HOW DO I IMPROVE MY
PRACTICE AS AN INCLUSION
OFFICER WORKING IN A
CHILDREN’S SERVICE
Christine Jones
MA Professional Learning
(Professional Practice)
This dissertation is submitted in part
fulfilment of the regulations for the MA in
Professional Learning
Bath Spa University
2009 - (Graduating 17 July 2009)
SIGNED STATEMENT
This dissertation is an
original piece of work. It is my own work and has not been submitted either in
the same or different form to this or any other Higher Education Institution
for a degree or other award. It is available for photocopying and for
inter-library loan, with the permission of the Head of the School of Education.
Signed: Date:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
would like to thank a number of people who have worked with me and supported
and influenced me throughout the development of my inquiry.
The
teachers with whom I have worked in a variety of workshops.
The
Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) with whom I have worked on the
SENCO courses during the last four years.
The
schools which have worked towards the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion
Quality Mark.
The
mentors and assessors involved in the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion
Quality Mark.
Jack
Whitehead, who has been a constant support and inspiration.
My
friend and colleague, Marie Huxtable, for her support and time.
Nigel
Harrisson and Sandra Harris for their contributions.
My
colleagues at Conversation Café who have been my critical friends.
All
those who have given their permission for video clips, still images and
quotations to be used.
My
supervisor, Mim Hutchings, for her advice and support
My
husband, Brendan, for his constant support.
My
mother and two sons, Adam and Michael, for their constant interest.
ABSTRACT
This dissertation examines my embodied knowledge and development as an Inclusion Officer working in a Children’s Service as I focus on making a contribution to educational knowledge. In making this contribution, I have used visual narratives. This dissertation focuses on my personal knowledge and experience as an Inclusion Officer as I inquire into my question, ‘How do I improve my practice as an Inclusion Officer?’ In making my personal knowledge public, I believe that I am contributing to educational knowledge by using a living theory methodology for exploring the implications of questions such as, ‘How do I improve my practice?’ and by clarifying the meanings of inclusional standards of judgement from a perspective of inclusionality. Inclusionality (Rayner, 2004) may be described as a relationally dynamic and responsive awareness of others which flows with a desire to live values of care, compassion, love, justice and democracy. I explicate the inclusional way in which I like to work with others, how my practice is based on the values I hold and how this is reflected in my relationship with other educators working in a Children’s Service and schools.
In undertaking my inquiry,
I have adopted a living theory methodology (Whitehead, 2008a) in the sense that
I am bringing my embodied knowledge into the public domain as an explanation of
my educational influences in my own learning, in the learning of others and in
the learning of social formations. Using video, I clarify the meanings of my
inclusional values and how they are formed into living standards of judgement,
whereby I and others can judge the validity of my claim to knowledge.
CONTENTS
CONTENTS OF CD ROM – VIDEO CLIPS
Impact of Incidents in My Childhood
Impact of Early Experiences in my Teaching
Career
CHAPTER 2
– INCLUSION, INCLUSIONALITY AND MY ROLE AS AN INCLUSION OFFICER
My Role as an Inclusion Officer
The Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion
Quality Mark
CHAPTER
3 - METHODOLOGY AND METHODS..
Narrative Inquiry and Action Reflection Cycles
Validation Group and Critical Friends
CHAPTER 4
- NARRATIVES OF LIVING MY PRACTICE
AS AN INCLUSION OFFICER
Development of a Course for New Special
Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs). A Summary
Creativity Workshop, SENCO Forum, Bath and North East Somerset, June
2006. A Summary
The Pilot of the Bath and North East Somerset
Inclusion Quality Mark.
The Role of Mentors and Assessors in the Bath
and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark
The Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion
Quality Mark Recognition Ceremony
CHAPTER 5 - MY EDUCATIONAL NARRATIVE OF MY LEARNING
Reflection on My Narratives as an Inclusion
Officer
Reflection on the Development of My
Dissertation
Reflection on the Use of Video
Reflection on Conversation Café
Appendix A - Summary of Work of Inclusion Officer,
July, 2004
Appendix B - Research Brief and Consent Form
Appendix F - Transcript of Validation Meeting, 17
July, 2008
Appendix G (i) - Programme of IQM Recognition Ceremony- front and
back pages
Appendix G (ii) - Programme of IQM Recognition
Ceremony – middle pages
Appendix H - Newspaper Article and Photograph of IQM
Recognition Ceremony, 2007
Appendix J - Account by Sandra Harris
Appendix K - Account by Nigel Harrisson
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1: Chris speaking to colleagues……………………………………….3
Plate 2: Alan Rayner…………………………………………………………...24
Plate 3: Chris at the BERA Conference, 2006…………………………….64
Plate 4: Antony at the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark
Presentation, 2008………………………………………………………67
Plate 5: School at Recognition Ceremony, 2008…………………………74
Plate 6: School at Recognition Ceremony, 2008…………………………75
Plate 7: Chris at Recognition Ceremony, 2008…………………………...77
Plate 8: Chris speaking to colleagues…………………....Appendix
C…109
Plate 9: Marie and Chris, Creativity Workshop, 2006….Appendix
D…119
Plate 10: Chris and Marie, Creativity Workshop, 2006...Appendix
D…120
Plate 11: Chris and Marie, Creativity Workshop, 2006...Appendix
D…121
Plate 12: Winnie the Pooh…………………………………..Appendix
E…125
Plate 13: Participant at Emotional Literacy Workshop, 2006……………………………………………………………..Appendix
E…126
Plate 14: Jet at Emotional Literacy Conference, 2006…Appendix
E…127
Plate 15: Chris at Emotional Literacy Conference, 2006……………………………………………………………..Appendix
E…128
CONTENTS OF CD ROM – VIDEO CLIPS
(The video clips can
be found on the CD ROM included with the dissertation. The video clips can also
be accessed by clicking on the links under each of the plates in the text.
Video clip 1 CD
1. Chrisschool.mov …………………….3
Chris
speaking to colleagues about a childhood memory
Video clip 2 CD
2. Rayner.mov …………………...24
Alan Rayner demonstrating
his Paper Dance of inclusionality
Video clip 3 CD
3. Chrisbera06.mov (move cursor to 2.04mins
and stop at 3.35 mins) ................……….64
Chris
explaining to delegates at the BERA Conference 2006 about the quality of
relationships mentors and assessors look for when going into a school
Video clip 4 CD
4. IQMAntonymentor2008.mov …………………...67
Antony
describing the role of mentor
Video clip 5 CD
5. PschoolIQM08.mov …………………...74
School at Recognition
Ceremony 2008 singing, ‘We Can Live as One’.
Video clip 6 CD
6. Smtschool08.mov …………………...75
School at Recognition
Ceremony 2008 singing, ‘You’ve Got a Friend’.
Video clip 7 CD
7. Chrisrec040707.mov …………………...77
Chris giving her
presentation at the Recognition Ceremony, 2007
Video clip 8 CD
8. Chrissenco.mov Appendix
C……109
Chris speaking to
colleagues about the connection she feels with SENCOs
Video clip 9 CD
9. ChrisandMarie1.mov Appendix
D……119
Chris and Marie with
participants at the Creativity Workshop, 2006
Video clip 10 CD
10. ChrisandMarieegg.mov Appendix
D……119
Chris and Marie
participating in ‘egg activity’ at the Creativity Workshop, 2006
Video clip 11 CD
11. ChrisandMarie3.mov Appendix
D……120
Chris and Marie after the
‘egg activity’ at the Creativity Workshop, 2006
Video clip 12 CD
12. ELworkshopwarmingup.mov Appendix E……125
Participants responding to
jokes at Emotional Literacy Workshop, 2006
Video clip 13 CD
13. C.mov Appendix
E……126
Participant describing an
emotionally literate moment in her classroom at the Emotional Literacy
Workshop, 2006
Video clip 14 CD
14. Jet.mov Appendix
E……127
Jet describing an
emotionally literate moment in her classroom at the Emotional Literacy
Workshop, 2006
Video clip 15 CD
15. ChrisendEL.mov Appendix
E……128
Chris explaining to
participants that what they have described are their living standards of
judgement of emotional literacy at the Emotional Literacy Workshop, 2006
INTRODUCTION
This dissertation will focus on the kind of research that can bring into the public domain my personal knowledge and personal experience as an Inclusion Officer employed by a Local Authority. My main research question is, ‘How do I improve my practice as an Inclusion Officer working in a Children’s Service?’ In addressing this question, I intend to make a contribution to educational knowledge. I intend to do this by clarifying the nature of the values and energy that form the explanatory principles in my living theory of my practice. Vasilyuk (1991) has pointed to the weakness of social science explanations of human actions that do not include flows of energy in explanatory principles.
Through the analysis of
video clips of my professional practice, I shall be clarifying my meanings of a
flow of life-affirming energy with the values I use to give meaning and purpose
to my life in education. I want to clarify that I am not using any existing
analytic framework in the analysis of the video clips. I am exercising what
Dadds and Hart (2001) refer to as methodological inventiveness. In their
description of methodological inventiveness, they point out that how
practitioners choose to research, and their control over this, could be equally
important to their motivation, their sense of identity within the research and
their research outcomes.
In using a living theory methodology (Whitehead, 2008a), I engage in a process of reflection that includes an analysis of experience that leads to new knowledge and understanding. By this, I mean that I clarify, through reflections on my experience of existing as a living contradiction, the meanings of the values I use to give meaning and purpose to my life as an Inclusion Officer. This involves an awareness of tensions and living contradictions as I explore the implications of my question, ‘How do I improve my practice as an Inclusion Officer?’ My living theory methodology includes analysing video records of my practice. The analysis focuses on the expression, clarification and communication of the meanings of my values as these emerge in the course of my exploration of my question. My values distinguish what I understand as an improvement in my practice. Using digital video data, I explicate meanings of life-affirming energy and the meanings of my embodied values that distinguish my practice as educational.
Because of the dominating
use of analytic frameworks in explanations of educational influence, I want to
stress the difference between my relationally dynamic analysis of what I do and
the application of a pre-existing framework to what I do. In the relationally
dynamic analysis, I am generating meanings as I respond to what I can be seen
to be doing on the video. In particular, I am generating, clarifying and
communicating the meanings of the energy-flowing values of inclusionality that
distinguish my practice as inclusional. Rayner (2004) has pointed to the
relationally dynamic awareness of space and boundaries that is needed to
produce inclusional explanations of educational influence.
I believe that there is
something original in the way in which I have used video to presence myself to
myself in terms of the values I express in giving meaning and purpose to my
life in education. The originality lies in acknowledging to myself, through the
video, the life-affirming energy and values I express in my inclusional
practices. It also lies in my use of video to communicate the meanings of these
flows of energy with values to others in the explanation of my educational
influence as I generate my living educational theory.
My rationale for this
research-based approach to improving my professional practice is the belief
that there is little public knowledge of what Inclusion Officers do in terms of
their educational influences in learning. The rationale for making public my
embodied knowledge is the one expressed by Catherine Snow:
The…challenge is to enhance the value of
personal knowledge and personal experience for practice. Good teachers possess
a wealth of knowledge about teaching that cannot be currently drawn upon
effectively in the preparation of novice teachers or in debates about practice.
The challenge here is not to ignore or downplay this personal knowledge, but to
elevate it.
(Snow, 2001:9)
Snow further explains that
the reason that the knowledge of teachers is untapped is because there are no
procedures for systematizing it. She feels that this systematized knowledge
would certainly enhance research-based knowledge which is already being
introduced into teacher training programmes. Furlong and Oancea (2005)
highlight some of the issues about judging the quality of practice-based
research, but state that whilst improving practice, can also contribute to
theoretical knowledge.
