This chapter delineates the development of special education in Switzerland from its early first special needs classes in the 19th century to today’s integrated and inclusive educational system which is promoted via many ventures. Along this developmental path, research revealed not only that self-contained special needs classes were less effective than integrated classes and that the classes contained an overrepresentation of children with migrant backgrounds. However, the movement to an inclusive education system has not always been easy. Included in this path to inclusion are sections on the following: legislative enactments to insure the rights of persons with disabilities, definitions of who is disabled, prevalence data, the influence of a strong private sector on special education practices, the scientific study of special education by researchers and academics, teacher and professional training endeavors, and challenges that remain today.
Through the years, special education in Switzerland has developed into a diverse field with many different theoretical and practical approaches. Diverse institutional traditions have created a multi-voiced community contributing to policy making, research, and practice as well as to teacher education. To understand special education in Switzerland, it is important to understand its people; their outlooks on the state and their fellow citizens which influences their understanding of good practice and expertise as well as their attitudes toward life in general and people with disabilities in particular. Switzerland, also referred to as the Swiss Confederation, is a small landlocked country with a population of approximately 8 million people in 2013 and four national languages (Swiss German, French, Italian, Romansh). The Swiss are not united by a common ethnic or linguistic identity, but rather by a shared sense of identity, independence and civic spirit. These are reflected in Switzerland’s direct democracy, federalism and armed neutrality and help explain why the country is not part of the European Union and joined the United Nations only in 2002.
Switzerland can be considered a consensus democracy (Lijphart, 1999). The principle of power-sharing is articulated in the composition of the government and complex systems of decision-making at national, cantonal, and municipal levels. Government power is always shared between the major parties at national, cantonal, and communal levels thus securing a broad range of opinions. Citizens enjoy extensive rights in decision-making due to Switzerland’s direct democracy. They not only elect their communal, cantonal, and federal representatives but are called upon to vote on an average of four times a year on new laws, popular initiatives, or referendums (Swiss Confederation, 2013). Decisions taken by the federal or cantonal parliaments have to be voted on by the people if 50,000 citizens so demand (referendum). Through popular initiatives, votes on amendments to the federal or cantonal legislation can be requested if 100,000 signatures are collected within 18 months (Swiss Confederation). If desired, the citizens always have the last word in all important matters. Another mechanism by which the power of the central government is limited and local decision-making strengthened is the subsidiarity principle. The 26 cantons hold all powers which are not plainly assigned to the federation and similarly, the communes are autonomous in all matters not regulated by the cantons. Each canton retains its own constitution and all enjoy equal rights. For example, health care, education, and culture are largely under the jurisdiction of the cantons.
Direct democracy, the subsidiarity principle as well as the cultural and linguistic diversity have shaped education in Switzerland. Public education is under the authority of the individual cantons which grant varying autonomy to their communes in organizing the provision of education. Only a few essential principles are set out at the federal level. For example, the revised federal constitution of 1874 secured the right of education for all children to be managed by the cantons without interference of the church. In 2006, the Swiss voted in favor of an amendment to the federal constitution which demanded that the cantons “harmonize” their education systems to facilitate transfers of children between different cantonal education systems and to guarantee quality of provision. This will partly be achieved through national education goals and a common curricular framework for the German and French speaking cantons respectively. With no direct federal influence on educational matters, the responsibility to comply with this constitutional amendment lies with the cantons. The needed coordination effort at national level is the responsibility of the Swiss Conference of the Cantonal Ministers of Education (EDK). Harmonization is achieved through Inter-Cantonal Agreements or Concordats. Once such a Concordat has been approved at the inter-cantonal level, each canton will chart its own procedure to decide whether it will join the Concordat or not. Consequently, it is only legally binding for the cantons which join the Concordat. As with all changes to the legislation, concordats have to be either voted on directly by the population or in cantons where the parliament decides, a vote may be requested indirectly by a referendum. Educational reforms therefore are only successful if they consider the needs and interests of all constituencies. More often than not, this results in protracted change processes, but generally it leads to workable solutions. As a consequence of the citizen self-management rule which is firmly entrenched in the Swiss public services (Helmig et al., 2011); schools are governed by a local school board consisting of elected lay persons. This limits the influence of the Ministry of Education and gets citizens involved in public services.
The considerable influence and power of civil society is also reflected in the principle that the state should only be responsible for activities or problems that cannot be carried out or solved by other social actors such as associations, foundations, or private companies. Due to its liberal tradition and sense of independence, individual responsibility and self-help, the Swiss civil society sector is quite powerful (Helmig et al., 2011). Counting employed workers and volunteers, it comprises 6.9% of the country’s economically active population thus surpassing the workforce in the construction, the financial or the agricultural sectors (Helmig et al.). Many of these private organizations or associations are supported financially by public funds either through direct contributions, provision of capital, or through service agreements. Service agreements are contracts that define the services which the respective private organization or association provide, for example, services for children with disabilities. This is still mirrored today in a high proportion of special schools and services for persons with disabilities governed by private organizations or foundations rather than by the state. Only recent developments in legislation have led to some changes which may have a further impact in the future.
To understand special education in Switzerland, it is important to recognize how public and private sectors as well as civil society cooperate; how they influence and are driven by research, policies and practices. Developments in special education since its beginnings as a field of study can be viewed as covering three separate periods. The era of discovery and exploration was initiated with the introduction of compulsory education as the responsibility of civil society rather than the church following the French revolution wars, the birth of the modern Swiss state in 1848 and the revision of the Swiss federal constitution in 1874 (see above). This era is marked by the creation of special education as a scientific field, leading to the first European chair for special education to be established in 1931 at the University of Zurich. A second era of expansion and consolidation is closely linked to developments in the social state culminating in the introduction of the national invalidity insurance in 1960 and the educational expansion after the Second World War. In this era, foundations, organizations and associations providing services for children with disabilities and their families or providing training for professionals underwent a process of institutionalization thus becoming part of a publicly funded network of service providers and partners in policy development. The third era of special education in Switzerland lasts until today and is marked by its dispersion and crisis. As a result of its expansion, the boundaries and contour of special education became increasingly blurred in the 1980s, raising questions about its purpose, effectiveness and legitimacy. A move toward integration and inclusion challenged the institutional self-image of the private sector service providers. More recently, changes in legislation have created financial and organizational challenges for the private sector because new laws promote special education as a matter of individual rights rather than social security and welfare.
Legislation and policy development have played an important role in institutionalizing special education during the second era and in challenging established structures in the third era. The next section therefore will be dedicated to developments in legislation. The impact of legislation is reflected in mechanisms of identification and definition of disability which will be explored in the third section. Prevalence data in Switzerland is scarce and only recently Switzerland has started to collect information on disability independent of service provision. Because the private sector has been instrumental in establishing special education in Switzerland, a section will be dedicated to it. It was also due to private initiatives that special education was established as a science and a field for professional training. Subsequent sections will be dedicated to describe developments in these areas and the current situation. Finally, in summing up, the last section will focus on how these developments have influenced current practices in special education and which challenges lay ahead.
