Inclusion: theory and practice : Effective Schools for All in the UK and Macedonia

'Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools in Harrow'

Maggie Balshaw and Hilary Lucas
Paper presented at the ISEC 2000 conference in Manchester July 2000

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to describe the evaluative research project on inclusive education in the London Borough of Harrow. This project was initiated by the borough in response to the government's proposals, both on LEA-school partnerships, and on the requirement on LEAs to make policy statements about current and future practice in the field of inclusive schooling. Harrow LEA has a policy, developed over the last ten years, of moving towards more inclusive practices. There is evidence of this in the LEA's support for some of its schools in participating in two projects during the last five years. These are the Unesco project 'Effective Schools for All' (ESfA), and the development of the 'Index of Inclusive Schools' (a project coordinated jointly by CSIE, the University of Manchester and Christchurch University College, Canterbury).

The research project seeks to develop a set of understandings about what has been enabling all the LEA's schools in moving towards both more inclusive classroom practice and more inclusive whole-school contexts. It does this through sampling in ESfA schools, Index schools and others that have not been involved in either project. This paper will provide detailed accounts of the interim findings of the project and will form an agenda for symposium discussions that facilitate the comparison of others' experiences with those described. It is characterised as 'work-in-progress' and therefore interactive discussion opportunities through a symposium format would be valuable.

Introduction

Since the abstract was written, the research project described below has evolved into a different form, as all collaborative action research tends to do. It has followed schools' choices and directions and has taken into account changing influences and national developments. Not least of these was the arrival in all schools of the 'Index for Inclusion' (Booth et al, 2000). It was the published outcome of the pilot project in which Harrow was a participating LEA. This document, in some ways, offered a comprehensive research and development strategy for schools to use that might be seen as a 'solution' to the methodologies that the participants were seeking. Indeed, one school drew on some of the materials within that to devise some review questions for their focus.

Therefore, though the key theme remained the 'understanding of developments' which lead to more inclusive practice in schools, the scope and purpose was redefined somewhat. What follows is:

• a description of the context,
• a starting point in terms of beginning to understand the nature of more inclusive practice,
• some practitioner comparisons with the theories chosen,
• a set of key themes derived from the work of all of the involved schools,
• a set of key processes that seemed to have had an influence on the work.
• Finally some outcomes posed in the form of further questions that might be asked in other contexts where there is a wish to develop deeper understandings of the development and nature of inclusive practice.

Background

Harrow is an Outer Borough of London with over 200,000 inhabitants. There are 68 schools including 4 special schools. Public examination results are among the highest in the country and 85% of pupils go on to further education after the age of 16. This fits in with government pressure to raise standards of attainment. But Harrow also rates highly for including pupils with special educational needs into the mainstream.

The local education authority is keen to support schools in developing their inclusive approaches and from 1995 to 2000 the authors worked in Harrow using the UNESCO development project "Effective Schools for All" (ESfA). 22 schools including primary, secondary and special were involved in the project, each for 2 years. The project is based on teacher education materials produced through UNESCO (1991).

From September 1999 to June 2000 a different project was carried out in Harrow by the authors. "Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools in Harrow" (UDISH) supported a group of schools in reflecting on the development of their inclusive practice and looking at ways in which they could increase their capacity to meet a wide range of needs.

Theoretical underpinnings

Because of the complex nature of inclusive practice and the tensions associated with it and experienced by those who pursue its development in their school and LEA, it was decided to characterise it through a set of explanations proposed by Clark, Dyson et al (1999). This choice was made because starting with a definition of 'inclusion' was seen not to be helpful, partly because of the complexity of the concept itself and partly because this would have run counter to the exploratory nature of our collaborative research.

A group* of participants were drawn together in an action research workshop, (see appendix 1 for a timeline of the overall research project), the purpose of which was to:

• introduce the project,
• consider the nature of inclusive practice
• support them in identifying their areas of focus for action research in their school.

The explanations that were used:

Four explanations (drawn from case study schools, Clark, Dyson et al, 1999) for complexities in the nature of inclusion:

• in terms of change, which sees those schools as undergoing a process of development which is both socially complex but incomplete;
• in terms of organisational problem-solving which sees those schools as having as yet only partially developed those structure and cultures which will enable their staffs to solve the problems of diversity collaboratively;
• in terms of conflict which sees those schools as sites of struggles between different interests;
• in terms of dilemmatics, which sees those schools as seeking to resolve dilemmas which are endemic within education.

Using these ideas within a structured discussion activity, as starting points used to consider the nature of existing practice in the participants' schools, had a dual purpose. The complex nature of inclusive practice and the tensions associated with it were directly related to schools' own experiences. This in turn led to questions that were raised which might form the basis of an action research project in each school.

During the following months each school carried out its research project, was visited by the external coordinators for discussions on how it was going and reported back, with a written report as evidence, to the dissemination conference in June 2000.

In addition to outlining their action research processes and outcomes they were asked to discuss their findings in respect of the four explanations with which we initiated our discussions. The following is drawn from those discussions.

Exploration of practice/theory comparison

1. Change

• Never reach long term goals, nothing ever complete. Reflective practitioners always take on more.
• Journey matters, rich and satisfying, not aiming to arrive until the time is right. Markers of change are needed. Timeline is very valuable for helping to recognise this. Physical things are very helpful e.g. library redeveloped. Change in children's reflective powers during a school year. Visible things keep you on track.
• Change is good but too much stops you getting your teeth into it and you can't reflect therefore there's the danger of superficiality. Change of staff gives a fresh input; change of children can also be a resource.
• Lots of changes we've welcomed because of the benefits. Take care to take with you what's good. Don't just see change as a burden. Understand your own school and be strong about what you take on, so do well what you do and be satisfied with it.

2. Organisational problem solving

• We're good we feel, but there are: old (or young ) people who sit in staffrooms; staff who act by themselves and don't consult or work with others; charming people who still have their own agenda - non-collaborators. You just have to leave such people - the minority can scupper it. Therefore push on and take most people with you but accept that you can't win 'em all.
• We're a mature organisation helped hugely by ESfA. We built up SPLAT through the years but individuals who won't (or can't) use the problem-solving structures can be very irritating. Sometimes we let people who create problems run with it to find out for themselves. Headteacher is often paternalistic but you must move away from that - it creates tension because you won't always solve people's problems.
• Tensions because of over-communicating or consulting vs. not consulted enough; some teams don't feel sufficiently included.

3. Conflict

• People often see the negative impact of conflict but it might potentially benefit others. It highlights the complexity in schools. Letting people have their say raises other problems, so let discussions take place to sort out problems. Schools have been "nice" places - now develop the confidence to handle problems - develop the flexibility with the strength. (How will performance related pay impinge on how schools work? Will it conflict with collaboration? Collaboration vs. competition.)
• Inclusion - can't escape behaviour difficulties - commonality vs. differences. Who is more entitled to the curriculum? Some conflict was brought to the fore by in-service training run by E C on the role of the learning support teacher/learning support assistant to clarify roles and responsibilities. Need honesty, able to disagree e.g. staff Golden Time "I won't talk now, it's my 20 minute lunch break". Set new parameters.
• Conflict of interest between children with difficult behaviour and other children's needs. Reading groups - not equal time for all children. What's imposed by government or LEA may assume a greater priority than what you've chosen to do.
• Schools are full of differences - a hotbed of differences if not conflict. It's a skill, art, managing energy so it goes in the same direction.

4. Dilemmatics

• Dilemmas will always be present. Just relax; like in golf, which goes better if you relax.
• "It's good enough to be good enough". Life is broader than what goes on in schools. Recognise problems but don't feel you have to sort them all out. It's no good saying to the children "All I have to offer you is my exhaustion."
• Dilemmas will always be present. Make the best of them when you come across them. As special needs coordinator all the staff talk to me because of my job but it's stressful. Focus, be selective, on what's important for your school. Not there to solve all problems - ask "What are you going to do about it?"
• Two incidents (to illustrate a good attitude to dealing with dilemmas): At a special needs tribunal an LEA representative said "It's not up to us to provide a Rolls Royce education"; keep it in perspective - six weeks in Pakistan isn't a disaster - it's part of a child's education.

Substantive outcomes - lessons learnt about Harrow schools - key themes and processes

Key themes

The participants outlined the following as key themes which had been substantively important to them during the time of the research, and in many instances were crucial in the previous development of more inclusive practice. They are in no order of importance, more the product of a brainstorming type discussion amongst the participants, who were working in cross-context groups.

They are:

• staff perceptions;
• staff deployment considered creatively;
• listening to pupils;
• ownership of initiative by staff e.g. class teacher/special needs teacher - shared understandings, shared responsibility;
• collaboration amongst staff;
• reconstructing learning support to impact on the whole school;
• commitment to meeting challenges; confidence to take more risks; overcoming barriers;
• staff development and in-service training;
• child to child support e.g. buddy system;
• target setting for all pupils, not just those with special needs;
• behaviour management.

Key processes

A further discussion led to the cross-school groups identifying some essential processes that they felt were evident throughout their work

• turning a difficulty into an opportunity
• coping with change more effectively; expectation of ongoing school development; developing a moving school culture
• use of collaborative inquiry e.g. involving learning support assistant in working group
• capacity building; not asking for more resources

Appendices 2-6 contain examples of the schools' research activities and from these documents it is possible to identify what their key areas of focus were. For example, making the collaborative inquiry an inclusive process in considering all potential barriers to participation such as the climate of the school, the way support is used and so on (Roxbourne); considering the impact of support structures in a high school (Park). In addition strategies for gathering and analysing evidence are illustrated, for example, considering pupil feedback (Norbury); evaluating success criteria (Aylward); analysing statistics (Bentley Wood); using a staff development day to gather staff perceptions (Park) and the use of a timeline with all participants (Roxbourne).

Processes and dilemmas: further questions to be addressed

Key processes

In view of our research findings we feel that there are some processes that are worth replicating and these might be raised as questions for schools to address:

• How does our school turn perceived 'difficulties' into opportunities?
• How do we learn to cope with change more effectively?
  i.e. - Have we an expectation of ongoing school development?
  - Do we have a 'moving school culture'?
• Are these developments seen as central to more inclusive approaches?
• Do we use collaborative inquiry processes to aid this task?
• In what ways do we seek to 'capacity build' ie not always assume more resources is the only answer?

Tensions and dilemmas associated with developing more inclusive practice Some questions we would pose here would be:

• Do we see the process of change as a 'journey', where the journey itself matters and might be seen as 'rich and satisfying'?
• Is the organisational problem solving process developed in such a way that it takes account of those staff who see themselves as 'outside' this collaboration, for example, through choice or lack of understanding?
• Where conflict arises, has the school developed the strength to deal with this flexibly, not be 'scared' of it and so draw differences of opinion into the debate?
• Are the wider dilemmatics handled with an acceptance of their inevitability, but with a selectivity that has importance from the school's own perspective?

In summary

These questions are asked in the spirit of inquiry that informed our work in Harrow and we hope that others might find them stimulating as they consider their journeys toward more inclusive practice.

*The group of schools was not representative of the data sets we had originally set out to sample and compare. Two schools were ESfA schools and three were schools that had not been in either the ESfA project or the pilot project for the development of the Index.

References

Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M. and Shaw, L. (2000) Index for Inclusion Bristol: CSIE

Clark, C., Dyson, A., Millward, A. and Robson, S., (1999), Theories of inclusion, theories of schools: deconstructing and reconstructing the 'inclusive school' British Educational Research Journal, Vol 5, No 2 p157-177

UNESCO (1991) 'Special needs in the classroom': a teacher education resource pack Paris:UNESCO

Inclusion: theory and practice : Effective Schools for All in the UK and Macedonia

30/05/2001