This paper seeks to address issues from the past, present and future relating to planning and provision for individual learners who experience difference, diversity and disability.
The past…
Historically individuals with 20:20 vision have been responsible for planning provision for those who experience less than 20:20 vision. Trends in provision in the United Kingdom reflect that dominant policy trends have been those of 'segregation', 'integration' and 'inclusion'. Segregated special provision and integration are currently vulnerable for relegation in the light of concerns about societal inequalities and educational outcomes for individuals with special educational needs. While the dominant trend at the start of this 21st century is for educationalists to enthusiastically embrace the ideologies of inclusive education it is necessary to ask 'will inclusion pass the test of time for individual learners?' If we are serious about inclusion we must adopt a critical stance in order that we might anticipate and address problems in such a way that inclusive education has a reasoned and effective life span. Depicted in the diagram below is a brief rationale and descriptor of inclusive educational policy as perceived by the UK government.
INCLUSION
| ACCESS reduce barriers? |
ENGAGEMENT build bridges? |
|
| LEARNING | PARTICIPATION | |
| ACADEMIC | High expectations, Curriculum entitlement. |
Inclusive Pactices |
| SOCIAL | PSHE | Citizenship |
Whereas integration was concerned with 'access' to the mainstream curricula, policies for inclusion prescribe the need for practices that will, additionally, facilitate 'engagement' and 'participation'. The move towards increasing inclusion has been prompted by concern that selection for educational provision based on normatively assessed 'difference' has resulted in some individuals being excluded from the curricula, cultures and community afforded by local provision.(Booth 2000). However it was not difference per se that led to exclusion but the type of differences that were selected for 'measurement' - those being mainly - intelligence, behaviour and physical or sensory disability with consequent placement in schools for disabled, maladjusted or learning difficulties
Contexts and curriculum have also been identified as barriers to learning for pupils with 'diverse needs'. Common curricula are deemed necessary if inclusion is to flourish. However much of the language of 'integration' was concerned with a curriculum that was broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated. It was not so much the curriculum that has been exclusionary but the practices associated with it's delivery and assessment - namely national targets, competitive contexts and prescribed outcomes.
The present ….
As medical models have given way to sociological models there has been a change in the selection of differences considered important for educational planning. In an attempt to link human diversity and curricular objectives inclusive education relies on inclusive pedagogies that seek to foster the development of personal and social behaviour considered necessary for learning within inclusive contexts. Diagram 1, below suggest a possible conceptual framework.
Within this framework individual differences are recognised but there is a move away from measuring 'differences ' associated with biological or psychological origins such as low measured intelligence or maladjustment. Differences that can be attributed to social and cultural experiences are highlighted for attention with a view to valuing such differences and reducing sociological barriers to learning. The curriculum retains a broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated focus with 'understanding' and 'attitude' given as much importance as 'knowledge' and 'skills'. Inclusive learning and pedagogy is characterised by notions of engagement (e.g. thinking, metacognition, reflection,), participation (e.g. collaboration, involvement etc) and the development of personal responsibility for social and academic learning. While this model addresses some of the problems considered to be associated with special schooling and integration, namely social exclusion, constructed categories of need, and the fostering of dependant learners, it may not fully address the needs of individual learners.
Questions that need to be asked in relation to planning for individuals within inclusive settings include:
1) If the ideology of inclusion centres on a human rights agenda does an individual right to an appropriate education override an ideological commitment to inclusion? (Croll and Moses 2000).
2) Can inclusion and choice coexist? (Riddell 2000). Do parents and individuals have choice of school within the ideology of inclusion? Is segregation from mainstream provision ever justifiable? For example for those individuals who:
- need combined educational and care placements
- 24 hour curriculum;
- opt not to be included
- some individuals with sensory difficulties (e.g. deafness ) choose schooling which offers sign language as the predominant form of communication (Corker 1998).
- individuals who are, for some period of their lives might not be able to respond to inclusive classroom practices such as interactive teaching , collaborative learning and problem solving e.g. those who experience significant emotional difficulties, severe communication difficulties or mental health problems.
- exhibit behaviour which interferes with inclusion for others.
3) Is a social model of disability sufficient to enable educational inclusion or is a bio-psycho- social model more appropriate for learners with complex learning needs?. (Blamires 2000)
4) Is there outcomes based research evidence to support the ideology of educational inclusion?…'the charge that (research) is based on ideal types and idealised models rather than the realities of schools is not altogether without foundation' (Clarke ,Dyson, Millward 1999 referring to Lingard 1996). Diverse learners will respond differently to inclusive practices and it is unlikely that 'one size will fit all' (Hornby 1999).
5) Does inclusion offer an appropriate balance between individual and group contexts for learning? Some areas of learning require close individual monitoring (e.g. initial language and communication learning).
6) Will short or long-term outcomes be prioritised? Is the aim of inclusion to increase access to mainstream community settings or should the longer-term outcomes of increased chance and choice of being included in the community and world of work take priority as the anticipated outcomes of inclusion?
7) Does specialist provision and Individual Education Plans (IEPs) present a barrier or bridge to inclusion? How can parents/caretakers be assured that their child is achieving appropriately monitored provision within inclusive settings?
8) Will increased equality of opportunity be achieved by valuing diversity or through normalisation? Although there is no easy answer to these questions it is important that they are debated. Inclusion has mainly been discussed at the ideological level in relation to group educational contexts and societal outcomes. It is important that the aims and planned educational outcomes for individual learners within inclusive settings are given due attention - if not the might of inclusion may occlude the rights of individuals to an appropriate education.
The future:…..
In 20 years time in 2020 how will we reflect upon inclusion? What will be vulnerable to change in the filed of 'special and inclusive education.
| VULNERABLE to CHANGE? | ENDURING CHARACTERISTICS of INCLUSIVE PROVISION? |
| The place of learning - notions of community school to be replaced by flexible learning contexts and opportunities. | Provision for diversity. |
| What is valued as outcomes of schooling the culture, social and economic context is subject to change. | The value of learning |
| Time framed learning linked to chronological age. | Participation and purpose |
| Norm referenced excellence | Personal achievement and empowerment |
| Who is responsible for teaching and learning, | The importance of relationships with self and others within educational contexts |
| Conceptions of basic skills (e.g. restricted notions of literacy). | Inclusive (coherent) educational experiences |
| Demands upon memory and handwriting. | Communication |
| Methods of teaching | Interaction and engagement in education |
| Speed of communication of information | Impact of technology on teaching and learning |
| The perceived purpose of education | Monitoring of student response to provision |
| Increased choice |
References :
Booth T.(2000) Inclusion and exclusion policy in England: who controls the agenda? in Inclusive Education: Policy, Contexts and Comparative Perspectives edited by Armstrong F. Armstrong D and Barton L. David Fulton Publishers.
(Clarke C., Dyson A., Millward A.(1999) Theorising Special Education - Time to Move on? In Theorising Special education edited by Clarke C., Dyson A., Millward A. London : Routledge
Blamires M. (2000) 'Is a social model sufficient to enable inclusive educational practice? In O'Brien (ed) Enabling Inclusion: Blue Skies - Grey Clouds. The Stationary Office
Corker, M.(1998) 'Disability discourse in a post-modern world', in Shakspeare. T.(ed.) The Disability Reader. London: Cassell.
Croll P. and Moses, D. (2000) 'Ideologies and utopias: education professionals' views of inclusion', European Journal of Special Needs Education 15(1), 1-12.
Hornby G .(1999) Can one size fit all? Support for Learning Vol.14 no.4 Lingard T. (1996) Why our theoretical models of integration are inhibiting effective integration. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 1(2) 39-45
Riddell, S. (2000) 'Inclusion and choice: mutually exclusive principles in special educational needs?', in Armstrong, F. et al. (eds) Inclusive Education: Policy ,Contexts and Comparative Perspectives. London: David Fulton Publishers.
 |
 |