Israeli Students Fall Between the Cracks
Executive Director of Nitzan, the Israeli Association for Children & Adults with Learning Disabilities. Prior to moving to Nitzan, Dr. Danino established the department in the Israeli Ministry of Education dealing with the education of students with learning disabilities in the general education environment.
One of the basic principles of Israel's educational system is the natural right of every person for equal rights. It is society's duty to create the conditions that will enable the realization of
this right in order to allow people to realize their full potential. In modern technological society, realization of one's full potential means more than the acquisition of basic education; it also means access to higher education that provides general knowledge as well as expertise
in specific areas so as to guarantee the integration of the individual in competitive society.
The principle of equal opportunity in education led to the establishment of a public educational system, which is open to all and which provides "equal education" to all students.
However, the system is not sufficiently tuned to the unique skills and needs of certain individuals that are part of it. In 1949, Israel passed the first educational bill, which stipulates that every child in Israel, from the age of five to fourteen, has to attend an educational
institute. The law was then expanded to cover the ages of five to sixteen years old. The fact that all the children of Israel have access to education is one of the great successes of the educational system.
In view of the increased awareness of individual rights, including the rights of people with special needs, and in view of the increased awareness of the importance of education in general and higher education in particular as an instrument for social progress, the
educational system is required to provide a unique response for specific populations.
Students with learning disabilities
Israel's pupil population is highly diversified as a result of differences in the economic, social and ethnic background, as well as because of differences in the skills and capabilities with which these pupils enter the educational system. As stated above, "equal education" often fails to provide the conditions that are necessary for some students to realize their potential, as M. Danino some pupils need more than the others need. This category consists of a broad variety of pupils who have learning difficulties due to a whole range of issues: educational shortage, cultural diversity, learning disability, emotional problems, physical limitations, health conditions and generally low cognitive ability. Of all of these groups, the struggle of the pupils with learning disabilities (LD) for recognition of their special needs is especially striking. Several factors have brought about this situation:
•
Research advancements made in this area, which enable the detection of failures of specific cognitive mechanisms that make it difficult for these children to realize and express their potential;
•
The inability of the educational system to adjust the instruction methods to the specific difficulties of these children as well as its inability to assess reliably and validly the true abilities of these children while circumventing the specific disability; and
•
The vagueness of the definition of the learning disability syndrome, which brings pupil population with varied difficulties under one category. The success of organizations of parents of children with LD in their strife for recognition and support, which is reflected in prioritizing resources for these pupils, has encouraged additional pupil
groups to push their way into this category in hope for support and assistance. To a large extent, this explains the significant rise in the number of pupils who claim to have LD and consequently demand assistance, support and special considerations in the examinations they take. The educational system should regard this phenomenon as a symptom of the acute need for response to children with various types of needs that have not been identified or addressed throughout the years.
It should be noted that the various groups of pupils with difficulties may provide some explanation as to the source of the difficulty. However, in most cases, the observed difficulty of a given pupil stems from several concurrent factors. The System's ability to identify and distinguish the origin of the difficulty is usually undertaken through help and support in the class and observing the reaction to the planned intervention.
The Nitzan Association
The Nitzan Association was founded in 1964 by volunteer parents of children with learning, adjustment and functioning disabilities. In those days, children with LD were placed in various special education frameworks together with pupils who suffer from other limitations.
The teachers did not know what learning disability was or how to diagnose it. In the absence of a State body to address the issue, Nitzan has developed the first diagnostic batteries that help diagnosing children with LD and has trained teachers for didactic diagnosis and corrective teaching. The Ministry of Education licensed the teachers trained by Nitzan. The diagnostic batteries serve as the basis for normative kits which Nitzan is developing today in
collaboration with MOFET. The follow-up and the A-Z Book of Norms kits were designed based on the work done with 1,600 children and provide a comparative criterion for settingLDA National Conference, Jacksonville, Florida, March 2007
M. Danino
eligibility parameters for therapy and alleviations or adjustments of the examinations they sit
to.
