Why Education For All has to be

Inclusive Education?

Conference on Inclusive Education

for Children with Disabilities

Moscow, 27-29 September 2011

Dr. Elina Lehtomäki

Why not inclusive education?

Who asks the question why? The important stakeholders:

Parents or caregivers

Health care, social welfare and rehabilitation professionals

Teachers, school leadership, school boards and parent teacher associations

Education, health and social welfare authorities

National and federal decion-makers

Organizations of persons with disabilities and

adults with disabilities

Civil society organizations

European Disability Forum: ”Less talk, more action”

Persons with disabilities have two times less opportunities for studying.– 9% go to university (comp. 18% of all Europeans)

Persons with disabilities are more than twice less likely to find a job.– 29% have a job (comp. 69% of all Europeans)

62% of Europeans with disabilities are among the poorest persons in Europe, with significantly lower income.

Families, parents and caregivers of disabled children, particularly mothers are sensitive, feel and share the social stigma often attached to impairment and disability.

Actions of parents depend on available possibilities and

resources:

1) Search for opportunities and advocacy for their child’s right to education among other children

2) Following instructions given by professionals and service providers

3) Hiding the child or protecting the whole family from the social stigma.

Inclusive education supports parents and families:

Positive recognition of diversity without stigmatization and discrimination helps families and parents to understand their child’s capabilities and needs, and to confront social stigma.

Collaboration between schools and families may contribute to changing attitudes in community.

Emphasising the child’s capabilities increase functionality of the whole family.

Strengthening early social inclusion and family ties reduces risks of later social marginalization, exclusion and poverty.

For parents education opens the door to their child’s future

Health care, social welfare and rehabilitation professionals

The limited biological and medical understanding of impairments and disabilities and the focus on diagnosis still dominate definitions of impairments and moreover, capabilities to learn and decisions concerning educational placements.

Inclusive education requires multiprofessional collaboration

Multiprofessional collaboration broadens our understanding of impairments and knowledge about the child’s capabilities and functionings.

Diagnosis is not ignored but focus is on the child with her/his capabilities and aptitude for learning.

Finding solutions to enable learning and maximize capabilities are essential.

Inclusive education focuses on the child’s capabilities by

Encouraging improvements and learning

Observing and addressing challenges

Enabling active participation in all activities.

Teachers, school leadership, school boards and parent

teacher associations…

…find it difficult to combine efficiency, equity and disability-responsiveness, because they:

Work according to efficiency and efficacy criteria set by education policies, national and federal decision-making.

Focus on short-term outputs without seeing long-term and lifelong outcomes.

Have little possibilities to influence policies, strategies and programmes.

Socio-economic justifications:

Inclusive schools may reduce some costs (e.g. travel, boarding) but increase other ones (e.g. assistive devices, accommodations in buildings). However, there is evidence of long-term returns and social inclusion.

Schools and education may show the way, maintain or change traditions, practices and values in society.

National and federal (education) authorities

Often design services for children and persons with disabilities on the basis of a limited view on impairments, generalizations concerning capabilities and assumptions.

Tend to protect themselves and society from diversity.

Find responding to diversity among learners too challenging, beyond their capacity.

Choose short-term outputs by excluding and marginalizing, instead of long-term benefits.

According to international comparison the key factors of good quality education are:

1) selection of teacher trainees

2) teachers’ education (pre-service, in-service)

3) one education system providing for all

Why do we ask? Because we have no…

Obligations to accommodate schools and teaching.

Expectations that children with disabilities learn as others do or to have children with disabilities in ordinary classes and schools.

Shared experiences and good examples among parents, teachers, school leadership and decision-makers.

…we ask, because we have no sufficient…

Assessment and evaluation mechanisms that encourage including children with disabilities.

Number of professionals with knowledge and skills to teach children with disabilities.

Experience of sharing knowledge and skills among teachers and other professionals.

Targeted funding.

Sanctions!

An example of how advocacy, obligations, targeted funding and sanctions make a significant difference, the case of making higher education disability-responsive in the Nordic countries:

(Lehtomäki, Puupponen & Tuomi 2011)

Country Norms / obligations concerning accessibility and equity of HE

National coordination for support and monitoring

Students

Denmark Inclusive education, accessibility and equity are principles of the whole Education system, including HE.

Danish School of Education, Aarhus University.

In 2010 approx. 1400 students were supported.

Finland A new anti-discrimination law is under discussion.

No. National network for for HEIs (ESOK.fi)

A growing number.

Iceland New rules and regulations under development, following the UN Convention.

University of Iceland.

A growing number.

Norway The Universities and University Colleges Act amended. Govt plan: ”Norway universally designed by 2025”. A new anti-discrimination act prepared.

Norwegian University of Science andTechnology (NTNU)

Statistics are based on needs for adjustments in the learning environment.

Sweden University-level strategies are required and financial support provided accordingly. A new anti-discrimination act is under discussion.

Stockholm University

A total of 7 445 in 2009. Annual statistics are based on disability + needs for support.

21

Conclusions (1/3): Why Inclusive Education?

Inclusive education has the potential to improve the situation of persons with disabilities in long-term.

Investments in early interventions and support measures have long-term influence on learning outcomes, later in life and social inclusion.

Conclusions (2/3):

Education systems that succeed to provide good quality education for all are also more efficient and cost-effective.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities states clearly that education is to be inclusive. It calls for international partnerships to assist education systems and provisions in reaching all children and persons with disabilities.

Conclusions continued (3/3)

Rights-based approach sets goals but changes in education systems require obligations, incentives and sanctions.

Globally, persons with disabilities are under-represented in all levels of education, starting from planning and decision-making to monitoring, assessment and evaluation.

Stakeholder dialogue is promoted by new approaches that bridge practice, research and policy.

- When I grow up, I will be…!- What will you study to do that…?

(Videointerviews of young deaf children about their future)

Illustrations by Marja Hihnala(Teaching materials © Marja Hihnala, Elina Lehtomäki & Service Foundation for the Deaf)

References

Cox, A. 2008. Good accessibility practices. Seminar on Inclusive Higher Education 16-17 April. University of Tampere.

Ebersold, S. 2008. Adapting Higher Eduation to the Needs of Disabled Students: Developments, Challenges and Prospects. Higher Education to 2030, Vol. 1, Demography. OECD.

Lehtomäki, E., H. Puupponen & M. Tuomi. 2011. Rights and obligations: international benchmarks for inclusive higher education. Presentation, Nordic Education Research Association (NERA) Congress, University of Jyväskylä. 10-12.3.2011

Kaplan, I., S. Miles and A. Howes, A. 2011. Images and the ethics of inclusion and exclusion: Learning through participatory photography in education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs.

McKinsey Report. 2007. How the world's best performing school systems come out on top.

Ryan, S. 2005. Busy behaviour in the `Land of the golden M´: Going out with learning disabled children in public places. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 18 (1), 65–75.

Ryan, S. and K. Runswick-Cole. 2008. Repositioning mothers: Mothers, disabled children and disability studies. Disability & Society, 23 (3), 199–210.

Terzi, L. 2005. A capability perspective on impairment, disability and special needs: Towards social justice in education. Theory and Research in Education, 3 (2), 197–223.

UNESCO. 2003. Open File on Inclusive Education: support materials for managers and administrators.

UNESCO. 2009. Policy Guidelines on Inclusive Education.

Wößmann, L. 2008. Effciency and equity of European education and training policies. Int Tax Public Finance, 15: 199–230.