Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress
International
Special Education Conference
Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity?
1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland
about the conference
programme
registration
accommodation
contact
|
Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland |
home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact |
Dr Kyriaki Messiou
kikime@cytanet.com.cy
Florian (1998) rightly argues that there are many definitions of inclusion, which tend to focus on different aspects. Some of the definitions, she argues, focus on human interaction, others on valuing diversity, and others on organisational arrangements. At its rudimentary, inclusive education refers to the education of all children in mainstream schools within their local community (Udvari-Solner and Thousand, 1995). In addition, it places emphasis on the quality of education provided for all children (Corbett, 1997; Corbett, 2001; Farrell, 2000; Lewis, 1995), and is concerned with issues of human rights, equal opportunities and social justice (Armstrong et al., 2000).
Nowadays inclusion is a global issue, for which many different meanings are assigned, across countries and within countries, a rather contestable term, suggesting that it is an area still under development around which there is a lot of dispute (Ballard, 1999; Clough, 2000). Though it is a global issue most of the literature available comes from the English-speaking countries of North America and the United Kingdom. Daniels and Garner (1999) and Booth and Ainscow (1998) argue that the reality in each national system is determined by local history, culture and politics. We are, therefore, talking about a very unique picture of inclusion across different settings, a rather ‘elusive’ idea as suggested by Ainscow (1999). Furthermore, inclusion could be viewed as a puzzle, with different pieces that need to be put together in order to get the unique picture of each case. The argument in this study is that in attempting to conceptualise this ‘elusive’ idea listening to marginalised people’s voices should be of central role. Corbett and Slee (2000) argue that “Within an inclusive education there is a plurality of voices devoid of existing hierarchies of status and privilege” (p.135). They go on arguing that by directly listening to marginalised and excluded people themselves might give great insight. Or as Mittler (2000) argues:
Inclusion is about everyone having opportunities for choice and self-determination. In education, it means listening to and valuing what children have to say, regardless of age or labels. ( p.viii)
Specifically, in the present study, which is a part of a larger study, the voices of children were viewed as central in the process of conceptualising notions of marginalisation, and therefore inclusion, within a primary school context.
Often in the past children’s voices were neglected, on the basis that they were not in a position to give accurate information or make judgements (Qvortrup, 1994). However, this is a view that has gradually changed over time and the issue of listening to children is supported by certain official documents. In particular, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) emphasises this issue. But apart from the issue of children’s right to be heard listening to children’s voices is viewed both as an ethical imperative, as well as a matter of practical utility and efficacy (Davie and Galloway, 1996).
Although children’s voices were often neglected in the past, there are some exceptions to consider. In particular, a number of researchers concerned with pedagogy and general education matters have valued children’s views and their way of understanding aspects related to education (e.g. Holt, 1964; Rowland, 1984; Pollard, 1985). However, according to Roaf (2002) researching children’s views in relation to inclusive education is a relatively new field. She goes on arguing that by doing this there is great potential in terms of improving children’s experience of education as well as teachers’ understanding of their pupils.
Some studies turned towards children’s voices and contributions in relation to inclusive education (e.g. Ainscow et al., 1999; Allan, 1999; Cooper, 1993; Kyle and Davies, 1991; Lewis and Lewis, 1987; Lewis, 1995; Penrose et al., 2001; Vlachou, 1997). However, in all of these studies the term inclusion was addressed from the angle of special needs. According to Ainscow (2000) focusing only on special needs is very limiting as an agenda, in the sense that it does not take so much into consideration contextual factors that might affect children’s progress. In addition, if the focus is only on special needs I would argue that there is a tension between the theory of inclusion and the practical task of carrying out a research. For instance, by going into a classroom and singling out individuals defined as having “special needs” for interview, for example, does not this behaviour on behalf of a researcher exclude in itself? And more importantly, isn’t this behaviour likely to contribute to the reproduction of certain stereotypes associated with special needs, especially when we are working with primary age children? (Messiou, 2002).
