Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Inclusion: Some Emerging Directions in the Indian Context

Ms. Abha Sandill
B-4, Palika Milan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021
abha_andill@yahoo.com

Co-Author

Dr.Asha Singh, Reader
D-3, 4082, Vansant Kunj, New Delhi.
cabm@del3.vsnl.net.in

             Inclusion of students with special educational needs is becoming a matter of priority in many countries around the world. The process is facilitated by growing awareness and sensitivity among people about various issues related to disability. Adding to its spread are legislation and policies developed and put in practice by many nations, India among them. It is undoubted that reform towards inclusion of students with varying needs continues across the globe.   However, many educators remain uncertain about inclusive educational practice.

            Though the structures of special education may have served a purpose some years ago, the drawbacks associated with special education now override its values. Often children are placed in various environments that devalue their life experiences and ideas, assume that they are incompetent, and concentrate on turning them into normal (Viruru, 2001). The result is belief in need for special schools with specialist teachers, special curricula, and distancing of students with differing abilities from the general school population. Conversely, inclusion argues that collaborative involvement of all professionals in school systems, and a change in philosophy towards a social justice model by administrators, are vital for improving education for all students (Aefsky, 1995).

Presently, Inclusive Education is a small, but growing, component of education in India both in policy and in practice. For example, many schools in centres such as Mumbai and Delhi are taking keen interest in the concept of inclusion, and are making their schools more accessible for differently abled students. Such change suggests that Indian educators are beginning to reach out to these children and adopting a philosophy of inclusion.

The Concept of Inclusion

Inclusive education is an educational change that requires schools to respond to the varying competencies of all children, rather than requiring children to fit into rigid school and curricular practices. The philosophy of the school plays the pivotal role in the selection of its educational policies. It also plays a significant role in influencing attitudes and perceptions of school staff towards these policies. Accordingly, the school decides upon various strategies and interventions to put the policies into practice in an effective manner. For instance, if schools believe that some children cannot learn with the majority of children, the practice of segregated education is put in place. Even when students are integrated, or placed, full-time in regular classrooms, unless that classroom is seen as their rightful place, and a place from which they will not be removed simply because they cannot learn at the level of other students around them, they are being educated under one of the optional placements of the special education model. Alternately, if the school believes it is the right of all children to learn together and stay together despite academic and social achievement levels, inclusion is being implemented.

The fundamental principle of inclusive education is valuing of diversity within the human community. For those who advocate for inclusion, the term "special needs" is overly restrictive in its connotation. Traditionally, children with differing abilities received education in segregated schools and classrooms. Segregated settings, reflecting the medical model of disability prevalent in education in the 1960s and 1970s, placed the problem of differing abilities exclusively within the child. This design is rejected by those who believe it is the right of children to be with other children in all facets of life. The view advanced by inclusion is that the challenge really is within schools which have not yet seen the values of educating all children together. Their task is work to change school structures which are barriers to inclusion.

    Inclusion, then, flows from the social justice movement in the field of disability and is a practical example of human rights perspective. The social justice model emphasizes that schools need to create an environment in which students with varying competencies are seen as valued members of the social community, and as capable of making a positive contribution.   This leads to the inclusive notion that schools should provide for the needs of all children in their communities, whatever may be the level of their ability. Oliver (1990) and others argue that the social model of disability is based on the proposition that society and its institutions are oppressive, discriminatory and disabling in their response to persons with disability. In the context of education, the restructuring of schools along inclusive lines is a reflection of the social model in action (Mittler, 2000).

According to Mittler (2000), "Inclusion implies a radical reform in terms of curriculum, assessment, pedagogy, and grouping of people". He notes the challenge of this change in citing Ainscow (2001, p.11), "Inclusive education is concerned with overcoming barriers to participation that may be experienced by any pupils…It is a never ending process …dependent on continuous pedagogical and organizational development within the mainstream."

Though inclusion is beginning in scattered parts of India, there is no defined structure for inclusive schools presently, particularly as far as private schools are concerned. In many schools working towards development of inclusion, the school counsellor is given the task of facilitating the movement. It is this staff member whose responsibility it is to interact with children and parents on regular basis. Even when there is a special unit in the school, the counsellor may be in charge, as she is seen as part of the regular school and coordinates between the regular teachers and the special unit. In other words, a number of educators see the value of inclusion, but, lacking a developed inclusive model for India, they must develop their own. In time, these schools will serve as models for the wider spread of inclusive philosophy and practice.