In 1925, a new article in the federal constitution laid the foundation for the Swiss social state with a focus primarily on creating an old age and survivor pension. When the first corresponding law was rejected by the Swiss voters, the implementation of this pension took priority over disability issues. Finally, in 1948, the Federal Office of Social Insurance [Bundesamt für Sozialversicherungen] was charged with the provision of benefits in case of old age and survivors. Only much later in 1960, did the Federal Invalidity Insurance Law [Bundesgesetz über die Invalidenversicherung, IVG] come into effect. Undoubtedly, this was the most far-reaching legislation for Swiss people with disabilities in the 20th century, including for children with disabilities. The law defined “invalidity” as the “inability to earn an income,” or – for the insured who were not gainfully employed – the “inability to continue to carry out day-to-day tasks (e.g., housework) because of a physical, psychological or mental disability.” It required the disability to be long-term (minimum of one year). Whether a disability is “congenital or the result of an illness or accident is irrelevant” (Federal Social Insurance Office, 2010). The basic premise of the Invalidity Insurance system was and still is to promote the professional (re)integration of persons with disabilities as well as improve or restore their earning capacity. The guiding principle is “rehabilitation before pension” (Federal Social Insurance Office). Children with disabilities, including their education, were supported by the Invalidity Insurance to ensure their future integration into the workforce.
The implementation of the Federal Invalidity Insurance marks the beginning of an era of expansion and consolidation in special education. The Invalidity Insurance helped ensure adequate provision for children with disabilities through direct payments for services (e.g., language therapy), aids (e.g., wheelchair), and financial support for families and children. In addition, it co-financed organizations and associations, providing educational, social, and other services or training staff and professionals working in the respective institutions. According to article 74 of the Federal Invalidity Insurance Law, private national or regional organizations and associations providing services for people with disabilities or offering training courses for staff and professionals were entitled to receive funding. This encouraged the establishment and expansion of private organizations and associations as well as training institutions. As knowledge related to description, diagnosis and treatment grew, “new disabilities” were identified which – once approved by the Federal Disability Insurance – led to an increase in identified children and services provided. Over the years, this led to an inconsistent and ad hoc system of establishing eligibility that was mainly driven by parents, special schools and professionals. The significances for special education will be explored in further details in the following sections.
The year 2008 generated an important momentum for special education in a time of dispersion and crisis. As part of a major reform called the “new financial perequation and the repartition of tasks” [Neugestaltung des Finanzausgleichs und der Aufgaben zwischen Bund und Kantonen] between the federation and the 26 cantons, the federation withdrew from all obligations related to special education. In other words, the Federal Invalidity Insurance ceased to finance services or training institutions and no longer paid for special education measures. This had and still has far-reaching consequences for service providers and training institutions as will be illustrated in the next sections. The Cantons now assumed full financial responsibility for the education of all children, but also gained more control over identification, organization of services and training. Article 62, paragraph 3 was included in the Federal Constitution requesting the Cantons to “ensure that adequate special needs education is provided to all children and young people with disabilities up to the age of 20” (Swiss Federation, 2013). In preparation for assuming full legal, financial, and professional responsibility for the provision of children and youth with disabilities from birth to 20 years, the Cantons charged the Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education [Schweizerische Konferenz der Kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren] to prepare an Inter-Cantonal Concordat for Special Education or short Special Education Concordat [Sonderpädagogik-Konkordat] (EDK [Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education], 2007) which came into force on January 1, 2011 after a three-year transition period. It sets out some basic standards for all cantons joining the Concordat to adhere to, namely a shared terminology, quality specification for service providers as well as a standardized eligibility procedure.
There are some policy developments in disability legislation which are worth commenting on at this juncture because of their over-arching relevance or indirect impact on education. Due to the manifold articulated voices of the Swiss disability constituents supported by public funds and with so many diverse players each generally protective of their own subsidies, service contracts and interest groups, the motivation to promote legislation to strengthen the rights of individuals with disabilities has been less fervent than in other countries. Other reasons for the late efforts to promote social, economic, and cultural rights of persons with disabilities can be found its strong tradition of civic and political rights, the absence of war veterans as well as in its decentralized and consensus-oriented direct democracy. In 1996, the Swiss Center of Independent Living was established in Zurich and has since helped develop a new perspective on disability inspired by self-advocacy, political awareness, and activism. A new awareness is also reflected in Article 8 of the revised Federal Constitution which came into effect in 2000. For the first time, it explicitly states the principle of equalization of all persons, including persons with disabilities. A popular initiative was launched in 1999 to ensure “Equal rights for persons with disabilities” [Gleiche Rechte für Behinderte]. The requests of the initiative were considered too radical and the Federal Council subsequently drafted a counter-proposal, the “Federal Act on the Elimination of Discrimination against People with Disabilities” [Bundesgesetz über die Beseitigung von Benachteiligungen von Menschen mit Behinderungen]. After the popular initiative was rejected by the Swiss voters in May 2003, this new federal act came into force in 2004. Article 20 explicitly demands that the Cantons provide education which is adapted to the requirements and needs of children with disabilities and to promote a “general orientation towards inclusive education.”
Switzerland does not have a tradition of litigation about matters of education, but this may change over the coming years. With the entry into force of this new federal legislation, a specialist center (Egalité Handicap) was founded in 2004 to provide legal services, monitor and document jurisdiction and to collaborate with public and private partners. Typical for Switzerland, this center is affiliated with the umbrella organization of private disability organizations and collaborates with the Federal Bureau for Equality of People with Disabilities. The current legislation does not guarantee children with disabilities the right to be included in regular schools; it only promotes inclusion and states it as the preferred model. It also ensures that children with disabilities are not discriminated against and that compensation is provided if children with disabilities are at a disadvantage. Notably in higher education, several cases were publicized where students did not receive adequate support or adaptations were not made to ensure their participation. In 2012, the Federal Supreme Court rejected a complaint of a family that requested that their 14-year-old son with a “perceptional disorder” be schooled in a special school rather than receiving special educational support in regular school.1
Despite much progress toward understanding people with disabilities as citizens and agents, children with disabilities are still today frequently treated as passive targets. Self-representation of children with disabilities is only an emerging issue. Identification depends on others and their expectations; the needs of the child are still defined by others. Changes are slow, despite efforts to give the child an independent voice in decisions that affect their lives. A new federal legislation on the protection of children and adults [Kindes- und Erwachsenenschutzrecht] which came into effect in January 2013 strengthens the influence of children and persons with disabilities in relation to legal guardianship and for the purpose of self-representation. A philosophy of improved self-representation is also embedded in the new Standardized Eligibility Procedure to secure the rights of children and youth with disabilities in the context of education (EDK, 2011). The procedure requires discussions with parents and teachers to develop recommendations. It encourages the participation of the child in this process but cannot legally ensure that the voice of the child is altogether taken into account. Last but not least it should be mentioned that Switzerland is one of the last countries in Europe to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006). Only in 2013, the two chambers of the Federal Assembly approved the ratification and it is expected that the Federal Council will proceed with it in 2014. It remains to be seen whether the ratification will be followed by a national action plan and whether this will have a positive impact on education for children with disabilities over the coming years.
