Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Encouraging Questions and Raising Voices

Richard Rose (Centre for Special Needs Education and Research,
University College Northampton, UK, richard.rose4@tiscali.co.uk)

Michael Shevlin (Trinity College Dublin, Republic of Ireland)

Abstract

The voices of young people from marginalized groups within society have tended to be ignored and patronised in educational decision-making processes. This type of exclusion is not uncommon for people from marginalized groups despite increased rhetoric concerning parental choice and stakeholder involvement. As a result, these young people have remained on the periphery of decision-making processes in education though it is quite likely that the outcomes of these discussions will have a profound impact on their current and future lives. The power relationships that dominate educational discourse are rarely transparent or visible and as a result remain relatively unexamined and unchallenged. An analysis of the educational experiences of young people from marginalized groupings offers insights into how a discourse of power between the powerful and the powerless effectively excludes the voice of children from meaningful participation in decision-making processes.

The Encouraging Voices project brought together a group of colleagues from Ireland and the UK committed to researching with young people from marginalized groups and was designed to enable individuals and groups to articulate their experiences within an educational context. The individuals involved had all given a commitment to forming partnerships, which enabled those who had been service users to work alongside researchers, to investigate critical issues surrounding the ability of schools and other educational institutions to include them in education. In addition to young people with special needs and disabilities, the project involved individuals and groups from within the gypsy traveller community and refugees. The main purpose of this approach was to see if there were parallel issues or concerns expressed across these groups.

These young people from marginalized groups identified a number of common themes that characterised their educational experiences.These included a deep unease about the facilitation of access to education, achievement within the educational system and beyond and ambition for their success from teachers and policy makers. Facilitating access is a complex and multi-layered process. Getting into school was not a major difficulty for these young people though there were problems with physical access to the built environment, full participation in the curriculum and retention within school. Exclusion from participation in the main curriculum of the school, and extra-curricular activities can marginalize students even further from their mainstream peers. These young people were keenly aware that this exclusion emphasised a sense of difference from their mainstream peers and reinforced negative stereotypes that emphasize dependence. Generally, these students were expected to assimilate and adapt to mainstream norms though their experience indicated that their individual needs were often overlooked. This was particularly true where there was little curricular modification or adaptation of teaching strategies.

It is evident that by providing young people with an opportunity to express their opinions and ideas there is much, which we as professionals can learn. However, this will only be achieved if in addition to listening we are prepared to act and to confront the obstacles which still stand in the way of creating an education system which is truly committed to providing an inclusive ideal.

Introduction

The promotion of the voice of the child or young person with special educational needs has been recognised as a critical feature in the development of a more inclusive education system (Florian 1998, Mittler 2000). In recent years, the importance of eliciting the views of children and young people with special educational needs has been the subject of a considerable body of writing (Quicke 2003, Beveridge 2004) and has become the focus of several research studies (Educable 2000, Kenny et al 2000, Fletcher 2001). Most European states have identified increased inclusion as a priority and legislation has been enacted to promote the involvement of pupils in decision-making procedures that have an impact upon their lives. European legislation regarding young people with special educational needs has inevitably been influenced by international agreements such as the UNESCO Salamanca World Statement on Special Needs Education (1994) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of The Child (1989). These documents have established guiding principles for the assessment of policies in the area of child welfare. Such principles have been significant in the underpinning of legislation within individual European states, as they have examined procedures for the education, care and management of services for young people with special educational needs or disabilities.

However, it is apparent that the translation of policy into effective practice demands considerable effort at several levels if it is to impact upon the ways in which the views of young people are elicited and respected and acted upon. Whilst successive European governments have endeavoured to provide a strong legislative framework, there remain many obstacles to the provision of opportunities for meaningful participation for most pupils with special educational needs. The voices of young people from marginalized groups within society have tended to be ignored and patronised in educational decision-making processes (Morris 2003, Lodge and Lynch, 2004). The discourse of professionals and policy makers has assumed a dominant position. This type of exclusion is not uncommon for people from marginalized groups despite increased rhetoric concerning parental choice and stakeholder involvement. As a result, these young people have remained on the periphery of decision-making processes in education though it is quite likely that the outcomes of these discussions will have a profound impact on their current and future lives. The power relationships that dominate educational discourse are rarely transparent or visible and as a result remain relatively unexamined and unchallenged. Young people from marginalized groups and their families often lack the resources to effectively challenge decisions that exclude their legitimate concerns in pursuit of greater efficiency or the allocation of scarce resources. An analysis of the educational experiences of young people from marginalized groupings offers insights into how a discourse of power between the powerful and the powerless effectively excludes the voice of children from meaningful participation in decision-making processes.

Background

Philosophical concepts of childhood have evolved considerably throughout the twentieth century.

A paternalistic discourse that failed to accord children a separate identity apart from their parents has persisted. International declarations and domestic legislation and policy have challenged this dominant perspective. Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, for example, explicitly calls upon governments and all agencies that work with children and young people to acknowledge and respond appropriately to the views expressed by children in relation to all decisions which have a direct bearing upon their lives. In addition, a combination of legislation and policy documents in the UK and the Republic of Ireland has been crucial in this process. Legislation such as the Children Act (1989) and the Special Needs Code of Practice (1994 revised 2001) in the UK and the Education Act (1998) in the Republic of Ireland along with The Revised Primary Curriculum (1999) and The National Children’s Strategy (2000) have signaled significant progress in acknowledging the importance of children’s voices. However, despite these developments the overwhelming reality is that the voices of children have not featured significantly in educational decision-making. The experiences of young people with disabilities indicates that their opinions are rarely asked for, and when they are consulted the process is often tokenistic and their views are largely ignored (Noble 2003).   Lack of maturity and competence are usually cited as adequate reason to exclude children from decision-making processes that can profoundly affect their lives (Rose and Shevlin, 2004) and is often excused by the notion that pupils are vulnerable and need extra protection. Such concepts may, of course, be challenged. Is the protective shield established for the benefit of the young person themselves?   Could it not be the case that parents or carers who have been convinced by professionals that the care of their offspring with a disability carries responsibilities additional to those of other parents naturally feel vulnerable and seek to protect themselves from possible accusations of providing insufficient care? This perceived need to focus upon the provision of a protective environment has been a factor which has influenced school expectations of pupil participation. Pupils report their frustrations at not being encouraged to participate in school activities as a result of teachers considering that they may not be suitable, and cite such expectations as a major obstacle to full inclusion in the learning process (Rose and Shevlin 2004). As Devine (2003) comments schools still operate within a predominantly instrumental/adult-centred framework with little impact on the status of children within the system.

