c e psJ ournal | Vol.6 | No3 | Year 2016 117 Recognition in Programmes for Children with Special Needs Marjeta Šmid1 • The purpose of this article is to examine the factors that affect the inclu- sion of pupils in programmes for children with special needs from the perspective of the theory of recognition. The concept of recognition, which includes three aspects of social justice (economic, cultural and po- litical), argues that the institutional arrangements that prevent ‘parity of participation’ in the school social life of the children with special needs are affected not only by economic distribution but also by the patterns of cultural values. A review of the literature shows that the arrangements of education of children with special needs are influenced primarily by the patterns of cultural values of capability and inferiority, as well as stereo- typical images of children with special needs. Due to the significant em- phasis on learning skills for academic knowledge and grades, less atten- tion is dedicated to factors of recognition and representational character, making it impossible to improve some meaningful elements of inclusion. Any participation of pupils in activities, the voices of the children, visibil- ity of the children due to achievements and the problems of arbitrariness in determining boundaries between programmes are some such elements. Moreover, aided by theories, the actions that could contribute to better inclusion are reviewed. An effective approach to changes would be the creation of transformative conditions for the recognition and balancing of redistribution, recognition, and representation. Keywords: recognition, patterns of cultural values, children with special needs, inclusion 1 Primary school Jela Janežiča, Slovenia; [email protected]. 118 recognition in programmes for children with special needs Pripoznanje v programih za otroke s posebnimi potrebami Marjeta Šmid • Namen prispevka je analizirati dejavnike, ki vplivajo na vključevanje učencev (inkluzijo) v programih za otroke s posebnimi potrebami s perspektive teorije pripoznanja. Koncept pripoznanja, ki vključuje tri vidike socialne pravičnosti – ekonomskega, kulturnega in političnega –, zagovarja, da na institucionalne ureditve, ki učencem s posebnimi potrebami ne omogočajo partnerskega sodelovanja v življenju vrstnikov v šoli, ne vpliva samo distribucija, ampak nanje vplivajo tudi kulturni vzorci vrednot. Študij literature je pokazal, da na ureditve šolanja otrok s posebnimi potrebami vplivajo zlasti vzorci kulturnih vrednot (ne) zmožnosti in manjvrednosti ter stereotipne predstave o učencih s poseb- nimi potrebami. Zaradi velikega poudarjanja učnih sposobnosti za aka- demsko znanje in ocene se manj posveča dejavnikom rekognicijskega in reprezentacijskega značaja, kar onemogoča izboljšanje nekaterih pomembnih elementov inkluzije. Vsakovrstna participacija učencev v dejavnostih, vidnost učencev zaradi dosežkov, slišanost učenca in problem arbitrarnosti pri določanju meja med programi so nekat- eri med njimi. Ukrepi, ki lahko pripomorejo k boljšemu vključevanju otrok s posebnimi potrebami v šolo, so analizirani s teoretičnega vidika. Učinkovit pristop k spremembam bi bil oblikovanje transformacijskih pogojev za pripoznanje in uravnoteženje redistribucije, rekognicije in reprezentacije. Ključne besede: pripoznanje, kulturni vzorci vrednot, otroci s posebnimi potrebami, inkluzija c e psJ ournal | Vol.6 | No3 | Year 2016 119 Introduction Slovenia is included in European and global processes of inclusion. The formal framework for the inclusion of children with special educational needs (hereinafter referred to as children with SEN) in primary school was given with the Placement of Children with Special Needs Act / ZUOPP / (2000) (herein- after referred to as the Placement Act). The current Placement of Children with Special Needs Act / ZUOPP-1 / (2011, 2012) and the Rules on the organisation and work methods of commissions for the placement of children with special needs (2013) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules on the work of commissions) provide as a rule, for children with minor mental disabilities, an education in an adapted basic school programme with lower educational standards (hereinafter referred to as LES) (Rules on the work of commissions, 2013, Article 9), and for children with moderate, severe and profound mental disabilities an education in a special programme (hereinafter referred to as SP) (ibid., Article 10). The most diverse and the largest is a group of pupils who receive educational pro- grammes with adapted implementation and additional professional assistance (hereinafter referred to as APA) (ibid., Article 7). The APA programme is imple- mented in regular classes (the Placement Act, 2011, Article 18, paragraph 2). The adapted LES programme is implemented in primary schools in regular classes and classes with adapted programmes and in schools that are established and or- ganised for the implementation of these programmes, as well as in institutes for the education of children with SEN. The SP is implemented in schools and extra classes near schools that are established and organised for the implementation of adapted educational programmes and SP education, institutions for the educa- tion of children with SEN and social care institutions (ibid., Article 18, Item 4). Hočevar (2010) shows the indicators of inclusion in Slovenia, which must be take into consideration, are the methods of evaluation and promotion (standards of