Abstract
In recent years the word inclusion seems to have replaced the former frequently used term integration to describe the process of non-excluding education in the regular classroom. At the same time, the practice in the classrooms seems to have changed very little. Still some confusion about the conceptual meaning of integration and inclusion exists, both among practitioners and scientists. This confusion, in turn, seems to be based on opinions about where the problem has its roots - in the individual or in the school milieu. The paper will discuss the semantics about mentioned and related concepts, and their ideological framework, as well, from a critical point of view.
The need for differentiation - exclusion of certain individuals - through the history of the regular school makes the point of departure for the shaping of this dilemma, and for the argumentation for alternatives. It will also be argued that the need for differentiation still makes a main guideline for the organisation of the educational process in the regular classroom. The paper will, in addition, discuss the question of on whose condition integration takes place. The presentation is based on research about conceptions of integration and inclusion, and the praxis in the classroom, mainly in Scandinavian schools, and the paper argues for a non-segregated approach in the organisation of special needs education.
A viewpoint that remains in the school system - even within the ambition "a school for all" - is a need to identify and sort out certain students as being deviant. The most frequent explanation of this habit seems to be that the students referred to diverge from the norm, or from normal, expected performance or behaviour. An interesting question concerning this phenomenon is, of course, how the school defines "normal" and "deviant" respectively.
In order to meet new approaches, e.g. a school for all, and the way the school treats "students with dysfunctions" or "students with special needs", further studies seem necessary. These investigations should deal with issues like how the school, its leaders and teachers think about deviance and how deviance is defined. The investigations should, as well, deal with issues like which students are assessed as deviant and how these students are categorised, and how they are taught.
In Sweden a recent Government Report (SOU 1999:63. Att lära och leda. /Lärarutbildningskommitténs slutbetänkande, LUK 99/. Utbildningsdepartementet) formulates this new ambition like this:
"The big challenge is - from a political and from an activity point of view - how the pre-school and the school should handle the fact that students have different prerequisites, experiences, knowledge, and needs. How can students' differences appear as resources and make steering conditions for the pedagogical work in the school in a direction that is at best for all students?" (SOU 1999:63, p. 192 /my translation/.)
The quotation can be seen as making distinct the ideological difference between traditional "special education" and the new approach - "special pedagogy", or between the meaning of being "special education teacher" and "special pedagogue".
Focus and aim of the study
In order to make this difference clear, both practically and ideologically, Magnus Tideman (Ph.D. of Sociology) and I have just started up an investigation with the aim to find out and expose further obstacles to a developmental process towards a school for all. The ambition has been there for a long time now, so what is making it not functioning? A prolonged aim for the study is to contribute to a theory of special education. A more delimited aim is to reach a deeper understanding for how teachers, school leaders, and school politicians think about "dysfunction". This shall be worked out through a screening and analysis of conceptions of deviance - and of who is assessed as deviant or "not normal" by interviews with the said staff categories.
In this paper the theoretical approach of the said study will be introduced.
Theoretic perspective
Organisation of Special Education
Sweden did, for a long time, set the tone as promoter for integration in the school. During the last twenty years a long range of countries have joint the approach and there has been an International movement towards integration in the school. Examples are the OECD project "Integration in the school" 1990-1995 including about 20 member countries, and the UNESCO Salamanca Statement of 1994, the latter also the starting point for the new concept-term "inclusion".
An early step towards integration is the so-called normalisation concept on initiative by the Swede Bengt Nirje and the Canadian Wolfensberger during the 60s. Very soon a Scandinavian, more environment oriented and an American, more normative directed point of view could be perceived (Sandvin, 1992; Tideman, 2000, ss 53-56; Wolfensberger, 1972). Still, the terminology about integration differs between continental European countries and the Anglo-Saxon world.
In the USA and in UK an interesting theory development about the school in general is in progress aiming at finding a meta-theory of special education. Thus, Skrtic (1995) is in search of a non reductionalistic compromise within organisation theory with the elements "Humanist", "Structuralist", "Interpretivist" and "Functionalist", which are put into a "Nonrational Cultural" and a "Rational Technical" perspective, respectively. The point is to find new forms to replace a predominant functionalistic thinking about the organisation of education. The problem is that such a thinking stops at a individualistic or "Microsophic" level. An additional problem is that the opposite thinking about the school and education get stuck at a structuralistic or "Macrosophic" level. Both levels are characterised by an evident bureaucratic standardisation and petrifaction.
