ACTIVIDAD RECURSO DIGITAL
6. PROPUESTA METODOLÓGICA
Phase three of this study involved interviews with four teachers in one school. All interview transcripts were analysed to identify respondents’ views and practices associated with the themes parents had identified in phase one as barriers to their child’s presence and participation at school (see section 5.3). Table 5.39 provides background information on these teachers.
Table 5.39
Teacher interview: Background information
Teacher one Teacher in charge of the special education unit Teacher two Special Education Needs Coordinator (SENCO) Teacher three Classroom teacher (junior school)
Teacher four Classroom teacher (senior school)
Initially, teachers were asked to talk about the concept of inclusive education, what it meant to them, and what their views were about it. Table 5.40 presents the main themes from the analysis of this data.
Table 5.40
Teacher interview: What inclusive education means
Teachers
1 2 3 4
Being in the mainstream if they are able √ √
Being with their peers if the gap is not too wide √ √
Meeting the educational needs of all students √
Giving all students the same opportunities within an educational setting
√
Being part of the mainstream classroom programme for certain activities
√
Including students with special needs in mainstream classes when the class programme is appropriate
√
Including students with special needs in mainstream classes if they are not too disruptive
√
Including students with special needs if it suits the child √
For all teachers, inclusive education was focused on the student being physically present in a mainstream class if their needs were not too high, or too different from the non-disabled students, or if they were not too disruptive. None of the four teachers spoke about inclusive education in relation to identifying and reducing barriers to their presence and participation in mainstream settings. Teacher two did speak of inclusive education as giving all students the same opportunities within an education setting, however caveats were placed on this view such as if the students were not too disruptive, or if they were not too different from their peers.
Teachers were asked to identify what they believed were the barriers and/or enablers to inclusive education. Table 5.41 outlines these findings. For ease of interpretation, data have been organised around the themes of teacher, student and context.
Table 5.41
Teacher interview: The barriers/enablers to inclusive education
Teachers
1 2 3 4
Teachers
Lack of teacher knowledge/ knowledgeable teachers √ √ √ √
Teachers not accepting/accepting disabled students in their class √ √ √
Fearful teachers/confident teachers √ √
Poor/effective teacher communication & consultation √ √ √ √
Lack/adequate teacher time √
Teacher not adapting/adapting the curriculum √
Previous/no previous experience of teacher √ Students and/or parents
Parents not thinking/thinking child can be mainstreamed √
The behaviour or ability of the student √ √
Lack of/good communication skills in the student √
Not preparing/preparing the student for the mainstream √ Context
Inadequate/adequate teacher aide support √ √ √ √
Inadequate/adequate funding/resources √ √ √ √
Inappropriate/appropriate physical environment √ √ √
Fear/non fear of other students √ √
Professionals not working/working together √ √
Class size too large/not too large √
All four teachers indicated that the degree of knowledge on the part of the teacher was an important enabler or barrier to inclusive education. Two spoke of the importance of professional development in this area for teachers and teacher aides.
You’ve got to have that knowledge base. Be up-skilled in how to best support these kiddies and from a teaching point of view and also our support staff. (Teacher 2)
Three teachers identified teacher acceptance of disabled children as an enabler to inclusive education. For one of these teachers, this acceptance had to come from the entire school community if inclusive education was to be a reality.
You have to have everyone coming on board with you, you can’t leave anyone, it is a bit like a lifeboat, you can’t leave anybody out. (Teacher 1)
One teacher pointed out that she thought the students in the school noticed that some teachers were accepting of disabled students from the special education unit, and some were not.
I think the kids pick up on this. Why do they go to that class and not that class? (Teacher 4)
All four teachers, but particularly teacher two, stressed the degree of communication and consultation as important barriers or enablers. She pointed out that all parties working and communicating together acted as a strong enabler to inclusive education ensuring that good decisions were made for the disabled student.
The consultation process needs to be an important factor. You’ve got to consult with all the parties to be able to make sure that you as the professional are making the right choice for the student. (Teacher 2)
Other issues identified were the importance of adapting the curriculum, a lack of teacher time and a lack of teacher experience.
Three teachers identified a factor or factors associated with the disabled student themselves as working for or against inclusive education. This included the student’s behaviour, a lack of communication skills on the part of the disabled student, and the disabled student not being adequately prepared for the mainstream.
I guess the ability of some of the kiddies to be successful in the mainstream. Ideally we want all students to be included within the mainstream, but the reality is it is not always possible, with some of our severely disabled kiddies. And you know they can be disruptive. (Teacher 2)
One teacher said that when parents don’t think their child can be educated in the mainstream, this was a barrier to inclusive education.
