04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Growing up with a Disability in Norway: Towards Equality in Educational Outcomes?
Jon Erik Finnvold1, Therese Dokken1, Jan Grue2, Alexi Gugushvili2
1Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway; 2University of Oslo
Presenting Author: Finnvold, Jon Erik
Being born with or acquiring a disability or chronic condition in early childhood influence the chances of completing an education in adulthood. We analyse changes in educational outcomes over two decades for six diagnostic groups, comparing them with a nationally representative sample. Our overarching questions are: to what extent do gaps in participation rates exist, and can we observe a narrowing in the gap in education participation for cohorts born between 1977 and 1995?
A child’s gender as well as parental education are influential predictors of educational outcomes. We address the intersection between diagnostic condition, gender and parental educational background on educational outcomes. Does parental background contribute more to the educational success of children with disabilities and chronic conditions? And to what extent can gaps in educational outcomes be accounted for by gender?
A characteristic of Norway as well as other western societies during the last decades is a general expansion in education, including tertiary education (Thompson 2019). In addition, since the late 1970s, inclusive education had been legally and politically mandated. The expansion involves resources, as well as time spent in school. From 1990 to 2008, the total teaching time in Norwegian schools increased drastically. A focus on “early effort” and reading, writing and arithmetic skills imply longer days in school. Norway also experienced a major growth in special education from the early 2000s. The share of children receiving special education increased from 2 percent in 2002 to 8 percent in 2008. The growth in special education in part reflect an overall heightened awareness of the situation of disabled children. Legislative efforts and acts, such as universal access to school-buildings and other measures, reveal intentions from central authorities to “level the playing field”.
In the period of investigation, medical and technical advances may enable individuals with specific diagnostic conditions to be in a better position to benefit from education. In the Curriculum from 1997, the deaf were for the first time given the right to education in sign language as their first language, and an increasing number of cochlear implants are in use in Norway. Better and more effective medication to control diabetes and asthma are now available, and new information technologies can assist children with sensory limitations. Use of social media and other digital platforms for educational purposes can counter the limitations of not being physically present.
However, other changes in the period may increase the risk of further marginalization within the educational system for children with disabilities and chronic conditions. In a meritocratic society, success in the educational system may have an increasing influence on the chances of success in adult life in terms of employment status, occupational attainment, and earnings. In a situation with heightened competition within the educational system, children with disabilities and chronic conditions may be increasingly at risk. A number of studies suggest that a process of social exclusion is going on, following placement in segregated school settings within ordinary schools as well as special schools (De Bruin 2020). Contrary to officially stated policy objectives in Norway, local municipalities and schools continue a practice of segregating children with outside of ordinary classroom education. In higher education, financial assistance intended to compensate for the constraints faced by students with disabilities have been also cut back.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe population under investigation was identified through an official register that included recipients of compensatory cash benefits (N=9844). In Norway, families with a child with a disability or a chronic disease may apply for public income support to compensate for expenses related to the severity of the disease. Such benefits are granted by the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Service [NAV]. To be entitled to a benefit, the child must suffer from a chronic condition, even after an adequate treatment-program is established.
Six diagnostic conditions were identified in the register as of 1995. Diabetes and Asthma represent the category ´Somatic conditions´, and ´Disabilities´ include sensory losses related to sight and hearing, in addition to physical disabilities (Cerebral palsy the most frequent) and Downs syndrome.
The data were merged with registers from Statistics Norway. The population of investigation also include a random population sample for comparative purposes (N=30 000), born in the same period. We defined four different birth cohorts (born 1977-81, 1982-1986, 1987-91, 1992-95), measuring differences in educational outcomes using multivariate regression analysis. We define two different educational outcomes;
- The completion of lower tertiary education for 25-year-olds.
- The completion of upper secondary education for 21-year-olds.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWhat can we expect from the Norwegian educational system with respect to its capacity to equalize the life-chances of different groups in society? The ratio of students to teaching staff in primary to tertiary public institutions in Norway is the lowest of all countries in the OECD-area (OECD 2016). Previous research suggest that the social gap in higher education participation has narrowed substantially in Norway (Thomsen et al. 2017). With free secondary schooling, generous financing opportunities for tertiary education available for everyone, and a general commitment to egalitarian values, a development toward greater equality that also include groups with disabilities and chronic conditions can be expected. As commented, several contextual developments during the last decades support this expectation.
