The Impact on Able-Bodied Pupils of Inclusive Education and their Engagement with Inclusive Design

Introduction

Discussions around inclusive education often centre the benefits and experiences of disabled children within mainstream education. While this focus is expected due to those children being the primary beneficiaries, the benefits of an inclusive education are not limited to the experiences of disabled pupils. This essay will look at the secondary impact of the inclusion of disabled pupils, more specifically physically impaired pupils, within the schooling system, Design & Technology (D&T) and the success of ‘inclusive design’ projects conducted by able-bodied pupils.

The State of Inclusion in Schools

To set the groundwork for this discussion, we must first look at the current state of inclusion within mainstream schooling. What does ‘inclusive education’ mean, and what does it look like? Colin Barnes argues that ‘Integration is not simply a question of being placed in the same groups or institutions as others. It is a process which requires continued and planned interaction, particularly in mainstream schools’ (1991:46). This process of integration or inclusion is not an overnight process and requires continued environmental and social change to meet the needs of disabled students and to break down stigmas.

The primary barrier to the inclusion of physically impaired people in education is access to facilities, whether that be to physical classrooms, online facilities, or ability to use tools and equipment. The resolutions to these barriers are dependent on the age of the school buildings (Barnes, 1991) and the funding for adjusting facilities.

The secondary barrier is the attitudes of able-bodied pupils and staff towards physically disabled people. These ‘negative ideas about disability are generated by the social and economic structures we live under and reinforced by pervasive cultural references that portray disability as a tragedy’ (Clifford, 2020:24). Ellen Clifford argues that society’s aversion to disability and impairment is a learned viewpoint that is not inherent to the human condition. As with anything that is learnt, these attitudes can be unlearnt, and Clifford suggests that childhood experiences play an important role in the development of people’s attitudes. (Clifford, 2020).

Both of these issues require political will and financial support to be resolved, neither of which been provided over the past decade, starting with the 2010 Conservative Party election pledge to ‘end the bias’ towards the inclusion of students with Special Education Needs & Disabilities (SEND) within mainstream schools. On top of welfare cuts, has led to disabled people being pushed out of mainstream education into ‘special schools’ where they are less likely to obtain the same educational opportunities or life experiences required to be fully active members of society (Clifford, 2020). This political movement is also a rollback from internationally accepted approach to the education of disabled people, where UN ‘Member states should adopt policies which recognise the rights of disabled persons to equal educational opportunities with others. The education of disabled persons should as far as possible take place in the general school system’ (UN General Assembly, 1982).

Inclusive Design without Inclusive Education

In a context where mainstream schooling fails to be inclusive to disabled people, an environment is created where social connections between able-bodied and physically impaired pupils cannot easily occur; either they do not exist or happen very infrequently. This raises interesting questions within D&T where ‘inclusive design’ or design that is aimed to meet the needs of disabled people is found within the curriculum. Work within the Architecture Department of UC Berkeley in 1979/80 looked at ‘Architectural Design with the Physically Disabled in Mind’ (Lifchez, 1987:3). While this project looked specifically at architectural design within a university context, the finding relating to designing for disabled people are still relevant. The project found that students who did not have personal experiences with disabled people ‘leaned towards stereotyped images of disability and tended to work less with the consultants’ (Lifchez, 1987:60–61).

The lack of mundane interaction with disabled people, with interactions often being limited to those disabled people who occupy a consultant role, pupils view the issues that physically impaired people face as niche or isolated. The design questions being asked are reserved to a marginal academic exercise, rather than part of the mainstream considerations any designer must include (Lifchez, 1987:54). This abstraction of disability and the needs of physically impaired people also leads to students relying on stereotypes, such as: viewing dependency as intrinsic to disability, a narrative which is a product of the institutionalisation of disabled people (Oliver, 1990:85); and viewing disabled people through a ‘medical model’ lens where their impairments and bodies are something that need to be ‘fixed’ (Oliver, 1990:5). Both of these responses miss the core goal of inclusive design which is around barrier removal, where design products and interventions do not exist to facilitate accessing the able-bodied world, but rather shaping the world to include the experiences of disabled people at its core (Finkelstein, 1993:41).

The Case for Inclusion & The Socialisation of Disabled People

‘Education for all is not education for some children some of the time.’ (Rioux, 2014:10)

The primary effect of an inclusive mainstream education is the socialisation of disabled people and reduction of stigmas relating to disability and impairment. In M. B. Bury’s analysis of disability, ‘impairments’ are seen as factual, functional limitations; ‘disability’ is objectified as the activity restrictions, which can be mitigated through assistance, equipment, and so forth; and finally, ‘handicap’ is the socialisation of disabled people as being disadvantaged (1979). The question of handicap is what shapes the stereotypical responses to the question of inclusive design, where disability is seen as a societal tragedy and disabled people as the victims (Oliver, 1990), where disabled people are seen as ‘socially dead’ and unable to live independently or be gainful employed (Finkelstein, 1993).

