Prof. Garry Hornby (University of Canterburybury): Foute opvattingen i.v.m. recht op inclusie en (fysieke) inclusie als doel op zich - ook bij Vlaamse propagandisten van inclusief onderwijs
1. Recht op (fysieke) inclusie versus recht op aangepast leren
A critical confusion concerns the rights of children with SE (Special Educational Needs) . A typical argument put forward infavour of full inclusion is that it is a basic human right of all children to be educated along with their mainstream peers. To segregate children for any reason is con sidered by many inclusionists to be adenial of their human rights. However, there are two main confusions here. First of all there is confusion between human rights and moral rights. Just because someone has a human right to a certain option doesnt necessarily mean that it is morally the right thing for them to do (Thomson, 1990). Thus, although their human rights allow children with SEN to be educated alongside their mainstream peers,for some of them this may not,morally,be the right or bes toption. As Warnock puts it,What is a manifest good in society,and what it is my right to have
may not be what is best for me as a schoolchild(Terzi,2010,p.36).
A second aspect of the rights confusion concerns priorities .As well as their right to be included, children also have a right to an appropriate education suited to thei rneeds.It is their right to learn that we must defend, not their right to learn in the same environment as everyone else (Warnock,inTerzi,2010,p.36).That is,the right to an appropriate education which meets childrens specific needs is more important than the right to be educated alongside their mainstream peers. Therefore, it cannot be morally right to include all children in mainstream schools If this means that some of them will not be able to receive the education most appropriate for their needs.
2. Inclusief onderwijs wordt al te vaak als doel op zich voorgesteld i.p.v. een van de middelen, wegen om een doel (inclusie in de maatschappij) te bereiken.
An important confusion with inclusive education that has been addressed by Warnock (Terzi,2010) is whether Inclusion is a means to an end or an end in itself. Proponents of full inclusion argue that segregated SEN placement is wrong because a key goal of education should be to fully include children in the community in which they live.
Therefore, they ought to be included in their local mainstream schools. However, as suggested by Warnock, inclusion in the community after leaving school is actually the most important end that educators should be seeking Inclusion in mainstream schools may be a means to that end but should not be an end in itself. For some children with SEN, segregated SEN placement may be the best means to the end of eventual inclusion in the community when they leave school. In contrast, inclusion in mainstream schools which does not fully meet children's SEN may be counterproductive in that it is likely to reduce their potential for full inclusion in the community as adults.
Passages uit: INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS: A CRITIQUE OF POLICY AND PRACTICE IN NEW ZEALAND Garry Hornby College of Education, University of Canterbury