04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Is This an Inclusive Curriculum? The Cautionary Case of 35 Years Curriculum Policy Development in Cyprus and Australia
Ilektra Spandagou1, Simoni Symeonidou2
1The University of Sydney, Australia; 2University of Cyprus
Presenting Author: Spandagou, Ilektra;
Symeonidou, Simoni
This presentation is a conceptual and empirical examination of the tensions that inform the development of curriculum policy for students with disability. The role of the curriculum in the education of children with disabilities has been an area of interest for scholars operating within the theoretical framework of Inclusive Education and Disability Studies (Erevelles, 2005; Duke et al., 2016), who have identified a number of issues that need to be considered. A recurring dilemma countries face is the decision to develop a common curriculum for all children that will be part of inclusive education policies, or maintain a parallel curriculum for children with disabilities, usually referred to as special curriculum. Although special curricula have been criticized for acting as ‘diet curricula’ for children with disabilities and informing Individual Education Plans (IEPs) that act as another form of curriculum that excludes children instead of including them (Eilers, 2023), special curricula are in place in many countries. At the same time, countries following a common curriculum do not necessarily safeguard equal opportunities for all children (Graham et al., 2020). In addition, countries are recipients of external forces suggesting the need for inclusive education and common curricula, and internal forces that consider this path difficult or even impossible to follow. European and international bodies call for inclusive education for all children and for children with disabilities in particular (e.g. Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UN, 2006 and SDG 4 on inclusive and equitable education, UN, 2015). Countries are expected to provide equal opportunities and quality education for all, while at the same time special education systems run parallel to mainstream systems for years. Developing common curricula that truly serve all children may be extremely difficult in such contexts. The colonial mindset, which is prevalent in some countries, acts as a barrier for the development of curricula that include. These countries tend to seek advice from other countries which they consider more developed, without considering the critique of their systems which is recorded in the literature (Duke et al., 2016).
It has been argued that ableist thinking guides policy developments in different areas (Campbell 2001). Ableist thinking guides curricula that aim to serve primarily children without disabilities because they are considered essential for the national economy. In this context, there is a shared understanding that the role of education is to prepare children for high-stakes exams, which at the same time act as pillars of evaluation of the education system that is in place. Children with disabilities and children who belong in other vulnerable groups are often judged as incompetent and therefore, eligible for other ‘less demanding’ curricula. Ableist thinking also influences the content of the curriculum and the process of its implementation. Many countries establish a rigid link between children’s age and content. In such curricula, differentiation can be a stated national priority, but cannot be implemented. Children with disabilities are then characterised as ‘unable to follow the curriculum’ and they are excluded to receive specialist support in special settings. Last but not least, decisions around the implementation of the curriculum are taken by special education professionals and this is justified by the prevalent view that general teachers do not have the knowledge and skills to educate children with disabilities (Florian, 2015)
In light of these tensions, our study was concerned with the ways curriculum policies in Australia and Cyprus disables children with disabilities despite the proclamations of inclusion. Using a comparative analysis, this presentation maps these tensions in the curriculum policy documents and proposes a critical understanding of what constitutes inclusive curriculum.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study utilises comparative analysis to identify how similar tensions between competing objectives inform curriculum policy. We are interested in the diachronic analysis of the historical development of these tensions and the changes in the emphasis of the objectives evident in policy. Such analysis identifies the uniqueness of each context, the influence and interpretation of international developments within each context, and the way that policy addresses tensions in the documents under examination. The methodology is informed by a comparative case study approach (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2016) using the horizontal (multiple case studies of policy implementation), vertical (micro, meso and macro levels), and transversal (time and space) axes for comparative data collection and analysis.
For each country, Cyprus and Australia, key documents were identified covering the period 1990-2023. While the broad categories were the same, there are differences in the type of documents to account for the differences in the system organisation, curriculum models, and levels of actors involved. Documents include a) policy, legislation and procedures documents related to the curriculum with references to students with disability, b) curriculum documents, and c) reports and reviews or other policy-related documents that inform policy. In addition, international policy and documents produced by international organisations related to students with disability and curriculum supplemented the analysis. While we agree with Fulcher’s (1989) perception that all educational encounters produce policy, we focus only on document analysis in this study.
