04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Scaling the New Inclusive Education Policies: the Obligation and Right to be Assessed
Anette Bagger1, Anna-Lena Andersson2, Daniel Östlund3
1Dalarna University, Sweden; 2Mälardalen University, Sweden; 3Kristianstad University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Bagger, Anette;
Andersson, Anna-Lena
Compulsory School for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (CSSID) in Sweden is undergoing extensive policy change with the overall argument of promoting inclusive education. Core is a guarantee regarding support measures to enable achievement, which is in turn connected to increased national assessment and the implementation of a revised curriculum. In this change, increased equity and quality have been stated as motives. At the same time, equity and quality has shown to be challenged in the Nordic education systems (Frønes et al., 2020). The political will and enhancement of assessment in education is a phenomenon troughout Europe, often with the incentive to reform education deriving from international comparisons of knowledge, as PISA for example.
Through the shifting governing of CSSID, towards assessment, discourses of normality and of assessment joins forces and pushes ACS toward the discourse on learning, knowledge and assessment of the mainstream compulsory school (Andersson et al, 2023).). This is an example on how neoliberal values are embedded in today’s schooling and inclusion, equity, and quality are often approached as being promoted by comparison and competition (Blossing et al., 2014; Harvey, 2005; Smith, 2018; Yang Hansen and Gustafsson, 2016). This phenomenon has also appeared in other contexts and has been criticized by researchers who emphasize that quality of life, equity and self-determination need to be focused to a greater extent. Something that can be achieved by considering inclusion as an ethical responsibility that school and society have, rather than reducing inclusion to neoliberal values that include knowledge assessment, competition, comparison, and freedom of choice (Brossard Børhaug & Reindal, 2018). In relation to this, Waitoller (2020) discusses the force of accumulation, which refers to the identification and sorting of students as able or not. Furthermore, learners’ identity is within the realm of assessment often linked to the ideal of the neoliberal human being. Whenever this ideal is not met, due to individuals having deficits, it is seen as a threat to economic progress (Ball, 2013). We claim that these circumstances especially impact students ASC and is reinforced during assessment.
The purpose of the study is to contribute knowledge on national assessment for compulsory students with Intellectual Disabilities (ID) in Sweden. For the current paper, we have developed the method for selection and analysis and have focused on two governmental investigations to do so. Furthermore, we will put the results in relation to global and traveling discourses on assessment of knowledge and students with ID and discuss the outcome in relation to New Public Management and how policy mediates meaning (see Ball, 2013; 2017). In prolongation, we will analyze policy as well as the national assessment material itself and how these together constructs students’ knowledge, the student with ID as a learner and the assessment itself.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedDrawing on Popkewitz (2014), Hacking (1999), and Foucault (1994), we understand "fabrication" as the simultaneous making up of and making sense of reality by attributing characteristics, hopes and prerequisites to students, their knowledge and assessment. Policies are then understood to inscribe meaning and condition the students with ID and their knowledge, thus fabricating certain types of students, knowledges, and assessment. This brings forth possibilities and limitations regarding who and what kind of students and knowledge can and should be in(ex)cluded, but also what assessment means in the context of national assessment in ACS.
The Open data archive of the Swedish Parliament database (OpAL ) has been advocated to select governmental investigations connected to national assessment for students with ID. In addition, and at a later state, the national assessment material for the early schoolyears in mathematics, will also be analysed. For the study at hand, a discursive reading and analysis of how the student with ID and his/her knowledge is fabricated is performed alongside with the fabrication of national assessment. Two governmental investigations which lies in the heart of this was selected. These concern the evaluation of goal and targets in school (SOU 2007:28) and grading and assessment for representing students’ knowledge in CSSID (SOU 2020:43).
