Conocimiento explícito

The lack of consensus about the definition of inclusion causes differences in policy and practice that create difficulties in attempting to evaluate whether individual children experience inclusion (Ellis et al., 2008). This section briefly considers the effectiveness of inclusion, bearing in mind potential differences in understanding, rhetoric and implementation as demonstrated among European Union countries (Muskens, 2009). From a perspective of policy implementation, governments have typically focused on the achievement of numerical targets in terms of numbers, percentages and types of children attending school (Muskens, 2008) and Saudi Arabia is no exception. Al-Mousa et al. (2008) reported findings of a mainly quantitative national evaluation study on the experience of mainstreaming in Saudi Arabia. This covered four different models of education service delivery for children with SEN: mainstreaming programmes, full-time inclusion in regular classrooms in schools with mainstreaming programmes, full-time inclusion in regular classrooms in schools without mainstreaming programmes, and special education institutes. When Al-Mousa et al. (2008) reported, just under 9,000 individuals with SEN were in mainstreaming programmes in regular schools, just over 4,000 were taught by regular teachers in regular schools with mainstreaming programmes, some 5,600 were in regular schools without a mainstreaming programme and around 4,600 were receiving their education in special education institutes. The

evaluation reported that the spatial requirements of mainstreaming programmes were sufficient, suitable and effectively utilized. In other words, school premises were adequate and appropriate for children with SEN. The evaluation further found that personnel and equipment were also sufficient, suitable and effectively utilized. In addition, there was effective integration of these programmes with schools, and evidence of good interaction and co-operation. Mainstreaming in regular schools was judged to generate better outcomes than education in institutes for pupils with autism, whilst there was no difference for pupils with multiple disabilities and for girls assessed as mentally retarded, although boys assessed as mentally retarded were judged to benefit more from mainstreaming in regular schools. It was found that the attitudes of teachers, parents and administrators towards mainstreaming were generally more positive in regular schools than in special institutes. Al-Mousa et al. (2008) drew attention to the fact that the evaluation was aimed at improving implementation of inclusion and that mainstreaming was necessary as a flexible framework for ensuring that the education needs of all exceptional children could be met in one form or another. Al Mousa’s evaluation focused on early outcomes in terms of implementation rather than on how inclusion was experienced by stakeholders and children.

The UNICEF guide to Equity and Inclusion in Education United Nations in the context of girl’s education (UNICEF, 2010) takes a broader view of measures of inclusion, within a rights perspective of ensuring access to education for all children. The guide, which aims to support the education sector in any country that could benefit from using it, invites all those involved in setting policy to “ask the right questions” (UNICEF, 2010, p.5) about:

baseline data on enrolment and completion, barriers to equity and inclusion, policies, strategies to promote equity and inclusion, institutional arrangement, schools, parental and community participation, teachers, curriculum, and budgets and unit costs. Specific examples of ‘right questions’ include asking about the training given to headteachers, school principals, the way in which “co-curricular activities support equity and inclusion” (ibid., p.14), the extent to which the teaching profession itself is equitable and inclusive and the mechanisms used to motivate teachers to support inclusion and equity in the classroom. Recognition that inclusion operates in a wider social and community setting is given by questions about the identification of barriers to parental participation and the development of effective Parent Teacher Associations, effective involvement of community-based organisations in schools and ways of strengthening the participation of children in co-curricular activities and in the affairs of the school (UNICEF, 2010).

It is suggested that inclusion could be identified or recognized by its impact on the community surrounding the school and the wider society. This is consistent with research that has been conducted, for example, by a 2005 Australian study exploring the nature of inclusion through “engaging participants (students, class teacher, parents, and special education teachers) in “conversations” about their experiences of inclusion” (Foster, 2005, ii), and by Stockall and Gartin (2002). In other words, the nature of inclusion is understood through the experiences of those involved in it, so that in theory two schools could have identical premises, facilities and curriculum, and have staff with the same type and level of qualifications, and yet the experiences of students and teachers could be rather different. However, little attention has been paid to the evaluation of inclusion as

experienced by children, where the success or otherwise of policy implementation is of little concern. For this reason, in this study, a case study of 5 schools in a Saudi Arabian region, the researcher has used ‘belonging’ as a key dimension of inclusion to assess its effectiveness, on the assumption that if children do not feel they belong, inclusion cannot be said to be happening.

The implementation of inclusion is influenced by, and may in turn influence, the models of disability and SEN that predominate in a particular society. For instance, if the aim is normalization and the model of disability is based on that view, requiring diagnosis and ‘cure’, effectiveness may be measured in terms of early intervention, specialist support and numbers of individuals reported as ‘normal’ or progressing towards ‘normal’. In another example, if the aim is for all children to be educated in regular classrooms with others in their age group, statistics collected may be percentage of children in education and age groups per class. The model(s) of disability which underlie inclusion reflect a country’s history and values, therefore it is important to understand the theoretical perspectives which underpin the models of disability and approaches to SEN.