What are the perceived benefits of pupil involvement?

Teachers and other professional colleagues are more likely to promote pupil involvement in decision making when they can see the benefits of such an approach both in respect of the pupils and their own ability to manage procedures. Research from the UK and USA on pupil involvement tends to suggest that whilst for some pupils, such as those with special educational needs or for whom English is an additional language such an approach may demand innovative teaching and the introduction of augmentative systems of communication, the benefits for both teachers and pupils make the effort worthwhile. A new emphasis upon the promotion of active citizenship in the UK has led some researchers to examine how pupils from marginalized groups may be encouraged to play a more prominent role in society. The maintenance of a dependency culture in schools has been perceived as presenting a particular obstacle to enabling pupils to become more responsible citizens who engage in the activities of the society in which they are to live (Fergusson and Lawson 2003, Lawson 2003). Such writers have suggested that school structures which actively seek to encourage pupils to make decisions about their own learning, promote an ethos of respecting opinions and provides opportunities for reflective activities such as self-assessment are essential in ensuring that young people leave school prepared to make a contribution to society. However, most teachers will be particularly concerned to identify the ways in which listening to pupil voices may make a direct contribution to the learning process.

Several writers, Munby (1995, Rose, Fletcher and Goodwin 1999) have suggested that when pupils are involved in self-assessment procedures and planning related to their personal learning needs they   develop finer skills in respect of making judgements about their own performance and understanding . Their research, along with that of others (Mortimer 2004) indicates that in addition to raising pupils’ self awareness, staff   who promoted pupil involvement improved their understanding of how pupils learn and were more focused upon addressing these through their planning and teaching practices. Davie and Galloway (1996) recognise that when teachers are introduced to principles which appear to advocate increased pupil autonomy they are at times sceptical and apprehensive. There are inevitable concerns regarding the teacher/pupil relationship and about the importance of maintaining classroom control. However, their research indicated that these teachers, once involved, could see the benefits, which in many instances have included improved behaviour and greater pupil acceptance of responsibility for the management of their own learning.   Whilst concerns have been expressed that pupils lack either the maturity or understanding to engage positively in processes such as self assessment or the expression of their views, researchers such as   Nutbrown (1995) and Griffiths and Davies (1995) have challenged this view. Working specifically with pupils of nursery school age they have demonstrated that pupil involvement when encouraged from the earliest stages of learning can lead to an increasingly respectful and collaborative school culture. Indeed, When children are not centrally involved in developing their personal skills learning failure can result. Within an Irish context, Kenny et al., (2000) report that young people with disabilities are often overlooked in classroom situations and their difficulties in learning attributed to their impairment. The overprotective attitude of teachers can prevent these young people from taking responsibility for their own learning and making significant progress. Yet, we have many examples where children are actively involved in constructing their own learning which demonstrate the negative impact which may result from denial of opportunity . Donnelly (2001) provides examples of young children engaging in higher order thinking while involved in a programme promoting philosophical reflection. Similarly, Day (1997) reported how children’s informal talk made a positive contribution to their writing skills and enabled them to become critically aware of language processes.

Clearly, when advocating the greater participation of pupils in these processes there is a need to avoid tokenistic practices. Some writers (Armstrong, Galloway and Tomlinson (1993a, 1993b, Gersch 1996) have suggested that systems which fail to ensure that pupils are equipped with the skills necessary to enable them to play a genuine role in involvement may lead to increased frustration on the part of both teachers and learners. The identification of those essential skills of negotiation, prediction and recognition of personal potential need to be taught and opportunities to incorporate them into everyday school activities sought (Rose 1999).

Internationally, the commonality of educational experiences of children and young people from marginalized communities has been documented (Alderson and Goodey, 1998, Ballard, 1999, Gartner and Kerzner Lipsky, 1999). Slee (1999), for example, comments on the similarities between the exclusionary strategies preventing full societal participation by Aboriginal Australians and disabled people. Armstrong and Barton(1999) observed that exclusionary practice is evident at many different levels within society often reflected in discourse such as ‘illegal immigrants’ or ‘EBD kids’ (those labeled as having emotional and behavioural difficulties) that disguise the ‘marginalization of some groups in society on the basis that they transgress socially constructed ideas of ‘the normal’ (p. 213). Recent research has critiqued the absence of voices from marginalized communities in decision-making processes at policy and practice levels that profoundly affect their lives (Lynch and Lodge, 2002, Mc Donnell, 2000, Shevlin and Rose, 2003).   As Lynch (1999) asserts: ‘If one’s cultural traditions and practices are not a valued part of the education one receives, if they are denigrated or omitted, then schooling itself becomes a place where one’s identity is denied or one’s voice is silenced’ (p. 17). There has been increased recognition that this historical imbalance needs to be addressed through providing opportunities for young people from marginalized communities to play a meaningful part in decisions affecting their education.

It is evident that young people with physical disabilities are increasingly accommodated within mainstream education (Cornwall, 1997, Meijer 1998). What is not so clear is the extent to which these young people are gaining full curricular access particularly in post primary schools (Vlachou, 1997). Recent research has begun to recognise the need to register the voice of the student, on two grounds. Firstly, listening to the accounts of young people themselves is essential to in-depth analysis of education policy and practice (Cole, 2000); and secondly, involving young people in decision making in schools is an integral part of an effective inclusion process (Lloyd-Smith and Tarr, 2000). At present, examples of innovative practice in the promotion of pupil involvement is somewhat limited and there is a need to establish a firmer empirical base which provides both evidence of how pupil participation is being achieved and its efficacy on implementation.

The project

The Encouraging Voices project (Shevlin and Rose, 2003) attempted to gain insights into the educational experiences of young people from marginalized communities in Ireland and the UK. This involved bringing together colleagues committed to researching with young people from marginalized groups and was designed to enable these young people to articulate and disseminate their experiences within mainstream schools. The international debate around inclusion has often been conceptualised as predominantly an issue associated with special educational needs or specific categories of disability. Participants in this project challenged this narrow and impoverished perspective of inclusion. Labelling young people from marginalized communities as different or deficient in some way has often resulted in their exclusion from education and participation in everyday activities. The researchers involved had all given a commitment to forming partnerships with young people from marginalized communities in order to investigate critical issues surrounding the capacity of schools to include these young people in the full range of educational activities. In addition to young people with special educational needs and disabilities, the project involved individuals and groups from within the Gypsy Traveller community and refugees. This approach was adopted to identify the parallel issues and concerns influencing the meaningful participation of these young people in education. The project never claimed to represent marginalized groups as a whole but rather aimed to provide a forum for young people who had experienced mainstream education to express their views and explore the possibility of developing a shared perception that could inform future educational policy and practice.

The participants within the Encouraging Voices project used a variety of approaches to elicit and report the views and experiences of young people. Participants investigated critical issues around inclusion through the sharing of methodologies and approaches to researching with young people from marginalized groups as opposed to on or about these individuals (Moore et al., 1997). Within this paper four research programmes within the overall Encouraging Voices project will be examined in greater depth. Nine young people with physical disabilities in Northern Ireland were enabled to research and document the experiences of other disabled students in special schools (Educable 2000, Horgan, 2003). Gypsy Traveller children in English secondary schools had an opportunity to reflect upon their personal experiences of schooling (Derrington and Kendall, 2003, 2004). Groups of disabled young people in Irish schools expressed their views about participation and inclusion in mainstream schools and their future aspirations (Kenny, McNeela and Shevlin, 2000, 2003). Rose (1999, 2003) examined how teachers could enable pupils with severe learning difficulties to become more effectively involved in their own assessment and learning procedures. Whilst each of these individual projects examined different perspectives of pupil involvement, they adopted a common theme of promoting opportunities for young people themselves to critically appraise their educational experiences. Common themes emerged from within these individual projects relating to the three specific issues of physical, attitudinal and curricular access, barriers to meaningful participation and the provision of opportunities for success.

Young people from marginalised groups experienced a variety of difficulties in gaining access to all aspects of school life including physical and curricular access. For those with physical disabilities access remained a serious obstacle to full participation and had the potential to skew peer relationships. Curricular access was not guaranteed either. Students from marginalised communities in these studies often encountered negative peer attitudes that hindered their full inclusion in the school environment. It is also fair to say that these young people were the target of lowered teacher expectations and often did not achieve public certification at a level commensurate with their ability.

While a minority of schools had adapted the built environment to accommodate young people with physical disabilities:

There were girls in wheelchairs and they got round easily and everything was at a level where they could do everything.

This experience was not the norm as participants reported serious difficulties in gaining basic physical access:

If a class was downstairs, no problem. But stairs, there’d be a problem.   Prefabs were a big problem, big steps into them, I had to be lifted.   If my friends weren’t around I wouldn’t get there.   I wouldn’t go to the class.

This difficulty was exacerbated by the constant need to request help from peers with access issues and often inhibited the development of peer relationships:

It was kind of difficult just to get around.   And asking for help, I found that difficult.   I didn’t like asking the same person all the time ...   Some people would make a fuss over me and others wouldn’t think – it was a mixture of reactions.

Access to a broad and balanced curriculum constituted a major issue for participants. For example, the young people from the Educable group attended a special school for children with physical disabilities and experienced severe limitations in curricular access that restricted academic achievement and future career options:

            For the course I want to do at university, I would need more specialised science subjects, but the school only does general science … I know I’m the only one in the school who wants to specialise in science and they can’t put on a class just for me. But I wish there was a way around it.

I would have liked to have done geography but I couldn’t because I done history … You can have a choice between history and geography but the teachers decided that we would do history.

In the mainstream school young people with disabilities were not guaranteed meaningful participation in curricular activities. Difficulties were most apparent in subject areas that required laboratory work and/or physical activity such as Science, Home Economics and Physical Education. It was evident that school practice in relation to these subject areas varied considerably. Some schools adopted co-operative learning strategies to ensure access:

We’d pair up, and my partner used to do all the physical work.   I just couldn’t do it; I couldn’t hold a glass of water.

Other schools appeared to overlook curricular access issues and there was a constant danger that young people with disabilities could easily slide from actor to audience:

In science, using things on the bench, I just sat down and watched.

As with science, so also with Physical Education. Some PE teachers found ways to involve students with disabilities:

I wasn’t excluded from any sports.   Actually they pushed me into things more than taking me out –‘you are going into this, no questions asked!’

Others were content to let them watch:

I think most of us were excluded especially in sports - the school wasn’t equipped to cope.   They tried, but the majority of times you had to stay out.

However, students with disabilities can be socialised into accepting the natural order and not even recognise blatant examples of exclusion:

            The P. E. teacher let me watch.   There was no discrimination.   [Q: Did they include exercises suited to you?]   Oh no, no.   But he was very good.

Extra curricular activities also proved a contentious area as comparatively few participants found their schools were positively prepared:

            I went on a lot of trips.   The other students had to make their own way; we got transport no problem from school.

However, in the experience of most participants with physical disabilities access to extra curricular activities was not a priority:

I was excluded from my groups as far as going out with the class - I think they were nearly afraid I would hurt myself.

Consequently participants reported that their awareness of their difference from their peers was exacerbated through exclusion from these activities:

I would listen to them when they came back – ‘you missed a great couple of days we’d great fun’.   Even sitting beside them hearing them laughing, it was laughing at something you didn’t understand.   I didn’t like that.

Lack of ambition characterized the school experiences of many young people with

disabilities. In retrospect, the young people in the Educable group realized that they had not been sufficiently challenged to achieve their full potential. Limited subject choice combined with low

school expectations considerably restricted their post school options:

            My sister is at grammar school now and I can see the choice she gets and I realize what a bad deal I got. We’re forced to go on to further education really because the education we got at school wouldn’t get us a job.

