INTRO: Present societal realities and the role of 'inclusion'.
"At this point in our history we must enter once again into the debate that preceded mass schooling over a century ago, namely; what kind of society do we want to create and how can the education system help us to realise such a society? The answers we reach will determine the relation between education and society into the 21st century."
Ramasut (1989, p.49)
Post 1989 European society and the nature of our UK microcosm can be noted for it's many contradictions and multi-farious truths. Taking the overall European dimension we have a societal reality where many national ideologies live side by side. Perhaps it is fair to say that what we in Europe are presently grappling with is the existence of a Janus-faced nationalism. Europe can presently be observed locked in a battle with this paradoxical nationalism, with the blood shed in the former Yugoslavia and the difficulties surrounding the Assembly of Northern Ireland taking place at a time when western Europe's supra institutions are advocating more internationalism, more dropping of borders, more freedom to travel and more European-wide laws. The ideological consequences this is having for many European nations has either led to the enthusiastic involvement of e.g. the French to the daunting slowness of the British and abstentionism of the Norwegians. For the overall effects of the Maastricht Treaty calls nations to challenge their sovereignty, to forget 18th century style patriotism to a flag or union, to acknowledge that with present bludgeoning technological drive and multi-national conglomeration, the time of autarky is dead, the time of ideological isolation is gone and a time for futuristic internationalism and pluralism is on the horizon. The grand meta-narratives of Marx, Rousseau and Locke are past, their modernist objective truth claims to how society will develop to a set end point are no longer valid in this era sitting as it is in a new Millennium.
The impact this is having on our education systems has been to bring about discord and an element of confusion. In accordance with this view, Coulby and Crispin (1995, p.22) state,
"The need for an intercultural education policy and practice remains contested in most European State education systems. Plurality and complexity have been constant but unrecognised features of European states for a long period of time; it has now become an urgent task for education systems to respond to these circumstances"
The UK, being a part of the European landmass will invariably reflect such ideological movements. It can be seen today as a society which, like its bigger counter-part, is constantly shifting, evolving and developing; which encompasses and espouses many varied identities and has much variance in cultural perceptions. The UK education system has undergone many changes as a consequence of this wider ideological development. In recognising such societal change and hence subsequent changes to the nature of the UK education system, Goldring (1997, p270) states that,
" Recent reform efforts and calls for school restructuring are changing the nature of the relationships between principals and their constituencies as environments change…only schools with sufficient adaptive capacity will flourish with new environmental realities"
What does Goldring mean when referring to 'new environmental realities'? It is the author's contention that these new realities are based upon the philosophy of post-modernity and the ideology of pluralism. It is the growth of individualism and a grand societal move away from 'insular' ideology to the celebration of a wider multi-cultural reality. The author asserts that it is this bigger picture and the present trend of western societies to celebrate difference that is leading us into a historic epoch of increasing inclusivity. Subsequently societal institutions will reflect this growing trend.
The UK Education system, in particular its approach to meeting SEN can be viewed in this context. Since the Education act 1944 there have been many changes to the way in which we as a nation both comprehend and make provision for SEN. From the Warnock report of 1978, through to the 1998 Government Action Plan, much has changed. Presently the buzzword is that of 'Inclusion' which in essence reflects the larger societal trends.
'Inclusion', the philosophy that drives current DfEE thinking and subsequently the nation's schools' in meeting SEN provision is noted for its ambiguity. As Florian (1998, p.15) states,
" Many definitions of inclusive education have been advanced. [….] Definitions range from 'extending the scope of ordinary schools so they can include a greater diversity of pupils' (Clarke et al, 1995, pv) to 'a set of principles which ensures that the student with a disability is viewed as valued and needed member of the community in every respect'( Uditsky, 1993, p.88)."
After writing on the complexity of the term' inclusion' and the various debates there have been in attempting to define it, Florian (1998, p.16) goes on to provide a definition based upon the work of Booth et al 1997; and Potts 1997. Florian notes this definition as being consistent with Inclusion International's 1996 definition. For the benefit of this paper, this definition is the one the author has chosen to use.
