Chapter 4 Research Findings
5.2 National Context
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5.2 National Context
History of the special education context
Taiwan‟s first Special Education Act was promulgated in 1984. Before that, education for special needs students was mainly experimental. In the Netherlands, there is a long history of special education (included in the Primary Education Act of 1920), but not until 1985 was the first separate Special Education Interim Act for primary and secondary education put into effect.
After the Salamanca Statement of 1994, both Taiwan (1997) and the Netherlands (1998) amended their special education policies which eventually would lead to the creation of the Comprehensive Vocational Departments situated in regular education schools in Taiwan (2001) and Practical Training schools as part of regular education in the Netherlands ( 2002). The city of Taipei has had an inclusive environment (resource room programs) for mildly mentally impaired students in the nine-year compulsory education stage, officially, since 1986.
Funding of the programs
The total expenditure of the government on education was more or less similar in both countries as Taiwan spent 4.81% of its GDP on education in 2009 while the Netherlands spent 5.1% of its GDP on education in the same year.
Available data shows that in Taiwan 13.11% of the total educational budget was spent on junior secondary education, 5.66% on senior vocational secondary education. Furthermore, the central government of Taiwan devotes 4.5% of the whole education budget to special education (Ministry of Education, 2009). An additional 5% of the whole local government education budget is put aside for special education. Since senior education is not part of
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
compulsory education, this educational stage receives comparatively less money since students need to pay for parts of their education. However, students at Comprehensive Vocational Departments do receive full government funding.
Practical Training is part of mainstream secondary education and of all expenditure on education in the Netherlands, 31.8% was reserved for secondary education. Of this, available data shows that students in Practical Training (together with secondary education students who receive learning support) receive 83% more funding per capita than do other secondary education students. The Dutch school case also makes use of various available subsidies such as the ones provided by the European Social Fund. If there are projects proposed within the school, the location manager tries to get additional funding from certain available agencies.
The above data give an idea of the funding available in both countries. However, these data do not provide for a detailed overview of how much money is comparatively available for each mildly mentally impaired student in each country.
Dutch Practical Training schools receive block grant funding to cover staff and running costs, which they can be spent as the school sees fit.
I have a lot of freedom. If, for instance, I want to spend money, I don‟t have to ask for permission. As long as I stay within the budget, it is ok. It is a different way of working.
(Location manager Accent Nijkerk)
In contrast, Taiwanese schools need to provide details of their expenses to the government.
The degree of educational regulations
The Netherlands has an advising body (the Nationwide Association for Practical Training) for secondary education serving mildly mentally impaired students rather than strict government regulations. The Law on Secondary Education, therefore, provides a certain
‧
degree of autonomy for the schools to offer education as they best see fit. This is in line with Dutch education‟s „freedom of arrangement‟ principle.
In Taiwan, the government stipulates in the Special Education Act that the government determines details of practices. Regulations are enforced and compliance is checked during school evaluations.
Taiwan has regulations that need to be followed otherwise everybody does things differently.
(Special education coordinator Nan Gang Comprehensive Vocational Department)
Table 5.2
Comparison of national contexts
Topic Taiwan The Netherlands
History - First Special Education Act 1984
- Resource room program officially since 1986 in Taipei - Comprehensive Vocational
Department since 2001
- First Special Education Interim Act 1985
- Practical Training officially since 2002
Funding - 4.81% of GDP total education - Special needs students at lower
secondary education stage and Comprehensive Vocational Department extra funding compared to regular education
- 5.1% of GDP total education - Practical Training students 83%
more funding per capita than other secondary education students
- Block grant funding for schools
‧
Topic Taiwan The Netherlands
Degree of regulations
- Regulations enforced by government
- Advising body instead of strict regulations - lower level: self-contained
special education program - Upper level, self-contained
special education program
- Lower level: 50% inclusion in regular education
- Lower and upper level inclusion classes are vocational classes
- Upper level: continued inclusion in vocational regular education
Conclusion
The Netherlands has a longer history of education tailored to special needs students, but the official Special Education Acts of both countries follow a similar timeline. Policies and regulations, however, are enforced in different ways. In Taiwan, there is a top-down approach while the Netherlands it is more bottom-up. The educational program settings also show differences. Inclusion with regular education is assured at both the lower and upper level in the Netherlands, while this is only the case in Taiwan‟s resource room program in the lower level.
The following sub-chapters will focus on the three school cases studied while relating the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學