04. Inclusive Education
Panel Discussion
Inclusive Education... What Are we Really Talking About? A 10 Country Reflection (Part 1)
David Evans2, Yuchen Wang3, Teija Koskela4, Katrin Ehrenberg5, Edda Óskarsdóttir6, Donna Dey1
1University of Dundee, United Kingdom; 2University of Sydney, Australia; 3University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom; 4University of Turku, Finland; 5Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany; 6University of Iceland, Iceland
Presenting Author: Evans, David;
Wang, Yuchen;
Koskela, Teija;
Ehrenberg, Katrin;
Óskarsdóttir, Edda;
Dey, Donna
'there is a conceptual confusion surrounding what inclusion is, what it is supposed to do and for whom'1
Generating inclusive learning environments is a global priority and is recognised as being a key component in establishing a more equal world (United Nations Sustainable Development Goal - SDG 4).
The notion of inclusive education, which has been strongly developed through the Salamanca Statement5 and the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), has developed historically from the provision of special education for learners with disabilities, evolving to encompass the international Education for All movement which ‘targets’ other ‘disadvantaged’ populations such as girls and learners from ethnic minorities2. However, despite being a widespread concept, Inclusive Education (IE) is still debated by academics 3–6, educators 7–9, parents10, 11, and learners2, 12. How can we justify using a concept that has been described as being ‘fuzzy’13, and ‘fluid’14 be used as a universal target in the United Nations SDG4? Despite strong policies being developed internationally, it seems that the existing structures and systems make it difficult to move forward from the discourse of inclusive education into the implementation of a quality, inclusive education for all.
This 2-part discussion panel will bring together academics working in the area of inclusive education, with a focus on ten different country contexts: Australia, China, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Portugal, Scotland, Spain, and Switzerland.
We will use the dimensions of Artiles and Dyson’s15 Comparative Cultural Historical Analysis framework to structure our discussion, by focusing on: 1) participants (targets and ‘actors’ involved in IE), 2) cultural (models of inclusion, provision taking place; beliefs, values, expectations regarding particular groups or learners), 3) temporal/ historical (development of IE), and 4) outcomes. This framework will allow us to discuss how governments and educators in different contexts define and implement Inclusive Education – how it is defined in public policies, what it implies in practice and who the target populations are in each of the contexts. For example, while in some countries there is still a strong focus on supporting disabled students when referring to IE, others refer to ‘Special Educational Needs’, or ‘Additional Support for Learning’ (Scotland) which include aspects such as poverty, linguistic and cultural background, or being ‘in care/ looked after’. While some contexts have considerable differences between regions (e.g. Germany, Spain), others have rather centralised policies and practices (e.g. Portugal).
The countries represented have a variety of approaches and traditions regarding responding to student diversity, and how ‘inclusive education’ is conceptualised and realised. Reports from several contexts suggest clarifying the meaning of the education policy in practice at all levels and how to implement it as a key lever for moving forward (e.g. the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education audit of the Icelandic system for IE). And so, the aim of this discussion panel is to explore similarities and differences between contexts and to interrogate to what extent education systems are presently places where all learners are experiencing equitable, quality education, where all feel welcome, challenged and supported, and where all learners are able to access, participate and succeed in education. Or whether we value some children more than others16, namely learners with intellectual disabilities17.
We will then discuss how we can develop education systems that are based on inclusive: concepts, policies, systems and structures, and practices18. Systems that truly engage with learners’ voices, that are based on the collaboration between different actors (namely educators, learners, and families; education, health and social work), and where inclusive curricula and inclusive pedagogy19/ ‘didactics’ are core, rather than an afterthought for a minority of learners.
References1 Allan J. Inclusion for all? In: Bryce TGK, Humes WM. Scottish Education: Beyond Devolution. Edinburgh University Press; 2008:701-710.
2 Miles S, Singal N. Education for All and inclusive education debate: conflict, contradiction or opportunity? Int J Incl Educ. 2010;14:1-15.
3 Walton E. Decolonising (Through) Inclusive Education? Educ Res Soc Chang. 2018;7(June):31-45.
4 UIS. Combining Data on Out-of-School Children, Completion and Learning to Offer a More Comprehensive View on SDG 4. Montreal; 2019.
5 UNESCO. Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. 1994.
6 United Nations. Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1989.
7 Sharma et al. Addressing barriers to implementing inclusive education in the Pacific. Int J Incl Educ. 2019;23(1):65-78.
8 Slee R. Belonging in an age of exclusion. Int J Incl Educ. 2019;23(9):909-922.
9 UN. General comment 4 (2016), Article 24: Right to inclusive education. UN Comm Rights Pers with Disabil. 2016;(September):1-24.
10 Department for Education and Science. Special Educational Needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People (The Warnock Report). London; 1978.
11 Florian et al. Cross-Cultural Perspectives on the Classification of Children With Disabilities. J Spec Educ. 2006;40(1):36-45.
12 Alves I. The transnational phenomenon of individual planning in response to pupil diversity: a paradox in educational reform. In: Hultqvist E et al. Critical Analyses of Educational Reform in an Era of Transnational Governance. Springer; 2017.
13 Kiuppis F. Why (not) associate the principle of inclusion with disability? Tracing connections from the start of the Salamanca Process. Int J Incl Educ. 2014;18(7):746-761.
14 Human Rights Committee. UN CRPD: Reservations/ Interpretative Declaration. House of Lords and Commons; 2009.
15 Artiles, A. J., & Dyson, A. (2005). Inclusive education in the globalization age: the promise of comparative cultural-historical analysis. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualising Inclusive Education: Evaluating old and new international perspectives. Routledge.
16 Wang, Y. 2021. “'Teachers did not let me do it.': Disabled children's experiences of marginalisation in regular primary schools in China.” Disability & the Global South. 8(2): 2053-2070.
18 International Bureau of Education-UNESCO. (2016). Reaching out to all Learners: a Resource Pack for Supporting Inclusive Education.
19 Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828
20 Zahnd, R. (2021). Inklusion als Schulkritik. Überlegungen zum Zusammenspiel von Fachdidaktik und inklusiver Pädagogik. In K. Resch et al. Inklusive Schule und Schulentwicklung. (S. 231–237). Waxmann.
Chair Ines Alves, University of Glasgow
Lani Florian, University of Edinburgh (to be confirmed)
|