The analysis was performed in a two step procedure and builds on a previous study on how policy document fabricated inclusion for students with ID (Andersson et al., 2023). Sections of texts that concerned assessment of knowledge and the student with ID in these two policy documents was selected. Thereafter, an exploratory and quantitative thematic analysis was performed and in which statements on the student, the student’s knowledge, and assessment, were collected into three themes (Creswell, 2007). The corpus of data was thereafter analyzed out from how inclusions, exclusions, categories, and labelling constructed and fabricated meaning on the students, the student’s knowledge, and assessment. This was explored and thereafter formulated in terms of what kind of students, knowledge and assessment was fabricated. Hence, we have systematically explored characteristics, hopes and prerequisites attributed to students, their knowledge and assessment and their interrelatedness (see Hacking 1999; Popkewitz 2012; Valero 2017).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe two governmental investigations are proceeding the current policy change to make national assessment mandatory in CSSID. The 13 years between them point towards policy traveling in a certain direction. In the investigation Goal and targets for learning in compulsory school, suggestion to new national assessment system (SOU 2007:28), the child was fabricated as not challenged and as recipient of care, as someone special and hard for schools to teach and finally, as challenged in meeting standards. In connection to this fabrication of the student, the students’ knowledge was fabricated as important to normalize as far as possible, as relative to students’ prerequisites and as absent in terms of possible goals to reach in the curricula. How then to assess the students’ knowledge and the meaning inscribed into assessment for these students was fabricated as voluntary, crucially absent, and also highly needed.
When turning to the later governmental investigation Build, assess, grade - grades that better correspond to the students' knowledge (SOU 2020:43), this lack of assessment and need to normalise and make students’ knowledge visible has been enhanced. The student is then fabricated as having a right to documentation of their knowledge, but also being deprived this. Paradoxically enough, the student with ID is also fabricated as not having use of an exam or grading and fabricated as not talented enough. Furthermore, knowledge is in connection to this fabricated as needed to be situated in close perimeter to society and what goes on in the real world. The assessment of knowledge is fabricated as an exception or needing exceptions to work, as less important to these students and as making students disadvantaged, in the case of grading. Assessment is fabricated as not systematised, so even if it is done, it is not considered as valuable to collect nationally.
ReferencesAndersson, A.-L., Bagger, A., & Lillvist, A. (2023). Looking through the kaleidoscope of inclusion in policy on students with intellectual disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1–14.
Ball, S. J. (2013). Foucault, power, and education. Routledge.
Ball S. J. (2017). The Education Debate. third ed. The Policy Press.
Blossing, U. & Söderström, Å. (2014). A school for every child in Sweden. In U. Blossing, G. Imsen, & L. Moss (Eds.), The Nordic Education Model. A school for all encounters neoliberal policy (pp. 17-34). Springer.
Brossard Børhaug, F & Reindal, S.M (2018). Hvordan forstå inkludering som allmenpedagogisk prinsipp i en transhumanistisk (fram)tid? Utbildning & Demokrati, 27(1), 81
Popkewitz, T. (2012). Numbers in grids of intelligibility: making sense of how educational truth is told. In H. Lauder, M. Young, H. Daniels, M. Balarin & J. Lowe, (Eds), Educating for the Knowledge Economy? Critical Perspectives (pp. 169-191). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Foucault, Michel. (1994). The Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984, 3, Power. London: Penguin.
Frønes, S, T., Pettersen, A., Radišić, J., & Buchholtz, N. (2020). Equity, Equality and Diversity in the Nordic Model of Education (1st ed. 2020.). Springer International Publishing.
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Popkewitz, T. (2014). Social Epistemology, the Reason of ‘Reason’ and the Curriculum Studies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22: 1–18.
Smith, W. C. (2018). The Banality of Numbers., edited by B. Hamre, A. Morin, C. Ydesen (Eds.), Testing and Inclusive Schooling: International Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 89–104). Routledge
Valero, P. (2017). Mathematics for All, Economic Growth, and the Making of the Citizen-Worker. In T. Popkewitz, J. Diaz, & C. Kirchgasler (Eds.), A Political Sociology of Educational Knowledge: Studies of Exclusions and Difference (pp. 117–132). Routledge.
Waitoller, F. R. (2020). Why are we not more inclusive? An analysis of neoliberal inclusionism. In C. Boyle, J. Anderson, A. Page, & S. Mavropoulou (Eds.), Inclusive Education: Global Issues & Controversies (pp. 89-107). Sense Publishers.
