Contributions from: , M. Kenny & E. Mc Neela
Abstract
For the past thirty years integration has dominated the educational debate regarding the placement of students with disabilities in mainstream schools. Much research has been devoted to investigating the efficacy of integration from the viewpoint of teachers, policy makers and schools. Rarely has the voice of young people with disabilities been heard or listened to within an Irish context. This research attempts to redress the balance. Within this research young people with disabilities address the critical issues of curriculum access, social relationships and teacher expectations within second level schools. Their reflections and suggestions highlight essential criteria for inclusive policies which would be of benefit not alone to students with disabilities but to all students in our education system.
Introduction
Disabled people and their experiences have been largely ignored in academic circles (Oliver, 1990). As a result, disability has been viewed almost exclusively from medical and psychological perspectives (Barton, 1996). Gradually, it was recognised that disability was often experienced in terms of social restriction (Walmsley, 1997). The concept of the 'disabling environment' recognises the complex relationship between the disabled individual and his/her environment and the ways in which physical and attitudinal barriers can prevent full participation in society (Finkelstein and Stuart, 1996). This historical experience of exclusion which had often been supported by legislation was vigorously challenged through campaigns by people with disabilities for rights to 'common and equal citizenship' (Quinn, 1993).
Disabled people have to contend with a range of public perceptions and attitudes over which they have little control (Tilstone, 1991). The characterisation of disabled people as 'pitiable', 'pathetic', 'invalid', 'helpless', 'dependent' has been evident (Hevey, 1993).Influenced by these disabling images, societal attitudes can represent the greatest obstacle to the full inclusion of disabled people in the community (Forest, 1991). By emphasising what is different about disability and ascribing a dependent role to disabled people these images tend to obscure the common interdependence people experience in their everyday lives (Corbett, 1997). Societal attitudes towards disabled people have been characterised by confusion, ambiguity and a modicum of good will. Not surprisingly, mainstream pupils exhibit an ambiguity, not dissimilar to their elders, in regard to their disabled counterparts (Lewis, 1995).
Researchers and educators have developed legal, educational, ethical and psychological arguments to support the integration of young people with disabilities into mainstream schooling. It has been asserted that enabling these pupils to participate fully in the educational system constitutes a moral choice for society (Stukat, 1993). Despite these advances it is evident that successful integration involves a total reappraisal of the existing educational system. At the school level, integration involves considerable changes in organisational structures, curriculum and teaching methodology (Meijer, 1994). A 'whole school approach' is required which recognises that the curricular challenge posed by integration is shared by all teachers (Strangvik, 1997).
The Irish situation
Until the 1970's and 1980's in Irish (and international) education policy and practice, children were categorised as either 'handicapped' or 'normal', and the categories were educated separately. But since then disabilities have been increasingly understood as specific attributes rather than as whole definitions of the person, and provision for all children envisaged as forming a continuum. Special needs issues have achieved greater prominence in the 1990's with the publication of a series of reports including the Special Education Review Committee (SERC) Report (1993), the Report of the Government Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, A Strategy for Equality (1996), the Education Act (1998), and the NCCA Discussion Document (1999), Special Educational Needs: Curriculum Issues. The SERC Report proposed the concept of a continuum of provision in official policy though Colgan (1998) concluded that the report had failed to conceptualise disabilities adequately, and had underestimated the complexity involved in developing inclusive practice in schools. The Report Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities (1996) adopted a social model of disability and advocated responses from a 'civil rights perspective', recognising that 'equality is a key principle of the human rights approach' (p. 8). This highlights the patent inadequacy of the incremental, piecemeal approach that characterised education provision hitherto, and failed to recognise the issue of the fundamental right to education of children with disabilities.
The 1998 Education Act provides a statutory basis for legislation, policy and practice in relation to all education provision. The Act provides a level of principled commitment to equity in relation to students with disabilities however it singularly fails to provide concrete proposals to ensure the full inclusion of young people with disabilities within mainstream education. The NCCA discussion document (1999) provides an overview of general policy and provision in relation to children with special needs but fails to address systemic issues and the deficit model of the child is still in evidence.
It is difficult to provide a detailed overview of inclusive practice in Ireland due to the limited research on this issue. The parallel nature of mainstream and special education has inhibited the systematic development of models of inclusion which have tended to evolve from local practice. Schools' link programmes involving pupils from mainstream and special schools in shared curricular activities constitute one example of partial integration which developed from local initiatives (Shevlin and O' Moore, 2000). Due to the limited research base it is difficult to ascertain the experiences of disabled children within integrated settings. O'Keeffe's study (1997) is a notable exception as it documents the mainstream school careers of people with a sensory disability in Ireland. The difficulties reported by young people in gaining access to the curriculum in that particular study closely echo those documented in the study under review.
Methodology
A small-scale exploratory study was designed to record the experiences of young people with disabilities in Irish second-level schools. It was envisaged that this research would contribute to developments in education policy and practice. Young adults with disabilities who had completed post primary school in the previous two or three years constituted the target group for research. Young people currently enrolled in post primary schools were not invited to participate as anecdotal evidence had suggested that the interview process could have a negative impact on their school lives. It was decided that a qualitative approach should be adopted employing a group format for interviews. This involved a discourse analysis of transcripts of semi-structured, taped interviews. Sixteen young people (six male, ten female ) with a variety of disabilities, principally physical, participated in the study. The majority of participants (eleven) were from urban backgrounds while a minority (five) had rural origins. Based on the work of a number of authors (Atkinson and Williams, 1990, Beresford, 1997, Lewis and Lindsay, 2000) research procedures were devised which attempted to respect and validate the experiences of young people with disabilities.
There were two distinct phases in the interview procedure. Initially the research team developed a topic checklist based on issues identified in current literature. These topics were explored with the participants in the first interview and opportunities were provided for the young people to identify other salient issues. An interim statement of findings based on the first interviews was compiled and at the beginning of the second phase of interviews participants were invited to assess the adequacy/inadequacy of these findings as a representation of their views. This critique provided the context for the second set of interviews where participants were invited to expand on these initial findings.
Access to school
Participants appeared to utilise similar criteria to other young people in choosing a second-level school. These criteria included friends' choices, parental preference, proximity, and academic standards :
It was nice being with the normal crowd. It was just around the corner and I liked it and I put my name down, that's how I got to go there.
Getting around in the school environment was often difficult and frustrating as the built environment became an obstacle to the full participation of these young people in vital aspects of school life :
If a class was downstairs, no problem. But stairs, there'd be a problem. Prefabs were a big problem, big steps into them, I had to be lifted. If my friends weren't around I wouldn't get there. I wouldn't go to the class.
Asking for help was not always an option as the participant felt that this could have an adverse effect on interactions with peers :
It was kind of difficult just to get around. And asking for help, I found that difficult. I didn't like asking the same person all the time ... Some people would make a fuss over me and others wouldn't think - it was a mixture of reactions.
The struggle to gain basic access was ongoing and in this particular situation ultimately unsuccessful :
You had to fight. One girl had spina bifida. She couldn't handle the crowds; there were 1200 in the school. She left.
Generally, participants found that gaining initial access to the school was relatively unproblematic. However, difficulties soon arose for many in confronting serious access issues which were effectively excluding them from full participation in school life.
Expectations
Participants encountered lowered teacher expectations with regard to their academic ability. It appeared that many participants had experienced global categorisation (taking one facet of the person - his/her disability - as defining the whole person) :
There was an attitude that if you have something wrong with you, you don't have to reach the same standards others do.
The attitude was 'if you're dyslexic you won't be going anywhere so let's not bother'
Positive teacher responses were also reported which encouraged and facilitated the participants to become fully involved in curricular activities :
One teacher kept driving me the whole way. Kind of 'put it in a context, fair enough you have a disability but - throw it away from you and continue on' like. From that day on I've never looked back. It was the best thing ever that, to stand up for ourselves.
Some did their best to accommodate you with notes and extra time for essays to be handed up.
However, there was also evidence that inappropriate teacher responses could result in lowered standards and expectations :
If I didn't do my homework they wouldn't really mind.
Another teacher was nice. In class like he said to the boys one day, 'let him sleep away' like. I wasn't asleep at all ha ha !
Subject areas that required any substantial adaptation such as Science, Home Economics or Physical Education proved difficult for some participants to achieve full inclusion alongside their peers :
In science, using things on the bench, I just sat down and watched. I think most of us were excluded especially in sports - the school wasn't equipped to cope. They tried, but the majority of times you had to stay out.
For others, schools encouraged and facilitated inclusion through positive expectations and utilising peer support :
I wasn't excluded from any sports. Actually they pushed me into things more than taking me out -'you are going into this, no questions asked!.
We'd pair up, and my partner used to do all the physical work. I just couldn't do it; I couldn't hold a glass of water.
Extra curricular activities
Access to extra curricular activities was not guaranteed; a wide range of school responses was evident. Some schools adopted a positive approach :
I went on a lot of trips. The other students had to make their own way; we got transport no problem from school.
Other schools appeared to make little effort to facilitate participation in extra curricular activities for their students with disabilities:
I was excluded from my groups as far as going out with the class - I think they were nearly afraid I would hurt myself.
They didn't make an effort to think about it when it came to trips. Most times we couldn't go.
For one young person this experience was particularly hurtful and engendered a sense of isolation :
I would listen to them when they came back - 'you missed a great couple of days we'd great fun'. Even sitting beside them hearing them laughing, it was laughing at something you didn't understand. I didn't like that.
Discussion
Participants' experience of second-level schooling contained a mixture of positive and negative in relation to the built environment, curriculum access and school life. For many, the built environment represented a considerable obstacle to full involvement in school life. Participants encountered serious difficulties moving from place to place for social and academic activities; and engaging in class activities. The development of peer relationships was inhibited by the need to ask for help. As a result, participants found it difficult to establish peer relationships unconstrained by dependency considerations. Finally, academic progress was inextricably linked to curriculum access.
Teachers appeared to be influenced by whether they perceived disability as a global categorisation which wholly defined the young person with a disability or as one of many elements that encompassed the young person. Participants encountered teachers who accepted lower standards for their work and whose negative expectations appear to be based on outdated, medicalised, notions of disability (Cornwall, 1997, Thomas et al. 1998). Some teachers demonstrated little insight into the needs of these participants to achieve access to the curriculum. These findings appear to support the demand for staff development in developing inclusive responses for disabled students (Garner, 2000). Empowering teachers, on the other hand, facilitated students with extra tuition, notes, encouragement and guidance. Given the obvious lack of systemic support for these initiatives there was a real danger that over time this support could become diluted or disappear (Vlachou, 1997).
Participants experienced particular difficulties in gaining access to class activities in subjects that involved practical activities. It was evident that school practice in relation to these subject areas varied considerably. For some, access was ensured through minor adaptations or the utilisation of co-operative learning strategies. Others were excluded and reduced to the role of observers. It was evident that most adaptations were devised by individual teachers and lacked theoretical or philosophical underpinning (Cornwall, 1997, Florian, 1998). Being included in extra curricular activities was not an automatic entitlement and school practice varied enormously. Some schools and teachers made every effort to include participants in all their activities while others appeared to believe that this was not essential to school life for young people with disabilities. This type of exclusion made participants extremely conscious of difference (Atkinson & Williams, 1990).
Central elements of school life for students with disabilities such as staff- student relationships and access to curricular and extra-curricular activities did not appear to receive much, if any, attention in official school policy. Systemic support for students with particular disabilities appeared to be singularly lacking as they had to rely on their peers to gain access to classrooms. The constant need to ask for help altered the balance of their relationships with their peers. The urgent necessity to establish inclusive school policies is reinforced by these findings which echo the reports of similar research (Thomas et al., 1998, Vlachou, 1997, Wade & Moore, 1993).
Concluding comments
Developing appropriate responses which address the needs and potential of students with disabilities proved difficult for some schools. It is evident that schools and teachers urgently require systemic support to create the conditions necessary for the full inclusion of young people with disabilities. Ad hoc arrangements can become the norm and each student with a disability is expected to adjust. Participants endeavoured to be normal, attend school on the same basis as their peers but most experienced isolation in their struggle to gain full access to the physical, social and academic aspects of school life. Schools were generally unprepared for this level of inclusion. Despite the best efforts of many practitioners the system will continue to be exclusionary while the perspectives of young people with disabilities are ignored. These perspectives provide essential insights which can develop and enhance a truly inclusionary school policy enabling the full participation of young people with disabilities within mainstream education.
References
Atkinson, D. and Williams, F. (Eds.) 1990. Know me as I am: An anthology of prose, poetry and art by people with learning difficulties. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Barton, L. 1996. 'Sociology and disability: some emerging issues.' In L. Barton (Ed.). Disability and Society: Emerging Issues and Insights. Harlow, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman: 3-17.
Beresford, B. 1997. Personal Accounts: Involving Disabled Children in Research. Norwich : Social Policy Research Unit.
Colgan, A. 1998. Access to mainstream Classrooms: A review of current practice and policy towards enabling students with special educational needs to have access to their local mainstream school. Dublin: Disability Federation of Ireland.
Corbett, J. 1997. 'Independent, Proud and Special: Celebrating our Differences.' In. L. Barton, and M. Oliver (Eds.). Disability Studies: Past, Present and Future. Leeds: The Disability Press: 90-98.
Cornwall, J. 1997. Access to Learning for Pupils with Disabilities. London : D. Fulton.
Department of Education, 1993. Report of the Special Education Review Committee. Dublin: Stationery Office.
Department of Equality and Law Reform, 1996. A Strategy for Equality, Report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. Dublin: Stationery Office.
Finkelstein, V. and Stuart, O. 1996. 'Developing new services.' In G. Hales (Ed.). Beyond Disability: Towards an Enabling Society. London: Sage: 170-187.
Florian, L. 1998. 'Inclusive practice: What, why and how.' In C. Tilstone, L. Florian and R. Rose (Eds.) Promoting Inclusive Practice. London, Routledge: 13-26.
Forest, M. 1991. 'It's About Relationships.' In L.H. Meyer, C.A. Peck and L. Brown (Eds.). Critical Issues in the Lives of People with Severe Disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes: 399-407.
Garner, P. 2000. 'Pretzel only policy? Inclusion and the real world of teacher education.' British Journal of Special Education, 27(3), 111-116.
Government of Ireland, 1998. Education Act. Dublin: Stationery Office.
Hevey, D. 1993. 'The tragedy principle: strategies for change in the representation of disabled people.' In J. Swain, V. Finkelstein, S. French and M. Oliver (Eds.). Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments. London: Sage: 116-121.
Lewis, A. and Lindsay, G. 2000. 'Emerging issues.' In A. Lewis and G. Lindsay (Eds.) Researching Children's Perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press: 187-197.
Lewis, A. 1995. Children's Understanding of Disability. London: Routledge.
Meijer, C.J.W. 1994. 'The Netherlands.' In C.J.W. Meijer, S.J. Pijl and S. Hegarty (Eds.). New perspectives in special education: a six-country study of integration. London: Routledge: 95-112.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment 1999. Special Educational Needs : Curriculum Issues. Dublin : National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.
O' Keeffe, M. 1997. Charting Developments in Educational Provision for Visually Impaired Students in Ireland (1970-1997). Unpublished M. Ed. Thesis. NUI, Maynooth.
Oliver, M. 1990. The Politics of Disablement. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Education Ltd.
Quinn, G. 1993. 'Disability Discrimination Law in the United States.' In G. Quinn, M. McDonagh and C. Kimber. Disability Discrimination Law in the United States, Australia and Canada. Dublin: Oak Tree Press in association with the National Rehabilitation Board: 15-115.
Shevlin, M. and O' Moore, M. 2000. Creating opportunities for contact between mainstream pupils and their counterparts with learning difficulties. British Journal of Special Education. (27),1,29-34.
Stangvik, G. 1997. 'Beyond Schooling: integration in a policy perspective.' In S.J. Pijl, C.J.W. Meijer and S. Hegarty (Eds.). Inclusive Education: A global agenda. London: Routledge: 32-50.
Stukat, K - G. 1993. 'Integration of physically disabled students.' European Journal of Special Needs Education, 8(3): 249-268.
Thomas, G., Walker, D. and Webb, J. 1998. 'The Making of the Inclusive School.' London: Routledge.
Tilstone, C. 1991. 'Historical Review.' In C. Tilstone (Ed.). Teaching Pupils with Severe Learning Difficulties: Practical Approaches. London: David Fulton: 3-18.
Wade, B. and Moore, M. 1993. Experiencing Special Education: What young people with special educational needs can tell us. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Walmsley, J. 1997. 'Including People with Learning Difficulties: Theory and Practice.' In L. Barton and M. Oliver (Eds.). Disability Studies: Past, Present and Future. Leeds: The Disability Press: 62-77.
 |
 |