No one expects us to do well in exams and go on to have a career or even a decent job. Changing this means challenging a mindset that sees the disability, not the person, and that fails to recognise that while it might take a young person with a disability longer to achieve their goals, we can still do it …

Young people from the travelling community recognized that without qualifications there was no possibility of progress into further or higher education:

            I’ve been thinking that I would like to go to college and learn how to do woodwork and that properly. I’d like to do that I think and then I could help me dad build the wagons. There’s money in that! (Male: age 13)

            If you don’t go to secondary — you ain’t going to have no exams — when you get a job. You’ll be stuck in some field all your life. There’s no future in that! You need at least two GCSEs to get into college. (Male: age 13)

However, for the majority their reality involved leaving school early and becoming involved in working in the Traveller economy. Qualifications were irrelevant and unnecessary as because their economic role within the Traveller economy was already planned for them:

            Next year I’ll be at home learning how to clean up and do things like that, helping me mum … We don’t really get jobs and that or do GCSEs or anything. We usually stay at home until we’re eighteen, nineteen, and then usually get married and then be a housewife … I think if you can read and write it’s all you need to learn, that’s all I want to learn and I can read and write ... They [people at school] don’t understand why we’ve got to leave school early [young] and that.

Academic progress presented a series of complex challenges for young people with disabilities and often participants felt that their school had expected less from them because they had a disability. As a result, they struggled to be appropriately placed in relation to their ability levels, and to gain access to all the activities within the varied subject areas:

[The teacher] told me I wasn’t suitable for the higher class.   But I got into it and I got a B1.   She just assumed that because I had a disability I should be in the lower class.

If I got bad results in the exams it was try better next time ... if anyone else got a bad result there was an ‘in-depth’.

There was an attitude that if you have something wrong with you, you don’t have to reach the same standards others do.  

If I didn’t do my homework they wouldn’t really mind.

However, some participants reported that they had experienced empowering teachers who targeted specific learning needs and related to the student as a whole person:

One teacher kept driving me the whole way.   Kind of ‘put it in a context, fair enough you have a disability but - throw it away from you and continue on’ like.   From that day on I’ve never looked back.   It was the best thing ever that, to stand up for ourselves.

Some [teachers] did their best to accommodate you with notes and extra time for essays to be handed up.

Peer Attitudes

Peer attitudes towards students from marginalised groups can be critical in either encouraging or inhibiting active participation. Research conducted by Derrington and Kendall (2004) revealed that more than half of the primary aged pupils whom they interviewed from gypsy traveller communities indicated that they had been subjected to racial abuse, a figure which was maintained in secondary education, a fact that endorses the study by Whitney and Smith (1993). According to Lodge and Lynch (2003) young people from the Travelling community were the subject of hostile peer attitudes. They were perceived to be   ‘undeserving’ and unacceptable to the majority and unwilling to assimilate:

“Travellers could fit in like anyone else - if they tried they’d fit in.   They only make trouble for themselves.”  

“My parents pay for me to have privilege and [they] wouldn’t like Travellers in this school”.  

According to young people from the travelling community examples of peer prejudice and hostile attitudes were commonplace:

            At my old school I used to get bullied. This girl used to call me a ‘dirty, stinking gyppo’. I wanted to change schools to get away from that. No one knows I’m a Traveller and that’s the way I want it. It can be tricky! Say, if someone says ‘can I come round your house?’ I have to say something like ‘I’m going round my nan’s tonight’. I do wish I could invite friends round to play. I am always having to make things up and it’s very hard for me. It would be much easier if I could tell my friends the truth and I have thought about it but when I ask them ‘would you still be my friend if I was a Traveller?’ they say ‘Ooh no, I hate Travellers!’

For the first couple of days I pretended I wasn’t a Traveller. I said I didn’t live in a trailer and that ... and then gradually I came straight.

Where pupils were not universally open about their ethnicity, it could lead to situations where they found themselves being included in conversations containing racist comments. One boy gave the following example:

            I was sitting next to this girl the other day and she was saying, ‘I hate Travellers, don’t you?’ I said ‘Not really’. And she said ‘Oh I do! They stink and they’re all thieves!’ I said ‘Not all of them are,’ and she said, ‘What do you know about it anyway?’ I had a little smile to myself and thought, ‘If only she knew’! I thought it was quite funny.

A young female in the study (when asked about name-calling) explained:

            I used to get called names but it’s kind of stopped now. It’s just the odd pupil talking about Travellers and not being aware of me. They just need to understand about Travellers and then probably they’ll stop.

Peer attitudes towards disabled people were characterised by pity and sympathy according with a prominent societal view that disability and tragedy were synonymous.

There was some recognition of the environmental barriers facing young people with disabilities in their school:

“There could be better facilities for the handicapped pupil such as a lift so he can get upstairs instead of being stuck downstairs all the time.”  

A second year boy from spoke about the impact on his own attitudes of having a wheelchair user in his class.  

“Before [student] came to the school if I looked at a person in a wheelchair I really didn’t know a lot about them.   But when [student] came I realised he’s just another person.”  

However, the lack of knowledge about disability can have a negative effect on peer interaction:

[A] lad in my class said something about computers and I said I have a problem with remembering everything I have to write them down ever since I got sick like.   He said ‘being sick wouldn't have anything to do with your brain’ and I said ‘I think it might’.   He didn’t realize what is wrong with me.   Which is hard to cope with in some ways. I feel like I have to put it out in the open when I see people.

One young woman who had dyslexia felt that she could not ask for peer support for her difficulties:

I wouldn’t ask for help.   You might not be actually told you’re stupid, but you’re getting the hidden messages so you’re not going to go ‘I’m stupid can I have help?’.   Like writing down homework from the blackboard was a nightmare for me - I always went home with half sentences or with the same sentence down three times.

Negative peer attitudes born of ignorance can have a negative impact on the possibility of young people with disabilities remaining in mainstream provision. Bullying appeared to be rife:

            At my last school, I was left out of a lot of the activities because my friends that were all able-bodied they would go off and do their thing and leave me out and they just wouldn’t really bother. I was just put to one side and that was just it for the rest of the group in the playground and stuff. (Educable member)

            When I was in the mainstream I got bullied and I kept it inside myself and I went and told the headmaster I was getting bullied … He did nothing about it at all. Brushed it under the carpet, like nothing was happening … I looked for a new school in the meantime and then one day I got kicked down the stairs, two flights of stairs because I was different. (Educable member)

However, ambition when fostered by a school can be seen to have had a positive impact upon a young man who has Asperger’s syndrome and had a critical bearing on his learning and his self-esteem:

I don’t think I should be treated any different because I have Asperger’s Syndrome. At my school I would definitely get help with work such as planning and good content. My teachers want the best for me and they encourage me. I have a special Learning Support Assistant (LSA) who helps me a lot. She’s very patient; I like her. When I had difficulty joining in with others in Year 7, she worked with me and taught me how to do it. Now she’s confident I can do; that well so she’s only working with me from time to time and on other areas. She taught me how understand the ways in which my Asperger’s will affect me in my school life. I know I’ve made good progress because in junior school my supportworker was always beside me in class. I love being the same as everyone else now. TheLSAs (learning support assistants) give me more space in this school and the help I get is not forced on me anymore. My education has been well planned and I get individual help when I need it. If I didn’t have this help I would never ever want to go to school.! Before I knew I had Asperger’s my junior schoolteachers thought I was a bad boy. The other children teased and bullied me and it was a horrible time. Now I am more confident because more people understand me.

Discussion

In common with the views expressed by researchers Cornwall (1997 Thomas et al.1998, Myers and Grosvenor 2001) these speakers’ experience confirms the dangers of teacher perceptions based on outdated notions of disability, race or culture. Irish research (see above) indicates that because there is not an informed systemic or school context, such teacher perceptions go unchallenged. Another problem arises in relation to teachers whose perceptions and practice are positive but where, the lack of systemic support poses a real danger that over time this support could become diluted or disappear (Vlachou, 1997). These findings appear to support the demand for staff development in developing inclusive responses for disabled students   (Cornwall, 1997, Dwyfor Davies and Garner, 1997,Florian, 1998, Brownlee and Carrington, 2000,Tilstone 2003).

Participants’ accounts suggest that in their experience, teachers devoted little attention to differentiation of tasks to ensure access for every child including those with disabilities (Kenward, 2003). This is a matter of particular concern when considering the extensive body of literature now available to enable teachers to develop effective strategies for the promotion of inclusive teaching (Kameenui and Carnine 1998, O’Brien and Guiney 2001, Howley and Kime 2003). Taking account of pupil views with regards to those approaches which help them to learn may well require a pedagogical shift which will take a considerable time to achieve (May 2005). However, by listening to the voices of learners who often articulate their own needs far more ably than those who surround them, teachers have an opportunity to learn how to operate more effectively in inclusive classrooms.

The absence of informed policy with regards to the management of teaching and learning, in the experience of learners from marginalised groups often resulted in an effectively exclusionary built environment and teacher practices.   These factors intersected with participant’s disabilities, or other obstacles to participation to ensure that their status was reduced from that of actor to that of audience (Ballard and McDonald, 1999).   For the physically disabled student cited above, this happened in the science laboratory and during physical education lessons.   This parallels the exclusion arising from non-differentiated academic practices for participants with difficulties such as dyslexia or hearing impairment. All these intersecting factors contributed to ensuring that the gap between participants and their peers was widened and made more visible (Ainscow, Booth and Dyson, 1999, Atkinson and Williams, 1990).

Across the diverse studies within the Encouraging Voices project there was an overriding concern about issues relating to access, achievement and ambition. It is apparent that access is a complex and multi-layered process. Getting into school for children with physical/sensory difficulties and traveller children was not a major problem. Ensuring participation and achievement was another matter. One of the key issues identified by the young people concerned the ambition or lack thereof from teachers towards them. Research has demonstrated that teachers’ expectations for young people from marginalized groups are a critical component in school success/failure. There were indications across studies that minimal levels of achievement and participation were acceptable for certain individuals and marginalized groups. Guarantee of access was no guarantee of full participation. The young people were certainly aware that they were experiencing lower levels of teacher expectations in comparison to their mainstream peers. Generally, these children were expected to adapt to mainstream norms and expectations though their dominant experience was one of oversight and sometimes denial of their existence. This was particularly true where there was little curricular modification or adaptation. Often these young people internalised these deficit views and developed a stoic acceptance of the dominant status quo. This type of neglect often led to difficulties with retention for Traveller children, for example, and a peripheral and erratic presence in school for those with disabilities. The young disabled researchers, for example, were certain that with the appropriate level of structured support examination success would have been a real possibility much earlier within their education. The fact that they eventually succeeded in gaining accreditation and recognition for their achievements was largely down to their own determination.

The barriers to full participation experienced by the young people have serious implications at both organizational and pedagogic levels for schools. It should be relatively straightforward to tackle physical access issues. It is totally unacceptable that such issues can inhibit the social and academic participation of these young people. Attitudinal and awareness issues may be less amenable to change. Schools often reflect and sometimes reinforce societal perceptions of young people who are viewed as different. The categorization of these young people into distinct groups with presumed similar educational and emotional needs has resulted in fragmented and often piecemeal inclusion of these young people into mainstream settings. Inclusion has tended to be on an individual basis thus generalizing ‘good practice’ to all mainstream settings is very difficult. It is assumed that the individual needs of young people viewed as different are qualitatively different to the needs of their mainstream peers.

It is fair to say that these young people have often had their ability underestimated and experienced low teacher expectations as a result. They observed that the most responsive teachers generally listened closely to their concerns and helped them to identify their learning strengths and shortcomings. This direct involvement in the education process resulted in greater learning confidence and assurance. Generally, the young people themselves were very self-aware and their expectations for themselves were realistic and possible with sensitive support. A key element in ensuring equal opportunities must be to work towards a system in which all pupils, regardless of their background or need are viewed as being able to achieve. Low expectation is clearly a major factor in denying access to an effective education. Enabling young people to become more self-reflective and to take greater responsibility for their learning has been demonstrated to be effective in working with young people who have severe learning difficulties. These pupils often present a particular challenge to teachers who need to explore alternative means of providing communication and access to learning. The teachers who have demonstrated that this is possible for this section of the population provide a positive model for other teachers who work with pupils of diverse need and ability. Exclusion from involvement in aspects of the curriculum, such as Physical Education, and extra-curricular activities can marginalize these young people even further from their mainstream peers. The opportunity to participate at whatever level is valued and this type of exclusion was keenly felt. These young people were aware that being treated differently to their peers reinforced the sense of difference and despite the best intentions could reinforce negative stereotypes that emphasize dependence. Schools may be seduced into creating a protected artificial world for their young people who are viewed as different. This superficially attractive option may appear to provide a risk-free environment, however, the corollary is that these young people can remain unchallenged and passive observers of the ‘real world’. This approach does a disservice to both the young people involved and schools. It represents an almost fatalistic acceptance that these young people will not achieve their potential or participate in the ‘real world’ of employment, autonomy and interdependence alongside their mainstream peers.

