Dr. philos Dóra S. Bjarnason
Iceland University of Education
V/ Stakkahlíð
105 Reykjavík
Iceland
ECER 2003. Session 7 B, Network 4
Teachers’ voices: How does education in Iceland prepare young people with significant impairments for social inclusion?
Abstract
The paper is based on one part of an extensive research conducted 1998-2002 into the world of young disabled adults in Iceland who have grown up with the ideology of integration and inclusion as the law of the land. This is a qualitative study of the experience of being a young disabled adult (16–24 years old)in Icelandic upper-secondary schools, university or equivalent educational settings, in the job market and in society. The focus here is on the teachers’ experiences of working with disabled children and youths in compulsory- and upper-secondary schools, and in general education schools and classes, special schools, and special classes. Findings imply that teachers, even teachers perceived to be good teachers by their disabled students, act as gatekeepers but also as important allies to young disabled peoples’ approaching interdependent adulthood within mainstream school and society.
Introduction
This paper discusses the teachers’ perspectives of the structure and practice of their professional work, and how they belief they promote their students to active participation in their schools and society. The data comes from a much wider qualitative study of the perspectives of 36 young disabled people aged 16-24, of their experiences as they emerge adulthood.
The main study found that choices made early on in the disabled person’s life between generic and special services are of importance for launching the disabled child on to what I call the highway (group A), a road often leading to fragile “adulthood with a difference” in mainstream society, or on to the narrower and often paternalistic path (group C) to a “special world of disabled people”. In between these I found a small group of young disabled people who belonged to neither road and I compared to “nomads walking about in the wilderness (group B). The former road holds the promise of greater personal freedom and quality of life for disabled adults, despite significant risks of loneliness and isolation. The latter promises protection and safety at the risk of remaining in the limbo of “eternal youth” within segregated settings, subjected to a degree of paternalism and diminished personal freedom. The “nomads” seemed either to have lost hope of belonging to either mainstream society or the special world of disabled people, or had dropped out from these paths for the time being. (Bjarnason, D.S. 2002a), (Bjarnason, 2002b) (Bjarnason, 2003a) (Bjarnason, 2003b) Students schooling and teachers perceptions and practices were found to be important for either maintaining the disabled students on one or the other of these roads or for moving them between the roads leading to fragile but inclusive adulthood or to the paternalistic world of “eternal childhood”
First the paper briefly describes the theoretical perspective, the background of Icelandic culture and education system, and the methods used in the bigger study. Second it will sketch an idea of what the term “a good teacher in inclusive settings” might involve. Third, it presents the teachers’ perspectives and voices; describes their work, their cooperation with colleagues and parents, and their perspectives on their school environments. It will also explore the teachers’ views of their students and their perceptions of their students' future prospects. Then the paper looks at the teachers’ own professional satisfaction and dissatisfaction in working with disabled students, with general and special educators and with other colleagues. Finally the paper discusses how teachers can be better prepared to teach disabled students and balance their attempts between paternalism and indifference (Kirkebæk, B. 2002), so as to reduce exclusionary processes of disabled students and increase the impact of inclusive processes leading to interdependent adulthood within the mainstream of society.
