Evaluating the Level of Inclusion in Schools
Author(s):
Karin Marques (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2016
Network:
Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Format:
Paper

Session Information

ERG SES E 13, Inclusive Education

Paper Session

Time:
2016-08-22
15:30-17:00
Room:
OB-H2.32
Chair:
Daniel Fischer

Contribution

Inclusive education is a way of guaranteeing equal access to education. Schools with inclusive practice respond to the demand for respecting diversity as an essential part of democracy (Halprin 1999). It supports social cohesion and leads to higher equity. Inclusion in school means the participation of all children and adults regardless of their social status, gender identity, culture, faith and religion. Inclusive education helps students to reach their maximum potential. An inclusive system allows all the children from a local zone to meet in one school and learn in a common environment respecting their individual differences and needs. Among other factors, teaching practice such as cooperative learning is a key to mainstreaming students with special educational needs into regular classrooms (Slavin). In learning together students of various levels benefit from interaction with their peers. The Index of Inclusion provides a framework for a school overview in three dimensions: school culture, policy and practice (Booth, Ainscow). An inclusive education system is required by Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities from 2006.

The topic is highly relevant to the Czech education system which is being criticized for being discriminatory and unequal. (OECD, the European Commission, the European Court of Human Rights). However, there are some examples of schools in the Czech Republic which have developed inclusive practice. The aim of my doctoral thesis is to identify several examples of inclusive compulsory schools and to describe in detail their development and the challenges they faced during the transition process.

My original idea was to select the schools using the Czech version of Index of Inclusion (Tannenbergerova). This tool evaluates a school in 4 dimensions: the school culture, conditions, relations and practice. During the data collection process, I realized that the tool does not comprise any authentic information about the classroom practices. I thus decided to complement it with a standardized classroom observation based on ISSA Teacher Standards.

ISSA Teacher Standards address: individualization, learning environment, family participation, teaching strategies for meaningful learning, planning and assessment, professional development and social inclusion. These Standards also promote and ensure the integration of all domains, a holistic approach and an understanding of the pedagogical process and quality.

The aim of this paper is to answer the question - how we can recognize an inclusive school. The paper examines  what makes a school inclusive and which criteria are the most relevant to determine the level of inclusion in a school. What measuring tool we can use to evaluate the level of inclusion and what kind of information we can get by using it. 

Method

Initially, I identified twelve schools from different parts of the Czech Republic that were known for their inclusive attitudes. These were evaluated through the Czech version of the Index of Inclusion in order to choose four schools for an in-depth study. This index was inspired by the Index of Inclusion by Tony Booth and Mel Ainscow and by the Sandwell Inclusion Quality Mark. It was developed as an evaluation tool for Czech schools by Monika Tannebergerova (http://is.muni.cz/th/105251/pedf_d/) and piloted on approximately 50 Czech compulsory schools (both inclusive and traditional, control schools). It is a mix of self-evaluation and assessment by the researcher. The tool consists of a structured interview with the school principal, an observation sheet of the school environment and a questionnaire for teachers. The items cover 4 dimensions and are rated on the three-point scale. The tool is partially self-reflective. It provides a picture of the teachers´ attitudes and their thinking. It, however lacks a direct assessment of the teaching practice. In order to find out to which extent the Index of Inclusion reliably mirrors also classroom practices, I chose four schools to be evaluated also by the ISSA Teacher Standards. The ISSA trained observers evaluated 9 teachers in each school by observing two of their classes and marked the standards on the four-point scale. An important part of the evaluation were also qualitative comments.

Expected Outcomes

The findings have revealed some contradictions. Some schools focused on improving the quality of education and raising the school attainment and through this they developed a very inclusive learning environment although they had not been primarily thinking about inclusion. Thus their school culture is not as inclusive as their practice and that lowered their final score in the Czech version of the Index of Inclusion. Other schools specifically built an inclusive policy and culture but in fact their teaching practice and relationships with students have not changed much and thus may not be so inclusive. Their final score in the Czech version of the Index of Inclusion seems better than the real situation because they see themselves in a better light. The ISSA Teacher Standards appeared too advanced and detailed for most of the Czech schools. Even though we chose schools upon references, the teaching practice has oscillated between 0 and 1 on the scale (0 – 3). The results from the Evaluation Tool for the level of Inclusion were between 70 – 90 (0-100) for inclusive schools and 40 – 50 for control schools. For a reliable identification of an inclusive school, both instruments are needed. A simpler tool should be developed for the observation of classroom practices.

References

BALLARD, K. (1995) Inclusion, Paradigms, Power and Participation. In C. Clark, A. Dyson and A. Milward (eds) Towards Inclusive Schools (London: David Fulton). BOOTH, T., AINSCOW M., BLACK-HAWKINS, K., VAUGHAN, M. and SHAW, L. (2000) Index for Inclusion (Bristol: Center for Studies on Inclusive Education). DANIELS, Ellen, STAFFORD Kay. Creating Inclusive Classrooms (Children´s Resources International, Open Society Institute) DANIELS, H., GARNER, P. (2000) Inclusive education: supporting inclusion in Education systems London Kogan Page . DE VAUS, D. A. (2002). Surveys in Social Research. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. HALPRIN, D. (1999) Democracy, Inclusive Schooling and the Politics of Education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, VOL 3, no 3, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. (2010) Sandwell Inclusion Quality Mark (SIQm). West Bromwich: Children and Young People’s Services. SLAVIN, Robert. (1996) Education for All, CRC Press TANNENBERGEROVA, M. (2014) Inclusion in Primary School: Development and verification of the Tool for School Evaluation, Doctoral Thesis, Masaryk University Brno.

Author Information

Karin Marques (presenting / submitting)
Faculty of Education, Charles University
Institute for Research and Development of Education
Praha 10

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.