Yang Hansen, K., & J-E, Gustafsson. (2016). Causes of educational segregation in Sweden - school choice or residential segregation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(1-2), 23–44.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
The new Norwegian Education Act as Arrangements for inclusive education practices: The vanishing concept of the Nordic Model?
Kathrin Olsen, Natallia Hanssen
Nord University
Presenting Author: Olsen, Kathrin;
Hanssen, Natallia
Contribution
Like other Nordic countries, Norway has a culture and history of promoting politics that emphasise social equalisation and equal access to education for all (Keles et al., 2022). Education for all aims to support respect and acceptance for diversity and to promote learning in inclusive settings as well as learning from one another, thus creating spaces for social relations to enrich the understanding of what it means to be part of a democratic society (Hausstätter & Vik, 2021). The Nordic countries’ similarities and shared aims for education are defined as the ‘Nordic model’ of education (Frønes et al., 2020), which has traditionally further promoted the policy of inclusion through legal and legislative documents as well as principles for inclusive educational practices (Haug, 2017; Keles et al., 2022).
The situation seems to have hit a dead end, however, as the Nordic model concept is threatened by the forces of marketisation, efficiency, individualism and competition, challenging the traditional welfare values of education for all (Hanssen et al., 2021). This is particularly observed in Norway, where there is a persistent gap between national legal and legislative documents and the practices of inclusive education for students with special educational needs (SEN). This gap is linked to an increase in segregated educational spaces and a lack of special education expertise (Olsen, 2021), which may restrict learning and social participation for this group of students. Such barriers for inclusion can emerge in any context but especially in settings where legal and legislative documents lack a common understanding of the concept of inclusion and offer vague guidelines for promoting inclusive education practices (Olsen & Hanssen, 2021).
The current paper follows Kemmis et al.’s (2014) definition of practice as a socially established cooperative activity involving utterance and forms of understanding (sayings), modes of action and activity (doings) and the ways in which people relate to one another and the world (relatings). Inclusive education practices for students with SEN are thus understood as the varied ways in which teachers include students with SEN in education (doings), how they express themselves in words and language to describe what is going on in their teaching (sayings) and how they relate to students, colleagues and other partners (relatings) (Mahon et al., 2017). Inclusive education practices are ‘held in place’ by external structures or arrangements (cultural-discursive, material-economic and sociopolitical circumstances. Against this background, the present study investigates the following research question:
How can the new Norwegian Education Act constrain and enable inclusive education practices for students with SEN in primary and secondary schools?
The research question is explored by analysing the forthcoming Education Act and its preparatory documents.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe documents were analysed by qualitative content analysis (QCA) with a deductive approach (Elo & Kyngös, 2008). The main concepts of the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014), including cultural-discursive, material-economic and sociopolitical arrangements, constituted the frames of categorisation.
Kemmis et al. (2014) claim that participants in communities encounter one another in intersubjective spaces, which are arranged in particular ways and structure social life. They conceptualise this as a ‘practice architecture’ comprising three kinds of interwoven arrangements. Cultural-discursive arrangements enable or constrain how shared discourses are expressed in the social medium of language, for example, determining how concepts in legal documents may contribute to establishing a shared language in inclusive education practices. Material-economic arrangements enable and constrain how things can be done in the medium of work and activity. This may embrace how concepts in legal documents give directions for how inclusive education is organised and implemented. Sociopolitical arrangements exist in the dimension of social space, influencing how people connect to one another in the social medium of power and solidarity, dealing with relations to political entities. In our context, these may embrace the nature of the relationships between the Education Act and the practices of inclusive education and how the Education Act affect the formation of relationships in the practice. The three arrangements are densely interwoven, with each informing the other (Mahon et al., 2017), so that they emerge and develop in relation to one another and continually change through the dynamic interplay between arrangements and practices. These arrangements give practices a characteristic form, which shapes and prefigures practice, enabling or constraining new interaction (Mahon et al., 2017).
