps: a special education expert can be/ is invited to participate in policy making at the ministry, and thus directly influences the course of events; a policy maker not only orders, but performs research on special education; independent researchers work as advisors at a background institute or directly in the ministry; experts on special education take part in the parliamentary debate on SEN, etc. In the policy formation all of these intersections, controversies and coalitions create hybrid knowledge which can t be related to any of the distinct knowledge areas. Moreover, these three different ways of story telling are not homogenous in themselves, there are strong debates within each field, and there are people as well as events who and which do not fit into the mainstream. For example the policy makers come from very diverse areas: Roma equality and civil rights background, special education background or public education policy background, or even directly, as far as the minister Magyar is concerned: from sociology. They sometimes perceive the course of events in contradictory terms. This example shows that the three pillars are not only interconnected, but they are not so clearly distinguishable from each other. 8 Socially disadvantaged students, see our Orientation 1 Report, and that of Hungary Education Decision makers and officials within the central state administration, 2. Politicians on different levels, 3. Local diagnostic service providers, 4. Background institutions, 5. Consultative bodies and civic actors, 6. Scientific experts, 7. Schools (school directors). See final report of Orientation 1, Hungary Health, pp

10 2. Long stream. Prehistory of the from the last desk program The alternating interpretations date back to the seventies, when two emblematic and much quoted research projects took place. The two studies came to very different conclusions and were embedded in different disciplinary and political settings. One of them, the so called Budapest-study led by a well-known medical geneticist represented a medical, remedial pedagogical approach in line with the political system (Czeizel et al.: 1978). The goal of the research was to describe the real reasons for mental disabilities. In the case of the Roma, the scientists claimed to have identified the multifactorialfamilial background responsible for mild mental retardation: not a primary genetic factor, but somehow inherited. Sociologists despite their politically subordinated situation took up this thread and attacked the results referring to another research, carried out approximately at the same time. In their interpretation the overrepresentation of Roma in special education is due to the selection/segregation mechanisms in education and the reproduction of inequalities. At the same time the other important aspect of the research was their intention to prove the non-egalitarian nature of the communist regime. The issue of the mis-categorisation (or mis-classification) of Roma pupils and placing them to special classes (with no possibility to continue on the secondary level and with a life-long stigma, as the educational status was printed in the personal identification documents) was raised. (Csanádi et al: 1978a, 1978b, 1983). Social science research when themes such as segregation, prejudice, social inequalities were concerned always mentioned the problem of education and the mis-diagnosis of Roma/ SDS children with SEN. Therefore sociologists kept their eye on the development of special education in Hungary and repeatedly expressed their concern about the practices. Nevertheless social science research targeting the issue of special education was scarce before the mid-1990 s when a systematic attack on the use of remedial education as a disguise of segregation began. This increased interest in the issue was connected to changes in the political context in which human rights issues became more widely discussed. It was also connected to the increased segregation in education due to the liberalization and decentralization of the education system, to the growing gap between socio-economic status and to demographic segregation. Social scientists drew their attention to the diagnosis of SEN as a means of segregation, and to the functioning of special education institutions and classes. (Forray, Hegedős T: 1991; Loss: 1996; Neményi: 2004; Bánfalvy: 2005). Jenı Kaltenbach, the ombudsman for minority rights initiated a national research in 1997 to get an updated picture of the situation of Roma children in segregated special education schools. In twenty years the rate of Roma children in these institutions doubled. Based on the research findings the following explicit goals were set forth in the governmental decree 1093/1997. (29 July): "to discover the problems connected to special education classes and schools, and the functioning of Placement Authorities, with the purpose of preventing this form of education to be the territory of unwanted segregation. (Kaltenbach: 1998). Note that in this case the government directly initiated research! However, this issue remained frozen for 4 years, until a change in government occurred in

11 2. Long stream. Prehistory of the from the last desk program Sociologists attacked especially the diagnosis of mild mental handicap, along with the segregationist practices associated with it (e.g. Loss: 1996; Neményi: 2004; Havas, Liskó: 2005). They took the category of mild mental disability as a camouflage of the fact that schools were unwilling to deal with a population considered to be more difficult. Diagnostic practices were presented as the interpreting medium of social disadvantages, which were simply transformed into quasi individual, psychological defects. This translation done by the educational mental health sciences 10 scientific legitimacy for social segregation. Their convictions had been formed long ago: 58 interviews were done among Roma students studying in higher education. It turned out that 8 of them were in serious danger when entering into first grade to be placed in a special school. [...] While from the beginning of the 90s there is a continuous decrease in the number of pupils studying in primary schools because there are less and less school age children, still there is a steady increase in the number of pupils going to special education, and the increase is especially big when the number of special classes in mainstream schools are concerned. And when we had a closer look at it in our research from 2000 it turned out that the rate of Roma was 84% in these special classes. Compared to 43% the rate of Roma in the mainstream/normal school, and 14-16% in elite classes. This is something serious. [...] It also happened that a Roma child just because s/he was poor was placed into special class without any examination. She could go back to normal class because her brother taught her and her sisters to read and write. Once in the class where 4 grades were learning together she was the only one who could answer to a question asked from fourth grade students. After some consideration she was put back into normal class. (G. Havas, sociologist 11 ) offered The motivation of social scientists dealing with social inequalities is clear, they wanted to point out the weaknesses of the system which produced and reproduced a systematic inequality of chances; they also wanted to contribute to the emancipation of Roma and to combat prejudice. The initial reaction of the remedial education field attempted to defend the status quo by stating that: - special pedagogy is tolerant and inclusive; - children diagnosed with SEN tend to achieve more in special schools than in mainstream education; - the education of special educators lets them more capable of dealing with different students than ordinary teachers; - it is not their role to judge the reasons why disability occurred, but to deal with it; 10 In line with the terminology used in the final report of Orientation 1, by this neologism we group together psychology, child neurology, child psychiatry, logopedics/speech therapy, and special (remedial) education. 11 Those whose names appear at the end of the quotations are all listed and individually presented at the end of the report (in the interviews/key actors part). 8

12 2. Long stream. Prehistory of the from the last desk program - It is not their role to reform the school system, but to offer the best education for their pupils. 12 These recurring statements still hold themselves we have come across these statements repeatedly in the interviews despite the fact that special education as a theory and practice have changed significantly. What is more interesting is that social scientists (Havas, Liskó: 2005), hearing these excuses, carried out a research precisely against these statements, in order to prove that special education cannot guarantee the professionalism which could possibly justify segregation and that special educators (remedial pedagogues) are lacking, etc. However, the field of special education also has a history of dealing with sociological issues and debates within the field about topics closely connected to inequalities, diagnostic bias and issues of integration/segregation. Therefore, in the history of the education of children with SEN we can identify: Sociological critique from outside : dealing with the education and special education system, school segregation, diagnosis of mild disabilities as a disguise of segregating Roma/SDS children. Sociological critique from inside : this approach within the special education field was originally very academic, and was not well received by the field, as it focused mainly on the same issues as the critique coming from outside did. It threatened the field of special education with a paradigm shift from an educational/psychological to a sociological focus. At the same time, leading special educators (Illyés, etc.) started to domesticate/ internalise the sociological perspective as early as in the 1970s. 13 Sociological critique also came from psychologists: The critique of psychology by a psychologist, but in a sociological perspective: [What I have always been interested in is] how psychological theories gain new meanings in a specific, given social situation including the policy of education. So how these psychological concepts are interpreted in the light of the social reality, [...] or the educational system (A. Kende) The debate on both sides was about segregation vs. integration/inclusion, real vs. false disabilities (as a result of misperception, bias, prejudice, or pressure for segregation coming from schools and/or middle-class parents), and high or low quality education according to social origin. 12 From interviews with members and heads of Placement Authorities, scholars of the Bárczi College for Special education. 13 Also, the core knowledge in the field has changed progressively: remedial pedadgogy became special education, the focus on biological aspects has been replaced by more complex approaches (incl. social aspects). 9

13 2. Long stream. Prehistory of the from the last desk program The contradiction between the sociological and special education perspectives is undoubtedly very significant in shaping the events which led to the public action. However, there is a third disciplinary group which influenced the prehistory of the program: psychology. Psychology was hardly interested in disability or special education. From the seventies on, it was first of all remedial specialists who found psychological approach useful, and trained themselves to understand psychological issues of disabilities (e.g. Á. Lányiné Engelmayer). 14 However, as IQ testing became an inherent part of the diagnosis of mental disabilities, psychology as a discipline, and psychologists themselves became involved in the diagnosis of SEN children. They represent the scientific authority in establishing special educational needs and in laying down the framework of diagnosis. All over Europe a multidisciplinary team of experts work on the diagnosis of children with SEN, rather than a single paediatrician, or a committee using a single factor (such as a serious delay in the reading age of the child) 15. As soon as psychological testing became a condition of placement, the dilemma of fair testing appeared as a central issue. Since 1974, when the network of Placement Authorities 16 was founded, the Bárczi College for Special Education 17 held regular meetings for members of the Committees to guarantee a high standard of diagnostic practice. These meetings were abandoned and became sporadic toward the 90s, parallel to a general decline in the infrastructure of these institutions. The central control and the issue of re-examination in connection with false diagnoses was not a completely new idea by the ministerial commissioner in From the 70 s on it was evident that measures have to be taken so that Roma children are not mis-categorised as mentally disabled. The ministry took the initiative. At that time the ministry still had the authority to control and maintained a strong supervisory system. [...] They checked the number of pupils sent to special classes and if they found that the number was higher than the expected average, the people in charge were seriously questioned and impeached. For many years, delegated by the ministry, I also participated in such quests where all the remedial educational institutes were inspected. I was in a committee which examined the Placement authorities: we went through their documentations and visited the field. We observed the children in those classes. There were a few pupils whom I spotted right there. Then I asked immediately for a drawing test. Then I said to the Placement Authority to examine if the child was disabled or not. (Á. Lányiné Engelmayer) 14 In addition, a number of psychologists became refugees for political reasons at the Bárczi Faculty for Special education (e.g. Vera Mérei), that could have thus contributed to the convergencies between the two disciplines. 15 See for example the Warnock report for England (Warnock: 1978) or Indicatiestelling 2002/2003 for the Netherlands. 16 Their name changed over time, they were originally called Replacement Authorities and later renamed as Expert Committees for the Examination and Rehabilitation of Learning Abilities (we call them Placement Authorities through the Report). 17 Up until 2001, there was only one higher education institute in Hungary, where teachers of special education were trained. The dominance of this institute in canonizing and mainstreaming knowledge is therefore unquestionable. 10

14 2. Long stream. Prehistory of the from the last desk program Street level bureaucrats obeyed at that time. The point is that this change in attitude (the attempts to reduce Roma students overrepresentation and misdiagnosis), although directly initiated by the Ministry, was already in the 1970s and 1980s based on sociological research findings (Illyés, Bass [eds] 1990, esp. Bass, Bánfalvy 1990 and Bánfalvy 1990) that had largely been incorporated by the leading special education scholars, but much less by the street-level practitioners like Placement Authorities, directors of special schools, etc.: The impact of the Zala study 18 was very interesting, since the first reaction of special educators was that this should be a mistake. This can t be true, this can t happen. If it still does then it is by accident. Well, it can happen that by mistake these children were placed there. Indeed, the documentation states that they are not mentally disabled and still they were put in special classes. [...] then they were shouted at for what had happened. When the sociologists proved that too many Roma children were replaced, then they behaved themselves, and from one year to another the number of mentally disabled children halved. On a national level. (Cs. Bánfalvy) The Zala county study worked as a revelation for most participants, key special education scholars: And we saw that among those Roma children who are obviously socially disadvantaged, where malnutrition and several health problems occur [...] the chance of being diagnosed mentally disabled was so high that is was absolutely unacceptable, I mean these diagnoses. (Leading special education scholar) Hungarian special educators even present themselves as pioneers in criticising discriminatory misclassification, Eastern-Europe-wide: 19 When famous leading Soviet researchers came and gave presentations, and I dared to ask about the socially disadvantaged and about children not mentally disabled but still attending special classes, their answer was simple. Such thing did not exist. Neither they nor the East-Germans admitted it. One of my articles was not accepted in East Germany since I was saying these things which did not fit into the picture of the (ideal) socialist school. It was at the end of the 1970s (Á. Lányiné E.) The yearly re-examination of children from 1 st to 4 th grade, and the two-yearly reexamination of older children was initiated by the Department of National and Ethnic Minorities of the Ministry of Education well before 2003, when they officially realized that special education (i.e. separate special schools and classes) was not only a dead-end street for children because the curriculum was reduced, but also because no chance was 18 The study was carried out in a South-West part of Hungary, in the county Zala. 19 Disproportionate representation relates to the extent to which students with particular characteristics (e.g., race, ethnicity, language background, socioeconomic status, gender, age, etc.) are placed in a specific type of educational program or provided access to services, resources, curriculum, and instructional and classroom management strategies? (Salend, Garrick Duhaney, & Montgomery, 2002). It is sometimes called disproportionality and includes both overrepresentation and underrepresentation. Overrepresentation occurs when the percentage of students from a specific group is higher than one would expect based on their prevalence in the general population of students. For example, African American and Native American students, particularly boys, are overrepresented in terms of their classification as students with three types of disabilities: learning disabilities, mental retardation, and emotional disturbance (Yates, 1998). (Jackson 2009) 11

15 2. Long stream. Prehistory of the from the last desk program given to return to mainstream education, as re-examination by Placement Authorities were in many cases overlooked. Moreover, the Ministry of Health issued a report on the situation of disabled and Roma population in light of the activities of Placement Authorities. The report happened to be co-authored by the ministerial commissioner who took over the Last Desk Program in The report pointed out serious problems and discriminatory practices in the functioning of Placement Authorities connected to their bad practice and with the dysfunctions of the education system (Dombainé et al. 2002). There is an overlap in the situation of SEN and Roma/ SDS children. When the compensatory per capita support was introduced by the first democratically elected government, at the beginning of the 1990s, it intensified the segregation of Roma children (Radó 2005). Smaller class size (the so-called development classes) for children with behavioural problems and milder dysfunctions (later: LBD) were introduced, with mostly Roma/ SDS children. And basically when the number of Roma/ SDS children reached a critical level, schools tended to introduce either some form of special education, or minority education depending the available support for one or the other (Babusik: 2001). Therefore the history of regulations prior to the public action was about shifts in per capita support to either enhance special or minority education. A partly institutionalised, partly informal SEN-field existed before 2002, such as we described it in details in our Orientation 1 Report (Oblath, Berkovits, Eröss 2007), it consisted of a strong informal network of a few public officers (present in the Ministry of Education, in its background Institutions Sulinova [later Educatio Public Company], the Institute for Public Education and the Chances for People with Disabilities Public Foundation [OFA]) 20 on the one hand, of special education scholars and Placement Authorities ( Expert Committees ) on the other. That is the state of the field when the paradigm shift came: State voluntarism ought to put the scandal an end: Hungary should be through with the overrepresentation of Roma/SDS in segregated settings and their labelling as handicapped. This was first perceived as a transgression and as an intrusion of sociological critique Idea stream. Transnational knowledge, advocacy groups and problem setting As Michel Callon (1994) shows it, problem setting is the process that allows heterogeneous actors to ponder questions they have agreed to work on together. [...] (1) it is necessary to name this something (this situation or purpose) that requires attention; (2) the something must be perceived as both problematical and manageable (the purpose must be recognised as legitimate and realistic) [...]. (Delvaux & Mangez 20 Also translated as: Public Foundation for Disabled Persons. It is the former Public Foundation for the Support of Handicapped Children and Pupils (also translated as National Public Foundation for the Remedial Education of Disabled Children and Students). 12

16 2. Long stream. Prehistory of the from the last desk program 2008: 70). There will be opportunities for problem setting because a situation can become a problem if it is associated (primarily through links of causality) to another problem that is recognised as such by a large group of actors. [...]. (Delvaux & Mangez 2008: 72) That is how the segregation of Roma/SDS in general, and their segregation in special schools and classes in particular has been associated first (in the period) to European and international standards of equity, desegregation and nondiscrimination to attain. In the official presentation of the program, explicit references were made to the EU, the UN, as well as to Save the Children [a US-based NGO], and the ECRE [a European Lobby Group for Roma Rights] (Ministry 2004). In the second period ( ), the association required for a successful problem setting was made to the country s poor PISA-results and high unemployment rates (Green Book 2008), the specific reasons for desegregating the SEN disappeared, though. At the time of the interviews, the actors looked back on the program retrospectively, putting coherence into the story, and highlighting facts which logically led to the introduction of the program. There were very few instances in which the coherence of the story was questioned. An interesting example of this consensus was the reference to the high rate of SEN children within the population in comparison with the other EU countries or the OECD average, which played a central role in publicly legitimating the program. Very few people questioned its importance in the story despite the fact that most people later acknowledged the irrelevance of this comparison when the categories do not overlap, when the actual consequences integration or segregation of labelling are not taken into account, and when this rate does not seem to correlate with the quality of the education systems. The Lisbon strategy by the European Council in March 2000, was set out roughly at the same time as the first PISA results shocked Hungary, both conveying the same message 21 : social inequalities disproportionally determine school performance and lifechances, schools today are unable to compensate for parents level of education, and the overall performance of schools are determined by the level of inequalities as already suggested by the fact that Hungarian children are hardly among the top performer countries, as previous testing suggested. EU reports and OECD recommendations were used as resources, references by those promoting the FLDP, mostly in order to legitimate pre-existing aspirations. The problem of false diagnosis and segregation of Roma children in special education institutions is not a Hungarian peculiarity. An increasing number of discrimination cases got publicity in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria, all of which are EU 21 However, this message was far from being explicitely delivered by the authors of the Lisbon strategy. Nonetheless, the EU s authority transformed it, in the eyes of many actors in the Hungarian field of education and special education, into an explicit recommendation. 13

17 2. Long stream. Prehistory of the from the last desk program countries today. 22 International NGOs have also focused on this issue in recent years (Amnesty International 2008; Stigmata 2004; Still separate, still unequal 2007; Equal Access to quality education for Roma 2008). Czech special schools, abolished by the 2005 amendment of the Education Act were attended by 90% of Roma students (in 1999, according to official sources it was only 75% 23 ). Nonetheless Hungary was condemned for this practice during the accession process to the EU, and there were other instances when international organizations mentioned Hungary s segregative practice. Former Roma rights activist, ministerial commissioner Mohácsi in charge of the FLDP, claimed this to be a result of a well organized Roma rights movement and not that of the disadvantageous situation of Roma in Hungary in comparison to other countries in the region. Partly related to the international human rights organisations, Roma advocacy groups and EU-requirements, partly independent from them, a large number of associations and advocacy groups prepared the terrain of the policy. From 2002 advocates, former human rights activists, civilians attained high levels of positions in bureaucracy and after being appointed to the public office still maintained the contact with their former networks: I worked in the National and Ethnic Minority Legal Aid Office Legal Defence Bureau for National and Ethnic Minorities [NEKI] before, I know what work they do; they take a lot of discriminatory cases, their experiences are very important for us. [...] We call each other; if there s any problem we discuss it. By the way the legal adviser (jurist) who s working for us sometimes is also working for them. So there is this kind of connection between the two organisations. We have contacts with Chance for Children Foundation (CFCF). Moreover we know the Integrator Foundation and the Roma Education Found...plus there are plenty of Roma organizations in the country whom we have contacts with. Mainly those ones connected to the local minority self-governments. (Decision-maker, Ministry of Education) International influence is also detectable in the independent development path of special pedagogy. By independent, we mean that these changes were not connected to the immediate sociological critique, but rather to the changing terminology of disability, to the shift from segregative to integrative practices. Looking at the references to good international practices, policy makers, experts only make superficial references to Finland or Scandinavian countries, a culturally, demographically, politically and economically very different part of Europe. This is the terrain where the lack of knowledge is most comprehensible, as ad hoc references to good practices from the US and from other European countries are rarely connected to a thorough understanding of the situation. (See: the Comparison Zones 8 and 9). 22 The best known case is the children in Ostrava, reaching the European Court of Human Rights. See also Apartheid in the heart of Europe: how Roma children lose out on education, by Ian Traynor, The Guardian, 16 November, 2007, 23 Czech Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, CERD/C/372/Add.1, 14 April,

18 2. Long stream. Prehistory of the from the last desk program The evolution of the program indicates that very little knowledge is imported from and exported to Europe. Hungary as a knowledge regime stands on relatively solid grounds, the knowledge-policy connection has a very specific Hungarian nature, in which local sociological knowledge played a predominant role in setting up the program, and where local practices and knowledge accumulated from practice in the field of remedial pedagogy remained central all throughout. A terrain where internationally imported knowledge played a particularly significant part was psychological testing, in which the legitimacy of a new test introduced as part of the program was justified by its international reputation. But the PA has a larger international context too. Worldwide, there are three concerns about the disproportionate representation of socially disadvantaged and/or minority students in segregated schools: (1) Students may be unserved or receive services that do not meet their needs, (2) Students may be misclassified or inappropriately labelled, (3) Placement in special education classes may be a form of discrimination (Sharonda 2009). This was exactly the case in Hungary: therefore, the overrepresentation of the Roma led policy-makers from 2003 on, to (1) revise the services offered in SEN- Education, to (2) mainstream students from segregated settings into normal education, and to (3) reduce the risk of discriminatory misclassification by renewing the screening and testing methods. 15

19 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action 3. POLICY STREAM. EVENTS OF THE PUBLIC ACTION According to the Ministry s official standpoint (expressed in 2006), the FLDP s main objective was to reduce the rate of SEN children in order to converge with the EUaverage, and to reduce the overrepresentation of disadvantaged and Roma children in special schools and classes. The program and its main objectives figured also in the Lendületben az ország [A country in motion] Government Program, as it was recalled 4 years later by the Ministry of Education (2006b). Thus, the objective was a double one: less SEN-children in general, and less segregated Roma/SDS children among the SENstudents Sociologists, doctors and special educators: the diagnosis issue The official justification of the public action relied on the following arguments 24 : 1. The rate of children living with disabilities in most EU countries was around 2.5%, while this number was 5.3% in Hungary in In 1993 (the last year when ethnic origin was registered by schools) 42% of SEN/disabled children were Roma, while the proportion of Roma in the overall population was around 5 to 10%. 3. In a North-Eastern county 94% of the children studying in segregated special education schools were Roma in 1996 (Loss: 1996). 4. A report of the ombudsman for minority rights pointed out that Roma origin is sometimes explicitly used as the reason for attributing the SEN status. 5. Research suggests that centralized, county-maintained special education institutions may be able to provide an acceptable standard of education, but special classes of normal/mainstream schools, which are the predominant forms of education where Roma/ SDS children being diagnosed with SEN study hardly satisfy the minimum legal requirements regarding the size of the class, teachers qualification and material equipment. 6. Research also showed serious territorial disparities: huge differences between counties, between cities, between villages See the summary of the program on the website of the Ministry of Education: these are also the recurring arguments presented in the interviews with policy makers and the mixed tank (see: CZ 5) of the two ministerial commissioners V. Mohácsi and G. Daróczi. 25 See below and see interviews of G. Bernáth and Cs. Bánfalvy. 16

20 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action Logically, all of these data and research imply that either the conditions for being diagnosed with a disability are more sensitive than in most other European countries, or Roma children are often misdiagnosed as SEN, or both. Further that SEN diagnosis of Roma children is primarily a means of benevolent segregation, rather than the source of providing special and individual help for overcoming the diagnosed problems. From this perspective, the program was clearly targeted toward false diagnosis of Roma/ SDS children. It was coordinated by the National Network for Integrated Education (NNIE [OOIH]). Curiously enough soft misdiagnosis leading to soft segregation was completely out of focus: the decision makers didn t address either the issue of LBD children (with learning difficulties but no disabilities ), nor that of the grey zone (Csányi 2007), the children who are believed to be SEN by their own teachers, without actually holding any official label (Eröss 2008b), nor that of the students placed in segregated speech therapy classes 26 ; the former two were the concern of the MPPCs and the later one that of national level Placement Authorities. The FLDP only targeted the county (NUTS3)/microregion level Placement Authorities. In a later phase of the PA however, some awareness of the role of school psychologists (Katona 2008) and the MPPC appeared; Csépe addressed these issues in the Green Book (2008), a specific training program was designed for the MPPCs (Molnárné 2008) and the role of the school psychologists (Glauber 2007 in Csányi et al) was redefined in one of the publications supported by the National Development Plan s HRD OP 2.1.1/B. The Figure 8 in the appendix illustrates well the results of this: since nobody told the kindergartens/schools to not to send (more and more) children believed to be SEN, or just in case to the Placement Authorities, the pressure on these (in the form more and more children sent by the pedagogues) increases, independently from whatever they learn in the framework of the EU-financed trainings. * * * The policy action began with a conference: Mohácsi chose the Bárczi Faculty for Special Education to present her program and called to an end of misdiagnosis: In December 2002 she came to me with the intention to ask my help for organising a conference. The idea was choking, because she wanted the Bárczi Faculty of Special Education to provide place for the conference. Then I was the 26 In case of speech therapy matters the National Supervisory Board is in charge, in case of an appeal it is the National Speech Therapy Committee who is in charge. This has never happened though. Indeed, as far as I can see parents are even happy if their child is diagnosed with a speech disability because then at least he/she will be placed in a special speech therapy/logopedic class. [Question: So such an appeal has never occurred for the past years?]. No, not one against the logopedic department. (Education Officer of a Budapest district) 17

21 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action deputy dean [ ] She asked us to invite the heads and the colleagues of the Placement Authorities [expert committees]. All people working in the committees graduated from the faculty so it is a strong appeal if it comes from the faculty. (Here) Mohácsi for the first time emphasized their responsibility in the diagnostical process. The participants tolerated very badly that the keynote speaker of the conference quite openly as a prosecutor called them to account, their responsibility in why there is an overrepresentation in the number of the mild mental disability, and within this number the high rate of Roma and socially disadvantaged children. (Á. Torda) The Placement authorities (expert committees ) reaction is best illustrated by this letter, addressed by a member of a Placement Authority to B. Magyar, the minister: We were referred in the Government s Program as experts who UNDULY proposed special education for children. This labelling with CAPITAL letters as an advertisement was even published in the daily newspapers. Do we deserve such a negative label for doing something (highly) acknowledged in the field of pedagogy and special education? The public action linked the segregation of Roma/ SDS children to the problems with the diagnostic process. Unsurprisingly, the Minister s and the Commissioner s advisors (mainly sociologists: Havas, Liskó, etc.) conviction converged with that of the public officers in charge of the Program representing the SDS-line and/or having a Human rights or Roma rights activist background. 27 Gábor Havas, a sociologist, even reached the status of a meta-expert: Meta-expertises are expertises used to judge other expertises. There are two kinds of meta-expertise: external meta-expertise, which does not turn on acquisition of the expertise itself, and internal meta-expertise, which does involve an acquaintance with the substance of the expertise being judged. (Collins & Evans 2007: 45). In this case, he is an external meta-expert, because he s not a special education scholar (although he considers the educational system, incl. special education as a whole). Moreover some non-sociologists, coming from the heart of the special education field have started, slowly, but surely, to converge towards the equal chances/desegregation of SEN. They were either teachers in special schools, or worked in the Ministry and its background institutions (Orosz, Kıpatakiné, Kapcsáné, and Réz) or were lecturers at Bárczi Gusztáv Faculty for Special Education of the ELTE University, where Csaba Bánfalvy introduced the sociology of special education, and connected the Special education sector to European research networks on inclusion. 28 Sociology didn t only arrive from outside in the field; a professor of the Bárczi Faculty for Special Education, Csaba Bánfalvy introduced it already in the eighties, by creating the sociology of special education, opening a new, critical perspective from within special education and participating as a sociologist in the Faculty s research activities: 27 SDS-line = Those focusing on the socially disadvantaged students -issue, see: our Orientation 1 Report. 28 The most recent example is the INCLUD-ED project (EU FP6, ): Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe from education, 18

22 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action I called the sociology of special education into being. I wrote a text-book, I made the syllabus, I put the subject together and I started teaching it. [...] I participated in plenty of international and national surveys [...] analysing special education from different sociological approaches. Among these, one of the first and most important was the so-called Zala study led by Sándor Illyés with two main issues in focus: placement to special schools and counter-selection. [...] In the team where I was the sociologist other disciplines were also represented: psychology and special pedagogy. The approach was in itself quite shocking for the special education field and when we said that the special schools assist in fact to counter-selection on a societal level the resistance was even bigger. [...] It s Sándor Illyés s merit that a sociologist was let to participate in the Zala study. He knew that a disabled person is not just somebody described by numbers: height, weight and IQ, he is an individual with a family, living under certain conditions and leading some kind of social life, plus he knew how children end up in special schools, what the procedure is like and what are the factors on which one s chance to be placed there depend (Cs. Bánfalvy) The first reactions expressed were the total refusal of the sociological perspectives and the works of sociologists (Ladányi, Csanádi & Gerı, and later Neményi & Kende); even people active inside the SEN-field (Orosz, Bánfalvy) were rejected for decades: And when for the first time I presented the results of the Zala study to headmasters of the special schools they were very hostile. [...] Special pedagogy is based on special pedagical principles and it is merely by chance that these schools are full of Roma and poor children. This has nothing to do with counter-selection. This was too much for them to handle and felt that they were being accused of some kind of racism. (Cs. Bánfalvy) Still at Bárczi Gusztáv Faculty for Special Education I had troubles with my dissertation. [...] where I wrote about the structure of intelligence, its stability and instability, and where I criticized the present instruments measuring intelligence for being culturally biased. (L. Orosz) Indeed, the critique of psychodiagnostical methods was not without antecedent either; the 1999 modification of the 1994 Public Education Act restricted the diagnostic process by reinforcing the 70 points IQ threshold for mild mental disabilities, as opposed to the previous practices where the average threshold was 86 points. 29 While the IQ test was supposed to be only one of the numerous aspects of the complex (psycho)diagnostic procedure in the Placement Authorities, decision makers spotlighted the IQ threshold because the everyday diagnostic practices neglected they believed the other components. They considered that time pressure leads Placement Authorities to focus on the easiest, fastest (and most problematic measure), the IQ. Moreover, a stronger emphasis was expected to be placed on the medical background of the diagnosis on mental disabilities, setting up the criteria for medical screening of the child before appearing at the Placement Authorities. First of all, doctors were supposed to keep record of the children from the age of 0 (this is an idea that will reappear in the early child development policy): 29 See the summary of the program on the website of the Ministry of Education: 19

