04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Implementing the Right to Inclusive Education in Acute Crisis of Forced Migration
Marketa Bacakova
IU International University of Applied Sciences, Germany
Presenting Author: Bacakova, Marketa
Persons with disabilities forcibly displaced form a particularly vulnerable group facing intersectional discriminatory practices. Exiled from their country of origin, they need to live without the protection stemming from citizenship or permanent residency. They may have experienced persecution in the country of origin and/or trauma during the flight. They face discriminatory practices targeted generally against people with disabilities and refugees, but they also experience specific oppression stemming from the interplay of these two characteristics. They may be thus left behind during flight or they may not survive the journey, they often lack access to mainstream assistance programmes and are in danger of being exposed to further protection risks, such as sexual and physical violence and harassment (Reilly, 2010, p. 18). For refugees with disabilities, their journeys often take much longer putting them at greater risk of attack and insecurity along the journey (Kett & Trani, 2010, p. 12). Persons with disabilities remain largely forgotten in situations of acute crisis of human displacement (Crock et al., 2013, p. 736), and so is often their right to inclusive education enshrined in Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (Bacakova, 2023, p. 35).
The proposed paper aims at shedding light on this partly invisible intersection of vulnerabilities experienced by refugee children and youth with disabilities when accessing their right to inclusive education by reporting on the preliminary results of a qualitative research study investigating the lived educational experiences of newly arrived Ukrainian refugee children and youth with disabilities in Germany. In order to do so, the paper takes advantage of the notion of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989, p. 150) together with the concepts of the right to inclusive education stipulated in Article 24 of the CRPD and vulnerability as a human rights concept (Beduschi, 2018; Coleman, 2009; Fineman, 2010; Morawa, 2006; Peroni & Timmer, 2013; Bacakova, 2023). By embracing the intersectional perspective, the paper intends to contribute to addressing not only the possible experiences of disrespect, exclusion and the lack of support in education, but also to highlighting the individual aspirations and examples of their active fulfilment.
The research study focuses therefore on the following research questions:
- To what extent is the enjoyment of the right to inclusive education enshrined in Article 24 of the CRPD ensured for the newly arrived Ukrainian refugee children with disabilities in Germany?
- Which obstacles face the participants when accessing their right to inclusive education in Germany?
- Which factors influence these challenges and which are the possible protective factors, which lead to positive experiences?
- What educational dreams and aspirations do refugee children with disabilities and their families bring with them to their new home in Germany?
Very little is known about the educational trajectories of refugees with disabilities in urban settings and in Europe and North America in general, creating thus a research gap, which needs to be filled (Bacakova, 2023, p. 42). Furthermore, the intersectional point of view is likely to promote the concept of inclusive education by emphasizing the importance of education for all where no groups and individuals are left behind, and the forgotten ones are given a voice.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedEmpirical research design is currently being implemented in order to answer the above stipulated research questions. Semi-structured interviews with approximately 25 Ukrainian refugee children (3-18 yrs) with disabilities and their family members, who arrived in Germany in 2022, are conducted. These interviews are conducted in Russian or Ukrainian, possibly implementing various means of alternative communication, such as pictograms or “Leichte Sprache”, or alternatively in sign language in accordance with the communi-cations needs and preferences of the interview partners.
The concept of disability is not further defined when selecting the interview partners, leaving the category intentionally open in order to enable participation in the research project to all persons who identify themselves as persons with disabilities. The age range of the participating children is set between 3 and 18 years in order to be able to capture the educational experi-ences at pre-primary, primary and secondary levels.
The interviews are conducted by bilingual social workers affiliated to the cooperation partners experienced in the work with refugee families and trained in conducting interviews with children with disabilities. All interviews are audio-recorded, transcribed and subsequently translated into German and/or English. The collected data will be analysed using the Grounded Theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1991) in order to develop an inductively derived grounded theory of the above described phenomenon.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe paper will report on the preliminary results from the data obtained until July 2023. It is expected that at least 15 interviews with refugee children with disabilities and their families or carers will have been conducted by that time. The paper will focus mainly on the area of agency and educational aspirations and provide the first insights into these topics.
ReferencesBacakova, M. (2023). Inclusive Educational Transitions for Refugees with Disabilities: Intersectionality and the Right to Inclusive Education. In S. S. Singh, O. Jovanović, & M. Proyer (Eds.), Transitional Processes in the Context of Refugee Education: Ruptures, Passages, and Re/Orientations (pp. 33-45). Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Beco, G. de. (2019). Comprehensive Legal Analysis of Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In G. de Beco, S. Quinlivan, & J. E. Lord (Eds.), The Right to Inclusive Education in International Human Rights Law (pp. 58–92). Cambridge University Press.
Beduschi, A. (2018). Vulnerability on Trial: Protection of the Migrant Children's Rights in the Jurisprudence of International Human Rights Courts. Boston University International Law Journal, 36, 55–85.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalising the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Cri-tique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
Crock, M., Ernst, C., & McCallum, R. (2013). Where Disability and Displacement Intersect: Asylum Seekers and Refugees with Disabilities. International Journal of Refugee Law, 24(4), 735–764.
Crock, M., Saul, B., Smith-Khan, L., & McCallum, R. C. (2017). The legal protection of refugees with disabilities: Forgotten and invisible? Elgar studies in human rights. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kanter, A. (2019). The Right to Inclusive Education for Students with Disabilities under International Human Rights Law. In G. de Beco, S. Quinlivan, & J. E. Lord (Eds.), The Right to Inclusive Education in International Human Rights Law (pp. 15–57). Cambridge University Press.
Peroni, L., & Timmer, A. (2013). Vulnerable Groups: The promise of an emerging concept in European Human Rights Convention law. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(4), 1056–1085.
Smith-Khan, L. (2013). Overcoming barriers to education for refugees with disabilities. Migra-tion Australia, 3, 63–67.
Smith-Khan, L., & Crock, M. (2018). Making Rights to Education Real for Refugees with Disabilities: Background paper prepared for the 2019 Global Education Monitoring Report. UNESCO.
Steigmann, F. (2020). Inclusive Education for Refugee Children With Disabilities in Berlin - The Decisive Role of Parental Support. Frontiers in Education, 5(529615), 1–15.
UNESCO. (2018). Migration, Displacement, and Education: Building Bridges, not Walls. UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2020). Inclusion and Education: All Means All. UNESCO.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Behaviour Problems and Social Inclusion - What Influence do Teachers' Classroom Management Skills Have?
Christian Huber1, Markus Spilles1, Thomas Hennemann2, Michael Grosche1, Johannes König2
1University of Wuppertal, Germany; 2University of Cologne, Germany
Presenting Author: Huber, Christian
Students´ social inclusion in school is a basic psychological need (Ryan & Deci, 2001) and is considered a precondition for academic learning and an appropriate social-emotional development. On the other hand social exclusion is associated with a variety of relevant risk factors such as aggressiveness, anxiety disorders, depressive symptoms and poor school performance or truancy (Newcomb, Bukowski & Pattee, 1993; Flook et al., 2005). Depending on the study, children with behavioural problems are up to three times more likely to experience social exclusion in inclusive classrooms compared to their classmates without special educational needs (Huber, Nicolay & Schulze, 2021).
So far, only a small number of studies address the question of how to influence social inclusion in school in an evidence-based way. Four main approaches are currently discussed (Feinman, 1992) Here we refer to two of them.
The social skills deficit model (Asher, Renshaw & Hymel, 1982) assumes that social inclusion is influenced by students’ socials skills. Up to now there is a large body of evidence, that students with social skills deficits have a higher risk to be rejected in their classes (Newcomb et al., 1993). On the other side there is just a handful of studies that were able to improve students social inclusion just by social skills trainings (Garrote et al., 2017; Zaragoza et al., 1991).
The social referencing theory (Feinman, 1992) assumes that public teacher feedback is another important factor for the students´ social inclusion. According to studies from Huber et al. (2018) or McAuliffe et al. (2009) the core assumption of the model is that teachers´ feedback and peer acceptance of children are intimately connected. The model predicts that students receiving much positive feedback from their teacher have a higher chance for an appropriate social inclusion. On the other hand the model predicts that negative teacher feedback is connected to poor social acceptance. A considerable number of studies have been able to support this hypothesis in recent years, both in experimental studies (e.g. Huber et al., 2018; White & Jones, 2000) and in field studies (e.g. McAuliffe et al., 2009; Spilles et al., accepted).
With reference to both theoretical approaches, students with behaviour problems are in a double risk situation: they have social skills deficits and so there are at risk to receive more negative feedback from their teachers.
