Inclusion in Testing Times: Implications for Citizenship and Participation (original) (raw)
Related papers
Optimizing the educational subject between testing and inclusion in an era of neoliberalism
Testing and Inclusive Schooling
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 selection and editorial matter, Bjørn Hamre, Anne Morin and Christian Ydesen; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Bjørn Hamre, Anne Morin and Christian Ydesen to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Educational testing, the question of the public good, and room for inclusion
2018
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 selection and editorial matter, Bjørn Hamre, Anne Morin and Christian Ydesen; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Bjørn Hamre, Anne Morin and Christian Ydesen to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Meeting Some Challenges of Inclusive Education in an Age of Exclusion
Asian Journal of Inclusive Education
Exclusion is ingrained into the global social fabric in general and education in particular. This paper takes up the challenge of international agreements and conventions affirming Education For All. Increasingly education jurisdictions are submitting to lean testing regimes and publishing results to drive local, national and international competition to drive up standards. While there are grave concerns about the poverty of such policy imperatives and the narrow definition of assessment therein, evidence is mounting to demonstrate the perverse and deleterious impacts on disadvantaged communities and vulnerable individuals. The rhetoric of inclusion is strong but conceptions and practices of inclusive education are inconsistent and disconnected from other aspects of social and education policy that drive exclusion in stark and subtle manifestations.
All means all: An introduction to the 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report on inclusion
PROSPECTS
This article provides an overview of the 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report, which looks at social, economic, and cultural mechanisms that discriminate against disadvantaged children, youth, and adults, keeping them out of education or marginalized in it. Countries are expanding their vision of inclusion in education to put diversity at the core of their systems. Yet, implementation of well-meaning policies often falters. Released at the start of the Decade of Action to 2030, and during the Covid-19 crisis, which has exacerbated underlying inequalities, the report argues that resistance to addressing every learner's needs is a real threat to achieving global education targets. Inclusion and Education: All Means All identifies practices in governance and finance; curricula, textbooks, and assessments; teacher education; school infrastructure; and relations with students, parents, and communities that can unlock the process to inclusion. It provides policy recommendations to make learner diversity a strength to be celebrated, a force for social cohesion.
Ability, Examination and Inclusive Education: Stretching the Hard Lines of the Educational System
The aim of this paper is to delve into the debate about the epistemological nature of ability and examination, which we have been continuously exposed to, but rarely scrutinized. In the paper, I refer to Turkey as a case and argue that the dominance of ability-based paradigm and its associated assessment and placement systems have created a new educational order which categorizes schools and students based on how they perform at a single point in time. What is more, I critically evaluate the construction of “abilities” and “disabilities” through the means employed in the education system, followed by a discussion of the examination culture as a product of an ability-based system. Finally, I propose inclusive education as a powerful means of transforming the education system to an equitable and educationally effective one in which all students are welcomed and provided with education of good quality that both enriches childhood and maximizes chances of leading a fulfilled adult life.
Inclusion in Education Under Threat -What does it mean and what can we do about it
ICSAR, 2019
This paper addresses existential threats to inclusion in education, in particular the rise of nationalistic populism and authoritarianism-in which education is embedded. To suggest ways forward in supporting educators to counter these threats and in defending and promoting the principles which underpin inclusion, connections are drawn between the more specific technical, micro, aspects of implementing inclusion in education and the more meso and macro level socio-political environment. In doing so, this paper draws on examples from Indonesia and Afghanistan.