I agree with those researchers who believe that it is important to distinguish education research from educational research. Whitty (2006) believes that ‘education research’ should characterise the whole field whilst ‘educational research’ should refer to the narrower field of work specifically geared to the improvement of policy and practice. I also agree with Whitehead (2008a) in that it is important to distinguish education theories generated by researchers in the philosophy, psychology, sociology, history, economics, leadership, administration, politics and theology of education from educational theories generated to explain the educational influences of individuals in their own learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of social formations. I am submitting my dissertation as a contribution to educational knowledge within this view of educational theory. In particular, I believe that I am making an original contribution to a living theory methodology in explicating meanings of energy-flowing standards of inclusionality through the use of visual narrative.
Besides developing courses and running workshops, one of my main responsibilities has been to implement and develop an Inclusion Quality Mark for schools in the authority in which I work. I am responsible for the assessment of schools in the achievement of this award. I do not want the achievement of the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark to be the result of ‘ticking the right boxes’ (Kennedy, 2005). When I walk into a school, I want, not only to see inclusive practice in action, but to see and feel the quality of relationships in the school community: the head teacher, pupils, parents, teachers, teaching assistants, school meal supervisory assistants (SMSAs) governors and administrative staff working inclusionally, valuing each other for who they are and the contributions they make, and demonstrating the values of inclusionality to which I aspire in my practice.
In my dissertation, I describe
inclusion and inclusionality and emphasise the relationship between the two. I
describe my developing understandings of inclusion and how, when I was
introduced to inclusionality, the impact this had on me and how I saw it in
relation to inclusion. This has had a dramatic impact on my role as an
Inclusion Officer, especially in the awarding of the Bath and North East
Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark.
I have organised the narratives in chapters. In the first chapter I reflect on formative experiences that have influenced my values. In Chapter Two, I consider meanings of inclusion and inclusionality and describe my role as an Inclusion Officer. In Chapter Three, I focus on my methodology and methods. In Chapter Four, I engage in a self-study of my practice as an Inclusion Officer. In this self-study I briefly describe three narratives, the full accounts of which can be found in Appendices C, D and E. These include the development of a course for new SENCOs, a creativity workshop at a SENCO Forum which I led with a colleague and thirdly, an emotional literacy workshop at an Emotional Literacy Conference which again I led with a colleague. I then describe examples of inclusionality in a further three narratives through my work on the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark. In Chapter Five, I write an educational narrative of my learning and in Chapter Six, I give a brief conclusion of my dissertation.
The purpose in presenting these narratives
which include video data is to clarify the meanings of the values I use to make
judgments about improvements as I explore the implications of asking,
researching and answering my question, ‘How do I improve my practice as an Inclusion
Officer?’ In using video, I am able to see and reflect on my practice, and as I
move the cursor in the video clips, I can see the energy with which I work and
my inclusional way in which I like to work with others. I am not using video
clips, merely, as examples of my practice. I am using the video clips to
analyse my practice as I watch them. The way I watch them is important. I
presence myself to myself as I move the cursor backwards and forwards along the
clip, until I experience a resonance within myself at the points where I see
myself living the values that I use to give meaning and purpose to my life. I
use these energy-flowing values as explanatory principles to explain why I do
what I do. In this way, I am able, not only to identify the educational influences
in my own learning, but to explain these influences in my own learning. My
purpose in presenting and analysing the narratives in this way is to bring a
new energy-flowing and relationally dynamic standard of judgment of inclusion
into the Academy.
CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND
In this
chapter, I describe the experiences in my life that have had a significant
impact on me and have had and impact on my role as an Inclusion Officer.
Firstly, I describe incidents in my childhood, whereby my values such as justice,
fairness, care and compassion became embedded. I then describe my early
experiences in my teaching career which were extremely significant in my
professional development with regard to my understanding of diversity, my
relationship with children and young people, and my developing understanding of
inclusion as I moved from the integration to the inclusion of children and young people with special educational needs in
schools. I write narratives of my experiences. Connelly and Clandidin state
that:
Humans are storytelling organisms
who, individually and collectively, lead storied lives.
(Connelly
and Clandidin, 1990)
So, my
‘storied life’ begins…
Impact of Incidents in My Childhood
I was brought up in a
small industrial town in South Wales. From a young age, I was very aware of the
injustice and the damage that could be done when individuals wielded their
power over the other purely because they were able to do it. Very strong
memories stand out, all related to my experiences at school. This is ironical
because I enjoyed school and I was very happy at school. The examples I quote
are by no means unusual, and my peers witnessed and experienced the same as I
did in one way or another, but I do believe that I had a tremendous sensitivity
and awareness of the way that people treated the other and how people could be
subjected to humiliation, discomfort and pain purely from being human and being
who they were.
My first memory of being treated ‘unfairly’ was when I was in
what would now be called Reception Class. My teacher called me a naughty girl
in front of the class for inadvertently damaging the wall display behind me as
a result my swinging on a chair. I remember vividly how I felt at the time. I
was extremely upset as I had not realised what I had been doing and to be
publicly humiliated in this way was unnecessary and damaging. I remember
thinking at the time that one day I would become a teacher and ‘do it the right
way’. I expressed these views to my colleagues.
Plate 1: Chris speaking to colleagues
As I watch the video clip,
I see myself reflecting on that time in the classroom as I describe my
experience. As I am speaking, I can see the classroom and where I am sitting,
and I can see the teacher at the front of the classroom. I am feeling those
emotions that I felt at the time.
My next memory relates to
my experience in Year One when I was looking up at the ceiling and working out sums
in my head, which had been written on the board. I then felt this pain in my
back. The teacher had thumped me and asked me what I was doing. ‘I am thinking,
Miss,’ to which she replied, ‘You’re not here to think; you’re here to work.’ Immediately, I put my head down and
started to write blindly. I wanted
to cry, not because I was physically hurt but because I was so angry. I had not
done anything wrong. I had been working and her actions and comments were
unfair and unjust. Why didn’t she ask me what I was doing before she thumped
me? It is so important to engage with learners and to trust learners. Hart shares her research and focuses on a teacher named
Julie:
Julie realises that she cannot just rely on
her own observations
to make accurate judgements about how
students are responding.
She encourages dialogue with them in order to
find out what is going
on in their heads.
(Hart, 2003:227)
This links very much with
my own ideas of the importance of having a dialogue with pupils. I express this
in my next section, ‘Impact of Early Experiences in my Teaching Career ’, when I realised how important it was to talk
with pupils and get to know them, and how this realization had an impact on my
relationship with pupils for the rest of my teaching career.
My third memory was in my
final year at Infant School. There was a girl in my class, who was ridiculed by
many of the pupils. I still remember her name but so that she remains
anonymous, I shall call her Mary.
I don’t know the facts of her background but pupils laughed about her
clothes and made derogatory comments about her mother. How do people have the resilience to
bear this every day? She was often late and frequently absent. I felt sorry for
her as she was always the butt of jokes. Then one day, she came in late for
school and the teacher called her to the front of the class and started
mimicking her and humiliating her. The class was the audience. The teacher
would ask her a question about her being late and Mary would answer, and the
teacher would mimic her by repeating her answer word for word in a whiny voice.
Mary started crying but the teacher continued and she made Mary stand in front
of the class with tears streaming down her face as the abuse continued. ‘Look
at Mary – enough tears to fill a reservoir!’ I so desperately wanted the
teacher to stop and found being a witness to this almost unbearable. The
teacher should be protecting Mary. She was a vulnerable pupil and should never
have been the subject of such humiliation. Nobody should be the subject of such
humiliation.
As I
relate each of these stories, I am feeling the emotions that I felt at the time,
and I ask the question as I did then, ‘Who has the right to treat another in
this way?’ I am reminded of a moving story related by McNiff (2006) when McNiff
gives reasons as to why she continues to work in such places as South Africa
where she sees people using their position of privilege to the detriment of
others. She draws upon the work of Shula Marks(1989). She refers specifically
to Lily Moya, a black African woman and Mabel Palmer, an elderly, white
academic who provided many university opportunities for black students and
offers to support Lily in her education. Whilst being very supportive of Lily
initially, when Mabel feels that Lily is becoming too confident in the development
of their relationship, she completely undermines her and withdraws all hope.
This has a devastating effect on Lily who, twenty five years later, is found
living with her family looking thin and wasted after ending up in an
institution for the mentally ill. This is a story of the abuse of power with
devastating consequences.
I was aware of the
emotions I have expressed from a young age when I was being treated, in what I
felt, was an unfair way, or when I witnessed someone else being treated unfairly. It was from this
young age that I felt that nobody should judge another; nobody should assume
what another is thinking or feeling; nobody should use their ‘power’ to
belittle someone else; everyone is of value, and should be valued and treated
with respect.
Throughout Infant and
Junior Schools, I was picked on by one person in particular. I shall call her
Pam. My mother used to go to the school to discuss this with the head teacher
but it still continued. Pam always ‘won’ and I would end up on the floor but it
was not without a battle. Pam was bigger and older than I was. I was never
frightened of Pam; rather, I found
the constant battles tedious. Each time I remember being fired up and
gave my best and although physically over-powered, I never felt defeated. I
never would be defeated. I saw other children being bullied by children older
and bigger than them. It is examples such as these that made me so angry; that
one human would take advantage of another because they were able to, because
they were older, bigger and stronger.
I was born into a Catholic
family and attended a Catholic School. I remember only too vividly at about the
age of ten, my friends and I cycling to the end of the street and stones being
thrown at us from a group of girls our age chanting, ‘Catholic bugs on the
wall.’ We would try to cycle past at full speed before they had time to pick up
the stones. The names didn’t hurt us but the stones did. We used to dread
cycling to the end of the street, knowing what was ahead of us.
I believe that these
memories of my childhood have helped to influence how I view people and how I
relate to people. I feel very strongly that nobody should wield power over the
other, whether it be through position, age, size, colour or creed and that nobody
should feel demeaned or belittled because of their position, size, colour or
creed. It is experiences such as these that my beliefs about justice, fairness,
care and compassion became embedded. I could never knowingly humiliate or
belittle anyone. I have always tried to value people for who they are and I try
not to make assumptions of what people are thinking or feeling. I have always
had a high regard for children, for their views and their feelings, which, in
turn has had an impact on the way I have brought up my children and my
relationship with children and young people as a teacher.
Impact of Early
Experiences in my Teaching Career
I did not drift into teaching children with special educational needs. I chose to teach children with special educational needs.
The first school in which
I taught was situated at the edge of the ‘red light district’. It had a roll of
seven hundred pupils when I began, diminishing to five hundred by the time I
left. The classes in each year group were streamed according to ability and I
was given the ‘bottom’ stream – a class of twelve year olds consisting of twenty- two ‘remedials’ from
a variety of different ethnic backgrounds. I had this class almost full-time
and was to teach them all subjects. This was the seventies and there was no national
curriculum at the time. I was given some text books across a variety of
subjects and was told to teach them what I felt was appropriate; that these
pupils were ‘remedials’ and tended not to move out of the ‘remedial’ class.
Bullock (1975), Warnock (1978), Golby and Gulliver (1979) and the Hargreaves
Report (1984) had all warned of the dangers of an impoverished curriculum
brought about by an over emphasis on basic skills work and the isolation of
pupils with special educational needs.