We assume, that classroom management is able to influence both, behavior problems and teacher feedback, positively. From this we derive hat classroom management should also have a positive effect on the social inclusion of children with behavior problems. It is predicted that the link between social inclusion and behavioural problems is strong when teacher have a weak classroom management performance. On the other hand, this link is believed to be weak when teachers have perform in classroom management.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur research question was investigated in a sub-project of a cross-sectional study with n=1112 school children (grades 3-4) from 61 classes in Germany. Social inclusion (dependend variable, DV) was measured by the sociometric method (Moreno, 1974), from which a social choice score (CS) and a rejection score (RS) can be calculated. As independent variables, students´ bahavior problems and teachers classroom management competences were assessed – both from the teacher´s perspective. Bahavior problems were assessed by the German version of integrated teacher report form (Casale et al., 2019) and by a five-point Likert scale (IV1). Classroom Management was assessed by three CRM scales (IV2: routines; IV3: rules; IV4: extent of disturbances) by Depaepe & König (2018). Data were analysed by two multilevel regression analyses. Therefore, a random-intercept model was calculated for each DV. Individual student characteristics were located at level 1 (DV1-2, IV1) and the three teacher-related classroom management competencies (UV2-4) were located at level 2. In each case, a cross-level interaction of classroom management competencies on the link between behavioural problems and social inclusion was expected.
The results showed a negative significant effect (b = -16.58) of behaviour problems on CS and a positive effect (β = 13.68) of behaviour problems on RC – both effects are already known from the literature. For the CS, a cross-level interaction was only significant for the CRM - routines (b = 6.15), but opposite to the predicted direction. For the RS, the cross-level interactions were significant for all three CRM scales - two of them (routines, disorders) opposite to the predicted direction. Only the cross-level interaction between CRM rules and the RS has been found in the predicted direction (b = -2.33).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results are interpreted to mean that different classroom management dimensions influence the link between behaviour problems and social inclusion differently. Classroom management with numerous routines and few classroom disruptions strengthens the link between behavioural problems and social exclusion - possibly because classroom routines make teaching more susceptible to disruption and teachers have to verbally regulate the affected children. On the other hand, CRM with a strong rule-based and preventive orientation had a weakening effect on the link between behavioural problems and social exclusion - possibly because it reduces classroom disruptions and teachers are less forced to regulate them verbally.
ReferencesAsher, S. R., Renshaw, P. D. & Hymel, S. (1982). Peer relations and the development of social skills. In S. G. Moore & C. R. Cooper (eds.), The Young Child, 137--158. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education on Young Children.
Depaepe, F. & König, J. (2018). General pedagogical knowledge, self-efficacy and instructional practice: Disentangling their relationship in pre-service teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 177-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.10.003
Feinman, S. (1992). Social Referencing and Conformity. In S. Feinman (Hrsg.), Social referencing and the social construction of reality in infancy (S. 229–268). Plenum Press.
Flook, L., Repetti, R. L. & Ullman, J. B. (2005). Classroom social experiences as predictors of academic performance. Developmental Psychology, 41(2), 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.319
Garrote, A., Sermier Dessemontet, R. & Moser Opitz, E. (2017). Facilitating the social participation of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools: A review of school-based interventions. Educational Research Review, 20, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.001
Huber, C., Nicolay, P. & Weber, S. (2021). Celebrate Diversity? Unterrichtswissenschaft. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-021-00115-w
McAuliffe, M. D., Hubbard, J. A. & Romano, L. J. (2009, Juli). The role of teacher cognition and behavior in children's peer relations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology: An official publication of the International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 37(5), 665–677.
Moreno, J. L. (1974). Die Grundlagen der Soziometrie: Wege z. Neuordnung d. Gesellschaft (3. Aufl.). Westdeutscher Verlag.
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M. & Pattee, L. (1993, Januar). Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.99
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.14
Spilles, M., Huber, C., Nicolay, P., König, J. & Hennemann, T. (accepted). The correlation of classmates-perceived teacher feedback and the social acceptance of second, third and fourth graders. International Journal of Inclusive Education.
