Algunas reflexiones sobre la evaluación de contenido

The concepts of inclusive education emerged in Anglo-American countries in the mid-1980s and early 1990s as a critical response to the existing arrangements of special education and the integration model. Proponents of inclusive education have criticised the concept of integration as referring to a mere placement of children categorised as students with SEN into mainstream schooling without any substantial attempt to combat hidden exclusionary forces within the mainstream education and society (Mitchell, 2008). They argue that integration may become exclusionary and discriminatory and have unfavourable consequences for these students (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2002 as cited in Egan, 2013).

According to Vislie (2003) and Barth (1996), the critique against integration is for its being inherently assimilations. In contrast, the concept of inclusive education attempts to address the exclusionary pressures within mainstream schools, which requires a profound reconstruction of schooling in all its aspects, that is, in the nature of the curriculum and teaching methods, school philosophy, and overall expectations (Unesco, 2005).

The term ‘inclusive education’ emerged as a new concept that distances itself from some basic premises of integration. Inclusive education advocates argue that integration still assumes a deficit in students, categorising them according to various diagnoses so they could be individually treated, though in a mainstream school setting (Thomas, 2013).

Integration requires the objects of policy to forget their former status as outsiders and fit comfortably into what remain deeply hostile institutional arrangements. In this sense, integration represents an attempt to rectify and eliminate differences between students. It also invites students to adjust and assimilate to the majority (Barth, 1996).

In contrast, inclusive education does not differentiate students into any categories – for instance, into those who have or not have SEN or disabilities but respects and celebrates the difference (Unesco, 1994; Thomas, 2013; Egan, 2013).

In literature, there is no consensus about the origins of the concept of inclusive education. For instance, Armstrong and Spandagou (2011 as cited in Egan, 2013) distinguish four origins that brought the concept of inclusion into life. Firstly, they claim that parents, teachers and other advocates of students with disabilities challenged the existing system of integration, which was posing limits on the level of students’ impairments for them to be integrated in mainstream schools. In addition, integration required an elaborate system of assessment of SEN, which determined the amount of resources for various forms of individual interventions for students being withdrawn from the regular classroom.

Secondly, the emergence of the Social Model of Disability, which was introduced by Michael Oliver (1996), significantly challenged general thinking about disability. The Model postulates that it is not the person’s impairment that disables them to actively participate in social life, but it is the way society responds to them, which disadvantages and excludes them. To simply explain how the model might apply to an educational context, it might mean, for instance, that a person using a wheelchair is not disabled by her/his own physical impairment, rather the physical construction of school building disables her/him by preventing free movement in its space.

Thirdly, the commencement of free-market philosophy, including competition, accountability, control, and choice into educational systems, provoked a wide critique of these educational reforms and how they influenced the ways schools managed difference. Fourthly, the initiation of international non-governmental organisations (NGOs), especially Unesco played

a pivotal role in establishing and promotion of inclusive education as a relevant policy agenda for all its member states and gave a political relevance for researching it (Unesco, 1994).

The notion of inclusive education has many conceptual and value threads that need to be identified (Collins, 2003). Inclusion is a term that owes its force partly to it replacing the term integration. Though many practitioners might see the terms as interchangeable, many of the proponents attach considerable conceptual and value significance to the notion of inclusion (Hegarty, 1993). As Collins (2003) notes, inclusion has been constructed to have a more embracing and Universalist meaning. As a result, inclusion does not set boundaries between different areas of ‘vulnerability’. Therefore, integration is said to be about those with SEN or disabilities, but inclusion goes beyond to reference others who experience social exclusion, for example, including those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds and ethnic minorities (Collins, 2003; Hegarty, 1993).

As it is vividly emphasised in the framework for action of Salamanca, inclusion is said to have a more systemic and social meaning in that it is about restructuring ordinary or regular schools to have the capacity to accommodate all children. Integration is seen to be more about placing the individual child in a system that assimilates the child without adapting itself to accommodate the child (Unesco, 1994; Collins, 2003).

Sometimes, the two terms, namely, integration and inclusive, are used interchangeably referring to children being integrated into a regular classroom and included into a regular classroom. However, there are significant differences between the two concepts. Having clear understanding about the distinction between the two concepts can help educators as well as PwDs to advocate for an inclusive environment that will help all children to learn (Collins, 2003).

As Mitchell (2008) highlights, integration models assume there is something wrong that must be fixed in order to fit into the present system. The supports and adaptations that occur are put in place to force a child into an existing classroom setting. The child must adjust to these adaptations or fail (Collins, 2003; Hegarty, 1990; 1993). Advocates of the inclusive model believe that all children are different, and all children can learn. There is nothing about a child

that needs to be fixed in order for that child to fit into a system (Mitchell, 2008; Ainscow, 1999). In line with this, the school system as a whole should be restructured to enable all children to learn in order to meet the individual needs of all learners (Unesco, 1994).

The inclusion model, like the integration model, places students with disabilities into the regular education classroom. However, as Collins (2003) further explains the integration practice, integration uses little or no special services or support in the regular education classroom. Although there is still the option of going outside the regular classroom for help, the regular education teacher in the classroom is primarily responsible for the student’s progress (Collins, 2003). There is a great difference between the underlying concepts of integration and inclusion as they relate to placement decisions. As Collins (2003) notes, integration is not simply a soft version of inclusion, and using these two terms interchangeably is not only confusing but fails to highlight the philosophical differences that many educators and disability advocates wish to emphasise (p. 450). Hence, inclusion goes beyond integration. To take an example from the field of education, integration might be attempted simply by admitting CwDs to regular schools. However, inclusion is possible only when schools are designed and administered so that all children can learn and play together (Frederickson, & Cline, 2009; Mitchell, 2008). Inclusive schooling would entail providing such needed accommodations as access to Braille, sign language and adapted curricula (Unesco, 2005).

Against this background, the practice of inclusion is not necessarily synonymous with full integration in regular classrooms, and goes beyond placement to include meaningful participation and interaction with others. Therefore, inclusion is described as being about participation, not just placement or location (Mitchell, 2008). As Norwich (2008) argues, a distinction between inclusion and integration does not justify detaching the concepts from each other and treating integration in a negative way.

However, a troubling ambiguity for Norwich (2008) is that the term inclusive education is often used to describe only placement in a mainstream classroom, rather than a child’s full participation in all aspects of the educational setting. Being physically present in a mainstream setting does not automatically result in inclusion. Being there is not enough; it is no guarantee of respect for difference or access to the material, social, cultural, and educational capital that people who do not have disability expect (Unesco, 1999). A lack of understanding about what inclusive education means by itself is a barrier to inclusion of children with diversified needs (Unesco, 1999). It is now widely recognised that placement within a mainstream setting, while a necessary starting point, is really only a starting point for bringing about inclusive education (ibid). The existence of CwDs in the regular classroom without involvement and sharing does not necessarily equate to inclusive education. A common misperception is that inclusive education requires a child who is being included or adjusts to fit within a setting as in a notion of assimilation rather than inclusion (Collins, 2003). This devaluing and dehumanising approach would be better understood as a demeaning understanding of inclusion compared to a facilitative understanding of inclusion whereby all people are recognised as valued human beings and rights holders. In contrast to demeaning understandings of inclusion as conditional assimilation, inclusive education requires recognising the right of every child to be included and adapting the environment and teaching approaches in order to ensure the valued participation of all children (Allan, 2008; Norwich, 2008; Unesco, 1999).