阿德莱德代写assignment Inclusive Education And Peoples Opinions And Solutions

ETHOS & CULTURE

Arguably, inclusionists state that “the ‘inclusive school’ must have a certain ethos and a certain set of ideals, from which certain practices naturally follow” (Wilson, 2000, p.229). This broader philosophy of education is addressed by schools, within statements of vision to promote schools as ‘inclusive institutions’ (HMIE, 2002, p.3). In this statement, an ‘inclusive school’ is about the strategic action of creating an ethos and set of values based on equity, entitlement, school community, participation, integration and respect for diversity. Table 1 outlines this inclusive approach to education (HMIE, 2002, p.4).

Table 1. An inclusive approach to education involves:

creating an ethos of achievement for all pupils within a climate of high expectation;

valuing a broad range of talents, abilities and achievements;

promoting success and self-esteem by taking action to remove barriers to learning;

countering conscious and unconscious discrimination that may prevent individuals, or pupils from any particular groups, from thriving in the school; and

actively promoting understanding and a positive appreciation of the diversity of individuals and groups within society.

Although the ‘statements of vision’ are a credible approach to inclusive education, it is notably palpable statements of aspiration. It is a cultural ethos rather than a strategic approach to inclusion and does not tangibly seek to address how this is achieved in schools. The statements express elements that are mistaken and limited. Such as: (1) There is no mention of teaching practice or teaching strategies. Without doubt, this is a fundamental part of an ‘inclusive school’. (2) Barriers to learning are inevitable; parts of the curriculum are not accessible to those without the ability or skill set to access them (being part of the school orchestra requires musical ability). (3) Promoting an ethos of educational success and high expectations may enable some lower achieving pupils to feel excluded and worthless from the education system (Barber, 1996; Hamill 2008; Mackenzie 2008 and Wilson, 2000). With the presence of a summative examination system, how can lower ability pupils feel successful and credible? Is this approach to education encouraging some pupils to feel excluded from school and the education system?

To value our self-worth and success based on a criterion of academic achievement does not support an ‘inclusive school’. Most pupils will not achieve top grades and will never score very highly on any scale. Barber (1996) suggests that underachievement is routed as a cause of disaffection and exclusion from school, which has been heightened by a climate of high expectations in schools, fuelled by league tables and social pressure. Barber (1996) proposes that underachievement leads to a vicious circle of disaffection and exclusion, which enables pupils to feel marginalised and detached from the education system. In a climate of high expectations and educational success how can lower ability pupils feel included?

To overcome this challenge, it is important that institutions educate pupils to value themselves rather than their public merits (Wilson, 2000). Teachers and schools will be faced with the challenge of instilling an ethos of high self-esteem and self-confidence in pupils to discourage disaffection and exclusion. This will go beyond subject knowledge; it will develop personal skills and attributes which will provide young people with life-long skills. This philosophy has been embedded in the ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ four capacities; to develop young people that are successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors (CfE) (LTS, n.d., and Scottish Government 2010a; 2010b). The Scottish Government proposes that educating young people based on these principles will develop a stronger society for all. This new development will affect the teaching profession as a whole; as teachers develop new skills and teaching strategies to enforce the CfE four capacities. The onset of the new CfE will exert another challenge for teachers.

LEGISLATION & RIGHTS

Rustemier (2002) claims that although the term ‘inclusion’ is widely used and signifies a genuine desire to better the experience of all learners, the definition is still misinterpreted or misled, which has resulted in the existence of segregated schooling for some individuals. “Inclusion has come to mean almost everything but the elimination of exclusion” claims Rustemier (2002) (CSIE, n.d.). This argument is represented in the Standards in Scotland’s Schools ect. Act; set-up to support inclusion in education.

Even though inclusion in education has a legal standing in the Standards in Scotland’s Schools ect. Act; in exceptional circumstances the legal framework still enables the exclusion of certain individuals from mainstream schools, if the following criteria apply:

The mainstream school “would not be suited to the ability or aptitude of the child”;

Where there would be a negative effect on the child;

If the placement “would result in unreasonable public expenditure being incurred which would not ordinarily be incurred”

If it still possible by law to exclude certain individuals from mainstream schools, then the concept of inclusion in education is fallacious and therefore, does not support inclusion of all pupils. Based on this argument, Rustemier (2002) confirms that the underlying issue in the development of inclusive education is the continuing legislative support of segregated schooling. Accordingly, the Standards in Scotland’s Schools ect. Act, supports segregated schooling to prevail in Scotland.

The Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education (CSIE) condones all forms of exclusion; “maintaining barriers to some students’ participation in the cultures, curricula and communities of local schools is unacceptable…and a…violation of basic human rights to education without discrimination” (CSIE, n.d.). Similarly, Rustemier (2002) states that such action is internationally recognised as discriminatory and damaging to young people and society and breaches all four principles underpinning the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child 1989 (CSIE, n.d.).

To overcome the legal constraints surrounding the inclusion of all pupils in mainstreams schools, Wertheimer (1997, p. 4) promotes a UK legislative reform “to: i) end compulsory segregation and gradually restructure all mainstream schools so they are accessible in terms of premises, curriculum and facilities, and ii) to plan the phased closure of all special schools”. Based on this argument, would the closure of all special schools be serving the best interests of the child?

A study by Bunch and Valeo (2004) researched the attitudes of elementary and secondary students towards peers with disabilities attending an inclusive schooling system. The findings reported that students with disabilities were able to develop friendships, learn from their peers, that a small amount of abuse occurs, however it is comparatively minimal and that encouragement and support from their peers is common. The majority of responses from students were in favour of inclusion and rejected the idea that students should be segregated for any reason. The study, however small, provided evidence that an all inclusive education system had positive effects on social development, acceptance of difference, and social integration. The study by Bunch and Valeo (2004) supports the argument of the closure of all special schools. This philosophy of inclusive education was shared by Mittler (2000); the concept of inclusion in education has the potential to transform schools to enable them to become places which fully support social and educational opportunities for all pupils.

In contrast, Cigman (2007) supports the argument of segregated schooling, whereby, special schools promote the best interests of the child; they provide specialist education, which can deliver a more individualised education to better meet the needs of the child. Cigman (2007) proposes that mainstream schools can be a humiliating experience for young people with ASN “… mainstream schools do not provide a non-humiliating educational experience for some children” (Cigman, 2007, p.779). Segregation from mainstream classes and their peers through inclusive support strategies, such as special units can account for feelings of humiliation and alienation, which can be “fostered under the flag of inclusion” Bishop and Swain (2000, p.24). Contrary to this argument, Oliver (1995) suggests that support strategies, such as special units are an essential means of successfully implementing inclusion in mainstream schools.

During my time at school, the use of some inclusive support strategies, such as the support for learning base and the use of classroom assistants, highlighted the issue of segregation and differentiation for some pupils with ASN. The removal of pupils from class and from their peers to attend sessions in the support for learning base and the use of classroom assistants in mainstream classes drew attention to the pupils with ASN. This highlighted the matter to the rest of the class. As a result, some pupils felt alienated and detached from their peers and found their ASN carried a stigma attached to the label. Subsequently, such means of inclusion ignited more serious issues, such as bullying and low-self esteem.

What is apparent from the opinions of researchers, politicians and teachers is that few would reject the concept of inclusion in education; however, translating this into practice will serve a greater challenge for teachers and schools. One such challenge schools and teachers is the requirement to “address better the needs of the pupils who are alienated or disaffected from school, or by the commitment to educating pupils with special needs in more inclusive ways” (HMIE, 2002, p.4).