EXCLUSION FROM SCHOOL ACTIVITIES

BY HAYLEY FIRTH: 18608638

WORD COUNT: 1650

POSITION

It is the position of this paper that ALL children are entitled to mainstream, ample, and inclusive

education that supports their participation and beyond. Although inclusive education has improved

over the years (Anderson & Boyle, 2019), research still detects strong connections between the

neglect of people with disability to an inadequacy in inclusive education today (Australian Institute

of Health & Welfare [AIHW], 2017). Therefore, promoting participation within schools through

inclusive education will not only enhance learning outcomes and decrease discriminatory prejudices

within primary schools (Graham, 2020), but render a socially cohesive and equitable quality of life

for ALL children, with or without disabilities (Cologon & Lassig, 2020).

JUSTIFICATION

No individual should ever be denied the right to learn, nor be excluded from their society.

Unfortunately, these issues continue to coexist through the exclusion of people with disability from

educational involvement (Davis et al., 2020). This exclusion has dire long-term consequences, as it

implicitly permits discriminatory prejudices to continue beyond school contexts and overall,

detrimentally impacts an individual’s quality of life (Davis et al., 2020). The Bronfenbrenner

Ecological Systems model (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994) elaborates how exclusion restraints an

individual through analysing how interactions between interconnected social systems influence

one’s wellbeing and socio-economic status. However, by understanding the underlying ideologies,

assumptions, and attitudes within the ‘macrosystem’ (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994), we can

Page 1 Hayley Firth: 18608638

understand how individuals are impacted by exclusion in different social contexts (Anderson, Boyle

& Deppeler, 2014). Therefore, challenging barriers and misconceptions of disability within each

system provides implications for how and why change must occur for inclusive education (Foreman

& Arthur-Kelly, 2017).

Initially, changes must occur in the exosystem to reinforce equitable perceptions of disability.

Underlying ideologies from the macrosystem directly impact one’s exosystem (Bronfenbrenner &

Ceci, 1994), as societal norms and discourses govern the development of educational legislation and

policy (Liasidou, 2008). Previously, the medical model of disability has influenced educational

legislation (Done & Andrews, 2019) through conceptualising “disability as a biological product”

(Haegele & Hodge, 2016, p.195). For instance, the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act

(1992) employs terminology such as “student’s disability” (Section 22, p.25), suggesting that

disability is a personal, biological limitation for individuals. Consequently, misconceptions of

‘special-education’ formed, whereby segregating students with disability from mainstream

classrooms was believed beneficial and inclusive (Graham et al., 2020). Overtime, segregation

proved highly exclusive and detrimental for students with disability as restricting their involvement

with meaningful education lowers learning outcomes, as well as their social and emotional

wellbeing (De-Bruin, 2020). However, Australian society recognised this ramification, causing

systemic reform through the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Amendment Act (1992) by

adopting the social model of disability and implementing the Disability Standards for Education

(2005). This shifted societal perceptions of disability, as the environment was perceived to disable

an individual (Graham et al., 2020) and thus, schools became legally obligated to perform

reasonable adjustments within educational contexts (Poed, 2020). Nevertheless, changes are still

required within the exosystem to improve perceptions of disability (Poed, 2020).

Page 2 Hayley Firth: 18608638

Accordingly, barriers arise within the mesosystem that contribute to exclusion in schools and

classroom practices. The misconceptions and barriers within the exosystem produce enacted

stigmatisation within educational contexts (Cologon, 2014), such as the denial of reasonable

adjustment that supports the participation of students with disability in mainstream contexts

(Cologon & Lassig, 2020). Although reasonable adjustments ensure students with and without

disability are given equal opportunities (Graham, 2020), enacted stigmatisation continues to exist as

58% of Australian primary schools still segregate students with disability as of 2015 (AIHW, 2017).

Overtime, schools and educators have attempted to decrease segregation through integrating

students with disability into mainstream classrooms (Graham, 2020). However, integration remains

controversial as it positions a child with disability into a mainstream environment without

implementing adaptions to support the child’s full participation (De Bruin, 2020) and thus, does not

achieve inclusion. Therefore, educators need to develop an understanding for inclusive practices in

order to surpass integrative ramifications and achieve inclusive education (Boyle, Anderson &

Allen, 2020). Evidently, students with and without disability exhibited enhanced learning outcomes,

decreased discrimination, and a strengthened sense of belonging due to supported, meaningful

participation (Cologon & Lassig, 2020). Hence, it is imperative the identified barriers are

confronted within the mesosystem to remove exclusive practices and promote inclusion.

