True inclusion is more than just allowing people to exist in the same space
It has been a while since I have written a post but that does not mean there has not been any ponderings and questioning about what I am a part of and what I am seeing in education and schools.
Recently, I have done some fill-in work as an education support in a primary school and as usual, I find myself questioning some of the approaches in supporting particular students with challenges, mostly behavioural, but also entire classrooms. I often make a distinction between behavioural challenges of students and academic learning because while a student may have learning difficulties and take longer to learn concepts, that is less of a challenge for teachers or other educators. The real conflicts and challenges kick in when students do not behave or respond in a way that is expected or desired by the adult/educator.
As always, as I started to document my thoughts and analyse different issues I encounter, my first initial idea for a post became so overly long in discussing all the interconnected issues. I will need to revise the post and edit it into multiple different posts to try and focus on core issues individually, as best I can anyway. There is so much intertwining of issues that cannot simply be examined in a silo, separate of others, if you are genuinely working towards the best outcomes for people, their families and communities. All of us.
In order to begin the process of recording my trail of consciousness with relation to diversity and inclusion in schools, my belief around what true inclusion is constantly challenged. Not just in schools but all though our communities. My conclusion is almost always the same. The general consensus of the community belief of what inclusion of diversity is - is not what true inclusion should be. We can talk all we want, say the right things and use all the words to make us feel good about ourselves that we are accepting and tolerant of differences in our communities, but it is mostly bullshit. Excuse my lack of being diplomatic but sometimes you just need to real and blunt.
I myself find I am less tolerant of people that do not conform to social norms that mean my peace, quiet and levels of comfort are disrupted. As an example, I am truly saddened by homelessness and understand why someone is less hygienic or smells bad, and on the occasions that we interact and chat, I am friendly and I want the best for them - but those interactions may be limited because I want to avoid the smell or how it makes me feel knowing that I have more than them and somewhere safe to go at night, knowing there is also a limit to how I can support them as an individual without giving them all that I have, my means to support myself. The reality is that I am unlikely to offer them refuge on my couch or spare space that I might have. We want to protect our comfort and sense of security. Most of us are not wealthy or billionaires/trillionaires that could lift the entire world out of poverty and still have more money than we will ever even need in a lifetime. This is also not a conversation about that, it is about ease of access and tolerance of certain people existing in communities.
Near the beginning of the year I attended a free screening of a film, originally intended to be shown in an outdoor/open air space, but due to inclement weather it was moved to an indoor auditorium like space meaning that seats were much closer together. As mentioned it was a free event not requiring tickets, and located very centrally in Melbourne, everyone is welcome. Well, sort of. Before the film had even begun, a gentleman seated across the aisle from me was approached by security and asked to leave, accused of being drunk, despite the fact that the only real behaviour of note was that they had responded to a question, asked in a public setting to the audience by the main organiser of the event, if they had ever seen the film to be shown before. It was not stipulated that only raised were to be used or the question was in fact rhetorical and they did not want a response. I intervened and asked the security what the problem was as this person had not been disruptive, which seemed to quell the situation at the time and they left. Not long into the film two security guards approached the man and once again asked him to leave. After quietly protesting and stating they had done nothing wrong, which I agreed with, he arose and followed the security guards out. I felt quite perturbed by this and no one around him except myself did anything to support him. I took it upon myself to speak with the ‘senior’ of the security guards and apparently he smelled like alcohol, but as I mentioned before this is not something I noticed to be an issue, myself being seated approximately a metre away.
I reiterated my confusion and that the man had not been disruptive, certainly no more than the people sitting behind me who had been talking through the entire part of the film that had been shown so far. To no avail. I returned to my seat. Earlier that evening another gentleman with questionable hygiene had walked down the aisle/stairs past me to another row of seats. I can remember thinking to myself that I am glad that there are no spare seats next to me because it would be a lot to sit next to that smell for the entire movie. I guess you just get lucky though with the people that are near you and how tolerant they are of such matters. While I am glad that he did not sit near me I also would not have complained about him and had him kicked out. I assume this is the attitude of the person they did sit next to you because no complaint was made about them and they were not asked to leave.
About an hour after this incident, a different gentleman closer to the front, appeared to say a few words more loudly than a whisper, and while I noticed it, it did not appear to be purposeful or intentionally disruptive. My initial thought process was that they may have had Tourette’s syndrome. I think in the end that he was possibly trying to alert a friend of their location in the auditorium space by calling their name. Like I said, it was only a few times and would have been louder to the people closer to them but it was not over the top disruptive. Of course, a woman got up and made a complaint and all of a sudden people started wandering around and standing near them as though they were a threat, despite not behaving in an erratic or unsafe way. Really not sure what the danger was. Security then came and requested they leave. The man was walked out flanked by security guards.
By this point, it started to feel really uncomfortable to me. It felt that a minority of people were targetted because a few people did not like them being there. - these people were not behaving exactly as they wanted or fit in a neat box so they were ostracised and removed. Rather than creating a space that is welcoming and accepting of difference, a few 'Karen' types got uppity and they were removed. No attempt was made to see the other side, include and support them as fellow human beings who had a right to be there. In general as a society, we are much less accepting and tolerant of people who do not fit into a perfect box and may be flawed according to narrow standards. It is a reality that there will be a lot of people in the world that we are not going to like or understand for various reasons but that does mean they have any less right to be included in spaces. What bothered me most about these actions was that the film event organisers were from a group representing an historically marginalised and poorly treated demographic.
