CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS
5.9 Additional Information
At the conclusion of the three phases of data gathering, it became apparent that further data was required to gather information for emerging themes that were unable to be explored through way of the data that had already been gathered. Results of the study appeared to suggest an apparent disregard by some teachers and school Boards of Trustees of their legal and human rights obligations in relation to disabled students. The questions raised therefore were how was this able to happen, and why were the accountability procedures that all schools are subject to, not picking this up?
Particularly relevant to this study is school Boards of Trustees’ (BOT) obligations to adhere to the legislation that pertains to disabled students rights, including rights to a safe environment, to access the school and the curriculum (without extra financial cost), to have access to the class teacher, and in general, to be treated on no less favourable terms than non-disabled students. Also relevant is the responsibility of the Education Review Office (ERO) to ensure that schools are indeed fulfilling their obligations in this area. Results from this study suggest that there may not be the level of investigation by ERO into school compliance for disabled students.
In New Zealand the Education Review Office (ERO) was established to ensure that schools and school Boards of Trustees fulfil their obligations. The ERO is a government department that is charged with evaluating and publicly reporting on the quality of education and care of students in schools and early childhood centres. When evaluating schools and early childhood centres, The ERO focuses on three things: school specific priorities; government priorities; and compliance issues.
To gather further information to explore the theme of compliance and accountability, 20 ERO school evaluation reports in one geographical city in New Zealand, in the years 2006 and 2007 were selected and examined (all ERO evaluation reports are available online through the ERO website). Four criteria were set for this examination:
1. Was attention given to the factors that act to exclude disabled students?
2. Was attention given to compliance with legal and human rights obligations as they affect disabled students?
3. Was attention given to the use of teacher aides in schools? 4. What attention was given to the notion of inclusive schools?
There were a number of indications that ERO are not attending to issues associated with disabled students. For example in one school’s report, ERO reported on the provision for students who are underachieving. However, in the opening paragraph, it was pointed out that their review of this area did not include students who were in the special needs unit. Similarly, in another school where there was a special needs unit, ERO did not comment on any issues (either as good performance or needing attention) pertaining to the students in this unit.
Another noteworthy finding from this examination of ERO school review reports was that none of the reports made mention of student’s or childrens’ rights. Similarly, in only six of the 20 reports was any mention made of the use of teacher aides. In all cases, these were general comments regarding their use. Of particular significance, one report on a school where seven teacher aides were employed, made no reference to them at all.
Another relevant issue is that no reference was made in any of the reports to the New Zealand Disability Strategy. The Ministry of Education report that they are committed to implementing the objectives of the New Zealand Disability Strategy (New Zealand
Ministry of Education, 2007a), of which one objective (with eight associated actions) is to “provide the best education for disabled people” (Ministry of Health, 2001, p. 18). Therefore, it would be expected that some mention be made of schools’ performance in this respect.
The terms inclusion and inclusive were often used in many of the ERO reports. However, they were used in general terms without any specificity and explanation regarding the meaning that was attached to their use. For example, “Inclusive relationships are encouraged through meaningful interventions” and “Students work in an inclusive environment highly conducive to their learning” (ERO, 2007, page not given).
It should be noted that these results need to be interpreted with caution. The data are based on a brief examination of a small number of ERO reports in only one geographical area of New Zealand and provide an indicative issue for further exploration.
5.10 Summary
This chapter has presented the results of all three phases of the study. Tables 5.42–5.45 present a summary of the main findings of each phase.
Table 5.42
Summary of phase one findings
Phase Data Gathering Tool Main Findings
Parent questionnaire Main forms of exclusion:
• Abuse and bullying
• Lack of teacher knowledge and understanding
• Parents opinions and knowledge not listened to
• Low expectations of disabled children
• Medical model, deficit model thinking by teachers
• Lack of curriculum adaptations/accommodations
• Lack of teacher responsibility
• Child not valued or wanted by school
• Teacher aide issues One
Parent interview Main forms of exclusion:
• Lack of teacher knowledge and understanding
• Inappropriate behaviour by principals and/or teachers towards parents
• Difficulties accessing and participating in the curriculum
• Difficulties with enrolment, attendance and segregation
• Abuse and bullying
• Lack of caring and valuing of child
• Funding issues
• Teacher aide issues Table 5.43
Summary of phase two findings
Phase Data Gathering Tool Main Findings
Two Principal questionnaire Most principals reported:
• Doubt over whether schools can and should meet the needs of all children
• Lack of knowledge of legislation and funding frameworks
• An awareness of the practice of teacher to student bullying and student to student bullying
• A general belief that teachers are responsible for all children
• Funding as an important enabler for inclusive education
• Teacher aides as an important enabler for inclusive education
Most principals did not report:
• Lack of caring and valuing of disabled children
• Deficit/medical model thinking
Other findings:
• There were differences between what principals say they believe in and what they do (e.g., agreeing with inclusion, but excluding some children; reporting they treat all parents with respect, but advising parents of disabled students to attend other schools)
Table 5.43 (cont.)
Summary of phase two findings
Phase Data Gathering Tool Main Findings
Principal interview Most principals reported:
• That most barriers and enablers to inclusive education centre around teachers
• Funding is very important for inclusive education
Most principals did not report:
• A recognition of the role played by school principals in the inclusion/exclusion of disabled students
Differences between the x and y groups:
• Deficit model thinking apparent in principals in the y group
• Only principals in the y group reported denying disabled students enrolment and full participation at school
• Most principals in the x group identified ‘rights’ as an important factor associated with inclusive education
• Only principals in the y group reported perceiving disabled students as different from non-disabled students
• Only principals in the y group reported beliefs that non- disabled students have more rights than disabled students
• Only principals in the y group reported beliefs that teachers were not responsible for disabled students
• Principals in the y group reported that teacher aides were necessary for inclusive education and worked
exclusively with disabled students
Other findings:
• There were differences between what principals say they believe in and what they do (agreeing with inclusion, but excluding some children)
Table 5.44
Summary of phase three findings
Phase Data Gathering Tool Main Findings
Teacher interview Most teachers reported:
• A belief that disabled students can only be in the mainstream if their needs are not too great
• A belief that teacher knowledge; teacher aide support; and funding and resourcing are enablers or barriers to inclusive education
• A belief that class teachers are not responsible for disabled students
• An understanding of inclusive education based on deficits and differences of disabled students
• A belief that disabled students held less value and had fewer rights than non-disabled students
Teacher aide focus group interview
Most teacher aides reported:
• Doubt that inclusive education could work
• Every child had a right to attend school, but not necessarily in the mainstream
• Being undervalued
• Teachers rights were more important than disabled students rights
• Teacher training was a barrier or enabler to inclusive education
• Teacher attitudes were barriers or enablers to inclusive education
Three
Student focus group interview
Most students reported: • Positivity about their school
• Feeling safe at school
• That the disabled students in the unit were separate from the ‘rest of the school’
• Special needs means ‘not normal’
No prejudice was evident in the comments of the students Table 5.45
Summary of additional findings
Phase Data Gathering Tool
Main Findings
Additional Analysis of 20 ERO school evaluation reports in one geographical area in NZ
ERO may not be giving enough attention to:
• The specific needs of disabled students in schools
• School compliance requirements in relation to Human Rights Declarations, Human Rights Legislation, Sections 3 and 8 of The 1989 Education Act, and the New
Zealand Disability Strategy
• The use of teacher aides in schools
• Their use of the terms ‘inclusion’, ‘inclusive’ and ‘inclusive education’