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

Paradigm shifts in inclusive and gifted education

Chris Smith
University of Glasgow, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Studies,
St Andrew’s Building, 11 Eldon St, Glasgow, G3 6NH

C.Smith@educ.gla.ac.uk
snap@educ.gla.ac.uk
www.ablepupils.com

Abstract

In the field of special education a paradigm shift is occurring. The move both national and international towards inclusive education has necessitated changes in educational policy, the legal framework for education and practice in schools. These changes are fundamental and are largely a reaction against a history of violations of human rights, discrimination, oppression and social control (Tomlinson, 1982; Oliver, 1990). Until recently, the place of gifted education in this shift towards inclusion has been, largely, ignored. There is now emerging however, a growing body of literature documenting and discussing a concomitant paradigm shift (Lowe, 2002; Gallagher, 2000; Renzulli and Purcell, 1996). The changes in both fields reflect a move away from a reductionist approach to teaching and learning towards a more holistic and social constructivist approach (Poplin, 1988a; 1988b; Lewis, 1998).

Since the Warnock (DES, 1978) and Progress Reports (SED, 1978) policy and legislation in Scotland has been enacted in a bid to create a more inclusive educational system. Despite this evolving legal and policy framework, or indeed perhaps because of it, tensions exist in the system with reductionist attitudes and practice proving difficult to change. In this context where do able learners find themselves?

The Education for Able Pupils P6-S2 (SOED, 1993) adopted a broad definition of ability and identified an inclusive approach as one in which an appropriately challenging educational experience could be offered to all. However, p art of the problem with the concept of inclusion is its lack of clarity. The word itself is beset with difficulties as it raises more questions than answers: Included into what? Who is to be included? Does everyone have to be included into everything? Can we choose not to be included? In addition, r esearch into inclusive education is a relatively young field (Dyson et al, 2002, p5) and much of the literature is theoretical and/or exhortatory (Dyson et al, 2002, p14) into what appears to be good practice. However, while the empirical research base is limited it is by no means negligible (Dyson et al, 2002, p4).

This paper will look at how reductionism has impacted on children with special educational needs. It will show how this tendency for reductionism has been mirrored in gifted education and examine why, for the benefit of all children, there is a need for change.

Introduction

The solution is to fix the individualEducation in Scotland has developed on the basis of a medical model of diagnosis and treatment.   This approach has encouraged the development of instruments that not only identify but measure individual differences in intelligence. For example, up until 1965 the qualifying examination (known as the eleven plus in England) did an excellent job of sifting and sorting pupils at the stage of on entry to secondary education. On the basis of, s these o called, scientific measures pupils have been were segregated into different groups on two related assumptions. First, the groups identified and segregated were believed to be inherently and manifestly different one from another and from a perceived norm. Second, and as a result of these inherent differences, these groups require d different educational treatments. Special Education in particular has been criticised for being dominated by this medical model, the aim of which is to identify who is normal and who is abnormal and to treat the identified groups accordingly. The problem and therefore the solution lie within the individual.

There was, however, universal disquiet about the selective system of education that existed in Scotland until 1965. First, the research evidence cast doubt on the fairness and reliability of the qualifying examination (Bryce and Humes, 1999, p39). Second, the senior secondary system was accused of perpetuating the class system in the UK because it favoured white, middle class children at the expense of other groups. Third, and as a result of the other concerns, there were doubts raised about the ability of the qualifying examination to accurately identify the most able and least able children. It was felt that many who would have benefited from a senior secondary education were being denied the opportunity to attend. The growing criticism eventually resulted in the introduction of the comprehensive system.

Instead of early labeling, it was argued, a system which offered opportunity to as many young people as possible would reap benefits not only in terms of individual achievement but also in terms of wider social unity.

