Inclusive Education - Essay Example

Teaching for Diversity What is inclusive education and how will this shape your teaching practice? Name University Module Instructor Submission Date © 2012 INTRODUCTION Teaching for diversity is an area of education that involves the inclusion of a varied number of learners drawn from all walks of life regardless of gender, race, class, culture, religion, sexual orientation and even disabilities both physical and mental. Ainscow (2007) explains that inclusive teaching is gaining a lot of popularity in today’s education system where educators are being urged to reject forms of schooling that marginalise students who are deemed to be poor, black and disadvantaged. Additionally, policy makers in virtually all governments the world-over are in concerted efforts to come up with systems that are geared towards giving equal opportunities to all individuals. Moreover, teachers are categorically urged to meet the educational needs and aspirations of all students regardless of their strengths and weaknesses in their chosen areas (Halvorsen and Neary, 2001). The present essay attempts to explain the meaning of inclusive education as well as identifying who misses out and why. The essay further gives an explanation of unequal outcomes alongside competing approaches. The role of government policy and the nature of teaching practices that shape inclusivity are also addressed. What is inclusive education? Legally, there has been no universal definition of inclusive education across the globe. But insinuations have rife indicating that inclusive education is at the realm of bettering the education for all students (Kochhar and Taymans, 2000). There has been no universally agreed upon definition of inclusive education in the world and individuals have come up with their own definitions. The Florida Developmental Disabilities Council for instance defines inclusive education as the type of education that “brings all students together in one classroom and community regardless of their strengths or weaknesses in any area, and seeks to maximize their full potential” (see Hutchinson, 2007). Westwood and colleague (2003) add that an inclusive education seeks to have on board all participants, regardless of “disability, poverty, gender or culture”. In a sense therefore, inclusive education is when all factors including those of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, impairment, language, literacy or numeracy needs, cultural differences, gender, disengagement, age, religion, remote locations, or a combination of several of these factors are put aside to pave way children’s access to education (Barton, 2004). It therefore involves the relationship of diversity to access to education. From the foregoing definitions, it is clear that the idea of inclusion is to ensure students with disabilities attend school alongside their peers considered ‘normal’, and receive all forms of ‘specially designed instruction and support’ that can facilitate their success as learners (Anthony et al, 2007). Considered in these aspects, inclusive education differs significantly from both mainstreaming and integration. I personally consider mainstreaming to be when learners with special educational needs are taught together in the same classroom with other learners who are considered to be normal in complete disregard of their specialised instruction and support (Westwood and Graham, 2003). Integration on the other hand is considered a ‘part-time’ inclusion as it prevents the students from becoming full members of the classroom community (Anthony et al, 2007). In view of these two arguments therefore, it emerges that inclusive education is the only way to go as it aims to improve the education of all students. Who misses out and why? Through research and statistics, it has been possible to identify those groups of individuals that are required for inclusion. With all efforts having been put in place, it is yet regrettable to report that a number of groups of individuals have been sidelined in inclusive education. According to studies carried out by Considine et al (2005) and Staub and partner (1995), the disabled and impaired students and those from non English speaking backgrounds are shown to be the majority missing out from inclusive education. Other studies by Lynn (2004) and Saravanan (2005) also indicate students from low socio-economic backgrounds, Indigenous Australians and females as being excluded from inclusive education. Individuals in correctional institutions, early school drop-outs and disengaged youths have also been indicated as experiencing unequal outcomes from education (Staub and Peck, 1995). A number of socio-cultural reasons have been forwarded as to why these groups are missing out in terms of participation and outcomes. The disabled and the impaired students are shown to be the highly disadvantaged group in terms of education equity (Anthony et al, 2007). The reasons given behind this include teachers perceiving themselves as unprepared for inclusive education of this group because they lack appropriate training. In fact, Atkinson (2004) claim that teachers who have not undertaken training regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities may exhibit negative attitudes and lowered confidence toward such inclusion. Since training in the field of special education appears to enhance understanding and improve attitudes regarding inclusion, it is advisable for teachers to have increased training in this area. The non English speaking students alongside the indigenous ones who tend to come from low socio-economic backgrounds are similarly shown to miss out for a number of reasons. Firstly, they seem to suffer the consequences of implementing the curriculum skewed towards the Western culture as noted by Bartolo (2010). According to the Western orientation for example, young students are allowed to look directly at the teacher while speaking. While this is a sign of being attentive in the Western culture, Indigenous culture considers it as being disrespectful to the speaker. Consequently, Indigenous students and their peers are effectively shut out of the education system. This is further compounded by an interaction of factors such as historical, social, political and economic as highlighted by Barton (2004). Due to their low socio-economic levels, the said category of students also record the highest rates of absenteeism and school drop-outs as compared to their counterparts. This is attributable to a number of factors listed by Hutchinson (2007) as “poverty, health, family mobility, social and cultural ceremonies, location and their views of educational experiences”. In addition to this, Barton (2004) cites “a ‘culturally biased curriculum’, lack of affirmation of culture and the ‘white middle class’ language of the teachers as other factors contributing to drop out rates”. These among many other factors have contributed to the Indigenous students missing out from inclusion. Suggestions have been made on how to increase the level of inclusion amongst these groups of students. What has emerged critical is the importance of consultation with individual communities on educational provision. This has paid off in the fact that governments have responded by providing Indigenous communities with teachers who are well versed in indigenous education and cultures. Finally, the gender aspect is demonstrated by several studies to be fundamental in influencing implementation of inclusive education (Thomas and Vaughan, 2004). In the past, girls had been considered the most excluded in education compared to the boy child. The tables have since been turned as illustrated by Staub and Peck (1995) who decry the plight of the boy-child in modern times. Girls used to miss out in the past because most cultures placed more value on boys’ education as opposed to that of the girls. The current turn of events is attributed to the much hyped attention that had been given to the girl-child as underlined by Atkinson (2004). This finds support in statistics showing that 51% of 11-year-old boys were attending inclusive teaching in 2005 at the expected level 4 in Australia as compared with 63% of 11-year-old girls (Cardona, 2009). Similarly, female teachers seemed more readily willing to accept students with disabilities in their classes than their counterpart male teachers as reported in another study by Halvorsen and Neary (2001). This further excludes males from inclusive education. Explanation for unequal outcomes Unequal outcomes are basically explained by applying two main approaches namely: the ‘deficit based’ approach and the ‘systemic’ approach as cited in Atkinson (2004) and Cardona (2009). According to the ‘deficit based’ approach, the inadequacy is placed with the student (Atkinson, 2004). The approach is further equated to the ‘individual characteristics’ approach which blames the student for failing to fit-in with the educational system (see Cardona, 2009). Working on the basis of this approach, such terms like ‘learning disabilities’ and ‘special needs’ have variously been used to describe learners exhibiting unequal outcomes (Westwood and Graham, 2003). The term ‘learning disability’ is used to imply that the problem is with the learner and nothing much can be done about it. The learner must therefore adapt to the system in order to experience inclusion (Ibid). The use of ‘special needs’ on the other hand mandates educators to make provisions that meet the learners’ special needs for inclusion. On the contrary, the ‘systemic’ approach blames the education system when poor learning outcomes are experienced. According to this approach, equity is a highly variable concept that depends upon the systems required to support the state. Thomas and Vaughan (2004) claim that certain ideologies underpinning the society must be examined in order to achieve equity. Moreover, these ideologies are strongly embedded in those institutions providing education and are often not conducive to inclusivity (Bartolo, 2010). Halvorsen and Neary (2001) additionally argue that there are certain ‘structural barriers’ to inclusivity that come into play to create ‘an educational system that falls short of realising diversity within the general populace’. Some of these barriers have been identified by Ainscow (2007) as comprising “the hidden curriculum, poverty, location, sexism, a ‘one size fits all approach’ and lower expectations of student outcomes”. All in all, the ‘systemic’ explanation of exclusivity is found to be more acceptable as opposed to the ‘deficit’ based explanations. This is because it places the responsibility for student outcomes with the institutions in which learning is supposed to take place. Impact of government policy, legislative and regulatory frameworks In an attempt to bring about social justice for all, the Australian government like others elsewhere in the world has addressed issues of inclusivity and discrimination through the law. Several Acts relating to discrimination on the basis of age, disability, race, sex and human rights are in existence today and provide for heavy penalties for offenders (Saravanan, 2005). In Queensland, the Anti-Discrimination Act (1991) incorporates Commonwealth law as well as expanding into other areas of discrimination such as politics and relationship/personal beliefs (Considine et al, 2005). The foresaid legislation applies to education in terms of making discrimination, sexual harassment and vilification against the law where it is practiced by teachers, students or education administrators. Education institutions are also held accountable by means of vicarious liability, therefore institutions must ensure that all stakeholders are made fully aware of their obligations under the law whilst employed/enrolled, and develop risk management policies and appropriate procedures for dealing with grievances (Anthony et al, 2007). But there are some exemptions to this Anti-discrimination law where educational institutions can discriminate under certain conditions like same sex or religious schools. But this exemption has a disadvantage in that it is designed to force people away from discriminating rather than encouraging them to include (Hutchinson, 2007). To support legislation, regulations and policies have been developed that cover a range of education related issues. The Queensland Education Department has developed a range of policies within an overall framework to address students who may be ‘at risk’ (Considine et al, 2005). Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) are also required under the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF) to adhere to a set of standards in order to obtain and keep registration. Standard 6 refers to Access and Equity and Client Service (Anthony et al, 2007). All RTOs must have their own equity policies and procedures in place and provide clear, timely information to clients, including information on equity and access policies. VET teachers who work for an RTO must be aware of these standards and endeavour to uphold them within their own teaching environment. Effect on teaching practices Besides being a legal requirement, it is important for teachers to understand, promote and provide an inclusive environment for all students because education is a basic human right. For the teacher who is passionate about teaching, it is not simply enough to deliver curriculum but to have a positive influence on their students and to help them find their place in the world through knowledge and understanding (Bartolo, 2010). Each student has a voice that needs to be heard. To place the responsibility on the student to ‘fit in’ with the system, institution or class only leads to further exclusion from education and social alienation. Inclusion should therefore be the responsibility of all stakeholders, particularly the teacher. To achieve this, the teacher should be enabled in the following ways. From the outset, inclusion should not be seen as trying to ‘normalise’ students because this effectively reinforces exclusion, but to base teaching and learning on differences (Ainscow, 2007) and to provide for learning that is student centred. To assist teachers in this task, professional development is vital. This is particularly reinforced by allocation of sufficient resources to enable teachers to do their jobs properly (Considine et al, 2005). It is difficult to cater for individual needs when resources are not available to provide for them as indicated by Ainscow (2007). For my own teaching practice, I have been specifically fortunate to have both good and poor role models to learn from. The good because they gave me strategies to assist with building a good rapport with my class and helpful ideas for delivering interesting lessons; the poor because they helped me to see what not to do and how easy it is to make assumptions about students that may not be accurate but based on the teacher’s own cultural beliefs. I believe communication to be of paramount importance in determining those students who may have equity issues. By getting to know the students in front of me I will be in a better position to provide lessons that will cater to individual learning styles, and be more aware of class interactions which will hopefully help me to detect problems before they get out of hand. One way of establishing an inclusive classroom is to, as a class, draw up a set of ‘rules’ or acceptable behaviours that the class themselves design. Because they design it, they have ownership of it and are more likely to treat them seriously. Other ideas are to draw upon individual experiences of the students when illustrating points from the lesson and ensuring that everyone has a chance to put forward an opinion or comment at appropriate times during the lesson, rather than being dominated by more confident students. CONCLUSION Throughout this essay, it has been clearly demonstrated that inclusive education requires the intervention of governments, communities, teachers and administrators to consult and commit together with equity groups in order to overcome socio-cultural barriers to inclusivity (Barton, 2004). Deficit based explanations of exclusion, which place the responsibility on the learner are not conducive to ensuring equity in education as illustrated throughout the essay. Systemic explanations for exclusion are more realistic and provide for governments and educators to work together with all stakeholders to formulate strategies that can include individual differences and cultures as part of everyday curriculum (Lynn, 2004). The role of government legislation and policy will continue to shape inclusive practices as society adapts to the concept of accepting diversity as normal instead of expecting diversity to change to meet mainstream ideals. In order for teaching practices to shape inclusivity, teachers will need professional development and resources to assist them to provide for the individual needs of all learners (Halvorsen and Neary, 2001). As this occurs, it is expected that there will be a shift from the ethic of ‘a fair go’ towards an application of equality to every person regardless of background, race, religion, culture or gender (Hutchinson, 2007). REFERENCES Ainscow, M. (2007). Teaching for Diversity: the next big challenge. The Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction, Sage Publications Anthony, S., Loretta, G & Sue, S. (2007). Students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms: A resource for teachers. [Canberra, A.C.T.] : Commonwealth of Australia. Section One. “Students with disabilities in the mainstream”, pp. 1- 6 Atkinson, D. (2004). Theorising how student teachers form their identities in initial education. British Educational Research Journal, 30 (3), 379-394 Bartolo, P. A. (2010). Teacher education online. Towards inclusive virtual learning communities. London: Routledge Barton, L. (2004). Social Inclusion and Education: Issues and Questions. Paper presented at the ESRC seminar Towards Inclusion: Social Inclusion and Education. Institute of Education, London. Cardona, C. M. (2009). Teacher education students’ beliefs of inclusion and perceived competence to teach students with disabilities in Spain. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 10 (1), 33-41 Considine, G., Watson, I., & Hall, R. (2005). Who’s Missing Out? Access and equity in vocational education and training, Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Halvorsen, A. T. & Neary, T. (2001). Building inclusive schools: Tools and strategies for success. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hutchinson, N. (2007). Teaching for diversity: Including Aboriginal students, students from diverse cultural backgrounds, and students who are at risk. Toronto, Canada: Pearson Educational. Kochhar, W. & Taymans (2000). Successful inclusion: Practical strategies for a shared responsibility. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lynn, M. (2004). Inserting the ‘Race’ into critical pedagogy: an analysis of ‘race-based epistemologies’. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36 (2), 153 – 165 Rose, R., & Cole, C. (2002). Special and mainstream school collaboration for the promotion of inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 2(2), 1-17. Saravanan, V. (2005). Thinking Schools, Learning Nations: Implementation of Curriculum Review in Singapore. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 4, 97-113 Staub, D. & Peck, C. (1995). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership, 21(4), 36-40. Thomas, G., & Vaughan, M. (2004). ‘The context – rights, participation, social justice’. Inclusive education: readings and reflections, Berkshire: Open University Press, pp. 7-28. Westwood, P., & Graham, L. (2003). Inclusion of students with special needs: benefits and obstacles perceived by teachers in New South Wales and South Australia. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities., 8(1), 3-15. Read More