Taking into account the above concerns as well as following a broader definition of inclusion, which refers to any children that might experience marginalisation regardless if they are perceived as having special needs or not, the methodological design for the study was developed as this is described in the next section.
To sum up, the rationale for the study rests on the argument that: Inclusion is a complex social process in which the voices of those involved should be heard. Consequently, children’s views have to be included, and these are usually neglected. They have a right to be heard but they can also act as a bridge to useful information that could be used as a way of informing the development of inclusive practices. In particular the research questions of the study were:
In this paper, however, the first question will be explored. Through the understandings of the ways in which children experience marginalisation, a discussion will follow on the implications of these understandings for inclusive education.
The research
The study took place in one primary school in Cyprus (ages five and eight months to twelve years olds), over a period of five months. The school had two hundred and twenty-seven children enrolled in it and is located in the suburbs of the city of Nicosia. Qualitative methods were used for the collection and analysis of data. Specifically, the research was carried out in four phases: In the first phase, participant observations were conducted. In the second phase participant observations and individual semi-structured interviews with all the children in the school were carried out, as well as conversations with teachers. In the third phase, a second round of individual interviews followed, with those children identified as possibly experiencing marginalisation, in addition to more observations in the classrooms and in the playground. In the last phase, interventions with all the classrooms followed, as well as a presentation to teachers.
The rationale for the methodology used in the research is closely related to the theoretical background to the study. In particular, the rationale is based on the broader notion of inclusion, and the commitment to the view that children are active participants, and should be viewed and treated as such, in the research process. Therefore, there was an effort to use such a methodology that would promote the idea of inclusion on the one hand, and treat all children as active participants on the other hand.
Both aspects were accomplished to some extent through the way that children possibly experiencing marginalisation were identified and through the way the interviews with the children were carried out. Particularly, children who experience marginalisation in the context under investigation were identified taking into account three perspectives:
Taking into consideration all three perspectives, and therefore collecting data through different sources, was thought to be very important in terms of enhancing the validity of the study (Creswell and Miller, 2000; Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Therefore, triangulation of sources, as well as of methods, was used to ensure that the accounts gathered were valid. It should be noted, however, that in case of discrepancy among the three perspectives the most dominant voice was that of the child.
Particular emphasis was given on the interviews process, both the first round interviews and the second round interviews acknowledging the fact that, marginalisation, as a term, is highly complex for children to understand. Specifically, special techniques were used during the interviews like an adaptation of the “Message in a bottle” technique, which was used by Davies (2000), the use of sociometric measures and the use of drawings (for more details see Messiou, 2003). Harden et al. (2000) argue that the need to create special techniques in order to interview children is premised on the belief that this is more difficult compared to talking to adults, and in this way constructing children as ‘other’ in methodological terms. This was not the assumption though that was underlying this work. It was mainly the effort to approach sensitive issues indirectly that led to the need of finding special techniques, and not the assumption that children would not talk. In addition, the aim was also to make the interview more enjoyable.
Conceptualising marginalisation through children’s voices
Thirty-one children were identified as possibly experiencing marginalisation in the particular school. Through the analysis of the observations, teacher’s views and predominantly children’s perspectives, m arginalisation, within the particular school context, came to be conceptualised in four different ways as follows:
Trying to fit each child that was identified as experiencing marginalisation into one of those broad categories was not an easy process. There were some children that could easily be put in one of these groups. However, there were some other children that were not so easy to define in respect to which group they should be best placed. So, it should be noted that this categorisation system is not as fixed as it might seem and there are times where there might be overlaps.
The child is experiencing some kind of marginalisation and it is recognised by everybody, including himself/herself
Children who were placed in this category were the ones easier to be identified. They themselves were very open about their feelings, and their teachers and classmates also identified them as experiencing marginalisation. In addition, in many instances I observed their experiences of marginalisation.
