0705142        Nature of Inclusivity        

Nature of Inclusivity Assignment

The concept of ‘Inclusion’ within the educational systems continues to be a very complex and controversial issue. This complexity is due to the fact that it relates to educational, cultural and social values as well as medical diagnosis, legal rights and personal perspective or our own sense of individual worth. It is therefore not surprising that a definitive definition for the term ‘inclusion’ remains elusive, and whether inclusion is in fact suitable for all.  

There are two opposing views as to whether inclusive education is beneficial for all students within the classroom.  The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, states that a child must be educated in a mainstream school unless this is “incompatible” with parents’ wishes or interferes with other pupils’ education. Liberal Democrat education spokesman, Phil Willis (2005), stated:

… “thousands of children, who previously would have automatically gone to special schools, had been successfully educated with their peers in mainstream schools.”

He went on to say that he was saddened to hear more talk of compartmentalising our school children by forcing them into special schools.  Advocators for inclusion argue that ‘special schools’ are too discriminatory by their mere existence and create a segregated idealistic environment in which pupils’ disabilities or differences are more highlighted and their integration into society hampered.

Proponents in favour of special schools lack confidence that mainstream schools will offer the correct level of support needed by children with Special Educational Needs (SEN). Tory MP Michael Howard (2005) stated that because parents had a good understanding of how effective Special schools were for their children they had the right to fight to keep them open if they chose.  A view endorsed by the

Department for Education and Skills (DfES, Inclusive Schooling – Children with Special Educational Needs) (2002) who state:

… “parents had a right to a special school place if they wanted it, as mainstream education will not always be right for every child all of the time”.

Between these two extremes however, lie a large number of educators and parents who quite simply find the whole concept confusing. I too find a model explanation difficult to pinpoint exactly as many explanations have been cited which do address the issue with sensitivity and perceptiveness; however, I question whether they encompass the precise meaning of inclusivity and the essence of what it means to the individuals it is aiming to include due to financial limitations and restraints.

I agree with the aims and rationale of the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE) (1996) who believes that:

… “inclusive education is a human right, it’s good education and it makes good social sense”. (p 2)

This committee has adopted an approach that moves away from labelling students and suggests creating an appropriate educational environment for all, in which inclusive learning is promoted (1996):

… “By inclusive learning therefore we mean the greatest degree of match or fit between the individual learner’s requirements and the provision that is made for them”. (p 3)

These ideas make an excellent basis for addressing the issue, but we must ensure that the idea of inclusion is not confused with integration. Rieser (2002) defines integration as:

… “a matter of location, placing a disabled child in a mainstream setting, usually with some additional support to access what was being offered in the school, changing the child to fit in with the social and academic life of the school”. (p 132)

Join now!

In contrast his definition of inclusion (2002) is:

… “valuing all children irrespective of their type or degree of impairment, or reconstructing the institution to remove barriers so teaching and learning take place so all children can be valued for who they are, participate, interact and develop their potential”. (p 132)

I agree with the CSIE (1996) that,” inclusion is an ongoing process, not a fixed state”, and also with Oliver in Swain et al., (2004) who view "the social model of disability as a practical tool, not a theory". (p11)

Inclusivity is an ethos, which ...

This is a preview of the whole essay