Including Children Who Challenge Us Most 
An A-Z list of Inclusionary Issues

Acknowledgment, Dedication & Publishing Notice | Quotes | Background | Main Points | Analysis and Development of the Topics | Notes on Style | Skip to the list

 

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

Professional Edition

Originally:
The Recommendations of a '93 Weekend Forum
 
Towards an Understanding of Including Children who are Most Often Excluded from Typical Classrooms & Local Home Schools
 
 
Darrell Wills*
Last Updated - 2001

 


I gratefully acknowledge the encouragement of Erik Leipoldt to publish this document & the assistance of the 54 participants who shared their dreams, experiences, worries, fears, successes and insights. We appreciate the work of Dr. Clive Dimmock, Colleen Ford, Penny Robinson, Carolyn Carmen, Ida Curtois, Jenny Snape, Mark Connonaught, Errol Cocks, Jane Van Der Westhuizen, Nicki Longmire and Anne Spenser; who led discussions that this paper is based on, including: a 2-day, weekend forum auspiced by the Commonwealth Disability Services Advisory Committee and organized with the help of the Centre for the Development of Human Resources, Edith Cowan University and PLEDG Projects. Finally I thank my wife, Lynne for her help in organizing, keeping the organizers organized and for typing the participant responses from our rough notes and crumpled butcher's paper.
 
The paper is dedicated to Mark Connonaught, a model of the class teacher required for a successful, more wholesome educational experience for ALL children.
 
© Wills 1999
 

 

 


It's considered good to be beautiful, but many people through being beautiful have ruined their lives and the lives of others. It's considered bad to be unattractive, but because of being unattractive, many have come to concern themselves with matters more important than surface appearance and have gone on to make something special of themselves - in quite a few cases becoming Beautiful in the process. It's considered good to be healthy and strong but many energetic people lose their health and strength by taking what they have for granted, not knowing what it's like to be old and depleted - and therefore not taking care of themselves - until it's Too Late. It's considered bad to be ill and weak, but many have responded to such conditions by examining their lives and changing their ways of doing things, thereby building up their health and strength to remarkable degrees. Unattractiveness, illness, and weakness have many valuable lessons to teach to those willing to learn from them.                                                            

Benjamin Hoff (1)

ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate-school mountain, but there in the sandpile...

Robert Fulghum (2)

 


Background:
| top |

This report is premised on the presumption that ALL children should; indeed must grow up together .. if we are ever to hope for a more gentle and wholesome society. It is our experiences that children are powerful teachers (as well as learners). We may have begun to understand what the child with a disability can learn from their typical peers. We may not yet realize that typical children have valuable lessons to learn from their peers with impairments. These lessons have mostly gone undiscovered because of the historical practices of educational apartheid of children with disabilities. We have created concentration campuses that have kept children with disabilities from their peers and thus most of us have yet to experience what we could learn from growing up together.

This monograph's primary focus is on the values of children with significant and multiple impairments attending typical classrooms in their local home schools. I have also attempted to tie the discussion of values to their consistencies with educational pedagogies. However the central point is a belief that we need to hold up a direction that points to what is good and then determine suitable strategies of implementation as best we can. Of course I recognise that this is not the contemporary paradigm of social inquiry, therefore I welcome thoughtful disagreement. In fact, a major purpose of this monograph is to shake the cobwebs off of the collective unconsciousness of a society who has lost its way in the teaching of the sanctity of every human life.

Finally, those who seek a few simple "quick & easy" recommendations to reverse a lifetime of suffering and rejection of wounded and fragile children and their families, can save a couple of hour's reading by stopping now.

What this monograph points toward is nothing that could be accomplished by a bit of minor tinkering. Instead the participants of the forum called for a major shift in thinking about the major social and educational purposes and practices of our society about children who are currently being segregated and congregated.

We make recommendations that we think are practical and immediately implimentable* but we make them more as a call to a more positive way of thinking about children with disabilities and as an invitation to continue and expand the small scale trials and demonstrations of full and wholesome inclusion of them- that parents, teachers and others talked about and dreamed of in our forum discussions.

Dreams and small scale trailblazing may seem impractical to readers who have spent a portion of their life designing, training, operating, mending, funding and advocating for the nosocomial(3), concentration campuses and classrooms of educational apartheid. We believe that it is naive, even outright offensive, to reduce the sanctity of the life of every child and the goodness of including ALL of them in our local, home schools and classrooms to the short term ('impractical' ) implications of change.

*In writing the revision (April, 1995), I am pleased to see that many of the recommendations contained in the 93 report have recently been implemented in a pilot project of the West Australian Education Department and the Disability Services Commission.(4) 

 
Main points:
| top |

  1. The forum from which much of this paper was originally drawn was premised on the presumption that too much of the "integration debate" centres around whether we should or shouldn't include children with an array of individual differences in typical, local schools and too little time in exploring how to shift the dominant thinking to a new paradigm that has the sanctity of including ALL children as one of its cornerstones. Our view is that the dominant paradigm is built upon a "bad" notion that has its roots in the Eugenics movements: that typical children are more valuable or at least in need of being kept separate from their disabled peers; or at the very least, they cannot benefit from growing up together.(5) The "should we - shouldn't we" debate is therefore not a debate of science. It is both a personal and social, (im)moral and (un)ethical decision that is beyond the ability of social sciences to resolve (although much of the debate seems to pretend that it can be resolved there, primarily because some people still believe the "old" Newtonian dream that science will solve all problems).(6)
  2. Children share more in common with each other than difference, even in the most rare and unusual degree of individual difference of their humanity. However because our culture has not valued certain human difference, there has been an overwhelming history of physically and socially segregating and congregating people who share only one commonality .. their negatively valued difference.(7) Our society seems to have 2 simple "tests". On the one hand, our test of valuing someone is simple: if you value them ... you will seek to be with them. On the other hand and equally simple is the test of not valuing someone: if you hold them of little or no value .. you will seek to be separate from them ..physically and socially.
  3. It is our position that a purpose of education is to teach the positive value of ALL children (including those with disabilities). If this is a valid purpose, then the above "tests" suggest that policies and practices of physical, social and educational apartheid must change. That is, the current system of concentration campuses and "units" (in what are known in some places as cluster schools or special classes); has evolved from the Newtonian paradigm where rejection of certain children was deemed 'good' (eg for them, their peers or both). This notion has direct links with eugenics movements that seek to (ultimately) kill off "bad seed".
  4. Even though many outstanding educators work in these congregations of rejected children, these systems were not designed by educators out of notions that this is what is 'good' for children or that they are even what 'works' best. The history of segregated education evolved from movements outside of education departments in response to education systems that had abandoned certain children as unworthy and incapable of benefiting from public education. (8) 
  5. The teaching of rejected children that began in church basements, community halls and abandoned buildings was segregated and congregated because they were refused entry to public education. The defense against efforts to rethink the fundamental purpose of segregation and congregation that has been so much a part of our collective history is strong .. although such a rethink is crucial to an appreciation of where we are and where we are going.
  6. Parents, although the first, most important and lifelong teachers, allies and friends of their children (not to mention the tax-payers who 'employ' teachers) have not been treated as critical, important partners in the planning and education of our children. Rather, theirs is a history of being blamed for having the children in the first place, being indicted for poorly rearing them and thus history has strongly influenced most educators to have a negative bias towards the positive involvement of one of the most potentially potent sources of knowledge and support. A major rethinking of the parent role in education is critical to the positive inclusion of their children.(9)
  7. Paid, professionalised, bureaucratised human services of all kinds have replaced or devalued the tradition of voluntary helping; including the legitimate roles of parents, grandparents and friends in the rearing and development of children. These natural roles and the talents they could bring are thus not welcomed in our schools much beyond pre-school (unless funds are needed to be raised).(10) 
  8. To flourish, a model that values the positive inclusion and development of ALL children will require effective assistance; particularly in its early, trailblazing stages. However we believe that models that rely on more money for more paid human service workers will ultimately fail in our current and foreseeable future. Our proposals are developed with the notion that additional monies would not be spent however our implications point to what is spent being spent in dramatically different ways. Models that dare to rethink and rebuild the tradition of voluntary helping will not only be cheaper(11), but 'good' for children and 'do good' by strengthening the virtue of sharing in our communities.