The response to this within education, known as ‘Cripping the curriculum’, would see mainstream education providing analytical views of disability that would facilitate the deconstruction of these negative views as well as facilitating opportunities for new connections that would normalise impairments as integral to the human condition (Connor, 2014). This socialisation also provides the added effect of providing real world applications to subject knowledge relating to disability. Within the context of D&T, this would be inclusive design. This individual connection between the student and the subject matter, Deanna Kuhn argues, would increase student motivation to engage with the topic (2007).

Learning Through Observation & Baseline Knowledge

The socialisation of disabled people within mainstream education provides an opportunity for able-bodied students to learn through observation, informal discussion and peer-to-peer learning. This provides greater opportunities for students to expand their base knowledge on the topic of disability, seeing it not purely as a list of requirements and needs, but as shared experiences (Davis, 1987), expanding their schemata, allowing it to be more developed and refined on the specific topic (Burton, 2019).

This greater prior knowledge combined with the increased relevance and motivation for the pupil means that they will have a greater understanding overall of the needs, experiences and considerations for disabled people not just within life generally but also within specific educational settings like inclusive design (Burton, 2019).

Evidence of this approach being successful within the context of inclusive design can be found in the conclusions of the aforementioned project at UC Berkeley, where students who had ‘befriended, worked with or otherwise been engaged with a physically disabled person did the best work in the studio’ (Lifchez, 1987:60–61). Similar results were found with students who had a family member or close friend with an impairment with them being most knowledgeable about disability, though this knowledge limited their openness to other viewpoints or design solutions (Lifchez, 1987).

Inclusive Design with Inclusive Education

Within an education system that is inclusive and fully integrates disabled people into the mainstream experience, able-bodied pupils will come to a number of conclusions which will shape how they approach inclusive design. Primarily they will understand the ‘special needs of physically disabled people as a particularly pointed and complex instance of a universal concept: every client has some special needs or preferences’ (Lifchez, 1987:54). Additionally, that there are a range of experiences of being disabled, and that disabled people are not a homogenous group (Davis, 1987). Following on from that, it is important to understand that due to this diversity, disabled people are not inherently experts when it comes to barrier free or accessible design for all impairments (Davis, 1987).

Ultimately, each specific disabled person is aware of what their individual needs are (Sarkissian, 1987) and it is important to understand that designed solutions, equipment or aids may not be the best solution to someone’s need, as a self-help approach can often be more inconvenient than providing human assistance (French, 1993). With all of these changes it is hoped that students will see the value in the content knowledge around inclusive design and will facilitate the long-term success of this learning (Kuhn, 2007).

Reflections

As discussed in ‘The State of Inclusion in Schools’, inclusion of physically impaired people within the mainstream education is limited by political and financial factors which prevent lasting and systemic change throughout the sector. This limitation prevents the overall goal of an education for all being achieved in the current circumstance. However, this does not mean that we as teaching professionals should accept defeat, or that we should not work to improve inclusivity within our classrooms. I have broken my personal approach to this into four categories: barrier removal in Design & Technology; creating an inclusive environment’ providing opportunities for peer-to-peer learning; and integration of inclusive design.

Barrier Removal in Design & Technology

Primarily there is the question of removing the physical barriers for engagement within D&T. Approaches could include: providing lowered tables or workbenches for wheelchair users; creating specific jigs to aid students with reduced muscle strength; providing equipment with larger buttons or handles if the student has reduced dexterity; or by simply providing in person assistance to facilitate the student’s tasks. All of these adjustments must be decided in consultation with the student in question in order to ensure that they adequately meet the needs and aspirations of the pupil, and do not rely on stereotypes or generalised adjustments for any specific impairment.

For many physically impaired students, adjustments may not be significant as they may have already developed ways of working round barriers; however, steps should still be taken to remove barriers in the first instance. Another option to mitigate the impact of barriers is for students to work in groups, allowing students to play off each other’s strengths and providing an opportunity for students to strengthen each other’s understanding and work.

Creating an Inclusive Environment

Barrier removal allows disabled students to enter and work within the classroom, but alone it does not address the issues of socialised othering, stigma and aversion to disabled students from abled bodied students. This stigma can be reduced by providing diverse examples when talking about potential clients, workers and processes. Socialisation of disabled students can also be achieved by providing opportunities for informal group discussion which facilitate the sharing of personal experiences and how that may influence each student’s work.

To ensure that disabled students feel comfortable within the classroom and do not face discrimination it is important to communicate what behaviour is acceptable early on. Where behaviour from a student is classified as discriminatory, this should be taken as a learning opportunity, to widen students understanding of why that behaviour was unacceptable as well as providing analytical views of disability.

Providing opportunities for Peer-to-peer learning

Peer-to-peer learning is one of the key teaching methods that, throughout my architectural education, I found to provide open discussion of design ideas and to facilitate the creation of more innovative solutions. Peer-to-peer learning also allows students to share their personal experiences and viewpoints on specific issues, which as previously discussed could include disabled students talking about their needs or able-bodied pupils talking about the needs, observations and understanding found through interacting with friends or family who may be disabled.

