1.9. CONCLUSION
2.1.2. THE META-APPROACH
2.1.2.2. Ecological models
With the evolution towards a society that is increasingly more cognisant of providing equal human rights to all people, the popularity of the medical model decreased as people became more uncomfortable with the underlying philosophy. In response to this, normalisation was introduced in the 1960s. According to Swart and Pettipher, normalisation is best described as a system whereby people with disabilities are integrated as far as possible into a society created for people without disabilities, including into the education system (2007: p.6). When studying ‘normalising’, the two common terms associated with this process in education are ‘mainstreaming’ and ‘integration’, often used interchangeably in spite of their subtle differences (Swart & Pettipher, 2007: p.6).
Mainstreaming in education refers specifically to the practice of involving students with disabilities in the general education system, although within the system they are taught in special education classes (Engelbrecht et al, 1999: p.7). In some case, the learners with disabilities are introduced to the ‘normal’ class for short periods of time, particularly in areas where there is less academic focus, such as in art or creativity lessons. Whilst integration works upon the same principle, there is far greater emphasis on meaningful interaction between learners with disabilities and their non- disabled peers (Engelbrecht et al, 1999: p.8). According to Swart and Pettipher (2007: p.7),
“integration involved more extensive and holistic participation of learners with disabilities in relation to mainstreaming, while significant instructional time in separate settings still prevailed”.
Inclusion is an extension of the ideals put forward by the normalisation process. However, whereas normalisation pertains specifically to the education context, inclusion has a far greater overlap into society as a whole. In fact, inclusive education can only be considered a reality because of the related changes in society. The international and national development towards an inclusive education system will be explored in greater depth later on. It is imperative to note however, that whilst inclusive education is considered the ideal in education, it is a dynamic concept, which must continuously evolve to meet the needs of new generations of learners. Inclusive education is highly dependent on the barriers to learning being addressed in a particular school; therefore there is no universal model that can be applied to schools in order to make them inclusive. As a result of this:
“the major challenge of the education system is to understand the complexity of the influences, interactions and interrelationships between the individual learner and multiple
other systems that are connected to the learner from an ecological systems theory or systems change perspective” (Swart & Pettipher, 2007: p.9).
In summary, the ecological theory is a linear process. If one were to apply the ecological theory to inclusive education, the following process would emerge: Inclusive education is implemented in schools; as a result of this, children experiencing barriers to learning are educated and as a result of this education, a more tolerant society develops. There is a distinct focus on the child and the child’s experience of education is based solely on the standard of inclusive education in the school.
However, it has been found that such a linear approach is overly simplistic and as a result, a systems theory has emerged in the field of education to better explain the role of the community in the education of a child. In a systems theory approach, a child’s success will be based on how inclusive education was implemented, how the teachers and learners were affected by this implementation as well as on more abstract factors such as whether the concept of tolerance was actively taught and whether the children experienced any bullying as a result of inclusive education, for example. Whilst the focus remains on the child, in a systems theory approach, there is more recognition given to the place of the child within the community as a whole.
Possibly the most well know theory pertaining to the ecological systems theory is provided by Bronfenbrenner (cited in Swart & Pettifer, 2007: p.10). In the 1970s, Bronfenbrenner put forward an eco-systemic model looking specifically at the context factors. The diagrammatic representation of this model bears resemblance to a set of Babushka dolls in which one system fits comfortably inside another, resulting in one large system that encompasses a number of progressively smaller systems (Swart & Pettipher, 2007: p. 10). Bronfenbrenner’s work is considered highly important in creating a framework for inclusive education as it fully explains the interactions between the individual factors at play within an inclusive context. Bronfenbrenner’s model is best summarised by Swart and Pettipher who state that the model suggests “that there are layers or levels of interacting systems resulting in change, growth and development, such as physical, biological, psychological, social and cultural. What happens in one system affects and is affected by other systems” (2007: p.10).
At the centre of this model is the microsystem which deals with all systems of which a child is physically part, or of which a child is an active member. The systems that would make up the microsystem include the family into which the child is born, or cared for, the school which the child attends as well as any friendship circles in which the child socialises (Donald, Lazarus & Lolwana, 2004; Swart and Pettipher, 2007).