The analysis firstly involved the identification of key drivers, competing objectives and tensions within each context separately. Then, these were mapped in terms of the tensions identified in the documents, the way that they are prioritised and justified, and those that were omitted. This mapping was done for each document allowing for a diachronic analysis of continuity and change. The mapping exercise was initially conducted separately for each context, followed by a comparative analysis across the two contexts.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPreliminary analysis has identified that despite the historical, cultural and sociopolitical differences of Cyprus and Australia, similar competing objectives and tensions are evident. Anxieties around national identity, performance in international testing regimes and economic competitiveness dominate discussions of excellence and equity in the documents under analysis, reducing inclusion to a buzzword or a special concern for specific students. Over time in both contexts there is an increased rhetorical emphasis on a common curriculum for all students. Nevertheless, the design principles of a unified curriculum do not translate to an inclusive curriculum that is accessible by all students, and calls demanding the (re)introduction of special curricula are persistent. In terms of the common curriculum, there is a clear tension in what is taught and how it is taught and who makes decisions about them. Control and autonomy at all levels of the educational systems impact on the ability of teachers, students and their families to imagine, let alone realise an inclusive pedagogy, which is perceived as subordinate to what is taught (content) of the curriculum. The possibility for an inclusive pedagogy is furthered curtained by an emphasis on individualised provision, within a special education administration system, with adaptations and goals set for students with disability separately from the rest of the students. As it is argued in this presentation, while the analysis identifies how these tensions limit the inclusive potential of the curriculum, it is an opportunity to conceptualise the conditions that can expand this potential.
ReferencesBartlett, L., and Vavrus, F. 2016. Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. Taylor & Francis.
Campbell, F. K. 2001. “Inciting legal fictions – disability’s date with ontology and the ableist body of the law.” Griffith Law Review 10 (1): 42–62. https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/handle/10072/3714
Duke, J., H. Pillay, M. Tones, J. Nickerson, S. Carrington, and A. Loelu. 2016. “A case for rethinking inclusive education policy creation in developing countries.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 46 (6): 906–928. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2016.1204226
Eilers, N. 2023. “Individualized education program development in early childhood education: a disabled children’s childhood studies perspective.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 31 (1): 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2022.2147974
Erevelles, N. 2005. “Understanding curriculum as normalizing text: disability studies meet curriculum theory.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 37 (4): 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000276970
Florian, F. 2015. “Inclusive pedagogy: A transformative approach to individual differences.” Scottish Educational Review 47 (1): 5–14. https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/inclusive-pedagogy-a-transformative-approach-to-individual-differ
Fulcher, G. 1989. Disabling policies? A comparative approach to educational policy and disability. The Falmer Press.
Graham, L., M. Medhurst, H. Tancredi, I. Spandagou, and E. Walton. 2020. Fundamental concepts of inclusive education. In Inclusive Education for the 21st Century. Theory, Policy and Practice, edited by L. Graham, 27–54. London and New York: Routledge.
UN. 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York: UN.
UN. 2015. Sustainable Development Goals. New York: UN.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Space, Ability and Education Policies: Exploring the Ableist Territories of Curricula
Tobias Buchner1, Flora Petrik2
1University of Education Upper Austria, Austria; 2Universität Tübingen
Presenting Author: Buchner, Tobias
The New Middle School-Reform can be considered as the most ambitioned education policy in the last decade in Austria. In order to dissolve the institutionalized sorting of students between the upper track of Austrian secondary education, manifesting in grammar schools (‘Allgemeine Höhere Schulen’), and the lower track, the modern general school (‘Hauptschule’), this policy aimed to create a new school type; the new middle school. Thus, former modern general schools were thought to be transformed in new middle schools (NMS) – but grammar schools remained as choice, including an own curriculum. However, new middle schools as "new school for all" (BZLS, 2015, p. 22; authors’ translation) were supposed to cater for all students, regardless to their levels of academic abilities. Thus, NMS were thought to become a space of education in which all students are educated ‘under one roof’ (BMUKK, 2011, p. 3) - in an individualized, differentiated way (BMUKK, 2011). Accordingly, the newly introduced New Middle School Curriculum frequently referred to the principles of flexible differentiation, individualization and inclusion (BMUKK, 2012). Furthermore, this new curriculum foresaw teachers to reduce learning barriers to participation by teaching students with certified special educational needs (SEN) according to the didactic objectives of the NMS curriculum.
