Inclusion: The Gender Divide - Essay Example

Inclusion: The Gender Divide Introduction Formal education is a structured effort made by society to impart skills and ways of thinking consideredessential for making a positive contribution to society (Encyclopaedia, 2006). Education is targeted at making a person more competent and capable of inclusion into the society as a valued and appreciated member. The opportunity to access education must be equal for everyone; this essay explores the inequalities due to gender difference. Inclusion means that all children feel that, instead of just sharing a roof, belong in their class. In metropolitan societies where the children come from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, and bring with them their individual capabilities and limitations, it is necessary to build an atmosphere of equality and positive expectation, in order that the learning process can continue without artificial barriers. Every child is unique and has abilities, interests, characteristic and learning needs - in addition there is the gender difference. Schools must recognise this basic fact and design their curricula, teaching practices and equipment to provide for the needs of their pupils. It is here that instead of plain theoretical development, practical experience in real life must be integrated into education through a cycle of action-reflection-action (Kolb, 1984). Experiential learning must be used to bring about this change. The concept of inclusion applies to the inclusion of all students into education regardless of their ability, age, gender, ethnicity and background (Frederickson & Cline, 2002) and must cover the range of experience associated with school, namely, the culture and communities and extra-curricular activities. Education is divided clearly into two parts, one, the learning through practical observation and experimentation in their natural environment and second, through formal teaching, strengthened through supplementary work at home. [School/ schooling, here and elsewhere in this essay, include preschool, school, college, university and vocational training institutions]. It is important that inclusion to span the entire spectrum of people concerned with the education of the pupil; and that includes all pupils, male or female, ranging from those with special gifts to those with disabilities or having special educational needs [SEN], parents, and teachers. Each of them must join the process with enthusiasm and a feeling of belonging [inclusion] where they feel wanted, valued and happy in sharing the success of the joint efforts. “Inclusion is seen to involve the identification and minimising of barriers to learning and participation and the maximising of resources to support learning participation” (Booth & Ainscow, 2000). Discrimination, bias and prejudgement are barriers that need to be lowered so that the available resources are put to optimal use in forwarding the education of all the pupils, with equity and effectiveness. The responsibility for making the change required to bring this about lies squarely on the shoulders of the schools. In addition to gender difference the basis for non-inclusion and difference in treatment of individual pupils may range from EAL [English as and Additional Language], specially gifted and talented students, ethnic heritage/ background, or disabilities both mental and physical. Non-inclusion creates people who feel discriminated against and bring attitudes of prejudice, fear and bitterness into their lives and society. Non-inclusion is caused by the system and not by the limitations of the students. Whatever the reason, there is nothing that is provided by special schools that can not be reproduced in the normal schools, and therefore pupils with disabilities and learning difficulties need not be segregated or protected. As more pupils of this type are enrolled in mainstream schools it will become possible to divert the money, materials and teachers enabling them to meet the challenges of extending their services to the diverse composition of their alumni. Finding the optimal balance between adapting teaching and curriculum overall so it suits all learners and accommodating to individual differences through differences in teaching when overall adaptations are not enough. (Norwich 1994 p. 304) This paper focuses on the inequality, in terms of inclusion, due to gender difference. This is an area of concern even for the developed countries since the girl child is generally considered to be the one responsible for keeping house while the men go out to work and provide for the family. Girls are seen as not being capable of undertaking studies in particular areas like mathematics, and in mixed classes they get a lower treatment as compared with boys. Inclusion – Legislative Background Segregation of students based on their disabilities or special educational needs (SEN) is widely understood to be against their rights and different policy guidelines, and laws have been laid down to ensure that such segregation does not take place. Statistics indicate that these are having some effect in the UK (Statistics of Education: Special Educational Needs in England, January 2001, DfES). The right to education is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. This right was reaffirmed in the 1990 World Conference on ‘Education for All’ and the concept extended to cover every individual regardless of person to person differences. The 1993 United Nations ‘Standard Rules on Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities’ urged all countries to ensure that the education of persons with special educational needs (SEN) be integrated into the mainstream. In 1994 the