Inclusive education reform in Queensland: implications for policy and practice

Abstract

Key words: Inclusive education; Education policy; Support personnel; Professional developmentIn Queensland, Australia, the school system is being reformed to be more 'inclusive'.However the enthusiasm for 'inclusive education' in Queensland seems to be waning amongst practitioners, and the 'confusion, frustration, guilt and exhaustion' that has emerged with teachers and support practitioners in the UK, is emerging amongst support practitioners and teachers in Queensland. This article argues that this is happening because inclusive education reforms that intend to provide an equitable education for all students regardless of cultural, physical, social/emotional and behavioural differences, are being introduced, but these policies, procedures and stuructures continue to label, isolate and segregate students within schools in the way in which segregated special education facilities did in the past. As well, new policies and structures are being introduced without practitioners having the time and support to critically examine the underlying assumptions about disability, difference and inclusion that underpin their practices.These reforms need to be reviewed in terms of their effectiveness in achieving their 'inclusive' goals, i.e. in terms of the impacts that these reforms are having on the students themselves, and on the educational practitioners who support the students. IntroductionRecently Slee (2006) explored the history of inclusive education reform using the imagery of 'crossroads.' Reflecting on the paradigmatic crossroads identified over 10 years ago by Clark, Dyson & Milward (1995, p. v), Slee noted that inclusive education reform has taken a particular path that has led to a re-badging of 'special education' as 'inclusive education' in policy and educational discourses, rather than a completely different path that interrogates how educational classification systems govern a "descending order of human value" (Slee, 2006, p. 112). Baker (2002, p. 663) agrees that, rather than addressing underlying issues about difference, disability and exclusion, a "transmogrification" has occurred through which " a new eugenics" has emerged, and this continues to contribute to labeling and segregation of students.Students with disabilities and learning difficulties continue to be identified in terms of medical or psychological deficits, as either not within the 'normal' range or standards of academic achievement or social-emotional control, or slow to achieve such standards. Once identified, such students are in need of intervention programs within schools in order to achieve the prescribed standards. But as Baker (2002) argues, these standards are an arbitrary construct of those who decide what constitutes 'normal.' For students so identified and categorised by some who adopt an inclusion discourse, an equitable education seems to equate to identification and categorisation of deficits, and educational adjustments and resourcing to address these deficits, so that students can meet standards of academic achi...

Becoming an Inclusive Educator: Applying Deleuze & Guattari to Teacher Education

“…As preservice teachers move into the role of beginning teacher, understanding their responsibilities and workplace expectations regarding how to respond to students with diverse needs can be challenging because of the deficit discourse that surrounds diversity and difference in schools (Bourke, 2010). Deficit discourse and the ideology that surrounds it define the limits of certain students based on their personal histories or perceived abilities and perpetuate educational practices.…”

An exploration of parental decisions to transfer children from regular to special schools

“…There is ongoing debate about the impact of the various disability models on the education of students with intellectual disability (e.g., Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2011), however, evidence suggests that the medical model remains influential in many education systems, including the system in Queensland (see, for example, Anderson & Boyle, 2015;Bourke, 2010). For example, school processes continue to rely on sorting children into disability categories and a deficit approach is used to address school difficulties.…”

“…Differentiation and universal design for learning are current pedagogical practices regarding students with intellectual disability (van Kraayenoord, 2007), and knowledge of such approaches is increasingly required of all teachers, including those in the general classroom (Bourke, 2010). However, the common generalisations and accommodations recommended for other students with disability may not fit for some students with intellectual disability; the teaching of students with profound intellectual disability, in particular, is still regarded as the business of special education (Lyons & Arthur-Kelly, 2014).…”

“…Bourke (2010) argued that underlying special education assumptions get in the way of inclusive reform. Similarly, Armstrong et al (2011) proposed that special education discourse has hindered progress in providing inclusive education for all.…”

“…Individual impairments (including intellectual impairment) are acknowledged, but whether or not these are disabling is seen to be a function of an individual's political, physical and social environment; thus, disability is the product of institutional barriers rather than personal characteristics (Kanter & Ferri, 2013). The social model has contributed to the inclusive education revolution (Armstrong, Armstrong, & Spandagou, 2011), and challenged historical medical approaches to students with disability such as classifying and separating children based on disability diagnoses (Bourke, 2010). The social model of disability shifts the educational gaze towards the accessibility of classroom environments, demanding that teachers focus on removing barriers to learning rather than removing children who struggle.…”