Social inclusion:

Being accepted by their mainstream peers and establishing viable relationships with their mainstream peers were perceived to be priorities for the young people from marginalized groups. Often, social acceptance was perceived to be more important than academic success. However, for many, social inclusion proved elusive. The difficulties in establishing and retaining social relationships with their mainstream peers were often exacerbated by the lack of basic structural supports for young people with disabilities. The lack of attention to vital access issues meant that social relationships were construed as dependent rather than reciprocal. The young people transferring to mainstream from special provision perceived that they had to be adroit in adjusting socially to mainstream demands and priorities. Failure to be adept in this area could result in being the target of verbal and/or physical bullying. Young people who are deaf or hearing impaired felt most comfortable when engaged in structured classroom activities. Outside this environment, these young people felt their disability excluded them from meaningful social relationships with their mainstream peers. Yet, the mainstream peers appeared totally unaware of this difficulty and the divergent perceptions of the young people who are deaf or hearing impaired. Traveller young people and refugee children also experienced exclusion based on hostility and an incomplete understanding of the norms and cultures of ethnic minorities. It appears that the status of the young people who are viewed as different within school and society in relation to their mainstream peers predominated in all their social interactions. Concepts of difference appeared to be based on a deficit model where the identity of the young people was totally dominated by the labelled difference.

Most teachers were kind and supportive. However, the young people maintained that despite teacher benevolence some of their basic needs remained unmet within the school environment. The young people recognised the inherent danger of being overlooked, bullied or not achieving their potential. Taking into account the sensitive perceptions and feelings of these young people and the possibility of isolation it is essential that schools must avoid any actions that might, even inadvertently, reinforce negative perceptions of these young people among their peers and the teaching staff. In addition, helping these young people to raise their own self-esteem and ensuring that they are held in high esteem needs to be a school priority. Specific changes to current school programmes are required to fully include the young people from marginalized groupings. Teacher awareness of the issues affecting these young people is critical as they, in particular, need to be publicly valued for their work and affirmed as full class participants.   For a variety of well- documented reasons these young people may feel insecure in mainstream provision. This may require that we take a different view of the future role of special schools, ensuring that they work collaboratively with the mainstream in developing a more balanced continuum of provision. Providing opportunities for the development of positive peer relationships can help to overcome these feelings. Classroom activities can be organized to maximize the potential for healthy peer interaction as in mixed-ability groupings and collaborative learning processes within the classroom. Inviting these young people, where appropriate to assume class or whole school responsibilities can enable their effective engagement in the life of the school.

Acceptance of difference:

While young people in mainstream schools appeared acutely aware of the inequality governing their relationships with adults there was little awareness of equality issues concerning those belonging to marginalized groups. This was attributed to the lack of heterogeneity in Irish schools and limited opportunities for mainstream children to interact with their peers from marginalized groups. In the UK such opportunities are increasing, though many teachers continue to articulate a lack of sufficient skills or knowledge required to effectively promote full participation. Generally, these young people displayed lack of respect for, and recognition of the cultures and perspectives of minorities including those from racial or ethnic groups, those with disabilities, those belonging to minority religious groups and those who are gay, lesbian or bisexual. Difference was not really tolerated particularly where difference was associated with lower status identity. Teachers shared this lack of awareness of minority issues. Curriculum content, teaching approaches and school ethos can all contribute to the exclusion of students from marginalized groups from full participation in schools. Travellers, in particular, were the target of hostility and with the recent arrival of migrant workers, refugees and asylum seekers there are indications that these groups are also regarded with fear and a rejection of racial difference. People with disabilities tended to be viewed from a charity perspective emphasising dependence and pity. How can schools challenge the negative stereotypes adolescents have of those from marginalized groups? The ways in which support is offered to marginalized groups can have a significant impact on mainstream attitudes towards individuals in these groups. Where support is conceptualised according to a deficit model of difference and need then it is probable that the recipients of support will be accorded an inferior and dependent status.

Concluding comments

The voices of young people from marginalized groups make explicit a number of common, recurring themes. These themes include the desire of these young people for a normality that involves the facilitation of access to education, achievement within the educational system and beyond and ambition for their success from teachers and policy makers. These young people want to contribute to a world where difference is accepted and valued and they want to participate in the real world as opposed to the shadow world governed by paternalism and dependency. Also, they would like to take part in a mainstream where their normality is taken for granted rather than constantly contested and challenged. Creating this type of mainstream setting will involve the affirmation of the right of these young people to a powerful voice in the decisions affecting their lives and so that they will not be expected to fundamentally change in order to be accepted.

Certain voices within society have tended to be ignored, isolated and patronised as the discourse of professionals and policy makers have dominated. It is hardly surprising to discover that these voices have belonged to people from the most marginalized within society including disabled people, ethnic minorities and the poor among others. Equally these voices rarely appear in the educational debates though it is arguable that the outcomes of these discussions and subsequent policy initiatives will affect their lives proportionally more than the rest of society. People from marginalized groupings have remained on the periphery of decision-making processes in education and despite their belated involvement in case conferences about their own future consultation has often been token and patronising. The power relationships that dominate educational discourse are rarely examined or challenged. Despite the rhetoric concerning parental choice and stakeholder involvement, people from marginalized groupings encounter substantial difficulties in having their voices heard. Even where these voices are heard it is still relatively easy for policy makers and professionals to sideline these views in pursuit of greater efficiency or the allocation of scarce resources. People must be labelled before these resources can be accessed. The effects of this categorisation, though well intentioned, can be to further marginalize and alienate people already excluded from the mainstream of society.

