Notions of race, gender and disability have significantly informed the development of social policy and of welfare and educational practices. Critically Discuss
To critically discuss the way in which notions of disability influence the development of policy and practice the social construction of difference and disability will be examined looking then specifically at the ideas underpinning the medical and social model of disability. To understand how these notions influence policy it is important to understand why social policies target disabled people. Power is argued to be an essential concept in understanding how notions of disability are constructed and subsequently influence the development of policy and practice.
The development of education policy will then be examined due to the broad scope of the question, analysing the assumptions about disability underlying the intended outcomes. This will be contrasted with the impact of policies in practice. It will be argued that the medical model of disability has lead to a strong focus upon impairment resulting in segregatory educational policy and practice. Although the social model presents a powerful challenge to this and is echoed in current education policy on inclusion, it will be argued that practice is still heavily underpinned by the medical model. This will be demonstrated by looking at the development of policy influenced by integration and then inclusion. Inclusion, however, has not been realised and it is argued this is a result of the education system still being heavily underpinned by the medical model of disability. This is reflected in LEAs continual allocation of special school placements, teaching practices and is further perpetuated by league tables, resulting in further discrimination against disabled children. After critically discussing these issues a conclusion will be drawn and discussed.
Notions of disability are the ideas and beliefs which constitute our understanding and reaction to its occurrence. Saraga and Clarke (2006) argue that the way in which difference is constructed and the meaning given to this pattern of difference is the basis of how social policies are formulated and implemented. This suggests that the way in which disability is defined then has consequences for how it is to be acted upon in the creation of policy and practice. The perceived location of the 'problem' of disability has a powerful impact on the nature of interventions. If disability is constructed as an individual problem, policies will seek to target the individual whereas if constructed as a social issue, policies will target the social and environmental structures believed to be causing the problem (Saraga and Clarke, 2006).
Locating disability within the individual, the essence of the medical model is to stimulate change within the person by way of treatment, therapy and cure, with the aim being to restore as close to 'normal' functioning as possible (Drake, 1999). In other words, the disabled person is changed to fit into a society designed and built by able bodied people for able bodied people (Oliver, 1996). Associated with this notion is deviance from 'normal' leading to exclusion either through fear or with the aim of 'protecting' or providing specialist provision (Kenworthy and Whittaker, 2000). As a result of this notion, disabled people are constructed as a burden, dependent and vulnerable. Segregative policies and practices are the result of this notion of disability (Oliver, 1990).
The growing consciousness of disabled people and the notion that disability is socially created presents a powerful challenge to the medical model of disability and resulting interventions. It is argued that "the quality of life enjoyed by disabled citizens is determined by a society's reaction to impairment" (Williams, 1995 cited in Dwyer, 2004:115). From this perspective it is the failure of social structures to accommodate the needs of people with impairments which policy interventions need to target (Hahn, 1986 cited in Dwyer, 2004). Although there has been recognition of the validity of the social model of disability, influencing policy approaches, in practice medical model of disability is so deeply embedded in society that such notions have become 'common sense' and hard to shift (Oliver, 1990).
Another important dimension to consider is why disability has been defined the way it has in policy and how such notions have become 'common sense'. Using the concept of power Gramsci's 'Doctrine of Hegemony' puts forward the idea that "the ascendancy of a class or group rests on its ability to translate its own world view into a pervasive dominant ethos" (Drake, 1999:14). As there are more non disabled people than disabled people, this makes disabled people the minority. Oliver (1996) notes that disabled people are often excluded from the political process and positions of power meaning they ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Another important dimension to consider is why disability has been defined the way it has in policy and how such notions have become 'common sense'. Using the concept of power Gramsci's 'Doctrine of Hegemony' puts forward the idea that "the ascendancy of a class or group rests on its ability to translate its own world view into a pervasive dominant ethos" (Drake, 1999:14). As there are more non disabled people than disabled people, this makes disabled people the minority. Oliver (1996) notes that disabled people are often excluded from the political process and positions of power meaning they are unable to translate their 'world view' into the dominant ethos. The Disability Rights Movement argues against this, which is encapsulated in the slogan 'nothing about us without us', advocating for a shift in the balance of power from professionals to disabled people (Charlton, 2000). This illustrates how the medical model has been able to heavily influence the understanding of disability and consequently influence policy and practice.
It is important to distinguish policy from practice as when analysing education policy, it appears to more recently have been informed by the social model of disability, recognising that social structures and discriminatory attitudes disable people and prevent disabled children from enjoying an education equivalent to their non disabled peers (Oliver, 2003). Practice however has been inconsistent and at odds with the policy. Loopholes in legislation exploited in practice and the unwritten codes that guide and shape professional practice often leads to a significant deviance from the intended policy outcome. It is important to also consider the impact of conflicting policy aims such as raising school standards and containing resources.