In the first phase of the analysis, the data were coded according to the predefined categories. First, concepts and formulations in the documents that help to shape or are shaped by the language, discourses and knowledge related to inclusive practices were categorised into cultural-discursive arrangements. Next, formulations that offer guidelines for the organisation of inclusive practices were categorised into material-economic arrangements. Finally, findings that create frameworks for relationships were categorised into sociopolitical arrangements. In this phase, we also assessed similarities and differences in the use of terms in the documents. In the final phase of the analysis, we considered how the findings could influence the practice architecture and practice.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results indicate that the new legislation’s strengthening of students’ right to participate has the potential to enhance participation and co-determination, including for students with SEN. However, the Education Act vaguely and inconsistently employ concepts regarding inclusive education for students with SEN, and they become ambiguous due to the use of broad, general terms. The analysis also points out that the documents’ terminology is weakly connected and does not communicate well with educational institutions. Based on the results, the present paper discusses how the arrangements given by the Education Law and the preparatory document, could constrain and enable inclusive education practices for students with SEN. We also discuss the findings in relation to the current challenges for inclusion in Norway and the ideals of the Nordic model of education.
This study deepens knowledge and increases understanding of how policy documents influence inclusive education practices for students with SEN. The paper provides input to the discussion of how concepts related to inclusion and inclusive education should be formulated and treated through policy documents to provide a clear direction for the development of inclusive education. Finally, this paper reflects the Norwegian context, but there is reason to believe that our findings may apply to a broader international context. The development of inclusion and inclusive education is high on the international policy agenda, and our paper illustrates the power of using the findings and discussion of a specific context to help readers reconsider policy and practice in their own context. This may make challenges and possibilities clearer and provide a catalyst for new scrutiny and innovation.
ReferencesReferences
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007. 04569.
Frønes, T. S., Pettersen, A., Radišić, J., & Buchholtz, N. (2020). Equity, equality and diversity in the Nordic model of education. Springer Nature.
Hanssen, N. B., Hansén, S.-E., & Ström, K. (Eds.) (2021). Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion : Theoretical and practical perspectives. Routledge
Haug, P. (2017). Understanding inclusive education: Ideals and reality. Scandinavian
Journal of Disability Research, 19, 206–217.
Hausstätter, R., & Vik, S. (2021). Inclusion and special needs education: A theoretical framework of an overall perspective of inclusive special education. In N. Hanssen, S. E. Hansén, &. K. Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 83–98). Routledge.
Keles, S., Braak, D., & Elaine Munthe, E. (2022). Inclusion of students with special education
needs in Nordic countries: A systematic scoping review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2022.2148277
Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, C., Edwards-Groves, I., Grootenboer, H. P., & Bristol, L. (2014).Changing practices, changing education. Springer.
Mahon, K., Francisco, S., & Kemmis, S. (Eds.). (2017). Exploring education and professional
practice. Springer.
Olsen, K., & Hanssen, N. B. (2021). Praksisarkitekturen til spesialpedagogiske undervisningspraksiser i barnehagelærerutdanningen. In J. Aspfors, R. Jakhelln, & E. Sjølie (Eds.), Å utvikle og å analysere praksis—teorien om praksisarkitekturer. Universitetsforlaget.
Olsen, M. (2021). A practical-theoretical perspective on the inclusive school in Norway. In
N. B. Hanssen, S. Hansén, & K. Ström (Eds.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Routledge.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Justice-Sensitive Approach to Indigenous Education for All: An Exploration of Indigenous Peoples’ Perspectives and Aspirations in Taiwan
Hsiao-Lan Chen
National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan
Presenting Author: Chen, Hsiao-Lan
In the pursuit of promoting transitional justice education for reconciliation in post-colonial societies, it is important not to ignore the issues of historical justice and educational justice for indigenous peoples. In recent years, many countries have actively incorporated Indigenous knowledge, perspectives and historical narratives into the promotion of transitional justice education. Not only increasing emphases have placed on “justice-sensitive pedagogy for social justice” as a vital theme in curriculum change and in teacher education (Cochran-Smith, 2010; Davis, 2017; Parkinson & Jones, 2018); but also increasing efforts have given to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in education (OECD, 2023; UNESCO, 2017). Since education is a human right and the foundation for more equitable, inclusive and cohesive societies (Vitello & Mithaug, 1998), it is imperative to provide education that acknowledges the value of diversity and respect for human dignity to enable all learners (with different gender, ethnicity, indigenous status, etc.) to thrive, to understand their realities, and to work for a more just society (UNESCO, 2017).
In Taiwan, since the lifting of the martial law in 1987 there have been various transitional justice initiatives and mechanisms advocated by the civic society which have accumulated many remarkable democratic achievements. Over the past decades, Taiwan government has also developed a powerful policy and legal framework to protect and support Indigenous rights and development, culminating in the establishment of the Historical Justice and Transitional Justice Committee, however, Indigenous peoples are still the most disadvantaged, marginalized, and vulnerable group in the country, and in education, Indigenous peoples continue to have significantly lower academic achievements and outcomes compared to their Han Chinese peers (Nesterova, 2023). In view of the fact that although the newly reformed National Curriculum Guidelines has included the diverse historical and cultural perspectives of indigenous peoples, the content and supporting mechanisms are not quite relevant, and the goal of promoting transitional justice for Indigenous peoples has not been fully understood and implemented. According to Couch et al. (2023), in Taiwan, although there have been some regulations and policies to deal with the learning disadvantages of Indigenous students and the loss of Indigenous culture and language, the education provided in schools has always been limited to Han Chinese culture, and the institutional structure has not changed to respond to the learning needs of Indigenous students.
It is necessary to rethink education for Indigenous peoples from the perspectives of cultural diversity and cognitive justice (Makoelle, 2014). Schools must recognize the coexistence of different forms of knowledge and cognitive forms, and need to incorporate indigenous knowledge systems into school curricula and take into account the cognitive justice of students from different cultural background (Muchenje, 2017). In this way, students can interact with familiar concepts in different cultural contexts to generate meaningful learning. As researchers point out, equitable and inclusive education provides better learning opportunities, processes and results for all learners that can promote psychological and social adjustment, not only improve their academic achievement, but also foster their socio-emotional growth, self-esteem and peer acceptance which may consequently enhance trust for social cohesion to be built (Mezzanotte, 2022; Nishina, et al., 2019).
Therefore, this study aims to explore feasible approaches and practicable inclusive education for all that can be historically, culturally, and cognitively sensitive to the perspectives and aspirations of Indigenous peoples. Based on this, the main research purposes of this study include:
(1) to understand the perspectives of Indigenous education leaders regarding the issues of historical justice and educational justice for Indigenous peoples
to explore the aspirations of Indigenous education promoters and practitioners for the construction of justice-sensitive curriculum and pedagogy for Inclusive Indigenous Education
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedBased on the research purposes, this study was designed to conducted focus group interviews and individual in-depth interviews with Indigenous educators, leaders and academics. The total number of participants will be around 20 Indigenous education leaders, promoters and practitioners from different parts of Taiwan. (Up to now two focus group interviews has been conducted already; 5 Indigenous leaders/academics with extensive experience in Indigenous rights, affairs, and education and 3 experienced high school teachers were interviewed.)
The questions during the first phase of the study aimed to answer include: Based on your experience or academic research expertise in positions related to Indigenous peoples’ transitional justice, what are your views on the promotion of transitional justice education? What do you think is the gap in understanding/misunderstanding and expectation among various sectors in Taiwan regarding transitional justice education for Indigenous peoples? What are your personal interpretations and expectations for transitional justice education (such as history, reconciliation, etc.) related to Indigenous peoples? How do you think justice-sensitive education for Indigenous peoples should/can be constructed? What implementation methods do you think should/can be adopted to promote justice-sensitive education related to Indigenous peoples in Taiwan? What topics/Indigenous knowledge systems should be included? What are the possible practical challenges and dilemmas in the construction and implementation of justice-sensitive inclusive Indigenous education? How should we respond to challenges and overcome difficulties? What are your expectations and suggestions for incorporating justice-sensitive inclusive education related to Indigenous peoples’ knowledge systems into school education?