For example, Andreas wrote the following “Message in a bottle” and commented on it:
Message: “I would like to change school”.
Interviewer: Why do you say this?
Andreas: Because everybody is making fun of me… they beat me…. Me and my brother.
In addition to what he said, one of Andreas’s classmates told me about him:
Elena: The teacher told us to sit with whomever we want, and we did that and some, because Andreas sits alone at the back, they don’t play with him and they make fun of him some times, and the teacher did not tell us where to sit, because before he used to tell us and now he told us to sit as we want, and that pupil did not go anywhere because nobody told him to sit with him, although there were seats and he sat on his own at the back.
Interviewer: You mean that the teacher told you to sit in groups with whomever you like and Andreas was the only child that no one chose him?
Elena: Yes.
Elena’s words indicate that she did know that Andreas was experiencing some kind of marginalisation and this was something confirmed by other pupils in the classroom as well. Furthermore, in the sociograms that were developed based on children’s nominations, none of the pupils either chose Andreas to play with or to work with in the classroom. In addition, the teacher mentioned Andreas as being the only child in his classroom experiencing marginalisation and I also had the chance to observe Andreas being on his own in the playground most of the times.
So, it could be argued that Andreas was experiencing marginalisation both in the academic and the social level, even though his interest was mainly on the social domain.
The child is feeling that he/she is marginalised whereas most of the others do not recognise this
Children included in this category, were identified as such mainly based on the way that they felt. In other words, there was not agreement between the three perspectives that were taken into consideration for the identification of those children experiencing marginalisation. In that case, the one perspective that was more taken into consideration was the one of the child since the study had at its centre the child. For example, Kipros though was not considered by his teacher as experiencing marginalisation, and neither did his classmates appeared to believe so, he felt this way. In particular, Kipros was experiencing many difficulties with learning and like he said:
Message in a bottle: I don’t like school. I would like to stay at home all the time.
Interviewer: Why don’t you like school?
Kipros: They give us lots of homework.
Interviewer: Right. Do you find it difficult as well?
Kipros: Yes.
Interviewer: What do you find most difficult?
Kipros: I don’t know.
Interviewer: What do you like at school?
Kipros: Nothing.
Interviewer: Not even that you have so many friends here?
Kipros: No.
In the sociograms, he was one of the most favourite children in the classroom to play with. However, this did not seem to be enough for him as it appears on the above extract.
The child is found in what appears to be marginalised situations but does not feel it, or does not view it as marginalisation
Five children were placed in this group. Among them there was a girl with autistic characteristics, Mari, who might not have expressed that she was experiencing marginalisation, not because she was not feeling it, but because of her low ability to use language for the purpose of communication (Frith, 1989). The rest of the children though, had the ability to express their views. For instance, Lellos who was marginalised academically as well as socially, did not view it as such. In particular, he was withdrawn from some lessons to receive individual support from his teacher but as he said:
Interviewer: Do you like it that you leave the classroom from some lessons so that your teacher will help just you?
Lellos: Yes.
Interviewer: Why?
Lellos: Because I feel that it is just I in the classroom.
So, what could be named as a marginalised situation was not viewed as such by the child himself. In addition, even though he was on his own most of the times during playtime and only one of his classmates chose him to play with, and nobody chose him to work with, he did not express any feelings of marginalisation.
The child is experiencing marginalisation but does not admit it
Children placed in this group though never explicitly saying that they were feeling that they were experiencing any kind of marginalisation, they seemed as if they knew what was happening. This was evident either through what they were saying or doing, or through what they were not saying. For instance, Yiannoula who was sitting on her own in the classroom told me:
Interviewer: I have noticed in your classroom that there are some children that are sitting on their own and some that are sitting in pairs. Why does this happen?
Yiannoula:Because there are some children who don’t want to sit with other children.
Interviewer: So they have chosen this. Do you sit alone or with someone else now?
Yiannoula: On my own.
Interviewer: Did you choose this?
Yiannoula: No.
