|
|
|
|
Inclusion: theory and practice
Notes prepared for the SEO National Summer Conference, Cambridge, 13th July 2001
Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in England are accountable to their electorates and to the Secretary of State for maintained schools in their areas. In this sense they can be seen as part of the democratic process by which educational provision is made available for all children and young people within a local area. However, since 1988 a series of national reforms have gradually eroded the power of LEAs. In essence the stated aim has been to delegate greater responsibility to the level of schools in the belief that this will help to foster improvements in standards.
In this paper we consider the implications of these changes for efforts to develop more inclusive forms of education. In particular, we reflect upon our recent experience of working, with colleagues in a number of English LEAs as they have attempted to move policy and practice forward. This begins the process of mapping, out the issues in order to guide further research and development activities. It also leads us to be concerned about the way in which the erosion of local control of education may make it more difficult to foster inclusive arrangements.
It is important to note that this work is still at a very early stage of development. Nevertheless, it has already begun to throw light on the complexities of the issues involved. Using the ideas in this paper as a starting point, we are just commencing on a new phase of more intensive research.
Developing an approach
For us, this research agenda follows on directly from an earlier study that looked at English LEA policies for inclusion (Ainscow et al, 2000a). One of the conclusions of that research was that what LEAs do tends to help or hinder the efforts of schools to foster the participation and learning of their pupils in a variety of ways. We went on to argue that the current national context provides an outstanding opportunity to put inclusion on the agenda. However we also warned that if the commitment to inclusion is to be turned into action then it must be based on a clear definition of the concepts involved and that these concepts should permeate all of the frameworks and processes used to as part of the Government's reform education. Otherwise, we argued, it is likely that the issue of inclusion will continue to be perceived as a separate policy issue, and, as a result, will remain marginalised alongside a powerful strategy for 'raising standards' that is being implemented with a sense of urgency. This led us to conclude:
Given the historical tendency for special education to remain as a separate field that works largely in parallel with the mainstream system… the term 'inclusive education' would simply become a new way of referring to traditional special education practices.
In our present work, then, we are attempting to develop a deeper understanding of the complex factors that are involved, whilst, at the same time, working in particular contexts to move policies and practices forward. Consequently, we have chosen to adopt processes of collaborative inquiry somewhat similar to those that we have been using in our studies of schools and classrooms (e.g. Ainscow et al, 2001).
Our earlier research has led to a commitment to the use of collaborative forms of inquiry that emphasise practitioner research as a means of understanding the development of inclusive practices (Ainscow, 1999). Specifically it leads us to believe that greater understandings of how educational contexts can be developed in order to foster the learning of all children are most likely to emerge from studies in which 'outsiders', such as ourselves, work alongside teachers, students, parents and local authority staff, as they attempt to explore ways of overcoming barriers to participation and learning in schools. Kurt Lewin's dictum that you cannot understand an organisation until you try to change it is perhaps the clearest justification for this approach to research (Schein, 2001).
Our orientation is, therefore, intended to overcome the traditional gap between research and practice. It has generally been assumed that this gap has resulted from inadequate dissemination strategies. The implication being that educational research does speak to issues of practice, if only the right people would listen (Robinson, 1998). What is proposed here is an alternative explanation, one that suggests that research findings may well continue to be ignored, regardless of how well they are communicated, if they bypass the ways in which practitioners formulate the problems they face and the constraints within which they have to work (Poplin and Weeres, 1992). The potential benefits of a process of collaborative enquiry through which an open dialogue can develop are considerable. The ideal we aspire to here is a process through which critical reflection leads to understandings which can have an immediate and direct impact on the development of thinking and practice in the field. Of course, it has to be recognised that participatory research is fraught with difficulties, not least in terms of developing ways of making it happen that lead to findings that have relevance to a wider audience.
