Psychology for Inclusive Education

New Directions in Theory and Practice

Peter Hick, Ruth Kershner, Peter Farrell, Peter Hick, Ruth Kershner, Peter Farrell

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2008
• Print ISBN: 9780415390491
• eBook ISBN: 9781134167890
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

What can psychology offer inclusive education? Traditionally, special education has looked to psychology for many of its theoretical resources and practical strategies. While those seeking to promote more inclusive education have tended to see psychology and psychologists as part of the problem by providing a rationale for segregation. However, in practice many psychologists today are developing inclusive ways of working, and are paying attention to psychological theories that underpin inclusive education.

Psychology for Inclusive Education reframes the contribution of psychology in terms of its relevance to inclusion and will show how psychological theories of learning and human development are compatible with inclusive education. Part 1 explores psychological theories relevant to understanding inclusive education and Part 2 looks at how psychology can contribute to promoting more inclusive education in practice. Chapters cover:

• how psychologists can collaborate with teachers for inclusive solutions

• Vygotsky's theories of learning and their significance for inclusion

• the challenge of developing pedagogies for inclusion

• sociocultural understandings of learning in inclusive classrooms

• the role of emotion in learning and inclusion

• cooperative learning and inclusion

• the challenges and tensions of inclusion and high standards for schools

• the practice of dynamic assessment as an inclusive alternative to IQ

• social justice and inclusive psychology

Bringing together a highly distinguished list of international contributors from the UK, USA and South Africa and including practising educational psychologists, this book will link theory to practice in schools and classrooms. International in focus and at the very cutting edge of the field, this is essential reading for all those interested in the development of inclusive education.

Chapter 1
Introduction

Peter Hick, Ruth Kershner and Peter T. Farrell

Teachers and educationalists have traditionally looked to psychology as a source of ideas and evidence about how best to support children’s learning, especially for those who may experience difficulties in learning in school. However the rationale for inclusive education has tended to be sociological, philosophical, political or educational – in fact anything but psychological. Those seeking to promote more inclusive education have often seen psychology and psychologists as part of the problem rather than the solution, referring to the roles of psychology in providing an IQ-based rationale for separating children into special schools (Thomas and Loxley, 2001), or in ascribing difficulties in learning to individual child deficit. Yet psychology can offer important resources to support the development of more inclusive practices in education.

This book examines the possibilities for developing a psychology for inclusive education, by drawing on a variety of relevant theoretical perspectives and practical strategies. This involves exploring some of the psychological aspects of what is understood to be inclusive practice both in schools and in professional educational psychology services. It also means thinking about whether there are resources in psychological theory for promoting inclusive education. The intention is to open up critical discussion about psychology and inclusive education and help formulate an agenda for research and development in the field, in the knowledge that we may be heading towards a diverse collection of relevant ‘psychologies’ rather than a single psychological framework. To provide some background to the chapters which follow, we first review current definitions of inclusion and then consider how psychology may be seen as relevant, or even essential, for developing more inclusive education.

What do we mean by inclusion?

For many the principle of ‘inclusion’ has become a cornerstone of the development of policy and practice for the education of all pupils. This general movement was strongly influenced by the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) which had a major impact on shaping policy developments in many different countries. In England this is evident in various government initiatives since the late 1990s, including, for example, the statutory Inclusion Guidance (DfES, 2001a), the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (DfES, 2001b), and the ‘Removing Barriers to Achievement’ strategy (DfES, 2004), each providing a further impetus towards inclusion.

Despite these policy developments, inclusion remains a complex and controversial issue, with continuing uncertainty about its definition and implications. There remain pressures to maintain separate special schools, for example from some parents who have immediate concerns about their own children’s educational experiences and available school choices. It is hard to point to convincing research evidence that can inform policy and practice in the face of often opposing assumptions and preferences. Furthermore, in the UK, schools are under more pressure than ever to raise academic standards for all their pupils. In this climate some teachers are expressing increasing reluctance to admit more pupils identified with special needs, fearing that their presence may have a negative effect on the attainments of other pupils. In addition, the recent emphasis on beacon and specialist schools and the ‘threat’ of returning to forms of selection in some areas (e.g. in the new Academies) suggests that there is a growing movement in education that values ‘elitism’ – hardly values that are compatible with an inclusive philosophy.

Until the early 1990s the term ‘inclusion’ was rarely used in this context. Instead we referred to ‘integration’ or ‘mainstreaming’, meaning the placement of pupils with disabilities or special needs in mainstream schools. There were of course different degrees of integration, from full-time placement of a child with disabilities in a mainstream class in his/her local school (functional integration), to the placement of a pupil in a special class or unit attached to a mainstream school (locational integration) – see Hegarty (1991). However there was often little difference between locational integration and a traditional special school, which can be seen as equally segregating experiences (Jupp, 1992). Indeed, even pupils placed in a mainstream class may be isolated from their peers, particularly if they work with a support worker in one-to-one sessions for the majority of each day. ‘Integrated’ placements, therefore, still leave many pupils ‘segregated’ (Harrower, 1999).

