La responsabilidad en la protección a la infancia

Several factors create barriers to the inclusion of students perceived or identified as experiencing behavioural difficulties. Systemic and teacher-related factors are reported.

2.4.1 Systemic factors.

2.4.1.1 Politico-economic influences.

Access to education is enshrined in theNew.Zealand Education Act 1989 where it states that all children and youth must enrol at, and attend school until they turn 16. Nevertheless, politico- economic exclusionary pressures counteract efforts towards inclusion for students perceived or identified as experiencing behavioural difficulties. The climate of marketisation cultivated under the neo-liberal umbrella is a frequently reported systemic barrier to inclusive education (Barton & Slee, 1999; Burton et al., 2009; Kearney, 2009; Loxley & Thomas, 2001; Searle, 2001; Slee, 2011; Wearmouth et al., 2005). In market-led educational systems, ideas of equity underpinning inclusive education are wiped away by neo-liberal ideals. Standardised testing and league tables are linked with competitive market-led educational systems where students perceived as deviant or at-risk of academic failure are in danger of facing exclusion (Slee, 2011). Building on an analysis of the examination system in the United Kingdom (Searle, 2001), Kearney (2009) explains that the New.Zealand National Certificate in Educational Achievement (NCEA)32 creates such conditions. Competition pressurises schools to assure parents “that standards will be maintained and that difficult students will not come between their children and high academic attainment” (Slee, 2001a, p. 392). For Burton et al. (2009), such a climate leads to students perceived or identified as experiencing behavioural difficulties to be deprived of their rights to education and to have their needs met, putting them in danger of remaining at the margins of society. For these authors, where market forces and accountability encourage competition between schools for high achieving students, the exclusion of students perceived or identified as experiencing behavioural difficulties reveals tensions inherent to inclusive policies promoting inclusive practices and yet giving schools the authority to decide who is up to the standard and who is out.

32 _{NCEA is the New Zealand national qualification scheme for secondary education recognised by tertiary} institutions and employers.

2.4.1.2 Educational policies.

Inclusive policies can act as barriers to inclusion (A. C. Armstrong et al., 2010; Lloyd, 2000; Loxley & Thomas, 2001). New.Zealand researchers undertook analyses of policy and their main area of criticism is the co-existence of special education and inclusive education discourses in policy documents, resulting in confusion due to their different theoretical underpinnings (Higgins et al., 2008; Higgins et al., 2006; Kearney & Kane, 2006; Rutherford, 2012; Tearle & Spandagou, 2012; Wills, 2006). Slee (2007) observes that using competing discourses results in “contradictory sets of policy initiatives” (p. 182).33 Kearney and Kane (2006) provide an example of these competing discourses specific to behavioural issues. Their analysis illustrates that the Severe Behaviour Initiative, still embedded in PB4L as Severe Behaviour Service, labels students and relies on experts to ‘fix’ their problems, hence diminishing the impact of social and cultural factors and justifying teachers giving up responsibility for their students. Expert support as described in this scheme is therefore often associated with the medical model viewing students experiencing SEN as disabled individuals.

2.4.1.3 Resources.

Resources have long been identified as a key issue in creating inclusive schools. The lack of resources to deal with behavioural difficulties in regular classrooms remains a major problem for teachers (Ford, 2007; Goodman & Burton, 2010; NZEI, 2007b). These resources include specialist and teacher aide support as well as funding.

In relation to specialist support, a New.Zealand study by Prochnow (2006) on barriers to including students experiencing behavioural difficulties shows that teachers perceive the interventions to deal with challenging behaviour proposed by specialists (i.e., RTLB and MoE:SE staff) as impractical and time consuming. The study also shows that specialists perceive teachers’ resistance to inclusion and resistance to changing their practices as a hindering factor to including students with behaviour difficulties.

In addition to specialist support, New.Zealand schools employ teacher aides. This common practice is questioned as there is no obligation for compulsory teacher aide training in New.Zealand (Rutherford, 2008, 2012; Ward, 2011). Research evidence shows that teachers’ responsibility for disabled students or students experiencing school difficulties is often passed

33 _{For Norwhich, whose ideas are reported by Cigman (2007), it is the paradigmatic polarisation of the special} education debate that “creates a policy impasse” (p. 790) (see 2.2).

on to untrained paraprofessionals (Ainscow, 1999; Giangreco & Broer, 2005; Kearney, 2009). Moreover, teacher aides are often attached to particular students (Sebba & Ainscow, 1996) leading to the conclusion that “the additional resources and services provided by extra funding can sometimes work against inclusion by singling some students out in a classroom” (Loreman et al., 2011, p. 11).

Although funding is often presented as facilitating inclusion, extra funds alone are not sufficient for successful inclusion. Changes at the structural level must occur, otherwise “inclusion is narrowed to enrolment and resources policy” (Slee, 2001a, p. 388) and special education services only become assimilated to regular education (Loreman et al., 2011; Sebba & Ainscow, 1996). Loreman et al. (2011) advise to look beyond resourcing and to consider factors such as “staff attitudes, the quality of school organisation and the capacity to think creatively” (p. 11).

2.4.1.4 Structure and culture of the secondary school.

The literature also points to the structure and culture of the secondary school as working against inclusion. The main challenges secondary schools face in implementing inclusion are (Pearce & Forlin, 2005): school structure constraining students to comply rather than responding to individual needs; content- and teacher-focused teaching as opposed to student-focused practices; curriculum and teaching not fit for diversity and equity but for external pressures; teachers trained to teach content instead of playing the multifaceted role necessary to meet the needs of a diverse student population; and adolescence-related problems. Additionally, secondary school teachers often work in isolation rather than collaboratively (Pounder, 1998). Identifying the school principal as a key person in building an inclusive secondary school community, Brown and Bauer (2001) concur:

Building an inclusive school community can be difficult, especially for principals in high schools in which traditional structures are deeply embedded in the secondary school culture. How does a principal lead a high school with a tradition of teachers working in isolation according to their particular disciplines toward an inclusive learning community in which diversity and collaboration are valued? (p. 13).

An Australian study by Carrington and Elkins (2002b) compares the culture of a traditional secondary school to that of an inclusive secondary school. These different cultures were associated with contrasting forms of service delivery to support students and teachers, and with divergent beliefs and attitudes towards welcoming and catering for all students. The traditional

school created barriers to inclusion as it “perpetuated the conceptualization of difference and maintained the status quo in teaching methods and school structure” (p. 14). Thus, the culture of this school acted as a barrier to becoming inclusive. In relation to behaviour and as highlighted by Wearmouth et al. (2005), the institutional social practices entrenched in the school culture are important for understanding behaviour and students perceived or identified as experiencing behavioural difficulties. Discipline systems make up some of these social practices and some schools make the choice to frequently use disciplinary practices while some choose alternative solutions.

2.4.2 Teacher-related factors. 2.4.2.1 Beliefs and attitudes.

Studies on teachers’ beliefs and attitudes abound in inclusive education research. There is a general agreement that teachers’ positive beliefs and attitudes towards inclusion are central to creating inclusive schools and classrooms (Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Bélanger, 2010; Carrington, 1999; Loreman et al., 2011). Conversely, negative attitudes could create barriers to inclusion. Many studies point to an acceptance of the principles of inclusion by teachers, but concomitantly indicate reticence which jeopardises the practical application of these principles (Anderson et al., 2007; Avissar, 2000; Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Duchesne, 2002; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Subban & Sharma, 2005). Teachers themselves cite “teachers attitudes: prejudices or preconceived ideas” (Forlin, 2004, p. 192) as a barrier to inclusion. The following factors have been associated with teachers having a positive attitude towards inclusion:

• previous experiences with students having SEN (Avissar, 2000; Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000b; Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Bélanger, 2010; Duchesne, 2002); • adequate teacher preparation or in-service training (Avissar, 2000; Avramidis et al.,

2000b; Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Bélanger, 2010; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996); • knowledge about human rights (Duchesne, 2002);

• provision or availability of support and resources (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Bélanger, 2010); and

• school sustaining an inclusive culture or ethos (Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Carrington, 1999; Clough, 1999).

The severity and nature of the students’ difficulties has also been associated with teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion (Avramidis et al., 2000b; Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). The more severe the difficulties, the less positive the attitudes. In terms of the nature of the difficulties, students perceived or identified as experiencing behavioural difficulties are considered among the most difficult to include in regular classrooms, and attitudes regarding their inclusion are reported as negative (Avramidis et al., 2000b; Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Čagran & Schmidt, 2010; Cartledge & Johnson, 1996; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Swinson et al., 2003). These negative attitudes act as barriers to their inclusion: “there is evidence that general education teachers perceive students with EBD more pejoratively than special education teachers, and their attitudes and accompanying behaviors play a role in the classroom adjustment of these students” (Cartledge & Johnson, 1996, p. 52). Students perceived or identified as experiencing behavioural difficulties are often rejected by their peers and by adults (Church, 2003; Walker et al., 2004). In addition, low behaviour and academic expectations negatively affect efforts to include these students (Glynn & Berryman, 2005). Macfarlane (2004) illustrates how these negative attitudes can be perpetuated:

Too often teachers react to the narratives associated with a student. Students with behaviour difficulties are “labelled” as bad, uncooperative, uncouth, deviant, arrogant, aggressive, or a combination of these so-called characteristics. The labels develop into “stories” about the student which, in the main, precede the student’s arrival at a new form level or learning environment. Such a perspective is unfair and unacceptable as it represents a continuity of student disadvantage where the individual is forced to operate under handicap conditions socially, psychologically, and educationally (p. 88).

Clough, Garner, Pardeck and Yuen (2005), present a similar observation in stating that students identified as having behavioural difficulties are often assumed to be “manipulative, capable of controlling their actions and unwilling to comply with the work orientation of school” (p. 11). Such commentaries are supported by research findings showing causal attributions for difficult behaviour to the students themselves (Johansen et al., 2011; Koutrouba, 2011; Prochnow, 2006), thus ignoring environmental causes like school- and teacher-related factors.

2.4.2.2 Knowledge and skills.

As presented in 2.4.2.1, adequate teacher training is a factor associated with positive attitudes towards inclusion. Knowledgeable and highly skilled teachers are better prepared to teach a diverse students population and to manage difficult behaviours, whereas the lack of training and knowledge acts as a barrier to inclusion and maintains misconceptions and fears (Titone, 2005).

There is a general consensus that most teachers are ill-prepared to meet the needs of all students (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2009; Garner, 2000; MacBeath, Galton, Steward, MacBeath, & Page, 2006; Titone, 2005). Some authors believe that there is a persisting gap between research-based knowledge on effective interventions and less effective practices teachers use to prevent and manage problem behaviour (Royer, 2005; Tankersley, Landrum, & Cook, 2004; Weisz, Sandler, Durlak, & Anton, 2005). Cooper and Jacobs (2011) strongly state the necessity to narrow this research-to-practice gap as schools fail to engage these students. Evidence that teachers themselves do not feel trained enough to deal with challenging behaviours also exists. This was shown in an Australian study (Ford, 2007). A Canadian study (Fontaine, Kane, Duquette, & Savoie-Zajc, 2012) found that beginning secondary education teachers who felt ill-prepared for classroom management were more likely to think about leaving the profession, even if their confidence improved during a second year teaching. In New.Zealand, beginning and experienced teachers alike did not feel their qualification prepared them well enough to deal with difficult behaviour (Anthony & Kane, 2008; Johansen et al., 2011). The primary school teachers in the study by Johansen et al. (2011) perceived the training opportunities for classroom or behaviour management as insufficient and questioned their utility.

Initial teacher education (ITE) and professional development (PD) are prime vehicles to develop teachers’ knowledge and skills for inclusion (Loreman et al., 2011; UNESCO, 1994). However, the reported ill-preparedness of teachers for inclusion and behaviour management leads to questions about the content and form of actual teacher education. One debated question is: “How specialized is teaching pupils with disabilities and difficulties?” (A. Lewis & Norwich, 2005, p. 1). Inclusive education and special education propose divergent solutions for ITE. Reviewing the inclusive education literature on this issue, Loreman (2010) identifies seven domains to incorporate in ITE: “understanding of inclusion and respect for diversity; collaboration with stakeholders...; fostering a positive social climate; instructing in ways conducive to inclusion; engaging in inclusive instructional planning; engaging in meaningful assessment; and engaging in lifelong learning” (p. 128). While inclusive education focuses on teaching for diversity to meet the needs of all students, a special education stance argues that teaching SEN students requires knowledge about their characteristics and about specialised interventions, hence the denunciation of the research-to-practice gap. It is believed that removing specialised programmes could lead “to the loss of professional expertise and skills in very distinct areas of needs” (Garner, 2009, p. 152). This debate is particularly salient in the area of teaching students perceived or identified as experiencing high behavioural needs because special education has contributed to a large extent to the knowledge-base in this area (Tankersley et al., 2004). The evidence gathered through special education research on

behavioural difficulties over the past decades can benefit students and schools and should not be rejected. However, in inclusive education mandated settings, the paradigmatic assumptions sustaining practice must be made explicit to avoid solely blaming students for disruptive behaviour.34 _{This was accomplished in a New.Zealand study in which a RTLB helped a teacher} to apply adequately a contingency plan to reduce the frequency of a students’ disruptive behaviour (Prochnow & Johansen, 2012). This is an example of an area where special education research can inform inclusive education practice as teachers often face problems despite long standing evidence that praise is a powerful social reinforcer of positive behaviour when used frequently and adequately (Tankersley et al., 2004).

The reported lack of preparedness following ITE points to PD as a way to bring about change and support teachers in shifting their practices (UNESCO, 2005). For Ainscow (2003), “teacher development has to be at the heart of initiatives for developing inclusive practices in schools [and effective approaches] have to be school-based, set within organisational arrangements that will provide appropriate support for teacher reflection and experimentation” (p. 15). Providing PD in schools would allow teachers to reach out to each other to improve their practices thus helping in creating a professional learning community (Loreman et al., 2011). School-based PD of this form contrasts with short term or one-off PD which does not bring about sustainable change. PD sustainability is defined as “continued or improved student outcomes once the support provided during the earlier phases of professional development has been largely or totally withdrawn” (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2007, p. xxxiv). According to these authors, PD sustainability is supported when teachers are provided with strong theoretical understandings, are encouraged to develop inquiry skills and work under organisational conditions supporting long-term change.

Although the literature mostly discusses ITE and PD as means of preparing teachers for successful inclusion and promotion of positive behaviour, Booth, Nes and Strømstad (2003) stress that teacher education also occurs informally:

Most teacher education is informal and unplanned, as teachers learn through experience with and from colleagues, students and others, in settings that may be both literally and metaphorically far removed from lecture rooms or classrooms. Most formal teacher education too is outside of the control of those paid to think of themselves as teacher educators, organised by teachers themselves as they inform each other about areas of practice that are of direct relevance within their particular communities. (p. 3)

34 _{A similar idea is expressed by Michail (2011) who proposes to look at the social constructions of children} underlying the decisions schools make in responding to challenging behaviour.

Little is known about the origins of teachers’ knowledge on inclusive education, outside of ITE and PD. No New.Zealand study investigating informal sources of knowledge has been identified in the process of conducting this literature review and it is believed this has to be addressed for knowledge and skills impact on practice.