Does rhetoric of inclusion really promote inclusive education?

1. Does rhetoric of inclusion really promote inclusive education? Prof. Timo Saloviita University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla,Finland timo.saloviita@edu.jyu.fi

2. Origins of the word ”inclusion” • Integration of students with disabilities in the regular classes was called for since the 60’ies e.g. in Canada. • During the late 80’ies several writers in the USA began to speak for the education of all students in the mainstream classes – including the students with the most severe disabilities. • This new policy statement needed a word of its own. • The word ”inclusion” emerged in the late 80’ies to mean this new policy.

3. Early definition of ”inclusion” • ”Inclusion” was defined by Stainback & Stainback (1990) as • education of all students in the mainstream (= every student is in regular classes) • appropriate educational programs for every student • everyone is accepted and supported

4. The adoption of the concept by TASH • The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH): Resolution on Inclusive Education 1993 • ”students with disabilities belong in general education classrooms” • ”Supported Education Resolution” of TASH in 1988 used the terms ”supported education” and ”full integration”.

5. Rapid spread of the concept • United Nations (1993). Standard Rules: • ”integrated education” • UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement • ”inclusive education, enrolling all children in regular schools, unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise” • ILSMH (1995) – International parent’s association for persons with mental handicap: • ”We fully support the inclusion of all children in regular education” (TASH Newsletter, 21 (6). • OECD (1997). ”There is now a widespread belief that policies need to be developed to stimulate the inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in the educational systems”.

6. Inclusion and OECD • CERI (The Centre for Educational Research and Innovation) • seeks solutions and exchange views of educational problems of common interest • Project: ”Active Life for Disabled Youth – Integration in the School” (1990 - 1995) • identified practices with respect to integration • illustrated good practices • disseminated findings • The concept of ”inclusion” appears in the end report in 1997, but not yet in its companion report in 1995.

7. The initial refusal of the term ”inclusion” in Finland • National Board of Education (NBE) published a large evaluation report on special education in 1996 (609 pages) • ”inclusion” was not mentioned • UN Standard Rules - resolution (1993) or UNESCO Salamanca Statement (1994) were not mentioned. • Both the rhetorics and policy of ”inclusion” were supressed – they were taboos.

8. From taboo to bandwagon • During the years 1998-1999 the term ”inclusion” began to become popular. • It appeared in teachers’ in-service training • Parents’ associations of intellectually disabled children became interested in it. • In 1999 The Association of Special Teachers changed their rhetorics: • Statement: ”Towards a common school for all”. • National Board of Education actively began to spread the term ”inclusion”.

9. Conclusions I • ”Inclusion” was at first an undiscussable issue (see: Argyris & Schön, 1996) • The taboo was broken when OECD changed its rhetorics in 1997. • State authorities (NBE) changed their own rhetorics after this. • ”Inclusion” became an object of curiosity and interest: ”what does it mean?”

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

11. Changes in policy? • No changes in legislation that would promote inclusion. • Instead, removal of students into special education was made administratively more easy. • Ministry of Education: Development Plan of Education and Research (several issues) • focus on early detection of special needs and development of special education • ”inclusion” or ”integration” not mentioned

12. Conclusions II • Finnish comprehensive school is moving towards increasing segregation. • placements in special classes are increasing • This development is politically widely accepted. • no movement for ”inclusion” • At the same time the rhetorics of ”inclusion” has got wide popularity.

13. Conclusions III • Originally, ”inclusion” was a sign that denoted radical policy of those who defended the rights of the most severely disabled persons to participate into community life and regular classes. • When the term was adopted in Finland, it rapidly lost its original meaning. • Today ”inclusion” in Finland means something vaguely positive – maybe it is already something like a taboo to oppose it.

14. Final conclusions • The example of the term ”inclusion” shows how radical terms which try to question the legitimacy of existing social order become interpreted from the positions of the prevailing ideology. This way they are made harmless. • If the terms are truly ”revolutionary”, they are ignored. • If they are adopted, they are • either redefined so that their contents are lost. • or the stated goal is decoupled from any action.

15. References • Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II. Readings: Addison-Wesley • National Board of Education (1996). The State of Special Education. (in Finnish). Helsinki: Author. • OECD (1995). Integrating students with special needs into mainstream schools. OECD. • OECD (1997). Implementing inclusive education. OECD. • TASH (1994). Resolution on Inclusive Education, December 17, 1993. TASH Newsletter, 20 (2) 4-5. • Stainback & Stainback (1990). Inclusive schooling. In: Stainback & Stainback (Eds.) Support networks for inclusive schooling. Baltimore: Brookes.