knowledge), financing methods, school culture and climate (the need to introduce counselling for teachers, pupils/children with SEN, peers, parents, environment), legislation that regulates the field of special needs (dif- ficulties in implementing the Act) and teacher training (the need for training about children with SEN in all profiles of future teachers). In the analysis of the education of children with special needs in Slovenia, Opara et al. (2010) high- lighted the problem of the network of institutions for the education of children with special needs, the lack of adequate staff, especially the special teachers and rehabilitation teachers for different types of deficiencies. In primary schools with adapted programmes, the importance of their transformation into profes- sional and support centres was emphasised. Fields to which attention must be 120 recognition in programmes for children with special needs paid are the help for children with SEN in the preschool period, the integration of different disciplines and the overhaul of lower vocational education, which is decreasing in importance (Opara et al., 2010). The same authors (ibid.) iden- tify the lack of authority which would provide and coordinate the process of the education of persons with special needs. They propose a new definition of placement procedure, the elimination of ambiguities and shortcomings of the legal bases and documentation, and further projects on simultaneous imple- mentation of the adapted programme with a lower educational standard and an equal educational standard (Opara et al., 2010). Furthermore, the provision of the legislation that allows transitioning between programmes (Placement Act, 2011, Article 17) is not carried out in practice. In the framework of the ‘Stimulating Learning Environment for En- suring Equal Opportunities in Education’ project, the National Education Insti- tute Slovenia (NEIS, 2015) has prepared a questionnaire for the involved prima- ry schools with an adapted programme on the transition of children with SEN from the LES programme to the regular educational programmes. The project and its questionnaire have not been offered to regular primary schools; the in- formation on the transition was thus one-sided. According to De Silva (2013, p. 419), who refers to Meijer, the ‘behaviour and social and/or emotional prob- lems, combined with dealing with differences or diversity in the classroom are the most challenging in the area of pupils’ inclusion in European classrooms.’ With this De Silva indicates an extremely problematised area of inclusion, i.e. the existence of poor interpersonal relationships between different pupils and the need to improve them. This is confirmed in practice, and the research has also often expressed the need for additional attention in shaping interpersonal relationships among peers (Brenčič, 2011; Estell et al., 2008; Kellner, Houghton & Douglas, 2003; Prah, 2011; Webster & Carter, 2013). The other highly prob- lematised area in the inclusion is the knowledge assessment of children with SEN. In the research, the authors describe a fairly successful inclusion of the various groups of children with SEN, also in the learning area (Meadan & Monda-Amaya, 2008; Novljan, 2005; O‘Rourke & Houghton, 2006; Schmidt & Čagran, 2005). Learning outcomes are not high, but sufficient for the pupils to show progress. Nevertheless, Končar and Lakič (2004) have established the presence of fear and anxiety of school in pupils who attend the LES programme, precisely because of the low educational achievement. Expert analysis of the re- sults of the Slovenian national assessment of knowledge in the APA programme has consistently showed over the years the low achievement of children with SEN, compared to their peers without special needs (Košir, 2008; RIC, 2014), which may be because of programmes that are too difficult and the inadequate c e psJ ournal | Vol.6 | No3 | Year 2016 121 functioning of the support structures of schools. The low results of children with SEN in national assessment indicate inconsistency with the findings of the research that indicate good achievements of children with SEN. Difficul- ties in the assessment and manner of implementing work with the children with SEN in the class are significant. The authors Anastasiou and Kauffman (2011, p. 380) and McOuat (2011, p. 125) warn that a pupil with SEN in the class is not the same as the other twenty-five, who also require the teacher’s time. The individualisation in classes is hardly realised, if we believe that in inclusion all pupils should, even by force, make progress according to the same criteria. Individualisation is also often wrongly equated with working with individuals (Rutar, 2011a, p. 174), when it mostly means taking into account everything that individuals bring into the learning situation (Rutar, 2011b, p. 53). The research of the effectiveness of the inclusion remedies, and even de- termining whether a certain intervention can be described as inclusive at all, are also and in particular affected by the participants in each study (Lindsay, 2007). In studies, the most involved are children with learning difficulties, spe- cific learning difficulties (from mild to severe), the physically disabled, deaf and hard of hearing, blind and visually impaired pupils, children with emo- tional and behaviour disorders, and children with mild, moderate, and severe intellectual disabilities. Comparisons between them cannot be made directly since in each study we need to determine