Special educational needs and art and design education: plural perspectives on exclusion

Abstract

Education policy proposals by the UK Coalition government appeared to be based on a process of consultation, participation and representation. However, policy formation seems to prioritise and confirm particular ways of knowing and being in the world. This paper recognises the ontological and epistemological invalidation at work in education policy by examining the shared context for policy formation in Special Educational Needs (SEN/D) and art and design education. There is value in recognising plurality, acknowledging the ways in which apparently singular policies relating to special education are understood through subject or disciplinary perspectives. The neoliberal aim to foster an economically productive 'subject' is evident in policy formation relating to art and design education as well as SEN/D.Both subjects, the disabled child and art and design education, are defined as excessive and are excluded where they do not conform to particular notions of productivity. The paper explores theoretical frameworks that are essential for recognising meaning in education when subjects cannot be put to work. The paper makes use of theoretical frameworks from disability studies in order to examine the ways in which the disabled child and art and design education are 'excessive' and therefore excluded if they do not conform to 'typical' notions of the productive subject. The paper begins by outlining recent theoretical frameworks emerging from the field of

Eco-Connectivity of Arts Learning for Mentally Disabled Children at SLB Gedangan Sidoarjo East Java

“…Oleh karenanya, pembelajaran pada anak berkebutuhan khusus memerlukan strategi agar pembelajaran menjadi optimal. Salah satu jenis anak berkebutuhan khusus adalah tunagrahita, yang mengacu pada fungsi intelektual umum yang secara keseluruhan berada di bawah rata-rata anak normal yang disertai dengan kekurangan dalam tingkah laku penyesuaian diri yang berlangsung pada masa perkembangannya (American Psychiatric Association, 2013;Penketh, 2016;T. Sampurno, 2015, Desiningrum, 2016.…”

“…Salah satu pembelajaran bagi anak tunagrahita adalah pembelajaran seni (Penketh, 2016). Berkesenian memberikan efek terapetik, di sisi lain juga mampu meningkatkan kemampuan motorik halus maupun motorik kasar dari anak tunagrahita (M. B. T. Sampurno, Prabandari, et al, 2020).…”

“…Artinya, seni menjadi media pembelajaran yang mampu mengakomodasi berbagai macam disiplin ilmu. Konsep pembelajaran ini mendukung guru dalam proses pembelajaran pada anak tunagrahita (Penketh, 2016;M. B. T. Sampurno & Camelia, 2020).…”

“…Anak tunagrahita memiliki kelebihan dalam kemampuan motorik (American Psychiatric Association, 2013;Penketh, 2016). Hal tersebut membuatnya memiliki keterampilan dalam melakukan kreasi yang berpusat pada kemampuan motorik.…”

The NSEAD Survey Report 2015–16: Political Reflections from Two Art and Design Educators

“…Under this system a subject such as art and design, which refuses to conform to dominant performative constructs, is therefore considered less valuable. Instead it is tarnished as ‘excessive and … excluded’ (Penketh , 439) from the curriculum. This view point is encapsulated in our bimbo analogy.…”