Each interview lasted from one hour to two hours and a half. The interviews were conducted in Chinese and the interviews were audio-recorded with written consent of the participants. Each interview was transcribed verbatim in English. Grounded theory approach was used in data analysis of this study. While deductive coding and theme development were used, the data analysis was largely inductive with themes emerging from the data. After each interview was transcribed and analyzed, the preliminary analysis will send to the participants for member check and the responses collected for amendment.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPreliminary findings:
Indigenous education leaders and scholars pointed out although the newly reformed Curriculum Guidelines highlights the need to include Indigenous historical perspectives, the narratives in the textbooks are like a rehash of old dishes but just simply lay out the information still. Therefore, promoting justice-sensitive education for Indigenous peoples must be linked to thinking on issues related to educational justice for Indigenous peoples. It is important to actively construct a more just knowledge system of Indigenous peoples by reflecting on how the images and historical views of Indigenous peoples have been constructed and how to keep the intellectual sovereignty of Indigenous peoples.
Indigenous scholars and teachers suggested that the research results of Indigenous knowledge construction projects and funded educational resources cannot only be targeted at Indigenous students and implemented in schools in Indigenous communities. They must be further transformed and integrated into school curricula to allow all students, both indigenous and non-indigenous students can learn the knowledge and viewpoints of Indigenous peoples, and both indigenous and non-indigenous students can also learn with the cognitive approaches they are good at. Only then can we truly achieve the so-called Indigenous education for ALL.
They all point out that it is important to develop inclusive education aimed at incorporating Indigenous cultural content and perspectives in Taiwan that can be beneficial for mutual understanding and better relations between indigenous and non-indigenous teachers and students, best serve the needs of Indigenous students as well as non-Indigenous students. It is hoped that an increased sense of participation and an innovative, culturally sensitive pedagogical practices would happen in various regions, local indigenous communities, which can be reproduced in schools across Taiwan. Further, the restoration of pride and self-worth of indigenes can be a model for other minority ethnic groups, in Taiwan and in other countries.
ReferencesBarnhardt, R. & Kawagley, A. O. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska native ways of knowing. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 36(1), 8-23.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2010). Toward a theory of teacher education for social Justice. In Hargreaves A., Lieberman A., Fullan M. & Hoplins D. (eds.). Second International Handbook of Educational Change. Springer International Handbooks of Education 23, 445-467. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2660-_27
Davies, L. (2017). Justice-sensitive education: the implications of transitional justice mechanisms for teaching and learning. Comparative Education, 53(3). 333-350. http://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2017.1317999
Makoelle, T. (2014). Cognitive justice: A road map for equitable inclusive learning environments. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(7), 505-518.
Mezzanotte, C. (2022), “The social and economic rationale of inclusive education: An overview of the outcomes in education for diverse groups of students”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 263, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bff7a85d-en.
Muchenje, F. (2017). Cognitive justice and indigenous knowledge systems in the postcolonial classroom. In Shizha, E. & Makuvaza, N. (Eds.). Re-thinking postcolonial education in Sub-Saharan Africa in the 21st century: Post-millennium development goals. (pp. 69-84). Netherlands: Sense Publishers
Nesterova, Y. (2023). Colonial legacies and the barriers to educational justice for Indigenous peoples in Taiwan. Comparative Education, published on line. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2023.2185355
Nishina, A. et al. (2019), “Ethnic Diversity and Inclusive School Environments”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 54/4, pp. 306-321, https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1633923.
OECD (2023). Equity and inclusion in education: Finding strength through diversity (abridged version). https://www.oecd.org/education/strength-through-diversity/Equity-and-Inclusion-in-Education-abridged-version.pdf
Parkinson, C. & Jones, T. (2018). Aboriginal people’s aspirations and the Australian curriculum: A critical analysis. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 18, 75-97.
UNESCO (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000248254
Vitello, S. J. and Mithaug, D. E. (eds). (1998). Inclusive Schooling: National and International Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.
postcolonial classroom. In E. Shizha & N. Makuvaza (Eds.). Re-thinking postcolonial education in Sub-Saharan Africa in the 21st century: Post-millennium development goals. (pp. 69-84). Netherlands: Sense Publishers
Nesterova, Y. (2023). Colonial legacies and the barriers to educational justice for Indigenous peoples in Taiwan. Comparative Education, DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2023.2185355
Parkinson, C. & Jones, T. (2019). Aboriginal people’s aspirations and the Australian Curriculum: a critical analysis. Educational Research for Policy and Practice. 18(1), 75–97.
|