23 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action For the placement examination the policy measure should be defined in such a way that it can lead to intersectoral cooperation. The paediatrician is kindly asked to keep a medical record on each child s development. We achieved that the Hungarian Medical Chamber eventually agreed, we organised trainings so today there is a medical record kept for every child on which the expert committee relies. I think it is an important improvement because in this way it is easily verifiable if the problem has any organic origin or not. (L. Orosz) The role of the doctors improved to a large extent. During the Last desk program, we developed a method together with the Ministry of Health that prior to the actual placement procedure or the examination; each child must bring a certificate from the paediatrician which documents all the medical supervision s/he received from birth. We discovered that many children had never been to a paediatrician. (Psychologist/ remedial specialist advisor to the Last desk program, Á. Torda) The same policy measure, conceived as a guarantee, is presented by the Placement authorities as a precondition of any further examination and indeed it seems to have some effect: There is a decrease [in the number of SEN-pupils in the first grades] due to strict controlling. To be more precise, the Act introduced in 2005 stated that any child passed five in 1 st of September 2005 cannot appear in front of us unless s/he brings this medical record [...] without this document and information we cannot examine the child. So if it is not attached to the application, the child cannot get an appointment unless the document is received. Once we get it, our specialist goes through it, and then comes the psychological and special educational examination. (Head of a Placement authority in Eastern Hungary) Doctors and medical diagnosis have always been part, at least theoretically, of the examination carried out by Placement Authorities. But because it was difficult to ensure medical presence, and because there was a lack of unified protocol, the medical examination was often overlooked. The public action made an effort to replace medical examination into the process. There should be a doctor in the Expert Committee (Placement Authority). This was implemented by Andor Ürmös from the Ministry of Health back in 2001 [...] he got it through. [...] in the modification process of the Act everybody tried to build in the system as many policy measures as possible to guarantee that a child would not to be misdiagnosed for mental disorders any more. The Ministry of Health introduced medical screening, treat it as a physiological problem and assign an ICD code to it. But as I said this is Hungary, so how the system will be actually implemented is a completely different question. [...] Theoretically this means, if the diagnosis is strictly based on physiological grounds and it is diagnosed by the doctor then it would be impossible for anyone to be diagnosed as SEN without any organic mutation. Then we saw that the doctor -physically- was not sitting there during the examination [...] the child with the papers in hand is sent to her/him, he has a look at it then puts his/her signature on it and that s it (G. Daróczi) An important aspect of redesigning the examination process itself was to put greater emphasis on the role of physicians within the Placement authority (the expert committee): Doctors were not always present during the first examination. We on the other hand [during the re-examination] insisted that a doctor has to be present. So they participated in the program, doctors of the expert committees were there at the reexamination of the 2200 children. But their knowledge and experiences were too diversified to be able to form a coherent group out of them. (Á. Torda) 20

24 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action This has two different interpretations: first, it was aimed at guaranteeing the objectivity of diagnosis, on the basis of natural sciences, second: the decision makers, advised by sociologists, sought for a counter-power within the Placement Authorities, to counterbalance remedial/psychological experts and expertise. However, the implementation is knotty: I truly wonder how many children were actually examined by child psychiatrists, since there are hardly any in the country. In Szabolcs county there used to be one, who recently moved. (Public Officer, member of the mixed tank ) The overall tendency of the change in protocol was not only to unify the procedure, but to create a more scientific medical and psychometric base of SEN diagnosis. And while social scientists were the first to criticize the lack of scientific basis of SEN diagnosis, they remained the most sceptical about the paradigm shift which eventually took place in the diagnostic procedure, stating that there is no guarantee for an attitude change, psychometrics will never be independent of cultural background, nor impartial and objective. 30 However, this, as an undesired policy-effect could have led to the practice of overdiagnosis. At least, there was a risk that with the new financing (only severe cases, the SEN A, defined as of organic origin were to receive financial support) the diagnostic institutions would be pushed towards the excessive use of hard (SEN a/ organic ) categories and thus inhibit inclusion. The possibility of this risk wasn t perceived by any relevant actor at that time (the Ministry realised it in 2006, as the number of dyslexic students rose brutally; it s also in the focus of V. Csépe s analysis in 2008 [see: critical episode]); nonetheless, this measure was attacked by SENprofessionals because it threatened the Placement authorities autonomy understood as granted by the dyadic relation of special educators (remedial pedagogues) and psychodiagnostics. In the first period of the Public action there was an open conflict between the Ministry and the Placement authorities the latter trying to invoke various authorities, the WHO among them: There is no reason why medical diagnosis should be so much emphasized. To prove this point we insert/copy the definition of the WHO from 2001 here which clearly states how special educational needs should be understood worldwide. (Special educator, leader of a civic organisation) It was an astute strategy to invoke an uncontested (incontestable) transnational actor from the Health-field to contest the growing role of health-professionals in special education. 30 Although the new protocol put down a conflict of interests rules as well, stating that members of the Placement Authorities cannot be in hired by the schools to which they send children. 21

25 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action As far as the service side of the program is concerned, special education schools and classes were expected to meet the legally established standard of education by And in order to prevent false diagnosis of children, a general overview, development of the functioning, diagnostic protocol and quality assurance of the Placement Authorities were set forth: The quality assurance of the expert committees was set forth. [ ] different courses, coaching, team building, trainings, courses and teamwork was in progress and as a positive result a protocol was created [ ] a protocol was created for the quality assurance, plus since we were always criticized for using outdated tests, a new test, named WISC was introduced. Two of my colleagues already use this protocol, this psychodiagnostic test. (Placement Authority, Western Hungary) In the heart of the PA, we can identify a core team, what we would call a mixed tank (see also Comparison Zone Nr 5): the ministerial commissioner (and her successors), two or three sociologists acting as advisors (G. Havas, I. Liskó, etc.), two or three special education scholars who joined them, and a few very committed public officers who adopted the sociological perspective (G. Sárközi, G. Bernáth, etc). The sociologists concerned conduct postacademic research (Erıss, Szívós, Gárdos and Berkovits 2008): they are eminent scholars, who became quasi policy-makers and act as experts, most of their researches are directly policy-oriented. It s not only a group of advisors mobilised by the Ministry: there is a close cooperation between public office holders and experts. Even more importantly, the sole knowledge the ministry keeps a quasi monopole of, is also mobilised: the knowing how (Ryle, 1949) or procedural knowledge (Anderson, 1989; quoted in: Delvaux & Mangez 2008: 171); this kind of knowledge is represented by the core team s public officers on the one hand, and the person of J. Szüdi (State Secretary for decades) who always knew how to block or how to help Mohácsi and her team, how to translate ideas into paragraphs (law). When he decided to join Mohácsi, it was one of the most decisive moments of the PA, she said, because he knew how to do the policy The 2003 re-examination. Mainstreaming the pseudo-retarded Beside these restrictions and developments, an immediate action was initiated, to reexamine all second grade SEN students (aged approximately 7/8 years) diagnosed with mild mental disability. The re-examination took place in 2003, when 2200 children were re-examined. The first rule was that the child had to be examined by a different person, not the one doing the examination for the first time. As a second rule an independent expert was present during the examination. The team led by Torda tried to find and train experts who didn t participate (regularly) in the examining process but nonetheless had experience with children (early child development, etc.). The experts were selected and trained for this task by the Ministry; the training was led by Á. Torda: Training [...] the only way to achieve a standard viewpoint; we went through specific cases, the same case was given to all, then by discussing about it one found out how the others think, analyse and get to the conclusion. We spent days to find mutual positions. (Á. Torda) 22

26 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action As a result, 222 children (11%) were replaced; more precisely they got a green light to be replaced into mainstream schools. However, those so-called independent experts were not necessarily so; sometimes, despite the rules, the same experts participated in issuing the new, independent diagnosis; moreover: Now go and find an independent diagnostician [...] It was just in vain to send them from one county to another; this is a small country with a small sandbox. There is no such thing as independent expert or psychologist. They don t seem to know that they are embedded in the system. Their decision is biased by their knowledge: when they decide if a child can go back to mainstream/normal school: What kind of school? - They ask. (L. Orosz) This data was used for as well as against the program: is 11% almost nothing or is it a lot? Is it nothing because the critique was unjustified and no false diagnoses occurred; or because the Placement Authorities sabotaged the Reform? Yet a completely different interpretation was also possible; according to this, the results proved that the special educators (the practitioners, not the Placement authorities!) were successful in that they helped a number of children to go back to mainstream/normal school. The 11%, a not too high rate, was appreciated by the Placement Authorities, as it proved the correctness of their screening practices. Also, they noticed with satisfaction that a number of re-placed children want to stay in the special school or class: Then we examined about 200 or 300 such children and re-placed four to primary school and who are all back by now in the special school. Out of the four replaced children all of them applied for a new examination because they could not co-op for one reason or another. In two cases it were the parents who were determined to put the children back because they had enough of the primary school. One even appealed against our decision. I think by and large the reason we had to do the reexamination for was not really worth it. (Head of Placement Authority) In addition, as the Figure 12 (see: Appendix) shows, the re-examination results were very close to those of the first examination; neither the independent experts (theoretically) present during the re-examination, nor the different test-concuctor increased the average test record; only the interpretation of the results changed, following the more or less incorporated new line, i.e. the preference for desegregation/inclusion (Bass 2008). We detect a general disappointment by the social scientists side, who are sceptical about the independency of the examiners, about testing in general, and presume that more children are falsely diagnosed with SEN. Politicians and knowledge brokers directly connected to the program or to the ministry express a cautious satisfaction with the rate, saying that it proved the necessity of this program, and it had a psychological effect on Placement Authorities, who started to become more careful in their examination routine. As they felt the control of the authorities, everybody started to be afraid and the rate of SEN children started to fall drastically. (L. Orosz) Although the public action attempted to distinguish itself from the general aim of desegregation (of Roma/SDS children) from the beginning, Mohácsi s activities in 23

27 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action influencing the legal regulations, and her explicitly declared mission kept the program connected to the desegregationist paradigm. But, in a way, the desegregationist paradigm itself split into two distinct paradigms: integration (of Roma/SDS children) on the one hand 31 and inclusion (of SEN children) on the other. The aim was the same: put a stop to exclusion and segregation, but neither the knowledge used and mobilised to attain it, nor the regulatory steps were the same. There were also parallel (but similar) HRD OPs for the two. We knew that the best way to treat this question would be if it became a coherent part of the public education system. And this is what we actually did: in all Operative Programs there will be SEN modules, there will be SEN elements and syllabus with specific SEN contents. Project pedagogy as part of a training programme, for example [...] and how this can be applied in student groups where there are SEN students. [...] Same applies to programme-packages [e.g.] the competence based education can be a really good mean to mainstream SEN children together. (J. Kapcsáné Németi) In addition, the outcome couldn t be measured in terms of Roma/SDS-desegregation, precisely because the explicit target group wasn t the Roma/SDS, but the SEN. As one of the impact studies (Torda [ed.] 2008) authors put it: Unfortunately the most important data referring to the socio-economic status of the children are not available: neither do we know if they live in socially disadvantaged families nor if they are Roma children. (L. Bass 2008: 114). The course of the events during and after the program however, shows a shift in focus from desegregation of Roma/ SDS children to the establishment of integrated and also inclusive pedagogy of SEN children, placing special education and the normal pedagogy to be reformed (to be capable of using special education tools) at the centre. Some parents didn t accept the replacement decision from fear of stigmatization, from previous negative/bad experiences with mainstream/normal schools, or simply because of being generally satisfied with the current situation. This parental attitude is frequently referred as a proof of the intolerance of mainstream schools in the interviews by members of Placement Authorities or special education scholars and is quoted in previous studies (e.g. Kende: 2005). This is how Cs. Bánfalvy describes the mechanisms, the disturbing resistance of the target population: In FLDP the Expert Committee [Placement Authority] affirms that the Roma child is not mentally disabled, s/he should not go to special class. Hundreds of requests are written, parents still prefer if their child goes to special class. These are the arguments: free books and meals. Because these schools are free. It has to be considered, they live in the 8 th district. All the other Roma children go there: their neighbours, their siblings, plus their parents also went there. They know the teacher. There is nothing like writing notes home or be bugged for being dirty again. This school is tolerant. Children don t mock each other, it is near home and many other similar advantages for which in the short run the poor parent will plead to put the child in special school for the mentally disabled. At that point you 31 See: Hungary Education s reports 24

28 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action can preach that in the long run this will worsen the chances of getting jobs and social integration, he wouldn t even know what you are getting at. Well there is nothing to eat at home. Here the food is free and his sibling goes there as well (Cs. Bánfalvy) Or is it rather the resistance of the schools? The question remains open since no systematic research has been conducted on these mechanisms. Another objective mostly after 2004, when G. Daróczi replaced V. Mohácsi in the office of the ministerial commissioner was a rather classical bureaucratic set of measures, with the aim of reinforcing the law, based on a research (an inquiry see also in the Comparison Zone 5) conducted by sociologists or sociologically inspired officials (an almost-sociologist from within, Gábor Bernáth and a senior researcher from the Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences, main advisor of all equal opportunity programs, Gábor Havas) under the auspices of the Ministry. The study served as a catalyst and as a regulation tool: The Ministry of Education conducted a research in mainstream/normal schools with separate SEN classes; roughly about 400 schools were included. [...] The main finding was that in one third of the 400 schools the problem was not with the SEN children but rather with the lack of keeping the instructions of the Public Education Act. According to the regulation the number of grades that can be merged is limited to 3. [What is found instead] is that in one third of the schools the number of grades merged was 4 or 8. (In the 21st century!) (Former Ministerial Commissioner, G. Daróczi) The trespasses are easy to see, the number of grades put together is more than what is permitted, or there are no special educators and there will never be, etc. And we still support and finance this. This is a question of control; the issue is how these subsidies are squandered in a country. (G. Bernáth) Now I know G. Bernáth thought of and accomplished a very important thing. He was promoting that [the programme] should include researching and with G. Havas in a few counties they inquired the personal and material circumstances of those special classes which were part of the ordinary schools. [...] The impact of this study was dramatic and turned out to be so convincing that it supported the need for supervision and our suggestions for revised regulations, so this was a turning point in the course of the programme. (Á. Torda) And this is how knowledge obtained through research became a policy tool: through its top-down diffusion, from central government down to intermediary level State officials and the municipalities; the latter are autonomous, but their notaries are in charge of making the law prevail and thus sensitive to this kind of anomalies: We sent the Bernáth-Havas study to the head officials of the counties administrative offices and to the notaries of the municipalities concerned. (L. Orosz 2008: 80) Even more classical bureaucratic-legal interventions followed: In the academic year 2004/2005 led by the Educational Authority there was an inquiry in 25 settlements in BAZ and Pest counties among schools/classes where children with mild mental disabilities were taught. It focused on how the professional and administrative tasks are fulfilled as far as equal opportunities were concerned. (Molnárné 2008: 37-38). 25

29 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action The inquiry (called research by its authors) concerned all special classes in both counties. One of the two counties had a proportion of 94% (!) of Roma pupils in the special classes (according to previous research [Loss 1995]): This was a research led by the Ministry. We were particularly interested in to see what kind of mistakes are done throughout the placement examination process for example if the re-examination was done in time, if there are the doctors signatures on the medical report and to see the type of education recommended by the expert committees [...] 50% of the children were not re-examined in time, there were hardly any signatures (..) the recommendations whether the education should be integrated or segregated were indicated with extreme innovative techniques. This sentence sounded like this: XY pupil s education can be done under integrated/segregated conditions, with slash, and then none of the words was underlined. [...] I reckon it a failure that in 2-3 months all missing examinations were done, this means that they were done paper wise. It is impossible to examine so many children properly in such a short period. Anyhow they pulled themselves together. Since then in that county the expert committee was changed, the head replaced. (Public Officer, Ministry of Education, member of the mixed tank ) Changes in the definition of SEN Legal regulations Along with the need for professionalism, the re-definition of SEN needed to take place. Since SEN is not merely a scientific, but also a regulatory and statistical category, its changes over time cannot be understood without these terms. The political agenda would like to find a SEN definition which 1) would reduce the number of SEN children and the financial expenditures related to SEN, 2) create the basis of a financial support for those who are really in need of extra care, 3) did not enhance social segregation. Statistical data show that this was not achieved so far, according to an officer responsible for the HRD OP program on the integration of SEN students (J. Kapcsáné Németi): In about 6 thousand children were diagnosed with psychological development disorder, in this number has gone up to 22 thousand. See annex Nr 9, the paradox of the communicating vessels. However, there is a contradiction between the three objectives. Hard segregation of SEN slightly diminished (see: appendix, Figure Nr 7, 9, 10 and 11), while soft segregation, not based on official SEN-status, but the alleged learning-difficulties rose, although exact data are not available (Eröss 2008b). To put it differently, the actual aim was not to reduce SEN numbers, but to reduce hard segregation; and this has been achieved. The attention paid to redraw the boundaries of the categories without doubt has to do with financing. So far central authorities did not control the use of per capita financing that can be requested for the education of SEN children, but various experts started to criticise that there is no guarantee for this money to be spent on the education of the actual SEN child, nor it is ensured that the money is spent on special education services in the specific school, moreover it is not certain either that the school receives the money 26

30 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action from the municipality. From this perspective SEN categorization would lose its significance, if financial support was more service oriented, as promoted by some critical thinkers. 32 The adoption of the OECD categorization was not an option for the Last Desk Program, because its original goal was to enhance desegregation by proving that SEN categorization of Roma/ SDS children were often false. Category C, referring to social disadvantage as a source of special educational needs was therefore not acceptable for policy makers. 33 The OECD categorization is mostly promoted by knowledge brokers whose intention is to introduce international standards into education (Csányi 2007a). And while most actors do not support the adoption of these categories, the SEN-line (see Orientation 1 Report) often refers to the need to adopt the OECD standard in the future. The WHO categorization and other less rigid definitions are preferred by scholars affiliated with the college of special education. Scepticism and fear are both prevalent in the debate over SEN definition: SEN with all its subcategories opens up very dangerous paths. (Researcher and advisor to the HRD OP program on Roma / SDS integration, Havas). This is reflected in the numerous changes in the regulations. This fear has to do with the history of special education that categorization is more likely to be used against than for the child, and categorization is more likely to be stigma than an aid for differential treatment (See Eröss: 2008). The other disabilities term did not change for ten years after its introduction in 1993, as a category for children with learning, behavioural and psychological disorders. Other disabilities was often considered to be the pseudonym for the false classification of Roma/ SDS children 34, just like mild mental disability. In the 2003 modification of Public Education Act, special educational needs (SEN) were the new term to replace disability. This modification created two groups of children entitled to per capita financial support: 1. Students with special educational needs are those with physical, sensory, mental (including learning disability), speech and other (including autism, partial disabilities, dyslexia, hyperactivity) disabilities. ( SEN A ) 2. Students with adaptation, learning and behavioural difficulties. ( SEN B ) 32 E.g. in the interview with L. Orosz. 33 Not to mention the negative connotations of labelling socially disadvantaged children with the letter C (the first letter of the word cigány, the equivalent of Gypsy in Hungarian) which served as a means of segregation in the past in various social settings, i.e. schools, hospitals, workplaces. 34 It was also a category based on which special need schools for the middle class were organized, described by the head of the HRD OP Roma integration programs, as the Rosehill segregation (Rózsadomb, Rosehill is a well-known upper-class neighbourhood in Budapest). 27

31 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action While the category in focus of the PA, mild mental disability (SEN A) slightly decreased, the total number of SEN increased significantly, from 3.6% in the school-year to 5.1% in , because of the extraordinary growth of SEN B (See: Appendix) The 2004 modification did not address the definition of SEN, but restricted the group of children who can attend segregated schools to only those with severe and organic disabilities, and required that the placement decision should be accompanied by a medical questionnaire. In 2006 the disorder of psychological development is taken out of the SEN category in a modification of the Public Education Act, as this was the most rapidly increasing category and this had the blurriest borders (Erıss 2008). The 2007 modification of Public Education Act made the distinction between disabilities with organic and non-organic origin. Any expert diagnosis by Placement Authorities requires the approval either of a psychiatrist or child neurologist. This modification can certainly be attributed to the efforts of the SDS line, which turned its attention to SEN for the purpose of desegregation and doing justice to falsely diagnosed Roma/ SDS children. This distinction was important mainly to discourage SEN diagnosis and therefore reduce and concentrate the financial support for SEN children. The initiative that only organic disability is entitled for state provided financial support was prevented by the active participation of a Department head of the College for Special Education in the parliamentary debate: The lawmaking body can naturally determine and define who belongs to the category of special educational needs, because this is a means of regulations, but this would unfavourably affect the schooling and the development of those children who belong to category B. (Leading special education scholar, excerpt from debate at the Parliamentary Committee on Education, 2007). The special educators asked themselves: What did the policymakers have in mind? The passage about the distinction between organic and non-organic origin is under revision currently, and will be removed from the law. However it is interesting to see how this concept became part of the law, and how it is viewed by different actors. The distinction between organic/ non organic origin is not considered accurate by any knowledge holder, but it became the law. The distinction is interpreted differently by different actors. Main actors support the distinction (with reservations), because it is politically necessary in this intermediate period when desegregation is the goal of policy: Today we are in a developmental phase, when it is necessary to put organic origin into the regulation. But this is not going to stay this way, this is a temporary solution, and its regulatory effect can be well understood. This is to say that when we became members of the European Union, the rate of disabled children in public education was 5.3%, and while everyone made an effort to reduce this number, it has gone up to 6.4. Thus we had to be really direct that the organic origin is a precondition of declaring disability (Á. Torda) 28

32 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action 2) The distinction is rejected by researchers and practitioners in the SEN field, psychologists and special educators alike, because it cannot be accurately defined with the scientific methods available today: Many competent doctors say that if we want to discover the organic origin of a disability, a more complex examination in a hospital should be carried out. (Special education scholar involved in the WISC-IV implementation) In 60-70% of the cases, the organic origin of mild mental disabilities cannot be detected with the available procedure, even with scientifically based methods. (Head of a Placement Authority, Southern Hungary) 2b) Furthermore SEN status is not a scientific category, but rather a statistical/regulatory one. This critique is also found in the article on SEN children in Green Book on the Renewal of Public Education 35 : The ill-advised dichotomy of organic vs. non-organic made by the Public Education Act as amended in 2007 is not only professionally incorrect but also fails to provide accurate definitions of individual components of special education and rehabilitative services, to link the appropriate components with individual diagnostic categories and to establish their actual funding requirements. (Csépe: p. 160) As a matter of fact, Csépe considered this dichotomy as a major evidence for the damages caused by lay actors, i.e. politicians! 36 2c) What matters for teacher is peace. That is the axiom which led Placement authorities to contest this distinction: Experts can t determine, nor the child psychiatrist can say for 100 % sure that it is of organic origin. So how this distinction was included in the modification [I don t know]. In case of a child with severe adaptation, learning and behavioural difficulties probably there is no organic origin behind the problems. Though in the meantime he beats up the whole class. And the neurologist doesn t find anything. [ ] We and of course everybody else protested. Doctors as well. Nothing happened. So it was a rather stupid measure. (Placement Authority, Western Hungary) 3) The third approach is adopted mostly by independent social scientists, who remain sceptical about such a distinction, but agree with restricting the category for the sake of desegregation and reducing false SEN diagnosis of Roma / SDS children. Not disciplinary knowledge-base, but implementation counts. Evidence-based policy doesn t mean scientific evidence; it means: everyday evidence of implementation and the resistance to it. There is a new critical tone which seems to be arising from young psychologists working in the field at Medico-Psycho-Pedagogic Centres, thus working both with schools and with children from or outside the schools with learning and behavioural dysfunctions. They 35 See in details below: critical episode 36 Although those politicians were supposed to be expert politicians [szakpolitikus] (also called informed politician in the Orientation 1 Report) 29

33 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action have a bottom up perspective of the problem that we have so far analysed from the point of view of research and policy. It is interesting that these articles were published in nonscientific, popular papers, suggesting that their voice is still marginal within psychology. The problems they listed have to do with the misuse misuse of SEN categories, lack of cooperation between schools and psychologists, segregationist practices, and mainly that children s difficulties are defined both by the school and by the law as individual psychological problems, although they are rather of societal nature. (Szügyi: 2009a, 2009b, Szél: 2009) Last, but not least, as a consequence of central state budgetary restrictions in 2006, legal modifications in order to reduce per capita financing for disabled students were the most visible technique of integration/ desegregation policy. The attempts to desegregate and the attempts of budgetary restriction converged to push the SEN B category towards (financial) extinction. The question remains open: were budgeteary restrictions (linked to new legal definitions of the various sub-categories) more efficient than direct intervention (reexamination, etc.) and knowledge-diffusion (i.e. the diffusion of good practices and better tests through trainings, etc.)? The fact is that the overall tendencies (see Appendix 11 among others, and also MTA KTI 2008c) started to significantly change after 2007, the drastic change in categories and financial support (See Appendix 5) The normalisation. Inclusive pedagogy (everywhere) and exclusive centres (SEMC) in some places Recently, we could observe the phenomenon that we call normalisation : the compromise between the various actors previousely in conflict: Sociologically inspired decision-makers and special educators. This normalisation consists of three components: (1) the dissemination of inclusive pedagogy, (2) the reduction of SEN-numbers on the local level as a precondition of EU-grants, (3) the establishment of the SEMC. Part of the normalisation was the dissemination of special education skills (inclusive pedagogy) in normal schools and among mainstream primary teachers (trainings, teaching materials) in the framework of EU-financed training programs and through new text-books. As a consequence of inclusion the key concept in contemporary special education becoming the common denominator for all kinds of expertise within the public action, the diffusion of special education in the whole educational/school system became a major objective in the course of the PA. Part of this dissemination-effort was the introducion of special education as an obligatory module in the Primary school teachers s BA. This 30

34 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action includes material on lesson development and on outside class activities such as rehabilitation and recreation. Another major aspect of this normalisation-process, esp. of the peaceful but relentless dissemination of inclusion were the trainings initiated by the Ministry/Educatio Public Company addressing the Placement Authorities and the Medico-Psycho-Pedagogic Centres. The trainings present a par excellence constellation where knowledge and policy merge (see Comparison Zone 5), they were designed and carried out with the direct cooperation of leading special education scholars and members of the profession s lobby group SzakÉRTELEM (who all had internalised the inclusion paradigm), but served at the same time the objectives set by the decision-makers with human-rights and the advisors with sociological background. Yet another aspect of the normalisation process (i.e. the emergence of a consensus among decision-makers, schools and Placement Authorities) is the introduction of the SEN-component into the EU-financed non-sen programs. The elaboration of Local Public Education Equal Opportunity Programs (LPEEOP) became a pre-condition of receiving any EU-grant (in the framework of the HRD OP administered by the National Development Agency). The LPEEOP must include a Public Education Equal Opportunity Action Plan 37, which consists of an analysis part and of an action plan part. It must deal with the SENissue; a key indicator is (1) the mesasurable decrease in the number of SEN-students within one year in case their rate exceeds the national average (7%), at (2) the access to secondary education for SEN, and also at the (3a) legal and (3b) quality control of SENeducation and SEN-services (Ministry 2007). This is a new form of (post-bureacratic) regulation through knowledge and through financial incenting at the same time: the municipalities have to increase their knowledge about the situation of SEN (and other disadvantaged students). In other words, the local governments have to enhance local knowledge production ( analysis part), involving the newly invented equal opportunities experts. The creation of the SEMC was the other component of this consolidation process, also in accordance with the special education profession s preferences. The import of the concept of SEMC [EGYMI] can be described as follows:...the basis of this is that in the beginning of the 90s I went to an international conference somewhere in Germany. The main theme was how the network development of special education. [...] And this was strongly connected to integration. [...] They offered their services to those without mental disabilities but with certain problems. They became more open. When I came back I was thinking to write an article about it. [...] The mobile special educators service dated much earlier. What I proposed in this study that if the special education field wants to keep up with integration, then there is nothing else but to implement the same network structure system in Hungary so they d become centres. Luckily this was 37 Közoktatási intézményi esélyegyenlıségi intézkedési terv 31

35 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action included in the Public Education Act. (..) And today the number of such centre is between 30 and (Leading special education scholar) The 2007 modification of the 1993 Public Education Act redefined the role of special education institutions from being the sites of segregated remedial education to be the service providers and knowledge disseminators of SEN integration. The new name of these institutions is ( Integrated ) Special Education Methodological Centre ([EGyMI] SEMC). Their functions are: - remedial counselling, early intervention and rehabilitation - preparation for school - speech therapy - conductive pedagogical services - physiotherapy - creating the network of travelling specialists 38 The goals of establishing SEMC are: - assisting children in mainstream education with mild mental disabilities, learning disorder, etc. - early diagnosis and prevention of secondary problems - reducing disadvantages connected to SEN - enabling social integration (Kıpatakiné: s.d.; Papp, Faragóné: 2007) In an analytical perspective, the actual aim was to introduce some sort of accountability and quality management, for the SEMC were supposed to centralise and standardise SEN-pedagogy and -expertise within the counties/micro-regions; as well as country-wide. The differences between counties is a recurring argument in the PA. The territorial disparity argument had been raised by one of the most committed officer, based on his own secondary data analysis: The statistics for the 2005/6 academic year by counties show that compared to the national average (7%) in Heves county it is 18 %, so every sixth child is SEN. The highest rate among the micro-regions is also in this county, it s 30%. [...] I showed this last year based on the official statistics. This has had a great impact on many policy makers. I tried to present it in all kinds of forums and tell my colleagues to convey. The importance of this table is that it shows the high deviation of territorial disparity within the country. This obviously indicates the divergent working mechanisms of the various Placement authorities throughout the country. (Public officer, member of the mixed tank ) 38 Travelling psychologists, speech therapists, remedial educators, etc. 32

36 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action On the other hand, there is no single a priori good practice. In the county where the rate of the SEN was the highest, the Placement Authority applied a strategy consisting in labelling a maximum of students, but keeping a continuous contact with the schools where those students were actually placed to promote and help their development/inclusion. However, this strategy was not tenable any more after 2003 (the sociological critique of the overrepresentation became dominant and the Placement Authorities felt attacked). The special educators were forced to convert to destigmatisation; they changed all the more easily that they had observed the schools hardly applying adequate inclusion methods for a long time. Since the modification of the Public Education Act, more and more segregated institutions understood the necessity to transform into SEMC, and this transformation took place with different degrees of success. Some institutions took up their service provider role and became the engine of integration, while others did not carry out the restructuring of their institution, and more or less kept their primary function as segregated special schools under a different name. I think this is a good thing. There are SEMCs which function well, and there are some which do not. There are municipalities who renamed all of their institutions and there are some which did not appointed any. There is a county without a single SEMC. I do not know how they can realize integration there (Stakeholder) Szügyi, representing the local/practical knowledge line, the street level reformists, violently criticised the SEMC as a source of potential segregation, since the Placement authority and the remedial school whose students are selected by the very same Placement Authority are part of the same institution, the same SEMC; the risk is to continued overdiagnosis of SEN (Szügyi 2009b). However, this possibility (possibly due precisely to this criticism) doesn t exist anymore Interpretations What is interesting in the events is that both the scope and the impact of the program are interpreted differently by different actors. There seems to be no consensus on the scope of the program, whether it was a one-time event, or an open ended process. Those who consider the public action as part of the desegregation policies refer to it as a short term, distinct event. But those who consider it part of establishing inclusive pedagogy consider the public action an open ended process. Therefore the shift in focus which took place during the public action remains partly unacknowledged by the desegregationist line, namely the social scientists and policy makers who look at the issue from the perspective of social inequalities and human rights. In tracing the role of knowledge brokers in the program, we see that although traditional knowledge holders (researchers in the academia 39 ) played a very important role at the 39 See: Orientation 1 Report 33