Perspective and Concepts
This study is placed within the interpretivist paradigm. The theoretical framework rests on research and theory which considers disability as a social construction ( (Ferguson, P.M. 1987), (Bogdan, R. and Taylor, S.J. 1989),(Ferguson, D.L. and Ferguson, P.M. 1995). Nordic research into disability, youth and the welfare state has also inspired and informed the work, as the cultures, schools and legal systems are similar. (Gustavsson, A. 1999), (Högsbro, K., Kirkebæk, B., Blom, S.V. and Danö, E. 1999) Finally, the British school concerned with the social model of disability has also been an inspiration to me. It has politicized the concept of disability even further, focused and radicalized advocacy and self-advocacy of “the disabled people”. (Oliver, M. 1990), (Shakespeare, T. 1993) , (Barton, L. 1999)
Disability is a term that, to most people means a medical condition or a learning deficit to be prevented or cured or at least diminished (the medical/individual model of disability). This author adheres to the school of thought (Oliver, M. 1990), (Williams 2001) that defines disability as a phenomenon emerging and resulting from the values and practices embedded within culture (Gabel, S. 2001), (Devlieger, P. 1999). This approach can be linked back to the tradition of symbolic interactionist. (See for example (Goffman, E. 1963), (Becker, H.S. 1963), but also to the more recent strands of the social model of disability and developments within the disability studies field. (See for example Gabel 2001, Oliver 1990). Thus the concept ‘disability’ is political, used to enforce and sometimes even legitimate exclusion, or social marginalisation, exploitation and poverty. From this point of view, the construction of disability is both a complex social construction and a personal identity, but neither a medical condition nor a learning problem.
School inclusion refers to a process, which implies not only that all students are welcomed to generic schools, but that teaching and learning is organized so as to meet a diversity of talents and learning needs. This author is partial to inclusive schooling. Not because of a naive belief that bringing disabled children to typical schools will automatically solve students’ problems; however, a school striving for inclusion can provide disabled students with an opportunity for participation and appropriate education. (Ferguson, D.L. and Ferguson, P.M. 1995).
Barton (citing: (Booth, T. 1996)) points out “that it is useful to think of inclusion involving two processes”:
the process of increasing the participation of pupils within the cultures and curricular of mainstream schools and the process of decreasing exclusionary pressures. To attempt the first without the second is self-defeating (Booth 1996: 34, cited by: (Barton 1997, p. 232)).
Dyson suggests that Booth’s perspective:
… enables us to view inclusion as one educational aim amongst many, providing a means of understandings the complexities and compromises that its pursuit entails. It thus makes it possible for us to understand forms of provisions not as ‘inclusive’ or ‘not inclusive’, but rather as more or less inclusive in one or other respect. (Dyson, A. 1997, p. 17)
That lens focuses the research on the complexities of inclusive and exclusive practices in general schools. Dyson, from his pragmatic strand, applying Booth’s position, opens up the possibility to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the implications of particular forms of educational provision, avoiding the more black and white debate on inclusion or exclusion as states of educational practice. (Dyson, A. 1997)
Background: Iceland – Education and Culture
The Icelandic value base is ruggedly individualistic and egalitarian, and there is a tradition of self help, hard work, and of mutual help in hardship situations. In modern Iceland, as in every other country, some are more equal than others. Differences in wealth and status are growing; marginalization of minority groups is a known phenomenon and disabled people tend to be less equal than most according to any measurement one might select. (Bjarnason, 1996a; Bjarnason, 1996b), (Bjarnason, 2002b), (Bjarnason, 2003a), Bjarnason, 2003b), (Margeirsdóttir, M. 2001)
The educational system is traditionally organized within the public sector. The few private schools in the country are largely financed by the tax money. The Althing is responsible for the educational system both legally and politically, and determines its basic objectives and administrative structure. The Ministry of Education has jurisdiction over the system. Since the mid 1990´s the educational system has been somewhat decentralized. Responsibilities and decision making about the running of individual schools, that before belonged solely to the Ministry of Education, have been turned over to the local authorities. Local municipal authorities are thus responsible for the operation of preschools and compulsory education schools including special education schools, units and special classes. The state runs the upper secondary schools, and most schools at the higher educational level. The educational system is divided into four levels; preschool up to 6 years of age is not compulsory but recognized as the first stage in public education, compulsory school 6-16 years, upper secondary school 16-20 years, and higher education level from 20 years of age onwards. The diagram below, table 1, shows the structure of the system.