 
Analysis and Development of the Topics:
| top |

The following discussion is developed from the major responses of the participants of a weekend forum attended by 54 parents, teachers and others interested in furthering the debate and actions of including children who challenge us most.(12) Since the original publication several people have written to question or make comment. These comments range from a request to translate the document into Japanese to quite a few objections, as well as praises to the use of the terminology "concentration campuses" and "educational apartheid". Several comments and questions were also received on the notion "nosocimal" as used in the introduction to describe the concept where maladaptive behaviour is learned in the congregated setting. One question came from Massachusetts asking how this term relates to iatrogenic (which is a disease caused by the process medical examination or treatment).  

The title and general focus of the forum was taken from Mark Connoughton, a classroom teacher who had been "challenged" in 1993 to include a child with significant and multiple impairments in his classroom. He was challenged morally, in determining a personal position; challenged academically in determining suitable adaptive strategies and challenged systemically in determining a suitable supportive and consultative network. He has shown us the strength of regular class teachers to be quite capable of taking up the challenges. Mark has since helped the teacher ahead of him to include the girl that challenged him, been awarded honours by his school system and moved into principalship of a school.
 

 
Finally, A Few Notes On Style:
| top |

For the ease of the reader:

  • The topics are organized alphabetically in order that you may locate a particular topic of interest or concern.
  • All acknowledgements, notes and expansions on topics are footnoted (numbered) and found at the end of the document. Whilst this is an older form of reference, I find this style less cumbersome to read and allows for expansion notes on topics that not all readers may wish to "wade" through.
  • Additions or major changes since 1993 are note with an asterisk (*)

 

 

A - Z
The Major Problems and Issues of Inclusion

 

A
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Access:
e.g. of Support Systems, Other Agencies and Policy:
Some children with impairments receive occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech therapy at their school. One of the short term advantages of a system of apartheid is that we only have to make a small number of our schools accessible for people who are impaired in mobility. Another has been that congregation has made it convenient for therapists and others to schedule and conduct clinical therapy within the school setting. The inclusion of children in typical classrooms in all local schools therefore poses 2 major access challenges:

  1. Physical access in schools that were designed only for non-impaired students
  2. Community access (e.g. as in determining and implementing models of transdisciplinary support)(13)

Whilst physical access may necessitate expenditure to correct the physical landscape of educational apartheid, community access is more a matter of rethinking the purposes of education around all of the community's children, redefining some of the problems and trying another way. For instance, it has been the author's experience with PLEDG Projects that the trasdisiplinary model can be applied to working with teachers, parents and volunteers in much the same way as practiced by Bell in the Madras System developed in the early 19th century, as incorporated by the Portage Project in the early 1970's to bring early intervention to the homes of children born with impairments, as used by the National School Volunteer Programs to bring educational tutelage to over 6 million children and as used by Roger Rees in teaching parents as language therapists in Adelaide . These and many other programs have addressed the needs of children by marrying the skills of a few professionals with the willingness of parents, grandparents and other ordinary citizens using a transdisiplinary model to produce a paraprofessional workforce that is cost efficient and educationally significant.(14)
The implications for school and departmental policy are:

  1. To promote lateral and positive thinking at the local and regional levels in addressing both physical and community access issues.
  2. To promote flexibility and local experimentation in the support of the inclusion of children with significant and multiple impairments in local schools.
  3. To particularly support class teachers, parents, other services and community in developing local initiatives to bring the untapped pools of  voluntary helping power together with a transdisiplinary training and monitoring system.(15)

 

*ADD-Type SD:
We have ADD-H, which is supposed to be attention deficit disorder where the cause is neurological and the effect is hyperactivity.
We have ADD-NH, (non-hyperactive), which is "everything else".
I propose a new term, ADD-Type SD, where the attention deficit "disorder" is not in the child's "chemistry" but is caused by a social devaluation of the child's individual differences ( as in level of activity, social interaction etc). That is, when the social expectation of significant adults does not match the child's behavioural and/or academic performance the child may be deemed to be in need of "fixing".
However it may be that the "deficit in attention" is to the child's needs (eg for more or positive attention, more or better teaching from the significant adults in his life.) Therefore searching for a medical solution to what may be essentially a socio-educational problem, is reinterpreted as a bio-medical problem to take the onus for change off of the adults in the child's life and place them back upon the child.
 
This is not to deny that some children are more active than others .. some to the point of "hyperactive". It is only that such variation in activity can be interpreted as somewhere along the continuum of individual difference in level of socialization. (eg from shy, withdrawn, lack-lustre to highly active, aggressive/assertive etc.) Thus, it is my opinion that children do vary remarkably in their presentation of activity levels and socially acceptable behaviour and that some children are at the extremes of this variance. However, it is my opinion that at least one fundamental aspect of addressing (any) extreme variance is teaching the child and those in the role of nurture/guide/teacher to positively adapt to the variance. Drugging the child into socially acceptable patterns of behaviour can at best provide temporary relief from the frustrations of trying to figure out how to cope with the variance and at worst become a distraction from the underlying socio-educational issues.

 

*Ascertainment:
I came across this term in Queensland in 1994. It is used to cleanse the continuation of using IQ and other measuring sticks to determine placement decisions. Other States have there own formulas and names for them that try to make them sound "scientific" .. even though they are nothing more than political decisions disguised as (bad) science. If the IQ can do anything, one thing it cannot, is predict. Any form of placement committee is nothing more or less than an arbitrary gatekeeper. To suggest by association with valid tests that certain placements are "scientifically justified" is deceitful at worst and naive at best. Remember the old labels invented by the IQ .. "uneducable", "trainable" .. they too seemed scientific in their day. They too were used to place and by exclusion from educational opportunities "proved" to be predictive .. until some of us challenged the labels and taught the "unteachable".(16)

 

 

 

B
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Benefits of Inclusion of ALL children in Local, Home Schools:
We have asserted earlier that the benefits of inclusion are for everyone. Below we list a few of the major benefits to a number of the stakeholders. The list is by no means comprehensive. We urge the reader to forward ideas on other benefits to the author.
Benefits to the child being included:

  1. The child's overall skills are more apt to fully develop. Typical classrooms are rich in incidental learning opportunities that cannot be found anywhere else; no matter how "special". This is primarily so because the child is exposed to a rich array of models.(17) (see also-modelling and grouping).
  2. There are more opportunities in typical classrooms to learn and practice age appropriate skills. This is so for at least 3 reasons:
    1. because what is expected of all children at this age happens here all of the time and therefore children with impairments have more opportunities to view and copy these skills.
    2. because concentration campuses and classes are so often not grouped by age; nor are the children in the congregations presenting age appropriate skills.
    3. because the teachers and others are likely to hold typical expectancies for anyone whom they encounter in a typical classroom, the child with an impairment is also more likely to be expected to act 'typically'.
  3. When the child's classmates see 'typical' expectations being placed, modelled and shaped by teachers they raise their perception of the child.(18)
  4. When a teacher requires and the child meets the general expectations of the group, they develop an identification as one of the group; a most powerful counter to the development of prejudice.(19)
  5. Typical classrooms may be the only, ongoing access that children with impairments have for the peer models they need for making appropriate imitation. (Kids copy other kids!)
  6. Over the long run, typical classrooms yield a greater variety of typical experiences which helps combat impoverished experience, (see risks).
  7. Typical classrooms are the only place one can learn, practice and truly exercise (as well as learn the costs) of making typical choices. Children with impairments have often been so sheltered by their exclusion, that they don't learn the natural rewards and consequences of the day to day world, nor learn of typical freedoms and privileges.
  8. Segregated and congregated arrangements by their very nature often teach (without knowing it and indirectly) maladaptive behavior, maladaptive privileges, choices and freedoms. Once these maladaptive skills and behaviours are learned as "the way the world works", the child is caught in a life of "needing" special environments. This was mentioned earlier in reference to nosocomial behaviour.(20)
  9. In typical classrooms they will meet a wider range of children and this broadens their opportunities to form mutually satisfying relationships based on their uniqueness, interests and talents rather than on their weaknesses and suffering.(21) 
  10. There is a good chance that the image of other children (as typical) will transfer to them; thus minimizing their difference (eg rather than having it as the centre of their image, it being only 1 or a few dimensions of their image).
  11. The typical image in the eyes of others combines to strengthen the child's self image.
  12. This combines to strengthen their peer's identification with them.(22)


Benefits to Other Interested Parties:

Benefits to family:

  1. The inclusion of their child (parents), brother or sister (sibling); reduces their motivation to be ashamed, to deny the person's existence or their relationship to the person. Unfortunately, we have a history of having hidden children with impairments from our community and inclusion can therefore break down this chain of shame.(23)
  2. If families are less ashamed or embarrassed; there are more chances for more typical, inclusive (family) events and celebrations.
  3. There is a good chance that the family will develop contacts with families of their child's typical peers rather than mostly other parents who have children with impairments. The parents' school-based relationships are therefore not so focused on impairment, their common suffering or struggle: but on common school interests etc.
  4. Brothers and sisters are more likely to be supported and feel supportive rather than shunned or ashamed ...particularly if teachers and other adults interpret these situations positively.
  5. There is more time overall to do "things". When all children go to one school, there is 1 (not 2) bus schedules, canteens, P&C's etc.

