inclusive practices, but I also believe that schools alone cannot make it ..... iii '
Chateau de carte', French expression which literary means paper-made castle.
MA SEN/Mgr. (Special Education Needs) – Erasmus Mundus
Module Title: INCLUSION NETHERLAND
Module code: ERM015L004Y Essay Title:
Practice Makes Perfect Module Coordinator: Dr. Jacqueline van Swet
Submitted by Arfang Dabo
MODULE TITLE: INCLUSION NETHERLAND
ESSAY TITLE:
FOR ALL, BY ALL CONTENT: ABSTRACT
INTRDOCTION
1/ A LEADERSHIP THAT BELIEVES IN SHARING AND LEARNING
2/ A STAFF THAT COLLECTIVELY REFLECTS ON PRACTICE
3/ STUDENTS WHOSE CONTRIBUTION IS SOUGHT AND VALUED
4/ PARENTS WHOSE INVOLVEMENT IS DESIRED AND ACTIVE 5/ SCHOOLS THAT ARE ‘PLUGGED IN TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT’
CONCLUSION
FOR ALL, BY ALL ARFANG DABO Erasmus Mundus Master Student OSO Fontys Hogescholen van Tilburg, Netherlands
ABSTRACT In this article it is argued that an improvement of inclusive practice rests upon enlarging and improving the quality of participations of all the members of the school as a community. This implies the necessity for schools to move towards effective learning communities where everybody is committed to teach and learn from one another. The emphasis on the learning community has a certain number of implications. One implication is for schools to become places where administrators, staff and students value the contributions of all; where acceptance is unconditional; where segmentalism has broken down and power shared. Another implication is for schools to develop with students’ parents relationships which are not confrontational, but close and informal. Last but not least is the necessity for schools not to lose sight or contact with the communities they claim to serve.
INTRODUCTION This article principally focuses on the views according to which for all learners to learn better, the school should be moving towards an effective learning
community. It is meant to look at how schools can be more inclusive by constructing and developing a culture of a learning community. Our purpose is not to discuss how a professional learning community can be set up or implemented. The discussion, in this paper is centered in the necessity for involvement and for participation of all the different components of the school community from the management to the staff, let alone the students and their parents. First of all it is argued that the management plays a key role in the transformation of the school; a role of genuine leadership that will be instrumental in the move of the school towards a learning community. Secondly, I demonstrated that the staff should engage in continuous learning, for themselves and for the community, and sharing experiences in order to develop good inclusive practices. In the third part the necessity to seek and value students’ participation and contributions is advocated. The fourth part discusses parental involvement in school life and emphasizes the value schools have found in it. And finally, I suggest that it is essential that schools keep connected to their ‘external environment’. It is important that they seek to collaborate with all the partners, whether institutional organizations or isolated individuals, in order to move on and better meet the challenges of inclusion. It is, also, essential that the school facilitates the possibility for contributions from partners, immediate or remote, formal or informal. The views and effective contributions of all should be sought and valued. If the mission of the school remains to prepare the child to fit in the world, then it has to be where inclusion should be started, consolidated and modeled. The battle for inclusion is partly won or lost at the level of the school culture. Therefore, schools should not just be functional organizations; they should strive to become communities. For Macmurray (1958), their life as communities is even more important. He argues that community is ‘the first priority in education’. According to Dalin and Rust (1983), ‘the school itself must be a primary force or energy source for any genuine educational change’ (p. 1). I share the idea that schools can be transformed. They can learn and model good inclusive practices, but I also believe that schools alone cannot make it happen. The objective is not just to achieve inclusive schooling but to build an inclusive society. It is very important to bear in mind that education is just one area. Inclusion has to be done by all the community for all the community. Nevertheless, the involvement of all the community can only become a reality in the context of a learning school. A learning school sets out to construct a culture which encourages and promotes development of all its members; where staff are valued for their ideas rather than their status; where staff seek to support one another and learn from one another; where the views, the opinions and the contributions of the
learners are actively sought and valued. A learning school encourages and supports collective enquiry and mutual learning and promotes cross-cultural and crossinstitutional partnership. In such a context ownership and commitment are effective in so far as a system of values, beliefs and competences is collectively agreed and is constantly articulated, revised and reaffirmed.