Subsequently, microsystem approaches to family partnerships must evolve for the inclusive

education of children living with disability. Previous discourse from the mesosystem imposed the

notion of the teacher as the professional in collaborative partnerships and thus, the one to make final

decisions (Tancredi et al., 2020). Consequently, this negatively impacted relationships between

educators and the families living with disability by ignoring the parents’/carers’ input of knowledge

that could further support the child’s education (Fialka, 2001). However, teachers have attempted to

improve family collaborations through a relational approach (Dunst & Trivette, 1996) involving

active listening, empathy, and respect (Dunst & Trivette, 1996). Although relational approaches are

Page 3 Hayley Firth: 18608638

beneficial for family-teacher relationships (Dunst, 2002), research suggests further action is

required to achieve true family-centred practice (Dunst & Trivette, 1996; Moore, 2001; Fordham &

Johnston, 2014). Fordham & Johnston (2014) recommend participatory approaches are adopted by

educators to ensure parents’/carers’ are actively involved in decision-making and planning to

achieve desired inclusive education for the child with disability. Fialka (2001) identified how this

allows parents’/carers’ to become critical contributors, as educators remove their ‘professional

headphones’ to understand another perception, and thus, focus upon “the parents’ music and unique

dance steps” (p.27) to achieve inclusion. Therefore, it is imperative approaches to collaboration and

partnerships evolve to benefit the microsystem of children with disability and their inclusive

education.

Consequently, systemic and educational change immensely impacts the social cohesion and overall

quality of life for individuals living with disability. Initially, excluding children with disability from

equal learning opportunities produces low educational attainment (AIHW, 2017). According to

AIHW (2017), by removing children with disabilities from mainstream learning environments, their

access to education is restricted and thus, they cannot achieve optimal learning outcomes.

Thereafter, exclusive education impacts their socio-economic status as discriminatory prejudices

emerge from school contexts and into the broader society (Graham, 2020). Evidently, there are

strong correlations between educational exclusion and social inequalities (AIHW, 2017), such as

discrimination and unemployment of people with disability (Hagarty & Morgan, 2020). Subsequent

these interactions between one’s interconnected systems (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994), it is

apparent how it detrimentally impacts the sense of belonging and general wellbeing of individuals

living with disability. Docker & Smith (2017) reveal that individuals living with disability still lack

a sense of social belonging, as they report being left behind, despised, and never listened to (Docker

& Smith, 2017). Therefore, these barriers continue to impact the quality of life for individuals living

Page 4 Hayley Firth: 18608638

with disability. Even with systemic change, we must continue to evolve our educational practices

for the imperative progression of inclusive education.

RECOMMENDATION

Transitions into mainstream primary school classrooms should be offered for segregated students

living with disability. This would involve gradually increasing a student’s involvement within

mainstream contexts through regular intervals, such as once a week. However, choices made for

when and whether to cease or increase transition intervals is entirely up to the student with

disability. Beneficially, this grants students a freedom of choice as they are actively involved in

their learning according to their pace (The United Nations, 2006), whilst also providing

opportunities for parents/carers to be ‘critical contributors’ to the student’s education (Fialka, 2001).

Consequently, this promotes inclusion by reducing segregated classrooms influenced by social

discourse whilst providing choice for students who prefer segregated settings. This supports the

social-emotional learning of students with disability as they willingly choose a learning context

where they feel most comfortable, supported, and included in their education (Hargarty & Morgan,

2020). According to Grove & Laletas (2020), this also improves social cohesion through the

development of self-awareness and interpersonal skills that enhances positive relationships, work

opportunities and life outcomes (MCEETYA, 2008). Therefore, flexible transition is imperative for

the progression of inclusive primary education in Australia.

Additionally, early intervention is required for pre-service teachers by practising inclusive

education in hypothetical contexts. In order to support the previous recommendation and future

pedagogical practices, pre-service teachers should be required to practise inclusive strategies within

assessment tasks across all key learning areas (KLA). Although pre-service teachers extensively

practise differentiation (AITSL, 2011), assessment tasks do not require the implementation nor

development of inclusive practices, principles, and strategies (Lancaster & Bain, 2019).

