Please Do Not Quote Without Author S Permission

Dr. philos Dóra S. Bjarnason

DRAFT

PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT AUTHOR’S PERMISSION

From the toolbox of theory: Which theoretical tools are useful for understanding inclusive practice in Icelandic schools?[1]

Abstract

Inclusion in school and society has beenthe law in Iceland since the early 1980's, and school inclusion isat the center of the national educational legal frame and policy. Diversity of the student population at all school levels isgrowing as the society gets more complex -- in theeconomic, social and cultural sense -- as globalisation affects all aspects of the formerly very homogeneous culture of the Icelanders.A research team at the Iceland University of Education has, in cooperation with parent and professional associations, conducted a comprehensive study of all Icelandic studentslabelled with intellectual disabilities in our school system – from preschool to upper-secondary school,in segregated and mainstream educational settings. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used. The findingsdemonstrate bothstrengths and weaknesses in inclusive schooling practice with regard to structural organization of schools, pedagogical practices, and the social relationships between disabled and non disabled learners. For example schools at different school levels vary in their ability to strengthen inclusive aspects of schooling and reduce or counteract exclusionary prosesses, depending on their structure, staffs' views on students with special educational needs,and on how firmly the schools and their staff believe in the ideas of "the normal" and "the deviant" as two distinct categories of students. The paper will outline some examples of our findings and discuss theoretical tools that assisted in the analysis and interpretations of the data.In addition to social constructionism, the interpretive approach and a social relational model of disability, Bourdieu’s notions of cultural and social capital and a post structuralist approach, and will be discussed in this context.

Introduction

Significant changes have occurred within Icelandic society in the last decades of the 20th century tied to globalisation and economic and social changes. Educational policy and practice have also undergone changes, including a commitment to inclusive education for all (see Johannesson 2006), but the schools still take reference from the idea of the “normal” (Marinósson 2002).

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how data from new research into the education of learners labelled with intellectual disabilities in general and special education schools and at all school levels can be interpreted. The paper draws on three different theoretical approaches as tools for the interpretation of qualitative and quantitative data from a study of educational conditions of all Icelandic learners with intellectual disability.

The paper is divided into four parts. It begins with brief definitions and explanation of what I understand by “disability” and “disability studies” and how that can be related to inclusive education in theory and practice. Second, it outlines a study carried out by a team of researchers lead by professor Marinósson at the IcelandicUniversity of Education into the schooling of all Icelandic students with intellectual disability. The study was initiated by a parent and professional association for people with disabilities called Throskahjalp. The study is henceforth referred to as the Throskahjálp Study (THS). Third, the main part of the paper will explore and discuss how one might make sense of the evidence from the THS study using tools from disability studies and social constructionism, Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural capital and social capital, and poststructuralism. It is argued that by applying these theoretical tools to the evidence, the research can provide better understanding and practical insights into the complexities of inclusive education as practiced within the modern Icelandic school system. Lastly the paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of applying these theoretical perspectives together and moves to a conclusion.

Words and perspectives

What are(social) disability studies?

The term disability, as used here,means neither a disease nor damage to the human body. On the contrary, it is a complicated and multidimensional socially constructed concept. The meaning given to "disability" and "difference" may vary considerably within a particular culture and its historic period (Kirkebæk, 1993), and between cultures (Ingstad and Whyte, 1995). Its meaning is thus related to forms of social organisations and domains in time and space. Asocial relational model of disability is applied in this paper (Bjarnason 2004. Tössebro 2002, Gabel 2001). From that perspective ”intellectual disability” is seen to be a social construct, relational, situational and relative.

Disability studies grow out of a paradigm that rejects the basic epistemology of positivist empiricism that objective facts can be clearly distinguished from values. By deconstructing the fact/value distinction of social phenomena we unravel the position that we humans create everything to do with how we structure our world, including our perspective on disability or educational practices. We do not discover that world based on objective facts (Ferguson and Ferguson 1992). Further, I agree with Gallagher who reminds us, that the way we understand disability as a social phenomena is a moral and not a scientific choice (Gallagher 2004).