Interviewer: Did the teacher choose this?
Yiannoula: Yes.
Interviewer: Why do you think?
Yiannoula: Because I never sat on my own before.
So, though at the beginning she told me that those who sit on their own it is because they want to do so, then she told me that it was the teacher’s choice. From what the teacher told me noone wanted to sit with her. In addition, I was also present in an incident when the teacher asked them to sit in a circle for a particular activity and when she sat next to a boy he did not want her to sit next to him, and all the children reacted in the same way. When I talked with her about the above incident, in the second interview that I carried out with her, she said that:
Yiannoula: I went to sit there, and he told me “No, I will sit here”, and I told him “O.K.”.
Interviewer: Do children do this often to you?
Yiannoula: ….
Interviewer: Do you remember any other incidents?
Yiannoula: No.
It seems, therefore, that she did not want to admit that this was happening frequently, even though she appeared to know what was happening.
Implications for inclusive education
Conceptualising marginalisation in the four different ways that were discussed above has further implications for the implementation of inclusive education. First of all, the fact that a typology of four possible ways that marginalisation was experienced by children in the particular context emerged is in accordance with the notion that rejects the notion of universal childhood and places emphasis on the notion of multiple childhoods. As Davis (1998) argues, following this perspective of variety of ‘childhoods’:
…researchers can discover more than one set of children’s meanings/voices and more than one set of relationships between children and the adults and other children they interact with on a daily basis. (p. 326)
Similarly, in this study though each child was experiencing marginalisation in a unique way, some commonalities among these ways led to the conceptualisation of four broad different ways of experiencing marginalisation. Another point that I would like to make is that this typology was not intended to present marginalisation in a simplistic way. On the contrary, in deciding where each child “fitted” I encountered many dilemmas. This shows that marginalisation is not easy to define and may come with different faces according to the individuals. For instance, whereas the first way in which marginalisation can be identified is the one, which everybody refers to and can be easily recognised, all the other ways are not easily identified and might be therefore overlooked. Based on this, it can be argued that marginalisation, and therefore inclusion and exclusion, cannot be easily identified. It is definitely not about a simple question that can be answered by a yes or no. It is something much deeper, even hidden at some times that very much depends on individuals, as well as on social processes that one experiences in a particular setting. Therefore, in addition to these four possible ways of experiencing marginalisation, there might be other ways that did not come to the surface in the particular context, or in other contexts. Hence, in educational settings teachers should be alert at all times in identifying children in their classrooms who might experience forms of marginalisation. It is something that might be overt, like it was the case for those children who belonged in the first group. However, marginalisation might be well covered, and therefore educators should be aware of that in order to effectively include all children in their classrooms.
Secondly, especially in relation to the third kind of marginalisation “The child is found in what appears to be marginalised situations but does not feel it, or does not view it as marginalisation”, it is interesting to notice that even though adults could very easily name the practice of withdrawal from the classroom as one kind of marginalisation, and not as an inclusive practice, this might not viewed as such by children. On the contrary, children who receive this individual support might even like it. We should be therefore, aware of this and be more flexible and open about it because in the end it might be more inclusive to offer this practice to children who might want this individual support, even though in theory it is not the ideal inclusive practice.
Finally, it could be argued therefore that teachers could be viewed as having a key role in implementing inclusive education. As it was discussed above, they should be alert at all times in identifying children who might experience marginalisation in their classrooms, and do whatever they consider as necessary to better include those children. Clark et al. (1999) argue that:
The implication for the development of ‘inclusive schools’ would seem to be that inclusion cannot effectively be created by the diktat of national, local or school administrations. Rather, the teachers in inclusive schools have to construct the ‘meaning’ of inclusion for themselves as part of an overall cultural transformation of their schools. (p.167)
I would say that maybe this construction of the ‘meaning’ of inclusion for teachers could be achieved by listening to what their pupils have to say. Through children’s voices teachers might gain better understandings of the meaning of inclusion.