The Special Education Law
The special education law was passed in 1988. For the first time in the history of Israel, it
covered all the laws, regulations and procedures relating to the "special children's" right for
special education. The law is important since it secures services and therapy under the
responsibility of the State (the minister of education) and various other authorities. The
amendment of the special education law of 2000 replaced the phrase "special child" with the
term "child with special needs". The law has been through many changes during the years. As
a result, children with serious LD had to special education classes together with pupils that
suffer from other serious disabilities: medium to severe retardation, autistic, children with
acute mental disorders, physically disabled children and sensorial deficit. Today, the special
education frameworks are designed only for pupils with significant complex, and
comprehensive problems in different functional areas that require professional intervention
during most of the school day. Section D1 of the special education bill, "integration of children
with special needs in the regular education system", which was passed in 2002, authorizes the
integration committee in the ordinary school to determine the eligibility of pupils with special
needs for additional special education hours as part of the integration program. This
amendment also covers children with LD, but in fact, only a small percentage of these
children receive treatment. The types of therapies available to children include corrective
teaching, creative and expressive therapy and paramedical therapies. In addition, the law
addresses the issue of Individual Education Programs (IEP), which is some cases is tailor
made for the individual needs of the pupil, the role parents play in setting up the IEP and
their right to appeal on the ruling of the integration committee.
Who is Authorized to Diagnose Learning Disabilities?
As stated above, the Education Ministry licensed the didactic diagnosis specialists that were
trained at Nitzan. Today, parents turn to Nitzan to find out whether their child has LD.
Nitzan, in return, provides them with recommendations and guidance on helping their child,
mainly with basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic.
In 1997, the education ministry determined in the Director General circular that only
educational psychologists are authorized to diagnose a child as having LD and the
alleviations he or she will be entitled to in the matriculation exams. Didactic adjustments,
including time extension or overlooking spelling mistakes can be applied to the matriculation
exams also at the school's recommendation. According to this circular, a child that was not
diagnosed as having LD by the middle of the 10th grade will not be entitled for adjustments.
This policy proved very detrimental to pupils with LD who sought to take their exams at
a later stage let alone the requirement to undertake psychological diagnosis in order to
establish the differential diagnosis of whether they suffer from a cognitive disability that
results from low intelligence or from a mental problem. The psychological diagnosis did not
LDA National Conference, Jacksonville, Florida, March 2007
M. Danino
provide tools for appropriate education intervention such as an appropriate way for teaching
reading or effective learning strategies.
The Margalit Committee
The Margalit public committee was established in 1996 in response to pressures exerted by
the parent organizations. The "Commission on the Realization of the Potential of Children
with Learning Disabilities", or the Margalit Committee, so named after its chairwoman, Prof.
Malka Margalit, considered the issue from a multi-disciplinary perspective, including the
biological, psychological, social, educational and economic aspects. The underlying principle
of the Committee's work was the basic, natural right for equal opportunity and the society's
duty to create the condition for exercising this right. The Committee's recommendations were
published in a report filed in June 1997 to then Minister of Education and Culture, Mr. Zvulun
Hammer and then Minister of Science, Ze'ev B. Begin.
The Committee deliberated the distress of pupils with LD who were left with no response,
their parents, who are helpless in view of this harsh reality, and the teachers, who were short
of tools to address the issues. The Margalit Committee report proved to be the most important
document among decision makers and professionals alike. In its report, the Committee listed
a series of recommendations, of which the most important recommendation, which has the
potential of changing the reality in Israel but had not been implemented yet, is the
establishment of public diagnostic centers, which will diagnose pupils that have been referred
to them according to clear publish criteria. The cost of the diagnosis will be covered by the
State so as to protect equal opportunity and minimize gaps that result from socioeconomic
differences. The Margalit Committee did not grapple with the issue of who will be authorized
to diagnose pupils with LD. However, it does conclude that kindergarten and school teachers
play a major role in identifying and providing the first line of care to pupils in need as well as
refer them to the appropriate bodies for diagnosis.
The Supreme Court Ruling and the Director General's Circular
A host of reasons motivated the parent organization to join forces with the Nitzan Association
and the didactic diagnostic specialists in filing an appeal against the education ministry with
the Supreme Court. The diagnostic specialists claimed they are entitled for the freedom of
occupation, which is a basic law, and have won the appeal.