A step towards a solution of this dilemma is what Skrtic calls "the adhocracy configuration". This means a dynamic organisation thinking characterised by "extremely uncertain environments in which innovation and adaptation are essential for survival" (p. 203). In other words, what is needed is a flexible, self renewing system, prepared for problem solving as to emerging situations. Or, as Skrtic tellingly expresses it: the organisation should be accommodated in a tent and not in a palace.
David Skidmore of Reading University has taken a similar approach in his theory development (Skidmore, 1996; 1999). Skidmore criticises what he calls "the consensus thesis", with which he means that teachers in a certain school feel a need for opinions in common, e.g. about how special education should be organised. On the contrary, Skidmore means that a meeting between different opinions and approaches is the most promoting way as to "how mainstream schools can be made more inclusive" (1999, s 13).
Skidmores point of departure is the opposite opinions about where to find the reasons for special needs education; in "individual deficits" or in the "curriculum presentation". His point is that these opinions should meet in a developing dialogue in stead of defending themselves and get stuck in deadlocked positions.
An example of the interest for theoretical anchorage of special education is the anthology "Theorising special education" (edited by Clark, Dyson & Millward, 1998). We should collect a way for how to problematise special education from one of its authors, the Norwegian Gunner Stangvik. He raises a series of questions that all people involved in education, especially researchers, should ask themselves: - What is valid knowledge in special education? Is there conflict between knowledge traditions? What are the theoretical and practical consequences of different traditions? What is the relationship between the field of practice and its knowledge traditions? What is the relationship of special education to other sciences? What future developments are necessary?
Integration vs. inclusion
Part of the ambition in the study here presented is to settle the definition of the new concept term "inclusion" as substitut for integration. The former term is the most frequent one in Anglo-Saxon countries. The semantic difference between the used terms is apparent.
A way to understand the difference of meaning is to scrutinise the practise and what one think should be changed by the changing of terms. The weakness of the practice described with the concept term "integration" is that it - in the best case - signifies an assimilation of the individual. The intention among the stipulators in the front line with the concept term "inclusion" is to express a completely new dimension and a new way to understand this special education concept. First: disablement is relational. This means that schooling per se "is more or less disabling or enabling" (Corbett & Slee, 2000, s 143), which, in turn, means that schools must be evaluated, too, to make possible its influence on varying identities and differences between students. Cornett and Slee continues:
"This view accepts that the technical approach often amounts to little more than variations upon an assimilation score. Inclusion is not assimilation, it speaks to the value and contribution to the patterns within the social mosaic." (Corbett & Slee, 2000, s 143, my emphases.)
Some languages, like the Scandinavian languages and German, offers two variants as to the meaning of integration. In Swedish these variants are "integrering" and "integration". Integration is reserved to explain a status of full inclusion, a non segregated school or society. "Integrering" describes the process aiming at integration. Thus, most of the attempts made in schools should be classified as "integrering". Integration would cover the meaning quoted from Corbett and Slee above: "a social mosaic", where individuals form a group based on each and everybody's conditions. In other words: a status of non segregation.
Deviance
As to the societal view of deviance the said study is theoretically anchored in a few classical, but still valid perspectives.
Lemert (1948) asserted that the number of deviant persons in a certain society will be as big as one wants it to be. Goffman (1972), and Foucault (1986) as well, built upon this thesis, when the former asserts that "the social deviants" are being appointed as such ones, against their own will. Through the social pressure they will gradually accept the assigned role - and they become stigmatised.
The original meaning of stigma - to burn a sign in the forehead - indicated a social relation (to be a slave) rather than a capacity, and the stigmatised person was often characterised as miserable, dangerous, weak and/or were expelled. Through this, the deviant person's integrity was reduced and she was very often ascribed even other faults and shortcomings than the one she was appointed for. Goffman also puts forth that we, when dealing with persons with some sort of dysfunction, "let the interaction gravitate around the handicap".
