Transcript Why not inclusive education? Who asks the question why? The important stakeholders: Parents or caregivers Health care, social welfare and rehabilitation professionals Teachers, school.

Why not inclusive education?
Who asks the question why?
The important stakeholders:
Parents or caregivers
Health care, social welfare and rehabilitation professionals
Teachers, school leadership, school boards and parent
teacher associations
Education, health and social welfare authorities
National and federal decion-makers
Organizations of persons with disabilities and
adults with disabilities
Civil society organizations
European Disability Forum:
”Less talk, more action”
Persons with disabilities have two times less
opportunities for studying.
– 9% go to university (comp. 18% of all Europeans)
Persons with disabilities are more than twice
less likely to find a job.
– 29% have a job (comp. 69% of all Europeans)
62% of Europeans with disabilities are among
the poorest persons in Europe, with significantly
lower income.
Families, parents and caregivers of
disabled children, particularly mothers
are sensitive, feel and share the social
stigma often attached to impairment
and disability.
Actions of parents depend on
available possibilities and
resources:
1) Search for opportunities and advocacy for
their child’s right to education among other
children
2) Following instructions given by professionals
and service providers
3) Hiding the child or protecting the whole
family from the social stigma.
Inclusive education supports
parents and families:
Positive recognition of diversity without
stigmatization and discrimination helps
families and parents to understand their
child’s capabilities and needs, and to
confront social stigma.
Collaboration between schools and
families may contribute to changing
attitudes in community.
Emphasising the child’s
capabilities increase
functionality of the whole
family.
Strengthening early
social inclusion and
family ties reduces risks
of later social
marginalization, exclusion
and poverty.
For parents education opens the
door to their child’s future
Health care, social welfare
and rehabilitation
professionals
The limited biological and
medical understanding of
impairments and disabilities and
the focus on diagnosis still
dominate definitions of
impairments and moreover,
capabilities to learn and
decisions concerning
educational placements.
Inclusive education requires
multiprofessional collaboration
Multiprofessional collaboration broadens
our understanding of impairments and
knowledge about the child’s capabilities
and functionings.
Diagnosis is not ignored but focus is on the
child with her/his capabilities and aptitude
for learning.
Finding solutions to enable learning and
maximize capabilities are essential.
Inclusive education focuses on
the child’s capabilities by
Encouraging
improvements and
learning
Observing and
addressing challenges
Enabling active
participation in all
activities.
Teachers, school leadership,
school boards and parent
teacher associations…
…find it difficult to combine
efficiency, equity and disabilityresponsiveness, because they:
Work according to efficiency and efficacy
criteria set by education policies, national
and federal decision-making.
Focus on short-term outputs without seeing
long-term and lifelong outcomes.
Have little possibilities to influence policies,
strategies and programmes.
Socio-economic justifications:
Inclusive schools may reduce some costs
(e.g. travel, boarding) but increase other ones
(e.g. assistive devices, accommodations in
buildings). However, there is evidence of longterm returns and social inclusion.
Schools and education may show the way,
maintain or change traditions, practices and
values in society.
National and federal (education)
authorities
Often design services for children and persons
with disabilities on the basis of a limited view on
impairments, generalizations concerning
capabilities and assumptions.
Tend to protect themselves and society from
diversity.
Find responding to diversity among learners too
challenging, beyond their capacity.
Choose short-term outputs by excluding and
marginalizing, instead of long-term benefits.
According to international
comparison the key factors of
good quality education are:
1) selection of teacher trainees
2) teachers’ education (pre-service, in-service)
3) one education system providing for all
Why do we ask?
Because we have no…
Obligations to accommodate schools and
teaching.
Expectations that children with disabilities learn
as others do or to have children with disabilities
in ordinary classes and schools.
Shared experiences and good examples
among parents, teachers, school leadership
and decision-makers.
…we ask, because we have no
sufficient…
Assessment and evaluation mechanisms that
encourage including children with disabilities.
Number of professionals with knowledge and
skills to teach children with disabilities.