Reflecting on her experiences of successful inclusion in Chennai, Natarajan (2001) envisions that inclusion will actually be the reason and precursor to many changes in the education system. Schools, in a variety of ways, can achieve goals of equity and social justice for all students, and especially for students with varying competencies. Achievement of these goals will depend on factors such as characteristics and needs of students, the nature of the community within which the school operates, and the extent of goodwill school staff have in supporting the students. Promoting positive attitudes and respect for difference is a prerequisite for policy development and implementation of inclusive education in school and community.

As a person drawn to the concept of inclusion as related to social justice for persons with disabilities, I found much of value in it. As a graduate student preparing for a career, I believed inclusion had to be put to the test of research. The present study was undertaken to explore adjustments that schools having adopted inclusion offer for differently abled students.

This overall objective was divided into four main sub-objectives.  

• To identify and explore educational supports offered students with differing abilities in a number of selected schools in Delhi.
• To explore the nature of interventions developed across the schools for enriching the learning environment for students with differing abilities.
• To prepare profiles of two schools in Delhi with policies of inclusion.
• To study peer dynamics focusing on interactions among children with varying competencies.

Method

The study had two parts. The first was a framing component which provides an overall view of 10 schools accepting students with varying abilities, their admission procedures, and measures taken to facilitate inclusion. The second component was an in-depth exploration of two schools.

Framing Study

The framing study involved 6 principals, 10 counsellors, 10 teachers, 12 parents, and 20 students.   All children and teachers selected were part of inclusive/integrated classes. This term is used as the study indicated that not all classes had an inclusive quality. One school actually supported more of a special education model. Parents included in the study were the parents of children in the study.   Participating schools were selected through purposive sampling of Delhi schools offering admission and some level of modified learning opportunities to children with varying competencies. These schools were located through word of mouth, media reports, and information from educators. The 10 public (private) schools selected had integrated or inclusive education as part of their education policy, and were willing participate in the study. Principals, counsellors, teachers, and parents participated in open-ended interviews.

Teachers and parents (of children, both, with and without disability) were involved along with the children to obtain a holistic picture of peer dynamics in the inclusive classes. In addition, I was keen to understand perceptions and attitudes of parents and teachers towards inclusion and the nature of influences on classroom dynamics. Principals were included as they would be able to provide maximum information about policy issues of the school. Counsellors were included as they could give insights about the actual manner of implementation of the policies and interventions adopted by the school. (see Table 1)

Observations were conducted in classrooms and in the schools in general. Observations focused on areas such as strategies used by teachers in classrooms, and the school in general, to include children with disability, academically and socially. Of importance, also, were the nature and type of interactions among the children.

            Data obtained from the interviews, discussions, and observations were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. Responses obtained were tabulated under themes emerging from the data and further analysis was undertaken. Implications and insights for practice of inclusion arising from the analysis of observed and documented findings were delineated.

Emerging Senario

Inclusion, as an educational philosophy, is still in its infancy in schools in India. Schools taking this initiative are likely to make significant contributions towards the larger goal of 'Education For All' in the long run. However, though inclusion is at an early stage, valuable findings are possible. Findings indicated that the schools were using several strategies to work with differently abled children. Table 1 gives a broad overview of the admission procedures and strategies employed across the ten schools with regard o inclusion/ integration.

Characteristics found across various schools among the 10 participating schools

• All schools were private schools.   Average regular class size ranged from 35 to 45 children with one teacher.  

• Of the 10 schools, 7 had experience with children with varying competencies in segregated settings. Each school had an individual organizational system, whether for inclusive or integrated educational programming in the school. In 6 schools, counsellors were officiating as Head. In others, the head of the special education unit or class was responsible for implementing the programme.
• Four schools had endorsed inclusion at the policy level. The counsellors in these schools

defined inclusion by the level of placement of the child in the regular class. Some of the schools were admitting children with prior knowledge of differences in skill and competence. In two schools, children were placed directly in regular classes, whereas the other two schools had a special unit providing some regular classroom time. In the latter, children experienced different levels of placement from segregation to complete integration.