Benefits to non-impaired children:

  1. With proper modelling, interpretations and support, inclusion with fragile children gentles their peers and even some of the adults around them.
  2. The child with an impairment is a life-model for non-impaired children on how one copes and adapts to hardship, suffering, illness and disablement. As we will all become impaired at some stage in our lives (eg in our old age), we could benefit significantly from having been exposed throughout our lives to models of how to positively adapt to life's natural occurrences.
  3. Schooling is a strong socialising institution and until we are strongly socialised, most children are neutral about personal differences. Our non-impaired children's first experiences with children with impairment will powerfully shape their tolerance to difference .. especially when these experiences are positively interpreted by parents and teachers.(24)

Benefits to Society:

  1. There is a better chance that the child with an impairment will later contribute to society. (25)
  2. Like a ripple in the pond, the broadening of children's tolerance, acceptance and appreciation of individual difference, broadens society's tolerance of difference(26); something we can all benefit from.
  3. It can be less expensive, particularly over the long run; however it should be cautioned that this cost savings potential should not be an excuse to do a "cheap and nasty" job. (See the section on cost effectiveness that follows.)
        


Bullying:
One of the great fears of parents is that their child with an impairment will be teased, taunted and bullied in an inclusionary school. Whilst we can't say that this won't happen, it certainly has proved not to be the case in our experiences. In fact, if we have a problem with other children, particularly young ones, it is that they want to help too much. This, we believe, is one of the most powerful benefit for children without impairments of associating with children who have them ... their natural helping instincts are given opportunities of expression. Additionally, even if teasing and bullying does happen, an inclusionary setting is the only one in which the teacher can guide the child (e.g. with an impairment) in how to deal with bullies; as well as guide the bully into more appropriate social behaviors.

 

 

C
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

*Congregation:
One of the respondents to the earlier draft noted that she hadn't thought about the difference between segregation and congregation until she read the paper. It is important to distinguish between the impact of "mere" segregation and the more profound impact of congregation based on impairment. That is, it may be good, short term grouping practice to congregate children of similar precise abilities for teaching purposes; however it is unlikely good that such a grouping is based only on disability; particularly where the child is at high risk of being labelled negatively by association. Thus, in the decision theory of "least worst", the impact of segregated (but alone) would probably be "less worse" than being segregated and congregated with others who are "at risk".

 

*Cooperation, Consultation and Collaboration:
Key attributes for a model of inclusion.
See anther momograph: From Management to Partnership:
The change in relationships required by parents for quality service.

 

*Cost Effectiveness:
The fiscal impact of the inclusion of students who were formerly exiled or at risk should not be judged on the costs of modify a public facility that's design had not included them. This would be asking them to unequally "pay" for the societal error of building public buildings that are only for a selection of the public. Nor should the fiscal impact include the costs of reallocating the resources to the host schools to support the child's inclusion. The families and the children were not involved in the decisions to establish the segregated and congregated facilities from which the resources might come. No other child is asked to bear the cost of excess capacity existing elsewhere (e.g. as in a school district of declining population); and thus it would unfairly bias the fiscal picture to do so in these studies.(27)

However, if one based opinion on the issue of financial costs alone (if taken in the 'big picture') they would obviously favor inclusionary practices. For instance, the '92  Review of Accommodation Services For People With Disabilities In Western Australia  points to costs of as high as $2 million per person over a lifetime. The report points to segregative, congregative models as the most expensive ($23-$75,000 per person, annually) and supporting people in their community as least expensive ($5-$35,000 per person annually).(28) 
What does this have to do with education?

Firstly, it is evident that when students complete segregated school programs, their most probable life options are also segregated.(29) Further, the community support (accommodation) model (the "cheapest" one compared above) relies on supportive community. In the early stages of implementation the model we will find people who are voluntarily supportive, despite their apartheid experiences.  However, as more and more adults with impairments seek to take their rightful place in their communities; natural supportive networks will run out ..unless we begin now to nurture a new generation where interdependence is valued. Over the long run, investment in lowering long term institutional care will rely on investment in nurturing an attitude of interdependence in our next generation of children.

Similarly, it has been shown in North American studies that the combined savings resulting from taxes being paid from earnings, income maintenance reductions and institutional avoidance makes educational investment in integration a solid investment.(30) Although the savings are positive, it is essential to note that money saved does not return to the service agency that produces the savings. That is, whilst the tax-payer of the future will benefit substantially over the long run, the substantial savings will only return to the education system indirectly .. if at all (eg through redistribution of future taxes, lowered costs of institutionalization and redistribution of savings as an incentive etc). The implications of course, are:
in redistribution of resource studies we must be vigilant that those who promote concentration campuses don't "sneak" the costs of modify public facilities that should have always been accessible into the studies.

In redistribution of resource studies we must be vigilant that those who promote concentration campuses don't "sneak" the costs of redistribution due to inefficiencies created elsewhere into costs of inclusion.

For society as a whole to benefit, the cost of implementation to education departments may need to be shared by the departments of post-school care. At the very least, whole of life costs and benefits must be considered above the costs and benefits over the short term and over only single departmental budgets.
 

 


D
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Democracy, Social Justice and a Sense of Fair-play:
Democracy and social justice and a sense of fair-play are cornerstones of the Australian ethos. Democracy requires the social inclusion of all of its citizenry and yet, it seems that we have perpetuated a different view for impaired children. In 1991 I addressed a conference of educators looking at a particular tool with these words:
 
One of the shameful tragedies of history is that the very social institution that is best positioned to remove from humankind some of the nightmare of segregation, participates in creating and perpetuating the midnight. We have failed to believe that all children can learn and in so doing we have rejected many to the "closets" of society ...to be out of sight and out of mind.(31)
 
A (per) version of the notion of social justice has been used by some to justify the notion of separate but equal-the mainstay of educational apartheid in American schools into the '70's and legal apartheid in South Africa until most recently. In her critique of the construct of disability in schools, Christensen aptly points out the paradox: "social justice principles are being used to defend the development of (segregated) special education practices while at the same time forming the basis of critiques which condemn those practices."(32) Christensen goes on to say:
 
the socially-constructed nature of special education and disability must be recognised and challenged. This requires a re-examination of the social justice underpinnings of educational practice, and a move to adopt social justice perspectives based on the notion of need ...Rather than a few students being seen to have 'special' needs, schools must regard all students' needs as part of the fabric of human experience and must be open, inclusive and responsive institutions which celebrate rather than eliminate human difference.(33)
 

 


E
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Education:
What is education?
A simple question when asked, that evokes strong reaction from teachers to philosophers to ordinary citizens. There does seem to be at least some wide parameters of agreement that education should include notions of  development.
The Dictionary of Education says that it is:
 
the social process by which people are subjected to the influence of a selected and controlled environment (especially that of the school) so that they may attain social competence and optimum individual development; the aggregate of all of the processes by means of which a person develops abilities, attitudes, and other forms of behavior of positive value in society in which he lives.(34)

 

Education:
Why must it be inclusionary?
If we can agree that a part of education means the development of attitudes then it becomes critically important to declare which attitudes our society wishes to develop. This issue lies at the core of our discussion of inclusion of children with significant and multiple impairments in our typical classrooms in local home schools; for how can we teach positive attitudes about people with impairments if they are not an integral part of our daily childhood experience? Simply, we can not.
 