" Inclusion refers to the opportunity for persons with a disability to participate fully in all educational, employment, consumer, recreational, community and domestic activities that typify everyday society"
This definition the author classes as an edifice in that it acknowledges 'inclusion' as being a wider societal movement and therefore not a philosophy, which can be, confined or simply viewed as active solely within the education system. Inclusion is not something that should be viewed as an isolated phenomenon taking place within the education system but seen as a philosophy active throughout present post-modern UK and European society. It is the pluralist endeavour of Maastricht, in as much as it is the philosophical endeavour of David Blunkett or the SENCO in one's local secondary school.
This paper does not attempt to debate the issues surrounding inclusion in the UK education system, nor the theoretical arguments of post-modernity. It will, on the basis of recognising the existence of the former philosophy and latter ideology, focus upon defining and providing insight into a practice which has developed as a result of significant reforms in defining and providing for this nation's Special Educational Needs, (SEN). The practice in question is that of 'Clustering'.
STAGE TWO: The history of the concept, usage and development pre 1990s
The origins of the concept 'Clustering' and the noted benefits of its use can be traced back to 1962 with Litwak's and Hylton's, article Interorganisational Analysis: a hypotheses on co-ordinating agencies and, 1967 with Yuchtmann's and Seashore's article, A system resource approach to organisational effectiveness. Both articles provide information based on research carried out into how to get the most out of one's organisation by ensuring effective communication within and between departments and similar organisations. Their practical relevance to today's post-modern world is somewhat questionable but the theory they espouse does provide insight.
Clustering, in the context of education systems, entails elements of inter-school collaboration, interaction, connection, networking, giving and receiving support, sharing resources and ideas. Many other terms can be used in its place such as, networks, partnerships, joint planning…, however for the benefit of this paper the author will use the term 'clustering'. Lunt, (1994, p.17) provides an elaborate definition;
" [Clusters are] a grouping of schools with a relatively stable and long term commitment to share some resources and decision making about an area of school activity. The arrangements are likely to involve a degree of formality such as regular meetings to plan and monitor this activity and some loss of autonomy through the need for negotiated decision-making"
The practice of clustering in education has been noted as beneficial in many settings, rural and city, economically disadvantaged and economically affluent. Lunt (1994, p.17) cites Bray (1987) who provides a list of purposes which answer the question why cluster?
The first official documentation on this practice in the UK was published in 1985. It was a report based upon the findings of the Fish committee. The Fish committee had been set up to look into the benefits and possibilities for clusters in meeting the nation's SEN. Ingrid Lunt, (1994 p.6), writing on the Fish committee findings, stated that;
" In its report (ILEA 1985) the Fish Committee recommended that secondary schools and their feeder primary schools in a locality should form themselves into 'clusters' and collaborate in meeting their pupils' SEN by sharing resources. The Committee took the view that, by pooling resources in this way, ordinary schools could take joint responsibility for meeting greater levels of SEN among their pupils."
Although offering an elaborate plan on 'how to' develop such a cluster, the report was abolished by the Conservative Government of the time. Perhaps it could be said that the Fish committee was ahead of its time. Given the current scene and the constant development of government policy in this area of education, the notion of clustering, as advocated by the Fish report, is something which many schools and their Special Education Needs Co-ordinators (SENCOs) are now taking up. For some this may entail the use of regular and relatively informal cluster meetings between SENCOs based within the one locality. This model was experienced by the author whilst engaged in fieldwork in Bristol May '99. For others this arrangement may involve a much more formal approach such as that advocated in the setting up of EAZs. This process can presently be seen taking place in many of our inner city LEAs. For many others, who have access to modern technology and the Internet, the practice of clustering may take the form of interacting with senco-forum and/or senit, both mail-base forums within cyberspace.