• Schools were admitting children with prior knowledge of differences in skill and competence, even to regular classes.
• There was recognition of the need for modified curriculum for children with differing abilities. In most cases, the special unit in the school was facilitating modifications. In the schools, the counsellor and the class teacher worked out the modification keeping the child’s level of learning in focus.

• Alternative methods were being devised for a mutually fair system of evaluation. One school was innovative in allowing parents to set papers for their children with varying needs. This was valuable in assisting the regular teachers who were already loaded with day-to-day school activities. There was no special unit in this school.
• Peer group support was being provided through buddy systems, peer tutoring, peer pairing, and other such strategies. Experiences in different schools indicate that peer tutoring partnerships are a sensible, workable way for teachers to provide extra help to the individual pupils.

Peer support proved valuable for included students. There were instances of regular peers dictating notes, checking that homework was completed, and supervising work done. It is important to note that such strategies also had positive effect on those children providing help, both in terms of academics and social behaviour. Parents and teachers expressed the opinion that, not only do the children with differing needs gain in confidence, independence, and emotional adjustment, the regular children also become sensitized to needs of their classmates. As Afesky (1995) stated, a group of sensitized peers can bring about a world of difference in the experiences of children with differing abilities in regular schools. My observations in a number of the framing study schools documented that typical peers reached out in many more ways that those conceptualized by their elders.

Table 1: Admission Procedures and Measures to Facilitate Inclusion/Integration of 2 Schools of In-depth Study

• A few schools had taken the initiative to remove structural barriers to learning and, thereby, increase participation of children with physical differences. For example, by shifting a class to the ground floor, by constructing ramps for wheelchairs, or by using specialized furniture.

• Schools having special units provided assessment services and therapeutic intervention to children who were partially or fully included in regular class.
• Training of regular teachers for dealing with children with varying competencies was an important concern in all the schools and a regular feature in some of them.

Across the 10 framing study schools valuable strategies were in use. However, not all schools were employing all strategies, with half or fewer schools using most. This was true in particular, when it came to improve physical access, a fundamental need for many students. In addition, the definite tendency across the 10 schools was to admit students with special needs to special units, rather than to regular classrooms. Even if all students spent some time in regular settings, being part of special unit and being labeled as such adds to the difference of the children. This is much more a special education model approach than an inclusive one. In summary, valuable inclusive strategies were employed, but most schools used few, if any, of these strategies.

The Two School In-depth Study: Building Case Profiles

            Two of the framing study schools, Smriti and Kriti schools, were chosen for in-depth study. These two schools employed many of the characteristics described above, but with quite different results.

Students in the in-depth study were drawn from Standard VI classes (7with disability and 6 without), standard VII classes (1 and 2), and Standard IX classes. (2and 2) (see Table 2), with a range of 11 to 14 years across the different Standard levels. This age range was chosen as children at this stage are able to articulate their views and feelings. For the in-depth study, interviews were supplemented by observation of children’s interactions during formal classroom settings, as well as in informal out of class contexts. I also tried to explore the children’s views about the class, peers, and the teachers during spontaneous conversations.

Table 2: Participants in In-depth Study Schools

Smriti School:

The school is a relatively new (1983) public school situated in South Delhi. It is co-educational, currently with a population in the 2000 range. Students come from residential areas located within a 10 km radius. Classes range from I to XII standard with each standard divided into 4 sections on average. Student-teacher ratio varies from 1:45 to 1:48.

The Inclusive Education program began on the initiative of a member of the school’s Management Board, directly as a result of an intervention study by a doctoral research student. Noting the value of the intervention, the school exhibited openness and willingness to take up inclusion as a school policy. The process entailed identification of children facing academic difficulties in various classes. 24 students with a range of physical, intellectual, and emotional challenges were enrolled in the program, with a majority from the primary section.

The school was open with me as well and had no problem with my request to observe classes and general school activities, as well as to conduct interviews. A major data-gathering strategy was direct observation in classrooms. This strategy complemented the interview and spontaneous data collection activities.

• Children with varying needs did not draw ready support from the teachers.