It was not long before I
realised that some pupils should move into the stream above but was told that
this was not possible as the class was not doing the same syllabus as the rest
of the year group, and therefore, would have no knowledge or understanding of
the subject matter. This was grossly unfair to me; that pupils I was teaching
did not have the opportunity to progress out of the ‘remedial’ class because of
the system that was in place at the school. I decided that this class would do
the same syllabus as the rest of the year group. I managed to get a number of
books across all subjects from the other classes in the year, differentiated
the work and produced worksheets for each member of the class. At the end of
the year ten pupils moved into the upper stream…
It was at
this early stage of my career that I realised the inequality of opportunity
which existed for pupils with special educational needs at the time. This is
certainly not a criticism of the school. It is a criticism of the system which
existed at the time for pupils with special educational needs. The values which
I held at the time and still hold; the values of fairness, justice, equality of
opportunity, respect of the other and the valuing of the other were being
denied to this group of children. It was this recognition that has driven my
career in the teaching of children with special educational needs.
I taught
at this school for seven years. They were the most challenging years of my
teaching career and turned out to be the happiest. My learning at this time was
significant. What happened in the first few years of teaching at this school
were never to repeat themselves again. I shall give an example.
One day,
I found a pupil, who I shall name, Peter, lying on the floor in the classroom
sniffing gas from a lighter. He then pretended to cut his wrist with a piece of
glass. When confronted about these incidents, he laughed each time. His finale
was approaching me with the point of a large board protractor, at which I stood
my ground, and within a few inches of the point touching me, he burst out
laughing and returned to his seat. These were the most frightening experiences
I have had in the classroom. Peter was removed from the school about a year
later as it was felt he was a danger to himself and others.
I could
give many more examples… I realized, at this stage, that I needed to get to
know these young people and have a dialogue with them, as I expressed in the
previous section. I spent time talking to them, getting to know them; I spent
break times and after school talking to them. On Saturdays, I would take a
group out in the school bus to a place of interest. Mutual respect developed
between us. As they grew, so did I. I learnt that in showing young people that you
are genuinely interested in them; showing that you trust and respect them, you
get the same back. This was a huge lesson I learnt and for the rest of my
teaching career, I allowed this openness and acceptance of the other in my
relationship with children and young people; I feel I have reaped the benefits
as a result.
It was a
school that was rich in diversity. I realise now how fortunate I was to teach
in such a school. The school consisted of a mix of pupils from various ethnic
backgrounds, but mainly British White, Indian and West Indian. There was a mix of religions also, but
mainly Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Islam. All the pupils spoke English
but for many of the Indian pupils, English was their second language with their
first language being spoken at home. The main Indian languages that were spoken
were Urdu, Punjabi, Gujarati and Hindi. The Indian pupils were second
generation immigrants with many of the girls at a young age being engaged to
boys in India which had been arranged by their parents. We celebrated a variety
of festivals, for example, Diwali which is celebrated by Hindus and Sikhs. It symbolises
the triumph of good over evil and is the celebration of light. Christmas was always great fun with a
group of teachers and pupils going from door to door in the ‘red light
district’ singing carols and raising money for the school and charity.
I do
believe that the experiences I had at this school helped to further my
development as a person and a teacher and has certainly had an impact on my
role as an Inclusion Officer.
My
experience at the next school in which I taught was quite different and significant in my learning and in my
developing understanding of inclusion.
It was a large comprehensive with a sixth form, the number of pupils on
roll being one thousand two hundred. The pupils were mainly white and many were
from naval families. After a few
years at this school, in 1987, reorganisation of the four secondary schools in
the area took place. This presented an opportunity to restructure the school
and this had a significant impact on pupils with special educational needs and
the special needs department. It was decided that rather than having streamed
classes as according to ability, that a whole school approach would be
developed whereby all classes would consist of pupils of mixed abilities. It
was decided that there would be no special classes for pupils with special
educational needs and that there would be no provision to withdraw pupils
during lesson time. Special needs teachers would plan with subject teachers and
support pupils in the class. At the time, this was called ‘the whole school
approach’. It meant that pupils with special educational needs would have as
much access to the curriculum as all other pupils; that pupils with learning
difficulties would be the responsibility of subject teachers and that their
needs should be considered when subject teachers planned their syllabus. For
the first time, pupils with special educational needs were a part of a normal
mainstream classroom; they were not being integrated, they were being included.
It was an approach, which I felt, liberated pupils with special educational
needs. At the time, I was doing a
Diploma in Professional Studies in Education and ‘the whole school approach’
adopted by the school became the focus of my dissertation. One pupil commented:
I
much prefer it this year. I’m with my friends and they help
me
with my work. I’m not called names any more. Last year
I
was called all sorts of names like ‘thicko’, ‘remedial’. This
year
people don’t call me any names. I’m much happier.
(Jones, 1988:82)
For me,
it certainly was the right approach. The hierarchical system of streaming
disappeared and as long as the curriculum was differentiated and appropriate
support and provision was in place, then I could see no reason why pupils with
special educational needs could not thrive within this system. Whereas my
previous school and initially, this school, had been very much to do with the
integration of pupils with special educational needs, at this school, through
amalgamation and reorganisation, the focus was now on the inclusion of children
with special educational needs.
I have
given examples of aspects of my childhood which have had an impact on me which
I feel have helped to shape me as a person and have helped to embed such values
as justice, fairness, care and compassion within me. It is these values and the
energy that has come from a determination to live these values which have
driven me in my work as a teacher and still drives me in the work I do today.
The experiences I have encountered as a teacher in my understanding of
diversity, the significance of having a dialogue with pupils, helping to ensure
the quality of opportunity for pupils, the move from the integration to the
inclusion of pupils with special educational needs, and my learning as a result
of these experiences have had a significant impact on my work as an Inclusion
Officer.
CHAPTER 2 – INCLUSION,
INCLUSIONALITY AND MY ROLE AS AN INCLUSION OFFICER
In this chapter, I clarify my developing
understanding of inclusion to my introduction of inclusionality and the impact
that this has had on me personally, and significantly in my role as an Inclusion
Officer. I describe my role as an Inclusion Officer set against the legislation
at the time and describe a significant aspect of my role, the implementation
and development of the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark.
What is Inclusion?
’Inclusion’ – a word much more used in
this century than in the
last. It has to do with people and society
valuing diversity and
overcoming barriers. But what exactly does
it mean? Do different
people mean different things by it? Would
you recognize it if you
walked past it? Where would you find
it? How do you create it?
How do you know when you have created it?
(Topping
and Maloney, 2005:1)
As I have
moved through my career, so my understanding of inclusion has changed and
continues to change. My understanding is that it is a fluid concept (Nind et al. 2003).
As a special
educational needs coordinator (SENCO) in the late 1990’s, I understood
inclusion to be concerned with children with special educational needs
remaining and being fully included in mainstream schools rather than being referred
to special schools. This was certainly the case in my practice and it was to
this end that I worked with inclusion at the time. Inclusion was increasingly
becoming a part of the government’s agenda. UNESCO drew up the Salamanca Statement
(1994) which called on all governments to adopt as a matter of policy the
principle of inclusive education. The U.K. supported the statement which was
demonstrated in the Education Act 1996 that followed and subsequent special
educational needs (SEN) and inclusion policies which included: the Government’s
Green Paper, Excellence for All Children
(DfEE,1997); Meeting Special Educational
Needs: A Programme of Action (DfEE,1998); and The Special Educational Needs
and Disability Act 2001 (HMSO).
Gradually,
I began to understand inclusion as something more than ‘special educational
needs’ (Booth, 2003). I began to understand inclusion as being a matter of
human rights. Rustemier (2002) brings our attention to the UNESCO teaching
manual (1998) which states that human rights are to do with values that reflect
the aspirations of human beings and are also principles whereby states
legislate and pass judgement and individuals can act. These values and
principles, she concludes, are founded on equality, justice, freedom and
dignity of each and every person. Rieser (2003) agrees that inclusive education
should be based on the principles of equality and human rights.
Inclusion
may be seen as involving a commitment to certain broadly defined values
(Ainscow et al. 2006). In education,
inclusion may be seen as putting these values into action, resulting in the
policy, practice and culture of a school being underpinned by these values.
Ofsted
describe an inclusive school as follows:
An educationally inclusive school
is one in which the teaching and
learning, achievements, attitudes
and well-being of every young person matter. Effective schools are
educationally inclusive schools. This shows not only in their performance, but
also in their ethos and willingness to offer new opportunities to pupils who
may have experienced difficulties.
(Ofsted, 2000:7)
Indeed, Ofsted
refer to the different groups whereby provision needs to be made for the
achievement of all:
·
girls and boys;
·
minority ethnic and faith groups;
·
travellers, asylum seekers and refugees;
·
pupils who need support to learn English as an additional language (EAL);
·
pupils with special educational needs;
·
gifted and talented pupils;
·
children ‘looked after’ by the local authority;
·
other children, such as sick children; young carers; those children from
families under stress; pregnant school girls and teenage mothers; and,
·
any pupils who are at risk of disaffection and exclusion.
(Ofsted,
2000:4)
This list
presents a diversity of learners, some of whom may experience barriers to
learning and participation.
Thus,
rather than seeing only pupils with special educational needs experiencing
barriers to learning, the inclusion agenda moves us to looking at a variety of groups of pupils which
may experience barriers to learning (Hayward, 2006).
The National Curriculum begins with an inclusion
statement and sets out three principles in the development of an inclusive
curriculum to ensure that the needs of all pupils are met:
A.
Setting suitable learning challenges.
B. Responding to pupils’ diverse
learning needs.
C. Overcoming potential barriers to
learning and assessment for individuals and groups of pupils.
(DfEE, 1999:30)
It is
against this background of developing understandings and the thrust of the
government’s agenda on inclusion that my understanding of inclusion has
evolved.
The Index for Inclusion goes further and the
view of inclusion is much broader. Whilst inclusion is seen to be the minimising
of barriers to learning and participation and the maximising of resources for
all pupils, it is also about:
·
valuing all students and staff equally;
·
improving schools for staff as well as for students;
·
emphasising the role of schools in building community and developing
values, as well as increasing achievement;
·
fostering mutually sustaining relationships between schools and
communities;
·
recognising that inclusion in education is one aspect of inclusion in
society.
(Booth et al. 2000:3)
It may be
seen that for schools to be truly inclusive that all principles of inclusion
should apply to the whole of the school community including all adults:
teachers, parents, governors, school meal supervisory assistants (SMSAs) and
teaching assistants (Evans, 2007). If students are encouraged to take risks and
make mistakes, staff should be encouraged to do the same and be given the
appropriate support.
Thus,
this broader view of inclusion involves not only the inclusion of all pupils
but also the inclusion and the valuing of staff, and the relationship of
schools and their communities. Fundamentally, that inclusion in education is
one aspect of inclusion in society.
This
broader view of inclusion is in line with my developing understanding of
inclusion. It is in line with what I have experienced and witnessed as an
Inclusion Officer in assessing schools for the Bath and North East Somerset
Inclusion Quality Mark. Schools that have achieved this award are schools in
which all feel included: staff, pupils and members of the school community
alike.
Corbett
focuses very much on the relationships in schools and how the inclusive ethos
is reflected in the way that staff and pupils treat each other. Her research at
Harbinger School in London resonates very much with my research into inclusion
in schools and fully endorses my values as a person and a teacher in the way
that one relates to another. In her introduction about Harbinger School, she
states:
There is a pronounced emphasis on
treating each other with
consideration, which is very
noticeable in the school. The way
teachers communicate with children shows respect for them
and gives them dignity. There is
a consistent modelling of how
people should behave towards one
another in a considerable
and careful way. This fosters a
culture which is not excluding of
any individual because of their
perceived ‘difference’. (Corbett,
2001:5)
Inclusion
is not about the ticking of boxes. It is not about schools merely having a
Buddy Bench or providing extra-curricular activities for all pupils or
celebrating a cross-section of festivals. Inclusion goes much deeper than that.