Disability studies have a broad and diverse base in the practical experiences of disabled people, and in diverse academic fields such as history, sociology, cultural studies, literature theory, law, public policy, and ethics. As disability studies have taken shape in the last decades of the 20th century, the so called British “social model of disability” has been at its centre (Oliver 1990). Several theoretical stances can be located within a broad social model of disability and more are added each year(Gabel, 2001). Two such stances stand out: (1) the British social model is an emancipatory neo-marxist, structuralist materialist stance, that makes a distinction between impairment of the body and disability, the latter being seen as a social product (Oliver & Barnes, 1998; Shakespeare & Watson, 1995); and (2) a social constructionist approach that views all interpretations of bodily, intellectual or behaviour variations as a theory-laden, socio-cultural phenomena (see Bjarnason, 2004). Each of these two stances contains a variety of different theoretical perspectives and definitions (Altman 2001; Gabel 2001). What unites disability studies is thus neither one coherent academic field, nor a body of theory but the claim that the field and its work should be emancipating for and relevant to the practical interests and experiences of disabled people.

What is inclusive education?

Iceland adopted the vision of the Salamanca Statement and framework for Action on Special Educational Needs in 1994 (Salamanca yfirlýsing, 1995). It is characterised by humanistic and democratic values, child centred pedagogy, diversity as the norm, quality education for all children and on technical and administrative arrangements to deliver education according to the needs of individual learners (see Jóhannesson 2006). The terms inclusive schooling and inclusive education are anchored in the Salamanca Statement and vision. As an international policy document, the Salamanca statement provides a foundation for national and local education policy, along with other international and national education policy documents, but derives its practical meaning from relevant cultural context.

The term inclusive education is not easy to define. The term has been given a number of different meanings: As an alternative response to special needs in school or classroom; as a perspective representing a shift in paradigms within education; as a theory that research can be based upon; as an administrative educational and school system; and as a political aim or ideology, based on ethical values (Lunt and Norwich 1999). Inclusive education is probably most widely used as a descriptive concept due to its general adoption in education policies. Thus its meaning varies from one country and culture to another (see Vislie, 2003). Often in public talk it is used to express a moralistic vision and /or the placement of disabled learners in general education schools, sometimes also called integration (Jóhannesson 2006).

As a descriptor, the term is of little use to educational researchers. If applied critically (see Barton 1999,) and grounded in disability studies scholarship it becomes a powerful analytical tool (Allan 1999 and 2003). As such it lends itself to unpicking organisational structures and educational practices within our schools and educational systems that result in segregation, inequality and exclusion and to identifying inclusive pedagogical practices and organisational structures (Skidmore 1996, Ainscow 1995, Tetler 2000, Marinósson 2002).

A useful way of thinking about inclusive education impacting real changes and affecting the education and democratic participation of each and every learner is captured by Dianne Ferguson’s definition of inclusive education as:

“a process meshing together general and special education reform initiatives and strategies in order to achieve a unified system of public education that incorporates all children and youth as active, fully participating members of the school community; that views diversity as the norm; and that maintains a high quality education for each student by assuring meaningful curricular, effective teaching, and necessary support” (Ferguson 2006).

The term refers to educational processes and goals. The processes are both inclusive and exclusionary, embedded in the organization of schools and school cultures, affecting all learners and the school community of staff and students. Inclusive education in this sense calls for teaching and learning in mixed ability, heterogeneous student groups, and for systemic change at the administrative level(see Booth and Ainscow, 2002).

The THS Study

Schooling is compulsory for all Icelandic children from the age of 6-16. Most children attend preschool for 3-5 years before entering school. Preschool is non-compulsory but the preschool level is formally a part of the educational system. Upper secondary education is also non-compulsory but most students chose to continue their schooling for up to 4 years. All these schools are by law ( lög um leikskóla 1994, lög um grunnskóla 1995, lög um framhaldsskóla 1996) expected to include learners with intellectual disabilities. Disabled students are placed in general classes at the preschool and mostly at the early compulsory school level, but as more academic subjects are introduced, there is a tendency to move learners with special needs out of the general classroom learning environment either part time or full time (Marinósson 2002). Many general education schools at the compulsory school level use resource rooms and a few special units remain at the compulsory education level. Three special schools are in the compulsory education system, two for children with significant intellectual or multi disabilities and one for learners diagnosed with behavioural problems. At the upper secondary school level special classes are opperated for students with intellectual disabilities, but many of those students also make some use of the general classes, school facilities and student community events.

A research team at the Iceland University of Education has from 2002 to 2006 in cooperation with a parent- and professional association, conducted a comprehensive study of all Icelandic studentslabelled with intellectual disabilities in our school system -- from preschool to upper-secondary school,in segregated and general educational settings. The team was asked to: (1) Inquire into parents’, staffs’ and principals’ attitudes and expectations concerning learning and social participation of students with intellectual disabilities in classrooms and school communities; (2) to study how learners with intellectual disability are admitted to schools; (3). how their education is structured and where they are taught; and (4) how relevant information was shared between important players within their learning environment including between home and school.