To date, there is little evidence on the longitudinal effects of having a disability or chronic disease on educational success, although some exceptions exist (Cox and Marshall 2020; Koivusilta et al. 2022). A number of cross-sectional studies have documented the relationship between disability, chronic disease and educational achievement (Maslow et al. 2011; Shandra and Hogan 2009; Yoder and Cantrell 2019). Provisional results suggest that consistent gaps in education outcomes prevail throughout the period of investigation. If anything, a widening could be observed toward the end of the period. The gaps are evident for children with chronic conditions, but more striking for children with disabilities. Robust associations between gender, parental education and educational outcomes could be observed in all the analyses. Nonetheless, neither gender nor parental background could account for the observed gaps in educational outcomes.
ReferencesCox, Fiona M, and Alan D Marshall. 2020. "Educational engagement, expectation and attainment of children with disabilities: Evidence from the Scottish Longitudinal Study." British Educational Research Journal 46 (1):222-246.
De Bruin, Kate. 2020. "Does inclusion work?" In Inclusive education for the 21st century, 55-76. Routledge.
Koivusilta, Leena, Riittakerttu Kaltiala, Anna Myöhänen, Risto Hotulainen, and Arja Rimpelä. 2022. "A Chronic Disease in Adolescence and Selection to an Educational Path—A Longitudinal Study." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 (21):14407.
Maslow, Gary R, Abigail Haydon, Annie-Laurie McRee, Carol A Ford, and Carolyn T Halpern. 2011. "Growing up with a chronic illness: social success, educational/vocational distress." Journal of Adolescent Health 49 (2):206-212.
OECD. 2016. Norway.
Shandra, Carrie L, and Dennis P Hogan. 2009. "The educational attainment process among adolescents with disabilities and children of parents with disabilities." International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 56 (4):363-379.
Thompson, Ron. 2019. Education, inequality and social class: Expansion and stratification in educational opportunity: Routledge.
Thomsen, Jens-Peter, Emil Bertilsson, Tobias Dalberg, Juha Hedman, and Håvard Helland. 2017. "Higher education participation in the Nordic countries 1985–2010—a comparative perspective." European Sociological Review 33 (1):98-111.
Yoder, Claire L McKinley, and Mary Ann Cantrell. 2019. "Childhood disability and educational outcomes: a systematic review." Journal of pediatric nursing 45:37-50.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Measuring the Outcomes of Inclusive Versus Special Education Placement in Finland
Markku Jahnukainen1, Ninja Hienonen1, Meri Lintuvuori1, Nestori Kilpi2, Faruk Nazeri2, Mari-Pauliina Vainikainen2
1University of Helsinki, Finland; 2University of Tampere, Finland
Presenting Author: Jahnukainen, Markku;
Lintuvuori, Meri
History of serving students with special educational needs has started from segregated placements like special schools and facilities outside of mainstream education. During decades, along with disability right movements and more developed pedagogical solutions based on differentiation and individualization, the inclusive placement in mainstream education has been set as a priority for every student. However, smaller teaching groups called as special classes/self-contained classroom are still a valid option in Finland like in elsewhere.
The questions of the effectiveness of special vs. inclusive setting is one of the most actual issues both in the field of inclusive and special education as well as in global education policy (Kauffman et al. 2017). Interestingly, the question of the best placement option has not been scientifically fully solved anywhere; the decisions at the school level are based mainly on pragmatic and ideological grounds. One reason is, that the effects and outcomes (for both students with and without disabilities) are not easy to investigate; there are several challenges related to the research group formation (like sample attrition, baseline equivalence), measures and also to ethical questions (see Gersten et al. 2017; Hienonen et al. 2018).
One of the major challenges is, that for practical and ethical reasons, it is not possible to follow the ‘gold standard’ of randomized controlled trial, where study participants are randomly assigned to inclusive or special education group (Gersten et al. 2017). Instead, many former studies in special education have used natural setting, meaning that the selection to groups has made by administrative grounds and therefore the groups are not necessarily comparable. The typical findings is, that students placed in separate settings, are found to have more severe difficulties, in particular related to the social-emotional behaviour (Lane et al. 2005).
