School without walls inclusive education for all [2nd ed] 9788131716014, 9788131772287, 8131772284

Table of contents :
Cover......Page 1
School Without Walls......Page 4
Copyright......Page 5
Contents......Page 8
Figures......Page 10
The Number of Pupils With Statements Expressed as Proportion of Pupils on Rolls......Page 99
The Number of Pupils With SEN Without Statements Expressed as Proportion of Pupils on Rolls......Page 100
Drop Out Rates in India......Page 134
Towards Inclusive Schooling......Page 21
Vision for the Twenty-First Century......Page 50
Schools in the Information Age......Page 52
Comparison of Traditional and Inclusionary Approaches......Page 69
Notes......Page 79
Inclusive Education in England and India......Page 103
List of Abbreviations......Page 12
Foreword......Page 14
Preface to the Second Edition......Page 18
Acknowledgements......Page 26
Introduction......Page 27
The Twenty-First Century School......Page 38
Limitations of The School......Page 39
Effectiveness and Equity......Page 44
Alternative Models......Page 47
Vision from the Field......Page 55
Notes......Page 56
InternationalPerspectives......Page 57
Charity and Humanitarian Approach......Page 58
Rights and Social Justice Perspective......Page 59
School Reforms Perspectivesa......Page 65
Some Questions......Page 76
The British Scene......Page 80
The Warnock Report......Page 81
Definition of Special EducationNeeds......Page 85
Critiques of Sen Policy and Practices......Page 88
Developments Since the Warnock Report......Page 93
Inclusion and Exclusion......Page 96
Inclusion and the Market......Page 97
Inclusion Dilemma......Page 98
Notes......Page 104
School Visit in Oxfordshire......Page 105
School A......Page 107
Observation......Page 111
Notes......Page 115
Historical Recall......Page 116
Sargent Report, 1944......Page 117
Kothari Commission, 1966......Page 119
National Policy on Education, 1986......Page 120
Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995......Page 122
Educational Status of Children With Disabilities......Page 123
Training of Teachers......Page 127
Project for the Integrated Education of the Disabled......Page 128
The Unesco Teacher Education Resource Pack......Page 129
Ausaid Project......Page 130
Unesco-Proap Project......Page 131
The Question of Exclusion......Page 132
Roadblocks to Inclusion......Page 137
Language......Page 141
Textbooks......Page 143
Curriculum......Page 145
Teaching Methodology......Page 148
Examinations......Page 150
A ‘Good’ School......Page 152
Advantage India......Page 156
Notes......Page 161
Inclusion in Classrooms......Page 162
Child-Centred Approach......Page 164
Multiple Intelligences......Page 168
Curriculum for Inclusion......Page 172
Inclusion Strategies......Page 175
Whole Class Inclusive Teaching......Page 176
Group/CoopeRative/Collaborative Learning......Page 179
Peer Tutoring/Child-to-Child Learning......Page 183
Activity-Based Learning......Page 186
Team Approach/Problem Solving......Page 190
Equity in Assessment/Examination......Page 192
Notes......Page 194
Initiatives in Australia......Page 195
Initiatives in the United States......Page 197
Initiatives in the United Kingdom......Page 199
Initiatives in Unesco......Page 205
National Level Initiatives......Page 206
Classroom or Teacher Level Initiatives......Page 216
In Conclusion......Page 218
Notes......Page 226
Afterword......Page 227
Per 1000 Distribution of Disabled Children of Age 5-14 Years by Enrollment Status for Each Sex, All-India......Page 229
Per 1000 Distribution of Disabled Persons by General Educational Level......Page 230
Bibliography......Page 231
Index......Page 243

Citation preview

School Without Walls

This page is intentionally left blank

School Without Walls Inclusive Education for All Second Edition

Madan Mohan Jha

School Without Walls Second Edition First published by Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd 2008. © Madan Mohan Jha. First edition published by Heinemann 2002. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior written consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser and without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above-mentioned publisher of this book. ISBN: 978-81-317-1601-4 First Impression, 2008 This edition is for sale in the Indian subcontinent only. Published by Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd., licensees of Pearson Education in South Asia. Head Office: 482, F.I.E., Patparganj, Delhi 110 092, India. Registered Office: 14 Local Shopping Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi 110 017, India. Printed in India by India Binding House.

To My Parents

This page is intentionally left blank

CONTENTS List of Tables and Figures List of Abbreviations Foreword Preface to the Second Edition Acknowledgements

ix xi xiii xvii xxv

1. Introduction

1

2. The Twenty-First Century School

12

4. The British Scene

54

3. International Perspectives

5. School Visit in Oxfordshire

31 79

6. The Indian Context

90

7. Inclusion in Classrooms

136

9. In Conclusion

192

8. Making It Happen

169

Afterword

201

Bibliography

205

Appendices

203

Index

217

vii

This page is intentionally left blank

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Tables Table 1

The Number of Pupils With Statements Expressed

73

Table 2

The Number of Pupils With SEN Without Statements

74

Table 3

Drop Out Rates in India

Figures

as Proportion of Pupils on Rolls

Expressed as Proportion of Pupils on Rolls

Figure 1

Towards Inclusive Schooling

Figure 3

Schools in the Information Age

Figure 2 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6

108 xx

Functions of Schools Leading to Exclusion

24

Comparison of Traditional and Inclusionary Approaches

43

Inclusive Education in England and India

77

Inclusion as School Reform Approach

ix

26 53

This page is intentionally left blank

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BEP

Bihar Education Project

CSS

Common School System

CABE DEE DES DFE

Central Advisory Board of Education Department for Education and Employment Department for Education and Science Department for Education

DPEP

District Primary Education Programme

EGS

Education Guarantee Scheme

EFA

ESCAP

Education for All

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific

HRD

Human Resource Development

IE

Inclusive Education

ICT

IEDC IEP

IGNOU ILC

LEA

NCERT NFE

Information and Communication Technology Integrated Education for the Disabled Children Individual Education Plan

Indira Gandhi National Open University Individual Level Curriculum Local Education Authority

National Council of Education Research and Training Non-formal Education

xi

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS NOS

National Open School

OECD

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

NPE

POA

PROAP PROBE

National Policy of Education Programme of Action

Prinicipal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Public Report on Basic Education

PRU

Pupils’ Referral Units

PWD

Person with Disabilities

PSA

Parent Staff Association

RCI

Rehabilitation Council of India

SEN

Special Educational Needs

SC

SENCO SSA ST

UGC

Scheduled Caste

Special Educational Needs Coordinator Sarva Siksha Abhiyan

Scheduled Tribe

University Grants Commission

xii

FOREWORD On a visit to Britain in the 1930s, Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought of British civilisation. ‘It would be a good idea’, he replied. He would undoubtedly have said the same about inclusive

education. The idea that all schools can create an inclusive

environment in which no category of persons, no social class, caste

or group is denied the chance to learn would have seemed to him a basic remedy for social justice and a step towards a fair, just and economically self-sustaining society.

But the concept of inclusive education, as Madan Jha points out

in this lucid and perceptive book, is a confused and contested one.

In richer developed countries, education is already inclusive of girls, the disadvantaged and all ethnic groups, in the sense that there are

legal entitlements and duties placed upon both schools and parents.

Children perceived to be disabled, handicapped or having learning

difficulties, and initially incorporated into education by way of special schools or classes, are the major focus for inclusion into mainstream

education rather than remain in the subsystem of special education. But there is often unspoken recognition that the education systems

in these countries were set up to be exclusive. They were designed to select elites and offer them superior and better-resourced kinds of education, rationing access to good teaching and the most useful qualifications. There is considerable anxiety that despite a rhetoric

of inclusive education, education policies in developed countries

continue to ensure that vulnerable and disadvantaged groups are

often excluded from forms of education regarded as most valuable, and from gaining qualifications that can be exchanged for good employment, income and security. There is, in particular, a growing

xiii

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS awareness that creating competitive markets in education, with

schools competing for the most desirable pupils and resources, is incompatible with inclusive education.

In developing countries, inclusive education means much more

than the incorporation of the disabled, or attempts to alleviate the inequitable treatment of those already in education. Following the

two United Nations conferences in Jontien (1990) (UNESCO, 1990) and Salamanca (1994) (UNESCO, 1994), inclusive education has been globally promoted as meaning ‘education for all’ (EFA). The

‘all’, as Chapter Six in this book points out, should mean the inclusion in education and the removal of educational disparities for all nonliterate adults and children, for women, ethnic minorities, excluded

and scheduled castes and tribes, for the disabled, destitute, child labourers, street children and orphans, and for the victims of war,

violence and natural disasters. Whatever the cultural, political, social or economic differences between countries, every society that aspires to create a decent, humane and effective system of education for the twenty-first century should think in terms of

inclusion. Inclusion is an issue of equity and ethics, of human rights

and social justice, and of economic improvement. An inclusive education system will ultimately define the whole nature of a society.

As Madan Jha movingly points out, in both developed and developing countries, inclusive education is a growing concept and

evolving practice; ‘a means not an end, a journey not a destination, a process not a product’.

A discussion of international perspectives on inclusion notes

that there is no uniformity in approaches, either in developed or

developing countries. Developed countries currently focus on including those with disabilities and learning difficulties and on ways

of enabling all children to learn more successfully. But an overview

of policy in Britain concludes that despite government rhetoric of

inclusion, ‘there are no inclusive schools in England’ (Booth et al.,

1998). In both Britain and India, the education systems have a long

xiv

FOREWORD history of reinforcing exclusion, particularly by separating children

according to social class, with the urban middle classes dominating politically and culturally. In India, even in elite private schools, an

unreformed curriculum distances children from real participation in the teaching-learning process.

In this book, the author, while noting that there are emerging

expectations from Western parents for inclusive education, rightly rejects any uncritical extension of British policies and practices to

India and questions whether the challenges of inclusion in India are

similar to those in England and other developed countries. The

challenges for inclusion in India are diverse and pressing. Inclusion means not only the inclusion of those with disabilities, but also of

the enormous number of socially and economically disadvantaged children belonging to diverse social, cultural and linguistic groups. It means challenging the current curriculum and teacher-centred

pedagogy—a challenge that is critical to achieving inclusion in India. Schools created to meet the requirements of nineteenth century

industrial societies can no longer be a model for any school system striving to meet the challenges of the information age.

But how to make that inclusive journey, particularly in a country

as large and diverse as India, with a post-colonial legacy of exclusive

education for elites, multiple tracks offering inequitable schooling opportunities to different groups, and overburdened teachers? How

to demystify the concept of inclusive education to make it acceptable

and non-threatening to practitioners? How to develop an inclusive curriculum and pedagogy? What policies from other countries to

apply or discard? These and many other questions analysed and discussed in succinct detail make this book an illuminating read.

Sally Tomlinson

January 2002

University of Oxford

xv

This page is intentionally left blank

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION On the eve of the launch of the first edition of School Without Walls in 2002, I made an oblique reference to the Common School System

(CSS) and its nexus with the concept and strategies of Inclusive Education (IE). Following the release function, I received a number

of calls from colleagues in the academic community to express their surprise (and satisfaction) on hearing about CSS from a ‘bureaucrat’!

Since then, it has been my endeavour to convey the idea of CSS and IE interchangeably through seminars, conferences and articles.

My long sabbatical at Oxford since October 2002 to undertake

further research on IE with fieldwork in India gave a boost to my efforts to bring the issue of CSS at the centre stage among

educational activists. I have had an opportunity to interact with many colleagues on the issue and join them in the struggle for

establishing CSS in India. Names of Anil Sadgopal, Muchkund Dubey,

Ashok Aggrawal, Vinay Kantha, Janaki Rajan, Anand Swarup, Sanjib Kaura, Madhu Prasad Ambarish and Ravi come quickly to my mind,

though there would be hundreds across the country if I were to make an exhaustive list of all those who seriously believe that only CSS can create an enabling environment for inclusion of all children

in the mainstream school system. The inclusion of children with

disabilities and so the idea of IE would remain a distant dream in this

country if the larger issue of CSS is not addressed at the policy as

well as at strategy levels. Some of the events and activities that have given impetus to CSS in recent years and to which I have contributed from my research and studies are:

• A series of seminars organized under the forum of Social Jurist in Delhi.

xvii

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS • Organization of interactions by the East West Educational Society at Patna and discussions within PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties).

• Meetings of the NAFRE (National Alliance for Fundamental Right to Education).

• Formation of the PSG (Public Study Group) in the CSD (Council for Social Development) to assist the CABE committees.

• People’s Campaign for the Common School System.

School Without Walls makes repeated reference to the CSS in

the context of IE. Nevertheless, it may be worthwhile to recall the

inter-linking elements in both the systems. Some of the linking features are enumerated in the following paragraphs.

FAILURE OF THE PRESENT SCHOOL SYSTEM Segregated special schools for the disabled and mass education through the present form of schooling developed almost

simultaneously. Oliver (1996) observes about the ‘failed’ special education for the disabled:

It is worth noting that special, segregated education has been the main vehicle for educating disabled children throughout most of the industrialised world in the twentieth century and in Britain since 1890. In the hundred years, the special education system has failed to provide disabled children with the knowledge and skills to take their rightful place in the world...it has failed to empower them (p. 93).

IE follows from the frustration with special education, and aims

at school reforms.

xviii

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION The deficiencies in the present school system at the global level

have been discussed in this book. In the Indian context, it may

suffice to observe that despite a commitment in the Constitution to provide education to all for children up to eight years by 1960, the mean years of schooling in the country remains only three years,

while Sri Lanka has achieved 7.5 years of schooling and the USA has nine years (Nilekani, 2005). The Education Commission in 1968 had recommended CSS as crucial to the improvement of the school system.

Thus, both the concept of IE and CSS emerge from the systemic

failure of the modern school system invented in the nineteenth century and based on the theme of exclusivity and inequality.

RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY Historically speaking, the civil rights movement of the 1960s in the

USA and the comprehensive struggles of the UK around the same time led to the demand for desegregation of the education for the

disabled. In India, the constitutional framework called upon the state to provide free elementary education, as its essential sovereign

duty, from the beginning. J. S. Verma, former chief justice of India

and also former chairman of the National Human Rights

Commission, explained the constitutional dictum in a recent meeting

with the author.1 He explained the harmonious construction of Article 21 with other constitutional provisions and the Directive

Principles of State Policy that place providing free elementary education in the category of ‘essential sovereign function’ of the

welfare state. This was confirmed by the Unnikrinshan Judgement,2

which accorded the status of a Fundamental Right to the right to free elementary education even before the constitutional

amendment in December 2002. Introduction of Article 21A, making

xix

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS elementary education ‘free and compulsory’ for children in the age group 6–14, confirms the state’s resolve to accept its sovereign

responsibility of providing free education to all children, irrespective

of schools, private or government. This does not allow for

discriminatory delivery of education from different sets of schooling. The option left is the CSS under the broad concept of IE that includes not only children with disabilities but also those with other social and economic disadvantages.

NEW PEDAGOGICAL AND CURRICULAR APPROACHES At the heart of IE is the new pedagogical and curricular approaches at the school and classroom levels. The ‘competitive activities’

encouraging ‘individualistic and egocentric ethos’ of the traditional school system are replaced by ‘collaboration, cooperation and mutual support’ (Brantlinger, 1997). The change in approaches

replaces the three Cs of the traditional school system by another set of three Cs as depicted in Figure 1 (Jha, 2005). • Figure 1

Towards Inclusive Schooling

Compulsion (of curriculum)

Choice (within curriculum and pedagogy)

Competition (among students)

Collaboration (as a form of learning and teaching)

Comparison (of ‘abilities’)

Consideration (for differences and diversities)

Drawing from the constitutional dictum of equal opportunity

and social justice, the Kothari Commission, the author of CSS in India, introduced the strategy of neighbourhood schooling, wherein

the commission observed: ‘each school should be attended by all

xx

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION children in the neighbourhood irrespective of caste, creed, community, religion, economic condition or social status, so that

there would be no segregation in schools’ (Education Commission, 1966, p. 236, emphasis in original). If the report were to be written today, one would have expected terms like disability and special needs to be included in ‘all’ (Jha, 2005). Arguing for the neighbourhood school, the commission advanced two arguments: [First], a neighbourhood school will provide ‘good’ education to children because sharing life with common people is ... an essential ingredient of good education. Secondly, the establishment of such schools will compel rich, privileged and powerful classes to take an interest in the system of public education and thereby bring about its early improvement (Education Commission, 1966 p. 236).

Mixing of children of different abilities and socio-economic

backgrounds would blur the stigma of disability and force teachers to become innovative so as to respond to the needs of different

children, and for the school organisation to arrange and supply resources accordingly.

A PARADIGM SHIFT IN PERSPECTIVE The concepts of IE and CSS are a product of the paradigm shift in perspectives towards disability, on the one hand, and ‘ability’ based

teaching, on the other. Defect-within-children, commonly known as the psychomedical perspective, gave birth to segregated special education for the disabled, while the selection and sorting on the

basis of ability and talent gave birth to grammar schools in England. The myth of defect-within-children explodes the foundation of special schools, and the questioning of ability or talent-linked

schooling led to the comprehensive movement. The Indian education commission argument of ‘good’ education when children

xxi

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS from different backgrounds are mixed in neighbourhood schools would require a paradigm shift in the perspective towards schooling.

Many authors, for example Booth (1998) and Tomlinson (2001),

have referred to the linkages of IE and comprehensive and common schooling. Booth (1998) argues for IE as a ‘part of the process of developing comprehensive community education’ and for the

‘participation of students in the cultures, curricula and communities of mainstream neighbourhood schools’ (p. 83). Referring to

Warnock’s approach (1980) on making education for children with special needs ‘a part of the comprehensive ideal’, Tomlinson (2001, p. 31) observes:

This expressed an egalitarian belief that a common school should be inclusive of children of all abilities and disabilities and clashed (both) with beliefs that ‘natural’ abilities and disabilities needed separate schools.

Failure of the system leading to the paradigm shif in perspective towards leading giving birth to the concept of IE and the system of

common schooling has been diagrammatically presented in the following figure:

Rights and equal opportunity

Failure of the system

Paradigm shift in perspective

IE and CSS

Inclusive pedagogy/ Curriculum

My recently concluded doctoral research at the University of

Oxford questions the existence of special education as a distinct

entity. The study also highlights the teachers’ assertion that they

xxii

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION could teach special children if there were some systemic changes, for example, if the class size was reduced. Change in perspective

was regarded as the main factor hindering IE, as a result even though strategies in the schools were different, their attitude towards children with special needs and thereby the treatment meted out to them were not much different (Jha, 2005).

THE WAY AHEAD While the struggle for CSS in India is gaining momentum, it is yet to

reverberate in the corridors of policy-makers, and IE remains an exclusive agenda driven by those working in the ‘disability sector’. As

a result, there is more noise and rhetoric than any serious effort in bringing about any systemic reforms that would make schools more inclusive of all children in the neighbourhood.

The latest instance is the Right to Education Bill 2005 put up on

the Ministry of Education Web site. Section 14 of the bill stipulates

two systems of school education—one system will provide ‘free and compulsory education’, and the other one will be free to charge fees

and also be exempted from many other provisions of the law. The second category includes even state schools of ‘specified categories’.

Any state school of ‘distinct character’ could be notified under the

definition of ‘specified category’ in addition to Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya and Sainik Schools.

Yet another problem is arising from the fast-paced growth of

private schools in the country. The growth owes largely to the absence of government schools or its inefficient functioning. Hence,

private schools are filling in the vacuum and are functioning as the

instrumentality of the state. As argued above, it is the essential sovereign function of the state to provide free elementary education to all children, irrespective of the schools they have access to. In other words, it is the obligation of the state to meet the prescribed

xxiii

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS cost of children receiving education in private or special schools if state schools are unable to do the same in its mainstream schools.

The bill has many other non-inclusive characteristics, and it

would be out of place to analyse them here. However, the bill

proposes to stop all types of selection of young children on the basis of tests and interviews resorted to by private schools in urban areas, in particular. Accepting the sovereign responsibility of providing free

education to all children in the age group 6-14 under Article 21A,

combined with the policy of non-selection, could create a ground for

the development of a common school system and inclusive education in the country.

NOTES 1. Incidentally Justice Verma had released School without Walls on 1 February 2002.

2. Unnikrishnan vs State of A.P., AIR 1993, SC 217.

xxiv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to all who have contributed to my research which has culminated in this book. In particular:

The Government of India, the Queen Elizabeth House and the

Department of Educational Studies of the University of Oxford for granting the Visiting Fellowship and facilities to undertake the study.

My supervisors, Prof. Sally Tomlinson and Dr. Colin Brock, for guidance and support.

Colleagues in the HRD ministry for making available Indiarelated materials.

xxv

1

INTRODUCTION

D

o most schools have walls? This is a question that comes to our

minds as parents and guardians when we peep into schools.

Walls are often invisible, but can be seen with some insight. Children experience these walls when schools tell them, ‘You cannot get admission because you have “failed” the selection test/your parents

cannot pay the fees/your parents do not belong to the eligible

categories’, or ‘You cannot be admitted because you have a physical,

mental or learning disability’. If they (the children) are lucky enough to get admission into a school, they encounter further walls inside

the classroom when teachers say, ‘I will teach you what I have been directed to from above’ or ‘You will have to learn in the manner I want you to learn.’ Finally, if the children have strength enough to continue in school, they face more walls when they have to take examinations which determine how successful they will be in life!

Removing barriers and bringing all children together in school

irrespective of their physical and mental abilities, or social and

economic status, and securing their participation in learning

activities leads to the initiation of the process of inclusive education. Once walls within schools are broken, schools move out of their boundaries, end isolation and reach out to the community. The distance between formal schools, non-formal schools, special

1

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS schools and open schools will be eliminated. This is not a hypothesis

or imagining utopia. India did have such community schools before

Macaulay’s system of education was imposed during the colonial period. Still earlier, in ancient literature, India had an approach to educating the disabled that educationalists recommend as inclusive pedagogy for today’s inclusive schools (see Miles, 1997).

The term inclusive education (IE) is a recent addition to

educational jargon in India, and is used normally in the context of the education of children with disabilities resulting largely due to

organ impairments. It is generally regarded as an extension of special education, or the concept of special educational needs or

integrated education. While special education refers to the

education of these children in separate schools, under integrated

education, they are brought into mainstream schools. Special educational needs (SEN) as a concept was introduced by the

Warnock Committee in its report in 1978 and by the 1981

(Tomlinson, 2001) Education Act in Britain. SEN is perceived as present in children facing learning difficulties and it is recommended that additional facilities and support services for their education be

made available in regular schools as far as feasible. Often, mainstream schools giving admission to these categories of children, grouping them separately outside or inside classrooms, think they are fulfilling the requirements of integrated education.

Education project documents developed in India in the 1980s

and early 1990s do not mention this form of education. There is limited data or information on the education of children with

disabilities. One may argue that they are covered under the term ‘universe’ in the phrase ‘universalisation of elementary education’ or in the ‘all’ of the term ‘education for all’ (EFA), which has been the

goal of several educational projects in India. Unfortunately, however, education of the disabled has received some sort of ‘add-on’ treatment in policy and project documents. For example, the last

few days of in-service teachers’ training are devoted to ‘their

2

INTRODUCTION education’, or an additional module of training is given to teachers to take care of their ‘special needs’. Nonetheless, the concept of a

‘common school system’ reflected in the 1968 and the 1986 Indian

national education policies, to my mind, is very close to the emerging concept of inclusive education.

This book is an attempt to analyse India’s policy, strengths and

challenges towards making schools inclusive, a commitment made in the UNESCO’s Salamanca Conference in 1994 and a mandate enshrined in the Indian constitution.

The germ for this book emerged from participation in

international meetings and workshops, and access to literature that

led me to believe schooling in the developed world was all-inclusive and that the disabled were still being educated in a segregated

mode in developing countries. Hence, when the opportunity of a sabbatical term in the University of Oxford arose, I proposed the

development of a framework for calculating an ‘inclusion index’ for schools in India, with England’s school as a reference. The objective

was to measure ‘inclusivity’ of schools on a scale that might

generate debate on the exclusive characteristics of many schools, public and private, in India. However, soon after landing at Oxford and doing a more thorough literature survey, I discovered that inclusive education as practised in the West is a contested concept.

Besides, there were different perspectives and approaches to

inclusion and inclusive education at the international level. The Indian context had its own strength and demands. Inclusive education as perceived and practised in the West could not be

replicated in India. While the philosophy and ethos could remain similar, the practices and strategies would necessarily have to vary.

The aim and objectives of my research therefore changed. The demystification of the theory of inclusive education and its meaning in the Indian context finally became the focus of my dissertation

titled ‘Demystifying Inclusive Education: What Does It Mean for India?’ The dissertation attempted to address the following research questions:

3

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS • Is there uniformity in the perspectives on inclusive education at the international level?

• Do the existing policies and practices in the West, particularly in England, meet the emerging expectations of children and parents for inclusive education?

• Could the existing policies and practices in respect of children with special educational needs be extended to countries like India and would that be inconsistent with the principles and philosophy of inclusive education?

• Are the challenges of inclusion in India the same or similiar as in England and other developed countries?

• What is the role of curriculum and pedagogy towards the

development of inclusive education, particularly in the Indian context?

Literature on special education for the disabled and inclusive

education for all has proliferated in the West, particularly after the

Salamanca statement (UNESCO, 1994). However, there is limited

literature on the subject in India, though there are examples of children with disabilities coming to regular schools and getting

integrated in a natural way. Elements of inclusive pedagogy are being practised in some innovative programmes at the primary level,

albeit without a strong theoretical framework. There are also ‘mini

special schools’ in regular schools apart from stand alone special schools. There is a felt need for piecing all these elements together. This book is an attempt in that direction.

The title School Without Walls intends to convey two senses.

First, a school should remove all barriers to learning and participation a child may face. Schools should facilitate learning of

all children irrespective of their social and economic condition and physical status. The concept of special educational needs is getting redefined in the West and is being replaced by the term ‘barriers to

learning and participation’ by educationalists and practitioners (see

Booth et al., 2000). The concept has been strongly advocated in

4

INTRODUCTION Indian policy documents on the common school system. Schools

should welcome diversities and use it as a resource for learning inside the classroom. Second, a school should not keep learning

confined to classrooms. It should reach out to the community and use the community’s resources as well for the education of children,

an idea formulated in NCERT’s ‘National Curriculum Framework For

School Education’ (NCERT, 2000, p. 108). It is also one of the models for the American concept of ‘alternative schools’ (Kellmayer, 1995).

School without walls is not a utopian philosophy. Ivan Illich

(1971) questioned the efficacy of the institution of the school thirty

years ago and argued for ‘de-schooling’. The information age that we live in is breaking all barriers and taking education to where

students want it. India’s massive open schooling system is a pointer

towards school without walls, though it is given a secondary social status because of a traditional mindset of learning in schools with walls.

Inclusive education cannot be implemented in the present kinds

of schools (with walls and barriers). While ‘barrier free access’ and provision of additional facilities and services to the disabled and the disadvantaged are necessary conditions to bringing children into the

classrooms, they are not sufficient conditions. Inclusive education

will not be a success unless such provisions are concurrently accompanied by curricular and pedagogical reforms.

The book is divided into nine chapters beginning with an

Introduction. ‘The Twenty-first Century School’ traces the origin of the school as it exists today. It has been argued that the institution

of the present school was created to meet the needs of an industrial society in the nineteenth century. In this chapter, an attempt has been made to find an answer to the question: Can the school of

today meet the challenges of the twenty-first century and of the

information age, and can it create an inclusive environment for all children to learn together? It raises the issues of effectiveness and equity. It cautions against the language of factory (in the nineteenth

5

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS century) getting replaced by the language of market (in the twenty-

first century). It presents certain features expected in the information age school that can help address the demands arising

out of concerns for rights, equity, diversity, excellence and inclusion. It cites an example whereby field level education workers bring out

a similar vision of school, given the opportunity and environment to create the same, even though they may not be aware of the jargon

and theory of educational research in policy documents on inclusive education.

The third chapter, ‘International Perspectives’, is devoted to the

mapping of different perspectives and approaches to inclusive education at the international level. Three major approaches, such

as charity and humanitarian issues; rights, equity and social justice; and curricular and school reform have been examined. It looks at

the question: Is there a conflict between rights and inclusive

education? An attempt has also been made to present a brief picture

on the status of inclusive education as it exists in developed countries. Some research evidence and international experiences to allay fears behind inclusive schools have been presented to argue a case that inclusive education could be the best way for achieving the goal of education for all.

Two separate chapters give an account of the development of

special education in Britain and India respectively. Britain has been chosen for obvious reasons—my sabbatical at Oxford which

accorded facilities for accessing literature and opportunities for interaction with educationalists and educational authorities. ‘The

British Scene’ examines the development of special education in England and Wales and how it has changed in terms of policies and

practices given the background of inclusive education. The chapter becomes relevant to appreciate the Indian situation, as there

remains a tendency to follow Western models although the context and needs may not be similar. There is a separate chapter on visits to schools in Oxfordshire and observations made in classrooms,

6

INTRODUCTION though the study did not involve the collection of any empirical data. Prevailing research ethics on guarding anonymity of schools and teachers has been maintained while reflecting on these school visits.

This chapter will be of special interest to Indian readers, particularly

to teachers and educational practitioners. Salient features of the

special educational needs policy of one of the schools visited have also been presented as an example.

In Chapter Six, ‘The Indian Context’, policy development on

special and integrated education has been discussed. Progress on education of the disabled and its status in respect of implementation of various projects have also been presented. Since inclusion has

been interpreted in the book as including all children in mainstream neighbourhood schools, the development of multi-track school systems—different schools for different categories of children—has

been critically examined and certain roadblocks identified. An appropriate approach to issues relating to language, textbooks,

curriculum, teaching methodology and examinations could eliminate these roadblocks. Perceptions about what is a ‘good school’, lack of

research on effective schooling, absence of criteria for determining effective and good schools, and non-implementation of the policy of

the common school system have been further contributing to the creation of classes of schools and moving the system away from the

principles and practice of inclusive education. India has certain advantages, however, which could make us a leader in this new

approach of inclusive education. A societal culture of inclusion, the

process of natural and casual integration in schools and the absence

of a parallel system of special schools give India advantages over many Western nations which are struggling to dismantle special schools while establishing inclusive ones. The chapter also

acknowledges the efforts of many voluntary agencies in building up innovative and inclusive pedagogy at the level of primary education.

These initiatives further strengthen the goal of making education inclusive, provided an effective dialogue is established between

7

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS those working in the area of general schools and those who have the expertise of working in special schools.

Chapter Seven is devoted to inclusion practices in classrooms.

There is limited literature on the pedagogy of inclusion. Since the

practice follows policy, and a robust policy of inclusion is yet to be

developed, there is not much on what can be recommended as inclusive teaching methodologies. However, there are many projects

and initiatives even under existing policies that have the potential of

securing the participation of all children in the learning process. A few such classroom practices have been captured for analysis. To

what extent these practices could be replicated in Indian schools remains a moot point. Most Indian schools face two problems: lack of minimum resources required for teaching and learning, and too many children in too few classrooms with too few teachers.

Induction of para teachers in large numbers into the system could be yet another obstacle in building inclusive schools. While British educational authorities and parents get worried when the class size

increases above twenty, the prescribed norm in India is one teacher for forty students. In practice, however, it is always more than that

and children in a classroom may belong to different age groups and grades. An attempt has been made to find out if some British

teaching strategies could address these issues in the Indian situation.

‘Making it Happen’ takes note of inclusion in practice

recommended in some of the contemporary literature from

Australia, America and Britain. It also presents a set of advisories

that could be considered by a school, or a school system, for making schools more inclusive. While some policy adjustments may facilitate

the process, it has been argued that schools need not wait for this; they can develop an inclusion plan and inclusive pedagogy that would benefit all children and the school system on the whole. To

that extent, Indian policy does not create the kinds of hindrances teachers are confronted with in British schools. There is a strong

8

INTRODUCTION argument made against following the British or Western model in respect of the concept and usage of special educational needs, the process of assessment and identification of children with special needs and the linkage of these needs with provisions.

The final chapter, ‘In Conclusion’, sums up the answers to

questions researched and opines that the inclusion process may be

started by teachers and schools even without waiting for debate on the subject to conclude and desired policy to change, since the

existing Indian policy framework provides scope for such an initiative.

And now a word on the terminology used in the book. In the

literature, there is no uniformity in the use of terms in respect of

education for children with disabilities and inclusive education. Impairments, handicaps, disabilities, special education/school,

special educational needs, special needs education, learning difficulty, learning disability, differently abled and now inclusive

education are some of the terms which are being commonly used in

different countries. Sometimes they are defined, but more often they are used in contexts. In India there is no agreed definition of

different terms, though disability has been defined under the

Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 as meaning ‘blindness, low vision, leprosy cured, hearing impairment, loco motor disability, mental

retardation or mental illness.’ Each of these terms has been further

defined in the Act. ‘Person with disability’ has been defined as ‘a

person suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability as certified by any medical authority.’

According to the WHO, ‘impairments’ are concerned with

‘abnormalities of body structure and appearance and with system function, resulting from any cause; in principle impairments

represent disturbances at the organ level.’ Impairments thus belong to individuals, are related to some sort of ‘defects’ or ‘deficits’ in

individuals but at the level of a particular organ or organs. Disabilities reflect ‘the consequences of impairment in terms of

9

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS functional performance and activity by the individual; disabilities thus represent disturbance at the level of person.’ Handicaps are

‘concerned with the disadvantages experienced by the individual as a result of impairments and disabilities; handicaps thus reflect

interaction with the individual’s environment’. Thus, as per the WHO approach, impairments are at the level of organs, disabilities at the level of individual or person resulting from impairment, and

handicaps at the level of an individual’s environment resulting from impairments and disabilities.

The British originated the term ‘special educational needs’ with

the 1981 Education Act, although it is much more than the

education of the disabled. The UNESCO Salamanca Statement has used this term along with special needs education but without a

precise definition. There is no definition in Indian policy documents either, but usage in India and elsewhere normally refers to the

education of the disabled. There is mention of the term ‘learning difficulty’ in the British Act, but no reference to ‘learning disability’. In India, the term learning disability has been extended of late to

‘low achievement’ in children due to mental factors. This practice

apparently is not consistent with international trends whereby lower

achievements are generally attributed to environmental, curricular and pedagogical factors, and not to a (mental) defect or deficit in a child.

In this book, the most frequently used terms are special

educational needs or special needs education, learning difficulty, disadvantaged children, special education/school and inclusive education or school. Special educational needs or special needs education normally refers to the education of children with

disabilities and learning difficulties. Learning difficulty includes educational problems of children with social and economic

disadvantages who, along with many others, have low attainments largely due to curricular and pedagogical factors. They may be called

the victims of ‘situational disability’. The terms ‘impairment’ and

10

INTRODUCTION ‘handicap’

have

been

rarely

used

in

the

book.

Special

education/school has mostly been used for education of the disabled in a separate or segregated environment. Inclusive education has been used in a broader sense—not confined only to the education of the disabled or for children with special educational needs. It also takes into account education for children with learning difficulties,

including children suffering from social and economic deprivations or situational disabilities, which work as barriers to learning and participation. The approach to inclusive education is in this context

of removing these barriers and securing the participation of all children in the educational process.

11

2

THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SCHOOL

If the challenge of the twentieth century was creating a system of schools that could provide minimal education and basic socialisation for masses of previously uneducated citizens, the challenge of the twenty-first century is creating schools that ensure—for all students and in all communities—a genuine right to learn. Meeting the new challenge is not an incremental undertaking. It requires a fundamentally different enterprise. —LINDA D. HAMMOND (CITED IN LEWIS, 2000)

E

ducation has been with mankind from time immemorial, while

the institution of school is a creation of the industrial age.

Education is a lifelong process, though schooling is available only for a prescribed number of years. Years spent in school are vital, but it

is only one of the many dimensions of education. It has been argued that in India the lack of literacy and schooling has not stopped the spread and transmission of education. It has spread orally, through folklore, fables, scripture and custom, and has passed from generation to generation. In the West also education for life skills

was imparted through person-to-person contact before the advent of school as a system of mass education. The impact of formal

schooling in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, however,

destroyed much of this natural learning process. Education now has

12

THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SCHOOL become almost synonymous with schooling (Kabir, 1956; Sinclair and Lillis, 1980; Gould, 1993; Mittler, 1995).

LIMITATIONS OF THE SCHOOL Tomlinson (1982), Simmons (1983), and Beare and Slaughter

(1993) have referred to the origin of the institution of school as a

system of mass education for less than two hundred years in the

industrial period. Weiner (1991) also agrees that the pace of

industrial development and urbanisation was an important factor in the spread of mass compulsory education in Europe and North

America, but at times it even preceded these developments. He

finds virtues in school as an institution, which had emerged as a result of ‘political persuasions’.

In all these [Western] countries there eventually developed the view that family could no longer be relied upon as the institution for the transmission of those values ... essential for the modern world... The school emerged as a unique modern institution, indeed the only institution in which, with the introduction of compulsory education, everyone in the society was required to participate. As notions of equality, merit, mobility, citizenship, and nationality became societal and state goals, the school became a favourite institution for all political persuasions (p. 153).

Diminishing role of the family and society, and excessive

reliance on the school designed largely on political considerations, could be contributing to the discipline problems in American

schools. A study conducted by the California Department of

Education (Kellmayer, 1995) compared the major discipline

problems of the 1940s with those of the 1990s. The most common

discipline problems among school students in America in the 1940s included talking, chewing gum, making noise, running in the

13

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS hallways, getting out of place in line, wearing improper clothing and not putting paper in wastebaskets. After fifty years, in the 1990s, the

list has changed to assault, arson, rape, drug and alcohol abuse,

pregnancy, suicide and bombings (ibid.). Kabir (1956) finds individualism as yet another defect in the British education system,

emphasising the ‘theme of competition rather than co-operation between individuals and societies.’ He further observes:

... the educational philosophy which guided Britain during the nineteenth century, was based on a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Though co-operation is at least as important for survival as competition there was a tendency to interpret evolution in terms of the struggle for existence among individuals and groups. The educational system of the day reflected this tendency and encouraged in the individual a desire to get on without regard to the general interest. Adherents of this philosophy believed that the general interest would be somehow served if each individual pursued his own ends (p. 26).

Tomlinson (1982) feels the requirement of skilled manpower to

pursue further commercial interests, a need to enforce necessary

discipline and control unrest among the workforce were the guiding principles and motivation of the industrial class to promote the

institution of school. Hence, the curricula transacted in such schools

would meet the needs of the dominant and powerful. According to her, this also explains why the education of the disabled was ignored

first in England and Wales, and subsequently special schools were

created to make them employable. Authors believe that organisation of the industrial age school on the factory model brought in a similar

ethos and vocabularies in the modern school system. In schools

today, students are ‘prepared’ for life, and ‘products’ of some schools

are better than from other schools. Schools are expected to maintain ‘standards’, so that students’ ‘performance’ remain high.

14

THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SCHOOL Illich (1971) has made some very critical observations on the

contributions of the present system of schools to learning.

A ... major illusion on which the school system rests is that most learning is the result of teaching. Teaching, it is true, may contribute to certain kinds of learning under certain circumstances. But most people acquire most of their knowledge outside school, and in school only in so far as school, in a few rich countries, has become their place of confinement during an increasing part of their lives (p. 20).

Freire (1978) called the school a ‘market for knowledge’. [Such schools create] dichotomy between manual and mental labour, between practice and theory, between teaching and learning, and between the knowledge that exists today and creating new knowledge ... [when] a ‘market for knowledge’ [is] superseded by the school as a democratic learning centre...the authoritarian teacher who transmits knowledge selectively disappears. In their place arise active teachers and learners— teachers, who, in teaching also learn and students who, in learning, also teach.

Indian literature is full of educational thinkers and visionaries

who questioned the capacity and relevance of modern schools in imparting education. Gandhi’s basic education was a synthesis of

body, mind and spirit, since he believed that ‘a proper and

harmonious combination of all the three is required for the making of the whole man and constitutes the true economics of education’

(Fagg, 2001). He also produced an ‘alternative pedagogy’, based

upon learning through the application of a variety of crafts, such as spinning, carpentry and agriculture, so relevant for India’s contemporary

agrarian

economy.

