Heading for Inclusive School in Europe


The spirits of laws in Europe and the ethics of inclusion
Course N° 3 : The limits of inclusion

Duration and conduct of the debate:  2 hours (including a 15 minutes break). This duration can be modulated according to the richness of the interventions and to the number of participants.

1 hour is left to the participants to think about the questions asked and to consult the resource sheets.

At the end of the debate, half an hour is devoted to ordering and summarizing the interventions.
A moderator of the debate must be appointed at the beginning of the session.

 

 

Content

If inclusive education is the rule, can it be implemented at all costs? The UN convention is based on ethical considerations. The conditions of inclusion should therefore not depart from these concerns.

It advocates the implementation of "reasonable" means, which in contrast seems to indicate that inclusion is not desirable when the necessary means are "unreasonable". Still, we have to agree on the sense of the terms "reasonable" and "unreasonable" that mark the limits of inclusion.

The scope of inclusive education may also be limited by other causes, linked to a non-optimized implementation of the means or the lack of these means. These are limits that can be overcome by the adaptation of educational policies, but which are sometimes very real limits.

Supports to consult

Development

Provide participants with resource sheets on  « The limits of inclusion » and  « Being conviced of every child’s educability: a prerequisite for teaching ? »  »

Description of the learning process

Expected answers:

1/ The UN Convention advocates providing "reasonable means", which implies a contrario that it is admitted that inclusion has limits when the means to be implemented to include are "unreasonable".

The UN convention does not define or classify these "reasonable means". It is therefore necessary to interpret the meaning of these.

Still basing oneself on the ethical considerations that underlie the UN's recommendations, it may be thought that inclusive education is not desirable when:

  •  It causes a child’s suffering to which the school can not respond, despite a flawless organization. Forced inclusion would be unethical in this case.
  •  The disability is such that specific equipment is required and can only be found in specialized establishments.

Despite these limitations, which only scientific advances can push back, the scope of inclusion is largely open to most children with disabilities or with Special Educational Needs.

2/ A school organization designed to isolate Special Needs Education pupils in specialized classes while immersing them in ordinary classes most of the time would have serious disadvantages:

  • Stigmatization of these pupils whose difference is highlighted
  • Underutilization of the skills of specialized teachers, whose presence in ordinary classes would facilitate the work of teachers and benefit all pupils
  • Division of work harmful to team spirit
  • Retracted impact of the presence of these children on the rest of the class, while many teachers have shown their beneficial effect on learning how to live together

Such an organization would be an example of misuse of the implemented means, and a way of diverting the spirit of the laws for easy won short-term objectives.

 

3/ In fact, there are still many obstacles that limit the goals of inclusion. For example, on the panel constituted by partnership countries, one can frequently find:

  • Insufficiently disability-aware educational staff and managers. As long as people’s attitude to handicap has not changed, and the notion of educability has not entered into teachers’ and managers’ training, the tendency to create specialized structures to deal with certain forms of disability, including mental disability, will be a short-term easy fix that moves us away from inclusion goals. In a long-term perspective, this option is a mismanagement, both financially and societally, because it causes risks of desocializing the individual, and a high probability that his/her needs would have to be met by society throughout his/her life.
  • Insufficient training of teachers who, despite strong involvement, find themselves disarmed in the face of the educational challenge presented to them.
  • The compartmentalization of stakeholders that has a negative impact on the effectiveness of educational actions, while the means implemented are often important.

In most European countries, achieving inclusion is still a long way to go. It will necessarily go through the debate on deinstitutionalization, that is to say the (almost total) elimination of specialized structures. The Italian example is instructive and has made it possible to considerably advance the objectives of inclusion. Pushing back the limits of inclusion is at this price, but it is possible.

To achieve this, a strong political will is needed, which addresses the problem of deinstitutionalization in a comprehensive way. It is not enough to make laws if they are not respected in practice, and if the objectives are not clearly understood by those who are responsible for applying them.

In the long run, states have everything to gain by advancing toward inclusion, which is the only option that aims at socializing individuals and helping them to find their own independence.

 

 

 

THE OTHER MODULES