In our paper, we combine space theory with an ableism-critical perspective. In particular, we refer to a relational understanding of space, as it was developed by various authors of spatial sociology (e.g. Massey, 2005; Löw, 2001). The term ‘relational’ refers to the interrelatedness of materiality and sociality in the production of space. Accordingly, space is socially constituted and constructed by subjects - in relation to material conditions (Löw 2006). Studies of ableism focus on the significance of ability for social orders - as well as the associated processes of inclusion and exclusion (Campbell, 2009; Wolbring, 2012). For example, notions of normality are linked to specific expectations of ability, which go hand in hand with practices of belonging, participation, the distribution of resources and other forms of de/privileging (Campbell, 2009). In specific, these notions of ability-based normalcy create the dichotomy dis/ability and the associated 'great divide' (Campbell, 2003). Next to this binary structure, ableist orders are characterized by a fundamental hierarchy by which subjects are categorised and sorted (Buchner, 2022).
In our presentation we employ this theoretical framework for what has been termed a ‘small scale policy analysis’ (Thomson et al., 2010) – in relation to the Austrian New Middle School Policy and Inclusion. Doing so, we ask to what extent teaching practices produce educational spaces that enable all students in an individualized way - or whether rather traditional practices of ‘doing ability’ continue to shape the educational spaces under the surface of the new school form NMS. As we argue, educational practices always go hand in hand with an ability-related placing and synthesizing, producing what has been termed as ‘ability-space-regimes’ (Buchner, 2021). Following this line of thoughts, it can be reconstructed who is placed where on the basis of which ability expectation(s) and what qualities the specific arrangements of subjects, things and educational practices exhibit. Do such practices create spaces of a more just ablement or of exclusion? Consequently, teaching settings can be interrogated concerning to what extent ability grouping and the homogenizing placements that go with it, are avoided – as aimed for by the NMS-policy.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn our analysis, we refer to data produced during the IBIRUZ-project. The project aimed to reconstruct the interplay of space, difference and inclusive education in a longitudinal perspective. In the course of this explorative research, the initially broad focus condensed and the analysis of spatialised practices in relation to ability moved into the center of interest. An ethnographic multi-case-study design was chosen for analysis (Bollig et al., 2017), with cases representing differing ability-space-regimes (cf. Buchner, 2021). Thus, we refer to an ethnographic approach understood as a ‘methodological plural contextual research strategy’ (Breidenstein et al., 2013) that helps to discover new and unknown things ‘about society’ (Breidenstein, 2006, p. 21). This meant for our research to explore the spatial constructions in relation to ability that take place during lessons in NMS.
In the first phase of research, comprehensive ethnographic lesson observations were conducted over a period of 6-8 weeks in spring 2018 at so-called integration classes of NMS in Vienna. Five classes from three NMS were studied during this period of fieldwork. Participant observation stood at the core of the empirical analysis. In addition, problem-centered interviews with teachers and students were conducted. In total, 279 observation lesson protocols were produced, as well as 73 interviews with students and 22 interviews with teachers were facilitated.
As mentioned, by this design of research, diverse data material that was generated and analyzed in an ongoing process. Hypotheses were developed in a reflexive interplay of theory and empiricism, deepened and, if necessary, discarded or adapted in the course of data collection. In the process - in the sense of theoretical sampling (Glaser & Strauss, 2010). - focal points were set that were deemed meaningful, e.g. the spatial constructions in certain school subjects or also ability-oriented practices in specific instructional settings. In this way, different readings of the meanings of ability for space and vice versa were generated. Doing so, we followed the aim to give validity to the different perspectives inscribed in the data material, in order to relate data to each other and to link interpretations. With regard to the multi-case-study design pursued in IBIRUZ, this meant deepening the developing analytical concepts on a case-by-case basis and, at the same time, systematically contrasting them successively with other cases (Bollig & Kelle, 2012).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn our paper, we reconstruct what we consider as ability space-regime of a so-called ‘inclusion class’ at a NMS. As we will show, lessons in main subjects are structured by strict placings that are related to ability and curriculum. In this way, the ability-based placings of students and the specific addressing as well as educational practices create spaces of curricula, which are characterized by specific atmospheres and ability expectations. Thus, the ostensibly ‘inclusive’ teaching, taking place under the ‘surface’ of a NMS, is permeated by spatialized, ability-based hierarchies. Indeed, four curricular spaces are constructed during mathematics lessons: the spaces of the curriculum of the grammar school, for modern secondary education school, for students with high support needs and the so called general special school – all seem to co-exist under the umbrella of the NMS. These local implementation of the reform ultimately points to the path dependency and the interlinked persistence of the ableist grammar of Austrian schooling. Hence, the historically grown structures of the Austrian three-part education system have a strong influence on the formation of educational spaces of the NMS. The marking of students as 'not normal' via the classification as having SEN, which has not been left untouched by the NMS-reform, and the associated co-existence of old and new curricula, ultimately manifests itself in corresponding ability-based, spatialised arrangements in the mainstream school.