While impairments create realities that people have to learn to live with, “disability” is a social construct and relative to expectations, attitudes and beliefs as well as physical and social characteristics of the environment. Whether a child is identified as having a disability depends on legislation and policies, the availability of services, financing mechanisms as well as specific diagnostic or eligibility criteria. Disability, therefore, is always defined in the specific social context in which it is used. Definitions of disability in education systems have been influenced mainly by medicine (e.g., to explain disorders) and psychology (e.g., to explain deviance), but also by expectations expressed in the curriculum (Hollenweger, 2013). In some countries, specific clinical categories (e.g., autism) are also used for administrative purposes, but not in other countries (OECD, 2005, 2007). Schools themselves create “disabilities” and consequently certain social groups tend to be overrepresented or underrepresented amongst children identified as having a disability. All these factors make it difficult to collect reliable data on childhood disability independent of service provision. Switzerland’s decentralized structure adds to the difficulty of collecting comparable data unless the Federal government is given a mandate to do so. This is not the case with special education, although efforts have been made to improve data (see below). But since 2004, the federal government has a mandate to monitor the implementation of the national disability equalization law and thus has intensified its efforts to collect relevant data.
According to the 2007 Swiss Health Survey carried out by the World Health Organization (World Health Organization [WHO], 2007) the self-reported disability prevalence in Switzerland is 14%. The Federal Office of Statistics2 estimates that in 2011, around 1.4 million people in Switzerland aged 16 years and older have a “disability,” of whom 541,000 experience severe restrictions and almost 40,000 live in an institution for the disabled (Bundesamt für Statistik, 2010a). It is estimated that 144,000 children with disabilities between the ages of 0 to 14 live in 122,100 households, amounting to 8.4% of all households (Bundesamt für Statistik [Federal Office of Statistics], 2010b). As judged by their parents or caregivers, 34,400 children experience substantial participation restrictions in their daily life due to their disability (Bundesamt für Statistik). Apart from data drawn from the Swiss Health Survey, available data on childhood disability is linked to service provision. For many years, the cantonal ministries of education merely provided information on the number of children in different types of special schools and the Federal Invalidity Insurance generated data along their different types of services. Thus, neither the education nor social sector is able to provide prevalence data. Over the last few years, the Federal Office of Statistics has modernized the Swiss education statistics to allow tracking of individual children throughout their school career and thus providing information on the outcomes of special educational support. A pilot data collection exercise for children with disabilities was carried out in 2012, but data for all cantons will only be available for the school year of 2014–2015.
These changes coincide with the cantons assuming full responsibility for special education as the Invalidity Insurance withdraws from financing education of children with disabilities. Both developments created the opportunity to move away from an insurance-based thinking that defined disability as impairment, thus strongly based in a medical model of disability. Until 2008, the definition of “childhood disability” has been profoundly influenced by the Federal Invalidity Insurance. Children were identified as being “disabled” if they received “special education measures” [sonderpädagogische Massnahmen] on the basis of the Invalidity Insurance Legislation. In 2009, the Invalidity Insurance no longer co-financed education, but still provided medical services to 71,139 children between the ages of 0 and 14 years, auxiliary aids (e.g., wheelchairs) to 4,978 children and paid a “helplessness allowance” to 5,892 children unable to carry out activities of daily living (Bundesamt für Statistik [Federal Office of Statistics], 2010b). Statistics of socio-medical institutions provide information on children with disabilities living in institutions; in 2008 this included 4,757 children of which many only spent some months there (Bundesamt für Statistik [Federal Office of Statistics], 2010b). As for early childhood intervention, data provided by the “curative education services” [Heilpädagogische Dienste], shows that in 2010 they served 6,756 children who were in 29 services that provided early childhood intervention covering 17 of the 26 Cantons (Kronenberg, 2012). Clearly, this information does not cover all the services as there are over 100 early intervention centers in Switzerland and many more professionals working in a private capacity.
In the school year 2008–2009, out of around 780,000 children in primary and secondary education, 25,000 were taught in special classes and 16,000 in special schools (European Agency, 2010). Although the situation will improve in the future as mentioned above, the data on disability in education is still linked to type of special school rather than characteristics of the child (OECD, 2007). As a consequence, children are only identified as being “disabled” if they attend a special school or receive additional resources for their education. Identification or segregation rates vary substantially between the different cantons and regions as a result of differences in policies, traditions and geography. In the Canton Basel-Town, for example, 10% of all school children either visit a special school or a special class, compared to 6.8% in the Canton of Zurich, 4.1% in the Canton of Geneva or 2% in the Canton of Ticino (Sieber, 2006). There has been an increase of segregated schooling between 1980 and 2000, a trend which was analyzed for six Cantons in 2004 (Häfeli & Walther-Müller, 2005). Some of the contributing factors identified were availability of services, identification and decision-making processes as well as financial mechanisms. Increased social pressure on regular schools is linked to overrepresentation of children from disadvantaged and migrant backgrounds in special education (Carigiet Reinhard, 2012; Sieber, 2006). The social bias in labeling children as being “disabled” or having “special needs” is not only a Swiss phenomenon, but in an education system which segregates a rather high percentage of children into special settings and streams children according to their achievement after 6th grade, the consequences may be more severe than in comprehensive systems where all children go to the same schools for compulsory education.
A challenge that remains is the need to implement data collecting mechanisms and generate survey data which does not only reflect service provision but is also able to inform policy makers about the effects of these services and the level of participation children with disabilities enjoy in education. With the Inter-Cantonal Concordat for Special Education, the participating cantonal education ministries are adopting the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Version for Children and Youth (WHO, 2001, 2007) as a common language, as the basis to establish eligibility (Hollenweger, 2011; Hollenweger & Moretti, 2012) and to facilitate collaboration in multidisciplinary teams. Disability is understood as the result of the complex interaction between characteristics of a person and the environment rather than as a fixed characteristic of an individual. In education, participation is the most central concept of the ICF as all children have a right to participate to the fullest possible level in all educational activities. Environmental factors contribute to functioning and disability and are the lever for improving participation. The ICF can be used to describe different dimensions and levels of functioning that may be present even in children with the same disorder. Thus, different sectors and professionals are able to highlight specific aspects related to their expertise and work without losing sight of other aspects. It is hoped that in the future, such a coherent conceptual basis will provide more meaningful and compatible data.
