UNESCO Inclusion Policy and the Education of School Students with Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities:Where to Now?

Abstract

The education of school students with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities presents diverse challenges to practitioners, families and policymakers. These challenges are philosophically and ethically complex, and impact curriculum, assessment and pedagogy. Given the international ascendancy of both the UNESCO Policy Guidelines on inclusion in education and the principles of inclusion for people with disabilities with respect to human services policy and practice, the authors build on their previous work to advocate for renewed debate about the nature of school education for these students, and put forward four pathways to inform this debate.

An exploration of parental decisions to transfer children from regular to special schools

“…Although it is generally agreed that social justice issues apply to all students with regard to accessing an education (Lyons & Arthur-Kelly, 2014), many children with intellectual disability continue to be denied access to this education in regular classrooms. There is evidence that students with intellectual disability can benefit from being in regular schools (Jackson, 2008;Kleinert et al, 2015); however, the belief that they need special, separate schooling, and significantly different methods of education, remains persuasive (Smith, 2010).…”

“…Children with intellectual disability, therefore, are likely to experience "strictly functional curricula" (Ashby, 2010, p. 346). Lyons and Arthur-Kelly (2014) argued, however, that one curriculum relevant for all students is becoming an important focus of educational discussions and that inclusion policies have had an influence in this area. Just so, there is some indication of a common understanding in Australia that students with disability will be catered for within a general curriculum provision "rather than a separate set of protocols" (Garner & Forbes, 2013, p. 3).…”

“…Differentiation and universal design for learning are current pedagogical practices regarding students with intellectual disability (van Kraayenoord, 2007), and knowledge of such approaches is increasingly required of all teachers, including those in the general classroom (Bourke, 2010). However, the common generalisations and accommodations recommended for other students with disability may not fit for some students with intellectual disability; the teaching of students with profound intellectual disability, in particular, is still regarded as the business of special education (Lyons & Arthur-Kelly, 2014). According to Ashby (2010), privileged ways of being and learning in schools (perhaps, for example, the expressive communication, reading, and mathematical skills that were found to be significant to classroom access by Kleinert at al., 2015) do not necessarily reflect the ways of being and learning that are meaningful for students with intellectual impairment.…”

“…The task of defining intellectual disability is made more complicated by the tendency to use subcategories such as mild, moderate and severe (e.g., Graham & Sweller, 2011;Lyons & Arthur-Kelly, 2014), and the debates that occur over terminology. The term "students with intellectual disability" is often preferred (e.g., Knight, 2013) because this terminology emphasises the person before the disability.…”

“…For example, three percent of all students with disability are served in special schools compared to six percent of those classified as being intellectually disabled (Kleinert et al, 2015). Although the number of students experiencing inclusive environments is increasing (Novak Amado, Stancliffe, McCarron, & McCallion, 2013), particularly for those with mild intellectual disability (Graham & Sweller, 2011), those whose disability is categorised as moderate or severe are continuing to be marginalised (Lyons & Arthur-Kelly, 2014). Rejection and discrimination remain for a "significant proportion of students with disabilities, particularly students with intellectual disabilities" (NCID, 2013, p. 8).…”