The mesosystem in turn deals with the complex interactions between the various systems in the microsystem. This has a significant influence on the implementation of inclusive education, as it highlights the importance of a holistic approach to implementation of inclusive education as opposed to a hyper-focus on one particular factor, such as school environment being accessible to people who use wheelchairs, for example. An example of mesosystemic interactions could be a boy who experiences learning disabilities, who finds himself part of a very supportive home environment in which he is motivated, yet the school which he attends is an academic results driven institution that is ignorant of his learning disabilities. The relationship that exists between the child’s family and the school could be a deciding factor in that child reaching his full potential. A family can chose to inform the school about inclusive education and push for implementation or they can ignore the situation for fear of their son being victimised. Similarly, the child may have friends within the school who assist him with his school work or he may associate with other children who are poor academics and who have given up on improving their situation. This in turn is largely influenced by the manner in which the school deals with those learners it considers to be poor academics (Donald, Lazarus &
Lolwana, 2004; Swart & Pettipher, 2007).
The exosystem encompasses the mesosystem and consequently the microsystems. Within the exosystem, the child may not be physically interacting with the various components, but he is influenced or affected by these components. To extend the example of the boy with learning disabilities, in the exosystem, the availability of professionals to diagnose learning disabilities in the town where the child lives will influence whether the child is diagnosed or is seen as being simply a weak academic. In a community where there is awareness of learning disabilities, the child is more likely to receive the support needed. If the district education administrators have an established support team in the area in which the child’s school is based, one may find that the school would be more open to inclusive practices. Therefore, whilst the child may not necessarily interact with that district support team, the quality of education he does experience will be influenced by this (Donald, Lazarus & Lolwana, 2004; Swart & Pettipher, 2007).
The final system is the macrosystem, which consequently includes the exosystem, the mesosystem as well as the various microsystems. The macrosystem deals with the beliefs and philosophies entrenched in the greater society in which the child lives. For example, a society which values human equality will be far more accepting and accommodating of people in wheelchairs who may have trouble accessing buildings in the community at times (Swart & Pettipher, 2007: p. 12).
In addition to this, Bronfenbrenner also refers to the chronosystem, which bisects all of the previously discussed systems. This pays tribute to the impact of time on developments, both with the child through maturation, and the greater society. This is particularly pertinent in the South African context where society is changing from a society segregated by Apartheid policies to one that values democracy and equality (Swart & Pettipher, 2007: p. 12).
However, Bronfenbrenner is also cognisant of the value of a child’s unique perceptions and opinions of the world around him. By doing this, Bronfenbrenner ensures that his model is not over simplified and used as a formula by which to seek a reason for a child’s barriers to learning. It is important to accept that each individual has a unique manner in which he perceives the world, which ultimately affects his response to those environments (Swart & Pettipher, 2007: p. 12).
A 2005 study by Kalenga looked specifically at the ecosystemic influence involved in inclusive education. She (Kalenga, 2005: p.44) paid careful attention to defining both the systems theory and the ecological theory as “inclusive education needs to be considered in relation to the ecological and systems theories”. In essence this study suggested that the ecological theory believes in the notion that we are all unique as a result of our differing experiences and interpretation of these experiences in the world around us. As a result of this, one cannot understand the exact experiences of another.
In an inclusive educational context the implication is that learners cannot simply be categorised according to their specific barrier to learning. On the other hand, according to Kalenga (2005: p. 42 – 43), the systems theory “postulates that different levels and groupings of the social context are systems where the functioning of the whole is dependent on the interaction between parts”. A system consists of a number of parts, all interacting together to create the system. One system can be a sub-system or part of yet another system. She (Kalenga, 2005: p.43) elaborates further on the system theory by stating that the “systems theory maintains that cause and effect relationships are not seen as taking place in one direction only, rather they occur in cycles. Because of the interrelationship between the parts, an action in one part of the system cannot be seen as the cause of action in another simple one-dimensional way”.
From the works of both Bronfenbrenner (cited in Swart & Pettifer, 2007) and Kalenga (2005) a link to inclusive education can be extrapolated. Inclusive education cannot be looked at as a policy or practice in isolation; it has to be addressed in light of the entire community in which it finds itself.
Inclusion cannot be looked at purely as an educational topic, but must also be addressed as a topic in the wider society as well. When it comes to inclusion the teaching fraternity is not simply made up
of professors or educators, the role of the child and his family members should not be underestimated.