Direct democracy, subsidiarity principle, decentralization, and a strong civic society sector have left their mark on special education in Switzerland. Policy developments related to the education of children with disabilities have been unhurried in Switzerland, partially due to the consensus-based decision-making processes typical for this country, but also due to a strong private sector. Private organizations and associations have been and some still remain today major players with considerable influence in policy, practice as well as in training and research. Their organization, governing principles and financing mechanisms are rooted in the diverse local scenes but through a network of umbrella organizations and other superstructures, the private sector is an important player at national level as well. In the era of discovery and exploration, private foundations, associations, and organizations were established as a reflection of the deep-seated Swiss civic sense, but they were able to expand and consolidate their position as a result of the Federal Invalidity Insurance legislation which not only paid for direct services but also operating subsidies for private associations and organizations delivering services for persons with disabilities. This includes many private schools and institutions for children with disabilities which were founded at various points in time both by parents and professionals. Notwithstanding, today more than half of Switzerland’s special schools are run by such private bodies. A glance at their creation and expansion is central to an understanding of today’s circumstances of special education in Switzerland.
Many umbrella organizations and associations go back 150 or more years. For example, in 1810, the Swiss Charitable Association [Schweizerische Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft] was founded and soon cantonal and regional structures followed all over Switzerland. These charitable associations not only established institutions for the disabled or trained “teachers for the poor” [Armenlehrerausbildung] since 1835 but also exerted their influence in shaping the nature of the emerging public education system (Schumacher, 2010). The Swiss Teacher Association was founded in 1849, mainly to promote education independent of state efforts. In 1844, the Swiss Association of Education for the Poor [Schweizer Armenerzieherverein] was founded to represent the growing number of institutions for the poor with an emphasis on their “moral development”; it survives until today as “Curaviva” and still defends the interests of homes and social institutions for persons with disabilities, old age and children with special needs. In 1882 the first special classes [Hilfsklassen] were installed in La Chaux-de-Fonds to support children unable to follow instruction in regular classes (Bless, 1995). To extend this practice was the declared goal of the “Swiss Conference for the Concerns of Idiots” [Schweizerische Konferenz für das Idiotenwesen], founded in 1889 and renamed as “Swiss Association for Curative Education” [Schweizerische Heilpädagogische Gesellschaft] in 1976 (Geisen & Riegel, 2009, p. 295). These associations also contributed substantially to the discovery and exploration of special education.
Pro Infirmis, founded in 1920, is a private umbrella organization with over 25 membership organizations and a network of offices in all parts of Switzerland. It has a special mandate by the federal and cantonal states to provide services to people with disabilities and their families. Sixty percent of the Pro Infirmis’ expenditures are covered by the federal government. Counseling services for families are also offered by Pro Infirmis and other associations and private bodies. There are many parents’ organizations providing services for parents and organized in national umbrella organizations, for example INSIEME (children with intellectual disabilities) founded in 1957, Visoparents (Children with visual impairments) founded in 1963 and AutismusSchweiz (children with autism spectrum disorders) founded in 1975 to name just a few. Parents’ organizations work at the local or cantonal level, but are represented at the national and international levels for advocacy work and representation of their interests. Parents’ organizations have recently created a “Union of Parents of Disabled Children” [Konferenz der Vereinigungen von Eltern behinderter Kinder] to represent their interests vis-à-vis society and the government. But the wide range of services available can be perplexing for families. A recent study (Wagner Lenzin, 2007) with a small sample of parents suggests that the social network and social capital of families with a disabled child are very important and facilitate access to helpful support. Counseling services offered by these private organizations can be overbearing and disempowering. It is also suggested that some of them are not providing highly professional services.
The emergence of the social welfare system and a shift away from a charity paradigm did not result in a decrease of these private activities. Rather on the contrary, it marked the beginning of an era of expansion and consolidation of the private sector. Switzerland’s welfare state fits the residual social policy model as it relies on a high degree of personal responsibility and the involvement of non-government organizations (Desai, 2014). If the support and pensions of the Invalidity Insurance were insufficient, persons with disabilities could rely on a network of services provided by private organizations, for example, Pro Infirmis. With the introduction of the Federal Invalidity Insurance, these services for people with disabilities were institutionalized within the social welfare system. Despite remaining private, they functioned now with a public mandate and with public funding. Between 1960 and 2008, this also applied for private organizations providing special education. Coinciding with an over-all expansion of education and a growing knowledge in special education, more and more children were identified as having a disability and being in need of support by the Federal Invalidity Insurance. New knowledge created new labels which created new sources of income, new professions, and new institutions (Bühler-Niederberger, 1991). Eventually, the expansion led to dispersion and to a loss of a clear identity of the professionals working in the area. These developments were interrupted when the Federal Invalidity Insurance ceased to finance special education and the Inter-Cantonal Conference of Ministers of Education assumed responsibility for all teaching professions. But with regard to providing special education, the trend has not yet been turned around because many of the cantons are not in full control and private services still play an important role. In 2003, only less than half of the special schools in Switzerland were public (46%), compared to 92% in the United Kingdom or 97% in Finland (OECD, 2007). It will be interesting to see whether this will change as a result of a rights-based perspective requiring the state to assume full responsibility for the education of all children – rather than delegating the education of children with disabilities to private service providers.
Medicalization of the care of persons with disabilities in the 19th century and the gradual adoption of social policies mark the beginnings of special education in Switzerland (Kaba, 2007). In was during this period that the social construct of “backwardness” and the “pathologies of education” were created (Ruchat, 2003). In the German-speaking part of Switzerland, special education was established as a science between 1880 and 1930 by professionals working with children with disabilities. This development was strongly driven by the will to gain authority and responsibility for the “disabled” rather than leaving their treatment to medicine (Wolfisberg, 2002). In 1924, the first college for “curative care workers” [Heilerzieher] was founded in Zurich (later named “Heilpädagogisches Seminar Zürich,” today “Interkantonale Hochschule für Heilpädagogik”) with Heinrich Hanselmann as its first director. Heinrich Hanselmann also was appointed professor for “curative education” [Heilpädagogik] at the University of Zurich, which in 1931 created the pioneer university chair for special education in Europe (Wolfisberg). Both, Hanselmann and his successor, Paul Moor, emphasized that “curative education” was nothing other than education in order to ensure its scientific autonomy from medicine. This strong dissociation from medicine may be one reason why special education as a science – unlike in Germany – did not develop along the lines of impairment categories (e.g., special education of the blind or the physically disabled), but pursued more holistic approaches. Terminology like “developmental restraint” [Entwicklungshemmung] or “weakness of hold” [Haltschwäche] were used to establish the distance from medical terms like anomaly, degeneration, or defect (Gröschke, 2008). Since Paul Moor’s retirement, the positions as director of a training institution and university professor were no longer held by the same person and subsequently the science of special education and the training of professionals developed separately until this day.