All four teachers identified contextual issues as factors that can facilitate inclusion, or act as a barrier. The provision of teacher aide support was an issue common to all four teachers, who thought that it was necessary for successful inclusion. All teachers also mentioned the importance of funding and resources. Two teachers were not specific regarding what the funding was necessary for, and two teachers once more mentioned the necessity for teacher aides when explaining the importance of funding.
The link with inclusion and funding often goes hand in glove with teacher aide support. (Teacher 1)
One teacher thought resources such as classroom furniture and the right equipment were enablers for successful inclusive education.
Closely related to the issue of adequate resources was the issue of physical access to buildings. Three teachers identified ramps and other environmental adaptations for access as important for inclusive education.
Just the facilities, the environment. We are very lucky here we have got, you can take a wheelchair anywhere, or take the children anywhere. (Teacher 4)
Fear of disabled students by their peers was identified as a barrier by two of the four teachers.
Some of the children in my class wouldn’t go into the unit…they didn’t like it I think because they hadn’t met those children before. Some children go through their life and they never come across children like that. (Teacher 4)
One teacher identified large class numbers as a barrier to successful inclusive education.
Teacher interviews were also analysed to identify respondent’s views and practices associated with the barriers parents had identified in phase one. These were:
• Knowledge and/or understanding of professionals
• Behaviour towards parents
• Curriculum access and participation
• Enrolment, attendance and segregation
• Abuse and/or bullying
• Caring and valuing of child
• Funding
• Teacher aide
The teacher in charge of the special needs unit was very aware of the role of teacher knowledge and understanding in including and excluding disabled students from mainstream settings. This included teachers having preconceived ideas about the disabled child, teachers not knowing the student and a lack of professional development for classroom teachers.
I think it does help for the teachers to have some prior knowledge of the student. Not from the point of view to be able to make a blanket decision before they get there, but just to know that if there are certain things that occur, don’t react because that might be part of the student’s makeup. (Teacher 1)
In relation to teacher knowledge and understanding, two other teachers made reference to the need for knowledgeable and skilled teachers. Both teachers believed that not
enough was covered during the period of initial teacher education training, with one teacher saying that the training in inclusive education was ‘politically correct’ with not enough focus on practical skills and strategies. The other teacher also mentioned the importance of in-service professional development for successful inclusive education.
I think perhaps at Teachers College, when I was there, things were very “PC” and things we were expected to say the right things and to have special needs children in our class. We were not shown what we were going to need to do to incorporate them, to include them. (Teacher 3)
None of the teachers spoke of the need for appropriate attitudes or acceptance on the part of teachers in relation to inclusive education; nor spoke of the rights of disabled students to attend their local neighbourhood school. One teacher spoke of the need for teachers to seek knowledge and support for inclusive education to be a reality.
The teachers did not indicate negative attitudes towards parents, which were identified in phase one of this study as a barrier to inclusive education (this included criticising, threatening and blaming parents and not listening to parents). However, one teacher spoke of the importance of listening to parents and consulting with them.
They [parent] know their child better than anybody else. (Teacher 1)
All teachers expressed the view that communication and consultation were important enablers of inclusive education. All spoke of the importance of consulting with other professionals to meet the needs of disabled students. Teachers two and four spoke of the need to consult with other staff.
Successful inclusion communication, communication between all parties. That’s GSE, the parents, myself, my colleagues, my support staff, the principal. (Teacher 1)
Only two teachers mentioned the curriculum in relation to inclusive education. Teacher three spoke of the need to make curriculum adaptations to include all students, but pointed out that she already did this for the other students in her class. Teacher two also indicated her belief that the curriculum needs to fit all students and can be adapted to do this:
In terms of the curriculum, the curriculum needs to fit all students but in reality it does not and this could be because some of our students have very high disabilities. But in saying this, the curriculum can still be modified or adapted to
include those. Certainly there needs to be a lot of modifications and adaptations to programmes. (Teacher 2)
In relation to enrolment and participation, no teachers spoke of denying disabled students enrolment in the school, however, this may have been because it was assumed they would attend the special education unit. All teachers did indicate that disabled students would not automatically have the right to participate in all mainstream classes and activities. In all cases, this was because teachers believed that disabled students’ needs could not always be met in mainstream classes. While two teachers had talked about the necessity of making adaptations to the curriculum so that disabled students could participate, no teachers mentioned this when indicating their belief that the participation of disabled students in mainstream classes was not always possible. For one teacher, participation was not possible if a student’s needs were too different from the mainstream. Here the emphasis was on the student not coping with the mainstream, not the teacher not coping with the student.