In one of the schools I was assessing, my colleague commented that the school
was no different from other schools in that inclusive practices were in place.
But, what was different about that
particular school? What marks a school out to be truly inclusive? I believe that
it is the strong leadership of the head teacher who embodies inclusive values.
This is a crucial, influential factor in creating and maintaining an inclusive school.
In such schools, inclusion is a fundamental value around which everything
revolves (Corbett, 2001). Inclusion is alive and living through its policy,
practice and culture which are based on key principles presented in a diversity
of ways. The quality of relationships and their inclusional ways of being
underlie everything they do. These schools present inclusion in a variety of
ways and within different contexts (Nind et
al. 2003).
Corbett
states that inclusion:
…explores the layered relationship
between the institution, its
outer and inner context of the
human interactions and dynamics.
This is a ‘connective’ process.
It is a concept which recognises the
ways in
which our experiences are not separate but are connected.
(Corbett, 2001:35)
What is Inclusionality?
Whilst
inclusion may be seen to relate to the culture, policy and practice of a
school, inclusionality may be seen to relate to the ontology of a school
community; it is more to do with an inclusional way of being between one and
the other. Rayner describes inclusionality as such:
Inclusionality is an awareness
that space, far from passively
surrounding
and isolating discrete massy objects, is a vital,
dynamic
inclusion within, around and permeating natural form
across
all scales of organization, allowing diverse possibilities
for movement and communication.
Correspondingly, boundaries
are not
fixed limits – smooth, space –excluding, Euclidean lines
or planes – but rather are
pivotal places comprising complex, dynamic
arrays of
voids and relief that both emerge from and pattern
the
co-creative togetherness of inner and outer domains…
(Rayner, 2004)
Put more
simply, inclusionality is:
A relationally dynamic awareness
of space and boundaries that
are connective, reflective and
co-creative.
(Rayner,
2006a)
Put even
more simply, inclusionality is:
Spatial togetherness.
(Rayner,
2003)
Rayner
explains, when he is questioned about his revolutionary idea of inclusionality:
I didn’t develop and couldn’t
have developed the idea of
inclusionality in isolation
– my form of expression of this awareness
emerged
in a co-creative conversation with a small sharing
circle of others, most notably my
friend and regular correspondent,
Ted Lumley.
(Rayner,
2006b)
I had not
heard of the term, inclusionality until I saw Alan Rayner demonstrate his paper
dance of inclusionality on video. Watching this had a huge impact on me as it
articulated for me what I feel so strongly, that is, the importance of being
open and receptive to others and being receptively responsive. Rayner expresses so clearly how
boundaries can act as a pivot though which one can reciprocate with the other;
that a boundary can allow the two sides to move so that there is a relationally
dynamic movement between one and
the other; that there is a flow through the boundary. However, through his
paper dance, he so expressively explains that in our rationalistic society, the
boundary can be severed resulting in bi-polarity between one and the other or
even a complete disregard for the other. I have included this video clip and it
can be viewed at CD 2. Rayner.mov
Plate
2: Alan Rayner
When I
viewed this video clip, I was so inspired by what Rayner had said and
demonstrated that I emailed him and a series of emails between us followed. In
one of the emails, I express the following which relates to my understanding of
inclusionality and my inclusional way of being:
When I was a teacher, this is
something I valued – never authoritarian
but enjoying the flow of
interaction between teacher/learner, learner/
teacher, all learning together,
co-creating, reflecting and connecting
through the participation of all.
Not only as a teacher, but within my life
and with whom I relate, I enjoy,
feel and grow from this flow of interaction and participation.
(Email
sent 26 January, 2006)
In my job
as an Inclusion Officer, I see inclusionality being demonstrated within some of
the school communities with whom I work. In fact, I would go as far as to say
that in truly inclusive schools, whereby inclusion is seen as a fundamental
value within the school, inclusionality is being demonstrated throughout,
between pupil and pupil, adult and adult and pupil and adult. This has been a significant shift in my
learning and understanding as I am now able to articulate what a truly
inclusive school is. It is not only to do with inclusive practices and policies
being in place; it is to do with the inclusional way of being within the school
community.
To find
out more about inclusionality, go to Alan Rayner’s website:
http://people.bath.ac.uk/bssadmr/inclusionality
My Role as an Inclusion Officer
I became
an Inclusion Officer in February, 2004 and in 2007, a Senior Inclusion Officer.
The post of Inclusion Officer was a new one and the purpose of the job as
described in my job description was as follows:
To support the LEA’s inclusion
agenda, working creatively in
partnership
with schools, LEA support teams, LEA officers and
agencies such as the Health
Service and Social Services to minimise
barriers to learning and
participation in educational settings and support diversity in order to promote
a culture of inclusion in all educational settings.
(Inclusion
Officer Job Description, 25 September, 2003)
My job
description reflected the political climate at the time with further
legislation being introduced. Removing
Barriers to Achievement: The Government’s Strategy for SEN (DfES, 2004)
demonstrated the government’s vision for special educational needs (SEN) over
the next ten years. Four areas were identified:
·
early intervention;
·
removing barriers to learning;
·
raising expectation and achievement;
·
delivering improvements in partnership.
Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003), the Government’s Green
Paper, formed the basis of the Children Act 2004, and aims to improve outcomes
for children, young people and families. The key outcomes for children and
young people are:
·
be healthy;
·
stay safe;
·
enjoy and achieve;
·
make a positive contribution;
·
achieve economic well-being.
Hayward
identifies the key elements of the Act:
·
building services around the child, young person and families to
achieve
improved outcomes;
·
understanding and responding to children’s needs in a holistic way;
·
supporting parents, carers and families;
·
better safeguards for children and young people;
·
focusing on opportunities for all and narrowing the gaps;
·
developing the workforce and changing culture and practice;
·
integrating working practices, processes, strategy and governance.
(Hayward,
2006:6-7)
The Act
has had significant implications in the way that Children’s Services work
together, with the Departments of Education, Health and Social Services being
brought together under a Director of Children’s Service. Multi-agency working
is a key focus of the Children Act, the aim being that professionals work
together to meet the needs of children, young people and families. This,
however, is not without its challenges. Firstly, there is the challenge of
using language and terminology which is understood by all services and organisations.
Secondly, professionals working with children and families, need to be
coordinated to ensure that there is a joined up approach to the provision in
place. A ‘lead professional’ should be appointed to coordinate provision and to
be the single point of contact for all working with the child or young person. A
Common Assessment Framework (CAF) has been introduced which is an important
tool for early intervention whereby practitioners can assess the needs of a
child or young person. It can help practitioners develop a shared understanding
of a child’s needs, so that they can be met more effectively. The Act
encourages professionals, as they work together, to look at, not only
educational inclusion but social inclusion. Children’s needs are greater than
merely educational. There are influences in a child’s life associated with
their family, their community, society as a whole which may make the child
vulnerable with the need to be socially included. This has been reinforced by the Education and Inspections Act
2006, which places a duty on schools to promote children’s well-being. The
relationship between teaching and learning and the broader social responsibility
towards pupils is becoming more apparent. Schools should have:
…a system that responds to
individual pupils, by creating an
education
path that takes account of their needs, interests and
aspirations, (which) will not
only generate excellence, it will also
make a
strong contribution to equity and social justice.
(DfES, 2005)
The
Children Act requires local authorities to produce one plan to cover all
services which affect children and young people. In the authority in which I
work, the multi-agency Children and Young People’s Strategic Partnership had
been working on a Local Preventative Strategy since 2002 to promote the health
and well-being of children and young people. The work and plans already in
progress became the basis for the authority’s, Children and Young People’s Plan, 2006-2009, the vision of which
is:
We want all Children and Young
People to do better in life
than they ever thought they
could. We will give children and
young people the help they need
to do this.
(Bath and North East Somerset Local Authority, 2006:2)
It was
against this background that I became an Inclusion Officer. I was pleased that
I would be working with the inclusion of all children and not only the
inclusion of children with special educational needs. I was pleased that my
focus would be with all groups that may experience barriers to learning and
participation. The remit of the post was extensive and my concern was where to
begin. I was advised to get myself on as many education, health and social care
meeting agendas as possible in order to introduce myself. I was also asked to
find out what issues there were for schools with regard to the support they
were receiving from the local authority and what issues they had with regard to
inclusion. I decided to approach SENCOs and attend SENCO cluster groups. I also
contacted various teams in the health service and social care to find out what
issues there were for them in working with schools. This action research
project gave me a focus. Contacts made at this time have continued to form
partnerships to the present day. A brief summary on all work undertaken in
these initial months was fed back to the Head of the Inclusion Service
(Appendix A).
My
learning at this time was considerable. I had moved from teaching within a
school to working full time with the local authority. The year previous to
this, I had been working part-time in school as a teacher and with the Local
Authority as an Assistant Education Officer. I was certainly beginning to feel
the ‘them and us’ attitude from some teachers towards the authority. Although I
was aware of this attitude as a teacher, I had not personally felt it. I had
always had a good relationship with people working in the local authority and
they with me, for example, educational psychologists, education officers,
members of the learning support and behaviour support teams. It was a surprise
to me to be challenged as a representative of the local authority by some
teachers when I attended meetings, especially in these early years, as within
me, I still felt a teacher; I still felt a special educational needs coordinator.
Even though I was an Inclusion Officer in the local authority, my career had
always been in teaching and I was fully understanding of issues and pressures
confronting schools and teachers. Even now, I am still taken aback when
challenged, and perhaps naively, still surprised by it.
At the time, besides setting up courses and running workshops, I
was also researching into an Inclusion Chartermark for the authority. My job description stated that as
an Inclusion Officer, I was:
To lead on the establishment of a
Bath and North East Somerset
Inclusion Standard (Kitemark) and
set up a system to reward early
years settings and schools who fulfil our standard.
(Inclusion
Officer Job Description, 25 September, 2003)
When I
first read this statement, I did not perceive this aspect of the job to be a
difficult one. After about a month into my exploration, I started to realise
what a mammoth task this was. I felt overwhelmed and anxious and questioned my
ability to undertake such a responsibility. I did not realise, at the time,
what a huge impact on my learning, both personally and professionally, was to
take place in the ensuing years as I endeavoured to work towards the
implementing, developing and evaluating the Bath and North East Somerset
Inclusion Quality Mark.
The Bath and
North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark
I began
to investigate what Inclusion Standards were around in the various authorities.
I was aware of the Birmingham, Standards
for Inclusion (Birmingham City Council, 2002) and the Bristol, Inclusion Standard (Bristol City
Council, 2003). I obtained these documents and spoke to the lead people in the
authorities. At the time, I was also considering the possibility of developing
our own standard. This had been the case in Bristol and Birmingham. I began to
investigate what other authorities were doing. I also started exploring what
information the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) and
TeacherNet, the education website for teachers and school managers had, and started
searching the internet for more information on Inclusion Standards. It was at
this point that I realised the difficulty of the task. I could not find any
information on Inclusion Standards. To my surprise, it seemed that Inclusion
Standards were not a priority in the authorities.
