chapter 10

chapter 10 - 8232832888 14:88 8884881842 HUMAN SERVICES...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–11. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 8232832888 14:88 8884881842 HUMAN SERVICES 848E 82312 10 Policy: is inclusion better than y-‘integration? ' With Tina Cook Questions of inclusion in the late 1990s policy debates in disability were dominated by notions of social inclusion {Oliver and Barnes 1998; Disability Rights Task Force 1999). We begin. as in other chapters, by exploring broader. general issues before turning to their particular manifestation for disabled people. indeed, it can be argued that the first difference between the terms ‘integration’ and ‘inclu- sion’ is that the latter tends to have a broader remit. While integration has tended to'be applied {though certainly not solely) to social policy in relation to disabled people, the notion of social inclusion tends to be applied to many groups. including old people and Black and ethnic minority communities. Integration has meaning in contrast to segregation. Disabled people have been subjected. and continue to be, to Separate institutional provision in work. education. leisure and social provision generally. Inclusion, on the other hand. has meaning in contrast to notions of exclusion that have been applied generally to disadvantaged groups who lack personal, social. finan- cial and political opportunities. In this first section of the chapter we exam- ine what it means to be “socially included’ (and. of course. ‘socially eXcluded’). We then turn to explore social inclusion in relation specifically to disabled people. focusing on paid employment and education. The chapter ' ends with an analysis of an ostensible move towards inclusive education in one local authority. ‘ We begin by attempting to unravel social policy adhered to by the present (2002) British government. This is not as straightforward as it may sound as interpretations depend on the viewpoint of the observer (Roulstone 2000). In 1997 the British government set up the interdepartmental Social Exclusion Unit. it can be argued that social policy is being generated by notions of ‘exclusion': “A shorthand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment. poor 8232832888 14:88 8384881342 HUMAN SERVICES F'tEiGE 83312 I 12 Policy, provision and practice skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family brealtdown’ (Social Exclusion Unit 1997: 1). This idea of social exclusion has been widely adcipted (PercyMSmith 2.000) and has a long history with associated concepts of social disadvantage and deprivation. The main thrust in the government’s response to social exclusion ‘ has been through paid employment, particularly New Deals to combat unem- ployment. but includes broader themes with. for instance, new funding pro- grammes to support the regeneration of poor neighbourhoods. In the first report on poverty and social exclusion, the government’s strategy is summarized as follows: ‘Our strategy is based in the principle that everybody has the right to participate in society, and the opportunity to achieve their full potential’ (Department of Social Security 1999: Chapter 2, no. 27'). This quotation refers to universalisrn, participation and opportunity, that is widely accepted values iii present-day western society. There are lots of ques~ tions, however. Who is socially excluded and why? Why has the notion of social inclusion come to prominence at this particular time and how does it relate to previous social policy? Why does social policy begin with the notion of exclusion rather than inclusion? Beresiord and Wilson (1993: 87} raise concerns that concentration on groups categorized as socially excluded rnay reinforce ’the lived realities of those who are included in its category'. Attention is taken away from the structures and relations within ‘mainstream’ society that generate social exclusion. Inclusion is conceived in terms of conformity (Burden and Hamm 2000). Social exclusion is individualized and pathologized. In perhaps the most far-reaching radical critiques, social exclusion is seen as a natural constituent of late capitalist society. Levitas (1996) has written a widely quoted critique: ' The concept social cxclusion, which was originally developed to describe the manifold consequences of poverty and inequality . . , is new con- trasted not with inclusion but With integration, constructed as integration in the labour market . and treats social divisions which are endemic to capitalism as resulting from an abnormal breakdown in the social co- hesion which should be maintained by the division of labour. (Lavitas 1996: 5) So social exclusion is a condition of society, rather than a condition of the individual. Some critiques argue that an inclusive society is not an achievable ideal in the context of globalization. Social exclusion is the natural conse- quence of deregulated global markets (Gray 2000). From this viewpoint, then, the question in the title oi this chapter 'Is in- clusion better than integration? is easily answered. Neither is better, as social inclusion is concEived as integration. Individuals are to be assimilated or intem grated into existing tnainstream society with no significant attempt to address the social and economic structures and processes that exclude people. ' There is another understanding of social inclusion that has been increas- ineg developed within the literature, that is inclusion through widening and ‘ 8232832888 14:88 8884881842 HLlMtliH SERVICES 848E 84312 Poiicy: is inclusion better than integration? 1 13 deepening of democratic practices and conceived in terms of full participative citizenship. Young (2000) states: The normative legitimacy of a democratic decision depends on the degree to which those affected by it have been included in the decision-making processes and have had the opportunity to influence the outcomes, Calls for inclusion arise from the experiences of exclusion — from basic political rights. from opportunities to participate. from the hegemonic terms of . debate. (Young 2000: 5—6) Beresiord and Wilson have developed arguments for the inclusion of excluded people in debates about social policy. They suggest that "debate about social exclusion can only be better informed if those directly affected are part of it’ (Betesford and Wilson 1998: 91). Also, new participatory politics are grounded in the development of new social movements and the broad- based campaigns of Black people's, gay men’s, lesbian and disabled people’s movements. The inclusion of excluded people in social policy debates mini- mizes the risks of the pathologizing of social exclusion. Questions for discussion 1 Do you think that social exclusion is a useful concept in social policy? Why. or why not? 2 How do you thinlt the term ’social inclusion” compares and contrasts with the term 'equal opportunities'? How might they differ in gener- ating social policy and strategies for social change? 3 Can you envisage a socially inclusive society? If yes, what would be . the main features of such a society? If no, why do you think it is not possible to envisage such a society? Social inclusion and disabled people We turn next to explore sodal inclusion in relation specifically to disabled people, focusing on paid employment and education. Much of the emphasis on social inclusion of disabled people has revolved around their right to work and desire for paid employment, under such banners as 'from welfare to work’i As Oliver and Barnes (1998: 95) point out, disabled people are gener~ ally supportive of such a strategy. particularly as ’it is exclusion from the world of work which is the ultimate cause of the various other exclusions experi- enced by disabled people! The particular strategy of the New Deal and the Third Way taken by New Labour, newever. has been subjected to significant criticisms (Hyde 2000: Roulstone 2000). Roulstone (2000: 429) states, ‘it can be argued that policy 8232832888 14:88 8884881842 HLlli'liliN SERVICES PflGE 85312 I l 14 Policy, provision and practice thinking abjectly fails to acknowledge the weight of employment barriers 1h; face disabled people’ and current government policy leaves fundamental ecor omic and social structures untouched. He writes of the rhetoric of the Ne' Deal for disabled people which places the onus for social inclusion on disable individuals, with employers lacing “little more than gentle exhortation to trai and employ’ (Roulstone 2000‘: 428). From their evaluation of a project with: sought to create opportunities ior paid andfor integrated employment it people with leaming difficulties, Gosling and Cotterill (2000) state: The findings suggest that this goal can be undermined by many factors such as the isolation of social care services from employers and the digs inclination of service organisations to include users, carers and staff in the development of new service approaches. Social welfare policies also miti- gate against this aim, by failing to enable pmviders to translate the rhetoric of social inclusion into a reaiity'. (Gosling and Cotteriil 2000: 1001) it is, however, the New Labour government's commitment to reduce th numbers of pepple claiming incapacity benefit, with a full-Scale review of we late benefits, that has generated the most anger among disabled people. 1 part it is based on “an ideological separation of reai and fictitious disable people” and “a clear attempt to separate out the work able (is this an unprol: lematic term?) from the “severely disabled” [sic]' (Roulstone 2000: 433 Britain. at the time of writing, pays over £6 billion in incapacity benefits t over 2 million claimants. In the latest round of proposals to cut‘ this bill, a new incapacity benefit claimants will be tequiredto attend regular interview to Check thCir continued Entitleti'ient to claiitt. Assessors will be able to In] that claimants are capable of worlt and should be transferred to jobseelter‘ allowance, a lower level benefit which can be withdrawn if it is found that th claimant is not genuinely seeking worlt (Guardian, The 2001). As Rouiston (2000) states: ‘ the ’New Deal’ rhetoric of “work for those Who can' (regardless of the availability of work?) and “support for those who cannot’ could have dis-‘ astrous consequences. People with perceived ’severe’ impairments who are keen to work. may not receive the support they want in gaining work. People withhidden, but stigmatising conditions may risk being dis- abled by the additional label of poor outcomes in “New Deal’ terms. {Roulsrone 2000: 441) Rather than cost-cutting measures that inereasingly emphasize the centrality of individual responsibilities. disabled people have called for a ’reappraisal o the very meaning of work’ (Olivar and Barnes 1998: 96) and 'the general vale orisation oi non-working lives for those, including impaired people, who are unable to work" (Abberley 1999; I). Questions of exciusionlinciusion are apparent within the education sysrem as well as employment. The exclusior of disabled. people from employment is mirrored by the exclusion of young disabled people from mainstream schools M and placement in Special schools Education policy and provision have highlighted the differences betweer 5252532555 14: 55! 5354551342 HUMI'E'IN SERVICES Policy.- is inclusion better than integration? 1115 .‘ finmgmtion' and ’jnclusion’. The notion of inclusion has. centrally, shifted the dflbfitfi from product to process. The focus for integration has been the num‘ bers of young disabled people attending special schools (or mainstream , Schools). The focus for inclusion. in principle at least, is the processes of ' changing mainstream schools to be accessible to young disabled people, in terms of curriculum and teaching. organization, management. the physical environment, ethos and culture (Thomas at al. 1993). I oliver (1996b) proposed that the term 'inclusion’."as developed by disabled people from a social model perspective. should replace the term 'integration’, as. developed by politicians. policy makers and professionals. Table 1 attempts to summarize the main differences between the two. Table 1 Integration versus inclusion .- _____,—._.._._._..._.._......—._u_a.u—-—m—v—u-uu-w— Integration State: what matters is Where young people receive education services Non-problematic: issues oi integration are non-problematic and not questioned Education professionals acquire special skills: ‘ integration is solely a matter of extending the skills of professionals. largely through practice Acceptance and tolerance of young disabled people: integration is based on acceptance and tolerance oi disability as personal tragedy and abnormality Normality and equality of access: Integration is underpinned by dominant values of What is normal in terms of the person and the services integration can be delivered: integration is professional led Inclusion Process: ‘ what matters is the process of changing mainstream schools — curriculum. organisation. attitudes and so on —to reduce the difficulties in learning and participation experienced by pupils Problematic: notions of inclusion raise fundamental questions about the provision of education in an unequal society and how this can be achieved Education professionals acquire commitment: inclusion begins with commitment to the development of full},r accessible services Valuation and celebration of young disabled people: inclusion is based on the positive valuing and celebration of difference Recognition of difference: inclusion in services recognizes the diversity of need including race, gender and disability Inclusion involves struggle: inclusion is partnership led. through negotiation Source: after Oliver 1996b PflGE 55312 8232832888 14:88 8884881842 HUMAN SERVICES PhGE 8Wl2 116 Policy, provision and practice Questions for discussion 1 Should a social inclusion policy be led by the notion of ’from welfar’ to work’? Why, or why'not’? ' 2 Should opportunities for paid employment lead the social policy in disabled people of working age? Why, or why not? I 3 How might the non-working lives of disabled people who are unable ' to work be valued? Integration, inclusion and education policy This is a case study of a local education authority (LEA) that we shallc Romantown, which has been reorganizing its special educational needs pr vision under a policy flag of ’inclusion’. The case study is based on resea“ undertaken by Tina Cook and John Swain (Cool; and Swain 2001: Swain an Cook 2001; Cook ct a1. 2001).. ‘ ‘ - '1 One aspect of Romantown’s reorganization involved the closure of an al age school (we shall call it Adamston) for pupils with physical disabilities'ra school which first opened in the 19205. The pupils from this School have been placed (September 1999) in a range of provision, particularly in mainstreama schools with 'additionally resourced centres' and newly opened special-f schools for pupils with learning difficulties. (The reorganited system did It include a school for pupils with physical disabilities.) In this case study we explore and contrast the views of policy makers in Romantown with those at both some of the pupils. who attended Adamston and their parents. ‘ The Romantown reorganization was initiated and controlled by LEA policy. . makers» starting from the dissemination of their Review of Provision for Pupils??? with Special Educational Needs in ‘l 995. This document set out the principles and: policy that would remain unchanged throughout the ‘consultation process” This‘section of the case study is based on LEA documents and interviews with four LEA policy makers who were members of the Task Group responsible lot-‘7]1 planning the reorganisation: We shall focus specifically on the notion of in-"I clue-ion and its meaning in the leerganieation of provision in Romantown. ‘ i In the earlier documents relating to the reorganization the term integration -- was used rather than inclusion. In the LEA response to the Department for ' Education and Employment {WEB 1997) Green Paper the term “integra- tion' seems to have been substituted by the term ‘inclusion’. The Education Committee document states: [Romantown] LEA supports the principle that the majority of children ‘ .i with special educational needs should be educated within mainstream schools. The LEA considers that authorities should be required to submit plans for taking inclusion forward. Such plans have already been sub- mitted by [Romantown] and are awaiting DfEE approval. BEIEEIQBBB 14:88 9354581342 HUMAN SERVICES Policy: is inclusion better than integration? 1 17 Sthclusion became the preferred term in subsequent documents and in the .' interviews, and it is clear that the LEA regard the reorganization as a move towards inclusion. , In the following analysis of the Romantown policy we draw on a frame- wmk for critical analysis developed by Loxley and Thomas (1997) and i using a thematic approach to identify key issues within the reorganization I “process. Systemic tit-trilme A major theme for the Romantown policy makers was What Loxley and cinemas {1997) call systemic dualism, that is the continuation or discontinu— axiom of dual systems of special and mainstream education. The main rationale for the reorganization of special needs prevision in Romantown, as emphasized in public statements and documents disseminated by the LEA, was to enable a ‘significant reduction in the level of segregation’. According to their own LEA Review of Prentice for Pupils with Sperm! Educational Needs,‘ gnomantown had one of the highest levels of segregation in the UK with over 2 per cent of pupils attending special schools. The maintenance and, indeed, enhancement of the special sector was also a recurring theme. This is appar~ ent in the emphasis on ‘the continuum oi provision”: the Task Group. intends to progress the enhancement of the continuum of provision . . . both through the creation of a facility for a limited period of intensive support in a special school and by the additional resourcing of a number of mainstream schools. In some instances, additionally resourced provision will be in a form of a ’unit’, that is a geographical area of the school. Though the number of special schools in Romantown was to be significantly . reduced, from ten to four, special schools remained a significant part of the provision in the reorganized system. TWo other forms of systemic dualism can be seen in Romantovvn’s re~ organized system that exist between and within mainstream schools. The first is between mainstream schools, that is schools with and schools without ’additionally resourced provision’. Two primary and one secondary school within the city of Romafltown have designated 'eentres’, “units' or addition- ally resourced provision“ (the various terms. used in the official documen- tation) for pupils with 'physical and medical conditions. The second is the possibility of systemic dualism within mainstream schools, that is to say the differentiation in terms of management structures, resource allocation and the operation of separate provision Within mainstream schools. The following quotation from the Education Development Plan 1999—2002 certainly seems to indicate a degree of separation; The centres [or the physically disabled population, in particular, have rooms equipped to cater for medical and nursing needs and have been adapted to provide full access. Planning has taken. place in conjunction PflGE @8312 8232832888 14:88 8884881842 HUMAN SERVICES 848E 88312 1 18 Policy. prevfsian and practice with the Local Health. Authority and City Health Trust and the centres will be jointly staffed with educationalists and therapists. REM} M FEES issues around resourcing are a major theme in the documents and the inte views with policy makers. Indeed resourcing issues are generally given such high priorityr it could be argued that ‘policy decisions are shaped by an ove riding concern with resource implications' (Loxley and Thomas 1997: 279 The position, repeatedly stated in Romantown. was that reorganization was cast neatral’ exerCiSc, with the implication. sometimes specifically state that no extra resources would be allocated to meet special educational neet within the reorganized svSLein. Consumer remoteness Another key theme in Romantown policy is consumer centredness: the foo. upon the needs of individual pupils, and the provision of serviCes to met their needs. The policy makers we interViewed emphasized the increase ( choice available to parents through extending and improving the common; of provision. Indeed, the policy makers consistently argued that the r: organized system allowed for an extended and improved continuum of pr< vision. There would be a variety of provision for pupils with physio disabilities, according to their particular needs, namely in individual loo; schools, the additionally resourced provision in three mainstream schools c special schools for pupils with learning difficulties allowing placements tob individualized although not necessarily localized. ‘ Democratization A final theme We Would pin-point is democratization. that. is the involve-met of parents andior students in decision-making processes and valuing the involvement. Alongside the improvement in the continuum of provisior. policy makers emphasized improved opportunities for parents to be involve in the choice of provision for their child. All parents and family members interviewed were positive about the edu cational opportunities and wider support their child had received during thei time at Adamston (a segregated school) yet almost all Were also positive ahou the philosophy of children with special educational needs attending their loca mainstream school. as illusuated by the foliOWing quotations from tWI mothers we interviewed. Ideally I want my child to go to school With our next door neighbour. Inclusion With so-called normal children. whatever a normal child is. He doesn’t get it here. BEIEEIQE’IBB 14:EIE’I 9354581342 HLlMifiiN SERVICES Policy.- is inclusion better than integration? 119 However, the parents felt very strongly that the LEA had already made cera Iain decisions about the shape of the reorganization and that their thoughts and ideas were not being valued. They felt they should have been brought mm the LEA planning process right at the beginning so that their expertise as parents and carers could be utilized. They felt they had knowledge and infor— mation that could have helped the LEA to develop a greater understanding of the children’s needs and their input could perhaps have resulted in alterna~ ‘ fives to certain plans. One father succinctly expressed the frustration experi- enced by parents: Instead of sitting down and asking the parents how to go about it, they didn’t. They said right we’re closing Adamston, your kids Will be in units, that’s it and then they waited for everybody to shout and everybody to get angry rather than sit down with the parents and say, look this is what we’re going to do, what do you think as a parent. But [the LEA officials] didn't, they stood there in their suits and said you will do this. When interviewed about the reorganization many parents quicltly'pointed out that while there was an increase in the range of provision. it did not actually represent an extension of their personal choice for their child. This exercise of inclusion has made things worse . . . as far as I can see, because what’s happened now is the other schools are going to say well actually we are not set up for that, these special resourced schools are meant to be taking you. some parents questioned the reorganization on the very basis of its concep- tion. They questioned whether the intention of the LEA to be more inclusive would be borne out in reality, as exemplified by a quotation from the mother of a lOeYe‘aI-Uld pupil: i don‘t know whether it will work as such, ‘cos to me inclusion . l . to me meant they went to their local school with support Not to say Grays [a mainstream school with an ARU (Additionally Resourced Unit)] because that to me becomes another special school because the majority of them will go there. ‘ These parents were questioning the fundamental principles of the proposal in terms of its intention to develop inclusive provision for Children with special educational needs. They pointed out that only a selected few pupils from Adamston were to be given access to a selected iew mainstream schools. One mother expressed the cor‘nrnortly held view that inclusion“ in Romantown meant fitting children to the system, rather than all schools adapting to eduv cate all children. It will not work if the schools don’t adapt for the special needs either. i cannot understand why they want them to go into mainstream schools when they're not adapting to all their needs. PtfiiGE lelE BEIEEIQBBE 14:88 9354581342 HUMAN SERVICES PflGE 11312 120 Fairly, provision and practice The idea that pupils could or should be involved in policy making or. eve ' decisions about their placement in the reorganized education system did arise for the pupils themselves or anyone else involved. They Were complies excluded from the consultation process and did not attend their annu reviews at which decisions about their placement in the reorganized systej' were discussed. Only once did a pupil appear at her own annual review. burst into the room asking, ‘What are you saying about me?’ The meeting; immediately stopped and she was gently ejected. Thedeclsion at the meet-i was that this i4-year—oldshould attend a mainstream school. No account, been talcen of these disabIEd pupils' views in the planning of inclusive settings No account has been taken of What these young people valued about the education, how their views might affect processes of change, or what “the would look for, and need to fee] included, in a so-called inclusive settmgf‘ The disabled pupils at Adamston experienced the loss of their community originally created by non-disabled people through a policy of segregation fan then terminated by non-disabled people in the name of inclusion. Adamst‘onu was a small community that provided social. emotional and psychologi ‘ security for these young people. It is not at all surprising that young peep want to hold on to the community they are part of. The reorganization, closure of their school and placement in the new system — has been clone‘t these young people. They (even more than their parents) have been powerles Questions for discussion ‘ 1 Do you think; the changes in Roniantown constitute an example of I inclusive education policy being put into practice? If you do. or if you ‘ do not. on what basis do you make this judgement? 2 How might those most affected by the education policy decisions have been more involved in the decision-making process? 3 0n the basis of developments in Romantovvn. is inclusion better than integration? Why. or why not? ‘ Debate activity Debate the proposition: All schools should provide education for all pupils irrespective of ability, ethnicity and impairment. The following quotations may provide you with a starting point: The history of the twentieth century for disabled people has been one of exclusionThe twenty-first century will see the struggle of disabled people for inclusion go from strength to strength. In such a struggle. special, segregated education has no role to play. . (Oliver 1996b: 93—4) 8232832888 14:88 8884881842 HUMifiiN SERVICES 848E 1 2e“ 12 Policy: is inclusion better than integration? 121 ‘ A gooci education will address issues of inclusion and equality and ' 'Particlpalifln, but there is a tension between education from the "point of View of society, and education from the point of View of the individual; so I tend to argue that there ate limits to inclusion ' that are not just practical but that there are ethical limits. which ‘ _ come about through the learner’s expressing a choice, or parents - expressing a preference which might not go along with what a larger group might think is in the interests of those people (Nonnch zooo: 11o—1t) ‘1 fiirther reading f Disability Rights Task Force (1999) From Exclusion to Inclusion: A Report of the Disability ‘ ‘ Rights Task Force on Civil Rights for Disabled People. London: Department for Education and Employment. Oliver, M. and Barnes. C. (1993} Disabled People and Social Poligr: From Exclusion to Inclu- sion. London: Longmao. ' .E'e:i:cy-51't'lit1'ti .1. (ed) (2000) Policy ‘Rcspomes to Social Exclusion: Towards Inclusion? Buckingham: Open University Press. Thomas, (3.. Walker, D. and Webb, J. {1993) The Making oftlie Inclusive SeltoollLondon: Routleclge. ‘ ...
View Full Document

Page1 / 11

chapter 10 - 8232832888 14:88 8884881842 HUMAN SERVICES...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 11. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online