Special Education and Education Reform in Mexico.

Ramos, Eliseo Guajardo ; Fletcher, Todd V.

PROVIDING QUALITY EDUCATION TO A DIVERSE STUDENT POPULATION

Special education in Mexico, in keeping with international trends, is in the process of transformation. Educational reforms currently under way in Mexico have adopted and systematized the measures recommended by UNESCO (1994) to extend educational services to all students, accommodate the diversity represented in the special education population, and provide a high-quality education for all students. The 1994 World Conference on Special Educational Needs held in Salamanca, Spain, highlighted the importance of including all students in our schools, celebrating their differences and responding to the specific needs of each individual. The Declaration of Salamanca adopted at the Conference outlined the principles underlying inclusive education, discussed the political implications of the Declaration, and provided an action plan for the successful implementation of inclusive schools.

In addition to international declarations, forces within Mexico were calling for reforms designed to decentralize education and to provide quality instruction for all students. In Mexico, as elsewhere, this required legislative changes to meet the challenges of educating students from diverse backgrounds, including those with special educational needs. The goals of education recently adopted by the Mexican government focus on restructuring public education to enable it to respond to the basic learning needs of all students while attending to their cultural, economic, physical, and cognitive differences. This has led to a reconceptualization of the role of, and services provided by. special education and its relationship to general education. This, in turn, has led to systemic changes in the delivery of services for special needs students, the retraining of both general and special education professional, and new strategies and interventions to meet the demands of an integrated educational system.

Legislative Changes

Present-day Mexico is redefining its basic liberties. The senate of the Republic of Mexico, in consultation with the social and political protagonists of the country, has initiated reforms directed toward the creation of a new federalism. As part of these reforms, the powers of the federation, the states, and the counties were established, particularly with regard to the distribution of the public budget.

Based upon this changing situation, a new federal pact was established for the National Education System (SEN). In 1992, the National Agreement for the Modernization of Basic Education (Secretaria de Educacion Publica 1992a. 1992b) was agreed to by the federal government, the 31 states of the Republic, and the Education Workers' National Union (Gordillo 1992). With the decentralization of the SEN, reform in education was initiated and restructuring begun. The restructuring consisted fundamentally of the decentralization of the SEN in an effort to return sovereignty to the states, allowing them to operate basic educational services according to the diversified conditions required by their particular populations, and to promote greater availability and completion of schooling (Pescador Osuna 1992). This movement toward a unique and diverse system of basic education created the need for constitutional reforms and legal ordinances regarding educational matters. Figure 1 provides a frame of reference outlining th e different legislative and programmatic components that underlie the educational restructuring process currently under way in Mexico.

According to Article 3 of the Mexican Constitution, every Mexican has the right to an elementary education. Article 3 was previously interpreted as providing for the education of children with special needs, but not as mandating special education on a federal level (Direccion General de Educacion Especial 1985). In 1993, Article 3 of the Constitution was amended, and a new General Education Law (GEL) replaced the previous Federal Education Law. For the first time in its history, Mexico had enacted national legislation that specifically provided for the education of individuals with disabilities. Articles 41 of the new law states:

Special education is created for individuals with temporary or permanent disabilities, as well as for gifted individuals. It will attempt to provide services that are adequate to the needs of those served with social equality. As related to minors with disabilities, this education will promote their integration into general education. For those who do not achieve such integration, this education will attempt to satisfy their basic educational needs so they may achieve an autonomous, productive social life. This education includes guidance for parents and guardians as well as for teachers and elementary, general school personnel where students with special educational needs are integrated.

The GEL is a legal ordinance that makes explicit the nonexclusion of students with disabilities. The general purpose of reordering basic education for diversity is to cease viewing special education as a separate, parallel system with its own curriculum. It contemplates the integration of special education with basic education and sharing the same broadened curriculum, albeit flexible and optional in many of its parts. Educational equity is widely assured, as is the involvement of society in education. Likewise, the protagonist and professional roles of teachers in educational reform and innovation are recognized.

The properties and conditions of Article 41 of the General Education Law, as they pertain to individuals with disabilities, include the following:

1. No one with a disability can be excluded from receiving basic education services.

2. The law no longer refers to "the disabled," but rather to persons with certain disabilities.

3. The law refers to total or partial inclusion in general education classrooms without restrictions, while continuing to provide the option of special schools.