Opportunities and barriers
In carrying out this work we find that the current context offers a range of opportunities. On the other hand, we also find that certain contradictions in national policy act as barriers to progress. Looking first at the opportunities, we note that a number of recent Government initiatives have had the effect of encouraging many of those within the education system to address issues that are relevant to the development of inclusive practices. For example, the 2000 reforms in the National Curriculum emphasise the principle of inclusion; the national literacy and numeracy strategies have stimulated debate and, to some degree, experimentation in classroom practice; and organisational processes associated with Education Action Zones and Excellence in Cities are encouraging greater cooperation between schools. Meanwhile, a recent Ofsted document offers a new definition of what is meant by an effective school, when it states:
'An educationally inclusive school is one in which the teaching and learning, achievements, attitudes and well being of every young person matters. Effective schools are educationally inclusive schools. This shows, not only in their performance, but also in their ethos and their willingness to offer new opportunities to pupils who may have experienced previous difficulties… The most effective schools do not take educational inclusion for granted. They constantly monitor and evaluate the progress each pupil makes. They identify any pupils who may be missing out, difficult to engage, or feeling in some way apart from what the school seeks to provide.' (Ofsted Guidance on Educational Inclusion, 2000)
However, despite these hopeful signs, many practitioners still argue that the Government's plethora of reforms is tending to encourage fragmentation in the field, as schools and LEAs are required to collude with procedures that offer additional finance for projects that are often disconnected from one another and short term in their aspirations. More specifically, they also argue that the strategies intended to foster the Government's twin agendas of 'raising standards' and 'promoting inclusion' are pulling them in opposite directions.
The questions we are addressing with our LEA colleagues are set within the context of these opportunities and potential barriers to development. In particular, we are exploring how LEAs can move forward in ways that bring together the 'standards' and 'inclusion' agendas.
The changing roles of LEAs
Recently we prepared an evaluation report for one of the LEAs with which we are working, looking specifically at the impact of its work on schools. Overall we were very positive in our comments, not least because of the reactions we had picked up during our discussions with Heads and teachers. However, senior officers within the LEA expressed concern about certain aspects of our report. They were particularly doubtful about the sections in which we referred to the long hours spent by members of their service in preparing schools for Ofsted inspections. Their concern was that during their forthcoming LEA inspection this evidence could leave them exposed to criticism, since national policies discourage such interventions.
This story illustrates the sense of uncertainty and, indeed, threat that seems to permeate the work of some senior staff within English LEAs. In order to consider how LEAs can develop strategies for inclusion it is necessary, therefore, to take account of the nature of these pressures and their impact. More specifically, we need to understand the directions in which policy is moving and the influences that are driving the changes that are occurring.
Massive changes within the English education system in recent years have significantly affected the roles and responsibilities of LEAs, the detail of which is still being resolved. These changes are part of a growing political commitment to 'raise standards', intertwined with a struggle to determine how the education system is to be managed. The interaction between schools and LEAs in relation to educational improvement has clearly been on the Government's agenda since the White Paper, 'Excellence in Schools', which noted:
'The role of LEAs is not to control schools, but to challenge all schools to improve and support those which need help to raise standards' (DfEE 1997, p67)
The apparent tension here between the notions of 'challenge', 'support' and 'need' is suggestive of a fundamental tension 'between autonomy and external intervention' (Audit Commission 1998, p.9). So, whilst the principle responsibility for 'driving up standards' lies with individual schools, LEAs remain responsible for 'failing schools'. Similar tensions exist 'between local and national levels' (ibid. p.9). LEAs need to work collaboratively within their contexts to find local solutions to problems that arise through particular conditions and cultural practices, and yet there are external agendas to which they are being, driven to respond.
The significance of the changes that are going on in respect to the roles of LEAs can only be understood if they are viewed within the context of the wider developments that have been going on in the English education system over the last twenty years. The agenda for these changes has been taken on by national politicians and has been associated with an intensification of interest throughout the system in how to raise standards of achievement. A variety of legislative efforts to improve schools occurred during the 1980s, culminating in a series of Acts of Parliament of which the 1988 Education Reform Act, known as 'ERA', was the most important. These Acts were consolidated by further legislation in the early 1990s and then continued by the Labour Government that came into office in 1997.