White, K. J. & Jones, K. (2000). Effects of Teacher Feedback on the Reputations and Peer Perceptions of Children with Behavior Problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 76(4), 302–326. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2552
Zaragoza, N., Vaughn, S., McIntosh, R., Webster, M. & Foschi, M. (1991). Social skills interventions and children with behavior problems: A review // Social Referencing and Theories of Status and Social Interaction. Behavioral Disorders, 16(4), 260–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2462-9_11
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Responding to Crisis Situations: Diverse Voices to Support the Development and Implementation of Inclusive Education Policy
Margarita Bilgeri
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education
Presenting Author: Bilgeri, Margarita
The research paper at hand is related to the 'Learning from the Covid-19 pandemic - Building Resilience through inclusive education systems' (BRIES) project of the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE). In this context the following research questions emerged:
'Which tools or materials - developed by education stakeholders from different levels - can support policy development and implementation for inclusive education systems during crisis situations in Europe?"
Related to this main question, the implementation of the research dealt with the following sub-question:
'How can different stakeholders’ experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic be turned into an opportunity to build resilience in inclusive education systems?'
Article 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights for People with Disabilities constitutes one of the main pillars for this paper. It is related to issues around participation in political and public life, namely: ‘[…] to ensure that persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in political and public life […].’ (UN 2006, online). Therefore, the aim was to include vulnerable learners and other stakeholders in discussions with policy-makers to address challenges and develop tools and material to support inclusive education systems in future times of crisis (Mangiaracina et al. 2021).
A literature research provided the basis for all subsequent activities. For collecting data, a qualitative research approach was chosen (Silverman 2016). Following a theoretical sampling method (Corbin & Strauss 2015), the field research included online focus group discussions and a variety of other methods for exchanging with participants (including a dialogic structure during face-to-face meetings). The focus groups consisted of stakeholders from four different levels (vulnerable learners from lower and upper secondary schools, parents of vulnerable learners, teachers of vulnerable learners, and policy-makers) and six European countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, and Sweden). The different stakeholder groups were asked to talk about their experiences during the pandemic and try to identify priority areas they think would need most attention.
The collected data (discussion notes and video recordings) were analysed with the qualitative data analysis tool ‘atlas.ti’. Informed consent was collected beforehand.
Regarding the theoretical framework, the research was designed in the style of grounded theory following the constuctivist approach of Kathy Charmaz (2014). Emerging categories and results of the first focus group discussions among same-level stakeholders provided the basis for a second round, this time with multi-level stakeholder discussions within each country. In these discussions participants were asked to think about suggestions of tools and material that might facilitate inclusive education processes in future times of crisis.
Following the concept of ‘constant comparison’ of the grounded theory approach (Clark, 2005), input was analysed with the help of atlas.ti and processed before a third round of exchanges took place. This third round included stakeholders from all levels and all countries. Thereby, two groups consisting of three countries each were formed to make discussions more manageable. For the implementation, different methods were applied.
By presenting outcomes and findings of the research process so far (see below for more information) it is expected to inspire and inform future research. Furthermore, it is aimed to emphasise the necessity to include stakeholders from all levels in policy-making processes in the inclusive education sector. At the same time, an example of how stakeholder participation can be implemented in practice is presented. This includes discussing benefits for all stakeholders who were involved, but also addressing challenges and concerns that emerged.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAs mentioned in the proposal information, the research project followed a research approach in the style of grounded theory as suggested by Kathy Charmaz (2014). Various methods of qualitative inquiry were applied in three different phases of field research. Focus group discussions were used to start in the first phase of data collection. The emphasis was put on participants' experiences during the pandemic and priority areas they could identify in relation to their needs in the context of education.
In a second phase, following the theoretical sampling method (Corbin & Strauss 2015) a dialogic structure (Alozie & Mitchell 2014, Lave & Wenger 1999) was used to especially empower learners' and parents' voices (but also teachers' voices) while discussing with policy-makers (Mangiaracina et al. 2021, Robinson & Taylor 2013, Siry 2020).
In the third phase, participants exchanged in different stakeholder-levels and across different countries. For this purpose, groups were split up to maintain a reasonable size. In these mixed groups stakeholders discussed concepts that emerged from the previous discussions. They were given the opportunity to rank potential priority areas, exclude or add new ideas and discuss content, aims etc. in different small focus groups (Krueger & Casey 2009, Seal et al. 1998).
The concept of constant comparison (Charmaz 2014, Clark 2005) guided the researchers through the different steps of data collection and analysis. Emerging concepts and categories were analysed and discussed further, in case saturation was not reached. In the final step of data collection, different workshop tools allowing smaller group exchanges (Seal et al. 1998) were used in face-to-face meetings (e.g. poster walks, world café approach). Data collection focused on notes, observations, and outputs of the focus group discussions (e.g. posters).