Experience of sharing knowledge and skills
among teachers and other professionals.
Targeted funding.
Sanctions!
An example of how
advocacy, obligations,
targeted funding and sanctions
make a significant difference,
the case of making higher education
disability-responsive in the Nordic
countries:
(Lehtomäki, Puupponen & Tuomi 2011)
Country
Norms / obligations concerning
accessibility and equity of HE
National
coordination for
support and
monitoring
Students
Denmark Inclusive education, accessibility and
equity are principles of the whole
Education system, including HE.
Danish School of
Education, Aarhus
University.
In 2010 approx. 1400
students were
supported.
Finland
A new anti-discrimination law is
under discussion.
No. National
A growing number.
network for for HEIs
(ESOK.fi)
Iceland
New rules and regulations under
development, following the UN
Convention.
University of
Iceland.
A growing number.
Norway
The Universities and University
Colleges Act amended. Govt plan:
”Norway universally designed by
2025”. A new anti-discrimination act
prepared.
Norwegian
University of
Science and
Technology (NTNU)
Statistics are based on
needs for adjustments
in the learning
environment.
Sweden
University-level strategies are
Stockholm
required and financial support
University
provided accordingly. A new antidiscrimination act is under discussion.
21
A total of 7 445 in
2009. Annual statistics
are based on disability
+ needs for support.
Conclusions (1/3):
Why Inclusive Education?
Inclusive education has the potential to
improve the situation of persons with
disabilities in long-term.
Investments in early interventions and
support measures have long-term
influence on learning outcomes, later in
life and social inclusion.
Conclusions (2/3):
Education systems that succeed to
provide good quality education for all are
also more efficient and cost-effective.
The UN Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities states clearly that
education is to be inclusive. It calls for
international partnerships to assist
education systems and provisions in
reaching all children and persons with
disabilities.
Conclusions continued (3/3)
Rights-based approach sets goals but
changes in education systems require
obligations, incentives and sanctions.
Globally, persons with disabilities are
under-represented in all levels of education,
starting from planning and decision-making
to monitoring, assessment and evaluation.
Stakeholder dialogue is promoted by new
approaches that bridge practice, research
and policy.
- When I grow up, I will be…!
- What will you study to do that…?
(Videointerviews of young deaf children
about their future)
Illustrations by Marja Hihnala
(Teaching materials © Marja Hihnala, Elina Lehtomäki
& Service Foundation for the Deaf)
References
Cox, A. 2008. Good accessibility practices. Seminar on Inclusive Higher Education 16-17 April.
University of Tampere.
Ebersold, S. 2008. Adapting Higher Eduation to the Needs of Disabled Students: Developments,
Challenges and Prospects. Higher Education to 2030, Vol. 1, Demography. OECD.
Lehtomäki, E., H. Puupponen & M. Tuomi. 2011. Rights and obligations: international
benchmarks for inclusive higher education. Presentation, Nordic Education Research
Association (NERA) Congress, University of Jyväskylä. 10-12.3.2011
Kaplan, I., S. Miles and A. Howes, A. 2011. Images and the ethics of inclusion and exclusion:
Learning through participatory photography in education. Journal of Research in Special
Educational Needs.
McKinsey Report. 2007. How the world's best performing school systems come out on top.
Ryan, S. 2005. Busy behaviour in the `Land of the golden M´: Going out with learning disabled
children in public places. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 18 (1), 65–
75.
Ryan, S. and K. Runswick-Cole. 2008. Repositioning mothers: Mothers, disabled children and
disability studies. Disability & Society, 23 (3), 199–210.
Terzi, L. 2005. A capability perspective on impairment, disability and special needs: Towards
social justice in education. Theory and Research in Education, 3 (2), 197–223.
UNESCO. 2003. Open File on Inclusive Education: support materials for managers and
administrators.
UNESCO. 2009. Policy Guidelines on Inclusive Education.
Wößmann, L. 2008. Effciency and equity of European education and training policies. Int Tax
Public Finance, 15: 199–230.