The broad purpose of the THS study is to gain better understanding of how current educational policy is carried out with regard to these learners and to identify how the government, local municipalities and schools can work for improved inclusion and reduced exclusion of this group of learners from general education schools and school communities.

Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to collect the data.The qualitative part of the study (part A.) entailed observations, interviews with staff and some parents, and document analysis in eight schools -- two schools at each school level from preschool to upper secondary and two special schools. This part was carried out in order to gain a deeper understanding of how parents and professionals perceive the education and social participation of learners with intellectual disabilities, and of the schools as workplaces for disasbled learners and staff. Reports were written and these were then used to generate questions for the quantitative research phase.

Some of the findings that emerged from the qualitative part of the study (Part A.) are summarised as follows:

Exclusionary processes and hindrances on the road to inclusive education were:

• A belief in specialists and an emphasis on ”what is wrong” with the child.
• An unclear understanding of key ideas (e.g. what is disability).
• Parents do not participate in the school work and school community.
• The idea that a school is a normal place.

Inclusive processes supporting inclusive education:

• Learners with intellectual disabilities are welcomed in most schools
• Teachers are willing to support the learning and advancement of their students
• A high teacher and disabled student ratio.
• The school culture is generally based on care and support for its learners.

Dilemmas and problems.

• The group of learners with intellectual disabilities is not specifically identified in schools (see lög um leikskóla 1994, lög um grunnskóla 1995)
• The implementation of the inclusive educational policy is contradictory.
• Parents and school staff have different understandings of both policy and practice.
• The gap between students with intellectual disability and general students gets wider with age.

The research team also found that the parents legal right to chose a school for their disabled child is not honoured by all schools. Many parents have to struggle to get their child’s special needs acknowledged. Finances and other resources for learners with special needs were uneavenly distributed. The schools have problems with supporting social interaction between labeled and non labeled learners, and often without realising it, actively hinder such interaction through the structuring of teaching and learning and of social events. Teachers plan and teach but the teacher aides spend the most time with the disabled students. Finally, parents have little influence in the schools.

These findings are no suprise to scholars in the area of inclusive education. Similar strengths and weeknesses of inclusive school practice and structures are well documented in the international reserch literature ( See for example Vislie, 2003). However the qualitative approach gave the researchers a clearer understanding of the perspectives of key staff working with students with intellectual disabilities in schools, those of some of their parents, and of the working conditions of disabled learners and their teachers and helpers in our schools. The evidence informed the design of the quantitative part (part B ) of the THS study. The main questions for that part were:

• How many students with intellectual disability are there in the Icelandic schools and how are they distributed between school levels?
• What characterises the education they are given; in what settings are they taught and is their teaching and learning structured?
• How well do educational policy and practice coincide? How does the practice in different schools compare and how does practice compare for schools at different school levels? How can differences between policy and practice, and within practice from one school or school level to another be explained?
• What makes effective education for learners with intellectual disability in general schools?

Questionaires were developed and in 2005 these were sent out to all general education schools in Iceland that included learners with intellectual disabilities; from preschool to the upper secondary school level. Questionaires were also sent to two special schools, and to 650 parents of children and youth with intellectual disabilities who had previously expressed their willingness to participate in the study. Principals, teachers and staff working directly with learners with intellectual disabilities were asked to answer the questionaires sent to the schools[2].

This part, part B of the THS study provided a sea of data to be analyzed and interpreted. For the quantitative data analysis we created tables with detailed information about ”factual” answers comparing and contrasting them within and between categories of schools, staff, and parents.

The part B data provides unique information about attitudes and practices related to the education of learners with intellectual disabilities in the Icelandic educational system. It highlightscertain strengths and weaknesses both in the segregated special education facilities and in the inclusive schooling practice -- for example,on structural factors of schools, pedagogical practices, and the social relationships (or rather the lack of such relationships) between older disabled and non disabled learners. The evidence suggests that schools at different school levels vary in their ability to strengthen inclusive aspects of schooling and in diminishing or counteracting exclusionary processes, depending on their structure, staffs' views on students with special educational needs,and how firmly the school staff believe in the ideas of "the normal" and "the deviant" as two distinct categories of students.The evidence also points to the fact that the gap widens socially between disabled and non disabled students withage and more academic emphasis at the upper levels of schools. Again little of the data based on the survey surprised us, except maybe how very different the parents’ perspectives and the school staffs’ perspectives were on what went on in the schools and how the social and educational needs of the intellectually disabled learners were met there.