From: p.tupe@MAILBOX.UQ.OZ.AU
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Social Justice, Equity and Dilemmas of Disability in Education
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:58:02 GMT
Reply-To: p.tupe@MAILBOX.UQ.OZ.AU
X-Fidonet: Split
Originator: wtm@sheldev.shel.isc-br.com

Index Number: 24557

[From the Disability Research List (DISRES-L@RYERSON.BITNET)]

Gary, here are program details of a recent conference held in Brisbane.
The papers are being edited with a view to publication of a book.

John Elkins

Social Justice, Equity and Dilemmas of Disability in Education

PAPER ABSTRACTS
 Discourses of Social Justice
and the Dilemmas of Policy in Special Education

Fazal Rizvi and Bob Lingard
Department of Education
The University of Queensland
Australia
The idea of social justice does not have a single essential meaning - it
represents discourses that are historically constituted and it is a site of
conflicting and divergent political endeavours. And while its use in policy
over the past decade in Australia has largely been symbolic, this paper
suggests that the idea of social justice has largely been rearticulated
within the broader ideological context of economic rationalism. Market
ideologies and the ideology of individual self interest have implied a
logic of charity in which principles of user pays and cost recovery have
replaced the social democratic settlement that once held the state
responsible for looking after those groups and individuals who were
considered disadvantaged, including the population designated as
'disabled'. A new policy culture has now developed which seems to rest on
the assumption that the state should minimise its intervention in the lives
of individuals.
In this paper we want to argue that both the social democratic and
contemporary views of social justice are inadequate. While we are more
inclined towards a socially democratic definition, we nevertheless maintain
that both views have an overriding concern with the distribution of
resources. While this is important and necessary, we believe that it is not
sufficient, because social justice, in our view, requires attention not
only to the issues of equal distribution but also to the issues of equality
of participation, democratic engagement and active citizenship. me danger
in much of the thinking on mainstreaming is the tendency to consider only
the organisational issues affecting people with differing 'abilities'. In
our view, equally important is the issue of the kind of pedagogy and
curriculum required to ensure that every student is both treated as an
active citizen in school and is provided the knowledge and skills that are
thought to be necessary for active participation in life generally.
 Disabled, Deviant or Different:
The Politics of Labelling

Carol Christensen
Department of Education
The University of Queensland
Australia
me use of categorical labels based on perceived disability, impairment or
disorder can present both benefits and disadvantages to those individuals
to whom the labels are applied. On one level assignment of such labels can
attract extra educational resources and human services. However, such
benefits come at a considerable cost. These labels are often accompanied by
negative or stigmatising connotations. mus, with use many of these labels
become terms of denigration or insult (e.g. idiot, dumb, spastic, etc).
This situation is exacerbated when the labels are inherently negative (e.g.
disordered, disabled, disturbed or impaired). Unfortunately, efforts at
introducing more euphemistically oriented terms have not been entirely
successful (e.g. special students or schools and, more recently,
academically or physically challenged).
In addition to the deleterious effects of negative or stigmatising labels
for the recipient, there is a more fundamental difficulty associated with
the use of such terms. me application of these labels is essentially a
political act embedded in a set of power relationships which exist between
those who apply the labels and the aplyee of the labels. Most significantly
the use of terms which are underpinned by notions of individual deficit
serve to locate the source of problems within the "disabled" individual.
This paper will argue that notions of disability or deficit are essentially
socially constructed. As such they serve to deflect attention from
schooling systems (which narrowly define the range of "acceptable', human
conditions) to focus an individual deficit as the cause of difficulty. It
is suggested that. models which accommodate a sense of the breadth of human
diversity would focus attention on the need for educational systems to be
accepting of and responsive to differences between students, so that the
location of the problem is seen to reside clearly within the need for
educational systems to accommodate a broad range of human experience.
 Social Justice, Developmental Disabilities
and Typological Thinking