A LEADERSHIP THAT BELIEVES IN SHARING AND LEARNING We share the view according to which in order to re-culture schools as inclusive learning communities, it is fundamental to start with the management. This view is eloquently illustrated by a Senegalese saying, according to which, ‘when the wind blows, if the taller grass bends, the smaller grass will follow’. In other words, it is of paramount importance that the head sets the good example. Heads should be the first committed to the principles guiding the community. I agree with Barr-Greenfield (1975) cited in Ball (1987) that ‘the task of the administrator is to bring people and organizations together in a fruitful and satisfying union’ (p. 4). This is to mean that it behooves to the managers of the schools, in their everyday activities, not only to ascertain the commitment of all school members, but also to connect their schools to the rest of the community. For a school to develop a culture of inclusion in which learning and sharing are permanently occurring, it is essential that the school management be strong, but collaborative, informed and intelligent. It has to have a view of leadership which is not related to position. In other words, leadership should be flexible and dispersed to open the school to new ideas and utilize the potentials of all. Burgess (1983) gives us an analysis of the role and self-conception of a principal, Mr Goddard, who believes that he has to take the lead in everything. ‘I became convinced that the more a head was about the more he led’ (p. 29). For this conception of leadership, the school head remains the main participant in the school; the indispensable person without whom nothing can be undertaken nor achieved. On the contrary, I believe that managers manage better when they manage less. Good managers can be recognized in the way they show readiness to share power of decisions, in the way they effectively give away a certain number of their responsibilities. According to Fullan (2002), ‘The role of leadership is to cause greater capacity in the organization in order to get better results’ (p. 65). A policy of decentralization and flat hierarchy should prevail in a school which claims to be an inclusive; groups should be given the responsibility to scrutinize ideas and make decisions within their sphere of action. The management of the school should be ready to recognize that in every sphere the expert knowledge is held by the people who are specialists in the field. Traditionally, the management was perceived as
occupying leadership positions and the teachers were viewed as executors. In a professional learning community, the managers are viewed as leaders of leaders. According to Hopkins (1987), ‘the key role of the school leader is not necessarily confined in the head but can also include heads of departments or any individual who assumes a leadership role within a specific context’ (p.65). However, it remains important for those given a portion of power not to be hermetic to external contribution. This is most of the time easier to say than to achieve. The problem is that schools, just like other social organizations, can be arenas of conflicts between members. Nevertheless, it is the role of the management to lead all members to the acceptance of diversity and deviant opinions bearing in mind that subversion can sometimes be the potential seedbed of innovation. In addition, I take it as essential for the leaders to understand the nature of actual and potential conflicts and develop a capacity of anticipating them if they want to construct a learning community. For the building of a learning community where every member teaches and learns from one another, it is important that the manager develops a sense of sharing, a norm of collegiality and of continuous learning within the community. One good strategy to make it happen is to set the example by shifting roles, running workshops, or attending inset sessions as a learner and not as an expert. Another strategy is, as a co-learner to model the level of learning expected from the school community. The role of the leader incorporates dilemmas and paradoxes; and Like Cherryholmes, in Hargreaves et al. (1998), I believe that leaders need ‘to have a clear vision and be open-minded; to take initiative and empower others; to expect results and be patient and persistent; to have a plan and be flexible; to use top-down and bottom-up strategies; to experience uncertainty and satisfaction’ (p.350).
