An Inclusive School System In Rhineland-Palatinate? Results From A Research Project And Their Relevance For International Research On Inclusive Education

Author(s):

David Scheer(presenting / submitting)Désirée Laubenstein(presenting)Christian Lindmeier Kirsten Seutter-Guthörlein

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

04. Inclusive Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

04 SES 08 B, Inclusive Schooling

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-10

09:00-10:30

Room:

206.Oktatóterem [C]

Chair:

Michael Shevlin

Contribution

The research project is embedded within the context of the development of an inclusive school system within the German Federal State of Rhineland-Palatinate. Since 2001, the federal state is developing a system of schools with a special mandate: to educate both students with and without special educational needs inclusively (‘joint education’). The development of the inclusive form of the school system was expanded by the federal state government upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (United Nations RES 61/106, 2006). Upon commencement of the new education act in 2014, these efforts ultimately resulted in the legal entitlement of receiving inclusive education for every student with special educational needs.

Internationally, the definition of the term inclusion ranges from partial inclusion towards full inclusion. Germany, however not only defines but also actively implements the educational term inclusion solely as full inclusion. The differentiated interpretation results mainly out of the fact that the different forms of mainstreaming, as well as partial inclusion, were assigned to the umbrella term of integration. Hinz (2002) mainly opened the dialogue concerning the introduction of the term inclusion as the appropriate subordinate term to fulfill the requirement of appropriately educating students with special educational needs as an equal part of a class of heterogeneity and dimensions of diversity. Herein, Hinz follows the definition established within the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2002) to the greatest extent. The Federal State Government of Rhineland-Palatinate designates inclusion, defined and applied solely as full inclusion, as its objective in terms of educational policy. Furthermore, this objective forms the underlying frame of the analysis.

An actor-related research approach is being used as a basis for the study. Within the scope of this school-focused research on inclusion, it will not only be evaluated which and what kind of processes of change are being initiated by introducing fully inclusive education, but also how the schools were prepared to manage this very education. Hence, using the research, the study wants to deduce which framework conditions and convoying provisions will be helpful to successfully shape the educational systems’ transition from being segregating to being fully inclusive. The appertaining pivotal research question reads as follows: “From the viewpoint of institutional personnel, in which way can joint education be further developed and which measures have to be taken, to entirely meet the demands of fully inclusive education?”

Due to the representative acquisition of data within a whole federal state, systematic requirements can be worked out. This systematic requirements’ universal significance is applicable for the development of other systems internationally.

Method

As the main method of qualitative evaluation and in obedience to the research question, an actor-related research approach (Shaw, 1999) has been chosen. In this circular process of evaluation, dissimilar personnel views were polled in a multitude of evaluation periods and afterwards were interrelated. Even though the research study fundamentally roots in qualitative research, supplemental quantitative methods of data ascertainment were used. After analyzing the underlying legal documents, previous to and during the first period of data ascertainment, interviews with experts of the state’s school administration and school consultants were conducted to get an overview of the operative proceedings from personnel actually working on the inside, apart from the legal aspects concerning the school system. The procedure herein can be viewed as based on a form of the Elite and Specialized Interviewing (Dexter, 1970). The concrete proceeding was based on a method called expert-interviews - well known and prevalent within the German-speaking world (Meuser & Nagel, 1991). The interviews were conducted as five group interviews and the resulting data was evaluated by means of a specific encoding system compiled and further developed by Mayring (2010). Quantitative research in form of online-questionnaires was prevalent during the second period of data ascertainment. All schools commissioned with inclusive education were questioned, acquiring data about processes of transformation and innovation within the schools themselves, but also on appraisals on institutional framework conditions. The evaluation of the acquired data was comprised of group comparisons (‘splittings’) based on the types of schools, and their individual self-assessment with regards to inclusive lessons. In a third period of data ascertainment, the method of group discussions was used (Flick, 2009), including all regular classroom teachers, special educational needs teachers and educational assistants. In the beginning of the discussion, the incentive of asking about one’s subjective experiences on inclusive education was used. The data was evaluated based on the documentary method, which was invented by Bohnsack (2008). In doing so, a disposition was created which served as the basis for compiling two interpretations on the matter (Przyborski & Slunecko, 2010): one interpretation focused on reformulating the content of the text, the subsequent interpretation consisted of a more reflective content, focusing on communicative structures within the underlying data. Following these interpretations as a result of the data ascertainment, different types of pedagogic personnel working in inclusive schools were established, as well as their roles within the context evolving around the research question.

Expected Outcomes

The significant benefit of our research project was being able to display the developments of an entire statewide school system in a representative and scientifically comparable manner. The project was able to show a differentiated picture of the view of actively involved pedagogic personnel elaborating on the genesis of debilitating and succeeding factors concerning inclusive school development. The following factors stood out when evaluating contingencies for successful inclusive school development: (1) personnel’s intrinsic motivation to be open to changes, (2) the possibilities to work in a steady team, (3) a sufficient timespan for preparation. Contingencies resulting in difficulties were evaluated as the following: (1) missing a conceptual framework that targets inclusive teaching, (2) insufficient time to prepare and being forced into becoming an inclusive school, (3) missing transparency for the distribution of personnel. Additionally, it is inevident that the principal always plays an important role in any process of change. Collectively, all nationwide schools see a lot of potential for inclusive education, especially when it comes to social competence and knowledge gain. Although there are distinct boundaries labeled as the problematic inclusion of students with massive behavioral disorders and disabilities, the positive resonance is noticeable. In this regard, the evaluated teacher typology is very interesting; four groups were identified: the idealists, the realists, the craftsmen and the skeptics. According to the research results, the following necessities for the development of inclusive school systems are prevalent: 1. conceptual orientation for all schools, 2. high degree of transparency regarding administrative processes, 3. intense, low-threshold facilitation for schools. The results of the research study correspond with the international state of research regarding inclusive school development and even complement the international findings, adding system-wide perspectives of a school system. These conclusions state explicit incitements for the development of other systems on an international level.

References

Bohnsack, R. (2008). Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung. Einführung in qualitative Methoden. Stuttgart: UTB. Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for Inclusion. developing learning and participation in schools. London: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE). Dexter, L. A. (2006). Elite and specialzed interviewing. Colchester: ECPR Press. (First published 1970). Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Hinz, A. (2002). Von der Integration zur Inklusion - terminologisches Spiel oder konzeptionelle Weiterentwicklung? Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 53 (9), 354–361. Mayring, P. (1983). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz. Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz. Meuser, M. & Nagel, U. (1991). ExpertInneninterviews - vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. In D. Garz & K. Kraimer (Eds.), Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung. Konzepte, Methoden, Analysen (pp. 441–471). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Przyborski, A. & Slunecko, T. (2010). Dokumentarische Methode. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (pp. 627–642). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Shaw, I. (1999). Qualitative evaluation. London: SAGE Publications. United Nations. (2006). Convention about the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), RES 61/106.

Author Information

David Scheer (presenting / submitting)

University of Paderborn

Department of Educational Science

Paderborn

Désirée Laubenstein (presenting)

University of Paderborn, Germany

Christian Lindmeier

University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany

Kirsten Seutter-Guthörlein