Alan Hayes and John Elkins
Schonell Special Education Research Centre
The University of Queensland
Australia
Discussions of social justice and equity tend to focus on issues related to
the rights of groups to participate in the life of their community and
their needs to have access to the opportunities it provides. Rights pertain
to individuals and needs vary over the course of an individual's lifespan.
A plea is made for a complementary emphasis in discussions of social
justice, equity and disability on the extent to which current thinking in
developmental psychology bears on some of the issues. In particular there
is a need for a sharper focus on the examination of human variation
(differences between persons) and variability (or the scope for change in
an individual across the lifespan). Recognition of the differences between
persons in their propensity for change over the short, medium and longer
term seems to be a missing element in much of the discussion of social
justice, particularly for persons with disabilities. Unforeseeable life
events and contextual factors may play a major role in determining the
developmental pathway taken by any individual. Membership of a group
labelled "disabled" or "at risk" may change across the lifespan (with the
population risk of becoming disabled actually increasing across the
lifespan). me paper concludes with an examination of the implications of a
focus on developmental variation and variability for policy and practice.
 The Ecology of Special Education Policy.
International Perspectives on School Integration

Carola Murray-Seegert
Department of Defense
Dependents School
Frankfurt, Germany
Many nations now express support for the concept of integrating persons
with disabilities in school and community life. In practice, however, there
is great variation - both between and within nations - in the ways this
policy is implemented. Who participates in integration initiatives? How are
contact situations organised? How are special education outcomes evaluated?
In this paper, I will use cultural-ecological theory to contrast
international integration efforts and to make recommendations for improving
programming, supporting my arguments with data from Germany, Italy, the
Nordic countries, and the United States.
 Contesting Contestability in Special Education:
A Critical Analysis of Special Education
Policies in New Zealand

David Mitchell
Department of Education Studies
University of Waikato
Hamilton, New Zealand
In recent years, the 'new right' ideology has led to dramatic shifts in the
extent to which the state intervenes between 'providers' of human services
and the "customers" of those services. Accompanying this shift has been the
development of the notion of "contestability", in which human services
which hitherto might have been controlled by state-sponsored "monopolies"
are exposed to competition from a range of providers, including those from
the private sector. With particular reference to recent policy shifts in
the administration of special education in New Zealand, this paper will
present a critical analysis of the underlying philosophy of contestability,
and will suggest alternative and less damaging ways of improving the
responsiveness and accountability of special education services.

 Dilemmas of Disability Policy and Education:
What Should Intellectuals be Saying?

Gillian Fulcher
National Centre for Socio-Legal Studies
Latrobe University, Victoria
Associate
Department of Anthropology and Sociology
Monash University
What ought Australian intellectuals be saying about the dilemmas of
disability and education? Have they a practical contribution to make? THs
paper will refer mainly to the Victorian experience of an education policy
which, in its initial formulation in 1984, and in its remaking since, has
been presented as one of social justice for students with disabilities. It
will also draw briefly on overseas experience, on an emerging debate in
Australia about democracy as a vehicle for social justice, and on related
politically-theorised insights. It will argue both that these insights are
relevant at a practical level and that a practically-relevant political
critique is not especially visible from Australian intellectuals.
 Dilemmas and Solutions in the Development and Deployment
of Education Focussed Integration Policy

John Lewis
School of Community Services and Policy Studies
Phi/lip Institute of Technology
Australia
THs paper traces the implementation of integration policy in the Victorian
school system over the last decade and argues that at a systems level,
fundamental policy objectives have largely not been achieved.
In 1984 the Victorian Ministry of Education adopted a policy of integration
which broke with many traditions relating to the way disabled pupils had
previously been expected to pursue their schooling. An examination of the
strategies subsequently developed to implement this policy is made and
various aspects of success and failure are noted and discussed. A
particular focus is made on the development and deployment of strategies to
implement integration at the state-wide level.
A reflection is made of the elements which emerged as critical to the
progress of integration policy and a guideline established for the
consideration of other education systems wishing to implement this type of
radical social justice policy.