Integration of Inclusive Design

The key factor to inclusive design is ensuring that students do not see it purely as an academic exercise, but rather view inclusive products as inherently more successful and not limiting to their creativity. This can be achieved through the socialisation of disabled people within education as previously discussed but also by embedding inclusive design throughout the whole curriculum. For instance, while analysing existing products, pointing out inclusive design features that may not be initially apparent, as many of these features are either subtle, or because they are equally of benefit to able-bodied people they are no longer acknowledged as inclusive design. A hob cooker, for example, was initially designed as cooking equipment for wheelchair users who required empty space under the counter.

This integration of inclusive design throughout the subject will ensure that it is not seen as an unnecessary add-on. Combined with socialisation and peer-to-peer learning, students will have the background knowledge and motivation to positively engage with the course content, ensuring that the products they design, and produce are more inclusive and in turn successful.

Conclusion

Inclusive education is primarily framed in terms of benefitting disabled people within the education system, but I believe that this benefit also extends to able-bodied students who have their experiences and knowledge enriched by the social interaction, shared experiences and observations with their physically impaired peers. This enrichment provides a greater understanding of disability while also reducing societal stigma, both of which can be applied to and incorporated within teaching and student’s subject knowledge. Within D&T specifically this base knowledge and understanding allows students to better understand they key principles of inclusive design, understanding that designing for disabled people is not to design gadgets to make them appear able-bodied, but rather to design interventions that facilitate their lives, in consultation with them as with any client, in turn creating a more successful final product.

References

Barnes, C. (1990) ‘Cabbage Syndrome’ The social construction of dependence. Basingstoke: Falmer

Barnes, C. (1991) Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination A Case for Anti-Discrimination Legislation. London: Hurst

Burton, D. (2019) ‘Ways Pupils Learn’ In Capel, S., Leask, M., and Younie, S. (eds.) Learning to teach in the in the Secondary School. 8th ed., London: Routledge, pp. 293–307.

Bury, M. B. (1979) ‘Disablement in society.’ International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 2,1, pp. 34–40

Campbell, J. and Oliver, M. (1996) Disability Politics. London: Routledge

Clifford, E. (2020) The War on Disabled People Capitalism, Welfare and the Making of a Human Catastrophe. London: Zed

Connor, D. J. (2014) ‘Social Justice in Education for Students with Disabilities.’ In Florian, L. (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Special Education: Two Volume Set., London: Sage, pp. 111–128.

Corker, M. (1993) ‘Integration and deaf people: the policy and power of enabling environments’ In Swain, J., Finkelstein, V., French, S., and Oliver, M. (eds.) Disabling Barriers — Enabling Environments., London: Sage, pp. 145–154.

Davis, C. (1987) ‘Using the User Well’ In Lifchez, R. (ed.) Rethinking Architecture Design Students and Physically Disabled People., London: University of California, pp. 81–96.

Dymoke, S. (2013) ‘An Overview of Learning’. In Dymoke, S. (ed.) Reflective teaching and learning in the secondary school. 2nd ed., London: Sage, pp. 47–72.

Finkelstein, V. (1993) ‘Disability: a social challenge or an administrative responsibility’ In Swain, J., Finkelstein, V., French, S., and Oliver, M. (eds.) Disabling Barriers — Enabling Environments., London: Sage, pp. 34–43.

French, S. (1993) ‘What’s so great about independence?’ In Swain, J., Finkelstein, V., French, S., and Oliver, M. (eds.) Disabling Barriers — Enabling Environments., London: Sage, pp. 44–48.

Kuhn, D. (2007) ‘Is Direct Instruction an Answer to the Right Question?’ Educational Psychologist, 42(2) pp. 109–113.

Lifchez, R. (1987) ‘Clients as People’ In Lifchez, R. (ed.) Rethinking Architecture Design Students and Physically Disabled People., London: University of California, pp. 53–66.

Lifchez, R. (1987) ‘Introduction’ In Lifchez, R. (ed.) Rethinking Architecture Design Students and Physically Disabled People., London: University of California, pp. 1–10.

Oliver, M. (1990) The politics of disablement. Basingstoke: Macmillan

Rioux, M. (2014) ‘Disability Rights in Education.’ In Florian, L. (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Special Education: Two Volume Set., London: Sage, pp. 131–147.

Sarkissian, W. (1987) ‘How the Students Saw It’ In Lifchez, R. (ed.) Rethinking Architecture Design Students and Physically Disabled People., London: University of California, pp. 135–154.

Silburn, R. (1988) Disabled People: Their Needs and Priorities. Benefits Research Unit, Departments of Social Policy and Administration, University of Nottingham

UN General Assembly. (1982) World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons. 3rd December 1982, A/RES/37/52