Rabindranath

Tagore

experimented with an alternative approach to education by setting up Shantiniketan in 1901 where classes were held in the open air

15

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS and children learnt by engaging themselves in nature study and craft work. Way back in 1909, Sri Aurobindo wrote in the Karmayogi, The school gives the materials. It is for the students to use them— this is the formula. But the error here is the fundamental. Information cannot be the foundation of intelligence; it can only be part of the material out of which the knower builds knowledge, the starting-point, the nucleus of fresh discovery and enlarged creation. An education that confines itself to imparting knowledge is not education (cited in Das, 1999, p. 49).

J. Krishnamurthi ‘questioned the place of knowledge in the

transformation of man’.

[He] denied all hierarchical relationship. To him right communication was only possible when the teacher and student functioned at the same level, communicating through question and counter question, until in the act of learning the problem was explored fully and understanding illumined the mind of the student and teacher simultaneously ... . He saw the school as an oasis where the teaching could be cherished and kept alive, whatever the disorder and violence in the world (cited in Jayakar, 1987, p. 253, emphasis mine).

Gijubhai Vadheka, an advocate-turned teacher, did not call for

the dismantling of the school structure as such but demonstrated

the application of child-centred pedagogy and joyful leaning in government-run schools. He was a man of action. His pioneer work

diwaswapn (‘day dreaming’) (Dave, 1999) is a tribute to his thought, the dream and its translation into action. It remains an excellent manual for a teacher who wants to transform her or his school and make it child friendly. There is something common in all Indian educational thinkers. All of them had a high vision for education, something close to what the ancient Indian scriptures, the Vishnu Puran, laid down as the purpose of education: Sa vidya ya vimuktaye (‘education is that which liberates’). Second, they deemed education

16

THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SCHOOL beyond the call of the modern day school. They wanted to change

it and many transformed their ideas into actionable projects. But

none of these ideas could influence the education system in a significant manner, and the model inherited from the colonial days continues in India.

When Gandhi, Illich and Friere questioned the efficacy of the

school to educate children in its rigid confinement, they may not have thought of the emerging technology for accessing information

and knowledge. Information and communication technology is going to change the characteristics of schools and schooling. The change

being offered by computers may seem threatening to educational systems and to those who control them (Abbott, 2001). An ‘alternative’ school project taken up in the Highlands in Scotland would allow pupils greater freedom to work from home than the

conventional secondary schools. Every pupil is being supplied with a

laptop computer. Students may choose to begin their days by logging on to the school computer from home, rather than attending

the 45-minute class every morning. Regular tutorials will check their

progress. One Scottish educational authority describes it as ‘radical transformation’ of the education system. He says,

Pluralism and diversity need to be encouraged without losing sight of equity. This is a brand new opportunity and a brand new school where they can bring in different teaching staff. They will be using more small group tutors to facilitate and check rather than directing the traditional industrial age school.1

While information and communication technology is likely to

bring in positive changes in the nature of the school, market forces are pulling it in another direction. Beginning with the developed countries, commercialisation has been threatening the system into

more competitive and profiteering ventures. Drawing upon parallels

with economic forces, educational policymakers believe that a system driven by ‘market’ ideology would be more efficient in

17

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS allocating resources and more responsive to the needs of

individuals. In Britain, the impact of marketisation on schools can be seen in the changes in the pattern of their governance. An increased

diversity of school provisions, introduction of the local management of schools, emphasis on parental choice, and the intensification of

competitiveness within and across institutions are some of the instances of market forces influencing the school system (Barton,

1999). In such a commercial environment, the onging debate is whether education is a private good or a public good. Barton (ibid.) says, it is both. At the individual level, when it brings in ‘value for

achievement’ and the ‘social status in a competitive ethos’, it could be viewed as a private good. When education brings collective benefit to a society, it is a public good. Tomlinson (1999) sees a

threat to the educational interests of those who have special needs and educational difficulties under the current market economy. Due

to the exercise of market power, ‘middle classes and aspirant middle class groups’ tend to protect their privileges and competitive

advantages more over those who may have special needs and educational difficulties. Individual schools largely intend to serve

these middle class ‘consumers’ and investors, i.e., the government on behalf of the taxpayers for the state-run schools and private parties for the fee charging schools. All these schools want to get

the ‘good school’ brand and want to prove themselves ‘effective’ in the eyes of the stakeholder.

EFFECTIVENESS AND EQUITY While inclusion and equity are increasingly becoming the mantras

for education policymakers, they are yet to find a place in the perception about good or quality or effective schools. There is no

serious debate either on this vital issue. In most countries, developed ones included, students’ performance in public

18

THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SCHOOL examinations or standard tests are perceived as indicators of ‘good’ and effective schools.

The school effectiveness debate is not new to developed

nations, though it is yet to develop into an agreed research model from the policy and school improvement perspectives. Influenced by

market considerations, the theoretical framework has developed from the angle of organisational and management studies in the West, which focuses on economy, efficiency, i.e., input and output ratio, and effectiveness. The fourth factor—equity—is conspicuously absent from the discourses on school improvement in post-welfare

Britain (Morley, 1998). Morley raises a key question ‘whether the

discourses on [school effectiveness] are relevant to developing countries.’ For instance, equity remains a matter of major concern in India, where a high proportion of children, particularly the

disadvantaged and the disabled, continue to remain out of school. In contrast to the market-driven model of school effectiveness, Lunt

and Norwich (1999) do refer to three different models for assessing

school effectiveness. First, the ’received model’ which is based on the assumption that schools as an organisation can have effects on students’ performance. It ignores the effect of non-school factors. Generally, it would be assumed that in the context of developing

countries, teachers, their salaries and training, textbooks and learning materials, teaching-learning methods and physical facilities,

such as building, furniture, library, a lavatory and drinking water

would be the inputs that could be studied for assessing the quality and effectiveness of schooling. Second, is the ‘heretical model’ (HM) that ‘deals more with general criticisms about epistemological, meta-

theoretical and value issues’. The third model is the ‘contextual model’ (CM) when ‘the uniqueness of each school as an organisation in its social context is acknowledged’. Lockheed and Verspoor (1991)

have identified a ‘set of processes’ in the context of developed countries ‘where material inputs are readily available’. These are: ‘an

orderly school environment, clear goals and high expectations, a

19

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS sense of community, and strong instructional leadership.’ In none of these Western models is the learner’s profile, social and economic

background of the learner, mode of selection and admission in

schools, outside school help by way of tuition, etc. taken into account, perhaps because schools in the West are not different in regard to these factors or these are not the issues confronting the

system there. Therefore, while making any study of effectiveness of

Indian schools, all these elements contributing to the overall

performance of schools would play a significant role and they would have to be controlled and counted in any comparison, be it between private and government schools, or between different sets of schools within the same system.

The education of children with disabilities and inclusive

education have remained on the fringes in any study on effective schools.

The school effectiveness movement has reinforced bureaucratization, regulation and standardization of school organizations, all counterproductive to the notion of celebrating difference and diversity ... these approaches can be instrumental in perpetuating the status quo since they fail to recognize the possibilities for education to have a role in transforming society rather than simply reflecting it (Lloyd, 2000, p. 140).

According to one study (Lunt and Norwich, 1999), schools with

high positions in the British ‘league tables’ have an average of 8 per cent of their children with special needs, whilst those with lower

positions have an average of 33 per cent. School effectiveness so

defined does not take into account the equity responsibility of schools and the values it inculcates among children (Slee et al.,

1998). It may serve the purpose of the market but ignores the promotion of attitudes and values required for an inclusive society. According to Parsons (1999), there has been a lot of talk on effective

schools and effective schooling in developed and developing

20

THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SCHOOL countries, but there has been little debate on schools effective for

whom? Normally, effective schools are those which produce good academic results, presuming that ‘learning has taken place’. He argues,

Such effective schools need not be ‘very good’ schools; a ‘very good’ school may be the inclusive school which keeps its clients and retains the responsibility to cater for their needs—however demanding these may be.

A model developed on the above hypotheses would be the most

appropriate for ascertaining how ‘good’ a school is. In fact, it could further be modified to take cognisance of the learners’ profile,

selection and admission mechanism and attitude towards the admission of those with disadvantages, and disabilities and learning

difficulties, in the Indian context. Such criteria would serve equity

considerations and would also bring out the true strength and comparison of schools between different systems or within the same

school system. As Federico Mayor, the former director general of UNESCO, says:

‘Schools for all’—institutions which include everybody, celebrate differences, support learning, and respond to individual needs. As such, they constitute an important contribution to the agenda for achieving Education for All and for making schools educationally effective (Mayor, 1994, p. iii).

ALTERNATIVE MODELS Rigidity of the school has forced many countries to develop alternative models of education. While America has been experimenting with various models of ‘alternative schools’ for its

deviant student population, Britain puts those with behavioural and

emotional problems in pupils’ referral units (PRUs). In India and

21

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS many other developing countries, the non-formal system of education has been growing with the support of the government and international funding agencies to counter the curriculum of the

formal school, which is deemed to be inappropriate for the disadvantaged. If students with a variety of abilities are to be

brought and kept in school, the traditional, subject-based, academically-oriented curriculum will not meet their requirements.

The present curriculum is meant to serve the minority of student population. And, it cannot be said with certainty, if it is good even for them (Beare and Slaughter, 1993). The reasons could be many.

Finance and resources available could be one of them. Running non-

formal programmes require less money than establishing formal schools. Speaking in favour of the non-formal system, Ahmed (1975) argued, ‘what is important is learning regardless of where,

when, and how it occurs’. In this case, there exists wide latitude in sources, locations, times and tools of learning. Speaking about the formal system, he continues,

Formal schools have served as a gigantic sorting machine selecting a very small fraction of their clientele for entrance into progressively higher levels of formal education and dumping the vast majority by the wayside ... . It is coming to be recognised that education need not be equated with schooling and measured by years of exposure to schooling ... the school’s importance in relation to other means of education is not increasing, but diminishing.

At the end of the twentieth century the non-formal system too

does not meet the expectations of many. Watkins (2000) observes, While non-formal systems may serve the minimum purpose of getting poor children into classrooms, in the absence of effective State regulation they may also provide a third rate education. Such parallel education systems can have the unintended effect of absolving States of their responsibility to meet their citizens’ basic learning needs.

22

THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SCHOOL Inspite of initial appreciation of the non-formal strategy, at least

for giving some education to disadvantaged children, the scheme

has proved to be non-functional in the long term. In the absence of

reforms in the formal system and lack of viable linkages between the two, sustainability of non-formal education remains a question. Some have argued that the formal system could have been deformalised

to

respond

to

the

educational

needs

of

the

disadvantaged, rather than inventing a separate system of education for them, thereby further perpetuating social segregation.

India is also experimenting with yet another form of schooling—

distance and open learning. Overage children, those not able to

meet the curricular expectations of the formal system and those who have had to drop out due to failures or otherwise are being given an alternative educational route through the distance education

programme managed by the National Open School. Many of them have disabilities. ‘Open education’ is characterised by the removal of

‘restrictions, exclusions and privileges’ (Richardson, 2000). It recognises students’ previous learning experiences, is flexible in time

and is more learner-centred in terms of interactive learning materials produced to respond to children’s needs.

How do the policies and practices of the formal system

perpetuate exclusion leading to the development of various forms of

schooling, and forcing the disadvantaged and the disabled to seek

refuge in one of them? Parson (1999) has identified six functions of a school system: custodial, civilising, developing the national identity, skill building, credentialing and delivery of knowledge. The

approaches to organising each of these functional areas could be

within a spectrum ranging from facilitating inclusion to forcing exclusion, as articulated in Figure 2.

Schools do not necessarily create equal opportunities, unless

they are deliberately designed by policy to do so. Even in the US, in a quarter of the public schools, the majority of students come from

low-income households. These schools, which educate poor

23

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS • Figure 2

Functions of Schools Leading to Exclusion

Æ benign and nurturing Æ democratising and humanising National identity Æ open and questioning Skilling Æ generic and flexible Credentialing Æ egalitarian and communitarian Public knowledge Æ conjectural and open Custodial Civilising

or controlling and limiting or subjugating and inducting or closed and nationalistic or specific and fixed or elitist and competitive or received and autocratic

• Source: Parsons 1999

students separately from middle-class schools, do not provide an equal, or even an adequate education (Kahelnberg, 2001). Students in these schools face frequent class disruptions, a watered-down curriculum and lack of parental involvement. Kahelnberg presents

evidence to suggest that poor students increase their academic

achievement when they attend middle-class schools. Skrtic (1991) has tried to analyse why regular schools are not able to meet the demands of the disabled and the disadvantaged.

Schools are non-adaptable at the classroom level ... professionalisation resulting in convergent thinking and rational-technical approach to school mangement ... force children to get into the programmed instructions or get out of the classroom ... . Formalised structure and standardised curriculum reduces professional thought and discretion of teachers to personalise the programmes to match the children’s needs.

VISION FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY We started with the hypothesis that education and school are perceived as synonymous, though they aren’t. A case has also been

made that the school as modelled today is incapable of delivering

24

THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SCHOOL education, particularly to those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and are disabled. Lloyd (2000) raises a pertinent question.

Perhaps one of the most pressing issues to be addressed, therefore, is whether one should continue to be locked into a model of schooling which was designed for a very different purpose, at a very different period of history. Serious questions arise about the adequacy, relevance and appropriateness of policy, organization and, indeed practice, which is more than a century out of date for the current needs of society in a post-industrial period of rapid technological change and development (p. 145).

A lot of literature has emerged particularly in the West on how

a school of the twenty-first century should be shaped, and how learning should be organised in it. Contrasting with the shape of education in the industrial era, Lipsky and Gartner (1999) say,

Just as the regimen of the production line influenced the shape of public education in the industrial era, the nature of post-industrial society, its work and values, has a consequence for education of the twenty-first century. So work is collaborative, calling for more skills in problem solving than for extending knowledge, and requiring more flexibility than routine. In the new work place there is both growing diversity among the workforce, and an increasing focus on co-operation and teamwork among the workers (p. 19).

Lipsky and Gartner (1999) contrast the characteristics of

education in the industrial and information age (Figure 3), indicating a paradigm shift in the nature of the workplace, goals of education, pedagogy and learning methodologies and how to deal with the diversities.

Beare and Slaughter (1993) define ‘good schools’ for the

twenty-first century which supersede the ‘industrial and material framework’ with features such as:

25

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS • Figure 3

Schools in the Information Age

Characteristics

Industrial Age

Information Age

Pedagogy

Knowledge transmission

Knowledge-building

Prime mode of learning

Individual

Collaborative

Educational goals

Conceptual grasp for the Conceptual grasp and few; basic skills for many knowledge-building for all

Nature of diversity

Inherent, categorical

Transactional historical

Dealing with diversity

Selection of elites; basics for broad population

Developing model of lifelong learning for the broad population

Anticipated workplace

Factory, vertical bureaucracies

Collaborative learning organisations

• Source: Lipsky and Gartner, 1999, p. 19.

• Good schools should believe that every student can learn and is willing to learn.

• In good schools, it is safe for students to be curious, to play with ideas, to experiment and to make mistakes.

• Good schools do not burden either their students or their staff so heavily that time for enrichment, time to reflect, time

to participate in recreation or artistic or professional or other educational pursuits are crowded out of the programme.

Daniels and Garner (2000) find a need for rethinking on

‘teaching’ in a school in order to prepare itself for contributing towards the building of the ‘knowledge society’. Based on

international research they note the following three premises for converting school from a ‘knowledge delivery institution’ to a

‘knowledge-building institution’—a requirement of the ‘knowledge society’ of the twenty-first century.

1. Learning occurs through engaged participation in the activities of knowledge communities.

2. Teaching involves informed interpretations and responses to students’ orientations to knowledge.

26

THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SCHOOL 3. Schools, as sites of teachers’ knowledge use and production, need to understand the range of orientations to knowledge held within them and how they originated.

In the post-industrial society, school excellence should not be

judged in a vacuum or in an absolute sense. It must be referenced

with equity. As mentioned by Lipsky and Gartner (1999) collaborative work should be the prime mode of learning in the

twenty-first century and they establish a linkage between

collaboration, equity and excellence. ‘Collaboration means learning collaboratively with and from persons with varying interests,

abilities, skills, and cultural perspectives’ (Skrtic 1991). Such pedagogical expectations would require the new form of school to

bring children from ‘varying interests, abilities, skills, and cultural perspectives’ into its fold. Equity, therefore, would automatically become a necessity and pre-condition for the post-industrial era

schools. Skrtic (ibid.) reinforces the elements of interdependency,

equity and excellence again along with other features of the new century school:

Given the relevance of the postindustrial era, the successful school in the 21st century will be one that produces liberally educated young people who can work responsibly and interdependently under conditions of uncertainty. It will do this by promoting in its students a sense of social responsibility, an awareness of interdependency, and an appreciation of uncertainty. It will achieve these things by developing students’ capacity for experiential learning through collaborative problem solving and reflective discourse within a community of interests. The successful schools in the postindustrial era will be ones that achieve excellence and equity simultaneously—indeed one that recognizes equity as the way to excellence (p. 233).

Lloyd (2000) comments that ‘the school of the future is likely to

be a more flexible organization with highly permeable boundaries.’ He also remarks on the issue of excellence and equity.

27

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS I believe that to meet the challenge of ensuring that education is both excellent and equitable, the first barrier to be removed is the notion that one can only provide education within the current framework and system of schooling and that change, development and reform in education are concerned with refining and redefining it. If we are to promote collaborative, problem-solving, critically reflective empowering education the organization of schooling as it is currently conceived must radically change (p. 145).

Revisiting the role of information and communication

technology one finds it in line with the thinking on the organisation

of the school in the post-industrial era. However, information and communication technology would not realise its potential and contribute to school transformation if it is used as a substitute for books and the blackboard. Many players in the Indian software

industry working in the area of school education are creating electronic textbooks and content. This is not only under-utilising the potential of computers and the Internet, but also missing a great

opportunity for reforming the school curriculum and learning processes. Instead of developing information and communication

technology just as a resource for improving efficiency and effectiveness of the school, it could ‘reconstruct what we [intend to]

do in education for the future’ (Lloyd, 2000). It could be used as an aid for taking up collaborative, problem-solving and thinking activities in a flexible school environment, which is the core of a new form of schooling— inclusive, equitable and excellent!

To succeed in the twenty-first century, education must be

organised on ‘four pillars’ of knowledge (Delors et al., 1996, p. 86): • Learning to know, that is acquiring the instruments of understanding.

• Learning to do, so as to be able to act creatively on one’s environment.

• Learning to live together, so as to participate and cooperate with other people in all human activities.

28

THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SCHOOL • Learning to be, an essential progression, which precedes from the earlier three.

The Delors report recognises the limitations of the formal

education system, which has traditionally focused on ‘learning to know’ and to some extent on ‘learning to do’. Meeting the challenges and expectations of the new century would call for a change in the

aim of education, in what people hope education could provide for them, and also the style of delivery of education (ibid.).

VISION FROM THE FIELD What has been described in the preceding paragraphs is mostly a theoretical analysis of the school as it should be, based on literature. But what is the perception of educational workers in the field about

a reformed school? Can they conceptualise a school that would be close to the vision of the educational experts? My experience says,

yes! To give just one example. A group of educational functionaries had assembled in Ranchi in September 1996 in an unrestricted,

flexible and collaborative learning environment. It was a mixed group in terms of age, experience and ‘abilities’. The commonalities

were: they were all involved in a UNICEF-supported project that had the mission of initiating the process of ‘educational reconstruction for bringing about changes in social development.’ And, there was a

common question before the entire group: What would be the kind of school scene one would expect if one were to visit the ‘reformed

school’ under the project? The group deliberated for four days and what emerged was something like this: [In a reformed school]

• Children can be seen working on their own, on different tasks. At places they are in groups, at places alone; here

inside the classroom, there outside it. It is perhaps this that makes it difficult to find out which class is where.

29

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS • Children can be heard asking questions from the teacher

when they need to, unafraid. Bits of laughter and noise float

in. Among the words you can make out children are saying to each other, ‘Let’s find out’ or ‘Come on, why don’t you

say...’ or ‘What fun!’ And, when the teacher needs to go out, the class still ‘carries on’.

• Look for the teacher and you’ll find him/her surrounded by children, or playing with them. If the children ‘get the better’

of the teacher, he says, ‘well done!’ Often the teacher asks children, ‘What shall we do today?’ Of course, he/she can

also be heard saying, ‘I don’t know, why don’t you find out?

• And, watching children ‘studying’ like this, Rajvatia and Ramu who don’t come to school tug the teacher’s hand and say, ‘Marts’ab (master-sahib), we want to play too’.

There was no theoretical framework or any hypothesis to be

ascertained in this four-day sojourn of educational practitioners.2

Issues like equity, excellence, the disabled and inclusion were not

even mentioned. What confronted each of the participants was the societal situation and rights of every child to schooling. And, such a similarity of concerns brought about the vision of a school so close

to the framework for a school in the twenty-first century as outlined in theory!

NOTES 1. The Sunday Times (London), 29 April 2001.

2. ‘Pedagogy Visioning Workshop: A Report’, District Institute of Education and Training, Ranchi, 1-4 September 1996. (The author was a participant in the workshop.)

30

3

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

S

pecial school, integrated school, and now inclusive education—

all these terms in education have emerged with regard to

education of children with disabilities. Historically, children with

disabilities have been receiving education in segregated schools

called special schools. Separate schools were opened for different disabilities. It has, however, been advocated in recent years that such children be educated in mainstream schools in the company of their non-disabled peers. Such schools are commonly referred to as

integrated schools. While there is not much debate on the distinction

between special schools and integrated schools, the principle and strategies of inclusive education and inclusive schools have

remained conceptually contested. It has been generally regarded as

an extension of special or integrated education. Many people refer to both the terms interchangeably. Many schools giving admission to

children with disabilities perceive they are furthering inclusive education. The Oxford dictionary defines ‘integrate’ as ‘combine (parts) into a whole, complete by addition of the parts, bring or come into equal membership of society, a school etc., desegregate,

esp. racially (a school etc.)’; and ‘include’ as ‘comprise or reckon in as part of a whole’.

31

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS

CHARITY AND HUMANITARIAN APPROACH Perspectives on the disabled and their education have been

changing. Many people believed, and some still do, that disability is some sort of a disease. It can be diagnosed and cured by medical

practitioners, educational psychologists or other such professionals. Disability causes defect or deficiency within a child, which ought to

be rectified and their schooling requires professional organisation.

And so, educational services justify the establishment of special schools

for

different

types

of

disabilities

in

segregated

environments. Such lay perceptions arising mostly from the medical

explanation of disability lead to ‘fear, prejudice, pity, ignorance, misplaced patronage and resentment resulting in social practices

which are blatantly discriminatory’ (Fulcher, 1999). It also brings in sympathy, charity and a humanitarian approach towards the

disabled and their education leading to the creation of the special

school system. This theory has, however, been contested, particularly in the West. In Indian culture helping others is considered an extension of self-help.

Tomlinson (1982) has contested the charity and humanitarian

theory for establishing special schools in Britain, and finds ‘the economic and commercial interests of a developing industrial

society’ as the factor behind the promotion of special education.

Besides, she argues, the ‘vested interests of professional groups,

particularly medical men’ encouraged special education of the handicapped before the large-scale interventions by the state, and since then ‘other professional vested interests became more

important.’ Many Western commentators agree with Tomlinson’s sociological response and analysis of special education.

However, those favouring special education point out its

advantages. Jenkinson (1997) has listed three benefits of the system of separate education for the disabled. First, the economics

of organising aid and equipment worked well if students with a

32

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES specific disability are congregated in one place rather than spread over many schools. Some ancillary services such as speech therapy

and physiotherapy could also be provided more conveniently at one centre, rather than shuttling the students between the centre and the schools. Second, in special schools, students with disabilities can

attend smaller classes with more personal and one-to-one attention.

It was perceived as less threatening and more supportive to the disabled. There would be no occasion to compare them with the achievements of non-disabled students. Third, the placement of

students with disabilities will put extra demand on resources and teachers in regular schools, placing non-disabled students at a

disadvantage. Using these arguments, therefore, more and more

students who had previously been primarily in the care of the health services, were admitted into special schools in the West in the 1960s and beyond.

RIGHTS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE PERSPECTIVE The medical or diagnostic approach to disability, treating it as an

individual problem and looking at it from the angle of charity and benevolence, started being questioned in a democratic society and polity, and questions of human rights, equity and social justice were

raised. The charity and humanitarian approach was replaced by the entitlement of equal opportunities for the disabled and nation states

were called upon to provide them for the disabled as they would for the non-disabled. Disability, instead of being regarded as an

individual problem, was considered something constructed by the

social order and societal arrangements. The rights movement got an impetus with a number of United Nations conventions and charters, some of which are listed here.

33

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS

UN WORLD PROGRAMME OF ACTION CONCERNING DISABLED PERSONS (1983) Member states should adopt policies which recognize the rights of disabled persons to equal educational opportunities with others. The education of the disabled should as far as possible take place in the general education system ... (Article 120).

UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (1989) State Parties ... [should] ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receives education, training, health care services...in a manner conducive to the child’s fullest possible social integration ... (Article 23.1/3).

WORLD DECLARATION ON EDUCATION FOR ALL (1990) The learning needs of the disabled demand special attention. Steps need to be taken to provide equal access to education to every category of disabled persons as an integral part of the education system ... (Article 3.5).

UN STANDARD RULES (1993) They [persons with disabilities] should receive the support they need within the ordinary structures of education, health, employment and social services. (Introduction, Article 26). States should recognize the principle of equal primary, secondary and tertiary educational opportunities for children, youth and adults

34

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES with disabilities, in integrated settings. They should ensure that the education of persons with disabilities is an integral part of the education system (Rule 6).

WORLD CONFERENCE ON SEN: ACCESS AND EQUITY (1994) Every child has a fundamental right to education, and must be given the opportunity to achieve and maintain an acceptable level of learning.

THE WORLD EDUCATION FORUM, DAKAR (2000) There is no specific mention of education for the disabled or for

children with special needs. However, Goal ii of the ‘Framework for

Action’ refers to ‘children in difficult circumstances’ and ‘commits’ to

the attainment of ‘free and compulsory primary education of good

quality’ for them, among others, by 2015. The document also notes under Paragraph 32:

No one should be denied the opportunity to complete a good quality primary education because it is unaffordable. Child labour must not stand in the way of education. The inclusion of children with special needs, from disadvantaged ethnic minorities, from remote and isolated communities and from urban and others excluded from education must be an integral part of strategies to achieve UPE by 2015 (UNESCO, 2000, p. 15).

Such developments at the international level and demands

upon the regular school system created a situation whereby the

school opened its door to the disabled and wanted them to ‘fit-in’ or

35

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS get integrated without making any significant changes in its policy or curriculum. However, advocates of the rights movement do not

favour the idea of ‘mainstreaming’ or ‘assimilation’ and education in

regular schools as an entitlement or the lack of proper integration as the denial of opportunity. They are also not impressed with the

argument of the appropriateness of curriculum and the capacity of regular schools to respond to the ‘needs’ of the disabled, and feel

that once society takes a lead in accepting the disabled in the

general school system, as opposed to their segregation in special schools, formal schools would necessarily reorient their curriculum and pedagogy, and the technical debates on disability and needs

would become irrelevant (Bayliss, 1996; Thomas, 1997; Dyson, 1999; Armstrong et al., 2000).

Rights arguments leading to the placement of children with

disabilities in regular schools do not get confirmation by some who

use the same argument for separate school placement. For example, Cohen (1994) argues that placement of disabled children in special schools may contribute to some positive developments. In fact,

instead of using the term segregation or special he uses the term

‘alternative settings’, and observes that complete placement of the disabled in regular schools may amount to denying them the right ‘to attend school in alternative settings.’ He further says, ‘to treat all

children as though they are the same is not democracy; it is injustice.’ The danger against ‘sameness’ to achieve equality has

been cautioned by Daniels and Garner (1994) as well. They observe that sameness in treatment may be detrimental to the interests of

the disabled and those who have special needs in education. Therefore, they do not dismiss entirely the role of special schools in

the inclusion process. Making a fine distinction between ‘equality through difference’ as opposed to ‘equality through sameness’, they

argue that treating people equally does not necessarily mean that they should be treated exactly the same way. The policies and practices should be based on ‘promoting equity through difference’.

36

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES In India, a Supreme Court judgement relating to the

constitutional right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions, made significant observations about equality and discrimination:

It is well said that in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently ... Equality of opportunity for unequals can only mean aggravation of inequality. Equality of opportunity admits discrimination with reason and prohibits discrimination without reason. Discrimination with reasons means rational classification for differential treatment having nexus to the constitutionally permissible objects.’1

The decision about ‘reason’ remains problematic. In a society

based on hierarchy, power and interest groups, ‘reason’ is mostly decided by professionals and bureaucrats. This is best demonstrated

in the argument by Farrell (2000) against universal placement of children with disabilities in regular schools.

There may well be examples where (this) basic right could only be met if a child was educated in a special school ... by placing a child in such a school one is not, presumably, going to be accused of contravening a basic human right ... the aim of education should be to help all children, including those with disabilities, to be fully included in society and to take an active part in it. However, there is no empirical reason why this basic ‘right’ cannot be attained through pupils being educated in special schools. Education is, after all, a means to an end, and special schools may for some children provide the most effective means towards achieving these ends (p. 155).

Farrell (ibid.) postulates another situation and asks, What if a child with [disability] in a mainstream school seriously disrupts the education of other pupils? Surely they have a right to a good education as well? (p. 155)

37

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS He has also raised the issue of choice, and argues that parents

should have the choice to keep their child in a special school or a regular school, and he fears that non-existence of special schools would limit such choice.

Apprehending such discourses centring around rights and ethics

as ‘highly problematic’ and ‘giving rise to contradictions’, Armstrong

et al. (2000) feel it may lead to the ‘reinforcement of, rather than resistance to, systems of exclusion and control’. According to them,

the debate on the ‘rights of disabled people may lead to a situation where no serious challenge is made to the conditions under which discriminatory and exclusionary social practices operate. Therefore,

the demands for mainstream schooling should concern not only the ‘rights’ of disabled children but it should also question what is

‘normal’. In the absence of such a critique, notions of ‘opportunities’

and ‘rights’ rest upon an understanding of ‘normality that reflect the partial self-interest of dominant social groups in our society, and

these groups decide and claim to work for what is good for the child.’ Taking the discourses beyond the ‘fit-in’ approach of an

integrated school, the new concept of inclusive education shifts the focus from the children to the school and form of schooling. Movement from disability as an individual problem, calling for

segregated teaching, to an issue of ‘social construction’ that requires the disabled child to get ‘integrated’ into the system can best be captured from the following words: ‘Initially disability was perceived

as an individual problem; it then came to be seen as a social construction and, finally, it is beginning to be perceived as a social creation’ (Clough and Corbett, 2000, p. 28).

This perspective on disability gives a foundation for the

discovery of a new form of education that would neither require a child to get isolated from nor fit in the regular school system presumably not designed for him or her. But how is one to achieve

that? Not without changing the school, perhaps. Hence the birth of

38

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES the concept of inclusive education, where the school flexes to respond to the ability of a child.

SCHOOL REFORMS PERSPECTIVES In simple terms, inclusive education means that all children, including those with disabilities, learn together in mainstream

neighbourhood schools. This concept got an impetus since the adoption of the 1994 Salamanca statement by ninety-two governments and twenty-five international organisations in the

‘World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality’, organised by UNESCO in Salamanca, Spain. The conference officially

adopted, for the first time at the international level, inclusive

education as the most effective means of securing education for all

(UNESCO, 1994), though the term had appeared earlier in American and Australian literature.2 The portion of the statement relating to inclusion reads:

Regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all; moreover they provide an effective education to the majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness of the entire education system.

We call upon all governments and urge them to:

• Give the highest policy and budgetary priority to improve their education systems to enable them to include all children regardless of individual differences or difficulties.

• Adopt as a matter of law or policy the principle of inclusive education, enrolling all children in regular schools, unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise.

39

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS Inclusive education is different from integrated education in two

ways. First, it expanded the scope to the education of all children in regular schools, which included children with disabilities. Second, it talked about the improvement of the education system so that it

could include all children. It, however, left enough scope for interpretation and manipulation. For example, by putting the clause

‘unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise’ while advocating changes in law or policy to make education inclusive, it

left the possibility for segregating children, and thereby the continuation of special schools for the education of children with

disabilities. Secondly, it introduced the term ‘special educational needs’ and also suggested a pedagogy that would be ‘child-centred.’

The Salamanca statement on the principles of ‘special needs education’ also says,

We believe and proclaim that:

• Every child has a fundamental right to education, and must

be given the opportunity to achieve and maintain an acceptable level of learning.

• Every child has unique characteristics, interests, abilities and learning needs.

• Education systems should be designed and educational programmes implemented to take into account the wide diversity of these characteristics and needs.

• Those with special educational needs must have access to regular schools which should accommodate them within a child centred pedagogy capable of meeting these needs (emphasis mine).

The principles of the statement thus underline the child’s right

to education, recognise each one’s uniqueness, recommend

redesigning the system, introduce pedagogy and call for making schools inclusive. Lack of clarity about special educational needs or

special needs education in the statement, calling for the inclusion of all children ‘regardless of individual difference or difficulties’

40

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES (emphasis mine), but only if there were ‘no compelling reasons for doing otherwise’ sent ambiguous signals to the developing world to

look towards the West for interpretations of terms such as special

educational needs, educational difficulties and child-centred pedagogy, which have been in vogue there for quite sometime.

Beginning with the 1980s, when the UN recommended

‘integration’ of disabled children into school systems, and with the

paradigm shift in the 1990s to an era of ‘inclusion’, there has been a plethora of literature on integrated and inclusive education, particularly in the West.

Ainscow (1999) has explained different perspectives on

inclusive education on the basis of the understanding of ‘educational difficulties’. First, educational difficulties experienced by a child could

be attributed to the disabilities within the child. Second, it might be construed as due to a ‘mismatch’ between the characteristics of a

child and the organisational and curricular arrangements available in the school. Third, the difficulties could also be on account of the limitations of the curriculum referred to in a broader sense to include all the planned and unplanned experiences offered by schools.

Mittler (2000) finds educational difficulties on account of the

disabilities of a child divisive, which divides the student population in a school in two parts: those who are handicapped and those who are not, and leads to a ‘divisive discourse’. He traces the origin of the segregation of the disabled and their education in special schools to

this perspective as it results in the removal of children from the

mainstream curriculum for special help. It is guided by the principle ‘we here, and they elsewhere’ (Fulcher, 1999). This approach, based

on the diagnosis of defects or deficits within children, calls for the assessment of provisions and requirement of resources to meet the

needs of the disabled child, and is the origin of the term ‘special educational needs’.

Mittler (2000) has made remarkable observation in regard to

the education of children with certain categories of ‘mental

41

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS disability’. He notes, in cases of disabilities such as dyslexia, autism and attention deficit disorder, there is little evidence to prove that

accurate diagnosis of these or similar conditions necessarily call for syndrome-specific type of educational interventions. They all need good teaching taking into account their individual patterns of learning.

In the second approach, Ainscow (1999) explains educational

difficulties in terms of a mismatch between children’s educational

needs and the curricular arrangements made for them. Under such

an arrangement, children move to mainstream schools, but undergo discriminatory curricular experiences. Children’s needs are described as individual needs or additional needs; some of the strategies

resorted to include curricular adaptation and cosmetic improvements

in the school. He calls this the ‘interactive perspective’. This approach is close to the concept of integrated education, and has

been called locational integration by some writers. Under this approach ‘children are in but not of the class’ (Ferguson, 1996).

The third approach has been termed by Ainscow (1999) as the

‘curriculum limitation perspective’. It is based on the assumptions that all children can learn, all are teachable, and the limitations of curriculum for all pupils inhibit their process of learning. It further

assumes that society and its institutions (e.g., schools) are

‘oppressive, discriminatory and disabling and that attention needs to be focused on the removal of obstacles, in changing institution and attitudes that create and maintain exclusion’ (Mittler, 2000). Under this model, Ferguson (1996) sees

Inclusion as a process of meshing general and special education reform, initiatives and strategies. [The objective is] to create a unified system of public education that incorporates all children and youths as active, fully participating members of the school community; that views diversity as the norm and maintains a high quality education for each student by ensuring meaningful

42

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES curriculum, effective teaching and support necessary for each student (p. 17).

Continuing with the observation by educationalists on inclusive

education, it proceeds with the notion that ‘children are pupils first’

and aims to focus on a pedagogy leading to ‘inclusive discourse’, as alternative to the ‘divisive discourse’ (Fulcher, 1999). Inclusive education does not believe in the individualistic form of learning,

based on dual intelligence: linguistic and logical-mathematical. It

explores the abilities and potential of children in other areas of intelligence such as spatial, musical, kinaesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal (Gardener, 1993).

He derived his theory following observations and studies of the

capacity of children with disabilities and the meaning of intelligence in different cultures. Children who are not able to respond to linguistic

and

logical—mathematical

abilities

could

exhibit

capabilities in other areas. Udavi-Solner (1996) feels such a broadbased approach to intelligence questions the current practice of

labelling children with ‘special needs’, which is based upon one or two aspects of abilities only. Figure 4 demonstrates the distinctions between the traditional and inclusive approaches.

• Figure 4 Comparison of Traditional and Inclusionary Approaches Traditional approach (which may Inclusionary approach include Integration) Focus on student Assessment of student by specialist factors Diagnostic/prescriptive outcomes Student programme Placement in appropriate programme • Source: Thomas et al., 1998.

43

Focus on classroom Examine teaching/learning Collaborative problem solving Strategies for teachers Adaptive and supportive regular classroom environment

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS Lunt and Norwich (1999, p. 32) have presented some of the

‘differences and complexities’ on inclusive education:

1. Bailey’s view that it is about learning the same curriculum in the same place as others.

2. Tomlinson’s view that it is not necessarily about being in the same place and learning the same curriculum.

3. Booth’s and Ainscow’s view that it is not a state at all, but an unending process of increasing participation.

4. Thomas’s view that it is about schools responding and restructuring their provisions.

5. Sebba’s and Sacdev’s view that it is about schools responding and restructuring their provisions.

6. Florian’s view that the opportunity to participate in inclusion is about active involvement and not something done to the disabled.

Lunt and Norwich (1999) have clearly presented the contrasting

views of Bailey and Tomlinson. Bailey, from an Australian context,

defines inclusion, which could be the perspectives of many people in other countries also. He, however, makes a condition that it

(inclusion) should be ‘with acceptance of all, and in a way which

makes the student feel no different from others.’ Bailey’s definition is very close to integration when disabled students come to regular schools with the hope of social acceptance by other students,

without any change in the curriculum. In contrast to Tomlinson, Bailey states:

In the Tomlinson Committee Report on post-school education of those with learning difficulties and disabilities in England (Tomlinson, 1997), inclusive education is defined as a system which is inclusive but not necessarily an integrated setting. Tomlinson states that: ‘No apology is necessary for the paradox, as some have seen it, that the Committee’s concept of inclusive learning is not necessarily coincident with total integration of students into the “mainstream”.’

44

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES The Tomlinson Committee report is in contrast to the Salamanca statement, which had recommended ‘inclusive orientation’ of schools apart from improvement in education. The report apparently is a justification for the continuation of special schools and special units in regular schools for children with special needs in Britain. Mittler (1995) has given two broad definitions of inclusive education. The first refers to radical school reform, changing the existing system and rethinking the entire curriculum of the school in order to meet the needs of all children. The second limits education in an ordinary class in a neighbourhood school that a child would normally attend with the additional support and extra attention to address specific needs, such as the teaching of self-care or communication skills, not easily taught in ordinary classrooms.

