The future (special) school

Mr Nick Burnett and Associate Professor Suzanne Carrington i-for-k and Queensland University of Technology Queensland, Australia

Schools are being challenged to review their organisational structures, the curriculum they teach, and their pedagogical practices to ensure that all students are truly included in the school community. This philosophy of inclusion involves students actively participating with others in learning so that they are valued as members of the school community. All students need to have access to a system that delivers a quality education that is best suited to their unique competencies, skills, and attributes (Ainscow, 2000; Farrell, 2000; Fisher, Roach, & Frey, 2002).
How will these changes on impact special education by the year 2050?

… professional vulnerability in changing times frequently supports the maintenance of the status quo …In the field of special education there seems to be a number of crucial questions that need to be unravelled and debated before we can move on to these future developments in education. The following questions, whilst certainly not presuming to be all encompassing, appear to be the most pressing and, in many ways, are the most difficult. This is why much of the debate takes place from polarised views, with apparently little real progress being made. In addition, professional vulnerability in changing times frequently supports the maintenance of the status quo or superficial changes that don’t really get to the root of the underlying problems with current policy and practice in special education.

1. If education is constructed from a more inclusive philosophy, does special education exist?
2. How does the social model of disability influence our thinking and practice in schools?
3. What type of schools do we need that would be able to educate all students in one setting?

While it may be desirable to try and answer all of the above questions, they require detailed individual attention, and therefore it is proposed to briefly reflect on questions 1 and 2 before focusing in on question 3, in order to explore what the school might look like in order to meet the needs of all students.

Question 1 poses a significant challenge for our system. Amongst the many issues that need to be addressed are the beliefs and values about education. What beliefs currently inform our construction of ‘special’ and ‘regular’ schooling? Currently, our school systems are weighed down with discourses of deficit and disadvantage manifested in categories used to sort children. Categorised labels ‘that have defined the universe of educational exceptionality are formal explanations of educational success and failure that are institutionalised in important ways in the practices that separate the more or less successful students from each other’ (Carrier, 1989). These cultural constructions of difference, school success and failure are represented in personal beliefs, attitudes and values and shape how educators interact with students (Carrington, 2000). If our education system is moving to more inclusive policy and practice, then it is clear that this move will require a transformation of beliefs and assumptions that will then inform different practices in schools (Carrington, 1999).

If we were to think differently about our students and their learning, so that students are not categorised into labelled groups that require different types of education services, then how will that influence the way we provide resources? How will resourcing be organised and distributed to ensure students get what they need?

Teacher training is another important area for consideration. While we continue to train teachers in ‘special education’ then the ‘regular’ teachers believe that they do not have the special skills required to include all children in their classroom. We will always need specialists with disability specific knowledge and skills but there is also a need to ensure that all teachers can support all students who enrol in their classes. What needs to happen in this field to enable teachers to meet the requirements of the reconstructed education system?

How can we reconsider curriculum so that it can be taught at multiple levels in more inclusive ways? How can the academic skills and social needs of students with disabilities be incorporated into teaching to extend and open up life possibilities for young people with a disability?

The growing understanding and respect for the social model of disability in the field of special education (Question 2) is interesting considering the strong influence of the medical model in shaping professional definitions and practices in special education around the world. The medical, deficit-based model emphasised inability and contributed to a dependency model of disability. Labels such as ‘invalid’, and ‘handicapped’ and ‘slow learner’ sanctioned negative views of disability. In most special education organisations today, there continues to be a tendency to reinforce an individual deficit view of disability. This is because peoples’ beliefs and practices relating to teaching students with disabilities are influenced by their past experiences and by how they perceive and define difference and disability in society (Carrington, 2000). Some people would consider that they are more inclusive in their outlook, however the traditional special education philosophy is incredibly resistant to change. A sociological view of disability assumes different understandings and respect for difference (Oliver, 1996) so that the construct of disability does not exist within a person but is influenced by the conventions of social expectations and interactions.