However, in some previous studies, a quasi-experimental design has been used. This means that the similarity of the study groups has been tested afterwards (Zweers et al. 2019) or an artificial experimental/control group matching has been created using available background factors and propensity score matching technique (Hienonen et al. 2021; Kojac et al. 2014).
In our study, we are empirically exploring the outcomes of placement and the actual support offered to students with special educational needs in both inclusive and special educational settings. Our main research question is: What kind of cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes is produced by inclusive vs. special education group placement?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur ambitious goal is to create a rigorous research design (Gersten et al 2017), which will overcome the challenges presented in the research literature (e.g. Lindsay, 2003). We are focusing in particular to obtain detailed baseline data of the students and their teachers and the learning environments to be able to create matched experimental and control groups using propensity score matching technique. A special attention is paid to study attrition, which is a typical problem in any longitudinal study, but in particular related to at-risk population. Typically the students most at-risk are dropping out of the study. It is also important to notice that the positive bias may affect also to the participation of teaching staff: those who are willing to do some extra work will continue and the others will drop-out of the study (Gersten et al. 2017). Therefore special attention is paid to study fidelity in different schools and classrooms (Bonahon & Wu 2019).
The data is drawn from the longitudinal study assessing different aspects of learning in selected schools in different kind of municipalities in Finland. We have utilized official statistics on special education and register of educational institutions (Statistics Finland) for creating relevant national sample. Our research instrument is based on the Finnish learning to learn (LTL) framework. LTL can be defined as cognitive competence and willingness to adopt to novel tasks. The tasks measure general thinking skills (Vainikainen et al. 2015). The data has gathered using online test portal created for the purposes of this research.
In the first phase of our 3-year longitudinal study, during the Spring 2022, we received data from 1815 4th graders of which 160 students had a special education needs (SEN) decision (Tier 3). 26 municipalities and 32 schools and 94 classes were participating in the study nationwide. Of students with SEN, 28% studied full-time in regular class, 50 % part-time and 22 % full-time in special class.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis presentation will describe the study design and cover the preliminary results from the first data cycle related to learning outcomes of the students in different placement options. According to the preliminary results there were only few notable differences between the placement options. The general trend related to mathematical reasoning and reading comprehension showed that the SEN students studying full time in general education classes (inclusive option) performed better than the students with SEN students studying partly or fully in special education classes. However, in some sub-scales of reading comprehension also students placed in special school did perform better than students who were studying partly in general education classroom and partly in special education classroom. At this point, we weren’t able to control for the initial differences between students. However, the second data collection takes place in spring 2023. By the time of the presentation, we will take the nested structure of the data into account and control for the initial student-level differences by the means of two-level regression model.
ReferencesBonahon, H. & Wu, M-J. (2019). A comparison of sampling approaches for monitoring schoolwide inclusion program fidelity. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities 65.
Gersten, R., Jayanthi, M., Santoro, L. & Newman-Conchar, R. (2017). Designing rigorous group studies in special education. In Kauffman, J.M., Hallahan, D.P. & Pullen, P.C. (eds.) Handbook of special education. New York, NY:: Routledge, 107-115.
Hienonen, N., Lintuvuori, M., Jahnukainen, M., Hotulainen, R. & Vainikainen, M.-P. (2018). The effect of class composition on cross-curricular competences – Students with special educational needs in regular classes in lower secondary education. Learning and Instruction, 58, 80-87.
Hienonen, N., Hotulainen, R., & Jahnukainen, M. (2021). Outcomes of Regular and Special Class Placement for Students with Special Educational Needs - A Quasi-experimental Study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(4), 646-660.
Kauffman, J. M., Nelson, C. M., Simpson, R. L., & Ward, D. M. (2017). Contemporary issues. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. Cullen Pullen. Handbook of Special Education. New York, NY: Education Routledge.
Kojac, A., Poldi, K., Kroth, A.J., Pant, H.A. & Stanat, P. (2014). Wo lernen Kinder mit sonderpäda-gogischem Förderbedarf besser? Ein Vergleich schulischer Kompetenzen zwischen Regel- und Förderschulen in der Primarstufe. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 66, 165-191.