Sebba and Ainscow (1996) have narrated an interesting experience when they got a range of interpretations of inclusive education by schools in response to their request for conducting some research on the subject. A ‘working definition’ had been communicated to schools to indicate their intention to conduct a research in the following words: ‘An inclusive school works from the principle that all students in the community should learn together.’ A wide range of schools responded, including schools with special units attached for children with disabilities and schools having linkages with special schools. Ainscow points out yet another problem in such a definition, when ‘inclusion’ is considered a static concept, whereby a school is either inclusive or not inclusive. Such a situation will create further complications, as there is a lack of agreement on how an inclusive school or classroom should look like. Hence, Booth (1996) prefers to think of inclusion in education as an ‘unending set of processes, rather than a state, emphasis in original. Inclusion has many more ramifications, as it is the clear opposite of ‘exclusion’. A school may not be called inclusive if it ‘excludes’ children because its organisational, cultural or curricular limitations inhibit children from full participation either due to

45

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS disabilities or due to social, economic and cultural disadvantages. The processes of inclusion and exclusion are connected. While increasing the participation of students in school curricula and culture, the process should reduce exclusion. It should aim at making the school ‘responsive’ to all students (Booth, 1996; Sebba and Ainscow, 1996). Thus, as per this approach, inclusion is a process and not a

state; it should respond to all peoples’ needs; it is necessarily linked with exclusion and it should restructure its curriculum. Accordingly,

Sebba and Ainscow (1996) have reached the following definition of inclusion:

Inclusion describes the process by which a school attempts to respond to all pupils as individuals by reconsidering its curricular organisation and provision. Through this process, the school builds its capacity to accept all pupils from the local community who wish to attend and, in so doing, reduces the need to exclude pupils (p. 9).

The preceding review suggests ‘that there are quite divergent

and incompatible concepts of inclusion and that it is a complex concept open to confusion’ (Lunt and Norwich, 1999, p.32). But,

why is it so ‘divergent and incompatible’ in the West? Jangira (1995) observes, ‘inclusive education is an alternative for the developed education systems but it is an inevitability for the developing

systems’ (emphasis mine). I would add further—it is culturally most natural in India, in particular.

In most of the discussions in Western literature on inclusive

education, the concern ultimately boils down to shifting children with disabilities from special schools to mainstream schools. There

are two essential differences in comparison in India. First, in

developed countries nearly all children are in schools, including those with disabilities. They could either be in special schools or

regular schools. Second, developed countries have created a class of

46

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES children with ‘special needs’ in mainstream schools in addition to the

century-old institution of special schools. It would be difficult for them to dismantle the institution and abolish the separate class for

students with special needs in order to move towards an inclusive education system.

*** A lot of literature has been produced on inclusion in schools in

relation to education in Western Europe and in the United States.

The term is generally used in the context of those who have a disability or learning difficulty, but are getting education in

mainstream schools. There is no official legal definition of the term inclusive education or inclusive school in the USA or UK. No such

terms as inclusion, or integration or mainstreaming appear in the federal legislation or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(Lipsky and Gartner, 1999). The Act, however, requires that any

‘exclusion’ of students with disabilities from the general education system must be explained and justified. In the UK, the Office of

Standards in Education has defined an ‘educationally inclusive school’ as

One in which teaching and learning, achievements, attitudes and well being of every young person matter ... . This does not mean treating all pupils in the same way. Rather it involves taking account of pupils’ varied life experiences and needs.

However, in developed countries also the existing form of

schooling does not ‘enable all children to experience success in their learning’, and the way schools and classrooms are organised limit

participation of many students (Booth and Ainscow, 1998; Ainscow, 1999). Nevertheless, there has been progress from extremes of exclusion to the current trend towards inclusion leading to increasing

accommodation of special needs students in mainstream classes. The situation is different in the developing countries. A large number

47

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS of children are ‘excluded’ from the schooling process due to social and economic factors. In areas experiencing situations of conflict,

entire communities may be stated to have special needs of ‘a scale and complexity that is difficult to comprehend from outside’ (Brock and Griffin, 2000).

In a survey conducted by UNESCO (1995), countries across the

world reported integration as the most important issue in their policies and practices. Integration was perceived as the basic provision of special education in regular schools, curricular and

pedagogical adaptation, support services for mainstream teachers

and care for particular groups. Comparing the situation with that in 1986, the report observes, ‘special education provision is more firmly

located within regular education.’ It has also confirmed that over 95 per cent countries had the responsibility of special education in the

mainstream ministries of education, and in the rest the responsibility

was shared with other ministries, such as social welfare and health. In respect of a survey conducted only in developed countries,

an OECD report (1997) finds emphasis, across nations, on the medical classification of children with disabilities being replaced by responding to special educational needs in mainstream schools. There is also increasing support of the view that children with

disabilities could benefit more if they are educated with broader groups of children with special needs in mainstream schools.

Integration opportunities are being enhanced through the

deployment of within-class support teachers. Evans and Labon (1997) observe that some schools in the OECD countries offer a

standard curriculum to all, while some offer separate courses for

children with special needs. Some schools provide ‘within-class curriculum differentiation’, which ‘enables children of different abilities to work individually or in groups on similar tasks at their own levels in the same classroom.’

Despite a visible shift in getting children from special schools to

mainstream schools for their primary and secondary education,

48

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES there are two noticeable features. First, the stage of development

towards inclusion is not uniform in Europe. Italy has gone in for ‘radical integration’, Denmark and Sweden are following ‘gradualist approaches’, and Germany and Holland are continuing with

‘segregated provision’ (Bayliss, 1996). Spain has developed a step-

by-step approach, based on the ‘philosophy of developing inclusive

education on the foundation of a fundamental reform of the

education system and of the curriculum’ (Mittler, 1995). It has

invested heavily in making the transition. Class sizes have been reduced, all schools are guaranteed access to special needs support teams, and regular teachers have been trained to respond to the special needs of disabled children (Watkins, K., 2000).

There is not much data on education of disabled children in

developing countries. According to a WHO estimate, about 10 per cent of children in these counties receive special needs education. It has further been estimated in these countries that less than 2 per

cent of children with disabilities are in schools. Hence, ‘the disabled are disproportionately represented among those out of school and

that reaching the disabled should be a central theme in strategies for achieving education for all’ (Watkins, K., 2000).

There has been no significant shift in policy in the UK since the

Warnock Report of 1978 and the Education Act of 1981 as far as education of children with special needs is concerned. Second, the rhetoric of inclusive education is not making any significant contribution towards overall school reforms. It is still being seen as

reforms in respect of policies and practices governing education of children with special needs and those with learning difficulties so as to fit them in mainstream schools.

To sum up, there is no uniformity in approaches to inclusive

education even in the developed countries. While conceptual clarity

is yet to emerge, practices differ. Daniels and Garner (2000) have listed some ‘conceptual arenas for challenge, conflict and resolution in inclusive education.’ The three broad issues listed by them are

49

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS those of human rights, inclusive technology and a curriculum for all. Within human rights, they have flagged the issues of empowerment,

enablement, social justice and equity, and equality. Within inclusive technology, the issues requiring consideration are those of knowledge, pedagogy, management, location or placement and

resources. And, finally, for ‘a curriculum for all’, one needs to address the issues of matching need, assessment, inspection and quality assurance, and preparation of personnel. A study on inclusive

education may revolve around these issues, in the context and situations of different countries and societies.

SOME QUESTIONS There is not much research to prove or disprove assumptions, hypotheses and perceptions in the area of inclusive education. In fact, there are some authors who question the idea of research into

inclusive education, as they are of the view that inclusion is a human rights issue and so not open to research (Farrell, 2000). We have,

however, seen that the human rights perspective could be used to

perpetuate segregated education. It is therefore important to piece together whatever limited data is available to arrive at answers to a variety of questions in regard to inclusive education. Given below are

answers to some of these questions (adapted from Inclusion International, 1996 and Farrell; 2000):

Will non-disabled peers accept disabled children?

The attitudes of children in mainstream schools are generally positive towards children with disabilities.

Don’t disabled children learn more in special schools?

Research does not suggest advantages of special schools over regular schools with inclusive settings even in cases of children with

50

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES mental disabilities. However, they benefit more socially from inclusive schooling.

Don’t disabled children require special teachers and teaching techniques? Good teaching in general, based on child-centred pedagogy, and a

stimulating educational environment is far more important than socalled special techniques. Instead of the search for special

techniques to ameliorate the learning difficulties of individual children, the focus should be on finding ways of creating the

conditions that will accommodate children’s diversity and facilitate learning for all.

Do special schools and special teachers just have to disappear then? Some special schools provide excellent educational services to

disabled children. Parents and teachers fear that their closure might be detrimental to the disabled. While these schools might close in

the long run, their services for the present could be used for

providing support to the regular schools in the task of educating children with special needs. Special education should no longer be

treated as a separate system, but as part of a comprehensive and flexible education system designed to meet the changing educational needs of all children.

Teachers in regular schools often fail to teach normal children; how can they teach disabled children?

This concern is most serious, particularly in India, where the number of non-disabled children out-of-school is very high. Until regular

schools develop capacity, teachers would construe teaching the disabled as an additional burden. Hence, the key elements of the

pedagogy of inclusive schooling and concerns for the disabled would

have to be included in teacher education programmes at all levels. Experiences have shown that continuous school-based teacher

51

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS development programmes involving the whole school are much more relevant than one-shot training courses. In order to prepare

for inclusive schools, teachers need to be trained to modify curricular content and teaching approaches so as to give access to diverse children population.

Won’t inclusive education have a negative effect on the teaching of the non-disabled? Recent research shows that by catering to diversity, teachers and

schools become versatile and creative in their pedagogical approaches which actually enrich the quality of education in general.

Even with a formal policy, integration does not always work in practice?

To obtain real progress, the focus on disability and ‘integration’ categories should be dropped and replaced by a focus on curriculum and pedagogic issues.

Integration might work in some cases, but can it be generalised?

If a more radical school reform is not proposed and implemented, integration remains a question of individual adaptations and it is not

going to make educational environments flexible and inclusive enough to cater to all kinds of individuals.

In the absence of conflicting views and differing perspectives,

the strategy of educating children would depend upon a hypothesis

that would work. The hypothesis would determine the focus, the strategy and ultimately the mode of placement. The hypothesis

would not be context neutral. Each society and nation would have to decide upon the hypothesis most appropriate for it. How the

different hypotheses would lead to different focuses, strategies and placements is demonstrated in Figure 5:

52

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES • Figure 5 Inclusion as School Reform Approach Hypothesis: Defect in child Special education treatment Focus: Individual A few Strategy: Diagnostic Fit-in Placement: Special Integrated

All educable All School reform Inclusive

One way to view inclusion is described by Dipti in the following

lines4:

To be a part and not stand apart; To belong and not to be isolated;

To be accepted and not accommodated;

To have friends and not just companions;

To feel needed and not just a person with needs; To be a participant and not a spectator;

To have responsibility and not just enjoy rights; To have opportunities and not favours; To be really ‘included’.

NOTES 1. St. Stephen’s College vs University of Delhi, 1992 AIR (SC) 1630. 2. Personal communication from Prof. Sally Tomlinson.

3. ‘Evaluating Educational Inclusion: Guidance for Inspectors and Schools’ from www.ofstead.gov.uk.

4. Dipti Bhatia is Coordinator, Integration Cell, Vidya Sagar (formally the Spastics Society of India), Chennai. Presented during the regional ablympics in Chennai, 12-14 October 2001.

53

4

THE BRITISH SCENE

T

he term special educational needs or special needs education originated with the development of special education in Britain.

The concept of special educational needs was introduced, for the first time, in the Warnock Committee report in 1978. The Committee

had been appointed ‘to review educational provision in England, Scotland and Wales for children and young people handicapped by disabilities of body and mind’ (DES, 1978). A brief history of special education in Britain until the concept of ‘special educational needs’ introduced by the Warnock Committee follows.

The Education Act of 1870 had established the principle of mass

education in England and Wales. Later, in 1893, the Elementary

Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act laid the duty on local education authorities to provide separate education for the blind and

the deaf, thus laying the foundation for a system of special schools separate from regular schools for the non-disabled. Subsequent acts

in the following years created the legal framework for increasing numbers of children with disabilities getting into schools, primarily separate special schools. These included (see Tomlinson, 1982):

• Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act

1899: Local authorities urged, not required, to make provision for special instruction.

54

THE BRITISH SCENE • Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act

1914: Local authorities were required to make provision for mentally defective children.

• Education Act 1921: Enabled local authorities to compel parents of ‘certified’ children to send them to special schools.

• Education Act 1944: Local educational authorities had a duty to ascertain children suffering from ‘a disability of body or

mind’ and to provide ‘special educational treatment’ in special schools or elsewhere.

• Education (Handicapped Children) Act 1970: This Act brought the last group of children—those with severe disabilities—into education.

• Education Act 1976: Suggested laying a duty on LEAs to

provide education in normal schools when it was practicable. This section was never implemented.

THE WARNOCK REPORT The development of education for the disabled in Britain is different

from the Indian situation in many ways. While the system of mass

education as a responsibility of the welfare state was accepted in

Britain way back in 1870, the same could be achieved in India only after the county became independent in 1947. When Warnock wrote

her report in 1978 nearly hundred per cent of children up to the age

of 16 were in school, regular or special, in Britain. India has not achieved this status even for the non-disabled till 2001. Second, the

system of special schools as a separate and parallel mode of education for the disabled, medically categorised into several

groups, had been created by various legislations, which was to be rectified by the Warnock Committee. As Warnock (1982) herself wrote:

55

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS We wanted to deflect people from thinking of special education as a peculiar form of education, carried out in special institutions. We wanted to ensure that educationalists and teachers concentrated not on what was wrong with children but on what, positively, they must have, if they were to benefit from education (which, after all, for the most severely handicapped had only recently become their right). Finally we wanted to go beyond the faction-dominated, highly political question of integration, the question whether there should be just one local school for all children, by raising the more pragmatic question, apparently less ideological, of how to ensure that all children, whether at school or at home, in special school or in hospital, could get what they needed (p. 56).

Incidentally, a similar system of special schools has not grown

in India, though there are a couple of thousand special schools for

different disabilities mostly run by voluntary organisations. Third, though Warnock prefaced her report by stating that ‘education for the handicapped began with individual and charitable enterprise’,

the premise has been questioned by Tomlinson (1982). She refers to the ‘economic and commercial interests’ of the industrial society which required people to be ‘productive’, interests of the political

ruling class to ‘maintain order and control’ since ‘defective people’ were identified as ‘potential troublesome groups in the society’ and

‘the vested interests of the professional groups, particularly the

medical men’ in the initial years and the ‘other professional vested

interests’ subsequently as the major factors for perpetuating a segregated or special system of education. What commentators

have brought out is that schooling of the disabled had not been guided by any spirit of rights or equity, much less a consideration for charity or humanitarian. ‘In the nineteenth century the established

educational ideology [in England and Wales] indicated that there

were qualitatively different sorts of people, who were to be offered qualitatively different sorts of education’ (Barton and Tomlinson, 1984, p. 44).

56

•

THE BRITISH SCENE When the Warnock Committee was set up, statutory

categorisation of children largely by medical professionals had been institutionalised, and the number of categories had increased over

the years from two in 1886 to eleven in 1970. The Warnock

Committee recommended the abolition of statutory categorisation and replaced it by introducing a new term—children with ‘special educational needs’—without exactly defining it. But the committee

did give a framework for understanding the concept of special educational needs.

Special educational needs be seen not in terms of a particular

disability which a child may be judged to have, but in relation to everything about him, his abilities as well as disabilities— indeed all the factors which have a bearing on his educational progress (DES, 1978).

While considering ‘all factors’ which might have a bearing on the

educational progress of children, the committee expanded the scope of children with special educational needs from around 2 per cent

who could have been in special schools to ‘the assumption that about one in six children at any time and up to one in five at some time during the school career will require some form of special

educational provision.’ But did the committee take into account social deprivation as a factor hindering the educational progress of a child and thereby contributing to special educational needs? Clough and Corbett (2000) state:

Looking back on the days of the committee, when everyone felt that a new world was opening for disadvantaged children, the most strikingly absurd fact is that the committee was forbidden to count social deprivation as in any way contributing to educational needs ... . The very idea of such a separation now seems preposterous (p. 4, emphasis mine).

In the Indian context if the concept of SEN linked with

educational progress was to be extended, the factors leading to low

57

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS achievement of a vast majority of children leading to their ejection and dropping out from the school system cannot be discounted. In that case, the proportion of SEN children would not remain confined

to 20 per cent as assumed by the Warnock Committee about twentytwo years ago in Britain. Majority of children would be identified as

having special educational needs, with 55 per cent children dropping out at the elementary level (MHRD, 2001a).

Warnock did not question the concept of segregated or special

education; rather the committee recommended ten types of special school provisions:

1. Full time education in an ordinary class with any necessary help and support.

2. Education in an ordinary class with periods of withdrawals to a special class or unit or other supporting base.

3. Education in a special class or unit with periods of

attendance at an ordinary class and full involvement in the general community life and extra-curricular activities of the ordinary school.

4. Full-time education in a special class or unit with social contact with the main school.

5. Education in a special school, day or residential, with some shared lessons in a neighbouring ordinary school.

6. Full-time education in a day school with social contact in an ordinary school.

7. Full-time education in a residential special school with social contact with an ordinary school.

8. Short-term education in hospitals or other establishments. 9. Long-term education in hospitals or other establishments.

10. Home tuition.

The committee also suggested a framework for the assessment

of special educational needs and gave detailed guidelines on the identification of children with SEN.

58

THE BRITISH SCENE

DEFINITION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS The 1981 Education Act gave legal shape to most of the recommendations of the Warnock report. The 1981 Act and

subsequently the 1993 and 1996 Acts have defined special educational needs, learning difficulty and special educational provisions as follows:

1. A child has special educational needs if he/she has a learning

difficulty, which calls for special educational provision to be made for him/her.

2. A child has a learning difficulty if he/she:

(a) has significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of the same age;

(b) has a disability which either prevents or hinders the

child from making use of educational facilities of a kind

generally provided for children of the same age in schools within the area of the local authority;

(c) is under age five and falls within the definition at (a) or

(b) above or would do if special educational provision was not made for the child.

3. Special educational provision means:

(a) in relation to a child who had attained the age of two years, educational provision which is additional to, or

otherwise different from, the educational provision made generally for children of his age in schools maintained by the local education authority concerned;

(b) in relation to children under that age, educational provision of any kind.

The definition of SEN clearly underlines two factors. First, it is

not just a question of disability. Disability is relevant to the extent that certain provisions not otherwise available generally to the

59

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS children would have to be provided for that child. Second, it is linked with ‘learning difficulty’, which means a child has ‘significantly

greater difficulty than the majority of children of the same age.’ This concept of learning difficulty may not work in the Indian context at

all, since majority of the children in elementary and higher school classes face ‘learning difficulties’ in terms of accessing curriculum

and academic achievements. In a nutshell, the concept of SEN has

less to do with impairment of body organs or handicap due to social or economic factors. It is a variable of educational provisions available in schools and the performance of ‘majority of children’.

The identification and assessment of children with special

educational needs in the UK is being done under the Code of

Practice issued by the government as required under the 1993 Education Act. The Code sets five stages for the identification:

• Stage 1: Class or subject teacher identifies a child’s special educational needs and, consulting the school’s SEN coordinator takes initial action.

• Stage 2: The school’s SEN coordinator takes lead responsi-

bility for gathering information and coordinating the child’s special educational provision, working with the child’s teachers.

• Stage 3: Teachers and the SEN coordinator are supported by specialists from outside the school.

• Stage 4: The local education authority considers the need for statutory assessment and, if appropriate, makes a multidisciplinary assessment.

• Stage 5: The local education authority considers the need for a statement of special educational needs and, if appropriate, makes a statement and arranges monitoring and review provisions.

The Code has an inherent mechanism of pushing a child from

the responsibility of the teacher, once the child shows a symptom of

60

THE BRITISH SCENE falling behind the ‘majority of children’ and thus experiencing learning difficulty. While in the first stage the child remains with the class or subject teacher who is assisted by the SEN coordinator of

the school, in the second stage the responsibility shifts to the

coordinator. Until Stage 3, the child remains with the school, though the specialists come into the picture. But, at Stages 4 and 5, the

child’s responsibility goes out of the school and the local education authority takes over, who constitutes a multidisciplinary assessment

team to consider a statutory statement (Stage 4) and finally for making a ‘statement’ in regard to the child (Stage 5). The entire

process has become bureaucratic, generates a lot of paper work,

and has also become somewhat traumatic for children and parents. The statement gets challenged in the tribunals and more often than not the tribunal gives an order against the issuance of the

statement. Most children with statements get pushed out of their

classes and at times even from the school, though the principles underlined in the Code are sound and they do not recommend the

issuance of statements and placement of children out of the mainstream schools. Some of the fundamental principles are:

• There is a continuum of needs and continuum of provisions, which may be made in a wide variety of forms.

• Children with special educational needs require the greatest

possible access to a broad and balanced education, including the National Curriculum.

• The needs of most people will be met in the mainstream, and without a statutory assessment or ‘statement’ of SEN.

• Children with SEN, including those with statements should be educated in mainstream schools, where appropriate, and after taking into account the wishes of parents.

• Even before he or she reaches compulsory school age a child may

have

special educational

needs

requiring

the

intervention of the LEA as well as the health services (Adapted from DFE, 1994, Para 1.2.).

61

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS

CRITIQUES OF SEN POLICY AND PRACTICES The Warnock report was considered a progressive step since it abolished the medically determined categorisation of children with disabilities and brought in the principles of ‘integration’ thereby

implying the education of the disabled and those with ‘learning difficulties’ in mainstream schools with provisions for additional or special support. The report may have been influenced by discourses

on the abolition of the system of selection at age eleven created by the 1944 Act and arguments supporting comprehensive schooling

where all would have equal opportunity to access similar curriculum. The report did state that ‘the aims of education are the same for all children’ and recommended integration where possible. Three types

of integration were suggested in the report: locational (children in

the same place), social (children sharing social and extra-curricular activities) and functional (children sharing teaching and curricula).

The third form of integration could be said to be pointing towards the concept of ‘inclusion’. Lauding the report, Lunt and Norwich (1999) observe:

The Report emphasized a continuum of special educational needs, with no dividing line between the ‘handicapped’ and the ‘nonhandicapped’, with pupils’ needs changing over time, and as a result of their experience and interaction with the environment. Special educational needs were not to be considered absolute, and only within the child, but were to be thought of as an interaction between characteristics of the child and those of the environment, and a major aspect of which was the school and its teaching and learning (p. 3).

The

report,

subsequent

policy

development

and

its

implementation have received a lot of criticism from British educationists and commentators. There is a plethora of literature

and research evidence, some of which have questioned the concept

62

THE BRITISH SCENE of SEN itself. While questioning the basis of the concept Galloway et

al. (1994) have discussed the import of the three words used in ‘special educational needs.’ Referring to the meaning of ‘special’ in the Oxford dictionary— ‘of a peculiar or restricted kind’ — they

wonder why it should be applied to mainstream schools. According to them, Warnock extended the term to ‘include the large minority

of low achieving and mainly working-class pupils’. Far from being

special, there is a powerful argument that children’s needs were

absolutely normal, and that the challenge of the school system was, quite simply, to start meeting them. As regards ‘educational’, ‘at first

sight, it appears less contentious’ since it replaced the medically based categories of the 1944 Act. Actual needs of children may not

be ‘educational’ most of the time. For instance, they argue,

children’s work at school may get affected due to ‘stressful circumstances at home’ and ‘these may concern the need for stability, a supportive relationship with a teacher, a sense of achievement from extra-curricular activities, and so on. To say that

the child has special educational needs may be, at best, misleading.’

On ‘need’, they observe, it implies something is ‘wanted’. A child is removed from the class as a consequence of his/her identification of

needs, say on account of behavioural and learning difficulties. It may imply teachers ‘want a less disruptive life, or that they want other children’s education to benefit from the child’s removal. In other words, the “wants” implied in the concept of special educational

needs may not refer to the child in question.’ Corbett (1996) feels that the use of the term ‘need’ ‘sends out signals of dependency, inadequacy and unworthiness’ and it assumes that some children require provision that is different from that which is generally available.

According to Vlachou (1997), the term was not adequately

defined in the report. Its ‘vagueness’ and ‘ambiguity’ ultimately led to its definition and interpretation so as to include those who did not have any impairment, thus ‘reducing the exploration of the social

63

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS context of learning’. Hence, the term cannot include ‘children living in poverty and therefore at the risk of significant educational underachievement’.

The identification of children with special educational needs has

become ‘labeling’ and ‘discriminatory’ (Mittler, 2000). Ainscow sees the very concept as a ‘barrier’ to inclusion. He says:

I think the concept of special educational needs, particularly as it is seen in this country, becomes another barrier. I don’t think it has a productive contribution to make to the inclusive education agenda. If anything, it is one of the major barriers to moving forward (Clough and Corbett, 2000).

The very definition of special educational needs presumes two

things. First, a child will have ‘learning difficulty’ due to a ‘deficit within’ him/her. Second, the learning difficulty may be overcome

with the availability of a ‘special educational provision’ not otherwise available in the school for that child. The concept implies that education is not ‘constructed to include all children’. Besides, such a ‘within-child-deficit’ model does not question the school, its

curriculum and its pedagogy, and the society at large that might have created ‘learning difficulties’ for the child (Galloway et al., 1994; Vlachou, 1997; Mittler, 2000).

According to Booth et al. (1998) the suggestions made in the

report are still guiding the policy and practice in schools, and it is still

believed that children’s educational difficulties can be resolved by

identifying a large group of them and labeling them as having ‘special educational needs’. The report has been ‘severely impeding

the introduction of an inclusive philosophy into special education’ (ibid.). Booth (2000) prefers to replace the term ‘special educational needs’ with ‘barriers to learning and participation’, and as maintained by him, a version of this has been adopted for the

framework for legislation in South Africa and in the 1998 UNESCO document.

64

THE BRITISH SCENE Four years after submission of the report, Warnock (1982)

reflected on the concept of SEN and observed in regard to the role

of curriculum in the discourse on education of the disabled and those with educational difficulties:

We assumed that the goals of education were single and unified. And so, of course, they can be made to seem, provided that they are defined broadly enough. But can these single broad aims be embodied in one single, simple curriculum? We assumed that a special need could be defined in terms of the help a child must have if he was to gain access to ‘the curriculum’. To meet a child’s special need was to readapt him to the curriculum. Only occasionally did we think that the curriculum must be changed to suit the child (p. 61).

On examinations, she continues: In a school system dominated by examinations, these children are isolated by their inability to take, let alone to pass, examinations... (But) I do most profoundly believe that examination can come in different forms; and that if our curriculum was varied and more imaginative, and above all if it were less predominantly academic, then so would the examination be (ibid.).

Finally, Warnock makes a significant statement when she says

‘I for one have grown tired of my old dress. I am sick of special needs. It is time to move to the next idea’ (ibid., p. 62).

Has England moved to the next idea? Before this question is

examined, it may be worthwhile to see the comments on the Code of Practice, an instrument legalised with the 1993 Education Act and

used for the identification and assessment of children with special

educational needs, which may, or may not, lead to the issuance of

a statutory ‘statement’. The Code has made ‘greater impact than any other single initiative taken by the government since the Warnock Report.’ It was intended to promote inclusion by setting the principle

that all teachers had the responsibility of teaching all children by

65

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS making suitable educational provisions (Mittler, 2000). However, it

was apprehended right from the beginning that it would put a ‘heavy

burden’ on teachers. In course of time, it has created a ‘huge bureaucracy’ and a new class of professional service, i.e., special

educational needs coordinators (SENCOs). Though the Code advises consultation with parents, in practice the opinions of the specialists

prevail. It also suggests that schools should not automatically assume that a child’s learning difficulties always result mainly from ‘problems within the child’. However, the procedures detailed in it are

contrary to its declared principles. It, in effect, attributes the learning difficulties of a child to deficiency in him/her and thereby

limits inclusion practices in a school. The focus is on the child who gets ‘registered’ during the process of ‘assessment’ and there is little

concern about the teaching and learning environment in the school

(Galloway et al., 1994; Booth et al., 1998; Evans, 2000; Mittler, 2000). The practice of Individual Education Plans (IEP) and the position of SENCOs ‘act in an exclusionary rather than inclusionary direction’. ‘The Code has worked less inclusively for children with

behaviour difficulties because the pressure to remove them from school is very strong and has the support of the government.’1

The Code is under revision as a result of the commitment made

in the ‘Green Paper’, published in 1997, titled ‘Excellence for All Children:Meeting Special Educational Needs’ (DEE, 1997). The paper

lays some programme goals, such as the number of children

requiring statements should move down to 2 per cent, higher inclusion of children with SEN in mainstream schools, more

collaboration between special and mainstream schools, revision of the Code and reduction in paperwork. The consultation document

suggests that the revised Code will have a more ‘inclusive approach’, but at the same time it anticipates that there would be only minor changes (Booth et al., 1998). The proposed changes include reduction in existing school based assessment from three to two— ’school action’ and ‘school action plus’—but more guidance on IEP,

66

THE BRITISH SCENE SENCO’s work, target setting and partnership with parents (Mittler, 2000).

DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE WARNOCK REPORT There has been a series of Acts that have influenced the education system as well as special education in England and Wales in the

1980s and 1990s. Major legislations were enacted in 1981, 1988, 1993, 1996 and, most recently, in 2001.

The 1981 Education (Special Education) Act was a follow up of

the Warnock Committee report. The Act had the following main sections (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 31):

1. Categories of handicapped replaced by the concept of special educational need, defined as present when a child

has significantly greater difficulty in learning than the

majority of children of his/her age, or has a disability which

prevents or hinders the use of educational facilities normally provided.

2. Local authorities to have the duty of identifying and

assessing children with special needs, and for making and maintaining a statement of special educational needs for some children.

3. Parents to have rights to appeal against statements and to request assessments.

4. Children with special needs to be educated in ordinary

schools providing that their needs can be met, the education of other children is not affected, and there is an efficient use of resources.

The 1988 Education Reform Act is said to be the most important

piece of educational legislation having far reaching consequences.

67

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS The Act introduced a ten subject National Curriculum for all children

between ages five and sixteen to be assessed at four key stages, KS4 being the GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education). It

provided for ‘open enrolment’, changing the school admission procedures to ensure that schools enroll students up to a ‘relevant standard number’ and providing for parental rights to choose schools. By introducing ‘local management of schools’, schools were

delegated their total budget through a formula worked out by each

LEA and approved by the secretary of state. Governors were given

powers to manage the school budget and hire staff (Tomlinson, 2001, p.48). It has been observed by commentators that the 1988 Act made substantial impact on the education of children with

special needs, though the Act was meant for the general education system. The introduction of the National Curriculum, assessment arrangements and fixation of attainment targets by the secretary of

state, local management of schools, open enrolment and opting out

brought in the elements of competition and market principles into

the education system (Lunt and Norwich, 1999; Evans, 2000; Tomlinson, 2001).

The 1993 Education Act gave a fillip to market forces by making

provisions for creating funding authorities to carry out ‘value for

money’ surveys of schools, laying down procedures to name ‘failing schools’ that were ‘failing to give an acceptable standard of

education’, and providing for the setting up of Pupil Referral Units

(PRUs) for pupils excluded from school or otherwise not in school. In respect of special educational needs, the Act retained the LEAs’ prime responsibility for children with special needs. Most

importantly, it provided that a Code of Practice should be issued to

LEAs and schools for identification of and provision for children with special educational needs and those requiring ‘statements’. It also required the setting up of a Special Educational Needs Tribunal for hearing parental appeals against decisions of LEAs.

68

THE BRITISH SCENE The 1995 Disability Discrimination Act defined disability with

focus on physical and sensory disability, though majority of children

identified as SEN since the 1981 Act had learning difficulties and

behavioural problems. The Act did not adequately address the rights of SEN children to get education in mainstream schools.

The 1996 Education Act reminded LEAs about their

responsibility (and not ‘duty’) to provide suitable full-time or parttime education for children who were excluded or otherwise out of

school either in schools or at PRUs or with home tuition. It also addressed the growing number of cases where parents of children identified with special educational needs were making requests for private education (Tomlinson, 2001).

The deficiencies in the 1995 and 1996 Acts have sought to be

rectified by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act, 2001.

The Act strengthens the rights of children with SEN to be educated

in mainstream schools where parents’ wants and the interests of other children are also protected. The modified Section 316 of the Education Act 1996 reads as follows:

1. If no statement is maintained under Section 324 for the child, he must be educated in a mainstream school.

2. If a statement is maintained under Section 324 for the child, he must be educated in a mainstream school unless that is incompatible with

(a) the wishes of his parents, or

(b) the provision of efficient education for other children.

By putting these two riders the Act has left scope for the

exclusion of a child from mainstream schools due to non-educational or non-curricular considerations, though under the 1988 Education Act, children with statements could have their curriculum modified

or even allowed to drop out from following the National Curriculum and assessment under it.

69

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION A study on inclusion would require the examination of factors

leading to exclusion of children from mainstream schools. Children in England face three forms of ‘exclusion’. Technically, exclusion

refers to expulsion on account of disciplinary action, and does not consider other forms of exclusion. Meanwhile, there has been a rise in disciplinary exclusions, and it indicates that the ‘tolerance level’ of schools to students is changing (Booth et al., 1998). Parson (1999) argues: ‘The Education Reform Act, 1988; a fixed entitlement

curriculum, testing and published league tables are likely to push exclusions up ... . “Excluded” children are not considered deserving

of education, while they could be considered as even more in need of education.’

The second form of exclusion is on account of societal and

economic factors. In the UK, nearly a quarter of the population lives

in poverty, which is three times as many as in 1979. Such a social and economic background leads to ‘academic underachievement’

and needs appreciation in the programme, such as curriculum development and teachers’ training (Mittler, 2000). Notably, social deprivation contributing to educational needs was not taken into

account in the Warnock report, as admitted by Warnock herself in

1999 (cited in Clough and Corbett, 2000). Britain has been facing the problem of exclusion and isolation of ethnic minorities, at times

giving rise to tensions and conflict. But, since the publication of the Swann Report in 1985, the focus has moved ‘to issues concerning

the education of all pupils’ since the ‘acceptance of all groups as part of the British nation is becoming socially, politically and economically more important’ (Tomlinson, 1990).

Third, and most importantly, the labelling and categorisation of

children as ‘SEN pupil with or without statement’ leads to their

exclusion while they may remain physically available in the school system. There is little ‘discussion and virtually no research’ into how

70

THE BRITISH SCENE children perceive their labelling and how far the public identity imposed on them by way of ‘assessment’ affects their self-esteem

and self-identity. They are unlikely to be found favourable with employers (Galloway et al., 1994).

INCLUSION AND THE MARKET Market driven economy and consumer ethos are replacing the industrial society. There was a movement towards ‘inclusion’ in the 1960s

and

1970s

in

England

and

Wales

following

the

‘comprehensive conceptualisation’ to replace the ‘selection’ based

grammar schools. The operation of market has introduced a new

framework to evaluate education in terms of ‘efficiency, economy and effectiveness’; what has been missing is equity (Evans, 2000).

As a result, ‘competition and differentiation’ continue in the school system, and ability continues to be ‘narrowly conceived in terms of

the cognitive with success via competitive, formal examinations

legitimating such attitudes and ideology’ (Barton and Tomlinson, 1984).

The 1988 Education Reform Act also got influenced by the

‘increased economic competition that required national standards

and skilled citizens’ generating the growth of marketing language in the educational world, such as providers, user of services, clients or consumers, cost-effectiveness, offer and demand (Vlachou, 1997).

Evans (2000) anticipates that the market will increase the ‘existing

inequality in access to education in terms of class, race and gender, as well as special educational needs.’ The environment of

‘competition and comparison’, judgement based on ‘selection’ and ‘ability’, and schools’ concern for ‘raising the standards’ are products of a market society and are in ‘conflict with the individual growth of

the child’ (Barton and Tomlinson, 1984; Dessent, 1987; Vlachou, 1997; Evans, 2000). All the commentators agree that such an

71

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS educational environment is detrimental to inclusion. Commenting on

the existing reward system based on ‘competition and comparison between individuals’ Dessent (1987) observes:

The valuing of individual children regardless of background, abilities and disabilities would be at odds with an educational climate geared necessarily to competition and comparison between individuals. Within such a climate, children with special educational needs will always be losers. Success, progress and achievements are relative to the individuals and the reward system would need to reflect this (p. 122).

Evans (2000) finds a dilemma in government policy. It may have

the intention of providing more support to children ‘who have difficulties in fitting into the system.’ At the same time, its emphasis

on ‘excellence’ and ‘standards’ has created a climate of competition

among schools. They may be interested in enhancing their position in the ‘market’ at the cost of the interests of children with special educational needs, who ‘will continue to receive a less favourable education in the English and Welsh system.’

INCLUSION DILEMMA There is ‘unprecedented popularity of inclusion’ in government

documents (Booth, 1996). However, he does not find inclusion/ exclusion at the heart of education policy. The Special Educational

Needs and Disability Act, 2001 on special educational needs and

discrimination against disability does not make any major change in the policy in respect of special school educational needs. Booth et al. (1998) define an inclusive school as ‘one that includes, and

values equally all students from its surrounding communities or neighbourhood or catchment area, and develops approaches to teaching and learning that minimises groupings on the basis of attainment and disability.’

72

THE BRITISH SCENE Ability grouping is a common feature in England’s schools. Using

the above definition, they (Booth et al. 1998) say, ‘there are no inclusive schools in England.’ (p. 194). DEE officials, however, have a different view on inclusion. As one official observed2:

The Act will influence inclusive schooling because it gives rights (not previously held) to disabled people to access education. This will probably see more disabled children being admitted to mainstream schools. Its part of a process—the inclusion agenda, as we discussed, has been around for some time.

Government documents have been referring to ‘inclusion’ and

asking for the education of more and more SEN students in mainstream schools without changing the system of identification

and assessment as laid down in the Code of Practice. British literature and commentators have been consistently critical of the SEN policy and practices. They find the very concept as a ‘barrier to

inclusion’. Competitiveness and market orientation are said to be

other reasons for increases over the years in the proportion of SEN students and students with statements, as would be evident from

Table 1, despite declared policy objectives by the government in its

Green Paper, published in 1997. It may be noted that the proportion • Table 1

The Number of Pupils With Statements Expressed as Proportion of Pupils on Rolls

Year

Nursery (%)

Primary (%)

Secondary (%)

1997

1.0

1.4

2.3

2.9

1998

0.9

1.5

2.4

2.9

1999

0.9

1.6

2.5

3.0

2000

1.0

1.6

2.5

3.0

2001

1.3

1.7

2.6

3.1

1993

–

–

–

2.0

73

All Schools (%)

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS of children with statements increases as they graduate from nursery

to primary, and then to secondary. Does it mean the school system contributes to children acquiring special educational needs?

Table 2 gives the proportion of pupils with SEN without

‘statements’. In this case, the proportion increases substantially when children move from nursery to primary stage, but reduces

marginally when children go to the secondary stage. There could be

two possible explanations for the reduction at the secondary stage. First, some students get statements as is evident from the previous

table, and the second, some may be achieving the desired ‘standards’ due to pressure to ‘do well’ and with help provided by schools.