In his study of the nature of prejudice Alport observes:
 
Once this separatism exists, however, the ground is laid for all sorts of psychological elaboration. People who stay separate have few channels of communication. They easily exaggerate the degree of difference between groups, and readily misunderstand the grounds for it. And, perhaps most important of all, the separateness may lead to genuine conflicts of interests, as well as to imaginary conflicts.(35) 
 
Brown (et al) put the issues another way in an article suggesting that students with severe impairments must attend the school of their brothers, sisters, friends and neighbors:
 
there is no better way to prepare those without disabilities to function responsibly in integragated environments and activities in adulthood than to have them grow up touching a natural proportion of students with disabilities in their schools and neighbourhoods.(36)

 

Education:
The great debate... for all... or for selected group/s:
It is not surprising that the debate is an old and recurring one. Socrates, for instance, was concerned that education was mainly involved in discerning the right way to live. His view of knowing included a humble respect for how much he didn't know. His student Plato, the founder of the world's first university, on the other hand thought that (only) philosophers were capable of knowing absolute truth.(37) Their views set them apart in their thinking about who should partake of education. (eg everyone, as in democracy or an aristocracy as with an elite ruling class). Part of this debate remains at the centre of much deliberation, even today. Although it seems that we have somewhat settled that  ALL children should get some education and training, we have only made this decision in the past 20 years. Until well into the 1980's certain children were deemed uneducable and excluded from schooling and the statutes of most states continue to allow this practice.(38)  

 

*Exclusion:
The impacts:
The systematic exclusion of children from their non-impaired peers impacts on all of our society. For the child with a disability the impacts are devastating. Our participants listed a few, (others can be found under the heading-risks). Those excluded are not valued, not welcome, pre - judged, killed ..at, before or after birth, isolated from families, impoverished in their relationships, ostracized, feeling to be a cause of families breaking down and on and on.
 
Other children are also affected. A major example recognized by our participants was the  lack of opportunity to experience natural models of positive adjustment to an impairment and suffering and lack of opportunity to practice natural helping. Since the first draft of this paper my 5 year old son has enroled in pre-school. We are learning first hand of the positive impact on him of learning to help others. Sadly, next year we seek to find a different school that carries this notion into year 1 (as this school has a congregation unit on site which will likely "capture" the child that has been my son's tutor and friend this year.

 

 

F
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Fear:
A major barrier to inclusion is fear. Fear lies at the heart of the development of prejudice in children. We are universally fearful of the unknown, strange and unfamiliar; yet rapidly adaptable to their presence. Our history of educational apartheid has created and fed the development of fears and anxieties of typical children of their impaired peers. As the adults of our society were almost all raised in this period of disability apartheid, it is little wonder that so much fear and prejudice of children with impairments exists. Unfortunately, people tend to be ashamed and unconscious of their anxieties. Our societial codes place a premium on courage and self-reliance; thus our pride and self-respect lead us to mask our fears and prejudice.(39)

 

Forgiveness:
What we as a society must ask of parents and children with impairments ... for being so slow and intolerant in your positive, and full inclusion in our lives, our schools and our communities.

 

Funding:
Outright greed is certainly a further cause of prejudice. Children with impairments may be seen as taking resources away from those that are deemed more 'worthy' as in the example from Swan (1992) in Our not-so-noble past:
 
 "it was agreed that ..employment of men of outstanding teaching ability could   not be justified ...Brilliant educational ability can be more profitably employed by the State in teaching the normal or supernormal." (40)
 
Ironically, the system of disability apartheid has virtually created two separate education systems. This is not only unjustifiable educationally; but financially. Of course the fear that children with disabilities will be dumped into the mainstream, which is already overcrowded is a real one. Economic rationalism without the highest goals of positive, personal and social inclusion is feared by all.

 

 

G
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Groupings:  
Is grouping the same as segregation and congregation?
The proper groupings of children for instruction is one of the most powerful teaching 'tools' that we have, yet it is the least understood. Traditionally we group children of about the same age together and they generally remained grouped this way throughout their school careers.. except 'special' children. Here the traditional grouping is by IQ. For some reason, while the sanctity of same-age, peer grouping is rarely broken these days; children with impairments are often found in segregated and congregated groupings with ages ranging from 4-18 years old. Such groupings break well known educational principles. For instance, we know that to combat the "lowest common denominator" effect, a group should be composed so that the majority of models are good ones. Thus, a weaker member would imitate 'upward' as well as share the benefit of their positive image. If too many 'weaker' members are in the group, they become the models-thus bringing the group down or they get marginalized (left out). These groupings also break well known social image principles. If all or most of the children are impaired, the social perception that "these kids are all alike" is confirmed. Thus, both the skill and image of children is damaged by such grouping.(41) After 12-14 years, 6 and a half hours a day of this sort of grouping (+/- 17,500 hours of apartheid) it isn't hard to imagine the 'messages' both their peers have about them and the messages they have about themselves (eg low self-esteem).

 

Grouping: 
So how should we group?
We could and should compose and recompose groups throughout the school day based upon what we are trying to teach. Recall that much of what gets taught is socialisation (eg how to be a 'good' 6 year old Australian etc). This would be 'taught' by your primary age grouping (and thus requires ALL local 6 year olds to be included). At other parts of the school day, children could and possibly should attend interest and skill based groupings ... as long as the groupings don't violate the 2 major grouping principles of:

  1. grouping for maximum skill development of ALL in the group
  2. grouping for positive image for ALL in the group

For this to become common, teachers would need to know the needs and levels of all of their students .. including their image needs. The implications for skill development are discussed more fully in the section, teacher skills, below.

 

 

H
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Help:
Where will the help come from? Who will help and what is helpful? These are some of the issues discussed in the section, teacher skills, below.

 

 

I
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Inclusion:
One of the commonly asked questions is why are we now talking about inclusion rather than integration? For us, it seemed too many people were confusing integration with mere physical presence. That notion got perverted into a host of 'bad' things such as dumping of kids into hostile and unsupported settings. We wanted to emphasis the positive and social importance of the experience and so we (like others) have chosen a word that means embrace. We suppose somewhere down the track, this may get perverted too, but for now it helps us to explain important dimensions of what is called for.

 

*Individual Educational Planning (IEP):
Because there are so many perversions to this notion it will be important to the reader to understand the notion we speak of hear treats the parent as the senior partner in this process. Most processes that claim to include parents really do no more than make decisions and then bring in a "cast of thousands" to tell the parents what they've decided. Penny Robinson puts the relationship this way:

  • What really works best are small informal discussions with the relevant people, respectful of each other, jointly looking at problems and working out solutions together. Parents are listened to as the senior partner - the expert on their child's life. Other expertise is invited by both teacher and parent agreeing who this should be... people they both trust... not people just assigned to the task. Then all parties involved make final decisions together.
  • To involve the parents all the way, the professional must give up previously held control over aspects of the child's life that is not within their expertise. Even with great expertise there should be no pretence of "this therapy", "this service", "this program" or "this system" can be "the be all and end all" , " the cure". None of the "I know what you want without ever needing to ask. (if one thing is for certain, you always need to ask!)
  • If the parents' involvement extends to physical help within the professional's environment even more adjustment and understanding is called for. Professionals must let us encroach and share "their" hallowed turf...(e.g.. classroom furniture gladly reorganized to accommodate small group work .. volunteer tutors ,who may include parents, should be encouraged).
  • A most important point that parents need professionals to take on board, is that the interests of the child are to be put first, that we must all have high expectations and aim for high levels of achievement as with all our other children.
  • Value the work and contributions of the parents.
  • Recognize our efforts and show thanks by communicating your appreciation and esteem of parents. Treat us with respect - like the old maxim says "do as you would be done by".
  • Professionals have two very valuable tools that they can pass on to parents. Information and Attitudes.
  • It is crucial, that in the best interests of the child that they get their information right. Information should be unbiased, non-manipulative, and not controlled or controlling. You need to find out a lot of things about our children because so many myths about them are mostly how they are judged. Professionals need to focus on getting the type of information that helps them figure out "what works". Unfortunately, too often the information gathered is about:
    • How children differ from others...with nothing on how they are the same.
    • The things they can't do...rather than what they can.
    • What hasn't worked...rather than what has.
  • Information is fairly easy to obtain compared with this second and most important 'tool'...your attitude. Professionals must show that they value the child as a person who will make a worthwhile contribution to their community, but who may need ongoing help from their community in order to lead a happy and valued life.
  • If you don't like our children then you will not only pass your dislike on to them, but to your peers, and their peers. 
  • If you don't in a way love the people you work with, we need you to seek a new career.(42)
     

Imitation and models:
One of the most common knowledge's we have is that people copy others around them. Children first imitate their parents (sometimes embarrassingly); in manner, gesture and speech. Children in schools copy each other in dress, slang and learning. To maximize on this common, human trait we need only to group children so that the majority of models are good ones. To group where the majority are weak models or maladaptive ignores this most common of senses (and consequently produces maladaptive skills in children so grouped).