There are those who believe that there is a third way. By using a theoretical model called the Capability Approach (Sen, in Terzi, 2005) it is argued that the seemingly inherent oppositional viewpoints of the medical and social models of disability can both be accepted. In this framework, the disability of the individual is explored, depending on the context (social) and the level of impairment (medical). Subsequent adaptations, modifications and/or treatments are developed as appropriate to the impact of the disability (Terzi, 2005).

Theories dealing with democratic community (Dewey, 1916) provide opportunities to rethink how we can improve acceptance of difference and create communities inclusive of all members of society (Turner & Louis, 1996). Separation or stereotyping differences creates divisions and status systems that detract from the democratic nature of the community and the dignity of the individual.

The issue of special education is inextricably linked to how education as a whole is conceptualised and constructed. The hope is that an inclusive philosophy underpins any re-conceptualisation and re-construction, so that education is truly inclusive of all members of society. In light of this hope, the key question to be addressed is surely the type of schools we need in order to educate all children in the one setting.

The paper will now go onto look at what the school in 2050 looks like in attempting to further explore the issues of the question, with a particular focus on the leadership and technological implications.

The 2050 (special) school

All pupils, no matter their level of disability, attend their local P-12 school. There is now a strong set of shared beliefs and values, both within the school and society as a whole, that education is about enriching children’s lives through providing appropriate individualised learning programmes negotiated with the children and their parents.

The level of the children’s involvement in the development and implementation of the plan increases with their age and ability to input. There are very high levels of learning facilitators in the early years and for those who require additional support and this is ‘faded’ as the children gain more independence, with those with the most significant disabilities retaining high levels of additional support from adults and peers. Success and achievement is judged against agreed learning targets and the level and need for adult support is discussed.

The curriculum is drawn from an agreed national framework further developed in consultation with the local community. The focus in K-9 is on developing the whole child, rather than the narrow conscripts of many education systems categorised in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. There are new agreed key skills, including literacy and numeracy, but these are focused on adopting and embracing the new technologies and working with the children as to how these may or may not impact on wider society. For those with a disability, technology has enabled them to further access similar opportunities and experiences as their non-disabled peers.

By the end of year 9, all students and their parents are consulted on the most appropriate pathway for them into the adult world. For some, that is more academic, and for others more practical. Those with the most significant disabilities opportunities are identified as well, exploring what level of support they will continue to require on leaving the compulsory schooling phase. All students engage with a learning mentor at this stage and continue to discuss and negotiate an appropriate route into the adult world. They have an entitlement to continue with this support for as long as they desire and require it. For those with the most significant disability, who are still unable to take on full responsibility for their future, independent advocates, chosen by them, remain an important element of negotiating and deciding their future support needs. There is a lifelong commitment from society to provide appropriate support for those who need it and not for it to fall back onto the family once compulsory school age is reached.

Teachers remain a crucial element in the fabric of schools and society. However, their role continues to develop and change, particularly as students become older and more independent. Their role becomes more one of learning facilitator, as this development happens with the students, facilitating appropriate learning opportunities with relevant school and non-school staff. Teachers are key people working with individuals to assess their progress towards negotiated goals. For those with more significant disabilities, they are the significant adult, along with the parents, in developing appropriate learning opportunities and goals to enable students to continue to develop, improve and achieve. They may well need to draw on the knowledge and expertise of the intra-professional group, formed specifically for the needs of the individual, in developing and delivering appropriate interventions for individual students.

A professional expectation is that all teachers, to maintain their registration, are involved in action research activities with the local university …To enable teachers and other professionals to undertake this role, there have been significant changes to teacher training. There has been an increased focus on all trainee teachers gaining a full understanding of human development and the various individual forms that this takes. They have an in-depth knowledge of learning and are able to understand the possible impact that disability can have on the learning of some individuals and also how they can help alleviate this through targeted intervention and support. They spend considerable time working with, and alongside, those from other professions to share knowledge, approaches and techniques to help in delivering a ‘wraparound’ provision for those who require a higher level of support. Significant time is committed to developing their understanding of different disabilities with input, wherever possible, from those with a disability. Much time is also spent in the schools, which all have a ‘trainee’ role in developing and supporting future teachers and other professionals. They develop a detailed knowledge of the curriculum framework but also spend the last semester in the school they are to start at developing their knowledge of the local aspects and opportunities for learning that have been developed. A professional expectation is that all teachers, to maintain their registration, are involved in action research activities with the local university, and keep up to date with developments in learning and disability.

All school districts are self-reliant in terms of support and funding arrangements, with some functions maintained at a state level but the majority being delegated to the district. Decisions about resourcing are taken at this level, with a major role being taken by principals in agreeing to how the resourcing will be distributed as evenly as possible. Decisions are taken within the wider community in terms of the distribution of available resources and how additional funding is to be accessed and subsequently distributed. All local community groups are involved in these discussions and any funds raised are distributed in accordance with the agreed procedures. Schools and districts are no longer subject to the flawed marketisation of educational provision, which took place early in the century, as local communities all take responsibility for providing support to those individuals and settings that require more assistance, as part of their agreed inclusive community values and beliefs.

Technological implications

There have been some major impacts on education as a whole through the eventual realisation that it was much better to embrace and use the new technologies than trying to ban them. All students have access to PDA-type devices that access and send information across broadband wireless networks covering the whole community.

These enable them to keep track on what they should be doing, as well as providing a system of feeding back to their learning facilitators on progress being made towards their negotiated learning goals. They use the limitless online social space, which they all are entitled to, in order to individually and collectively add to their agreed learning projects. They receive feedback in these areas from their learning facilitators and peers, as well as others they allow access to. These could be peers in other countries and experts in the particular field that the learning project is in.

The technological advances have made a significant difference to many with significant disabilities, as well. Those who had communication difficulties are more likely to get access to the resources they need, through being cheaper, more portable and easier to use, enabling them to more easily be involved in discussion regarding their future learning goals, and so on. Those with physical disabilities also find it easier to be fully involved in everyday life alongside their peers, with improvements in wheelchair design, control and access. For other students, technology is sometime a ‘safe haven’ for them during times of distress or difficulty when they need ‘time-out’ away from others. The use of ‘virtual’ environments also provides opportunities for students to try things in a safe environment before having a go in the ‘real’ world. It is also much easier for students with a disability to access the web and interact with their peers.

Leadership implications

It is not possible to do full justice to the whole issue of leadership therefore it is important to recognise what underlying assumptions have been taken in this brief look at the possible leadership implications of this school of 2050. One key belief is the view that leadership takes different forms in different places, not least because of the way it reflects local history, culture and, indeed, legislation. Hence, this is but a tentative proposal of what the leadership requirements of such a school may look like.

Although working in a non-market place educational environment, school improvement will continue to be of major importance, not only within the school but to other educational settings, as there is a shared educational responsibility across the district. In light of this, there is a continued need for shared leadership, with the principal seen as a leader of leaders. Much of the literature on the role of leadership in relation to school improvement places emphasis on the importance of social relationships (Hopkins, Ainscow & West, 1994) and, in this new shared role of developing education across a district, this becomes even more important. The need to establish inter and intra school teams to work in a cooperative way also becomes increasingly important and, as identified in both educational and business environments, a transformational paradigm is better placed to suit these different needs (Bass, 1997)

Leaders will need to further develop and embed the concept of the ‘learning organisation’ initially developed by Senge (1992) and further explored by Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond (2001) and their work on distributed or shared leadership. The need for staff, students, parents and the wider community to take on educational leadership roles will be increasingly important and, as a consequence, the principal as the ‘leader of leaders’ plays a pivotal role in establishing a framework with the community which everyone works and leads within.

The work initially by Kugelmass (2003) and later by Kugelmass & Ainscow (2004) is helpful in starting to identify what leadership in inclusive schools looks like, from the research into inclusive schools in a number of countries. Some leaders were identified as ‘positional’ and some ‘functional’. This work reinforces the need for shared leadership to operate in inclusive schools.

Kugelmass and Ainscow (2004) identified some features that were shared by both groups of leaders and some were unique to each group. Those that were shared were identified as:

• uncompromising commitment to inclusive education
• clearly defined roles, responsibilities and boundaries
• collaborative interpersonal style
• problem-solving and conflict resolution skills
• understanding and appreciation of expertise of others
• supportive relationships with staff.

Roles that they found to be unique to ‘positional’ leaders were that they:

• initiated and supported non-hierarchical organisational systems and structures within the school
• were responsible for managing demands and requirements emanating from outside the school.

Whereas the role unique to ‘functional’ leaders was responsibility for collaborating with, and supporting, colleagues in instruction and classroom management.

Although this needs unpacking for each educational community, in terms of what it means for their context, it does provide a useful starting point in helping us identify what is needed. 

Conclusion

Whatever the future has in store for us, or we have in store for the future, the effective training, development and support for leaders in all phases of education is vital in moving us from a likely future to a desirable future. As Alan Kay so eloquently suggests, ‘The only way to predict the future is to invent it’ (Burnett, 2005).

A major issue is for special education to move forward and be included within the education system as a whole, rather than being constructed as an add-on for those who do not fit or fail the current system.There also continues to be potential societal issues that are not yet fully understood in relation to the impact on students being in multiple virtual places, as well as the physical space they occupy at the same time and this requires ongoing further research.

A major issue is for special education to move forward and be included within the education system as a whole, rather than being constructed as an add-on for those who do not fit or fail the current system. There needs to be a major reconceptualisation of education as a whole, based on an inclusive philosophy. This is obviously much easier to put into print that to work out exactly what this means for each and every learner within our society. However, without this ‘crystal ball’ gazing, the opportunity to reflect on a desired future will be lost and special education will continue to be pulled backwards and forwards between competing ideologies, rather than the need to explore the bigger picture of education for all.

References

Ainscow, M. ‘The next step for special education’. In British journal of special education, 27, 2000. pp.76-80.
Bass, B M. Transformational leadership: industrial, military and educational impact. 1997. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Burnett, N. Leadership and SEN: meeting the challenge in special and mainstream settings. 2005. London: David Fulton.
Carrier, J. ‘Sociological perspectives on special education’. In New education, 11(1) 1989.  pp.21-31.
Carrington, S. ‘Inclusion needs a different school culture’. In International journal of inclusive education. 1999. 3(3), pp.257-268.
Carrington, S. ‘Accommodating the needs of diverse learners: teacher beliefs’. 2000. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Queensland.
Dewey, J. Democracy and education. 1916. New York: Macmillan.
Farrell, P. 'The impact of research on developments in inclusive education’. In International journal of inclusive education, 4, 2000. pp.153-162.
Fisher, D, Roach, V, & Frey, N. ‘Examining the general programmatic benefits of inclusive schools’. In International journal of inclusive education, 6, 2002. pp.63-78.
Hopkins, D, Ainscow, M, & West, M. School improvement in an era of change. 1994. London: Cassell.
Kugelmass, J., & Ainscow, M. ‘Leadership for inclusion: a comparison of international practices’. In Journal of research in special educational needs, 4(3), 2004. pp.133–141.
Kugelmass, JW. Inclusive leadership; leadership for inclusion. 2003. National College for School Leadership.
Oliver, M. ‘A sociology of disability or a disablist sociology?’ In L Barton (ed.), Disability and society: emerging issues and insights. 1996. pp.18-42). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Senge, PM. The fifth discipline. 1992. London: Century Business.
Spillane, JP, Halverson, R, & Diamond, JB. ‘Investigating school leadership practice’. Educational researcher, 30(3), 2001. pp.23-28.
Terzi, L. ‘Beyond the dilemma of difference: the capability approach to disability and special educational needs’. In Journal of philosophy in education. 2005. 39(3), pp.443-459.
 Turner, CSV, & Louis, KS (1996). ‘Society's response to differences. A sociological perspective’. In Remedial and special education, 17(3), 134-141.