• Table 2

The Number of Pupils With SEN Without Statements Expressed as Proportion of Pupils on Rolls

Year

Nursery (%)

Primary (%)

Secondary (%)

All Schools (%)

1997

9.9

17.1

14.5

15.1

1998

10.7

18.4

15.6

16.3

1999

11.0

19.3

16.5

17.2

2000

11.4

20.0

17.0

17.8

2001*

11.9

21.0

18.1

18.8

*(Provisional) Sources for both tables: ‘Special Educational Needs in England in National Statistics’, 16 May 2001 in http://www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics. (Except for 1993, all figures taken from the earlier releases.) There are two streams of thoughts on the British style of

inclusive education. The government thinks that they are promoting inclusive education. Its latest policy initiative is the creation of more ‘specialist schools’ which would be selective in admitting 10 per cent of its students and would be given an area such as arts, business,

languages, science, sport or technology in which it is expected to

74

THE BRITISH SCENE excel. It is hoped that such specialist schools will raise the general

standard across schools. The venture would have a strong partnership with the private sector, but is not getting support from the teachers union. As one representative said, ‘The specialist status

defies a school, as the government is effectively saying that it is

better than one down the road. This is a two-tier system.’ 3 The other

stream of thought has been well articulated by Prof. Sally Tomlinson: As long as teachers are told to be inclusive, not given higher resources, but also urged to get more mainstream children to higher educational ‘standards’ they resist. This is probably more of a problem in western countries where segregation has been widespread and accepted for over 100 years. Current policies do not satisfy teachers in either mainstream or separate schools, nor academics who urge more extensive forms of inclusive education. Few people are giving much attention to changing the nineteenth century subject-centred curriculum to one that would be flexible and accessible to all children.4

There is a wide difference in perspectives between the

government at the policy level and academics writing on this subject

in Britain. Government documents indicate that they are moving

towards inclusion by closing down special schools and bringing in more and more disabled children into mainstream schools. On the

other hand, researchers and commentators almost unanimously agree that government policy (in Britain, at least) is not inclusive.

‘The practices introduced by the Code (of Practice), e.g., the IEP and the SENCO could act in an exclusionary rather than inclusionary direction.’ 5

My attempt to find literature to support the government

perspective on inclusion in the UK did not succeed. ‘I don’t know

where you would find a view supportive of the Government on this matter except in its own propaganda!’ 6

75

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS *** The progress and status of special education, and now inclusive

education, in England and Wales could be summed up as follows:

• The process of mass education began in England about 130 years ago, unlike in India where it became a state policy about fifty years ago.

• Alongside a system of regular schools, the institution of special schools developed in Britain bringing more and more

disabled into separate schools; by 1970 all categories of the

disabled got access to schools. No similar situation exists in India and there has been no state policy in place to establish a separate system of special schools for the disabled.

• By the early 1980s nearly all children of age 5-16 were in regular or special schools in England. Similar goal of

universalisation of elementary education is still eluding India.

• While abolishing the earlier system of medical categorisation and segregated education of the disabled, a new concept

and statutory definition of ‘special educational needs’ was

introduced in the early 1980s. This has created, over the years, a new category of children labeled as those with

special needs who may be required to remain in the same

class or school or get ousted from there. India does not have such a rigorous ‘labeling’ policy. Children with disabilities are

required to be educated in regular schools as far as possible.

• Special educational needs in England is not confined to disability only; it is linked with educational attainment and educational provisions. In extreme cases, children are issued statutory statements, which are generally resisted by

parents and get appealed against in legally constituted tribunals. The proportion of SEN children with or without statements has been increasing despite government’s stated

policy to reduce them. India does not have any such policy

76

THE BRITISH SCENE and all children have to be given education in regular schools, though in practice it does not happen.

• There is a clear difference in perception on inclusive education

in

England

between

policymakers

and

educationalists and academics. In India, the concept and consciousness on inclusive education is in an emerging state.

• In England though children with SEN do not feel ‘included’, yet pedagogy and curriculum is less teacher directed, and

there is more group work and activity learning than in Indian classrooms. The SEN policy and the Code restrict teachers in moving towards inclusion. However, no such policy restricts

teachers in Indian schools, though a lot needs to be done

here in terms of correcting perspectives on curriculum and assessment of learning.

• Schools in England have integrated various groups, by and

large, in a neighbourhood common school system unlike in India where a multi-track system of schools is developing

defeating the principles, of equal opportunity and inclusive education.

Inclusive education as emerging in both the countries can be

presented as shown in Figure 6: • Figure 6

Inclusive Education in England and India

England Non-inclusive for SEN Integrating for the disadvantaged

India Integrating disabled Segregated school set-ups for the disadvantaged Inclusive practices can develop under existing policy

SEN policy should change for developing inclusive schools

77

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS

NOTES 1. Personal e-mail communication from Prof. Peter Mittler. 2. Personal communication to me.

3. The Sunday Times, 15 April 2001.

4. Personal e-mail communication to me.

5. Personal e-mail communication from Prof. Peter Mittler. 6. E-mail communication from Prof. Colin Brock.

78

5

SCHOOL VISIT IN OXFORDSHIRE

A

fter attending a seminar in the Department of Educational Studies of the University of Oxford, I realised that getting access

to schools in England for research purposes was not an easy job. One would have to negotiate with governors, head teachers and

other teachers, may be even with parents, on dimensions of research, assure anonymity and guard against any unintended harm to the subjects of the research. Richard Pring’s account of ‘the toilet ethnographer’ (or the ‘undercover ethnographer’) describes the

plight of the educational researcher and the associated value system in the researching process1:

Some years ago an established researcher investigated the classroom ethos of three middle schools. Entry to these schools required gaining the confidence of the relevant teachers and the head teachers. He described the steps he took to maintain secrecy and unobtrusiveness—for example, always writing up his observations behind the locked door of the toilet. But the publication of the book, though steps had been taken to anonymise the schools and the teachers, greatly upset one of the teachers who recognised herself in reading the book and took offence at the implicit criticism of her teaching. The head teacher told me (the author) that, in consequence, he would allow no more researchers into his school.

79

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS I, however, did not encounter any difficulty in getting access to

schools. The officials in the LEA of Oxfordshire were good enough to arrange my visits in consultation with the head teachers for classroom observations. There is plenty of literature on how to

conduct observations for qualitative or ethnographic studies. Cohen and Manion (1994) describe two types of observations:

[Participant observers] engage in the very activities they set out to observe. Often their cover is so complete that as far as the other participants are concerned, they are simply one of the groups.

Describing non-participant observers, the authors have cited

King’s narration2:

[A non-participant observer] avoided eye-contact with the child while in the class, would not show immediate interest in what the children were doing, or talk to them. When talked to, (the researcher) would smile politely and would refer the child asking the question to the teacher.

As per these definitions I was neither a participant nor a

nonparticipant observer. In my style of classroom observation, I was

not collecting detailed data required for carrying out qualitative or quantitative research in the defined sense of the term, due to the paucity of time and limited access to schools. I did not have

sufficient time to negotiate the details of the study. I had assured

the school authorities that the basic purpose of my visit was my own learning and appreciation of the operation of the SEN policy at the

school level. Besides, I did not feel any change in the classroom environment or in the conduct of teachers or pupils during my long

hours of presence in classrooms. I felt involved in some classes, did not avoid ‘eye contact with the children’, and even responded

positively to children asking questions, or consulted teachers when

I was not sure of the answer myself. Respecting research traditions and ethics, however, anonymity is being maintained while presenting

80

SCHOOL VISIT IN OXFORDSHIRE the accounts of classroom observations. A brief description of the

school—a primary school for children between ages 5 and 9 (called School A)— where I spent a larger portion of my time follows.

SCHOOL A The school was opened in 1949 as a junior mixed and infant school. It was reorganised in 1953 into separate infant and junior schools.

In 1974, it became a County Primary School, catering for 5 to 11 year olds. In 1977, with the introduction of the three-tier system of education, the school became a First School for children aged 5 to 9

years old. It continues to remain so to the present day. Meanwhile, schools in Oxfordshire are being reorganised into a two-tier system. In 1983 a nursery class was established in the school.

The school has 139 pupils between ages 5 and 9, and thirtynine

children in the nursery section. It has six teachers, including the head teacher and the deputy head teacher, two part-time teachers

and one part-time SENCO. In addition, it has three nursery teachers and seven education support staff. At the time of my visit, six

hearing impaired children were integrated into different classes in

the school. Four special teachers or staff supported these children.

A governing body, with eleven governors including the chair, manages the school. The governing body meets each half term, but its sub-committees have additional meetings.

Meetings are open to all parents who are invited to attend as

observers. Governors have special responsibilities as well, such as

for curriculum, finance and staffing. The Parent Staff Association (PSA) exists to bring parents and staff together. The PSA organises a variety of fund raising activities. The school had a budget of

£448,000 for the year 1999-2000. The 1988 Education Act makes it illegal to charge any fees from the pupils for any activity that takes place in schools with the exception of musical tuition.

81

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS The school has a philosophy and well articulated mission

statements. It has a curriculum in accordance with the National Curriculum, which includes the ‘core subjects’ of English, Maths,

Science and Information and Communication Technology. In

addition, foundation subjects like the Arts (Art and Music), Humanities (Geography and History), Physical Education, and Design and Technology are also taught. The school also teaches

Religious Education. However, as a matter of policy, this is not

compulsory. The curriculum for each subject has been further expanded specifically stating ‘what your child will be doing’ in Key Stage 1 (Ages 5-7) and Key Stage 2 (Ages 7-11). Since the school has children only up to age 9, it provides only some of the activities under Key Stage 2.

As required under the national guidelines, the school has a

Special Educational Needs Policy. This policy lays down the ‘general ethos’, SEN philosophy, role and responsibilities of the SENCO and other staff, procedures for identification, resources, monitoring, etc. Some salient features of the SEN policy are3:

Principles:

• All pupils have an entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum.

• All pupils require a curriculum that is differentiated to meet their individual needs.

School philosophy:

• Pupils with SEN should have access to a full curriculum and access to other specialist professionals as necessary.

• Pupils with SEN should be taught in the classroom alongside their peers.

• Where appropriate, pupils with SEN will be supported within their own class. However, individuals or small groups may be withdrawn, when required, for some periods during the school day.

82

SCHOOL VISIT IN OXFORDSHIRE • The admission policy should pay due regard to the provision of places for pupils with SEN.

Rules and responsibilities:

• There is a SEN coordinator and a governor in charge of SEN. • The headmaster liaises with support agencies and parents, and ensures annual reviews of pupils with a statement of SEN.

• Partnership with parents is secured while discussing the needs of children when a place has been given to a child.

Curriculum provision:

• All pupils have access to full curriculum and a class teacher

would ensure that a wide range of strategies, resources and materials are available to all children.

• Curriculum

planning

differentiation.

includes

a

consideration

for

Identification:

• The school identifies children with SEN because of learning difficulties,

giftedness,

physical

disabilities,

sensory

impairment, emotional and behavioural difficulties, special aptitudes, English as an additional language, poor school

attendance, vulnerable/at risk, bereavement and family breakdown. All such children would need extra help/special provision.

Pre-school:

• Initial identification of a child’s special needs may be done

before a child reaches 5 years of age, and this may be made by the pupil’s parents, medical doctors or health workers, pre-school teacher, education psychologist, etc.

83

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS

In school:

• The classroom teacher has to intimate concern and identify children with SEN.

• Identification is aided by baseline assessment on entry to school.

• The school uses the 5-stages assessment as developed by the LEA and set out in the government Code of Practice.

• All children at Stages 2 to 5 of the Code of Practice have ‘individual education plans’.

Evaluation:

• All pupils with SEN are regularly reviewed by the class teacher and SENCO.

Complaints:

• Parents are encouraged to approach staff, or the headmaster and even the LEA for any concern or complaint.

Resources:

• The SENCO is given an annual budget for the acquisition of materials and provision of in-service training of teachers.

• The LEA makes additional sums available for specific purposes for which the school could apply as appropriate.

In-service training:

• Any member of staff may attend in-service training within the budgetary constraints.

Support agencies and services:

• The school has a list of support agencies and services and they are involved as required, outreach teachers are

consulted for advice and the school also buys into volunteer reading helper services.

84

SCHOOL VISIT IN OXFORDSHIRE

Parents:

• Parents are informed as soon as a class teacher feels that a child may have SEN and whenever it is felt that it would be appropriate to involve outside agencies.

OBSERVATION I observed thirteen classroom sessions—seven in School A, three in two middle schools, two sessions in special units attached with

schools and one in a special school for children with ‘learning difficulties’. Instead of describing each session separately, I have

presented here the general pattern of teaching and learning and classroom management.

Schools and classrooms are rich with resources and learning

materials. Big classrooms, for an average strength of twenty pupils at a time, have books, stationery, other learning materials, as well as computers in some cases. Classroom walls and places around are

full of work done by the children. Most classrooms have individual teachers’ names pasted on the doors. The children move into classrooms, one session after another, for a particular subject or for a class by that particular teacher.

There is a general pattern of teaching: teaching the entire class

followed by children working in groups. But most of the time, though in groups, children work individually. The teachers told me that

these groupings were on the basis of ‘ability’. They watch the performance and progress of each child, and accordingly the groups

keep changing. Teachers would move from one group to another, concentrating more on the groups having children with less ability.

Children with special educational needs with their support staff also join the groups.

Teaching the entire class is not a monologue. While students in

the middle school classes were sitting in rows one after another as

85

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS is commonly seen, in School A children sat on the floor/carpet, a few

of them on small chairs, in a casual fashion with teachers sitting on an easy chair. Children with special needs and their support staff were positioned conveniently. Most of the lessons presented by the

teachers were in an interactive dialogue or question-answer format. The children raise their hands in response to questions from the teachers. The teacher randomly asks one of them to reply. Those children who did not raise their hands got left out. There was no

tendency on the part of the teachers to brand a reply by a student

as ‘wrong’. There was a lot of praise for any attempted replies and no ridiculing for any ‘wrong’ reply. The environment in the classrooms was relaxed and almost informal.

I observed the one-to-one support of a student with hearing

loss placed in a mainstream secondary school. The student had an IEP (Individual Education Plan) with services of five sessions per week from a teacher for the hearing impaired and eighteen hours

per week from the learning support assistant. The IEP mentions the additional learning difficulties and implications of hearing loss. The

IEP is reviewed periodically and a monitoring format—the SEN action record—is maintained with details about the pupil, target and criteria for success, strategies/provision, monitoring and progress towards target. The student had a statement which described the

nature of special educational needs, the nature of special educational provision, appropriate school or other arrangement for his study and additional non-educational provision (in this case there

was a request to the district speech therapist to maintain speech

therapy as appropriate). While moving from the middle school to the

secondary school a transition plan was prepared incorporating aims, strategies, action/target date, career services advice, resources,

future options of support and placement at age 16 and which courses were deemed appropriate for the pupil. Apart from

individual teaching support for five sessions per week mainly for

language and communication, the pupil went to mainstream classes with the learning support assistant.

86

SCHOOL VISIT IN OXFORDSHIRE The two hearing impaired children in the middle school science

class seemed fully included, and I wondered why they had a

common support assistant. Both had radio hearing aids; the teacher

had the transmitter on her person for better communication with them.

A vision impaired child in another middle school was fully

integrated in the group work. He had a walking stick as an aid. The support staff would whisper into his ears whatever the teacher

wrote on the blackboard. When the teacher gave an objective type mental math test, the support staff took the student to an attached room, read out the questions, and marked the answers the student

gave verbally on the sheet. The student got all the answers right. I was told that his academic performance was excellent and so his

special educational need was confined to the provision of assistive devices including printings in Braille and the services of the support staff.

In one special unit, three children aged 4 to 8, all with a hearing

disability, were learning language and communication with a special teacher. In order to teach certain verbs the teacher asked the

students to demonstrate some doable actions—laughing, crying, running, jumping, etc. At times she demonstrated herself, and the

children would join her. There were pictures for further explanation.

There was a lot of action and activities for children to enjoy and learn in a small group as well.

The special school had about fifty students. All were with

‘statements’ and had been assessed as having behavioural and emotional problems. The class size in the special school was

between eight and ten students. The teachers’ style did not appear

as active as in the general school. The teaching was very slow, in small units and parts, but the whole environment was not very encouraging. Teaching was not ‘good’ in terms of pedagogy as seen

earlier in the regular or mainstream schools. The children appeared

87

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS to be ‘herded’ together. Their dispersal in general schools could be a better proposition.

I would like to make two major observations with respect to

School A. First, the calibre and potential of the teachers appeared to be of a high order, but the teaching had developed into a pattern. It

began with teaching the entire class, followed by pupils working individually in predetermined and ability-linked groups. However, the transactions between the teachers and pupils, particularly in the whole class, were highly interactive and interesting. In one letter

writing class, the teacher gave a draft, explained what could go into the draft by asking children questions in the whole class, then asked

them to ‘improve’ the draft in their own style. After the specified time, they reassembled, when a few of them got the chance to read out their pieces. The teacher asked the class what they thought was

most interesting in the letter, and what could be improved upon further? The whole class enjoyed the lesson.

In a class on addition and subtraction, and the ‘word problem’,

the teacher spent considerable time on the ‘strategy to use’ for solving word problems. The teacher used one question but elicited

different levels of answers from different groups of students. After the whole class teaching, the students broke into three groups. In

one of the groups, children worked individually and independently;

another group remained with the teacher and the third group with special educational needs was taken away by the special/part-time teacher.

The second observation is the ‘isolation’ of the SEN pupils. In

one class, teachers knew that a child at Stage 4 of the assessment

process would get a ‘statement’ and finally may even have to leave the school. Hence, the child was left entirely to the part-time support

staff. The teacher did not appear to consider him an integral part of the class, and the segregation was very obvious. In one instance,

when it was time for the part-time support staff to leave, the child was ‘taken over’ by another part-time staff while the teacher

88

SCHOOL VISIT IN OXFORDSHIRE remained busy with other pupils. Alternatively, in a couple of cases,

I noticed pupils who were very active in the class. On subsequent discussions with the teachers, I found out that these pupils had been identified with ‘special educational needs’!

The use of support staff remains a question mark in my mind.

Their presence absolves teachers from whatever instructions and attention they could otherwise have given to such pupils. At times,

they appeared detrimental to the interest of SEN pupils from the point of their inclusion in the class.

On the whole, the school visits gave me a perspective on the

functioning of the SEN policy in schools. However, no generalisations

can be made as the visits and observations were unstructured and did not match the research requirements. Nevertheless, it did

appear obvious to me that more collaborative and interactive pedagogy, and a variety of teaching methodologies could be used if supported by some policy adjustments and reorientation of

teachers. And, the process of inclusion of all children in learning could be better continued.

NOTES 1. ‘The Virtues and Vices of an Educational Researcher’, paper presented by Prof. Richard Pring in a seminar in the Department of Educational Studies, University of Oxford, Jan-March 2001.

2. R. King, 1979, All Things Bright and Beautiful?, John Wiley, Chichester. According to the writer, King’s study is based upon unstructured observations in infant classrooms.

3. Adapted from the document collected from the school during a visit.

89

6

THE INDIAN CONTEXT

HISTORICAL RECALL Writers in the past fifty years, both Indian and foreign, have been poorly informed about Indian special needs education and disability care in the 19th century— and for mental retardation and orthopaedic disabilities, the developments up to 1947. —Miles, 1994, p. 2

Miles (1994) has undertaken the exercise of documenting the

existence of disability care and education in nineteenth century India. He observes:

The exercise is not one of acedemic interest alone. It has implications for the current disability service developments in India and neighbouring countries. Experiments with ‘integrated’ educational services and Western plans for ‘Community Based Rehabilitation’ are underway, premised partly on the mistaken view that, before Independence, India had hardly any disability service experience; and that since 1947 the Indian experience has been of large, ‘inappropriate’, medically-oriented institutions. This myth ignores the informal efforts of Indian families and neighbourhoods since antiquity to respond to special needs and disabilities. It dismisses over 100 years’ work and care in small centres across India before Independence, in which some people with disabilities

90

THE INDIAN CONTEXT received education and vocational training, individually, or in groups, or integrated with able-bodied children and adults; and then earned their living by their own skills and determination (p. 4).

SARGENT REPORT, 1944 In 1944, three years before India attained independence, the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) had been entrusted with

the task of preparing a report on the development of education in India in the post-War period. The CABE report, written by John

Sargent, the British chief educational advisor, observed that the

Indian government had not done much for the education of the disabled. What had been done was due to voluntary effort and the

country could ‘profitably borrow’ from the experiences and

achievements of those countries which had been active in this field (CABE, 1944, p. 111). The 1944 Sargent Report also referred to the 1936 CABE recommendation, when it had directed provincial

governments not to neglect the education of the handicapped. The provinces, however, preferred to spend the available funds on the education of ‘normal’ children. The report did not accept the ‘excuse

for neglecting the needs of the handicapped’ when a scheme of education on ‘really comprehensive lines [was] in contemplation’ (ibid., p. 119).

The report had an imprint of the development that was taking

place in England at that point of time. The 1944 Education Act in

England had made it mandatory for LEAs to ascertain children suffering from a ‘disability of body or mind’ and to provide ‘special

educational treatment’ in special schools or elsewhere. The Act is regarded as a major effort to move as many ‘defective’ children as possible out of medical domination (Tomlinson, 1982) and let them

have ‘special education in ordinary schools’ (Barton and Tomlinson,

91

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS 1984). Chapter IX of the Sargent Report titled ‘The Education of the

Handicapped’ begins with a reference to the contemplated ‘national scheme of education’ providing for all children according to their

‘special aptitudes’ with consideration for those ‘who are generally classed as handicapped’ (CABE, 1944, p. 111).

That chapter summarises the following conclusions:

1. Provision for the mentally or physically handicapped should form an essential part of a national system of education and should be administered by the Education Department.

2. Hitherto in India governments have hardly interested themselves at all in this branch of education: what has been done has been due almost entirely to voluntary effort.

3. Wherever possible, handicapped children should not be

segregated from normal children. Only when the nature and extent of their defect make it necessary, should they be sent

to special schools or institutions. Partially handicapped

children should receive special treatment in ordinary schools.

4. The blind and deaf need special educational arrangements,

including specially trained teachers. It may be desirable to

establish central institutions for training the teachers required.

5. Particular care should be taken to train the handicapped, wherever possible, for remunerative employment and to find such employment for them. After-care work is essential.

6. In the absence of any reliable data it is impossible to

estimate what would be the cost of making adequate provision for the handicapped in India; 10 per cent of the total expenditure on basic and high schools has been set aside for such services, which include such provision, and it is hoped that this will suffice.

The report can be said to be a landmark in policy on

‘integration’ of disabled children in general schools, though it

continued its recommendation for special schools, but ‘only when

92

THE INDIAN CONTEXT the nature and extent of their defect [made] it necessary’. The report is also notable on two counts. First, it recommended that the

provision for the disabled ‘should form an essential part of a national

system of education and should be administered by the Education

Department’ (emphasis mine). Second, 10 per cent of the budget for

basic and high schools had been set aside for the (educational) services of the disabled. Special education in India continues to be

administered by the welfare ministry (now called the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment) and is not a part of the regular

system of education. As per the UNESCO report (1995), over 95 per cent countries have transferred responsibility of special education to

the mainstream ministry of education. An accurate estimate of expenditure on education of the disabled as compared to that of

school education cannot be made, but it would be much less than 10 per cent.

KOTHARI COMMISSION, 1966 The first education commission in India, popularly known as the

Kothari Commission, began the section on handicapped children in the chapter ‘Towards Equalisation of Educational Opportunities’ in its report in a similar tone as reflected in the 1944 post-war report.

‘Very little has been done in this field so far...any great improvement in the situation does not seem to be practicable in the near future...there is much in the field that we could learn from the

educationally advanced countries’ (Education Commission, 1966, p. 123).

The commission made two more disappointing observations. As

a part of its ‘plan of action’ it recommended ‘the provision of educational facilities for about 10 percent of the total number of

handicapped children’ by 1986, though it recorded that ‘the Constitutional

Directive

on

compulsory

93

education

includes

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS handicapped children as well.’ As against this, the CABE Report (1944) had recommended setting aside 10 per cent of expenditure

on basic and secondary education for special services for the

handicapped on ‘really comprehensive lines’. Secondly, though the commission recommended ‘integrated education’, it also observed,

‘many handicapped children find it psychologically disturbing to be placed in an ordinary school’; a statement against the spirit of integrated schooling. The 1968 National Education Policy followed

the commission’s recommendations and suggested the expansion of education facilities for physically and mentally handicapped children,

and also the development of ‘integrated programmes’ enabling

handicapped children to study in regular schools. Eight years later, in 1974, a scheme for the integrated education of disabled children or the IEDC began in the welfare ministry.

NATIONAL POLICY ON EDUCATION, 1986 Twenty years later, the National Policy on Education (MHRD, 1986a),

which has since been guiding the education system in India, under

its broad objective of ‘education for equality’ proposed the following measures for the education of the handicapped:

1. Wherever it is feasible, the education of children with motor

handicaps and other mild handicaps will be common with others,

2. Special schools with hostels will be provided, as far as possible at district headquarters, for severely handicapped children,

3. Adequate arrangements will be made to give vocational training to the disabled,

4. Teachers’ training programmes will be reoriented, in

particular for teachers of primary classes, to deal with special difficulties of handicapped children, and

94

THE INDIAN CONTEXT 5. Voluntary effort for the education of the disabled will be encouraged in every possible manner.

The Programme of Action (POA) (MHRD, 1990) outlined the

measures to implement the policy, which included massive in-service

training programmes for teachers, orientation programmes for administrators, development of supervisory expertise in the resource

institutions for school education at the district and block levels, and also provision of incentives like supply of aids, appliances, text books and school uniforms.

While reviewing the national policy, the committee headed by

Acharya Ramamurty made two significant observations regarding low coverage of handicapped in education. First, the committee said the education of the handicapped was viewed as a ‘social welfare’

activity, and secondly, the IEDC scheme was being implemented in terms of running ‘mini special schools’ within general schools

(MHRD, 1990). The committee noted the following ‘inadequacies’ in the 1986 Policy (ibid., p. 85.):

It has not stressed the mobilisation of the total general education system for the education of the handicapped. Special schools have been treated in isolation from other educational institutions from the point of view of providing the educational supervisory infrastructure, leaving it to the Ministries of Welfare and HRD to co-operatively develop the same.

The NPE/POA 1986 was modified and a new POA was chalked

up in 1992. The 1992 POA made an ambitious commitment for universal enrolment by the end of the Ninth Plan for both categories of children: those who could be educated in general primary schools and those who required to be educated in special schools or special classes in general schools (MHRD, 1992, p. 18). It also called for the

‘reorientation’ of the pre-service and in-service teacher education

programmes. The two notable pedagogical recommendations in the POA read:

95

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS Curriculum flexibility is of special significance for these children. Special needs for these children will be met, if child centred education is practiced. Child-to-child help in education of children with disability is an effective resource in view of large classes and multi-grade teaching.

Showing concern reagarding the policy in respect of disabled

children as compared to the non-disabled, Jangira (1997) observes:

‘Though endorsing integration, the NPE seemed hesitant in full commitment to universalisation of elementary education for this group of children just like other children. It remained silent on the

department of education assuming full responsibility for education of children with disability’ (p. 496).

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 1995 Yet another significant policy development in India took place following the ESCAP Proclamation on the Full Participation and

Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asia and Pacific Region in

1992. The Indian parliament passed the Persons With Disabilities (PWD) Act of 1995, which grants ‘equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation’ to persons with disabilities. The Act is significant in the sense that it requires ‘the appropriate governments

and the local authorities’ to ‘ensure that every child with a disability has access to free education in an appropriate environment till he attains the age of eighteen years’. On the type of schooling for these children, it further asks them to ‘endeavour to promote the

integration of students with disabilities in the normal schools’. However, it does not undermine the need for special schools, rather it intends to ‘promote setting up of special schools in Government

and private sector for those in need of special education’. Further, in

96

THE INDIAN CONTEXT order to provide vocational training facilities to the disabled the Act

requires governments to equip the special schools with suitable

facilities. Most of the educational facilities available to the

non-disabled, such as non-formal education, research and training of teachers, have been extended for the education of the disabled

also as part of the ‘comprehensive education scheme’ to be made by

the governments and local authorities. The Act also requires the ‘restructuring of the curriculum for the benefit of children with

disabilities’. In addition, the Act provides for reservation of 3 per cent

of seats in admissions into higher and professional institutions. The coordination committees at the national and state levels are

expected to monitor the implementation of the Act. It has created positions for the appointment of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities at the centre and Commissioners for Persons with

Disabilities in the states to intervene legally for violation of the rights

of the disabled including in matters of equal opportunity in education.

EDUCATIONAL STATUS OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES There is no accurate data on how many children with disabilities may come to regular and special schools. However, there is evidence that

the number of special schools for the blind and deaf and the enrolment of children in them have been increasing. There were

twenty-five schools for the blind with 1,156 children in 1944 (CABE, 1944), which increased to 115 schools and 5,000 children in 1966

(Education Commission, 1966) and to 200 schools and 15,000 children in 1998 (MHRD, 1990). Similarly, the number of schools for

the deaf and enrolment in them increased from 35 and 1313 in 1944 to 70 and 4000 in 1966, and to 280 and 28,000 in 1998 (ibid.).

97

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS Watkins (2000) has referred to an estimate in the early 1990s

whereby India had 3 million children in need of special education.

The special institutions, mostly in the voluntary sector, were catering to less than one per cent of those who had learning difficulties. The writer further noted, ‘India has introduced inclusive education into

its mainstream national teacher training programmes. The problem is that progress has been limited and piecemeal’ (ibid.).

Increase in figures of children coming to regular schools has not

been recorded separately in official statistics, and the figures quoted

in government documents are based upon children attending schools on account of programme interventions. Miles (1997) observes, ‘The number of children with disabilities casually integrated in ordinary schools must always greatly exceed the number in special schools, and continues to do so.’ Similarly, Mittler

(2000) has also noted the positive approach and leading role of

India and some other developing countries towards inclusive

schooling, ‘while some of the richer countries that were leaders in the field seem more hesitant and half-hearted’.

In most conferences and documents at national and

international levels, the number of children with disabilities enrolled

in schools in India is projected at less than 5 per cent of their total

number; at times it is even said to be less than 2 per cent. There is no corroborative source for this figure. The National Sample Survey

Organisation (NSSO) conducted the 47th round of its survey in JulyDecember 1991 and presented the enrolment status of children aged 5-14 in ordinary schools (Appendix 1). The enrolment status

was 552 per thousand disabled children in urban areas and 458 in rural areas. The overall percentage of enrolment in ordinary schools

was 50.5 per cent. The survey further revealed that ‘of those who were enrolled once in ordinary schools but were not currently

enrolled, 43 per cent are found to have discontinued due to onset of

disability in the rural sector. The said percentage was 39 in the urban sector’ (NSSO, 1994, p. 84).

98

THE INDIAN CONTEXT The survey also reported that in rural India about 70 percent of

the physically disabled are not literate as against 46 per cent in urban India. Going by this survey, the percentage of literacy among the disabled in India was 42 per cent in 1991, of which 16 per cent was middle and above and 7 per cent was secondary and above.

The state-wise number of literates per thousand in rural and urban

areas is given in Appendix 2. In the survey a person was considered

physically disabled if he or she had one or more of the four types of disability, namely, visual, hearing, speech and locomotor. The survey confirms the theory of ‘casual integration’ in ordinary schools

observed by Miles (1997), and schooling of children with disabilities other than in special schools or without any specific state interventions.

In line with the 1968 policy recommendation, the Ministry of

Social Welfare of the Government of India formulated a scheme in

1974 called the Integrated Education for Disabled Children (IEDC). Taking note of the comments by the Ramamurty Committee,

presumably on IEDC running ‘mini special schools’ within general

schools (MHRD, 1990), the scheme was revised in 1992. It was also transferred to the education department (though special schools continue in the erstwhile social welfare ministry). In addition to

providing educational opportunities for disabled children in common schools, it calls for the integration of disabled children placed in special schools into common schools ‘once they acquire the

communication and daily living skills at the functional level’ (IEDC, 1992). It has provisions for the training of general teachers,

preparation of learning materials, educational devices, support

teacher and staff and setting up of resource centres. Over 120,000 children with disabilities in over 24,000 mainstream schools are

getting benefit under this scheme. It is a matter of research to

ascertain if it is still running ‘mini special schools’. It has been generating interest among non-governmental agencies and parents

in rural areas, but the focus of the implementing agencies remains grants, incentives and recruitment of special teachers.

99

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS In recent years two major initiatives have been launched by the

government for achieving the goals of universalisation of elementary

education—the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) and the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) or education-for-all campaign. Both

programmes have accepted integration of children with disabilities in

mainstream schools as a commitment. DPEP has been making several interventions to achieve its objectives towards integration which include community mobilisation and early detection, in-service

teacher training, resource support, educational aids and appliances and architectural design. Children with disabilities are being enrolled

as part of the regular programme into mainstream schools as a result of the DPEP interventions. DPEP is converging with IEDC and

other programmes of the government and those of NGOs to bring synergy in the process of including more disabled students into the

regular school system. Similarly, the SSA has built in an element of additional support to these children so that they are encouraged to enroll themselves in mainstream schools.

There is no accurate count of special schools as most of them

are being run by voluntary agencies with or without support from

the government. However, it has been estimated that there would

be over 2,500 such schools all over the country (RCI, 2000). The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment supports around 400

such schools being run by the voluntary sector. The Ramamurty

Committee reported 250 districts in the country which did not have a special school for any disability (ibid.). Some states have supporting schemes for education of the disabled. Eight states have

schemes of providing educational support materials and twenty-nine states are providing educational scholarships to these children (MSJE, 2001).

India has the largest system of open schools for children who

cannot attend regular classes or who have dropped out for a variety of reasons including rigidity of the traditional school system and its

examinations. The National Open School (NOS) has over 500,000

100

THE INDIAN CONTEXT children enrolled. The NOS provides educational services in the distance education mode using the delivery of printed materials and contact programmes through study centres. It offers a flexible

curriculum, multiple options and modular courses to suit the needs

and circumstances of students. It also provides skill-based vocational courses apart from the traditional school certification. The

NOS has been very popular amongst special schools and learning centres for children with disabilities. It has a scheme of making its

learning materials available in Braille for the visually handicapped and adaptation of the material in a user-friendly manner for students

with other types of disabilities. Many learning centres have been accredited by the NOS offering its flexible and innovative courses and learning materials to children in special schools.

TRAINING OF TEACHERS Training of general teachers is the most important intervention for

creating an integrating and inclusive environment for the education of disabled children in mainstream schools. The IEDC provides for

the training of teachers and preparation of teaching and learning materials. The training module has been left to the states and other

implementing agencies. With the launching of the IEDC, many

regular teachers felt the need for getting ‘special’ teacher status to respond to the educational needs of disabled children. The

Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), constituted under an Act in 1992, has arranged ‘bridge courses’ for these teachers to qualify to

come under the category of ‘special teachers’. The IEDC scheme provides for the appointment of one special teacher for eight

disabled children who may be working in one school or for a group of schools as an itinerant.

The DPEP is undertaking two types of training programmes. The

first includes training conducted under the RCI foundation course, its

101

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS bridge course or three-to-five day exclusive training for integrated education. In the second, states are also incorporating integrated

education as a component in their in-service general training programme. Special education has also been included in pre-service

and bachelor courses being offered by training institutions and

universities. At places, it is one of the electives or even offered as a main course. Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) is

offering distance education at the university level. IGNOU has also designed its programme to respond to the needs of students with

disabilities. Under the mainstream university system, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has schemes in the area of education of the disabled to pursue higher education and also for teacher preparation.

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION India has been following international developments in the field of

special needs education, particularly those which are focused upon the Asia-Pacific region. The country has been a partner in most of the conventions and conferences. Many reputed NGOs have got

support from international funding agencies and they have actively

contributed to the development of the education of the disabled. The government has been facilitating NGO initiatives in international cooperation. It has also actively participated in UN and other international

collaborative

programmes.

Some

programmes and their benefits are listed here.

such

major

PROJECT FOR THE INTEGRATED EDUCATION OF THE DISABLED (PIED) The PIED was implemented in 1986 with UNICEF support in ten states/union territories on the principle of composite area approach.

102

THE INDIAN CONTEXT Ten blocks were selected, one in each state/union territory, for full coverage and the objectives included ‘to prepare the general

education system in demonstration sites to achieve the goal of education for all including those with disabilities’ (Mani, 1993).

Teacher’s training was the most critical component of the programme and was given at three levels. At the first stage, all teachers of the blocks were given training for a duration of one

week. At the second stage, 10 per cent of them were given intensive training for six weeks. Finally, eight to ten teachers from each block

underwent training for a period of one academic year. These teachers received multicategory training to serve disabled children

of all types and were placed at the resource centres at the cluster level of the blocks. Some of the significant findings of the project were:

1. Disabled children performed on par with the non-disabled in the PIED block. However, mentally retarded children did not show similar performance.

2. Retention rate among disabled children was very high (about

95 per cent). It was higher than the non-disabled children in the PIED blocks.

3. Majority of the general teachers indicated that they were becoming better teachers by teaching the disabled children.

Major learnings of the PIED were incorporated in the IEDC,

which was modified in 1992.

THE UNESCO TEACHER EDUCATION RESOURCE PACK An Indian team from the NCERT was part of the international team

developing the UNESCO pack, developed in early 1990s, based on

the five principles of effective learning: active learning; negotiation of objectives; demonstration, practice and feedback; continuous

103

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS evaluation and support. The Indian team was also involved in the

field testing of the resource pack. It was thereafter decided that

materials should be disseminated nationally through teacher education institutions. The first phase of this initiative was a multi-

site action research project called ‘Effective Education for All’ which started in 1991. The project began with a training workshop. The training was based on the adaptation of the UNESCO resource pack

material carried out as result of the feedback from earlier international workshops and the learning experiences gathered from

the pilot testing of the pack in pre- and in-service training in India.

The training sessions helped participants reflect upon their own thinking and practice with respect to ways in which they responded to children’s special educational needs. It also helped them consider

the integration of children with special needs and its influencing

factors. The pack was particularly effective in a ‘whole school approach’ whereby heads and all the staff were given orientation. It has been confirmed, following evaluation of the project, that the

resource pack could make a significant contribution to wider school

improvement initiatives. It has also confirmed that relatively small changes in the practice of ordinary schools could make a significant

impact. Some reforms in pre- and in-service teacher education could make a major contribution to such developments. Such reforms do challenge the existing arrangements and practices in the school system (Ainscow et al., 1995). The UNESCO Resource Pack has since been translated into Hindi.

AUSAID PROJECT Under the India-Australia Capacity Building Programme in integrated education for children with special needs, a five-day workshop was

held to select ten resource persons, who visited Australia for a period of ten weeks. They returned after getting training as master

104

THE INDIAN CONTEXT trainers. Workshops at five places involving 180 teachers were

organised with the help of these resource persons and Australian experts. The project, started in 1998, has added to the capacity of general etchers for integrating children with disabilities in

mainstream schools. The project also provided training materials for further use by trainers.

UNESCO-PROAP PROJECT India was one of the participating countries of the Asia-Pacific region which worked on the UNESCO-PROAP Project on promotion of basic

education for children with special needs. The project involved

participation of the Indian teams in three international workshops organised by the UNESCO-PROAP in Bangkok (1999), Beijing (2000)

and Ahmedabad (2000). The Indian project has led to the

development of materials for teachers and trainers in general primary schools for an in-service training programme on inclusive education for teachers. The materials were developed following

participatory workshops with teachers and teacher educators, at national and state levels. The manual containing these materials observes,

The mention of disability and the accompanying ‘technical’ jargon tends to generate a feeling almost akin to fear among teachers— they need to see that inclusion of children with special needs is not only easy, it’s also great fun and actually helps all children. In fact, India’s universalisation effort would be hampered in the absence of such an approach obtaining in the typical primary school (Shukla, 2001).

There is a common thread in international cooperation in this

field particularly at the level of the involvement of the union government. All the programmes have aimed at the integration or

105

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream schools. Second,

there has been a focus on whole school development and capacity building of all teachers in schools. All these programmes have been

influencing the thinking process among teacher educators and policymakers for taking children’s schooling from integration to inclusion.

THE QUESTION OF EXCLUSION The process of inclusion is linked with exclusion. An inclusive school

should not exclude children on account of organisational, cultural and curricular factors (Booth, 1996; Sebba and Ainscow, 1996). In

India and in other developing countries the issue and context of

exclusion is different from that in the UK and other developed countries. In the UK, exclusion from schools normally refers to

‘disciplinary exclusion’ arising due to conduct or behaviour of

children that does not conform to class or school rules. On the other hand, in India, three broad categories of exclusion can be identified.

First, exclusion as understood in the UK; second, exclusion as a consequence of social and economic factors; and third, exclusion due to internal or cultural and curricular factors.

The practice of disciplinary exclusion is generally limited to

private schools in India, which ‘expel’ students as a disciplinary measure. Some schools, mostly private, also ‘exclude’ or detain students at grades before they take public examinations to

demonstrate the school’s ‘good performance’ in the board examination (Mukhopadhya and Anil, 2001). In extreme cases, they

even ask students to leave the school. Unfortunately, school research in India does not focus upon such areas of concern. Social

and

economic

exclusion

resulting

in

children’s

non-enrolment and non-completion of school years remains a major

hurdle as well as a challenge for policymakers and educational

106

THE INDIAN CONTEXT practitioners in India. As in many developing countries, there are

reasons that keep children out of schools. Most reasons are external to the school system. But ‘the way educational provision is set up can also have the effect of excluding certain groups of children’ (Ogadhoh and Molteno, 1998).

Indian policy documents refer to the ‘special emphasis on the

removal of disparities and to equalise educational opportunity by

attending to the specific needs of those who have been denied equality so far’ (MHRD, 1998, p.7). The groups covered under

‘education for equality’ in the document include specifically women, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, minorities, handicapped and non-literate adults. There are, however, many other groups of

children ‘at risk’ and living in ‘difficult situations’ such as orphans, destitutes, child labourers, street children, and victims of riots and natural disasters (Sharma and Sharma, 1999). The Ministry of Social

Justice and Empowerment has listed ‘children in crisis situations’ as street children, children who have been abused, abandoned

children, orphaned children, children in conflict with the law, and children affected by conflict or disasters. The ministry has several

schemes of ‘social defence’ for these children, which has a component of education as well (MSJE, 2001).

However, policy on the formal school system does not refer to

the educational needs of these groups in particular. Some of them

are provided education in segregation mode by NGOs and other

departments of the government. For example, the labour ministry runs ‘special schools’ for liberated child labour. These isolated

schools have generally no linkages with the mainstream school system. Such education is ad hoc and exclusionary in nature.

Children’s motivation in such schools is generally low. The exception

is the programme being run by the MV Foundation, an NGO based

in Andhra Pradesh. The NGO organises literacy camps for several weeks for out-of-school children, prepares them and transfer them to the local mainstream schools.

107

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS Children who are victims of conflicts, war, violence and natural

disasters suffer temporary and permanent disruptions in their schooling. Such situations are created more often in developing

countries. The present rigid school structure where all children are expected to learn the same amount in the same time does not take into account these contingencies. The affected children get left out when they resume schooling and ultimately they get pushed out of the system. The recommendation for these children is the open school. The question is however why can’t the flexibility and options

offered by the open school be provided by the formal school system as well.

The groups focussed under the 1986 national policy continue to

lag behind in terms of enrolment and completion of school years. All children are yet to come to schools in India. Five per cent of the children in the age group 6-11 and 41 per cent in the age group 11-

14 are yet to get enrolled in schools. Of those getting enrolled, 40

per cent leave school before completing the five-year period and 55 per cent drop out before completing compulsory schooling until age 14. The situation worsens when it comes to girls, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Table 3 gives the pattern of girls, SCs and STs

dropping out from the formal school system. The proportion increases with increase in age, more in the case of girls in each category. Under each age group, the scheduled tribes drop out more

than the scheduled castes, and the latter drop out more than the

non-SCs/STs. Scheduled tribe girls aged 14 have the maximum drop out rate of 76 per cent. • Table 3

Drop Out Rates in India

Age Year 11 Boys Year 11 Girls Year 14 Boys Year 14 Girls

Non-SC/ST (%) 37 42 50 57

SC (%) 43 47 61 67

ST (%) 56 59 71 76

• Source: Compiled from Selected Educational Statistics, 2001, MHRD, New Delhi.

108

THE INDIAN CONTEXT Gaps in drop outs may be one of the indicators of exclusion of

disadvantaged and marginalised groups. This data is presented to

establish the point that the formal school system is not responsive even to the non-disabled, particularly those belonging to

disadvantaged groups. The question is, should it not change? How far is the lack of inclusiveness in schools contributing to drop outs?

The subject, apparently, has not been researched in India. But, as

a US study (Kahelnberg, 2001) shows, if poor students are mixed in middle class schools, their performance improves. In the Indian situation, their drop out rates may come down provided such mixing

is done with appropriate orientation to curriculum and pedagogy at the school level and at the level of individual students.

Most government programmes for the improvement of

educational participation of these groups is linked with incentives and resources. However, Dreze and Kingdon (2001) refer to the

‘persistence of an overall bias against scheduled caste children in the schooling system’. According to Scrase (1993), India’s

educational inequality has an explanation in the ‘cultural domination and ideological control’ of the middle classes who have monopolised education, policy and culture. Haq (1989) makes a similar

observation on domination of different groups on education in different periods of Indian history.

... during the Sanskritic tradition, it was the Brahmana who benefited most; during the Mughal period, it was the nobility of Islam; during the British period, it was the aristocracy and the Indian feudals; and, during contemporary time, it is the elite from the higher caste and class backgrounds which monopolise and make use of the best available educational opportunities (p. 50).

The PROBE Report (1999) has reported three forms of social

discrimination operating in the Indian school system. First, a system

of ‘multiple tracks’ has come up providing different types of schooling opportunities to different sections of the population. The

109

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS poor and the disadvantaged are going to government schools and well-off students go to private schools; some go to formal schools, but those for whom the formal system is not ‘suitable’ go to the

‘informal’ or non-formal educational centres. Some of the groupings of the schools are:

• Private fee charging schools for upper middle and rich classes.

• Government and municipal schools for middle and lower middle classes.

• NFE,

EGS,

alternative

disadvantaged.

schools

for

the

poor

and

• Schools for child labour.

• Schools for scheduled tribes. • Minority institutions.

• Schools for the children of central government, public undertaking and the defense staff.

• Schools for ‘talented’ rural children.

Most of these systems have developed in the name of social

justice, equal opportunities and deficiency in resources. They are expected to serve the educational interests of the groups they have

been established for. Are they detrimental to the principles of inclusive education and a cohesive society? Besides, most ‘exclusive’

institutions function at substandard levels and do not match the acceptable norms for the formal school system.

There is no regular system of recording and enumerating fee-

charging private schools in elementary and secondary education, though it is quite large and is a growing sector. Panchmukhi (1983) estimated its extent up to 20 per cent of the total and found that it

had a tendency to ‘perpetuate social inequalities and divisions’ as private schools mostly cater to children of the ‘elite’ and also offer ‘high quality’ education. This has a serious impact on issues of equity in the Indian education system (Kingdon, 1996a).

110

THE INDIAN CONTEXT Even in government schools there are wide variations between

schools located in privileged areas and those in deprived villages.

Further, within the same school, ‘children of different social backgrounds often receive unequal treatment’. Analysing the

situation of child labour and their education in India, Weiner (1991)

finds the ‘deeply held beliefs that people who work with their minds rule and people who work with their hands are ruled’. Education

‘reinforces’ rather than breaks down this division. It has been ‘an instrument for differentiation by separating children according to social class’. The inherent cultural apartheid, sense of elitism and absence of the dignity of labour led to the failings of Gandhi’s Basic

Education (Panchmukhi, 1983). It ‘sought to alter the symbolic

meanings of education and thereby to change the established structure of opportunities for education’ (Kumar, 1994).

This analysis highlights the structural vulnerability of the Indian

school system. If it cannot provide equal opportunity to the disadvantaged among non-disabled groups, the integration or

inclusion of children with disabilities would be an uphill task. What are the roadblocks to inclusion? An answer has been attempted in the next section.

ROADBLOCKS TO INCLUSION An earlier section premised that one of the factors responsible for children’s exclusion from school is mostly internal to the school, its

culture, the curriculum and how teaching takes place. Giving a

background to the historical development of schooling of children with special needs in India and referring to the unexplored cultural traditions of integration and inclusive practices in schools, Miles (1997) observes:

South Asia’s historical heritage for educating children with special needs contains many of the approaches that

111

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS western teachers discovered independently in the past 150 years ... the cultural heritage has largely been ignored during the inflow of western educational ideas to South Asia. Some of the simpler approaches were displaced by the growing professionalisation of special education in the late 19th century. Casual integration of children with mild and moderate disabilities is still obscured in modern integration debates (p. 97). This cultural heritage can be found in the functioning of the

indigenous schools in the nineteenth century contained in the Adams Report. Adams carefully documented the thousands of such

schools he saw, which reflected the diverse culture of the Indian people. The schools were entirely supported by local resources

unaided by government. They produced the accountants, the lawyers, the doctors, the priests, the logicians and the bureaucrats

required by nineteenth century India and also provided some mobility for disadvantaged castes (DiBona, 1983).

Earlier, the East India Company showed no official interest in

education, though Christian missionaries had been engaging in

educational activities since the seventeenth century. However, following pressure from the British parliament, the Company set

aside, in 1813 for the first time, a portion of its revenue for educational purposes. This gave rise to the famous controversy

between the Anglicists supporting Western-style education and the

Orientalists advocating an education based on Indian traditions and values. Macaulay’s famous Minute of 2 February 1835 finally settling the issue in favour of the Anglicists could be seen as a ‘turning point

in the lengthy debate over the primary objectives of British educational policy in India’ (Fagg, 2001). The objectives and the

methodology for educating the masses in India can be seen in the remarks made by Macaulay himself.

[We want] a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that

112

THE INDIAN CONTEXT class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of this Country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population (Fagg, 2001).

The reaction to Macaulay’s remarks was emotive and continues

to be so. Little was done to bring any substantial changes in policy,

much less in practice, though the comprehensive landmark

legislation of 1854 (known as the Wood’s Educational Dispatch) tried to bring in some balance: first, by accepting the direct responsibility

to educate the masses and, secondly, by stressing the importance of indigenous languages (Fagg, 2001, p. 20). But the aims could not be put into practice due to the woeful lack of political will.

‘Mother-tongue instruction remained unrealized for seven decades, curricula remained uncompromisingly anglocentric, and progress towards mass education was simply risible’ (ibid.).

Steele and Taylor’s observation would sum up colonial

interventions in Indian education. ‘The net effect of the British education system was the creation of an army of clerks whose only function was to administer the continuation of colonial ruling

structure. It was hierarchical and elitist, and top heavy with higher education at the expense of primary education (Fagg, 2001, p. 20).

Gandhi’s Basic Education concept was a sincere and serious

effort to completely change the educational scene of India. Kabir (1956), Kurien (1983), Panchmukhi (1983), Kumar (1994), Dyer

(2000) and Fagg (2001) have made in-depth and extensive studies of Basic Education. Fagg has gone back to original sources to explore Gandhi’s educational philosophy and strategy where he

(Gandhi) sought the development of the body, mind and spirit together. The author finds a ‘silent social revolution’ in Gandhi’s scheme, has referred to the ‘child centric’ pedagogical interpretation

given to the scheme, in its defense, by the Zakir Husain Committee constituted following the Wardha Conference of the Congress in

113

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS 1937. Fagg (2001) has also noted the ‘alternative pedagogy’, in which the importance of book learning is relegated, as Gandhi

believed that ‘literacy in itself was no education’. It was neither ‘the end of education nor even the beginning. It is only one of the means whereby man and woman can be educated’ (p. 12).

There were elements of ‘inclusion’, which is being advocated by

Western educationalists today in the context of education for

children with special needs, in Gandhi’s Basic Education. Learning through craft and manual training provided meaningful activity for group learning. The activities had social purpose. The child learnt as

a member of a cooperative group. The aim was to inculcate in the child a spirit of cooperation and a sense of responsibility from the very beginning. It also tried to rectify the individualistic nature of the British education system, which lays more emphasis on competition rather than cooperation. It differed from the traditional education system, where a child is made a passive learner, an unwilling subject

who submits to, rather than receives, education. In Basic Education,

a child has immediate experience of the results of his labour. Apart from these methodological advantages of Basic Education over

traditional education, it aimed to change the differential nature of the educational opportunities available to children coming from different social and economic strata of society. It was a sincere

attempt to remove social and economic inequalities, particularly

between manual and non-manual occupations, and thereby change

attitudes towards those whose livelihood was dependent upon manual work. The scheme, however, received opposition from

teachers, students and parents who felt that they were being excluded from an opportunity to enter elite occupations. the

education system inherited from the British had created a class of educated elite who saw themselves distinguished and different from

those who did not get education. This form of education has remained under the control of the middle class and could never take the shape of mass education that would eliminate class distinctions.

114

THE INDIAN CONTEXT There is near unanimity among writers and commentators that

Basic Education failed. Fagg (2001), however, tries to understand

the reasons behind its success. He continues,

By success we can hardly mean any widespread implementation— although the scheme was not without its small-scale triumphs— but rather the extraordinary way in which Gandhi’s ideas were able to enter the hearts and minds of its supporters. I would argue that it was the moral potency, that is, Gandhi’s perception of truth, at the heart of the scheme which sustained it through years of diverse interpretations and significant misunderstandings of its core tenets. In envisaging a national system of education which was in every way permeated by a moral conception, Gandhi was unprecedented, and it was the very degrees to which Indians could or would respond spiritually to this fact that determined its longevity (p. 59, emphasis mine).

In the background of the historical development of school

education, five ‘roadblocks’ can be identified in the process of making

India’s

textbooks,

the

classrooms

curriculum,

inclusive:

teaching

language,

prescribed

methodologies

and

examinations. The perception of ‘good’ or effective and quality schools

among

parents,

educationalists

accentuate these five internal factors.

and

policymakers

LANGUAGE Language teaching and medium of instruction have been one of the many educational concerns in India, where there is a hiatus between

policy and practice. National policies have consistently been

advocating teaching in the mother tongue and regional languages

and their development. The 1986 policy accepted the language policy of 1968, and committed itself to more ‘energetic and purposeful’ development. The NPE 1986 notes:

115

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS The energetic development of Indian languages is a sine qua non for educational and cultural development. Unless this is done, the creative energies of the people will not be released, standards of education will not improve, knowledge will not spread to the people and the gulf between the intelligentsia and masses will remain if not widen further (p. 39).

The policy assumes that ‘the regional languages are already in

use as the media of education at the primary and secondary stages’. The

NCERT

curriculum

framework

recommends

mother

tongue/regional language as the medium of instruction at all stages

of school education. As regards the study of languages, it

recommends the study of one language— mother tongue/regional language—for the first five years of schooling (primary) and three

languages for upper primary (three years) and secondary (two years) stages in accordance with the ‘three-language formula’, which is stated in the NPE 1986 as under:

At the secondary stage, the State Governments should adopt, and vigorously implement, the three language formula which includes the study of a modern language, preferably one of the southern languages, apart from Hindi and English in the Hindi-speaking states, and of Hindi along with the regional language and English in the non-Hindi speaking states (p. 40).

It may be observed that despite the importance of study in the

mother tongue and the development of regional languages the

study of English has not been ignored in the country’s language

policy. Pedagogical requirements in favour of mother tongue and regional language as medium of instruction are also reiterated. The Education Commission Report, 1966, said,

Learning of language should not be a burden on the child at the primary stage through imposition. Such imposition can vitiate his (child’s) entire attitude towards his studies and may generate hostility to the school itself. This would be counterproductive at the

116

THE INDIAN CONTEXT time when our chief objective is to ‘win the masses over to education’.

However, the craze for English language study and its

imposition at the primary stage has been continuing unabated.

English educated elites have always cited the advantages of English study in the modern period of scientific and technological

advancement, and now in a globalising economy and in the age of information and the Internet. Those who have been the beneficiaries of English education dismiss the suggestion that the English language has been a barrier to the economic and social

development of the masses. While there may not be a serious objection to the study of the English language at an appropriate

stage, it would always put an additional burden on children if they

are made to study it during early school years, creating further barriers to learning for children, particularly those with special

needs. Advocates of English language teaching to children even at

the primary level forget the Asian examples of development in

countries like China, Japan, Indonesia and Thailand, which have no linkages with the study of English for their progress. They all use

their languages universally for educating children. It may not be

absurd to state that the goal of universalisation would further recede if there is an imposition of a non-home and alien language on young

children. Since rural schools and parents want to follow urban elite schools it would be in order if the mother tongue and three-

language policy is strictly enforced in all schools. This would also take care of equity and would speed up the universalisation process among the disadvantaged.

TEXTBOOKS On textbooks, Gandhi wrote (NCTE, 1998):

117

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS A teacher who teaches from textbooks does not impart originality to his pupils. He himself becomes a slave of textbooks and has no opportunity or occasion to be original. It therefore seems that less the textbooks better it is for the teacher and his pupils. Textbooks seem to have been an article of commerce (p. 222).

He also recommended that textbooks, particularly for the lower

standards, must mean textbooks for teachers and not for pupils. He

felt that the multiplicity of textbooks would deprive the vast majority of village children of the means of instructions (NCTE, 1998, p. 220). The problem with respect to the textbooks is not only their

multiplicity, thereby increasing the ‘load of the school bag’, but their

‘prescription’, a practice which presumably started during the colonial period as they wanted to control what was being taught to

children. Prescribed textbooks with their heavy content and linkages with examinations put an additional burden on children with

disabilities, as they leave little scope for teachers to explore original strategies to involve these children in classrooms so as to make

learning a participatory experience. The aim of the teacher gets reduced to ‘finishing the textbook’ from cover to cover before the

examination, which means learning the contents by rote and memorisation as questions in the examinations are asked mostly to recall the content of these textbooks.

The NCERT had formulated a national curriculum for schools,

for the first time in 1977. A committee had been constituted to review the curriculum. Two members of the committee very significantly highlighting their obsession with ‘book-based’ education said,

The review could not be just a modification of the NCERT document on the curriculum for the ten-year school, but an attempt had to be made to construct a new scheme in view of the new dimension as of work based education in relation to the national development. It is difficult to modify a scheme based on

118

THE INDIAN CONTEXT the centrality of book-base rather than the centrality of the work base (www.edu.nic.in, emphasis mine).

The members also recommended against any type of

centralised effort to prepare even model textbooks. The centrality of

book-based school education is jeopardising our goals in many respects, as will be seen in the following sections.

CURRICULUM Curriculum remains a mystifying word in the Indian school system.

For general teachers, parents and students, it is deemed to be the

contents given in a set of subjects which children should master in order to score high marks at the end of the school year, either at the

school level examination or in the public examination conducted by

school boards. The ‘set of subjects’ are synonymous with the prescribed textbooks written by ‘experts’ at the national or state levels. The three terms—curriculum, syllabus and textbooks—are

often used with finer distinctions between them. While the national curriculum framework is prepared by the NCERT, the syllabus and

textbooks are prepared by state school boards, though the NCERT also prepares syllabi and ‘model’ textbooks to be used largely by the

central school system and may also be adopted or adapted by the

states. In practice for most of the teachers, however, as also for the

students, the prescribed textbooks generally become the bibles for education and learning. They hardly refer to or bother about the

objectives laid down and concerns shown in the curriculum and the

syllabus at national or state levels. In their report on ‘Learning without Burden’, the Yash Pal Committee observes,

Teachers routinely complain that they do not have enough time to explain anything in detail, or to organise activities in the classroom. ‘Covering’ the syllabus seems to have become an end

119

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS in itself, unrelated to the philosophical and social aims of education. The manner in which the syllabus is ‘covered’ in the average classroom is by means of reading the textbook aloud with occasional noting of salient points on the blackboard (MHRD, 1993, p. 5).

There is no concept of developing curriculum at the school or

even at the individual level, in addition to and within the framework

of the national/state level curriculum. Such a hierarchy of

curriculum, syllabus and prescribed textbooks has become unique to the Indian school system. One does not find such sharp and unrelated distinctions between the three in the curriculum of

developed countries. In most places, school teachers and the community have a responsibility or at least a say in what children should study in a particular school. In the UK, the idea of having a

national curriculum is very recent, following the 1988 Education Act, which has been receiving criticism from educationalists, but still schools have space to manoeuvre and are required to develop their

own curriculum within the broad framework of the national curriculum. In Indian schools, could the very approach to curriculum (and also syllabus and textbooks) be a major factor for alienation of

the community and even teachers from the schooling system? Dyer (2000) observes:

Even the curricular revisions initiated and led by the NCERT have not effectively addressed the alienation between the existing model of education and the majority of people it is supposed to serve ... . The curricular changes does not address the form of learning that has been institutionalised ... teaching constitutes a responsibility to ensure that children are able to repeat parrot fashion the contents of their text books.

What could be the simple but broader definition of curriculum?

‘Curriculum encompasses everything the child learns within the school. For the child, the curriculum is what the teachers enable to happen in the classroom.’ 1

120

THE INDIAN CONTEXT For bringing the disabled and the disadvantaged closer to the

school, it is important that the barrier created by the artificial division between curriculum, syllabus and textbook is removed, and

the system start thinking in terms of individual level and school

curricula. The first would respond to the needs of each child, particularly those with disabilities, and the second would bring the

school closer to the community. Britain’s Warnock Committee (DES, 1978) gave a re-look at the school level curriculum so as to integrate children with disabilities in regular classes. It referred to the curriculum as ‘those school activities, which set out to achieve

specific aims within the general aims of education as a whole.’ It refers to the four inter-related elements that contribute to the

development of curriculum: setting of objectives, choice of materials

and experiences, choice of teaching and learning methods to attain

the objectives and appraisal of the appropriateness of the objectives, and the effectiveness of the means of achieving them.

In order to prepare the ordinary schools for educating children

with special needs, the Warnock report suggested at least ‘two

senses’ in which curriculum modification may be necessary. First, modification of materials may be necessary for children with physical or sensory disabilities who may be able to follow an ordinary curriculum. For example, the conversion of printed material into Braille for children with impaired vision. Secondly, modification of teaching objectives as well as materials may be required for those

with mild or moderate learning problems. For example, more focus on the learning of communication, and living and social skills for

children with mental disabilities or retardation. Modifications in

textbooks would come under this category. The argument would be that teachers could still use other materials, though textbooks have

been prescribed. The experience is, however, once something has been prescribed, there is not much scope or urge to exercise choice.

121

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS

TEACHING METHODOLOGY NPE 1986 in regard to teaching methodology observes: A warm, welcoming and encouraging approach, in which all concerned share solicitude for the needs of the child, is the best motivation for the child to attend school and learn. A child centred and activity based process of learning should be adopted ... learners should be allowed to set their own pace ... . As the child grows, the component of cognitive learning will be increased and skills organised through practice (MHRD, 1998, p.14, emphasis mine).

After reviewing the 1986 policy, the Programme of Action

developed in 1992 provides another set of policy and action

guidelines. Though the NPE did not mention content and process for educating the handicapped (it only listed the measures to be taken),

the POA filled this gap and offered the child centred theory, propounded for the non-disabled. It observes:

Curriculum flexibility is of special significance for these [handicapped] children. Special needs of these children will be met, if child centred education is practiced. The curriculum adjustment and adaptation of teaching methods and material will be worked out, field tried and provided to the users (MHRD, 1992, p. 19, emphasis mine).

The POA thereafter goes on to list the actions to be taken,

mostly by the NCERT as also by the school boards.

Going by these policy pronouncements, one at least gets satisfaction that the agenda for inclusive education has been set up, as the child-centred methodology of schooling has been recommended for all children. This term, however, is more spoken, less understood and the least practiced. It is very common to use it in educational seminars, conferences, workshops, etc., along

122

THE INDIAN CONTEXT with two other terms—activity-based and joyful learning. The obsession of policymakers with child-centred education does not seem new. The Zakir Husain Committee constituted in 1937 to work out the syllabus for Gandhi’s Basic Education explained the child centric approach in it, correlating craft based education with the physical and social environment.

All these years the concept has remained on paper.

However, efforts have been made at the micro level to understand and practice it, though the regular system, particularly the government sector schools, has not been able to accept and internalise it. It remains a matter of investigation to find out the

factors inhibiting the child-centre methodology that could bring the

disabled and non-disabled together in schools. Could it be that this method cannot work in isolation; that it is linked with the current approach to centralised curriculum and the ‘prescribed’ textbook policy of the government with almost no autonomy to teachers?

A modest attempt was made to understand the concept

underlying these terms in a workshop with a group of educational workers associated with the UNICEF supported Bihar Education Project (BEP). The workshop raised the following questions 2: • Are teachers ‘givers’ and student ‘takers’?

• Do children not learn and experience anything before they come to school and outside the school?

• Are they (children) ‘empty pitchers’ and need to be ‘filled in’ inside the school?

The workshop also questioned certain hypotheses:

• That the teacher knows everything and students know nothing.

• That the teacher acts and initiates activities and the students follow them truthfully.

• That the teacher disciplines, and students are disciplined.

123

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS In the background of these questions, the definition of the three

terms emerged:

Activity: Not just a toy or a game or a play. Any learning process in

which children feel involved and the process is free from ‘control’. It

means not only mere ‘participation’ by all children but also their ‘involvement.’

Joyful: Joy not merely from games or plays but the joy of learning,

of achieving and of experiencing.

Child-centred: Children also ‘know’, have experience and can

contribute. Learning may begin from there. The challenge is to understand the children, and not to ignore or dismiss them.

My understanding is that if school learning were organised on

these concepts the distinctions between the non-disabled and disabled would recede to a great extent and the process of inclusive education would begin.

EXAMINATIONS How do examinations affect education in India and perpetrate the

exclusion of the disadvantaged? In India, students study for examinations. It determines their future, even fate. It brings joy for a few, but sorrow and stress for most. It even drives some to end

their lives. It is risky, tricky and luck plays a great role in achieving success in examinations. Examinations also drive out many children,

particularly the rural, the disadvantaged and the disabled, out of the school. It is a great filtering mechanism. It suits the system, since only a select few students, largely from the urban middle class, get

high scores, thanks to the system of tuitions and coaching, in order

to get admission into higher academic institutions, which have limited seats. The system of examinations, intimately associated with the concept of pass and fail, also seems to be a colonial legacy

124

THE INDIAN CONTEXT since the British wanted only a limited few to either serve them or get into higher education.

It is one area of education where the gap between policy and

implementation is the widest, though a series of commissions and

committees have been recommending reforms. As early as 1902, the Indian University Commission had observed that ‘the teaching in Indian education stood subordinated to examinations and not

examination to teaching’ (MHRD, 1990, p. 290). The NPE 1986 considered examinations an ‘integral part of any teaching and

learning ... [It] should be employed to bring about qualitative

improvement in education ... [It should be recast] so as to ensure a method of assessment that is a valid and reliable measure of student development and a powerful instrument for improving teaching and

learning.’ The policy called for the elimination of subjectivity, deemphasis of memorisation, continuous and comprehensive evaluation of the scholastic and non-scholastic parts of the

curriculum, introduction of the semester system from the secondary stage and the use of grades in the place of marks.

There is already a policy of no-retention at the primary and

secondary stages. The NCERT Curriculum Framework, 2000

recommends that at the secondary stage ‘no student will be

declared pass or fail’. Courses will be modularised for organising

them into semesters. The system of mass public examination is expected to be gradually replaced by school-based continuous and comprehensive evaluation, on a grading basis and the same would

be extended to co-scholastic areas also, such as work education, health and physical education and art education. An ambitious plan indeed, if it could be implemented! One of the factors why rural and

disadvantaged children lag behind could be the excessive emphasis on the so-called scholastic area and almost nil attention to that part

of the curriculum which would require more use of skills and hands

such as art education, work education and physical education. Such an urban and elite bias in favour of curriculum implementation and

125

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS evaluation has been impeding successes on the part of the disadvantaged and the disabled. For the disabled in particular, the

POA 1992 as well as the PWD Act, 1995 call upon the board of examinations to make adjustments and adaptations for their

examination. It says ‘more than one language should not be compulsory for deaf children’. Education and inclusion of the

disabled and the disadvantaged, however, would be facilitated by

not mere cosmetic changes in the system of examination, but by bringing in a complete overhaul as envisaged in the national policy and the NCERT Curriculum Framework. Commenting on the present examination system, says Krishna Kumar,

The examination system is actually cheating the masses by concealing the deep divisions that exist within the education system, where a poor mill-worker’s child from a neglected government school is made to compete with children from well-todo public schools. The system submerges these ugly realities under a veneer of total parity among candidates. But it hardly needs probing to find that a majority of failures belong to the disadvantaged (PROBE Report, 1999, p. 81).

A ‘GOOD’ SCHOOL One of the major aims of urban parents these days is their children

getting admission in a ‘good’ school, which is mostly a high fee charging private school with a ‘brand name’ that brings social status. In rural India too, ambitious parents look out for schools with

anglicised names, which are mushrooming these days and are thriving because of the inefficiency of the government school system. While parents look out for good schools, policymakers are

worried about quality education and researchers and educationalists are trying to find out what makes schooling effective. All agree

126

THE INDIAN CONTEXT children’s results in terminal public examinations is an indicator of a ‘good’ school. How do these so-called good schools secure excellent results?

There is some research evidence to suggest that the

contribution of private schools in students’ performance in public examinations is not very significant. A comparative study of

government, government aided and private schools of Delhi by Qamar and Zahid (2001) produced three major findings: First,

private schools enroll students with higher socio-economic status than the other schools, a fact very obvious to many. Second, private

schools impose more rigorous screening at the time of admission and allow only selected students to appear at the board examinations. Third, in terms of ‘value addition’ to the performance

of students in the Class 12 examination, while government aided schools showed a value addition of 22 per cent and the private aided school showed an addition of 19 per cent, the ‘private schools did

not make any value addition’. Mukhopadhyay and Anil (2001) have

made similar findings after studying the learners’ profiles of

Rajasthan’s nineteen government aided/private and government

schools. The study has indicated that private schools screen

students in Classes 5 and 6 and review performance in Class 8. In

government schools, however, there is no restriction on admission. Students can enroll in any class, any time. They further observe: Quality schools usually have screened learners ... can quality be propagated at the cost of equity, and equality of educational opportunities? Or does one need to view the issue of quality differently? Unfortunately achievement as an indicator has dominated the system for too long. Other indicators are neither expressed nor can be witnessed in the present school system. Even policy makers, planners and implementers, all are too much involved in boosting the achievement concern (p. 195).

The Duggal Committee constituted by the Delhi High Court to

examine the claim for fee hikes by private schools in Delhi did not

127

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS appreciate such hikes in the name of providing ‘quality’ education (Duggal Committee, 1999, p. 102).

Literature on effective schooling suggests three models for

assessing the performance of a school and making plans for its

improvement. The ‘received model’, as the name suggests, is based

on identifiable inputs that could go into the making of an effective school. It is based on the assumption that the school as an

organisation can have an effect on student or pupil outcomes. This is opposed to the assumption that it is non-school factors which also have effects on school effectiveness. The ‘heretical model’ is dependent upon moral, values and other factors that go into the overall development of children. It balances the criticism of the

received model. One researcher terms it the ‘feel-good factor’. To

take into account the strengths of both the models, and to offer a positive alternative that synthesises both, some researchers have offered a third model, which is the contextual model. This model is fundamentally concerned with the capacities, potential and limitations of schools. It takes into consideration the context, which

means a school’s linkage with the community, its intakes, that is students seeking admissions in it, and autonomy given to its

teachers to chalk up their plan and strategy in organisational as also in respect of curriculum and pedagogy (Lunt and Norwich, 1999).

Developing the question of effectiveness based on the third

model and for addressing the issue of equity one would like to revisit

the policy on the ‘common school system’. The NPE 1986 observes: The Constitution embodies the principles on which the National System of Education is conceived of. The concept of a National System of Education implies that, up to a given level, all students, irrespective of caste, creed, location or sex, have access to education of a comparable quality. To achieve this, the Government will initiate appropriately funded programmes. Effective measures will be taken in the direction of the Common School System recommended in the 1968 policy (MHRD, 1998, p. 5).

128

THE INDIAN CONTEXT The 1968 policy had accepted the recommendation of the

Education Commission, 1964-66, which had originally advocated the

concept. They had outlined the following features of the common school system of public education:

• It will be open to all children irrespective of social, economic and other differences.

• Access to education will depend upon talent. • Adequate standards would be maintained. •

No tuition fee would be charged.

• The average parent would not ordinarily feel the need of sending his children to expensive schools outside the system (MHRD, 1990, p. 91).

However, no measures were announced either in the POA 1986

or the modified POA 1992 to implement the 1986 national policy. The CABE Committee on the common school system called for neighbourhood schools, qualitative improvement of education in the public sector and identification of target areas. While reviewing the implementation of the 1986 policy the Ramamurty Committee made

two very significant recommendations which could address the issue

of equity in the Indian education system. First, it called for ‘essential

minimum legislation, particularly to dispense with early selection process, tuition fee, capitation fee, etc.’ Secondly, it suggested

‘exploring ways of including the expensive private schools into the

common school system through a combination of incentives, disincentives and legislation’ (MHRD, 1990, p. 93).

In developed countries the question is being raised whether a

school’s excellence be considered only on the basis of its position in

the ‘league tables’ or whether the number of children with special

needs integrated into the school should also be a contributory factor. In order to fully realise the goal of inclusive education, the issues related to the systemic and structural reform of the school system cannot be shelved. The policy on the common school system

129

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS combined with the Ramamurty Committee recommendations could

make a beginning. And, there are some schools which believe in neighbourhood schools. Says a principal of a Delhi school: ‘My school follows the neighbourhood policy. The question of a huge gap between demand and supply would not arise if this was taken seriously by both parents and schools. The school should not refuse

admission to a neighbourhood child. There will be parents who will go to any length for a brand name. It is the school, which has to be strict.’ 3

Without having a sound neighbourhood policy of the common

school system, getting all the children with disabilities, even the mild and moderate ones, would be a tall order.

ADVANTAGE INDIA India is in an advantageous situation as compared with developed

countries in respect of bringing children with disabilities in regular schools for more than one reason. Miles (1997) has traced a set of techniques and teaching methodologies from the Indian scriptures,

which are being advocated today by the Western educationalist for creating inclusive pedagogy in schools. They include: • Let them stay, for whatever they can learn.

• Let them go, when they are not able to learn. • Try it a different way.

• Adjust the curriculum to match their needs.

• Give the social benefits of educational initiation, even where the intellectual process cannot be maintained.

• Observe closely what the child can do. • Give them more time.

130

THE INDIAN CONTEXT • Provide role models of people with disabilities supporting themselves.

• Use materials specifically designed for them.

Due to such a cultural background, India still has ‘casual

integration’ of children with mild and moderate disabilities, while the

issue of its principles, ideology and technology are still being debated in the West. The author feels that it may be worthwhile to

return to the ‘historical disability experience within Indian civilisations and build on the positive elements found there’. Hence, the best option could be to open the school gate, break the walls

and let children with disabilities in. There may be no need for a detailed ‘survey’ and ‘assessment’ of these children before they get into schools. More often than not, such surveys are conducted for

assessing the requirement of funding and incentives for children. It

may not have any educational relevance and may even become

counter productive. Only in cases of children with profound

disabilities, some specialised educational services may have to be arranged.

Western countries have developed a parallel system of special

schools and professionals managing this system. For any accelerated

process of integration, they have to dismantle the organised special school system. Though India has some special schools in the

voluntary sector, their number (around 2,500) is too small when compared to the approximately one million elementary and secondary schools in the country. Besides, there has been no serious public policy of establishing special schools. Hence, inclusion becomes inevitable in order to educate the disabled and achieve the

goal of education for all. India does not have a policy restriction on the line of SEN as faced by teachers and children in the UK. Regular

teachers in India’s mainstream schools are free to use inclusive pedagogy and involve all children in the learning process.

The country has the advantage of experiencing many micro

initiatives, highly innovative and radical, that could beacon the

131

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS educational reforms in India. This has been as a result of the

positive shift in policy since the mid-1980s and 1990s with emphasis on ‘quality’ of education. As a result of such a shift many projects

such as DPEP, Lok Jumbish, Siksha Karmi and Bihar Education Project focussed on the mobilisation of the community and formation of village education committees to support elementary

schooling (Varghese, 2000). Inclusion in a practical sense means active involvement and participation in the educational process by

children. Hence teachers’ training has to base itself upon this principle. Most of the innovations in teacher’s training are

articulating this principle into practice. Training of teachers by the

NGO Digantar in Rajasthan, and the ‘Ujala ’ programme initiated by

the BEP in the eastern province of Bihar gave a new meaning to

training by building partnerships with teachers and the community (Jha, 1998).

Partnerships with NGOs have been another hallmark of the

recent policy initiatives by the government. The PROBE Report

(1999) observes commonalities among three notable initiatives— Eklavya in Madhya Pradesh, Lok Jumbish in Rajasthan and the MV Foundation in Andhra Pradesh. They work not as a substitute for government schools; rather, they try to support the regular system and ensure that deprived children are able to join the same schools as other children. Some salient features of successful programmes which have

been able to include disadvantaged groups in the educational process include (adapted from MHRD, 2001b):

Eklavya project in Madhya Pradesh: The programme is organised on the philosophy that given the chance, children have the capacity to imagine and create traits that need to be nurtured and encouraged. The school curriculum has been developed on the principles of learning by discovery, learning through activity and learning from the environment. Textbooks are in the form of workbooks. Vocabularies are local and simple. Subject matter is meaningful and

132

THE INDIAN CONTEXT contextual. A system of open book examinations and practical examinations has also been developed.

MV Foundation programme in Andhra Pradesh : The programme

targets child labour, bringing them to camps and taking them

through a ‘bridge course’ before they are admitted into regular

schools. The programme has proved that elimination of child labour and universalisation of education can be achieved when education through the formal school is universalised. There are no low cost

solutions to achieving universalisation. The NFE stream is incapable of making any impact on the child labour situation in the country.

There is no need to run segregated child labour schools, and it is possible to integrate these children in regular schools after some preparatory education.

Digantar in Rajasthan: The programme does not practice the existing pattern of dividing children into different classes. The freedom of pace of learning is its cardinal principle. Children are divided into groups with different levels of learning. The system of multi-level teaching is used. The school has its own curriculum and has developed its own textbooks, which are in modular forms. Teachers’ training is a very critical component of the programme. Participatory training methodologies are used and every teacher has to go through training for four months in phases before joining the school. Teachers meet weekly to reflect on the problems faced by them, find solutions collectively and plan for the next week.

Nali Kali in Karnataka: The programme is being run in the formal school system. Schools follow the state curriculum but have developed their own methods for transaction, which is not based on textbooks. A lot of learning materials, such as cards containing the learning items, have been developed. Children learn in groups and move at their own pace. The groups are partially teacher supported, fully teacher supported or peer group supported. There are also selflearning groups. Multi-grade and multi-level learning are organised

133

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS through group activities and children move to learning ladders. The whole process is well organised and demonstrative.

Rishi Valley project in Andhra Pradesh: In this school, the learning activities are planned through more than a thousand systematically designed study cards and work cards together with an achievement ladder. Multiple steps in each unit of learning include introductory, reinforcement, evaluation and remedial activities. Students learn in groups or individually and peer support is evident. Sixty per cent of the curriculum is core while 40 per cent is left to be organised by teachers with the help of students. Training helps teachers to prepare their own materials. The Nali Kali programme in Karnataka is based on the Rishi Valley experience, the difference being, however, that the former is being run in the formal system. Loreto Day School in West Bengal: It is a regular secondary school charging tuition fees from students like any other private school in India. But it has opened its door to non-fee paying students from the nearby slums and the poorer localities. Some of these students also receive free books, school meals and uniforms with funds from donors, government grants and cross-subsidisation from fee paying students. In yet another initiative in the school, regular students from Classes 5 to 10 individually tutor street children on a one-toone basis. Regular students do this activity as a part of their school curriculum under the work education programme. After these children completed preparatory learning, some of them got admitted into Loreto Day School or other formal schools in the city. (Jessop, 1998). The six case studies discussed have many common elements.

Working under existing policy they have been able to develop

school specific curricula, their own textbooks in some cases and a variety of unique learning materials and learning activities.

• They have been designed to ‘include’ the disadvantaged in the educational process and the system.

134

THE INDIAN CONTEXT • They have community involvement and strong partnership with parents and the community.

• They have been using several ‘inclusion’ technologies and

pedagogy, though they may not have been conscious of meeting the ‘special needs’ of children.

There should be no difficulty in ‘including’ children with

disabilities in such programmes once it is demystified to teachers in such schools that these children need not be taught separate

curricula in special schools. Additional support to them arranged in such inclusive settings may be more profitable. The other challenge to these non-traditional teaching programmes is to transplant them in the regular system, which would require effort on the part of all

the policymakers, teacher educators, teachers, parents and the community.

NOTES 1. From ‘Equity among Diversity: Materials for Teachers’ developed under the UNESCO project in India on the Promotion of Basic Education for Children with Special Needs. 2. Pedagogy Visioning Workshop: A Report (1996), facilitated by Subir Shukla and organised by the Bihar Education Project at Ranchi. 3. Annie Koshy, principal of St.Mary’s School, New Delhi, quoted in the Times of India, New Delhi, 28 October, 2001.

135

7

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS

T

he inclusion movement is yet to come out of the special education perspective, though the Salamanca Statement called

for the improvement of the general education systems ‘to enable

them to include all children regardless of individual differences and

difficulties’ (UNESCO, 1994). The Framework for Action has elaborated both terms—’all’ and ‘special educational needs’:

... Schools should accommodate all children regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other conditions. This should include disabled and gifted children, street and working children, children from remote and nomadic populations, children from linguistic, ‘ethnic or cultural minorities and children from other disadvantaged or marginalized areas or groups ... the term ‘special educational needs’ refers to all those children and youth whose needs arise from disabilities or learning difficulties ... . There is an emerging consensus that children and youth with special educational needs should be included in the educational arrangements made for the majority of children. This has led to the concept of inclusive school (UNESCO, 1994, p. 6).

Experience, including in the developed countries, is that the

inclusion

concept

has

not

been

owned

by

mainstream

educationalists, and it is being perceived as ‘an external process to

provide support to students with disabilities’ rather than an integral

approach of general school restructuring and systemic reform

136

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS (Berres, 1996). In India, too, those who have been involved in

special education and welfare of the disabled are perusing the movement. It is yet to catch the imagination of the agencies and individuals working for street and working children, scheduled castes

and tribes and children from other disadvantaged and marginalised groups.

The reason could be attributed to the theory of ‘needs’ and the

history of special education. The development of special education

over hundred years has focused on the handicap and needs of children. It has tried to arrange additional provisions and techniques

for these children outside mainstream schools in segregated or special settings. While the need theory is being challenged by rights

activists and is being replaced by the theory of entitlement and equal opportunity, it has not been able to de-link itself from the

syndrome of provisions and specialist services. Many people believe

in redefining special education by relocating it from segregation to regular schools and calling it inclusion. The potential of curricular,

pedagogical and school reforms is being overlooked, which could take care of education for all children, including those with

disabilities. The consequence is that inclusion efforts are going on in isolation under the concept of regulatory, supply, provision and technological framework devoid of appreciation for the basic notions that guide learning in a classroom.

Fulcher (1999) notes two basic postulates that guide classroom

teaching. First, it is believed that some children have handicaps and,

second, it is believed that ‘children are pupils first’. The first notion divides the school population into those with or without handicaps, and the second unites it. The first calls for strategies in terms based

largely on provisions and locations, an approach that divides children between ‘we’ here and ‘they’ elsewhere. On the other hand,

the second notion focuses on pedagogy and addresses the needs of all children. It uses the ‘abilities’ of children. Fulcher (ibid.) calls the

137

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS first discourse as ‘divisive’ in nature, while the second one is ‘inclusive’.

Similarly, Clark and Easen (1993) explain learning processes in

classrooms on the basis of two assumptions: behaviourist and

constructivist. In the first case, they say, learning is an individual process, a cognitive activity, emerging from the teacher, and

knowledge is sequential and hierarchical. In the second case, learning is both an individual and a social process. It results from the

activity of the learner and his/her interactions with his/her own experiences and with others, and not only with teachers. The

‘cognitive and knowledge structures are more like complex networks than simple ladders’. In the first approach, children work more as

individuals. There is more one-to-one teaching. Mostly qualified teachers mediate children’s access to curriculum. Learning activities

remain de-contextual and curriculum is restricted in a highly structured learning environment. The second approach leads to

children working collectively and on their own. They are engaged with their experiences. Learning activities are embedded in a context that is meaningful to the learners.

In the background of these contrasting notions, three major

factors that influence the inclusion strategy in classrooms are being examined. They are child-centred pedagogy, multiple intelligence theory and approach to curriculum.

CHILD-CENTRED APPROACH Child-centred education has a long history in Europe and the USA.

It is generally credited to the French philosopher Rousseau who in the 1700s devised a curriculum for a mythical pupil Emile. The

curriculum was to start from what the child understood at that time. Under this approach, the first task is to find out what a child

138

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS currently knows and understands. The teaching of new knowledge starts from there. Contrast this to an assumption that a child is like

an empty bucket into which knowledge could be poured, ‘which often leads to rote learning’. John Dewy and Jerome Bruner developed child-centred learning in America, while Swiss educator Jean Piaget developed a child-centred theory of learning. In the UK, primary schools began to work on the principles of child-centred

education in the 1960s when the Plowden Committee in a report on ‘Children and their Primary Schools’ recognised the child in the ‘heart of the educational process’.1

The [Salamanca] Framework for Action has been eloquent on

the use of child-centred pedagogy for the education of children with disabilities and disadvantages.

The challenge confronting the inclusive school is that of a childcentred pedagogy capable of successfully educating all children, including those who have serious disadvantages and disabilities ... A child-centred pedagogy is beneficial to all students and, as a consequence, to society as a whole... A child-centred pedagogy can help to avoid the waste of resources and shattering of hopes that is all too frequently a consequence of poor quality instruction and a ‘one size fits all’ mentality towards education. Child-centred schools are, moreover, the training ground for a people-oriented society that respects both the differences and the dignity of all human beings (UNESCO, 1994, pp 6-7, emphasis mine).

Under the section on ‘school factors’, the framework states ‘the

World Declaration on Education for All underscores the need for a child-centred approach aimed at ensuring the schooling of all children’ (ibid., p. 21).

Similar statements have been made in Indian policy documents

in favour of child-centred pedagogy ‘at the primary stage’ in the

1986 national education policy and also for education of the disabled in the 1992 programme of action. Though a Western concept, the

child-centred learning strategy has attracted Indian educationalist

139

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS before independence. The Zakir Hussain Committee constituted to consider Gandhi’s idea of Basic Education in 1937 supported it with

the argument that it was organised around the principles of child-centred pedagogy (Fagg, 2001). However, there is very little

clarity among practicing teachers on the concept and how to

translate it into practice. Besides, the concept is not taking root in

schools for two reasons. First, other factors, such as yearly grade or ‘class’, prescribed textbooks as the main source of learning and the yearly standardised tests that are meant to filter out and ‘fail’ children operating in schools run counter to the concept of child-

centred pedagogy though the policy recommends ‘non-detention at

the primary stage... making evaluation as disaggregated as feasible’ (MHRD, 1998). Second, Indian culture is dominated by a strong belief that the teacher is the prime source of knowledge and there

is a deep respect for the teacher. On the other hand under the childcentred approach, teachers treat children as valued individuals who come to the classroom with some experiences and knowledge,

which could be the basis of learning and teaching. Teachers need interpersonal skills to treat a child as an individual learner with areas of abilities that need to be explored. ‘The essence of a child-centred

approach must be that of respect for children as individuals and a concern for their rights and welfare’ (Dessent, 1987).

Under child-centred pedagogy, teachers become facilitators,

children learn by discovery in groups of mixed ability resulting in

non-graded or mixed age schools, most appropriate for multi-grade situations in Indian schools. Standardised tests are inappropriate for

child-centred education. Though there is limited literature and documentation of experiences of child-centred practices in schools in India, Jangira and Jangira (1995) have questioned the traditional

belief that ‘pupils learn school curriculum only when a teacher teaches’.

Other resources of learning are always held in backstage. The shift in focus from teaching to learning assumes that pupils learn in

140

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS many ways and from a variety of learning resources. The individual needs are met along with group needs. The pupil is a learning resource in its own right. The peer interaction and use of peers as learning resources are also highlighted in the emerging concept of effective teaching (ibid., p. 6).

Jangira and Jangira (1995) have also articulated a number of

elements that constitute the child-centred approach such as active involvement, cooperative learning, expectations from children,

responding to individual needs, praising and encouraging, and team

teaching and collaborative effort. Wolfendalu (1987) has explained the ‘essence of a child-centred approach’.

The essence of a child-centred approach seems to have been the emphasis upon encouraging whole-child development within a ‘progressive’ frame ... where a child was less coerced into learning than encouraged towards the learning opportunities made available. In short, it made the child the subject rather than the object, to be slotted into a predetermined curriculum (p. 8)

There are critiques of child-centred pedagogy in England and

the USA where it is also known as progressive education and open

learning or developmentally-oriented practices. There are suspicions

about the effectiveness of such an approach, ‘laissez-faire at worst,

random at best and less amenable to measurement’ (Wolfendalu,

1987, p. 8). However, the advocates of this approach argue that child-centred education does not mean ‘child-led’ education where

children decide what they want to do. It means a realisation that each child is different and education needs to be designed in a

different way taking into account children’s experiences, interests and potential.

Wolfendalu (1987) has extended the principle of child-centred

approach to ‘special needs education’.

What is proposed ... is a re-definition of child-centred education to take account of each child’s learning needs, and acknowledge the

141

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS ‘special’ nature of these, in so far as it becomes the collective responsibility of all in the school to ensure these are met. That is, instead of children being perceived to ‘fail’ the curriculum...a given child is enabled to reach realistic and achievable learning goals devised for (and with) that child from a rich and diverse bank of educational experiences. So the notion of a ‘remedial’ approach for a particular child, where the provision ... is uneasily appended to the child’s other curriculum experiences, becomes superseded by a different conception (pp 8-9).

Wolfendalu (1987) has stressed on two more concepts which

could distinguish child-centred education from the traditional

approach particularly in the interest of special needs education. First, the assessment of ‘strengths and weaknesses’ as opposed to

the assessment of weaknesses only as per the current practice

which can provide for additional support, remedial teaching, provisions, etc.

A child’s learning strength can be defined as: comprising those areas of the curriculum that the child enjoys, is motivated to attend, to participate and progress in, and to which he or she brings an appropriate learning style ... . Second, the place of tests and examinations in the context of a child-centred approach. Reference to the norm (via tests, checklists and rating scales) is only applicable if it illuminates how to help a child. If it is not criterion-referenced, a test serves no function. An IQ test is a sterile measure that cannot provide indicators of the next teaching and learning goals ... an assessment must work for and not against a child, i.e., an external yardstick should not be used as a measure of the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of the child (ibid., pp 9-10).

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES The traditional school and its curriculum are designed around only

two types of intelligences: linguistic and logical-mathematical. For

142

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS long, the Western world has selected abilities only in these two

areas as indicative of an intelligent person. The Wechsler and Stanford-Binet tests of assessing intelligence have been used to

declare a child with learning difficulty and needing special education. Gardner (1983) questions the traditional understanding of intellect and abilities and has identified seven intelligences—linguistic,

logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, kinaesthetic, interpersonal

and intra-personal. He derived his theory following observations and studies of the capabilities of children with disabilities and upon the

meaning of intelligence in different cultures. Such a broad-based

approach to intelligence questions the current practice of labelling children with special needs, which is based upon one or two aspects

of abilities only (Kugelmass, 1996; Udvari-Solner, 1996). The test design could also be one of the factors for students coming from ‘a relatively well off, albeit rural background’ in the Indian Navodaya School System (DRS, 2001), which has been developed to capture

‘rural talented children’ into fully funded government boarding schools. Gardner (1993) has also formulated a definition of

intelligence. ‘Intelligence is the ability to solve problems, or to create

products, that are valued within one or more cultural settings—a definition that says nothing about either the sources of these abilities or the proper means of “testing” them’ (ibid., p. xiv).

Appropriate and broad-based identification methods taking into

account multiple intelligences have proved that children identified with ‘learning difficulties’ may be ‘gifted and talented’ with exceptional interest and special abilities in some other areas.

Behavioural characteristics of some gifted and talented children closely resemble those identified with attention deficit hyperactive

disorder (ADHD) and there are concerns in many countries that many gifted and talented students are being misdiagnosed as have

ADHD. ‘Separating the two is not an easy task’ (Anderson, 2000). Similar problems are faced in identifying ‘gifted and talented’

children from poor socioeconomic backgrounds as standardised

143

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS tests modelled on two intelligences do not take into account cultural situations and potential in other categories of intelligences.

The multiple-intelligence theory is being used in an inclusive

class setting, first to understand and appreciate the strength of a

child in other types of intelligences and, second, to design learning and teaching strategies after taking into account the variety of

materials and methodologies linked with these intelligences. An

illustration (adapted from Kugelmass, 1996 and Inclusion International, 1996) follows.

Linguistic or verbal: Children with strengths in this area think in terms of words and use language to express and communicate. They like reading poetry, word games, making up poetry and stories. They could be taught by seeing and saying words. Books and other printed materials, including tape recorders and typewriters, could be used as tools for their learning.

Logical-mathematical: It helps children think conceptually, see and explore patterns and relationships. These children like to experiment and solve puzzles. The teaching tools and methods could include logic games, investigations and understanding patterns. Spatial or visual: It instils thinking in three-dimensional terms. May be seen in sailors, pilots, sculptors, painters and architects. These children think in images and are aware of their environments. They like to draw, do jigsaw puzzles, read maps and daydream. They could be taught through drawing, verbal and physical imagery, art materials and building blocks.

Musical: These children love music and are also sensitive to sounds in their environments. They may study better with music in the background. They could be taught by turning lessons into lyrics, speaking rhythmically, and using radio and musical instruments. Kinaesthetic: These children have a keen sense of body awareness. They like moving, hugging and making things. They communicate

144

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS well through body language. They could be taught through physical activity, hands-on learning, dramatics, sports equipment, craft materials, etc.

Interpersonal: It is an ability to understand and communicate

effectively with others. It is found in successful teachers, social

workers, actors and politicians. These children learn through group interactions. They have lots of friends, empathy for others and are

street smart. They may be taught through group activities, seminars, dialogue, personal attention, letter writing, etc.

Intra-personal: It is the ability to perceive an accurate model of oneself and to use such knowledge in planning and directing one’s life. These children are intuitive and introspective. They may like independent study, may use diaries and journals, and materials and activities that allow for creative expression and privacy. It is believed that most children are capable of using all these

methods of learning, but not always and not with the same degree

of acceptability. Some are stronger in some areas than in others.

The multiple intelligences approach recognises the individual differences between children and takes them into consideration

while organising curriculum. The suggested teaching methods and materials based on the exploitation of the multiple intelligences

cannot be used in isolation from each other. They may even overlap. An inclusive school provides opportunity for expression of these intelligences. Students are engaged in the activities based on the areas of their strength to understand the areas that are difficult for them to comprehend. Thus, the Multiple Intelligences approach could be made central for assessing the strength or ability of

students, and then could be made central to the curriculum to give

expression to their abilities. Finally, these strengths could be used as teaching tools and methodologies for addressing different areas of the curriculum.

145

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS

CURRICULUM FOR INCLUSION Understanding and the approach to curriculum would make a difference in respect of movement of a school towards inclusion. In India, curriculum has become almost synonymous with syllabus and

textbooks, which are prescribed. The literature on curriculum in

developed countries neither refers to syllabus nor to textbooks as a part of the curriculum. There are, however, references to and debate

on national curriculum, school level curriculum and group or

individual curricula. The traditional approach to curriculum has to

change for inclusion to take place in classrooms. Under such an approach students are expected to know a set of things written in a document called the ‘official’ or ‘standard’ curriculum. In recent

years, realisation is growing among most educators that the official curriculum does not have ‘much bearing on the competence with

which students will conduct their lives’. Students bring different

abilities, interests, family styles, linguistic backgrounds and socioeconomic status into schools. Teachers must use them in

developing a curriculum at the school and class levels. Learning through such curriculum is likely to influence students’ lives outside

school (Ferguson, 1996). The development of curriculum in this manner brings in personalised learning and facilitates inclusion. At

the classroom level the primary focus should be on organising the transaction of curriculum in the manner that recognizes pupils

different learning styles. Integration does not have a chance to succeed if the teaching approach is ‘didactic’ (Dens, 1997). The debate on inclusion revolves around whether children with

special needs should access the same curriculum as available to non-disabled children or should it be modified, curtailed or adapted

for disabled children. Kugelmass (1996) has listed three assumptions that operate in the traditional school system: first, that the content

of the curriculum should be fixed and uniform; second, that there is one best way for all children to learn; and third, that all children need to learn the same things at the same time.

146

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS Many special education teachers define curriculum quite narrowly, thinking only in terms of the content of learning that is required by the school system, that is, curriculum related to the ‘ends’ of the educational process rather than the process itself, or the needs, interests, and the abilities of the child. This definition is not correct, only incomplete (ibid., p. 40).

Curriculum may be defined in many ways. The many definitions of curriculum reflect the philosophical, theoretical, political, and social positions of the definer, as well as the context in which they are being used. The lack of clarity about the meaning of the term ‘curriculum’ has created a good deal of confusion between general and special educators and has been identified as one of many barriers to systemic inclusion (Kugelmass, 1996, p. 41).

From the viewpoint of systemic inclusion, Kugelmass (1996)

gives the broadened definition of curriculum:

[Curriculum] encompasses everything that a child learns within school, including extracurricular activities and social and interpersonal relationships. The definition (of curriculum) has been expanded further to include what is known as the ‘hidden curriculum’ or the ‘tacit teaching to students of the norms, values, and dispositions ... ’ (p. 40, emphasis in original).

‘For the child the curriculum is what the teachers enable to

happen in the classroom’. 2 While the national curriculum could lay

down the broad aims of education and address the national concerns that should apply to all children irrespective of their

abilities, needs and the schools they attend, school level curriculum should recognise the differences of abilities, aptitudes and needs of individual pupils.

The effective curriculum will be the one which not only allows for the differences, but which also enables each pupil to reach his or

147

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS her potential through a process of collaborative learning, within a school which celebrates the whole range of its pupils’ needs. Schools, which endeavour to create a climate suitable for inclusion, will need to achieve a curriculum balance (Rose, 1998, p. 29).

There could be two broad approaches to curriculum design:

content or topic-based approach and the outcome-based approach. The topic-based approach lists the topics or themes of the subject

areas, which includes the aims and objectives of the subject areas. The outcome-based approach defines the outcomes, ‘usually as

abilities or skills, that students are expected to achieve’ (NIER, 1999). The process outcomes may include students’ abilities to work in groups, communicate effectively, solve problems and produce creative and high quality work.

Focusing on what students learn and how they use their learning rather than whether or not they can recall information is a major shift in thinking [in inclusive education curriculum] ... . An important aspect of this curriculum shift is that all students will not need to learn exactly the same things [and in the same time], so that teachers must have the flexibility to design curricula in collaboration with their students rather than in constraint of a rigid scope and sequence lesson plan (Ferguson, 1996, p. 28).

There are four components of curriculum: content clusters,

instructional methods, learning activities and assessment tools. In the outcome-based approach, each component would be selected

keeping in view its role in achieving the curriculum goals which they could use both inside and outside school (e.g., life skills) (Brophy, 2000).

In India, while continuing practice is to work on the topic or

subject-based approach, efforts have been made to move towards

the outcome-based approach, at least at the primary level, and on the initiatives of voluntary organisation in education. In the latter case, the processes become important and the focus shifts to the

148

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS child-centred approach and a variety of teaching strategies that foster creative thinking, problem solving and encourage self-directed

learning. Because of the limited, fixed or static approach to

curriculum, associated terms used in India among educators are

curriculum transactions, delivery or implementation. Due to such an artificial dichotomy, an impression has been created that while there is nothing wrong with the curriculum, the problem lies in its

implementation or transactions, and so with teachers or even with

students. To say the least, the approach is inconsistent with the outcome-based approach being followed in countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Thailand, though in many other

countries in the Asia-Pacific region a combination of approaches is being used.

In an outcome-based approach, the debate on curriculum

modification and adaptation in content for children with disabilities

and learning difficulties no longer remains relevant, all get

entitlement to participate in schooling and achieve their potential as

well as the broader objectives of the curriculum. The debate in that

situation would shift to the appropriateness of curriculum itself. In such a discourse children with special needs would need good teaching that takes individual needs into account (see Mittler, 2000).

The following section examines some teaching practices that

would make teaching ‘good’ and take a school forward towards inclusion.

INCLUSION STRATEGIES Inclusion strategies in classrooms would be a combination of teaching practices. Some generic practices based on the works by

educationalists in this field are examined here under six broad heads:

1. Whole class inclusive teaching.

2. Group/cooperative/collaborative learning.

149

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS 3. Peer tutoring/child-to-child learning. 4. Activity-based learning.

5. Team approach/problem-solving.

6. Equity in assessment/examinations.

WHOLE CLASS INCLUSIVE TEACHING Whole class direct teaching is the oldest mode of traditional teaching

prevalent. It is the most familiar style of teaching which parents and students expect. It is difficult to withdraw teachers from this.

However, it is possible to make whole class teaching interesting, involving and inclusive. Most direct teaching in whole class is either

too repetitive or easy for a small section of students, or too

advanced for majority of learners. In a typical Indian school classroom, teachers read out textbooks with occasional explanation

of its contents, or one of the students is asked to read out for the rest of the class. At times, teachers write themes from the textbooks

on the blackboard and students are expected to take notes. These notes then replace the textbooks; students memorise the notes and

write answers in examinations from these notes. A teacher is typified

with ‘walk, chalk and talk’. Such classroom teaching does not ‘include’ even the non-disabled; children with special needs and learning difficulties mentally drop out.

Some classroom observations done by me in Oxfordshire

present a different picture. Teachers were mostly in dialogue mode, asking questions from students and proceeding on the basis of their

responses. The atmosphere was relaxed. After the dialogue teaching children went into groups, did the assignments and reassembled to

report back. Whole class teaching was generally recommended for introducing a new topic, story telling, group singing or reporting the assigned group work.

150

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS Whole class teaching can be made inclusive by carefully using

the interactive dialogue mode or brainstorming. Questioning is an important teaching tool in whole class. It can be targeted at the whole class or at an individual child, particularly with learning difficulties, when the question-pause-prompt-praise technique works well and includes the child in the classroom learning process. Research indicates that majority of questions are asked only to recall

data or elicit information from children. It is important that a positive

environment is created for dialogue and question-answer sessions in a class.

Targeting specific questions at individual pupils, whilst being sensitive to pupil confidence, is another way of ensuring everyone feels included in the session. This may involve teaching the whole class to respect the opinion of classmates and providing rules to prevent the interruption or derision of contributors. The creation of a climate of trust is essential if learning is to take place in a large forum (Marvin, 1998).

Teachers may ask open-ended question that encourage children

to think. Teachers should show patience and should not expect

immediate and quick answers. They should pause and allow children

to think. This is especially required when a child with difficulty has been asked a question. Teachers may also give a small clue to the child or the class in general about how to find an answer. They

should encourage and support the child to work out the right answer. On getting an answer the teacher must praise and be positive. Even if no answer comes or the answer is wrong, a teacher

should not ridicule and should be positively sympathetic and analyse why the child could not give the answer. The teacher may give

another simpler question to keep the morale high. Such a question-

pause-prompt-praise technique could be used for developing children to evaluate what they do, see and hear.

151

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS Brainstorming is yet another technique that can be tried in

whole class teaching, particularly when introducing a new theme. A teacher can write down the ideas or the replies given by children. At

times children could be allowed to take the lead and exchange information themselves. In that case, teachers need not use the questioning technique but one of commenting (Marvin, 1998). In all these situations children with learning difficulties would need to be

included, maybe with peer support or in a way that may not be a replica of other children’s responses.

Two illustrations of how whole class teaching can ‘include’ a

child with special needs is presented here. In the first example, in a

year 7 geography class in an urban comprehensive school in the north of England, the teacher was introducing a lesson on the USA.

He asked the students to state what they already knew about that country. Many students raised their hands. The blackboard was soon filled with a lot of information. Notably, none of these students had

been out of the UK. Regular viewing of films and television had given them the knowledge about the American way of life. James, a child with Down’s syndrome, raised his hand. When called to respond, he

said, ‘They have yellow taxis’. The practice used by the teacher was not ‘special education’ (Ainscow, 1997).

Here the teacher was using a familiar tactic to ‘warm up’ his class; that of using questioning to draw on existing knowledge, prior to introducing new material ... . Certainly it is not ‘special education’, but, nevertheless, it proved to be a means of facilitating the participation of members of the class, including the one who is seen as needing a permanent adult helper (ibid., p. 54).

In the second example, the teacher announced to the whole

class that it was time to read their journals out loud. Students had

written a page about something of interest to them. Most of the writing reflected their excitement about the winter holidays, a week

away. The teacher commented on each reading. Andy did not raise his hand. The teacher asked him if he would like to read his journal.

152

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS He stood up and walked to the place from where others had read

their journals. He began to read, holding his journal up in front of his face. ‘There were no words on his page, only lines of little circles. His picture was of five members of his family.’ He paused and ‘read’

in a manner similar to the other children who had read earlier. When

the ‘reading’ was done, he showed his journal that had no words,

only lines of little circles, around the class. The teacher praised Andy and said, ‘Wow, Andy had a lot to write today, didn’t he?’ A couple of kids said, ‘Yeah!’ and ‘He really did.’ This is how Andy, a special child, was included into the general classroom (Ferguson, 1996).

Andy’s diverse way of communicating in this case was accepted and indeed appreciated by the whole class, making him a part of the class.

GROUP/COOPERATIVE/COLLABORATIVE LEARNING There is limited evidence of children working in groups in the Indian

school system, though at the primary level initiatives have been taken in recent years by voluntary agencies to organise activitybased and group learning. In schools in Oxfordshire, children invariably went into groups after teachers introduced the subject or explained a theme in whole class.

The groups were mostly predetermined ‘ability groups’, though

teachers maintained that formation was flexible and they shifted students from one group to another following assessment and tests. The British school authority has been debating whether to have

similar ability grouping or mixed ability grouping. India has the natural advantage of heterogeneous multi-grade and multi-age groupings in rural elementary schools.

Berres (1996) argues the benefits of multi-age classrooms and

heterogeneous working groups. He refers to research evidences that

153

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS show that multi-age classrooms show the same degree of academic efficacy as the single grade classrooms, but they ‘appear to be more

beneficial in the areas of self-esteem, affective development, and

attainment of social skills’. He has further observed the advantages of heterogeneous groups that are recommended strongly by the

advocates of inclusion, which facilitates cooperative learning and

‘helps students understand and appreciate that each of them has different skills and abilities in different subject areas.’ Such research

evidences are relevant to the Indian situation, where multi-age and heterogeneous classrooms are very common.

Children with disabilities and learning difficulties have

traditionally been given individual, one-to-one lessons. While the

need for individual tutoring can’t be eliminated altogether, it has been proved by research that working in small groups is ‘beneficial to learning and a highly effective way of promoting inclusive classrooms’ (Marvin, 1998). The various types of small groups that can be formed include (ibid., p. 143):

Seating groups: Where pupils sit together but are engaged in separate tasks and produce separate and often quite different outcomes.

Working groups: Where pupils tackle similar tasks resulting in similar

outcomes but their work is independent.

Cooperative groups: Where pupils have separate but related tasks

resulting in a joint outcome.

Collaborative groups: Where pupils have the same task and work together towards a joint outcome.

Most of the literature on group work refers to cooperative

groups. Jangira and Jangira (1995), Marvin (1998), and Walberg and Paik (2000) see many advantages of children working in cooperative

groups. It helps in creating opportunities for children to formulate and share their ideas, it encourages mutual respect and raises self-

154

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS esteem. It promises emotional integration in a democratic

environment. Organised carefully, cooperative group working could be self-sustaining, giving teachers time to address needs of

individual children. Moreover, the emerging work environment and workplaces require interdependence, negotiating skills, working in teams and sharing of skills. Cooperative and collaborative learning is integral to the delivery of Britain’s national curriculum.

Advantages of cooperative group learning may be lost if

attention is not paid to certain essentials. Sometimes, though children go into groups for some tasks, they work individually except for occasional consultations among them, which is permitted. For

cooperative group learning, however, they should not just work in groups, but should be encouraged to work as groups . 3

Westwood (1993) has observed that teachers may keep the

following points in view while organising cooperative group learning: • Group members should be explained the behaviours that encourage and enable cooperation, such as listening to the views of others, sharing, praising, offering to help.

• The size and composition of the group should be planned carefully to avoid incompatibility.

• The ways in which individual tasks are allotted should be

planned carefully, and the way in which each child can assist another may also be made explicit.

• Tasks for the group work should be such that it requires collaboration.

Cooperative groups could be formed in a variety of ways:

pairing, ability grouping, random grouping, mixed-ability grouping,

etc. Group formation itself can be made playful and enjoyable. Children could be involved and consulted in the formation of the

group, though the final decision should be with teachers who would keep in view the objective of the group formation and tasks to be

accomplished. Pair grouping is generally done to take advantage of

differences in knowledge, age and ability. But, there remains a

155

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS possibility of the pupil with greater ability dominating over the less

able pupil if the pairing is not introduced skillfully. Ability grouping has the danger of being formed as per certain patterns or streams,

such as social and economic background, ethnicity, gender, etc., and thus losing the advantage of cooperative and collaborative working which requires a mix of heterogeneity among pupils. For the success

of group work, Marvin (1998, p. 149) provides some more clues. Teachers should ensure that:

• Every pupil is actively involved.

• Their work is valued as an important part of the whole.

• They are aware of the purpose of the activity and the intended outcome.

As per research reports, the ‘jigsaw’ approach of group activity

has been successfully used for a range of children with learning

difficulties. Under this approach a group activity is broken down into

smaller interdependent parts. Each part of the work or activity could be assigned to individuals or subgroups of pupils who have to

cooperate to achieve the whole. Thus, children are encouraged to select and be given tasks appropriate to their needs and abilities. In the process they develop socialisation skills and are benefitted by

working cooperatively. The method has been successfully applied to

the participation of children with different abilities, including those with multiple and profound learning difficulties (Marvin 1998).

Research on pairs and groups has shown that in order to encourage positive attitudes, to raise self-esteem and create effective learning, all pupils at some stage be encouraged to take on the role of ‘instructor’ or ‘organizer’ ... . For pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties this might mean being given the opportunity to take control by, for example, ‘signaling’ when to roll a car down a slope during an activity exploring friction (ibid., p. 149).

There is a slight difference between cooperative group work,

where pupils have ‘separate but related tasks’ and collaborative

156

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS group work, where pupils have ‘the same task and work together’. In both the cases, however, a group works for a joint outcome. Hart

(1992a) makes a subtle distinction between children working as a group and children working ‘collaboratively’. She says, ‘collaboration in classroom should mean much more than group work.’ It should be used as a teaching-learning strategy. Building a collaboratively learning environment is not whether or how often children are working individually or in groups. It is about creating an expectation that children will share ideas, help one another and make the most of one another’s resources while the teacher is busy elsewhere. It is about helping them to recognize the resources that they have to offer one another to use them effectively in response to individual interests and learning needs... It means making the development of collaboration a priority, and giving it the same careful thought and planning as is given to other areas of children’s development (ibid., p. 21).

On a teacher’s role for creating a collaborative learning group

activity, Hart (1992a) suggests two distinct ways:

A direct role ... when the teacher sets the process example, by asking children to read and comment on one another’s work, by setting a task structured in such a way that the children need to talk to one another and collaborate with one another in order to accomplish it. [Second], an indirect role where the teacher creates the conditions which will allow the children to initiate collaborative activities themselves in response to interests, purposes and needs arising from their activities (p. 13).

PEER TUTORING/CHILD-TO-CHILD LEARNING Peer tutoring or child-to-child learning is yet another mode of educational practice that could enhance the inclusion process in

157

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS schools. The subject does not seem to have received much attention in India, either in literature or in practice, though it would be very

relevant for Indian schools where teacher shortage is one of the

major systemic issues that has been impeding the efforts for universalisation of elementary education. It has, however, been used

by some voluntary agencies to promote primary education in rural areas and health education. In England, during the nineteenth

century, the ‘monitorial system’ was introduced, when a student was

used to teach a group of students. The system has been in practice there under various names such as mutual instruction, cross-age

teaching/tutoring and reciprocal assistance. The principle of student

teaching student became widely used and researched in England by

1960, and the literature on the subject has proliferated (Wagner, 1982).

The system can be used at two levels. First, a student teaches

another student in a school setting under the overall supervision of a teacher. Second, students take it up as an out-of-class activity but integrated with the school curriculum and reach out to the community to teach out-of-school children. Organised systemically,

both should be beneficial for Indian education. Wagner (1982) defines it ‘as the concept of students teaching other students in

formal and/or informal school learning situations that are delegated, planned, and directed by the teacher.’ Wagner (ibid., p. 220) has listed several advantages of peer tutoring:

1. Peer tutors are often effective in teaching children who do not respond well to adults.

2. Peer tutoring can develop a deep bond of friendship between

the tutor and the person being helped, the result of which is very important for integrating slow learners into the group.

3. Peer tutoring takes pressure off the teacher by allowing her

to teach a large group of students; at the same time, it allows the slow learners the individual attention they need.

158

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS 4. The tutors benefit by learning to teach, a general skill that can be very useful in an adult society.

5. Peer tutoring happens spontaneously under cooperative

conditions, so the teacher does not have to organize and manage it in a formal, continuing way.

He further refers to the ‘advantages of cooperation as compared

to competition’.

Research has shown that classroom groups with supportive friendship patterns enhance academic learning, while more interpersonally tense class environments in which peer groups rejections are strong and frequent get in the way of learning ... peers can make a difference in scholastic achievement, and peers can be utilized to aid in learning (ibid., p. 220).

Wagner (1982) has made an extensive review of literature on

this subject, which includes certain established guidelines to establish peer tutoring.

1. Teachers should create a mental set [among students] that we can learn from each other.

2. Teachers should work out potential details.

3. Skill in creative organization should be developed (ibid., p. 242).

Some more tips that may be kept in view while organising peer

tutoring in an inclusive school setting are:4

1. Don’t undermine the tutor’s efforts,

2. Tutors should demonstrate certain skills, such as how to

present the learning materials, support correct answers, respond to errors, give appropriate feedback, etc.

3. A system of recognition of the tutor’s work should also be developed.

A meeting on child-to-child strategy for achieving the goal of

education for all discussed the potential of this methodology for

159

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS bringing out-of-school children under the educational fold (NCERT, 1993).

• Child-to-child deals with the active aspect of learning where

a child asks questions and moves out of the classroom into the community, and learning moves from the school into the

community and back to the school again. Formal and nonformal education merge together.

• Child-to-child is effective in reaching out to girls, disabled children and other deprived groups.

• Older children should be given the responsibility of escorting

the younger ones (and the disabled children) to and from school; and this would encourage parents to send their wards to school.

• The child-to-child approach should be integrated into classroom teaching and learning activities; this would make attending school more interesting and stimulating and therefore help in the retention of potential drop outs.

This pedagogical technique can become an effective way for

breaking walls between schools and the community, and between children in and out of schools.

ACTIVITY-BASED LEARNING Of all the teaching methods discussed in this chapter, activity-based

teaching cuts across each of them. This jargon is most common among primary school teachers in India, particularly if they have

undergone training under some specific project or programme. This is also popular among non-formal teachers. The 1986 national policy

refers to ‘child-centred and activity-based process of learning’ to be

‘adopted at the primary stage’, without explaining further what the term actually means. In fact, the subsequent policy statement—’first

160

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS generation learners should be allowed to set their own pace and be

given supplementary remedial instruction’—has created a class among learners, denying the other children the opportunity of

setting their own pace (MHRD, 1990). The subsequent statement

that ‘the policy of non-detention at the primary stage will be

retained, making evaluation as disaggregated as possible’ has also been presented in the ‘negative framework of detention versus

non-detention’ and the policy should have clarified that ‘the concept

of a terminal examination has no place in child-centred education’ (ibid., p.156). The policy ambiguity continued in the 1992 Programme of Action, when it linked activity-based learning with

‘joyful’ (learning). ‘...The main steps by which MLLs (Minimum Levels of Learning) will be introduced in school will be: ... Provision of competency based teaching-learning materials to make the educational process activity based and joyful’ (MHRD, 1992, p. 41).

Thus trainers and teachers have generally linked activity-based

teaching with the prepartion and use of teaching-learning materials and play song, drama, story telling, etc. for making the activity ‘joyful’. A survey on teaching methods used in Class 1 reports that

more than half the teachers used classroom teaching styles such as

giving written exercises, reading from a textbook and writing on the

blackboards. Written exercises generally meant copying from the blackboard or from textbooks, and in some cases from guide books. About one-fourth of the class teachers reported rote learning and telling students to read aloud by turn. However, 14 per cent teachers

had asked a bright child to teach other pupils (peer tutoring) and 7 per cent were using games (PROBE Report, 1999).

Activity is not just a play or song or drama, and joyful should

not refer only to the joys from games and play. It should have a larger focus on ‘the joy of learning, of achieving and of

experiencing’, and the activity could be defined as ‘any learning process in which children feel intimately involved and the process is free from control.’

161

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS The basic elements in activities should be mental involvement

and participation of children in the process. Physical processes such as moving hands and bodies could demonstrate participation, but such participation would remain meaningless if it does not facilitate

‘a mental investment by the learner into the content of the activity.’ 6

Such an approach and interpretation of activity-based learning emerging from ‘modern’ policy statements impels one to revisit

Gandhi’s Basic Education philosophy and practices, which attempted a unity of body and mind in the learning process. In fact, it addressed the third element, including the soul or spirit into it, to make education complete and to make a person complete.

How does one proceed with creating activity-based teaching? 7

‘I hear and I forget; I see and I remember; I do and I understand’

(Confucius, 450 BC). 8 The key word in activity-based teaching is to

do. Children love to do things. This instinct of a child can be converted into the pedagogical strategy of ‘activity-based teaching’. Activities need to be meaningful, interesting and, as stated earlier, would require an application of mind. Well-designed activities enhance the ‘involvement’ of a child. Some kinds of activity-based teaching would include: games, simulations and role-plays, problembased learning, multi-sensory activities and community-linked learning. This is an illustrative list, but the activities can also be generated with the help of materials, market supplied or available in and around the environment. ‘Real world activities’ or activities linked with the community

have significant educational value. Some examples of community-

linked activities are learning to use local transport, shopping, banking, using the local library, observing the functioning of local public institutions, field trips, calculating distance from maps, etc., in

urban areas. In rural areas similar activities would include visiting the local public health centre, functioning of village bodies, visiting

local markets, etc. Such activities break barriers and bring the

community closer to children and schools. The activities should be

162

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS organised in a manner so that they are ‘meaningful, functional and have significance in the child’s everyday life’.

Simulations and role-play introduce elements of real life into

classrooms without taking children out to the community. Examples are role-playing the family, the election process, health services, etc.

These activities help the development of communication and social skills. It is suggested by ‘experts’ that debriefing should follow such

activities. The ‘happening’ should be discussed in a non-personal manner to avoid hurting individuals. While role-play may involve an individual or a group of students, simulation is generally regarded as extended role-plays involving the whole class simultaneously.

Educational games are a direct substitute of activities. It releases

tension from children’s minds and gives natural pleasure, but it may

be organised in a manner so that it has linkage with the curriculum and lesson objectives.

Multisensory activities use multiple channels of learning, e.g., visual, auditory, kinaesthetic and tactile. They are particularly useful for children experiencing learning difficulties and for children with disabilities.

It would be difficult to generate meaningful activity-based

teaching if the curriculum remains narrowly defined in terms of content and lessons through textbooks. If a broader approach to

curriculum is taken and is made ‘outcome-based’, activity would become an integral and inevitable part of school learning.

Organisation of activities should be broken into a clear statement of

objectives, levels of learning or age/grade meant for, materials to be

used, procedures to be followed (whether in groups, what types of groups or for the whole class). Variations should be possible (not to

make it stereotyped), and there should be plan for follow-up, linkage with curriculum, both in subject areas as also outcome-based.

Experience indicates that such activities create an inclusive learning

163

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS environment. They have real time or in-time value, as they do not anticipate a learning theme; they respond to it.

TEAM APPROACH/PROBLEM SOLVING ‘Team teaching’ is a term very frequently used in British literature

while referring to the engagement of the support teacher or the support staff in the process of making a school inclusive. The

support teacher or staff is the one who has been hired for attending to or providing support to a child with disability, more often than not,

on a one-to-one basis. The support staff shadows the child outside and inside the classroom, and has the unique responsibility of

‘supporting’ the child. In the process, many teachers feel that the child is not their responsibility and the child gets ‘excluded’ rather than ‘included’ in classroom learning processes. Hence, there are

suggestions that support teachers should team up with regular

teachers and ‘see the difficulties experienced by children with special

needs as potentially highlighting problem areas of the curriculum which could be developed to the benefit of all’ (Hart, 1992b).

One may ask the relevance of such an inclusion strategy in the

Indian context where a large number of primary schools have one

or two teachers, and even where special teachers have been provided under support from a scheme such as IEDC, it is in the ratio of one teacher for every eight children with disabilities.

Precisely because of this, this section clubs the team approach with problem solving.

Literature on inclusive education now refers to ‘technology’ of

inclusion—the systemic issues, structures and practices that would include pedagogical and curricular issues and additional provisions

and support—to enable teachers to teach a diverse range of children in the same classroom. It is believed that no predetermined

technology or strategy would work as each child is unique and in

164

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS case of the disabled child the degree of uniqueness would be far more than the non-disabled. Besides, ‘a simple transfer of

techniques is unlikely to be successful’ (Dyson, 2000). Therefore

many commentators disagree about the problem-solving capacity of a teacher.

Key to inclusiveness lies in the capacity of teachers within the school to solve for themselves the pedagogical problems that are presented by diversity. Teachers are likely to be more effective as problem solvers if they work in problem solving teams where they can pool ideas and expertise. The inclusive school, therefore, has to be organized around such teams rather than around the traditional model of the individual teacher isolated in his/her classroom (ibid., p. 87).

Similar teaming up of ‘mixed-ability’ groups of teachers has

been suggested by Ferguson (1996). Characteristics of services of

some specialists can be elaborated as: ‘Physical therapists work with legs and whole bodies; occupational therapists with hands and

sometimes mouths; speech therapists with mouths, sounds, speech, and language. We [teachers] only do certain things with those students who “fit” our training’ (ibid., p. 29).

No teacher can provide all the services, nor can he or she

anticipate the ‘problem’ associated with the learning of a child. No

training can take care of all situations and contingencies. Hence the need for a team approach in teaching with the aim of solving a ‘problem’ as and when it arises. Such problems can be discussed at

the now emerging block resource centres or teacher centres at the cluster level in the primary education sector in India. Wherever

services of special teachers are available, the teaming could be a

regular feature for certain hours at least. The present system of special teachers working in isolation could change if the new

approach of team teaching and problem solving is accepted in principle and attempted in practice. Teachers could see resources

165

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS even beyond schools, in the community, in parents and other skilled adults, if the school builds bridges with the local community.

EQUITY IN ASSESSMENT/EXAMINATION Learning in Indian schools is primarily aimed at scoring marks in examinations. High stake examinations drive the learning process.

In the absence of a right approach to examinations and its isolation from the curriculum, it becomes important that it be fair and not put

children into disadvantages due to their disabilities. Some of the major factors that may create inequities include: • Excessive influences of private tuition.

• Use of culturally inappropriate questions.

• Examinations set in a language with which students are not comfortable.

• Ranking or credibility of schools on the basis of students’ performance.

• Inadequate provision for those with special needs. (Adapted from www.worldbank.org/exams.)

The Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 asks for suitable

modification in the examination system to eliminate purely mathematical questions for blind and low vision students, and

provision of amanuensis to them. The Act does not make any references to facilities for other types of disabilities, such as the

hearing impaired and those with cerebral palsy. However, some school boards have provided for facilities for other categories of

disabilities also. While taking into account the equity aspects in examinations for children with special needs some principles can be kept in view:

• Special arrangements should remove the impact of disability as far as possible.

166

INCLUSION IN CLASSROOMS • Arrangements should not give undue advantage also. • Precise needs to be established in each case.

• Different subjects and different methods of assessment would make different demands on candidates.

• If a candidate is not in a position to participate in a particular mode of assessment, an alternative procedure should be specified.

• Special provisions can relate to time and means of access to questions.

• Means of presenting responses may include recording of answers on tape recorder, dictation to a scribe, etc.

• Sometimes

alternative

accommodation

arrangements may require to be made.

or

time

(Adapted from www.worldbank.org/exams.)

The idea is that while examinations remain a high stake activity,

its logistics should not create further barriers for children with disabilities. While no undue advantage would be accepted,

disabilities should not put them in any disadvantage while taking the tests and being assessed.

Inclusion is happening in India, at some places, thanks to

innovative practices by some non-governmental organisations,

particularly at the primary level. There is an irony in the Indian inclusive education movement. While those in special education

have been talking about inclusive education and have been doing a commendable job in this regard, many actors in general education are not conscious of the fact that what they have been doing makes

a good ground for inclusion of children with disabilities in the

mainstream education system. What is required is a constructive dialogue between the doers in the general system and the advocates

for inclusion in the special school system. Close collaboration between the two would define a new role for special teachers to

work with their colleagues in the mainstream school system for

167

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS creating inclusive curriculum and pedagogy for all, including those children with disabilities.

NOTES 1. Inputs from Prof. Sally Tomlinson by e-mail.

2. From the ‘Materials for Teachers’ developed under the UNESCO project in India on Promotion of Basic Education for Children with Special Needs. 3. Adapted from the Inclusive School Project (Teaching Strategies) of the University of Waikato, New Zealand. 4. Ibid.

5. ‘Pedagogy Visioning Workshop: A Report’, Bihar Education Project, 1996.

6. Subir Shukla, ‘Children’s Worldview in the Classroom: An Indian Experience’, unpublished manuscript. 7. Adapted from the Inclusive School Project (Teaching Strategies) of the University of Waikato, New Zealand.

8. Cited in the Inclusive School Project (Teaching Strategies) of the University of Waikato, New Zealand.

168

8

MAKING IT HAPPEN

T

he purpose of this chapter is to map practical thinking for

establishing inclusive schools. In many countries, inclusive

education is seen as part of general education reform so that all

children are accepted in regular schools. They are valued. Differences and diversities brought by them become a norm rather

than an exception. Curriculum and pedagogy are geared to respond to diversities. In this chapter, the experiences drawn from

documents developed in Australia, America, Britain and by UNESCO

are presented. A model for making a beginning to establish an inclusive education school system in India has also been presented.

INITIATIVES IN AUSTRALIA Under the AUSAID programme of capacity building for teachers in

establishing inclusive schools, an inclusive school is defined as one that educates all students in the mainstream, which means that

every student is in regular classes; they receive educational programmes that are challenging but appropriate to their capabilities and needs. They receive any support and assistance that

they or their teachers need in the mainstream. Further, ‘an inclusive school is a place where everyone belongs, is accepted, supports, and is supported by his or her peers and other members of the

169

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS school community.’ Some of the characteristics of an inclusive school are:

• All students attend their home school. • There is a philosophy of ‘zero reject’.

• Students with disabilities in the school are proportionate to those in the general community.

• Students with and without disabilities have frequent contact with each other.

• Students learn in groups, which are heterogeneous.

• Individualised instruction, co-operative learning and peer tutoring are evident.

• Teachers and students are encouraged to develop an appreciation for diversity.

• The acquisitions of social skills are valued as much as academic skills.

Three basic issues that need to be taken into account for

creating an inclusive school are: development of school level

curriculum, individualised instructions and adaptation of curriculum. School level curriculum is developed in the light of larger objectives of national and state curricula and within the framework provided by them. While doing so, the following broad issues are addressed:

• Who shall determine what is taught? How to organise and work to decide what is to be taught?

• What sources are to be used in determining what is to be taught?

• How to teach what is to be taught?

• How much general and specialised education would be required?

• What would be the resource, support and assistance required for organising teaching?

• How to evaluate what is being taught?

170

MAKING IT HAPPEN In some schools in Australia there is some sort of negotiation

between parents, teachers/schools and may be even students to determine the curriculum for a child, particularly one with special

needs, so that the child does not feel discriminated against and at

the same time he or she learns what is most appropriate for him/her. Individualised instruction does not mean isolated and one-to-

one instruction. It is tailored to the student’s individual needs. It

may occur under various arrangements: small groups, peer teaching, large groups and even one to one. It ‘places the learner,

the task and the instructional strategy on the same wavelength to ensure there is optimal growth for the student.’

Adaptation refers to changes and adjustments in the areas of

curricular content, learning environment, instructional practices and evaluation for achieving the defined curricular objectives of a

student. Such adjustments are required to respond to the unique learning of the student. It may involve the modification of the

presentation of materials, demands on time, group and peer

involvement, and also use of aids and other resources. A good adaptation strategy would use the student’s strength and ability to compensate for his or her weakness or disability.

INITIATIVES IN THE UNITED STATES Ferguson (1996) has discussed the systemic inclusion in American

schools. America does not have a national curriculum for schools. American schools do not have high stake public examinations either at the terminal stage of schooling. However, there have been

growing concerns for national standards and measurement of students’ achievements by those standards. At the same time, school effectiveness is being redefined as the process outcome of

students’ schooling, such as their ‘abilities to work in groups, communicate effectively, think, solve problems, and produce

171

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS creative and high-quality work.’ The focus is shifting from content of learning to process of learning. Accordingly, all students need not

learn the same things within the same timeframe. Twelve

dimensions of restructuring general education reforms have been identified (Ferguson, 1996). They include four dimensions in each of

the three types of variables: central, enabling and support. The

central variables have learner outcomes, curriculum, instruction, assessment/evaluation; the enabling variables constitute learning environments, technology, time, school/community relationship; and supporting variables are identified in terms of governance, teacher leadership, personnel and working relationships. The ‘seeds of

systemic inclusion are well rooted in each of these dimensions’

(ibid.). The following three features of systemic inclusion have been identified:

• Mixed-ability group of teachers: Each teacher collaborates with other teachers, special teachers and support staff to

‘problem-solve’ in respect of learning requirements of a child, including of a special child, instead of handing over the child for some aspect of learning.

• Personalized learning and accomplishments: The traditional

approach has been to work on official or standard curriculum. Those who could not cope with them are taken

to remediation or special classes and schools. Some even ‘failed’ or dropped-out. Under the new approach teachers

are expected to use the differences that students bring with

them: ‘different abilities, different interests, different family styles and composition and different preferences for learning approaches.’ It is further argued that ‘students’ linguistic background, socioeconomic status, and cultural heritage

must also be considered as a part of curriculum and teaching decisions.’

• Support rather than services: Earlier, the differences were

separated and provided separate tools. Now, diversity is

172

MAKING IT HAPPEN valued and students need not wait for services to come or

minimum normalization to be achieved; teachers are encouraged to ‘support an individual’s learning and use of abilities rather than discouraging and constraining them.’

Under the support concept, the emphasis shifts from diagnosis and prescription, individualized assessment and

planning to a learning enterprise becoming ‘a constant conversation between student and teacher to construct learning, document accomplishments, and adjust supports’ (ibid, p. 32).

The following ‘components’ of systemic inclusion have also been

identified:

• Students are learning members of their neighborhood school and participating members of their surrounding community.

• Students, families and community members contribute to design, maintenance, and effectiveness of the school community.

• All faculty and staff contribute to the design, maintenance, and effectiveness of the school community.

• Teachers share responsibility for curriculum development, teaching and problem solving for all students.

• Individual students’ experiences of curriculum are ageappropriate and referenced to family and community.

• Teaching is creative, varied, effective, and responsive to individual student learning.

• Individual classrooms and school as a whole are effectively organized and managed (ibid.)

INITIATIVES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM While the Australian and American perspectives on restructuring of

general education to make it more inclusive give a heretical and

173

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS conceptual framework that would help in the development of

inclusive practices, Booth et al. (2000) in Britain have developed

practical manuals or ‘a set of materials to support schools in a process of inclusive development in partnership with a number of

primary and secondary schools, local educational authorities and funding support from the central government. They have also developed an Inclusion Index (ibid., p. 19) which is a process based

document consisting of five phases, which can be diagrammatically represented as follows:

Phase 1 Starting the index process Phase 2 Finding out about the school

Phase 5 Reviewing the index process

Phase 3 Producing an inclusive development plan

Phase 4 Implementing developments

Phase 1 of starting the index process includes stetting up of a coordinating group, raising awareness about the index, exploring the knowledge of the group, preparing to use the indicators and questions. Phase 2 involves finding out about the school. The activities include exploring the knowledge of staff and governors, knowledge of students, knowledge of parents and members of the community and deciding priorities for development. Phase 3 leads to production of an inclusive school development plan and putting the index and the priorities into the plan.

174

MAKING IT HAPPEN Phase 4 involves implementation and includes recording progress, putting priorities into practice and sustaining the development. Phase 5 reviews the index process, evaluates developments and enters into the loop beginning with Phase 2 which relates to dialogue and exploring the knowledge of teachers, staff, governors, parents and community.

Phases 2-5 move in a cycle. After the implementation of the

school development plan and the review, the cycle moves back to

Phase 2 which is ‘finding out about the school’, thus making inclusion a process based exercise.

Each phase sets out a number of questions and activities that

would help in achieving the objectives of that phase. The Index

gives some examples but the school would have the freedom to

raise further questions and concerns. For example, when exploring the knowledge of the group, it raises the basic question: what is inclusion and what is learning support?

The approach to inclusion has very clearly been underlined in the Index.

• Inclusion involves the process of increasing the participation of students in, and reducing their exclusion from, the cultures, curricula and communities of local schools.

• It involves restructuring the cultures, policies and practices in schools so that they respond to the diversity of students in their locality.

• It is concerned with the learning and participation of all

students vulnerable to exclusionary pressures, not only those

with impairments or those who are categorised as ‘having special educational needs.’

• Inclusion is concerned with improving schools for staff as well as for students.

175

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS • A concern with overcoming barriers to the access and

participation of particular students may reveal gaps in the attempts of a school to respond to diversity more generally.

• All students have a right to an education in their locality.

• Diversity is not viewed as a problem to be overcome, but as a rich resource to support the learning of all.

• Inclusion is concerned with fostering mutually sustaining relationships between schools and communities.

• Inclusion in education is one aspect of inclusion in society (Booth et al., 2000, p. 12).

The Index has replaced the concept of ‘special educational

needs’ with the term ‘barriers to learning and participation’.

Inclusion, accordingly, means minimising barriers and maximising participation by organising support and restructuring curricula and pedagogy.

The Index is based upon three dimensions and two sections in

each of these dimensions.

Dimension A: Creating inclusive CULTURES

Section A.1: Building community

1. Everyone is felt welcome. 2. Students help each other.

3. Staff collaborate with each other.

4. Staff and students treat one another with respect.

5. There is a partnership between staff and parents/carers. 6. Staff and governors work well together.

7. All local communities are involved in the school.

Section A.2: Establishing inclusive values

1. There are high expectations for all students.

2. Staff, governors, students and parents share a philosophy of inclusion.

176

MAKING IT HAPPEN 3. Students are equally valued.

4. Staff and students are treated as human beings as well as occupants of a ‘role’.

5. Staff seek to remove all barriers to learning and participation in school.

6. The school strives to minimize discriminatory practices. Dimension B: Producing inclusive POLICIES

Section B.1: Developing a school for all

1. Staff appointments and promotions are fair.

2. All new staff are helped to settle into the school.

3. The school seeks to admit all students from its locality.

4. The school makes its building physically accessible to all people.

5. All students, new to the school, are helped to feel settled.

6. The school arranges teaching groups so that all students are valued.

Section B.2: Organising support for diversity

1. All forms of support are coordinated.

2. Staff development activities help staff to respond to student diversity.

3. ‘Special needs policies’ are inclusion policies.

4. The Code of Practice is used to reduce the barriers to learning and participation of all students.

5. Support for those learning English as an additional language is coordinated with learning support.

6. Pastoral and behavioural support policies are linked to curriculum development and learning support policies.

7. Pressures for disciplinary exclusion are decreased.

177

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS 8. Barriers to attendance are reduced. 9. Bullying is minimised.

Dimension C: Evolving inclusive PRACTICES Section C.1: Orchestrating learning

1. Lessons are responsive to student diversity.

2. Lessons are made accessible to all students.

3. Lessons develop an understanding of differences.

4. Students are actively involved in their own learning.

5. Students learn collaboratively.

6. Assessment encourages the achievements of all students. 7. Classroom discipline is based on mutual respect.

8. Teachers plan, review and teach in partnership.

9. Teachers are concerned to support the learning and participation of all students.

10. Learning support assistants are concerned to support the learning and participation of all students.

11. Homework contributes to the learning of all.

12. All students take part in activities outside the classroom.

Section C.2: Mobilizing resources

1. School resources are distributed fairly to support inclusion. 2. Community resources are known and drawn upon. 3. Staff expertise is fully utilised.

4. Student differences are used as a resource for teaching and learning.

5. Staff

develop

participation.

resources

to

support

learning

and

The Index contains a number of questions in respect of each of

the indicators. These questions are illustrative and provide an

opportunity to examine the status of various dimensions in the

178

MAKING IT HAPPEN context of inclusion. Some of these indicators could be directly relevant for the Indian situation also, while others could be modified

or new ones could be added. The Index has been developed for a system where neighbourhood schooling is a rule rather than an exception, and where students in these neighbourhood schools are

not charged any fees. Hence, getting a heterogeneous student

population is not a major issue in England. Public schools (normally referred to as boarding schools in the private sector) do exist but they cater mostly to the elites and an average Briton as well as a

non-British resident sends his children to the neighbourhood school for education. Besides, inclusion strategies in England revolve

around the SEN policy and the Code of Practice. These factors have

to be kept in view while adapting the inputs and the inclusion indicators given in the Index for Indian schools.

The Index, however, does provide a practical framework for

developing inclusive schools. It also proves that in Britain too, the

thinking is to move away from special education and the concept of ‘special educational needs’ towards inclusive cultures and practices.

INITIATIVES IN UNESCO The development of the teacher resource pack was taken up by UNESCO in the 1980s and has proved to be very effective for

training teachers towards building inclusive schools. The pack has been trialled in more than fifty countries and the materials have

been translated into many languages, including Hindi. The material

in the pack has been developed on the principle that SEN is a

curriculum issue. The strategies for use in the pack are based on ‘active learning, negotiation of objectives, demonstration-practice and feedback, and continuous evaluation and support’.

The modules in the pack deal with the changes in thinking

about special needs as an issue of curriculum (rather than of

179

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS provisions). It provides materials for teachers taking a curriculum

view of educational difficulties and the ways to respond to individual needs within a class. It provides strategies for cooperative learning,

structuring group activities, problem solving and making learning more meaningful. It underlines the importance of organising a support network within schools and outside help which could include

child-to-child learning, peer tutoring, partnership teaching, sharing

classrooms and community involvement. Jangira (1995) who has used the pack with teachers in Indian schools says, ‘School based in service training programme, encouraging a “whole school approach”

to bring about change, can be an effective strategy. The UNESCO teacher education resource pack is a useful resource for this approach.’

DEVELOPING INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS IN INDIA Inclusive education initiatives may be organised at three levels in

India. First, at the national or state or school system or school groups level; second, at the individual school level, and third, at the

teacher or classroom level. With education, particularly school education, being a ‘concurrent subject’ in the Indian constitution, a lot of initiatives in the background of the national policy framework lie with the state governments. There are many autonomous school

organisations also, aided and unaided by the government, that could take up issues relating to reforms to make their systems inclusive.

NATIONAL LEVEL INITIATIVES At the national level, right to equality and non-discrimination as

fundamental rights under the Indian constitution provide a sound framework for all children to learn together. The Directive Principles

180

MAKING IT HAPPEN also talk of the state’s duty to provide education up to age 14 to all children which includes ‘handicapped children as well’ as recognised by the Kothari Commission (1966).

Right to establish and administer educational institutions by

minorities has also been guaranteed as a fundamental right (Article 30) under the constitution. However, in such institutions also there

is a scope for the entry of non-minority children up to 50 per cent as per the Supreme Court ruling in the St. Stephen’s College vs the University of Delhi case (1992 AIR [SC] 1630). Thus, the requirements

of

equal

opportunity

and

non-discrimination

envisaging an inclusive school system is inbuilt in the constitutional framework of India.

The 1968 National Education Policy presumably took the cue

from the constitution and presented the ‘common school system’. It

implied that all students irrespective of caste, creed, location or sex would get education of comparable quality. The National Policy on Education 1986 reiterated the resolve for the common school system

and stated that ‘effective measures will be taken in the direction of the common school system recommended in the 1968 policy’. The Ramamurty Committee (MHRD, 1990) constituted for the review of

the 1986 national policy, has noted, among others, the following reasons for the common school system not gaining ground: • Lack of political will.

• Public schools, privately managed English medium schools, schools charging capitation fees and those having expensive coaching classes have proliferated.

• Growth of institutions in the government sector like the

Sainik Schools and Kendriya Vidyalayas meant for separate categories of students (p. 92).

The committee further observed, ‘The first step in securing

equity and social justice in education is the building up of a Common School System.’ It made the following major recommendations to implement the policy of the common school system:

181

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS • Ensuring instruction for all in the medium of mother tongue

at the primary level...active encouragement for teaching in regional

language

at

the

secondary

level,

and

discontinuation of state aid to the schools imparting education otherwise than in the medium of mother tongue/regional languages.

• Phased implementation of the Common School System

within a ten-year time frame; and essential minimum legislation, particularly to dispense with early selection process, tuition fee, capitation fee, etc.

• Exploring ways of including the expensive private schools into the Common School System through a combination of

incentives, disincentives and legislation (MHRD, 1990, pp 9293).

Development of the common school system may provide a

launching platform for a system of inclusive education in the country as a whole or by state governments in respective states. As

mentioned by the Ramamurty Committee, growth of student specific systems of schools under the state sector has been detrimental to

the common school system. In addition to the Sainik Schools and

the Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya schools have developed in recent years for ‘talented rural children’. Separate residential schools for

tribal children are run by states. In order to eliminate child labour, separate child labour schools are opening under the aegis of the

labour ministry. And, traditionally, special schools for the disabled have been with the ministry of social justice (welfare). Apart from

bringing different school systems under the mainstream education ministry at the central and state levels, there could be a case for

mixing children under the common school system without depriving special category children, such as ST/SC children, liberated child

labour, children with disabilities and even rural talented children from the incentives, educational provisions and benefits they are

182

MAKING IT HAPPEN entitled to get. It is believed that a common school or neighbourhood school strategy would benefit more such students at

lesser costs, and would benefit the school system on the whole and all children.

The Kendriya Vidyalaya scheme was conceived in 1962 to

facilitate education for the children of transferable central government employees. Absence of suitable schooling facilities

could have been one of the factors for setting up such an exclusive

system. Now, with the growth of schools in the state and private sectors there could be a case for making these schools more inclusive in the areas where there is no shortage of other schools to begin with.

The scheme of Navodaya schools received critical comment

from some members of the Ramamurty Committee who felt that the

scheme ‘catered to a microscopic minority of the total school

population’ and was ‘an exclusive system inconsistent with the longcherished common school system of public education’. They also

questioned the system of a written test designed to select children and wonderd if it was free of ‘cultural, social and class biases’ and

whether the tests evaluated ‘special talent or aptitude in all its dimensions—congnitive, affective and psycho-motor skills’. A recent

status review of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Scheme (DRS, 2001) observes:

The annual income of parents clearly indicate that most students came from reasonably well-off families, who probably could pay for education if required ... . Most students came from relatively better economic households ... . The social, occupational and educational profile of the parents remain almost similar to the findings of a 1989-90 survery in 221 vidyalayas (pp 23-25). The move towards a common school system could be initiated voluntarily by private schools also. A case in example is Loreto Day School, Sealdah (Kolkata), which has opened 50 per cent of its seats to non-fee paying children from nearby slums, ‘bustees ’ and

183

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS poorer areas of Kolkata. These students are subsidised by the fee paying students, by sponsors and grants made by the state government of West Bengal (Jessop, 1998).

As far as education of children with disabilites is concerned, the

national policy as well as the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 do

provide for their education in regular schools ‘in an appropriate

environment’. The Act continues to remommend the establishment of special schools in the ‘government and private sectors for those in need of special education’. In practice, however, due to resource

constraints the growth of special schools is taking place in the private sector mostly.

There is a need for articulating a comprehensive policy for

moving towards an inclusive school set up which would not only aim to implement the already enunciated common school system policy

but would also be in accordance with the constitutional obligation of

equal opportunity and non-discrimination, as also the social

responsibility of equity and social justice to the disadvantaged and the disabled. And to the non-disadvantaged and non-disabled, the policy

initiative

would

provide

an

opportunity

to

learn

collaboratively—an emerging need of the twenty-first century interdependent world—and thus reduce their isolation from the community.

SCHOOL LEVEL INITIATIVES Notwithstanding policy adjustment at the national and state levels, a school can still take initiatives to make itself more inclusive. Some essential steps that a school could consider for moving towards inclusion are discussed here.

184

MAKING IT HAPPEN

A shared vision: To begin with, school management, teachers and staff need to share a common vision. What are the values the school stands for? It needs to ask certain critical questions:

1. Does it believe in the culture of rights, social justice and equity?

2. Does it believe that all children are not the same and accepts diversity as a strength rather than a problem?

3. Does it believe in a certain basic pedagogy that children learn in different ways, they have different levels of experiences and paces of learning?

A committed team: A good reflective beginning to building up a shared vision should be followed by organising a committed dynamic team to formulate an inclusive school development plan. The team should be led by the principal or the head master and may comprise key members from the management, the community, teachers, staff, parents and even some students. All those who have a stake in its implementation should own the inclusion decision. The team would have the basic responsibility of sharing the common vision with other members of the management team, other teachers and the community at large to involve them in the process of making the school inclusive. The next crucial step for the team would be to assess various issues critical for inclusion.

Admission policy: The school needs to have a look at its admission

policy and the composition of its student population. This is the most

important element for making a school or a school system inclusive. What is the degree of heterogeneity in its student population? A

homogeneous school deprives its students of the advantages of rich learning resources that diverse groups of students bring into culture

and practices in school. Does the school reflect the proportion of

students comparable to their population in the local community in terms of their social and economic status? Has it conducted any local

check to make sure that children with disabilities in the

185

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS neighbourhood exercise their choice to come to the nearby regular school? An inclusive school should have minimum students coming by vehicular transport. If necessary, in case of a fee charging private school, it should change its admission policy to accept at least 50 per

cent of its student population from the neighbourhood. If minority institutions are permitted to fill 50 per cent of their seats from non-

minority students, there is a case for other private/public schools to follow and dissolve their ‘exclusive’ characteristics. By doing so they

would be fulfilling their social responsibility and, secondly, their students would not miss the opportunity of accessing a collaborative

pedagogy in a heterogeneous learning environment. As pointed out

by Skrtic (1991), students in a twenty-first century school would

require such collaborative problem solving skills within a ‘community of interests’.

School level curriculum: Does the school follow the standard curriculum largely targeted at cognitive and academic content-based subjects? Or, has it developed a school-based curriculum within the overall national or state curriculum framework? While retaining the basic features of the national and state curricula, a school can design its own curriculum that would encourage inclusive pedagogy and learning processes. In doing so, it needs to actively involve teachers, management, community and parents. It would also aim to provide education in the so called non-academic areas of national curriculum such as work education/experience, art and craft, and health and physical education that remain neglected in most schools. It could also establish close linkages between academics and these areas of curriculum and learning. A school level curriculum would take cognisance of multiple intelligences that encourage learning and education of a diverse student population. It would respond to experiences and resources that children bring from home and even streets and would aim also to provide life skills development.

186

MAKING IT HAPPEN

Individual level curriculum: Some children may not be able to scope with the school level curriculum and may require it to be individualised. Such individualised curricula would be different from the British IEP, which is modelled on the child-deficit concept and for organising provisions and services for children with special needs. The individual level curriculum (ILC) based on the abilities of the child would focus on larger objectives of education and what the child can achieve with all the support available. It may also need to be negotiated with the parents. Theoretically, each child may require an ILC, but in practice it could be provided only for those students who might need it. It is expected that a very small section of children would require such ILC and that too for a short while. In general, most children, including those with physical and sensory disabilities, should be able to manage the school level curriculum.

Teacher and staff orientation and training: The school can initiate ‘school based in-service training programmes’ and/or could join outside training organised by the state or private agencies. Jangira (1995) has outlined four dimensions of school-based training: 1. Having demand stimulation from within the school which requires no external technical assistance.

2. Having demand stimulation from within the school which requires external technical assistance.

3. Needing external stimulation but no external technical assistance.

4. Needing both external stimulation and technical assistance.

To start with some schools may begin from Stage IV and then

move to the other stages. A lot of materials and experiences are

available in this area that schools could make use of, the UNESCO

teacher education resource pack being one of them. In addition, training packages developed under various innovative programmes

by voluntary agencies have strong elements of participatory and reflective activities that are crucial for the development of any

187

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS programme for inclusion. Many schools such as government primary schools with fewer number of teachers in each of them need to join and network with outside training programmes and resource centres

at the cluster and block levels. They need to remember that training, particularly to meet the diverse needs of children, is not a one-time

affair. It needs to be recurrent, close to the work situation and should provide a forum for constant reflection and review of knowledge and skills acquired and applied in classrooms.

Teaching and learning methodology: Inclusive schools should plan to move away from content-based and teacher-directed pedagogy. Primary schools particularly should use activity-centred pedagogy and local resources that stimulate children and keep them engaged and involved. Other forms of pedagogy such as peer tutoring and child-to-child learning, group and collaborative work, problem solving and project-based learning, and more innovative methods would become the practice of curriculum transactions in inclusive schools. These methodologies have strengths to keep children engaged, involved and participating in the learning process, a necessary component of inclusion in schools. A true collaborative learning pedagogy can develop only in a heterogeneous student population and not in ‘exclusive’ schools.

Resource mobilisation and use: This component of the inclusion plan can be broken into three parts—raising resources for schools keeping the needs of the disabled and the disadvantaged in view; creative and efficient use of resources; and reaching out to the community (by breaking walls!) to use its resources for curriculum transactions. The NCERT curriculum framework makes specific mention of such community resources. The vastness and openness of the serene rural environment with its fields, forests, ponds, rivers, trees, orchards, birds and animals is a major provider to curriculum development. Similarly, the busy business centres, industrial complexes, neat and clean residential

188

MAKING IT HAPPEN clusters and not so clean and not so healthy slum areas of cities provide a different kind of input to curriculum making ... Community can also provide services of persons through voluntary contributions and also by providing services of persons having special skills, aptitudes and interests (NCERT, 2000, p. 108).

Assessment and evaluation: The approach to learning assessment of children has to change completely in the inclusive setting. It has to be viewed as an instrument for teachers understanding children’s difficulties and a mechanism for feedback for further improvement in pedagogy and ILCs. Even for children who do not have ILCs, using exactly the same evaluation system would be inconsistent with the different paces at which children learn. Hence, a differential evaluation system may be helpful for a teacher to set different levels of expectations from differently abled children. Some children may require more time to complete a particular grade or class, and the school should provide for the same. As discussed earlier, assessment and examinations are not equity neutral. Hence, the question of non-discrimination and equal

opportunity would come into play, while maintaining the fairness and sanctity of examinations, in inclusive schools.

Reflection and review: There would be a continuous mechanism for participatory reflection and review of the inclusion plan with scope for its modification from time to time by the school team constituted for the purpose. Reflection and review would include collaboration and networking with other institutions including special schools or resource centres. Inclusion does not mean isolation from special teachers or the special school set up; rather it would mean more constructive dialogue with all partners working for the improvement of general school reforms.

189

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS

CLASSROOM OR TEACHER LEVEL INITIATIVES The question is, if there is no school level inclusion policy and plan can a teacher initiate inclusionary practice in the classroom? The

answer would be in the affirmative. If a child with disability or learning difficulty comes to a classroom, an Indian teacher is not

constrained with a policy on the pattern prevalent in Britain whereby

a child has to be assessed and labeled as requiring special

educational needs under the Code of Practice. Without any such labeling provisions, teachers in India can take charge of the child

and organise activity and learning processes that would involve and ‘include’ that child in the classroom. The teacher may need to

organise additional support that would minimise barriers and increase participation of the child in learning. Even in the absence of

any such child who may have a disability, a teacher could create

involving and participatory pedagogy that is currently missing from

Indian classrooms. Inclusion practices are necessary conditions for the education of children with disabilities and the disadvantaged in regular schools. Other support systems including the services of a

special teacher in certain cases would make conditions sufficient to provide a complete education to such children.

The purpose of stating these intitiaves is not to present any

rigid model for developing an inclusive school. A variety of strategies

may be thought of if the fundamentals are strong. The approach to

inclusive education and inclusive schools may be shaped into an equilateral triangle with one of its arms as ethics and humanity, and

the other one as rights and social justice. The base of the triangle

would be drawn by curriculum and pedagogy. Indian tradition and culture values the arm defined by ethics and humanity. The Indian constitution and polity provide the arm representing rights, equity

and social justice. While these two arms may be ‘external’ to a child and would depend on school and state factors, the third arm

190

MAKING IT HAPPEN represented by curriculum and pedagogy directly influences a child’s

schooling and education. Teachers under the Indian culture have been placed on a high pedestal, and it is they who can provide the base for creating an inclusive system of education for all.

191

9

IN CONCLUSION

I

n writing this conclusion on a theme, which has been generating so much interest and literature across countries, but still remains

a vision, I confine myself to the questions I had raised during the research.

Is there uniformity in perspectives on inclusive education at the international level? There is a wide difference in perspectives between the government at the policy level and academics writing on this subject in Britain.

Government documents indicate that they are moving towards

inclusion by closing down special schools and bringing in more and

more disabled children into mainstream schools. They accept the inclusion principle at the policy level without indicating substantial changes in practice at the school and classroom levels. As a result, what is actually happening is the result of policy initiatives taken twenty years ago.

Another level where perception differs is whether inclusive

education should refer to the education of the disabled in

mainstream schools only, or whether it should cover all children. In

fact, this question is more relevant in the case of developing countries than the developed ones, since in the latter nearly all children are in schools, albeit at different levels of achievements.

Therefore, most of the literature on inclusive education gives higher

192

IN CONCLUSION attention to the education of the disabled. Of late, however, attention is shifting to disadvantaged groups and their inclusion in mainstream schools, generally in American literature and in the literature with reference to developing countries.

The third level of differences in perception is approaches to

inclusion, particularly for those of the disabled. While discourses in regard to humanitarian, and rights and social justice approaches

remain inconclusive, there is a general understanding that inclusion should be approached keeping children at the centre. Unfortunately, no system has developed to take into account children’s perceptions on the whole issue, and so anybody deciding on their behalf,

claiming to safeguard their best interests, expects to be heard and

trusted. In such a situation, differences in perceptions will remain unavoidable, and groups of policymakers, parents, teachers, professionals and specialists will continue to claim that they are taking the decision that is most appropriate to the child.

Do the existing policies and practices in the West, particularly in England, meet the emerging expectations of children and parents for inclusive education?

The immediate answer to this question would be ‘No’. However, that

would mean undermining the efforts of teachers and educational practitioners who are trying to evolve inclusion practices under the existing policy. Booth et al. (2000) have developed an ‘index for

inclusion’, which gives a step-by-step approach for creating inclusive schools. The effort is on collaboration with the government

departments of education and employment. But the increasing percentage of children with SEN and statements, despite declared policy to control them, reflects the inadequacy of the government

approach towards inclusion. ‘Government has its own political

agenda and ignores any research findings that are inconvenient.’ 1 Under the circumstances, without changing the 1978 policy, there

would be some extent of inclusion in Britain’s schools, but it may not

193

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS achieve the ultimate goal of inclusive education. There is no uniformity in policies and practices towards inclusion in other

developed countries. However, there is a trend towards closing down special schools and increasing finances and resources to general

schools once children with disabilities from the neighbourhood are admitted.

Could the existing policies and practices in respect of children with ‘special educational needs’ be extended to countries like India, and would that be consistent with the principles and philosophy of inclusive education?

The definition and concept of ‘special educational needs’ have

emerged in the background of physical and mental disabilities in children. Learning difficulties arising largely due to emotional and

behavioural factors are also covered. The agenda for inclusion in the West is mainly concentrated on these groups of children. On the other hand, in India, as in many other developing countries, focus is required not only on children with disabilities and learning

difficulties, but also on many other groups who are educationally deprived due to social and economic reasons. These would include child labour, street children, children belonging to SC and ST

communities, girls in rural areas, and minorities and groups belonging to diverse social, cultural and linguistic backgrounds. All these children would have ‘special needs’. In fact, what is called

‘special needs’ in Britain would be the ‘normal needs’ of a large

majority of children in India. Hence, the terminology, which has its origin in the medical world of diagnosing the disabled in the West,

cannot explain the educational deprivation of large numbers of

children in developing countries. The deprivation of these children is more on account of social, economic and historical factors; so the

concept and context of SEN, introduced in Britain by Warnock, cannot meet inclusion expectations in India and other developing countries.

194

IN CONCLUSION For the sake of argument, if the term were to be used only for

the physically and mentally disabled in developing countries, should the concept and strategy be extended in these countries? SEN in

Britain was introduced in 1978, when education for all, including

children with disabilities, had nearly been achieved. These children

were either in mainstream schools or in special schools following the 1944 Education Act. Tomlinson (2001) notes:

Before the 1944 Act, nearly 90 per cent of young people left school at 14, having largely attended all-age 5-14 schools, only 10 per cent achieved passes in public examination and less than 5 per cent went into higher education. Forty years later 100 per cent of young people were in school until 16, 70 per cent until 17, and 80 per cent achieved passes in public examinations, and 33 per cent were into higher education (p. 9).

Warnock made a departure by abolishing the medical

categorisation of the disabled, but created a new category on the

basis of requirement for educational provisions and services for enabling the disabled to access the same or similar curricular goals.

Consequently, it also projected significant increase in the numbers entitled for special provisions from 2 per cent to 20 per cent. As per

a WHO estimate, less than 2 per cent of disabled children are in

schools in developing countries (Watkins, K., 2000) However, this estimate does not match the Indian NSSO report which estimated that around 50 per cent of the disabled in the age group 5-14 were enrolled in schools (NSSO, 1994). Since there is a remarkable

situational difference between disability education in Britain in 1978 and in India today, the immediate conclusion would be that the

concept cannot be replicated, if for no other reason than the simple fact that SEN in England is highly resource linked. Can India afford

to provide one support staff to each child with ‘statement’ of special educational needs and the IEP, if we were to follow the Western

model and terminology of special educational needs? And a related question would be: is it required?

195

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS Further, inclusion philosophy and practices were not conceived

when Warnock was writing her report. The Third World has the

advantage of developments that took place in the 1980s and 1990s which gives it an opportunity to evolve its own inclusion policy without replicating the West. India, in particular, has the advantage

of many micro initiatives which are highly engaging, participatory

and inclusive in nature. Most educational practitioners in India think that education of the disabled is the job of specialists and

professionals specially trained for that. On a personal level, when I discuss the principles and practices of inclusion and inclusive education with quite a few educational practitioners, they discover that they can do it themselves!

Hence, my conclusion is that the context, timeframe, quantum

and nature of expectations, and the available resources are

different. Therefore, India should not replicate the SEN policies and practices that were developed in the West during the pre-inclusive education era.

Are the challenges of inclusion in India the same or similar as in England and other developed countries? The challenges of inclusion in India are at three levels. First,

inclusion of children with disabilities. Second, inclusion of children

from socially and economically disadvantaged groups who either are not coming to schools or drop out after a few years. Also, children

belonging to diverse social, cultural and linguistic groups could be

incorporated in this category. Third, inclusion of children who are in classrooms but feel alienated due to non-relevant curriculum and teacher-centred pedagogy.

In the first situation, there is no policy restriction of the kind

teachers and schools find in England. Regular teachers in India’s

mainstream schools are free to use inclusive pedagogy and involve all children in learning processes. Absence of a policy on the pattern

of SEN gives an opportunity to teachers for creating an inclusive

196

IN CONCLUSION environment for all, including children with disabilities. There is no

compulsion on the part of a school and the teacher to launch the process of identification and assessment, which ultimately results in labelling children leading to their segregation in and outside

classrooms, as in England. The nature of challenges in England’s schools and their teachers is far more complex as they have to

create an inclusive classroom within the segregating SEN policy of the central government.

On the second level, England’s teachers and schools do not

have to face the situation of non-enrolment and drop outs on the scale experienced in India and the multi-track system of schools

getting created here. In England, there are some problems relating to the education of ethnic minorities, refugees, and asylum seekers, and also for travelers’ children, but the extent and dimensions are

limited. For such children, schools were encouraged to move to a curriculum ‘appropriate for the modern interdependent world’ (Tomlinson, 1990).

In India, the issues of non-schooling (despite the availability of

facilities, at times) and drop outs have not been examined or researched from the angle of inclusion. But, the pattern of school

structures and participation of different groups of children in

different sets of schools point to the fact that challenges of inclusion in India are entirely different from what is being perceived in the

West. As someone observed, on knowing the surname of a child, parentage and address one can reasonably predict the type of school that child would be going to—public/private school,

central/state government run or aided schools, municipal schools or primary learning centres run by NGOs or the communities. Hence, unless there is a paradigm shift in the approach to inclusion in the Indian context, inclusion of the disabled would remain a far cry.

Inclusion in classrooms at the level of curriculum and pedagogy

remains an issue in England as well as in India, though the degree

may vary. Since the introduction of the National Curriculum in

197

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS England, there is a feeling that schools’ initiative for the development of curriculum has been curtailed. The problem of pedagogy in England is more in respect of SEN children. Generally,

teaching is interactive and a variety of learning materials is used to make the development of understanding participatory and

interesting. However, the problem arises when pedagogy has to

relate to children with or without SEN ‘statements’. The policy, prescribed practices, involvement of support staff and the SENCO create a non-inclusive environment for such children. Classrooms in

India, even in schools that may have resources, are organised entirely differently. Majority of students in all types of schools do not feel involved or ‘included’ in the learning process. It is said, ‘the EFA ends where it is supposed to begin—in the classroom’. 2

To sum up this question, there is a limited challenge in England

for participation of the disadvantaged, while it is enormous in India. Inclusion of the disabled gets complicated due to the SEN policy prevalent in England, while there are no such policy impediments in

India. Classrooms have more inclusionary practices in England, at

least for non-SEN children, while it is completely missing in Indian schools.

What is the role of curriculum and pedagogy towards the development of inclusive education, particularly in the Indian context? Daniels and Garner (2000) have listed six challenges of the ‘new’

pedagogy for inclusive education. Three of them relate to the SEN policy and are not relevant for the Indian context. The other three

relate to the National Curriculum, teachers’ training and ICT

(Information and Communication Technology) being used in education. India is in an advantageous situation with regard to at least the first two. Though there is a ‘national curriculum

framework’, theoretically speaking states have the freedom to design their own curriculum. In practice, however, no such freedom is

198

IN CONCLUSION exercised due to a traditional perception about the curriculum as

something that has to be prescribed from above, either at the

national or the state level. There is no concept for a school to

develop its own curriculum. The attitude and understanding towards curriculum has to change. Its development has to be planned at local and contextual levels to make it more inclusive and responsive

to meet the requirements of child-centred pedagogy. The principles and approaches of inclusive pedagogy can be addressed in regular

teacher training programmes so that teachers do not need to wait for specialists to take care of minimum educational needs for children with disabilities. According to one estimate, less than 1 per

cent children with severe disabilities might need special schooling facilities; a regular teacher can take care of the rest with suitable orientation in inclusive technology. In India, where pedagogy is still

very traditional, the first attempt has to be to make learning participatory for the non-disabled. The process will set in motion the

inclusion of a large number of disadvantaged children and the disabled who might require some additional support and services.

But supply of these provisions without changing the basic pedagogy

and perception towards curriculum will not take us far on the path of inclusion. Changes in curriculum and pedagogy have to play a far more critical role in achieving inclusion in India and other developing countries than in the West.

Some commentators have expressed doubts over the efficacy of

the institution of the school created for mass education to meet the

requirements of an industrial society. Can the institution meet the

challenges of the information age? The answer is in the negative. Competition has to give way to cooperation; basic education for the

masses and selection of elites have to be replaced by lifelong learning opportunity for all; pedagogy based on knowledge transmission has to change to knowledge-building; and collaborative

learning should replace individual targeted mode of learning. It has

also been argued that true collaborative learning cannot take place

199

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS in a homogeneous classroom. Hence, children whose classrooms are not diverse and heterogeneous will be denied the opportunity of

collaborative learning so as to prepare them to work in nonhierarchical organisations in the future. The experience of importing

the nineteenth century model school from the developed world to the developing world has not been encouraging. A large number of children are not able to cope with the formal school set up. A larger

number is still out of school and not able to complete minimum schooling. Studies have shown that rigidity of the system, nature of

curriculum and teaching methodologies are some of the important

factors for inefficient use of resources for schooling. As a result, the country has been experimenting with many forms of schooling, such as non-formal, alternative schools and open schools. Hence, there lies an opportunity for teachers and educational practitioners to

make their schools increasingly inclusive as there are no major policy impediments in India.

Whether a school is in a developed or developing country,

inclusive education is a growing concept and an evolving practice. It

is a means, not an end; a journey, not a destination; a process, not a product. It may start without waiting for discourses to close and policy to change, for children of today cannot wait, and their education cannot stop.

NOTES 1. Personal e-mail communication from Prof. Sally Tomlinson.

2. Comment by Subir Shukla, a colleague, in one of the workshops on inclusive education.

200

AFTERWORD

M

y original research idea of developing an ‘inclusion index’ to measure inclusivity in schools has not been given up. Rather, it

has become stronger after ‘discovering’ the potential of inclusion to

respond to equity and opportunity, quality and excellence and above all to the demands of the information age in the twenty-first century. The idea of an inclusion index came to me after hearing a paper

delivered in a conference in which a professor had developed a ‘segregation index’ for schools in one of the provinces in Canada. In India, schools are more segregating in practice, so there would be

little differentiation among schools on a segregation scale! Further, the word ‘segregation’ seemed to be a negative term. Hence, the

idea for an inclusion index—more positive and perhaps competitive.

I was aware of the UK’s ‘Index for Inclusion’ (Booth et al.,

2000), but it has inclusion indicators and questions to examine the

inclusion process. I however feel the need for a statistical model to measure inclusivity. For example, to measure equity in access,

schools admitting a higher percentage of non-fee paying, poor and disadvantaged children from the neighbourhood would score higher

than schools which admitted only fee paying students. Or when measuring participation in learning, a school which took children out for community work under its work education curriculum, organised

several group/collaborative projects and gave children more activitybased learning and peer interactions would score more points than

201

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS one which focused learning entirely within the confines of a

classroom and prepared children for achievement in examinations. Or to measure progress in performance, a school which shows some

progress in the learning of ‘low achieving’ students from diverse backgrounds would score higher than a school which admits only ‘high achieving’ students and then claims their performance as that

of the school. These three measures of inclusion—equity in access, participation in learning and progress in performance—could be the basis of a framework that could further be refined. While the choice

of ‘measures’ can be debated, any research in this regard to my mind can only enrich the discussions on quality schooling in the

country and enlarge the discourses on the nature of schooling. And

thereby help us come closer to achieving the goal of inclusive education for all.

202

507 373 458 568 527 552

Male Female Person Male Female Person

Rural

Urban

Source: NSSO, 1994.

3

2

1

Currently enrolled

Sex

Sector

0 1 0

0 0 0

4

Currently enrolled

0 1 0

1 0 1

5

Not currently enrolled

Ever enrolled in special school

Onset of disability

20 27 23

26 30 28

Never enrolled in special school 6

Other reasons

1 1 1

0 1 1

7

Currently enrolled

0 0 0

2 2 2

8

Not currently enrolled

Ever enrolled in special school

Not currently enrolled due to

Ever enrolled in ordinary school

40 27 35

34 36 35

Never enrolled in special school 9

347 385 362

399 525 446

Never enrolled in ordinary school 10

1000 1000 1000

1000 1000 1000

11

Total (Incl. N.R.)

Appendix 1: Per 1000 Distribution of Disabled Children of Age 5-14 Years by Enrollment Status for Each Sex, All-India

Source: NSSO, 1994, p. 83.

1 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal All-India

state

not literate 2 785 603 769 572 624 715 707 380 756 641 783 663 725 638 753 647 701

upto primary 3 152 294 124 283 253 174 194 423 181 243 165 205 186 255 162 253 203 4 38 50 47 63 51 71 58 133 31 71 30 58 50 64 46 59 53

Rural literate middle secondary and above 5 19 46 46 73 64 29 35 56 25 37 19 55 31 36 34 33 35

total (incl. n.r.) 6 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

not literate 7 540 325 545 375 505 499 502 324 445 337 537 495 478 407 573 447 462

upto primary 8 256 337 188 375 263 217 249 365 320 355 263 286 291 348 24 294 298 9 102 130 95 108 118 38 126 172 80 133 111 76 104 131 76 125 110

Urban literate middle

Appendix 2: Per 1000 Distribution of Disabled Persons by General Educational Level

secondary and above 10 99 198 153 140 107 171 113 131 147 129 77 130 116 105 107 130 123

total (incl. n.r.) 11 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, C. (2001) ICT: Changing Education. London: Routledge Falmer.

Ahmed, M. (1975) The Economics of Non-formal Education. New York: Praeger Publications.

Anderson, K. (ed.) (2000) Gifted and Talented Students: Meeting Their Needs in New Zealand Schools. Wellington: Learning Media, Ministry of Education.

Ainscow, M. (1997) ‘Towards Inclusive Schooling’ in British Journal of Special Education, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp 3-6.

— (1999) Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools. London: Falmer.

Ainscow, M., Jangira, N.K. and Ahuja, A. (1995) ‘Responding to Special Needs Through Teacher Development’ in Zinkin, P. and McConachie, H. (eds) Disabled Children and Developing Countries. London: Mackeith Press.

Armstrong, D., Armstrong, F. and Barton, L. (2000) ‘Introduction: What is This Book About’ in Armstrong, D. and Armstrong, F. (eds) Inclusive Education: Policy, Contexts and Comparative Perspectives. London: Fulton.

Ballard, K.(ed.) (1999) Inclusive Education: International Voices on Disability and Justice. London: Falmer.

Barton, L. (1999) ‘Market Ideologies, Education and the Challenge for Inclusion’ in Daniels, H. and Garner, P. (eds) World Yearbook of Education, 1999: Inclusive Education. London: Kogan Page.

Barton, L. and Tomlinson, S. (1984) ‘The Politics of Integration in England’ in Barton, L. and Tomlinson, S. (eds) Special Education and Social Interests. Beckenham, Kent: Croom Helm.

205

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS Bayliss, P. (1996) ‘Segregation, Integration, Inclusion: Frameworks and Rational’ in The European Electronic Journal on Inclusive Education in Europe (available on http:/ www.uva.es/inclusion/text/baylis.htm).

Beare, H. and Slaughter, R. (1993) Education for the Twenty-first Century. London: Routledge.

Berres, M.S. (1996) ‘All Children, All Schools’ in Berres, M.S., Ferguson, D.L., Knoblock, P. and Woods, C. (eds) Creating Tomorrow’s Schools Today: Stories of Inclusion, Change, and Renewal. New York: Teacher College Press.

Biswas, A. and Agrawal, S.P. (1986) Development of Education in India: A Historical Survey of Educational Development Before and After Independence. New Delhi: Concept Publishing.

Booth, T. (1996) ‘A Perspective of Inclusion from England’ in Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp 87-100. — (1998) ‘The Poverty of Special Education: Theories to Rescue?’ in Clark, C., Dyson, A. and Milliward, A. (eds) Theorizing Special Education.

— (2000) ‘Inclusion and Exclusion Policy in England: Who Controls the Agenda?’ in Armstrong, F., Armstrong, D. and Barton, L. (eds) Inclusive Education: Policy, Contexts and Comparative Perspectives. London: Fulton.

Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (eds) (1998) From Them to Us: An International Study of Inclusion in Education. London: Routledge.

Booth, T., Ainscow, M. and Dyson, A. (1998) ‘England: Inclusion and Exclusion in a Competitive System’ in Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (eds) From Them to Us: An International Study of Inclusion in Education. London: Routledge. Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M. and Shaw, L. (2000) Index for Inclusion: Developing, Learning and Participation in Schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Brantlinger, E. (1997) ‘Using Ideology: Cases of Non-recognition of the Politics of Research and Practice in Special Education’ in Review of Educational Research, Winter, 67 (4), pp 425-59.

Brock, C. and Griffin, R. (2000) ‘Introduction’ in Brock, C. and Griffin, R. (eds) International Perspectives on Special Educational Needs. Suffolk: John Catt Educational Ltd.

Brophy, J. (2000) ‘Teaching’ in Educational Practices Series-1. Brussels: IAE, Geneva: UNESCO-IBE.

CABE (1944) Post War Educational Development in India. New Delhi: Ministry of Education.

206

BIBLIOGRAPHY Clark, C. and Easen, P. (1993) ‘Turning the Kaleidoscope: Working with Teachers Concerned About Special Educational Needs’ in Dyson, A. and Gains, C. (eds) Returning Special Needs in Mainstream Schools: Towards the Year 2000. London: Fulton.

Clough, P. and Corbett, J. (2000) Theories of Inclusive Education: A Student’s Guide. London: Paul Chapman.

Cohen, O. (1994) ‘Inclusion Should Not Include Deaf Students’ in www.zak.co.il/deaf.

Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1994) Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge. Corbett, J. (1996) Bad-Mouthing: The Language of Special Needs. London: Falmer. DEE (1997) Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs. London: DEE Publication Centre.

DES (1978) Special Educational Needs: Report of a Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People (The Warnock Report). London: HMSO. DFE (1994) Code of Practice on Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs. Oxford: Central Office of Information.

Daniels, H. and Garner, P. (2000) ‘Inclusive Education: Challenges for the New Millennium’ in Daniels, H. and Garner, P. (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1999: Inclusive Education. London: Kogan Page.

Das, M. (1999) Sri Aurobindo on Education. New Delhi: National Council of Teacher Education.

Dave, R. (1999) Gijubhai Badheka ke Saikhanik Vichar aur Prayog (‘Eudcational philosophy and experimentation by Gijubhai Badheka’). New Delhi: NCTE.

Day, L. (2003) ‘Bridging Educational and Social Divides? Private School Outreach for Out-of-School Children in India’. Oxford University: D. Phil Thesis. Delors, J. (ed.) (1996) Learning: The Treasure Within. Paris: UNESCO.

Dens, A. (1997) ‘The Quality of Integration Depends on the Quality of Education for Everybody’ in Implementing Inclusive Education. OECD: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.

Dessent, T. (1987) Making the Ordinary School Special. London: Falmer.

Development and Research Services (DRS) (2001) Status Review of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti: A Report. New Delhi: Development and Research Services.

207

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS DiBona, J. (ed.) (1983) One Teacher, One School: The Adams Report on Indigenous Education in 19th Century India. New Delhi: Biblia Index.

Dreze, J. and Kingdon, G. (2001) ‘School Participation in Rural India’ in Review of Development Economics, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp 1-24.

Duggal Committee (1999) Report of the Committee on Fee Hike and Other Charges in Recognised Unaided Private Schools in Delhi. Delhi: Government of NCT.

Dyer, C. (2000) Operation Blackboard: Policy Implementation in Indian Elementary Education. Oxford: Symposium Books. Dyson, A. (1999) ‘Inclusion and Inclusions: Theories and Discussions in Inclusive Education’ in Daniels, H. and Garner, P. (eds.) World Yearbook of Education 1999: Inclusive Education. London: Kogan Page.

— (2000) ‘Questioning, Understanding and Supporting the Inclusive School’ in Daniels, H. (ed.) Special Education Reformed: Beyond Rhetoric? London: Falmer.

Dyson, A. and Gains, C. (1993) ‘Special Needs and Effective Learning: Towards a Collaborative Model for the Year 2000’ in Dyson, A. and Gains, C. (eds) Special Needs in Mainstream Schools: Towards the Year 2000. London: Falmer. Education Commission (1966) Education and National Development. New Delhi: Ministry of Education.

Evans, J. (2000) ‘From Warnock to the Market Place: The Development of Special Education Policy in England and Wales: 1978-1998’ in Brock, C. and Griffin, R. (eds) International Perspectives in Special Educational Needs. Suffolck: John Catt Educational Ltd.

Evans, P. and Labon, D. (1997) ‘The OECD Project: Integrating Students with Special Needs into Mainstream Schools’ in Implementing Inclusive Education. OECD: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.

Fagg, H. (2001) ‘Back to the Sources: A Study of Gandhi’s Basic Education’. New Delhi: National Book Trust.

Farrell, F. (2000) ‘The Impact of Research on Developments in Inclusive Education’ in International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 4, AprilJune, pp 153-62.

Ferguson, D.L. (1996) ‘Is It Inclusion Yet? Bursting the Bubbles’ in Berres, M.S., Ferguson, D.L., Knoblock, P. and Woods, C. (eds) Creating Tomorrow’s Schools Today: Stories of Inclusion, Change, and Renewal. New York: Teacher College Press. Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press. — (1978) Pedagogy in Progress. New York: The Seabury Press.

208

BIBLIOGRAPHY Fulcher, G. (1999) Disabling Policies? A Comparative Approach to Education Policy and Disability. Sheffield: Phillip Armstrong.

Galloway, D., Armstrong, D. and Tomlinson, S. (1994) The Assessment of Special Educational Needs: Whose Problem? London: Longman.

Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence. London: Fontana Press. Gould, W.T.S. (1993) People and Education in the Third World. Essex: Longman.

Haq, E. (1989) ‘Open Education and Closed Society: A Study in Social and Educational Inequalities in Contemporary India’ in Yogev, A. (ed.) International Perspectives on Education and Society. London: Jai Press.

Hart, S. (1992a) ‘Collaborative Classrooms’ in Booth, T., Swann, W., Masreton, M. and Potts, P. (eds) Curricula for Diversity in Education. London: Routledge. — (1992b) ‘Evaluating Support Teaching’ in Booth, T., Swann, W., Masreton, M. and Potts, P. (eds) Curricula for Diversity in Education. London: Routledge.

Holst, J. (1999) ‘The Welfare State and the Individual Freedom’ in Daniels, H. and Garner, P. (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1999: Inclusive Education. London: Kogan Page.

IEDC (1992). Scheme of Integrated Education for the Disabled Children. New Delhi: Department of Education. Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling Society. Middlesex, England: Penguin.

Inclusion International (1996) ‘Tips for Teachers’ in Inclusion International, October, No. 4. Fereny-Voltaire, France: Inclusion International.

Jangira, N.K. (1995) ‘Rethinking Teacher Education’ in Prospects, Vol. XXV, No. 2, June, pp 261-71. — (1997) ‘Special Education’ in Fifth Survey of Educational Research 1988 Trend Reports, Vol 1. New Delhi: NCERT.

Jangira, N.K. and Jangira, P. (1995) Effective Teaching: Child Centred Approach. New Delhi: National Publishing House.

Jayakar, P. (1987) J. Krishnamurti: A Biography. New Delhi: Penguin Books.

Jenkinson, J.C. (1997) Mainstream or Special? Educating Students with Disabilities. London: Routledge.

Jessop, T. (1998) A Model for Best Practice at Loreto Day School, Sealdah, Calcutta. Education Sector Group: DFID (India). Jha, M.M. (1998) ‘Evolution of Cluster Resource Centres as Institutions for Teacher Empowerment and School Effectiveness: A Case Study’ in

209

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS Prakash, V. (ed.) Teacher Empowerment and School Effectiveness at Primary Stage. New Delhi: NCERT.

— (2005) ‘The Inclusion of Children with “Special Educational Needs” in India: A Case Study of Three Schools in Delhi’. D. Phil Thesis, University of Oxford.

Kabir, H. (1956) Education in New India. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Kahelnberg, R.D. (2001) All Together Now: Creating Middle-Class Schools through Public Schools Choice. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Kellmayer, J. (1995) How to Establisb an Alternative School. California: Crown Press. Kingdon, G. G. (1996a) ‘Private Schooling in India: Size, Nature, and Equity Effects’ in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXXI, No. 51, 21 December, pp 3306-14. — (1996b). ‘The Quality and Efficiency of Private and Public Education: A Case Study of Urban India’ in Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp 57-81.

Kugelmass, J.W. (1996) ‘Reconstructing Curriculum for Systemic Inclusion’ in Berres, M.S., Ferguson, D.L., Knoblock, P. and Woods, C. (eds) Creating Tomorrow’s Schools Today: Stories of Inclusion, Change, and Renewal. New York: Teacher College Press. Kumar, K. (1994) ‘Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’ in Morsy, Z. (ed.) Thinkers on Education, Vol. 2. Paris: UNESCO. Kurien, J. (1983) Elementary Education in India: Myth, Reality, Alternative. New Delhi: Vikas.

Lewis, A.C. (2000) ‘Diversity in U.S. Education’ in U.S. Society and Values (Electronic Journal), November. New Delhi: Public Affairs Office, US Embassy. Lipsky, D.K. and Gartner, A. (1999) ‘Inclusive Education: A Requirement of a Democratic Society’ in Daniels, H. and Garner, P. (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1999: Inclusive Education. London: Kogan Page.

Lloyd, C. (2000) ‘Excellence for All Children—False Promises! The Failure of Current Policy for Education and Implications for Schooling in the 21st Century’ in International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 4, No. 2, April-June. London: Taylor and Francis.

Lockheed, M.E. and Verspoor, M. (1991) Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Lunt, I. and Norwich, B. (1999) Can Effective Schools be Inclusive? London: Institute of Education.

210

BIBLIOGRAPHY Mani, M.N.G. (1993) Project for the Integrated Education for the Disabled: An Evaluation Study. New Delhi: UNICEF.

Marvin, C. (1998) ‘Individual and Whole Class Teaching’ in Tilstone, C., Florian, L., and Rose, R. (eds) Promoting Inclusive Practice. London: Routledge. Mayor, F. (1994) ‘Preface’ in The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action. Paris: UNESCO.

Miles, M. (1994) ‘Disability Care and Education in 19th Century India: Some Dates, Places and Documentation’ in ACTIONAID Disability News, Vol. 5, No. 2. — (1997) ‘Disabled Learners in South Asia: Lessons from the Past for Educational Exporters’ in International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. Vol. 44, No. 2, pp 97-104.

Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) (1986a). National Policy on Education-1986. New Delhi: Government of India. — (1986b) NPE Programme of Action. New Delhi: Government of India.

— (1990) Toward an Enlightened and Humane Society: NPE 1986-A Review. New Delhi: Government of India. — (1992) NPE 1986: Programme of Action 1992. New Delhi: Government of India. — (1993) Learning Without Burden. New Delhi: Government of India.

— (1998) National Policy on Education (As modified in 1992) with National Policy on Education, 1968. New Delhi: Government of India.

— (2001a) Annual Report 2000-2001. New Delhi: Government of India.

— (2001b) Innovative Practices in School Education. New Delhi: Government of India.

Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (1996) The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. New Delhi: Government of India.

Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MSJE) (2001) Annual Report 2000-2001. New Delhi: Government of India.

Mittler, P. (1995) ‘Special Needs Education: An International Perspective’ in British Journal of Education. Vol. 22, No. 3, pp 105-08.

— (2000) Working Towards Inclusive Education: Social Context. London: Fulton.

Morley, L. (1998) ‘Equity, Empowerment and School Effectiveness’ in Teacher Empowerment and School Effectiveness at Primary Stage. New Delhi: NCERT.

211

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS Muriekan, J. and Kareparampil, G. (1995) Persons with Disabilities in Society. Trivandrum: Kerala Foundation of the Blind.

Morris, C. (1999) ‘Opening Doors: Learning History through Talk’ in Booth, T., Swann, W., Magterton, M., and Potts, P. (eds) Curricula for Diversity in Education. London: Routledge.

Mukhopadhyay, S. and Anil K.K. (2001) Quality Profile of Secondary Schools. New Delhi: National Institute of Public Administration. National Council of Educational Research and Tranining (NCERT) (1993) Children for Education: A Report. New Delhi: NCERT. — (2000) National Curriculum Framework for School Education. New Delh: NCERT.

National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) (1998) Gandhi on Education. New Delhi: NCTE.

National Institute for Educational Research (NIER) (1999) An International Comparative Study of School Curriculum. Tokyo: National insititute for Eductional Research.

National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) (1994) ‘Disability in India: NSS 47th Round’ in Sarvekshana, July-December 1991, New Delhi: Government of India

Nilekani, R. (2005) The Economic Times, 28 November.

OECD (1996) Integrating Services for Children at Risk. Paris: OECD. — (1997) Implementing Inclusive Education. Paris: OECD.

Ogadhoh, K. and Molteno, M. (1998) A Chance in Life: Principles and Practices in Basic Primary Education for Children. London: Save the Children.

Oliver, M. (1996) Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. London: Macmillan. Panchmukhi, P.R. (1983) ‘India: A Century of Effort’ in Simmons, J. (ed.) Better Schools. New York: Praeger Publications.

Parsons, C. (1999) Education, Exclusion and Citizenship. London: Routledge. PROBE Report (1999) Public Report on Basic Education in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Qamar, F. and Zahid, M. (2001) ‘Cost, Equity, Quality and Resource Use Efficiency in Senior Secondary Schools: Some Policy Imperatives’ in National Conference: Focus Secondary Education. New Delhi: NIEPA. RCI (2000) Status of Disability in India. New Delhi: Rehabilitation Council of India.

212

BIBLIOGRAPHY Richardson, J.T.E. (2000) Researching Student Learning: Approaches to Studying in Campus-based and Distance Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Rose, R. (1998) ‘The Curriculum: A Vehicle for Inclusion or a Lever for Exclusion?’ in Tilstone, C., Florian, L. and Rose, R. (eds) Promoting Inclusive Practice. London: Routledge.

Sadgopal, ... (2004) Globalisation and Education: Defining the Indian Crisis. New Delhi: Zakir Hussain Memorial Lecture.

Scrase, T.J. (1993) Image, Ideology and Inequality: Cultural Domination, Hegemony and Schooling in India. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Sebba, J. and Ainscow, M. (1996) ‘International Development in Inclusive Schooling: Mapping the Issues’ in Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp 5-18.

Special Educational Needs in England: Statistical Bulletin (January 1998). Available on www.dfee.gov.uk/sen/stat. Special Educational Needs in England: Statistical Bulletin (January 2000). Available on www.dfee.gov.uk/sen/stat. Sewell, G. (1996) Special Needs Provisions: Assessment, Concern and Action. London: Casell.

Sharma, N. and Sharma, B. (1999) ‘Children in Difficult Circumstances: Familial Correlates of Advantages at Risk’ in Saraswathi, T.S. (ed.) Culture, Socialisation and Human Development. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Shotton, J. (1998) Learning and Freedom. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Shukla, S. (2001) ‘Equity Among Diversity: Materials for Teachers’ Training’. New Delhi: UNESCO-PROAP Workshops. Workshop Documentation. Simmons, J. (1983) ‘Reforming Education and Society: The Enduring Quest’ in Simmons, J. (ed.) Better Schools: International Lessons. New York: Praeger Publications.

Sinclair, M.E. and Lillis, K. (1980) School and Community in the Third World. London: Croom Helm.

Slee, R., Weiner, G. and Tomlinson, S. (1998) School Effectiveness for Whom? Challenges to the School Effective and School Improvement Movements. London: Falmer.

Sleeter, C. (1987) ‘Literacy Definitions of Learning Disabilities and Social Control’ in Franklin, B.M. (ed.) Learning Disabilities: Dissenting Essays. London: Routledge. Skrtic, T.M. (1991) Behind Special Education: A Critical Analysis of Professional Culture and School Organisation. Denver, Colorado: Love Publishing.

213

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS Steele, T. and Taylor, R. (1994) ‘Against Modernity: Gandhi and Adult Education’ in International Journal of Lifelong Education. Vol. 13, No. 1, January-February, pp 33-42. Thomas, G. (1997) ‘Inclusive Schools for an Inclusive Society’ in British Journal of Special Education, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp 103-07.

Thomas, G. and Davies, J.D. (1999) ‘England and Wales: Competition and Control or Stake Holding and Inclusion’ in Daniels, H. and Garner, P. (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1999: Inclusive Education. London: Kogan Page.

Thomas, G., Walker, D. and Webb, J. (1998) The Making of the Inclusive School. London: Routledge.

Timmerman, M. (2000) ‘Original Powers of Expression: The Netherlands Experience’ in Brock, C. and Griffin, R. (eds) International Perspectives in Special Educational Needs. Suffolk: John Catt Educational Ltd.

Tilstone, C., Florian, L. and Rose, R. (eds) (1998) Promoting Inclusive Practice. London: Routledge. Tomlinson, J. (1997) ‘Inclusive Learning: The Report of the Committee of Enquiry Into Post-school Education of Those with Learning Difficulties and Disabilities in England 1996’ in European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp 184-86.

Tomlinson, S. (1982) A Sociology of Special Education. London: Routledge.

— (1990) Multicultural Education in White Schools. London: B.T. Batsford.

— (1999) ‘Exclusion: The Middle Class and the Common Good’ in Daniels, H. and Garner, P. (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1999: Inclusive Education. London: Kogan Page. — (2001) Education in a Post-welfare Society. Buckingham: Open University Press. — (2004) ‘Comprehensive Success and Bag-Standard Government’. London: Caroline Benn Memorial Lecture.

Udvari-Solner, A. (1996) ‘Theoretical Influences on the Establishment of Inclusive Practices’ in Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp 101-20.

Udvari-Solner, A. and Thousand, J. (1995) ‘Effective Organisational, Instructional and Curricular Practices in Inclusive Schools and Classrooms’ in Clark, C., Dyson, A. and Millword, A. (eds) Towards Inclusive Schools. London: Fulton.

214

BIBLIOGRAPHY UNESCO (1990). World Conference on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs. Paris: UNESCO. — (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO.

— (1995) Review of the Present Situation in Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO. — (2000) The Dakar Framework for Action. Paris: UNESCO.

Varghese, N.V. (2000) ‘Policy Responses to Access and Equity Issues in Education in India’ in Education in Commonwealth. Kensington, Nova Scotia: Commonwealth Secretariat and Department of Education.

Vlachou, A.D. (1997) Struggle for Inclusive Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Wagner, L. (1982) Peer Teaching Historical Perspectives. London: Greenwood Press. Walberg, H.J. and Paik, S.J. (2000) Educational Practices Series-1 Brussels: IAE, Geneva: UNESCO-IBE.

Warnock, M. (1980) ‘A Flexible Framework’ in The Times Educational Supplement, 26 September. — (1982) ‘Comprehensive Success and Bag-Standard Government’. London: Caroline Benn Memorial Lecture. — (1999) in Times Education Supplement, London, 31 December.

Watkins, C. (2000) Managing Classroom Behaviour: From Research to Diagnosis. London: Institute of Education.

Watkins, K. (2000) The Oxfam Education Report. Oxford: Oxfam International.

Weiner, M. (1991) The Child and the State in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Westwood, P. (1993) Commonsense Methods for Children with Special Needs: Strategies for the Regular Classroom. London: Routledge.

White, R.C. (2000) The School of Tomorrow: Values and Vision. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Wolfendalu, S. (1987) Primary Schools and Special Needs: Policy, Planning and Provision. London: Cassel Educational Ltd. Zastoupil, L. and Moir, M. (eds) (1999) The Great Indian Education Debate: Documents Relating to the Orientalist-Anglicist Controversy, 1781-1843. Richmond: Curzon Press.

215

This page is intentionally left blank

INDEX activity-based learning 150, 160-162 Adams Report 112 alternative models 21 alternative schools 5, 21, 110, 200 attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) 143 AUSAID Project 104 barriers to learning 4, 11, 64, 117, 176 , 177 Basic Education 15, 105, 111, 113-115 , 123, 135, 140, 162, 168, 199 Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) 91 charity and humanitarian approach 32, 33 child-centred pedagogy 16, 41, 51, 138-141, 199 children with disabilities 2, 4, 9, 10, 20, 31, 36, 37, 43, 45, 46, 48-50, 54, 62, 76, 97-101, 105, 106, 111, 118, 121, 130, 131, 135, 139, 143, 149, 154, 163, 164, 167, 168, 182, 185, 190, 194-197, 199 classroom teaching 137, 150, 160, 161

Code of Practice 60, 65, 68, 73, 84, 177, 179, 190 common school system 3, 5, 7, 77, 128-130, 181-184 contextual model 19, 128 curriculum 4, 5, 7, 22, 24, 28, 36, 4146, 48-50, 52, 60-62, 64, 65, 68-70, 75, 77, 81-83, 96, 97, 101, 109, 111, 115, 116, 118-123, 125, 126, 128, 130, 132-134, 138, 140-142, 145-149, 155, 158, 163, 164, 166, 168-173, 177, 179, 180, 186-191, 196-200 curriculum for inclusion 146 de-schooling 5 developed countries 4, 6, 17, 19, 4649, 106, 120, 129, 130, 136, 146, 194, 196 developing countries 3, 19, 20, 22, 47, 49, 98, 106-108, 192-195, 199 Disability Discrimination Act 69 District Primary Education 100 drop outs 109, 160, 197 Duggal Committee, 1999 128 Education (Handicapped Children) 55

217

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS Education Act 1921 55 Education Act 1944 55 Education Act 1976 55 Education Act of 1870 54 Education Act of 1981 49 Education Commission Report, 1966 116 Education Reform Act, 1988 70 educational thinkers 15, 16 effective schooling 7, 20, 128 effective schools 18-21 Eklavya Project 132 Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) 54, 55 ESCAP Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities 96 examinations 1, 7, 19, 65, 71, 100, 106, 115, 118, 124-127, 133, 142, 150, 166, 167, 171, 189, 195 Ferguson 42, 146, 148, 153, 165, 171, 172 formal schools 1, 22, 36, 110, 134 ‘four pillars’ of knowledge 28 ‘Framework for Action’ 35 Freire 15 ‘good’ school 126, 127 group learning 114, 153, 155 Heretical model 19, 128 humanitarian approach 32, 33 IEDC 94, 95, 99-101, 103, 164 Illich 5, 15, 17 Inclusion Index 3, 174 Inclusion strategies 149, 179

inclusive education 1-7, 9-11, 20, 31, 38-41, 43-47, 49, 50, 52, 64, 74-77, 98, 105, 110, 122, 124, 129, 148, 164, 167, 169, 180, 182, 190, 192194, 196, 198, 200 inclusive schools 2, 6, 8, 31, 52, 77, 169, 179, 180, 188-190, 193 India 2-10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 37, 46, 51, 53, 55, 56, 76, 77, 90-94, 96, 98-102, 104-109, 111-113, 115, 124, 126, 130-132, 134, 135, 137, 140, 146, 148, 149, 153, 158, 160, 165, 167-169, 180, 181, 190, 194200 Indian University Commission 125 Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) 102 Individual Education Plan 86 information age 5, 6, 25, 26, 199 information and communication technology 17, 28, 82, 198 integrated education 2, 7, 31, 40, 42, 94, 99, 102, 104 international collaboration 102 interpersonal skills 140 joyful learning 123 Kendriya Vidyalaya 183 Kothari Commission 93, 181 Krishnamurthi 16 language 6, 7, 71, 83, 86, 87, 115-117, 126, 144, 145, 165, 166, 177, 182 Lok Jumbish 132 Lunt 19, 20, 44, 46, 62, 68, 128 mainstream school 37, 69, 107, 167 ‘mini special schools’ 4, 95, 99

218

INDEX Minimum Levels of Learning 161 multiple intelligences 142, 143, 145, 186 MV Foundation Programme 133 Nali Kali 133, 134 National Curriculum 5, 61, 68, 69, 82, 118-120, 146, 147, 155, 171, 186, 197, 198 National Curriculum Framework for School Education 5 National Education Policy 94, 139, 181 national level initiatives 180 National Open School (NOS) 100 Navodaya Schools 182, 183 NCERT 5, 103, 116, 118-120, 122, 125, 126, 160, 188, 189 non-formal education 23, 97, 160 non-formal schools 1 Norwich 19, 20, 44, 46, 62, 68, 128 OECD 48 open schools 2, 100, 200 Parent Staff Association (PSA) 81 pedagogy 2, 4, 7, 8, 15, 16, 25, 26, 30, 36, 40, 41, 43, 50, 51, 64, 77, 87, 89, 109, 114, 128, 130, 131, 135, 137, 138-141, 168, 169, 176, 185, 186, 188-191, 196-199 peer tutoring 150, 157-159, 161, 170, 180, 188 Persons With Disabilities Act 9, 96, 166, 184 Persons With Disabilities Act, 1995 9, 96, 166, 184 Plowden Committee 139 Programme (DPEP) 100 Programme of Action 34, 95, 122, 139, 161

Project for the Integrated Education of the Disabled (PIED) 102 pupils’ referral units 21 Rabindranath Tagore 15 Ramamurty Committee 99, 100, 129, 130, 181-183 received model 19, 128 Rehabilitation Council of India 101 Rishi Valley 134 roadblocks to inclusion 111 Salamanca Conference 3 Sargent Report 91, 92 Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) 100 school effectiveness 19, 20, 128, 171 school level initiatives 184 SEN coordinator 60, 61, 83 Shantiniketan 15 social justice 6, 33, 50, 93, 100, 107, 110, 181, 182, 184, 185, 190, 193 special educational needs (SEN) 2 Special Educational Needs and Disability Act, 2001 69, 72 special school 31, 32, 37, 38, 56, 58, 72, 85, 87, 100, 131, 167, 189 Sri Aurobindo 16 Statement 4, 10, 39, 40, 45, 60, 61, 65, 67, 69, 70, 83, 86, 88, 94, 136, 160, 161, 163, 195 Swann Report 70 system of education 2, 22, 23, 56, 81, 92, 93, 115, 128, 191 Teacher Education Resource Pack 103, 180, 187 teacher-centred pedagogy 196 teacher’s training 103, 132 teaching methodology 7, 122

219

SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS team approach 150, 164, 165 textbooks 7, 19, 28, 115, 117, 118121, 132-134, 140, 146, 150, 161, 163 The World Education Forum 35 Tomlinson 2, 13, 14, 18, 32, 44, 45, 53, 54, 56, 67-71, 75, 91, 168, 195, 197, 200 traditional school system 100, 146 UN Standard Rules 34 UN World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons 34 UNESCO 3, 4, 10, 21, 35, 39, 48, 64, 93, 103-105, 135, 136, 139, 168, 169, 179, 180, 187 UNESCO-PROAP Project 105 UNICEF 29, 102, 123 United Kingdom 173 University Grants Commission (UGC) 102

vision from the field 29 Warnock Committee 2, 54, 55, 57, 58, 67, 121 Warnock Report 49, 55, 59, 62, 65, 67, 70, 121 WHO 9, 10, 15-18, 23, 25, 27, 30, 33, 36, 41, 43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 76, 79, 81, 86, 89, 92, 95, 98, 100, 101, 104, 107-109, 111, 114, 117, 118, 121, 130, 137-140, 152, 153, 155, 156, 158, 164, 165, 170, 172, 175, 180, 183, 185, 187, 189-191, 193196, 199 whole class teaching 88, 150-152 World Conference on SEN: Access and Equity 35 World Declaration on Education for All 139 Zakir Hussain Committee 140

220