STAGE THREE: Post 1990 and the contemporary use of Clustering, current thinking
It is notable that such a turn around has taken place in government circles since 1985, this can also be viewed as part of the evolving ideological climate. In comparison to the abolishing of the Fish Report by government in 1985, the current Labour government stance on this approach as advocated by DfEE is elaborated upon in a recent publication entitled, Excellence in Cities (1999). The focus of this publication is on that of English City schools and ways in which to improve standards and make progress in meeting pupils' SEN. With regard to EAZs the DfEE (1999, p.14) state,
" Education Action Zones are bringing together partnerships to focus on finding innovative ways to raise standards"
Writing in a report for a SEN Policy seminar held at London University 1998, Peter Gray (1999, p.5) noted that the seminar's rationale was;
"More inclusion means greater demands on schools and therefore the need for closer and more immediate support from internal and external support services"
Furthering this notion of more support Gray (1999,p.11) goes onto argue that;
"It is […] possible to enhance inclusive schooling by co-ordinating both internal and external support at a cluster level […] local SENCO networks and other problem solving groups can be very useful"
Danks (1999, p.13) writing in the same report furthers this view of Grays' by noting that within current SEN provision;
"There has never been a time when the term 'joined-up thinking' has been more appropriate"
His view is derived from the government Programme for Action document (1998) which places emphasis upon the need for schools to combine their resources and work together in meeting their SEN. (Danks, 1999, p.13)
"A programme for action is wide ranging in its proposals but none more so than in chapter three: Moving towards Inclusive Education. Critical to the debate on inclusion, and putting current thought into context, is a vision of a local inclusive education network and not simply isolated 'inclusive' schools."
Dank stresses that if our LEAs and Schools managers don't react in this fashion then the philosophy of inclusive education will fail to be realised. He states (1999, p.16)
"If […] managers are not able to 'close the circle', then we may be faced with further fragmentation of services, lack of co-ordination and failed expectations for those young people we wish to support. Critical to the whole debate, are the strategic planning processes, effective liaison and co-ordinated delivery of services from all providers."
STAGE FOUR: Research Findings.
So what research findings are there currently available to suggest that the cluster approach advocating collaboration and 'joined-up' thinking between schools is effective in making provision for SEN?
Lunt, Evans, Norwich and Wedell (1994) carried out a research project funded by the ESRC 1990-1992 in four LEAs into the nature, definition, benefits and practicalities of such 'cluster' groups. Lunt (1994, p.31) notes that;
" The clusters studies differed markedly in their origins, structures, operation and objectives and the research revelled a range of very different kinds of inter-school collaboration in relation to SEN, many of the cluster arrangements had different goals and purposes"
Lunt et als' work describes in much detail the four case studies, and provides pointers and advice for those education managers wishing to develop such a cluster arrangement for meeting their school's or LEA's SEN. Stressing findings of how this approach can benefit the individual SENCO, Lunt notes that;
"Some LEAs have set up regular meetings of SEN teachers and co-ordinators to keep them in contact with each other and to enable them to learn from each other. These contacts are important for teachers, especially lone teachers with full-time SEN responsibilities….Cluster arrangements would enable SEN teachers to reforge contacts and derive the wider benefits of collaboration."
Gains writing in 1992, provides further examples of 'clustering' and its' benefits for meeting SEN. His research focused on a school for children with moderate learning difficulties. This school served as a centre deploying support staff into mainstream schools. Those schools involved in the cluster shared the support staff and other resources based at the centre. All funding issues were co-ordinated and centrally controlled via the LEA. In sum his research supported the argument that such clustering and sharing of expertise was beneficial both to teaching staff and, fundamentally, to the pupils.
Reiterating the above, Morgan et al (1998) conducted a national study into the benefits of SENCO cluster groups. They concluded that collaborative problem solving both within and between schools could enhance SEN provision and provide greater support for sencos.
Florian et al carried out an ethnographic study over four years 1993-1997 at a special school for children with multiple disabilities. This study focused on issues pertaining to multi-disciplinary teamwork and its findings provide further insight into the nature and practicalities of cluster groups. A qualitative methodology was applied with Florian's team of researchers using participant and non-participant observation and semi-structured interviews with teaching staff, LSAs, therapists internal and external to the school management structure. Florian et als' (1999, p.230) findings provide two key points for those education managers presently involved in or hoping to be involved in a school/LEA cluster grouping soon. These points, if taken on board, may aid in making your cluster group work best both for your school and those other schools involved in collaboratively meeting their SEN.