 

 

J
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Justice:
See democracy, social justice and a sense of fair-play, above.

 

 

K
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Kernel of truth, knowledge and prejudice:
The smallest kernel of truth will cement a prejudice, whereas a prejudgment can be reversed by new evidence and knowledge. "A prejudice, unlike a simple misconception, is actively resistant to all evidence that would unseat it."(43) This may explain to those who hope to change public attitude (eg towards children with impairments) by providing knowledge alone; why such a strategy will fail. Certainly the few parties with only a misconception can be convinced. The bulk of the public however suffers from a collective prejudice that will not be unshaken without emotional resistance.

 

 

L
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Love:
Love and gentleness may be what inclusion is all about. So few times does this word come up in discussions about children with disabilities and when it does we tend to sweep it (quickly) under the carpet. It may be partially a collective guilt for past injustice. As Perske says, "Society, for unclear reasons, believed that all people with developmental disabilities possessed horrid, antisocial traits ...leading to a degeneration of humankind."(44) It may be that we so lowly value the child with disability that we can not see his or her humanness. In so doing we learn to fear and reject and in so doing we miss a great opportunity to learn what it means to love and express our gentleness. Anyone who has ever watched a preschool group of children interact with a child with severe impairments would know how wrong our perceptions have been about our children. (also see bullying above)

 

 

M
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

*Misunderstandings (of what is meant by inclusion):

  • Dumping:
    The favorite "excuse" of most critics. No support is not inclusion, it is a policy set up to fail.
  • Hypernormalization:                 
    This is the "Dreamland" that some well intended people promote. It denies that people need support to be included, etc.
  • Supercongregation:                   
    Another (blundered) administrative interpretation of "integration". Putting lots of different oppressed children/groups together has nothing to do with inclusion.
  • Mainstreaming:             
    Whilst the notions of being in the mainstream are related closely to inclusion, the word mainstreaming has been confused, with some 40 different usages found in the journals. Thus, it can mean most anything...from dumping "in the deep end" to the on-site segregation and congregation that is being promoted as integration (which is in fact a more damaging form of rejection).
  • Least Restrictive Alternative or Environment:                      
    This was originally an administrative notion of the 70's law PL94-142 in the USA.
    It is based on a continuum concept...which unfortunately leads some to justify long term "most restrictive" for some.
  • "Social Justice":                       
    A name given to a branch of a department that continued to use IQ testing for placement decisions ... a perversion of social justice and of inclusion.
  • Legal Rights/Equal Opportunity etc:                              
    Limitations of mandated physical integration is proving to sometimes go against social inclusion due to long term resentment as exemplified by the Civil Rights Movement in America. Whilst it may be right, the use of force sometimes creates such resentment that "hosts" are not welcoming and can undermine real inclusion.
  • Paralleling:                                
    Placing children in/near their typical peers physically without regular, frequent and varied forms of positive, social inclusion.


These forms of what is passed off as inclusion mostly reflect the current human service scene and thus should be consciously examined for their dangers:


Money:
If asked what it takes to include children with impairments, this "thing" comes up a lot as "the solution". Interestingly we now spend more money on human service than at any previous point in history .. and we segregate and congregate more people than ever. Money is nothing more than a tool to use in doing whatever we decide is "good". I often wonder how we can say we have enough money to water the flowers, the lawns and the sports grounds .. enough for mobile phones and new computers .. enough for covered walkways and canteens .. but not enough to include ALL of the local children. 

 

 

N
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Normalization:
Like integration, this word has been so misinterpreted that one of the primary authors on the subject, Professor Wolfensberger, has developed a new term. Never-the-less, our notions of inclusion owes much to the conceptualizations proposed in the classic text, Normalization. Even in '72 the authors were speculating that "integrated special education will become better, and easier to accomplish, as all education becomes special education."(45) They saw, among other things, the individualization of all students' and more and better use of educational aides.

 

 

O
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Open Communication:
Sadly, it was expressed by our workshop participants that communication among the key stakeholders is rarely, if ever, open communication. Some reports on children are held in confidence from parents, as if they don't know their child has an impairment ..and even if they do they couldn't possibly understand the report. Teachers are not told what supports are available if they choose to support inclusion .. as if they aren't capable of making the moral, educational and systemic decisions necessary. When a cast of 1000's shows up for a "case conference" the major players (teacher and parent) mostly don't get heard.

 

 

P
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Paraprofessionals:
The augmenting of professionals by the development of a paraprofessional support system is one of the cornerstones of an efficient and effective educational system. Not only is this system one of the few ways of improving the quality of All children's education; it will also go a considerable way in breaking down the barriers that have been built up by generations of educational apartheid. There is no better way of changing a person's mind about the value of a person that they have devalued in the past, than to get them interacting in a controlled educational environment. We have seen the surprise time and again in volunteers trained to tutor or interact in some development area of an impaired child's education; when they have had a chance to get past their initial fears and trepidations and actually help a child to grow. Their personal investment, paired with the positive interpretation and support of the class teacher and others creates a community based 'interpreter and ally of the school, the program and the child. (also see teacher skills, below).

 

Part-time inclusion:
One of a number of ineffective strategies that avoids full-inclusion, reduces the likelihood of acceptance and identification by peers and gives the child a schedule of confusion. ( For a good coverage of this, we highly recommend the article in this footnote. Also see misunderstandings).(46)

 

 

Q
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Questions about assessments:
Many participants were concerned about the testing and assessment of the children; particularly the use of IQ. On the one hand it was suggested that the 'baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bath water' as such testing is used to attract the resources. On the other hand, placement decisions are often based on IQ test scores and this was viewed as improper use. Teachers suggested to us that much of the test information was irrelevant in planning what to do ..other than to 'place' the child elsewhere and parents reported that the information was kept from them.
 
The implications for assessment in a model of inclusion are:

  1. That assessment should be used to diagnose and prescribe practical teaching strategies and to measure their effectiveness.
  2. That IQ should not be used as the rationale for segregated and congregated placement decisions.
  3. That assessment should be conducted and written up in such a way as to be easily shared with all concerned; particularly class teacher and parents.

 

Quadrillion:
4 times a million or the number of excuses and myths about the 'need' for educational apartheid.

 

 

R
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Reverse Integration:
This is a particularly damaging perversion of inclusion where one or more 'typical' children (usually a group) come to visit the concentration class or campus. The damage is to the typical children's image of the individual child with an impairment. Whilst a good friendship or experience may come out of such experiences, it is more in spite of good planning than because of it. (see kernel of truth)

 

Risks:
There are a number of common risks that children and others who are who are lowly or unvalued face: especially when they are physically or functionally impaired:
 
To slower or no development... even worse maladaptive "development":

Children face the risk to development of their human potentials, gifts and talents.
This is often because others, including teachers, will have a minimized focus on, and belief in their potentials. The author was quite amazed when conducting a workshop for quite experienced human service personnel. When I asked the participants to list the strengths, gifts and special talents of their clients, the majority of workers could not mention one thing; even after working with these people for decades. When the child is known to have an impairment our dominant paradigm, borrowed from the medical model, is often one of "deficit fixing" or (if not 'fixable') chronic management".

By the nature of the impairment, the child may develop at a slower rate. This reality can't be denied away. By denial of opportunity we place the child at high risk of no development. By segregation & congregation we do something even worse. We immerse the child in an environment that teaches the child to maladapt. That is, no matter how well intended the 5:1 or 8:1 or 10:1 adult/child ratio is, the child "learns" how long they have to wait for their attention needs to be met. Every minute spent here reduces the chances of being included with groups of 25-30 others.

To be labelled and lowly valued:

Children grouped with others who are also at risk, also face the risk of being caste into a low status of "different", the "out-group" or outcaste. This is the basis of the development of prejudice. Historically, children with impairments have been thought of as variously being nonhuman, menaces, a waste, vegetables, too trivial to deal with-even if human, objects of much ridicule, objects to be pitied, a burden to others, eternal children, sick or diseased ..(thus to be avoided as if contagious), "bad seed", dying, dead (at least socially and emotionally) or as good as or "should be" dead.