Developments in the French-speaking part of Switzerland were somewhat different and it is helpful to describe the diverse origins of scientific inquiry related to children with disabilities in order to understand today’s regional differences in approaches, nomenclatures, and philosophies in the sphere of special education. In Geneva, the impetus for studying children with disabilities came from within the Department of Public Instruction which established a permanent medical-educational commission in 1908. This commission was later developed into the Geneva medical-educational services [Service médico-pédagogique de Genève] (Ruchat, 2008), which still exists today. The commission was chaired by Édouard Claparède who in 1912 established the “Institut Jean-Jacques Rousseau” to promote the “science of education” and to train teachers, including those in special education. The institute also provided “medico-educational” consultations [consultations medico-pédagogiques] and developed various diagnostic and therapeutic methods (Droux & Ruchat, 2007; Ruchat, 2008). Jean Piaget worked in the “Institut Jean-Jacques Rousseau” since 1921 and became its director in 1932. It is therefore not surprising, that the concept of “intelligence” played an important role in the construction of the “backward child” (Ruchat, 2003). In 1975, the Institute – which since 1929 was associated with the University of Geneva – became part of its Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences [Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l’Education, FPSE]. As a consequence, in Geneva the scientific study and teacher education in special education are in much closer dialogue than in the German-speaking part of Switzerland.
Not only political but also religious and philosophical differences added to the diversity of scientific study. A catholic “curative education” was established in Fribourg and Lucerne in 1935 but remained less influential over the coming years (Gröschke, 2008). This was partially due to the circumstances that Josef Spieler, professor of “Curative Education” at the University of Fribourg, was German by origin and a member of the NSDAP; he was extradited after the Second World War for his closeness to Nazi philosophy. Special education in the Protestant universities (e.g., Geneva, Zurich) generally relied more on education and psychology, while Catholic universities (e.g., Fribourg, Lucerne) emphasized the importance of philosophy and ethics. Eugenics was discussed in Switzerland with the entire scope between uncritical adoption, strategic use of some elements, critical debate, and total rejection (Wolfisberg, 2002). In 1942 in Pro Infirmis’ first edition of its journal, Heinrich Hanselmann as its editor strongly rejected the notion of exterminating “worthless life.” The era of discovery and exploration was dominated by developments in Zurich and Geneva which were also of international importance. In 1925, the “International Bureau of Education” (IBE) was founded in Geneva as a private non-governmental organization to promote scientific research in the educational field and to serve as a documentation and coordination center for institutions and associations concerned with education.3 From 1929 to 1967, Jean Piaget was director of the IBE and professor of psychology at the University of Geneva. Heinrich Hanselmann was elected first president of the “International Association for Curative Education” [Internationale Gesellschaft für Heilpädagogik], founded in 1937 (Hänsel, 2008). This served the over-all efforts to establish special education as a discipline to promote the institutionalization of special education teacher training and to endorse “special education” rather than “curative education” as a scientific discipline. The Swiss school of special education remained constitutive for the study of special education until well into the post war period (Gröschke, 2008).
In the era of expansion and consolidation, the private organizations offering services for children with disabilities underwent a process of institutionalization and similar developments can be observed in the Swiss universities where institutes were founded. In the 1970s, the Institute of Special Education was established at the University of Zurich. The Institute for Special Education and Psychology [Institut für spezielle Pädagogik und Psychologie] in Basel was founded in 1971 and remained an independent institute associated to the University of Basel until its integration into the newly founded University of Teacher Education of Northwestern Switzerland [Pädagogische Hochschule Nordwestschweiz] in 2001. Its first director, Emil E. Kobi as well as Urs Haeberlin, professor at the University of Fribourg, were both instrumental in continuing the humanistic tradition of Switzerland’s special education as a normative and value-based science. The importance of child development and systemic perspectives remained important as did a strong focus on what makes disability a disability beyond the underlying medical realities. More recently, sociological approaches have assumed more attention to improve understanding of issues encompassing institutions, the social realities of disability and the foundation of special education itself (Weisser, 2005). The “empirical turn” in policy development and research agendas influenced education in Switzerland only recently, mainly initiated by OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and a move toward outcome-based educational policies (Buchhaas-Birkholz, 2009). The influence of academic special education on practice has been limited not only because of the strong civic sector as described earlier but also because teacher education and professional training has developed rather independently. Until today, the separation between academic and professional studies of special education remains a reality in most Cantons.
The training of all professionals contributing to the education of children with disabilities has its roots mainly in the private sector as described earlier. The era of discovery and exploration thus coincided with the motivation to become established as a profession with one’s own area of work and authority independent of medicine. Similar to the institutionalization of services and academic studies, the expansion and consolidation of teacher training institutions was encouraged by the Federal Invalidity Insurance. Like other private service associations, teacher training institutions in special education benefited from subsidies by the Federal Invalidity Insurance independent of their legal status (e.g., part of a university, a private organization or public teacher training college). In 1959, the “Association of Training Institutions for Curative Education” [Verband heilpädagogischer Ausbildungsinstitute, VHpA] was created to act as the main coordinating body for the professions in the area of special education. The association founded the “Swiss Central Office for Curative Education” in 1972 as a documentation and research center. Today this “Swiss Center for Curative and Special Education” [Schweizer Zentrum für Heil- und Sonderpädagogik] still plays a central role, but is now an independent foundation charged with coordinating special education at national and international levels in close cooperation with the Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education.
The term “curative education” [Heilpädagogik] is still used today for the teaching profession in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, while “special education” generally refers to academic studies. The gap between theory and practice is aggravated by the fact that private institutions and associations play an important role in policy development and were the main drivers of the expansion of services. Until recently, private organizations also played an important role in initiating new training courses. This came to an end when the Swiss Conference of the Cantonal Ministers of Education (EDK) assumed responsibility for teacher training in special education in 1998 and the training of language and psychomotor therapists in 2000 as part of the bologna process and the transformation of teacher training colleges into Universities of Teacher Education [Pädagogische Hochschulen] in the early 2000. Since then, all training courses have to comply with the accreditation regulations of the Swiss Conference of the Cantonal Ministers of Education. In most Cantons, this transition was used to integrate separate teacher training institutions for special educators into the newly founded Universities of Teacher Education, with the exception of the “Inter-Cantonal University for Curative Education” [Interkantonale Hochschule für Heilpädagogik], the successor organization of the “Heilpädagogische Seminar Zürich.” This integration process was accelerated by the fact that as of 2008, the Federal Invalidity Insurance no longer subsidized these institutions.
Today, the Universities of Geneva, Fribourg and Zurich offer academic studies in special education which do not qualify for practical work with children. As for Speech and Language Therapy, the Universities of Geneva and Neuchâtel offer master degrees, while the University of Fribourg, the University of Teacher Education of Northwestern Switzerland in Basel, the Inter-Cantonal University of Curative Education in Zurich and the Swiss University for Language Therapy in Rorschach offer Bachelor degrees – as required by the accreditation regulations. Bachelor degrees in psychomotor therapy can be attained at the Geneva University of Applied Sciences or at the Inter-Cantonal University of Curative Education in Zurich. Master degree studies for special education teachers are available at the University of Teacher Education of Northwestern Switzerland in Basel, the University of Teacher Education in Bern, the French speaking University of Teacher Education of Berne, the Jura and Neuchâtel, at the University of Fribourg, at the University of Geneva, the University of Teacher Education in Lausanne, the University of Teacher Education in Lucerne and at the Inter-Cantonal University of Curative Education in Zurich. In addition, Geneva, Basel, and Zurich also offer master degrees for early childhood intervention. These training courses correspond with the services made available for children with disabilities. Early childhood intervention [Heilpädagogische Früherziehung] is provided for children from 0 to 6 years, subsequently special education [Schulische Heilpädagogik]. Pedagogical-therapeutical measures include language therapy [Logopädie] and psychomotor therapy [psychomotorische Therapie]. Psychomotor therapy reflects the holistic and systemic tradition of Swiss special education and works on the premise that physical and motor disturbances have an effect on well-being, self-esteem, cognition, and social interaction (Kobi, 1993).
