Our considerations, in reply to Giangreco, Doyle and Suter’s (2012) paper, are grouped into different sections: reflections related to the history of inclusion in Italy that have led to disassociate the ‘special’ visions, and accept the necessity to adopt, together with quantitative analyses, qualitative and contextual approaches that also take into account socio-economic contexts; the importance of those individuals who mediate in school contexts (i.e. teachers, parents and children) their attitudes and beliefs, referring to recent theoretical models (e.g. Life Design) that emphasize narrative and life stories; the need of using indices for assessing inclusion experiences that take into account their complexity; the importance of sustaining future practitioners, and their efforts toward school inclusion to avoid that excessive attention to special educational needs that can become a “threat”. In the conclusions, we will summarize some of our reactions, hoping they also will be able to contribute to maintain the inclusion issue at the center of our attention.
Il contributo presenta le nostre
considerazioni in risposta all’articolo
di Giangreco , Doyle e Suter (2012 ). Sono state raggruppate in diverse sezioni:
riflessioni inerenti alla storia dell’ inclusione in Italia che ha portato ad
abbandonare visioni 'speciali' e a riconoscere laa necessità di adottare,
insieme ad analisi quantitative, approcci qualitativi e contestuali che tengano
conto anche dei contesti socio-economici; riflessioni sull'importanza degli
atteggiamenti e delle credenze delle
persone che mediano in contesti scolastici (cioè insegnanti, genitori e
bambini), in sintonia con i recenti modelli teorici ( ad es. l’approccio Life
Design ) che enfatizzano le narrazioni e le storie di vita; riflessioni sulla
necessità di utilizzare degli indici che tengano conto della loro complessità
quando si valutano le esperienze di inclusione, sull’ importanza di sostenere i
futuri professionisti e i loro sforzi
verso l'inclusione scolastica per evitare che l'eccessiva attenzione ai bisogni
educativi speciali si trasformi in una minaccia".
Nelle conclusioni , vengono riassunte alcune delle
nostre posizioni, sperando che possano contribuire a mantenere la questione
dell'inclusione al centro dell’ attenzione di quanti sono interessati a questo
ambito.
A key elements in the recent ministerial regulation is that in a classroom there are not only students with disabilities who require a “special attention”. There are also children who need a “special attention” because they are vulnerable from a social and cultural point of view, because of specific learning difficulties.
RispondiEliminaThe first thing that came up to my mind, as soon as I knew it, was the following.
Classrooms are more and more frequently characterized by heterogeneity. This means that, besides a child with intellectual disability or ADHD, it is quite common to find in a classroom:
a couple of students whose families are recently arrived in our country, so they do not know very well the local language and may have difficulties in communication;
a couple of students whose families are living a troublesome transition due to socio-economic crisis, so that it may interfere with attending school requirements and goals;
there may also be one or two students with reading difficulty or with learning problems in math.
Frequently, then, for up to one third, or even a half, of the classroom the Special Education Needs label could be applied. Half of them could then be labeled as “special” because of expected difficulties but not with reference to any special, truly special, ability they have.
Will this really be the best approach to meet school goals? To fulfill the goal of education? According to its etymology (E-ducere ), the meaning of this word is, in fact, to draw forth; helping develop positive and mind potentials inside a person, students in our case.
With these actions we are actually drawing out limitations, like in a diagnostic setting. And what makes it particularly striking is that school is not the place to make a diagnosis!!!
With these actions we are not actively involved in drawing out nor even in looking to the other half (the positive one) of the person.
Io credo che l’inclusione possa essere vista come il riconoscere la naturalezza della diversità, presente negli altri ed in noi stessi, e l’importanza dello stare CON queste diversità, il fatto che essa è risorsa per il cambiamento, inteso in senso evolutivo (Cit. Teoria dell’apprendimento come costruzione sociale).
RispondiEliminaSostengo l’idea che l’inclusione sia condivisione di diversi modi di apprendere e vivere, sia presa di coscienza delle diverse competenze presenti in ogni persona e sia quindi un’opportunità per l’accrescimento e la personalizzazione delle proprie risorse e strategie di problem solving.
Di conseguenza credo che un approccio tendente alla categorizzazione ed al sempre maggiore etichettamento, possa essere potenzialmente dannoso, ed è sicuramente svalutativo nei confronti delle risorse insite nelle diversità, di cui ho accennato sopra.
Germana Vallarsa
laureanda in Psicologia