(Bryce and Humes, 1999, p39)

Even after the abolition of the segregated junior and senior secondary education system the diagnosis, labeling and segregation of children continued. However, this segregation remained only for those identified as being less able. Up until 1974, for example (The 1974 ( The Education (Mentally Handicapped Children) Act), some children were removed entirely from the education system in the belief that they were incapable of being educated: rather than attend schools they attended training centres. Yet, as Dumbleton points out

education is a specifically human activity which is usually seen as a means of promoting those aspects of humanity that are most highly valued. To question a person’s educability is to question an aspect of their humanity

(Dumbleton, 1990, p16).

The 1945 Education (Scotland) Act stated nine categories to be used in the official recognition of disabled children: deafness; partial deafness; blindness; partial sightedness; mental handicap; epilepsy; speech defects; maladjustment; and physical handicap. These categories remained in place until the idea of a special educational needs (SEN) continuum was introduced by the Warnock Report (DES, 1978). As a result of this report the 1981 Education (Scotland) Act replaced the nine categories with the single term Special Educational Needs.

The identification, categorization and segregation of children for education in special schools and units continued after the 1981 Act. Rather than the nine categories of the 1945 Act children were identified as having varying degrees of special educational needs. These needs were further described using some old and some new labels.   While sensory impairment and physical disabilities remained new terms such as dyslexia, dyspraxia and Attention Deficit Disorder emerged. One label, however, that was conspicuous by its absence was ‘able’.

What then of able children? Since the introduction of the comprehensive system the response to the needs of able pupils has been, primarily, through grouping pupils within and across classes. Scottish schools have variously experimented with streaming, setting and mixed ability teaching. Recently, however, there has been increasing national pressure placed on schools to increase the use of setting in Scottish schools (SOEID, 1996). The First Minister of the Scottish Parliament (The Right Honorable Jack McConnell MSP), in a speech to Scottish headteachers, suggested that Scottish schools should make more use of setting (McConnell, 2002). Given that research has indicated a link between setting and social disadvantage (Hallam and Toutounji, 1996; Suknandan and Lee, 1999) it seems strange that a First Minister, so concerned with social exclusion, should recommend such a move.

In addition much evidence exists of the disadvantages to those assigned to lower sets. A study by Suknandan and Lee (1999) concluded that grouping pupils by ability has no influence on their performance but can have a negative effect on the attitudes, motivation and self-esteem of pupils in lower sets. The work of Boaler (1997, a,b,c) highlights that ability grouping serves to disadvantage those in top sets as much as those in low sets. The conclusion from a three year study of the teaching of mathematics in schools was that a range of evidence… linked setting to under-achievement, both for students in low and high sets, despite the widely held public, media and government perception that setting increases attainment (Boaler et al, 1998, p3). All pupils – both girls and boys – characterised their experiences as fast, pressured and procedural… Top-set children, it seems, do not need detailed help, time to think, or the space to make mistakes. Rather they can be taught quickly and procedurally because they are clever enough to draw their own meaning from the procedures they are given (Boaler et al, 1998, p5). When students were asked whether they enjoyed mathematics it was invariably the top set students who were most negative.

Thus the comprehensive has system failed to be ‘comprehensive’ on two counts. First, it has failed to include all children in mainstream education. Second, it has never found a satisfactory way of appropriately addressing the needs of able young people.   Why is this? At least part of the problem was the failure of the change from a selective to a comprehensive system to be accompanied by a concomitant change in attitudes and methodologies. The assumptions about teaching and learning and the ability of the education system to sift and sort individuals that underpinned the selective system proved difficult to shift.  

Assumptions underpinning the selective system

Poplin (1988a) sought to identify basic assumptions that underpinned exclusive systems. In particular she was searching for commonalities among and between particular theories and models that had and were continuing to shape practice: the medical model; the psychological process model; behaviourist theories and the cognitive or learning strategies view.

Poplin identified certain basic assumptions that ran through all of the approaches (see figure one).