exactly which pupils were involved. Moreover, the authors of the research have established an extraordinary diver- sity in defining individual areas of inclusion, in the terminology used, methods, approaches, and types of research, and consequently diversity in the results and findings (Koster, Nakken, Pijl & van Houten, 2009). For example, in the field of interpersonal relationships, authors (Koster et al., 2009) have explored the concepts of social participation, social integration, and social inclusion. They reviewed sixty-two research articles and found that there is an overlap in the use of these three concepts because they are used as synonyms. The research of inclusion is also aggravated due to the absence of a strong concept or theory of inclusion (Armstrong D., Armstrong A. & Spandagou, 2011; Juriševič, 2011; Winkler, 2011). The ‘formidable set of factors’ may represent a difficulty in im- plementing inclusion’ (Lindsay, 2007, p. 5) and a range of indicators, which are to be taken into account for effective practice and research, however, at the micro level; the teaching staff with their abundance of work might be discour- aged in implementation of these factors. Teachers often do not know how to bring inclusion into classrooms. De Silva (2013, p. 431) states the dilemma of teachers that ‘the university is talking about inclusion, but the question is what is really good for the child, whether to teach her in an excluded environment or 122 recognition in programmes for children with special needs put her into an environment where she is time after time rejected by her peers.’ De Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert (2011) stated that teachers must be trained to work with children with SEN, and should at least attempt to accept inclusion as a part of their value system and not only as a content or method, because they have the greatest impact on the success of inclusion in the classroom. The theory that highlights the inclusion of particularly vulnerable groups in society more comprehensively, and that can better cope with the problems of the inclusion of children with SEN in school practice, is the theory of recognition (Artiles, Harris-Murri & Rostenberg, 2006; Bingham, 2006; Fraser, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2003a; Higgnis, MacArthur & Kelly, 2009; Keddie, 2012; Kroflič, 2010a, 2010b; Rutar, 2011a). In addition to the equitable distribu- tion of goods, for the best performance of the individual (redistribution, also known as the economic dimension), it puts the importance of proper recog- nition in the spotlight, where a person is viewed in a positive light because of the achievements and recognition in interpersonal relations (recognition or cultural dimension), and the importance of the environment in which the vari- ous participants are allowed all manner of participation and decision-making (representation, also called the political dimension). The critical theory of rec- ognition placed the distribution requirements at the centre of ensuring social justice (Fraser, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2003a; Honneth, 2003a; Keddie, 2012). The essential difference between the redistributive dimension, within the meaning of recognition theory, and pure forms of distribution in the conventional sense, is the highlighting of distribution, which extends over the entire range of social relations, including those which are usually ‘treated as cultural’ (Fraser, 2003a, p. 86; Honneth, 2003a). There is an inadequate distribution due to inadequate economic structures of society, and the recognition reflection discovers inad- equate distribution as a result of institutionalised forms of society because of the existing cultural values, which is one of the essential contributions of rec- ognition theory. The finding that not only economic injustice exists, but also that cultural injustice is equally unfavourable, is the reason for the formation of the theory. Recognition requires such an interpretation, presentation, and communication, which enables a group or an individual to achieve parity of participation2 with peers in social life (Fraser, 2000, p. 115). Parity of participa- tion necessarily involves transforming oneself, which is an essential element of recognition (Fraser 2003a; Galeotti, 2009). Regarding educational institutions (kindergarten, school), the transformation that creates conditions for changing 2 Fraser's expression ‘parity’ means ‘the conditions of being a peer, of being on a par with others, of standing on an equal footing’ in a given activity or interaction (Fraser, 2003a, p. 101, note 39; 2000, p. 113). c e psJ ournal | Vol.6 | No3 | Year 2016 123 oneself and own values was identified by the authors Bingham (2006) with crit- ical thinking about oneself and the wider social context, Higgins et al. (2009) with transformative diversity, Rinaldi (2006) with the concept of visibility, and Artiles, Kozleski, Dorn and Christensen (2006) with the transformation of identity. Cultural injustice is connecting the theory of recognition with com- plex problems of inclusion. We have found that there is research that addresses the views of teachers (e.g. Čagran & Schmidt, 2011; De Boer, Pijl & Minnaert, 2011); however, there are still no papers that attempt to tackle the problem of inadequate patterns of cultural values i n relation to inferiority. First, the question arises of what exactly those cultural values o f the so- ciety that are the basis for institutionalised arrangements in such