4. Not only is the state obliged to provide special education services to students, but it also has responsibility to counsel families and provide training for general education teachers. This is based on the importance of working as a team to provide the best possible educational services in the context of the student's total ecology.

With the amendment of Article 3 of the Constitution and the passage of the new General Education Law, special education entered a new era. These legal changes recognized the existence of special education, defined its place within the basic educational system, and broadened the basic rights of all Mexican citizens.

Central Features of Change

The current reform of basic education in Mexico is designed to recognize the special educational needs of all students, preschool through eighth grade. As a result, four key areas are being emphasized in the restructuring process: (a) flexibility of the basic curriculum, (b) the preparation and professional development of teachers, (c) the implementation of new service delivery models, and (d) the participation of parents and the community (Guajardo Ramos 1993).

Meeting the challenge of the educational integration of students with disabilities begins with the development of a broad-based and flexible curriculum that is sensitive to the special educational needs of all students. Figure 2 illustrates the integration of all students into the basic core curriculum through abandoning the parallel curriculum that traditionally excluded and segregated some students based on their learning differences. This transformation has sought to minimize the impact of the learning difficulties exhibited by students with mild or moderate disabilities and to make general education responsible for meeting their educational needs. To date, this has only been moderately successful since most public schools have maintained their inflexible and rigid curricular objectives and goals, as well as their traditional school organizational structures and practices. One of the greatest challenges facing this process is the provisions of a broad-based and coherent curriculum that is sensitive to the special educational needs of all students. This transformation will continue to require reciprocity and collaborative planning between general and special education. In addition to the transformation of general education, special education will need to become more flexible as to how it provides services, and will have to establish a professional development program to update special education personnel regarding the new realities of a common school for all students.

Program for Educational Development

Within the legal framework described above, the current administration sought to identify inequities in educational opportunities throughout the country (Direccion General de Educacion Especial 1994). In 1995 the National Welfare and Incorporation for the Development of Individuals with Disabilities Program was established. This was an unprecedented effort to join political forces at the national and state levels to develop interagency agreements and to encourage communities to work together for the benefit of individuals with disabilities.

For the first time in Mexico, a president created a program that focused on the needs of individuals with disabilities. Using this presidential initiative, the Program for Educational Development was created for the purpose of propelling special education to the forefront of the National Coordinating Commission's agenda, as well as the agendas of the 31 state commissions (Comision Nacional Coordinadora 1995).

Under the auspices of this program, and with the support of the Public Education Secretariat (PES), the National System for the Integral Development of the Family (DIF) and the National Information System regarding Populations with Disabilities (INEGI), a national census, called the Registration of Minors with Signs of Disabilities, was conducted. The purpose was to determine the number of children and adolescents with disabilities. Teachers throughout the country distributed forms to schoolchildren soliciting information regarding family members, friends or acquaintances who had disabilities. Contrary to expectations, results suggested that many students were already being integrated into schools throughout the country. Of the 2,727,989 minors registered in Mexico, over 2 million were receiving some form of educational service. This suggests that only 20% of registered minors were not receiving any educational services. Of the total minors registered, almost 30% reported having poor vision, 12% having more than one disability, 12% an inability to speak well, 5.3% having poor hearing, 4.7% having a mental disability, and 2.1% reported having some type of physical malformation.

Recognizing that the process of inclusion must be gradual, and that it must conform to equity standards, the Program of Educational Development outlined progressive strategies to achieve educational integration. These strategies included: (a) the identification of existing infrastructures for attending to the needs of minors, as well as the different modalities and integration experiences of each state entity; (b) the design of planning strategies that each school region could employ to undertake the gradual incorporation of students with special needs into the education system; and (c) the selection of each region's priorities for action according to the diversity presented by its population; and, in addition, the types of disabilities represented among its school-age children, the infrastructure of its educational services, the degree of sensitivity of the parents, teachers and communities within the region, and the professional competence of its teachers and other specialists.

The Program for Educational Development had a major impact on the design of educational innovations that provided for the scholastic inclusion of all students into the public schools in the Federal District of Mexico City. The following section describes the changes that are currently taking place.

Current Special Education Reform in the Federal District of Mexico City

In the Federal District, educational integration is being achieved through the reorientation of special education services, while simultaneously taking advantage of the innovations that basic education is putting into place to provide appropriate educational services for diverse populations within general education classrooms. In March 1993 the General Project of Special Education was developed and initiated in Mexico City (Secretaria de Educacion Publica 1994). This project was comprised of ten basic components that provided, in general terms, a prospectus leading to the year 2010. The ten components were as follows.