Over the years, there have been several initiatives to improve the competence of regular teachers in the area of special education. In 1994, a first report “Special Education in Teacher Education” [Sonderpädagogik in der Lehrerbildung] (EDK, 1994) was published by the Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education and initiated a nation-wide discussion on what regular teachers need to know about special education. This was taken up by regular teacher education when their curricula changed substantially to meet the new accreditation criteria as part of the change process from colleges to universities around 2000. But subsequently, better trained regular teachers suddenly shared more and more competencies and responsibilities with special education teachers working in special classes called “curative education teachers” [Schulische Heilpädagogen]. The decline of the over-all number of students between the 1990s and the early 2000 coincided with increased efforts to integrate children with disabilities in regular classes. Due to changes in legislation strengthening integration and inclusion, many special classes were abolished and special education teachers had to work alongside regular teachers in their classes. This led to a dispersion of their tasks and responsibilities in order to meet the specific needs of the local schools and teachers. Some special teachers developed into advisors, supervisors, coaches, or project managers; it was no longer clear what “curative school education” [Schulische Heilpädagogik] really was. In these times of crisis, several initiatives sought to re-invent special education as well as to strengthen the knowledge and skills of regular teachers to teach diverse groups of children (Cohep, 2008; VHpA, 2003). Today, all Universities of Teacher Education have taken up the call to prepare their students for a School for All, but clearly there are limits to what can be learned during bachelor studies leading to kindergarten and elementary school teacher certification. The “curative teacher training institutions” once proud to trained “generalists” for children with special needs rather than “specialists” for impairment groups, are now debating what this means in a time when regular education teachers have assumed many of their former responsibilities. The debate continues and Switzerland may see a move toward training “specialist special teachers” in the future.
Once, the establishment of the first special classes in the late 19th century marked the birth of a new profession and field of work. It was the beginning of the long history of the “Schweizerische Heilpädagogische Gesellschaft” which shaped special education throughout the era of discovery and exploration and the era of expansion and consolidation (Schindler, 1990). The growth of special classes in the 1970s and 1980s lead to an overall segregation rate of an average 6% in the late 1990s (Sieber, 2006). Since the 1980s, integration and inclusion of children with disabilities or special needs is promoted through many different ventures. Research into the effectiveness of these special classes not only identified them as less effective than integrated settings (Bless, 1995) but also uncovered an overrepresentation of children with migrant background (Kronig, 2007). Today, special classes for children with learning disabilities and behavioral problems are viewed with suspicion and have been abolished in some Cantons. The “Schweizerische Heilpädagogische Gesellschaft” is no longer a relevant player; it did not survive the era of dispersion and crisis. But the re-integration of children in special classes into regular classes was not always successful. It led to an increase in the rate of children educated in special schools for children with intellectual disabilities4 and to the uncertainty for professionals described in the previous section.
The legacy of the Federal Invalidity Insurance is still discernible in the service provision today. Financing special classes and other support measures for “mild” or high incidence disabilities was never part of the Federal Invalidity Insurance’s responsibility and the private sector was not involved in providing education for this group. The Cantonal Ministries of Education therefore had a free hand to reform special classes and special educational support in regular classes. Special schools on the other hand serve children with low incidence disabilities and benefited from subsidies provided by the Federal Invalidity Insurance. Due to changes in federal and cantonal legislations, there is a trend toward inclusion, but regular and special schools adapt only slowly to the new circumstances. The Cantons encourage special schools to develop into resources centers, but generally they still retain some children in segregated settings while increasingly providing services to children in regular schools. Akin to Germany, special education was institutionalized by separate organizations and associations thus retaining its segregate tradition (Pfahl & Powell, 2010). As mentioned earlier, more than half of all special schools continue to function as private institutions to this day. Although the cantonal ministries of education co-finance, inspect, and supervise these special schools, they are not entirely part of the education system. Private foundations and organizations not only retain responsibility for these schools, but through their national networks and local players influence policy and practice.
Identification rates differ across cantons as described earlier. This has raised questions about equal opportunities and the quality of provision both in integrated and segregated settings. A new standardized eligibility procedure was introduced in 2011 with the withdrawal of the Federal Invalidity Insurance from financing special education. The standardized eligibility procedure (EDK, 2011) is used by the school psychological services (e.g., in Zurich) and the medical-pedagogical services (e.g., in Geneva). Generally, there is no specific need for a medical or clinical diagnosis; the procedure takes a dimensional rather than a categorical approach and is based on the ICF (WHO, 2001) and combines information on functioning, environmental factors and educational goals to herald required changes to the environment or special support. It is hoped that through the use of this standardized procedure, threshold criteria and other factors explaining differences in identification can be better understood. The identification of high incidence disabilities is not regulated by the Standardized Eligibility Procedure and therefore differs across cantons. In the Canton of Zurich for example, no formal clinical assessment is needed, if there is consensus amongst parents and teachers and if the necessary resources are available at school level. Resources are allocated by the school team to groups or individuals, for example, based on a school-based cooperative assessment procedure [Verfahren Schulische Standortgespräche] where all parties, including the child, come together to discuss the problems and find a solution (Bildungsdirektion Kanton Zürich, 2007). These informal assessment practices may be challenged in the future as a result of a more rights-based approach to education. Schools may be confronted more and more with litigation cases as parents increasingly demand specific support, disability compensation or adaptations based on the new federal legislation and encouraged by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006).
As support for high incidence disabilities was never regulated by the Federal Invalidity Insurance, the cantons have developed diverse practices. Regular schools generally offer pedagogical-therapeutical interventions (e.g., psychomotor and speech therapy) and special education support not only for children with learning or behavior difficulties but also for children with migrant background. Switzerland has a greater rate of immigrant children (23.5%), compared to other European Countries such as France (13.2%) or Finland (2.5%) (OECD, 2010). In 2010, 42% of all regular classes in Switzerland consisted of a third or more “foreign students” (Bundesamt für Statistik, 2012). In some city districts, up to a 100% of children may be first or second generation migrants, with diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Special support in regular or special “welcoming classes” is provided to learn the language of instruction and in some cantons (e.g., Basel and Zurich) programs were developed to support schools with high percentages of immigrant students. Not all regular teachers are appropriately prepared for this cultural and linguistic diversity. Over 50% of regular teachers declare that their work in the classroom is made more difficult due to the cultural backgrounds of their students (Reusser, Stebler, Mandel, & Eckstein, 2013). The management of diversity in schools remains a challenge to this day.