a way that some of its members or groups have no possibility for cooperation with their peers in social life are. It is important to understand what the institutionalised society forms represent in the light of theory. They represent any form of social arrangement, in particular, legislation, policies and public institutions in which citizens can exercise their rights (Fraser, 2000, p. 115). The institutionalised forms that are highlighted in this article are the APA, SP, and LES programmes. The sought patterns of cultural values t hat affect the recognition of an individ- ual or a group are derived from social and cultural patterns of representation, interpretation, and communication: Examples include cultural domination (being subjected to patterns of interpretation and communication that are associated with another culture and are alien and/or hostile to one’s own); non-recognition (being rendered invis- ible via the authoritative representational, communicative, and interpretative practices of one’s culture); and disrespect (being routinely maligned or dispar- aged in stereotypic public cultural representations and/or in everyday life inter- actions) (Fraser, 1997, p. 14; also Fraser, 2003a, p. 13). Inappropriate patterns of cultural values affect the status of the group, which is set at a disadvantage and which is consequently prevented or impeded from participating in social life. In practice, we often witness arrangements of the schooling and treat- ment of children with special needs in which they are prevented from full participation in the life of class and school, and they are not sufficiently aca- demically successful, are not accepted and cannot make decisions; we have es- tablished that these arrangements are influenced by patterns of cultural values, including in Slovenia. We cannot implement good inclusion without consider- ing the latter; the following questions arise: which cultural patterns of values hinder the participation of children with special needs and how; what dangers for inclusion can be identified through the concept of recognition from the 124 recognition in programmes for children with special needs economic, cultural, and political points of view, and what remedies can im- prove these practices of inclusion/participation of children with special needs? With the help of literature, taking into consideration the concept of rec- ognition through the analysis of redistribution, recognition, and representa- tion, the paper will first show how to discover the arrangements that are af- fected patterns by cultural values, what are the dangers in inclusion, and below, which remedies can prevent them. Effects of patterns of cultural values In the field of education of children with SEN, inferiority is a powerful cultural prejudice. The ‘marginalised knowledge’ stands behind this idea (Dan- ermark & Coniavitis Gellerstedt, 2004; Keddie, 2012, p. 272). Behind the idea of the inferiority of children with SEN is a hidden idea of the superiority of the majority population (Keddie, 2012). Preconceived notions of inferiority can be seen in the incorrect place- ment of the children with SEN in programmes. In Slovenia, insistence on the placement in too demanding programmes is present to a greater extent (Krek & Metljak, 2011; Rovšek, 2009, 2013). LES or SP programmes are avoided above all, and children are being placed in other groups of children (Rovšek, 2013). Parents do not want their children to be classified as children with SEN, par- ticularly not as children with minor or moderate mental disabilities, and do not want placement in separate schools, which are also under the influence of inad- equate patterns of cultural values. Parents have no say in choosing the school, because the location of the programme implementation is established by a deci- sion of the commission for the placement of children with special needs. Uni- versalistic terms, such as ‘mental disability’ and ‘special programme’, are prob- ably no longer appropriate since they arouse reluctance; however, the relevant legislation applies them. Galeotti (2009) recommended the constant changing of the universalistic terms until the use of them no longer makes anyone feel affected. Although the placement into the LES or SP programme is reasonable, however, the law and expert opinions have no effect or, as it is critically stated by Rovšek (2009, p. 358): ‘The system and practice allow enrolment of any child with special needs in almost any programme.’ Inadequate patterns of cultural values prevail in both parents, and (it also happens) in teachers. Examples of incorrect recognition, which leads to feelings of inferiority and is reflected in avoidance of visibility (e.g. avoidance of activities) and sub- sequently to retention of subordination, was observed by Higgins et al. (2009) and Čačinovič Vogrinčič (2013). Higgins et al. (2009) found that, for example, c e psJ ournal | Vol.6 | No3 | Year 2016 125 a pupil with speech impairment preferred to be quiet among other healthy pu- pils, so that her deficiency would not be evident. Another pupil wrote a letter because she did not dare to speak out loud about why she was late for class. In the area of r edistribution, the objective of economic conditions is such a redistribution of goods so that all individuals or groups in society are guaranteed the best resources for development and realisation of their abilities, which allows them to participate in social life (Robeyns, 2009; Solveig Reindal, 2010). In the educational system