"Collaborative teams need time to talk; a collaborative team requires investment"
Conclusion
A move toward greater societal inclusion is taking place both within the EU, and wider society itself. This can be observed in Western Europe with greater tolerance and acceptance of the 'other'. That which was perceived as different is no longer viewed as alien, increased celebration of individuality, e.g. alternative living, and the high levels of criticism currently being thrown at normalisation theory. This anti-normalisation argument, espoused by many of our nations academics in the field of SEN, promotes the ideology of individualism and challenges society to accept each individual for who and what they are and to acknowledge that each has a very definite positive role to play in our societies' development. This is the crux of the meaning 'inclusive education'. As Hewett and Nind state, (1992, p.207);
" We very much concur with the worries of Ephraim (1986) and of Jackson (1988) about the Wolfensberger (1980) concept of normalisation. We are more concerned with accepting our students as they are than with making them like ourselves."
In line with this, government policy and teachers are increasingly looking to understand and meet individual pupils from her or his subjective reality. This post-modern outlook advocates that we must increasingly engage in participation with one another, to develop understanding and, within the realm of education, make more effective inroads into meeting our nation's SEN. This advocating of further participation and interaction can be realised through the effective engagement of education managers in cluster group settings. Whether these groups are primarily SENCO groupings within LEAs or on a larger scale whole LEA school groupings sharing resources and insights as in EAZ status is very much up to the LEA and the desire of it's educators and education managers. Reason (1988, p.435) provides a statement which clarifies the benefits of Cluster groups in a way which embraces and connects them to the greater societal drive toward inclusion.
" To celebrate participation places us back in relation with each other, with our knowing and with the wider environment of which we are a part."
The following is an extract taken from a SEN policy in a LEA in the northern counties. It provides us with the rationale behind inclusive education and what it is that we are endeavouring to do. It reminds us that at the end of the day although inclusive education may be fraught with difficulties and embody much ambiguity in definition and practical realisation, we must not loose sight of just who it is we are doing it for and hence what are overall aims and objectives are.
" The ultimate goal of X's Inclusive Education policy is to make it possible for every child, whatever special educational needs they may have, to attend their neighbourhood school, and to have full access to the National Curriculum and to be able to participate in every aspect of mainstream life and achieve their full potential."
To conclude it is worth noting a statement taken from the most recent controversial publication on 'realising' inclusion. The document in question is "The Index for Inclusion" (2000) Published by the CSIE. In reviewing this publication, CSIE stated that
"[..] the process of inclusion was particularly effective when local schools collaborated with each other and Education Authorities took the lead in working with groups of schools[…]"
References:
Bray, M. (1987), School Clusters in the Third World, Unesco-Unicef, Paris.
Coulby, D, Crispin, J, (1999), Postmodernity and European Education Systems, Trentham, Stoke-on-Trent.
Crawford, M, Kydd, L, Riches, C (eds),(1997), Leadership and teams in Educational Management, OUP, Buckingham.
CSIE Website: http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/csie/indexlaunch.htm
CSIE, (2000), Index for Inclusion, CSIE, Bristol.
DfEE, (1999), 'Excellence in Cities', DfEE publications, London.
Gains, C, (1992), 'Clustering in Kirkby', in Special, September, 24-6.
Gray, P, et al, (1999), Rethinking support for more inclusive policy, NASEN, Tamworth.
Hewett, D. and Nind, M. (1992) Returnng to the basics, in Booth, T (Ed) (1992) Learning for all I Curricula for Diversity in Education, London, Falmer. CHECK
ILEA, (1985), Educational Opportunities for all? (The Fish Report), London, ILEA.
Litwak, E. and Hylton, L (1962), Inter-organisational Analysis: a hypothesis on co-ordinating agencies, Administrative Science Quarterly, 6,395-420
Lunt, I et al, (1994), Working together. Inter-School Collaboration for Special Needs, Fulton, London.
Ramasut, A., (ed), (1989), Whole School Approaches to Special Needs, Falmer, London.
Reason, (1998), Co-operative inquiry as a discipline of professional practice, in, Journal of Interprofessional Care, 12,4, 419-436.
Tilstone, C. et al, (eds), (1999), Promoting Inclusive Practice, Routledge, London.
Yuchtmann, E. and Seashore, S. (1967), A system resource approach to organisational effectiveness, American Sociological Review, 32, 891-903
 |
 |