After
much researching and accessing various authorities’ action plans, I was able to
identify some authorities which were involved in the development of Inclusion
Standards. I contacted the lead person in each of the authorities and they gave
me access to the Inclusion Standards they had developed. Looking through the
various Inclusion Standards, all seemed very similar with schools having to do
an audit of their inclusive practice, developing an action plan and providing
evidence of inclusion and its development in their schools. I then came across
a book called, The Inclusion Quality Mark
(Coles and Hancock, 2002), through a SENCO forum on the internet. I sent
away for a copy and when I read through it, I felt that it was just what we
wanted. It was what I had been looking for. It built on documents such as the Index for Inclusion (Booth et al, 2000) and
Inclusive Schooling (DfES,
2001a). It was also in line with Ofsted expectations. It consisted of ten
elements focusing, not only the school but parents and carers and the community
and included guidance on each. Most of the elements were divided into school
evidence, staff evidence and pupil evidence. The fact that there was an
emphasis on pupil evidence, I found to be really encouraging in that there was
an emphasis and recognition that the pupil, their needs and rights are at the
core of what we do. An audit was provided for schools to identify strengths and
areas for development. What really excited me about, The Inclusion Quality Mark was that authorities could adopt it and
develop their own systems and processes and put their own stamp on it. In such
cases The Inclusion Quality Mark
would be named after the authority, thus The Bath and North East Inclusion
Quality Mark. At the time, I contacted Caroline Coles through emails for
clarification on a number of issues.
The Inclusion Quality Mark, I felt, provided us with an
infrastructure which was all inclusive and one with which I could work with and
develop. I did not want the awarding of the Inclusion Quality Mark to schools
to be the result of ticking the right boxes. I wanted the Bath and North East
Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark to be a reflection that inclusion was alive and
living in schools. I wanted it to reflect that inclusion was a core value
within the school (Corbett, 2001) and that this drove everything within the
school; that when going into a school that this core value of inclusion was
palpable and could be felt throughout. I wanted
to see and feel the school community working inclusionally and demonstrating
the values of inclusionality. It was at this point, when I became aware of what
I wanted the Inclusion Quality Mark to be, that I felt energised. It is this
awareness that has driven me in the development of the Inclusion Quality Mark
in the authority.
In this
chapter, I have described my developing understandings of inclusion and my
introduction to inclusionality which has had a significant impact on me in my
role as an Inclusion Officer. I have described my role as an Inclusion Officer
against the legislative background on becoming an Inclusion Officer. Finally, I
have described the evolvement of the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion
Quality Mark.
CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY
AND METHODS
In this chapter, I relate to the action research
approach I have used as I inquire into my question, ‘How do I improve my
practice as an Inclusion Officer?’ In doing so, I describe the methodology and methods
that I have employed and explain my reasons as to why I have adopted a living
theory methodology (Whitehead, 2008a).
Methodology
Through adopting a living educational theory methodology, practitioners create their own educational theories by embodying their educational values in their practice. Whitehead (1989, 2003) claims that values are embodied in our educational practice and that in using our values as living standards of judgement we can judge the validity of our claims of educational knowledge.
The living theory methodology is distinguished from other methodologies by its inclusion of ‘I’ whereby the ‘I’ becomes a living contradiction between the educational values that are held and the negation of those values in the practice of a practitioner (Whitehead 1989). To clarify further, the ‘I’ becomes a living contradiction when the values that we hold and aspire to are not being lived in the work we are doing. In asking the question, ‘How do I improve my practice?’ there is a desire to live our values more fully in our practice. If we find we are not doing this, and our practice is, in fact, denying our values, we may experience ourselves as a ‘living contradiction’.
The living theory methodology to my self-study emphasises the importance of asking, researching and answering questions of the kind, ‘How do I improve what I am doing?’ This does not deny the importance of social relationships; rather it stresses the importance of asking such practical questions. This methodology, however, differs from participatory action research as the latter usually begins with the assumption of a community working on a common problem.
My ontological assumptions are that I see myself as a part of other people’s lives and they, a part of my life; I do not see myself as separate, as an observer or an outsider as would be more the action research approach of the social sciences, whereby descriptions and explanations are offered for what others are doing. Likewise, my epistemological assumptions are that I see knowledge as something which the individual creates for themselves and with others; I see myself as a part of knowledge creation.
My choice of a living theory methodology is
based on my desire to make a contribution to the knowledge of inclusionality
and the processes of improving inclusionality in schools. As a
practitioner-researcher with responsibilities for helping to promote and
develop inclusive practice in schools and for awarding schools with the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark, I wish
to publicly communicate my knowledge in a way that can be accredited by a
Higher Education Institution as worthy of a masters degree.
I find the living theory methodology
exciting and creative. Practitioner-researchers have focused on bringing their
knowledge into the Academy in their successfully completed doctorates, such as,
‘A living theory of a practice of social justice: realizing the right of
Traveller children to educational equality’ (Sullivan, 2006), ‘How can I
improve my practice as a superintendant of schools and create my own living
educational theory?’ (Delong, 2002), ‘How can I create a pedagogy of the unique
through a web of betweenness?’ (Farren, 2005), to name just a few.
The
methodology I use is strongly influenced by my ontological and
epistemological assumptions (Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995). In conducting my
research I see myself as a part of the world and interacting with others and
thus creating new knowledge individually and together. As explained previously
and to clarify here, there are fundamental differences between the ontological,
epistemological and methodological assumptions of a living theory and a social
science methodology. The ontological assumptions of the interpretive action
researcher put the researcher as separate from the practitioners they are
studying. The assumption of living theory researchers is that the individual
decides how they are going to conduct their research and how they should live
their lives in negotiation with like-minded people (Whitehead and McNiff,
2006).
Cresswell
(2007) describes five qualitative research methodologies and reviews the
similarities and differences between them. They include narrative research,
phenomenological research, grounded theory research, ethnographic research and
case study research. Whitehead (2008b) describes the similarities and
differences between each of these methodologies and the living theory methodology.
Whilst living theory has similarities to each of them, the fundamental
difference between them all is that a living theory is a researcher’s unique
explanation of their educational influences in their own learning, the learning
of others and the learning of social formations. Regarding narrative research,
Whitehead states that whilst all living theories are narratives, not all
narratives are living theories. The purpose of living theory is not to give a
description of universal essence as in phenomenological research; it is not to
give abstract generalizations as in grounded theory research, it does not focus
on a culture group as in ethnographic research and is not constrained by a
bounded system as in case study research.
Newman
(2000), in discussing action research states that there is ‘no one ‘right way’
of doing action research …..Practitioners engaging in these more open,
reflective ways are inventing methodology as they go along.’ Corbett, in her
research of inclusion in a London school, found that she learned about the
methodology of researching inclusive education and inquires as to whether it
requires a new research methodology. She states:
To my surprise in what I thought
would be a practical case study,
this theoretical challenge to
research methodology became one of
the integral components of the
book…If we accept that inclusion
is a philosophical concept which
requires an examination of ethics,
equity and justice, this can be
supported by an emancipatory approach
which has empathy at its core.
(Corbett,
2001: 8-9)
Whitehead
(2008a) refers to ‘methodological inventiveness’ as described by Dadds and Hart
whereby practitioner-researchers develop their own unique way through their
research:
No methodology is, or should be
cast in stone, if we accept that
professional intention should be
informing research processes,
not pre-set ideas about methods
of techniques…
(Dadds and Hart, 2001:169)
As
mentioned previously, the difference between a living theory methodology and
other forms of research is the inclusion of the ‘I’ as a living contradiction
with regard to the inquiry and the explanations of educational influence in
learning. In living theory methodology and the development of the individual’s
living educational theories, the meanings and experience of embodied values of
humanity are transformed into living epistemological standards of judgement.
Accounts can thus be produced that explain the individual’s educational
influence in learning. Besides this, individual’s give explanations of their
educational influence in the learning of others and in the learning of social
formations. To clarify, in the living theory methodology, improvement and
justifying claims to know (a ‘prove’ agenda) are not seen to be opposed.
Methods
When the
decision has been made as to what research is to be undertaken, consideration
needs to be given as to what data and evidence is required. Such questions may
be asked such as, ‘What do I need to do and why?’, and, ‘What is the best way
to collect information and what shall I do with it?’ (Bell, 2003). There are
many choices about monitoring practice and gathering data and there may be a
combination of the various methods. Methods may be written or live (McNiff and
Whitehead, 2005). Written methods may include field notes, keeping a journal or
diary, doing surveys, record sheets of tables and charts, questionnaires,
whilst live methods may include interviews, and audio and video recordings.
Action Reflection Cycles
Action research is based on change-action and is cyclical in nature. It involves stages of action and research, followed by action. It involves the identification of a problem, collecting information, analysing, planning actions and implementing and monitoring outcomes. It was originally developed by Lewin (1946) and further developed by Schon (1983), Carr and Kemmis (1986) and Whitehead (1989).
Eisner
(1988) addresses the politics of method and its effects on the character of
educational research. He questions how the research methods we use may shape
what we can learn about educational practice and the degree of the forms we
employ to describe what we have learned and how these constrain what we are
able to say; also the extent of our conceptions of knowledge and belief, art
and science, truth and falsity and how these conceptions may influence how we
go about our work. He believes that the answers to these questions have
profound implications to the future of educational research.
In the use of action reflection cycles developed
by Whitehead, researchers ask questions of the kind, ‘How do I improve my
practice? How do I Improve what I am doing?’ and ‘What is the educational
influence in my own learning, in the learning of others and the learning of
social formations?’ (Whitehead, 2005).
Narrative Inquiry and
Action Reflection Cycles
In this
self-study, as I inquire into my practice and make my claim to educational
knowledge, the processes of data gathering involve the action reflection cycles
and forms of narrative inquiry advocated by McNiff (2007). Narrative inquiry is
linked to the action research process by practitioner-researchers telling their
stories.
Narrative
inquiry is quite a recent movement in qualitative research and has emerged as a
discipline within the broader field of knowledge management. Clandinin and
Connelly (2000) defined it as a method, however, Clandinin (2007) developed it
into a methodology that uses such methods as letters, conversations,
autobiography, family stories, life experiences, photos, interviews, field
notes and stories. Dewey’s (1938)
influence in this field cannot be doubted. He informs narrative inquiry in
terms of the nature of experience. His view of experience is that no one and
nothing exists in isolation; that experience has both a personal and social
meaning and that individuals should be analysed as part of a social group and
as individuals. Dewey sees experience as being on a continuum which is shaped
by past experiences and continues to shape those that come after. Rossiter, in
reference to a narrative approach to adult development states:
In most general terms, we can say
that a narrative approach
to development looks at the
storied nature of development
and considers story as a metaphor
for human life.
(Rossiter,
1999:59)
McAdams (1985),
in focusing on identity formation, states that the outcome of the process of
identity formation which proceeds throughout adulthood, is a dynamic, evolving
life story. Identity, like
narrative, is an unfolding of self through time and involves a temporal
movement. He states that an individual is given a sense of continuity necessary
for identity formation through the integration of past, present and future into
narrative.
Connelly
and Clandinin (1999) refer to teacher knowledge in terms of narrative life
history. They state that the stories or narratives of experience are social in
that they reflect the contexts in which teachers live, and personal, as they
reflect a person’s life history. Connelly and Clandidin (1988) have coined the
term, ‘personal practical knowledge’ which refers to teachers, through their
experience of the past, the present and their projections for the future, as
being knowledgeable and knowing persons. They are knowers of teaching, learning
and their subject matter, and knowers of their situation, their children and
themselves. This connects very much with Snow’s (2001) idea of teachers, in
that they possess a wealth of knowledge about teaching, based on their personal
knowledge and personal experience, as expressed previously.
In
telling my story, I focus on my personal knowledge and experience as an
Inclusion Officer. I describe what I have done and how this has led to the
furthering of my learning. I describe how reflecting on my learning leads to
new learning and action. I describe and explain my practice. I tell my story
and reflect on my learning as I work with other educators in a Children’s
Service and schools.
Video
Throughout
my inquiry, I have used video in order for me to reflect on my practice (Farren
and Whitehead, 2006). Eisner (1993) explains that the relevance of different
forms of representation in research is growing and gives the example that film
is a means of understanding aspects of schooling and that schools of education
need to develop training on how this can be used.