for children with SEN, identifying their skills is one of the main areas that affect the distribution of resources. Addressing the children with SEN as incapable or capable carries the risk of incorrect or insufficient provision of redistribution resources for the development and im- plementation of capabilities, and prevents their participation (Kroflič, 2010a). One of the consequences of such a view of children with SEN is the insist- ence on the traditional way of teaching, which puts the teacher in the role of an active mediator of knowledge, and the pupil in the role of passive receiver, simply because in the traditional view of teaching a child is not yet mature and is not able and competent to learn in an active way (Koren, MacBeath & Lepičnik-Vodopivec, 2011). Active learning in contrast to traditional learning is based on social learning, which is absolutely associated with communication, social networks, and relationships (ibid.). In doing so, the impaired children are doubly disadvantaged. Firstly, because they are children, and secondly, because they are impaired children and additionally seen as incompetent, and incapable of equal communication as the rest are. The testimonies of impaired children point to their constantly proving that they are capable of doing something and know how to do it; however, lower grades are reserved for them (Higgins et al., 2009, p. 478-479). They must demonstrate their inabilities in order to obtain certain rights; this is an example of the norms and standards for children with SEN. A significantly reduced number of students is possible in the framework of LES programmes and in SP (Rules on norms, 2007, 2008, 2014), and a signifi- cant lowering of educational requirements is possible in the LES programme (Adapted educational programme…, 2003, 2013). In the mainstream primary school programme of an equal educational standard, the right, for example, to the pre-written material, extended time to solve the assignments or to use a tablet computer is related to the educational programme with adjusted im- plementation and APA. With the latter, the pupil gains the right to receive an individualised programme in which the adjustments are written down. There- fore, the rights to adjustments in the classroom are related to the programme. Another example of redistribution demonstrating the ability of SEN children is granting the possibility to attend certain options of educational 126 recognition in programmes for children with special needs programmes. The pupil in the LES programme who achieves equivalent educa- tional standards in a particular subject area shall acquire the right to transition at this subject (Placement Act, 2011, Article 17); however, this is rarely exercised in practice. The reason may be the absence of a continuum of help with the transition, and the operationalisation of the transition is also not determined with regard to regulations or otherwise. Keddie (2012) and Higgins et al. (2009) believe that the teacher train- ing system also shows some inappropriate patterns of cultural values in the treatment of children with SEN. Some teachers are more oriented, for exam- ple, towards the knowledge of mathematics, and others towards specific skills for working with children with SEN. Even teachers believe that they do not need additional knowledge in higher classes (e.g. in mathematics) in order to teach children with SEN, while others believe they need no in-depth knowledge about children with SEN, which reflects their low expectations (Lingard, 2007; Keddie, 2012, p. 270). One of the most important theoreticians of recognition in the field of education, Keddie, believes that high expectations of teachers to- wards pupils‘ knowledge are a part of the economic right, i.e. the redistribution that is provided by teachers (2012, p. 270). The problem of economic redistribu- tion can be seen in programmes that have a curriculum that is not accessible to all, because the availability of curriculum is an element of redistribution (Hig- gins et al., 2009; Keddie, 2012). As a result, an overly demanding programme does not allow pupils to demonstrate their skills sufficiently and prevents them from achieving academic success and positive visibility. Furthermore, the representation may be under the influence of the domi- nant patterns of cultural values o f inability and inferiority, which puts children with SEN in a subordinate position. Good representation represents all kinds of cooperation of children with SEN in the classroom and in the school community and enables them to make decisions about themselves. The right of children to be provided with opportunities for participation in decision-making in matters relating to themselves, their actions and learning have been part of the Conven- tion on the Rights of the Child since 1989 (Articles 12 and 13). Within the theory of recognition, the ‘voice of the child’ is determined by the authors Smith (2007, p. 14), Higgins et al. (2009, p. 474), Rutar (2011a), Kroflič (2010a, 2010b) and Bing- ham (2006). Higgins at al. (ibid.) and Kroflič (ibid.) note the right of a child‘s voice to be heard as distinct from the majority. There is ample evidence that children with learning disabilities with lower abilities to communicate often experience involuntary communication embargo and the deprivation of the right to express their opinion, the right to participate, and the right to independent decision- making about themselves (Higgins et al., 2009). Higgins et al. (ibid.) note that