Lane, K.L., Wehby, J.H., Little, M.A. & Cooley, C. (2005). Academic, social, and behavioral profiles of students with emotional and behavioral disorders educated in self-contained classrooms and self-contained schools: Part I – Are they more alike than different. Behavioral Disorders 30 (4), 349–361.
Lindsay, G. (2003). Inclusive education: a critical perspective. British Journal of Special education 30 (1), 3–12.
Vainikainen, M-P., Hautamaki, J., Hotulainen, R., & Kupiainen, S. (2015). General and specific thinking skills and schooling: Preparing the mind to new learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 18, 53-64.
Zweers, I., Nouchka, T.T., Bijstra, J.O. & Van de Schoot, R (2019). How do included and excluded students with SEBD function socially and academically after 1,5 year of special education ser-vices? European Journal of Developmental Psychology.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Supporting inclusive educators from Nepal: Outcomes, reflections, and challenges
Denise Beutel, Donna Tangen
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Presenting Author: Beutel, Denise
Inclusive education has historically referred to teaching and learning for students with disabilities (UNESCO, 1994). Over time, though, the term has broadened, responding to the diverse needs of all children in relation to gender, language, religion, culture, geographic location, economic status, caste, migration and afflictions from conflict (Shaeffer, 2019). In this paper, we identify the outcomes, and explore how program elements contributed to the outcomes, of an international inclusive education short course program designed to build on the capacities of a group of educators from Nepal to lead inclusive education reforms in their local schooling contexts. Further, we discuss the ongoing challenges in delivering reforms. Developing countries, such as Nepal, have attempted to develop inclusive education policies and practices in schools as per the global trend towards inclusion evident over the past decade (Pradhan, et al., 2021). To date, however, the implementation of inclusive education in the region has been variable. For example, while inclusive education is part of Government policy in Nepal (Government of Nepal, 2017), there has been limited enactment of the policy in practice (Regmi, 2017; Thapaliya, 2018). Contextual features, such as the geography of the country, together with limited infrastructure, few teaching resources, negative, societal attitudes towards disability, and a lack of teacher training in inclusive education (Thapaliya, 2018; Sharma, 2021) continue to contribute to the challenges in implementing inclusive education in Nepal.
The program that provided the focus of this paper is an Australia Awards South and West Asia (AASWA) short course, an international aid initiative of the Australian Government through which short-term training and professional development opportunities are delivered by an Australian Higher Education Provider to a range of countries in South and West Asia (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), 2020). Through this initiative, staff in public, private, and non-government organisations in developing countries can undertake short-term study and professional development in Australia with the aim of building human capacity to contribute to development in their home countries (DFAT 2018). In this case, the program centred on developing inclusive education understanding and practices that could be applied in local settings in Nepal.
The program comprised a two-week component of inclusive education policy and practice, delivered in Australia with ongoing online support from university academics in Australia for participants on their return to Nepal. The program structure included workshop activities, visits to exemplary schools that provide embedded inclusive practices and principles, reflective conversations, and professional planning for participants’ return home. Structured networking events introduced participants to a range of educators with expertise in inclusive education, alongside thematic discussions and experience sharing among the program participants. A follow-up workshop was conducted in Kathmandu approximately three months following the Australian component.
Data were collected before, during and after the program. The multiple sources of data collected at different points throughout the program allowed us to identify the impact of specific program elements on outcomes. For example, observing inclusive education in practice across a range of educational contexts in Australia and opportunities for reflection prompted participants to examine their own assumptions, values, and beliefs about inclusion and to consider how to assimilate these changes into their workplaces in Nepal. Some program participants had a disability and it appeared that having a disability provided a unique perspective as they attempted to reconcile their prior understandings of inclusive education with the new. On reflection, findings also indicate that a deep understanding of context is needed by program planners to better understand how and why particular program elements lead to change of practices for the participants. Our paper concludes with recommendations for developers of similar programs in the future.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA range of qualitative data was collected before, during and after the program. Prior to the program, participants completed a questionnaire in which they provided demographic data and information about their workplace settings. Participants also shared their understandings of inclusive education and its application in Nepal. Each participant also completed a learning needs analysis (LNA) questionnaire in which they identified their learning needs and the key skills and knowledge they hoped to gain from the program. The program developers analysed this information to inform the program delivery.