Table 1. The Icelandic Education System 2002
Source. The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. 2002
The Ministry of Education issues National Curriculum Guides for preschool, compulsory- and upper secondary school levels. These curriculum guides have the legal status of statutory regulations. The National Center for Educational Materials, under the Ministry of Education, develops and publishes educational materials for compulsory education schools, and distributes them to the schools free of charge. The Educational Testing Institute, funded by the state, is responsible for organizing, setting and grading nationally coordinated examinations, for students at compulsory schools.
The state and local communities provide free education from the age of 6 to 16, and a largely free education at upper-secondary and university levels. The Education Laws of 1974 made, - for the first time in Icelandic education history -, provision for all students, including students with impairments, to be educated within the compulsory public school system. (Lög um grunnskóla. 1974) Lög um grunnskóla no. 63/1974)
Special schools for students with cognitive impairments and special classes for students with a variety of labels such as autism, mental illness, ADL and others were gradually opened. (Students who were deaf or labeled blind, however, had had access to special education since the late 19th century). Students with a variety of disability labels were not generally invited into upper secondary schools until some years after the Education Act of 1994, amended 1996 and 1998. (Lög um framhaldsskóla. 1988; Lög um framhaldsskóla. (Breyting á lögum nr. 57/1988). 1996) Lög um framhaldsskóla no. 81/1994 and Statutory Regulation on Upper Secondary Education from 1996 and 1998) (Reglugerð um sérkennslu fatlaðra. 1998) Adult education courses are available for a limited number of people with cognitive and multiple impairments.
The 1974 law on compulsory education opened up the school system for disabled students. With the 1979 law on Support for the Mentally Retarded (Lög um adstod við throskahefta. 1974), and subsequent legislation regarding disabled people, normalization and integration became the law of the land. (Bjarnason, 1996a) These two milestones opened up possibilities for disabled persons to become fully included active members of society and to obtain services adapted to their needs in general schools and other institutions in the community. However the spirit of a law is one thing, and its implementation quite another. Sub-clauses in the laws and statutory regulations defined an array of specialized services, from special classes to segregated group homes and sheltered workshops. Consequently, a battery of segregated services has been developed in the past two decades, as never before in Iceland. (Bjarnason 1996, (Bjarnason, 2003d) Mostly these services have opened up in urban areas. At the same time, and in particular after the mid 1980s, the ideology of inclusive schooling and society has been gaining momentum. In the 1980s and 1990s parents, parent associations and some associations of disabled people pushed for inclusive services both in the urban and rural sectors. Two schools of thought have marked the lifetime of the young disabled adults of this study; on the one hand the development of a variety of special services and inclusive services on the other. (Bjarnason 2003d)
Modes of Inquiry and data sources
Qualitative research methods are based on the view that reality is a product of society (Berger, P.L. and Luckman, T. 1967). Little research has so far been done on disability issues in Iceland. The main source of data are interviews and their analysis. 36 young adults with a variety of severe impairments[1] were interviewed, one or both parents of 30 young adults (44 people in all), 12 teachers , and 12 friends. The interviews were in depth, semi-structured and lasted from 45 minutes to over 2 hours. They are typed, and coded and analyzed. (See(Bogdan and Biklen, 1982; Bogdan, and Biklen, 1992) Bogdan and Bicklen (1982), (Taylor and Bogdan, 1984) and others). Documents and interviews with key bureaucratic workers also form part of the data.
As the interviews developed, I looked for young adults with a wide range of backgrounds; from urban and rural settings around Iceland, from different social classes and family structures, and people with a wide range of abilities, interests and impairments.[2]
This authors’ professional and personal experience over the past 20 years as a university teacher and a researcher of sociology and disability studies, and as a single mother of a son with severe disability, inform and focus the research. (Bjarnason 1996b, 2003c)
The young people were asked to name one of their teachers, whom they felt knew them and whom they liked and trusted for me to interview for the study. In many cases more than one student mentioned the same names, particularly names of teachers who worked in special classes and a teacher in a special school. They named eighteen teachers, but only twelve were interviewed. Three teachers had moved out of teaching, one could not be located, and two "teachers" whose job descriptions were those of paraprofessionals refused to be interviewed.
Two favorite teachers from the compulsory special schools were named and interviewed, as well as three favorite general education teachers from compulsory schools. The teacher with the shortest work experience in schools had worked as a teacher for eleven years, and the two persons who had worked longest had taught for thirty-six years. Table 4 below shows the teachers’ years at work, their qualifications, broad work experience, and their work responsibilities at the time they were interviewed.
One person was not certified as a teacher, but had served as a teacher for over a decade and identified herself as a teacher. Eight teachers had degrees or diplomas in special education from universities or teacher training colleges in Iceland and abroad. One had a diploma in rehabilitation, one had in addition to the teachers’ certificate, a diploma in education from a university, one was both a qualified teacher and a pre-school teacher, two were trained as vocational teachers, and one had a degree in Geography as well as a
Table 4. Teachers, qualifications, work experience and present job
No. of years teaching Qualification Work experience Present job
Ragnheiður - 11 years / upper-sec. school graduate / class” teacher" in compulsory school, and a support person in a compulsory school and in an upper-sec. school / Upper –sec. school support personfor integrated disabled students
Sigrún - 25 years / compulsory school teacher/
spec. ed. degree / head of special education/ inclusion expert / Compulsory school teacher, inclusion supervisor
Þorsteinn - 25 years / compulsory school teacher/
vocational line, spec. ed., diploma in education / teacher in compulsory and spec. ed. teacher in upper secondary schools, teaching in vocational ed. at upper-sec. school and adult ed. level / spec. ed. teacher and departmental head in the special education department of a upper-sec.
Kristín - 30 years / preschool teacher/ compulsory school teacher / spec. ed. teacher in general classes at compulsory and upper-sec. school levels / spec. ed. teacher supporting disabled learners in general upper-sec. School
Tómas - 36 years / compulsory school teacher / compulsory school teacher and deputy principal / deputy principal/ teaches individual students with disability
Sævar - 26 years / diploma in rehabilitation/special ed. / work with disabled children, youth and adults in most settings, including educational settings from preschool to adulthood / departmental[3] head in a special education department of an upper-sec. School
Dagný - 36 years / compulsory school teacher / compulsory school teacher , spec ed. teacher and vocational training / teacher in a special school
Eva -26 years / compulsory school teacher/
spec. ed. degree / compulsory school teacher, headmaster, district director for spec. education, special teacher in an upper-sec. school/ special teacher for institutionalized "delinquent" youth and young adults / special teacher and head of a special education department at an upper-sec. School
Sólveig- 12 years / compulsory school teacher / compulsory school teacher teaching children and adolescents/ support teacher for blind students, support teacher for integrating disabled students, support teacher for disabled upper-sec. school students / special teacher in a special education department in an upper-sec. School
Gísli - 15 years / degree in geography, spec. ed. degree / spec. ed. teacher/ has taught at all school levels from compulsory schools to university / special and general upper-sec. school teacher, and head of a special education department in an upper-sec.school
Erla - 23 years / compulsory school teacher,
special educator / general and special education teacher at compulsory and at upper-sec. school levels / general teacher part time in a compulsory school, spec. ed teacher in a special department in an upper-sec. School
Helgi – 30 / compulsory school teacher/ vocational teacher / compulsory school teacher, headmaster, assistant head master, sports teacher, special teacher for disabled compulsory school students, department head for a special unit for disabled upper-sec. school students / Special teacher and head of an upper-sec. school special department for disabled youth and adults
degree in education. Of all the trained teachers, only two were specially trained as upper secondary school teachers, all the others were trained as compulsory school teaches. This had implications for the pay and status of teachers working within upper secondary schools. All the special teachers were certified as general teachers first and thus on an equal footing with other compulsory school teachers. The teachers had responsibility for the education of from one to ten disabled students who had a broad range of disability labels.[4]