Faculty of Education Cost of inclusion in education Dr Nidhi Singal

Faculty of Education

Cost of inclusion in educationDr Nidhi Singal


Regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most

effective measures of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating

welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving

education for all; moreover they provide an effective education to

the majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the

cost-effectiveness of the entire education system.

(Salamanca Statement, UNESCO 1994)


Very little research addressing cost-effectiveness of inclusion

• Lack of an operational definition

• Comparisons notoriously difficult

• Non-comparability of samples

Research concerning inclusion has limited validity

(OECD, 1990s)


Economic imperative…the necessity to balance needs and resources

• Generally agreed, inclusive settings are less expensive than segregated ones

• OECD (1995) segregated setting 7 to 9 times more expensive than mainstream

• Average expenditure on learners in special needs education institutions in South Africa is more than four times that of the corresponding investment in public schools (Wildeman & Nomdo, 2007 )

-


Heightened cost-effectiveness through inclusion, especially in the long term (McGregor & Vogels berg, 1998; Parrish, 2001)


Cost-benefit of inclusive education

• Better social and communication skills, wider social networks, fewer behaviour problems and higher academic achievement (Carlberg & Kavale, K. 1980; Baker et. al., 1995)

• Higher levels of academic achievement (Peterson and Hittie, 2002)

• Increased employment prospects (Woronov, 2000)


Not unequivocal support

• A Dutch study of 9-12 year olds with behavioural problems: more likely to face exclusion within school (Monchy et al., 2004)

• Farrell (2002) in a UK study noted children with SEN in mainstream benefit socially but at the expense of academic achievement

• Bullying of children with SEN (McLaughlin et al., 2010)


Effectiveness of inclusion best described as ‘marginally positive….although equally, there was little evidence of the superiority of special education’ (Lindsay, 2007)

-Level of support implied in the Salamanca Statement does not exist

•Methodological concerns

•Studies limited to developed economies


• Disability Education and Poverty Project (2005-2010)

• Young people who attended both special and mainstream reflected on their experiences and outcomes

• Special and mainstream valued by young people with disabilities, for different reasons

• Unpacking these are complex but essential

<http://recoup.educ.cam.ac.uk/>


Tensions in the literature

•Negative evidence reflects current limitations in practice, rather than challenging universal inclusion

•Central issue is of rights rather than evidence (thus it is irrelevant and not critical)

I propose…. issue of efficacy rests on empirical evidence, values are not open to evaluation

-need for a dual approach: rights of children and the effectiveness of their education


A few ???s

How successful and meaningful can a rationale for inclusive education, based solely on rights (and no evidence) be?

How successful have we been in the interpretation and implementation of inclusion, shaped by cultural-contextual realities?

How successful have we been in moving beyond merely focusing on inputs and location to a focus on experiences and outcomes?


Reflections…

• The cost of inaction is far too greater than the cost of inclusion

• While cost is a vital policy consideration, the greatest emphasis should be on experiences and outcomes

“Without data you are just another person with an opinion”


Thank you!

Documents

Faculty of Education Cost of inclusion in education Dr Nidhi Singal