 Full inclusion: Coming from the inside-out

Patricia O'Brien
School of Special Education
Auckland College of Education
In the 19705 outrage was expressed that educational services had been
withheld from children and young adults who were once assumed to be
"untrainable". Legislation and government policies ensued. building
programs, staff recruitment and training and curriculum adaptation all
eventuated to right the wrong of lack of opportunity for EDUCATION FOR
HANDICAPPED C~DREN. Special education quickly expanded to meet the dilemmas
of educating a group of people who had been excluded. Was the l980s then
too soon for the next outrage that children and young adults who were
disabled were not being educated within their local neighbourhood schools
beside their non-disabled peers? A major premise that this paper explores
is that the difficulties and dilemmas being encountered by believers of
FULL INCLUSION are grounded in the underlying assumptions of policy makers,
practitioners, parents and the public about what constitutes disability.
Rights in the l970s were more easily upheld because they didn't threaten
the social matrix of local communities and government bureaucracies.
assumptions and values underlying the right to education within a
segregated facility confirmed the reality of disability as being different,
whereas the right to be educated beside one's peers means that policy
makers, principals and parents may have to look at the full inclusion issue
from inside rather than outside of their own value base. Shaking one's own
foundations is always a painful experience. It will be argued that FULL
INCLUSION is more a personal than a policy matter requiring all
stakeholders to embrace the philosophy and practices of positive
interdependence. Such practices will be outlined
 Conflicts and Dilemmas for Professionals
in Special Education

Sally Tomlinson
Department of Education
University College of Swansea
Great Britain
Professionals are increasingly used as "experts with rational knowledge" to
solve problems in state bureaucracies. Historically, "teams" of
professional have been used to legitimate the removal of pupils from
mainstream to special education. In this process the professionals have
often experienced acute dilemmas, as their judgments have been sought to
legitimate policies which they may regard as questionable. THs paper
explores some of the dilemmas the professionals experience when the "needs"
of the wider education system, and of the society, conflict with
professional perceptions of the "needs" of the clients. 'Inc paper uses
recent research Into the referral and assessment of pupils as "emotionally
and behavioural disturbed", and the demands of new forms of educational
assessment post-1988 in England, to illustrate the arguments.
 Providing Educational Programs to Students
with Disabilities - The Quality Dilemma

Jo Diessel and Peter Blatch
Queensland Department of Education
Australia
In constructing quality educational programs for students with
disabilities, educational systems have needed to address the areas of
curriculum, staff competencies, resource provision, attitudes and
acceptance to ensure access, participation and equitable educational
outcomes for students with disabilities. A number of recognised "best
practices" have been developed and formalised in policy to assist schools
in the delivery of quality programming.
In recent years, delivery of educational programs to students with
disabilities has diversified across a range of settings and increasingly
services are being delivered in primary and secondary schools by a range of
professionals. Additionally, issues such as devolution, the move to the
self managing school, and the national agenda on curriculum and standards
are imparting emerging service models. As the nature of service delivery
models move to a single system and the national agenda is addressed, those
"best practices" which are recognised as essential to quality programs will
need to consider the dimension of delivery within the mainstream.
THs paper outlines issues to be considered in delivering quality
educational programs to students with disabilities.

 Creating a Counter-Hegemonic School
Creating a Counter-Hegemonic School
Integration/Inclusion and Effective Schooling

Loretta Giorcelli
New South Wads Department of Education
Australia
Most Western countries are currently engaged in a planned-change
educational reform process. For most countries, the school reform framework
is based on evolving research regarding effective schools, i.e. schools
that have provided a comprehensive curriculum to all their students. Two
standards for measuring effectiveness have evolved: quality and equity. The
quality standard assures that the level of achievement in the school is
high The equity standard assures that the high achievement does not vary
significantly across the subsets of the school's population. The creation
of truly effective schools implies that such schools are inclusive, i.e.
there is a belief in each school community member that:
(a)	all children are educable
(b)	schools can educate all children regardless of ability, and
(c)	the main foci in each school must be teaching and learning.
In this presentation the correlates for quality schooling as described in
the Effective Schools Model, i.e.
 	strong instructional leadership,
 	clear, focused goals,
 	high expectation for success in all students,
 	the opportunity to learn,
 	a safe, ordered environment,
 	frequent monitoring of student progress, and
 	positive home-school relations,
are explores in terms of the way they inter-relate and overlap with those
specific to the needs of Special Education students in schools. these are:
(1)	powerful instruction technology
(2)	appropriate access and communication technology (where needed)
(3)	specialist support
(4)	a comprehensive curriculum, and
(5)	transition education planning.
Coincident with second wave school reform strategies, which have shifted
focus from administration and management to teaching and learning, has been
the focus on equity considerations and, In the case of special Education, a
shift from a compensatory-oppositional curriculum paradigms to one which
challenges the hegemonic curriculum, custom and practices of our schools.
This presentation will focus on how schools could move to more Inclusive
models of operation and how counter-hegemonic practices can be introduced
and supported to the benefit of all students especially those with special
teaching and learning needs.