In 1999, the Supreme Court revoked previous circulars of the director general of the
education ministry and ordered the education ministry to regulate the identity of the
professionals that will diagnose children with LD according to a clear policy. During that
time, I was summoned to the education ministry. One of my first tasks there was to phrase a
director general circular that would obtain a consensus of the professionals, mainly didactic
diagnostic specialists and educational psychologists. The new director general's circular
placed heavy responsibility on the educational teams in the schools, the school principals and
mainly on the educational consultants, who were charged with the responsibility of
LDA National Conference, Jacksonville, Florida, March 2007
M. Danino
coordinating the various aspects and bodies, but alas, had no sufficient training to meet the
expectation.
The director general's circular, which was distributed to the schools in May 2000,
stipulated the new policy of the education ministry. Among others, it said as follows:
•
Learning disability can be detected at various stages of one's life.
•
The Pedagogic Board is the authorized body to set forward alleviations in the
matriculations examinations based on the findings of the diagnosis.
•
It did not address the issue of who is authorized to diagnose LD and the types of
diagnoses required for specific alleviations.
The implications of this policy became evident shortly afterwards. The public has become
aware of LD and an increased number of pupils are being referred to diagnosis either as a
result of school referral or at the initiative of their parents. Concurrently, the number of pupils
diagnosed as having LD increases too. These pupils receive help and alleviations which help
them achieve higher schooling accomplishments that reflect their true capabilities.
Unfortunately, these pupils invariably come from higher socioeconomic levels and from
affluent neighborhoods. The budget that the education ministry allocates for this issue is
minimal and far from meeting the need. The higher expectations of pupils and parents for
State help, on the one hand, and the absence of resources, tools and training, on the other
hand result in tension and conflicts in the educational system for "deserting" the schools to
come to grips with the problems on their own. The shortage is being filled with an outbreak of
privately-owned diagnostic institutes, which open up all over the place. Consequently, most
of the students who do benefit from alleviations are those whose parents can afford the
private diagnosis.
The Proposed Law on the Rights of Children with Learning Disabilities
in Regular Education
Concurrently, parent organizations are promoting the proposed law on State-funded
detection, diagnosis and treatment of pupils with LD in the regular educational system. The
proposed law passed the first reading and is ready for the second and the third readings. The
proposed law refers to pupils with LD and attempts to set forward their rights in the spirit of
human dignity and liberty, while ensuring their needs are met as soon as possible through
early detection, appropriate educational intervention and adjustments of the tests they have to
take.
In 2003, the director general of the education ministry has issued an amendment to the
May 2000 circular, in which it stressed the importance of early detection and intervention by
schools as well as listed the alleviations and adjustments in a hierarchical order according to
their impact on the validity and credibility of the tests: adjustments on levels A and B have to
be cleared by the pedagogic board based on the recommendations of the diagnostic specialists
(didactic diagnosis), while level C adjustments, which include the replacement of written
LDA National Conference, Jacksonville, Florida, March 2007
M. Danino
examination by a oral one and customized examination (from which certain parts are omitted
according to the specific disability, e.g. diction theory in Hebrew language examination). To
be entitled for these adjustments, a pupil has to obtain the recommendations of the pedagogic
board, which are based on the recommendations of didactic diagnostic specialist,
recommendations by an educational psychologist, and the approval of the district council that
weights the findings and reasoning of the school.
In face of this reality, the educational system is required to introduce a comprehensive,
systemic policy that will result in fair allocation of the scarce resources, even differential
allocation, if need be. To this end, the regular and special education systems have to
collaborate to ensure continuous treatment which is well coordinated and accounted for by all
therapeutic bodies. Otherwise, pupils with LD will fall between the cracks. In addition, large
scale action is required to augment the services currently provided in the periphery of Israel,
which could serve as a model for institutionalized intervention by the system. Today, most of
the activity in the periphery is done by associations that seek to fill the gaps of the formal
educational system. For this reason, quick, vigorous action is necessary before LD become just
another "educational fad".
LDA National Conference, Jacksonville, Florida, March 2007