Foucault asserted that every single society and every single epoch have defined its certain deviants. It seems as if the so-called normal people have a need to appoint - and compare oneself with - persons who diverge from this "normality". To note in this case, is that it is always the self-appointed "normal majority" who defines the norms and the deviants have to accept to be out-defined in different ways.
Of course it is not so, that the school "appoints" its deviant students - or students with special needs - on evil purpose. On the contrary, the sorting out of students must be understood as done with the best of intentions, since it concerns the question of extra resources for special education. In spite of this, the motives of the school for this sorting out process have to be scrutinised, especially in the light of the big challenge, quoted in the beginning of this paper. In other words: Is it possible to create "a social mosaic" by sorting out certain individuals?
The critical mission of research
As to the critical mission of research an interesting angle of incidence could be illustrated through an article from a recently published Danish anthology. One of the authors, professor Niels Egelund (2000), who, in principle, holds a positive attitude to integration/inclusion put forth that "segregation could be necessary" (p. 171). We have met this standpoint earlier, e.g. when deaf and very hard of hearing students assert that they should feel segregated if integrated, since they should loose a lot of their communication in an integrated school setting. Egelund bases his opinion on follow-up studies of former students who have experienced both integrated and segregated school settings. The students felt the latter form as more positive, since they could compare themselves with like-minded fellows and did not have to struggle in an uneven competition.
A critical attitude like the said one could in turn be criticised in a way put forth by the Swedish professor Ingemar Emanuelsson (1996). Emanuelsson asserts that the opinion of the surrounding society will make a foundation for how the individual student perceives his/her situation as "integrated" student.
Researcher must be open for both perspectives in a constant testing of the reasonableness of argumentation and basis presented.
The Swedish book "A school for all", edited by Rask, Svensson and Wennbo (1985) makes an early example of a critical attitude that startled people. The authors raised the question if it could be so that the school itself produced special education needs through its way of teaching. The question brought a lot of indignation, above all among teachers, but it has later become one of the approaches that has been repeatedly in focus for studies about special education.
Recent examples, showing the importance of the critical mission of research, are some studies about "borderline students". The Swedish researcher Magnus Tideman (2000) has unmasked a significant increase in the number of students enrolled in so-called schools for the mentally retarded (särskola) during the last five years. The reason for this increase or over-enrolment seems to be that it is a way to create extra resources. It is plausible, that such a phenomenon should have passed by without notice during the 70s, when educational research was in its most expanding phase.
Concluding remarks
The relation between denominations of certain phenomena and its political and practical consequences could be looked upon as another area where the critical mission of research might have a special impact. Above we have discussed a couple of denominations as expressions for the phenomenon, and the political will, "a school for all". The concept term "inclusion", frequently used in Anglo-Saxon countries after the mid 90s, contains per se a critique of the former used concept term "integration".
"Integration" has been perceived as a need for measures directed to students, who hitherto have been educated in segregated settings, so that these students can be integrated (Emanuelsson, 1996). "Inclusion" has been stipulated to mean that no segregation should precede the integration process, but all students should be directly enrolled in "a school for all". This latter meaning is also the one accepted by the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994).
As parallel to the said conceptual development WHO's introduction of new denominations last year could be referred to. WHO wants to make the concept of handicap more health related than what has been indicated in the terms "impairment" and "disability". This shift of meaning could be seen as a step in a process of critical scrutiny, where the reason for experience of handicapping situation is of subordinate importance. The important thing for the individual in question is not the reason per se, but the fact that a situation is creating a handicap. This, in turn, means that stigmatising factors, like labelling of certain dysfunctions, take a backseat, and that societal, handicap creating circumstances will be demasked in a more distinct way.
This, and similar shifts of meaning very often is the outcome of the fact that users, staff, and researchers, as well, remain critical to established perceptions of phenomena in the world around us. An established truth of today might - through a critical attitude - be false tomorrow. This is made possible just through development and deepening of our knowledge of the phenomenon. This is valid, not least for special education research.
Thank you very much for listening!
Manchester 2000-07-25
Jerry Rosenqvist
----------------
Jerry Rosenqvist is Ph.D. (filosofie doktor) and Professor of Education directed to Special Education at the Dept. of Educational and Psychological Research, School of Education - Malmö University.