The Education Act (1944) was initially seen as a key way to enable integration and end segregation. In practice however, the act set up a huge infrastructure of special schools in which the majority of disabled children have and continue to be educated in (Walsh et al, 2000). The notion of integration is underpinned by the medical model of disability, as the child is expected to fit into the current mainstream system. The special school system is also inherently based upon the medical model of disability and underpinned by the idea of 'special educational needs', which locates the difficulties within the child and their deviance from 'normal' (Oliver & Barnes, 1998). This is justified by claims of 'special treatment' in a 'safe environment' (Kenworthy & Whittaker, 2000:219). Despite the passage of further Education Acts, this trend has not been reversed and is argued to be the key element of the social oppression of disabled people (Oliver & Barnes, 1998).
The Education Act (1981) attempted to shift the power from the medical profession, changing the terminology and categories on which 'Special Education' was previously based. However, Cohen (1985) argues that "although the language has changed, the same groups of professionals are doing the same things to the same groups of children as they were before integration was ever mentioned (cited in Oliver, 1996: p84). Although the Act supported integration, in practice there was no extra money pledged and it was upon the condition that it shouldn't adversely affect the education of other children (Oliver, 1996). The notion that other children's education would be adversely affected by the presence of disabled children, can be attributed to the medical model of disability as it is the child's behaviour or impairment, which is seen to be the problem. This notion is intensified by professional concerns that children unable to conform to school rules and norms, would be too demanding for teachers taking their time away from other children (Davis, 2004: Kenworthy & Whittaker, 1990: Dorval, 1982). Kenworthy and Whittaker (1990) argue that this intolerance is the root of educational policy and practice and the reason why disabled children have been categorised, segregated and ultimately excluded from mainstream society.
The Act also failed to alter the segregative structures and practices by providing a major loophole in the legislation. Under the Act, Local Education Authorities (LEAs) have a duty to match provision to the assessed need of the child, however, in practice this has become predominantly resource lead. The act is flawed as it allows LEAs to discriminate if this would involve 'unreasonable public expenditure', which research shows has been exploited (Kenworthy & Whittaker, 2000). Educational psychologists have complained that assessments of needs have become more tailored towards the provision currently available making them resource not needs led (Oliver & Barnes: Kenworthy & Whittaker, 2000). This illustrates further forces such as financial constraints impinging on education policy and practice. A somewhat controversial explanation for this is argued by (Baron, 1998) using human capital theory. An educated workforce is the key to the states economic success but disabled people are perceived of lesser value in terms of contribution to the economy. This makes them unworthy candidates for resources that could see greater gains spent elsewhere.
Bringing inclusion to the fore are a number of United Nations policies, making clear the right of all children to be valued and treated equally within the mainstream system such as the UN convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the UNESCO Salamanca Statement (1994). In line with this, the green paper 'Excellence for all children' (1997) stressed that all children with special educational needs should be educated in mainstream schools, however on closer scrutiny of the policy, the words 'where possible' allow the same loopholes and barriers to inclusion as the previous education act (Burden, 2000). Though the language of policy has changed, in reality disabled children and young people still lack the right to the same education as non disabled children and young people (Oliver, 2003). On the other hand however, there are arguments against inclusive education. Although these arguments come from a multitude of angles, it is particularly poignant to consider the argument of young disabled people against inclusion.
Research highlights concerns about access and resources, patronising teaching staff, bullying and the pace of the work in mainstream schools. These concerns, mostly as a result of the negative experiences of the group in mainstream school, highlight the inherent problems in the current education system (Pitt and Curtin, 2004: Norwich and Kelly, 2004: Hemmingston, 2002.) This suggests that it is still the disabled child or young person, who is expected to change to fit into the current education system, rather than the system being changed to accommodate them, meaning integration is taking place not inclusion. This demonstrates the medical model again influencing practice.
A further issue brought up by research is the need for choice, as there were perceived advantages and disadvantages of each type of schooling. What becomes clear is that the choice of being educated in a special school is based upon the lesser of two evils (Pitt and Curtin, 2004). An explanation for this can be offered by Luke (1974 cited in Drake, 1999) who argues that people's perceptions can be shaped by the power of social constructions, resulting in them passively accepting their role as they can't imagine an alternative. This 'constructed social reality' is then seen as natural and unchangeable, and can even be seen as beneficial by some, which is illustrated perfectly by Pitt and Curtin's study (2000). If the mainstream school system was accessible and if attitudes within did not discriminate, then the students would have possibly given greater consideration to mainstream education.