A STAFF THAT COLLECTIVELY REFLECTS ON PRACTICE According to Van Houteni , ‘Dealing with differences requires special competences which can be partly mastered in advance’. However, we believe that ‘practice makes perfect’. Therefore, it is essential that teachers engage in activities that enable them to develop and share good inclusive practices. These good practices can hardly be improved within an environment deprived of a culture of learning and sharing. On the contrary, I agree with Vonk et al. (1987) that ‘a teacher’s professional development does not occur independently…’They argue that it depends not only on the teacher’s personality, but also, on the
environment in which the teacher is working (p 82). It is a fact that it behooves to the teachers to take active responsibility for the improvement of their practice. However, according to Midgley and Woods (1993), cited in Huffman and Hipp (2003), ‘teachers need an environment that values and supports hard work, the acceptance of challenging tasks, risk taking, and the promotion of growth’ (p.11). When the school is transformed into a learning community they fight better against the insidious ‘monsters’ of routine and isolation. What I am trying to say is teachers who work in school which have developed a culture of inclusion will be likely more ready to seek to improve their inclusive practice. Nevertheless, if they want to effective, they must continuously be trying to acquire more informed knowledge and better skills. In other words, they have to know about teaching and learning. ‘Learning is not something like chicken-pox, a childhood disease that makes you itch for a while, and then leaves you immune for the rest of your life…only when the schoolhouse becomes a context for adult development will it become hospitable to student development’. (Roland Barth, Conversation, 1996) Teaching and learning can be viewed as two halves of a single verb; nothing has been taught till it has been learnt. This to emphasize that it is essential that teachers engage into continuous learning for themselves, but also for their students. In addition, I agree with Sarason (1993) that teachers are expected to be totally devoted in the growth and development of their students (p 62). In the learning school, teachers do not ask ‘what is wrong with these children’ but rather try to find ‘what is wrong with the way we are tackling her or his problems’. They believe in reflection in order to revise and improve practice and knowledge and skills are continuously refined and enhanced for the school and the children. A learning school promotes the development of a culture within which teachers are also learners. It supports the building of strong links amongst teachers who learn, not only from each other, but also from all community members. For Stenhouse (1975), ‘the most effective schools are those where teachers see themselves as learners, where the children and the teacher learn something new each day.’ Fullan (1995) requires teachers to be ‘experts’, not only in teaching and learning, in ‘continuous learning for themselves’, but also, in ‘collaboration’. He argues that ‘teachers must be committed to, skilled at, and involved in (indeed helping to create) collaborative work cultures inside and outside the school’ (p 233). Therefore, the teacher’s field is not limited within the premises of the workplace. The teachers, to be effective, must also collaborate with all the community; they must be permanently committed to seeking and valuing the views of the parents and the other partners within or outside the framework of education. Additionally, in their quest for improved practice, teachers must be interested in research. This can be done in two ways. On the first hand, it is essential that teachers be attentive to educational research findings. Such an orientation will
inevitably help improve their knowledge of their subject and of their practice. It also will trigger some reflection not only on their beliefs and assumptions, but also on their everyday practice. On the second hand, teachers can bridge the gap between research and practice. How? By diving into the swimming-pool of educational inquiry. Nowadays action research is widely recognized as an efficient instrument to investigate and improve practice.
STUDENTS WHOSE CONTRIBUTION IS SOUGHT AND VALUED ‘To be both a child and disabled therefore conjoins characteristics which are doubly disadvantaged as far as having one’s voice heard is concerned’. Thomas et al In November 1989, The United Nations published The Convention on the Rights of the Child, recognizing and supporting, in particular in its article 12, the consultation of children on issues related to their interests and concerns. A few months earlier, Great Britain published The Children Act requiring ‘that due consideration is taken of the wishes and feelings of all children throughout any proceedings which may have a bearing upon their lives’ (R. Rose, 1998, p.96). The legislation has been reinforced with the Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Pupils with Special Educational Needs ii. The code asks the schools to involve pupils, not only in the decision making process, but also in implementing individual education plans.
In addition, it does not make sense if the inclusive school movement ignores the voice of the students. Common sense demands that if we really want to improve the students’ learning it becomes essential that, at least in parts, we take into consideration what they can tell us about the way we teach them. Any school which claims to develop a culture of inclusion will consider Fullan’s (1991) question ‘What would happen if we treated the student as someone whose opinion mattered…?’ In the process of building a more inclusive education one of the big challenges for the management and the teachers is to change the way they perceive the students. Reforming education will not lead to much, according to Sonia Nieto (1994), ‘if such changes are not accompanied by profound changes in how we as educators think about our students. One way to begin the process of changing school policies is to listen to students’ views about them…’ (pp.395-396). However, every time the consultation of students is introduced in a school, the teachers, as well as the management, can feel uneasy about students expressing their views on issues such as the teaching and the power relationships. They would even argue that the students have ‘little to say that is worth hearing about learning and teaching in the school’ (J. Rudduck, 1999). These are the very assumptions that cause the young people in the schools to be disengaged and develop a feeling that the system is excluding them. When students reach this point, it becomes very difficult to get them back on board. Consulting young people in schools must be perceived as a way of valuing them, showing them that they matter to the school and to the community. According to Houten, ‘even young children understand the concept and readily know whether they are included or not in social groups’. Therefore, the school should be a place where confidence is built in the students; where they are taught that the community sees them all as responsible, reasonable people who are able to play a valuable part as full members and who can enjoy the same rights as others. I share with Rudduck (1999), that ‘schools where pupils are consulted are likely to be places which have built a strong sense of inclusive membership, where differences among pupils are accepted, and where opportunities for dialogue and support are made available for pupils who find learning a struggle’.
