Dissertation lecture 27 September 2004 Torill Moen

Transcription

1 Dissertation lecture 27 September 2004 Torill Moen An overview of inclusion in Norway Summarize the current status of inclusion in Norway, covering a) relevant laws, policies, regulations, and government projects; b) recent contributions to the theoretical debate in the professional literature; and c) recent research studies, including ones in progress. Describe how the policies, theory and research interrelate. The topic of this lecture is inclusion, but as you can see, my assigned topic does not explicitly tie this down to a specific area. I choose, needless to say, to connect the concept of inclusion to schools, and, to be even more specific, to the Norwegian compulsory school, which is ten years of schooling for our children and young people. In Norway we have a school for all our children, and as you will hear, this school is described in terms of being an inclusive school for all. In accordance with the assigned task, in the following 45 minutes I will first refer to political documents relevant to the topic, including a presentation of initiatives taken by the central authorities in Norway to strengthen and develop our school. Thereafter, I will present recent contributions to the theoretical debate on inclusion. Because a great many things are happening in the field of educational policy these days, I have chosen to present works that focus on recent political documents. Finally, I will present some recent studies focusing on inclusion. First, a few words about the concept: Many researchers have put great effort into defining the concept of inclusion with the intention of making it more concrete and understandable. I will not present any of these contributions here. As several other researchers have stated before me, it is hard to define the concept. 1

2 Therefore, I will follow Booth's line of thinking (1995) and suggest that an understanding of the concept might be enhanced by contrasting it with its opposite: exclusion and segregation. By doing so, we intuitively know what the word means. As already stated, in Norway we do not want any of our children and young people to be excluded or segregated. Rather we want all of them to be pupils in their neighbourhood schools. We have not always thought in terms of inclusive schools. For decades we had a two-part system with regular schools and special schools that used to be the centre of education for children and young people with special needs. In their works focusing on the historical development towards an inclusive school in Norway, Peder Haug and Gunnar Stangvik point out that it is important to remember that this separate system was seen as an expression of care for these pupils. This view gradually changed for a number of reasons. Today we want all our children to participate in an inclusive school environment. This view on education may be understood in light of the democratic-oriented principle, part of the larger issue of social justice, which is discussed by Howe in his book from 1997: Understanding Equal Educational Opportunity. Social Justice, Democracy and Schooling. The democratic-oriented principle means that every individual has an equal right to participate in society and to be accepted for what she or he is. Within this view heterogeneity and pluralism are positive, and everybody is entitled to ask for special services without the risk of being segregated or excluded. The consequence of this ideology for education is therefore a single, inclusive school system where different groups or individuals interact together without shedding their distinctive identities or suffering any disadvantage because of them. In Norway school has been a hot topic in the public and political debate for years. New governments and a string of ministers apparently want to showcase and emphasize their particular profile through educational policies. However, the overarching vision for the Norwegian compulsory school still appears to be firmly and deeply rooted: Across the established party lines there is still strong political agreement that we should have an inclusive school for all our children in this country. 2

3 This view is prominent in our laws. It is prominent in our current national curriculum, L-97, in an official report published last year, and last but not least in the most recent White Paper on schools, teaching and education. Before presenting these documents, I would like to point out that I will just present what I regard as relevant to the topic of inclusion. The emphasis is not on analysis and discussion. And furthermore, within the limited time of 45 minutes, my presentation, of necessity, will remain on the general level; I cannot hope to capture all the nuances of the discussion on this issue. Now, let us have a look at these documents. First the legislation: The Education Act states that all our children and young people, whatever their individual needs and abilities, have both the right and the duty to attend school for at least ten years. Statistics show that 98% of our pupils attend their neighbourhood school. The remaining 2% attend alternative schools. There are several reasons for this, but I will not comment on these here. What is important in this context is that these pupils also have the right to attend their neighbourhood school according to section 8-1 of the Act. "Primary school pupils have the right to attend the school that is closest to where they live ") This is the overriding general intention, and section 1-2 emphasizes that Teaching shall be adapted to the abilities and aptitudes of individual pupils." The idea of adapted education is so crucial that if a child does not receive adapted education within the ordinary frames, she or he has the right to receive special education. This is laid down in section 5-1: "Pupils who either do not or are unable to benefit satisfactorily from ordinary tuition have the right to special education." 3