Figure one: commonalities underpinning the reductionist paradigm

• Learning Disabilities (LD) is a phenomenon in itself
• the responsibility for ‘cause and cure’ of LD is placed on the learner
• theories and models are based on diagnosis - the goal of which is to document defects
• diagnosis forms the essence for intervention
• learning is segmented into parts
• teaching is most effective when tightly controlled and the learner is predominantly passive
• instruction is deficit driven
• teaching and learning are viewed as unidirectional
• each model assumes a right and wrong posture about the teaching and learning process

• school

• goals are more important than life goals

• segregation and categorisation is supported

• steps and sequences are valued within the delivery system itself.

1. While Poplin concentrated on the area of special educational needs there are parallels here for gifted education. Lowe (2002) suggested similar assumptions in gifted education (see figure two).

Figure two: reductionist assumptions in gifted education

• The focus is very much on the individual. Children are identified as able or non-able because a very narrow view of what intelligence is exists in the form of ‘g’ (general ability).

• Gifts and talents are seen as phenomena in themselves. They exist independently of cultural or environmental factors because they are believed to be largely innate. As such, at an early age, children can be placed on a normative curve using a one-off test score. Their position on this curve in relation to others will remain stable throughout their lives.
• Identification can be made using scientific methods based on medical knowledge. IQ tests are legitimate as the sole method of and cut off scores can be drawn.
• The aim of identification is to document ability and to design an intervention that is appropriate.
• The development of ability is the responsibility of the learner (individuals can be accused of wasting or throwing away their gift or talent).
• Children identified as able are manifestly different from their peers and therefore require special programmes and specially trained teachers to teach them. There are special methods and techniques that only apply to able children and are unsuitable for others. Intervention is based on segregation from non-able peers and involves individual arrangements (tuition or acceleration) or grouping able children together for the purposes of school learning.

Changing paradigms

Poplin (1988b) and Lewis (1998) suggest that an alternative paradigm founded on different assumptions is the way forward. This paradigm is based on the premise that all children have individual profiles of abilities and development needs. It is the value placed on and the celebration of difference that is key to an appropriate education for all. The principles, beliefs and values underpinning the alternative paradigm are applied to all learners not only marginalized minorities. This alternative paradigm is based on a social rather than medical model of disability where t he gaze is on the structures and systems in society as well as on the attitudes of individuals within that society. The alternative paradigm rests on: holistic, constructivist and structuralist principles. Holism includes aspects of the affective domain which are omitted from the reductionist paradigm such as: feelings; intuition and the social context. Poplin (1988b) identified twelve such principles (see figure three)

Figure three: systemic connections of the alternative paradigm

• Learners learn best from experiences about which they are passionately interested and involved.   Emotions are central to learning.
• Learners learn best from people that they trust.
• Experiences which are connected to the learner’s present knowledge and experience are learned best.
• Integrity is a primary characteristic of the human (learner’s) mind
• All people are learners.
• The best predictor of what and how someone will learn is what they already know.
• Learning often proceeds from whole to part to whole.
• The development of accurate forms follows the emergence of function and meaning; and
• Errors are critical to learning.
• The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
• The interaction of the learned experience transforms both the individual’s spiral of learning (whole) and the single experience (part).
• The learner’s spiral of knowledge is self regulating and self preserving.

SNAP is based on a number of principles derived from what we know about learning.

• All children have a right to an education that is appropriately challenging and takes account of individual needs.
• Each person has a unique profile across a wide range of abilities that should be recognized, enhanced and valued equally.
• Recognition of an individual’s ability profile is only possible in partnership with parents and other significant individuals in that person’s life.
• Appropriate challenge must be provided at all points on an individual’s ability profile.
• The key to recognition of an individual’s abilities lies with the provision of appropriately challenging opportunities
• Errors are critical to the learning process thus appropriately challenging opportunities may require challenge that takes the individual to the point of failure. This is only possible, however, within an ethos where it is safe to fail.
• An inclusive education system is the most supportive framework for offering opportunities to prevent underachievement and provide appropriate challenge across the ability range.

How might gifted education appear in an alternative paradigm?

