Inclusive Education

Policy, Contexts and Comparative Perspectives

Felicity Armstrong, Derrick Armstrong, Len Barton, Feliicity Armstrong

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781136624452
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

First published in 2000. This book looks at 'inclusive' education in the context of policy and practice in a number of different countries, particularly in relation to children and young people of school age. At the heart of the idea of inclusive education lie serious issues concerning 'human rights', 'equal opportunities' and 'social justice'. The papers in this book will, hopefully, contribute to stimulating further debate and dialogue over both the conceptualisation and understanding of a cross-cultural approach to inclusion and exclusion.

Chapter 1

Introduction: what is this book about?

Derrick Armstrong, Felicity Armstrong and Len Barton

This book looks at ‘inclusive’ education in the context of policy and practice in a number of different countries, particularly in relation to children and young people of school age. At the heart of the idea of inclusive education lie serious issues concerning ‘human rights’, ‘equal opportunities’ and ‘social justice’. How societies construct and respond to disabilities, gender, race and cultural differences is of fundamental importance. What discourses, what legislative framework, what policy-informed provision and what resources are allocated to challenge the social practices underpinning exclusion need close and critical analysis. The extent to which the rights, privileges and responsibilities of citizenship are extended to all members of a society is a topic of increasing national and international importance.

The papers in this book will, hopefully, contribute to stimulating further debate and dialogue over both the conceptualisation and understanding of a cross-cultural approach to inclusion and exclusion. Whilst educational policies and practices are the particular focus of examination, the fundamental interest is in the realisation of an inclusive society. This includes exploring such questions as: What does inclusivity mean? What are the barriers to its realisation? How do we overcome them?

In taking this approach it is important to recognise that inclusive education is not an end in itself. Nor ultimately is the fundamental issue that of disabled people. In educational terms it is about the value and well-being of all pupils. Thus, the key concern is about how, where and with what consequences do we educate all children and young people. This inevitably involves both a desire for, and engagement with, the issue of change (Daniels and Garner 1999, Ballard 1999, Thrupp 1999).

Inclusion, exclusion and disability are not uniform categories. These papers do not offer a coherent development of ideas which move in a linear progression towards a unitary perspective on these key factors. Each analysis has been shaped by historical, cultural, global and contextual influences. This provides both the complexity and challenge to all who venture into this particular area of research.

Part of the task is to identify points of commonality and difference both within and between the papers in order to learn about others and to reexamine our own values and priorities. A crucial aspect of this process will be the generation and exploration of questions such as: How far are our educational systems democratic? Whose voices are heard and viewed as significant in the struggle for change? Whose voices are excluded, why and with what consequences? What does it mean to listen? Do we need a new understanding of the position and role of parents and the community in relation to inclusive education? Such questions are particularly demanding when considered from a cross-cultural approach (Booth and Ainscow 1998a, Barton and Slee 1999, and Armstrong and Barton 1999a).

Contexts, opportunities and rights

It is no accident that recent debates about inclusive education have arisen in part from the insistence of disabled people that their voices be heard and taken note of in the deliberation of educational policy and practice. Thus, we have seen a demand that any consideration of the role and outcomes of education be seen not simply as a technical issue concerning the relative ‘effectiveness’ of different types of provision but rather as a political issue of the social inclusion of all citizens in a participatory democracy. Disabled people have taken the lead in challenging and exploding the myth of a technical discourse of ‘disability’ and ‘needs’. This is evident in books and articles written by disabled people (e.g. Abberley 1987, Barnes 1990, Morris 1991) and also in the growth of the self-advocacy movement and the political campaigns that have emanated from within this movement.

The social conditions and discourses that reconstruct difference as disadvantage have been challenged along with the social relations of a professional practice which reinforces disabling identities through the ideology of ‘care’ (Abberley 1992, Barnes 1992, Oliver 1992). In relation to calls for inclusive forms of educational practice these challenges have been exciting and disturbing because they have focused upon the fundamental values and principles that underlie the education of all children and adults. Increasingly, the issue of ‘inclusion’ has come to be understood in terms of a philosophy of ‘entitlement’. In rejecting the discourses of ‘charity’ and ‘benevolence’ disabled people have themselves pushed for the provision of opportunities and services based on the ‘rights’ of citizenship.

Yet, these alternative discourses can themselves be highly problematic, giving rise to contradictions which may lead to the reinforcement of, rather than resistance to, systems of exclusion and control. In examining how this may happen it is important to turn to the historical, social and cultural contexts within and through which social practices of inclusion and exclusion operate.

Historical, social and cultural contexts of disability

The pursuit of an inclusive society involves a very difficult and demanding struggle against those cultural, ideological and material forces which combine to generate and legitimate policies and practices of exclusion. In seeking to understand the present in order to change it, it is necessary, for example, to explore some of our images of the past and how these both inform and become incorporated into our current and future endeavours.

