DRAFT – PLEASE, DO NOT QUOTE Doing, being inclusive in free schools – for whom and for what? Eva Hjörne, University of Gothenburg Ann-­‐Carita Evaldsson, Uppsala University In this presentation we focus on the local social processes through which the ideology of inclusion is implemented in and out of classroom activities within two case study free schools. How do the schools organise classroom activities for children in need of special support and what pedagogical strategies and communicative activities correspond to the idea of being more inclusive? The research is based on video-­‐
recorded classroom activities within two free schools in Sweden. The findings show that the schools do not use categorization to exclude children who are in need of special support and all pupils are engaged in classroom activities. However, the analyses also indicate that inclusive strategies invoked by teachers or pupils are not always accepted by all children in the class. Rather, these strategies need to be negotiated by the pupils in the classroom. Some pupils argue for not being included while others argue for the opposite. In this discursive work the teacher is central by pragmatically guiding the pupils towards being more inclusive. The question is whether the paradox of inclusive education inherent in everyday classroom activities leads to an improved education for all. Inclusion and inclusive education The idea of inclusive education has globally become a movement indicating equity and a response to the idea of organising “one school for all”. However, the phenomenon has been most contested of various reasons since it first appears in the Salamanca declaration from 1994. Some argue that we still organise schools from the idea of integration, rather than inclusion, which implies a deficit-­‐perspective on pupil’s school problems and a placement of SEN students in mainstream school without being really involved in regular education (see for example Göransson, Nilholm & Karlsson, 2010; Haug, in press). Thus, inclusive education is often mixed up with traditional special education, which further implies that, in order to reach the goal of inclusion, there is a necessity for a deconstruction of traditional knowledge in order to think otherwise (Slee & Allen, 2001). After all, inclusion is a precondition for a democratic education for everyone. However, the meaning of inclusion seems to be blurred and a “feel-­‐good rhetoric that no one could be opposed to” (Armstrong et al, 2011, p. 30). Maybe inclusion is an expression of discursive change, rather than a change in practice and this further implies that the issue is even more difficult to catch (Armstrong et. al, 2011). There is an obvious risk that “[w]e are still citing inclusion as our goal; still waiting to include, yet speaking as we are already inclusive”, as Slee and Allen (2001, p. 181), put it. This statement signals that inclusion and to include is not necessarily the same as being inclusive, or to use a citation from Graham and Slee (2008; p. 278), “[t]o shift students around on the educational chessboard is not in or of itself inclusive” (Graham & Slee, 2008, p. 278). Being inclusive seems to be a broader issue and “concerns the organization, content and working methods for the whole school and for all pupils” (Haug, in press). How could this be accomplished? This is the focus within our paper. We are analysing the work of 1 being inclusive in a Swedish free-­‐school. What is meant by being inclusive and how is this done within a classroom? What strategies are developed by the teacher and the pupils? Who is being included, how and for what? Interactional work in classroom – an ethnomethodological perspective Activities conducted in classrooms are different from activities in other institutional settings. For example is the way people (i.e. teacher-­‐student) talk and behave recognizably for a school context where teachers usually talk more and longer turns at talk and students talk is usually a response to teachers talk (see for example Mehan, 1979; Austin, Dwyer & Freebody, 2003). Thus, in schools students form a specific category of person with certain entitlements and obligations. Furthermore, the category Student means different things depending on what is relevant to the work in classroom. Thus, talk in classroom contributes to the constitution of Students as for example member of a social class or as a Good Student or a Bad Student, an Excellent Student, a Peculiar Student or a Difficult Student (Cazden , 1988; Sharp & Green, 1984). Hence, from en ethnomethodological perspective structures of social action are locally produced and maintained through interaction and practical activities within for example a classroom. In our study we will examine the trajectory of how inclusive education is accomplished in practice, foccusing on the shifting forms of category memberships in classroom practices. Empirical setting and methods About 12% of the pupils in comprehensive school (7-­‐16 years old) attend to free schools in Sweden (Göransson, Magnusson & Nilholm, 2012). The findings to be reported here derive from a field study in two free schools, situated in two smaller cities in Sweden. These free schools offer education for children in the age of 6-­‐12 years old and have an explicit ideology of being inclusive. We have followed the work in the classrooms for two weeks. The lessons were video-­‐
recorded and later transcribed. In the case below we follow a boy, Khalil, 9 years old who seems to be quite lonely and have some school problems. Results As we have already mentioned, the focus of our study is on scrutinizing the trajectory of how inclusive education is accomplished in the interactive, practical activities within a classroom. The questions guiding our analysis are: What work is accomplished in the classroom in order to be inclusive? What inclusive strategies are developed by the members of the classroom (Teacher-­‐Student) and what category memberships are invoked? 2 Excerpt 1. Teacher-­‐lead activity 1.
Teacher
Läraren
Now I’ll remove a ”n” there [rub out] and then I’ll ask
Nu tar jag bort ett n där [suddar] och så får jag be att
you to put one more ”t” there [pointing with the pencil
in the book]
du sätter till ett ”t” till där [pekar med pennan i
boken]
2.
3.
Khalil is writing
Teacher
Läraren
Mmm, then you can show them to me and I can see that you
Mm, då kan du visa de för mig o då ser jag att du
have done right, now you’ve started on two goals here
(3)
gjort rätt, nu har du ju börjat med två stycken mål här
(3)
then I’ll like to show you a material where you
då skulle jag gärna vilja visa dig ett material där du
can work with capital letters and full stop
kan jobba med stor bokstav o punkt
As can be seen in the transcript the teacher is oriented towards her role as a Teacher and different educational activities and educational achievement, which implies leading the student towards fulfilling specific goals. This could be interpreted as a way of including the boy in the activities going on in the classroom relevant for a boy of his age. In the end the teacher initiates a new activity where the pupil is supposed to write letters. But Khalil raises objections and initiates another activity more of a social nature, but still framed as en educational activity. 2. Student initiating activity 4.
Khalil
I would very much like to do a math-game together with
someone,
Jag skulle gärna vilja göra ett mattespel med någon,
Filip, I can ask if he would like to do that
Filip, ja kan fråga om han vill de
3 5.
Teacher
Läraren
6.
Are you going to ask Filip then (?) if he wants to join
you here
Ska du fråga Filip då (?) om han vill följa med hit
Khalil is leaving
Khalil går iväg
Khalil is showing own agency by initiating a student-­‐student educational activity and being responsible for his education. He is oriented towards student-­‐student relations by suggesting a group work with another student. This could also be understood as a way of initiating social inclusion. 3. Negotiating access to student-­‐student activity 27.
Teacher
Läraren
[turning towards Filip] what is it you’re going to do
[vänder sig till Filip] vad är det du ska göra
28.
Filip
I don’t know
Ja vet inte
29.
Teacher
Läraren
No, Khalil has a question he wants to put to you
Nä, Khalil har en fråga han vill ställa till dig
30.
Khalil
Do you want to play a maths-game with me (?)
vill du spela ett mattespel med mig (?)
31.
Filip:
Cannot manage [walk away]
Orkar inte [går iväg]
32.
Khalil:
An amusing one [follows him]
Ett roligt [följer efter]
33.
Filip:
Cannot manage
Orkar inte
34.
Khalil:
Yes you do
De orkar du visst
35.
Filip:
I cannot manage
Ja orkar inte
36.
Khalil:
Yes, what are you gonna do now [?]
Jo, o vad ska du göra nu (?)
4 The teacher is following Khalil to Filip and is shephearding (Cekaite, ?) him in the contact with Filip. By doing this the agency is transferred from Khalil to the teacher, who is the one initiating an activity together with Khalil. Khalil poses his question about playing a Maths-­‐game. But Filip resists by telling that he did not want to play. Khail tries to convince him without success. In this the interactive, practical work of doing, being inclusive become obvious (Sacks, 1984). Both the Teacher and the Student try to convince Filip of including Khalil in an activity. In a sense, Khalil is negotiating being included by Filip who in his turn is resisting. And the teacher once again is taking over the agency. 4. Teacher organizing Student-­‐Student activity 41.
Teacher
Läraren:
What about it, Filip, are you gonna do a maths-game with
Lin- Khalil [?]
Hur blev det Filip, skulle du göra ett mattespel med
Lin- med Khalil (?)
42.
Filip:
Cannot manage [standing at a table with other pupils]
Orkar inte [står vi ett bord med andra elever]
43.
Teacher
Läraren:
Come, Lin-Filip
Kom Lin-, Filip
44.
Khalil:
Filip! [standing at the same table as Filip]
Filip(!) [står vid samma bord som Filip]
45.
Teacher
Läraren:
Khalil, you can come too
Khalil, kom du också
46.
Khalil:
Filip [shaking his arm]
Filip [skakar i hans arm]
47.
Filip:
What is it
Vad är de (?)
48.
Khalil:
(inaudiable) [pointing towards the teacher]
(ohörbart) [pekar bort mot Läraren]
49.
Filip is following Khalil
Filip går efter Khalil
54.
(….)
Teacher
Läraren
55.
Filip:
Don’t know
Vet inte
56.
Teacher:
You don’t know [?] how can you get to know what it is
Come [towards Filip] what kind of job are you going to
do [?]
Kom [till Filip], vad är det du ska göra för jobb (?)
5 Läraren:
you’re supposed to do [?]
Du vet inte (?)Hur kan du få veta vad det är du ska göra
då(?)
57.
Filip:
mumble
Mumlar
58.
Teacher
You don’t know a bit of what you’re going to do and not,
what kind of job you have, nothing [?]
Läraren
Du vet inte ett dugg vad du ska göra och inte, vad du
har för jobb o inte nånting (?)
59.
Filip:
[inaudiable]
(ohörbart)
60
Teacher
Läraren
No, but then I’ll decide for you
nä, men då bestämmer jag åt dig
62.
Then I decide you’re doing a ga- Mia’s maths-game with,
with
Då bestämmer jag att du kör ett spe- Mias mattespel med,
med –
Khalil works hard to overcome his peer’s resistance without success. When Khalil failed in arranging a group work activity with Filip, the teacher forces Filip by, in her role of the Teacher, instruct Filip very clearly that he has to do the work together with Khalil. In this sense she is organizing inclusion, in the case here a student-­‐student activity, which mostly is accomplished by the student themselves. 5. Teacher evaluating Student –Student activity 8.
Teacher
Läraren:
Is it good for Khalil when you’re doing like that [?]
Blir det bra för Khalil när du gör så
9.
Filip:
What [?]
Vadå (?)
10.
Teacher
Will it be good for Khalil, that’s one of our goal doing
good for the other, will it be good for Khalil now [?]
Läraren:
Blir det bra för Khalil, det är ju ett av våra mål att man
gör så det blir bra för den andre, blir det bra för Khalil
nu (?)
11.
Filip:
What do you mean being good for Khalil [?]
Vadå blir det bra för Khalil (?)
12.
Teacher:
Läraren:
That’s what we have to think about
Vi har ju det att träna på
6 13.
Filip:
What do you actually mean [?]
Va menar du egentligen (?)
14.
Teacher
As you know, we are going to do the very best for the
other, how do you do so that it will be good for Khalil[?]
Läraren:
Vi ska ju göra så att det är den andres bästa för ögonen,
hur gör du så de blir bra för Khalil (?)
15.
The boys are talking silent with each other while the
teacher is speaking
Pojkarna pratar tyst med varandra medan läraren pratar
16.
Filip:
What [?]
Va (?)
17.
Teacher
What are you doing so that it will be good for Khalil [?]
Läraren:
Hur gör du så att de blir bra för Khalil (?)
18.
Filip:
I don’t know
Inte vet jag
19.
Teacher
But hallo, hallo, (moving towards the boys) we do have
that as a goal working with doing the very best for the
other, Filip
Läraren:
Men hallå, hallå [går fram till pojkarna] vi har ju det
som mål de här att man jobbar med så de blir den andres
bästa för ögonen, Filip
(...)
33.
Teacher
Then you have to ask Khalil
Läraren:
Då får du fråga Khalil
34.
Filip:
What am I going to ask [?]
Vad ska jag fråga (?)
35.
Teacher
If he thought it became good
Läraren:
Om han tyckte de blev bra
36.
Filip:
Do you think it became good [?]
Tyckte du det blev bra (?)
37.
Khalil:
Not when you did’nt want but then when wanted
Inte när du inte ville men sen när du ville
38.
Filip:
Mmm
7 39.
Teacher:
Läraren:
It became so
Så blev det de
40.
Khalil:
Mmm
When the boys have been collaborating for a while the teacher evaluates the student-­‐
student relations by being oriented towards the educational activity and specific goals for social relations. In the case here she is doing this by blaming Filip for not doing the right thing when socializing with Khalil. This is kind of a dilemma when regulating peer activities and pointing to one specific student not showing consideration for the other. In this way the teacher’s seems to be undermining the social inclusion of the boy in the classroom activities. Some conclusions We have examined inclusion and the activity of doing being inclusive (Sacks, 1984) in classroom practices. Doing being inclusive is an interactional work performed in the classroom by the members – Teacher and Students. •
The teacher orients towards the category Teacher when doing inclusion and with the goal of including everyone in the classroom activities, both considering educational activities and activities more of a social nature. •
The Student orients towards the category Student when handing over agency to the Teacher when failing in persuading the peer to collaborate. •
Within the activity of being inclusive there seems to be obstacles and possibilities. •
Being inclusive seems to be an ongoing work in classroom activities which not could be taken for granted, rather it has to be negotiated. References Armstrong, D., Armstrong, A. C. & Spandagou, I. (2011). Inclusion: by choice or by chance? International Journal of Inclusive Education 15(1). 29-­‐39. Austin, H., Dwyer, B., & Freebody, P. (2003): Schooling the child. The making of students in classrooms. London: Routledge. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourses: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Graham, L.J., and R. Slee. 2008. An illusory interiority: Interrogating the discourse/s of inclusion. Educational Philosophy and Theory 40, no. 2: 247–60. 8 Göransson, K., Nilholm, C. & Karlsson, K. (2010). Inclusive education in Sweden – a critical analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education 15(5). 541-­‐555. Göransson, K., Magnusson, G. & Nilhom, C. (2012). Challenging traditions? Pupils in need of special support in Swedish independent school. Nordic Studies in Education 3-­‐4, 262-­‐
280. Haug, P. (2013. The practices of dealing with children with special needs in school – a Norwegian perspective. IJER. /in press/ Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sharp, R. & Green, A. (1984). Social stratification in the classroom. In A. Hargreaves & P Woods (eds.). Classrooms and staffrooms: the soicology of teachers and teaching. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Slee, R. & Allan, J. (2001) Excluding the Included: A recognition of inclusive education. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 11:2, pp. 173–191. 9