  • Children face the risk of being labelled by their difference from others. This can mean that they become their label and loose their personal identity.
  • Children also face the risk of being suspected of being different in many dimensions that they are not. This is particularly heightened when they are grouped with others who have different impairments, the classic error of educational apartheid.
  • Children thus face the risk of being identified as one of a devalued group, possibly loosing all individuality. As Alport notes, "the category saturates all that it contains with the same ideation and emotional flavour".(47) The grouping of the child with an impairment with other children with impairments put the child at high risk of carrying all of the historical (mostly unconscious) bad judgements about the group... and yet we do this in the name of 'helping' ?
  • When labelled, children face the risk losing freedoms and rights that others of their age group enjoy.


To being rejected:
Most face the huge, painful and common risk of rejection, which comes in many forms:

  • Social
  • Emotional; and
  • Physical; and generally leads to:
    • The risk of being distanced from typical, valued community, family, neighborhood, region, even sent out or not allowed into the country. Distancing is usually by segregation and almost always congregated with others who are devalued and usually involves having one's live "streamlined" into the continuum of lifelong, formal ...human service.(48)

In being rejected, the children then face the risk of losing contact with ordinary citizens and thereby:
losing the opportunities for freely given relationships with non-impaired children and thereby:
face the risk of never having typical, informal social and developmental experiences.
From these experiences, children face the risk of being aware of being an alien in and to the typical and valued world. This can be cause personal insecurity, self dislike even rage. This sort of behavior is then viewed as part of the child's 'impairment'; rather than a nosocomial response. (as mentioned earlier)

  • Children face the risk of being aware that they are a source of anguish to people who love them.
  • Children and their parents face the risk of resentment, even hated by privileged citizens, as is often expressed by those who want the child 'out' because s/he takes time away from the other (valued) children etc.
  • Children face the risk of learning to resent, even hate privileged citizens.
    These risks set the stage for increased likelihood of:
    • Being brutalized; or even
    • Being killed (as in 'subtle forms' such as abortion or withdrawal of typical medical treatments)(49) (This list draws from Dr Wolfensberger's material on "wounds". For wider coverage the book in this footnote is highly recommended.)

 

 

S
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

School leadership commitment:
A critical factor of successful inclusion is school leadership. Discussion of participants suggested that school leadership included the principal, but did not hinge entirely on her/him. School leadership also includes parents and teachers and others who may influence the direction of the school. It was felt that mass campaigns are of less importance in actually changing things than campaigns to change or strengthen the leadership. Like the teacher, the principal and other school leadership are powerful models to the rest of the school and community.

 

*Segregation:
Believe it or not... we do believe that there are valid rationale for segregation.
...at least temporarily. For instance:

  1. When the integrators haven't thought through the issues nor made sufficient plans and safeguards to maximize the opportunity. The educational law of primacy suggests that the first impressions one makes are so powerful as to almost unshakable.(50) A social judgement will be formed and we want it to be a good one .. if at all possible.
  2. When there is a clear threat to the host school .. such as if the child has a contagious disease or is violent and planning is needed to reduce the risks to others.
  3. When there is a clear threat to the child .. such as a child whose life is at risk because they don't have properly working immune systems and catching something as "minor" as a cold would kill them. Or if the school (as is sometimes true in American schools at least) where there is enough common violence in the settings where the child's welfare is at high risk due to their fragility.
  4. When the person is capable of making rational, informed judgment .. without hidden pressures .. and truly wishes to be segregated from others. This doesn't mean that the public should fund this choice. However in a democracy the right of informed choices (such as private schooling) should be allowed.
  5. When the long term costs to this child and possibly others who may follow are at high risk .. as when everyone is so poorly prepared that it would likely contribute to long term negative attitudes towards ALL future children with the condition being accepted. (e.g.. mass desegregation as in deinstitionalization).
     

 

 

T
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Teacher attitudes:
The teacher's positive behavior toward the child with an impairment is one of the most critical factors of successful inclusion in classrooms; yet we have a situation where many teachers in our systems have never encountered a child with an impairment before and thus are prone to all of the fears discussed above.(51) Teacher's teach acceptance by the most powerful of educational pedagogies-modelling. Of course they can also teach the typical child to reject their impaired peers in the same manner. Unknowingly this is precisely what we have done in the creation and perpetuation of educational apartheid. We have taught many of our teachers prejudice through social and physical distancing from impaired children in their educational careers.(52) We now require these same people to teach acceptance not only to address typical children's attitudes but the attitudes of their parents. Obviously this reversal will require much thinking.

 

Teacher skills:
If the idea of change in ideology is a struggle, it may be at least in part due to the fear that translating the ideology into practice is going to be extremely difficult. For instance, in Changing Education: Australian Viewpoints, Hansford warns, "A training institution that attempts to implement a programme capable of providing teachers that can cope with all learning difficulties could only be described as dangerous.(53) It is precisely this sort of fear that has perpetuated educational apartheid. It should be refreshing to know that a model of full inclusion would not hinge on the (re)training of teachers to be experts on every conceivable impairment. It should also be reassuring to those who are truly expert on certain impairments and to those who are truly expert teachers that your expertise would be even more highly valued in a model of inclusion. A reconceptualization of the role of expert (e.g. special educator) would be one of consultant, trouble-shooter, demonstrator, coordinator, trainer and monitor of assistants (e.g. aides and volunteers), peer, parent and community liaison and coordinator of resources. The regular class teacher would only need to be (re)trained to identify what s/he didn't know and to seek help from those who are specialists. Their key role would be to model appropriate interactions to classmates, other parents and staff. They would treat the child like every other child, modifying only for the child's individual differences. They would be the key personnel in a consultative model; seeking specialists' assistance according to their needs to address the child's and their classmates' needs.(54) Alexander Graham Bell described such a consultative model and fears of the development of educational apartheid nearly 100 years ago so cogently in a letter about the worry he had that Helen Keller and Anne Sullivan would be persuaded to administer a special school:

  • It should be recognized as a fundamental thing, that the collection of defective children is a thing to be avoided as much as possible. Exclusive association with one another only aggravates and intensifies the peculiarities that differentiate them from other people, whereas, it is our object by instruction, to do away with these differences, to the greatest possible extent. ... The blind become blinder by exclusive association with one another, and the deaf and dumb are made a class unto themselves. I could write a great deal upon this subject, but this is neither the time or place. (Bell was travelling the Irish sea at the time.) My heart is deeply moved in the matter because I feel a gigantic blunder is about to be made and I am away and cannot prevent it. Let me, however, say a few words as to what I think should be done, rather than what should not be done.
  • Believing as I do, in the policy of decentralization, in dealing with defective children-the policy of separating them from one another as much as is practicable during the process of education-and keeping them in constant personal contact with their friends and relatives and ordinary normal people,-I would say that it would better to send the teachers to these children, rather than send the children to the teachers. (our emphasis) It would be better to associate together the people who wish to benefit these children, than to bring the children themselves together...
  • From the point of economy, as well as efficiency, I would say that the money provided should be expended as much as possible, in salaries of teachers ...and as little as possible upon board, lodging and buildings.
  • Send the teachers to the children, not the children to the teachers.(55)

Bell described the major vision, rationale and strategies of regular and specialist teacher interactions of a model of inclusive schooling. The implications:

  1. Teacher to teacher interactions should be supported, nurtured and developed. This should include interactions between regular teachers who have gained insights through inclusionary experiences as well as interactions with specialists.
  2. Modifying and reviewing curriculum would be done on a child by child, classroom by classroom basis.
  3. Lateral, positive thinking and allowances for trial and error would need to be nurtured.
  4. Principals would support the needed flexibility of interactions and model leadership in value-based administration by participating in and arranging in-service, interschool and interclassroom consultations and by promoting the development of a school-based ethos of inclusion via policy, staff selection and public promotion and education.
  5. Inclusionary support would be viewed as a flexible notion, primarily determined to support the teacher to positively include the child. A 'formula' approach would not suit the unique characteristics, talents and needs of teachers or the unique context of each classroom. Therefore resource should be allocated to a child and the teacher, parent and Principal should determine how best to utilize it.
  6. Teacher-aides would not be used as the child's teacher, bodyguard or 'backpack' (e.g. hovering over the child). The aide would be to the teacher. The major relationship should be one of paraprofessional, used to aide the professional to help the student fit in. (e.g. by orchestrating cooperative learning events with peers, helping the child to respond and helping peers to interpret the responses etc). Teacher-aides, be they voluntary or paid, require pre-training, introduction to the teacher's style of operation, support and monitoring; a key role of the specialist (as described above).(56) 

Many variations of these features are found again and again in the literature. For instance in the Commonwealth Project of National Significance-Special Education: Including Students With Disabilities in Regular Classrooms, concludes that successful inclusion depended on...