As we will discuss, our heuristic approach of relating spatial theory with an ableism-critical perspective proves to be a productive matrix for research on teaching and education policies - especially in relation to the (re)production of social inequality. Furthermore, this approach can help to empirically realise the claim formulated in the literature of disability studies to use Ableism as a profitable theoretical concept that goes beyond the investigation of the construction of dis/ability (e.g. Wolbring, 2012).
ReferencesBuchner, T. (2021). On “integration rooms”, tough territories, and “places to be”: The ability-space-regimes of three educational settings at Austrian secondary schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1950975
Campbell, F. K. (2003). The great divide: Ableism and technologies of disability production [Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology].
Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of ableism: The production of disability and abledness. Palgrave Macmillan.
Löw, M. (2006). The social construction of space and gender. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(2), 119–133.
Massey, D. (2005). For space. SAGE.
Wolbring, G. (2008). The politics of ableism. Development, 51(2), 252–258.
Wolbring, G. (2012). Expanding ableism: Taking down the ghettoization of impact of disability studies scholars. Societies, 2(4), 75–83.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Policy Variance in the Four Home Nations of UK: the Case of Pupils with Additional Needs
Alison Black1, Angeliki Kallitsoglou1, Una O'Connor Bones2
1University Of Exeter, United Kingdom; 2Ulster University, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Black, Alison
“In many areas of public life—including education—the UK [is] a federal state and in key respects had been for many years” (Furlong and Lunt, 2016, p.251). This paper sets out to demonstrate the differing policy approaches taken to the education and schooling practices of children with additional needs in the four home nations of the United Kingdom (UK). This is particularly timely given the upcoming UK general election.
Each of the four home nations of the UK – England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales - have devolved power over education policy. There are, and have been, even prior to devolution, differences in policy in all aspects of education in the four nations (Booth, 1996; Furlong and Lunt, 2016; Knight et al. 2023). Examples of policy divergence include: the prevalence of grammar schools in Northern Ireland; the lack of publication of school performance data in Wales; different qualifications in Scotland; approaches to school autonomy in England. The concept of and policy around additional needs is of a particular interest as two of the home nations have policies to encompass “additional learning needs” (Wales) and “additional support needs” (Scotland).
In this paper the term “pupils with Additional Needs” is used, in recognition of the different policy approaches to certain pupils taken in each of the home nations, but also to move discussion beyond a focus on children with special educational needs (SEN). “Additional needs” was used in the 2005 ‘Every Child Matters’ initiative in England (DSCF, 2009) to cover those who are protected by statutory education/care services and those on the edge of these services; this overlaps with the Scottish term “additional support needs” and Welsh term “additional learning needs”, and, in NI only, the term “additional educational needs”, used for those who may face additional barriers to education and learning, beyond SEN. This paper’s definition – pupils in each of the four nations of the UK who have educational needs beyond that of “normal/typical” children, which means additional educational provision is made for them.
This paper will set out differences and similarities in policy, examining the legislation and statutory guidance of the different policies. It will report on a pilot which seeks to present how concepts such as “disability”; “additional needs”; “special educational needs” and “vulnerable children” are framed in the different parties manifestoes produced and publicised for the upcoming UK general election (expected by end of 2024).
It will also describe a project under development to make use of data collection in each of the four home nations to describe the characteristics of this group of children and patterns in who they are and where they go to school. The first stage of the project will be to map what data are collected and collated by the departments of education in each of the jurisdictions.
This will result in a comparison of the different policies and data and the impact these might have on the numbers of children labelled as having additional needs. Such analysis will afford unique opportunities to compare and contrast the impact of different policies on the inclusion and education of children with additional needs, beyond SEN. It will draw attention to the need to recognise (and critique) the assumption that English policy is synonymous with UK policy (Furlong and Lunt, 2016; Raffe et al 1999), and will help reposition the other home nations to a more central role in policy debate and research (Power, 2016). It will also be a model for ways of exploring other federal policy variation in international contexts.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper will set out the background of a developing study, laying out the context of the study, and outlining its proposed methods. It will present the results of a pilot study which involves documentary analysis of UK political parties’ manifestoes (pending announcement of date of the UKs upcoming general election/publication of manifestoes.)
The study under development aims to:
• Compare and contrast policy documentation in each of the four home nations of the UK with regards to children with Additional Needs.
• Map what data are collected with regards pupils with additional needs by departments responsible for education in each of the four home nations.
A discussion of the proposed methods will be presented. These include:
Documentary analysis of legislation and briefing papers in each context, building on work of Knight et al (2023) who undertook a critical policy analysis of how the four UK nations articulate and portray their inclusive education policies. The focus of our study will be on pupils with additional needs (rather than inclusion). The documentary analysis will include: identifying and analysing national legislation, policy documents and associated resources (Eg. National Assembly for Wales (2015) Research paper Special Educational Needs/ Additional Learning Needs; DfE (2015). SEND Code of Practice). A key word search for terms associated with additional needs – eg, needs, vulnerable, looked after children.
The process is expected to be iterative – as polices are engaged with it is expected different groups of pupils with additional needs will be alluded to and named/examples given, which will in turn be searched for in other documents.
This approach will be piloted on manifestoes published by political parties in the run up to 2024 general election – the process and findings of this will be presented at ECER if such documents are available at the time of conference.
Desk-based exploration of the publicly available data in the four home nations. A mapping exercise will take place to understand what data is currently available online with regards children with additional needs.
Interview conversations with representatives in the departments responsible for education/any data-gathering bodies in the 4 home nations, for example the Administrative Data Research Centre - Northern Ireland. These interviews will have two main foci – i/to explore the participants’ conceptualisations of pupils with additional needs; ii/to understand what data collected on such pupils.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe paper will be focused on giving the context and describing the methods of the proposed study, and will not be reporting on empirical data (unless the pilot study has been carried out). It will raise attention of the different policy contexts and approaches to education, and to pupils with additional needs taken in each of the home nations of the UK, establishing that education policy is not the same across the UK. It will highlight the need for exploration of educational issues at a level between country and region, particularly in similar federal systems. It may also form the basis for future comparative studies with regards children with additional needs. The study could also be the starting point for relational analysis (Power, 2016), helping establish “processes of interdependence and mutual influence” (p. 19) between the different nations.
Discussion may also occur around the limitations of future comparative studies (Power, 2016), for example differences in scale which make simple comparisons unsound (to compare a country with a population of nearly 55 million with one of 3 million). Another limitation is the political context of each home nation and issues such as pressure on public services, including special schools.
A brief report on the pilot study may be made, presenting how concepts such as “disability”; “additional needs”; “special educational needs” and “vulnerable children” are framed in the different parties’ manifestoes produced and publicised for the upcoming UK general election (expected by end of 2024).
It is hoped it will lead to broader theoretical understandings of the inclusion/exclusion of children who may benefit from support, beyond the deficit lens adopted by some policy definitions of special educational needs (Knight et al., 2023).
References•Booth, T.(1996).A perspective on inclusion from England. Cambridge Journal of Education,26(1),87-99.
•DfE/DoH (2015). Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice. DfE.
•Furlong, J., & Lunt, I. (2016). Education in a Federal UK. Oxford Review of Education, 42(3), 249-252.
•Knight, C., Conn, C., Crick, T., & Brooks, S. (2023). Divergences in the framing of inclusive education across the UK: a four nations critical policy analysis. Educational Review, 1-17.
•National Assembly for Wales (2015) Research paper Special Educational Needs (SEN)/ Additional Learning Needs (ALN)). National Assembly for Wales
•Power, S. (2016). The politics of education and the misrecognition of Wales. Oxford Review of Education, 42(3), 285-298.
•Raffe, D., Brannen, K., Croxford, L., & Martin, C. (1999). Comparing England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: the case for 'home internationals' in comparative research. Comparative Education, 35(1), 9-25.
|