4 The concept of inclusion is not explicitly stated in these sections. However, the wording of the legislation implies that all our children have the right to attend ordinary schools where they should be given adapted education. When it comes to the national curriculum, the notion of inclusion is explicitly stated: L-97, the current national curriculum for primary and lower secondary school states: "In order to meet pupils' different backgrounds and abilities, the school for all must be an inclusive community with room for everyone." (p.63) The notion of inclusion here refers to all the pupils. Here we can see that there is recognition of the fact that all pupils are different, and that the school should accommodate these differences. "As a community, the compulsory school must be inclusive. Pupils with special needs must be given the opportunity to play an equally important part in the social, academic and cultural community. For this reason, all pupils shall, in principle, attend the local school and belong to a class and the community of pupils." (p.64) In this quotation the notion of inclusion is connected to pupils with special needs. Here it is emphasized that also these pupils should participate in the school together with the other pupils. "While compulsory education is based on a clear set of values, it must be inclusive and respect different views of culture, faith and values." (p.70) In this third quotation from the curriculum the concept is connected to various religious and cultural backgrounds. In 2001, the government appointed a committee tasked to evaluate the content, quality and organization of education. The leader of this committee was Astrid Søgnen and the committee was called the Quality Committee. Their findings were published in June 2003: NOU 2003:16. I første rekke. Forsterket kvalitet i grunnopplæring for alle. In English: First and Foremost. Improved quality in primary and secondary education for everyone. 4

5 This document has a strong emphasis on inclusion. The concept is used on many occasions in the report, and on page 84 the question is explicitly stated: What has to be done to take the ideology of inclusion seriously? The answer to this question is mainly connected to adapted education and special education. Let me first focus on adapted education. The report clearly states that adapted education is inextricably connected to the idea of an inclusive school. I have already referred to section 1-2 where the focus is on adapted education. The Quality Committee suggests that adapted education should be given even stronger emphasis. For example, in the report the concept of reinforced adapted education is introduced. When discussing this, the report refers to Norwegian empirical studies that have focused on adapted education. These studies show that teachers agree on the idea of adapted education but then teach as if they have homogenous classes. That is, in their daily work, teachers organize their school practice and teach as if all the children have the same abilities and needs. The Quality Committee then makes two recommendations on this issue: First, the committee argues that there is a need for more competence at the school level. It is also explicitly stated that schools and teachers should be better equipped to deal with pupils exhibiting problem behaviour. Second, the committee also argues for a more flexible way of organizing the education. The traditional way of organizing pupils into classes should be replaced by a more flexible way of organizing education. This means that for some lessons the pupils will be in a large group with other pupils and in other lessons in smaller groups. In this new way of organizing the tuition the teacher will have responsibility for about 12 pupils. The committee points out that this should be a heterogeneous group and also states that the teachers connected to these groups have "the responsibility for ensuring that inclusive measures are implemented". (p.96) The idea appears to be that a more flexible way of organizing the teaching should make it easier to deal with the ideology of inclusion and to carry out adapted education. 5

6 When the report discusses special education it refers to various research studies. These are research reports which show that special education in its traditional form has had no or limited effect. Special education in its traditional form means that the focus is put on the child and the child's problems or learning difficulties. According to the Quality Committee, we need to change our focus. We need to look at the system or the learning environment and not solely at the individual child. On page 85 in the report they suggest that instead of asking what is wrong with the pupil we should ask what is wrong with the school. The committee also discusses if we really need special education in an inclusive school for all pupils. Do we need special education in an inclusive school where every child should be given adapted education? The emphasis on adapted education and the reorganization of classes into minor units, at least part of the time, should make it easier for teachers to be more aware of each individual pupil. Therefore, the Quality Committee suggests that section 5-1 of the Education Act should be deleted, that is we should do away with the section in the Act that gives pupils with special needs the right to special education. The underlying intention of this recommendation appears to be first the wish to avoid identifying any of the children as pupils with special needs. In a school for all characterized by the ideals of heterogeneity and diversity, this is a contradiction. A second intention appears to be the wish to develop a practice of adapted education, a type of education that embraces every child, also those who have special needs. A great many voices were heard in the debate on this proposal, and not surprisingly, it encountered great resistance, also at the political level, evidence of which can be seen in the White Paper that followed this report. Those who were sceptical to the idea of deleting section 5-1 were teachers and special-needs teachers, employees in the support services, parents, researchers and also many politicians. Therefore the White Paper states explicitly that section 5-1 lives on. Let us now turn our focus to this White Paper nr. 30 ( ): Kultur for læring. In English: Culture for learning. With the exception of the section 5-1 discussions it appears as if the ideas outlined by the Quality Committee are followed up in the report. There is an emphasis on the idea of an 6

7 inclusive and adapted education, and it is explicitly stated that inclusive and adapted education are overarching principles in the Norwegian school for all. The more flexible way of organizing education is already mandated in new text in the legislation, section 8-2 which states that: "All pupils have the right to belong to a class. For specific parts of the teaching, pupils may be organized in other ways, normally not according to level of ability in a specific subject, gender or ethnic affiliation." The White Paper points to various challenges when it comes to the current status of our inclusive school system: Among other things, it states that too many children in this country are defined as having "special needs". The number is estimated at 5.5% and it has been relatively stable for years. The White Paper states that we need to bring this number down. There is a need to develop or even change the way special education is approached and has being practised at the school level. Consequently there is also a need to focus on the support services both at the community level and the national level. The White Paper also states that there is a need to make schools and teachers better equipped for adapted education. We need to develop competence within this area. When discussing these various challenges the focus is also on pupils with problem behaviour and the White Paper suggests we need to focus more on the classroom environment and the teacher as a leader. To deal with these challenges, the White Paper presents several initiatives within a national effort to develop our school: First, the White Paper recommends that more resources be put into research, the development of methodology and the spreading of knowledge and experience in connection with the theme of adapted education. 7

8 Second, the White Paper recommends that measures be developed with the aim of improving the school's learning environment, including activities against bullying. Third, the White Paper recommends that we increase resources for the development of competence in preventing and dealing with problem behaviour. Fourth, the White Paper recommends raising the competence of both the municipal support services and the state support services on special education. Fifth, the White Paper recommends that better direction should be given to state supervision of schools and that this should be improved. Sixth, the White Paper recommends focusing on how the issue of adapted education is addressed in teacher education. Those are the White Paper's main recommendations. Not surprisingly, recent research reports on inclusion are focused on the official documents just presented. They pay attention to the political rhetoric and discuss what the implications of this rhetoric might be. I will now turn my focus to some of these recent contributions to the theoretical debate. Peder Haug, is a professor at Volda University College. Haug is one of our most prominent researchers on inclusive education, and in a recently published article he has made some critical comments on White Paper number 30. As Haug maintains, the document focuses a great deal on an inclusive school for all, and discusses how this should be implemented. According to Haug, the strong emphasis on adapted education in an inclusive school system is logical and clear, but at the same time the is a strong link between adapted education and individualism. In his interpretation of the White Paper Haug sees a focus that is turned away from fellowship, community and togetherness and towards the individual, her or his interests, abilities and needs. The White Paper appears to suggest that the individual should grow as an individual and not as an individual within a community of others. Haug expresses concern over the new political ideas that are evident in the paper. 8

9 Lise Vislie, a professor at the University of Oslo, Department of Educational Research, also has critical comments on the White Paper. She appears to reflect in much the same way as Haug when she states that the new trend in our educational policy appears to be more focus on the individual, and on the individual's abilities and interests. Diversity and heterogeneity are hallmarks of a school for all, and in this the individualistic perspective is a positive aspect. However, Vislie also expresses a deep concern with this viewpoint because, as she interprets the White Paper, this individualistic perspective is overriding, coming at the expense of community and fellowship. Therefore Vislie talks about a considerable tide of change when it comes to current Norwegian school policy. She also discusses whether the White Paper gives appropriate conditions and room for inclusive education. When reflecting on this issue, she appears to be critical to the way the concept of inclusion is used in the White Paper. Inclusion is referred to on several occasions, but in her opinion this is not because it is an integral part of the policy but rather because it belongs to the current political rhetoric. Monica Dalen, a professor at the University of Oslo, Department of Special-Needs Education, appears to interpret the recent official documents in a similar vein. In a recently published article she is particularly concerned about the new role of special education. In the White Paper it is explicitly stated that the traditional way of understanding and practising special education is to be replaced by another approach, an approach that focuses on the system and not solely on the individual child. Monica Dalen expresses deep concern about this viewpoint, especially when taking those pupils with extensive and severe learning disabilities into consideration. In a country where we no longer have special schools and special institutions, children with disabilities are also a part of our regular schools. Dalen therefore argues that special education is more important than ever and warns against reductionism. We cannot just leave the traditional way of practising special education behind us, she claims. We cannot simply turn our backs on it and embark on a system-oriented approach as the White Paper recommends. She argues that there is a need for both the traditional approach focusing on the individual and a system approach focusing on the environment, system or context. In my presentation of White paper number 30 we saw that one of the initiatives presented in the document is the recommendation to give better direction to and improve supervision of schools. In his reflections on current Norwegian educational policy, Einar Skaalvik is 9

10 concerned with this issue. Skaalvik is a professor at this university, NTNU, at the Department of Education. The central authorities have stated that there will be clearer goals for knowledge and skills, clear competence goals, national tests for checking that the goals have been attained, and public disclosure of test results. Some of these initiatives have already been implemented, and in his reflections Skaalvik claims that these efforts may lead to a school environment characterized by individual performances and achievements. According to Skaalvik, such an environment may lead to negative self-esteem,, less motivation, more anxiety, more need for self-protection, weaker stamina and less adequate learning strategies. Bearing these reflections in mind, Skaalvik is concerned that there will be more not less need for special education in the years to come. In other words, the national supervision in its present form may lead to the opposite of what is intended, at least when it comes to special education. Very often when inclusion is referred to and discussed in this country it is as an ideology and policy, not as experience. The empirically oriented literature on inclusion in Norway is limited. In the next part of my presentation I will look at a few empirical studies. An extensive evaluation of the Norwegian compulsory school, called the Evaluation of Reform 97, has been carried out. For the purpose of this lecture I do not find it necessary to discuss what the notion of "reform" refers to. Whatever the case, the Norwegian parliament (Stortinget) decided that Reform 97 was to be evaluated, and the Ministry of Education gave the assignment to the Norwegian Research Council. Many topics are covered by this evaluation, among these is the topic of inclusion. The research question was "Has the implementation of Reform 97 led to inclusive practices in schools, socially as well as academically and culturally?" Kjell Skogen, Professor at the University of Olso, at the Department of Special Education, and Kari Nes and Marit Strømstad at Hedemark University College were responsible for this research that was conducted in one Norwegian municipality and its schools. The municipality has inhabitants and s 30 schools with a total of 4200 pupils. Six point seven per cent of these pupils received some form of special education in accordance with section 5-1 of the Education Act. The researchers approached the field deductively with predefined overarching categories. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were used. 10

11 Several research reports have been published from this study. Among these is one focusing on how inclusion appears in the local school plans, another one presents the results of a survey concerning inclusion, and a third focuses on the concept of inclusion. As I understand it, other reports from this study are also in progress. For example, later this year a research report will present case studies of five schools. Even if not all of these reports are yet available to the public, Kari Nes, one of the researchers, has already presented a synthesis of the results of the study. When it comes to the ideology of inclusive schools, the research found that a vast majority of parents, pupils and teachers supported inclusion as a main principle for compulsory school. However, the research also found that the concept of inclusion was little used in school, and when used, the content varied a great deal. When used, the focus was often on special education, and not so much on school as a whole. The researchers conclude that the concept does not provide a common basis for the daily work in school. Before moving on, it has to be said that corresponding results can be found in research from other countries. The understanding of inclusion seems to be relatively vague, and often, little attention is given to defining terms (Booth & Ainscow 1998). The research project also focused on how inclusion was realized in schools. The most striking finding from this part of the research is the great variation there is in the practice of inclusion. There are great differences between schools, teachers, classes, pupils and parents. The variation is so great that I will not even attempt to present it here. I will only point out one of the findings, and that is that there are particularly two groups of pupils at risk of being segregated. Not surprisingly, these are pupils who receive special education and pupils with immigrant backgrounds. What is interesting to note is that these pupils do not think of this organization in terms of exclusion and segregation. Rather, they think of it in positive terms. This refers both to those who receive part of their instruction outside the ordinary classroom and the other pupils. Peder Haug has analyzed all the published reports from the Evaluation of Reform 97 in terms of the concept of inclusion. Haug presented the results of this analysis in March this year at the Congress of the Nordic Educational Research Association. He concludes that our school 11

12 seems to be most successful when it comes to well-being and social relations, and less successful in dealing with teaching and subject learning. The research briefly presented here has taken a deductive approach to the field. The researchers have decided beforehand what to observe and what questions to ask. Another approach to empirical studies on inclusion is to be found at the Department of Education here at NTNU under the umbrella of classroom research. The aim of this research is to obtain an insider's perspective of the situation or to capture the teacher's own voice. The inquirer aims to be inductive, recognizing of course that the researcher has her or his own experiences and theoretical assumptions when approaching the field. Therefore the researcher approaches the field with no predefined categories. What is crucial in this kind of research is the emic perspective, the insider's meaning, understanding and reflections on her or his actions. In this way new and unexpected issues may emerge and contribute to new ways of understanding the field. According to Gudmundsdottir, the intention of this research is to develop texts that can function as thinking tools that will initiate discussions, promote reflections on the field of interest and promote development of school practice. For example, in her study from 2000, Tove Pettersson focuses on an arts and crafts teacher and how she deals with pupils with problem behaviour within the ordinary classroom activities. Annlaug Flem, also in a study from 2000, focuses on a homeroom teacher and her actions and reflections when it comes to teaching a seventh grade class with 26 pupils. In this class, one pupil has severe learning disabilities and one pupil has severe problem behaviour. In her research Flem found that the teacher was concerned with the social and academic development of the all the pupils, and the study illustrates how the teacher deals with this in her ordinary classroom activities. In my own research, both from 1997 and in my doctoral paper, I am concerned with the same issues: the teachers' actions, reflections and thoughts. What these studies show us is that inclusive education is a complex work field interwoven with many different activities. They also show that inclusive education depends on various factors and that these are connected to the particular, shall we say historical, cultural and 12

13 institutional setting. When looking at this in these terms, I would say that we perhaps should not even try to give the concept of inclusion a "fixed" or objective definition. Perhaps it is the kind of concept that will always depend on and has to be regarded in light of the particular historical, cultural and institutional setting. In this lecture I have referred to political documents relevant to the topic of inclusion, which has included a presentation of initiatives taken by the central authorities in Norway to strengthen and develop our school. I have presented recent contributions to the theoretical debate on inclusion. Finally I presented some recent studies focusing on inclusion. In my opinion, if we look at what is happening in the world today, the vision of inclusive schools is more important than ever before, and for me one of the main questions now is how we as researchers can contribute to supporting our schools, and in particular our teachers, in managing this challenge. I will thus end this lecture with these words which I will take with me, not just now, but also in the years to come. 13