Report
| www . ICEVI - Europe . org Report |
|
[ Previous: Report on theme 3: Classroom management ] [ Table of Contents ] [ Next: Report on theme 5: The role of IT ]
Explanation: in the (former) special schools many different professionals are (were) employed; not only teachers but also experts in the field of ADL, O&M, Low Vision, subjects like mathematics, geography, etc. These special professionals are not always available for VI children in mainstream schools.
These questions were briefly discussed on the last day therefore references were made to the discussions on the first day.
As a result of discussion on the first day participants agreed that the competencies of an itinerant teacher are not very much different from those of a classroom teacher of the visually impaired. Therefore the contents of the special subjects/fields should be similar. However, areas and competencies to be emphasized were identified (see Appendix 2).
The participants unanimously stated that the extent to which mainstream schools provide special services depended on the system, including financing. As to the actual responsibility for providing the services, participants opinions differed but as a result of exchanging views, the group arrived at a consensus that providing special services should be a shared responsibility of the mainstream school and some external body specifically involved with the visually impaired, such as a special school, association of or for the blind and visually impaired, resource centre, etc. Even if the school is not able to actually provide those services, it should feel responsible for making appropriate referrals and arrangements. It was felt that competencies related to informing/training people from the community were also relevant for the integration/ inclusion process and should be accounted for in teacher training.
It was decided that discussing this issue was pointless due to the fact that in most countries represented in the group IEPs were not used as a system tool. In some countries, such as Bulgaria, they are used for training in non-academic areas. Short exchange of views showed that first of all a definition and explanation of IEP would be necessary as most of the participants were not clear on what it involved.
In view of the preceding discussion it was concluded that it was rather a rhetoric question and that VI children should receive all the necessary services in special fields, regardless of whether they are provided within the school curriculum or as extra-curricular activities, either by their school or by an external body (e.g., a resource centre).
The following question was posed by the chairperson:
What additional competencies should a teacher of the visually impaired (TVI) working
in a mainstream setting have in the areas of LV, O&M and ADL, etc.?
The participants' memory was refreshed with a definition of a competence:
"A competence is an ability to carry out a specific task or activity to predetermined standards of attainment. A competencies-based approach means describing what the student will know and be able to do at the end of the course and teaching practice, rather than simply stating the content of the course."
Marianna Buultjens quoted in Keynote Speech by Dr Heather Mason, 2nd TT Workshop, 1999
Also, a list of special topics/fields (see Appendix 1) in teacher training (from the Report from 1st TT Workshop in Budapest, 1997, p. 33) was reviewed.
The participants briefly presented TVI training programs in their countries with a focus on their integration-oriented aspects. They also reflected on their own experience as teachers and teacher trainers. Based on that review and the accompanying discussion
Should the competencies of an itinerant/resource teacher be different from those of any other teacher of the visually impaired? If so, how?
The participants were asked by the chairperson to do some homework, namely to take a look at the ICEVI-adopted set of Competencies Required by a Teacher of the Visually Impaired and model training curriculum outline (Report from 2nd TT Workshop in Bratislava, 1999, pp. 28-29 and 110-124) and see if there were any special field competencies missing or under-emphasized.
Based on the above premises the participants concluded that the competencies of an itinerant/resource teacher should be similar to those of other teachers of the visually impaired. However, special emphasis should be put on the following areas:
The last issue stirred an animated discussion, with some participants advocating against including respective competencies in the TT curriculum due to the unavailability of new technologies in their countries. As a result of discussion the following statement was adopted by the group: New technologies should be in the TT curriculum - the extent depends on the availability of those technologies, but as we represent all Europe we must be working towards including them as much as possible.
Social skills kept coming up as most needed and least accounted for areas in teacher training.
Since the itinerant came across as Jack-of-all-trades the participants wondered how realistic it was to acquire competence in all the proposed areas.
A total of 17 specific competencies in 8 curricular areas (identified as requiring emphasis) were formulated and proposed for further consideration (see Appendix 2).
It was concluded that the competencies of an itinerant teacher of the visually impaired are not much different from those of a classroom TVI, however certain areas need more emphasis in order to better prepare the teacher for work in integrated settings. Several such areas were identified and specific teacher competencies were proposed. It was recommended that the ICEVI-adopted set of competencies and model training curriculum (Report from 2nd TT Workshop in Bratislava, 1999) are analysed from the point of view of the proposed competencies and adequately modified/supplemented. The special field of Low Vision was not discussed as the participants agreed that LV competencies were sufficiently represented in the model curriculum.
The group members were very active and contributing. Various perspectives on integration were represented since there were participants from both more experienced (United Kingdom, Germany) and less experienced (Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Yugoslavia) countries.
The chairperson provided a framework for discussion and final formulation of competencies by:
The group was successful in identifying TT curriculum areas that need to be added or emphasized, and, eventually, in formulating specific competencies.
The working methods were:
Group 4 lost its Reporter so the responsibility of presenting the last oral report at the plenary session and of developing the final report for the Proceedings went to the chairperson. Group members spontaneously offered their help in taking notes and consulting the final report before it is submitted. Special thanks from the chairperson to Ms Marianna Buultjens.
(Report from Workshop 1, Budapest, 1997)
- the teacher is
- the teacher is
- the teacher is
- the teacher
- the teacher is