international conference held in Salamanca, Spain under the aegis of UNESCO adopted a resolution that laid the foundation for inclusion in education and defined the concept of ‘‘schools for all’ – institutions which include everybody, celebrate differences, support learning, and respond to individual needs’ (Salamanca, 1994). The UN Convention on the ‘Rights of the Child’ (1989), clearly spelt out that all rights shall apply to all children without discrimination on any grounds including disability (Article 2) and recommended that education be designed in a way that is conducive for the child ‘achieving the fullest possible social integration’ (Article 23). Rule 6 of the UN ‘Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities’ (1993) clearly encouraged countries to make education of persons with disabilities an integral part of the system. Students experiencing difficulty in learning have, historically, been excluded from mainstream educational, social and economic activity (Atkinson et al. 1997). People with physical disabilities and sensory impairments have similarly been excluded (Humphries and Gordon, 1993). This has not stopped at exclusion but, in some instances, led to social abuse through confinement, banishment and in some horrifying cases sterilisation and even killing of disabled people, under the mistaken idea that such people lack intelligence, and physical characteristics (Oliver and Barnes, 1998). History does cast a shadow, proof of which is found in The Sunday Times (July 4, 1999) article ‘Having disabled babies will be’ sin’ , says scientist’. This highlights the fact that even today the lack of physical ability is seen as defect that has to be eliminated. In common practice a person is considered socially inferior if he/she does not conform to social norms of what is considered normal and special schools, clinics and care homes are sought to be justified through this. Persons undergoing education or care in such institutions have permanent scars on their personality (Morris, 1989). Mary Warnock (Warnock Report, 1978) submitted her report that went on to become the basis of parts of the Education Act, 1981. This enactment was the first attempt to define educational policy for SEN based on rights and equality. Some of the basic arguments of the Warnock Report hold good even today and have formed the basis of subsequent legislation also, including The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs (Department of Education, 1994a) The ‘Green Paper’ Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs (Department for Education and Employment 1997) and the following plan Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action (Department for Education and Employment (1998) which states:  ‘Promoting inclusion within mainstream schools, where parents want it and appropriate support can be provided, will remain a cornerstone of our strategy’ (p. 23)   In the years following 1981, the emphasis of education shifted to competition and individuality and concepts of inclusion were lost sight of. The Education Reform Act, 1988 did not help at all. ‘Marketisation’ of education led to the decline of schools that made attempts towards equality in education, including gender equality (Riddell, 1992). The marketability of a school is related to the results produced and not how well it is doing on the equality front. Schools run with public funds and located in peripheral housing estates and poor inner city areas were the first to lose pupils to the more ‘popular’ schools resulting in reduction of resources and consequent impoverishment of curriculum including gender equality programmes. With the passing of the Education Act of 1993 (c.35), the stress shifted back to the need for inclusive education. Part III of the Act was fully devoted to children with Special Educational Needs. Similarly in the ensuing Education Act of 1996 (c.56) Part IV is entirely devoted to education of children with special needs. Both these laws stipulate the ways of assessing the need for special education and lay down rules for providing such education, and emphasise the need for inclusion of children with SEN into mainstream schools. Simultaneously they also provide for the setting up of, administration and functioning of special schools to meet the demand of children with SEN. The passing of these two Acts was followed by the independent Special Educational Needs and Disability Act, 2001 enabling the setting up of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, this tribunal adjudicates on all matters concerning the SEN related issues in the UK. Both these Acts fail to define inclusion, while they refer to it several times. Equality on the basis of gender is assumed and no special provisions made to ensure this. Observations and Discussions Inclusion is a process rather than a fixed state (Oliver 1996) and is typically problematic, and political in nature. Oliver goes on to state that inclusion shall require a change in the school culture, require training and involvement of teachers who are committed, and changes in the curriculum. This shall not happen without a struggle and without recognition of the fact that all children have a moral and political right to inclusive education. Changes must come from the bottom up (Wideen, 1994). Imposed and top-down changes rarely, if ever, meet success. Therefore, while the laws and guidelines may be made at much higher levels, it shall have to be the teachers who ‘reinvent’ the school and the curricula (ibid). In order to do so they shall have to be empowered at the school level. They shall have to be motivated to bring about the change through a process of ‘indigenous invention’ (Heckman & Peterman, 