04 SES 12 C, Resources for Inclusive Education – Outcomes, Risks, and Side Effects of Allocation Modes
According to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD) it is the states’ responsibility to provide resources for students with special educational needs (SEN) to support their effective learning within the general educational system. On policy level this raises the question, how resources should be allocated towards students with SEN (Banks, Frawley, & McCoy, 2015). While the UN-CRPD suggests the allocation of resources specifically for students with SEN, this allocation mode is partially incompatible with the concept of inclusive education. Concepts on inclusive education are, more or less explicitly, associated with differing views on labelling students as “students with SEN”. While the idea of inclusive education as a means of positioning students with SEN within general schools implies their labelling per definition, the distinction between students with and without SEN is superseded by the idea of individualized education in process-oriented concepts of inclusive education (Booth & Ainscow, 2002).
As inclusive education is implemented within different states’ educational systems, not only different models of inclusive education but also different modes of allocating resources for inclusive education can be expected. However, the modes of allocating resources might be accompanied by unintended side-effects: while labelling might enhance dichotomous thinking contradictory to the idea of individualized learning, de-labelling might lead to an invisibility of those needing resources (Boger, 2016; Booth & Ainscow, 2002). Further, there is a need to develop new criteria and models to allocate resources if students with SEN should not be labelled as such. The emerging models can be referred to as throughput-based, if the resources are allocated without labelling but via e.g., social indicators (Meijer, 1999). Input-based models designate models based on the number of students with SEN (Meijer, 1999).
The discourses on allocating resources and models of inclusive education are usually located on different levels (e.g., state, school, class) as well as within different academic disciplines, yet they are theoretically intertwined. Therefore, the risk to misinterpret outcomes and to overlook unintended side effects of the allocation of resources aggravates.
In our symposium we aim to address this risk by presenting four research papers from different disciplines and states on the allocation of resources for inclusive education.
The first paper by Janka Goldan investigates the effectiveness of a throughput-based allocation mode for resources on state level. Using data from N = 5288 schools, she found that the resource supply for students with SEN differed between schools resulting in over- and under-supplied schools.
In the second paper, Joyce Gubbels et al. investigate the effects of a throughput-based allocation mode. Based on data of N = 152 regional partnerships of primary and secondary schools they analysed if the allocation mode influenced participation in special schools for mainstream education and schools for special education. They found, that a decrease in funding lead to a decline in participation in schools for special education.
The third paper by Jennifer Lambrecht et al. compares the effectiveness of two allocation modes on school level. Using data from of N = 76 inclusive primary schools, she found, that within schools, resources allocated input-based were stronger connected to students with SEN than resources provided via a throughput-based model.
In the fourth paper, Carloline Sahli Lozano et al. investigate the relation between student’s characteristics and the resources they were assigned throughput-based. Analyzing data of N = 1128 students they found that the resources assigned to a student did not relate to the school performance but to the student’s domicile and the school principal’s attitude.
Selina McCoy discusses the presented papers with respect to outcomes, risks, and side effects of the different allocation modes presented in the symposium.
Banks, J., Frawley, D., & McCoy, S. (2015). Achieving inclusion? Effective resourcing of students with special educational needs, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(9), 926-943, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1018344 Boger, Mai-Anh (2016). The Trilemma of Anti-Racism. In A. Dada and S. Kushal (Ed.): Whiteness Interrogated. Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press. Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for Inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools. CSIE. Available at http://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/Index%20English.pdf Meijer, C.J.W. (1999). Financing of Special Needs Education. A seventeen-country Study of the Relationship between Financing of Special Needs Education and Inclusion, available at: https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/financing-of-special-needs-education_Financing-EN.pdf
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- 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.