It was such a great honour to be invited to join the panel of ‘Question Time’ @ NTU; and it was lovely to catch up with the 3rd year students reading Sports Education and Special and Inclusive Education.
I have written the following few blogs to fill
in the gaps, to provide a more reflective answer to questions that deserved
deeper reflection - not simplistic if passionate sound bites.
Thank you all for inviting me, it was a real pleasure!
Q1. What is the most important thing you would
consider when looking at how to include a child or young person?
Their well-being! I think present happiness is generally overlooked and viewed as frivolous in the context of how learning is delivered in schools. Yet evidence suggest that being able to make choices in the present is of critical importance for long-term well-being. Taken seriously happiness may be understood as a unique experience. Unpicked more fully it seems that to be happy now and healthy later, each and every one of us has a to try to find a personal balance of pleasure, engagement and meaning in the activities that enable us to learn.
What worries me is that for some more than
others we are prepared to somehow postpone the positive quality of the learning
experience. This means that some learners live daily within activities,
organisation and a culture that erodes their sense of self by enforcing ways of
being in which they don’t feel a sense of belonging. The expectation that we
will then emerge fit for community life years later seems perverse.
Viewed this simplistically, it’s easy to see how
certain targets to take on more importance; and how results have to be
attained and become proof of learning. I would argue that knowledge growth, the
deep understanding we need for successful lives, extends further than the
information or skills needed to pass exams. Viewed as receptacles for future
test answers, learners are denied the opportunity to engage more deeply and
apply more thoroughly the ideas that could possibly have a life-long impact on
their well-being. For these reasons, I am without doubt that schooling does not
educate all young people fully, as the systemic oppression is so great. But in
addition, I worry that the deficit mindset through which we view many learners
from marginalised groups, such as those labelled as SEN, further impacts on
their experience in a negative way – in other words the are in receipt of
specific discrimination.
Next week:
Q2. How do you feel the use of sport helps with
inclusion? Since the Paralympics do you think sport has become even more
important and recognised in helping inclusion?
The death of Nelson Mandela having been announced the
previous night his words seemed appropriate: "Sport has the power to
change the world... It has the power to inspire!... Sport speaks to people in a
language they can understand."
I do not have the body
of an athlete that’s clear, however I do understand that physical activity is
vital to health, well-being and social development. Sport is only one form of
physical expression, and for many it provides pleasure, engagement and
meaning. Therefore, for both disabled
and non-disabled people sport can be central to their lives. Sadly, I was
excluded from games at school. It is possible that because of this, and to this
day, I find sporting events difficult to engage with – they bore me. I’d rather
be moving – taking part - or doing
something else. It doesn't help that I find many aspects of unfair competition
deeply disturbing. It’s not that I don’t love activity such as cycling and
horse riding, and I admit I am very competitive.
I do enjoy shared endeavour, and I see cooperation as a healthier way of
working together to achieve success.
The thing is, we are whole
people, and we therefore learn to varying extents through motion in ways we may
not even think about. I do worry that sport is often too sporty, and that its
overly competitive nature frightens some people. Never being picked for the
team, and never wining does make you want to give up, and later shy away from
things we might have enjoyed. Personally I would rather engage in an activity
where I can win by improving my best, not aiming to be the best.
The play-to-win philosophy that requires the exclusion of others reinforces a
hierarchy born out of inequality.
I would much rather
focus on the shared activity of games and the closeness that helps strengthen
bond between team members. I really admired the olympians who talked about
their team efforts with the spirit of mutuality. This sense of belonging comes
from a desired to play-to-play, a desire to keep the other in the game! The
philosophy of changing the rules applies more widely to making whole
institutions more equitable. In schools attainment restricts achievement to the
few, whereas growth is the success of the many who give effort.
We just might have to
change the rules of schooling so that competition becomes as fair as it is
in the field? This will mean appreciating multiple strengths, and celebrating
effort and fair-play. Given these lessons I do think sports can indeed change
lives.
Do you feel inclusion
for all children in mainstream schools should occur or are Special Schools
still necessary?
I can do very little
justice to this question in a short few paragraphs, the books on this critical
question fill libraries! To my mind Inclusion is a vision; it is a dream to
imagine every learner experiencing a sense of belonging in their local
school. I am sure parents would like the assurance of knowing that the typical
teaching methods employed in their local teaching institutions were deeply
grounded in the knowledge of learning; and that every learning strategy was
uniquely personalise so that all differences could be accommodated. But
variation exists, and due to a legacy of segregation, while
different practice that enables individuals with far ranging difference to
experience belonging is not unusual, it still is not available to all.