The purpose of this collection of manuscripts is to interrogate assumptions about inclusive education that are generally regarded as stable or even canonical, particularly in the global North. My expectation is that this special issue will pose uneasy questions and cause epistemic distress as a means to animate a new generation of inclusive education scholarship (Grech & Soldatic, 2016). Before I describe the rationale and goals of the special issue, I explain my use of certain key terms. First, although there are differences in the conceptualizations of "inclusive education" and "inclusion, " I use these terms interchangeably for style purposes. In addition, I do not use the terms global North and South as expressions of a binary logic. I make this distinction "to delineate power, resource, epistemological and other differentials, that though not unshiftable, and though not localized, embrace a substantial portion of the world living in a scenario of profound geopolitical asymmetries, poverty and isolation confronting deeply entrenched centers of concentrated wealth and power accumulated historically and perpetuated in times of coloniality" (Grech, 2015, Terminology section, para. 3). Third, I use people-first language (i.e., students with disabilities) interchangeably with the term "disabled" which is favored in the social model of disability. This way, I acknowledge representations of this population that recognize individual, societal and historical dimensions of ability differences. A foundational assumption in need of scrutiny is that inclusive education is only concerned with the education of learners with disabilities. Another tenet of the inclusion orthodoxy is the reliance on a technical standpoint to effect change-e.g., train teachers, make accommodations in the curriculum and assessment procedures, adjust classroom spaces-which disregards longstanding structural inequalities that perpetuate stratified educational systems. Over time, these and other canonical ideas have become broken promises, unwittingly forged new inequalities and contributed to neocolonial developments in the global North and South. In the age of global norming, population displacements and cultural intermingling that simmers in deepening socioeconomic injustices, it is imperative to disrupt inclusion's common sense. For this purpose, I contextualize the articles in this issue by identifying a few primary tenets in the inclusive education scholarship that are problematic. The goal of this overview is not to present an exhaustive critique of the literature (see Artiles & Kozleski, 2016; Artiles et al., 2006). Rather, I highlight a few core notions in need of revision noting contextual similarities and differences between the global North and South. Of significance, I assume "there is not one global South, but there are indeed many global 'Souths. ' Furthermore, the global South is not only present in, but it also lives within the global North" (Grech, 2015, Terminology section, para. 3). Where appropriate, I indicate how the authors' contributions speak truth to inclusion's power. Keep in mind the scaffold of the following discussion is constituted by two interlocking themes, namely the fact that inclusive education has been intensely contested and it has expanded at different rates across the global North and South. Indeed, conceptual ambiguities
The Educational Forum, 2020
The purpose of this collection of manuscripts is to interrogate assumptions about inclusive education that are generally regarded as stable or even canonical, particularly in the global North. My expectation is that this special issue will pose uneasy questions and cause epistemic distress as a means to animate a new generation of inclusive education scholarship (Grech & Soldatic, 2016). Before I describe the rationale and goals of the special issue, I explain my use of certain key terms. First, although there are differences in the conceptualizations of "inclusive education" and "inclusion, " I use these terms interchangeably for style purposes. In addition, I do not use the terms global North and South as expressions of a binary logic. I make this distinction "to delineate power, resource, epistemological and other differentials, that though not unshiftable, and though not localized, embrace a substantial portion of the world living in a scenario of profound geopolitical asymmetries, poverty and isolation confronting deeply entrenched centers of concentrated wealth and power accumulated historically and perpetuated in times of coloniality" (Grech, 2015, Terminology section, para. 3). Third, I use people-first language (i.e., students with disabilities) interchangeably with the term "disabled" which is favored in the social model of disability. This way, I acknowledge representations of this population that recognize individual, societal and historical dimensions of ability differences. A foundational assumption in need of scrutiny is that inclusive education is only concerned with the education of learners with disabilities. Another tenet of the inclusion orthodoxy is the reliance on a technical standpoint to effect change-e.g., train teachers, make accommodations in the curriculum and assessment procedures, adjust classroom spaces-which disregards longstanding structural inequalities that perpetuate stratified educational systems. Over time, these and other canonical ideas have become broken promises, unwittingly forged new inequalities and contributed to neocolonial developments in the global North and South. In the age of global norming, population displacements and cultural intermingling that simmers in deepening socioeconomic injustices, it is imperative to disrupt inclusion's common sense. For this purpose, I contextualize the articles in this issue by identifying a few primary tenets in the inclusive education scholarship that are problematic. The goal of this overview is not to present an exhaustive critique of the literature (see Artiles & Kozleski, 2016; Artiles et al., 2006). Rather, I highlight a few core notions in need of revision noting contextual similarities and differences between the global North and South. Of significance, I assume "there is not one global South, but there are indeed many global 'Souths. ' Furthermore, the global South is not only present in, but it also lives within the global North" (Grech, 2015, Terminology section, para. 3). Where appropriate, I indicate how the authors' contributions speak truth to inclusion's power. Keep in mind the scaffold of the following discussion is constituted by two interlocking themes, namely the fact that inclusive education has been intensely contested and it has expanded at different rates across the global North and South. Indeed, conceptual ambiguities