Once again, following on from the work of Lowe (2002), Gallagher (2000) and Renzulli and Purcell (1996) there are parallels here with an emerging paradigm in gifted education which emphasises

• a wide view of what being ‘able ‘ means.
• profiling abilities requires flexible criteria and a variety of opportunities and contexts.   The best place to offer a range of opportunities is in the mainstream setting so that all children can have the chance to learn, demonstrate and develop abilities.
• All children need appropriate challenge and appropriate support and all teachers can develop expertise to cater for this.
• The way that children are organised for learning should also reflect flexibility so that groups can be on the basis of interests, friendship, tasks, styles and achievement. abilities emerge in the way that students engage and re-engage themselves with escalated learning opportunities (Lowe, 2002, p89).F ollowing on from the work of Lowe (2002), Gallagher (2000) and Renzulli and Purcell (1996) there are parallels here with an emerging paradigm in gifted education (see figure four).

Figure four: the emerging paradigm in gifted education

• There is a wide view of what being ‘able ‘ means.
• Abilities are profiled and this requires both flexible criteria and variety in opportunities and contexts.
• B eing ‘able’ is not a one off and fixed state of existence, abilities emerge, develop and show themselves in different settings and at different times so that assessment has to be ongoing and flexible.
• The best place to offer a range of opportunities is in the mainstream setting so that all children can have the chance to learn, demonstrate and develop abilities.

• All children need appropriate challenge and appropriate support and all teachers can develop expertise to cater for this.

• The way that children are organised for learning should also reflect flexibility so that groups can be on the basis of interests, friendship, tasks, styles and achievement.

• Perhaps most importantly in this paradigm abilities emerge in the way that students engage and re-engage themselves with escalated learning opportunities (Lowe, 2002, p89).

Conclusion

In this paper I have suggested that the education system in Scotland has failed to be ‘comprehensive’ on two counts: it has failed to include all children in mainstream education and it has never found a satisfactory way of appropriately addressing the needs of able young people.   I have suggested that this is due, at least in part, to the absence of a paradigm shift in attitudes and methodologies to accompany the comprehensive system . If we accept Poplin’s notion of a paradigm shift then changes are required: attitudinal; structural; and methodological. However, as Schon (1983) pointed out, while individual schools and teachers are becoming more inclusive the system as a whole remains firmly rooted in its reductionist history. The question to be faced is whether or not it is possible to establish inclusion in a system that has been conceived and developed in reductionist beliefs.

Recent legislation would appear to have recognized some of the reductionist limitations of the system and has addressed, to some degree, the failures of the comprehensive system outlined in this paper. Since the introduction of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc (2000) Act, the inclusion of all children in mainstream education has been partially addressed. This Act brought in a ‘presumption of mainstreaming’ (section 15), which requires that children with special educational needs should attend their local school unless there are good reasons for alternative provision to be considered. However, the Act also placed a duty on education authorities to ensure that the education provided is directed towards the development of the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child or young person to their fullest potential however little has happened in this regard. Most recently, The Additional Support for Learning (Scotland) Act 2004 has replaced the notion of a special educational needs continuum with the idea that additional support needs (ASN) stem, not from within the child, but from factors in the environment in which the child finds him or herself. The Draft Code (SEED, 2004), which accompanies the Act, gives examples of the kinds of factors that can give rise to ASNs: family circumstances; disability or health, children in need of care and protection; the learning environment and social and emotional factors. It, helpfully, clarifies that able pupils are to be included in this new framework.

A need for additional support should not imply that a child or young person lacks ability or skills. For example, a bi-lingual child or young person, whose first language is not English, may already have a fully developed home language and a wide range of skills and attributes. Any lack of English should be addressed within an appropriate learning and teaching programme. Similarly, more able children or young people may require a more challenging education provision that that of their peers

(SEED, 2004, Section 2.6, p21)

Whether this legislation can bring about the changes required remains to be seen. The official rhetoric of the Scottish Executive does not seem to equate to the wider notion of the alternative paradigm described in this paper. We continue to pinpoint problem groups and the political solution seems much more about reintegration than increasing participation.

The current system continues to reflect a belief that some learners learn in substantially different ways from other learners. This belief generates a need for different contexts and settings, for different curricula and methodologies and for different types of teachers with different training and expertise. The structures in place serve to exclude not include. As a result children continue to be categorized and labeled in relation to their perceived differences and deficits. The legacy of the reductionist past has forced schools and teachers to prioritise certain groups more than others. Such prioritisation has served to marginalise and exclude individuals with particular gifts and/or talents (more able learners). Even before the Additional Support for Learning Act has been commenced there are reports from teachers and authorities that able pupils will come last on any list of priorities for support - if they make the list at all.

Bibliography

Boaler, J. (1997a) Setting, social class and survival of the quickest. British Educational Research Journal, 23(5), 575-595

Boaler, J. (1997b) When even the winners are losers: evaluating the experiences of ‘top set’ students. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(2), 165-182

Boaler, J. (1997c) Experiencing school mathematics: teaching styles, sex and setting. Buckingham: Open University Press

Boaler, J., Dylan, W. and Brown, M. (1998) Students’ experiences of ability grouping-disaffection, polarization and the construction of failure. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, August 27 th to August 30 th 1998.

Bruner, J. (1996) The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Bryce T. and Humes W. (1999) Scottish Education. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh

DES (1978) Special Educational Needs: Report of the committee of inquiry into education of handicapped children and young people. (The Warnock Report) London: HMSO

Dumbleton, P. (1990) A Philosophy of Education for All? The British Journal of Special Education. V17 (1) 16-18

Dyson A., Howes, A. and Roberts, B. (2002) A systematic review of the effectiveness of school-level actions for promoting participation by all students (EPPI-Centre Review) In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.

Gallagher, J. J. (2000) Changing paradigms for Gifted education in the United States. In Heller, K. A., Monks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J. and Subotnik, R. F. (eds) (2000) International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent. Oxford: Elsevier

Hallam, S. and Toutounji, I. (1996) What do we know about the grouping of pupils by ability? London: Institute of Education.

Lewis, J. (1998) Embracing the holistic/constructivist paradigm and sidestepping the post-modern challenge. In Clark, C. Dyson, A. and Milward, A. (1998) Theorising Special Education. London: Routledge

Lowe, H. (2002) Excellence for All: able pupils in urban secondary schools. Support for Learning V17, N2, pp88 – 94.

McConnell, J. (2002) Speech on the future of education. Speech given by the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament to an audience of headteachers in Glasgow on Tuesday November 5 th, 2002.

Oliver, M. (1990) The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan Education: London

Poplin, M. (1988a) The Reductionistic Fallacy in Learning Disabilities: Replicating the Past by Reducing the Present. Journal of Learning Disabilities , Aug/Sep, Vol. 21 (7): 389-400

Poplin, M (1988b) Holistic/Constructivist principles of the teaching/learning process.   Implications for the field of learning disabilities, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21 (7): 401-16

Renzuilli, J. S. and Purcell, J. H. (1996) Gifted education: A Look Around and A Look Ahead. Feb/march Roeper Review, 173.

Schon, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action. Temple Smith: London

Scottish Office Education Department (SOED) (1993) The Education of Able Pupils P6 – S2. Edinburgh: HMSO

Scottish Office Education and Industry Department (SOEID) (1996) Achievement for All Edinburgh: HMSO

Scottish Education Department (SED) (1978) The education of pupils with learning difficulties in primary and secondary schools in Scotland: A Progress Report. Edinburgh: HMSO

Suknandan, L. and Lee, B. (1999) Streaming, setting and grouping by ability. Slough: NFER

The Education (Scotland) Act 1945

The Education (Mentally Handicapped Children) Act 1974

The Education (Scotland) Act 1981

The Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000

The Additional Support for Learning (Scotland) Act 2004

Scottish Executive Education Department (SEED) (2004) The Draft Code of Practice. Edinburgh: HMSO

Tomlinson, S. (1982) The Sociology of Special Education. London: Routledge

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