1. In addition to being ethically unacceptable, the parallel system of education is incompatible with the new conception of quality in education and is incapable of meeting the demands posed by the population of students with special needs. Thus the parallel system must be eliminated and special education must be considered a modality of basic education, abandoning the practice of segregating students to provide "specialized" services.

2. It must be remembered that the institutions of special education originated more than a century ago, together with the pioneer institutions of public education. As special education was consolidated as a parallel system over a period of 127 years, we should not expect that it will be rapidly and easily integrated with regular education.

3. The current conception of quality education seeks to ensure that exclusion based on gender, ethnicity, territory, social class, special educational needs, etc. does not occur. Special education must not continue to be autonomous with respect to the criteria that define quality in general education.

4. The project did not intend to eliminate special education services and automatically integrate all students with special needs into general education. Rather, the intention was to establish a range of gradual options for integration such that students with special needs would enjoy access to different educational placements.

5. The program of integration should be viewed as a program of institutional development and as a means by which quality education is provided to all school-age children, with or without disabilities.

6. The decentralization of educational services, including those of special education, and the political reordering of the Federal District, makes it possible to resolve problems in their place of origin, using a site-based approach to management. This is important in terms of solving the complex problems created by educational integration. This was accomplished by Article 41 of the current General Law of Education, among other legislative acts.

7. It is of central importance to consider that the integration of a student with special educational needs requires a federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. To achieve this it was necessary to amend the Federal Education Law to provide the legal basis for implementing new strategies for educational integration. This was accomplished by Article 41 of the current General Law of Education, among other legislative acts.

8. School integration is fundamental for the social integration of persons who have special needs. in view of this, the social integration of these persons must be part of an integral program that transcends traditional school programs. Integration should be promoted in the areas of health, education, recreation, culture, and employment. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to establish effective interagency cooperation.

9. It has been demonstrated that educational centers that achieve quality education are those that resolve their problems in a collegial and participatory manner through school councils. Thus it is of fundamental importance to establish school councils of social participation throughout the Federal District.

10. With respect to training and professional development of teachers, it is important that the fundamentals of inclusive education be taught in all institutes where teachers are prepared to work in elementary education.

The ten components outlined above provided the fundamental basis for the changes currently underway in the Federal District. As can be appreciated, with the implementation of federalization throughout Mexico, the provision of special education services in the Federal District has undergone significant restructuring. The goal of restructuring basic education is the creation of public schools that will respond to the learning needs of all students with social equity while attending to their cultural, economic, physical, and cognitive differences.

Twin Service Delivery Models

In the Federal District of Mexico City, the General Directorate of Special Education has restructured educational services in a manner that represents a new cooperative relationship between special education and general education (see figure 3). The function of special education under Article 41 of the GEL is that of a complementary service and support system for general education. Students are identified with special educational needs when, in relation to their peers, they encounter difficulties in learning grade-level content and, as a consequence, require appropriate adaptations to achieve the curricular objectives (Direccion General de Educacion Especial 1994). Two new models for delivering services to individuals with special educational needs have been created and implemented, replacing the centers that formerly provided services in segregated settings. These new models are the Unit of Support Services for Regular Education (USAER) and Multiple Attention Centers (CAM).

The USAER represents a new relationship between special and general education within the framework of basic education in the public schools. Additionally, the USAER is responsible for providing guidance and orientation to students, parents, and public school personnel. it is based on the concept that the academic problems of students should be considered within the context of the learner and the classroom. The primary emphasis is on providing learners who have special educational needs with access to the core curriculum by modifying methodological approaches, objectives, content, assignments, or materials. The students served by this model typically include those with academic difficulties and learning disabilities that require only curricular adaptations (adecuaciones curriculares) or changes in methodological approaches to attain the objectives of the curriculum. It is expected that students who are deaf, blind, or mildly mentally retarded without additional complications would be educated in public school s under the supervision and assistance of the USAER.

The primary responsibilities of the USAER include: (a) initial evaluation, (b) intervention planning, (c) intervention, (d) ongoing assessment, and (e) monitoring. Evaluation procedures no longer require the administration of psychological or achievement tests but rather employ curriculum-based assessments to determine the student's current level of functioning and corresponding grade placement. Students who are determined to have special education needs using this procedure are no longer labeled and given "therapy," instead, curricular adaptations based on their specific needs are implemented within the context of the general education classroom.

The teachers who worked under the previous structure (see figure 3) are now serving primarily as resource and support personnel to general education classroom teachers, working with them in designing and implementing pedagogical modifications and curricular adaptations. In this new model, each special educator is responsible for monitoring about twenty children who have special educational needs. Most of the children remain in their respective general education classrooms for the greater portion of the school day. Students who require additional special attention receive alternate scheduling that provides them with individualized instruction or assistance outside of the regular school routine. For example, a student with emotional problems whose behavior interferes with his/her learning or that of others might be referred to one of many social agencies in the Federal District such as Mental Health, Social Security, or DIF. The student might continue to attend the public school in the morning and receive spec ial attention in the afternoon from a selected agency targeting his identified behavior and emotional needs.

Within each school there is a support classroom (aula de apoyo) equipped to work with students and their families. The primary intent of this model is to include all students with special educational needs in regular education classrooms with support provided by USAER personnel. Special education teachers at each school site no longer teach special classes or provide "therapy"; instead, they work with the students teachers in their classrooms. The general education classroom teacher, in collaboration with the resource specialists at each school site, determines which children will be served, where they will be served and the duration of their services.

Each USAER unit is comprised of a director, ten special education teachers, and a technical support team. The support team consists of a speech and language therapist, a psychologist, and a social worker. If other specialists are needed, they are called in on a case-by-case basis. Each unit serves five schools; two special education teachers are placed in each school. If the initial evaluation indicates that the special educational needs of the child require placement in a setting other than the regular school, the parents and school personnel are consulted and consent is obtained to move forward on the recommendation. A report is filed that includes the present performance level of the student, the reason for the change of placement and suggestions and recommendations for future instruction based on formal and informal evaluations.

The Multiple Attention Center (CAM) is an educational institution designed to replace the special education schools, centers of early intervention, and centers of professional development that previously served students with severe disabilities. Children who have special educational needs that cannot be accommodated in a regular school are educated in these centers. The goal of the CAM initiative is to provide the same core curriculum and quality education to students with disabilities who are unable to be successfully integrated into the public schools. These centers are operated much like the regular public schools with cross-categorical grouping of students by ability who are taught in classes of about twenty students each. Students ranging from preschool through high school are taught the basic core curriculum, with significant curricular modifications and adaptations. Parents, social agencies, and the USAERs are the primary sources of referrals to the CAM centers.

The primary functions of the CAM program are similar to those of the USAERs: (a) initial evaluation, (b) intervention planning, (c) curricular/methodological adaptations, (d) ongoing assessment, and (e) monitoring of progress. As in the USAERs, evaluations are typically performed using curriculum-based instruments to determine present performance levels in different academic areas. Depending on evaluation results, students are placed with other students according to their ability. There are no standard operating procedures as to how each CAM should function. Rather, each school maintains autonomy and flexibility in the organization, planning and delivery of instruction based on the needs of its student population.

The reorientation of special education services through the implementation of these twin-service delivery models has led to substantial structural changes in programs throughout the Federal District. As described below, many of the principles embodied in the reform of special education are evident in these structural changes.

1. Prior to the 1993/94 school year, the General Directorate of Special Education completed a self-evaluation of its effectiveness in enhancing the integration of all students. Based upon this evaluation, a decision was made to improve and strengthen the role of school supervision in the six regions of the Federal District. In-service training was provided to special education teachers in all schools and educational consultants (program specialists) with special education expertise were subsequently assigned and designated to function as a parallel administrative structure to the regional administrators; technical tasks were assigned to the consultants and administrative tasks to the regional special education administrators. The result of this demarcation of responsibilities resulted in a new collegial relationship, eliminating the conflict that had traditionally existed between special education administrators and educational consultants.

2. During the 1993/94 school year, the six Orientation Centers for Educational Integration that had been operating within the six regions of the Federal Districts were eliminated. This was done because the primary functions of the centers were student referral and follow-up; they were not directly involved in the delivery of services in either general or special education. This superstructure was very superficial and led to the creation of bureaucratic barriers that impeded integration. The USAERs were given responsibility for providing follow-up services and support to students being integrated into the public schools.