1997). However, the idea that teachers can change schools does not account for the micro-politics at the local level and that all teachers will not move together and enthusiastically towards the change. Every school has its own culture (Lieberman, 1995) that includes its perception of its role in society, the way it is organised and the climate for change that forms the local political setting in which change must occur. This has to be supportive of change (Corbett & Rossman, 1989). School change is much messier than we think, ideological differences, micro-politics and gender dynamics among teachers all a part of a schools culture and, accordingly, all play into the school reform process. (Datnow, 1998) In the opinion of some thinkers full integration of children with disability or having SEN is a ‘delusion’ (Hornby G 1999). While it is admirable and indeed desirable to provide inclusion to all children it is also necessary to ensure that practical limitations are understood. Every child has rights and privileges including the ‘ordinary’ children who are neither specially gifted nor in need of special education these rights need to be respected as much. In one incident, in a classroom with a student with learning disability, the entire class was being made to wait while the particular student could catch up. The rest of the students were found to be tolerant and caring in the beginning, but this was soon followed by sarcastic humour and then resentment. This happened because the other students felt that the teacher was giving a large portion of her attention to this particular child and neglecting them. This implies a violation of the rights of the other children since the amount of information and knowledge picked up in class was being limited due to the change in curriculum necessitated by the presence of one student with ability limitations. Booth (1996, p89) stresses, ‘It makes little sense to foster the inclusion of some students because they carry one label, whilst ignoring the lack of participation of others’. Disability is in two forms, ‘defect’ and ‘social’; while the defect is limited to the individual and the family it is the social disability that needs to be addressed first. All arguments in favour of inclusion, including the website of the Centre for Inclusion in Education (CSIE) only talk of the inclusion of children with disabilities. It is a pity that race, class and gender (social disabilities) based discrimination does not find any mention. It is essential to define what constitutes disability, especially physical and mental, how this is to be measured and who will certify the existence of a disability. Another instance, in the practical experience of this writer, merits mention. One of the girl students in class, while performing close to average in academics was a miserable failure at sports and physical education classes. The girl was diagnosed to be suffering from Down’s syndrome, and recommended for special treatment in PE, leading to her being stigmatised and isolated from the rest of the class. It was however later realised that the ‘diagnosis’ was incorrect and the physical attributes that were considered as indicating the presence of Down’s syndrome were actually because of her being an Asian Indian. Her lack of performance at PE actually was the result of a lack of confidence and self esteem that came from her family background and made her unusually shy. Recognition of the true cause, and corrective action, led to improvement in her performance in academics and PE. In addition female students become targets of sexual harassment in later years. A recent study released by the American Association of University Women found that nearly two-thirds of undergraduate students have encountered some type of sexual harassment and nearly one-third reported that the harassment was physical (Harris Interactive Inc 2005). Dale Spender (1983) argues strongly for single-sex education stating that: While the web of male influence extends and expands, however, female influence appears to be negligible in the presence of males, for female students stand in subordination both to the teachers and to their male classmates, in most conventional classrooms (p118) The idea of women and men operating within different but equal areas was accepted by middle class Victorian feminists and this was reflected in the differentiated curricula for male and female students. This attitude was challenged by post Marxist feminists in the 1970’s. Liberalism is the basis of capitalist free enterprise and status in the social hierarchy and wealth of an individual is not determined by birth but a result of merit and hard work, the feminists demanded that this be extended to cover women also (Salisbury & Riddell, 1999, p3-4). In her book ‘Gender and the Politics of the Curriculum’ Sheila Riddell (1992) uses case studies of two secondary schools in England and examines the association between choice of curriculum and gender among 14-year-old students opting for courses to follow in further studies. She finds that the decision is influenced by how the students look at themselves in gender terms, and the curriculum once chosen reinforces their sense of gender divisions. It is argued that the belief in freedom of choice and school neutrality can itself become an important factor in the reproduction of gender divisions. She further argues that unless the introduction of the national curriculum is accompanied by systematic efforts to eradicate sexism from the hidden curriculum it will fail to create greater equality of educational opportunity among the sexes. Low enrolment, and high dropout rates from among female students, leads to large gender disparity in higher schooling