Missing voices in reforming education: National and local translations of children's rights to participation in decision making

Author(s):

Fiona King(presenting / submitting)Órla Ní Bhroin(presenting)Anita Prunty

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

25. Research on Children's Rights in Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

25 SES 01, Issues in Translation

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-22

13:15-14:45

Room:

W4.13

Chair:

Carol Robinson

Contribution

The focus of this paper is student voice in the Individual Education Plan (IEP) process. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)(1991) establishes the fundamental right of children to participation in decisions affecting their lives. The intersection of this policy with the policy of including children with special educational needs (SEN) has implications for how these children are involved in their IEP process. This paper draws on a larger study which investigated teachers’ use of the IEP to meet the needs of students with SEN in inclusive settings, addressing the question: To what extent is student voice included in the IEP process? It explores student participation through the theoretical framework of critical and emancipatory theory (Freire, 1974; Habermas, 1981), and in particular draws on an amalgamation of concepts from Hart’s (1991) ladder of participation, Shier’s (2001) five levels of participation and Lundy’s (2007) model focusing on Space, Voice, Audience and Influence for analysis.

Inclusion is generally accepted as orthodoxy in many countries with increasing numbers ‘policy borrowing’ to meet international standards. Adopted on the basis of social justice and human rights (Ainscow and Sandhill, 2010) inclusion is also driven by legislation in many countries, for example, Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) 2004 (USA), the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) UK and the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act (EPSEN) (2004) in the Republic of Ireland. Even if we accept inclusion as a set of principles (Dyson, 2014) or a normative concept (Haug, 2014) it arguably still needs to be researched in terms of its impact on those affected by the policy.

The European agency for development in special needs education (EADSNE) (2013) clearly stated that the voices of learners with disabilities be heard in any attempts to realise inclusion, reflecting the motto “Nothing About Us Without Us"; policy decisions require the full and direct participation of all affected by that policy. So where is the voice of children with SEN within inclusion, where are they represented? Certain voices appear to be marginalised even though affording students a voice encourages student engagement in learning (Rudduck and McIntyre, 2007).

The Individual Education Plan (IEP) process can arguably have a central role in students communicating their needs (EADSNE, 2013). This process includes a plan which “is a written document prepared for a named student which specifies the learning goals that are to be achieved by the student over a set period of time and the teaching strategies, resources and supports necessary to achieve those goals” (NCSE, 2006, p. 4). The IEP has been adopted by most countries as a tool for managing special educational needs (SEN) provision and promoting inclusion (Mitchell, Morton & Hornby, 2010). In Ireland, the EPSEN Act (Ireland, 2004) formalised IEP practice, making the IEP mandatory for all children with SEN and publishing a comprehensive set of Guidelines on the Individual Education Plan Process (NCSE, 2006). However, sections of EPSEN relating to IEPs have been deferred and evidence suggests that while schools are taking the initiative in developing IEPs, there is variability and inconsistency in practice, particularly relating to participation of children in the IEP process (Prunty, 2011; Rose, Shevlin, Winter, O’Raw & Zhao, 2012). This variability is mirrored internationally, with research reporting low levels of child involvement and complexities of delivering on this in practice (Andreasson, Asp-Onsjo & Isaksson, 2013; Barnard-Brak & Lechtenberger, 2010). Low to no level of child involvement is in breach of the principle of the child’s right to participate in decision-making as stated in Article 12.1 of the UNCRC (1991), ratified by Ireland in 1992.

Method

This study adopted a mixed methods approach with two phases beginning with a quantitative approach and followed by qualitative approaches in phase two. Sampling was purposive as the participants completed the Graduate Diploma in Special Educational Needs in the academic years of 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 in a college of education in the Republic of Ireland. This included 165 teachers who teach students with SEN and represent a range of settings including primary, post-primary, special school, and special class attached to a particular school type. The participants in phase two were five students, two school principals, five resource/learning support teachers (special education teachers), five class teachers (in the case of the post-primary school, three subject teachers participated), five special needs assistants and five parents/guardians of the student participants. Methods Both phases of data collection focused on participation of students in the IEP process. Phase one involved a questionnaire to elicit teachers’ perceptions of the impact of IEP training on their knowledge, skills, understanding and practice. Response rate was 50%. On return of completed questionnaire, all responses were coded and entered into SPSS for statistical analysis. Phase two was qualitative and involved conducting case studies in five mainstream schools, four primary and one post-primary school settings. Each case study incorporated the following methods of data collection: A focus group interview with the school principal, the student’s resource/learning support teacher(s), the student’s class teacher(s), the student’s special needs assistant and other relevant personnel to elicit adults’ experiences, understanding and use of the IEP; five focus group interviews in total. Individual interviews with parent/guardian and with student to elicit their experiences of the IEP; ten individual interviews in total (Interview schedules were designed to explore issues from the questionnaire in greater depth and were influenced by findings from the questionnaire). Document analysis to investigate the use of the IEP in planning, learning and recording/monitoring outcomes; documents included the IEP, teachers’ plans (short and longer term), assessment records, school report for student with SEN, school policy on special needs and inclusion. Observation of teacher’s practice and student’s learning to document the use of the IEP in planning, teaching, learning and recording/monitoring outcomes; minimum of one visit per school, totalling five school days. Inductive data analysis was employed to analyse the qualitative data.The theoretical framework referred to above was also used in the analysis.

Expected Outcomes

Analysis shows that despite teachers' aspirations to acknowledge the right of children to have a voice in matters that concern them, levels of student participation vary, clustering at and below Level 3 of Shier’s (2001) model (children’s views are taken into account); mandatory level of participation for organisations and nations that have adopted or endorsed the UNCRC. Therefore students with SEN of the teachers participating in this study do not typically experience involvement in the decision-making processes that affect their experience of the IEP (Level 4), and do not typically share power and responsibility in decision-making regarding the IEP (Level 5). There is however scant (if somewhat corrupted) examples of more meaningful levels of children’s participation in terms of audience and influence (Lundy, 2007). Explanations for lower levels of participation are consistent with two of three barriers reported in previous research: capacity of children to engage in meaningful decision-making processes and time constraints indicating that effort is better spent on other tasks (Lundy, 2007). This paper builds on existing frameworks (Hart, Shier and Lundy) aiming to inform the complexity of involving students with SEN in planning and evaluation of IEPS identified in previous research as being mainly teacher-led (Rose et al., 2012). The paper argues for meaningful participation of students in the IEP process so that the voice of the student has audience, space and exerts influence, thus enabling teachers and schools move beyond tokenism where children’s rights might be “more symbolic than real” (Skrtic, 2005, p. 150), to a position where student participation is firmly embedded within an inclusive school culture and decision-making structures. The necessary changes to practice and school culture may be facilitated by professional development around the developed framework and by reconsideration of policy, and in particular policy requirements when reforming inclusive education.

References

Ainscow, M. and Sandhill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: the role of organisational cultures and leadership.International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 401-416. Andreasson, I., Asp-Onsjo, L. and Isaksson, J., 2013. Lesson learned from research on individual educational plans in Sweden: Obstacles, opportunities and future challenges. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(4), 413-426. Barnard-Brak, L. and Lechtenberger, D., 2010. Student IEP participation and academic achievement across time. Remedial and Special Education, 31(5), 343-349. Bergin, E. and Logan, A. (2013.) An Individual Education Plan for Pupils with Special Educational Needs: How Inclusive is the Process for the Pupil? REACH Journal of Special Needs Education in Ireland, 26 (2), 79-91. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education 2013, Organisation of provision to support inclusive education- Literature review, European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, Odense, Denmark. Freire, P. (1974). Education: The practice of freedom. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative. Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action, vol. 2. Boston: Beacon Press. Hart, R. (1992). Children’s Participation from Tokenism to Citizenship. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Haug, P. (2014). Empirical shortcomings? A comment on Kerstin Goransson and Claes Nilhom, Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings - A critical analysis of research on inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 283-285. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §614 et seq. Ireland (2004). Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act (EPSEN), Dublin: The Stationary Office. Lundy, L. (2007.) 'Voice' is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927-942. Mitchell, D., Morton, M. and Hornby, G. (2010). Review of the literature on individual education plans: Report to the New Zealand ministry of education. NZ: Ministry of Education. National Council for Special Education (NCSE) 2006. Guidelines on the individual education plan process. Trim: NCSE. Prunty, A., (2011). Implementation of children’s rights: What is in ‘the best interests of the child’ in relation to the individual education plan (IEP) process for pupils with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD). Irish Educational Studies, 30(1), 23-44. Rose, R., Shevlin, M., Winter, E., O'Raw., & Zhao, Y. (2012). Individual Education Plans in the Republic of Ireland: an emerging system. British Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 110-116. Shier, H. (2001). Pathways to Participation: Openings, Opportunities and Obligations. Children & Society, 15, 107-117.

Author Information

Fiona King (presenting / submitting)

Dublin City University

School of Inclusive and Special Education

Drumcondra, Dublin 9

Órla Ní Bhroin (presenting)

Dublin City University

School of Inclusive and Special Education

Dublin

Anita Prunty

Dublin City University, Ireland

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 you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.