The issue of inclusive education is a touchy subject for many people. Even for people experiencing disability or emotional behavioural difficulties (EBD) there is no firm consensus on whether or not a fully inclusive education programme located within mainstream education is the best system for all students, with disabilities and without. The purpose of this paper is to examine literature on the subject of full inclusive education from both sides of the theoretical fence and to decide on a position for the statement “despite the rhetoric of inclusion, children with disabilities are isolated and stigmatised; thus, they are better off in special schools or units.” This particular statement talks about many of the key issues involved in inclusive education, it is the goal of the author of this paper to examine and address these issues in order to gain perspective on inclusive education as a whole.
Stigmatisation and isolation are two very extreme experiences that can deeply impact on the life of any child, but particularly for a child experiencing any one of the many disabilities that are present in society. Compounding the fact that they don’t fit in with students in their class(es) and “normal” peer group is the potential feelings of inferiority that they may have already internalised as a result of their disability. Hodkinson (2007) states that one of the goals of inclusive education is to change the perceptions in society that surround people with special needs and disability. He asserts that special needs students are socially ostracised because of their disability and that one of the assumptions that inclusive education policy exists under, is that through interaction with disabled children, and in watching these special needs students succeed in a normative academic setting, non disabled students will come to view and treat individuals with special needs in society with more respect. Hodkinson (2007) argues that this may be an “idealistic assumption” that does not take in to account the children’s pre-existent attitudes toward disability.
Hodkinson (2007) undertook the task of interviewing non disabled children regarding their attitudes to, and understanding of, inclusive education. These attitudes become the crux of the matter regarding inclusive education, stigmatisation, isolation, and social ostracisation; for, it matters little if the attitudes of teachers, parents, and support staff are pro inclusion in a regular educational setting, if there is an innate student rejection of the concept. Hodkinson, at great length, defines disability as a social situation that arises out of a hegemony that pervades society that effectively, disability exists where society has not made adequate allowances for people to exist and function in a way that is not exclusionary. He goes on to query whether children have the sane notions and attitudes toward disability and whether the currently accepted socio-ecological model of disability has any effect on the formation of children’s conceptualisation of disability. Hodkinson’s research into this area produced inconclusive results that he poses may be heavily influenced by the attitudes and values held by parents, siblings, and other socially constructive influences in the children’s lives. What he did find is that some students held no bias and acted with no prejudice toward children with disability, while others held views that were exclusionary and potentially emotionally harmful to people with disabilities.
The secondary stigmatisation and isolation is one which is imposed on person via the exclusionary practice of mistaking equitable and equal as interchangeable synonyms. Lloyd (2007) asserts that current inclusive education policy makes this exact mistake; that by placing children with special needs or disability in a regular, normatively assessed and crafted educational setting, policy is disadvantaging these children further by not crafting specialised learning programmes for them. Central to this problem is the idea that inclusive, equal education is actually exclusionary in practice. Lloyd makes the assertion that current inclusive education is social by nature, that it deals with altering perceptions of disabled people and students with special educational needs without addressing, specifically, the educational needs themselves. The danger with this practice lies with the possibility of the teacher enacting a form of symbolic violence upon the student. Symbolic violence, as coined by Bordieau (2002) is the internalisation of a flaw, real or otherwise, by a person in possession of low power, based upon the perception of said flaw by the person with possession of greater power. In a typical classroom setting that involves people with special educational needs, it is possible that this symbolic violence can be enacted upon the child with disability, simply through the existence of norm referenced assessment in which the child may not achieve as well as his or her peers. The child with special needs may well see that they are not achieving based on the results of a particular assessment, or even through comparing his or her quality of work to other students’ work and internalise their failings based on this. This has potential to create within one’s self a feeling of inadequacy or (seemingly) self-imposed stigmatisation and isolation.
The obvious remedy for this is for the classroom programme and assessment methods to be changed to accommodate the special needs of the child with disability. However, Lloyd (2007) asserts that this is an exclusionary practice of its own, that a system of limited resources is naturally hostile to an outside influence that requires extra resources to meet specific, extra needs. Further, Lloyd (2007) argues that the creation of specialist learning programmes, the dedication of resources for special needs education, and other “compensatory measures of support” reinforces the failure that the student already feels. This only leads to further stigmatisation and emotional isolation.
Having dealt with the concepts of isolation and segregation being a possible result of inclusive models of education, it becomes necessary to address the issue of whether children with disability are likely to be “better off” in a segregated model. Angelides and Aravi (2006) write that there is a need to take not of the student voice when it comes to comparing mainstream education with special school education. So that they could examine the effects of special education against the contrasting mainstream education, they took the time to interview twenty students that had attended one or the other and compared their experiences. The results are mixed. It was found that those hearing impaired and Deaf individuals that attended mainstream schools felt that they were often forced to the outside and often felt very alone in the mainstream education. Contrasted against hearing impaired and Deaf students who attended special schools and were better able to socialise and integrate because of communication advantages, this is not surprising.
Angelides and Aravi reference several studies showing that the isolation that can occur in these “inclusive schools” can have profound effects on the Deaf and hearing impaired students’ psychological development. Further, within these studies, it is reported that students in these integration schools frequently described feelings of isolation, rejection, and loneliness. These feelings were apparently not as frequent in the segregated models of education.