Page 5 Hayley Firth: 18608638

Consequently, pre-service teachers are not equipped with the appropriate understanding to support

the education of students with disability throughout KLAs (Lancaster & Bain, 2019). However,

early introduction to the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach within a pre-service

teacher’s degree provides implications for practising inclusive strategies throughout all KLAs. The

UDL approach encourages pre-service teachers to practise the implementation of inclusive and

differentiated strategies (Cologon & Lassig, 2020). According to Cologon & Lassig (2020), these

approaches ensure “accessibility, flexibility, and responsiveness” (p.185) by removing barriers and

supporting differentiation for genuine learning opportunities. Subsequently, pre-service teachers

adopt a modern, equitable perception of disability as they gain a deeper understanding for how and

why inclusive education is imperative for all students (Cologon & Lassig, 2020). Pedagogical

practice is also strengthened by demonstrating standard 1.6.1 through practising “teaching strategies

that support participation and learning of students with disability” (AITSL, 2011, p.11). Therefore,

by practicing equitable conceptions of disability and adapting them to hypothetical contexts, they

converge into real-world contexts and achieve inclusive education.

CONCLUSION

Ergo, individuals are being denied the right to learn whilst excluded from their society. Assisted

by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems model (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994), the critical

analysis of the macrosystem emphasised how and why change must occur for not only inclusive

education, but for a socially cohesive and optimal quality of life for all individuals. These

recommendations MUST be implemented to pursue this dream and support people living with and

without disability. As Chris Bunton (Docker & Smith, 2017) states: “we would like to live in a

world where we are all equal” (27:14).

REFERENCES

Page 6 Hayley Firth: 18608638

Anderson, J., Boyle, C. & Deppeler, J. (2014). The Ecology of Inclusive Education:

Reconceptualising Bronfenbrenner. Equality in Education: Fairness and Inclusion, p.23-34.

Brill: Sense. Retrieved from: https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789462096929/BP000004.xml

Anderson, J. & Boyle, C. (2019). Looking in the mirror: reflecting on 25 years of inclusive

education in Australia. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(8), p.796-810. Retrieved

from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13603116.2019.1622802

Australian Institute of Health & Welfare [AIHW] (2017). Disability in Australia: changes over time

in inclusion and participation in education. Australian Government, Canberra: AIHW. Retrieved

from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/34f09557-0acf-4adf-837d-eada7b74d466/Education-

20905.pdf.aspx

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL]. (2011). Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers. Education Services Australia, Melbourne: New South Wales. Retrieved

from: https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/australian-

professional-standards-for-teachers.pdf

Boyle, C., Anderson, J. & Allen, K.A. (2020). The Importance of Teacher Attitudes to Inclusive

Education. Inclusive Education: Global Issues and Controversies, p.127-146. Retrieved from:

https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004431171/BP000022.xml

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nuture reconceptualized in developmental

perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586. Retrieved

from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568

Cologon, K. (2014). Inclusive education in the early years: Right from the start, p.171-179. South

Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.

Cologon, K. & Lassig, C. (2020). Universal approaches to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. In

L.J. Graham (Ed.) Inclusive Education for the 21st Century: Theory, Policy and Practice, p.3-

26. Allen & Unwin, NSW.

Page 7 Hayley Firth: 18608638

Commonwealth of Australia. (1992). Disability Discrimination Act. Retrieved from

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00022

Commonwealth of Australia. (2005). Disability Standards for Education. Canberra: Author.

Retrieved from http://ddaedusstandards.info/education.stds.php

Davis, J., Gillet-Swan, J., Graham, L.J. & Malaquias, C. (2020). Inclusive education as a human

right. In L.J. Graham. (Ed.), Inclusive education for 21st century: Theory, policy and

practice (pp.100-121). Allen & Unwin.

De Bruin, K. (2020). Does inclusion work? In L. Graham (Ed.), Inclusive education for the 21st

century: Theory, policy and practice (pp. 55 -766). Allen & Unwin.

Docker, K. & Smith, A. (Directors). (2017). Down Syndrome (Series 2, Episode 11) [TV Series

episode]. In K. Docker & A. Smith (Producers), You Can’t Ask That. ABC iview. Retrieved

from: https://iview.abc.net.au/show/you-can-t-ask-that/series/2/video/LE1617H002S00

Anderson, J., Boyle, C. & Deppeler, J. (2014). The Ecology of Inclusive Educ

Done, E.J. & Andrews, M.J. (2019). How inclusion became exclusion: policy, teachers and

inclusive education. Journal of Education Policy, 23(5), p.1-18. Retrieved from: https://www-

tandfonline-com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/02680939.2018.1552763?

needAccess=true

Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (1996). Empowerment, effective helpgiving practices and family-

centered care. Pediatric Nursing, 22(4). Retrieved from: https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?

id=GALE

%7CA19138566&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00979805&p=AONE

&sw=w

Dunst, C.J. (2002). Family-Centered Practices: Birth Through High School. The Journal of Special

Education, 36(3). Retrieved from:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00224669020360030401

Page 8 Hayley Firth: 18608638

Fialka, J. (2001). The dance of partnership: Why do my feet hurt? Young Exceptional Children,

4(2), p.21-27. doi: 10.1177/10962506010040020

Fordham, L., & Johnston, C. (2014). Family-centred practice for inclusive early years education. In

K. Cologan (Ed.), Inclusive education in the early years: right from the start, p.171-188. Oxford

University Press.

Foreman, P. & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2017). Inclusion in Action, 5th ed., p.198-236. South Melbourne,

Australia: Cengage Learning Australia.

Graham, L.J. (2020). Inclusive education in the 21st century. Inclusive Education for the 21st

Century: Theory, Policy and Practice, p.3-26. Allen & Unwin, NSW.

Graham, L.J., Medhurst, M., Tancredi, H., Spandagou, I. & Walton, E. (2020). Fundamental

concepts of inclusive education. In L.J. Graham. (Ed.), Inclusive education for 21st century:

Theory, policy and practice (pp.100-121). Allen & Unwin.

Grove, C. & Laletas, S. (2020). Promoting student wellbeing and mental health through social and

emotional learning. In L.J. Graham. (Ed.), Inclusive education for 21st  century: Theory, policy

and practice (pp.100-121). Allen & Unwin.

Haegele, J.A. & Hodge, S. (2016). Disability Discourse: Overview and Critiques of the Medical and

Social Models. Quest, 68(2), p.193-206. Retrieved from: https://www-tandfonline-

com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/00336297.2016.1143849?needAccess=true

Hagarty, I. & Morgan, G. (2020). Social-emotional learning for children with learning disabilities: a

systematic review. Educational Psychology in Practice, 36(2), p.208-222. Retrieved from:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02667363.2020.1742096

Lancaster, J., & Bain, A. (2019). Designing University Courses to Improve Pre-Service Teachers'

Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Evidence-Based Inclusive Practice.. Australian Journal of

Teacher Education, 44(2). Retrieved from: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol44/iss2/4/

Page 9 Hayley Firth: 18608638

Liasidou, A. (2008). Critical discourse analysis and inclusive educational policies: the power to

exclude. Journal of Education Policy, 23(5), p.483-500. Retrieved from: https://www-

tandfonline-com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/02680930802148933?needAccess=true

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs [MCEETYA]. (2008).

Melbourne Decleration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Australia, Victoria:

Melbourne. Retrieved from:

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goal

s_for_Young_Australians.pdf

Moore, M. (2001). Insider perspectives on inclusion: Raising voices, raising issues. Sheffield:

Philip Armstrong Publications.

Poed, S. (2020). Legislation, litigation and implications for inclusion. In L.J. Graham.

(Ed.), Inclusive education for 21st century: Theory, policy and practice (pp.100-121). Allen &

Unwin.

Tancredi, H., Dixon, G., English, L & Gallagher, J. (2020). Collaborating with colleagues and other

professionals. In L. Graham (Ed.),  Inclusive education for the 21st century: Theory, policy and

practice (pp. 358-377). Allen & Unwin.

The United Nations [UN]. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

(CRPD). Department of Economic and Social Affairs Disability. Retrieved from:

https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf

Page 10 Hayley Firth: 18608638