Accommodation in
practice exists in different settings, however opinion is divided as to a
common definition of 'inclusion'. Some special school practitioners have
understanding that mainstream schools could benefit from; and equally, some
mainstream schools have found ways to include learned with very complex
requirements. In short, as the evidence fails to prove, the name of the
institution in no way gives assurances about the culture and understanding
within it, therefore whether its purpose guides its practice and its vision
defines direction of transformation in a way that is inclusive is open to
debate.
Many believe that
examples of accommodation are so extensive that there are now examples of
impairments that have not been accommodated successfully. The problem though is
that the skills developed by those who do change personal experience for the
better successfully are not available to all, this is because of the scale and
complexity such systemic transformation would require. Changing the schooling
system would include redefining its purpose, altering its criteria for success
and evaluating its impact on society over many years. Clearly the work of
decades, not a nudge and a pinch, or an option available given existing
alternatives. Because, 'inclusive practice' exists at an operational
level in some classes, schools by intentionally transforming the way we teach
within all schools is a lifetimes work. It is not simply choosing between
current options, but profoundly reimagining its purpose and organisation. One
thing is certain, as it stands with its focus on attainment it is deeply unfair
and effective at deepening inequality that
Do you agree with
current legislation in regards to disabled people in education and society? If
not, how do you think it could be improved?
From the evidence
underpinning well-being theory what helps us flourish is not what may helps us
recover from hurt or harm. Putting more effort into addressing discrimination
also does not deliver on the positive nature of people’s relationships. In this
way, compliance will only a first step in addressing what has gone wrong [past
tense]. Legislation, is important as long as its purpose is not viewed as the
basis for ethical development. In other words, tackling discrimination will never
insure well-being, because removing hurt (and this we must do) is only a
minimum step. Legislation at best only strengthens existing good practice, it
cannot deliver on innovation or creativity when it comes to transforming things
for the better. The addition to the removal of barriers, we need positive
strategies that enable positive transformation to best practice towards ones
that are evermore responsive to the needs of every learner. Inclusive practice
provides a double duty, through ethical development of theory and developing in
terms of culture. Another way of viewing inclusive practice is as
professionalism, that is deepening professional knowledge and widening it's
scope so that all practitioners feel more confident and are more able to
include learner with increasing ease. Over time the culture within any setting
across the instruction should become increasingly transformed to the ideal
extent of there being little difference between mainstream or separate.
Why do you think the
notion of inclusion is often still associated with children and adults who have
special educational needs? What can be done to improve the learning and
encourage the inclusion of all?
As I understand it
inclusion is a political term that was at one time reclaimed by disabled
people. This civil rights action is viewed as important one when situating the
importance of Disability Equality in the wider debate. It was chosen no doubt
to distinguish more clearly an opposition to mainstreaming or integration.
Just as native or aboriginal populations have argued that social justice
can only be entertained on the grounds of authentic voice, the disability
movements cry has always been 'nothing about us without us". Inclusive
action is based on accepting the difference and changing the system, not
changing the individual to fit the system. The action is not imposed -
done to - but shared with done with 'opportunity of consideration' to disabled
people recognised as a marginalised group. Disability Equality theory is clear
on this matter, even given critiques: inclusive practice isn't about special
educational needs - it's about changing environments and workpractice - so
really it is about reducing inequality for the well-being of everyone. This
takes us back to the answer to the first question, as inequality sadly impacts
negatively on everyone's well-being, while striving for greater equity on the
other hand benefits us all. Those who have changed their practice to include
learners with even the most complex needs seem to say that it was hard work but
the ultimate changes in culture has been beneficial for all learners - not just
those from marginalised groups. Furthermore, many non-disabled learners express
the view that it is their disabled peers that have helped secure their belonging.
Although the evidence is not clear in terms of outcomes, we cannot use bad
integration or oppressive mainstream as reasons against inclusive practice
development with the purpose and vision of aiming towards a more inclusive
society.
What are the biggest
changes you have seen in your lifetime around inclusion of disabled children
and adults in education and the workplace?
Over time I have the
sense the community life has altered for the better. With the young people I
meet being more acceptant of difference, no doubt because they have on the
whole been used to sharing their lives with disabled peers. The strength of our
relationships can do a lot to insulate us from the wider debates. But let us
not ignore the deaths cuts are causing, or the rise in mental health problems
media slurs are imposing. Relying on government initiatives falls short when
people are voting for cuts.
Institutionally I fear
we've taken 2 leaps back recently, inclusive practice relies even more on
goodwill and strong professional choice to do the right thing. The debates have
created side arguments linked to resourcing, which I feel are more to do with
lack of funding than a lack of ethical resolve. We cannot deny cost of
transformation, but this should not be a reason to see inclusion as an add on
or optional extra. Great teaching is inclusive, bad teaching is ineffective.
The development of professionalism necessitates knowledgeable practice
development anything less will lead to a difficult learning experience at
school.
We do not need to be
more accommodating of bad practice, we need to be more flexible in order to
extend inclusive practice more fully.