He has conducted three major research projects about the function of schools for the mentally retarded. Further, he has conducted an evaluation project of schools for the mentally retarded in the Swedish County of Kronoberg. He has been an expert within the OECD-project "Active Life for Disabled Youth -Integration in the School" 1989-1995, and he has worked as consultant for Swedish Sida and the World Bank in Pakistan, Jamaica and Tanzania. In the past he has been Special Education teacher, especially for students with mental retardation. He has produced about 90 publications of different extent. He has also carried out a review of "Special Education Research Environment" for the Swedish National Board of Education. For the time being he is one of four authors for a revision of Special Education research, especially schools for the mentally retarded.
-----------
References and other used sources
C. Clark, A. Dyson & A. Millward (Eds.) (1998) Theorising special education. London: Routledge.
Egelund, N. (2000) Hvor er specialpædagogikken på vej omkring år 2000? I: J. Holst, S. Langager & S. Tetler (Red.) Specialpædagogik i en brydningstid. Århus:Systime. Pp 165-172.
Emanuelsson, I.(1996) Integrering - bevarad normal variation i olikheter. I: A. Hill & T. Rabe (Red.) Boken om integrering: Idé, teori, praktik. Malmö: Corona förlag. Ss. 9-22.
Goffman, E. (1972) Stigma: Den avvikandes roll och identitet. Stockholm: Rabén & Sjögren.
Foucault, M. (1986) Vansinnets historia under den klassiska epoken. Lund: Arkiv Förlag.
Lemert, E. (1948) Some aspects of a general theory of socipathyc behaviour. Proceedings of the Pacific Sociological Society. State College of Washington, 16, 23-24.
Persson, B. (1998) Den motsägelsefulla specialpedagogiken. Specialpedagogiska rapporter (Göteborgs universitet: Institutionen för specialpedagogik), Nr 11.
Rask, L., Svensson, G. & Wennbo, U. (1985) En skola för alla: Att arbeta förebyggande och stödjande. Stockholm: Skolöverstyrelsen & Liber.
Rosenqvist, J. (1995) Specialpedagogiska forskningsmiljöer. - En analyserande översikt. Specialpedagogiska rapporter (Göteborgs universitet: Inst. för specialpedagogik), Nr 6.
Rosenqvist, J. (1996) Integration - ett entydigt begrepp med många innebörder. I: T. Rabe & A. Hill. Boken om integrering. Malmö: Corona. Ss. 23-37.
Rosenqvist, J., Nilsson, E., Eriksson, I. Och Ekberg, F. (1995) Särskolan i Kronobergs läns landsting: En extern utvärdering. Pedagogiska rapporter (Lunds universitet: Pedagogiska institutionen), Nr. 67.
Sandvin, J. (1992) Fra noramlisering til sosial integrasjon. I: J. Sandvin (Red.) Mot normalt? Omsorgsideologier i forandring. Oslo: Kommuneforlaget.
Skidmore, D. (1996) Towards an integrated theoretical framework for research into special education needs. European J. Of Special Needs Education, 14(1), 12-20.
Skidmore, D. (1999) Relationships between contrasting discourses of learning difficulty. European J. Of Special Needs Education, 11(1), 33-47.
Skrtic, T. (1995) Special education and student disability as organizational pathalogies: Toward a metatheory of school organization and change. In: T. Skrtic. Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity. New York: Teachers College Press. (Pp 190-232.)
SOU 1999:63. Att lära och leda. /Lärarutbildningskommitténs slutbetänkande, LUK 99/. Utbildningsdepartementet.
Stangvik, G. (1998) Conflicting perspectives on learning disabilities. In: C. Clark, A. Dyson & A. Millward (Eds.) (1998) Theorising special education. London: Routledge. Pp. 137-155.
Ström, K. (1999) Specialpedagogik i högstadiet. Åbo: Åbo Akademi Förlag.
UNESCO. (1994) The Salamaca Statement. (Paris: United Nations.)
Tideman, M. (2000) Normalisering och kategorisering. Stockholm: Johansson & Skyttmo förlag.
Wolfensberger, W. (1972) The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: NIMR.
 |
 |