Within these diverse studies, we have heard the concerns expressed by young people who have been marginalized for one reason or another within our education systems. These voices demand a proactive response from policy makers and professionals. Many examples of ‘good practice’ have been documented. For example, young people with disabilities have been centrally involved in research design and the promotion of policy formulation. Others with learning difficulties have participated in augmenting their own learning through structured teacher support. A few individuals, with perceptive support from schools and families, achieved success and made the transition to an adulthood shared with their mainstream peers. However, the dominant tone of the contributions consisted of frustrated opportunities, lowered expectations and a general sense of disappointment. Despite and sometimes due to teacher benevolence these young people experienced their difference as a restriction and a barrier to full academic and social participation in mainstream education. Often, difference became the defining feature of their identity. Some young people from devalued cultures, such as Travellers, implicitly rejected their identity to ‘pass for normal’. Society’s emphasis on homogeneity and preference for single approaches to complex issues has resulted in a narrow and limited response to diversity. Often young people viewed as different can find themselves hovering on the margins of the world of their mainstream peers, isolated and undervalued. Sometimes these young people are firmly rooted in special provision and follow this track into adult life. Others have attempted to take the mainstream route and due to lack of success have reverted to the ‘safe’ world of special provision.

How do we begin to create education systems that value diversity? Listening to the young people from marginalized groups and really hearing their perspectives and concerns provides the ideal starting point. Teachers and others charged with the responsibility to work with young people need to be supported through training and by policies which recognise the full value of pupil participation. Where diversity is truly valued the conventional education system is challenged to become inclusive. Young people from marginalized groups are becoming more embedded in mainstream provision and some schools have demonstrated the capacity to develop a more inclusive philosophy. This involves creating a flexible, responsive school organization and supporting teachers in developing teaching approaches that ensures these young people and their mainstream peers are given equal opportunities to access the curriculum and make a valued contribution to school life. By establishing such principles within school we will better equip young people to play a fuller part in post school life within and to support the future development of democratic societies.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank all the members of the Encouraging Voices group whose

work contributed to the ideas discussed in this article: Dora Bjarnason; Chris Derrington;

Dympna Devine; Goretti Horgan; Sally Kendall; Mairin Kenny; Anne Lodge; Kathleen

Lynch; Eileen Mc Neela; Stephen James Minton; Kevin Myers; Kerry Noble; Margaret

O’Donnell; Astrid Mona O’Moore; Natalie Rooney; Donal Toolan. The researchers

gratefully acknowledge the financial and practical support provided by the National

Disability Authority (Republic of Ireland) for the Encouraging Voices   project.

References

Ainscow, M., Booth, T. and Dyson, A. (1999). In K. Ballard (Ed.), Inclusive Education: International Voices on Disability and Justice. London: Falmer Press .

Alderson, P. and Goodey, C. (1998). Enabling Education: experiences in special and ordinary schools. London: Tufnell Press.

Armstrong, D., Galloway, D, and Tomlinson, S. (1993a) Assessing special educational needs: the child’s contribution. British Educational Research Journal. 19 (2) 121 – 131.

Armstrong, D, Galloway, D, and Tomlinson, S. (1993b) The assessment of special educational needs and the proletarianisation of professionals.   British Journal of Sociology of Education. 14 (4) 399 – 408.

Armstrong, F. and L. Barton (1999). ‘Is there anyone out there concerned with human rights: Cross-cultural connections, disability and the struggle for change in England. In F. Armstrong and L. Barton (Eds.) Disability, Human Rights and Education: Cross-cultural perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press

Atkinson, D. and Williams, F. (Eds.) (1990). Know me as I am: An anthology of prose, poetry and art by people with learning difficulties.   London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Ballard, K. and McDonald, T. (1999). Disability, Inclusion and Exclusion: Some Insider Accounts and Interpretations. In K. Ballard (Ed.), Inclusive Education: International Voices on Disability and Justice. London: Falmer Press.

Ballard, K. (1999). ‘International Voices: An Introduction.’ In K. Ballard (Ed.) Inclusive Education: International Voices on Disability and Justice. London: Falmer Press

Beveridge, S, (2004) Pupil participation and the home-school relationship. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 19 (1) 3 – 16

Brownlee, J. and Carrington, S. (2000). Opportunities for authentic experience and reflection: a teaching programme designed to change attitudes towards disability for pre-service teachers, Support for Learning, (15), 3, 99-105.

Cole, P. (2000). Drugs Education at the transition from Primary to Secondary School: the pupils’ views, Educational Review, (52), 1, 55-63.

Cornwall, J. (1997). Access to Learning for Pupils with Disabilities. London : D. Fulton.

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. London: David Fulton.

Day, T. (1997). The Role of Children’s Informal Talk in their Writing, Irish Educational Studies, 16, 223-234.

Department of Education (Ireland) (1993). Report of the Special Education Review Committee.   Dublin: Stationery Office.

Department for Education   (UK) (1994) The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs. London: DfE.

Department of Education (Ireland) (1995). White Paper: Charting our Education Future. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Department for Education and Skills. (UK) (2001) The Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. London: DfES

Department of Equality and Law Reform   (Ireland) (1996). A Strategy for Equality, Report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities.   Dublin: Stationery Office.

Department of Health. (UK) (1989) The Children Act. London: HMSO.

Derrington, C, and Kendall, S. (2003) The experiences and perceptions of Gypsy Traveller pupils in English secondary schools. In M, Shevlin and R, Rose. (Eds) Encouraging Voices. Dublin: NDA

Derrington, C, and Kendall, S. (2004) Gypsy Traveller Students in Secondary Schools. Stoke on Trent: Trentham

Devine, D. (2003) Voicing concerns about children’s rights and status in school. In M. Shevlin and R, Rose. (Eds) Encouraging Voices. Dublin: NDA

Donnelly, P. (2001). A Study of Higher-Order Thinking in the Early Years Classroom through doing Philosophy, Irish Educational Studies, 20, 278-295.

Dwyfor-Davies, J. and Garner, P. (1997). A Context for Teacher Education and Special Educational Needs. In J, Dwyfor-Davies, J. and P, Garner. (Eds.). At The Crossroads: Special Educational Needs and Teacher Education. London: David Fulton: 6-18.

EDUCABLE (2000) No Choice: No Chance. Belfast: Save the Children and Disability Action.

Fergusson, A, and Lawson, H. (2003) Access to Citizenship. London: David Fulton

Fletcher, W. (2001) Enabling students with severe learning difficulties to become effective target setters. In R, Rose, and I, Grosvenor. (Eds) Doing Research in Special Education. London: David Fulton.

Florian, L. (1998). Inclusive practice: What, why, and how? In C.Tilstone, L. Florian, and R. Rose (Eds.) Promoting Inclusive Practice. London: Routledge.

Gartner, A. and Kerzner Lipsky, D. (1999). ‘Disability, human rights and education: the United States. In F. Armstrong and L. Barton (Eds.) Disability, Human Rights and Education: Cross-cultural perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press

Gersch, I. (1996) Listening to children in educational contexts, In R, Davie., G, Upton, and V, Varma. (Eds.) The Voice of the Child. London: Falmer.

Government of Ireland (1998). Education Act. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Government of Ireland (1999) Primary School Curriculum, Dublin, Stationery Office

Government of Ireland (2000) Our children-their lives: the National Children’s Strategy. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Griffiths and Davies. (1995) In Fairness to Children. London: David Fulton.

Horgan, G. (2003) Educable: disabled young people in Northern Ireland challenge the education system. In M, Shevlin and R, Rose. (Eds) Encouraging Voices. Dublin: NDA

Howley, M, and Kime, S. (2003) Policies and practices for the management of individual learning needs. In C, Tilstone, and R, Rose, (Eds.) Strategies to Promote Inclusive Practice. London: Routledge Falmer.

Kenny, M., McNeela, E., Shevlin, M., and Daly, T. (2000) Hidden Voices: Young People with Disabilities talk about their Second-level Schooling. Cork: Bradshaw Books.

Kenny, M., McNeela., E, Shevlin., M, and Daly, T (2003) Living and learning: the school experience of some young people with disabilities. In M, Shevlin and R, Rose. (Eds) Encouraging Voices. Dublin: NDA

Kameenui, E.J, and Carnine, D,W. Effective Teaching Strategies that Accommodate Diverse Learners. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.

Kenward, H. (2003) Integrating Pupils with Disabilities in Mainstream Schools: Making it Happen. London: David Fulton.

Lawson, H. (2003) Citizenship education for pupils with learning difficulties: towards participation? Support for Learning 18 (3) 117 – 122

L loyd-Smith , M. and Tarr, J. (2000). Researching children ’s perspectives: a sociological dimension . In a.lewis and g.lindsey (eds.) Researching Children’s Perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Lodge, A. and Lynch, K. (Eds.) (2003). Diversity at School. Dublin: The Equality Authority.

Lynch, K. (1999). Equality in Education. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.

Lynch, K. and Lodge, A. (2002). Equality and Power in Schools: Redistribution, Recognition and Representation. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

May, H. (2005) Whose participation is it anyway? Examining the context of pupil participation in the UK. British Journal of Special Education 32 (1) 29 - 34

Mc Donnell, P. (2000). ‘Inclusive education in Ireland: rhetoric and reality.’ In F. Armstrong, D. Armstrong and L. Barton (Eds.) Inclusive Education: Policy, Contexts and Comparative Perspectives. London: David Fulton

Meijer, C, J, W. (1998) Integration in Europe: Provision for Pupils with Special Educational Needs. Middelfart: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.

Mittler, P. (2000) Working Towards Inclusive Education. London: David Fulton

Moore, M., Beazley, S, and Maelzer, J. (1998) Researching Children’s Perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Morris, J. (2003) Having a say. In M, Nind., J, Rix., K, Sheehy, and K, Simmons. (Eds.) Inclusive Education: Diverse Perspectives. London: David Fulton.

Mortimer, H. (2004) Hearing children’s voices in the early years. Support for Learning. 19 (4) 169 – 174

Munby, S. (1995) Assessment and pastoral care, sense, sensitivity and standards. In R, Best, C, Lang., C, Lodge and C, Watkins (Eds) Pastoral Care and Personal Social Education. London: Cassell

Myers, K, and Grosvenor, I. (2001) Policy, equality and inequality: from the past to the future. In D, Hill, and M, Cole (Eds.) Schooling and Equality: Fact, Concept and Policy. London: Kogan Page.

Noble, K. (2003) Personal reflection on experiences of   special and mainstream education. In M, Shevlin and R, Rose.   (Eds.) Encouraging Voices: respecting the insights of young people who have been marginalised. Dublin: National Disability Authority.

Nutbrown, C. (1995) Questions for respectful educators. In C, Nutbrown (Ed.) Children’s Rights and Early Education. London: Paul Chapman.

O’Brien, T, and Guiney, D. (2001) Differentiation in Teaching and Learning. London: Continuum.

Quicke, J. (2003) Educating the pupil voice. Support for Learning 18 (2) 51 - 57

Rose, R. (1999) The involvement of pupils with severe learning difficulties as decision makers in respect of their own learning needs. Westminster Studies in Education. 22 (1)   19 - 29

Rose, R., Fletcher, W, and Goodwin, G. (1999) Pupils with severe learning difficulties as personal target setters. British Journal of Special Education.   26 (4) 207 – 211.

Rose, R. (2003) Encouraging pupils with learning difficulties to understand and express their own learning needs. In M, Shevlin and R, Rose. (Eds) Encouraging Voices. Dublin: National Disability Authority

Rose, R, and Shevlin, M. (2004) Encouraging voices: listening to the voices of young people who have been marginalised. Support for Learning 19 (4) 155 – 161

Shevlin, M. and Rose, R. (EDS.) (2003). Encouraging Voices: respecting the insights of young people who have been marginalized. Dublin: National Disability Authority.

Slee, R. (1999). ‘Special education and human rights in Australia: how do we know about disablement, and what does it mean for educators?’ In F. Armstrong and L. Barton (Eds.) Disability, Human Rights and Education: Cross-cultural perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press

Thomas, G., Walker, D, and Webb, J. (1998) The Making of the Inclusive School. London: Routledge.

Tilstone, C. (2003) Professional development of staff: steps towards developing polices. In C, Tilstone, and R, Rose, (Eds.) Strategies to Promote Inclusive Practice. London: Routledge Falmer.

UNESCO (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. New York: UNESCO

UNITED NATIONS (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations General Assembly.

Vlachou, A. D. (1997). Struggles for Inclusive Education. Buckingham : Open University Press

Whitney, I, and Smith, P.K. (1993) A survey of the nature and extent of bully/victim problems in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research 35   (1) 3 - 25

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact