Approaches to Educational and Social Inclusion

International perspectives on theory, policy and key challenges

Gajendra K. Verma, Devorah Kalekin-Fishman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781317204275
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

In this insightful text, the editors reflect on contributions from scholars representing Bangladesh, Greece, India, Israel, New Zealand, Switzerland, UK and USA, by showing how the majority of educational and social institutions in both developed and developing countries have failed to overcome the many barriers to an effective integrated system of education, suggesting ways as to how these barriers might be challenged.

By looking closely at the overt and covert injuries of educational and social exclusion, a variety of approaches to overcoming the consequences of those challenges is proposed, drawing together strands of social theory, research data and conceptualisations for social action.

PART I

Theoretical and conceptual issues

1

Education and social integration for all

Challenges and responses

Gajendra K. Verma

Introduction

The issues arising from educational and social inclusion seem to have powerful backing throughout the world. At its World Conference on Education in 1994, UNESCO acknowledged the losses incurred by social and educational exclusion and argued that schools should accommodate all children regardless of physical, intellectual, social, linguistic or other issues. Thus, the United Nations (UN) insisted on the inclusion of disabled and gifted, street and working children, children from remote or nomadic populations, children from linguistic, ethnic or cultural minorities and children from other disadvantaged groups and from all areas of the world (UNESCO, 1994a).

At the Salamanca Forum on education for children with special needs, UNESCO called for inclusive principles to operate in education. The Salamanca Statement recognised the fact that no matter how well-trained and dedicated the teachers, there are serious consequences in segregated schooling for those students with grave learning difficulties (UNESCO, 1994b).

Again, a recent UNESCO seminar on open and distance learning (UNESCO, 2002) emphasised to its delegates that they would ‘have an important role in achieving the great vision which motivates UNESCO’s work, the vision of a world in which everyone gets an education’, the vision of Education for All (D’Antonio, 2003).

The UN declarations of 1994 were updated in 2016, at the ninth World Assembly of the Disabled People’s International,¹ by the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, who sent the message that India is taking measures to ensure that the demographic dividend of people with special needs is adequately tapped for nation-building. He emphasised that the cost of exclusion of people with disabilities from the workplace is estimated by the World Bank to be around 37% of the country’s GDP (Press Trust of India, 11 April, 2016). The message also pointed out that as the world advances, people with disabilities must be included in accomplishing the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, particularly the eradication of extreme poverty. The Prime Minister translated the philosophy of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ (the world is one family) and stressed that India believes in the principles of inclusion and integration (Press Trust of India, 11 April, 2016).

The implication of UN discussions, as of the declarations of the Indian government, is that the planned and committed inclusion of all disadvantaged and vulnerable children is both a moral obligation and a way of fulfilling the needs and aspirations of children from these groups. All children including emotionally and physically challenged ones have the right to have their educational, social, personal and physical needs met by the state which is responsible for acknowledging explicitly that the country’s future and its development depends on its children growing up to be creative citizens. Yet, in many democratic and ‘civilised’ states, these needs are still not met. More than twenty years have passed since the uncompromising statements were formulated by UNESCO and well over a decade since the seminar on distance learning. But the vision embodied in those declarations has not yet been fulfilled. Consequently, various disadvantaged and vulnerable groups fall into the category of an underclass. Among them, none, not even immigrants and their descendants, have the right to choose between the privileges of inclusion and integration and those of separatism and diasporism (Bagley, 1986; Verma, 2007).

In the following we look at what is really happening with the aspiration to Education for All, at the outcomes, and at what should be done.

Despite the committed declarations of UNESCO, a glance through international literature discloses that there are many bases for exclusion from social, educational, religious and political arenas. Among the excluded are the poor, the disabled, the minorities who speak a language different from the majority tongue, groups that follow foreign traditions and customs, carry out unfamiliar religious practices and have adopted an unusual lifestyle, as well as groups with ascriptions of caste, class, and gender. In Western Europe, for example, apart from cognitively and physically challenged groups, the excluded are usually immigrants and their children, religious minorities, linguistic minorities, such as Roma and Traveller people as well as African Caribbean, descendants of slaves who were forced to assimilate. In schools there are often bitter clashes between teachers’ values (derived from their mind-sets) and the expectations of children from the deprived groups.

Roma have experienced centuries of stigma and are still Europe’s most downtrodden minority (Bagley, 2007). The Roma people’s greatest concentration is in the population of Romania and they suffer extreme educational and social disadvantage. Roma families try to escape from Romania from time to time under new EU (European Union) rules on migration. Often they are deported by the governments concerned; even democratic states ignore the EU rules on free migration in regard to them (Bagley, 2008).

Indian society, like many others, has failed to realise fully the value (at both individual and societal levels) associated with optimising the development of all children (Siddiqui, 2007). It is estimated that in India there is a terrible waste of human resources, with perhaps the highest number of out-of-school children in the world, most of whom are working or are street children at the mercy of an exploitative adult world (Siddiqui, 2007). Quite often access to education is restricted because individuals and communities belong to a certain caste, social class, or to a family with low social status. In fact, Dalits and Untouchables, at the lowest rung of the caste system, are among the most marginalised groups in India and their education presents significant challenges. They are derogatorily known as the tribal people, and in schools their children are usually cited as physically and cognitively challenged. As a result, they are often expelled from school and become urban street children and child labourers.

It is clear that in an increasingly globalised world, diversity is rapidly becoming the norm rather than the exception. Over the last three or four decades most European countries have experienced an increased diversity of their population as a result of international migration. Still, the risk that immigrants suffer from multiple disadvantages has not disappeared and, indeed, has been commented upon by researchers (Pitkänen, Kalekin-Fishman and Verma, 2002). There have always been economic, religious, linguistic, class, caste and physical disability differences in state populations. Immigrants and their descendants have always felt that there has been little or no recognition of their religions, lifestyles, traditions and languages. What differs now is the extent to which individual societies acknowledge this reality. Developing countries demand a different approach when analysing the issues associated with the educational and social exclusion of certain sections of society. For example, such countries have a high proportion of children who may rarely attend school or even drop out after a year or two, often because they suffer from economic and social disadvantages. There have been only hesitant attempts on the part of the EU (European Union) to develop policies of inclusion by ensuring equity at educational, social and personal levels.

As briefly pointed out in the earlier section, differences, per se, are not the ‘problem’; the meanings we attribute to such differences turn into ‘issues’. Deprivation does not stem only from the indifference of policy-makers, ‘top down’. Examples of ‘bottom-up’ signals of indifference to minority needs and mandatory assimilation are many. Typical is an example of a head teacher talking to linguistic minority pupils in his school, telling them: ‘Do not communicate in your language within your group in the playground because my English-speaking boys feel offended.’ Such statements are not uncommon and obviously have an undesirable impact on the socialisation process of the individual through family structures and schooling.

The situation of vulnerable populations is exacerbated because of the rapid social, political, technological and economic changes taking place in the world today. But the reality is that we live in an increasingly interdependent and globalised world in which we interact with varying cultural, social, religious and political individuals or groups not only within our borders, but often beyond national boundaries. Consequently, globalisation confronts individuals, groups and nations with new learning challenges, sometimes extremely sensitive in nature, that policy-makers and educational planners find daunting (Calloids, 2003; Verma, 2007).

At this point it would seem pertinent briefly to mention the concept of self-exclusion which seems to operate in some discriminated groups. The cultural and social self-exclusion by certain groups can be seen as a conscious or unconscious withdrawal from the cultural field of the dominant group in society. This may mean reluctance or even refusal to adopt norms and values of the mainstream. Self-exclusion can also be explained by the desire to avoid assimilation. This form of self-exclusion can be reinforced by a negative attitude of the mainstream group towards religious, cultural, linguistic and ethnic minority groups. This self-exclusion can also be motivated by personal choice, cultural choice or a sense of alienation. Self-exclusion can be reinforced by a negative attitude of the majority group towards minority groups, political refugees and migrant workers. This is seen when the majority group expresses disregard or disrespect for others’ beliefs and cultural or religious symbols. Two salient examples are that of the disrespect for Muslim women wearing a scarf or Sikhs wearing a turban. Whatever may be the underlying reason for self-exclusion, it can reinforce the marginalisation of that individual or group.

In sum: among the critical issues of paramount importance being debated over the last two decades are those surrounding educational/social equality, social justice, the mainstreaming of ‘disadvantaged’, ‘underprivileged’ and ‘vulnerable’ groups. There is sufficient evidence in the literature to suggest that differences in socio-economic status, tensions between ethnic/religious groups, discrimination of scheduled castes/tribes by the upper caste in India (just a few examples) have been the product of religious, ethnic or cultural minority groups finding themselves subject to discrimination, prejudice, segregation and exclusion resulting in their inability to access education, employment and welfare services. Thus, certain characteristics of diversity, such as colour, caste, language, socio-economic status and physical and emotional challenges can label individuals as potential educational winners or losers (Grant, 1995). Such marginalised minority groups find their life chances impaired by gross inequalities in the system as a whole (Grant, 1995; Verma, 1999).

There is no consensus amongst nations about the approaches to be adopted for educational and social inclusion of such groups. Experience shows, however, that the factors underpinning any form of exclusion have a powerful bearing on shaping the historical, cultural, economic and social context. Furthermore, in most countries, the common experience of groups excluded from educational opportunities and experiences is that they face discrimination, prejudice, racism, and educational and social exclusion of varying forms in their adult lives. The discriminated groups suffer from multiple disadvantages, and there are indications that underachievement in schools and a high rate of school dropout are connected with lack of skills, poor health, inferior employment or chronic unemployment in adulthood. Therefore, educational inclusion is proposed as a long-term solution.

Indeed, in most democratic countries, the concept of ‘social and educational inclusion and integration’ of disadvantaged groups has become an accepted slogan. Although it is agreed that the educational system is a powerful instrument for promoting social inclusion or exclusion, the ways forward for this intellectual movement are often far from clear. Let us admit that most democratic societies have failed to develop practices that advance the fundamental right of each individual to education, health and welfare so as to benefit the growth and development of the nation as a whole. Thus, education has an important part to play in the development of individuals – intellectually, affectively, physically, socially and morally – and through those individuals, in the development of the wider society. Many educational planners continue to pose the question: what initiatives are needed to create a society in which the life chances of all individuals and groups will be equal?

Sebba and Ainscow (1996) have defined the concept of educational inclusion as follows:

Inclusion describes the process by which a school attempts to respond to all pupils and individuals by reconsidering its curricular organisation and provision. Through this process the school builds its capacity to accept all pupils from the local community who wish to attend and in doing so reduces the need to exclude pupils.

Broadly, there would seem to be different perspectives when analysing the issues associated with social and educational inclusion. Jha (2007) neatly puts them into two distinct categories – first, those emerging from developed countries, and second, those prevailing in the developing world. Inclusion within the educational context involves the right of an individual or the group to be accepted within the institution of their choice. Inclusion also involves the right of an individual or group to retain a well-defined identity whether based on religion, language or culture. Inclusive societies and governments are expected to promote a system in which all their citizens can fully participate and share its educational, social and welfare provisions irrespective of their social origin, economic status, gender, ethnicity, disability whether physical or emotional. Inclusion must cover, among other fields – education, employment, health, social security and the domain of politics. Policies for educational and social inclusion ought to aim at promoting the values of equality, justice, democratic rights and respect for individual identity.

Education systems are society’s crucibles, so the issue of fair education for all children and young people sharply focuses priorities relati...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction and overview
• PART I: Theoretical and conceptual issues
• PART II: Perspectives on policy and practice
• PART III: Challenges and possible responses to inclusive education
• Afterword
• Index