There are four main fronts on which this attack on the traditional organisation of the school system has been carried forward, of which three hit hard at established local education authority structures. Increasing prescription, of which the prime examples were the National Curriculum and the associated schemes for national testing at 7, 11 and 14, removed some of the school's control over the curriculum and increased the influence of the then DfEE; and, this was followed more recently by the national strategies for literacy and numeracy. Decentralisation had a direct effect in reducing roles of local education authorities, with key policy initiatives such as local management of schools and increased power for school governors. So did competition, which reduced the control of the authority over provision; this was encouraged by the introduction of grant?maintained status for schools (now referred to as 'foundation schools'), open enrolment supported by the publication of 'league tables' of school results, and a general emphasis on the use of performance indicators. Finally there was the privatisation of services to schools, such as cleaning and catering, professional advice and school inspections. This latter reform, involving the full inspection of each school every four years by teams of trained and nationally accredited independent inspectors, acting on behalf of a government agency (The Office of Standards in Education, or Ofsted), proved to be a very significant influence on thinking and attitudes in the school system, including local education authorities.
In these ways occupational and organisational norms within LEAs have been challenged, particularly since the election of the Labour government in 1997. Within that Government's overall agenda for raising standards in education, in all schools and for all pupils, four major policy documents provided the overall context within which LEAs are now required to operate. First of all, Educational Development Plans must include the LEA's proposals for approval by the Secretary of State, setting out performance targets and a school improvement programme designed to address and achieve these targets, plus supporting information to underpin the proposals. Then the Code of Practice on LEA ? School Relations makes explicit the principles, expectations, powers and responsibilities that must guide the work of LEAs in relation to schools. In particular, it lays down the principle that LEA intervention in schools must be in 'inverse proportion to success', and places particular responsibilities on LEAs to intervene in schools found to have serious weaknesses or placed in special measures as a result of an Ofsted inspection. As the Educational Development Plan prescribes what LEAs are required to do, the Code focuses on how it should be done. Fair Funding sets out to clear the 'funding fog' surrounding education budgets by requiring funds to be allocated transparently and in line with a clearer definition of the respective roles of schools and LEAs. Lastly, the Framework for the Inspection of Local Education Authorities defines the basis of the inspection programme which, it is argued, will identify the strengths and weaknesses of each LEA inspected, including the effectiveness of its support for school improvement. As a result of these inspections some LEAs have been required to employ private contractors to improve the quality of their schools.
Together, then, these four policies provide the means for determining what LEAs will address, how they will operate, how all of this will be funded and how the whole strategy will be monitored and evaluated. In the context of this shifting framework of policy, and this developing understanding of the process of facilitating school improvement, our studies of LEA practices in respect to related issues is highly illuminative (Ainscow et al, 2000b). What becomes clear is that national policy is only one of the elements informing the activities of the LEA in respect of schools. In addition, a darker side is revealed, showing how those within LEAs are struggling to respond to competing agendas.
Within this overall context, we are particularly interested to consider what approaches might help to encourage the development of more inclusive practices. It has been argued that centralised management by LEAs has failed to deliver effective education. At the same time, it is difficult to see how allowing individual schools to operate independently, within a highly competitive environment, can encourage forms of education that will be effective for all children and young people within a local district. How then do we move forward? What approach might be feasible in the new context? These are the questions that our current work is seeking to address.
Making sense of concepts
Research on educational innovations indicates the importance of personal meaning (e.g. Fullan, 1991). Put simply, change requires learning, and successful change involves stakeholders in developing a deeper understanding of the purposes of a particular innovation and how these relate to existing practices. Logic suggests, then, that the more complex the change, the more learning that is required.
This being the case, it follows that attempts to move LEAs forward in respect to inclusion are likely to be very demanding. Essentially they require all those involved to develop their ways of working in order to find better ways of fostering the participation and learning of all pupils. We see this as a transformative process, requiring widespread commitment and action (Ainscow, 1999).
Our work so far suggests that a major barrier to such a process arises from confusion about key concepts. In particular, the definitions and implications of the concepts 'standards' and 'inclusion' foster uncertainty and, at times, resistance. Within the English context, standards have come to be seen in terms of the aggregate test or examination results achieved by learners within a school or LEA. Such data are also used to set targets and make comparisons as part of the Ofsted inspection arrangements. Assuming the maxim, 'what gets measured gets done', these data can be seen to have considerable influence on the curriculum in action and on organisational priorities within LEAs and schools. At the same time, they tend to create pressures to exclude those learners who are seen as being detrimental to the efforts of schools to achieve their targets. They also undermine and devalue the efforts of many teachers to nurture the progress of some learners whose progress can only be measured in small steps, whilst, at the same time, encouraging an overall narrowing of the educational experiences provided for all pupils.
We argue, therefore, that moves towards a more inclusive approach have to involve an engagement with questions of purpose. Here we adopt the term 'achievement' rather than the Government's preferred term, 'standards'. Furthermore, we take achievement to include a concern with measurable learning outcomes of the sort currently signalled by national test and examination results. Ideally, of course, we would prefer to see the national assessment system reformed in ways that would celebrate a much wider range of outcomes. In the meantime, our view is that LEAs wishing to make their systems of education more inclusive need to engage their communities in a process of debate about what is meant by achievement, whilst, at the same time, taking account of the Government's push for improved standards.
Similarly, we believe that the concept 'inclusion' also needs discussion. In some senses this is even more elusive, since while the term is certainly fashionable, our own research confirms that there are many different views as to what is implied (Ainscow et al, 2000a). Indeed, even the terminology itself is subject to varied use. For example, until recently Government documentation has tended to emphasise 'social inclusion'. Now, as we have seen, Ofsted has introduced the idea of 'educational inclusion'. The relationship between the two phrases remains unclear. Meanwhile, those with a background in special education tend to see the issue of inclusion, or inclusive education, as being about the placement of learners with disabilities and other who are seen as having difficulties. In this same context, debate also continues about fine distinctions that might be implied by the replacement of the term 'integration' with 'inclusion'.
Mapping the issues
 Figure 1: Developing LEA strategy for improving achievement and promoting inclusion |
Bearing in mind this discussion about definitions, we have begun to develop 'maps' that could be used by those within an LEA to review and develop their work in relation to inclusion and achievement. In order to illustrate the kind of approach we are using and some of the initial thoughts that this has generated, we will use the example of one of the LEAs in which we are currently involved.
As a result of its recent inspection the LEA decided that it needed to address certain inclusion related issues. In order to do this a strategy group was set up. During the first year of the initiative the group comprised an equal number of officers and headteachers. We were also members of the group. Working together to address a series of operational problems facing the LEA, such as funding arrangements for children categorised as having special educational needs, support for students experiencing behavioural difficulties, and concerns about the profile of special provision within the LEA, the group decided that it was essential to formulate a longer term strategy. The overall approach is outlined in Figure 1.
The diagram attempts to clarify key relationships within the LEA, particular in respect to the work of schools, and units and services within the education department. The conclusion of the strategy group was that the context created by the changes outlined earlier in the paper demanded a new approach to the development of policy within the LEA. In particular, it was decided that moves towards more inclusive education had to be school led, and that the education department would, therefore, need to review its working arrangements in order to develop more relevant systems for supporting and challenging schools.
To guide these activities a statement of overall principles was developed, outlining the LEA's overall position on inclusion and achievement. This statement emphasised a number of points that were intended to help clarify definitions and purposes. These were explained to stakeholders within the LEA in the following way:
The full statement was written concisely on a single page so as to encourage stakeholders to read and engage with it. Over a period of months it was discussed widely with different groups in the local community and within the education service. Throughout this period it was also occasionally adjusted as a result of feedback.
Using the statement as a reference point, strategies were introduced to encourage processes of review and development, within both the schools and the education department. School?level activities were encouraged through the creation of clusters. Meetings of school representatives used the following agenda to stimulate planning activities:
As this work developed it became clear that there is some potential in such school?toschool collaborations. At the same time, however, it is important to recognise that there are difficulties that arise from the current context of the English education system, not least from the overall competitive ethos that exists between schools. Headteachers argued that it would take time for trust to be developed and that schools would need to see evidence of practical benefits. So, for example, the Head of one relatively successful secondary school commented, 'We will have to see what's in it for us'. It seems, therefore, that some means of providing tangible incentives is needed.
In practice, of course, there is little capacity within LEAs to orchestrate the creation of cluster arrangements. Our experience is that schools will choose to collaborate as they see fit, depending on what they perceive to be the benefits, almost irrespective of what the education department tries to organise. All of the Headteachers we spoke to agreed that the focus of collaborative work in clusters must be an issue of common concern. In other words, they felt that the agenda must be set by schools, rather than by the department, and that there must be a common view amongst partner schools regarding what might be achieved. Of course, this links to the point about incentives insofar as work undertaken within a cluster must enable all schools to feel that they will benefit.
The most significant incentive to emerge through discussion related to the deployment and management of resources. Here there was a widely held view amongst headteachers that resources managed by the department were not used as effectively and efficiently as they could be. Many heads and, indeed, officers, felt that such resources could be used more effectively to foster achievement and inclusion if they were 'handed over' to the clusters of schools. They also argued that unless this happened cluster groups were only 'playing about with ideas' and that, as a result, only a minority of headteachers would choose to become involved.
All of this suggests, then, that strategies for inclusion and achievement could be encouraged through the use of school cluster arrangements. However, it would seem that this will require genuine delegation of decision?making powers and resources to the school level. And, of course, this implies very different management arrangements within education departments than those that have traditionally existed.
Bearing all of this in mind, the strategy group went on to consider the implications for the work of the education department. It was concluded that one of its central functions must be to provide effective support and challenge to schools on issues related to improving achievement by promoting inclusion. Furthermore, it was decided that this was a radical move that would require significant restructuring in order that this responsibility could be shared by staff in all units and service within the department. To move this restructuring agenda forward, teams of senior and middle managers worked with headteachers to develop short descriptors of what they would wish to see happening within the department. These descriptors were also intended to provide criteria against which current arrangements could be evaluated in order to define areas for change.
Eventually, the following ten descriptors were agreed:
The ten descriptors were used as the basis of a series of activities in order to determine the views of headteachers and education department staff about the current situation. These activities, which included surveys and focus group discussions, generated data that were then used to formulate priorities and action plans. Currently work is underway to implement these plans.
Concluding remarks
In reflecting on the experiences described in this paper we find ourselves being cautiously optimistic. It does seem that in the new context, with its emphasis on school?led improvement strategies and much narrower roles for education departments, LEA policies for fostering more inclusive arrangements will be difficult to achieve. As we have seen, national policies have created many perverse incentives that could actually foster greater segregation within our education system. On the other hand, it does seem possible that approaches of the sort described in this paper could create new partnerships that would help to counter the effects of these worrying trends. In addition, they could encourage the types of experimentation that can help to address barriers to participation and learning.
Clearly our own research has only begun to scratch the surface in relation to the deep changes that will be needed in order to take the new opportunities that appear to exist. Consequently we are committed to further work in this area. In this respect our cautious optimism is strengthened by the positive reactions we have found amongst teachers, officers, parents and other stakeholder within the LEAs we are involved.
Correspondence:
Professor Mel Ainscow,
School of
Education,
University of Manchester,
Oxford Road,
Manchester M13
9PL,
United Kingdom.
Email: Mel.Ainscow@man.ac.uk
Inclusion: theory and practice
 |
 |
 |
27/08/2003