Does rhetoric of Does rhetoric of inclusion really promote inclusion really promote

inclusive education?inclusive education?

Prof. Timo SaloviitaProf. Timo Saloviita

University of Jyvaskyla, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla,FinlandJyvaskyla,Finland

timo.saloviita@edu.jyu.fitimo.saloviita@edu.jyu.fi

Origins of the word Origins of the word ”inclusion””inclusion”

Integration of students with disabilities in Integration of students with disabilities in the regular classes was called for since the the regular classes was called for since the 60’ies e.g. in Canada.60’ies e.g. in Canada.

During the late 80’ies several writers in During the late 80’ies several writers in the USA began to speak for the education the USA began to speak for the education of of all studentsall students in the mainstream classes – in the mainstream classes – including the students with the most including the students with the most severe disabilities.severe disabilities.

This new policy statement needed a word This new policy statement needed a word of its own. of its own.

The word The word ”inclusion””inclusion” emerged in the late emerged in the late 80’ies to mean this new policy. 80’ies to mean this new policy.

Early definition of Early definition of ”inclusion””inclusion”

””Inclusion” was defined by Stainback Inclusion” was defined by Stainback & Stainback (1990) as & Stainback (1990) as 1.1.education of all students in the education of all students in the

mainstream (= every student is in mainstream (= every student is in regular classes)regular classes)

2.2.appropriate educational programs for appropriate educational programs for every studentevery student

3.3.everyone is accepted and supportedeveryone is accepted and supported

The adoption of the concept by The adoption of the concept by TASHTASH

The Association for Persons with The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH): Resolution Severe Handicaps (TASH): Resolution on Inclusive Education 1993on Inclusive Education 1993– ””students with disabilities belong in students with disabilities belong in

general education classrooms”general education classrooms” ””Supported Education Resolution” of Supported Education Resolution” of

TASH in 1988 used the terms TASH in 1988 used the terms ”supported education” and ”full ”supported education” and ”full integration”.integration”.

Rapid spread of the conceptRapid spread of the concept United Nations (1993). Standard Rules: United Nations (1993). Standard Rules:

– ””integrated education”integrated education” UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca StatementUNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement

– ””inclusive educationinclusive education, enrolling all children in regular , enrolling all children in regular schools, unless there are compelling reasons for doing schools, unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise”otherwise”

ILSMH (1995) – International parent’s association ILSMH (1995) – International parent’s association for persons with mental handicap: for persons with mental handicap: – ””We fully support the iWe fully support the inclusionnclusion of all children in regular of all children in regular

education” (TASH Newsletter, 21 (6). education” (TASH Newsletter, 21 (6). OECD (1997). OECD (1997). ”There is now a widespread belief ”There is now a widespread belief

that policies need to be developed to stimulate the that policies need to be developed to stimulate the inclusioninclusion of children and adults with disabilities in of children and adults with disabilities in the educational systems”.the educational systems”.

Inclusion and OECDInclusion and OECD CERI (The Centre for Educational Research CERI (The Centre for Educational Research

and Innovation)and Innovation)– seeks solutions and exchange views of seeks solutions and exchange views of

educational problems of common interesteducational problems of common interest Project: ”Active Life for Disabled Youth – Project: ”Active Life for Disabled Youth –

Integration in the School” (1990 - 1995)Integration in the School” (1990 - 1995)– identified practices with respect to integrationidentified practices with respect to integration– illustrated good practicesillustrated good practices– disseminated findingsdisseminated findings

The concept of ”inclusion” appears in the The concept of ”inclusion” appears in the end report in 1997, but not yet in its end report in 1997, but not yet in its companion report in 1995.companion report in 1995.

The initial refusal of the term The initial refusal of the term ”inclusion” in Finland ”inclusion” in Finland

National Board of Education (NBE) National Board of Education (NBE) published a large evaluation report on published a large evaluation report on special education in 1996 (609 pages)special education in 1996 (609 pages)– ””inclusion” was not mentionedinclusion” was not mentioned– UN Standard Rules - resolution (1993) or UN Standard Rules - resolution (1993) or

UNESCO Salamanca Statement (1994) UNESCO Salamanca Statement (1994) were not mentioned.were not mentioned.

Both the rhetorics and policy of Both the rhetorics and policy of ”inclusion” were supressed – they ”inclusion” were supressed – they were taboos.were taboos.

From taboo to bandwagonFrom taboo to bandwagon

During the years 1998-1999 the term During the years 1998-1999 the term ”inclusion” began to become popular.”inclusion” began to become popular.– It appeared in teachers’ in-service trainingIt appeared in teachers’ in-service training– Parents’ associations of intellectually disabled Parents’ associations of intellectually disabled

children became interested in it.children became interested in it. In 1999 The Association of Special In 1999 The Association of Special

Teachers changed their rhetorics: Teachers changed their rhetorics: – Statement:Statement: ”Towards a common school for all”. ”Towards a common school for all”.

National Board of Education actively began National Board of Education actively began to spread the term ”inclusion”.to spread the term ”inclusion”.

Conclusions IConclusions I

””Inclusion” was at first an undiscussable Inclusion” was at first an undiscussable issue (see: Argyris & Schön, 1996)issue (see: Argyris & Schön, 1996)

The taboo was broken when OECD The taboo was broken when OECD changed its rhetorics in 1997.changed its rhetorics in 1997.– State authorities (NBE) changed their own State authorities (NBE) changed their own

rhetorics after this.rhetorics after this. ””Inclusion” became an object of Inclusion” became an object of

curiosity and interest: curiosity and interest: ”what does it ”what does it mean?”mean?”

Did the policy change? Did the policy change? Percentage of students removed to special educationPercentage of students removed to special education

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Changes in policy?Changes in policy?

No changes in legislation that would No changes in legislation that would promote inclusion.promote inclusion.

Instead, removal of students into special Instead, removal of students into special education was made administratively education was made administratively more easy.more easy.

Ministry of Education: Development Plan of Ministry of Education: Development Plan of Education and Research (several issues)Education and Research (several issues)– focus on early detection of special needs and focus on early detection of special needs and

development of special educationdevelopment of special education– ””inclusion” or ”integration” not mentionedinclusion” or ”integration” not mentioned

Conclusions IIConclusions II

Finnish comprehensive school is moving Finnish comprehensive school is moving towards increasing segregation.towards increasing segregation.– placements in special classes are placements in special classes are

increasingincreasing This development is politically widely This development is politically widely

accepted.accepted.– no movement for ”inclusion”no movement for ”inclusion”

At the same time the rhetorics of At the same time the rhetorics of ”inclusion” has got wide popularity.”inclusion” has got wide popularity.

Conclusions IIIConclusions III

Originally, ”inclusion” was a sign that Originally, ”inclusion” was a sign that denoted radical policy of those who denoted radical policy of those who defended the rights of the most severely defended the rights of the most severely disabled persons to participate into disabled persons to participate into community life and regular classes.community life and regular classes.

When the term was adopted in Finland, it When the term was adopted in Finland, it rapidly lost its original meaning.rapidly lost its original meaning.

Today ”inclusion” in Finland means Today ”inclusion” in Finland means something vaguely positive – maybe it is something vaguely positive – maybe it is already something like a taboo to oppose already something like a taboo to oppose it.it.

Final conclusionsFinal conclusions The example of the term ”inclusion” shows The example of the term ”inclusion” shows

how radical terms which try to question the how radical terms which try to question the legitimacy of existing social order become legitimacy of existing social order become interpreted from the positions of the interpreted from the positions of the prevailing ideology. This way they are made prevailing ideology. This way they are made harmless.harmless.

If the terms are truly ”revolutionary”, they If the terms are truly ”revolutionary”, they are ignored.are ignored.

If they are adopted, they are If they are adopted, they are – either redefined so that their contents are lost.either redefined so that their contents are lost.– or the stated goal is decoupled from any action. or the stated goal is decoupled from any action.

ReferencesReferences Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1996). Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational Organizational

learning II.learning II. Readings: Addison-Wesley Readings: Addison-Wesley National Board of Education (1996). National Board of Education (1996). The State of The State of

Special EducationSpecial Education. (in Finnish). Helsinki: Author.. (in Finnish). Helsinki: Author. OECD (1995). OECD (1995). Integrating students with special Integrating students with special

needs into mainstream schools.needs into mainstream schools. OECD. OECD. OECD (1997). OECD (1997). Implementing inclusive education.Implementing inclusive education.

OECD.OECD. TASH (1994). TASH (1994). Resolution on Inclusive EducationResolution on Inclusive Education, ,

December 17, 1993. TASH Newsletter, 20 (2) 4-5. December 17, 1993. TASH Newsletter, 20 (2) 4-5. Stainback & Stainback (1990). Inclusive schooling. Stainback & Stainback (1990). Inclusive schooling.

In: Stainback & Stainback (Eds.) In: Stainback & Stainback (Eds.) Support networks Support networks for inclusive schooling.for inclusive schooling. Baltimore: Brookes. Baltimore: Brookes.