Another challenge for the future of special education today is the development of effective and efficient early childhood intervention for children aged 0–6 years. In the German-speaking region of Switzerland, “curative education services” [Heilpädagogische Dienste] were established by private associations in the 1960s and 1970s (Grob, 2010). Their strong roots in “curative education” and the private sector are typical for the special education scene in German-speaking Switzerland. However, today barriers against developing comprehensive, community-based services exist. In the French-speaking part of Switzerland, corresponding services are generally more interdisciplinary with a stronger emphasis on psychology and therapeutic approaches (Grob, 2010). These services, such as the “Mobile Educational Services” Service Educatif Itinérant] of Geneva (established in 1969), gradually assumed more and more responsibilities for children at risk or vulnerable (Bauloz, Cevey, & Métral, 2009). Similar services in the German-speaking region of Switzerland are presently developing (Lanfranchi & Neuhauser, 2011), but questions remain about the prevention of developmental delay and child abuse as well as how a better head start in life can help children from disadvantaged backgrounds. So far, early childhood intervention is the only area of special education where professionals work within the family (Grob, 2010). Traditionally, special education in Switzerland provides services for children when their problems seem related to their education, but it does not “interfere” with parents. Now that the cantons are fully responsible for the development and education of all children with disabilities, it is hoped that they will seize this opportunity to foster partnerships with parents and the private sector to ensure that all children grow up in the best possible circumstances and receive the support needed to develop into healthy adults and contributing members of the Swiss society – independent of the nature and extent of their disabilities or special needs.
1. Documentation of case available at http://www.egalite-handicap.ch
2. Statistic available online at http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/20/06/blank/key/01.html
3. Available at http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/about-the-ibe/who-we-are/history.html
4. Table and graph available online at http://www.bista.zh.ch/sop/Sonder.aspx
Bauloz, F., Cevey, A., & Métral, E. (2009). Le Service Educatif Itinérant de Genève: 40 ans de Soutien, d’Ecoute et d’Itinérance [Mobile educational services of Geneva: 40 years of support, listening and traveling]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 15(5), 19–25.
Bildungsdirektion Kanton Zürich. (2007). Schulische Standortgespräche: Ein Verfahren zur Förderplanung und Zuweisung von sonderpädagogischen Massnahmen. [School-based review meetings: A procedure for planning and allocating special educational provision.] Zürich, Switzerland: Bildungsdirektion Kanton Zürich.
Bless, G. (1995). Zur Wirksamkeit der Integration: Forschungsüberblick, praktische Umsetzung einer integrativen Schulungsform, Untersuchungen zum Lernfortschritt. [About the effectiveness of integration: Review of research, practical implementation of integrative schooling, analysis of learning progress.] Bern, Switzerland: Haupt.
Buchhaas-Birkholz, D. (2009). Die “empirische Wende” in der Bildungspolitik und in der Bildungsforschung: Zum Paradigmenwechsel des BMBF im Bereich der Forschungsförderung [The “empirical turn” in educational policy and research: About the paradigm shift of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research in the area of research funding]. Erziehungswissenschaft, 20(39), 27–33.
Bühler-Niederberger, D. (1991). Legasthenie: Geschiche und Folgen einer Pathologisierung. [Dyslexia: History and consequences of a pathologization.] Opladen, Germany: Leske + Budrich.
Bundesamt für Statistik. (2010a). Gesundheit und Gesundheitsverhalten in der Schweiz 2007: Schweizer Gesundheitsbefragung. [Health and health behavior in Switzerland 2007: The Swiss health survey.] Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Bundesamt für Statistik.
Bundesamt für Statistik. (2012). Bildungssystem Schweiz – Indikatoren. Unterrichts- und Lernbedingungen – Kulturelle Heterogenität der Schulabteilungen [Education system in Switzerland – Indicators. Conditions of instruction and learning – Cultural heterogeneity in schools]. Retrieved from http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/15/17/blank/01.approach.4002.html. Accessed on December 15, 2013.
Bundesamt für Statistik [Federal Office of Statistics]. (2010b). Demos: Informationen aus der Demografie [Demos: Information from demography]. Newsletter Nr. 4, Bundesamt für Statistik, Neuchâtel, pp. 4–8.
Carigiet Reinhard, T. (2012). Schulleistungen und Heterogenität: Eine mehrebenanalytische Untersuchung der Bedingungsfaktoren der Schulleistungen am Ende der dritten Primarschulklasse. [Achievement and heterogeneity: A multilevel analysis of causal factors of achievement at the end of grade three.] Bern, Switzerland: Haupt.
Cohep. (2008). Analyse und Empfehlungen: Heilpädagogik in der allgemeinen Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung. [Analysis and recommendations: Curative education in general teacher education.] Bern, Switzerland: Schweizerische Konferenz der Rektorinnen und Rektoren der Pädagogischen Hochschulen cohep.
Desai, M. (2014). The paradigm of international social development: Ideologies, development systems and policy approaches. New York, NY: Routledge.
Droux, J., & Ruchat, M. (2007). L’«enfant-problème» ou l’émergence de figures problématiques dans la protection de l’enfance [The “problem child” or the emergence of problem figures in the protection of childhood]. Carnet de Bord, 14, 14–27.
EDK [Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education]. (1994). Sonderpädagogik in der Lehrerbildung. [Special education in teacher education.] Dossier 27. Bern, Switzerland: EDK.
EDK [Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education]. (2007). Interkantonale Vereinbarung über die Zusammenarbeit im Bereich der Sonderpädagogik. [Inter-Cantonal Agreement on the coordination in the area of special education.] Bern, Switzerland: EDK. Retrieved from http://www.edudoc.ch/static/web/arbeiten/sonderpaed/konkordat_d.pdf. Accessed on December 15, 2013.
EDK [Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education]. (2011). Standardisiertes Abklärungsverfahren (SAV): Instrument des Sonderpädagogik- Konkordats als Entscheidungsgrundlage für die Anordnung verstärkter individueller Massnahmen. [Standardized eligibility procedure: Instrument of the special education concordat as the decision basis to allocate reinforced individual provision.] Bern, Switzerland: EDK.
European Agency. (2010). Country data 2010. Brussels, Belgium: European Agency for the Development of Special Needs Education.
Federal Social Insurance Office. (2010). Social security in Switzerland. Bern, Switzerland: Federal Social Insurance Office.
Geisen, T., & Riegel, C. (2009). Jugend, Partizipation und Migration: Orientierungen im Kontext von Integration und Ausgrenzung. [Youth, participation and migration: Orientations in the context of integration and marginalization.] Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Grob, F. (2010). Heilpädagogische Früherziehung – Integrative Pädagogik – Frühe Bildung. [Early childhood intervention – Integrative pedagogy – Early education]. Working Paper Nr. 1. Basel, Switzerland: Institut Spezielle Pädagogik und Psychologie Pädagogische Hochschule FHNW.
Gröschke, D. (2008). Heilpädagogisches Handeln: Eine Pragmatik der Heilpädagogik. [Curative educational practice: Pragmatics of curative education.] Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt.
Häfeli, K., & Walther-Müller, P. (2005). Das Wachstum des sonderpädagogischen Angebots im interkantonalen Vergleich: Steuerungsmöglichkeiten für eine integrative Ausgestaltung. [Growth of special education provision – A cross-cantonal comparison: Regulation options for an integrative design.] Luzern, Switzerland: SZH Edition.
Hänsel, D. (2008). Karl Tornow als Wegbereiter der sonderpädagogischen Profession: die Grundlegung des Bestehenden in der NS-Zeit. [Karl Tornow as a pioneer of the special education profession: Establishment of the existing in the era of the Nazis.] Bad Heilbrunn, Germany: Klinkhardt.
Helmig, B., Gmür, M., Bärlocher, C., von Schnurbein, G., Degen, B., Nollert, M. … Salamon, L. M. (2011). The Swiss civil society sector in a comparative perspective: VMI research series (Vol. 6). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University and University of Fribourg.
Hollenweger, J. (2011). Development of an ICF-based eligibility procedure for education in Switzerland. BMC Public Health, 11(S4), 7.
Hollenweger, J. (2013). Developing applications of the ICF in education systems: Addressing issues of knowledge creation, management and transfer. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35(13), 1087–1091.
Hollenweger, J., & Moretti, M. (2012). Using the international classification of functioning, disability and health children and youth version in education systems: A new approach to eligibility. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(13 Suppl. 1), 97–102.
Kaba, M. (2007). Social health care access for the physically disabled in 19th century French speaking Switzerland. Hygiea Internationalis, 6, 67–77.
Kobi, E. E. (1993). Grundfragen der Heilpädagogik: Eine Einführung in heilpädagogisches Denken (5. Auflage). [Basic questions of curative education: An introduction to curative educational thinking.] Bern, Switzerland: Haupt.
Kronenberg, B. (2012). HFE-Statistik 2010: Im Anschluss an die Heilpädagogische Früherziehung besuchen mehr Kinder die Regelschule als die Sonderschule [HFE Statistics 2010: More children go to a regular rather than a special school after early childhood intervention]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 18(4), 5–12.
Kronig, W. (2007). Die systematische Zufälligkeit des Bildungserfolgs. [The systematic randomness of educational success.] Bern, Switzerland: Haupt.
Lanfranchi, A., & Neuhauser, A. (2011). ZEPPELIN 0-3 – Förderung ab Geburt mit “PAT – Mit Eltern lernen” [ZEPPELIN 0-3 – Support from birth on with “PAT – Learning with parents”]. Sonderpädagogische Förderung heute, 6, 437–442.
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in 36 Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
OECD. (2005). Students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages: Statistics and indicators. Paris, France: OECD.
OECD. (2007). Students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages: Policies, statistics and indicators. Paris, France: OECD.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background – Equity in learning opportunities and outcomes (Vol. 2). Paris, France: OECD.
Pfahl, L., & Powell, J. J. W. (2010). The special education profession and the discourse of learning disability in Germany. Discussion Papers No. SP I 2010-504. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), Forschungsschwerpunkt Bildung, Arbeit und Lebenschancen, Abteilung Ausbildung und Arbeitsmarkt, Berlin, Germany.
Reusser, K., Stebler, R., Mandel, D., & Eckstein, B. (2013). Erfolgreicher Unterricht in heterogenen Lerngruppen auf der Volksschulstufe des Kantons Zürich [Successful instruction in heterogeneous learning groups in compulsory education in the canton of Zurich]. Retrieved from http://www.zh.ch/dam/Portal/internet/news/mm/2013/166/Vielfalt_Volksschule_Bericht.pdf.spooler.download.1372834739198.pdf/Vielfalt_Volksschule_Bericht.pdf. Accessed on December 15, 2013.
Ruchat, M. (2003). Inventer les arriérés pour créer l’intelligence: L’arriéré scolaire et la classe spéciale: histoire d’un concept et d’une innovation psychopédagogique, 1874–1914. [Inventing backwardness to create intelligence: Educational backwardness and the special class: History of a concept and a psycho-educational innovation.] Bern, Switzerland: Haupt.
Ruchat, M. (2008). Le Service médico-pédagogique de Genève: un centre pour dépister l’enfant-problème (1908–1958): 100ième anniversaire du Service médico-pédagogique 1908–2008. [The medical-educational service of Geneva: A center to detect the problem child.] Genève, Switzerland: Département de l’instruction publique, Service médico-pédagogique.
Schindler, A. (1990). Die Entwicklung der Schweizerischen Heilpädagogischen Gesellschaft seit 1889: Antworten auf Zeitfragen aus der Sicht einer Institution. [The development of the Swiss Association for Curative Education since 1889: Answers to questions of the time from the perspective of an institution]. In and D. Raemy (Ed.), Heilpädagogik im Wandel der Zeit. Luzern, Switzerland: Edition SZH/SPC.
Schumacher, B. (2010). Freiwillig verpflichtet: Gemeinnütziges Denken und Handeln in der Schweiz seit 1800. [Voluntarily obliged: Non-profit thinking and acting in Switzerland.] Zürich, Switzerland: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
Sieber, P. (2006). Steuerung und Eigendynamik der Aussonderung: Vom Umgang des Bildungswesens mit Heterogenität. [Regulation and momenta of segregation: Managing heterogeneity by the education system.] Reihe, ISP-Universität Zürich, Bd. 13. Luzern, Switzerland: Edition SZH/CSPS.
Swiss Federation. (2013). Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation. Retrieved from http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/1/101.en.pdf. Accessed on December 15, 2013.
United Nations. (2006). UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. New York, NY: United Nations.
VHpA. (2003). Positionspapier des VHpA: Vermittlung heilpädagogische relevanter Kompetenzen in der Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung. [Position paper of the VHpA: Conveying competences relevant for curative education in teacher education.] Luzern, Switzerland: Verband Heilpädagogischer Ausbildungsinstitute der Schweiz (VHpA).
Wagner Lenzin, M. (2007). Elternberatung: Die Bedeutung der Beratung in Bewältigungsprozessen bei Eltern mit ihrem Kind mit Behinderung. [Parent counseling: The relevance of counseling for coping processes of parents with a disabled child.] Bern, Switzerland: Haupt Verlag.
Weisser, J. (2005). Behinderung, Ungleichheit und Bildung: Eine Theorie der Behinderung. [Disability, inequality and education: A theory of disability.] Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.
Wolfisberg, C. (2002). Heilpädagogik und Eugenik: Zur Geschichte der Heilpädagogik in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz (1800–1950). [Curative education and eugenics: The history of curative education in German-speaking Switzerland.] Zürich, Switzerland: Chronos Verlag.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. (2007). International classification of functioning, disability and health: Children and youth version (ICF-CY). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.