37 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action onset of the program, the choice of knowledges, and the choice of knowledge brokers was far from traditional for this field. The history of Hungarian sociology explains its dominant part in the public action, it was nonetheless an important message on behalf of the ministry to place sociological knowledge first and foremost in designing the public action, and rely on knowledge coming from special education and psychology only in the second and third place. In the course of the program, actors from the field of special education and later of psychology managed to shift the focus of the events. This explains why the scope of the program is interpreted so differently by different knowledge holders. From a statistical point of view the public action was not a success, if we consider the decrease of the number of SEN as its primary objective. It was, if, instead we consider the rise of integration/inclusion as its main objective. Decision makers adopted either the first or the second approach, or both, or one after another... And we don t have statistical tools to measure whether the quality of diagnosis (and therapy) improved (or not). As a matter of fact, the rate of replaced children was relatively low, the overall rise of SEN children and the relatively slow increase in integration suggest that the balance does not show a positive figure in favour of integration. Our own calculations, based on the Ministry s data (See Figure 12) show that the segregation of SEN decreased slowly but surely throughout the whole period (starting before the PA!), while the overall number of SEN was rising constantly, except after the 2007 re-examination. Moreover, doubts rose among social scientists, about the quality of integration: Probably as a result of the policy promoting integrated education between [ ] the number of students with special educational needs rose by , while the number of those in segregated special education slightly decreased (from 46 to 43 thousand). Nevertheless these data don t inform about how this integration actually happens. Here also it is reasonable to look at it as a kind of formal, rigid integration. (Keller-Mártonfi). Compare also with our data in the appendix, Figures 7, 10 and 11. All these statistics can be and are interpreted in different ways. We will later see that sociologists and social scientist, the SDS line 40, is more likely to consider it a failure, and the SEN-line along with psychologists will be more likely to see it as the prelude of a new paradigm : the era of all-inclusive, i.e.: when more and more students are offered special care, but without segregating them. The changes in the program (new protocol, new methods instead of re-examinations) do not reflect a planned change in the use of expertise, it seemed somewhat accidental all throughout the program. While there is a relatively well defined circle of privileged experts, the impact they can achieve is haphazard, for it depends on the actual 40 See: Orientation 1 Report 34

38 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action circumstances in the Ministry. In the period, the ministerial commissioners representing the SDS-line relied on social scientists advices. From 2006 on, a formal framework for consultation appeared, the Hungary Tomorrow Round Table, with its own SEN section, led by V. Csépe, a psychologist, and the Early Childhood Development section, led by M. Heczog, a sociologist committed to psychology (see: Critical episode for more details, below). It is first of all the inner conflicts which make it difficult to identify the knowledge mobilized in the different phases of the program. The (although rather invisible) debate within the SEN line is over inclusion vs. integration, inclusive pedagogy vs. special education (and special education vs. old remedial pedagogy). The inner theoretical contradictions of the SDS-line are colour blind definition vs. ethnic definition (i.e. the targeting of the poor vs. the cultural targeting of Roma); replacing non-disabled to mainstream/normal schools vs. early child development in view of compensating social handicaps; alerting system of racial discrimination vs. alert system to detect undersocialized children/children in danger. 41 From the perspective of special education, the public action fits into a series of regulations which attempted to restrict the decision making process of Placement Authorities in case of mild mental disabilities. The first reaction to the program itself and to different research projects which were financed by the ministry prior to the program (Loss: 1996, Kaltenbach: 1998, Neményi: 2004) was denial. Placement Authorities claimed to be in no position to influence the education system which is not inclusive enough, and claimed to be able to carry out high quality professional work despite the unfavourable circumstances (such as outdated, non-standardized tests, inappropriate facilities, undivided rooms for examination, shortage of staff, etc.). Later on, these circumstances became the target of criticism, and Placement Authorities and their selforganized civil interest group took the initiative to better the circumstances which were reconcilable with the goal of the program and of the ministry. In other words, after a period of confrontation, since the Placement Authorities perceived it as a misunderstanding of their work and as an unjustified attack (they were particularly hurt by the reproach of having a prejudice-bias), the policy makers of central government and the institutions in charge of implementing policies reached a consensus based on knowledge about the local circumstances, which resulted in the quite consensual idea of standardising IQ tests and launching training programs within the framework of the National Development Plan I, and later II. Although the personal background previously a Roma rights activist of the ministerial commissioner and her initial advisors designed the public action as a desegregation plan, the course of actions changed when a distinguished scholar, Ágnes Torda from the 41 For more details about the SDS-line and the integration/equal chances policies for non-sen children, see the Reports of Hungary Education 35

39 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action College on Special Education, a trained psychologist and remedial specialist was invited to the ministry to work on the program, very soon after Mohácsi took her position. She described her appeal in the following manner: With this appeal such a door was opened in my life, in my professional career which was completely unexpected to me, and completely unexpected to my colleagues. They could not understand how I could actively participate on the other side. The head of the civil organization of Placement Authorities, SzakÉRTELEM told the same story: I personally think she pacified some of the mad ideas. She told good things about us, she defended our expertise in front of Mohácsi, and brought measures into this From the Last Desk Program toward us, which were professionally sound, she collected good experts around her, and she set up good conditions. But because she worked for Mohácsi, some Placement Authorities regarded her as a member of THAT bunch. They did not realize that it was good for us that there was a professional who was loyal to us. Not only loyal, but also realistic. (M. Hídvégi) Her explicit task was to design the protocol for the re-examination of children, but more importantly she gave legitimacy to the program in the eyes of special educators (remedial pedagogues) and Placement Authorities, and she functioned as a mediator between the Ministry and the field. Placement Authorities and representatives of special education could simply not hold their arguments against the program after this. Her participation had a great impact on the program, and she became the key actor in initiating the paradigm shift, not only because she mediated between different actors, but because she grasped the societal responsibility of special pedagogy without giving up completely the traditional remedial pedagogy concept. The reasons for Torda (and other special education scholars) changing sides are complex: the progressive diffusion of sociological expertise (despite strong resistance), international tendencies (both within SEN and in general: EU-accession, trans-national policies for desegregation and anti-discrimination) and the reality (different both of their previous believes of a well-functioning network of Placement authorities and special schools and of their humanist vocation). The diffusion of the sociological outlook was boosted by the Budapest study and Csanádi-Ladányi s (1978a, 1978b) critique of it:...the political and academic debate strongly pushed the sociological approach: be alert, hinder and not do it. Well, from that point I started strongly supporting the ecological bunch. (Á. Lányiné Engelmayer) Until today, Ladányi s works (1978a, 1978b, 2005) continue to be a major reference in the field (Berkovits & Oblath 2008), so that decision-makers belonging to the SDS/Roma-line like to display him as an advisor, although he refuses to become one. The diffusion of the sociological perspective was a permanent challenge for special education scholars (and later for streat level special education practitioners). In 36

40 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action addition, there were less visible processes, direct interactions, small talk in the cafeteria and text-books:...and you know, during coffee and other breaks, they came up to me and asked if what I said was true and if I really meant what I said [...] and then very slowly it became generally accepted that it is something worth to talk and think about. In the s even the hard-core special educators have started to think in this way. In the 90-s they told me to write a book [...] it meant a textbook, something to give to the students [...] and obviously the copies ran out, students had to buy it if they wanted to pass the exam, also colleagues started to buy. So far the third edition is almost sold, we are writing/updating the 4th. [...] Today here [at the College for Special Education] it is a matter of course here. The dean and the deputy dean are both sociologist, the subject sociology of special education is compulsory (Cs. Bánfalvy) Torda as a researcher was first confronted with the disfunctionings of the Placement authorities in 2001, when she participated in a research initiated by Lajos Aáry-Tamás, the Commissioner for Educational Rights 42, aimed at studying the reasons for the very high rate of students with the label other disabilities. Parallel to the FLDP, she definitely adopted the critical perspective when she was visiting special schools. As a consequence of Havas and Bernáth s study, Bálint Magyar enjoined the Educational Authority to send well trained experts into the two counties to map up and document entirely the functioning of special classes (the normal schools SEN-sections) in 25 schools: The minister said to let the expert in. In both places it was shocking. Now I saw the other side of the system, of which so far I had only seen the right side. Now I saw the reverse. In one school, in fact very well equipped [...] 4 grades were fused, which is illegal. [...] In a hot summer day in one small, stuffy room in the attic. Children with very different ages were put together. From a pedagogical point to see the children colouring while waiting for the visitor is the end, it is unacceptable. If this is how they wait for the visitor I know they don t do much throughout the year. I checked the pencils. They were all nicely sharpened, not done every day. This was the big preparation. And there for example I met a girl who was 15 and still was at grade 2 [as if she was 7-8]. [...] When I asked for her documents it turned out that she was examined only once when she was placed among the mild mentally disabled children and ever since no re-examination occurred. And this has struck nobody. [...] And she could neither read nor write. [...] in the other place I saw almost the same. Then it was totally clear that the [FLDP] program is in fact reasonable, its output lies much deeper than we thought when we designed it. [...] Today there are hardly any classes like those anymore, and the grades are not put together. But this is already the story of integration. (Á. Torda) The story of this revelation shows another important factor explaining the surprising consensus around recentralisation. Researchers and advisers common experience was that the law isn t enforced in the country. This is the distinctive character of an overdecentralised system. It was the common understanding of these reformers. This finding resulted in attempts for (re-)centralisation and a shift back towards more bureaucracy, not the old one, but the one putting forward the idea of accountability (a new statistical/registry software that is used country-wide, evaluations, etc.)

41 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action The first sight of this paradigm shift has to do with the ways in which the different practices of Placement Authorities were started to be reviewed. The number of SEN children in the counties differed from one another significantly e.g. 18% in one county (almost every 5 th child), and 3.7% in another (every 30 th child). 43 This information was interpreted by policy makers and social scientists as proofs of bad and/or discriminative practice, lack of protocols and unreliability of the diagnostic assessment (or screening) procedure. After the program gained some legitimacy by the presence of an authoritative figure of special education taking part in it, Placement Authorities themselves started to view it as the sign of a lack of unified protocol of measurement. From this point on the main objective of the program was to design a scientifically sound examination (diagnostic assessment) procedure and a scientifically based definition of SEN was considered to be able to solve the problem of misdiagnosis in itself. But the differences are root in the different understanding of the task of Placement Authorities. Those who preferred to classify high proportion of students SEN, did so in order to offer more per capita financial support for their education, and eventually higher quality services, individual support. In regions where the rate of SEN was lower than average, Placement Authorities concentrated on avoiding false labelling, and believed that the label itself does not guarantee higher quality education, rather it can be a stigma on the child. The latter interpretation is paradoxically close to that of the social scientists. They failed, however, to identify the activity of these counties Placement Authorities as good practices. Whole domains of the field remain unknown and non-discussed, whole potential target groups untargeted, e.g. the in-between 44 zones of LBD [BTM] (see the high number of LBD in the Appendix, Figure 11) and development educators [fejlesztı pedagógusok] 45 ; not to speak of the institution which concentrates the highest rate of SEN: the Infants homes. 46 Even the Medico-psycho-pedagogic Centres which are those who decide, in most cases, whether or not a child will be examined at all by the Placement authorities (Szvatkó 2008) receive very little attention. Although they also felt concerned by the PA (see: One of the background reports commissioned by V. Csépe also concerned the MPPCs (Szakács 2008) but they play little role in the overall picture presented in the Green Book (see: Critical Episode, below). How to explain these taboos? These topics were simply not on the agenda of the mixed tank, whose knowledge concerned first and foremost the segregation of pseudo-sen or more precisely: pseudo-mental disability in special schools. 43 See appendix 44 I.e. in-between SEN and normal pedagogy 45 Or only sporadically (Martonné 2002; Villányi 2007), without emerging as a policy issue. As if a critical mass of knowledge produced was necessary to induce policies. 46 With the notable exception of Herczog and Neményi (2008), without inducing any policy, though 38

42 3. Policy stream. Events of the public action 39

43 4. A new psychodiagnostic assessment 4. A NEW PSYCHODIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT: THE WISC-IV TEST (LOCAL CASE STUDY) We had a protocol before, but it was not written down on paper. (Head of Placement Authority, Gyır) Previous researches were mainly focusing on special schools or classes, but not on the diagnostic process itself, partly because sociologists were not supposed to be qualified to assess psycho-diagnostic methods. Two psychologists, one of them working at the Institute of Sociology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences decided to focus on diagnostic practices and to question those. This allowed subsequent policies (incl. FLDP) to do the same: This was our idea [with. A. Kende]: we should not study what millions have done, namely what happens in these schools but rather we should focus on the process of the psychological examination itself. This was not really studied so far, and since we are both psychologists, I was even working for 6 years in an institution for the mentally disabled, with children with severe disabilities from whom many were not actually disabled, many were Roma [...] for example children with hearing or limb disability were treated as idiots [...] this was back in the 70s. At that time we decided to take a closer look at how the Medico-psycho-pedagogic Centres and the Placement Authorities work. What kind of test do they use, how is it interpreted, how is the scoring, how is the actual examination influenced by their previous knowledge based on medical records, reports and so forth. And at the end of the examination what diagnosis is given, what kind of school and class is recommended for the child. (M. Neményi) The research quoted above can be considered as one of the knowledge-bases of the PA focusing on the diagnosis itself. A new protocol for the examination of Placement Authorities was part of the From the Last Desk Program. It was developed by the background institute of the ministry (Educatio), within the HRD OP for the integration of SEN students, i.e. with indirect financial support of the EU. The new protocol was adjusted to the change of legal framework. As we mentioned earlier from the onset of the public action, Placement Authorities and their activities were at the forefront. And while the initial reaction of Placement Authorities was of denial, they soon understood the necessity to cooperate and to organize themselves. This change is undoubtedly connected to the appeal of A. Torda, psychologist/ remedial specialist into the program; her person has guaranteed the policycoalition between the SDS-line and the SEN-line. The significant differences between the number of SEN children across the counties was conceived as a sign of a lack of unified protocol (in fact the rather divergent understandings of the Placement Authorities mission), and in this respect the current situation could no longer be defended. A civil organization was brought together to promote the interests of Placement Authorities and to provide a forum for discussions (SzakÉRTELEM Association [ Expertise ]). They participated in the design of the new protocol. This civil organization represents the 40

44 4. A new psychodiagnostic assessment street level bureaucrats and the institutions in charge of the implementation. The regular meetings held by them were largely responsible for the fact that this part of the public action was not questioned and received a positive feedback overall. Soon after the earlier differences in the rate of SEN children between counties were reduced to a much more acceptable level. The new protocol was disseminated to Placement Authorities in a two day training seminar with a substantial amount of course material (free of charge). The seminars were attended by one or two representatives of each Placement Authority. The importance of the training in diffusing up-to-date knowledge is estimated very high; training is actually considered as the PA s most important component by the mid-level ministerial bureaucrats: Within the framework of the HRD OP program we achieved to implement a 60 hours in-residence-training for members of the expert committees under the title quality development and management. In fact it was a professional training based on a well compiled material, later extended to the employees of the Medico-psychopedagogic Centres and now there is a new component [a new training]. If the money had been available 10 years ago to put this syllabus together, probably there would have been no need for the FLDP. Had it been important for somebody to know what the expert committees actually do then everything could have been different. The ties between the mixed tank around the Commissioner and the SEN-line (within the Ministry [Nagy], in the Educatio Public Company [Kapcsáné Németi], etc.) were rather loose; the HRD OP was mainly elaborated by Education Publ. Company, in collaboration with the National Development Agency: It shouldn t have happened this way, I won t talk about the reasons now, I don t even know, lack of time, I don t know, maybe from the professional aspect the reason is that there [in Education Publ. Comp., etc.] the experts were special educators who developed programs for real SEN children: for them, the Placement authorities were to be further trained, or the teacher s BA was to be reformed so that a teacher for non-sen children would also have some idea about SEN. So they are really concerned about SEN. (Public officer at the Ministry, member of the mixed tank ) The framework of the new protocol was preceded by a national research on the material conditions of Placement Authorities in % of Placement Authorities gave data for the research. The research indicated serious problems, these concerned: the infrastructure, the staff, time pressure and overburden. The protocol was aimed at settling these problems, and setting up the legal minimum of conducting acceptable examinations. The new protocol was much welcome by the Placement Authorities. By the time the new protocol came out, they understood that the only way to defend their practice and maintain their professional authority was to cooperate in creating and adapting it. Naturally the sociologists /SDS-line s overall dissatisfaction is connected to the statistics which reflected until recently a growing number of SEN students despite the changes in legislation and practice (see Appendix). 41

45 4. A new psychodiagnostic assessment The committed public officials were also often blaming the schools and the municipalities, the dubious interests of the institutions, i.e. the interests of the street level bureaucracy (schools, school maintainers [mainly municipalities, but also churches] and Placement authorities [expert committees]); extra financial support for SEN was the main reason of SEN-segregation, according to them: I don t mind if they demonstrate in front of my office that there is not enough money. But the extra financial support dedicated to SEN children shouldn t be spent on the education of non-sen children. Somebody who has seen a special class knows exactly (what it is like): the conditions, teachers quality, good qualified teachers availability, if there is a special educator or not, if grades are merged and the so called environmental factors no pictures on the walls, lack of material means etc. The quality of education is even lower than in the mainstream classes of the same schools, while the support after a SEN-child is twice as much as the normal support. I am outraged. (Public officer at the Ministry, member of the mixed tank ) We tried everything to link this SEN-support to actual SEN-children [...] but because of the municipalities lack of resources it wasn t possible [...] so this is a failure, it is a failure for many reasons. This is a play with many actors, there are a lot of interest groups involved in which we could not break into. (G. Bernáth) They also blame the parents who flee (white flight): avoid schools where the proportion of Roma/SDS/SEN is high (the three categories are often mixed up, their use is contingent, although the Roma are those who are the most often named). Last, but not least, they blame both parents and street level bureaucracy of racism and discrimination. But they believed that a supposedly culturally not (or not that) biased test could reduce the Roma/SDS overrepresentation. Scepticism towards legislative action is/was widespread (as a basis for post-bureaucratic alternatives): the abolition of the segregation process that had a negative impact on the system effectiveness won t be obtained by simply applying the regulation; it can only be achieved if the decision algorithms and the interest relations change (for example the county is the maintainer of both the Placement authority and the special schools), plus it assumes changes in the social behaviour and the mentality of the people involved (Keller-Mártonfi) Accountability, i.e. the functioning following clear, written rules and standardisation, making possible both internal quality management and external evaluation is an exigency which could not be contested. This is part of the Modern paradigm (modernity as based on formal, rational rules) and is supposed to prevail in any circumstances: The testing process was a mess and still it is. To this very day generally we are using non-standardised tests. (Lillafüred, 2007) The expert knowledges came from the academic sphere (Bárczi Faculty for Special Education, etc.), the professional bodies/organisations (e.g. Hungarian Psychological Association), the background organisations in part dwelled in by the special educators (PFDC; Educatio Public Company, etc.), the cooperating wing of special educators (Á. 42

46 4. A new psychodiagnostic assessment Torda, Á. Lányiné Engelmayer, I. Réz, etc.) Also, the skills, background knowledge and personal knowledge of the whole equal chances/human rights line were mobilised. 47 The Ministry s action was also supported by powerful anecdotes 48, discriminating the old testing methods, staged by the Ministerial Commissioner: In NFT 1 we also implemented the updating of the tests used. This is a 30 years old test. Questions referring to Kádár 49 era were blacked out by pen, it is embarrassing [...] it is ridiculous that somebody s future depends on whether s/he knows who the president of the Soviet Union is. The second large advancement in the protocol of Placement Authorities was the development of a more up-to-date, legally obtained, supposedly culture-free ( culturally not biased ) intelligence test. The fourth version of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV) was chosen. Each Placement Authority and Medico-Psycho-Pedagogic Centre received free training and a free copy of the test. The development of this tool was mostly financed by EU resources, while the production process itself actively involved the representatives of special education experts working in the background institutes. The idea of introducing a new intelligence test into the examination procedure of Placement Authorities was not among the original objectives of the public action. The need to develop a test had to do with the tension between the ministry and Placement Authorities, which felt unjustly attacked by the program (and some researchers, incl. Anna Kende). Financing (and receiving EU support) for the development of a new test showed that the ministry acknowledged that the problems with the procedure are not entirely due to carelessness, prejudice of examiners, as it was suggested by prior research (Loss: 1996, Neményi: 2004), but also a result of inappropriate circumstances including a lack of proper tests. It was also a sign of shifting the emphasis of the program from desegregation of Roma/ SDS children to the inclusion of SEN children. Valéria Csépe, the deputy general secretary of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (at the time head of the Psychological Board of HAS) repeatedly called for more scientifically based testing procedures, and pointed to problems with the tests in use (see in details: below). Her main concerns with the tests were on one hand the expired copyrights, and on the other, that the tests were either not standardized, or their standardization was out-dated sometimes even by a few decades. Being an experimental researcher on brain functions/cognitive psychology she firmly believes that most cases of diagnosed dyslectic children merely have a lower than average capacity to read rather than an organic dysfunction. Therefore she was not only a promoter of the new test, but placed high expectations that it would avoid misdiagnosis. The need for the test was quite clear 47 See: Hungary Education s Reports and our Comparison Zones 48 About the force of anecdotes, see our Orientation 1 Report 49 János Kádár was the general secretary of the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party between 1956 and

47 4. A new psychodiagnostic assessment toward the first half of 2004 and the actual choice of the test was more or less predetermined. Because of financial constraints in which there was no hope for adopting several specific tests in the near future, a large spectrum of test was to be selected. This test needed to have a reputation of being culture-free, i.e. culturally not biased. The test adaptation was supported by HRD OP on the integration of SEN children, but because the test adaptation was not in the original plan, the choice was made in the last moment, and test selection was done in a very short time period. The psychologist/ special educator expert of the Last desk program made a selection of tests based on the advice of professionals involved in test development, from which the psychometric committee of the Hungarian Psychological Association chose WISC-IV, to fit all the given requirements. Gaining the rights and the co-operation of the American partner took over one and a half year, and was only successful after involving a for-profit Italian based organization (OS Hungary) in the development of the test. The declared preconditions for choosing the test were clearly connected to the goals of the Last desk program. The following questions were expressed in selecting the test: - Which tests can help avoiding a misinterpretation of differences in performance originating from social inequalities, which tests are less culturally determined, and which tests do not only take into account the culture of the middle-class? - Which tests have been adapted and standardized in Hungary and have positive clinical experiences, from which a new version can offer similarly positive outcome? - Which tests are used by Placement Authorities and Medico-Psycho-Pedagogic Centres today? - Which intelligence tests are considered the most up-to-date on the international test-market? - Which tests rely on the latest neuro-cognitive models of information processing, and thus have more modern theoretical basis? - Which tests address school-age children? From a psychometric perspective the test has been accepted and approved of by all actors involved, even those who favour other tests, or work on the adaptation of tests for the same purpose, but of different nature (i.e. the Woodcock-Johnson test is partially standardized and adopted for Hungarian children for similar purposes). In the centre of the debate around the standardization process stood the issue of Roma and/or SDS children, and not psychometric concerns. The person in charge of coordinating the adaptation process was the head of the National Placement Authority Institute, which is responsible for the re-examination of those children whose parents do 44

48 4. A new psychodiagnostic assessment not accept the results of the first examination. Therefore she is not only familiar with the examination procedure, and has an overview of the Placement Authorities as well, but she was involved in the adaptation of the previous WISC test. Her competence was therefore unquestioned. This tension accompanied the adaptation process all throughout. An advisor to the Roma and SDS integration program initiated a dialogue between social scientists working on social inequalities in education, policy actors involved in educational integration and desegregation, Roma activists and the test adaptors. There was one meeting in October 2005, 50 between these actors. The date is important to note, as this meeting took place much after selecting and translating the test. Nevertheless the meeting was important as certain questions/concerns were raised. One concern was about the content of the test, whether the picture of a baseball bat or an avocado carried the risk of producing performance differences between children coming from different socio-economic (cultural) background. This was tested by a visit to an ethnic Roma kindergarten where children had to identify images from the test. This occasion was considered a proof of lack of cultural bias. A further issue was language, especially the situation of ambiguous cases, when bilingual children have inferior knowledge of the mainstream language, but parents do not (or are afraid to) declare it in the test situation. A special attention was paid to this in the standardization process, but the result showed that not a single (!) child needed parental or other translation of the test (Bass et al 2008: 42). It was understood by all actors involved that Roma ethnicity does not carry a culturally and socio-economically homogenous group. Nonetheless the idea to create a sub-sample in the standardization process was brought up during the discussion. Therefore if a Roma sub-sample was chosen to guarantee culture-congruent standards, this heterogeneity should also be taken into account. One suggestion was to make an extremely heterogeneous sub-sample which has members speaking minority and majority language as their mother tongue, living in different settlement types, and under different socioeconomic circumstances. The efforts had been made to put together a sample which fits these requirements. But it has never actually been achieved. Another suggestion was to have psychologists of Roma origin to take part in the standardization process, and while two psychologists were trained to do that, they later withdrew and did not participate after all. Their withdrawal was interpreted by social science critics as a sign of lack of cooperation, and as purely accidental by the test adaptors. 50 One of the authors (A. Kende) of this report was present at this meeting, which can certainly have an impact on recalling this event. We could call this an unintended participant observation. Nonetheless, in the analysis of this story we rely on a number of documents (e.g. Lányiné, Nagyné: 2008) and a number of interviews carried out with people also present at this meeting. 45

49 4. A new psychodiagnostic assessment The weakness and the lack of reliable scientific basis of these suggestions and the way they were rejected or only superficially considered by the psychometric group responsible for the standardization process show several things: - social scientists and desegregation policy actors never really believed the test could be culture-free anyway, and they only attempted to make small correction in the test, but did not make a real effort to convey a coherent message to the test developers; - the meeting seemed ad-hoc, none of the participants were informed about the impact the meeting can have on test-adaptation; - the target group of the test was 6 to 16 years, and thus is hardly usable for the group entering school, and especially the group of 6-7-year-olds with mild mental disabilities ; - test adaptors firmly believed that the official standardization process cannot be done properly unless a representative Hungarian sample is used; - Test adaptors believed that drawing the attention of test-takers to the possibility of cultural differences is enough guarantee for no-bias. The representative sample consisted of 1000 children, 100 in each age-group between 6 to 16 years, and was representative to the ethnic make-up of society (16% Roma in the overall sample, but 20% in the first age-group diminishing toward the older age-group in accordance with the estimation of demographic statistics), settlement type and mothers level of education. The description of the sample mentions the general difficulty of identifying Roma people, but not the way the actual identification took place during the standardization. Roma children were selected in accordance with the socio-demographic characteristics of the Roma population in Hungary, relying on the results of a representative Roma survey (Keenly et al. 2004). The average score of Roma children was 15 points lower than the national average, and differences diminished to some extent with age. Mothers level of education only partly explains the lower average, as differences in (WISC IV) IQ points were found between the Roma and non-roma group if controlled for the level of education of the mother. Linguistic differences not in the sense of different mother tongue in the Bernsteinian understanding created a points disadvantage for children using a restricted code. 51 Significant differences were found between Roma and non-roma groups across all subtests. However the main differences were not found in the verbal sub-tests, but in the Block design, usually considered to be a sign of disability with an organic background. In the current sample, no explanation to this has been found, but the complexity of the verbal instruction can possibly be a source of the problem, or a lack of experience with 51 The official documentation of the standardization evokes the Bernsteinian theory. 46

50 4. A new psychodiagnostic assessment such construction toys as Lego. (Bass, Lányiné: 2008). All together the standardization did not really prove the culture-free nature of the test (Bass et al 2008), nor the fact that social disadvantages would not be turned into disadvantages in the result. In spite the fact that the tests did not prove to be culture-free [culturally not-biased], it went through as if it was. This was the initial goal, and somehow almost everyone started to believe (or declare) it was. Moreover, the focus on the testing methods can be questioned: the re-examination didn t prove that the first tests results were false (the correlation between the first examination s results and that of the re-examination are strong. The interpretations, though, diverge: the Placement Authorities the first results cannot be regarded as a measurement error. We can say that within the possibilities the information gained about the children was satisfactory but their interpretation was differing from that of their colleagues doing the re-examination or that of the independent expert. The position of the local diagnostician, who is vulnerable and embedded in the local environment, cannot be compared to that of an independent psychologist. (Bass: 2008: 111). This is the result of the policy: the explicit objective of de-segregating a number of SENchildren along with the de-contextualisation of the expertise (the independent experts were less disposed to satisfy the schools or local authorities demand for SEN children) produced some (limited) effect. An interesting finding also from the point of view of the Last desk program of the standardization was that 3% of the children studying in mainstream education and having no SEN status had lower than 70 IQ points, while about half (!) of the children with a diagnosis of SEN on the basis of mental disability were not mentally disabled from a psychometric point of view (Bass, Lányiné: 2008). * * * Opinions about the test are mainly divided into two oppositional views; however a closer look at these opinions indicates the heterogeneity of ideas. What we must notice first of all is that social scientists critiqued false and biased diagnosis of mild mental disability. They first accused Placement authorities for malpractice and then changed their rhetoric and stressed the of lack of scientifically approved, prescribed and unified protocol in Placement Authorities. Paradoxically: scientifically meant, in that case: by a science different from theirs. Further they called for the distinction between real / organic disabilities on the one hand and low performance due to socio-economic disadvantage or cultural/linguistic differences on the other hand. Their dissatisfaction is connected to a contradiction concerning the diagnostic protocol. On the one hand, they disapproved of a lack of protocol in which financial interests of institutions, local political and bureaucratic circumstances and personal attitudes (ad absurdum: racial prejudice) can influence the outcomes, and on the other hand, they are 47