  • Principals as instructional leaders; flexible school structures and organisation; teacher creativity and initiative valued and supported; favourable attitudes and a commitment to, and ownership of, the inclusion of students with disabilities on the part of the class teacher, peers and whole school... emphasis on support and sharing-access to external expert support; a supportive school climate sustained by provisions such as teacher buddy systems and co-teaching; broader networking with teacher colleagues, tertiary institutes and community agencies; and parent interest and involvement in educational decision making; professional development of teachers with a focus on disability information, consultancy input, networking opportunities...(57)

 

 

U
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Unconsciousness:
Actions of individuals and even whole societies can be unconscious. Much learning occurs unconsciously and informally; thus the messages that children pick up about "who they are and where they fit" can be 'taught' to a whole generation without even being aware of it. Conflicts between our higher ideals and our lower instincts results in repression into unconsciousness of impulses and beliefs that we might consciously judge as "unworthy". Thus, if we feel we should bend over backwards to help the fragile and wounded child but we are too busy to bother; we will likely repress this.
 
Gradual loss of memory over "generations" in the conscious reasons for certain practices; lead us to continue to practice things unconscious of why we do them. Much of the basis of segregation we have today is based on the thoughts of eugenics or 'gene pool cleansing'; and yet few people know or would approve of its continuance.(58)

 

 

V
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Values:
The rationale of inclusion hinges on developing more positive and tolerant values in the next generation of children about people with disabilities.

 

 

W
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Wounds:
The way Professor Wolfensberger describes what happens to the child when their value is perceived lowly. I have listed these above as risks to these wounds occurring. The hinge wound of rejection (also discussed elsewhere) can be most powerfully healed by positive inclusion and thus is a major rationale for including children in typical schools and classrooms who are at high risk of many rejections in their lives.

 

 

X
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Xenophobia:
It may be that much of the exclusion of children with impairments stems from a sort of collective xenophobia (eg the fear of meeting strangers). Practices of segregation have fed these fears of the unknown.

 

 

Y
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Yes:
The appropriate answer of teachers, principals and others to enquiries of a trial of inclusion of a child with an impairment in your classroom, school and community.

 

 

Z
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | TOP

 

Zeitgeist:
This is a German word that means "the spirit of the times ...the consciousness that evolves out of the synthesis of communal and individual experience; the universal and moral order"(59) This comes close to the notion of a paradigm mentioned earlier in the introduction of main points. It is our position that the spirit of the times is ripe for a shift to a paradigm built with the full and positive inclusion of children who challenge us most.

 

 

Recommendations
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | TOP

 

 

Recommendation 1:

That the State and Commonwealth governments, as a matter of urgency, develop and distribute a policy of education that is both consistent with the moral and ethical underpinnings of the nation and consistent with the full and positive inclusion of children with disabilities into every aspect of Australian society; particularly their local, home schools.

 

Recommendation 2:

That the Commonwealth and State governments investigate with all due haste the development, support and implementation of Local School Volunteer Programs (e.g. VIP Program-Volunteers in Public Schools) to support the unique and cost effective role that communities can play in system support and change.

 

Recommendation 3:

That the Commonwealth and State governments investigate with all due haste more flexible funding arrangements that will encourage the local school to trial inclusionary models of educational support to children with disabilities. Particularly, discretionary funds should be allocated for individual children where schools, parents and communities express an interest in developing a local model of inclusion. The expenditure of these funds should be determined jointly among: class teacher, parent and principal and upon the advice of those they may second for advice. Additionally, such funding should be so flexibly allocated as to allow for savings in one year to be applied to additional costs of another.

 

Recommendation 4:

That the Commonwealth and State governments should encourage departmental joint funding of projects where they cross fields of health, education, disability and/or welfare. These should be most strongly supported and encouraged where the main benefactor of savings is likely to be reduced costs to a department responsible for post-school services and where the tax-payer of the future is the ultimate benefactor of savings. Further, as a matter of priority, that the Commonwealth and State Minister's for Children's Services, Health, Disability and Education establish and jointly fund Home-based, Early Intervention Programs, based on education and developmental models for all children below 6 years of age exhibiting any potential health, developmental or other learning problems.

 

Recommendation 5:

That the Commonwealth and State governments immediately establish a tertiary research foundation to be used to coordinate and sponsor local school research efforts into the cost effectiveness and efficacy of inclusionary models of education. The foundation would also research and develop pre and in-service training programs on inclusionary practices and these programs be made mandatary for teacher certification by the year 2000.

 

Recommendation 6:

That the Commonwealth and State governments immediately cease the use of perceived I.Q. as the primary determination of need in funding decisions and replace this with a needs assessment of the teaching-learning environment.

 

Recommendation 7:

That the Commonwealth and State governments immediately cease the use or support of placement committees and replace these with the decision body of teacher, parent, principal and any other seconded adviser as agreed by all parties (including a representative of the funder in the case of a joint funding project); using a model of individual educational planning (IEP).

 

Recommendation 8:

That the Commonwealth government provide a small amount of funding to independent, parent advocacy organizations on a local basis specifically to provide advocates for parents in the IEP process described in recommendation 7.

 

Recommendation 9:

That the Commonwealth and State governments immediately repeal all exclusionary policy from their Education Acts. Specifically, that whole of Section 20 of the Western Australian Education Act 1928-1976, be repealed and re-enacted, if necessary, to reflect full inclusionary principles.

 

 