PARENTS WHOSE INVOLVEMENT IS DESIRED AND ACTIVE The relationships between parents and professionals have, most of the time, been more confrontational than collaborative. Parents’ involvement has been perceived like an intrusion. The problem resides in the forms of cooperation that are established with the parents. The decisions ‘instead of resulting from the joint work of parents and professionals, are most frequently uncertain and unbalanced, with parents left outside of actions undertaken for the child’ ( Ebersold, 2003,p.104). In addition, the power differential between parents and professionals has represented a stumbling block preventing the former from expressing their views. The difficulty to articulate a constructive voice which could enable them to start partnership triggered them to form parents’ groups in order to act collectively, lobby and channel their views. The nature of the relationships has caused the parents to operate effectively as consumers. However, for Ball et al (1995) cited by Martin in Daniels (2000) those ‘parents of children experiencing difficulties in learning might be automatically positioned as less effective, less powerful consumers’. (p. 230) Moreover, Barnes (1999) cited in the same edition warns that such parents’ groups ‘can also be used to undermine the legitimacy of representations by constructing them as expressions of self-interest in the context of pressure group activity.’ (p. 237). In such a context, the question will always be whether the parents are activating for their own interests only, or whether their fight is for ‘common good’? For an effective positive contribution, parents’ groups should be ready to accommodate different identities and different interests and work for a healthy collaboration for the ‘common good’. Martin, J. (2000) emphasizes the necessity for this collaboration between parents and professional because ‘It has been acknowledged that parents play a key role in the education of their children with special educational needs’ (p. 2250. In many schools, parents are actively participating in various ways in the school life. Schools have been developing projects in order to promote parental involvement because they have found enormous value in it. Parents have been helping coach students who need extra work by giving them special assistance after class. For instance, some schools have appreciated parents’ contributions in developing the reading skills of their students. In some schools, parents are involved in the organizations of prizegiving ceremonies and other social functions such as excursions and carnivals.
Their intervention in classrooms is growing even though it raises some controversies. For example, De Carvalho (2001) does not ‘see existing school conditions for the implementation of a range of opportunities for all parents to help schools and further all children’s learning’. She even cannot ‘count on parents’ capability and willingness to become teachers of their own children within the frame of the school curriculum’ (p. 4). In the prologue of her book, Casanova (1996) is cited to ‘call for prudence’ and warns that parents should not be in competition with the teachers of their children (p. 3). However, new policies in education seek to reinforce the importance of a positive and effective relationship between schools, parents and authorities. This is to indicate that the time has come to part from the ‘confrontational relationships’ that has undermined the partnership between these groups, especially between schools and parents. Schools are more and more providing some training for parents. Joint training programmes (with management, teachers and parents) and joint research projects would be very instrumental in improving these relations for the good of the students. It is essential to remember that all efforts should be directed towards the improvement of the learning of all students. In the UK for example, the Green Paper (1997) encourages the involvement of parents in the education of their children. ‘We want all parents of children with SEN… to have a real say in decision making about their child’s education, and so to be empowered to contribute themselves to their child’s development’ (p.5). In addition, a Programme for Action initiated in 1998 to meet the challenges of special education needs, advocates ‘working with parents to achieve excellence for all’ children. It strengthens the conviction according to which parents play a vital role in the education of their children and demands schools and parents to strive for an ‘even greater partnership’. It is only in such circumstances, of ‘on-going commitment at all levels’, that real improvement can take place. Moreover, the Code of Practice (1994) reiterates that ‘children’s progress will be diminished if their parents are not seen as partners in the educational process’ (para 2. 28). For instance, deaf students’ parents must collaborate with the professionals in order to be able to understand and use sign language. Inclusion should be effective in the families otherwise its foundations will be shaky like a ‘chateau de carteiii’.