While completing the Australian program component, Return-to-Work Plans (RWPs) were the key source of data collected. These were individual actions plans in which participants identified a specific area in which they could apply their learning from the program to effect change in their workplace. While in Australia, participants continued to revise and refine their RWPs based on their learnings and reflections, with reflection time built into the daily program.
Final data collection occurred approximately three months after the participants returned to Nepal when the Australian university program leader conducted a follow-up visit in Kathmandu. During this visit, participants shared poster presentations of the outcomes of their action plans. At this point, participants also identified the successes and the challenges they faced in actioning their plans. Participants were then given the opportunity to elaborate further through focus group discussions. A final questionnaire was used to reveal participants’ post-program understandings of inclusive education concepts and their application to the Nepali context.
The data were analysed using the six-stage process, proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). The researchers familiarised themselves with the data then generated tentative codes. Similar codes were merged, and main themes and sub-themes were identified using an iterative process. With any qualitative research it is important to consider meeting validity through a process of authenticity ‘(which includes fairness, and respecting participants’ perspectives)’ (Simons, 2013). We adhered to this through triangulation of the data to overcome any potential bias from any one method of data collection and with careful integration of the different methods of data collection and analysis used.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFindings indicated that, although the participants from Nepal had prior experience as inclusive educators, they employed innovative ways to apply the inclusive principles and practices they had learned in the AASWA program. When they returned to Nepal, they became strong advocates for inclusion, promoting its importance in many ways such as becoming involved in local government, posting information on Facebook, holding community meetings, and making substantive changes to curriculum and teaching resources to support student learning and engagement. Some described that they would not have considered this their role before completing the program.
Participants did, however, face challenges such as (for many) a lack of support from local government, a lack of infrastructure to train teachers to implement full inclusion for all students, and a lack of understanding of inclusion held by key stakeholders (those in government and in the community, e.g., parents). These elements were not fully explored during the delivery of the AASWA program. Therefore, a recommendation from the findings suggests that program developers need to have greater insight into the social, cultural, and physical contextual aspects of the participants that impact on their approaches to inclusive education in Nepal and incorporate these aspects into the delivery of the program. A further recommendation identifies the need for program developers to critically reflect on their own beliefs and biases towards inclusive education. The program outcomes together with the contextual elements impacting the outcomes and the implications for policy development and implementation in Nepal will be discussed in the presentation.
ReferencesBraun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) (2018). Australia Awards Short Courses. Available at https://australiaawardssouthwestasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/HANDBOOK-AASWA-Short-Course-Awards-InAustralia-v010518.pdf
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) (2020) Australia Awards Short Courses.
https://australiaawardssouthwestasia.org/short-courses/
Government of Nepal. (2017). Constitution of Nepal. Author.
Pradhan, U., Thapa, D., Baniya, J., Gurung, Y., Mahato, S., & Roy, I. (2021). The politics of social protection in Nepal: State infrastructure power and implementation of the Scholarship Programme. ESID Working Paper No. 167. Manchester, UK: The University of Manchester. Available at www.effective-states.org
Regmi, N. P. (2017). Inclusive education in Nepal from theory to practice. PhD thesis. Ludwig-Maximilians-University.
Regmi, K. D. (2021). Educational governance in Nepal: weak government, donor partnership and standardised assessment. Compare, 51(1), 42-42, https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1587704
Shaeffer, S. (2019). Inclusive education: a prerequisite for equity and social justice. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20, 181-192, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09598-w
Sharma, R. R. (2021). Sustainable political leadership based on system thinking in rural development practices of Nepal. Research Nepal Journal of Developmental Studies, 4(2), 93-105, https://doi.org/10.3126/rnjds.v4i2.42689
Simons, H. (2013). Case Study Research in Practice. SAGE Publications.
Thapaliya, M. P. (2018). Moving towards inclusive education: How inclusive education is understood, experienced and enacted in Nepali higher secondary schools. PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
UNESCO. 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education: Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca: UNESCO.
|
