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

BEHAVIOUR MANAGEMENT

In a study by Dyson, Farrell, Polat, Hutcheson and Gallannaugh (2004), teachers professed that the biggest challenge to inclusion was dealing with pupils who presented social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD). Some teachers reported a sense of frustration and isolation when dealing with SEBD (Hamill, 2008). Research surrounding this group of young people who present disruptive behaviour becomes far more contentious in the context of inclusion. In a report by HMIE (2002, p.34), it was apparent that the needs of those displaying SEBD and who often act in a disruptive manner (Hamill, 2008, p.68), present difficult challenges to schools and local authorities in promoting schools as inclusive institutions (Mackenzie, 2008, p.762). The problem is both severe and wide-spread.

During 2009/10 there were 30,211 exclusions from local authority schools in Scotland, a decrease of 11 per cent from 2008/09 (Scottish Government, 2010c). Conversely, measuring school exclusions is problematic; some schools or local authorities can influence parents’ to move their child to another school, which has led to an avoidance of registering the move as a ‘formal’ exclusion (Mackenzie (2008, p.762). The issue of exclusion, hence disruptive behaviour may be much greater than the figures reveal.

A study by Hayden (2000) suggests that children with ASN are six times more likely than other children to be excluded. Those excluded are likely to suffer from SEBD. The label attached to pupils with SEBD can influence the way they are perceived and treated by schools, teachers and peers (Hamill, 2008). For many schools, the most obvious solution is exclusion, which compounds feelings of alienation and marginalisation, thus worsening the situation (Mackenzie, 2008, p.762). It is apparent that the use of exclusion to resolve disruptive behaviour does not endorse an inclusive school ethos. Nor does it comply with the right of social inclusion. How does exclusion support the best interests or needs of the child when they feel alienated or marginalised already? Or does it serve the best interests of the other children in the classroom suffering the negative effects of disruptive behaviour?

As previously discussed, inclusion in education is regarded as a human rights issue, whereby to exclude a child from mainstream education would be an infringement of their right to social inclusion (Rustemier, 2002; CSIE, n.d.). This issue becomes convoluted when it is applied to the rights of those affected by social inclusion. Based on this argument there appears to be a conflict of human rights. On one-side, the excluded pupil has no right of social inclusion. Whereas, on the other side, pupils who experience constant disruption to their lessons and the teachers time is taken up to resolve such issues, are prevented from the right to receive an education that strives to develop their full potential. When behavioural difficulties disrupt the education of others, whose rights are protected or infringed?

Dyson et al. (2004, p.101) found that the impact of children with behavioural difficulties on the learning of others, disrupted lessons and increased the amount of time and effort taken up by teachers to manage pupils with SEBD. Consequently, this diverts teacher time and energy away from the majority of the class and those in most need. Studies by Hamill and Boyd (2000; 2003, as cited in Hamill, 2008, p. 67), found evidence that the group of learners most affected by behavioural difficulties were those who experienced learning difficulties and who found themselves in the bottom sets with the most disruptive pupils. This impacted negatively on the inclusion of other vulnerable learners. Class setting based on ability levels can intensify this issue. Pupils most affected are those with learning difficulties, who most often find themselves in the bottom sets with the most disruptive pupils (Hamill, 2008, p.67).The negative effects of class setting can intensify disaffection from school which often results in disruptive behaviour (Hamill, 2008; Barber, 1996). Mackenzie (2008, p.767) alludes that the practice of setting further excludes disadvantaged children by lowering attainment and motivation, especially in female children of low-waged and unemployed parents (Paterson, 1992).

With lessons disrupted by behaviour and teachers time being taken up to resolve such issues, it would seem likely, therefore, to have a negative impact on the attainment of others, however, Dyson et al. (2004, p.101) found no correlation between the inclusion of pupils with SEBD and the attainment and achievement of pupils without ASN. Inclusion was also found to have a “positive effect on the wider achievement of all pupils, such as social skills and understanding” (Dyson et al. 2004, p.101). In particular, pupils with ASN were found to improve academically, personally and socially.

RESOURCING & FUNDING

There is no doubt that effective inclusion is dependent upon the adequate provision of resources (Hamill, 2008, p. 60). With the onset of educational funding cuts, the availability of resources will be a major obstacle to the successful implementation of inclusion in schools.

In a study by Dyson, at al. (2004, p.101), teachers professed that the challenges surrounding inclusion were intensified by a lack of support and resources from external sources. Similarly, in a study by Hamill and Boyd (2000; 2003) teachers held the opinion that inclusion lacked adequate funding and was a politically motivated initiative aimed at increasing financial efficiency rather than meeting the individual needs of the learner. Whether this opinion holds any value, resourcing is a complex issue which goes beyond the constraints of simply providing materials and equipment. Providing adequate resources helps to develop a teachers’ professional development. Funding can provide the financial support to develop systems both internally and externally, such as specialist teachers.

To manage the successful implementation of inclusion in schools, teachers have to be given the opportunity to undertake continuing professional development (CPD) to develop the right skills and knowledge to cater for the diverse range of ASN. There can be no doubt that the level of funding provided to support inclusion in mainstream schools reflects the quality of teaching and progress made by the individual (Hamill, 2008).

Those with least teaching experience or professional development, specifically beginning teachers will be most disadvantaged with the impending cuts and limited resources. New teachers with limited teaching experience will be most affected if reductions in teacher CPD progress. Essential skills needed to manage the challenges surrounding inclusion will be affected. Reports of increasing the class contact time of probationer teachers to 0.9FTE (from the current 0.7FTE) will exert extra pressure on beginning teachers (Buie, 2010), which is likely to impact the quality of teaching, as preparation time is restricted.

With educational funding cuts to be expected where will inclusion in education be left? Who will be disadvantaged or marginalised from the education system? How will teachers’ professionalism be affected? The outcome to these questions can only be speculated until the inevitable funding cuts occur.