in most countries. These differences can not be attributed to poverty or ignorance alone. It is partly because the governments do not invest in education of children or their teachers and partly due to inherited curricula that do not interest or motivate children to learn. Reform of the curriculum is an important aspect on the road to inclusion (Mitchell p29). In affluent and developed countries there are well developed and well resourced schools catering to the requirements of regular students and special schools for the education of children with disabilities. It is now sought to integrate these into single institutions where all students will study together, but there is a concept of different and suitably modified syllabus and performance standards (Ainscow, p1). This makes the child with disability a mere tourist at the school. Integration must be distinguished from inclusion, for inclusion would not consider these differentiations. So what is inclusion? It is surprising to note that even countries like the US or the UK have no clear definition of inclusion (McLaughlin and Jordan, Chapter 5). Dyson, in Chapter 4, comments that the concept of inclusion in England is ambiguous and these ambiguities arise from ‘deep seated dilemmas’ arising out of the basic fundamental social and economic considerations. Often equality in education is presented as an unproblematic issue in relation to SEN, while the fact is that it is deep and difficult area (Mitchell, p3). Achieving equality where students of mixed backgrounds and abilities are being taught together is impossible. It is also difficult to reconcile the concepts of equality with ‘celebrating’ the inherent differences between individuals. In addition to their own differences the girl students bring another dimension to the equation – their gender. Isaiah Berlin (1997) warns against believing and acting as if complete equality can be achieved, suggesting that such idealism is dangerous. However, this does not mean that inclusive educational practice should be dismissed, but we must recognise that we have to live with difficulties and dilemmas in schools, classrooms, gymnasiums and sports fields:  To force people into the neat uniforms demanded by dogmatically believed-in schemes is almost always the road to inhumanity. We can only do what we can: but that we must do, against difficulties. (Berlin p. 16)  People have different opinions as to whether it is more important to educate boys or girls. Some believe that the education of boys is more important than girls. In patriarchal societies, tradition demands that men provide the family with income, food, clothing, etc., and women perform the household chores such as cooking, cleaning, washing, and taking care of children. It is perceived in these countries that education is not of vital importance to women since they are not supposed to work outside the house, this was true for England also and not so far back. Even in countries where gender parity is close to being achieved, bias against women appears in other forms. For example, fewer girls take up math and science in the US, even though at the age of nine no difference was noted in the performance in these subjects between boys and girls. At thirteen minor difference could be seen and the difference became much larger by the age of seventeen (AAUW) It was also found that more girls took to biology and boys were apt to take physics. Ramanujam, (2005) in the article Gender Equity in Education – International Perspective finds that: ‘The AAUW Report: How Schools Short-change Girls (1992) is a startling examination of how girls in grades K-12 receive an inferior education to boys in Americas schools.… the report reveals that girls receive less attention in the classroom than boys; girls are not pursing math-related careers in proportion to boys; although the gender gap in math is shrinking, the gender gap in science is increasing’ The educational gap between men and women is becoming narrower in many countries with women even beginning to overtake men in terms of some indicators such as higher education enrolment ratios (OECD, 1998a: UNESCO 1998a.). Yet there are discrepancies in the opportunities for women when it comes to the job market. Major changes are taking place in the labour market that are primarily driven by women acquiring better and higher education and training (ILO, 2000). ‘Education plays a crucial role in both offering opportunities for individual mobility, and at the same time legitimating large-scale structural inequalities.’ Weis (1988, p1). While education and training alone are not adequate to overcome gender discrimination that is embedded in our society it can go a long way to reduce this inequality. The law makers’ opinions on most gender based differences in education are vague and not defined in any of the enactments. While so much concern is being shown for a very small population of persons with disabilities it is found convenient to say nothing about a set that constitutes half of the total people in the country. References AAUW Report ‘How Schools shortchange girls?’ Accessed on July 10, 2006 from the website: http://www.aauw.org/research/girls_education/hssg.cfm Ainscow, M. (1995) Education for All: Making it happen. Keynote address, International Special Education Congress, Birmingham, UK. Atkinson, D., Jackson, M. and Walmsley, J. (1997) Forgotten Lives: Exploring the History of Learning Disability. Kidderminster: BILD. Berlin, I. (1997), ‘The pursuit of the ideal’, in Berlin, I. The Proper Study of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays, edited by Hardy, H. and Hausheer, R. London: Pimlico. Booth, T. ‘Mapping Inclusion and Exclusion: Concepts for All? In: C.Clark, A. Dyson and A. Millawrds (eds) ‘Towards Inclusive Schools? P 96-108, David Fulton, London. Booth and Ainscow (2000) Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education. Corbett, H.D. and Rossman, G. (1989) ‘Three Paths to Implementing Change’ Curriculum Inquiry, 19, 2, pp 163-90 Datnow, A (1998) ‘The Gender Politics of Educational Change’ Falmer Press, London Department for Education (1994 a) The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs. London: Department for Education. Department for Education and Employment (1997) Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs (Green Paper). London: The Stationery Office. Department for Education and Employment (1998) Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action. Suffolk: Department for Education and Employment Publications. Department for Education and Science (1991 b) National Curriculum Physica Education 5 to 16. Final Report. London: Department for Education and Science. Dyson, A. Philosophy, politics and economics?: The story of inclusive education in England. Chapter 4, Contextualising Inclusive Education, David R Mitchell (ED), 2005 Routledge (UK) Education Reform Act, 1988 Text accessed on July 9, 2006 from: www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880040_en_1.htm Education Act, 1993 Text accessed on July 9, 2006 from: www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1993/Ukpga_19930035_en_1.htm Education Act, 1996 Text accessed on July 9, 2006 from: www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/96056aen.htm Frederickson, N., & Cline, T., Special Educational Needs: Inclusion and Diversity, Buckingham: Open University Press, 2002 Harris Interactive Inc Drawing the Line: Sexual Harassment on Campus (2006), Accessed on July7, 2006 from the website: http://www.aauw.org/research/dtl.cfm Heckman, P. and Peterman, F. (1997) ‘Indigenous Invention and School Reform’, Teachers College Record 98, 2, pp 307-27 Hornby, G. Inclusion or Delusion:Can one size fit all? Support for Learning 14:4 152, Blackwell Publishing, November 1999. Humphries, S. and Gordon, P. (1993) Out of Sight: The Experience of Disability 1900-1950. Plymouth: Northcote House. ILO:‘Lifelong learning in the Twenty-first Century’: International Labour Organisation, 2000. Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning, Prentice Hall, NJ Lieberman, A. (ed) (1995) ‘The Work of Restructuring Schools Building from the Ground Up’, Teachers College Press, New York McLaughlin, M.J. and Jordan, A. Push and Pull: Forces that are shaping inclusion in the United States and Canada, Chapter 5, Contextualising Inclusive Education, David R Mitchell (ED), 2005 Routledge (UK). Mitchell, D.R. Contextualising Inclusive Education, 2005, Routledge (UK) Morris, J. (1989) Able Lives: Women’s Experience of Paralysis. London: The Women’s Press. Norwich, B. (1994) ‘Differentiation: from the perspective of resolving tensions between basic social values and assumptions about individual differences’, Curriculum Studies 2(3), 289-308. OECD 1998a, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/49/1825455.pdf Oliver, M. and Barnes, C. (1998) Disabled People and Social Policy: From Exclusion toInclusion. London: Longman. Oliver, M. (1996) Understanding Disability: from Theory to Practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Ramanujam, C. ‘Gender Equity in Education – International Perspective’ Education Journal – Gender and Education February 17, 2005 Riddell, S.I. 1992; ‘Gender and the Politics of the Curriculum’ Routledge, New York, USA Salisbury, J and Riddell, S (eds) ‘Gender, Policy and Educational Change: Shifting agendas in the UK and Europe’ 1999 Spender, D. 1983 ‘Invisible Women: The Schooling Scandal’ Penguin Books, Australia. Statistics of Education: Special Educational Needs in England, January 2001, DfES. Accessed on July 8, 2006 from: www.dfes.gov.uk Sunday Times (The) (1999) ‘Having disabled babies will be  ‘sin’, says scientist’ report by Lois Rogers. July 4th. London: Sunday Times (internet version). The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright © 2006. Columbia University Press. Accessed on July 9, 2006 from: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/educatio;_ylt=AvHfKz93M_AgbjpK.W_mkIxVt8wF UNESCO (1994); ‘The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action’ Paris: UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF United Nations (1989) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child United Nations: ‘Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities’, United Nations A/RES/48/96 adopted by the General Assembly, December 1993. United Nations (1993) The United Nations Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for People with Disabilities. Warnock Report, 1978, article in BBC News accessed on July 9, 2006 from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4071122.stm Weis Lois (EDT) ‘Class, Race, and Gender in American Education’, SUNY, 1988 Wideen, M.F. (1994), ‘The struggle for Change’ Falmer Press, London Notes for Bally: I have now included all the missing references, and added some, specifically Riddell and Spender that your teacher wanted. One does not need a reference for material that is in the public realm, such as Socrates and specific enactments. I have taken out the former and provided reference for the Acts. Recent study is properly referenced – Harris Interactive 2005 The date on the Datnow reference is just a year written by me – I could not find the proper date. It is good that one had to revise – there were a lot of grammatical errors that I have now corrected. The essay is now more focussed on the gender inequality that we promised to address. Read More