Using
video has given me another dimension in which to reflect on my practice in a
way no other form could achieve. As I watch the video clips, I am looking for
evidence of my inclusional way of being and my recognition of the inclusional
way of others, in the way that I relate to them, in the way that they relate to
me, in the way that we relate to each other demonstrating qualities of
genuineness, honesty, care, trust, loyalty and respect. I show the video clips
to colleagues and ask them if they can see this evidence of which I am seeking.
I ask whether the video clips demonstrate and communicate my living values. The
video clips I present in my dissertation can be accessed by clicking on the
links and are accompanied by still images. Still images can be seen throughout
my dissertation. A CD of the selected video clips is included with a hard copy
of my dissertation. The validity of multi-media accounts can be established
using the criteria of social validity as described by Habermas (1976) and
clarified below. The originality of my qualitative findings is in the way I am
clarifying the life-affirming energy with my inclusional values in my
explanations for my practice as an Inclusion Officer.
Reflective Journal
Throughout
my inquiry, I have kept a research reflective journal whereby I have reflected
on actions made and kept a record of my evolving thinking. I draw on extracts
from my journal identifying experiences in my practice, critical incidents, and
my learning and progress to further action.
Validity
How do I
know that my claim to knowledge is valid? What criteria do I use in making
judgements of my claim to know? This is a self- study of my practice whereby I
am reflecting on my learning, thus it would seem that the traditional criteria
of generalisability and replicability (Sullivan, 2006) used in traditional
research may not be appropriate. Schon refers to the dilemma of rigour or
relevance:
People
tend to feel the dilemma of rigour or relevance with
particular
intensity when they reach the age of about 45. At
this
point they ask themselves,” Am I going to do the thing I
was
trained for, on which I base my claims to technical rigour
and
academic respectability? Or am I going to work on the
problems – ill-formed,
vague and messy – that I have discovered
to be
real around here?” and depending on how people make
this
choice, their lives unfold differently.
(Schon, 1995: 28)
McNiff (2002) argues that in action research, practitioners, not ‘the
experts’ set their own criteria as they take responsibility for their own work.
In action research, she states that the values that inform practice become the
criteria for judgement. Hartog, for example, in her living theory thesis,
demonstrates how to do this. She sets out the criteria she uses to explain her
own practice and relates these to the criteria the university uses to recommend
the award of a doctorate:
The
aim of this thesis is to present a storied account of my inquiry,
in which I explore what it means to live
my values in my practice.
Through
descriptions and explanations of my practice, this thesis
unveils a process of action and reflection,
punctuated by moments
when I deny or fail to live my values
fully in practice, prompting
the iterative question ‘How do I improve
my practice?’, the reflective
process enabling me to better understand
my practice and test out
that understanding with others in the
public domain.
(Hartog,
2004:2)
Evidence then needs to be produced from data
that meet the criteria. This evidence is used when practitioners claim that
their learning has improved. McNiff then suggests that the practitioner’s
judgement of their work needs to be critically scrutinized by others such as a
critical friend and a validation group. Whitehead (2008a), too, postulates that
living theory methodology involves both personal and social validation. In
conducting my research, I use personal and social validation as advocated by
McNiff and Whitehead. I will be drawing on Habermas’ four criteria for social
validity. Habermas states that in communication between speaker and hearer, in
order to reach an understanding between the two, the following validity claims
must be raised:
·
The speaker must choose a comprehensible expression, so that speaker and
hearer can understand one another.
·
The speaker must have the intention of communicating a true
proposition…so that the hearer can share the knowledge of the speaker.
·
The speaker must want to express his intentions truthfully so that the hearer
can believe the utterance of the speaker.
·
The speaker must choose an utterance that is right…and can agree with
one another in the utterance with respect to a recognized normative background.
(Habermas, 1976: 2-3)
Whitehead postulates that Habermas criteria for social validity can be
used to judge the validity of writing and reading a text, as these are a form
of social communication. He thus suggests that the following questions can be
asked in relation to these criteria:
·
Is the account comprehensible?
·
Is the account truthful?
·
Is the account sincere?
·
Is the account appropriate?
(Whitehead and McNiff, 2006:141)
Validation Group and
Critical Friends
Each week, we hold a Conversation Café whereby people working in the
Bath and North East Somerset Children’s Service meet to discuss their practice
and discuss ways as to how they can improve their practice. We have been
meeting for about three years and at present, we meet every Thursday morning at
8 o’ clock for an hour. Jack Whitehead, Bath University, joins us every week. We
begin by telling the group of experiences that are exciting us in our work. Throughout
the session, we express concerns when we feel that our values are being negated
in our practice. Frequently, we take along our writings, show it to the group,
and they comment and act as critical friends. Throughout my inquiry, I have
taken my writings along to this group and they validate what I am expressing
and act as critical friends. I have made a note of relevant quotations made
during our conversations and have included some in my dissertation. At times,
when I have been stuck with my inquiry, I have discussed this with the group
and they have offered suggestions as to how I should proceed. Sometimes, my
critical friends have written about me and how they perceive me in my practice.
Their writings have helped me move through difficult times in my inquiry. I
quote from their accounts in my dissertation. Such accounts, written by my
administrative support, Sandra Harris and my line manager, Nigel Harrisson and
can be found in Appendices J and K. I have used this group as a validation
group to see if what I am saying has validity. A transcript of a validation meeting held on July
17, 2008 can be found in Appendix F.
At this point, I would like to
emphasise that Conversation Café is not a focus group in the traditional sense.
Powell et al define a focus group as:
A group of individuals selected
and assembled by researchers to
discuss and comment on, from
personal experience, the topic that
is the
subject of the research.
(Powell et al, 1996:499)
Conversation
Café consists of colleagues who meet to discuss their practice, how they can
live their values in their practice and what they can do when their values are
being denied in their practice. Individuals are not selected; there is no
moderator or agenda as may be in the traditional focus group. The focus for
discussion emerges throughout the session. Sometimes sessions are planned as
and when it is felt appropriate. The aim of the group is not to contribute to
social research as may be the aim of a focus group but moreso for each
individual in Conversation Café to focus on questions such as, ‘How can I
improve my practice? What is my educational influence in my own learning, in
the learning of others and the learning of social formations?’
Other forms of data
Throughout
my inquiry, I have quoted from emails, evaluations from workshops and extracts
from reports that have been written on schools working towards or having
achieved the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark.
Analysis
of Data
The
analysis of my data is in line with other living theory accounts. Thus, I focus
on the generation of valid explanations of my educational influences in my own
learning and in the learning of others as I explore the implications of my main
question, ‘How do I improve my practice as an Inclusion Officer working in a
Children’s Service?’ As I clarify the meanings of my ontological values as they
emerge in my practice, they form into the explanatory principles to explain why
I am doing what I am doing. My learning, in making my values public and
communicable, as explanatory principles, is my main finding as I work at
bringing my embodied knowledge as an Inclusion Officer into the Academy as a
contribution to academic and professional knowledge.
In analysing
my data, I look for those interactions and quality of relationships which
demonstrate a desire to live such values as care, trust, loyalty as described
previously. I select from my data the appropriate evidence to support my claim
to knowledge and that shows the educational influences in my learning and in
the learning of others which is based on my values and what drives me to do
what I do.
Ethical
Issues
I have conducted my research within an ethical framework that respects
all participants and respects the acquisition and discovery of new knowledge.
It also respects democratic values and gives respect for the quality of
educational research (BERA, 2004). Whitehead and McNiff (2006) give advice
about ethical frameworks and state that there are three basic categories, the
first being access whereby if you are involved with other participants then
their oral and written permissions need to be negotiated, and if participants
are young or vulnerable, then such
permissions are needed from the parents or carers. The second category is about
safeguarding rights whereby confidentiality is assured and that participants
have the right to withdraw at any time and data destroyed. Thirdly, it is about
maintaining good faith whereby ethics’ statements should be drawn up and
letters of permission written. Hitchcock and Hughes (1995) agree that there needs to be a
rapport, trust and confidence between the researcher and participants. These
qualities can be related to the ethical guidelines of the British Educational
Research Association to which I am adhering. For example, the participants are
anonymised or identified in the text depending on their choice. The process of
subjecting accounts to the scrutiny of a validation group is transparent and
designed to enhance trust and confidence in the openness and responsiveness of
the researcher to critical judgements.
In approaching participants for consent, they were informed that I was
conducting my research as an Inclusion Officer with the view of improving my
practice. As I was using video data as evidence for much of my research, I was
particularly aware of the sensitivity that this may be to some of the
participants. Initially, I requested their verbal consent to use the video camera and this was
followed up with a Research Brief (Appendix B) describing the aims of my
research and setting out my
research ethics which included informing the participants of their right to
withdraw at any time. Attached to this was a consent form which participants in
my research were asked to sign.
In this chapter, I have described the methodology and methods I have
used as I inquire into my question, ‘How do I improve my practice as an
Inclusion Officer working in a Children’s Service?’
CHAPTER 4 - NARRATIVES OF LIVING
MY PRACTICE AS AN INCLUSION OFFICER
My interactions and my relationship with people are crucial in how I
have developed personally and professionally. I believe that my relationships
and interactions with others have had a big impact on my development as an
Inclusion Officer and continue to do so. In this chapter, I am going to present narratives which show how my relationships and
interactions with others have had an impact on my educational influence in my
own learning, in the learning of others and the learning of social formations
(Whitehead, 2005). My narratives
relate to a variety of experiences I have encountered as an Inclusion Officer
and demonstrate values that have come to act as living standards of judgement
(Whitehead, 2005). These narratives demonstrate the nature of inclusionality
(Rayner, 2006a).
The first three
narratives, which I describe briefly in this chapter, the full accounts of
which can be found in Appendices C, D and E, demonstrate the inclusional way in
which I like to work with others. Firstly, I describe the development of a course
for new special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs), secondly, I describe a
creativity workshop at a SENCO Forum which I led with a colleague and thirdly,
I describe an emotional literacy workshop at an Emotional Literacy Conference
which again I led with a colleague. In this chapter, I refer to each of these,
describe them briefly and summarise my standards of judgement which derive from
the values I hold. I then specifically focus on three narratives which
exemplify inclusionality through my work on the Bath and North East Somerset
Inclusion Quality Mark.
Throughout these
narratives, I show video clips and describe what I am seeing as I look at the video
clips, I quote extracts from my reflective journal and comments made at Conversation
Café, including extracts from a validation meeting held on July 17, 2008. I
also include extracts from evaluations of workshops and emails I have received,
and an extract from a school’s Inclusion Quality Mark assessment report.
Development
of a Course for New Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs). A Summary
My first narrative
(Appendix C) describes a course which I have run for new SENCOs for the last
four years. I decided to run the course in response to SENCOs who felt
frustrated as there was no training in place to develop their skills and
knowledge. In the narrative, I reflect on my learning and describe the
inclusional way in which I like to work with others and the ‘mesh of
relationships’ between the SENCOs, members of the Inclusion Support Service and
personnel from Bath Spa University. I believe that my inclusional way of
working with others, not only contributed to the success of the course, but has
been fundamental with regard to other initiatives I have implemented as an
Inclusion Officer. Evaluations describe the learning of the SENCOs in
participating on the course and how it equipped them to do their job better.
In reflecting on
this narrative, I now summarise my standards of judgement that derive from the values I hold which
have been demonstrated in the development of this course:
·
Being receptive to the needs of SENCOs and enabling
them to develop skills and knowledge, through setting up a course for SENCOs;
·
Working collaboratively with other educators in
Children’s Service and Higher Education in developing a course for SENCOs;
·
Being able to reflect and value the response of
others in working together on the course for SENCOs;
· Recognising and valuing the solidarity in the mesh of relationships.
Creativity Workshop, SENCO Forum, Bath and North
East Somerset, June 2006. A Summary
My second narrative
(Appendix D) describes a creativity workshop which I led with a colleague. In
running this workshop, we wanted to co-create with each other and participants
in the workshop, a creative environment whereby participants could develop
their own understandings of creativity. It was such a risk as it involved the
participants being a part of the co-creation.
In the
narrative, I refer to an account which I wrote at the time when I reflected on
video clips of the workshop and describe how I felt as I watched the clips. I
then describe my learning as I reflected later on my account and the video
clips.
The narrative
demonstrates the inclusional way in which I like to work with others and the
excitement I felt at the time in running the workshop. Evaluations describe how
much the participants enjoyed the workshop, how much they learnt from it and
one in particular which stated that the learning from the workshop would feed
into their whole school approach on creativity.
In reflecting on
this narrative, I now summarise my
standards of judgement that derive from the values I hold which have been
demonstrated in the running of this workshop:
·
Being prepared to take risks and even the risk of
failure and encouraging others to do the same;
·
Recognising the value of working with others and
enjoying each other for who we are, interacting, reacting and co-creating
together;
·
Developing ways of being able to learn from others,
to learn together and to be open to all possibilities;
· Working collaboratively with others and sharing the excitement and exhilaration of working creatively together.
Emotional
Literacy Workshop, Emotional Literacy Conference, Bath and North East Somerset,
October 2006. A Summary
My third
narrative (Appendix E) describes an emotional literacy workshop which again I
ran with my colleague. In the running of this workshop, we wanted to create an
emotionally literate space whereby participants would develop their own understandings
of emotional literacy.
Again, I
describe what I am feeling as I reflect on video clips of the workshop. In this
narrative, I refer to two stories in particular, described by two of the
participants when they felt that there had been an emotionally literate space
in their classrooms. I describe
the connection I feel with them and my inclusional response which I felt at the
time and as I reflect on these video clips.
Participants
thoroughly enjoyed the workshop and learnt from it as indicated in the
evaluations. The workshop demonstrates the inclusional way in which I like to
work with others.
In reflecting on
this narrative, I now summarise my standards of judgement that derive from the values I hold which
have been demonstrated in the running of this workshop:
·
Being responsive to the honesty and integrity of
other educators in relating their stories of inclusionality;
· Working collaboratively with others in co-creating an emotionally literate space.
The next three
narratives focus on my work with regard to the implementation and development
of the authority’s Inclusion Quality Mark. A
validation meeting (Appendix F) was held on 17 July, 2008 with colleagues where I presented the following three
narratives, The Pilot of the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality
Mark, The Role of Mentors and Assessors and The Recognition Ceremony. Using
Habermas’ criteria for social validity as a structure and as described in Chapter
Three on Methodology and Methods, I include relevant quotes from that meeting
throughout my narratives.
The Pilot of the Bath and
North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark.
In
this narrative, I wish to emphasise how the schools, the mentors and assessors
in the pilot, contributed towards the co-creation of the Bath and North East
Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark.
Eight
schools participated in the pilot. The pilot lasted for a year. It was during
this time that I wanted to try out various processes and for the schools in the
pilot to be a part of the evaluation of these processes. I wrote at the time:
I feel it important
that schools through being co-reflective are a
part of the co-creative development of the Bath and North
East
Somerset inclusion Quality Mark.
(Reflective Journal, 8 September, 2004)
Again,
I wanted to work inclusionally with schools and develop our understandings
together. At the first workshop, we evaluated the significance and value of the
questionnaire which schools had sent out to a small cross-section of the school
community. We also evaluated the significance of the audit, action plan and the
day visit of the mentors. Schools and mentors worked together in small groups
and discussed each aspect.
In short,
schools were very supportive of the processes in place. Their feedback was
important to me and I was prepared to make any of the necessary amendments that
would be beneficial. Much discussion took place at this workshop about how much
evidence should be included in the portfolio. A significant cause of concern for
the schools was about the sort of evidence that was required in their
portfolios. Whilst there was guidance in The
Inclusion Quality Mark (Coles and Hancock, 2002), it was felt that further
clarity was needed. It was agreed that at the following workshop, schools would
discuss the evidence they had in their schools and decide what could be used in
their portfolios. After the workshop, I wrote the following:
I am very pleased with the
outcome of the workshop and things
moved further on than I had
expected. The schools are actually contributing to what evidence is required and
seem excited as to
their involvement.
(Reflective Journal, 17 March, 2005)
This was a significant step forward for
me as schools were actively involved in developing the Bath and North East Somerset
Inclusion Quality Mark.
At the second
workshop, schools and mentors were divided into five groups and each group
worked on two elements. Schools considered their evidence and recorded this in
the elements on which they were working. Schools were encouraged to include any
local initiatives in which they had participated. By the end of the session,
each group had completed the task. The final document was typed up having been circulated to all after the workshop for
additions and amendments to be made.
This
was a really exciting time for me as a space had been created for schools to
work together to produce something of value to them which they could use in
working towards the award. This document is now given to and used by all
schools when working towards the award.
In reflecting on
this narrative, I now summarise my standard of judgement that derives from the
values I hold which have been demonstrated through this narrative:
·
Developing ways that educators in a Children’s Service and schools
can work together inclusionally in a co-reflective, co- creative way,
contributing to
the development of the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark.
The
Role of Mentors and Assessors in the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion
Quality Mark
I would now like
to clarify the role of mentors and assessors and
highlight their significance. As I do this, I shall give some examples of
comments made about my practice and about the roles of mentors and assessors
which reflect the values I hold in working inclusionally with others.
The
role of mentors and assessors in the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion
Quality Mark is significant and is a reflection of the inclusional way in which
I like to work. It was stated at the validation meeting:
You (are) showing
over time, and I think it’s so clear that you are,
that you are seeking
to live your values as fully as you can, you
know, interacting all
the time with others.
(Validation meeting, 17 July, 2008)
As I
have said previously, I do not want the achievement of this award to be the
result of ticking the right boxes. I want to see inclusive practice as being
alive and living in schools. I want to see schools, as a community, working
inclusionally. When I refer to the term, community, I am referring to all
stakeholders: the head teacher, teachers, teaching assistants, school meals
supervisory assistants (SMSAs), pupils, governors, parents and administrative
staff. What are the qualities of relationships like in the school? Does
everyone have a voice? Do all feel included? Does everyone feel valued?
I
would now like to show a video clip of a discussion I am having with the
audience when a colleague and I presented our paper (Jones and Huxtable, 2006) at the BERA Conference, 2006, at Warwick University. As
I watch myself in this video clip, I see myself explaining what we look for
when we go in to schools; the relationships between one and the other. As I
watch the video clip, I can feel the passion with which I spoke at the time and
I feel that passion now. I am connecting with the audience and imparting the
value I feel in ascertaining the quality of relationships in a school.
Plate 3:
Chris at the BERA Conference, 2006
CD 3. Chrisbera06.mov (move cursor to 2.04 mins and
stop at 3.35 mins)
It is with this
energy that I like to work with schools and colleagues in developing the Bath
and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark
Mentors
work with schools as critical friends supporting them to achieve the award. When
a school chooses to work towards the award, two mentors are assigned to the
school and initially spend a day meeting a cross-section of the school
community to find out their understandings of inclusion, to determine the
extent of inclusive practice and to determine the quality of relationships.
When it comes to the final assessment, two assessors also visit the school for
the day, meeting a cross-section of the school community. Recently, I received
this email from a teacher following a day visit to the school as an assessor,
after a colleague and I had observed a classroom lesson:
I’d just like to say
thank you to you from me and class 7
to you and Liz
yesterday. Being watched is never my favourite occupation, but there was
something about the friendly way the
pair of you came in
and turned it into something else….I stopped feeling that I was about to be
under scrutiny - and it was something your positive energy created. Instead, I
felt that you had come to appreciate the children I was teaching for the people
they are, rather than they were SATs statistics or targets. It was as if we
were welcoming you to our home and saying ‘this is us and we’re pleased to see
you’.
(E
mail sent 13 Feb, 2008)
At
the time, I wrote in my journal:
I am really pleased
to receive this email because, as a mentor
and assessor, I want
schools to feel supported. When I walk
into a classroom, I
do not want to be impositional. I want to be a
part of the classroom
experience; to learn with the class and from
the class.
(Reflective
Journal, 15 Feb, 2008)
The
lesson we had observed was excellent and the relationship between the teacher
and pupils was warm, respectful of each other and caring. It was a pleasure and
humbling to have been a part of this experience. The write-up of the day visit included
a comment on the quality of relationships which we observed in that lesson of
which we had been a part:
Pupils felt that all the teachers were very
approachable and this
was obvious in the Year Five, forty five minute
music lesson observed. The relationship between the class and the teacher
was one of respect. The learning objective was
clearly stated
and displayed, and talking to students revealed
that they were clear about their task. All pupils remained focused, worked co-operatively
and valued each other’s contributions. They clearly enjoyed the session, which
concluded by performances from each group.
(Extract from report sent to a
school following a day visit, 14 February, 2008)
Mentors
work with the school throughout the process, feeding back on the day visit and
advising on ways forward, validating their audit and action plan, advising on
their portfolios and their readiness for assessment. The role of mentors is a
crucial aspect in the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark.
Schools have commented on the support they have received:
We’re naturally thrilled with the
news that we’ve been awarded
the IQM quality mark. Thanks go
to you and your team for the
superb support and guidance we’ve
received throughout. The
verification of quality practice
and constructive suggestions for
further improvements have been
very supportive and well received
by the whole school
community.
(E mail sent 4
March, 2008)
I would now like
to show a video clip of Antony Wainer who was the lead teacher in his school on
the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark. I had been one of the
school mentors. I invited Antony
to do a presentation on his school’s experience to representatives of schools
interested in working towards the award. In this particular video clip, Antony
is telling representatives about the role of mentor. I chose this video clip of Antony because it shows his inclusional
way of being in the way that he communicates with his audience. I have seen
Antony present many times and he has the ability to draw people in; he has a
presence which is inviting and including of all.
Plate 4: Antony at the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality
Mark Presentation
I feel that what
Antony says, sums up the role of mentor in that
mentors are there to be supportive, not to be judgemental. Mentors are there to
be critical friends. Antony continued to comment on the action plan; that
suggestions were made at first that the school did not feel may be relevant or
appropriate but after consideration felt a good point had been made.
A
cross-section of colleagues in the authority volunteer to become mentors and
assessors. Staff of schools that have achieved the award are also encouraged to
be a part of the team. Antony is now a mentor and assessor. As a team, we support each other. This
is really important me, as I stated in my journal:
I feel a tremendous
support from the mentors and assessors. I could
not do this work
without them. This is the way I like to work
with colleagues. We work in pairs when we visit schools,
several meetings are
held throughout the year so that we have
the opportunity to
discuss our experiences and to share our concerns.
(Reflective
Journal, 31 January, 2008)
Recently,
I received an email from one of the team after I had sent her an email from a
school appreciating her input:
Thanks Chris
It is lovely to be appreciated!
Many thanks for coordinating and
making it such a team affair. I
look forward to more of these
positive experiences.
(E mail sent on
4 March, 2008)
One
of my biggest concerns in implementing the Bath and North East Somerset
Inclusion Quality Mark is addressing challenges presented to us when other
educators in the Children’s Service and schools disagree when a decision has
been made to award a school with the Inclusion Quality Mark. Their experience
with the school may not have been a positive one; their role within or with the
school may have been such that inclusive practice and inclusionality may not
have been demonstrated or made obvious. When confronted with these challenges,
each time I ask myself, is the awarding of the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion
Quality Mark robust, fair, just and equitable? As I reflect on this and ask
myself this question now, I can honestly say that I believe it is. I believe it
is because of the systems and processes we have in place. Before assessors go
into schools, I ask all members of the Inclusion Support Service and School
Improvement and Achievement Service, if they would like to comment on inclusion
within the school being assessed, and inform them that their responses will be
considered in the decision-making as to whether the school should achieve the
award.
