Presented at ISEC 2000

Comparing the perspectives of disability organisations on educational developments. How are we moving forward?

Simoni Symeonidou, M.Ed.

Introduction

As most countries tend to adopt inclusive principles, we currently witness an era of educational developments worldwide. This newly formed context calls for consultation procedures initiated by the state in order to decide on prospective legislative changes and regulations in education. Throughout the last two decades there was a growing interest on behalf of individuals and organisations to influence developments regarding the education of disabled children. However, who is represented in the consultation process, who is excluded and whose voice is finally taken into consideration, remain questions to be answered in the light of research evidence.

Organisations of and organisations for the disabled seem to hold opposing views on several social issues, based on competing ideologies (Campbell and Oliver, 1996). Furthermore, commentators in the field argue that the disabled constantly struggle for their rights in society and education (Oliver and Barnes, 1994; Barnes, 1996; Barton, 1997). Although the stated philosophical orientations of disability organisations and their positions on several issues has been extensively debated in the past, the perspectives of disability organisations on education is a rather unfamiliar subject of research. What are the perspectives of disability organisations on educational developments? Do the positions of disability organisations differ according to their type? Do the perspectives of disability organisations on educational developments differ from country to country? What is the philosophy underpinning their positions? Answers to these questions seem to be important. At this point, it needs to be made clear that the term "disability organisations", as used in this paper, refers both to organisations of and organisations for the disabled people.

The need for a comparative study concerning the perspectives of disability organisations on education in Cyprus and the UK emerged after careful consideration of the benefits of such an approach in relation to the subject. To begin with, a study of the contribution of disability organisations in educational developments in the UK might contribute to a better understanding of similar processes in Cyprus. However, the need to understand the reality of each country is linked to the idea that there is no single national perspective and that national examples cannot be generalised across countries without attention to local contexts and meanings (Booth and Ainscow, 1998). Secondly, as disability organisations in the UK differ from the disability organisations in Cyprus in terms of structure and focus of action, making those differences clear might be useful to drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of the involvement of disability organisations in the educational developments of each country. This argument is further supported by Hantrais and Mangen (1996), who argue that comparisons make explicit the differences between the countries compared, pointing to possible directions that could be followed in the future. Thirdly, both Cyprus and the UK face prospective legislative changes regarding educational practice and hence forming a portrait of the positions of disability organisations in each country might be helpful in taking lessons stemming from the comparison.

Methodology

The content analysis undertaken in the present study was based on documents produced by disability organisations themselves for different reasons, i.e. annual reviews, guides to services provided by the organisation, responses to consultation documents and letters in newspapers. It should be stated that in order to respond to the areas of comparison of this study, responses of disability organisations to recent consultation documents on education were mainly used. In particular, in the case of Cyprus, the responses of disability organisations to the 1998 White Paper on integration (Ministry of Education and Culture - MEC, 1998) were mainly used. Accordingly, in the case of the UK, the responses of disability organisations to the inclusion oriented document "Green Paper: Excellence for All Children" (Department for Education and Employment - DfEE, 1997) were extensively used.

In order to obtain a representative sample of disability organisations from each country, the following criteria were set:

(a) equal representation of organisations of and organisations for disabled people;

(b) equal representation of organisations of and organisations for disabled people with the same type of disabilities;

(c) equal representation of organisations of a relatively high status in their national context;

(d) equal representation of equivalent organisations from the two countries (organisations with similarities in structure, aims, activities and services);

(e) equal representation of organisations that have a sufficient number of documents expressing their views on the education of disabled children.

Having in mind the criteria stated above, twelve organisations were chosen, six from each country. Table 1 provides the reader with a brief description of the organisations chosen for this study, giving a clear picture concerning the level of consistency of the sample to the criteria set for this study.

Table 1

Comparative studies are often characterised as problematic in several areas due to the differences in the national contexts of the countries compared (Jobert, 1996; Jowell, 1998). Hence, designing and carrying out this comparative study entailed several difficulties that need to be addressed. To be more specific, the Pancyprian Parents' Association for the Deaf (PPAD) is not the actual equivalent organisation of the British organisation Royal National Institute for the Deaf (RNID) as it is run by parents of deaf children. In addition, the Committee for the Protection of the Mentally Handicapped (CPMH) is not the appropriate equivalent of the British organisation Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults (MENCAP). In particular, the former is a committee of government representatives and parents of children with learning disabilities, whereas the latter is a charitable organisation for people with learning disabilities, initially formed by parents. However, the fact that these groups responded to the rest of the criteria of this research led to their inclusion in the sample.

Jowell (1998) confirms that country-specific differences cause difficulties in methodological decisions. Hence, the methodological decisions discussed above were reached after careful consideration of the literature in the filed. Moreover, the argument that it is useful to focus on broader characteristics of the sample (Hantrais and Mangen, 1996) added in making these sampling decisions.

Results

In this paper, the perspectives of disability organisations on issues of organisation of provision and pedagogy are presented in tables. However, a substantial discussion on these views followed by a discussion concerning the perspectives of disability organisations on definition issues and their role in educational developments are extensively discussed elsewhere (Symeonidou, 2000).

Table 2: Special VS Inclusive Education.

Table 3: Special VS Inclusive Curriculum.

Table 4: Special VS Inclusive Training.

Table 5: Special VS Mainstream Teachers.

Discussion

It seems clear that focussing exclusively upon Drake's (1994) view, that organisations for disabled people campaign for things whereas organisations of disabled people campaign against things, might lead us to narrow paths of discussion. Theoretically speaking, it could be argued that this was initially the case and that this fact alone gave rise to the formation of disabled people's organisations and the disability rights movement. As far as educational issues are concerned, research evidence suggests that, even though some organisations of disabled people campaign against discrimination, against segregation, against discriminatory and inaccessible curricula etc (e.g. the British umbrella organisation of disabled people), not all organisations of disabled people campaign against things. Interestingly, some organisations of disabled people campaign for segregation, for the redefinition of "special educational needs", for impairment-centred curriculum etc. (e.g. organisations of the deaf in both countries).

Second, the research evidence of this study suggests that some organisations of disabled people appear to share quite similar views on educational issues with organisations for disabled people. This is arguably important, as theory highlights disabled people's position that organisations for disabled people do not actually represent disabled people's views in social and political arenas (Oliver, 1990). Whilst this is true for a number of cases (e.g. campaign for anti-discrimination legislation), it appears that this is not the case as far as education is concerned. For example, the organisations of and for the deaf in the UK campaign for similar developments in education, as their views are based on segregating principles. Similarly, the organisations of and for the blind in Cyprus appear to agree on several issues, including the integration of blind children in the mainstream, as long as the co-existence of the special school for the blind is unchallenged.

Third, and linked to the argument developed above, is the fact that organisations of and organisations for disabled people do not have competing perspectives as far as educational developments are concerned, even though their perspectives are not in complete agreement. Whilst organisations of and organisations for disabled people appear to have competing ideologies and operate within opposing models of disability (Campbell and Oliver, 1996), education does not seem to be an area of serious disagreement. For example, the organisations of and for the deaf in the UK and the organisations of and for the blind in Cyprus have similar views regarding educational issues. In addition, more evidence might allow us to argue that organisations of and for the blind in the UK have similar views on educational issues. Similarly, if a charitable organisation for the deaf existed in Cyprus, its views might as well be consistent with the views held by the organisation of the deaf. Besides, this was the case when such an organisation existed. Whilst these arguments are rather speculative and call for further research in the field, there is still enough evidence to challenge the prevailing view that organisations of and organisations for disabled people are in constant opposition, at least in relation to educational issues.

It is important to place the findings concerning the perspectives of disability organisations in the national context of the countries compared, so that the main aims of this comparative study are achieved. To this end, it is argued that disability organisations in both countries can be taught lessons from their experience regarding educational developments. Beyond this, it is suggested that the perspectives of disability organisations in both countries can be understood in regard to the different conditions and history of education in each country, as well as in relation to the different structure, focus of action and role of disability organisations in the countries compared.

To elaborate further, it could be argued that disability organisations in both countries should be involved in a comprehensive critique of educational principles that dominate current policies and practices. The British umbrella organisation of disabled people provides an example of an organisation of disabled people that campaigns to achieve more inclusive policies and practices in the UK (Barnes, 1991; Campbell and Oliver, 1996). In general terms, its views appear to be consistent with the social model of disability, a model that should be adopted by all organisations of disabled people. What is needed therefore is that the equivalent umbrella organisation of disabled people in Cyprus reconsiders its role in influencing educational developments and become actively involved in the process of challenging current educational conditions. Similarly, organisations of disabled people in both countries should redefine their priorities on issues of education so that they are consistent with the aims of the disability rights movement in each country.

Linked to this argument is the fact that the disability rights movement in Cyprus is still being formed and it is not as unified a movement as in the UK. It has already been mentioned that a strong and demanding disability movement is still absent from Cyprus (Phtiaka, 1999). In these differing contexts, the disability rights movement in each country has a different path to follow. Even though the disability rights movement in the UK has achieved a lot (Barnes, 1991; Barton, 1996; Campbell and Oliver, 1996), it should put effort in becoming even more powerful and more united. If organisations of disabled people have a common goal about the ideal conditions in the education of children with disabilities, they might be able to influence decision-making in education. It should be noted, though, that it is almost impossible to achieve complete agreement in all educational issues as disabled people are themselves individuals with different orientations and ideologies as able-bodied people (Oliver and Zarb, 1997). Campbell and Oliver (1996) argue that in the past, collective action among disabled people failed because they could not agree among themselves on priorities or tactics. However, the fact that many organisations of disabled people are members of the British umbrella organisation of disabled people is promising, in the sense that some organisations' views might change as a result of their understanding of other organisations' positions. In Cyprus, there is a growing need to establish a unified disability rights movement to pursue solutions to disabled people's problems in general and particularly, in education. Disabled people in Cyprus have a lot to gain from the campaigns of disability rights movement in the UK and in other countries. Besides, the disability rights movement in the UK was also influenced by external factors (Oliver, 1990).

It is worth noting that voluntary organisations in Cyprus have a shorter history compared to those of the UK and consequently, they have not expanded their activities at the level charities have in the UK. In particular, the leading charity for the blind in Cyprus is engaged in limited activities compared to the equivalent organisation of the blind in the UK. In other words, voluntary organisations in Cyprus are not huge enterprise companies as in the UK. This might be the due to the absence of a significant number of specialists in Cyprus, compared to other industrialised western countries (Phtiaka, 1996). The argument that is developed here is that voluntary organisations in Cyprus do not employ as many experts as voluntary organisations in the UK do and hence, they have not expanded their activities at the same level. It could be argued that this is a positive aspect for Cyprus as there is still the opportunity to decide about the character that these organisations might develop. It might also be argued that disability organisations in Cyprus can still chose between a relationship based on constant opposition and a relationship based on co-operation and mutual respect. The latter option, however, does not mean that mutual agreement on educational issues is necessary. Besides, if this was the case, educational change would never be possible.

Last but not least, it should be pointed-out that, in their documents, disability organisations in the UK comment on more issues relating to education compared to disability organisations in Cyprus. It has already been mentioned that this might be due to the different educational stage of each country. The fact that in the UK integration was legitimised two decades ago, justifies the emergence of inclusive ideas and the government's stated will to move towards more inclusive practices. On the contrary, Cyprus is at the crossroads of change as it has just legitimised integration and it is currently on a period of transition in order to put the new legislation into practice. Consequently, disability organisations in Cyprus were, until recently, anxious about the principles of the prospective legislation and their views were based on their will to improve it. Therefore, disability organisations in Cyprus did not directly expressed their philosophy on issues concerning education. Rather, they commented on ideas and solutions proposed by the government. It remains to be seen whether this approach will change now that integration is legitimised and the necessity to move towards inclusive education is appreciated. It might be argued that in a few years, Cyprus will face the same dilemmas in education that are currently debated in the UK. This prediction is based on Phtiaka's (1996) comment that the UK is traditionally an area that greatly influences educational developments in Cyprus.

Booth and Ainscow (1998) argue that research that recognises diversity of perspectives within and between countries, and makes its assumptions about perspectives explicit, offers the basis for the future study of the processes of inclusion and exclusion. Similarly, research that recognises the diversity of perspectives of disability organisations between countries is of vital importance in understanding the changing role of disability organisations in educational developments. The perspectives of disability organisations on educational developments in Cyprus and the UK form an agenda for discussion relating not only to issues of education, but also to disability issues in general. Research evidence suggests that disability organisations in both countries have a long way to go in rearranging their priorities and restating their philosophies, so that their contribution in educational change is beneficial for all children. To this end, therefore, it is important that disability organisations find their place in future developments in education by expressing views that are consistent to more inclusive principles.

References

BARNES, C. (1991). Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination. A case for anti-discrimination legislation. London: Hurst and Company in association with the British Council of Organisation of Disabled People.

BARNES, C. (1996). Theories of disability and the origins of the oppression of disabled people in western society. In L. BARTON (Ed.) Disability and Society: Emerging Issues and Insights. London: Longman.

BARTON, L. (1996). Sociology and disability: some emerging issues. In L. BARTON (Ed.) Disability and Society: Emerging Issues and Insights. London: Longman.

BARTON, L. (1997). Inclusive education: romantic, subversive or unrealistic? Inclusive Education, 1, (3), pp. 231-242.

BOOTH, T. and AINSCOW, M. (1998). From them to us: setting up the study. In T. BOOTH and M. AINSCOW (Eds.) From Them to Us. An international study of inclusion in education. London: Routledge.

CAMPBELL, J. and OLIVER, M. (1996). Disability Politics. Understanding our Past, Changing our Future. London: Routledge.

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (1997). Excellence for All Children. London: Stationery Office.

DRAKE, R. F. (1994). The exclusion of disabled people from positions of power in British voluntary organisations. Disability and Society, 9, (4), pp. 461 - 480.

HANTRAIS, L. and MANGEN, S. (1996). Method and management of cross-national social research. In L. HANTRAIS and S. MANGEN (Eds.) Cross-national Research Methods in the Social Sciences. London: PINTER.

JOBERT, A. (1996). Comparing education, training and employment in Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy. In L. HANTRAIS and S. MANGEN (Eds). Cross-national Research Methods in the Social Sciences. London: PINTER

JOWELL, R. (1998). How comparative is comparative research? American Behavioral Scientist, 42, (4), pp. 168-178.

JOWELL, R. (1998). How comparative is comparative research? American Behavioral Scientist, 42, (4), pp. 168-178.

OLIVER, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. London: MacMillan.

OLIVER, M. and BARNES, C. (1994). Discrimination, disability and welfare: from needs to rights. In J. SWAIN, V. FINKELSTEIN, S. FRENCH and M. OLIVER Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

OLIVER, M. and ZARB, J. (1997). The politics of disability: a new approach. In L. Barton and M. Oliver (Eds.) Disability Studies: Past, Present and Future. Leeds: The Disability Press.

PHTIAKA, H. (1996). Are we ready to meet the challenge? Integration, inclusive Education and children with special educational needs: a Cyprus perspective. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, 12-15 September, Lancaster.

PHTIAKA, H. (1999). Disability, human rights and education in Cyprus. To appear in F. ARMSTRONG and L. BARTON (Eds.) Disability, Human Rights and Education: A Comparative Approach. London: Open University Press.

SYMEONIDOU, S. (2000). The Perspectives of Disability Organisations on Educational Developments. A Comparative Study. M.Ed. Thesis. University of Manchester.

Index