|
Geen LAT-inclusie zoals in BNM-ontwerpdecreet :
Redefining
Inclusion (Tom Bennett)
1. Inclusion doesnt
mean in the class with everyone else. This is inclusion at its most witless
and barbaric. It is also the default definition in many, many mainstream
schools: youre included if youre geographically present. You might as well
say that the waiters at Buckingham Palace are guests at the garden party.
2. But all this does
is to create pressure-cooker classrooms where the few drain the attention of
the one, to the detriment of the many. The teacher is spread thin as marmalade
and lessons are carpet bombed. Learning over.
3. Inclusion like any
value, cannot be intrinsically good. It must be balanced with other values,
such as the rights of the class, the teacher, and the good of the child.
4. For some children
that can be achieved in the mainstream classroom; modifications that can be
done with relative ease: task that differentiate for different abilities;
seating plans that accommodate children with hearing issues etc
5. For some children,
inclusion needs to mean special provision. Overwhelmingly, this means smaller
groups, separate classrooms and specially trained staff. That way they can get
the attention they require without dominating the classroom. When did we forget
that mainstream kids have needs too?
6. Staff trained in a
meaningful way. I feel sorry for TAs. Often they are the least trained, the
worst paid and the least valued members of staff, and yet the demands on them
are Herculean. Work a miracle with this pupil they are told, without being
told how. Their salaries are shocking. Children with special needs dont just
need a warm body nagging them, or writing out their answers; they need
teachers, trained in specific areas: EAL; Autism; reading strategies; extreme
spectrum behaviour. And they need subject knowledge too, to teach meaningful
content. I know many TAs who do a fantastic job. But there are some TAs who,
through little fault of their own, are little more than tall buddies for their
charges.
7. For inclusion to
be meaningful, it has to exclude meaningfully. Good internal inclusion units
are a joy: a school within a school, a Russian Doll of focus and care. Others
are holding pens; three goes on the Rollercoaster and the pupils are dropped
back into the circus. Inclusion, as it
stands is worse than useless in many schools. It is actively harmful. It serves
no purpose other than to meet its own criteria. Were bad at identifying
special needs, and were terrible at meeting those needs. If we crack this, the
value and efficiency of what we already do will sky rocket, I guarantee it. But
we spend all our cows on magic beans.
|