Some final thoughts
Though this study had at its centre children’s voices, it should be noted that they were used as one way to understand better notions of inclusion and marginalisation. Or, as Dyson (1998) states, “the availability of different definitions of validity opens up the possibility that we should think in terms, not of alternative pathways to ‘the truth’, but of pathways to alternative truths”(p.6). Therefore, children were viewed as one such pathway. Or as, Oliver (2000) suggests, “insider perspectives are essential to our attempts to grapple with any social phenomena but, by themselves and in themselves, they can never be enough.” (p.7).
Of course, listening to children is by no means an easy process. At the school level this process becomes even more complex, since educators are asked to take new roles, as well as children. As Fielding (2001) argues, through such processes “the roles of teachers and students are beginning to become less exclusive and excluding of each other” (p.49). Nevertheless, as I have argued this is a necessity if we want to be truly inclusive (Messiou, 2004). But first, we should be convinced that we could learn by listening to children’s voices, since their perspectives can “inform the development of school-level inclusive policies and practices” (Campbell et al., 2002). Above all, using children’s voices in inclusive education should not be used only as a strategy to become more inclusive but rather should be viewed as a manifestation of being inclusive. Unless everyone who is involved in the process is seriously taken into consideration then no claims that we are inclusive can be made.
Ainscow, M., Booth, T. and Dyson, A. (1999) Inclusion and exclusion in schools: Listening to some hidden voices, in K. Ballard (Ed.) Inclusive Education: International Voices on Disability and Justice (pp.139-151). London: Falmer Press.
Ainscow, M. (2000) Profile, in P. Clough and J. Corbett (Eds.) Theories of Inclusive Education (pp. 39-42). London: Paul Chapman.
Ainscow, M. (1999) Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools. London: Falmer Press.
Allan, J. (1999) Actively Seeking Inclusion. London: Falmer Press.
Armstrong, D., Armstrong, F. and Barton, L. (2000) Introduction: What is this book about, in F. Armstrong, D. Armstrong and L. Barton (Eds.) Inclusive Education: Policy, Contexts and Comparative Perspectives (pp. 1-11). London: David Fulton.
Ballard, K. (1999) International voices: An introduction, in K. Ballard (Ed.) Inclusive Education: International Voices on Disability and Justice (pp. 1-9).London: Falmer Press.
Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (1998) (Eds.) From Them to Us. London: Routledge.
Campbell, C., Gillborn, D. Lunt, I., Sammons, P., Vincent, C., Warren, S. and Whitty, G. (2002) Strategies and issues for inclusive schooling, in in C. Campbell (Ed.) Developing Inclusive Schooling: Perspectives, Policies and Practices (pp. 150-165). London: Institute of Education-Bedford Ways.
Clark, C., Dyson, A., Millward, A. and Robson, S. (1999) Theories of inclusion, theories of schools: Deconstructing and reconstructing the ‘inclusive school’, British Educational Research Journal, 25, 2, pp. 157-177.
Clough, P. (2000) Routes to inclusion, in P. Clough and J. Corbett (Eds.) Theories of Inclusive Education (pp. 1-33). London: Paul Chapman.
Cooper, P. (1993) Learning from pupils’ perspectives, British Journal of Special Education, 20, 4, pp. 129-133.
Corbett, J. (1997) Include/exclude: Redefining the boundaries, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1, 1, pp.55-64.
Corbett, J. (2001) Supporting Inclusive Education: A connective pedagogy.London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Corbett, J. and Slee, R. (2000) An international conversation on inclusive education, in F. Armstrong, D. Armstrong and L. Barton (Eds.) Inclusive Education: Policy, Contexts and Comparative Perspectives (pp. 133-146). London: David Fulton.
Creswell, J. W. and Miller, D. L. (2000) Determining validity in qualitative inquiry, Theory Into Practice, 39, 3, pp. 124-130.
Daniels, H. and Garner, P. (1999) Introduction, in H. Daniels and P. Garner (Eds.) World Yearbook of Education 1999: Inclusive Education (pp. 1-10). London: Kogan Page.
Davie, R. and Galloway, D. (1996) The voice of the child in education, in R. Davie, and D. Galloway (Eds.), Listening to Children in Education (pp.1-14 ). London: David Fulton.
Davies, L. (2000) Researching democratic understanding in primary school, Research in Education, 61, pp.39-48.
Davis, J. M. (1998) Understanding the meaning of children: A reflexive process, Children and Society, 12, 5, pp. 325-335.
Dyson, A. (1998) Professional intellectuals from powerful groups: wrong from the start?, in P. Clough and L. Barton (Eds.) Articulating with Difficulty: Research Voices in Inclusive Education (pp.1-15). London:PaulChapman.
Farrell, P. (2000) The impact of research on developments in inclusive education, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4, 2, pp.153-162.
Fielding, M. (2001) Students as radical agents of change, Journal of Educational Change, 2, 2, pp. 123-141.
Florian, L. (1998) Inclusive practice: What, why and how?, in C. Tilstone, L. Florian, R. Rose (Eds.) Promoting Inclusive Practice (pp.13-26). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Frith, U. (1989) Autism – Explaining the Enigma. Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Harden, J., Scott, S., Backett-Milburn, K. and Jackson, S. (2000) Can’t talk, won’t talk? Methodological issues in researching children, Sociological Research Online, 5, 2, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/5/2/harden.html.
Holt, J. (1964) How Children Fail. London: Penguin.
Kyle, C. and Davies , K. (1991 ) Attitudes of mainstream pupils towards mental retardation: Pilot study at a Leeds secondary school, British Journal of Special Education, 18, 3, Research Supplement, pp. 103-106.
Lewis,A. and Lewis, V. (1987) The attitudes of young children towards peers with severe learning difficulties, British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, pp.287-292.
Lewis, A. (1995) Children’s Understandings of Disability. London: Routledge.
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage.
Messiou, K. (2004) Children’s involvement in decision making in the context of inclusive education, in P., Angelides and G., Mauroeides (Eds.) Educational Innovations for the School of the Future. Athens: Tipothito.
Messiou, K. (2003) Conversations with Children: A Pathway towards understanding Marginalisation and Inclusive Education. Unpublished PhD thesis: University of Manchester.
Messiou, K. (2002) Marginalisation in primary schools: listening to children’s voices, Support for Learning, 17, 3, pp. 117-121.
Mittler, P. (2000) Working Towards Inclusive Education: Social Contexts. London: David Fulton.
Oliver, M. (2000) Why do insider perspectives matter?, in M. Moore (Ed.) Insider Perspectives on Inclusion: Raising Voices, Raising Issues (pp.7 –17). Sheffield: Philip Armstrong Publications.
Penrose, V., Thomas, G. and Greed, C. (2001) Designing inclusive schools: How can children be involved?, Support for Learning, 16, 2, pp. 87-91.
Pollard, A. (1985) The Social World of the Primary School. East Sussex: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Qvortrup, J. (1994) Childhood Matters: An Introduction, in J. Qvortrup, M. Bardy, G. Sgritta and H. Wintersberger (Eds.) Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics (pp. 1- 23). Aldershot: Avebury.
Roaf, C. (2002) Editorial: Children and young people: advocacy and empowerment, Support for Learning, 17, 3, pp. 102 – 103.
Rowland, S. (1984) The Enquiring Classroom. Great Britain: The Falmer Press.
Udvari-Solner, A. and Thousand, J. (1995) Effective organizational, instructional and curricular practices in inclusive schools and classrooms, in C. Clark, A. Dyson and A. Milward (Eds.) Towards Inclusive Schools? (pp.147-163). London: Fulton.
United Nations (1989) The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: UN.
Vlachou, A. D. (1997) Struggles for Inclusive Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |