Transcript Does rhetoric of inclusion really promote inclusive education?

Does rhetoric of inclusion
really promote inclusive
education?
Prof. Timo Saloviita
University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla,Finland
[email protected]
Origins of the word ”inclusion”
Integration of students with disabilities in the
regular classes was called for since the 60’ies
e.g. in Canada.
 During the late 80’ies several writers in the USA
began to speak for the education of all students
in the mainstream classes – including the
students with the most severe disabilities.
 This new policy statement needed a word of its
own.
 The word ”inclusion” emerged in the late
80’ies to mean this new policy.

Early definition of ”inclusion”

”Inclusion” was defined by Stainback &
Stainback (1990) as
1. education of all students in the mainstream
(= every student is in regular classes)
2. appropriate educational programs for every
student
3. everyone is accepted and supported
The adoption of the concept by
TASH

The Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps (TASH): Resolution on Inclusive
Education 1993
– ”students with disabilities belong in general
education classrooms”

”Supported Education Resolution” of TASH
in 1988 used the terms ”supported
education” and ”full integration”.
Rapid spread of the concept

United Nations (1993). Standard Rules:
– ”integrated education”

UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement
– ”inclusive education, enrolling all children in regular schools,
unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise”

ILSMH (1995) – International parent’s association for
persons with mental handicap:
– ”We fully support the inclusion of all children in regular
education” (TASH Newsletter, 21 (6).

OECD (1997). ”There is now a widespread belief that
policies need to be developed to stimulate the inclusion
of children and adults with disabilities in the educational
systems”.
Inclusion and OECD

CERI (The Centre for Educational Research and
Innovation)
– seeks solutions and exchange views of educational
problems of common interest

Project: ”Active Life for Disabled Youth –
Integration in the School” (1990 - 1995)
– identified practices with respect to integration
– illustrated good practices
– disseminated findings

The concept of ”inclusion” appears in the end
report in 1997, but not yet in its companion
report in 1995.
The initial refusal of the term
”inclusion” in Finland

National Board of Education (NBE)
published a large evaluation report on
special education in 1996 (609 pages)
– ”inclusion” was not mentioned
– UN Standard Rules - resolution (1993) or
UNESCO Salamanca Statement (1994) were
not mentioned.

Both the rhetorics and policy of ”inclusion”
were supressed – they were taboos.
From taboo to bandwagon

During the years 1998-1999 the term ”inclusion”
began to become popular.
– It appeared in teachers’ in-service training
– Parents’ associations of intellectually disabled children
became interested in it.

In 1999 The Association of Special Teachers
changed their rhetorics:
– Statement: ”Towards a common school for all”.

National Board of Education actively began to
spread the term ”inclusion”.
Conclusions I
”Inclusion” was at first an undiscussable
issue (see: Argyris & Schön, 1996)
 The taboo was broken when OECD
changed its rhetorics in 1997.

– State authorities (NBE) changed their own
rhetorics after this.

”Inclusion” became an object of curiosity
and interest: ”what does it mean?”
Did the policy change?
Percentage of students removed to special education
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Changes in policy?
No changes in legislation that would promote
inclusion.
 Instead, removal of students into special
education was made administratively more easy.
 Ministry of Education: Development Plan of
Education and Research (several issues)

– focus on early detection of special needs and
development of special education
– ”inclusion” or ”integration” not mentioned
Conclusions II

Finnish comprehensive school is moving
towards increasing segregation.
– placements in special classes are increasing

This development is politically widely
accepted.
– no movement for ”inclusion”

At the same time the rhetorics of
”inclusion” has got wide popularity.
Conclusions III
Originally, ”inclusion” was a sign that denoted
radical policy of those who defended the rights
of the most severely disabled persons to
participate into community life and regular
classes.
 When the term was adopted in Finland, it rapidly
lost its original meaning.
 Today ”inclusion” in Finland means something
vaguely positive – maybe it is already something
like a taboo to oppose it.

Final conclusions
The example of the term ”inclusion” shows how
radical terms which try to question the
legitimacy of existing social order become
interpreted from the positions of the prevailing
ideology. This way they are made harmless.
 If the terms are truly ”revolutionary”, they are
ignored.
 If they are adopted, they are

– either redefined so that their contents are lost.
– or the stated goal is decoupled from any action.
References
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational
learning II. Readings: Addison-Wesley
 National Board of Education (1996). The State of Special
Education. (in Finnish). Helsinki: Author.
 OECD (1995). Integrating students with special needs
into mainstream schools. OECD.
 OECD (1997). Implementing inclusive education. OECD.
 TASH (1994). Resolution on Inclusive Education,
December 17, 1993. TASH Newsletter, 20 (2) 4-5.
 Stainback & Stainback (1990). Inclusive schooling. In:
Stainback & Stainback (Eds.) Support networks for
inclusive schooling. Baltimore: Brookes.