3. During the 1994/95 school year, the provision of services to elementary school children using an "integrated groups" or pull-out service delivery model was changed and all the technical and human resources from these entities were transferred to the USAERs, broadening their distribution of services. Initially, a total of 90 USAER units were formed, working in 382 elementary schools. During the 1995/96 school year, 133 units were operating in 532 elementary schools and the number of units continues to increase every year.

4. Also during the 1994/95 school year, a basic core curriculum was adopted by all of the special education scholastic service centers, thereby eliminating the parallel curriculum.

5. Psychopedagogical centers were placed under the auspices of the USAERs. In this manner, the clinical services of these centers became a support system, providing intervention support to general education teachers.

6. All special education schools that provided services to students within specific disability categories, including the Centers of Special Training that served adolescents with mental retardation, became CAMs. This was done to enable each educational center to provide services to the students who were not integrated into regular schools, regardless of their disability.

7. The practice of awarding certificates of special studies to students with special educational needs when they graduated from high school was eliminated since all students are now studying the same core curriculum.

8. The curricula of vocational training centers, trade workshops and job skill development programs were redirected. Enrollment is now open to individuals with multiple disabilities whereas, in the past, only adolescents with mental retardation were admitted.

9. The Centers of Training for Industrial Work that were already providing services to adolescents with disabilities reached an agreement with the Office of Special Education and the General Office of the Center for Job Training to collaborate and support the integration of individuals in regular centers with support from special education.

10. One of the most challenging issues confronting schools was the professional development and retraining of preschool, primary, secondary, and special education teachers currently working in the field to better accommodate students with diverse special educational needs in public schools and the general education classroom. One solution has been an initiative entitled the "Reform of Teacher Preparation Programs." which is designed to incorporate course work on "Attention to Diversity" into the curriculum of teacher preparation programs.

11. With respect to the professional development of preschool and elementary school teachers, the National Pedagogical University in Mexico City has developed a baccalaureate program in education with three concentrations: preschool education, elementary education, and educational integration. This new baccalaureate degree was inaugurated in September 1996 in collaboration with the Office of Special Education of the public Education Secretariat in the Federal District (Secretaria de Educacion Publica 1996).

12. Still to finish successfully Even so. the most difficult stages had been carried out already. Among them the national consensus of special education reorientation with the Educational Worker's National Union, as the success that was attained in the National Conference PES-EWNU. "Educative Attention for students with special education necessities. Equity to Diversity." With all responsible for education--preschool, elementary, and special--the labor secretaries of all Union Sections, and the most recognized nongovernment organizations, raising the government policy to and state policy in according to the recommendation of the meeting at Kingston, Jamaica, 1996, (Principal Project for Latin America and Caribbean).

The unprecedented changes outlined above suggest that Mexico, as is true of other countries around the world, is dismantling and streamlining its excessive bureaucracy and challenging the status quo at the economic, social, political, and educational levels of society with the goal of attaining educational equity for all. B. Orozco Fuentes and S. Elizondo Carr (1993) acknowledge these changes and the need for reform by stating that "the excessively bureaucratized educational apparatus, inefficient and costly, is no longer sustainable. Given the new context, the discourse of modernization of education justifies and ratifies education's function as a social and political strategy to incorporate the excluded" (16).

Prior to the initiation of educational reform in Mexico, the first priority of the educational system was the provision of education to all children. Now, with these profound changes, a high-quality education is to be provided to all students by recognizing their special educational needs and by responding to their diversity.

Conclusion

Mexico is a multiethnic, multicultural, and multilingual nation intent on providing education aimed at accommodating diverse populations. Recent constitutional and legislative changes require that extraordinary efforts be made to provide educational services to individuals from diverse backgrounds. The current restructuring of special education in the Federal District of Mexico City is an integral part of this process. The following paragraphs summarize the desired goals and educational implications of providing a basic education for diverse populations in the twenty-first century.

Special education no longer subdivides its services by types of disabilities, but rather by educational performance levels, and services are provided on the basis of each student's learning capacity. As a result, the field of special education focuses on the special educational needs of children rather than on their disabilities. Developmental learning theory is now being employed in the education of all students regardless of their disability.

Educational integration, which is understood as access to the basic curriculum. constitutes an advance in how basic education will be configured in Mexico as it enters the new millennium. If regular and special education converge and are governed by one curriculum, the beginning of a gradual integration of services will have begun. Successful integration depends in large measure on family participation, collaboration between general and special education teachers, the leadership of the principal of each school, and the expertise provided by special education personnel.