Inclusive practice is also hindered by the pressures league tables place on schools resulting in competition. The Education Reform Act 1988 introduced market forces to education and the theme of raising standards in education continues and features heavily in current New Labour education policy (David, 2003). Parents naturally and understandably want the best education for their children and will gravitate towards the best performing schools. The level of funding for schools are dependant upon student numbers, so schools need to attract parents by having higher scores, as the higher the scores are, the more attractive the school. This affects the selection of children accepted and disabled children are commonly rejected (Drake, 1999). The co-existence of league tables and inclusive agendas present a dilemma for schools, where in practice they have to make a choice between these objectives, which are complex and contradictory in nature (Ainscow et al, 2006).
In conclusion, our understanding has changed over time from disability being an individual problem, to a problem social in nature, which shows disability is a fluid and changing concept and ultimately a social construction. An issue arising from this is the lack of power held by disabled people in defining disability and shaping the policy and practice affecting their lives, although this is beginning to change.
The issues highlighted in the discussion all demonstrate why and how notions of disability inform the development of education policy and practice. Although policy aims have been influenced by the social model of disability, this is yet to filter down to the level of practice. The competitive, individualistic nature of education and the inability of schools to change as a culture, to accommodate all children regardless of need appear to be major barriers to inclusion, despite the change in our understanding of disability. Full inclusion would demand major changes in society and not just within the education system (Swain & French, 2004).
References
Ainscow, M et al (2006) Improving Schools: Developing Inclusion, Oxon: Routledge
Baron, S et al (1998) The Best Burgers? The Person with Learning Difficulties as Worker in Shakesphere, T (Ed) The Disability Reader, New York: Continuum Books
Borsay, A (2005) Disability and Social Policy in Britain since 1750: A History of Exclusion, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan
Burden, R (2000) 'A Survey into Mainstream Teachers' Attitudes Towards the Inclusion of Children with Special Educational Needs in the Ordinary School in one Local Education Authority'. Educational Psychology, 20,2 pp193-210 [Accessed 12/12/2009] Available at: http://www.enothe.hva.nl/projects/tuning/fpypdee/curriculum/docs/a_survey_of_mainstream_teachers
Charlton, J (2000) Nothing about us without us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment, London: University of California Press
David, M (2003) Education in Alcock, P et al (Eds) The Students Companion to Social Policy, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Davis, J (2004) Disability and Childhood: Deconstructing the Stereotypes in French, S and Swain, J (Eds) Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments 2nd ed, London: Sage
Dorval, B at al (1982) 'Teacher interaction with learning disabled children and average achievers'. Journal of Paediatric Psychology. 7, 3 pp317-330 [Accessed 12/12/2009] Available at: http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/7/3/317
Drake, R (1999) Understanding Disability Policies, London: Macmillan
Dwyer, P (2004) Understanding Social Citizenship: Themes and Perpectives for Policy and Practice, Bristol: Policy Press
French, S and Swain, J (2004) Controlling Inclusion in Education: Young Disabled Peoples Perspectives in French, S and Swain, J (Eds) Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments .2nd ed, London: Sage
Hemmingson, H and Borell, L (2002) 'Environmental Barriers in Mainstream Schools' Child: Care, Health and Development. 28, 1 pp57-63 [Accessed 12/12/2009] Available at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120188247
Kenworthy, J and Whittaker, J (2000) 'Anything to Declare? The struggle for inclusive education and Children's Rights'. Disability and Society, 15, 2 pp219-231 [Accessed 12/12/2009] Available at: http:dx.doi.org/10.1080
Norwich, B and Kelly, N (2004) 'Pupils' Views on Inclusion: Moderate Learning Difficulties and Bullying in Mainstream and Special Schools' British Educational Research Journal, 30, 1 pp. 43-65 [Accessed 12/12/2009] Available at: www.jstor.org/stable/1502203
Oliver, M (2003) Disabled People in Alcock, P et al (Eds) The Students Companion to Social Policy, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Oliver, M (1996) Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice, London: Macmillan
Oliver, M and Barnes, C (1998) Disabled People and Social Policy, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd
Oliver, M (1990) The Politics of Disablement, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan
Pitt, V and Curtin, M (2004) 'Integration versus Segregation: The experiences of a group of students moving from mainstream school into special needs further education'. Disability and Society, 19, 4 pp387-401. [Accessed 12/12/2009] Available at: http//dx.doi.org/10.1080
Walsh, M et al (2000) Social Policy and Welfare, Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd
@00211029 - 1 -