Though reduced syllabi and modified papers were used as accommodations, teachers considered them a burden. Some teachers expressed frustration with the presence of children with varying needs. One teacher opined that giving attention to these children was a waste of time, as there was need to cover the regular, demanding syllabus with typical students.

• Peer support was provided but not well regulated.

Though partners were assigned and pairings were made by the teacher to provide assistance for children with differing abilities, teachers provided no training or supervision for the peer pairs. The pairs were together only during specific times, such as the class teacher’s period (homeroom period)

In co – curricular activities, children with special needs were left to their own means, saying they do not want to participate or found reasons not to.

The classmates of one child, who was slow in learning commented, “I think her mother is also like her”.

When another child approached a window where a group of boys were standing during lunch, the boys moved away giggling and giving her strange looks.

• Some students were very helpful and forthcoming.

Even though her section had been changed after reshuffling of the sections, one girl came to meet her included friend during the lunchtime.

She also lent her notebook to the child to copy class work.

• Social integration was deemed important.   .

Teachers felt that children with varying needs had friends who helped them, with whom they laughed and played.

• Teachers perceived no academic gains.

One teacher mentioned that a child with varying abilities just sits in her Math class because she does not understand anything.

• There was no support system for the counsellor. She was struggling amidst the pressure from higher authorities to implement inclusion, but met resistance from teachers, and grievances from some parents of children with disability.
• Parents had a role in the program.

On the suggestion of teachers, the setting of test papers for the included children was entrusted to their respective parents. However, teachers felt parents had been partial and test items were prepared according to the child’s knowledge. As a result, children with varying needs got better marks than did other students, and teachers did not believe these marks to be justified.

• The Principal played a controlling role characterized by unilateral decision-making. There was lack of open communication between the staff and the administration.

Teachers had apprehensions about the inclusion program, but never communicated these to the Principal. They felt that the Principal would realize in time that inclusion would not work.

• Parents felt there was a difference in what was promised for their children with different abilities and what was actually implemented.

Parents mentioned that meetings with the Principal were very promising and well intended. However, in the class, the teachers’ behaviour was quite to the contrary.

Thus, in Smriti School, the Principal's idealistic vision seemed to become diffused as it translated through teachers' existing practices and the realities of classrooms. There was a need for communication, firstly, within the system to formulate a clear vision for of an inclusive school, which was shared by the teachers as well. Teachers needed to shift the focus from identifying limitations of the children to reflecting on their own classroom practices. The efforts of the school towards inclusive education needed much more coordination and channelizing to bring about effective change in the system.

Kriti School

Kriti also is a public school situated in Delhi. Its population is approximately 1500 students from a 5 km radius. Classes from standard I to X11 have a teacher-student ratio of 1:42.   

            The program of Inclusive Education began in Kriti school eight years ago with admission of a single child with varying abilities from the school’s catchment area. Over a period of time, motivated by the experience of working inclusively with this student, the school opened its doors for other children with varying abilities. This initiative occurred well in advance of the formal arrival of Inclusive Education in India. Presently, in keeping with its available resources, the school includes 21 students with visual impairment or physical challenge, spasticity.

Observations and interviews revealed: -

• Teachers were sensitive to the needs of the differently abled children. They were providing assistance to them in their classes.

Question papers for Maths were modified according to individual needs.

Teachers emphasized oral work in class to ensure participation of all children with particular reference to those with visual or physical challenges

Teachers consulted with the school counselor in order to meet the needs of individual children as well as possible..

• Peer support was well regulated.

Children with varying needs were seated with academically brighter and responsible children.

Teachers mediated differences and worked toward amicable resolution when pairings appeared not be working.

If the pairing still did not work well for any reason, a new pairing was created.

• Children were given appropriate exposure and stimulation for participation in extracurricular activities.

Teachers spoke proudly of a student with visual challenge having won laurels for the school in an inter-school music competition.

Concerted effort was made to identify the unique abilities of all children and to promote them.

School authorities organized games and introduced variations in games such as rag race, running on one foot, and everyone using wheelchairs in a race.

Children with varying abilities spoke of activities in which they had participated and enjoyed. Included were group songs, plays, and races.

• Children were happy and well adjusted. Typical students were positively oriented towards differing needs of all students.

