The quality of an education system is based mainly on testing the attainment of its declared goals, while monitoring its development and adjustment to the needs of learners and of society. Despite the declared intention to monitor quality, there is almost no examination of long-term goals that might only come to fruition after the completion of the formal years of schooling. Thus, for example, while one of the overall goals of including children with special needs into mainstream education is to promote their inclusion as adults, this goal is not examined as part of the evaluation of the quality of an education system. Moreover, the education system itself hardly ever includes graduates diagnosed as having special needs. Although in recent years there has been a slight change, and a number of teachers with learning or other disabilities have entered the system (Flavian, 2011, 2015), the inclusion of adults with Developmental Intellectual Disability (DID) does not happen on an overt and regular basis, despite the fact that this is the system that prepared them for inclusion as adults.

The diagnosis with DID must be conducted during childhood or early adolescence, and it refers to limitations in intellectual functioning, deficits in adaptive functioning, communication, social skills, personal independence and academic functioning (DSM-5, 2013). If any of the above deficits exist after the developmental period, the correct diagnosis will be neurocognitive disorder (Israel’s Ministry of Welfare website, 2018). Although the diagnosis of adults with DID seems clear, there is a broad range of implications for those diagnosed. At one end of the spectrum are adults who, in terms of academic capabilities, present significant difficulties in applying thinking skills such as inferring, problem solving, planning, abstract thinking, judgement, academic studies and learning from experience. But at the other end of the spectrum there are mild instances of DID for which, with appropriate specific mediation, a personalized curriculum and social support, the limitations on their independence in most areas of life can be avoided (Feuerstein, Feuerstein, Falik, & Rand, 2006). Hence, the principle of including adults with special needs, especially those with DID, is reinforced and should be based on individual examination of each case to avoid abstract and generalized categorizations.

Out of the ensemble of factors affecting processes of inclusion in society, the inclusion of adults with special needs depends on two main factors: the willingness and readiness of society to accept them, and the tools and skills they acquired over the years to cope with their disability (Igel & Malihi, 2007). Hence, the main obstacle to promoting the inclusion of adults with DID in the education system is a change in society’s view of their ability to contribute to the education system as well as elsewhere. The source of this misconception lies in the lack of up-to-date knowledge which has, over time, lessened the stigmas towards adults with DID. However, learning the origins of the stigmas, understanding the needs of society and the development of opportunities for positive experiences have all contributed to the changes and promotion of the inclusion of such adults in society (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016). 

The key question in this study focused on examining why adults with DID have not yet been included in the education system and what can be done in order to enhance their inclusion in the future.

This study involved individual in-depth semi-structured interviews with 75 policy leaders and decision makers in the education system (active school principals, principals in training, heads of local education departments, social workers and directors of NPOs caring for adults with DID). The interviews focused on understanding their attitudes and views on the possibilities of including adults with DID in the education system, how they can be trained for this work, and what support the educators assisting this inclusion might need in order to ensure that these adults can both contribute and benefit from their inclusion. All individual interviews were conducted with two researchers, where one of them was responsible for asking the questions and the other took notes to supplement the recording. Subsequently the interview recordings were transcribed in order to allow efficient content analysis. This analysis aimed to elicit the most significant issues relevant to understanding the difficulties in the inclusion process for adults with DID in the education system, while also seeking to identify possible solutions. In addition, given the number of participants, a quantitative analysis conducted as well, in order to better understand the frequency and range of the responses. In addition, all interviewees were given the option to view the transcript of their interview and the results of the study, but none of them chose to do so.

Most of the research participants stated very clearly that they do not object including adults with DID in the education system and would even be happy to do so. However, they claimed that this inclusion would require professional preparation of the staff, the parents and the students alongside preparation of technological support adaptations that will allow adults with DID independence. All this would be in addition to budgeting for a staff member to oversee the process. The study also shows that although the participants were familiar with the concept of DID, most of them were unable to describe its characteristics in terms of social behavior, learning abilities and daily independence. Moreover, the participants stressed that the option of hiring adults with DID was never presented to them within the education system, a claim that reinforces the fact that educating for inclusion must be carried out beyond daily implementation in schools and must be expressed in broader social aspects. For example, in order to make inclusion an obvious norm and value in the society, including students with special needs across all academic activities must be conducted in other activities other than in schools. From these key findings and because of the importance of maintaining the quality of the education system, there is further reinforcement of the question of how the implementation of the long-term goals of an education system can be monitored in order to promote and improve its quality and its impact on the shaping of society.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th Ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R. S., Falik, L., & Rand, Y. (2006). The Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment Program. An Intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Jerusalem, IL: International Center for Enhancement of Learning Potential (ICELP). Flavian, H. (2011). Teachers with learning disabilities: Modelling coping mechanisms in the classroom. Education Canada, 51(3), 31-33 Flavian, H. (2015). Including teachers with learning disabilities: Advantages, disadvantages and questions from the perspective of school principals. MOFET Institute Magazine, 56, 22-25, (in Hebrew). Igel, C., & Malihi, S. (2007). The look of special education: Social, ethical and professional reflection in shaping and implementing policy. In S. Reiter, Y. Leyzer, & G. Avissar (Eds.). Inclusions: Learners with disabilities in education systems, (pp. 143-156). Haifa: Achva, Publishing Division, (in Hebrew). Kupferberg, I., Reiter, S., & Yitzhaki, G. (2017). Contemporary issues in including children and adults with special needs in Israel. An anthology of studies. Tel Aviv: MOFET Institute, (in Hebrew) National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Ending discrimination against people with mental and substance use disorders: The evidence for stigma change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Websites Ministry of Welfare: http://www.molsa.gov.il/populations/disabilities/mentalretardation/intellectualdisabilities/pages/aboutintellectualdisabilities.aspx