This form of historical awareness, whilst being an indispensable component of educational reconstruction, can be individual or collective as well as haphazard or methodical (McCulloch 1994). One significant form of this awareness is that of exposing myths, including those which grossly caricature or misrepresent what is a ‘complex reality’.

The importance of a historical perspective in relation to understanding the nature of exclusionary policies and practices in a given society is crucial for several reasons. First, it will act as a timely reminder that current practices are neither natural, inevitable or unchangeable. Secondly, how key concepts are defined and applied within particular professional discourses will provide an antidote to individualised and deficit models of disability. Thus, for example, ‘feebleminded’, ‘retarded’, ‘special educational needs’, ‘special needs’, ‘learning difficulties’ are all examples of what Corbett (1995) calls ‘Bad Mouthing’. Finally, the ‘voices’ of disabled people have historically been excluded from debates and decisions affecting their lives. An historical awareness will provide examples of such practices and how they have been developed, legitimated, challenged and changed.

In a discussion of the changing definitions of difference Ryan and Thomas (1980) argue that:

The changing definitions of difference constitute the history of mentally handicapped (sic) people. These definitions have always been conceived of by others, never are they the expression of a group of people finding their own identity, their own history. The assertion of difference between people is seldom neutral, it almost always implies some kind of social distance or distinction. (p. 13)

Not only does this perspective problematise the ways in which difference has been perceived and thus reminds us that ‘yesterday’s definition becomes today’s term of abuse’ (Digby 1996, p. 3) but it also raises the fundamental issue of power-relations and the interconnected experiences of oppression and exclusion.

For disabled scholars such as Barnes (1996) and Oliver (1996), understanding oppression necessitates engaging a historical perspective through which on the one hand, the central value system underpinning Western culture and, on the other hand, the complex relationship between attitudes and the economy need to be carefully examined. This, they argue, will contribute to the development of an informed understanding in which ignorance and stereotyping can be identified, challenged and removed. An historical awareness provides a basis for raising questions about definitions, policies and practices in terms of whose interests do they serve and what contributions do they make towards the development of a more just and equitable society?

Disabled people have offered some examples of how to address these concerns. Thus Campbell and Oliver (1996) explore the social and political contexts within which, over a relatively brief period of time, disabled people have gained in strength as a new social movement, against enormous odds. These include chronic underfunding, a lack of faith in the viability of the new movement by many professionals, policy makers and politicians, active opposition on the part of traditional voluntary organisations and finally, because of the general disabling environment problems of disabled people meeting, communicating and organising.

Undertaking an historical analysis is a complex task in that we cannot merely read off the present from the past. It challenges essentialist ideas and thus a unitary view of disabled people in terms of holding to a singular identity. The pursuit of an inclusive society is, as Young (1990) argues, based on a view of social justice which requires ‘not the melting away of differences, but institutions that promote reproduction of, and respect for, group differences without oppression’ (p. 47).

An awareness of history can provide us with significant insights into the diversity of human existence over time. History is both created and recreated by human action. As Giddens (1986) notes, this is ‘the double involvement of individuals and institutions’ (p. 11) in that such struggles also ‘produce outcomes that they neither intend nor foresee’ (p. 157). It should also remind us that Western civilisation is not superior to, nor a baseline from which to judge, all other cultures. This is particularly important with the impact of globalisation and the demands for a more comparative understanding of disability and inclusion.

Historical understanding cannot guarantee the development of a more socially just and equitable society, but through an informed awareness of past conceptions, perspectives and practices, it will hopefully enable us to ensure that the struggle for change is a continuous one (Giddens 1986). Or as Borsay (1997) notes:

it does pose a fascinating intellectual challenge which by illuminating the historical origins of cultural identity will deepen our grasp of disability in contemporary society. (p. 144)

This must also include the issue of an inclusive society.

‘Equal opportunities’: legislation for empowerment or a bogus discourse?

In many respects arguments concerning the struggle for a more just and equitable society have been confused by official discourses on ‘equality’. The apparently high profile which has been given to ‘equal opportunities’ in many European countries, both at the level of government policy and at the level of institutions over the past 25 years, has masked the real inequalities which exist between different groups in terms of access to experience, opportunity and power. This is particularly true of equal opportunities in the context of education. This is not to deny the importance of equal opportunities legislation, but it should be put in its proper context by drawing attention to the contradictions between stated policy as it is found, for instance, in legislation and policy as it is enacted (Fulcher 1989, 1999) in the varied arenas of people’s daily lives. These contradictions arise out of the tension created between a public rhetoric of equal opportunities and activated government policies which in all areas of public life are deepening inequalities rather than reducing them.