The conceptual framework that serves as the basis for the restructuring process is attention to diversity supported by a new conception of basic education. Attention to diversity in this context is more broadly defined than just educational integration, although educational integration is assuredly an important aspect of it. As stated by Sofialeticia Morales (1996), special assistant for special education to the Secretary of Education in Mexico:

Much remains to be done so that the efforts made by the states do nor accelerate the rhythms of inclusive education at the cost of neglecting the process or paralyzing actions with the pretext of their complexity. A lesson to learn while on our way is how to support each other without hindering each other, how to take advantage of social energy without permitting requirements to become demands that are attended to at the expense of quality. We will not win the battle by depositing children in regular schools if the appropriate conditions to receive them do nor exist. We will not advance if we wait for ideal conditions to exist before initiating the process. The will of all parties and the planning, even though incipient, are indispensable requirements of the process of inclusive education.

The education integration of students with special educational needs should not be the sole objective of our reform efforts; rather, it must be one strategy among others that aims to provide a high-quality basic education for all students. Thus integration must shift away from being a pedagogically oriented objective to serving as a methodological strategy for achieving an ethical objective: equity in the quality of basic education.

References

Comision Nacional Coordinadora. 1995. Programa Nacional para el Bienestar y la Incorporacion al Desarrollo de las Personas con Discapacidad [National Program for the Welfare and Developmental Mainstreaming of Individuals with Disabilites]. Mexico, DF.

Direccion General de Educaion Especial. 1985. Bases para una politica de educacion especial [Political bases for special education]. Mexico, DF: Grupo Editorial Mexicano.

_____. 1994. Funciones, objectivos y servicios de Ia Dtreccion de Educacion Especial [Functions, objectives, and services of the General Direction of Special Education]. Mexico, DF: Direccion General de Educacion Especial.

Gordillo, E. 1992. El SNTE ante la modernizacion de la educacion basica [The Education Workers' National Union and the modernization of basic education]. El Cotidiano 51:12-16.

Guajardo Ramos, E. 1993. La educacion especial en Mexico en el marco de la educacion basica: la integracion educativa de los alumnos con necesidades educativas especiales. Paper presented at the sixth Encuentro Iberoamericano, March, Mexico, DF.

Morales, S. 1996. Bridge over troubled waters. Paper presented at the Union of the Mexican and Native American Cultures through the Collaboration of the United States and Mexico for Individuals with Disabilities and their Families Symposium (T. Fletcher, Chair), April, Tucson, AZ.

Orozco Fuentes, B., and S. Elizondo Carr. 1993. Educational reform in Mexico. International Journal of Educational Reform 2:12-18.

Pescador Osuna. J. A. 1992. Acuerdo nacional para la modernizacion de la educacion baisca: una vision integral [The national accord for the modernization of basic education: An integrated vision] El Cotidiano 51:3-11.

Secretaria de Education Publica 1992a. Programas ernergentes de actualizacion del maestro y de reformulacion de contenidos y materiales educativos [Emerging programs for teacher development and the revision of educational material and content]. Mexico, DF.

_____. 1992b. Acuerdo nacional para la modernizacion basica [National agreement on the modernization of basic education]. Mexico, DF.

_____. 1993. Ley General de Educacion [General Education Law]. Mexico, DF.

_____. 1994. Cuadernos de integracion educativa, no. 1: Proyecto general para la education especial en Mexico. Mexico, DF.

Secretaria de Educacion Publica and Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educacion. 1997. Declaracion Nacional SEP-SNTE. Atencion educativa a menores con necesidades educativas especiales: equidad para la diversidad [National Declaration SEP-SNTE. Educational attention for students with special education needs: Equity to diversity Huatulco, Mexico.

UNESCO. 1992. Seminario Regional de la UNESCO. Sobre politicas planeacion y educacion integrada para alumnos con necesidades especiales. Informe final. [UNESCO Regional Seminar. Policies, planning, and integrated education for students with special education needs Caracas, Venezuela.

_____. 1994. Final report of the world conference on special needs education: Access and quality. Salamanca, Spain.

_____. 1996. Boletin 40: Proyecto principal de education en America Latina y el Caribe [Principal education project for Latin America and the Caribbean]. Santiago, Chile.

_____. 1996. Perspectives de educacion especial en los paises de America Latina y el Caribe [Special education perpectives in Latin America and the Caribbean]. Vina del Mar, Chile.