Footnotes
1 - 10 | 11 - 20 | 21 - 30 | 31 - 40 | 41 - 50 | 51 - 59 | TOP

  1. B. Hoff, The Te of Piglet. London: Methuen.1992.
  2. R. Fulghum, All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten. London: Grafton Books.1990.
  3. Nosocomial is a term used in medicine to describe infections that are hospital based. Not unlike nosocomial infections, nosocomial behaviour emanate from the 'habilitative' environment. Aggression, stereo-typical behaviour, self injury and property destruction are not symptomatic of mental retardation, they are causal to environments where individuals have no control over their lives.
    T. Pomeranz, TASH Newsletter. Vol.20/11, 1993.
  4. Integration of a Small Number of Students with Intellectual Disabilities into Regular Schools In Line With Parent Choice, WA Education Department/Disability Services Commission Pilot Project Draft Guidelines, April, 1995.
  5. Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970; introduces us to the notion of paradigms as a framework of model problems and solutions shared by the dominant community of scientists etc.
  6. Professor Glen Vernon, Human Interaction, NY:Ronald Press, 1965, page 28. Also see David B Schwartz, Crossing the River: creating a conceptual revolution in community and disability. Brookline Books, 1992. Martin Luther King Jr, also speaks to this issue in I Have A Dream, compiled by Hocking, Grosses & Dunlin, NY,1968. He says...
    On Integration: "Harmonizing of peoples of vastly different cultural levels is complicated and frequently abrasive. Neither repression, massive resistance, nor aggressive violence will cast out the fear of integration; only love and goodwill can do that."
    On Values:     We have genuflected before the god of science only to find that it has given us the atomic bomb, producing fears and anxieties that science can never mitigate. We have worshipped the god of pleasure only to discover that thrills play out and sensations are short-lived. We have bowed before the god of money only to learn that there are such things as love and friendship that money cannot buy and that in a world of possible depressions, stockmarket crashes and bad business investments, money is a rather uncertain deity. These transitory gods are not able to save or bring happiness to the human heart.
  7. Professor Wolf Wolfensberger, The Origin and Nature of our Institutional Models. New York: Human Policy Press.pp 41-56.
  8. G Swan, Our Not- So- Noble Past. Australian Association Special Education Newsletter 2, 1992. In this brief article, Swan also reveals that the 1924 Perth Conference felt that, sub-normal children judged by expert officers to be non-educable should not be the care of the Education Department. Rather should be placed in charge of one of the sub branches of the Lunacy Department.
  9. Darrell Wills, Carolyn Carmen & Penny Robinson, Parents as Senior Partners: A Description of the Role Required for Quality Service. (In Press) First presented at the Australian Society Study Intellectual Disability Conference, Fremantle,1994. also see H. Benson and A Turrnbull, Approaching Families from an Individual Perspective in Education of Learners with Severe Handicaps edited by Horner, R; Meyer,L and Fredricks, H D.,Baltimore:Paul H Brooks, 1986, p127.
  10. John McKnight, The Professional Service Business. Social Policy, 8/3,1977, pp110-116.
  11. Sivasailam Thiagarajan, of the Center for Innovation in Teaching the Handicapped, in 'The History and Futurology of Programmed Instruction By Paraprofessionals.' Unpublished paper. Presented at the workshop on The Management and Training of Paraprofessional Personnel: Utah State University, 1975, p 19.
  12. see appendixes for the full responses of the participants.
  13. Prof. Peter Mittler gives the following definition in Working Together: Collaboration Among Professionals. National Conference Proceedings: Australian Association of Special Education, Launceston.1985.
    Transdisciplinary The transdisciplinary model is a further development of interdisciplinary work. Essentially, transdisiplinary work involves a deliberate blurring of traditional professional boundaries so that a member of one profession is carrying out tasks and roles which are normally regarded as the responsibility of another profession. In working with handicapped children, for example, distinctions between teaching, speech therapy and physiotherapy are to some extent broken down in the delivery of a single unified program.
  14. Below are a sampling of the plethora of programs incorporating transdisiplinary models using volunteers in paraprofessional roles:
    W.Cunninggim & D. Mulligan, D (eds) report that they provide leadership and support for about 6 million school volunteers in the United States in:
    Volunteers and Children With Special Needs. National School Volunteer Program Inc: Virginia :: 1979.
    S. Bluma, D. Shearer, A. Frohmanand & J. Hilliard: "Portage Guide To Early Education." CESA #12:Portage :: 1975.
    Roger Rees: Parents as Language Therapists. South Australian College of Advanced Education: Adelaide :: 1982.
    S. Thiagarajan: "The History and Futurology of Programmed Instruction By Paraprofessionals. Unpublished paper. Presented at the workshop on The Management and Training of Paraprofessional Personnel: Utah State University :: 1975.
    Jane Lawton and Darrell Wills: Parent Advocacy: An Untapped Source for Social Change in the 80's. Proceedings of the 8th National Conference of the Australian Association of Special Education: Brisbane :: 1983.
  15. D Wills, The Dilemma of Difference. Unpublished paper presented at Symposium on Health Care Issues Towards the Year 2000: The Social Dilemma. Fremantle Hospital, 1982.
  16. Darrell Wills, Carolyn Carmen & Penny Robinson, From Management to Partnership. Inclusion News, Vol 2 & 1, April :: 1995.
  17. Ian Evans et al, Peer Interactions and Social Acceptance of Elementary-Age Children with Severe Disabilities in an Inclusive School. JASH, 1992, Vol.17, No.4, 205-212.
  18. Mary Hanline, Inclusion of Preschoolers with Profound Disabilities: An Analysis of Children's Interactions, JASH, 1993, Vol.18, No.1, 28-35.
  19. Gordon Alport,  The Nature of Prejudice. Doubleday: New York,1958.pp.28-44.
  20. "Nosocomial Behavior" in: T. Pomeranz, op cit. also see Herbert Thelan, Classroom Grouping for Teachability, Wiley: NY, 1967.
  21. Hanline, op cit, pp.28-35.
  22. Glen Vernon, Human Interaction, Ronald Press, NY, 1965. pp262-273.
  23. Wolfensberger, The origin and nature...op cit, pp33-41.
  24. Carter Good (Ed), Dictionary of Education, McGraw-Hill, NY, p 331.
    The law of primacy states that anything learned first often creates such a strong impression as to be almost unshakable; for the teacher, this means that what s/he teaches must be right the first time.
  25. Lou Brown et al, A Vocational Follow-up evaluation of the 1984-1986 Madison Metropolitan School District graduates with severe intellectual disabilities. Monograph 2, TASH, 1987, pp 1-40.
  26. Vernon, op cit, pp109-110.
  27. Darrell Wills, A Small Window of Opportunity or Yet Another, "Shifting of the Deck Chairs". Inclusion News, Western Australia, April, 1995.
  28. Bureau for Disability Services, Review of Accommodation Services For People With Disabilities In Western Australia. BDS: Perth,1992.
  29. Lou Brown, forward in R.Horner, L. Meyer and Bud Fredricks (eds), Education of Learners with Severe Handicaps. Baltimore: Paul H Brooks:,1986, xi-xiii.
  30. P Wood, Cost of Services and Dollars for Independence. Closer Look, Fall,1980 in D Wills, The Dilemma of Difference. Symposium: Health Care Issues-Towards the Year 2000: The Social Dilemma. Fremantle.1982.
  31. D.Wills, Out of the Closet and Into the Classroom. Colloquium: International Conference on Direct Instruction: Perth, 1991.
  32. Carol Christensen, Social Justice and the Construct of Disability in Schools. Australian Association of Special Education Newsletter 3:1992, p 6.
  33. Ibid., pp 7-8.
  34. Carter Good, (ed.) Dictionary of Education. McGraw Hill: New York.1973 p 202.
  35. Gordon Alport, op cit, pp18-19.
  36. Lou Brown et al, The Home School: Why Students with Severe Intellectual Disabilities Must Attend the Schools of their Brothers, Sisters, Friends, and Neighbors. TASH, Vol 14, No 1, p3, 1989.
  37. Leslie Stevenson, Seven Theories of Human Nature. Oxford University Press: New York, 1974. pp.23-34.
  38. Susan C Hayes and Robert Hayes, Mental Retardation: Law, Policy and Administration. The Law Book Company: Sydney. 1982, pp 126.
  39. G. Alport, op.cit.
  40. G Swan, op cit.
  41. Professor Wolf Wolfensberger and Susan Thomas, PASSING:Program Analysis of Service Systems Implementation of Normalization Goals. Canada:NIMR,1983, pp161-199, 405-419.
  42. Wills, Carmen, Robinson, op.cit.
  43. Alport, op. cit., pp 9-10.
  44. Robert Perske, New Life in the Neighborhood: How Persons with Retardation or Other Disabilities Can Help Make a Good Community Better. Tennessee:Parthenon Press, p42.
  45. Wolf Wolfensberger, Bengt Nirje, Simon Olshansky, Robert Perske and Philip Roos, Normalization. Canada:NIMR 1972, p51.
  46. Robert Schnorr, "Peter? He comes and goes ...": First Graders' Perspectives on a Part-Time Mainstream Student.JASH, 1990, Vol 15,No. 4, 231-240.
  47. Alport, Op. cit, p.21.
  48. Raymond Lemay, Conceptualizing Residential Services:Wherefore the continuum?
    unpublished manuscript, presented at the OACAS Conference,Ottawa, 1993, p2,7-11.
  49. Professor Wolf Wolfensberger, in A Brief Introduction To Social Role Valorization As A High Order Concept For Structuring Human Services (rev. ed). Syracuse, NY: Training Institute For Human Service Planning, Leadership and Chance Agentry (Syracuse University) describes many of these risks. Professor Wolfensberger refers to them as "wounds" because of their almost knife-like, and painful implications.
  50. Good, op. cit.,Pp 331.
  51. D Wills, (1984) Integration: Facts and Fantasy. Colloquium: teachers at Mt Lawley College of Advanced Education. Perth, 1984.
  52. Gordon Alport, ,op cit, pp.37, 282-308.
  53. B. Hansford, The Teacher and Learning Difficulties, in W Simpkins and A Miller, (eds) Changing Education: Australian Viewpoints. McGraw-Hill: Sydney.1972.
  54. Inclusive Schooling: Creating Heterogeneous Schools. In Press, Preview reported in Tash Newsletter. Vol.19/10.1993, pp. 8-9.
  55. Alexander Graham Bell (1900) Personal letter to Mrs Pratt in Burton Blatt, Friendly Letters on the Correspondence of Helen Keller, Anne Sullivan and Alexander Graham Bell. Exceptional Children, Vol. 51, No.5, pp.405-409.1986.
  56. Inclusive Schooling, op. cit.
  57. Including Students With Disabilities in Regular Schools. Commonwealth Project of National Significance-Special Education, p viii, DEET, 1993.
  58. Wolfensberger, op. cit., The origin and nature...,p33-44.
  59. Good, op. cit., p 655.

 

 

Horizontal Line

Site Map | Contact | ©1993- in:press

Related Topics

 

You Need Flash Player