Equality issues and context

A number of issues and contradictions relating to equality emerge as a background to this discussion. First, although legislation has been passed in the UK over the past 25 years relating to equality issues and gender, equal pay and race relations, this has been accompanied by a massive increase in unemployment coupled with an erosion of the benefits traditionally provided by the welfare state, which has deepened inequalities in the community drastically (Hutton 1995). During recent years moves to introduce antidiscrimination legislation in favour of disabled people have received scant attention in the media and have sometimes met with cynical and well orchestrated attempts to block them in Parliament.

It has to be remembered too that there has been no legislation passed in the UK during the same period which has upheld the rights of all children and young people to full participation in an education system based on principles of equality. While the 1988 Education Reform Act introduced a ‘national curriculum’ on a basis of ‘entitlement’ for all pupils and was heralded by some as enhancing equality in education, the Act also imposed rigid assessment arrangements and a state controlled ethnocentric curriculum which has both excluded many pupils in terms of their own knowledge and cultures, and sharpened processes of selection and ranking between pupils (Armstrong, 1998). The differences between schools in terms of resources continue to be greatly increased by processes of marketisation and selection. At the same time, some groups are experiencing increased exclusion in the education system. These exclusions take place at the level of the curriculum and organisation of schools and, quite literally, by physical exclusion from ordinary schools. There is, for example, continued evidence that some pupils, particularly black boys, are more likely to be excluded from school than other pupils (Bourne et al. 1994). The insidious practice of unofficial exclusions is also widespread and the hidden nature of these exclusions entails an invisibility of those pupils affected. Such ‘invisibility’ excludes pupils on several levels, including their exclusion from the educational and social entitlements that should be theirs (Stirling 1992). The ‘New Labour’ government’s proposals in relation to children labelled as ‘with emotional and behavioural difficulties’, as outlined in the 1998 policy document Meeting Special Educational Needs: A programme of action (DfEE 1998), show a clear commitment to strengthening intervention in relation to provision for ‘children with EBD (sic)’ including early intervention, strengthening Pupil Referral Units and assisting ‘EBD Special Schools to achieve high standards’. While there is a stated policy of reducing exclusions because of behaviour, how this will be achieved in the context of increasing selection and competition between schools, is not clear.

A further question is whether equal opportunities legislation is basically designed for people who already ‘belong’, in the sense that they enjoy membership of ordinary institutions, or whether it really is for everybody. In general, equal opportunities discourses leave out unemployed people, homeless people, those seeking asylum, children, prisoners, and – to a large extent – disabled people. It is hard to see how these groups are included in existing equal opportunities legislation, underlining their multiple exclusions. The prevailing ‘equal opportunities’ project then has only been concerned with improving opportunities for some groups within certain prescribed contexts. Such project has done little to change the power relations in society, so any gains made can be easily removed or whittled away.

Dividing policies

Historically, equal opportunities legislation in relation to different groups and the organisations which exist to protect their rights has developed along separate pathways. This has fostered a view of equal opportunities as being relevant to different groups in different ways. In the UK, for instance, the 1976 Race Relations Act and the Commission for Racial Equality are seen as serving the interests of groups who may be discriminated against on the basis of race; the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, the Equal Pay Acts of 1970 and 1983 and the Equal Opportunities Commission are seen as protecting the interests of girls and women. Finally, the more recent Disability Discrimination Act (1995) refers specifically to disabled people. While different groups in society have particular identities, aspirations and understandings of their rights, this separate development has made it possible for legislation to seem to address equality issues relating to some groups, while neglecting others. Yet, the particular forms which discrimination and exclusion take and the degree to which different groups are subjected to them will change and vary according to the particular social and historical contexts in which they take place. For this reason the struggle is primarily about discrimination and exclusions in general. It is only within this general perspective that discrimination as it affects different groups can be understood and confronted.

The targeting of particular groups in society for ‘equal opportunities’ treatment has three other effects. One is to suggest that these groups are somehow naturally different and in need of special treatment, thus contributing to an image of dependency and in need of help. A second effect is that by singling out groups on the basis of race, gender or disability for special consideration (however ineffectual such consideration has proved to be), these groups are denied ordinary status and membership in the community, thus legitimating their exclusion. A further effect is to suggest that the groups concerned are necessarily homogeneous and do not represent diverse interests and aspirations. While ‘disability’ has not received the same attention as ‘race’ and ‘gender’ in terms of equal opportunities legislation, those policies which have been adopted have been divisi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Contributors
• 1. Introduction: what is this book about?
• 2. Inclusive education in Ireland: rhetoric and reality
• 3. Greek policy practices in the area of special/inclusive education
• 4. Sunflowers, enchantment and empires: reflections on inclusive education in the United States
• 5. ‘Vive la différence?’ Exploring context, policy and change in special education in France: developing cross-cultural collaboration
• 6. Inclusion and exclusion policy in England: who controls the agenda?
• 7. Inclusion and choice: mutually exclusive principles in special educational needs?
• 8. Special education in today’s Sweden – a struggle between the Swedish model and the market
• 9. An international conversation on inclusive education
• References
• Index