Running Head: social validation of services for youth with ebd

History of Special Education in the Republic of Korea

The origins of special education in the Republic of Korea have been associated with the work of Christian missionaries in the late 19th century (Park, 2002, Seo, Oakland, Han, & Hu 1993), specifically with Rossetta Sherwood Hall, an American missionary and physician, who in 1894 began teaching Braille to a girl with blindness. Hall went on to establish Pyeung Yang Girls’ School for students with blindness in 1898, and the first special school for students with hearing impairment in 1909 (Park, 2002, Seo, et al., 1993)
This view, however, has been questioned. As early as the Goryeo dynasty (918-1392) people with blindness were employed in Seowoonkwan, the department that dealt with reading natural forces (Im, 1986, Kim, 1999). Seajongsilok, the chronicle of King Seajong of the Chosun dynasty (1392-1910), who ruled in the middle of the 15th century, records that in 1445 Seowoonkwan recruited 10 people with blindness for education in the arts of prediction, as the blind were felt to have special abilities in this regard (Im, 1986). This demonstrates the existence of special education, especially vocational education, in the Republic of Korea from at least 1445, but probably extending back earlier.
Jaesengwon, the first public special education institution to educate students with blindness, was established in 1913. In 1949 the Education Law allowed special education classes in regular primary or middle schools for students with disabilities other than blindness, and mandated the creation of special schools (Kim, 1994). However, the social disruption and poverty that characterised the country after liberation from Japan in 1945 and during the Korean War (1950-1954) resulted in a big gap between the principle of equal educational opportunity on the one hand and the realities of implementation on the other. The enactment of the Special Education Promotion Act (1977), which both mandated education for children with disabilities and the implementation of supporting policies, is considered a landmark in the development of special education.
Since the 1970s special education has undergone rapid development. From one special education classroom located in a general school in 1971, by 2004 there were 4366 special education classrooms, and today 51,386 students eligible to receive special education services are educated in a regular school setting (Kim, 2009). This is about 68.4% of the special education population; the remaining 23,606 students are educated in special schools, with a small number of students with disabilities not enrolled in any education service.
The attitudes held by general education teachers towards the inclusion of students with disabilities are very important for what actually happens in these classrooms. Given the legal structure in the Republic of Korea, where inclusion is mandated by legislation, it would be useful to examine the attitudes of general education teachers there to determine the efficacy of legal intervention in this area.

Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion

Previous studies of attitudes towards inclusion have yielded contradictory results. While some researchers reported uncertain and even negative attitudes towards inclusion on the part of general education teachers (Hammond, & Ingalls, 2003), most reports (e.g.: Avramadis, et al., 2000, Cornoldi, et al., 1998, D’Alonzo, Gordano,& Vanleeuwen, 1997, Daane, Bierne-Smith, & Latham 2000, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 1996, Smith, & Smith, 2000, and Vidovich, & Lombard, 1998) indicated positive attitudes, accompanied by a belief in the fundamental value of inclusion.
Using the Heterogeneous Education Teacher Survey and the Regular Education Initiative Teacher Survey-Revised, Villa, et al., (1996) reported that 78.8% of 578 general education teachers in North America showed positive attitudes towards inclusion. As the relationship between general and special education is one of co-equal partnership and mutual support, this study argued that administrative support and collaboration were powerful predictors of favourable attitudes towards full inclusion. Scruggs, and Mastropieri (1996) supported Villa, et al.’s conclusions. They reported that approximately 65.0% of 7,385 general classroom teachers supported the concept of mainstreaming and inclusion, and 53.4% expressed a willingness to accommodate students with disabilities in their classroom.
However, this willingness appears to vary according to the type and severity of disability, and the resources provided to support inclusion. In their survey of 81 primary and secondary teachers in the United Kingdom, Avramidis, et al., (2000) reported that regardless of the positive overall value assigned to the concept of inclusion, students with emotional and behavioural difficulties were seen as creating more concern and stress than those with other types of disabilities. In Uganda, in contrast, students who were deaf or hard of hearing were considered to present more difficulties than students with other disabilities, followed by those with severe intellectual disability (Kristensen, Omagos-Loican, & Onen, 2003).

