23-11-2012, 02:40 PM
Are Normalizing Principles Masquerading as Inclusive Education Practices
Are Normalizing Principles.doc (Size: 56 KB / Downloads: 97)
Introduction
It is well known that within the North American education system there exist two competing educational philosophies, special education and inclusive education. However, what is generally not discussed within the education community is the epistemological foundation that underlies both systems. This underlying epistemology is the concept of normalization, developed in the 1960s in Scandinavia. This concept is detrimental to both the education of disabled and non-disabled students and to society as a whole. Normalizing principles continue to influence the methods, practices, and techniques employed to educate disabled students. And while, special education is laden with normalizing practices, the focus of this paper will be the examination of normalizing principles within inclusive education practices. I am a strong supporter of the inclusive model of education. Unfortunately, what has happened because of little understanding and recognition of the normalizing epistemology, is normalizing principles are now masquerading as inclusive education practices. This should be the concern of every educator, administer and every parent of either a disabled or non-disabled student. This paper will examine the presence of the normalizing principle within recent and current literature on inclusive education; how continued reliance on ‘standards’ maintain the “normal” and consequentially, create the “abnormal”, how both students and teachers engage in practices assumed to be inclusive, but are actually attempting to normalize disabled students, and why the continued use of inappropriate language like “special needs”, within inclusive policy only further demonstrates the normalizing epistemological foundation that inclusive education practices rest upon.
History of the Normalizing Principle
In Scandinavia, Bank-Mikkelson was the first to use the term normalization (Yates, Dyson and Hiles, 2008). He defined it as, “an existence for the mentally retarded as close to normal living conditions as possible….making normal, mentally retarded people’s housing, education, working and leisure conditions” (Culham and Nind, 2003 pg. 67). Bengt Nirje further developed the normalizing principle in1969 (Perrin and Nirje, 1985). Nirje defined the normalizing principle as, “making available to all mentally retarded people patterns of life and conditions of everyday living which are as close as possible to the regular circumstance and ways of life of society” (Perrin and Nirje, 1985, pg. 69). Neither Bank-Mikkelson’s nor Nirje’s definitions received wide attention until an American scholar, Wolf Wolfensberger, further developed the concept. His definition called for disabled people to conform to specific normate standards, it upheld concepts of normality by strongly maintaining “normative skills and habits”. Furthermore, Wolfensberger argued that the normalizing principle should, in some circumstances, be ‘imposed’ on disabled individuals (Perrin and Nirje, 1985, pg. 70). Wolfensberger created a large controversy around the concept of normalization and as a result, he changed the name to social role valorization model. The change in name did little to separate the controversy from the ideas linked to the concept of normalization.
Why Normalization is Problematic within Inclusive Education
Some have argued that full inclusion or perfect inclusive practices can never be attained. I agree with such a statement. However, what I cannot agree with is labelling the current systems of inclusion within many schools, inclusive education. Gary Bunch (2009) has argued in the past that what is required in order to initiate inclusive education is a blending of systems, both special education and inclusive practices. However, many have argued that this does not solve the problem of normalization, which is highly apparent within special education and, as will be demonstrated, continues to be an issue within what is masquerading as inclusive education. Andrew Culham and Melanie Nind (2003) ask:
[I]s now the time to celebrate what has been achieved, to learn lessons from the critics and the mistakes, and to embrace a new guiding philosophy that is not exclusive to people with an intellectual disability? (pg. 72).
What Is Inclusive Education?
The current issue is how to make the education system as close to the inclusive philosophy as possible. Therefore, the question remains: what is the inclusive philosophy? In order to answer this question I find it necessary to quote a lengthy passage by Jenny Corbett and Roger Slee (2000). They argue:
Inclusive education is an unabashed announcement, a public and political declaration and celebration of difference. Difference is not a euphemism for defect, for abnormality, for a problem to be worked out through technical and assimilationist education policies. Diversity is a social fact…It requires continual and proactive responsiveness to foster inclusive educational culture (pg. 134).
This definition calls for nothing less then an educational revolution of sorts. Every individual, whatever category or label has been constructed around or for them, will be included in such a system. Len Barton (1997) quotes Tony Booth arguing that there are two processes of inclusion. One is an increase in inclusiveness, where children of the same age learn together in the same environment, and second, where exclusion and exclusive practices decrease. Corbett and Slee (2000) also argue that in order for inclusion to be successful, exclusion must be erased in all its manifestations: language, policy, methods of teaching, and curriculum (pg. 134).
Conclusion
These examples have demonstrated how the normalizing principle is present within inclusive education practices. As stated earlier, Culham and Nind (2003) along with Thomas and Loxley (2001) have called for a deconstruction of the old epistemology in order for true inclusive education to flourish. However, for this to happen, and happen successfully our society has to reexamine the purpose of the educational system.
It has been argued that education is the most democratic part of certain countries. Thomas and Loxley (2001) argue, “It is no coincidence that those pioneer educators who have spoken the clearest and simplest truths about teaching and learning have also had much to say about the articulation of education, politics and social justice, and the importance of the interconnections among these” (pg. 105). The educational system is part of this country’s attempt at equality and social justice. However, without first understanding the epistemological foundation of inclusive education, equity between all individuals will never truly be reached. What needs to be understood is that education is not separate from society, but rather, is a product of society. Therefore, the normalizing epistemology, which now acts as the foundation for inclusive education, could only have stemmed from our society’s continued reliance on the normalizing principles and philosophies like it.