The variety of methods used led to a higher quality and depth of exchange between all stakeholders. One hypothesis is that the small group discussions supported participants in reaching a consensus about a potential tool in the end as different view points and experiences had been shared and discussed already earlier.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe core category that emerged from the analysis of all the collected data was the ‘need for effective communication’. This core category feeds into sub-categories (marked with '') by for example supporting the possibility of ‘identifying needs of learners early’, 'ensuring mental health and well-being’ of all involved in inclusive education processes, and 'fighting learning loss’ daily, just to name a few.
Regarding the aim of identifying a tool for supporting policy development and all involved in the teaching learning process, a conclusion was reached by all participants. All stakeholders agreed on the development of a ‘framework for effective communication’. It was impressive how united all levels of stakeholders from different countries found consensus in this aspect.
In a next step, this framework will be developed with the involvement of stakeholders from all levels. This will mainly take place in spring 2023.
The participants' reflections on the discussions and methods used proved the suitability and effectiveness of the latter. Being able to exchange with other country representatives and between levels was extremely fruitful. The positive feedback from participants emphasised the need of including especially vulnerable stakeholders in policy-making processes and discussions. Their motivation to keep on being involved in and contribute to the process of developing a tool for supporting inclusive education on policy level was extremely high.
It is essential to provide the time and space for co-operation and exchange amongst different levels of stakeholders. Effective communication enables all involved in and contributing to inclusive education systems to identify and communicate needs early. It supports the possibility to work proactively and preventative; and it keeps negative consequences and the need for interventions low.
Especially the involvement of vulnerable learners showed that, once their voices are empowered, policy-makers and other experts listen and act on the issues raised.
ReferencesAlozie, N. & Mitchell, C., 2014. Getting Students Talking: Supporting Classroom Discussion Practices in Inquiry-Based Science in Real-Time Teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 76(8), 501–506. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2014.76.8.3.
Bhan, S. & Julka, A., 2021. Disability Inclusive COVID-19 Response. Best Practices. unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000378354 (Last accessed December 2022).
Charmaz, K., 2014. Constructing grounded theory (2nd edition). Sage.
Clark, A. E., 2005. Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks et al., Sage.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. L., 2015. Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (Fourth edition). Sage.
Couper-Kenney, F. & Riddell, S., 2021. ‘The impact of COVID-19 on children with additional support needs and disabilities in Scotland’ European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36 (1), 20–34.
Krueger, R. & Casey, M. A., 2009. Focus groups : a practical guide for applied research (4. ed..). Sage.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E., 1999. Learning and pedagogy in communities of practice. Learners and pedagogy, 21-33.
Lindblad, S., Wärvik, G.-B., Berndtsson, I., Jodal, E.-B., Lindqvist, A., Messina Dahlberg, G., Papadopoulos, D., Runesdotter, C., Samuelsson, K., Udd, J. and Wyszynska Johansson, M., 2021. ‘School lockdown? Comparative analyses of responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in European countries’ European Educational Research Journal, 20 (5), 564–583.
Mangiaracina, A., Kefallinou, A., Kyriazopoulou, M., & Watkins, A., 2021. Learners’ voices in inclusive education policy debates. Education Sciences, 11(10), 599. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100599.
Messiou, K. & Hope, A. M., 2015. The danger of subverting students’ views in schools, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19:10, 1009-1021. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1024763
Silverman, D., 2016. Qualitative research (5th edition.). Sage
Robinson, C., & Taylor, C., 2013. Student voice as a contested practice: Power and participation in two student voice projects. Improving Schools, 16(1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480212469713.
Seal, d. W., Bogart, L. M., & Ehrhardt, A. A., 1998. Small Group Dynamics. Group Dynamics, 2(4), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.2.4.253.
Siry, C., 2020. Dialogic Pedagogies and Multimodal Methodologies: Working Towards Inclusive Science Education and Research. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 6(2), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1163/23641177-BJA10017.
Soriano, V. Young voices on inclusive education. In Implementing Inclusive Education: Issues in Bridging the Policy-Practice Gap. International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 8.
UN, 2006. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-29-participation-in-political-and-public-life.html (last accessed January 2023).
UNESCO, 2020. Global Education Monitoring Report 2020. Inclusion and Education: All Means All; Paris, France.
|