It may seem that I am digressing and this is not relevant to inclusion and diversity in schools, however so much of what you see in schools and the way we interact and treat students who do not fit into the neat student box is attributed to the same kind of thinking. The biggest difference is that you cannot just expel a student without proven cause and you cannot legally simply refuse an enrolment - well that is if schools follow the Disability Standards of Education 2005 and families are unaware of their rights or lack the means to fight a school - in a similar way that these people were removed from the screening over pettiness. While being removed from a screening is not as permanent as being expelled from school these happenings speak to the concept of tolerance and inclusion.
Let us discuss inclusion in the classroom more.
From the beginning of the year, I have directly supported a grade 5 student in a 5/6 class, on a handful or more occasions. They are essentially non-verbal, as they have a capacity to verbalise but only ever communicate repeated words of interest or regularly used words, and rarely as part of a sentence. They generally do not participate with the group of their own accord and have their own desk set-up, completing activities at a separate table specifically for them, mostly with a one-on-one education support worker.
On the first day of this school year when I first arrived and spoke to a teacher about who I might be supporting, they mentioned this particular student to me, although I would not be working with them because they already had an individual support person. In response to hearing that they are non-verbal I asked what forms of communication they used instead - keyword sign, PECS or a communication board, devices, etc? No one had an answer to this question - not the classroom teacher, the education support or other teachers that shared the space. When we talk about being truly inclusive and basic questions like this cannot be answered, by a teacher no less, particularly as they are supposed to be planning and differentiating for this young person, this is a red flag. Straight away, I have more questions. The responsibility of interacting with this person has been delegated to particular people only. In this case, it was their direct classroom teacher, and their support person.
While supporting these classes, I did observe that their direct classroom teacher did check in from time to time with the support person and during a group activity. There were attempts to include the student in a group activity rather than keep working on the separate tasks for the learner.
This particular young person, in addition to the communication needs, also had behavioural needs with relation to following routine and instructions as they most often focused on doing what they wanted to do. They would likely be described as being off in their own world and this is often used as a reason not to engage or interact with people with this outlook. They may not often initiate communication interaction with others unless they have a need to be filled, etc. but just because they may not behave or seek interaction in the same way that we do does not necessarily mean they do not want it, Perhaps they want it in a way that they understand and can make meaning from. Our job is to figure out what that is, and when I say ‘our’ I mean everybody in the community, as a collective.
I did not observe, keyword, sign, or visual forms of communication being used with the learner. When instructions were given, they were not given consistently, such as certain words being used repeatedly in order to attach meaning to them, excessive language being used rather than very simple sentences that are consistent. As people with a greater capacity to process information and think in less limited or binary ways, we need to adapt and meet the learner where they are at rather than expecting them to use our preferred form of communication.
There is a whole other discussion about the obsession with and preferencing of verbal communication as the indicator of intelligence and capability. I will get around to writing a post and editing this post to place a link here at some stage. Fingers crossed.
Almost straight away I am asking questions around what I am seeing and if this is inclusion. Yes, this young person is in a mainstream classroom but when they have minimal or no interaction or participation in the class, are they not just existing alongside people rather than being truly included. They are physically in the space, but are they included.
I see a range of reactions from other students in the classroom and school ground. Some students acknowledge them and make an effort to interact and communicate with them, saying hello or asking their opinion, being aware that they will likely not get any response or acknowledgement back from this student. Other students just actively avoid them, not acknowledging them or avoiding them because they do not know how to behave around them or potentially they are nervous around them. Some kids just laugh and make fun, seeing them as weird or defective. While it saddens me, I may have been very similar when I was younger and truthfully, we do not always do a good job of openly discussing cognitive and development differences so we can better understand our peers. Even the ‘neurotypicals’ are not the same in how they understand and process information and respond to stimuli. Similar to discussing how we may interact with homeless people, this connects to our comfort levels and it is not unusual to feel discomfort if we do not know how to respond or relate to someone. The issue is not those feelings of discomfort, it is what we do with them. Do we just become Karens and tell the organisers that people need to be removed from a screening or do we accept that not everyone fits in a perfect little box, and unless our safety is an issue, just get on with it and try to understand a different experience or perspective.
We need to have discussions with young people about everyone’s responsibility to do more to understand people with difference and consider meeting them where they are. We cannot expect everyone to be a mirror of ourselves.
Many people would probably want to argue that it is an invasion of privacy to discuss individual challenges or differences as a reason not to have these discussions but once again, it’s not a discussion about particular individuals, it should be a general discussion around understanding that we all need different things at different times. Is it truly inclusive to be allowed to inhabit the same space i.e. mainstream classroom rather than segregated at a special development school but not have your needs be actively considered in planning to create opportunities for your inclusion. Just existing alongside people may be visibility but is it truly inclusive.
We like to say that everyone is welcome but I would that the current approach is not proactive. Many schools and teachers, like the film screening, promote inclusive ideas and language but in reality they are ill prepared for divergence. Fingers are crossed that nothing out of the ordinary pops up, it is inconvenient and inconvenience is less tolerated, not to mention it often exposes how inadequate the responses are.