Students with varying abilities talked fondly of their friends in class, a group which typically included regular students.

Learning what their peers did in their homes and learning new things from them was mentioned.

Orientations were provided for typical peers before students with varying abilities were admitted to their classes. They learned to assist in many ways, such as helping them with their school bags, providing room on stairs, and dictating notes to children needing to complete their work in Braille.

• Included children were perceived by peers and teachers to be gaining academically.

Interviews with teachers and peers revealed that, academically as well as socially, included students were performing at par with the rest of their classes.

Teachers noted variations among the included group similar to variations which would exist within any group of children.

• The school counsellor was drawing expert support from the National Association for the Blind (NAB) and the Spastic Society of Northern India (SSNI), the organizations from which students were taken on referral.

Special educators from NAB and SSNI were invited for discussions as and when teachers faced difficulties attending to needs of included students.

Teachers received advice and guidance regarding teaching methods in keeping with the needs of various students.

• The principal took personal interest in the inclusive activities and had open communication with staff members.

Teachers informed me that, although there was no orientation program for them, the principal talked about inclusion in staff meetings.

Teachers were encouraged to draw on their experiences as parents when including students.

• Parents were involved at various levels in school activities. There was constant interaction between teachers and school counsellor.

Parents worked as scribes for included students as appropriate during term end examinations.

Parents worked as substitute teachers in accordance with their qualifications.

Assistance was sought from parents during functions and co-curricular events.

Parents were welcome to share their concerns and suggestions with the principal.

Kriti School presented itself as an appealing model of an inclusive school with an assertive head of school having a clear vision of inclusion that promoted required inputs at different levels giving the inclusive impetus. Response to individual differences, rather than limiting conditions, of students seemed to be the central focus. Supporting this was encouragement of all staff to accept responsibility for students with varying abilities and for working towards the necessary support to the children with diverse needs. Teachers facilitated the teaching -learning process for all students in the classroom. Thus, Kriti school was able to achieve an inclusive environment characterized by acceptance of all, collaboration among principal, teachers, school counselor, and parents, create a peer support program, and develop a sense of pride in the program overall.

Implications

            Findings in this study suggest that, though a number of schools may be open to students with varying abilities, some schools do not seem to understand the educational meaning of inclusion, do not develop workable support strategies, and fail to create inclusive environments. At the same time, other schools in the same city are proving inclusion to be both possible and effective. Schools considering inclusion would be well-advised to know what worked and what did not for Smriti and Kriti schools.  Closing discussion explores why some schools succeed in implementation of inclusion, while others do not.

Inclusion: What does this study tell us?

             There appears to be a lack of understanding of what inclusion signifies. Certain schools are following useful practices and this has resulted in a genuine assisting of children in regular classes. It is admirable that these interventions have emerged in response to actual need. For example, a school that uses the peer group support and a curricular approach based on the minimum learning level of the child finds such strategies valuable in including students. Quite paradoxically, there are schools stating they have adopted inclusion as a policy and yet have not been able to incorporate the relevant strategies. Their policy is rhetorical in my view. Part of the reason for this difference may be that there is no formal platform for sharing of isolated experiences of success in different schools. Disseminating information among schools assisting children according to need would enable more children to access the facilities as well as encouraging more schools to create spaces for children.

Bottom up Approach

              Inclusive Education, philosophy also recommends that schools should focus on the needs and abilities of children with varying competencies in order to bring about inclusion. All partners collaboratively designing and implementing the school approach is a strong way to begin. There needs to be a state of constant flux adjusting and accommodating to children and their specific needs and competencies. The top down approach, administrators mandating inclusion at the policy level, does not ensure implementation by those who deliver the program. This insight is facilitated by the experience in Smriti School where teachers, who had been told the school was to be inclusive, were sympathetic, but not really sensitized nor active.

Parents, administrators, and teachers need to be a part of student-centered planning teams in inclusion. A team-based model reflects a holistic approach to learning of all students, and decisions will become more relevant to the child in this type of bottom up approach, as is evident in Kriti School. All players in the school community need to be included in all stages of developing and actualizing a change in the delivery of services for students with varying competencies. The Principal of Kriti School perhaps had foreseen this when she decided to enlist participation of the senior students. They were put on duty in groups of two to four to assist children with physical limitations to go to their classes in the morning and bring them back in the afternoon. Such supportive strategies now become an integral part of the school system.