In saying that though I think there are children that benefit from being in the special needs unit. Because some of those children, their needs are so much different to the needs of the children in the class that they couldn’t be met well in a mainstream class. (Teacher 3)
No teachers spoke of bullying in relation to any of the questions they were asked.
In relation to the value and worth placed on disabled students, three classroom teachers spoke in ways that demonstrated disabled students were not as entitled to mainstream education as non-disabled students. For example, teachers three and four both spoke of having to consider the ‘other’ students in the class, not seeing disabled students as part of this group. Teacher two also explained that it was difficult enough to cope with her own class without having extra [disabled] students. Two teachers indicated a belief that disabled students needed to be able to adapt to the demands of the mainstream rather than the mainstream adapt to the needs of the student and if the student could not cope, then the mainstream was not suitable for them. One teacher spoke of a belief that there are some students who cannot succeed in education.
School doesn’t suit them, they need a children’s programme, they need to be out in the fields or chopping wood or even life skills. They are not bright kids, they are not going to succeed in education so we need to give them something they can use. (Teacher 4)
The notion of disabled students being different from non-disabled students was reinforced by teacher two when she stated that:
You have to be a special sort of person to work with a large group of kiddies of really high significant special needs. (Teacher 2)
In their comments, teachers demonstrated their belief that they were not responsible for disabled students, and that they had a choice whether or not they allowed disabled students in ‘their’ class. These attitudes were confirmed by the teacher in charge of the special needs unit when he pointed out that he had to try to ‘sell’ his children to teachers and other students.
Both teachers two and three believed that every disabled student had a right to education but not necessarily a mainstream education with their non-disabled peers. Teacher two also stressed that students could be different in different schools and if a child had been excluded from another school, she would be happy to give them a fresh start in her school.
Funding was seen as important by the teacher in charge of the special education unit, and two other teachers. For the teacher in the unit, funding was seen as going hand in glove with teacher aide support. Teacher three believed that the better resourced a school was, the better teachers could include disabled students in mainstream settings. In respect to funding, none of the teachers spoke of factors identified by parents in phase one as barriers to their child’s inclusion. This included parents being asked to fund teacher aide hours, schools diverting the child’s teacher aide hours, or denying enrolment if funding was not present.
Issues associated with teacher aides were identified in the previous two phases of the research. All four teachers believed that the provision of teacher aides was essential for successful inclusive education. One teacher pointed out that teacher aides needed to work carefully so as not to make the student reliant on them.
Yeah. We’ve got a teacher aide that has been assigned to one of my students in the class. And my understanding is that she is there to support that student and funding is provided for that student being in the class. But in saying that I think I’d be doing the student and the teacher aide a disservice if I had her purely working with that student. The student comes to rely on the one to one support. (Teacher 3)
The same teacher pointed out that it was not the role of the teacher aide to provide the programme, this was the role of the teacher. She also tried to use the teacher aide in a way that included the student in a group.
So the teacher aide’s role is to work with that child but she can include other children in that. I guess it is a way of making resourcing go a little bit further so that other children that may not be getting something are benefiting from that extra input and the child that is getting it reaping the benefit of that group work as well. (Teacher 3)
The teacher in charge of the special education unit reported that it was made clear to the teacher aides that they were not there to do the work for the students, but to support the teacher.
5.6.1 Phase Three: Teacher Interview Summary
Data from the teacher interviews reinforce some of the themes that emerged from the previous two phases of the research. There was a belief from the teachers in this group that disabled students were not as entitled to mainstream education as non-disabled students. For example, the rights of ‘other’ students had to be considered before the needs of disabled students who were not described as part of this ‘other’ group. Also, while teachers were able to verbalise the need for curriculum adaptation, they indicated that the reason disabled students could not be in the mainstream was because it was not suitable for them. In this regard, there was no consideration of the possibility of changing the mainstream to suit students.
While all teachers believed that all children had a right to an education, this was not necessarily in mainstream schools. If students were considered ‘too disabled’ it was thought that segregated education would better suit their needs. Similarly, three teachers believed that they were not responsible for disabled students; they believed they had a choice whether or not to teach a disabled student in their class.
However, no teachers spoke of the misuse of funding, or the practice of asking parents to fund teacher aides for their child at school as identified by parents in phase one of the study. All teachers believed that funding was a necessity for successful inclusive education.
The issues associated with communication that were identified by parents in phase one, were not mentioned by the four teachers. None of the teachers in the sample criticized or blamed parents, however, only one identified respecting and listening to parents as an enabler to inclusive education.
Teacher education (both pre-service and in-service) were identified by all teachers as important enabler of inclusive education. Teacher knowledge was also identified as an important enabler.
All teachers had an understanding of inclusive education that focused on the deficits or differences of the student. None of the four teachers considered inclusive education to