Partly for these reasons, the term ‘inclusion’ came to describe the extent to which a school or community welcomes pupils identified with special educational needs (SEN) as full members of the group and values them for the contribution which they make. This implies that for inclusion to be ‘effective’, all pupils must actively belong to, be welcomed by and participate in a mainstream school and community. Their diversity of interests, abilities and attainment should be welcomed and be seen to enrich the life of the school. In this sense, as Ballard (1999) argues, inclusion is about valuing diversity rather than assimilation.

Arguably, this understanding of inclusion questions the familiar approaches to identifying particular pupils with SEN, and in the late 1990s definitions of inclusion have broadened to reflect this (see, for example, Booth and Ainscow, 1998). These writers take the view that policies on inclusion should not be restricted to the education of pupils thought to have special needs. Inclusion, they argue, is a process in which schools, communities, local authorities and governments strive to reduce barriers to participation and learning for all citizens.

This broader view of inclusion is reflected in guidance from the UK Government for inspectors of schools in England and Wales (Ofsted, 2000), which states:

An educationally inclusive school is one in which the teaching and learning, achievements, attitudes and well being of every young person matters. Effective schools are educationally inclusive schools. This shows, not only in their performance, but also in their ethos and their willingness to offer new opportunities to pupils who may have experienced previous difficulties … The most effective schools do not take educational inclusion for granted. They constantly monitor and evaluate the progress each pupil makes. They identify any pupils who may be missing out, difficult to engage, or feeling in some way apart from what the school seeks to provide.

In addressing what they refer to as ‘educational inclusion’, the document focuses attention on a wide range of vulnerable groups and it draws attention to the need for inspectors to go beyond an analysis of aggregate performance scores in order to determine the extent a school is supporting the learning of all individuals within a school.

One influential strand of research has developed this organisational paradigm for understanding inclusive practice in terms of school development, in contrast to an earlier special needs paradigm, focused on individuals with identified disabilities or special needs. Perhaps the best known product of this approach is the ‘Index for Inclusion’ (Booth and Ainscow, 2002) which was circulated to all schools in England by the DfES. This tool for school self-evaluation has stimulated the development of a range of materials, including a distillation of a definition of inclusive practice around the dimensions of ‘presence, participation and achievement’. This approach has been adopted for example by the Audit Commission (2003) and incorporated in a more recent definition of inclusion as:

• the processes of increasing the participation of students in, and reducing their exclusion from, the curricula, cultures and communities of local schools;
• restructuring the cultures, policies and practices in schools so that they respond to the diversity of students in their locality;
• the presence, participation and achievement of all students vulnerable to exclusionary pressures, not only those with impairments or those who are categorised as ‘having special educational needs’.

Ainscow et al. (2006: 25)

The contributors to this book explore a range of understandings of inclusion, however the approach described above is offered as a point of reference. It is a definition that embraces all learners, and despite the challenges it presents, offers a way forward for all involved in the education of children and young people. So can psychology add anything useful?

Is psychology useful?

The fact that connections between psychology and inclusive education are in need of clarification, may partly be seen as symptomatic of longstanding doubts about the broad social and practical value of psychology itself. Cole and Valsiner (2005: 288–9) point out with reference to a 1926 essay by Vygotsky on ‘The Historical Sense of Psychology’s Crisis’ that ‘… psychology is a discipline where the creation of crises is a regular pastime’. They argue that the social usefulness of psychology, as with other sciences, is hindered by clashes between different ways of knowing in society and by the integration of scientific with current ideological discourses. This can lead to the over-generalisation and over-simplification of discoveries and concepts, and this process is notable today in the field of education. For many teachers in England, relevant psychological knowledge now commonly comes through school-based training on specific concepts and approaches, such as ‘multiple intelligences’, ‘learning style’, ‘circle time’ and ‘phonics teaching’ – often received and implemented in school without direct examination of any related research evidence. In these contexts, the concepts themselves may gain a meaning, status and practical use which seem independent of the original psychological argument and evidence base. The educational ‘usefulness’ of psychology comes to be determined by the success of ‘non-psychologists’ in applying snippets of psychological knowledge and procedures that have somehow gained cultural value.

One solution to this apparent fragmentation could be to focus on devising cross-disciplinary research approaches which are sufficiently complex for studying human thinking and activity in social and cultural contexts, often with an emancipatory aim. For instance Barker and Pistrang (2005) outline the characteristics of pluralistic methodology in psychology from the perspective of community psychologists. The use of multiple research methodologies is one of several values and principles which underpin their work, including sensitivity to people’s contexts, respect for diversity among people and settings, addressing competencies (as well as problems), promoting empowerment, giving voice to traditionally under-represented populations, and promoting social justice (pp. 205–6). This explicitness about purposes and values is also evident in the field of critical psychology which focuses on social change and social justice, often drawing out the implications for policies on child care, welfare reform, education, equal opportunities legislation, etc. (Walkerdine, 2002; Sloan, 2000). Critical approaches in psychology apparently challenge what may have been seen or claimed in the past as a neutral scientific activity. For example even a light reading of the early development of intelligence testing reveals a strong (and often eugenicist) aim for social and educational engineering. Questions about psychology’s usefulness inevitably require cultural values to be made explicit – as evident in relation to the development of inclusive education.

It is not always clear in discussions of psychology and education whether reference is being made to psychological knowledge and ways of thinking or to practising professional psychologists, and both positions are represented in this book. Some psychologists have loosened their ties with psychology as a discipline, while others have sought to retain this academic and psychological identity in their daily work and their professional affiliations. Borders have become blurred between the theory and practice of psychology and education, and it is not always clear that the use of psychology in the education system requires the presence of psychologists. Yet there would seem to be a need for the critical evaluation of psychological evidence without necessarily rejecting the less easily digestible elements. As Cole and Valsiner (2005: 309) suggest from a sociocultural perspective, psychology can incorporate culture and everyday practice in a way that allows psychological knowledge to be constantly re-constructed, and therefore co-constructed, by people engaged in purposeful, culturally meaningful activity.

In the end, the development of inclusive education is a radical challenge to schools and education systems. Olson (2003: 288) suggests that ‘schooling is a bold and risky means of pursuing education’ and he argues that in developing a psychology that can contribute to educational reform, the school institution itself requires attention, together with the meanings and goals of all concerned:

schools are successful to the extent that they, through their teachers and programs, return these responsibilities to the learners by negotiating goals acceptable to both and by allowing students to recruit the resources and energy to achieve them. Understanding how persons and institutions negotiate these responsibilities for learning may be the first step in explaining what schools are, what they do, why they are virtually universal, and why they are resistant to fundamental change. (pp. 288–9)

This may be a useful starting point for developing a psychology, or a set of psychologies, that will have real value for inclusive education. The writers in this book each make a distinctive contribution to an interesting and developing field.

Part 1: Understanding inclusive learning

The first part of the book focuses on key theoretical issues in understanding how psychology can offer resources to support the development of more inclusive practices in education. In Chapter 2, Gary Thomas explores the epistemological basis for a psychology for inclusive education, starting from a critical examination of claims often made for psychology as producing ‘scientific’ knowledge. He exposes some influential myths about the ‘scientific method’ and illustrates the dangers of a simplistic application of this approach to education. Thomas traces the discursive construction and socially situated nature of knowledge through the history of special education. He suggests that by privileging psychological knowledge we may have disempowered teachers in addressing the needs of their pupils. Thomas concludes by calling for psychologists to rely more on social values and for a ‘reinstatement of the personal knowledge of teachers’ as reflective practitioners.

In Chapter 3, Harry Daniels introduces key aspects of Vygotsky’s theories in relation to inclusion. He deals with linguistic and cultural barriers which sometimes hinder an understanding of Vygotsky’s arguments and their implications for pedagogy today. When Vygotsky’s writing on concept formation is placed alongside his view of ‘primary’ (organically influenced) and ‘secondary’ (socially influenced) disability, a familiar educational dilemma emerges: how to intervene in a way that addresses children’s particular strengths, while minimising secondary, social effects on children’s lives. Daniels concludes that this dilemma remains unresolved in our current systems of either special or mainstream education, including much that is called ‘inclusive’.

In Chapter 4, Lani Florian challenges the assumption that learners with identified special educational needs require a ‘specialist pedagogy’. She argues that, while some ‘special education knowledge’ can be useful to teachers, research evidence suggests the need to develop pedagogy inclusive of all learners, focusing on general processes of learning and teaching rather than on the specialised remediation of perceived learning deficits. She presents an English secondary school case example of what this might comprise, drawing on teachers’ views of their own practice. Florian concludes that one of the key features of inclusive pedagogy is teachers’ adaptation to pupils’ individual differences in the context of wholeclass teaching, focusing on responsiveness to the kinds of difficulties some children may experience in learning but rejecting deterministic, categorical beliefs about fixed ability and potential.

In Chapter 5, Ruth Kershner writes from a social constructivist perspective to discuss the contribution of sociocultural approaches to understanding inclusion. She focuses on ‘children’s engagement in the social activities associated with learning’, drawing attention to...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• List of contributors
• Foreword
• 1 Introduction
• PART 1 Understanding inclusive learning
• PART 2 Promoting inclusive learning
• PART 3 Challenges and possibilities