A serendipitous encounter sparked the development of this study. In a brief conversation with a mother, I asked how her sons were doing in school. The mother’s face lit with hope as she told me that their move to a different high school (in the same town) had been great. She was especially excited that “Dan [pseudonym] is actually learning.”

Given that the core purpose of schooling is learning, this statement is both poignant and understandably deeply troubling. Like many students who differ markedly from ‘normal,’ throughout his schooling this student had experienced few opportunities to reveal his competence, teachers often assuming that his complex support requirements negated any ability to learn (Rutherford, 2011). Assigned to the ‘too hard basket,’ such students are ‘included-as-excluded,’ their presence in school often conditional upon the presence of a teacher aide (Giangreco, 2010). Under these circumstances, students’ right to (compulsory) education is significantly compromised, which in turn may jeopardize future citizenship rights and opportunities (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2016; Quennerstedt, 2009).

Why has this student encountered such different responses in two high schools? The purpose of this research is to explore possible reasons for the recognition of this student’s capacity in his current school. To date, there is limited research regarding the successful participation and achievement of students classified as having “severe disabilities” (Kurth, Lyon, & Shogren, 2015). This qualitative case study seeks to contribute to this body of research by discovering and documenting what is possible for students who, through no fault of their own, are subjected to deficit ‘special needs-ism’ (Rutherford, 2016), rather than recognition of and respect for their competence and rights. Doing so will provide a means of contesting the assumptions that sanction the relegation of certain students to the ‘too hard basket.’

Specifically, the research question asks: What kinds of values, beliefs, knowledge, structures, and educational practices successfully support the presence, participation and achievement of a disabled student, who has multiple impairments, within a high school context?

In contrast to the widespread use of a ‘problem-oriented’ orientation, the study’s use of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) enables the identification of positive practices within organisations and practices. Just as teachers are encouraged to identify and work with students’ strengths to facilitate learning, AI assumes that “every organisation has something that is working well; that change will move in the direction of the questions asked; thus, strengths can be the starting point for creating and sustaining positive change” (Lyons, Thompson, & Timmons, 2016, p. 891). Described as “exploratory, looking for practices that are right, useful, and successful, to inform the practices of others” (Kurth et al., 2015, p. 263), AI consists of a four-stage cycle: Discovery (identifying ‘the good’ within an organisation); Dream (imagining a positive future that builds on what works); Design (conceptualising and designing an ideal organisation); and Delivery (putting plans into action) (Shuayb, Sharp, Judkins & Hetherington, 2009). This study focuses primarily on the Discovery stage.

Several theoretical frameworks are drawn upon throughout this research. In addition to AI, elements of ‘inclusive research’ (Jenkin et al., 2015; Nind, 2014) are utilised, involving the meaningful participation of the student, mother, teachers and support staff throughout the project – research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ those who wish to participate and shape the study. Consistent with inclusive research, Disability Studies in Education (DSE) (Baglieri, 2017) also contributes to theorising and informing practice. As well, consideration of a relational social justice framework is useful in highlighting the significance of students’ rights (Rutherford, 2011).

Utilising a qualitative case study approach is consistent with the constructivist philosophical underpinnings of this research (Yazan, 2015). Engaging with a range of participants, in order to understand and interpret their multiple perspectives of the competence of a particular student within a specific high school context, aligns with Stake’s (1995) conceptualisation of case study design and implementation. On the basis of the conversation with the student’s mother, ten participants were purposely selected: the student (19 years old), his mother, teachers and support staff. The AI Discovery phase involves gathering data from multiple sources, all of which contribute to an understanding of what works in facilitating this student’s learning. Data sources include an initial focus group with all participants; individual semi-structured qualitative interviews with the mother, teachers and support staff; engagement with the student using a range of communication strategies, in contexts and activities he enjoys (such as outdoor photography, class observations); and a concluding focus group, to consider the study findings and identify further possibilities for building upon present achievements. An initial thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) of interview and focus group transcripts, focus group post-it responses, photos and observations will be carried out prior to the final focus group. Data from the latter’s review of preliminary findings will then be considered in a further thematic analysis. Given that the student’s impairments affect his ability to communicate verbally, ethical matters and processes are of utmost importance. Capacity to give fully informed consent, means of genuinely understanding ethical procedures and research processes, and the role of proxy consent are often at odds with individuals’ right to participate in matters that concern them, as outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989) and United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD, 2006) (Jenkin et al., 2015). Both procedural ethics (processes of seeking formal ethical approval) and ethics in practice (responding ethically to issues that develop during the research itself) are carefully considered, in order to do the ‘right’ thing by participants (Phelan & Kinsella, 2013).

Data gathering, analysis and documentation of findings will be completed prior to the ECER conference (regrettably, unexpected circumstances have delayed our research progress). Although this is a small study from a small country, links to European research, policy and practices have already helped to inform its focus. The reach of the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education extends well beyond the borders of the European Union, and is a valuable source of research and innovative practices. Its commitment to the value of teenage students’ experiences of education is evident in the European Hearings (2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015), in which students’ perspectives are shared to inform educational policy (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2016). The issues raised mirror those in New Zealand (e.g., the importance of recognising what students CAN do - as in AI; having a say in matters that affect students; understanding inclusive education as “a human rights issue” [p. 21]). In relation to this study, it is also heartening to note a Luxembourg government official’s comment, “Emphasis should be placed on learners with more complex needs, because they also deserve to be visible” (p. 6). I hope that this case study may promote discussion with European researchers regarding the possibility of future AI inquiry with students whose strengths and ‘good’ may be harder to see, yet are made visible by teachers who recognise students’ right to learn, and create opportunities for them to do so.

Baglieri, S. (2017). Disability Studies and the inclusive classroom: Critical practices for embracing diversity in education. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2016). Take Action for Inclusive Education: Delegates’ reflections and proposals. Odense, Denmark: Author. Giangreco, M. F. (2010). Utilization of teacher assistants in inclusive schools: is it the kind of help that helping is all about? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(4), 341–345. Jenkin, E., Wilson, E., Murfitt, K., Clarke, M., Campain, R., & Stockman, L. (2015). Inclusive practice for research with children with disability: A guide. Melbourne: Deakin University. Kurth, J. A., Lyon, K. J., & Shogren, K. A. (2015). Supporting students with severe disabilities in inclusive schools: A descriptive account from schools implementing inclusive practices. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(4), 261–274. Lyons, W. E., Thompson, S. A., & Timmons, V. (2016). “We are inclusive. We are a team. Let’s just do it”: commitment, collective efficacy, and agency in four inclusive schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(8), 889–907. Nind, M. (2014). Inclusive research and inclusive education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), 525–540. Phelan, S. K. & Kinsella, E. A. (2013). Picture this ... Safety, dignity, and voice - Ethical research with children: Practical considerations for the reflexive researcher. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(2), 81–90. Quennerstedt, A. (2009). Children’s rights in education: Transforming universal claims into New Zealand policy. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 44(2), 63–78. Rutherford, G. (2011). Doing right by teacher aides, students with disabilities, and relational social justice. Harvard Educational Review, 81(1), 95-118. Rutherford, G. (2016). Questioning special needs-ism: Supporting student teachers in troubling and transforming understandings of human worth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 127-137. Shuayb, M., Sharp, C., Judkins, M., & Hetherington, M. (2009). Using Appreciative Inquiry in educational research: Possibilities and limitations. Retrieved from http://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/AEN01/AEN01.pdf Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. United Nations. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-11&chapter=4&lang=en-title=UNTC-publisher= United Nations. (2006). United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134–152.