51 4. A new psychodiagnostic assessment sceptical about the role of psychometric measures in general, and do not really believe in the possibility of culturally neutral tests. It is for this reason that most social science researchers who were asked in connection with the WISC-IV adaptation considered the introduction of the test of secondary importance. Central SEN-knowledge-brokers are rather enthusiastic about the new test. They emphasize the following assets of the test: - the first test with valid copyrights; - one of the few standardized tests, and currently the only IQ test with an up-todate standardization; - The test is not considered culture-free, but as far as cultural bias is concerned, currently WISC-IV is the best choice. Not all of them are so enthusiastic though: In my humble opinion, this new test will solve nothing. Where there is the intention of segregation, no test will ever counter it, and the special classes will be filled up. The test won t resolve this. (Public officer at the Ministry, member of the mixed tank ) And although these assets are appreciated by Placement Authorities ( Street level expert-bureaucrats, i.e. psychologists and special educators working at the Placement Authorities), we meet sceptical opinions among them as well: A single test will not solve the problem. I think that the problem could be solved with the previous tests as well. And not only I believe that, but I think others share this opinion as well. Those who worked on the standardization in any way will defend the test, and we also acknowledge that for the point of view of research methodology this area needs to be covered as well, to make it is less subjective, and as far as I know, this standardized test corresponds to these requirements. (Head of a Placement Authority) Policy actors tend to share some of the scepticism of social scientists, especially those who come from the desegregationist perspective, but also share the optimism of the SEN-line and psychologists, and consider this an important positive gesture toward Placement Authorities and Medico-Psycho-Pedagogic Centres: In my point of view but of course I am not a specialist of this field this test will not change anything. ( ) on the other hand the tests [previously] used in Hungary are really outdated, they are really old (Public officer at the Ministry, member of the mixed tank ) The issue of the introduction of a new test only becomes relevant, if the test is used. The test was first available in February There are significant differences in the frequency of using this test by different Placement Authorities and Medico-Psycho- Pedagogic Centres, however it must be noted that at the time of the interviews the test was only very recently introduced. Two factual obstacles come up in connection with the use of the test: 48

52 4. A new psychodiagnostic assessment - The price of the test (one set was given to each centre for free, but the price of the test is relatively high for Hungarian standards) - the time needed for taking the test is (usually twice as) long as for most other IQ tests (this was often reported to be the reason why it was not used in the re-examination process, when the time allocated for each examination was very limited). The test is praised for offering a more refined overview of mental capacities than other IQ tests, it helps identifying strengths and weaknesses of the child. The usage of the test shows proof of a more child-centred approach in the sense of motivating the child, in its instructions and structure. The mixed tank (Torda, Réz, Bernáth, Sárközi, Daróczi, etc.) however was not satisfied with the use of the test by Placement Authorities, they claim that although there is a general positive feedback on the tests, they found evidence that the older version of the test was still in use, or even the much criticized Binet test instead. Some Placement Authorities allegedly did not follow the protocol, medical papers were still missing, and children without SEN status attend segregated special education schools. The latter is a different issue; in fact, beside the overall evidence of social inequalities and segregation of the SDS/Roma, the case of segregated proto-sen shows the real limits of any new testing: the functioning of the school system itself; in schools, not the SEN, but the dunce and the agitated/hectic students cause the problem, they are the ones to get rid of, regardless of their official labels (Csányi 2007, Eröss 2008). Not everyone internalized the efforts made for acquiring a legally, scientifically sound test: I really like the Binet test; I could really understand the child throughout the test. I needed to know that a child with mental disabilities would show about IQ on that test, and a disadvantaged child would show 65 points. But this difference will never be well standardized, these phenomena cannot be suppressed. (Head of a Placement Authority) 49

53 5. The local streams. The street level bureaucracy s reaction 5. THE LOCAL STREAMS. THE STREET LEVEL BUREAUCRACY S REACTION: THE PLACEMENT AUTHORITIES Recent works in the sociology of reform are interested in the analysis of the interpretative frameworks that professionals concieved as reflexive and critical individuals elaborate in specific contexts and according to their priorities in terms of values and interests (Ball, 1998, Draelants, 2006; quoted in: Pons & van Zanten 2008) when as street level bureaucrats, they have to implement a reform (Crozier and Friedberg, 1977; quoted in: Pons & van Zanten 2008). Social actors are described as autonomous and as having a critical capacity, the latter being either a tool for mobilisation (Boltanski and Chiapello, 1999; van Zanten et al., 2002; quoted in: Pons & van Zanten) or an explanation for non-participation in reform (Martucelli, 2002; quoted by Pons & van Zanten). Thus reception becomes a cognitive activity through which messages can be accepted, refused or negotiated (Mangez, 2006; quoted in: Pons & van Zanten). In our case, the reaction of Placement authorities, identified as street level bureaucrats, was fluctuated: it was dominantly refusal, later negotiation and even acceptance, differing from one city /county to another. Let us see a few typical discourses. The reaction of the Placement authorities (Expert committees), after a first period of conflict varied between (1) self-critique: Even if the ability structure of a child with mild mental disability has no difference whether learning in a segregated school or in an integrated environment there is a difference in the means of communication, behaviour and insertion in the peer group. Completely different. [...]This gain is insured by the mainstream environment. No doubt about it. [...]I faced this personally, and I have to admit it whether like it or not. And I talk about it in all kinds of forums. (2) Interiorization of the new agenda: 8 children were replaced. It was supposed to be 10 but 2 refused it on the spot, they stayed where they were. Those replaced had adapted themselves very successfully. [...]In these 3 settlements it was a success story. In two cases the previous reason to be diagnosed mentally disabled was epilepsy. [...]Once they stopped taking the medicine they became normal. In the third settlement it was the environment (total negligence) which made for the children impossible to go to mainstream school at the age of 6. In one year after a very intense special educational and other development programs they caught up and could be replaced. This kind of thing happens every year. This changed our approach. Again this is what I say. We are much more careful, we are more conscious this is not say that I want to defend the committees. We were cautious before as well but now we concentrate even stronger and on even more things. (3) Continuing flak and complaints with some concessions: I think without any reason, unfairly we have been scapegoat. It is evident that here and there once examined one will find something not properly done. Why not, 50

54 5. The local streams. The street level bureaucracy s reaction everywhere where people do something there is the chance to do mistakes. We work from dawn till dusk in what conditions! [...] the FLDP was a good program, I have to admit, things have to be unveiled and have to be discussed. But if I want to help I can see traces of it now in the New Knowledge Program [a set of Government Measures] health visitors, early child development etc. This is what should have been done then not now. The problem is that, as far as I know, many committee members still go on trials [initiated by advocacy groups against segregationist diagnostic practices]. (4) Self-justification and blaming the parents: The assumption behind it was that in special schools the rate of Roma is much higher than that of the non Roma. Somebody who has been working as a special educator, like me, knows this. [...] Yes, I guess, it is true, I won t argue, although there is the question of who was Roma. Anyway. It was enacted to re-examine every child with mild mental disability in 2 nd grade. We did it. It was quite something since a proportion of the parents simply did not bring in the child. [...] We found 5 children whom we thought capable of going back to the normal primary school. Only one accepted it, four did not even go back. We sent it to the notaries, without consequences. I asked (about the only child who was replaced) when we visited the school the other day: he failed in one subject but the school won t let him leave. (5) Some Placement authorities shift the responsibility further towards the Medicopsycho-pedagogic centres (MMPCs), opposing themselves as the real and objective experts to those in the MPPCs, who are allegedly incompetent and/or under influence : We had a similar case, when the Medico-psycho-pedagogic Centre sent here 67 children all diagnosed with according to them severe dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia or all three together. [Question: could it be assessed?] Not at all. No one. (..) If we don t agree with the result we can send it back we have such competency. [...] So 67 were sent back, to be precise not all of them, because those with learning problems are our competency but those with dys were sent back. [...] From one settlement, from one school they had 37 cases. [...] then the question is raised does they diagnose properly [...] The director s/he is expelled since then [...] I can only say that he might be in the position to make pressure on the parents, I don t know, I am not there but I see the parents request [...] I think it was nonsense lacking all kinds of basis. (Placement Authority, Eastern Hungary) (6) Place their activity into a wider context, and sociologically explain the selection mechanisms of the school system: It is not due to the arbitrary activities of the expert committees that these children were sent to special schools. First of all without somebody s [the kindergarten s, the school s or the MPPC s] request, the committee wouldn t examine anybody. Second of all, the same tests were applied both for Roma and all other children [...] the linguistic competence of Roma children is so low that in verbal tests they score very little. We could examine them with non verbal tests but [...] at school it is also the verbal performance that counts. These children simply did not get along in school. (7) Elaboration of counter-narratives (to counter especially the critique on prejudices which were particularly offending for them):...on the contrary, we take it into account and in fact practise positive discrimination in case of Roma children. When examining a Roma child we see the background s/he came from and also see the skill, and ability that is shown even if s/he can t name the four 51

55 5. The local streams. The street level bureaucracy s reaction seasons. One can see if there is more than what can be seen on the surface. Then for such a child I as well as everybody else recommended to go to first grade of the mainstream school. I rather put it this way: we always made such recommendations. As far as the latter counter-narrative is concerned, it may seem to be an utter selfjustification. As a matter of fact, street level bureaucrats, including special educators and psychologists working in the Placement Authorities may have prejudices (Kende & Neményi and many others), like every human being (Eröss & Gárdos 2008), but sometimes, precisely under the impact of a Public Action disseminating the idea of Romadesegregation, i.e. under the impact of knowledge as a regulation tool, the negative prejudices can actually be transformed into the conscious avoiding of cultural bias and even to positive prejudice resulting in spontaneous positive discrimination ( affirmative action ), as many social psychologists (see: Eröss & Gárdos 2008) and some explorative empirical research show (Eröss 2008). However, even if these hypotheses were to be confirmed, the overall (decentralised) structure and the selection mechanisms of the Hungarian educational system would still continue to be an obstacle for real inclusion. 52

56 6. The 2007 re-examination. Mainstraiming the pseudo-dyslexic students 6. THE 2007 RE-EXAMINATION. MAINSTREAMING THE PSEUDO-DYSLEXIC STUDENTS Mid-ranked officials who belong to the core of the mixed tank ), among others, tried to generate a shift in focus within the policy, giving priority to de-segregation, rather than de-stigmatisation: Then we thought that the norm should be differentiated by the mode of education namely if the SEN students taught in an integrated or segregated way. Where it is integrated we give more, where it is segregated there is less. By the time it has reached the parliament and the policy makers there were hardly any difference between the items. [...] At the end, the only way to keep at least this small difference was to call each MP whom we (Daróczi and the others) knew personally and asked them to understand and vote accordingly. (Public officer at the Ministry, member of the mixed tank ) The starting point is that today in this group of children only two third of them have some kind of disability, one third does not (previousely, it was one half). We want to care about those who are not disabled. It is enough for us to get that third out, the rest is the special educators competency, we don t know their needs [...] it is not acceptable if the otherwise normal children are integrated but labelled as SEN; nothing will change if they are exempted from certain subjects, if the curriculum and the requirements are still easier. This would be a disaster for those who are otherwise capable of learning because by reaching the 8th grade they will be too behind to find their way to the labour market. (G. Bernáth) The former Ministerial commissioner himself thinks that it is as important to fight segregation as to fight labelling Then the Placement authorities realised that this [diagnosing children as mentally disabled for no reason] was a little embarrassing, instead the number of dys children increased. It was a serious debate whether this can be regarded as a successful achievement or not, since dys children do have the same curriculum, don t learn less and have the same kind of subjects (as normal students) plus there are many dys children among the elite as well. Nonetheless I think that in Hungary, no matter what kind of SEN one is diagnosed, as it is always stigmatizing. (G. Daróczi) But the PA has followed a different path, except in the most recent years, since 2007 (see Appendix, Figure Nr 12.). The total number of SEN (whether segregated or not) has only started to decrease very recently. It is not a surprise, but the result of the 2007 reexamination s new focus: it aimed at cancelling the SEN status of as many (SEN B) students as possible. When in 2007 it was enacted that all children, about , were to be reexamined the colleague who announced this event to the public as if in a play following the director s instructions to say in an aside [ ] she announced the reexamination and added: just like in the FLDP. Since then nobody has ever mentioned FLDP (From The Last Desk Program) again. [ ] Here the explicit demand was that the number of those children classified as SEN pupils should decrease, and this re-examination is based on the regulation that disability can only be diagnosed if the organic origin is proved. (Á. Torda) The action which most people would associate with the public action was the reexamination of the 2200 children with mild mental disability diagnosis in

57 6. The 2007 re-examination. Mainstraiming the pseudo-dyslexic students Nonetheless, when the 2007 modification of the Public Education Act initiated a reexamination process, hardly anyone made a connection between the two. After four years, policy makers involved in formulating the regulation of public education do not want to be tied with the original program. This can have three possible explanations: 1. A new minister and a party behind it came into position, the current minister takes much less interest in the issue of SEN, diagnostic issues or even the false diagnosis of Roma / SDS children; 2. The personality and dynamism of Mohácsi who left her position to become an EP was not acceptable to her successors, who wanted to detach themselves from the original program; 3. The paradigm shift which took place in between the two re-examinations dates makes it difficult to tie them together. The first was an act of desegregation, while the second was an issue of integration/inclusion made necessary by a new SEN definition. The 2007 re-examination grew out of a completely different conceptual framework than the original one. The outcome of the modification of the Public Education Act in which SEN A and SEN B were distinguished from one another on the basis of organic/ nonorganic origin required a new look at children already diagnosed with SEN. Previously, the plan to significantly or altogether cut the extra financial support of SEN B children didn t succeed, as a consequence of the successful veto of special educators and specialized schools, thus the pressing need to reduce the number of children who receive financial support called for some solution, this time. The 2007 re-examination appears as mainly driven by financial factors, its knowledge base is either lacking (no preparatory research like in the case of the original FLDP), or implicit (the knowledge accumulated in the FLDP so far). Implicit doesn t mean nonexistent, as we will see. The legal distinction between organic and non-organic SEN required the supervision of currently applied categories. Therefore all children who were originally diagnosed with a disorder of psychological development had to participate in the re-examination. Mainly this meant that a distinction was sought between severe dys (dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia: the most frequent sub-categories of SEN) cases and milder ones. Thus the re-examination attempted to reinforce (SEN A) or lift (SEN B) the students label, and place the latter group under the auspices of Medico-Psycho-Pedagogic Centres instead of Placement Authorities. The change in category yet not affected the financing of schools for the next school-year. This re-examination took place outside the regular examinations of the children, and independent examiners were guaranteed in the same way as in the Last desk program, the protocol of examination was previously standardized in the training program of 54

58 6. The 2007 re-examination. Mainstraiming the pseudo-dyslexic students experts designed by the HRD OP for SEN students at the background institute of the ministry (Educatio 52 ). The outcome of re-examining over children was that in the case of one third of the children not only the original severe SEN status changed, but they did not fall into the milder behavioural and learning difficulties; instead, their SEN status was cancelled. 53 More than the half of these children however, became LBD. But 12% were unshackled from any special need or even mild learning difficulty status. See Appendix, Figure Nr 4! In the course of the 2007 re-examination, the Placement Authorities first asked Special Schools to transfer the files of SEN B students. This transfer revealed that in a large number of cases children did not have appropriate administrative classification, i.e. were labelled and segregated as SEN without any SEN-diagnosis. This was the administrative/bureaucratic part of the process, and as an unintended policy effect it contributed to the re-rationalisation of street level bureaucracy, while the SENclassification of these students was cancelled (and subsequently financial support was cut). Another re-examination was initiated a year later to look at SDS children once more, this time by the so called equal opportunity experts, trained by the same background institute of the ministry. Their tasks were to supervise the examination processes: whether they were professionally and legally sound, whether the parents received sufficient information and whether cultural and linguistic difficulties were taken into consideration. The experts continue to work in the field, and supervise the ongoing examinations. This re-examination was of much lower scale, and returned explicitly to the Last desk program. As a result of the 2007 re-examination 5% of the children were replaced in mainstream education. The special education/ psychologist expert within the program naturally described the event with some bias positively (she is one of the very few actors who oversees and influences the policy making procedure as well as the practice of Placement Authorities): We have completed the re-examination of 603 children. The rate of replacement is even worse than in the Last desk program, because it was 11% back then, and 5% this time. But I do not think about it as worse result, because the overall outcome of this program is much better than the previous one. [...] This low rate is because in this very young age-group 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd grade it is only those children who had their first examination after the Last desk program. And I am certain that the Last desk program produced significant changes. Namely, diagnostic categorization is no longer done offhandedly, and in no way can it happen anymore that a child is 52 The former Sulinova. See in details: Orientation 1 Report 53 Nagy, Gyöngyi Mária (2008) A képzési kötelezettségrıl és a pedagógiai szakszolgálatokról szóló 14/1994. (VI. 24.) MKM rendelet módosítása, 55

59 6. The 2007 re-examination. Mainstraiming the pseudo-dyslexic students diagnosed (SEN) for social reasons or other disadvantage [ ]. And I think if we repeat this procedure in three years once again, it will be even less than 5%. (Psychologist/ remedial specialist advisor to the Last desk program, Torda). According to her, in a way, the FLD Program reached its goal: the expert knowledge of doing the right diagnosis has been incorporated by the street level bureaucrats (the special educators and psychologists whose practices were not conform to expert knowledge), thanks to the Public action, the FLDP. 56

60 7. Developmental psychology and neurology: protocols and monitoring 7. DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY AND NEUROLOGY: PROTOCOLS AND MONITORING 7.1. Early intervention. Preventing SEN and spreading SEN-knowledge Early intervention was not introduced to the public action and to SEN policies by psychologists (see Critical episode for more details), but it certainly brought psychology into a position of authority in policy formulating knowledge production. Various empirical researches show that a large part of the population, and also a large part of the school teacher population believe that the reason Roma/ SDS children do not succeed in school is primarily connected to the inappropriate attitude of parents to school, to childrearing (e.g. Bordács: 2001), and as a consequence, to non attendance or irregular attendance in kindergarten education. While blaming the families for the current situation is vehemently rejected by the desegregationist SDS-line of policy-makers and knowledgebrokers (they rather blame the insufficient number of kindergarten places), the necessity to focus on the families and on their socialization practices have been cautiously discussed by various influential actors (e.g. Kertesi, Kézdi: 1996); of course nobody wishes to blame the families directly. 54 After the conditions of integration/ inclusion changed and a more adequate SEN regulation was achieved or at least it became part of the dominant education policy discourse, researchers and policy makers started to increasingly focus their attention to the pre-primary period. Early intervention programs got founded in the new Social Renewal Operative Programme (SR OP [TÁMOP] ) from the EU Structural Found. This complex public action is an adaptation of the British Integrated Children's System (ICS) and Sure Start Program, both in its name 55, and also in its main objectives. The role of psychology within this new paradigm is reflected in the terminology (early links, prevention, early intervention). Also, despite the fact that the head of the program is an economist, social worker and social policy maker J. Szilvási, psychologists are given the most important roles in the realization of the project. The authors of the first two seminal handbooks to be issued as background material for the Sure Start program are almost exlusively psychologists. The issue promoted by the Last Desk Program and the HRD OP for Roma/ SDS and SEN integration, namely the interdependence of social inequalities and educational oppurtunities, including the way SEN status functions, is now seen to be solved through a psychological understanding of the age-group. The program builds upon an understanding that if the most up-to-date scientific background was established to childrearing (including developmental psychology, genetics, brain science and social 54 See: our Orientation 1 Report on the KNOWandPOL website 55 Biztos kezdet = Sure start 57

61 7. Developmental psychology and neurology: protocols and monitoring sciences), and institutional actors would apply this knowledge in their practices, and consequently this knowledge would reach the poor and disadvantaged families, then differences between children coming from different family backgrounds would be reduced by school-age. In the heart of the solution lies a better psychological understanding of childhood, and a psychologically congruent upbringing. This approach is also based on the policy-knowledge of a European Union body called Eurofound (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions), the objective of which is, among others, social cohesion). It is community-based (which is quite a new approach), involving the parents, cooperating with them, and, although it mobilises developmental psychology and underlines the role of (positive) emotions, its main assumption is a social one: early intervention seeks to prepare socially disadvantaged children for school before the age of 6. Herczog and her advocacy coalition also tried to put the issue of the foster children [intézeti/nevelıszülınél elhelyezett] on the agenda (a very high number of them being labelled as SEN). The policy coalition has been joined by the National Public Health and Medical Officer Service (NPHMOS [ÁNTSz]) (it mobilises health actors because the earliest possible intervention is crucial), but must fight according to Herczog the resistance of the paediatricians. The whole early intervention program is part of the Educational Roundtable, analysed in details below Dorsal stream. Hungary tomorrow : the Board of the wise and the Green Book (Critical Episode) 56 This critical episode, i.e. the Roundtable and the Greeen Book lifted up (1) two particular knowledge & policy constellations (the roundtable as a Board of the Wise and the Green Book as a Report for decision-makers), and (2) early child development as a prevention of SEN (Herczog). Csépe contributed to the (3) normalisation/ autonomisation of the SEN-field, while she (4) failed to achieve the re-professionalization of Placement Authorities (up-to-date psychodiagnostic testing, quality insurance). Csépe tried to define and isolate the SEN field ( real dyslexia vs poor reading often diagnosed as dyslexia ), while letting Havas and Kertesi treat the quasi SEN and real SEN children as targets of the more general policy initiatives: educational assessments (Kertesi) and mainstreaming/integration (Havas). On a political level, Csépe tried to depolitise SEN (seeking consensus) and repolitise it at the same time (pleading for centralised institutions and protocols). On the scientific level, she presents herself as a psychologist expert in neuro-psychology and neurology. Her authority relied both on her status as member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and vice-secretary of the Academy and on the authority of natural sciences. 56 The term board of the wise is used here as a common name and refers to the Roundtable on Education [OKA] initiated by the Prime Minister in 2006, not the Bölcsek tanácsa (= Board/council of the wise ) initiated by the president of the Republic of Hungary in

62 7. Developmental psychology and neurology: protocols and monitoring The Round Table discussion under the title Hungary tomorrow ( was initiated in Social scientists, educational economists have repeatedly called attention to the role education plays in increasing social inequalities and unemployment in Hungary. A very decisive moment which led to the Round Table was a report authored by several well-known and wellestablished economists and social scientists prepared for the State Reform Committee 58, later also published in a weekly intellectual paper in In the article a connection was made between the low rate of employment (and employability), the educational inequalities and the quality of education. It made the compulsory reference to the PISA results, but more importantly the article made recommendations, which included early intervention targeted to the pre-primary age-group of 0 to 6 years. (Csapó et al.: 2006). Early intervention was certainly not discovered by this group of authors, but the direct connection between socio-economic disadvantage and early intervention as a means of overcoming educational and employment inequalities was a new element in the discourse. We chose to identify the Education Round Table as critical episode for two reasons. On the one hand, previous decisions and legislations were influenced by ad hoc references to research findings and knowledge, which has had its own logic (e.g. the ministerial commissioner formerly a Roma rights activist relied exlusively on critical sociological studies on special education), but that logic had a lot of accidental aspects, such as political status, personal acquaintances, personal ambitions, media attention, etc. The Round Table was supposed to end this by the invitation of acknowledged scholars a board of the wise to put together a most up-to-date description of the status quo as well as short and long term recommendations, which can then be publically discussed. The episode is also critical because the outcome of the Round Table was the compilation of a Green Book which was produced as a decisive tool of the long term policy framework of education; it also represents a turning point in that sense that it confirms the autonomy of the SEN-knowledge-production, under the condition that it becomes part of a more general tendency toward more accountability and more equity in education. It is the era of self-evident inclusion and generalised? early intervention. The Round Table divided the problems into 10 different domains of intervention, SEN, early intervention, primary education, equality and quality and evaluation were among them. The Round Table started its work in March 2007, the participants overlapped with the authors of the article-manifesto mentioned above (prepared for the State Reform Committee), with other established and acknowledged experts from the fields of pedagogy, psychology and sociology. 57 For more details, see: Hungary Education s critical episode 58 See: our Orientation 1 Report. 59

63 7. Developmental psychology and neurology: protocols and monitoring Gábor Kertesi became a key figure of the Roundtable. He was the one believed to be the most influential, on the basis of his work as an economist committed to the case of Roma integration (he became a quasi sociologist for many), and on that of his (alleged) direct ties with the Prime Minister. He was or was believed to be a broker. Pál Tamás (Tamás, 2005) suggests the (locally bound) redefinition of the expert as broker a late descendent of the once ubiquitous Central European free floating intellectual (Mannheim), having a global understanding of society and politics, as someone who is selling his knowledge not only on specific policy issues, but on society as such, foreseeing the possible social and political impact of different policy options (Eröss, Szívós, Gárdos, Berkovits 2008). Brokers perform the role of conveying ideas between different areas of the production, arrangement or circulation of ideas (Draelants & Maroy, 2007b, 50). He tried to sell for decision-makers the evidence (of the necessity of desegregation, incl. SEN-desegregation) produced by economy, mobilising the whole Roundtable on this issue; the decision makers seemed to be receptive; but they were not. The outcome of the work of the Round Table was the Green Book for the Renewal of Public Education in Hungary 59, edited by a smaller group of the experts. The situation of SEN children is addressed by several articles, while one chapter - written by the prominent neuro-psychologist, Valéria Csépe is solely devoted to the SEN issue. Three other chapters are relevant from our point of view (early intervention/ M. Herczog; evaluation/ G. Kertesi; and equality of opportunity / G. Havas), but here we above all focus on Csépe s chapter. Let us begin with the new definition of the SEN, which implies (in Csépe s text) a clear frontier between real SEN and pseudo SEN (a term she doesn t like) on the one hand, and on the other: the limitation of the number of students that SEN professionals care for. She elaborated a model that divides students into 4 categories: (group 1) the vast majority (the average) and even those with some degree of learning and behavioural problems (group 2, LBD and/or pupils with poor school performance) have in her definition no need for special assistance whatsoever (although the latter may need some support of the psychologists or the MPPCs); only the two categories corresponding to the actual SEN A and B (group 3 and 4) are to be provided for by the so-called professionals (special educators, psychologists specialised in SEN, or doctors (see: appendix, Figure Nr 14.). The model discussed below only functions well if poor school performance can be clearly distinguished from atypical performance associated with SEN, since the two must have distinct solutions in public education. Distinguishing underachievement at school (e.g., below average reading performance) from the diagnostic categories under the heading of SEN (e.g., dyslexia) clearly benefits both those involved and also those who maintain public education [ ] (Csépe 2008: 153) 59 Available in English from: 60

64 7. Developmental psychology and neurology: protocols and monitoring Csépe, who repeatedly spoke up in favour of a more scientifically based SEN definition, and a more scientifically based examination protocol for the Placement Authorities pointed to three factors contributing to the operation of a modern, uniform, transparent and financially sustainable service provision built on professionally sound foundations: a) the competencies and responsibilities of the professions involved in the services, b) the structure and operation of provision centres 60, c) the control and monitoring of the responsibilities of the state and the providers. (Csépe 2008: 162) The report contains a brief summary of Csépe s neuroscientific work on dyslexia, clearly making a distinction between poor reading abilities due to brain damage and genetic causes on the one hand and due to socio-economic status and inadequate educational methods on the other. This distinction remains important all through the definition and understanding of SEN. Csépe argues for the inclusion of talented children into the group of SEN children, offering a fully different concept similar to the OECD SEN D category in which atypical does not get equated with disorder. Csépe s model requires, she believes, a nation-level independent National Specialist Diagnostics Centre: Centralization is essential for professional monitoring based on diagnostic, educational and funding protocols [...] a uniform, professionally sensible and financially sustainable system can only be developed with central intervention. (Csépe 2008: 153) These recentralisation plans are not isolated, nor new. G. Kertesi, the key figure of this scene (i.e. this board of the wise, the Roundtable), had similar objectives concerning the education sector as a whole. One of the most influential actors of the SEN-field shared the same opinion earlier: The FLDP program had one more final highlight. It was initiated by G. Daróczi. He set up a board, a round table discussion board. The members were not exclusively us, there were many other excellent people, I. Liskó (sociologist), M. Csillag ([deputy director of the Educational authority at that time], Mrs. Á. Szabó (dean of Bárczi Gusztáv Faculty for Special Education) a colleague whose field of research was autism. We wanted to set up a board with professionals representing the different fields. [ ] The working group has worked out a system, a Standard Diagnostic System for Education, in which the expert committees were no more under the county s rule. [ I]n order to be a national top institute where development, training, system building and inspection is done, functions that were never fulfilled before. (Á. Torda) But the local governments are so strong that they resist all recentralisation (and even regionalisation) efforts. The force of the lobbies is described as follows by one of the key public officers in the SEN-field: 60 That we call placement authority (the literal translation is: expert committee) 61

65 7. Developmental psychology and neurology: protocols and monitoring Unfortunately we could not avoid that the SEN diagnosis would be under the micro-region s authority. If it is to be more controlled then it should not be decentralized. The bill was sent to the Parliament in such form but it was outvoted [...] the micro-region concerned lobbied very successfully, this is my conviction [...] we did all we could to avoid it (Public Officer, SEN-line ) This explains (among many other factors) also the failure of Csépe s plans. Centralisation is taboo. It s possible to try, but politically incorrect to declare and practically impossible to achieve. Another reform plan offered by V. Csépe that could have been (more easily) implemented concerns the taxonomy used in the SEN-field. In an ideal world, SEN would not be a static category of diagnostics, but rather an evolving category of needs, i.e. special educational needs. The lack of real change in attitudes can be seen related to the debate or rather the lack of it over the transfer from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). 61 This could hypothetically change not only the strictly understood SEN policy, but the whole field, as it could render obsolete both the category of SEN and of SDS, but also, the whole categorization as such: it may make the objectivity of diagnosis questionable, as there will not be well-defined categories to have recourse to. The whole process should concentrate on needs based assessment and treatment, instead of the categorization of defects. Our way of thinking needs to be transformed. And in this transformed way of thinking, the central role is not played by the organic/ non organic origin, but the ways in which the person can participate in daily routines; whether s/he can get on a tram, know where to get off, can walk stairs, etc. (Leading Special Education Scholar) The importance of this alternative remained practically unacknowledged so far. Although V. Csépe has clearly shown it: In OECD countries, most SEN services adopt either of two different models, both of which, however, build on the same professional principles: (1) 1. a system which is based on a detailed profile of needs, specifying areas to be developed, providing evaluation of interventions and a regular monitoring of progress; (2) a system which is based on diagnostic categories adjusting service provision protocols and funding to outcomes of diagnostic assessments. Due to its considerable costs, the former model is typical of the most highly developed countries with high revenues (such as Finland). The main reason for the high costs is that a complex assessment of SEN, individualized services and the continuous monitoring and correction of outcomes require a large number of highly trained and specialized professionals in the public education sphere and the system of service provision is also highly equipped and infrastructureintensive. (Csépe 2008: ). A shift from ICD to ICF, i.e. from a deficiency-based static understanding to a development-based dynamic, support-oriented understanding of the child, would mean a shift from diagnosis to therapy, from categorising to healing. 61 www3.who.int/icf/icftemplate.cfm 62

66 7. Developmental psychology and neurology: protocols and monitoring Related both to the idea of centralisation and to the promotion of more effective therapy, but much more consensual than these two (although also hard to implement) appear Csépe s urge for more intensive evaluation, monitoring, control, in sum: accountability. This follows the line pushed forward by the roundtable s core team (esp. Kertesi): To meet these objectives, it appears to be necessary to implement a system of monitoring standard and specialist services and develop standards of accountability and controllability. While practical tasks remain decentralized, quality assurance relying on professional and financial monitoring should be governed centrally. (Csépe 2008: 172) Csépe s suggestions aline with the core team s other main doctrine: integration/inclusion/mainstreaming, although with some (minor) restrictions, while special educators according to the opinion they gave on the paper still insist on the necessity of maintaining also segregated educational settings for some (she doesn t deny it, but she doesn t emphasizes this). So she rather pleads for inclusion: The following measures are essential in implementing an education programme where integrated education is the default solution for a large section of the pupil population (see Groups 2.a and 2.b in Figure 6.1) (Csépe 2008: 171) The supplementary paper (second review) of Csépe s chapter by Á. Lányiné Engelmayer (2007), a leading special education scholar and psychologist, member of SzakÉRTELEM, the lobby group of the special educators, just like all second reviews, hasn t been published in the Green Book. She agrees with the principle of accountability (standardisation, control of the mis/use of financial support for SEN, etc.) proposed by Csépe, but contests her analysis on several points, underlining that (a) the situation of special schools changed a lot during the last decade, (b) the number of SEN with mild mental retardation has robustly decreased recently, and (c) the Hungarian special education scholars have followed the most up-to-date inclusion tendencies of the international SEN-literature and policies. Implicitly, they agree on raising the professional level of SEN-specialists and SEN-diagnosis (although Lányi says it s already high while Csépe is very severe), spread inclusion, i.e. mainstreaming of the SEN, and keep (although only for a limited number of students) the special schools. Emilia Ammerné Nagymihály, leader of the Special Education section of the Teachers Trade Union (PSZ/ SZEF) was asked to write another supplementary paper (second review) about the presentation. She was requested for this by the vice-president of the Trade Union (and Editor in Chief, of the Teachers Quarterly), Antal Árok, who was delegated to the Roundtable by the social partners (Council for Council for Economic and Social Affairs, employee wing), which usually play a limited role in Hungary. 62 In the written text, she expressed her satisfaction with Csépe s text and agreed with her suggestion to clarify and professionalize categorization and protocols. Her main 62 See: Orientation 1 Report. 63

67 7. Developmental psychology and neurology: protocols and monitoring argument, in which she slightly disagreed, presented in the name of the Special educators of the trade union is the following: We need to emphasize that the so far well functioning institutions that offer segregated education, teaching and development should be maintained besides the inclusive institutions, because in the case of each child, individual considerations should be taken into account in order to decide which form is more suitable for him/her. She has been corresponding with the Minister on this issue. However, the word (and the call for) segregation has become politically incorrect. That is why she calls for segregation of the SEN children in the given circumstances (mainstream schools are unprepared) and not in general: Since the ministership of B. Magyar we were writing letters to the minister because we simply don t agree with the way integrated education exists in Hungary at the moment. This drastic integration is not for the child s benefit. The regulations are fine but they are not followed. [...] I think that a segregated institution in this case doesn t stigmatise the child but rather provides the specific need in education, teaching and development. I ve been saying this in all kinds of forums. Csépe s approach didn t exclude the possibility to present arguments in favour of the segregation of real SEN (that seemed outdated before), because Csépe was not directly interested in the segregation/integration issue. As a matter of fact, Csépe joined Havas and Kertesi s call for desegregation and integration without insisting on it too much. Her point was the professionalization and standardisation of diagnosis. Last but not least, Csépe also joined Herczog s (and Kertesi s) vast early child development plans (incl. family day care, the mobilisation of health visitors, Sure Start, and a proposal to develop, within an Integrated Children's System a complex electronic early childhood screening system from the existing data-collection methods of the health visitors 63, etc.): An integrated information system should therefore be constructed to document and keep track of assessment results, diagnoses and the actions and education activities aimed at supporting each child. This information system would be a continuation of the health visitor database supporting the task of early childhood care (see Chapter 1). The child-tracking information system would record the results of condition assessment, development assessment, screening, diagnosis and service indicators as well as variables pertaining to education, therapy and rehabilitation (content, duration, changes, etc.), which would be complemented by professional monitoring. (Csépe 2008: 174) The Round Table brought early intervention into the discourse as a paradigm shift, which once again changed the focus of policy which was first that of desegregation, later educational inclusion, and now intervention and prevention in the early years. This new element also means that psychology becomes the most influential discipline in 63 See: Report of Hungary Education (Orientation 2/ Public Action 1) 64

68 7. Developmental psychology and neurology: protocols and monitoring formulating policy. Within this new paradigm the knowledge-policy constellation places psychology into a privileged status. * * * The article written by a prominent economist ( adopted by sociologists as a school sociologist) Gábor Kertesi is on the quality assessment of educational outcome points out an important problem of SEN children, namely that Only a small percentage of students with special educational needs (SEN) are tested as part of the assessment programme. This circumstance acts as an incentive to classify students as having SEN and thus exempt them for participation if they are expected to achieve poor test results. (Kertesi: 2008, p.194.) Early intervention is a central concern of the Green Book. For the purpose of integrating SDS children, and for the purpose of offering sufficient help for SEN children, the report on early childhood applies a comprehensive overview of the current situation, problems and recommendations. To intervene and prevent later school failure (or SEN-risks), the report suggests a cooperation between health visitors [védını], paediatricians, nurseries and kindergartens, and addresses women labour as a relevant issue. The chapter on inequalities in education written by Gábor Havas who was an active participant in the From the Last Desk program, and is certainly a knowledge producer of the first, desegregationist paradigm, made a reference to SEN only from the point of view of SDS children, thus relying on the first paradigm, but calling for a general revision of the concept within the education system: The practice of diagnosis based per-student funding allocation64, which has the effect of encouraging schools to classify children as having special educational needs (SEN) must be abolished and replaced by service based funding. In parallel with the introduction of integrated education for children with special educational needs the specialised programmes currently offered by some general primary schools should be gradually phased out as these are predominantly used as a means of ethnic and social segregation. (Havas: 2008, p. 145) As to the aftermath of the meetings, most authors interviewed describe a lack of feedback on their work from policy-makers, and their scepticism of reaching the audience. 65 The media presence of the Round Table was relatively weak despite the prestige of the Round Table, by the Prime Minister s presence at the launch of the program, and the acknowledged researchers who participated. Researchers involved in the Green Book feel 64 We called it per capita financing 65 65

69 7. Developmental psychology and neurology: protocols and monitoring that policy makers will continue to follow the previous ad hoc procedures and not take into account the outcome of the Green Book: The launching of the Green Book was on an unfortunate date, on 25 November, because it was the day of the vote on the budget, and nobody attended the event, neither the Prime Minister, nor the Minister of Education, but not even a state secretary. (One of the experts) Some argue that the public (the parents as well as the special education professionals) is hostile to mainstreaming and thus decision makers sabotage. The experts, whose primary concern was the resistance of the local actors, realised gradually that the Central Government also has other priorities: Very little was realized in terms of content. A lot of things were realized of course, but to see what is happening in practice is devastating. But I think under the present circumstances, in this public opinion, with this kind of opinion of the majority of the population, this is practically a hopeless initiative. There is no authoritative power which could complete this. That is another issue that politics never stood by it, because they had all kinds of other problems, and they couldn t deal with it seriously, but they were very inconsequent, finally they dropped the Education Round Table. Gyurcsány [Prime Minister at the time] pretended to care for a while, as if it was really important to him, but at the end nobody cared, nobody took it seriously. (G. Havas) The experts are also sceptical because there is no political consensus on any topic in Hungary and the change of Government is usually followed by a complete change of advisors and a 180 degree turn in policies: And just to mention an anecdote at the end. [At a prestigious right wing professors meeting] R.H. who previously played an important role in educational policy, and will most likely play a role once again, started screaming: We do not mix! We do not mix! I mean with the Gypsies, or the poor, we, the traditional middle class. (G. Havas) But in terms of agenda setting, the Roundtable was successful. The knowledge about the interdependence between the school system s poor performance, school inequalities (incl. segregation of SEN) and the country s economic performance became consensual. Of course, it was part of a more general transnational policy knowledge (PISA, the EU s Lisbon Strategy, etc.) which facilitated this kind of explanations and expertise. 66

70 8. Conclusion. A social-evidence-based policy 8. CONCLUSION. A SOCIAL-EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY The first phase of the PA ( ) is characterised by (1) conflicts between the Ministry informed by sociologists and the SEN-field professionals; (2) desegregation attempts targeting Roma/SDS/SEN children; (3) the first mainstreaming (focusing on children with mild mental disability ); (4) partial recentralisation, and rebureaucratisation. The second phase ( ) is characterised by: (1) the end of (manifest) conflicts between special education and sociology as well as between the Ministry and the Placement authorities; (2) the 2007 mainstreaming (focusing on dys children (students with dyslexia, dyscalculia, ADHD, etc.); (3) the dissemination of special education skills (inclusive pedagogy) to normal / general schools and mainstream education teachers (trainings, teaching materials); (4) the standardisation of the WISC IV test (supposed to be culturally not biased); (5) the creation of the SEMCs. The third phase (2007-) is characterised by (1) attempts aiming at the reduction of the SEN-field and at putting it after reduction under the auspices of neuropsychology; (2) the invention of the learning difficulties-field as a subfield of mainstream education; (3) the focus on early childhood development; (4) the re-unification of equal chances policies in the framework of the EU-financed HRD OP (integration, inclusion, dissemination of SEN-knowledge and enhancing local knowledge production on SEN-students [LPEEOP]). A key actor, Ágnes Torda formulated the fundamental and lasting change brought about of the PA as a longue durée change in mentality: Since the program was very unexpected, quite modern and aimed to accomplish goals that everybody was a bit frightened of although it was successful, still it fulfilled the Botond-effect : It hit the gate with a huge mace, but couldn t get through. It was too early in 2003 when the program was initiated, the actors were unready. [ ] Still the necessary mechanisms have started... (Á. Torda) The PA had two kinds of long-lasting effects. The internalisation of the sociologists (desegregationist) perspective and the end of the Placement authority s total autonomy: Simply it was not PC to qualify the children as SEN [anymore]. They became scared. There is no better word. They started taking seriously that there is somebody acutely questing in this direction, why there are so many children diagnosed as SEN, and why the rate of Roma children is so high (Public officer at the Ministry, member of the mixed tank ) An important side effect is the mainstreaming of the marginalized independently from the 2004 and 2007 mainstreaming campaigns, which is an evidence of this internalisationprocess: The rate of replacements [mainstreaming] have increased incredibly, 4 or 5 times more. In numbers this is still not so much, a rough estimate let s say if in the previous years this number was 50 per year, now this means 400 replacements. (Public officer at the Ministry, member of the mixed tank ) 67

71 8. Conclusion. A social-evidence-based policy A similar sign of the ongoing internalisation-process is the ratio of pupils with mild mental disability which, according to the official statistics, also decreased at by the first examination. While the group of children with other disabilities (dyslexia, dysgraphia, ADHD, etc.) expanded, these students are now supposed to be educated in the mainstream institutions/classes (Keller & Mártonfy 2003). The Local Educational Equal Opportunity Programs (which push municipalities to keep records on segregation/overrepresentation and move towards desegregation) are also designed to enhance the destigmatisation of SEN and thus their inclusion. In addition, the concerned actors contribute to the dissemination of knowledge about the stigmagtizing effects of SEN in the field and a boost of studies with a new focus: let s call this a secondary policy effect, or indirect agenda setting: FLDP was an interesting program, we also participated in it, and I even tell my students to write their dissertations about it, they obtain data from different researches from all over the country... (Placement Authority, Western Hungary) There were a few conferences, I presented a paper at a conference organised during Science Day, and just recently my ex-student, my colleague had her Ph.D. dissertation defence. She is on the same track, analysing the same grey-zone [...]. She examines it in the kindergartens since I did it for the primary schools. (Senior special education scholar) For example I teach the students from the Green Book, parts of it are compulsory literature. I think it was an important event of public education. (Special education scholar) The policy can also be understood as a particular policy learning process. Policy-makers learned three things: 1) The importance of the local level, 2) The positive paradox of accountability: its primary beneficiaries are the weak /marginalized, 3) The varying efficiency of knowledge as a policy tool Both the power of science and its weak spot are plausible in the meta-narratives, since the impact of the PA is not measurable with a few consensual benchmarks: When a shocking study is published then the expert committees as are called today get scared and do not dare to diagnose anybody with mental disability, then the rate drops by 30 %. Once they forget about the study then the figure goes up again. Do you know what really counts? The capacity of the institutions (Cs. Bánfalvy) Basically, the moves of the demographical cycle are somehow not followed by schooling capacities. [...] The office of the party secretary was transformed into class room at the end of the 70s and still there was not enough space. Today schools are closed down and teachers are fired. Children so far placed in special classes are squeezed back into the normal educational system with the slogan of integration. One should not have the illusion that once science testifies the truth the system actually improves. (Cs. Bánfalvy) 68

72 8. Conclusion. A social-evidence-based policy Bureaucracy has been replaced, after a vacuum period (in the 1990s), by (1) the stakeholders autonomous knowledge-production (e.g. the associations SzakÉRTELEM and Pozitív) and (2) post-bureaucratic regulation, in the form of accountability, the introduction of protocols and standards, as well as sociological awareness and a coalition of sciences adopting the sociological agenda fighting misdiagnosis. We asked ourselves in the introduction, whether sociologists can be considered as hyper-experts in defining the agenda and designing policy tools (even though with other sciences and experts help); what we do observe is that a kind of sociological perspective, which could also be called a social-evidence-based policy has become dominant. One of the public officers from the mixed tank which adopted the sociological line formulated it as follows: They are obliged to consider [sociological knowledge] because this is what can allow a change in perspective. Once I had to go to [another] ministry. There was a meeting where somebody and I were supposed to test this team by asking challenging questions. They were convinced that their communication with the target group was efficient. To prove this they gave the following example: they always run out of the leaflets that are placed everywhere in the ministry. Now this is a complete nonsense; they draw conclusions about the society simply based on their personal experiences. All I can do then is to ask them if they happened to see all those researches that proved the opposite: the insufficient access to health care, the lack of information even about the possibilities. How many times had they been in a Roma settlement [shantytown] neighbourhood? (G. Bernáth) The sociological (or social) evidence is a local (or international) evidence, gathered in a more or less systematic manner, replacing the lack of national-level data (concerning the Roma and thus the links between ethnic origin and SEN-status). It is boosted by nonknowledge ( specified ignorance in the Mertonian sense) which induces the mobilisation of substitution-knowledges: local experience and international good practices (see in more details, with examples, in CZ 10, below). The local knowledges include: the study of the street level bureaucrats practices, the establishing of municipality-level statistics, the classification of forms of resistance to national policies, or the anthropology of implementation, etc. The SEN-policy field lost its autonomy, partly because the PA didn t achieve its objectives (SEN-overdiagnosis remained, while it started to slightly decrease only recently 66 ), and partly because it did achieve its objectives (SEN-segregation did decrease). The specific target group which gave birth to this policy, the mass of misdiagnosed Roma/SDS children either disappeared (inclusion) or remained hard to reach (the resistance of local actors continues; the grey zone remains grey; data is missing). However, the role of Csépe and Herczog (The Green Book) shows that the SEN field, after significant reduction in its territory due to recent SEN-policies presented above is being reorganised. But this is another story: that of consolidation (the coalition of all major 66 According to the Ministry s data which have to be treated with scrutiny. See: Appendix 69

73 8. Conclusion. A social-evidence-based policy actors with the aim of reducing overrepresentation and misdiagnosis) and of prevention (virtually all young children ought to become potentially SEN, so that almost no teenager remains SEN). 70

74 9. Comparison zones 9. COMPARISON ZONES 9.1. Chronology (Comparison Zone Nr.1. ) LEGAL REGULATIONS, CORE DECISIONS NEW INSTITUTIONS KEY EVENTS IN THE PA EMERGING CONFLICTS / CONSENSUSES Early 1960 education counsellors with psychologists are set up in Budapest districts to help children with difficulties After 1968 the first authorities are set up 1960s to screen children disabilities. Defectology Workgroup is renamed Defectology Station later Placement Authority, literally expert committees (but these committees are not part of the education system) Order No. 111/1975 of the Minister of Until 1972 educational counselling 1971: first School Readiness Examinations Publication of the Budapest- 1970s Education: the judgement made by Permanent Placement Authorities is the sole legal entitlement to place a student (Medico-psycho-pedagogic centres) became available throughout the country : standard protocol and tests for School Readiness Examinations study emphasizing the familial determination of mental disabilities. into Special Education Schools 71

75 9. Comparison zones ( auxiliary schools ), or classes (all auxiliary schools are segregated). Budapest Binet IQ Test is re-standardized for the Hungarian school age population. The test becomes the basic tool for IQ testing by Placement Authorities Publication (and banned publication) of studies on the connection between socioeconomic status and diagnosis with mental disabilities. The real face of segregated special schools is shown. 1985: new Public Education Act allows free choice of school; remedial/special education schools provide a certificate 1980s equal to normal/mainstream schools (thus students from special education schools are allowed to participate in secondary education) 1993: new Public Education Act 1991: First Early Development Centre 1996: Hungary signs the convention founding the 1998 The ombudsman for 1990s - Incorporates local MPPC as educational service providers nto the education system Defines the category of other disabilities for children with learning, behavioural is set up in Budapest (by Barbara Czeizel) 1995: National Professional Association Pozitív : Bárczi College (upholding its OECD, the country became a member of the Group of National Experts on Special Needs Education 68 (as a subsidiary body of the Education Policy Committee [EDPC]), which concentrates on - Developing a standard categorisation (A,B, C, minority rights carries out a research which serves as proof of discriminative practices in the education of Roma/ SDS children in special 67 English-language presentation:

76 9. Comparison zones and psychological disorders monopoly in remedial pedagogy from the D) for special needs education institutes /XXVI. modification of Public Education Act grants the possibility of inclusive education (only if all requirements for developing the abilities of a disabled student are fulfilled ) late 1940s) becomes integrated into Eötvös Loránd University as the Faculty for Special Education, an outsider director (György Könczei) is appointed; the school s financial autonomy becomes limited Producing comparative statistics on the number of SEN students Order of the Minister of Education on Special Education Services [14/1994. (VI. 24.) MKM] 1999 Modification: expert decisions are to be revisited on a yearly/biannual basis until the age of /1999. (XII.10.) Parliamentary 2001: Curriculum for Disabled Students developed by Conflicts between the Ministry Decision about the National Program for the Public Foundation FOKKA (later PFDC). New of Health and Placement 2001: Disabled Persons. - Official curriculum for Children with learning Disability is commissioned knowledge production starts for the integration of disabled children. Authorities become apparent following a study on the practice of Placement Authorities Sulinova (later Educatio Public Company) (a new background institution for knowledge development) National Elections, new government: Left wing liberal minister of education (Bálint Magyar) puts integration and inclusion on the agenda. The National Network for Integrated Education (OOIH, headed by Judit Program for preventing non-disabled children becoming labelled as having milder mental 73

77 9. Comparison zones Szıke) disability the Department for National - boundary of mental disability fixed at 70 Development (to coordinate EU funds) IQ points (instead of 86) Ministerial Commissioner for Roma - medical bases for diagnosis empowered and Socially Disadvantaged Students (V. Mohácsi) in the Ministry of - revising categories of financial support Education - training programs for teachers Modification of Pub. Educ. Act: special Members of Placement Authorities set up Control testing/ re-examination of children Placement Authorities and educational needs is defined (to replace the Association for Expertise diagnosed previously with milder mental Medico-psycho-pedagogic disability ); negative discrimination is [SzakÉRTELEM] (headed by M. Hídvégi) disability in the 2 nd grade of primary school centres feel attacked by defined and prohibited, social in order to (those in special schools or classes). 11% of the Public Action disadvantages are defined (disadvantaged [HH] and very disadvantaged [HHH]). Schools and kindergartens are to officially declare in their deed of foundation [Alapító okirat] if they include disabled children. - represent Placement Authorities in government consultations, - build up professional consensus concerning diagnostic questions (protocol, case bank, training programs) the more than 2000 students screened are to be replaced. Placement Authorities organize themselves, and found Szakértelem egyesület [ Association for Expertise ] NGO to represent their interests. Modification of Pub. Educ. Act: Attending New Ministerial Commissioner (G. Detailed investigation by the Ministry as well as by the A new consensus is sought 2004 a segregated school is only allowed in case of severe and organic disabilities Daróczi) - Official Relationship with the European Agency for Educational Authority [OKÉV] in special education classes Program renamed as From the Last Desk and found between the public action and Placement Authorities through the mediation of Á. Torda, the 74

78 9. Comparison zones Development in Special Needs Program psychologist/ remedial Modification of the 14/94 MKM ministerial order: placement decision to be accompanied by a medical Education. 69 (representative M. Kıpataky 70, National Institute for Public Education). - special financial support for the school and professional pedagogic aid for teachers educating replaced/mainstreamed children (pedagogic pedagogue expert of the program. questionnaire (which is to be completed support provided by OOIH), in order to motivate on all children at 5 years of age). schools to not to send back mainstreamed pupils int special schools/classes National Development Plan, Human Resource Program (HRD OP) (planning between 2002 and 2004) 2.X and 3.X are introduced - knowledge development and training programs for teachers for inclusive education; - social sensitivity trainings for local decision makers and parents to accept the integration of different students; - development of knowledge base for classroom methods available through the internet, - developing new methods to prevent drop-outs Kıpatakiné Mészáros, Márta, A szervezetfejlesztés jó gyakorlatai, 2006, OKI, Budapest. 75

79 9. Comparison zones and the early recognition of relating risk factors - Ministerial Orientation for SEN students Chance for Children Foundation is set up Parliamentary and expert debates reflect that in school and in kindergarten is signed. The Equal Treatment Act, Hungary s first comprehensive anti-discrimination (incl. anti-segregation) law. (financed partly and indirectly by the Government), launches Test cases (Public interest litigations) [próbaperek] against discriminating schools, i.e. the concerned municipalities, and against Placement Authorities misdiagnosing Roma students as - the number of students with psychological development disorder (esp. dyslexia) has grown from (in 2002) to (in 2005) - Dispersion of the proportion of students in this category varies greatly across counties mentally retarded/disabled The Ministerial Commissioner s Following the parliamentary elections, the left-liberal position is abolished; a ministerial minister of education is replaced by the socialist I. department is taking over its Hiller, calling for prerogatives (T. Borovszky) - tranquillity in the education sector, i.e. the 2006 The Head of the National Network for Education Integration (OOIH) is also replaced end of conflicts - Financial restrictions in the central state budget (education budget cut is less severe) Full membership in the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education Bálint Magyar becomes one of the leaders of the National Development Agency (NFÜ/FIT) New education tenders of the Social Renewal Program 76

80 9. Comparison zones as part of the EU-founded National Development Plan. (Local Educational Equal Opportunity Plans are required for any application) Modification of Pub. Educ. Act: - The distinction between organic vs. non-organic disability is introduced. The second wave of Control Testing. Reexamination of students with psychological development disorder (dyslexia, etc.) diagnosis to determine if their problem is to be explained with or without organic background. SEN decisions are attacked in court by Roma rights NGOs From 2008/2009 only organic disability is entitled for State provided financial support. Education counsellors (Medico-psychopedagogic Centres) become responsible for the treatment of non-sen children with learning/ behavioural difficulties, i.e. LBD (in effect from 2008/2009). Modification of Pub. Educ. Act. Raising penalties in case of the Education Act s of students out of found to be organic (SEN A type) thus remain entitled for prior financial support; proves to be non-organic (SEN B type, to be treated by the Medico-psycho-pedagogic centres and the schools), the rest (app students) are LBD or normal. Educatio Public Company (former Sulinova) in alliance with the PFDC (Public Foundation for Disabled Children [FGYK]) introduce new knowledge base for Placement Authorities 77

81 9. Comparison zones violation. Modification of 14/94 MKM ministerial order: - The Composite Book [ Kapcsoskönyv ] an up-to-date protocol for the screening and testing process - Any expert diagnosis by Placement Authorities requires the approval either of a child psychiatrist or child neurologist; - Control testing is ordered to reexamine students with psychological development disorder - Medico-psycho-pedagogic Centres and Placement Authorities are to authorize the level of services provided by the schools in their covered area Modification of Pub. Educ. Act.: Unified Childcare (crèches National Development Plan, Social Renewal V. Csépe/ the Educational Educational Office is given the authority to kindergartens) is allowed and supported Operative Program: Roundtable makes a new 2008 force kindergartens to accept the enrolment of any children. (Financial help for disadvantaged families willing to send their children into kindergarten.) from state budget to set up on small settlements. By March % of Municipalities have signed their Local Equal Educational Opportunity plans and applied for EU founds. consensus emerge (based on up-to-date neuropsychological knowledge, new standards Modification of 14/94 MKM ministerial order: No Placement Authority and New EU-founded tenders - for anti-discrimination signal/ referral systems and the SEN-field s selfregulation). Mild conflict for the leadership within the 78

82 9. Comparison zones Special Education School should be embodied within the same legal entity. (that is to prevent both schools and authorities in having students produced with the diagnosis according to the professional and financial needs of the school.) [jelzırendszer] and - for early intervention network, - for Special Education Schools to become Special Education Methodological Centres (SEMC) WISC IV (and other new, or newly standardized IQ tests) becomes available SEN-field between Special education and Psychology scholars - The SEMC partly reproduce the conflicts of interest, i.e. the convergence of interest between the Placement authorities incorporated into the SEMC and the special school 79

83 9. Comparison zones 9.2. Paradigm shift (Comparison Zone Nr. 2) The paradigm shift can be interpreted as the introduction of novel policy concerns (desegregation and inclusion) inspired by novel experts, instead of state bureaucratic regulation modes, along with the emergence of conflicting disciplinary knowledges. The hitherto exclusive remedial-medical-psychological model has been supplemented or even replaced by sociological insights, and auxiliary sciences (psychology, remedial pedagogy/special education as well as educational economy) evolving under sociology s patronage. There was a competition between the paradigm mostly present in special education (inclusive pedagogies) and the sociological paradigm, with the objective of desegregation. The period during and after the public action ( ) can be characterized by competing disciplinary traditions influencing policy making, and by the convergence of these traditions at the same time. We have coined this simultaneous and strong presence of competing disciplinary traditions within the decision making process as the era of the two-wing-window of opportunities. 71 From 2003 onwards, when the Public Education Law [1993] was modified, and the category of disabled students was replaced by students with special educational needs, mainstream policy presumptions about the SEN population have moved away from the hitherto predominant psycho-medical and remedial conceptualisation of disabilities (and from the general strategy of the central state to simply satisfy the diverse claims articulated by the representatives of groups differentiated from one another by types of disability) to the sociological problematization of the system of special education as such. For the Ministry s main advisors, the special education system became the territory of segregation, the metaphor of low quality education and a deadend in the educational career for children with SEN. The new focus on segregating mechanisms and the will of integration have been articulated by four competing explanations, each of them put forward distinct claims and visions about the SEN-field: (0) Integration/inclusion of students with disabilities and learning difficulties into mainstream schools in order to strengthen their later integration into society, to reduce 71 See: Orientation 1 Report. Two-wing window of opportunities. By borrowing (and modifying) the terminology offered by Kendal (cf. KNOWandPOL Literature Review, p. 10.) we emphasise on the opposition between various policy makers mobilising different expert knowledges is not always apparent. They often try to promote their respective views of public action, without necessarily realizing their basic conflicts, especially if they do not work in the same institutions and act independently. Problematic situations can be noticed if (and only if) they use the same indicators (e.g. OECD measures for identifying the number and the type of SEN pupils in the country); or if certain events are contested by the local actors of the field (e.g. the 2003 reexamination); or if common feedback arrives from policy results (such as the figures showing the rise of different SEN categories). The two wings together are wider than the frame of the window, but their structural conflict is not apparent if they swing asynchronously. 80

84 9. Comparison zones prejudice against people living with disabilities in general, and to avoid forms of schooling leading unemployment (special education, prior to the public action); (1) De-segregation and de-stigmatization of Roma/ SDS students (who were overrepresented among pupils with mild mental disabilities ) to offer equal educational opportunities (sociologists, prior to the public action); (2) Inclusive education, by treating students individually, it strives to reshape schools in a way that they become capable of coping with all sorts of difficulties and differences (mainstream education and special education); (3) Early intervention and prevention, in the form of early diagnosis and early childhood compensatory intervention, to identify risk factors, priority areas for intervention and to prepare disadvantaged children for school as early as possible (building especially on widespread screening, individual and family intervention programs, the development of a strengthened network of health visitors, paediatricians, nurseries, kindergartens, childcare institutions) (sociology and psychology, esp. especially developmental and neuropsychology). Common sociologically inspired presumptions, showing a paradigm shift, are the followings: a) Diagnostic categories are no longer considered natural ones; b) the social consequences of categorising ( labelling ) students with special needs is acknowledged; c) social (contextual) causes are responsible for a child becoming disabled or having learning difficulties (predecessors of this idea, such as multi-factorial, i.e. socio-cultural familiar causes of disabilities have been rejected because the argument seems too essentialist); (d) social (contextual) factors are preconditions of successful therapy. We can also identify a shift with respect to the mode of governing the SEN field around From the late 1980s until 2002 a rather passive attitude characterised SEN policies on the national level, minimizing legal regulation, and delegating responsibilities to local governments (screening, therapy and organization of the SEN-education). It was a period of decentralisation and local self-regulation, without a real post-bureaucratic shift, the central Government remaining passive. National level financial support, though ever increasing, was provided through municipal administrations, while entitlements for special services were widening due to lobbying on behalf of specific populations (e.g. children with autism, learning difficulties etc.). After 2002, the socialist-liberal government, although it did not alter the liberalbureaucratic mode of governing, characterising the entire education sector in Hungary, tightened legal measures over diagnostics and selection processes of SEN students. It was reinforcing both bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic regulation, by becoming more active. For example, categories were reshaped and the number of entitlements reduced, and bureaucratic control was reinforced over service provision. At the same time, the National Development plans, financed by the EU (concentrating on program financing, rather than on earmarked subsidies), tried cope with a highly decentralised system, 81

85 9. Comparison zones inducing a shift towards post-bureaucratic regulation. Knowledge-diffusion became a major and explicit element of the new setting, e.g. Educating the educators programs, development programs, good practices diffusion (books, NNIE, etc.), auditing measures Knowledges (in conflict) (Comparison Zone Nr. 3) Some of the conflicts are epistemic controversies that occur both within and between disciplines. In connection to the public action we notice the clash of three disciplinary approaches, special education on one side, social sciences on the other and psychology on the third side. Policy makers stand in-between these three disciplines and in the course of the events found themselves confronted with all sides (while they seem to have a preference for sociology). In the course of the policy however, more and more signs indicate that all these disciplines/scientific traditions form a coalition led by sociology which borrows both the idea of inclusion from special education and most of the leading special education scholars to triumph over the overrepresentation (of SDS/Roma). Special educators (remedial pedagogues) and pedagogic counsellors (Medico-psychopedagogic centres) educated within the tradition of remedial pedagogy tend to believe that adequate support for students with any type of learning difficulties can only be provided by teachers trained in special education, even if they are not conducted in segregated schools or classes. Segregation with sufficient help offers higher quality education than rigid integration. 72 Nevertheless, the university faculty for special education started to promote mainstreaming of SEN students under certain circumstances. While special educators always think in terms of educational success and failure of disabled student within the system, sociological approach focuses on the educational opportunities of Roma/ SDS students overrepresented among SEN children. There is a mild controversy between, on the one hand, traditional critical sociologists (and decision makers who adopt their line of reasoning) pointing to the systemic interests 73, and the negative attitudes of municipal and street level decision makers (teachers, advisors, Placement Authorities, local government officers) resulting in discriminative actions against Roma/ SDS families, and, on the other hand, those sociologists who rather concentrate on the social causes of objective learning difficulties among lower status students (such as M. Herczog and the whole Prevention Paradigm). 72 See: Péter Radó, Developing strategies for the education of Roma students, p As for the Placement Authority, we would have liked to dissolve the interdependence between the institutions. The headmaster of the school sustained by the Local Government of the county asks the head of Placement Authority also supported by the Local Government of the county to send them 15 children, and no surprise they send them him (G. Daróczi, decision-maker) 82

86 9. Comparison zones Alternative or modern pedagogical practices are promoted by inclusive education, which emphasizes the necessary restructuring of pedagogical practices (i.e. reform of teaching methods and of the curriculum) requires teachers to become familiar with special education curricula. This approach, which tends to make no difference between socially disadvantaged and SEN students, leaves no legitimate space for segregation. (This paradigm is mostly advocated by educational specialists working in background institutions). The role of psychology in special education was mostly reduced to overseeing psychological testing and assessment; therefore psychologists, especially those working at Placement Authorities were the first to be called responsible for the segregation of lower class/underclass/roma SEN. Their initial role in the new SEN policies was that of denial and rejection. Recently however, as policy measures and the public action itself delved deeper into the debate of defining SEN which serves as a legal category, but must defined through scientific consensus, psychology increasingly became the scientific ground of pro and con arguments in SEN definition, thus the main knowledge producer for the public action. In the public action, as well as in the following policy decisions, psychology along with neurosciences became an authoritative source of scientific proof for measurements, not independent from the personal contribution of the scientifically and institutionally well-established neuroscientist psychologist, V. Csépe, who played an active role in shaping the legal regulations of SEN and in the Green Book on education. Psychology presents itself as a sort of natural science (see appendix, Figure Nr 13). The role of psychology as a discipline changed from being very laden with conflicts to co-dominant. Controversies typically emerge around specific issues (e.g. form and intensity of integration, earmarked subsidies for specific groups of students, the organization of regular control of the established diagnosis, adaptation of new screening protocols and IQ tests, or developing all-embracing signal/referral systems for ethnic discrimination or for careless/negligent families, etc.) in every institutional setting from the local government to consultative bodies and government agencies. 74 Political conflicts also become manifest along with institutionally preformed antagonisms. Some of them occur due to the emergence of outsider policies. If new knowledge tools are put into the political system upon decision (e.g. new policy ideas invented by think tanks or by background institutions), which are to be executed through non-hierarchical government agencies, their conflicts with traditional departments of the ministry are not simply relative to their content, but rather to the fact that they question bureaucratic modes of policy execution. In such cases policy ideas receive support from experts who help to insert legal, statistical, economic or methodological knowledge i.e. bureaucracyconform knowledge and knowing how into the public action. 74 We have described the mechanism of this type of political conflict in more detail through the example of SEN/ SDS lines supported by special education experts and sociologists respectively see: Orientation 1 Report. 83

87 9. Comparison zones Local institutional conflicts (e.g. county-level self-governments, Placement Authorities and schools are per definition interested, both financially and legally in different number and types of diagnosis attached to students), are formulated along with perceived institutional interests, which means on the one hand that discursive positions in such conflicts follow the interpretation of hard financial, legal and statistical facts, and on the other hand it is bolstered by some hypotheses mediated by the different disciplines (e.g. real causes for school failure, adequate organization of classes, sufficient human resource for remedial success, etc.) It is worth noting that in the SEN-field there is no traceable conflict between civic, state and expert knowledges. Lay knowledge ( civic experience ) and state knowledge ( who to be governed and how ) are both transformed into different expert discourses, which are shaped by disciplinary traditions. The same can be said about new public management : it is occasionally possessed by experts, but its application is dependent on disciplinary/paradigmatic commitments. The From the Last Desk Program has mirrored all the competing formulations of short term policy goals and measures, as well as conceptions of educational ideals. Delabelling and desegregation of Roma students for example was operated through active symbolic (anti-racist) involvement in the field and through new legal measures pushed forward primarily by the Ministerial Commissioners. The ideal of integrated and/or inclusive education was promoted mostly by special education experts in the Sulinova/Educatio Public Company who concentrated on new knowledge development, dissemination and training programs (following an ideal of self-regulation ) involving teachers, pedagogic advisers and experts from screening agencies. The early intervention paradigm (early screening and prevention/ intervention), including programs, such as the Sure Start program, are based on a sociological understanding of inequalities, but a psychological, neuropsychological (or brain sciences ) therapy Knowledge policy (Comparison Zone Nr. 4.) Integration is on the agenda, that is one of the reasons why special education converges with sociology, and this convergence is favoured by the research commands and textbook grants of the Governmental sector. If we look at who publishes what for example about integration, I think half of the people working here had written something on the topic in the past 10 years. Textbook, article, had a project in the field, wrote a report, mentored a dissertation. S/he is either a special educator or a professional advisor in the ministry or at the Education Research and Development Institute [OKI] or elsewhere. It is for sure that 50 % of them are concerned with integration. It is a hot topic as it is in Europe as well. [...] The sociologist is not an enemy; on the contrary its opinion is highly appreciated. (Cs. Bánfalvy) The institutional framework of science policy which has been developed during the mid 1990s has shown no traceable preference for developing a SEN knowledge regime in 84

88 9. Comparison zones Hungary, not even from 2006 onwards, when financial priorities were given to natural science based research. Meanwhile, in 2002, EU financial measures destined to human resource development (later called social renewal ) in the National Development Plans allocated resources for knowledge mobilisation in education in general, and since 2004, for SEN-related knowledge production and dissemination in particular. Currently, significant forms of influence upon the condition of knowledge production in special education are the followings: 1. Central state budget support for national institutions dedicated to special education and disabled people Basic research in special education, undergraduate teachers training textbooks use a faculty budget provided through a distinct line in central state budget; future experts, advisors and teachers are also educated by the Faculty of Special Education, ELTE [BGGYF, later BGGYK]; public foundations are financed by the Ministry of Education to collect Hungarian good practices and to publish expert experiences [FOKKA, later FSzKA and FGYK]. 2. Direct support from EU structural funds for new knowledge production - promoting expert training programs (2004 onwards), and early intervention (2007 onwards), etc. Background institutions of the Ministry of Education (the Educatio Public Company; National Institute for Public Education) working on HRD OP programs, promoted the idea of inclusive education, new diagnostic protocols and modern testing equipments developed within the framework of three branches: Roma/ SDS integration 75, SEN inclusion and competence learning. After 2008, based on new ideas (see below), new funds were allocated within the framework of a SR OP (Social Renewal Operative Program) administered by the NDA and the Ministry of Social and Labour Affaires to develop a child care referral/signal systems, which includes early screening of at risk families and a Roma discrimination alarm to be operated by NGOs. 3. Direct (mostly symbolic, but also financial, and to some extent legal) support for newly founded extra-administrative bodies in order to mobilise knowledge for the purpose of sector reforms ( ) The so-called Hungary Tomorrow Educational Round Table (a board of the wise ) provided knowledge background for SEN policies (see: our Critical Episode, above). It had a major role in forming the coalition of sociology, educational economy and natural science based (psychological) perspectives on learning difficulties and disabilities. It put forward the idea of early diagnosis and State responsibility in early intervention. 75 See Hungary Education s Reports. 85

89 9. Comparison zones 4. Ad hoc investigations commissioned by government branches ( , later limited significance) Social research on the overrepresentation of Roma/ SDS children among SEN students was a new cornerstone for both policy and public focus. The Ministry of Education initiated research which not only supported decision making, but later led to official investigations (that were initiated by the Roma Commissionaire, executed by the Educational Authority). These ad hoc surveys produced new statistical evidence on the discrimination and prejudice against Roma, provided new knowledge on discriminating techniques and troubled areas in the country, and focused on disabled students especially in kindergartens and in vocational training (Havas & Liskó). 5. The so-called Non-Governmental State Organisations (see below, in CZ 5) They also command research (Kaltenbach et al 1998) and impact studies, evaluation reports (Berényi, Berkovits & Eröss 2005b). Since these institutions are dedicated to ethnic and minority rights, they often act as State-financed quasi advocacy groups, or human rights organisations producing knowledge about segregation and the need of inclusion. (A somewhat similar, but only half-independent institution exists within the Ministry of Education, dedicated to the protection of rights in education) Knowledge & Policy constellations (Comparison Zone Nr. 5) Concentrating on constellations that seem to be decisive in the course of recent SEN policies, we see that these forms are either distinct technologies of governance, or, more simply, highly observable crystallized forms of regular interaction that lead to the incorporation of specific SEN related knowledges into the public action. Consultative bodies. Decision makers and officers in charge hold regular meetings with interest groups (in consultative bodies, at regular conferences) which provided both civic and expert evaluation of planned legal modifications. Here, participants are invited according to their institutional affiliations. (E.g.: National Public Education Committee [OKNT] 76 ) Advisory boards. Decision makers of the SEN-field also have formal advisory boards as well as less formal policy labs (brain storming and workshops) to generate new policies and implementation ideas (see also below: mixed tank ). Experts are invited to these types of consulting according to their scholarly fame, as well as their personal ties with decision makers, and evaluated according to their potential to provide useful arguments in case of debates within the administration. High level public servants, often 76 See in more detail: Hungary Education s Reports. 86

90 9. Comparison zones with similar academic background and years of personal field experience (teaching, counselling etc.), uphold personal connections with researchers, former colleagues in university departments and background institutions. They tend to use these connections in order to update channels of academic knowledge (in which research papers, fresh volumes are transmitted in great quantity, although main points are highlighted verbally and emphasized in informal settings.) Experts, incl. academics and scholars. Advisors are hired occasionally or regularly to provide the knowledge basis of policy decisions. The circle of experts chosen by the Ministry and the background institute of the Ministry are in line with the dominant paradigm of the public action, thus first mostly social scientists, later educational specialists and finally psychologists. The definition of the good expert/ policy advisor (oriented towards praxis) and of the bad one (theory-oriented scholars), from the decision-makers /public officers perspective: There are some people in the administration who can t stand scholars. This made again a good sounding assertion, the homework is to be done, but then do it in practice. And I agree. There are scholars who have a global view on the whole system but still cannot put anything into practice. But here it is operating the country or only operating the educational system and find the practical means how to make law based on the knowledge that was in the brains or in the articles. Of course there are scholars who can think in very practical ways, for example I can name Mr. Havas. He is such kind of a scholar who has practical implementation ideas while conducting huge researches. (Public Officer, Ministry of Education, member of the mixed tank ) Mixed tanks. This term (which is our invention) refers to a half-formal group including scholars/experts as well as decision-makers/bureaucrats set up to seek for definite solutions to given policy problems. Unlike many think tanks, mixed tanks are non-profit entities. Unlike advocacy coalitions (Sabatier), they are small groups of individuals, staying mostly in the background. Two mixed tanks were formed in the course of this policy. 1) The most important proponents of equality of opportunities, a mixed tank of public officers and experts (Havas, Liskó, Derdák, Bernáth, Kadét, Sárközi, etc.) 77, who set the agenda and designed policies. 2) That of the lobbyists of the Placement authorities, of Medico-psycho-pedagogic Centres, independent scholars and the Ministry s high ranked officer: Now that this new decree (no. 14) is being prepared, people in the field joined forces and decided to set up a professional team or lobby group and work without compensation, just for the cause s sake they will read and study the decree [...] it is always worth to work with someone who is politically and professionally on the top and appreciated, plus who is clever and intelligent, has a good insight for everything. This is V. Csépe. Then we should work with her. The group assembled and SzakÉRTELEM [the Association for Expertise ] and Positive [professional 77 See in: in Hungary Education s Reports 87

91 9. Comparison zones associations] started organising a professional team. We were about 30 among us Á. Torda, a headmaster of an inclusive school etc, all ready to make the modifications of the regulation no. 14. We met at least ten times. Then the team shrank, we ended up 6. But we circulated by everything, everybody made comments. Eventually we had a huge document, where we indicated our recommendations with red marks. We did not make remarks and explanations we simply changed the draft text of the decree. Then Mr. Szüdi explained why this or this was impossible legally. Still he took many of our suggestions into consideration. (Leading special education scholar) there should be people coming from theoretical as well as from practical background. At that time it was important that (these were) doctors, psychologists and special educators (at least) and then we started discussing the issue. And step by step it became clarified [...] and from this team initiated by [the State secretary] Szüdi an independent working team was formed, not working with Szüdi. This team kept in touch with him though: write and receive letters from time to time. (Another leading special education scholar) Planning: Since 2007 municipalities must develop compulsory long-term plans as well as action plans to become eligible for EU funding. Local Equal Opportunity Plans and Local Public Education Equal Opportunities Program are ought to describe the situation of SEN students and provide indicators, benchmarks and schedules for action in focal areas related to them (esp. inclusion and infrastructure for special services ). From 2007/2008 on, county and municipal governments were already supposed to control the number and condition of SEN students within their education system. Standardization and the elaboration of Protocols: As noted earlier, EU funds were mobilised to get hold of screening protocols, to offer novel diagnostic practices for Placement Authorities, and to modernize Medico-psycho-pedagogic centres. Conditions of screening and human resource requirements, as well as administrative relationships between Placement Authorities and special education schools were defined (Protocol Handbook; modification of the 1994 Ministerial Decree on Special Services). New protocols give instructions for special educators/psychologists about how to inform teachers, how to interpret a diagnosis and how to conduct efficient therapy. As a core event of the public action, new IQ tests were standardized and adopted (WISC-IV, Woodcock-Johnson III, see: local case study), to create internationally, scientifically approved psychometric methods of measurement. Targeting: Different categories of disabilities were defined in order to make government intervention more effective, but also, to make the problem more manageable. Above all, the group of allegedly over-diagnosed ( falsely diagnosed ) children was defined, based as a combination of two/three factors: social status/ethnic (Roma) origin and the diagnostic category itself (mild mental disability/retardation, later psychological developmental disorder and SEN B ); targeting as a policy measure was, so to speak ab ovo a scientific (sociological and psychological) act. Students are categorized in the local MPPCs and Placement authorities, and registered on class/school level (as the lowest grid), so that financial support can be planned and official investigations (e.g. control of diagnostic screening) may be commissioned accordingly. Sub-categories of SEN are under constant reclassification in order to fulfil many 88

92 9. Comparison zones competing goals. Legal reclassifications occur not only in order to meet international standards, to avoid potential discriminations and to avoid undesired policy-effects, but also to control financing. Auditing: The basic strategy followed by the Ministry of Education in order to track the results of government interventions was to extend control and enhance the probability of potential penalties issued by the (Government s) Educational Authority. Medico-Psycho- Pedagogic Centres and Placement Authorities are obliged to provide increasingly detailed yearly reports about their facilities and special service output. Although dimensions of reported data from such sources are rarely comparable with figures of official statistics, the adoption of auditing techniques has helped to diminish somewhat strong yearly bounces in one or another disability category, and also, regularly audited institutions are ready to cooperate with local institutions along with central policy lines. (For instance, Placement Authorities now need to figure out what sort of pressure can they build on to sidetrack schools and education counsellors (MPPCs) who still want to send them too many Roma students for that they get certified diagnosis of their special needs.) Training and knowledge dissemination: Within the HRD OP program on SEN and on Roma/ SDS integration, so-called innovative teaching methods were developed with the involvement of professors from most pedagogy departments of universities and teacher training colleges in the country, not to mention the Special Education Faculty. Teaching materials are available through websites via the users institutional registrations. Both materials and the website (Sulinova Data Bank) put an emphasis on the education of socially disadvantaged students, and students with special needs. By 2008, about 10% of schools (1500 out of ) had participated in preliminary sensitivity training and programs, and about 300 did actually adopt integrative methods. Different layers of attitude forming intentions (multicultural, inclusive, and integrative) seem to co-exist peacefully in the teaching materials. Programs offered for non-professionals (parents, school neighbourhoods) are to enlighten stakeholders. The mobilization of layers, the target group itself have proved to be less successful (e.g. the encouragement of early screening, the adaptation of a critical attitude towards diagnosis). Quantitative forms (standardization, targeting, auditing, planning) are becoming prominent mostly among central state decision makers and their advisors, while qualitative forms (consulting, training) are put forward rather by pressure groups in the sector. Other constellations: Advocacy; advocacy groups, lobby groups, NGOs collecting data on the field and exercising political and legal pressure. Foundations (CFCF), Institutes (OSI), Associations, etc. (see CFCF in CZ7) 89

93 9. Comparison zones Street level bureaucrats who happen to be trained special educators/psychologists Personal networks become influential because of the relatively small number of people involved in the field. (E.g. personal experiences with a specific good practice becomes a policy goal) Evidence-based policy as an ideal and as a communication strategy. Agenda setting has evolved: the definition of political agenda is no more the pure declaration of policy goals, but a complex set of measures, focusing on the intervention of various experts at various levels, policy isn t (or at least isn t presented) as a series of administrative measures, bureaucratic/legal acts, but as the disclosure of expertise. The Educational Roundtable used evidence-based policy as an explicit strategy. Public background-institutes. Educatio Public company (the former Sulinova), and the National Institute for Public Education [OKI]. Stake-holders. Professional associations (e.g. Pozitív, Szakértelem) oppose or escort given policy measures, or both. They mobilise their expert knowledge as a resource to influence decision-making not only from outside, but also from within, as they are within the PA. Board of the Wise: The Hungary Tomorrow Roundtable. (See: our Critical Episode chapter), and, to some extent, the State Reform Committee. Report for decision-makers: The Green Book (see: our Critical Episode chapter). Inquiries (called research ), like the 2005 inquiry in two counties (see details above): research focusing on legal aspects (whether or not service providers trespass), carried out (in part or entirely) by ministerial officers as a pilot initiative, to gather (non-representative) data and raise the street-level bureaucrats awareness of the (new) agenda. Equality experts. New faces of the never-ending PA, sorts of street level applied sociologists mostly with school-science background! Equality experts are involved in the SEN-screening process of SDS children, on the parents or the Authority s demand. Local Public Education Equal Opportunity Programs. State initiated local knowledge-production which is at the same time a local self-regulation tool (deployed within the framework of NDA-programs and defined as pre-condition of EU-grants) Best/good practices. Katona (2008) for example cites good practices from Britain, Denmark, Finland and the US. For more details, see: CZ 7 and 8. 90

94 9. Comparison zones NGSO, Non-Governmental State Organisations. These are entirely financed by State subsidies and are part of the country s public institutional landscape, but lack administrative/financial policy tools, therefore try to intervene though the knowledge they produce; this is typically the case of the Ombudsman for Minority Rights (who initiated research on the overrepresentation of Roma which happened to have great impact), or of the Hungarian Supreme Audit Institution [Állami Számvevıszék] which also played a role Media (Comparison Zone Nr. 6) Public coverage of the Last Desk Program can be considered as limited (as compared to parallel government programs); but the contrary could also be true: the issue (of the Roma unduly diagnosed as mentally retarded) had got quite a big publicity. Of course, this is a methodological question: to decide what is lot and what is little. Mohácsi ministerial commissioner s debut was perceived by most stakeholders as a forceful (public) attack on the profession. Statistical figures describing the overrepresentation of Roma students in segregated schools for mentally disabled children were regularly cited by the Ministerial Commissioner. Her declarations were considered first a symbolic assault on the Placement authorities and the MPPCs. Later, when the focus of attention became the design of a new protocol, a kind of cease-fire was achieved, and as a sign of cooperation and reconcilement, the promotion of inclusive schooling was limited to background institutions and linked to the National Development Plan (EU-financed calls). Educatio Public Company became the official voice of the PA while the media turned their attention away as soon as conflicts diminished. SEN professionals (special education experts, psychologists, neurologists) have appeared in the public sphere regularly during the last decade. Their statements are usually aired as expert opinions. However, they do not comment on policy issues in a direct manner, but rather on true and false signs of learning difficulties or on the urgent need for adequate treatment of the real cases. What is asserted in these public declarations, tribunes and press discussions concerns the great tradition of Hungarian remedial expertise, and the international uncertainties in determining the expected natural occurrence of different disabilities (whether dyslexia should be 5, 10 or 15 percent in a population, etc). New labels are introduced and adequate therapies for diagnosed problems are also advertised in this way. A new generation of (school) psychologists appeared recently and seems to use the media as a terrain where they can counterbalance the disciplinary tradition of applied psychology by proposing more evidence-based approaches. Here, evidence is related to the everyday practice of the educational institutions in general, moreover, for critical 91

95 9. Comparison zones psychosocial and even sociological analyses of educational and therapeutic settings (J. Szügyi 2008, D. Szél 2009a, 2009b, A. Kende 2008). The integration of Roma children 78 was and is the much debated issue; much more than the integration/inclusion of SEN students which remained practically unknown to a wider public despite the fact that the legal obligation of SEN-inclusion should theoretically concern each school. These issues were mostly debated on internet forums and blogs held by parents of SEN children. The test cases (public interest litigations) [próbaperek] initiated by the Chance for Children Foundation (CFCF) received a large media attention were probably among the most visible parts of the PA. Note that they were indeed part of the PA, B. Magyar, the Ministry and the NDA supported them in one way or another. The Educational Round Table received some attention in the media, especially when the Prime Minister attended the kick-off conference, but the public debate which the new form of disseminating knowledge incl. a massive use of Internet was supposed to entail, more or less failed, most of all because of changing political context 79, especially as far as the written outcome, the Green Book is concerned. The media like scandals. In 2004, a report (by Michael Stewart) and and impact study (by Gábor Fleck and his colleagues) of the EU-financed Phare Program stated that the Program was inefficient, a leading Internet-site announced that billions were drained away to finance exclusion and school segregation. The Governement answered and defended the Program on the oine hand, attacked the previous Governement (which signed the grant) on the other hand (ORIGO, 2004). Those scandals can alternatively depart into two opposite directions, on a completely contingent basis: in favour or against inclusion (or any other policy issue). The Internet as a medium for exchange also plays a growing role. Professionals (psychologists, teachers, etc.) and parents discuss the SEN-issue, mostly out of the perspective of here we experience the reality (e.g. the difficulties/impossibility of inclusion), up there, in the Ministry, they don't. (See: The community sites are also getting involved, a forum on Facebook (in Hungarian) addressed the issue. 80 As early as in the mid-1990, the public television contributed to put the SEN-issue on the agenda; more precisely: the other disabilities -issue. A journalist, with a teacher s degree, has been contacted by a special educator and started a biweekly TV-program in 78 See: the Reports of Hungary Education. 79 See: the Critical Episode in the Report of Hungary Education The question number 2 concerns the SEN. 92

96 9. Comparison zones the public television about learning difficulties. They founded the Positiv Association [Pozitív Egyesület] 81 in 1995 which became one of the major stakeholders, by uniting the parents concerned and the special educators in the form of a lobby group or advocacy coalition. The television-program continued until 2000 to be their public podium Local actors influence on the national level (Comparison Zone Nr. 7) A lack of public debate, lack of listening to the voice of local actors is the most commonly articulated criticism to the events of the PA, most decisions were made top-down, with very little influence by local actors, especially at the beginning of the program. That was the dominant narrative by the Special educational field s practitioners. The narrative by the Ministry was quite the opposite: they did listen to the special educators opinion (the pick of Torda being a proof and a guarantee), while they perceived some sort of sabotage on the local level: (a) the municipalities/local authorities used the SEN-extra financial grant for other purposes, (b) the kindergartens, schools and medico-psycho-pedagogic centres sent more and more children to the placement authorities for examination and (c) the placement authorities labelled more and more children as SEN (and mainstreamed only 11% of the children re-examined in 2003). None of them realised the ongoing desegregation and mainstreaming of SEN (not directly induced by the Central Government), a silent revolution, continued by that time (see Appendix). Local actors as organised stakeholders managed to influence legislation and financing as well. The Positive Association [Pozitív Egyesület] 82 founded with the original aim of (a) disseminating knowledge about SEN-issues among parents, (b) disconnect the SEN-issue from the social disadvantages/roma minority topic (i.e. propose an alternative causal explanation, different from that of the sociologists and human rights activists), (c) contribute to a more evidence-based policy-making by actively involving a group of 20 experts (special education scholars) into the preparation of SEN-legislation, played an important role. Also, the NGO organized by Placement Authorities [SzakÉRTELEM] with the primary aim of self-representation in the public action, also managed to put pressure on the ministry in dealing with SEN diagnosis. Placement Authorities upon organizing themselves were invited to the ministry before all the important legislative decisions, and their opinion was among those taken into account in all the regulations which took place after They played a central role in developing the new diagnostic protocol, and became an organization which was not to overlook in any decisions in connection with SEN status

97 9. Comparison zones Well organized pressure groups of parents of children suffering from specific disabilities (e.g. autism, severe mental handicap, and other classic disabilities) have good access to both the Public Foundation (FSzKA) and to the Ministry of Education. Parents of children with milder mental disability/ learning difficulties are much less organized. These more numerous and typically lower status families are represented by NGOs/Advocacy groups (such as CFCF), partly financed by the government to concentrate on legal advocacy for misdiagnosed students. The top-down support for civil organisations may be surprising; in fact it s just an additional evidence of the weakness of civil society, on the one hand, and the commitment of decision-makers to fight segregation (of Roma/SDS/SEN) with any means, on the other hand: There is another line, the civil rights activist movement whom I started to support as a minister. (B. Magyar) Local minority self-governments 83 can stand up occasionally for the rights of segregated and/or misdiagnosed children on the local level. Generally, however, parents associations are not likely to be involved, for they are weak. The only exception to this is the parents of children with some middle-class dysfunctions. Knowledge actors and policy makers both state that the lobby activity of these parents association played a central role in rejecting for years the plan which would have made a more significant differentiation in the financial support of SEN A and B children, and was supposed to take away the financial incentive to SEN diagnosis. The local actors play a major role in a decentralised system like Hungary: the local governments have a large autonomy, the local service providers (e.g.: Placement Authorities and SEMC) as well. More recently, local actors started to be mobilised by indirect means (the promise of EU-grants) by the Central Government to act as knowledge producers and to place their self-regulation under the auspices of the Local Educational Equal Opportunities Plans, with the help of experts trained nationally. This focus on the local actors is due precisely to the fact that the Central Government s officials realised in the course of this PA that these local actors do influence (and often prohibit) the implementation of political will to a large extent International influences (Comparison Zone Nr. 8) The most popular international instrument of the Educational field, PISA, did not affect the SEN-field (directly): In the PISA survey the sample s margin of error is 5 % and since the rate of SEN children is usually below 5 %, in most of the countries these children were not 83 See: Orientation 1 Report 94

98 9. Comparison zones included in the analysis. It is especially true for countries where these children go to segregated schools or special classes. But there is a series of SEN-specific international institutions and instruments. The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSNE) had a growing influence (after Hungary gained full membership) 84. It concentrates on international best practice development, qualitative assessment, and evaluation of national programs for SEN children. The (EADSNE) is funded with support from the European Commission. It reproduces (almost) up-to-date statistics of SEN in Hungary on its homepage (See: Appendix, Figure 13). In opposition to the more quantitative approach of the OECD, the EADSNE disseminates best practices and qualitative assessments, above all. Academic actors can have the easiest access to international knowledge. For example, the objective of overcoming the segregated practices of remedial education initially came from the international pressure on special pedagogy independent of the sociological critique: international trends underlined the importance to seek alternatives to segregation of SEN students. Sociologists also made references to international good practices on SEN inclusion. It is the prevention paradigm which is the most paradoxical one with respect to international knowledge, as a key actor, G. Kertesi who played an important role all throughout the Educational Roundtable, and criticized the course of action from the economist s perspective committed to equal opportunities, made primarily US analogies and not European ones (Kertesi: 2008). International instruments are gaining prominence in the field. The most significant one is the OECD categorisation of special needs, which is widely cited by politicians and officers. For researchers, OECD classification and its statistical figures are inadequate for international comparison and for describing the Hungarian specificities. Politicians and bureaucrats accept the tool as authoritative and use it in a way to support their position. 85 Another international tool, ICF ( International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health developed by the WHO in 2001 as a parallel diagnostic taxonomy to ICD-10, the current International Classification of Diseases) is on the threshold of possibly gaining significance. Already, there is a theoretical consensus around the necessity of needs based assessment (Lányiné 2007). 84 Its representative is M. Kıpataky, from the National Institute for Public Education [OKI]. See: 85 It was often cited in administrative debates in which the SEN-line placed an emphasis on the Disadvantages category [Class C)], which recognizes the special education needs of migrants, the Roma and the poor; while the SDS-line tended to cite the total number of pupils with special needs in different countries to highlight bad rates and conditions in Hungary. (cf. Orientation 1 report in more detail) 95

99 9. Comparison zones Good practices from Northern countries (Scandinavia and especially the PISA winner Finland) and Great-Britain are often referred to. However these references are often superficial, not taking into account the differences in the social make-up of the country, the differences in the educational and the political traditions. The fact is that these references are rarely translated into practical and applicable knowledge, and remain idyllic models rather than applicable good practices. Actually the knowledge-regime which was developed in Hungary makes it difficult to adopt good practices or to even learn from them. (Although the Educational Roundtable did try.) Travelling ideas, good practices and special education scholars: Where did the Hungarian special educators get scholarships from in the 90s? First, from the United States. [...] 5 to 10 special educators went to the US yearly, to work, get experience and see the American model. Long before the 90s because of the black Americans and the minorities the integration issue provoked big debates. Many people came back infected with the ideas. Then many people went to Germany, England etc. [...] there has been strong connections with Austria and Germany, and since Mr. Bárczi the German influence was traditionally strong. These people brought back the knowledge and taught it. (Cs. Bánfalvy) Note that the concept of the SEMC, a very important institutional innovation, also partially based on some local (i.e. national) tradition was imported from Germany by a leading special education scholar (see: above). Another scholar also imported knowledge from Germany: with the help of the Positive Association [Pozitív Egyesület], she imported knowledge in the 1990s about children who are hard to manage ; she translated a book and started to teach it at the Bárczi faculty. Together with the Association, they offered a radically different understanding of the SEN-issue from that of the SDS-line: explaining that learning difficulties and behavioural disorder are from organic (or at least non-social) origin a perspective legitimated by an intensive knowledge-transfer from western special education sciences into the Hungarian field. Special education scholars perceived V. Csépe s analysis in the Green Book as a critique addressed to their profession on this crucial issue: Á. Lányiné Engelmayer draws the history of the relations between special education and the West with the explicit aim to show evidence that links have always been tight (Lányiné 2007). There is not one single best practice. Best practices are contingent upon policy preferences. The international SEN-policies are different, inclusion (Norway, Portugal, Italy, Sweden...), segregation (Belgium, Switzerland), and various intermediary solutions (Germany, England, Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands...) exist throughout Europe (Csányi, 2007a, quoted by Fischer 2009). 96

100 9. Comparison zones 9.9. Europe s role (Comparison Zone Nr. 9) The European context was primarily important in drawing the overall framework of the programs, both agenda and financing. The Roma integration/inclusion had to be treated as one of the most important tasks of the country upon EU accession (2004). Right after, Europe served as a general framework, at least on the level of the imaginary:...yes, here we are, member of the EU, we have to think differently from now on, we have to change the routines we are used to (Á. Torda) More concretely, the EU Education Ministers, in a declaration made in 1990 stated that the main form is integration. Everything that is not integrated is of secondary importance, it can exist and be maintained even permanently but it cannot be of primary choice. Symmetrically, the EU ministers called for the transfer of pedagogical knowledges from special education to mainstream education (Halász 2004). Also, Hungary, in order to meet European expectations transferred SEN issues from the health sector to the educational sector, and, in order to build a lifelong model for treatment and integration, the Ministry for Social Affairs and Labour has become involved as well. This change in international conceptualisations of disability can be called a process of institutional Europeanization. But in fact, there is no such thing as a single European model: If you look at the different European educational systems, there is no such thing as a European model. In the middle belt of the European Union, so to say the Benelux states, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the ex-socialist countries follow the tradition of separated education, even today [...] in the North and in the South there is integration though done differently. Basically because there are a lot of scarcely inhabited territories, from where they still have to go to school. And this is what they call integration. (Cs. Bánfalvy) The limits of benchmarks, or the (ab)use of the European good practice argument are not only recognised by scholars, but also by key officials: Before, the ministerial communication was the following: the rate of SEN is much higher in Hungary than in any other European countries. But this is not always a defensible argument in itself. For example what counts as SEN and what not is upon the countries own decision: in Great Britain it is 30%. To that extent the Hungarian rate of 7 is relatively low. Or Finland which has the most successful educational system has a SEN rate of 17 %. In brackets, the difference is that in higher grades the rate is much lower because of effective early intervention; it is high around the beginning of the school ages. [...] Our problem with the high rate is that the rate of Roma children is extremely high in it. Practically they are all Roma. (Public Officer, Ministry of Education, member of the mixed tank ) Europe became a precious resource rather than a reference. While the initiation of the From Last Desk Program itself was financed by an improvised budget voted for the ministerial commissioner by the ministry, and was thus unrelated to EU funded programs originally, a few months later, the financial support of the EU Structural Founds (National Development Plans, HDR OP and SR OP projects) ensured the entire SEN 97

101 9. Comparison zones integration/inclusion projects (test adaptation, trainings, etc.), just like the Roma/SDS programs. However, since EU-financed programs denote high amounts of money, they are often suspicious (like every big project) or criticised (like the Phare program [Origo 2004]). European-level professional networks and forums also play a growing role, special education scholars participate and publish (Kıpatakiné Mészáros 2002) at the European Academy of Childhood Disability, Hungary as a country joined the European Agency European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education and exchange data, as well as ideas with European partners (European Agency 2008 and others). Knowledgebrokers such as Mária Herczog also rely on EU-institutions outside the narrow field of Special educationor Education, such as the Eurofound, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (a European Union body, whose objective is, among others: social cohesion). The link made between education, employment and social issues by the EU (Lisbon process, etc.) as a cross-sectorial knowledge and ressource is reflected by the Educational Roundtable s board of the wise, whose members very much focused on the international circulation of knowledge and good practices (from Europe and the US). In addition, the elaboration of Local Public Education Equal Opportunity Programs (LPEEOP) became a pre-condition of receiving EU-support (in the framework of the HRD OP or the Regional Operative Programs, administered by the National Development Agency). This was an initiative of former ministerial commissioner G. Daróczi and his staff. The LPEEOP must include a Public Education Equal Opportunity Action Plan 86, which consists itself of an analysis part and of an action plan part. It must obligatory deal with the SEN-issue; it should aim (1) a measurable decrease in the number of SEN-students within one year if their number exceeds the national average (7%), (2) the access to secondary education for SEN, and also the (3a) legal and (3b) quality control of SENeducation and SEN-services (Ministry 2007). NATIONAL KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSED THROUGHOUT EUROPE. National knowledge about the segregation of Roma children falsely categorised as SEN students was a message which was successfully disseminated in Europe by Hungarian activists and politicians, as it is reflected in the European coverage of the issue. V. Mohácsi, the former ministerial commissioner to initiate the FLDP became a Member of the EP in 2004, and considered it her task to disseminate information on the issue at international conferences and meetings. (From her EU allowances as a MP she paid the camp fees for children taking part in the test cases [Public interest litigations]). 86 Közoktatási intézményi esélyegyenlıségi intézkedési terv 98

102 9. Comparison zones The Budapest based civil organisations (esp. OSI) had a similar role. The limit of such an influence is obviously the closure of post-communist central-european countries, their functioning as semi-closed knowledge-regimes Non-knowledge/ specified ignorance (Comparison Zone 10) In an era of post-bureaucratic regulation, transnationalisation and evidence-based policies, the appeal for change in any policy domain is always an appeal for research and expertise (both national and international). Knowledge and cognitive authority legitimize public policies. Evidence is often lacking, though. We examined the way in which the conflicting knowledges in the case of a cross-sectorial (health and education) and cross-disciplinary (special education, psychology, sociology, medicine, etc.) issue, such as special educational needs, lead to and are based on a specific knowledge-regime, which, in turn, leads to the paradoxical phenomena of nonknowledge (Beck 87, Weingart 88, Wehling 89 ) and of specified ignorance (Merton 90 ). (A)s the history of thought, both great and small, attests, specified ignorance is often a first step toward supplanting that ignorance with knowledge (Merton 1968: ). We introduce and illustrate shortly the substitutes for evidence and for knowledge, such as (1) incarnated knowledge of charismatic decision makers representing and symbolising a target population, (2) practical knowledge of politicians and bureaucrats, and (3) local knowledge (which is sustained anyway by decentralisation and the growing importance of street level bureaucracy), among others. A pre-condition for the substitution of lacking data by alternative forms of knowledge is that this lack becomes evident and troubling. 0. The precondition: Decision-makers realize that fundamental data in a given era, say SEN-numbers, are missing/ are invalid: Substantial research has been conducted regarding Roma children and their access to education in Hungary. However, each study has been conducted according to different criteria and along different methodologies, making comparison of data difficult in some cases. Official data are among the least reliable of these sources, and many believe that sociological studies may be more reliable 87 Beck, Ulrich (1996): Wissen oder Nicht-Wissen?, in: Beck, Ulrich, Giddens, Anthony, Lash, Scott: Reflektive Modernisierung. Eine Kontroverse. Frankfurt a. M., Weingart, Peter (2003): Wissenschaftssoziologie, Bielefeld. 89 Wehling, Peter (2006): Im Schatten des Wissens? Perspektiven der Soziologie des Nichtwissens. Konstanz. 90 Merton, Robert K (1987) Three Fragments from a Sociologist's Notebooks: Establishing the Phenomenon, Specified Ignorance, and Strategic Research Materials. Annual Review of Sociology 13: Merton, Robert K (1968 [1949]) Social Theory and Social Structure, Enlarged Edition, The Free Press: New York. 99

103 9. Comparison zones data sources than State-sponsored censuses. [...] One of the most severe criticisms raised by the former Ministerial Commissioner [ ] relates to the lack of reliable, relevant and cross-referable educational data. The root causes of these concerns are the following: [a] Not all data relating to education are collected or monitored by the Ministry of Education and Culture; [b] Relevant data are provided by the schools themselves and may not be consistent; [c] Data-gathering systems are not compatible across Ministries, [d] let alone with international data collection systems (Farkas et al 2007: p. 9 and p.19) 1. Incarnated knowledge as a substitute for lacking formalised, official knowledges: In order to get hold of that symbolic power Viktória Mohácsi was needed. She had that kind of aura that made the breakthrough possible. [...] She stirred up everything, she initiated the test cases, she went to court onto a very high level, to the superior court. With [her sister] E. Mohácsi and A. Újlaki they established a foundation, and she contested vehemently. I say she could not have done otherwise. She exactly knew what to do; she felt it from deep inside and it was genuinely done. (Á. Torda) I came into the picture because when B. Magyar made the appeal he took racial [!] and equal opportunity reasons into consideration. He wanted a person who was a female, who was young and good-looking and could communicate in the media. (V. Mohácsi) 2. Practical knowledge as a substitute for impact studies: I was approached by a (small town) to make the Equal Chances Plan of their town. They asked me to visit them, look around and assist in making the plan. Then a colleague and I went and had a look at their statistics. I asked about their experiences, their difficulties and about the trainings the teachers took part in. We interviewed the opinion leader of the local minority group, as well. Before we visited the Roma settlement (slum) neighbourhoods, we talked to people about their experiences...then we went to the municipality, there we talked to the town officers. Then we visited the schools... (Decision-maker, Ministry of Education) 3. Local knowledge/sociological knowledge mobilised by the experts as a substituteknowledge, in order to inform decision-maker who lack data... It was a decision that it is the notaries task to make the register [...] it is his/her job to organise that the people concerned should declare if they are disadvantaged, i.e. about their level of education. But nothing happens, in most places the notaries did nothing. In the case studies S micro-region was precisely mentioned where there are plenty of small villages, and then: 200 inhabitants, number of disadvantaged: no data. In such a place where everybody knows each other, the work could be done in 5 minutes. It all depends on the will if there is or is not. They know very well: until valid data are missing it can be manipulated. It can be manipulated by all sort of things, maybe for extra benefit or if it is among the conditions to get a [EU-funded HRD OP] funding. (G. Havas) 100

104 References, documents analysed REFERENCES, DOCUMENTS ANALYSED 92 Ammerné Nagymihály, Emília (2007) A PSZ Gyógypedagógiai Tagozatának véleménye, [The Opinion of the special education section of the Teachers Trade Union] available from: giai_tagozat%c3%a1nak_v%c3%a9lem%c3%a9nye Amnesty International (2007) Still separate, still unequal: Violations of the right to education of Romani children in Slovakia. Bratislava: Amnesty International. Amnesty International (2008) A tale of two schools: Segregating Roma into special education in Slovakia, available from: Anderson John R. (1989), A Theory of the Origins of Human Knowledge, Artificial intelligence, 40, 1-3, Andor, Mihály (Ed) (2001) Romák és oktatás, [Roma Children and Education], Iskolakultúra könyvek 8., Iskolakultúra: Pécs Ari, Pálma et al. (2008) Sérüléspecifikus eszköztár sajátos nevelési igényő gyermekek, tanulók együttneveléséhez [Handicap-specific toolbox for children and pupils with special educational needs] CD-ROM, Budapest:Educatio Babusik, Ferenc (2001) Roma gyerekeket képzı általános iskolák speciális kínálata, [The special offer of primary schools educating Roma children] In: Új Pedagógiai Szemle, 2., available from: Babusik, Ferenc (2003) Késıi kezdés, lemorzsolódás Cigány fiatalok az általános iskolában, [Late entrance, dropping out Gipsy children in primary education] Delphoi consulting Bajomi, Iván, Berényi Eszter, Erıss Gábor, Imre Anna (2006), Compétition scolaire et inégalités dans un arrondissement de Budapest, In: Maroy, C. : Ecole, Régulation et Marché: une comparaison européenne, Paris, PUF, pp Balázs, Ildikó (2006) A PISA-ról közhelyek nélkül ami az újságcikkekbıl kimaradt [About Pisa without banalities what was not in the papers] presentation at the conference Values and Evaluation in Public Education, October 12-14, 2006 Balázs, Ildikó, Ostorics László, Szalay Balázs (2007) PISA 2006 Összefoglaló jelentés, A ma oktatása a jövı társadalma, [PISA 2006 Summary Report, Today s education is the future s society], Oktatási Hivatal : Budapest Balla, István (June 15, 2009) Minden harmadik fogyatékos gyerekrıl kiderül, semmi baja, [Every third impaired child turns out to be misdiagnosed], In: FigyelıNet, available from: 92 We chose an unusual method to present the references and the documents analysed: we merged the two lists. As a matter of fact, a number of texts can be found in the text both as scholarly references and as objects of study. Furthermore, the KNOWandPOL project s understanding is that there is no a priori frontiers between different forms of the knowledges produced. 101

105 References, documents analysed erul/ Bánfalvy, Csaba (1990), Szelekció és kontraszelekció az értelmi fogyatékosok iskolai áthelyezésében [Selection and counter-selection in the school placement of mentally retarded children], In S. Illyés, L. Bass (eds) Bánfalvy, Csaba (2005) A fogyatékos gyerekek és az iskolai integrációs törekvések. [Disabled children and school integration efforts] In: Fordulópont 7. 1(27) pp Bánfalvy, Csaba (2005): A fogyatékossággal élı diákok a közoktatásban [Pupils Living with Disabilities in the Public Education System], available from: Bánfalvy, Csaba (2007): Gyógypedagógus történetek [Stories of Remedial Pedagogues]. Budapest: Eötvös. Bánfalvy Csaba (Ed) (2008): Az integrációs cunami. Tanulmányok a fogyatékos emberek iskolai és társadalmi integrációjáról [The tsunami of integration. Studies about the educational and social integration of disabled persons], ELTE Eötvös Kiadó Kft. Bánkuti, Zsuzs, Horváth Zsuzsa, Lukács Judit (2004) A szakképzı iskolába járó diákok tanulási nehézségei, [Learning difficulties of students attending vocational school], In: Iskolakultúra 2004/5 Bass, László, Bánfalvy Csaba (1990), "Sors bona nihil aluid", In S. Illyés, L. Bass (eds) Bass, László (2008) Az Utolsó Padból Program tapasztalatai az iskolai szelekció néhány jellemzıjérıl. [From the Last Desk programme s experiences about some characteristics of selection in school] In: Torda Ágnes (ed.) (2008) Utolsó padban. Egy program utóélete, [In the Last Desk. The afterlife of a programme] Integrációs Pedagógiai Mőhely Füzetek 15. Budapest:Educatio, available from: Bass, László, dr. Kı Natasa, Kuncz Eszter, Lányiné dr. Engelmayer Ágnes, Mészáros Andrea, Mlinkó Renáta, Nagyné dr. Réz Ilona, Rózsa Sándor (2008), Tapasztalatok a WISC IV gyermek-intelligenciateszt magyarországi standardizálásáról [Experiences with the standardization of the WISC-IV children intelligence test], Educatio Társadalmi Szolgáltató Kht. Budapest, available at: Beck, Ulrich (1996): Wissen oder Nicht-Wissen?, in: Beck, Ulrich, Giddens, Anthony, Lash, Scott: Reflektive Modernisierung. Eine Kontroverse. Frankfurt a. M., Berényi, Eszter, Berkovits Balázs, Erıss Gábor (2005a) Iskolarendszer és szabad választás [School system and free choice], Élet és irodalom, No. 39. (Also published in: Gábor Erıss, Eszter Berényi and Balázs Berkovits [2008], Iskolarend. Kiváltság és különbségtétel a közoktatásban [School-order. Privilege and Differentiation in public education] Gondolat, Budapest) Berényi, Eszter, Berkovits Balázs, Erıss Gábor (2005b) Evaluation of the Ministry of Education s policies against school segregation (for the Ombudsman for the Protection of National and Minority Rights), ms. Berkovits, Balázs, Oblath Márton (2008) Ki nevel a végén? [Who has the last word (in education)?], In: AnBlokk, 2008/1-2. Bíró, Endre (2008) A sajátos nevelési igényő gyermekek közoktatási jogainak érvényesítése, [Exercising the educational rights of children with special educational needs] available from: 102

106 References, documents analysed Bodorné, Németh Tünde (2008) Sajátos nevelési igény, hátrányos helyzet és különtámogatás Adatgyőjtés Nógrád megyében [Special educational needs, disadvantage and extra subvention Data collection in Nograd county] dissertation, ELTE Neveléstudományi Doktori Iskola Bolla, Veronika (2008) Az Utolsó Padból Programban részt vevı tanulók teljesítményének elemzése a visszahelyezési döntés tükrében, [The evaluation of the performance of the participants of the From the Last Desk programme in the light of the decision about their resettlement], In: Torda Ágnes (ed.) (2008) Utolsó padban. Egy program utóélete, [In the Last Desk. The afterlife of a programme] Integrációs Pedagógiai Mőhely Füzetek 15. Budapest: Educatio, available from: Bordács, Margit (2001) A pedagógusok elıítéletességének vizsgálata roma gyerekeket is tanító pedagógusok körében, [Studying prejudiced attitudes of teachers who have Roma pupils] Új Pedagógiai Szemle, 2. available from: Callon Michel (1994), Eléments pour une sociologie de la traduction, Année sociologique, 11, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (2005) Students with Disabilities, Learning Difficulties and Disadvantages: Statistics and Indicators, OECD Chats about SEN at the forum of the Ministry of Education (November 21, 2006 August 26, 2007) Chats about SEN at the forum of osztalyfonok.hu, (See: Comments on the working paper to the regulation of the Ministry of Education and Culture about the Pedagogical Service (March 09, 2009) Collins, Harry & Robert Evans (2007) Rethinking Expertise. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Csanádi, Gábor, Ladányi János, Gerı Zsuzsa (1978a), Az általános iskolai rendszer belsı rétegzıdése és a kisegítı iskolák, [The Internal Stratification of Elementary School System and the Special Education School] In: Valóság issue 6. Csanádi, Gábor, Ladányi János, Gerı Zsuzsa (1978b), Még egyszer a kisegítõ iskolába járó gyerekekrıl, [Once More About the Children in Special Education Schools] In: Valóság issue 10. Csanádi, Gábor, Ladányi János (1983) Szelekció az általános iskolában, [Selection in primary education] Budapest: Gondolat Csányi, Yvonne (2007) Helyi adatgyőjtés a sajátos nevelési igényő gyermekek körében egy OECD-projekt keretében. [Local data gathering among children with special educational needs, connected to an OECD Project], available from: Csányi Yvonne (2007a) Integráció és inklúzió. Nemzetközi és hazai körkép [Integration and inclusion. International and national overview]. In: Inkluzív nevelés - A tanulók hatékony megismerése Kézikönyv a pedagógusképzı intézmények részére [Inclusive education How to get acquainted effectively to pupils. A handbook for future teachers.] Budapest, sulinova Kht. p Csányi, Yvonne, Egyed Katalin, Fazekasné Fenyvesi Margit, Gaál Sándorné, Girasek János, Glauber Anna, Kovátsné Németh Mária, Szegál Borisz, Tóth László (2007) Inkluzív nevelés - A tanulók hatékony megismerése Kézikönyv a pedagógusképzı intézmények részére [Inclusive education How to get acquainted effectively to pupils. A handbook for future teachers.] Budapest, SuliNova Kht. 103

107 References, documents analysed Csapó, Benı, Fazekas Károly, Kertesi Gábor, Köllı János, Varga Júlia (2006) A foglalkoztatás növelése nem lehetséges a közoktatás átfogó megújítása nélkül, [Increasing employment is not possible without a comprehensive reform of public education] In: L. (46.) 17. november Csépe, Valéria (2008) Caring for children with special educational needs (SEN) and their rehabilitation, In: Fazekas, Köllı, Varga (eds.) The Green Book for the Renewal of Public Education. Round Table for Education and Child Opportunities, pp , available from: Csépe, Valéria (2008) SNI kérdések Újra és másként [SEN questions, Once more, from a different angle], available from: oktatas.magyarorszagholnap.hu/images/snimásként.pdf Csepregi, András (April 27, 2009) presentation in the name of SzakÉRTELEM Association, A sajátos nevelési igényő gyermekek a közoktatásban a változások után, változások elött?, [Children with special educational needs in public education after reforms, before reforms?] Czeizel, Endre, Lányiné Engelmayer Ágnes, Rátay Csaba (1978) Az értelmi fogyatékosságok kóreredete a Budapest-vizsgálat tükrében [The etiology of mental disabilities in light of the Budapest-study ]. Budapest, Medicina, 1978 Daróczi, Gábor (2005) Tájékoztató a hátrányos helyzető és roma gyermekek integrációját célzó kormányzati intézkedésekrıl, [Summary of the actions for the integration of disadvantaged and Roma children] Daróczi, Gábor (2006) Integration - Equal Opportunities, presentation, available from: Delvaux, Bernard, Mangez, Eric (2008), Towards a sociology of the knowledge-policy relation, view/literature_sythesis.final_version.english.pdf Dombainé, Arany Vera, Solymosy József, Kanyik Csaba, Daróczi Gábor (2002) A fogyatékos, illetve roma lakosság speciális helyzetének vizsgálata: a szakértıi bizottságok jellemzıinek, összehangoltságának tekintetében, [A study of the special situation of the disabled and the Roma population in terms of the characteristics of Expert Committees] Gyorsjelentés, manuscript, Egészségügyi Minisztérium, Budapest Draelants Hugues & Maroy Christian (2007b), Institutional change and public policy, in Delvaux Bernard & Mangez Eric (ed), Literature reviews on knowledge and policy, Rapport de recherche, , ( Drechsler, Wolfgang (2005) The Rise and Demise of the New Public Management, postautistic economics review, 33/14, pp , available from: ECRE (2003) The Impact of Special Schools on the Roma in Central Europe. A case of wilful criminal neglect & professional incompetence Report on an Investigation by European Committee on Romani Emancipation (ECRE), European Economic Interest Grouping, Brussels, February 2003, available from: Equal Access to Quality Education For Roma.(2008) Volume 1 and 2, Open Society Institute Eröss, Gábor (2006) De l illégal à l inégal. Ou l inverse? Brève sociologie de l école hongroise, La Nouvelle alternative, Politique et société à l'est, vol. 21, numéro (juin-septembre), pp

108 References, documents analysed Eröss, Gábor (2008) Különbség és szórás. Kategorizációs és szelekciós finommechanizmusok az oktatásban: SNI-k, lókötık és társaik, [Difference and variation. Categorizing and selecting mechanisms in educations: SEN s, idlers and the rest] In: Erıss, Kende (ed.) Túl a szegregáción Kategóriák burjánzása a magyar közoktatásban, [Beyond segregation. The proliferation of categories in Hungarian public education], L Harmattan: Budapest Eröss, Gábor & Gárdos Judit (2008) Elıítéletes társadalom vagy diszkriminatív iskola? A cigányellenesség és a hátrányos megkülönböztetés közötti különbségrıl [Social prejudice or school discrimination? About the difference between anti-roma attitudes and institutional racism]. In Erıss, Gábor & Kende, Anna (Eds.), op. cit., pp Eröss, Gábor, Oblath Márton, Kende Anna, Berkovits Balázs, Mund Katalin, Dávid Bea, Gárdos Judit (2008) Unhealthy data, competing sciences: The social and cognitive mapping of a policy. A double report about the Hungarian health care system in general, and the field of special education needs, available from: Eröss, Gábor, Mihály Szívós, Judit Gárdos, Balázs Berkovits (2009), Contribution to the KNOWandPOL Literature Review. Hungarian literature on the knowledge & policy relationship: Central European specificities, universal assumptions, Rev.doc Eszik, Zoltán (2002) A Comenius közoktatási minıségfejlesztési program helye, szerepe az iskolai munka megújítására szolgáló törekvésekben, [The place and role of the Comenius public educational quality development programme in the endeavours for reforming school work], Oktatáskutató Intézet: Budapest European Agency, Special Needs Education Country Data (2008), agency.org/publications/ereports/special-needs-education-country-data- 2008/special-needs-education-country-data-2008 Farkas, Lilla, Németh Szilvia, Papp Z. Attila, Boros Julianna, Kardos Zsófia (2007) Equal Access to Quality Education for Roma Country Report: Hungary, OSI- EU Monitoring and Advocacy program, available from: Faust, Dezsıné, Váginé Farkas Ildikó letter to Fazekas Károly in the name of the Tradition-keeper Kindergarten Teachers Association, 7th of June 2007, available from: sok_egyesületének_véleménye Fazekas, Károly, Köllı, János, Varga Júlia (eds.) (2008) Zöld könyv a magyar közoktatás megújításáért, [The Green Book for the Renewal of Public Education], OKM: Budapest Fazekas, Károly, Köllı, János, Varga, Júlia (2008) Introduction, In: Green Book, available from: Fellegi, Borbála, Ligeti Gyögy (2003) Hátrányos helyzetőek a közoktatásban, [Disadvantaged in public education], Final report, database and survey, Kurt Lewin Foundation Fischer Gabriella (2009) Az integrációval kapcsolatos attitődök [Attitudes regarding integration], MA thesis, ms. Bárczi Special Education Faculty, ELTE University, Budapest. Forray, R. Katalin, Hegedős T. András (1991) Két tanulmány a cigány gyermekekrıl. [Two studies on Roma children] Közoktatási Kutatások. Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó 105

109 References, documents analysed Frederickson, Norah, Elizabeth Simmonds, Lynda Evans, Chris Soulsby, (2007), Assessing the social and affective outcomes of inclusion, British Journal of Special Education 34 (2), From the last desk programme (March 08, 2004) Utolsó Padból Program Néhány eredmény a speciális tagozatot fenntartó normál általános iskolák vizsgálatáról, [From the Last Desk Program some findings from the research on regular schools with special faculties] presentation, Ministry of Education Gegesy, Ferenc, Szabó Lajos (December 4, 2007) letter to Szili Katalin, Speaker of Hungary's National Assembly, proposal for the modification of T/3860. about 2008 budget of the Republic of Hungary Gerı, Zsuzsa, Ladányi János, Csanádi Gábor (2005) Mobilitási esélyek és a kisegítı iskola, [Mobility Chances and the Special Education School] Budapest: Ú.M.K. Gordosné, Dr. Szabó Anna, Beiskolázás és kiválasztás a kisegítı iskoláztatás történetében [Schooling and selection in the history of special schools]. In S. Illyés, L. Bass (eds) (1990) Györgyi, Zoltán, Török Balázs (2002) A Comenius 2000 minıségbiztosítási program a résztvevı oktatási intézmények tapasztalatainak tükrében, [The Comenius 2000 quality assurance programme in the light of the experience of the participant educational institutions], Oktatáskutató Intézet: Budapest Halász, Gábor, Lannert Judit (2003) Jelentés a magyar közoktatásról 2003, [Report on Hungarian Public Education], available from: Halász, Gábor (2004) A sajátos nevelési igényő gyerekek oktatása. Európai politikák és hazai kihívások. In:Új Pedagógiai Szemle 54/2 pp , available from: Halász, Gábor (May 2007) Tényekre alapozott oktatáspolitika, avagy lehet-e a rossz eredményeknek jótékony hatása? [Evidence based education policy, or whether bad results can have positive influence?] - presentation, Oktatáskutató és Felesztı Intézet [Education Research and Development Institute] Havas, Gábor (2008) Equality of opportunity, desegregation, In: Fazekas, Köllı, Varga (eds.) The Green Book for the Renewal of Public Education. Round Table for Education and Child Opportunities, available from: Havas, Gábor, Kemény István, Liskó Ilona (2002) Cigány gyerekek az általános iskolában, [Gypsy children in primary school] Oktatáskutató Intézet [Hungarian Institute for Educational Research], Új Mandátum Havas, Gábor, Liskó Ilona (2005) Szegregáció a roma tanulók általános iskolai oktatásában [Segregation of Roma students in the primary schools] Budapest, Oktatáskutató Intézet, Kutatás közben sorozat. No Havas, Júlia (s.d.) Szülıségre nevelés, illetve a szülıi készségfejlesztés nemzetközi gyakorlata, [Educating parents, or the international practice of parenting education], Ministry of Education HEFOP, Humánerıforrás-fejlesztési Operatív Program, [Human Resources Development Operational Programme] Herczog, Mária (2005) Az iskola dolga!? [The school s business!?] In: Család, Gyermek, Ifjúság 2005/3 Herczog, Mária (2007) Koragyermekkori fejlesztés, [Early childhood development] available from: 106

110 References, documents analysed lesztés Herczog, Mária (2007) Koragyermekkori fejlesztés/javaslatok, [Early childhood development proposal], available from: k Herczog, Mária (2008) A kora gyermekkori fejlıdés elısegítése, [Encouraging early child development] In: Fazekas, Köllı, Varga (eds.) The Green Book for the Renewal of Public Education. Round Table for Education and Child Opportunities, available from: Herczog, Mária (2008) A koragyermekkori fejlesztésre, programokra vonatkozó nemzetközi kutatásokról, [About the international research on early childhood development and programmes], available from: Herczog, Mária (2008) A koragyermekkor jelentısége [The significance of early childhood]. Round table of the economical-social council, presentation, Budapest. Hídvégi, Márta, A rosta [The selection], In S. Illyés, L. Bass (eds.) (1990) Hill, Heather C. (2003) Understanding Implementation: Street-Level Bureaucrats' Resources for Reform, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13. pp Hoffman, Nancy, et al. (2006) Equity in Education Thematic Review, Hungary, OECD Horváth, Péter (2007) Prezentáció a évi CLXIX. törvény a Magyar Köztársaság évi költségvetésérıl, [Presentation of the act CLXIX about the 2008 budget of the Republic of Hungary] Illyés, Sándor, Bass, László (eds) (1990) Nevelhetıség és általános iskola - IV. Háttéranyagok; szelekció-problémák. [Educability and primary education IV. Background material; problems of selection]. Budapest, Oktatáskutató Intézet. Illyés, Sándor (ed.) (2000): Gyógypedagógiai alapismertek. [Introduction to Remedial Pedagogy], Budapest: ELTE-BGGYFK. Illyés, Sándor (2001): Az eszmény, a törvény, a tradíció és a feltételek a közoktatás megújulásában. [The Ideal, the Law, the Tradition and the Conditions in the Reform of Public Education] In: Új Pedagógiai Szemle, July-August. Online: INCLUD-ED, Indicatiestelling speciaal onderwijs 2002/2003 [Examinations for special education]- De indicatiecommissies van cluster vier, Landelijke Commissie Toezicht Indicatiestelling, Den Haag, December 2003 Introduction of the Speech Therapy Service (2007) Jackson, Sharolda (2009) What is meant by overrepresentation? cation_classes Kaltenbach, Jenı (1998) A kisebbségi ombudsman a cigány gyermekek speciális (kisegítı) iskolai oktatásával kapcsolatos vizsgálati jelentése, [A report about a study on the special (remedial) education of Roma children by the minority ombudsman] Országgyőlési Biztosok Hivatala, Budapest, available from : 107

111 References, documents analysed Katona, Nóra () Iskolapszichológiai hálózat, integrált oktatás és fejlesztés, [Network of school psychologists, integrated education and development], Ministry of Education - Keller, Judit, Mártonfi György (2003) Oktatási egyenlıtlenségek és speciális igények, [Educational Inequalities and Special Needs], in: Halász Gábor, Lannert Judit: Jelentés a magyar közoktatásról 2003, [Report on Hungarian Public Education], available from: Kemény, István, Janky Béla, Lengyel Gabriella (2004) A magyarországi cigányság [Hungarian Gypsies ] Gondolat Kiadó MTA Etnikai-nemzeti Kisebbségkutató Intézet, Budapest Kemény, Péter (2003): Utolsó Padból Program és az integráció kapcsolata. [The Relationship between From the Last Desk Program and School Integration]. In: Gyógypedagógiai szemle, vol. 33. issue 4. pp Kertesi, Gábor (2008) A közoktatási intézmények teljesítményének mérés-értékelése, az iskolák elszámoltathatósága, [Measurement evaluation of the performance in public education institutions; accountability of schools], In: Fazekas, Köllı, Varga (eds.) The Green Book for the Renewal of Public Education. Round Table for Education and Child Opportunities, available from: Kende, Anna (2004) Együtt vagy külön? A szegregált iskolarendszer és a speciális oktatási szükségletek, [Together or Separate? Segregated school system and the needs for special education] In: Iskolakultúra 2004/1 Kende, Anna (2005) Én nem akarom elkülöníteni semmi szín alatt Fókuszcsoport vizsgálat az iskolai elhelyezésben érintett szakemberek és szülık körében. [ I do not wish to segregate under any circumstances Focus group research with experts and parents involved in school placement] In: Iskolakultúra, 3 (15), pp Kende Anna (2007) Egy kutatássorozat utóélete, [The afterlife of a longitudinal research] (review article on Gerı, Zsuzsa et al. Mobilitási esélyek és a kisegítı iskola (2005) [Mobility Chances and the Special Education School]), in: Educatio 16/ 1. Kende, Anna (2008) Konfliktusos kapcsolatok: Nevelési tanácsadók, szakértıi bizottságok, szülık és gyerekek, [Relationships with conflicts: Educational counselling services, committees of experts, parents and children], available from: Kende, Anna, Neményi Mária (2005): A Fogyatékossághoz vezetı út [The road to disability]. In Szalai J. & Neményi M. (eds.), Kisebbségek kisebbsége, ÚMK, Budapest. Kende, Anna, Neményi Mária (2006) Selection in Education: The Case of Roma Children in Hungary, Equal opportunities international 25, pp Kertesi Gábor (2005) A társadalom peremén. Romák a munkaerıpiacon és az iskolában. [On the Periphery of Society: Roma People on the Labour Market and in School] Budapest: Osiris. Kertesi, Gábor (2008) The assessment and evaluation of educational institutions, school accountability In: Fazekas, Köllı, Varga (eds.) The Green Book for the Renewal of Public Education. Round Table for Education and Child Opportunities, Available from: Kertesi, Gábor (January 25, 2008) A közoktatás megújulásának kulcsa: Minıségi pedagógiai szolgáltatásokat kell biztosítani minden gyerek számára a McKinseyjelentés tanulságai Magyarországon, [The key of the Public Education Reform: 108

112 References, documents analysed every children should receive quality education services the lesson drawn from Mc-Kinsey-report in Hungary], presentation at MTA Kertesi, Gábor, Kézdi Gábor (1996) Cigány tanulók az általános iskolában helyzetfelmérés és egy cigány oktatási koncepció vázlata [Gypsy children in primary education a status report and the framework of an educational concept for Gypsies] In: Cigányok és iskola, Educatio Füzetek 3., Budapest Kertesi, Gábor, Kézdi Gábor (2005) Általános iskolai szegregáció, I-II. rész. (Okok és következmények. Az általános iskolai szegregálódás folyamata Magyarországon és az iskolai teljesítménykülönbségek) [Segregation in Public Education I-II: Causes and Effects. The process of segregation and differences in achievement] Közgazdasági szemle, vol. 52. no. 4. pp and no 5. pp Kézdi, Gábor, Surányi Éva (2007) Hátrányos helyzető gyerekek integrációs programjának hatásvizsgálata , [Impact research of the integration programme for disadvantaged children ], ASK FOR Kft. Kiss, Ágnes, Budai Gabriella, Gergöly Noémi (2004) Összefoglaló jelentés A Comenius I. intézményi modell kiépítését 2004 áprilisában záró intézmények záró beszámolóinak értékeléseiröl, [Summary report- The evaluation of the final report from April 2004 of the institutions who finalized the establishment of the Comenius I. institutional model] Koczor, Margit (2008) Akadály nélkül Jelentés a Nemzeti Fejlesztési Terv keretében megvalósult, a sajátos nevelési igényő gyermekek együttnevelését támogató közoktatásifejlesztési programok eredményeirıl, [Without Obstacles- Report of the outcome of the public education programmes aiming the integration of SEN children. The programmes were supported by the National Development Plan] Koczor, Margit (2008) Esélyegyenlıség a közoktatásban, [Equal opportunity in public education] presentation, available from: Kosik, Bernadett (2008) Az Utolsó Padból Program keretében elvégzett felülvizsgálat nyomán visszahelyezett tanuló (Barnabás) iskolai karrierjének nyomon követése, [The followup of the school carrier of a pupil (Barnabas) who had been mainstreamed in the frame of the From the Last Desk Programme], In: Torda Ágnes (ed.) (2008) Utolsó padban. Egy program utóélete, [In the Last Desk. The afterlife of a programme] Integrációs Pedagógiai Mőhely Füzetek 15. Budapest: Educatio, available from: Kıpatakiné, Mészáros Mária (s.d.) Új szakmai igények, új mőködési forma: az egységes gyógypedagógiai módszertani intézmények [New professional requirements, new working methods: the comprehensive special education methodological institutes], OOIH, Utolsó Padból Program, Budapest available from: Kıpatakiné, Mészáros Mária (2002) Different concepts about integration and/or inclusion of special needs children in Hungary. In: Abstracts of European Academy of Childhood Disability (EACD), Pisa. Kıpatakiné, Mészáros Mária (2006) A sajátos nevelési igényő tanulók oktatási integrációjának lehetıségei. [Possibilities for the Integration of SEN Students], In: Családi jog, vol. 4. no 2. pp Kıpatakiné, Mészáros, Mária (2006) A szervezetfejlesztés jó gyakorlatai [Good practices in organisation development], OKI, Budapest. Kıpatakiné, Mészáros Mária (2007) Felnı egy elfogadó nemzedék. [An Inclusive Generation Will Come] OKI, Budapest

113 References, documents analysed Ladányi János (2005) Szociális és etnikai konfliktusok. Tanulmányok a piacgazdasági átmenet idıszakából ( ) [Social and ethnic conflicts. Studies from the transition to market economy ( )]. Ú.M.K., Budapest Lányiné, Engelmayer Ágnes (2005) Gyógypedagógiai pszichológia, [Special Education Psychology] In. Bagdy E., Klein S.(eds.) Alkalmazott pszichológia, [Applied psychology], Edge Kft.:Budapest. Lányiné, Engelmayer Ágnes (2007) Comment on Valéria Csépe s Az SNI sajátos helyzete Magyarországon [The special situation of SEN in Hungary], available at: Lányiné, Engelmayer Ágnes, Nagyné Réz Ilona (2008) Bevezetés [Introduction] In: Bass et al. (eds.) Tapasztalatok a WISC IV gyermek-intelligenciateszt magyarországi standardizálásáról, [Experiences with the standardization of WISC-IV children intelligence test] Educatio Társadalmi Szolgáltató Kht. Budapest List of professional and research documents created or used by the equal opportunity department (2007) List of research topics at Bárczi Gusztáv Faculty of Special Education. Eötvös Loránd University. ( ) Locsmándi, Alajos et. al (2005) Prizma II., [Prism 2. The Activity Report of a Speech Therapy methodological Centre and School], ms. (DVD) Locsmándi, Alajos et. al (2005) Valóság és Realitás (A Prizma Iskola az EU csatlakozás utáni idıszakban), [Truth and Reality (Prizma at the time of EU accession] Locsmándi, Alajos, Baksa Gábor, Bíró Mária (2007) A logopédiai szakszolgálati tevékenység elemzése, [Study on the work of the speech therapy service], Prizma: Budapest Locsmándi, Alajos, Baksa Gábor (2007) Az intézményi státuszok elemzése, [Study on the statuses and positions], Prizma: Budapest Loss, Sándor (1996) Egy csapásra. Cigány gyerekek útja a kisegítı iskolába. [With one strike. Gypsy children s road to special education school], In: Beszélı pp Maroy, Christian (2004) Regulation and Inequalities in European Education Systems. Final Report, available from: Martonné, Tamás Márta (ed.) (2002) Fejlesztı pedagógia, [Development Education], ELTE Eötvös Kiadó:Budapest Martonné, Tamás Márta (ed.) (2006) Integráció és inklúzió : fejlesztı módszerek a közoktatásban, [Integration and inclusion: development methods in public education] Budapest: Trefor Máténé, Sej Jolán () Integrációs megújulás - Pécsi modell, [Integration reform a model from Pecs], available from: Matern, Éva (2005) Cigány gyerekek egy Pest megyei kistelepülés általános iskolájában, [Gipsy Children in the primary school of a little village in Pest county] Méhes, Vera (2008) Magyarország Holnap és a Montessori pedagógia, [Hungary Tomorrow and the Montessori pedagogy], available from: Meijer, C. J. W. (2001): Inclusive Education and Effective Classroom Practices. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Middelfart. 110

114 References, documents analysed Merton, Robert K (1968 [1949]) Social Theory and Social Structure, Enlarged Edition, The Free Press: New York. Merton, Robert K (1987) Three Fragments from a Sociologist's Notebooks: Establishing the Phenomenon, Specified Ignorance, and Strategic Research Materials. Annual Review of Sociology 13: Mesterházi, Zsuzsa (2006) Változik-e a gyógypedagógia identitása? [Is the identity of special education changing?]. In: Iskolakultúra, XVII/6-7, available from: Metzger, Balázs (2004): A sajátos nevelési igényő gyermekek integrált nevelésérıl fenntartó önkormányzatoknak. [On the Integrated Education of SEN Children Destined to Municipalities], available from: Ministry of Education [OKM] (2004) Utolsó Padból Program [From the Last Desk Program], March 2004, available from: id=1 Ministry of Education (2006) Oktatásfejlesztési program az NFT II.-ben ( ), [Education Development Plan in the National Development Plan 2 ( )], working paper Ministry of Education (2006b), Reformok az oktatásban, [Reforms in Education, ] available from: gyenlo_eselyekert.pdf Ministry of Education (2007) Report on the study conducted in BAZ county within the framework of the FLDP [Az Utolsó Padból program Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén megyei célprogram keretében végzett vizsgálatról], ms. Ministry of Education (2007b) Közoktatási intézményi esélyegyenlıségi intézkedési terv a halmozottan hátrányos helyzető gyerekek oktatási sikeressége érdekében [Public education equal opportunities action plan for the sake of school success of socially severly disadvantaged students] Ministry of Education, Department of Public Education (2008) Szakmai vitaanyag a pedagógiai szakszolgálatokról szóló miniszteri rendelet elkészítését megalapozó döntési pontokról [Discussion paper preparing the ministerial decree about the MPPC and Placament authorities], Budapest Minutes of the meeting of OKT [National Committee of Public Education] (January 12, 2006) Minutes of the meeting of Roundtable on Education (April 03, 2007) Minutes of the meeting of Roundtable on Education (May 05, 2007) Minutes of the meeting of Roundtable on Education (October 30, 2007) Minutes of the meeting of Oktatási és tudományos bizottság [Committee of Education and Science] (2006/13), available from: - k378 Minutes of the meeting of Roundtable on Education and Child s aid (January 22, 2008) Molnárné, Dityendz Judit (2008) Esélyteremtés a közoktatásban. Az Utolsó Padból Program, [Chance making in public education. The From the Last Desk programme] In: Torda Ágnes (ed.) (2008) Utolsó padban. Egy program utóélete, [In the Last Desk. The afterlife of a programme] Integrációs Pedagógiai Mőhely 111

115 References, documents analysed Füzetek 15. Budapest:Educatio, availabel from: MTA-KTI [Institute of Economics Hungarian Academy of Sciences] (2008a) Az életpályafelmérés évi mintájából sajátos nevelési igényő alminta kialakítása, [Creating a subsample of SEN from 2006 Walk of Life Research], In: Az MTA-KTI A közoktatás teljesítményének mérés-értékelése progjamjának SNI 701. Számú produktuma, [SEN 701 product of MTA-KTI s Measurement Evaluation of the Performance of Public Education ], available from: MTA-KTI [Institute of Economics Hungarian Academy of Sciences] (2008b) A évi OKM teszteredmények és a évi KIRSTAT iskolai adatbázis összekapcsolása az életpálya-felvétel évi sajátos nevelési igényő almintájával, [Joining the 2006 Test results of the Ministry of Education, and the KIRSTAT database with the sub sample of SEN from 2006 Walk of Life Research] In: Az MTA-KTI A közoktatás teljesítményének mérés-értékelése progjamjának SNI 702. Számú produktuma, [SEN 702 product of MTA-KTI s Measurement Evaluation of the Performance of Public Education ], available from: MTA-KTI [Institute of Economics Hungarian Academy of Sciences] (2008c) Statisztikai számítások a sajátos nevelési igényő tanulók iskolaválasztásának okairól és iskoláinak jellemzıirıl, [Statistical analysis of the school choice of SEN students and the characteristics of their schools], In: Az MTA-KTI A közoktatás teljesítményének mérés-értékelése progjamjának SNI 704. Számú produktuma, [SEN 704 product of MTA-KTI s Measurement Evaluation of the Performance of Public Education ], available from: Nagy, Gyöngyi M. (2008) A sajátos nevelési igényő gyermekek ellátása a változó jogszabályok tükrében, [Service for children in special educational needs in the light of changing laws] presentation at the conference of Hátrány-Kompenzáció- Esélyteremtés [Disadvantage-Compensation-Chancemaking] Nagy, Gyöngyi M. (2008) Szakmai vitaanyag a pedagógiai szakszolgálatokról szóló miniszteri rendelet elkészítését megalapozó döntési pontokról, [Technical proposal about the decision aspects that substantiate the formulation of the regulation of the Ministry about the pedagogical services], available from: Nagy, József (2008) Az alsótagozatos oktatás megújulása, [Reforming primary education in the first four grades], In: Fazekas, Köllı, Varga (eds.) The Green Book for the Renewal of Public Education. Round Table for Education and Child Opportunities, available from: Nahalka, István (2007) Hozzászólás helyett, [Comment to the Roundtable on Education and Children s chance, April 17, 2007], available from: Foktatas.magyarorszagholnap.hu%2Fimages%2F3._ülés_nahalka_hozzászólás.do c&ei=ao1ystzsbjnmnaobt6xdcq&usg=afqjcnej0y5x3tekgxs9ct8g5qlpfgcwha Nassehi, Armin (2008) Note on knowledge, ms. Neményi, Mária (2004) Fogyatékossághoz vezetı út [The road to retardation], In: Iskolakultúra, 5. pp Neményi, Mária, Herczog Mária (2008) Roma gyerekek a gyermekvédelemben [Roma children in child protection], In: Szocháló online, available from 112

116 References, documents analysed Németh, Szilvia (2005) Tanuló társadalom- az élethossziglani tanulás az Európai Unió dokumentumainak tükrében, [Learning society- Lifetime learning in the light of EU documents], available from: Németh, Szilvia & Szilassy Eszter (2006) Tegyük akadálymentessé magunkat! Sajátos nevelési igényő tanulók és az integrált oktatás Magyarországon [ Let s become accessible! Children with special educational needs and integrated education] Regio /1 pp No Child Left Behind Act (2001), An act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind. Washington, D.C. Numbers and ratios of students, SEN students, students with mild mental retardation in the micro regions ( ) excel table Oblath, Márton, Berkovits, Balázs (2008) Eurofound enquiry regarding disabled youngsters in Europe Hungary, ms. Odor, Andrea (2007) A védınıi rendszer mőködésének bemutatása, fejlesztésre irányuló javaslatok összefoglalása, [Presenting the Health Visitors System. Summary of the proposals for development], available from: OECD (2000) Disabilities, Learning and Behaviour Difficulties, and Disadvantage. Developing Comparable Education Statistics and Indicators. Paris, OECD. OECD (2005) Students with Disabilities, Learning Difficulties and Disadvantages: Statistics and Indicators. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Education & Skills, Volume 2005, Number 17, pp. i-154(155) OECD (2005) Adatok az OECD sajátos nevelési igényő tanulókkal foglalkozó munkabizottságának anyagából, 2002/2003-as tanév [Data about SEN students in 2002/2003 from OECD s SEN working committee], (trans. Yvonne, Csányi), available from: vt-csanyi-adatok ORIGO (July 23, 2004) Milliárdok folytak el kirekesztı iskolákra, [Millions drained away to finance educational segregation], available from: Orosz, Lajos (2002) Hátsó padból gondolatok a közoktatási integráció két területérıl, [From the back desk - thoughts on two aspects of public education], Educatio Orosz, Lajos (2008) Az Utolsó Padból Program szerepe az oktatási környezet változásában, [The role of the From the Last Desk programme in the change of the educational environment] In: Torda Ágnes (ed.) Utolsó padban. Egy program utóélete, [In the Last Desk. The afterlife of a programme] Integrációs Pedagógiai Mőhely Füzetek 15. Budapest:Educatio, availabel from: OSI [Open Society Institute] (2005) Rights of People with Intellectual Disabilities Access to Education and Employment, Open Society Institute (Budapest Hungary, New York USA), Hungary, Monitoring report, 2005, available from: Papp, Gabriella, Faragóné Bircsák Márta (2007) Inkluzív nevelés: Útmutató tanulásban akadályozott gyermekek, tanulók együttneveléséhez. Módszertani intézményi útmutató [Inclusive pedagogy: Manual to the inclusion of children with learning disabilities. Methodological, institutional manual], SuliNova, Budapest Pénzes, Éva, Vargáné Molnár Márta (s.d.) A népesség megjelenése a gyógypedagógia társtudományainak különbözı területein, [The population as presented in diverse fields related to Special Education] presentation 113

117 References, documents analysed Pons, Xavier, van Zanten, Agnès, Knowledge circulation, regulation and governance (Literature review, part 6) In Delvaux Mangez, view/pons_van_zanten_en.pdf Radó, Péter (2005) Méltányosság az oktatásban: dimenziók, okok és oktatáspolitikai válaszok OECD analitikus ország jelentés: Magyarország, [Equity in Education: dimension, causes and answers from education policy OECD Analitical Country Report], sulinova Kht Oktatáspolitikai Elemzések Központja Radó, Péter () Developing strategies for the education of Roma students, available from: Radványi Katalin (2007) Az értelmi fogyatékosok ellátásának szakmai és intézményi feltételrendszere. Problémafelvetések, vitaindító, [Professional and institutional conditions of the service of the mentally retarded. Problems and questions for debate.], Roundtable on Education and Child s aid Ravinet, P. (2004), Fenêtre d opportunité, in Boussaguet, L., et al., Dictionnaire des politiques publiques, Paris : Presses de Science Po. Regulation on the Pedagogical Services 14/1994, Ministry of Culture Regulation on the Pedagogical Services (2008), Ministry of Education, proposal for conciliation Ritter, Andrea (s.d.) A segítı szakmák pszichológiai képzésének mai helyzete és megújítási lehetıségeik a modern szakirodalmak és módszerek tükrében. Ajánlás, [Present situation of the psychological training of the supporting professions in the light of recent literatures and methods. Proposal], Ministry of Education Round table for education and child opportunities [OKA], 2nd meeting: Memo (April 03, 2007) Round table for education and child opportunities [OKA], 6th meeting: Memo (May 29, 2007) Round table for education and child opportunities [OKA], 8th meeting: Memo (June 26, 2007) Rushton, J. Philippe, Jelena Čvorović, Trudy Ann Bons (2007) General mental ability in South Asians: Data from three Roma (Gypsy) communities in Serbia Ryle Gilbert (1949), The Concept of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press SEN data Hungary primary school ( ) excel table SEN [SNE] data, Hungary Special Education Section of the Teachers Union, Conference: Memo (June 03, 2009) Statistical Yearbook of Education 2005/2006 (2006) OKM: Budapest Stigmata: Segregated Schooling of Roma in Central and Eastern Europe. (2004) Budapest: European Roma Rights Center. Szabó, Zsuzsa (ed) () Családlátogatással összekötött kisgyermek-fejlesztési programok 0-6 éves korig, [Children development programmes combined with home visits from 0-6 years], Ministry of Education Szabó, Zsuzsa (May 21, 2009) Invitation to the symposium organized by the Special Needs Education department of the Teachers Union in June 3, 2009 Szakács, Katalin (2008) A nevelési tanácsadók helyzete és szerepe a tanulási és más zavarok megoldásában, [The role of Educational Counselling Services/ Medico- 114

118 References, documents analysed psycho-pedagogic Centres in helping students with learning disabilities and other problems]. SzakÉRTELEM (2005) Problématérkép, [Problem Map], ms. SzakÉRTELEM Association (January 2, 2004) Memo about the meeting of SzakÉRTELEM Association in December 11, 2003 SzakÉRTELEM Association (February 14, 2004) letter to Péter Friss, Ministry of Education, comments on the planned modification of the regulation 14/1994.(VI.24.) MKM. SzakÉRTELEM Association (October 2004) letter to Magyar Bálint, Minister of Education SzakÉRTELEM Association (April 04, 2005) letter to the colleagues about the discussion with Gábor Daróczi. SzakÉRTELEM Association (November 6, 2005) Memo about the meeting of SzakÉRTELEM Association in October 26, 2005 SzakÉRTELEM Association (February 1, 2006) letter to Magyar Bálint, Minister of Education SzakÉRTELEM Association (Februar 04, 2007) letter to the colleagues about the discussion with János Szüdi, State Secretary for Public Education and Science SzakÉRTELEM Association (November 28, 2008) letter to András Tatai-Tóth, MP, member of the committee of Education and Science, proposal for the modification of LXXIX/1993. Kt (1) 29 Szél, Dávid (2009a) Az önmegvalósításon innen [On this side of self-realization]. In: Élet és Irodalom LIII./19. Szél, Dávid (2009b) Bal lábbal kelni, Népszabadság, 18th of July Szőcs, Marianna (2002) A hiperkinetikus szindrómás gyermekek és családjaik helyzete, [The situation of children and their family with attention deficit syndrome], dissertation, ELTE Szügyi, Jerne (2009) Labirintuspróba [A labyrinth test] In: Beszélı 14/3, available from: Szügyi, Jerne (2009b), A függıség ára [The price of dependence], Népszabadság, April , Szvatkó, Anna (2008) A nevelési tanácsadók diagnosztikus szakmai munkája [Professional work of diagnostics at the educational counselling services] presentation, available from: Taking the First Step: A Guide for Parents of Children with Learning Disabilities, available from: Tamás, Pál (2005), Kutatási brókerek.társadalomtudományi szakértés és az új tudáspolitika [Research brokers. Social scientist expertise and the new knowledge policies], Magyar Tudomány 2005/11. TÁMOP (2006) Társadalmi megújulás operatív program , [Social Renewal Operational Program] Torda, Ágnes (2003) Átalakulási folyamatok a gyógypedagógiai közoktatásban. [Processes of Transformation in Remedial Public Education], Gyógypedagógiai szemle, vol. 33. issue 4. pp Torda, Ágnes (ed.) (2008) Utolsó padban. Egy program utóélete, [In the Last Desk. The afterlife of a programme] Integrációs Pedagógiai Mőhely Füzetek

119 References, documents analysed Budapest:Educatio, available from: ÚMFT (2007) Új Magyarország Fejlesztési Terv [The New Hungary Development Plan], available from: UNICEF (2006) The State of The Wold s Children in 2006, Excluded and Insvisible United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2002) Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Hungary. 01/11/2002, available from: Varnyú, Andrásné (2008) Mert mindenkinek, akinek van, adatik, [Since everyone who has, will be given], In: Torda Ágnes (ed.) (2008) Utolsó padban. Egy program utóélete, [In the Last Desk. The afterlife of a programme] Integrációs Pedagógiai Mőhely Füzetek 15. Budapest:Educatio, available from: Végh, József, Az enyhe fokban sérült értelmi fogyatékos gyermekek különnevelésének hatékonysága [The efficiency of the segregation of mildly mental retarded children], In S. Illyés, L. Bass (eds) (1990) Villányi, Györgyné (2007) Remarks on the modification of the Act of Public Education, available from: a Warnock, Mary (1978) Special educational needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the education of handicapped children and young people, London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, available from: Wehling, Peter (2006): Im Schatten des Wissens? Perspektiven der Soziologie des Nichtwissens. Konstanz. Weingart, Peter (2003): Wissenschaftssoziologie, Bielefeld. Zolnay, János (2004) A romapolitika sarokpontjai és finanszírozása, [The poles of roma policy and its financing], available from: zolnay_janos_romapolitika_sarokpontjai.html 116

120 Appendix APPENDIX 1. CHARTS 1. Roma children in special education at the primary and secondary level (Data only available until 1993 when ethnic categorisation was banned) School- Students total Roma Percentage of Roma year 1974/ % 1977/ % 1981/ % 1985/ % 1992/ % Source: Kaltenbach

121 Appendix 2. The most important measures targeting the SEN Measure May 2003 Specific program has been developed in order to promote the inclusive education of students with special educational needs. relevance, effect Currently there are about children classified as disabled in the Hungarian public education system. The great majority of these students are educated in segregated special institutions. With the help of the program and the funding provided in the HRDOP 2.1 measure of the National Development Plan*, 20% of these children can be educated in inclusive classes in mainstream schools. September 2003 December 2003 The definition of special education needs has been incorporated in the Public Education Act ( 30). The Ministry of Education has initiated the From the Last Desk program that aims to decrease the incidence of misplacement of disadvantaged and especially Roma children in special schools. (Development of quality of work of the Expert Committees, stricter rules medical diagnosis, development of evaluation tools, protocols and tests; periodic re-examination of children) With the new regulation, Roma children with educational difficulties must be educated together with their peers in mainstream classes and should not be segregated or stigmatized as being mentally disabled. This program is especially relevant because today the segregation of Roma children is partly a result of false disability diagnoses. As a result of the comprehensive program the over-representation of Roma children in special schools will be reduced. Furthermore the current rate of children classified as disabled (5,3%) will also decrease significantly (EU rate: 2,5%). Excerpt Source: G. Daróczi [then Commissioner], 2006 *HRDOP [Human Resource Development Operative Program] 2.1 measure: Ensuring equal opportunity for disadvantaged pupils in education ( ). Central programme (with a budget of 10,300,000 EUR, implemented by the sulinova Non-profit Organisation): Training of educational professionals involved in the education of disadvantaged, especially Roma pupils, and pupils with special educational needs; development of related curricula and methodology to promote inclusive education 118

122 Appendix 3. The changes in aggregated SEN-rate in public education* School-year Primary and secondary education (%) 2001/ / / / / * The rate of SEN children varies from 3.7 to 18.1 % across counties The rate of partial disabilities (dyslexia, dysgraphia, ADHD, etc.) varies between 0.1% and 10.9% across counties 4. Number of SEN-students prior to the 2007 re-examination, and their distribution across new categories afterwards SEN A SEN B Total SEN LBD* (Learning and behavioural difficulties) None* Before ,231 After 13,481 7,479 20,960 6,403 4,202 Source: Csepregi, András Változások a sajátos nevelési igény meghatározásában csepregi_v.ppt *6403+4,202=10,605 students (incl. kindergarten and secondary education) ceased to be SEN, as of September

123 Appendix 5. Financial support of SEN children in 2008 (The percentage of the nominal per capita financing of HUF 240,000/ year, in addition to the 100%) SEN A (multiple or severe disabilities, autism) 160% SEN A (milder, organic disabilities) 80% SEN B 60% SEN status taken off (allowance for the following year only) 60% Behavioural or learning difficulties (allowance for a maximum of two years) 60% 6. Special Care another (more comprehensive) perspective on SEN Special care - Another perspective Entitlement for special care ESC SEN (examination: Placement Authorities) A LBD (examination: Medico-psychopedagogic Centres) B SDS (no examination) C Talented student (no examination) D National Core Curriculum (2003) Accredited Local Educational Programmes and Curricula SEN governing principle IPM AJCP Educational program-package Institutional pedagogical programs Source: L. Orosz

124 Appendix 7. The number of special schools and classes decreases (with and without desegregation policies) 8. The demand for labelling increases Number of children examined by the Placement Authorities ( Expert committees ) per year Source: Educational Statistical Yearbook 2006/2007 (Ministry of Education and Culture, Budapest, 2007.) 121

125 Appendix 9. SEN-labelling increases as an undesired policy-effect T h e D ata -p ara d o x o r th e c o m m u n ic a tin g v es se ls 1st cla ss stu den ts w ith m ilde r m e n tal d isa bility 2 nd c lass stu de n ts w ith m ilde r m e n tal d isa bility 1st cla ss stu den ts w ith dy sle x ia, dysgraph ia, etc. 2 nd c lass stu de n ts w ith dy sle x ia, dysgraph ia, etc / / / (prelimin ary ) Sour ce : Educ a tio n al Sta tis tical Y e a rb o ok 20 03/ 20 04, 2 004/ 20 05, 2 005/ (M inis try o f Edu ca tio n and Cu ltu re, B ud a pe st, 2007 ) [ calc ulatio ns o f Ju dit Sz ira ] 10. The number of SEN decreases since 2007 only, the segregation of SEN had started to decrease before the PA 122

126 Appendix 11. Overall results (some decrease, recently) 123

127 Appendix 12. No differences between examination and re-examination results The comparison of the originally measured and the control tested intelligence quotients Average IQ value Median IQ value Standard deviation The rates of the IQ values less than 70 original control tested 66.8 point 66.1 point 67 point 66 point % 64.3% Source: Bass

128 Appendix 13. The official data from Hungary Source: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education 125