In a comparative study conducted in Finland and Zambia, Morberg, and Savolainen (2003) stated that Finnish teachers perceived the inclusion of children with speech disorders, specific learning disabilities or physical disabilities to be more successful, while Zambian teachers were reluctant to include students with physical disabilities and visual impairment. The Zambian results appeared to be due to the difficulties inherent in the long distances students must travel to reach the nearest mainstream school.

In a study of attitudes of pre-service physical education teachers, Mousouli, Kokaridas, Angelopoulou-Sakadami, and Aristotelous (2009) reported limited awareness about students with special needs. This study also reported that teachers had a limited understanding of disability and special education, and thought special needs was analogous with mental retardation. Teachers were unfamiliar with the idea of inclusion.
Acceptance of different types of disabilities appears to be influenced by cultural and social backgrounds. This is illustrated by the correlation between the belief among Palestinian and ultra-orthodox Israeli communities that blindness and intellectual disabilities indicate divine punishment, and the reluctance shown by teachers in these communities to accept inclusion of students with these disabilities (Lifshitz, Glaubman, & Issawi, 2004).
Severity of disability and availability of resources consistently influenced teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, regardless of differences in nationality or culture. Where disability was severe, teachers believed that the regular classroom was not an appropriate educational environment (Morberg, & Savolainen, 2003). A great deal of research highlights the importance of the availability of material and human resources, including appropriate training and technological aids.
Many teachers surveyed indicated an unwillingness to have students with disabilities in their class, despite a consensus regarding the value of inclusion (Vidovich, & Lombard, 1998). General education teachers in Spain, for example, did not perceive instructional adaptations for children with disabilities as feasible, effective or desirable (Molto, 2003); nor did they perceive other teachers to be comfortable with collaboration Daane, et al., 2000). In Italy, Cornoldi, et al., (1998) noted dissatisfaction with the time, training, personnel assistance, and other resources that have been provided for inclusion programs. Westwood and Graham (2003) found that teachers in two Australian states felt they did not have the professional knowledge to work with students with disabilities.
General education teachers tended to agree on the challenges of inclusive programs, but to disagree on the benefits of inclusion (D’Alonzo, et al., 1997). In addition, inclusive programs necessitate collaboration with other teachers, so territorial issues regarding role overlap and role ambiguity appear to constitute a major barrier to inclusion (Wood, 1998).
The level of schooling, whether early childhood, primary, or high school, constitutes another variable in teachers’ attitudes to inclusion. In a study of 900 teachers in the United Arab Emirates, Alahbabi (2009) found that primary school teachers had more positive attitudes than early childhood and high school teachers. High school teachers were found to emphasise teaching curriculum content, and felt that teaching students with disabilities would create problems (p.51).

Years of teaching experience appeared not to be a variable in attitudes towards inclusion Villa et al. 1996), including in the Republic of Korea (Chun 2000). In a recent study, teachers with varying degrees of experience (i.e., 1 – 20+ years of experience) in two Jordanian cities demonstrated little difference in their attitudes towards the inclusion of students with autism in mainstream classes (Muhanna, 2010).

In brief, international studies have indicated that while general education teachers are favourably disposed towards the theory of inclusion, they are concerned about its practical implementation. This study examines the attitudes towards inclusion held by general education teachers in the Republic of Korea through a small-scale project with 33 general education teachers as participants. The purposes of this study are to establish the attitudes of general education teachers towards inclusion, their willingness to teach students with disabilities, their positive and negative attitudes regarding inclusive programs, and the practical problems they encounter in implementing them. Demographic variables such as age, gender, and years of teaching experience are also considered.