Bourdieu, P. (2002). Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press.
Marom M; Cohen D and Naon D. Changing disability-related attitudes and self-efficacy of Israeli children via the 'Partners to Inclusion Programme'. [online]. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education; v.54 n.1 p.113-127; March 2007.
Stigmatisation and isolation are two very extreme experiences that can deeply impact on the life of any child, but particularly for a child experiencing any one of the many disabilities that are present in society. Compounding the fact that they don’t fit in with students in their class(es) and “normal” peer group is the potential feelings of inferiority that they may have already internalised as a result of their disability. Hodkinson (2007) states that one of the goals of inclusive education is to change the perceptions in society that surround people with special needs and disability. He asserts that special needs students are socially ostracised because of their disability and that one of the assumptions that inclusive education policy exists under, is that through interaction with disabled children, and in watching these special needs students succeed in a normative academic setting, non disabled students will come to view and treat individuals with special needs in society with more respect. Hodkinson (2007) argues that this may be an “idealistic assumption” that does not take in to account the children’s pre-existent attitudes toward disability.
Hodkinson (2007) undertook the task of interviewing non disabled children regarding their attitudes to, and understanding of, inclusive education. These attitudes become the crux of the matter regarding inclusive education, stigmatisation, isolation, and social ostracisation; for, it matters little if the attitudes of teachers, parents, and support staff are pro inclusion in a regular educational setting, if there is an innate student rejection of the concept. Hodkinson, at great length, defines disability as a social situation that arises out of a hegemony that pervades society that effectively, disability exists where society has not made adequate allowances for people to exist and function in a way that is not exclusionary. He goes on to query whether children have the sane notions and attitudes toward disability and whether the currently accepted socio-ecological model of disability has any effect on the formation of children’s conceptualisation of disability. Hodkinson’s research into this area produced inconclusive results that he poses may be heavily influenced by the attitudes and values held by parents, siblings, and other socially constructive influences in the children’s lives. What he did find is that some students held no bias and acted with no prejudice toward children with disability, while others held views that were exclusionary and potentially emotionally harmful to people with disabilities.
The secondary stigmatisation and isolation is one which is imposed on person via the exclusionary practice of mistaking equitable and equal as interchangeable synonyms. Lloyd (2007) asserts that current inclusive education policy makes this exact mistake; that by placing children with special needs or disability in a regular, normatively assessed and crafted educational setting, policy is disadvantaging these children further by not crafting specialised learning programmes for them. Central to this problem is the idea that inclusive, equal education is actually exclusionary in practice. Lloyd makes the assertion that current inclusive education is social by nature, that it deals with altering perceptions of disabled people and students with special educational needs without addressing, specifically, the educational needs themselves. The danger with this practice lies with the possibility of the teacher enacting a form of symbolic violence upon the student. Symbolic violence, as coined by Bordieau (2002) is the internalisation of a flaw, real or otherwise, by a person in possession of low power, based upon the perception of said flaw by the person with possession of greater power. In a typical classroom setting that involves people with special educational needs, it is possible that this symbolic violence can be enacted upon the child with disability, simply through the existence of norm referenced assessment in which the child may not achieve as well as his or her peers. The child with special needs may well see that they are not achieving based on the results of a particular assessment, or even through comparing his or her quality of work to other students’ work and internalise their failings based on this. This has potential to create within one’s self a feeling of inadequacy or (seemingly) self-imposed stigmatisation and isolation.
The obvious remedy for this is for the classroom programme and assessment methods to be changed to accommodate the special needs of the child with disability. However, Lloyd (2007) asserts that this is an exclusionary practice of its own, that a system of limited resources is naturally hostile to an outside influence that requires extra resources to meet specific, extra needs. Further, Lloyd (2007) argues that the creation of specialist learning programmes, the dedication of resources for special needs education, and other “compensatory measures of support” reinforces the failure that the student already feels. This only leads to further stigmatisation and emotional isolation.
Having dealt with the concepts of isolation and segregation being a possible result of inclusive models of education, it becomes necessary to address the issue of whether children with disability are likely to be “better off” in a segregated model. Angelides and Aravi (2006) write that there is a need to take not of the student voice when it comes to comparing mainstream education with special school education. So that they could examine the effects of special education against the contrasting mainstream education, they took the time to interview twenty students that had attended one or the other and compared their experiences. The results are mixed. It was found that those hearing impaired and Deaf individuals that attended mainstream schools felt that they were often forced to the outside and often felt very alone in the mainstream education. Contrasted against hearing impaired and Deaf students who attended special schools and were better able to socialise and integrate because of communication advantages, this is not surprising.
Angelides and Aravi reference several studies showing that the isolation that can occur in these “inclusive schools” can have profound effects on the Deaf and hearing impaired students’ psychological development. Further, within these studies, it is reported that students in these integration schools frequently described feelings of isolation, rejection, and loneliness. These feelings were apparently not as frequent in the segregated models of education.
Bourdieu, P. (2002). Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press.
Marom M; Cohen D and Naon D. Changing disability-related attitudes and self-efficacy of Israeli children via the 'Partners to Inclusion Programme'. [online]. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education; v.54 n.1 p.113-127; March 2007.