Active Parental Support and Involvement are Essential

             Parents' are a crucial component to educational change. Invoking their understanding is necessary to ensure positive communication between home and school. Parents of students, both with disabilities and without, need to understand inclusive education as a positive dynamic in their children's education. Parents need to be made aware of changing school philosophy and included in its formulation.  Traditionally, parents are not partners in the sense of being active collaborators with school staff. They often believe that, if they disagree with the teachers or Principals, their children will suffer in some way. This belie must be proven untrue in inclusive schools.

It is important to create face-to-face contact, in addition to written communication through newsletters, so that people feel free to express concerns without fear of repercussion. Such repercussions are alien to inclusive practice. It is important that this understanding of partnership be shared, so that parents and school staff can work together in supporting children in their acquisition of knowledge. Creating ways to build mutual respect will assist parents, teachers, and administrators in achieving better communication without values being challenged.

Sensitization of Community

             In terms of schools, the community is represented by the administration, teachers, parents, and the children in the school.

Planned and consistent staff development is crucial to success of structural change. Staff in-service training allows participants to gain and share information, pose questions, and work collaboratively towards solutions, and learning new techniques and strategies. An evaluation or assessment component should be created as a part of an ongoing cycle of growth and development within the school. Teachers should not be left tro invent the wheel by themselves.

The Principal or the Head of school is central in building community. This person has the power to initiate and regulate the process of inclusion. Inclusion as a philosophy often challenges present practices of educators. This study emphasizes that all concerned need to understand the underlying concepts before they can participate in this movement and bring the practices to use. A well-informed Principal can mitigate myths such as limited learning capacity of students among the staff members, and can address the benefits of teaching in multi-ability classes. the Principal of Kriti School is an example of what administrators can do in leading a school community to work successfully with students with a diverse range of abilities.

Move towards Inclusive Schooling

The above is a discussion of what can be learned from a small number of schools. School leaders, staff, parents, and the community in general, are a reflection of the society's values, beliefs, and priorities (Mittler, 2000). At the same time, as significant social institutions, schools can be visionary and bring about changes in the ways of thinking of members of a society. The move towards inclusive provisions requires conceptual changes in philosophy coupled with structural changes in the way in which services are delivered (Barton & Corbett, 1993). As Jha (2002) notes, "While some policy adjustments may facilitate the process, it has been argued that schools need not wait. They can develop an inclusion plan and inclusive pedagogy that would benefit all children and the school system on the whole". Schools need to take leadership in the move to inclusion.

Findings across 10 schools, and particularly in two schools studied in depth, reaffirm that inclusion is possible within the rigours and pressures of everyday schooling. Motivated principals and inspired teachers can make it happen. It is true that the children who are a part of inclusion need additional support. The contention of this paper is that that the effort required is rewarded by stronger education for all students. Apart from academic gain, social emotional security comes by being part of the system with the other children of a community. This is true because schooling is a normal task of childhood, and should be so for all children regardless of difference.

It is apparent that society is beginning to realize that schools can no longer regard young citizens with disabilities as educational cast-offs. In their own ways, Smriti and Kriti Schools were adventurers in working to lead their communities towards this realization. That one succeeded more than the other should not be taken as a condemnation of the one less successful. It is what is learned, both good and bad, from attempting positive change that is important.

References

Afesky, F. (1995). Inclusion confusion: A guide to educating students with exceptional needs. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Berk, L. E. (1996). Child Development (3 rd Ed). New Delhi: Prenctice-Hall of India.

Jha, M.M. (2002). School without walls: Inclusive education for all. Oxford: Hiennmann Educational Publishers.

Mittler, P. (2000). Working towards inclusive education-Social contexts. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Natarajan, P. (2001). Facilitating inclusion for special children- Vidya Sagar. Paper presented at National workshop on Inclusive Education for children with disabilities, National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development (NIPCCD), New Delhi.

Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement (Critical Texts in Social Work & the Welfare State). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Viruru, R. (2001). Early childhood education: Postcolonial perspectives from India. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact