Aanleiding : socioloog Herman Van de Werfhorst stelt vandaag in een interview in de NRC:" We kunnen ongelijkheid een beetje verkleinen, maar nooit helemaal. Veel patronen komen grotendeels voort uit het milieu van herkomst: het thuisklimaat, MISSCHIEN is er een genetische component.”

 Repliek 1 op twitter van Raf Feys: Van de Werfhorst stelt: 'MISSCHIEN speelt erfelijke aanleg ook een rol' Nog steeds veel sociologen die de grote invloed van de erfelijke aanleg ten zeerste minimaliseren

 Repliek 2 van Raf Feys: Sociologen als van de Werfhorst beseffen blijkbaar ook niet dat grote samenhang met scholingsniveau ouders/SES op vandaag eerder wijst op grotere dan kleinere sociale gelijkheid in het onderwijs. Naarmate we de invloed van sociale factoren verminderen & meer getalenteerde arbeiderskinderen doorstromen neemt de correlatie met de erfelijke aanleg en dus ook het scholingsniveau van de ouders uiteindelijk verder toe.

 Antwoord van Herman van de Werfhorst: 

maar doet niets af aan grote stabiliteit in secundaire effecten (zo’n 1/3e). Van de 2/3e primaire effecten (SES verschillen via prestaties) zou het naïef zijn om te denken dat ze uitsluitend genetisch zijn. " 

Repliek van Raf Feys: 

U geeft dus toe dat hogere onderwijskansen kunnen leiden tot een hogere correlatie van de schoolresultaten met het scholingsniveau van de ouders. Maar waarom interpreteren sociologen – ook de Vlaamse: Jacobs, Nicaise, Agirdag, Van Houtte … dan een hogere correlatie steevast als een bewijs van grotere sociale ongelijkheid?

 P.S. Niemand beweert uiteraard dat de invloed van hoger geschoolde ouders louter van genetische aard is. Die genetische invloed is volgens ons wel vrij groot. En tegelijk kan de school er uieraard niet in slagen de vaak ook grotere sociale invloed van hoger geschoolde ouders weg te werken .Het is precies door de hogere nature-invloed én de hogere nurture-invloed dat de relatie met het scholingsniveau van de ouders zo hoog is

Collega van de Werfhorst heeft zelfeen blog waarin hij stelt dat 60% vd correlatie tss SES en studiekeuze niet aan sociale factoren te wijten is. Voor leerprestaties ie het niet anders. Maar dat betekent dus dat interpretaties van SES effecten zonder deze nuancering steevast het sociale effect met de helft overschatten. Dat is vooral in Vlaanderen het geval. Als je dan weet dat SES ongeveer .45 correleert met pisa in Vl, krijg je dus een sociaal effect van 8% variantie leerprestaties (.45*.45*40%). Maar toch gaat het debat (hier) vooral daar over 

men mag ook niet verwachten dat het onderwijs in staat is om dit sociaal effect van die 8% variantie in leerprestaties zomaar weg te werken. Sociaal effect van geschoolde ouders zal altijd deels behouden blijven. En dat heeft dus niets maken met sociale discriminatie in het onderwijs.

 Prof. After thirty years of fighting to rid the system of alternative settings and specialized support programs teachers are confronted with the current challenges of class composition posed by the dramatically rising numbers of students with complex needs and sometimes unmanageable behavioural disorders in today’s classrooms. Inclusion of all students is now virtually universally accepted, but the Nova Scotia Inclusion Commission,recognized that it does not necessarily mean inclusion in one particular setting, but rather in the one best suited to the child along a continuum of services from regular classroom to specialized support programs.

 ----- 

Rapport : Commission on Inclusive Education Public Opinion Survey Results February 2, 2018 

De problemen worden in dit rapport uitvoerig beschreven. Challenges Facing the Current System of Inclusive Education Educators and parents were also aligned in terms of the most important challenges or issues facing the current system of inclusive education in Nova Scotia. 

They identified the top challenges facing inclusive education as inadequate funding/staff/resources (53%),

 an increased rate of severely disruptive student behaviour in school (46%), 

inadequate in-class supports (46%), and a growing number of students with mental health challenges, and a lack of support for all students (40%). 