If a concern is expressed, assessors
will challenge this when they visit the school. After assessors visit a school,
a Moderation Panel is held whereby all issues are discussed at length. It is
only then that the decision is made to award a school with the Bath and North
East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark. Thus, we have a system whereby other
educators have the opportunity to express concerns, these concerns are then
explored and any issues are ultimately discussed by a panel of assessors. It is also through this process that we
develop a shared and developing understanding of inclusion and inclusionality.
The Bath
and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark is growing within the authority, especially, three years on,
the initial schools that received the award are due to be reassessed. My big
concern now, as expressed at a recent validation meeting, is our capacity, with
regard to the numbers of mentors and assessors we have:
I really do need more
mentors and assessors because it’s
growing…We (mentors
and assessors) meet, we’ve known each other; we’ve developed an understanding
of inclusion, inclusionality. Taking more people on means involving them,
starting with them and
their understandings and
getting their developing understandings on board.
(Validation meeting 17 July 2008)
It now seems appropriate to approach
other members of the Children’s Service from education and health to be a part
of the team so that we can further develop our understandings inclusionally as to
which schools should receive the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality
Mark.
In reflecting on
this narrative, I now summarise my standards of judgement that derive from the
values I hold which have been demonstrated through this narrative:
· Developing shared understandings of inclusion and inclusionality between the mentors and assessors;
·
Developing shared
understandings and criteria as to which
schools should achieve the Bath and North East
Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark;
·
Developing systems to ensure that the awarding of the Bath and North
East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark is robust, fair, just and equitable;
·
Developing systems to ensure that the voice of all is heard
within the
schools working towards the IQM award, for example, teachers, teaching
assistants, school meal supervisory assistants (SMSAs), administrative staff,
pupils, parents and governors.
The Bath and North East
Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark Recognition Ceremony
As I describe my reflections on
and my development as an Inclusion Officer, so I move through the process of
the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark. In this narrative I
would like to clarify the significance of the Bath and North East Somerset
Inclusion Quality Mark Recognition Ceremony.
At the end of the pilot of the Bath and
North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark, we decided to hold a Recognition
Ceremony to celebrate the contribution that the schools made in helping to
co-create the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark. The pilot
took a year to complete, in which time, six of the eight schools achieved the
award. We decided to call it a ‘Recognition Ceremony’ rather than an ‘Awards
Ceremony’ because, we not only wanted to recognise those schools which had
received the award , but also those schools which had not achieved the award at
the time but had made a significant contribution to the pilot.
In fact, before the next ceremony, in
discussions on the title, we decided that we preferred the title, ‘Recognition
Ceremony’ rather than ‘Awards Ceremony’ as it conveyed more of what the
Ceremony was about. I stated my feelings in my journal:
Whilst it is significant to receive an award, I feel it is more
significant that the ceremony is about the recognition of the contribution
that schools are making within their communities and within the authority about
the developing understandings of inclusion.
(Reflective Journal, May 25, 2007)
At the validation meeting, it was stated:
You’re explaining why you’ve chosen recognition which feels to
me to be a new standard of judgement that you can bring through
your dissertation into the Academy.
(Validation
meeting, 17 July, 2008)
So far, we have held three Recognition
Ceremonies and what wonderful occasions they are. They are held in the
Banqueting Room at the Guildhall in Bath. The Chair of the Council and the
Council Cabinet Member for the Children’s Service attend and give out
certificates and plaques to the schools. The Director of the Children’s
Service, Divisional Director of the Learning and Inclusion Service and
Inclusion Support Service Manager attend and speak at the ceremony. Mentors,
assessors and other members of the Children’s Service also attend besides
members of the schools’ communities. Each school does a presentation on an
aspect of inclusion to a full Banqueting Room of about one hundred and fifty to
over two hundred adults, children and young people. A programme of the Recognition
Ceremony 2007 can be viewed in Appendices G (i) and G (ii).
At this point I have to commend Sandra
Harris, Administrative Officer, whose tremendous energy and hard work,
contribute to the success of the ceremony. I wrote in my journal how well all
of us as a team work together:
The day of the ceremony and the build up to it are such good
examples of how inclusionally we, as a team; mentors, assessors
and others in the authority work together. The actual Ceremony lasts
for two hours, 4.00 – 6.00. Many of us are there from 12.00 to
8.00,
setting up, preparing and
afterwards, clearing up. But it is worth
every minute.
(Reflective Journal, July 12,
2008)
I would now like to show two video clips of
presentations made by two schools at the Recognition Ceremony, July, 2008. In
the first video clip, a group of children are singing a song called, ‘We Can
Live as One’. They sing about trusting one another, learning to think and
listen, and loving one another. What I like about this video clip is the energy
with which the children impart their message and how this is transmitted through
to the audience. The second video clip shows a group of children singing,
‘You’ve Got A Friend’. They have enacted a drama of a scheme at their school
called Mate Makers, whereby children are trained to sort out problems in the
playground and to encourage children to play together. They are now singing
their song. In this video clip, one pupil is out of tune, but it does not
matter. Everyone is singing heartily and enjoying themselves. I feel that this
school is sending out a strong message and stating very clearly that they are
including of all.
Plate 5: School at
Recognition Ceremony, 2008
Plate 6: School at
Recognition Ceremony, 2008
In these two video clips, I see the values I
uphold in my practice being demonstrated and expressed as living values in
these schools. I believe that this is then being transmitted to the audience
and felt by the audience. My inference may be mistaken, but this is what I feel
as they clap spontaneously after each performance.
At the ceremony, I do a presentation. I take
a long time in preparing it as I feel it important to convey the message of
what inclusion is and to impart our shared understandings; to bring together
what we mean by inclusion and how our understandings have developed. To convey
these meanings in a forum
such as this is powerful and significant in driving forward an authority’s
perception of inclusion. I believe that my presentation is inclusional and is
including of all. I state in my journal:
It is important to me that I refer to all schools and that I refer to
a cross- section of the schools’
communities in the examples I give.
It is important to me to
emphasise the value that I hold for the
mentors and assessors in their
integrity in working with the Bath
and North East Somerset Inclusion
Quality Mark, and the support
they give to me, without whom I
could not do what I do.
(Reflective Journal, July 12,
2008)
I am slightly nervous before I present, but
also excited to have the opportunity to speak to every individual in the
Banqueting Room. When I speak, my eyes will scan the whole room. By the time I
finish my speech, I will have scanned the room and connected with all; everyone
will have been included and will have been a part of what I have said. I will
be functioning on two levels; thinking of what I am saying, saying it clearly
so that everyone can hear me and understand what I am saying, and on another
level, I shall be looking and checking out that I have made visual contact with
individuals in all areas of the room. I shall now show you my presentation at
the Recognition Ceremony, 2007, and would like to thank Jack Whitehead who
attended and videoed the whole ceremony. As you look at the video clip, do you
have a grasp of my sense of inclusionality that I felt at the time and as I
feel now as I look at the clip?
Plate 7: Chris at
Recognition Ceremony, 2008
When I view the video clip, I can see and feel the energy and passion
with which I am speaking. I can feel the connection I am making with the people
in the room. I see myself living my values of what matters to me and what
drives me in my work as an Inclusion Officer with the responsibility of
implementing and developing the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality
Mark.
At this
Recognition Ceremony, I feel I am being recognized for the work that I do. At
the beginning of the clip, Nigel Harrisson, Inclusion Support Service manager,
is introducing me and acknowledging what I do when he says:
Chris is the driving force
behind the IQM and makes it happen.
I feel, also, that my commitment to the
Inclusion Quality Mark is being recognized by Gail Quinton, Divisional Director
of Learning and Inclusion, when she says:
It is Chris Jones
baby. She set it up, made it happen, organized it and worked hard.
As I feel that I am being recognized for
what I do, so I am recognizing the contribution that I am making to the
developing understandings of inclusion in the authority, and I am aware of the
educational influences in my own learning, in the learning of others and the
learning of social formations. At the validation meeting, it was stated:
I can see how the evidence, for example, the meaning of recognition is
emerging through the narratives, and towards the end…what you are saying…will
help us to understand the living presence of the meaning of inclusionality.
(Validation meeting, July 17, 2008)
As I continue to watch the video clip, I am reminded of the vibrancy
within the schools I mentored and assessed. I am reminded of the quality of
relationships within these schools. These schools are not here because they
ticked the right boxes. These schools are here because inclusion is at the core
of everything they do. The school community: pupils, teachers, teaching
assistants, school meals supervisory assistants (SMSAs), parents, administrative
staff and governors feel valued. They feel they have a voice in the school.
Inclusionality is living within these schools. The local newspaper
representative attends the event each year. A newspaper article and photograph about
the Recognition Ceremony 2007 can be found in Appendix H.
At the validation meeting, it was stated:
You’ve got these three
narratives…and for me, it’s the difference in terms of the context, the
expression of inclusionality. So, you’ve got the pilot of the IQM, but if you
look at the role of mentors and assessors, that actually moves it into
extending the influence of inclusionality through the work of others, and then,
the evidence we are being given all the time is there,…the third one, the
Ceremony. Where that seems to be important is that you’re bringing together
people to actually both recognise and celebrate their qualities of inclusion…so
I think you have provided us with evidence.
(Validation meeting, July 17,
2008)
In reflecting on this narrative, I now summarise my standards of
judgement that derive from the values I hold which have been demonstrated through
this narrative:
·
Influencing social formations, for example, the Recognition
Ceremony;
·
Recognising and valuing team work in preparing for
the Recognition Ceremony;
·
Influencing and sharing understandings of inclusion
and inclusionality within the authority with other educators in Children’s
Service and schools;
·
Being able to recognize and acknowledge my
influence in driving forward inclusion and inclusionality within the authority;
·
Recognising and acknowledging the fact that I am
being recognized for the work I do by the Inclusion Support Manager and Divisional Director of
Learning and Inclusion;
·
Choosing the name, ‘Recognition Ceremony’ rather
than ‘Awards Ceremony’ and the significance of this as a reflection of my
values.
In this
chapter, I have I have described narratives which, I believe, demonstrate
inclusionality. The first three narratives (Appendices C, D and E) briefly described in this chapter, describe the inclusional
way I like to work with others, firstly, setting up and developing a course for
new SENCOs, secondly, running a creativity workshop with a colleague, and thirdly, running an emotionally literate workshop with a colleague.
In the next three narratives, I focused on my work in the implementation and
development of the Bath and North East Somerset Inclusion Quality Mark. With
reference to each narrative, I have described my standards of judgement which
have derived from my values which inform my practice.
CHAPTER 5 - MY EDUCATIONAL
NARRATIVE OF MY LEARNING
This is my
final narrative and it is an educational narrative of my learning as I reflect
on my inquiry and how I have inquired. Firstly, I shall reflect on the
narratives I describe as an Inclusion Officer in my previous chapter and in Appendices
C, D and E, and describe how my values have come to form standards of judgement
on which I judge my claim to educational knowledge. I then reflect on my
dissertation as a whole and the learning that has taken place as it has developed.
Finally, I highlight specific areas that have had a huge impact on my learning
as I have conducted my inquiry, firstly, the adoption of a living educational theory
methodology, secondly, the use of video in my inquiry and thirdly the
significance of Conversation Café.