LAST BUT NOT LEAST: SCHOOLS THAT ARE PLUGGED INTO THEIR ENVIRONMENT Fullan (1993) argues that the learning school ‘must be dynamically plugged into its environment if it is to have any chance at all of surviving’ (p. 42). This is an issue of paramount importance which has to be incorporated as one of the fundamental objectives to be achieved if schools ambition to become inclusive. The environment
as a whole includes all organizations or communities that can be immediately or remotely connected to the school. Schools must be aware of their external contexts. When too ‘internally focused’, they sometimes happen to lose sight, or even close contact with the communities they claim to serve. Not only the neighboring community’s contribution should actively be sought, but also groups, such as former students can valuably participate in the development of the school. Local educational authorities are most of the time among the closest partners of schools, but, like with local political authorities, they would want to ‘have a long arm’ to control the schools while the latter are seeking more autonomy. They make the decisions, they have the power, the resources and the relationships therefore, it is essential that they be privileged partners in the community. They can provide for the educational, financial support the community needs to grow. Most of the support the schools in general and the special schools in particular, benefit from comes from charity and non-governmental organizations. They should not be relegated to the role of donors. On the contrary, they can be very instrumental in the development of the school when truly involved. It is true that this does not go without some dangers; prudence and diplomacy must prevail in handling such partnership. Voluntary movements and local associations (educational, cultural, sport etc.) constitute the sources the schools mostly resort to for volunteers as far as helping during lunch break and swimming sessions are concerned in special schools. In developing countries, like Senegal, these associations contribute a lot in keeping the schools clean and neat, especially after the rainy season. In addition, during schools’ events such as cultural days, they help organize competitions of sport or culture between students, or between the school and the community.
CONCLUSION In this article I have argued that for inclusive education to be effective, it remains essential that the school moves towards a learning community. A community that includes staff, administrators, students and their parents, and other partners who are committed to growth and ‘where learning is for everyone an attitude, as well as an activity, a way of life as well as a process’ (Sergiovanni, 1994, p.71). The move to learning communities incorporates many implications with respect to duties and responsibilities of every member of the community. One aspect of
paramount importance remains the way in which equality, freedom and development are perceived in the community. These principles condition one another reciprocally. Macmurray (1950) warns that ‘equality is a condition of freedom in human relations’. For him ‘if we do not treat one another as equals, we exclude freedom from the relationship.’ (p.74) A big issue about inclusion remains its implications. It is a fact that what is to be accomplished is not to revise around, and provide education for children with disabilities. The task is rather ‘to alter and transform the atmosphere and operations of the schools to which we commit them’. (Ryan, 1972, p.61) In the transformation of schools into inclusive communities, the management is expected to play the central role of modeling and empowering other members. This is corroborated by the belief that in the success of a professional learning community, the leadership of the school manager continues to be proclaimed as the key factor. ‘The challenge of our time is to reconstitute the conditions for a learning society in which all are empowered to develop and contribute their capacities.’ (Nixon et al, 1996, p. 12) The road to inclusion is paved with good intentions, but we must not overlook educational barriers. These can only be overcome if teachers together with all the other stakeholders, especially the special educators, psychologists, Para-educators and other support staff continuously share and revise practice. “We need one another to be ourselves. This complete and unlimited dependence of each of us upon the others is the central and crucial fact of personal existence.’ (Macmurray 1961, p. 211) It is true that students have been recently used as sources of data; especially their perspectives on the teachers’ work have been gathered in the drive of school improvement. However, the move should be more in helping them to be researchers themselves. This will be very instrumental in making their voice more significant. As far as students’ parents are concerned, it fundamental to bear in mind that they ‘send their children to be educated, not to be included’. (Hegarty, 2001, p 247) Involving parents should be more than just an open door policy. An open door is just the starting point. Their constructive partnership must be sought and desired. “All parties involved need to understand the role which they are expected to play, and need to have the confidence that their views will be fully considered and value.’ (R. Rose, 1998, p.109) If inclusion is to happen, it will be with the contributions of all. Schools are not entities apart from society, they exist because of society and their mission is to serve the community, to prepare the children for an effective participation in the community. Therefore, schools should be perceived as a capital phase in the
construction of an inclusive society. However, it a fact that schools alone cannot achieve inclusion. If we believe that inclusion is for all, then it must be done by all. ‘We are not where we want to be We are not where we are going to be But we are not where we were.’ Rosa Parksiv
NOTES 1
Van Houten Douwe, Education in a varied society, Speech at WOSO mini-conference in Amersfoort on January 24,2005 ii DfEE, 1994, para. 2: 37, p. 15 iii ‘Chateau de carte’, French expression which literary means paper-made castle. iv
Rosa Parks, Black American civil rights figure, cited in Huffman and Hipp (2003)
REFERENCES Ball, S. J. (1987) The Micro-Politics of The School: Towards a theory of school organization, London: Methuen & co. Burgess, R.G. (1983), Experiencing Comprehensive Education, London: Methuen Dalin, P. and V. Rust (1983) Can Schools Change?, Windsor: NFER-Nelson De Cravalho, M. P. E. (2001) Rethinking Family-School relations: A critique of Parental Involvement in Schooling, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates DfEE, (1994) Code of Practice in the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs, London: HMSO DfEE (1997) Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Education Needs, London: HMSO. DfEE (1998), Meeting Special Education Needs: A Programme for Action, London: HMSO Ebersold, S. (2003) ‘Inclusion and Mainstream Education: an equal cooperation system’, European journal of Special needs education, vol. 18, no. 1, 2003 Fullan, M. (1991), The New Meaning of Educational Change, New York: Teachers College Press Fullan, M. (1993) Change Forces, London: Falmer Press Fullan, M. (1995), The school as a learning organization: Distant Dreams, Theory into Practice 34 (4) Fullan, M. (2002) Leadership in a Culture of Change, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Great Britain Department of Health, (1998), The Children Act London: TSO
Hargreaves, A., A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, and D. Hopkins, eds. (1998) International Handbook of Educational Change: Part one, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers Hegarty, S. (2001) ‘Inclusive Education-a case to answer’ in Journal of Moral Education, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2001 Hopkins, D. (1987), Improving The Quality of Schooling, London: The Falmer Press Huffman, J. B. and Hipp, K. K. (2003) reculturing Schools as Professional Learning Communities, USA: ScarecrowEducation Macmurray, J. (1958), Learning to be Human, Moray House Annual Public Lecture, 5 May, 1958, unpublished Macmurray, J. (1961), Persons in Relation, London: Faber Macmurray, J. (1950), Conditions of Freedom, London: Faber Martin, J. (2000) ‘Parents’ Organizations: Single Interest or Common Good?’ In Special Education Re-formed: Beyond Rhetoric?, by Daniels, H., London and New York: Falmer Press. Nixon, J., J. Martin, P. Mckeown, and S. Ranson. (1996), Encouraging Learning: Towards a Theory of the Learning School, Buckingham: Open University Press. Rose, R. (1998) ‘Including Pupils: Developing a Partnership in Learning’, in Promoting Inclusive Practice by Tilstone et al (eds), London: Routeledge Rudduck, J. (1999) Consulting Young People in Schools , Ryan, W. (1972) Blaming the Victim, New York: Vintage Books Sarason, S. (1993) You are thinking of teaching, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Sergiovanni, T. (1994) Building Community in Schools, San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass United Nations. (1998), The convention on the Rights of the Child, Brussels: United Nations General Assembly Vonk, J.H.C. and G.A. Schras (1987) ‘From Beginning to Experienced Teacher’ in Teacher Education 3, SVO, `s-Gravenhage
NOTES i
Van Houten Douwe, Education in a varied society, Speech at WOSO mini-conference in Amersfoort on January 24,2005 ii DfEE, 1994, para. 2: 37, p. 15 iii ‘Chateau de carte’, French expression which literary means paper-made castle. iv Rosa Parks, Black American civil rights figure, cited in Huffman and Hipp (2003)