Barriers to Inclusive Education 

. Among educators, the top barriers to providing inclusive education selected were changing class composition (i.e., increased number and severity of student needs)(48%), a lack of funding/staff/resources to support students with special needs (41%), in-class disruptions and inappropriate student behaviour negatively affecting student learning (39%), a lack of time for teachers to meet the needs of all students in their classrooms (38%), excessive teacher workloads (35%), and inadequate in-class support for all students (31%). 

Educators also reported that there are shortages in the number of specialized teachers in the public system. Most respondents indicated there are ‘too few’ Teacher Assistants (92%), School Psychologists (90%), Resource Teachers (83%), Speech Language Pathologists (81%), or Guidance Counsellors (81%). 

Moreover, majorities of educators assigned negative grades (‘1’ or ‘2’ out of 5) to the system in terms of matching these specialized teachers with demand (i.e. ensuring there are enough specialized teachers available when and where they are needed). .Few educators agreed with the statement I am able to fully meet the needs of the students in my classroom (17%), or that There are sufficient supportive resources and professional services to support inclusive education in our schools and classroom (4%).

 Furthermore, more than nine in ten (92%) educators somewhat disagreed or disagreed that they usually have enough time to meet with other professionals when necessary during the school day. 

Teachers reported that they spend, on average, 45% of their time on administrative duties, and 55% on the direct teaching of students. Educator Readiness for Inclusive Education Educators were also asked to evaluate their own level of confidence and preparedness for inclusive classrooms. 

No more than one-third of respondents reported that their BEd program or other university or professional education prepared them well for the realities of inclusive education (29% agree) or helped them learn how to design and implement inclusive learning in the classroom (33% agree). 

Furthermore, less than one-half of educators agreed with two statements that relate to their level of readiness: I have the knowledge and skills required to educate students with special needs (47%), and My Bachelor of Education and professional development prepared me well for the realities of inclusive education (19%). In addition, educators were not optimistic that they can access further education that will increase their capabilities in this domain. 

Only one-third agreed that Professional development opportunities are available to me that will increase my ability and confidence in supporting inclusive education (33%), or that Professional development opportunities are available to me that will help me learn how to implement individualized student programs (33%). Priorities for Learning Environment 

When asked to identify their priorities for changing the learning environment, educators chose alternative programs, classes and schools as their top #1 choice (35%), followed by intensive and timely behaviour interventions and support (22%), and safe, inclusive schools (21%). When asked to rate various elements of their school experience, educators expressed a high level of agreement with the statements The needs of some students with special needs are best met in instructional settings tailored to their needs (96% agree), and Inclusion sounds good in theory but does not work well in practice (85%). 

Furthermore, no more than three in ten educators agreed that All students should be educated in grade level classrooms (28%), and that Classroom teachers’ instructional effectiveness will be enhanced by having students with special needs included in their classes (27%). Priorities for Communication and Collaboration 

Respondents to the educator, parent and public surveys all agreed on the same top communication and collaboration priority: working relationships between parents, teachers and school leaders. This response was selected as the #1 priority by 38% of educators, 33% of parents, and 51% of public survey respondents. In all three cases, parental involvement with their child’s school program received the second most #1 choices. 

At the same time, parents were divided on those measures that reflect more active collaboration. Roughly one-half of parents who have children with special needs agreed that My child’s school helped me become involved to improve services and results for my child (52%); I was given information about the programming and placement options available to my child and was offered the opportunity to ask questions during program planning meetings (50%); I could disagree with what my child’s school proposed as my child’s school program and services without concern for negative feedback/impact (52%); or that At the beginning of the school year I am informed about the program planning process (51%). Even fewer parents of children with special needs agreed that I was provided information about school and community resources, supports and services available to me (37%), or I was offered the opportunity to participate in professional learning, workshops, webinars, etc. about special education issues and services (12%). 

Among educators, the top priority identified was alternative learning settings and programs for students who require them (29% naming it as the top priority). A new funding formula that is more responsive to student needs (16%) and more specialized teachers and staff to meet student needs in the classroom (13%) were next on their priority list.