When reflecting upon what an inclusive classroom is, your mind normally jumps to the inclusion of learners with Special Educational Needs and/or Disability (SEND) and how their needs are being met in a way that minimizes barriers to whole class participation. Although this, of course, is an imperative element to the inclusive classroom, it doesn’t stop there.
The Department for Education’s (DfE) Teachers’ Standard 5 states that teachers must ‘adapt teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all pupils’. Therefore, it is important to remember that, as seen in the Index for Inclusion School Guidelines, the reduction of barriers to learning and participation should be made for all pupils, not only those with impairments or SEND.
Within education, the terms ‘inclusion’, ‘diversity’ and ‘difference’ can take on many denotations. In this blog, they are discussed within the context of whole class differentiated developmental stages.
(Chen, 2017)
During my time on School Based Training 1 (SBT1), I was training in what is called a ‘vertically grouped’ classroom – where I was teaching both years 1 and 2 simultaneously. To which my first response was:
“How will I be able to accommodate lessons appropriate to both the curriculum guidelines at once, without excluding one year or the other?”
Inclusion within school is something I have always been passionate about achieving and since completing my BA Degree on ‘SEND and Inclusion Studies’ I have felt it has been in the forefront of any planning and classroom thinking I have done. Hence, it was important for me to research and carefully consider the best approaches that this new challenge of teaching a mixed year group class may present.
With the limitations to this classroom approach in mind, I quickly began to see how, in this school, vertically grouped years really did work in the best interest of the learners. By viewing the differences between the pupils as resources to support learning, rather than as problems to be overcome. This child-centred approach (IBE, 2019) I was witnessing had emphasis on the overall development of the pupils rather than solely on their academic achievements. The classes were mixed throughout most of the day, accessing the same input with differentiated tasks/activities set afterwards, for all subjects’ bar Phonics.
Mixed, whole class input allows for an effective use of ‘Talk Partners’ – a strategy that teachers can use for Assessment for Learning (AfL). Using the teacher’s professional judgement, learners are paired Yr1-Yr2, in ways that are vertically beneficial for both of their needs.
(TES, 2019)
This use of inclusive group work was shown to have a range of benefits for the learners. From promoting increased social interactions between different groups (stages, backgrounds, interests etc.) of pupils to developing the skills of high-ability pupils who were key to effective mixed-ability group functioning – allowing all learners to access tasks at a higher level. This has an immediate and obvious relay of enhancing self-esteem and motivation within the classroom for learners at all developmental stages.
A limitation to the inclusivity of vertically grouped classrooms was seen when ‘age appropriate’ tasks took place. For example, in Maths, the year 2 curriculum differs enough from year 1 to need a classroom divide. This is something I observed the class teacher in a constant struggle with when planning for Maths lessons. Needing to cater for both year groups, and then the differentiations within those year groups, seemed to be a challenge we faced planning for each session. As a result, teachers tend to have to teach input at a whole class level to an ‘imaginary average’ (HMI, 1978), which is too challenging for lower attainers and not challenging and therefore disengaging to the higher attainers.
This is where it really comes down to the way in which teachers do things, rather than what they do. Florian, (2017) argues that teachers are adept at responsiveness to each individual need within the process of teaching and so the organisation of learner support through the input is essential to ensure all pupils can access the information. Due to this, along with the age range of the learners, whole class input is kept short and as interactive as possible so that the teacher can use her knowledge and skills to differentiate, support and challenge the pupils appropriately during task work.
This approach allows for choice participation, rather than setting work for pupils based solely on teacher judgment, learners can choose from a range of differentiated lesson options, produced based on the knowledge of pupils in their class – their interests, needs and abilities. These individual needs are then met without pre-determining or limiting learning that may be possible and support through teacher and peer ‘scaffolding’ (Wood et al., 1976) can be accessed wherever necessary. This meant that any year 1 pupils that were able to access more challenging year 2 work were able to do so by choice (or with a bit of encouragement). As well as year 2 pupils still working at a year 1 curriculum in areas, were able to do so without being excluded from the task – or even the classroom!
(Engage, 2018)
I believe that this kind of inclusive classroom environment enables teachers and learners to adopt what Dr. Dweck (2017) pinpointed as a ‘Growth Mindset’. Creating an environment where we are thinking about learning as a shared activity for all pupils to develop different knowledge, skills and experiences, encouraging comfort in trial and improvement and striving for higher attainment regardless of their learner ‘diversity’ or ‘difference’.
The practice of inclusive education varies widely and coexists with the practices of those who disagree or resist the idea claiming it will disrupt the education of others. However, for myself, I consider a learner’s age, ability, special and/or additional need or developmental level, as aspects of their identities that I won’t let pre-judge their attainment possibilities. I will continue my journey as a teacher, striving for an inclusive classroom for all, valuing pupil diversity and differences, supporting all learners and continuing my professional development by reminding myself that ‘inclusion is a response to all learner diversity’. (EiA, 2014)
References
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, London: Ballantine Books.
Engage. (2018). How to Engage Teams with a Growth Mindset. [Online]. Available at: https://www.achievers.com/blog/2018/09/how-to-engage-teams-with-a-growth-mindset/ > [Accessed 12/01/19].
Education In Action. (2014). Empowering Teachers: Empowering Learners. [Online]. Available at: http://www.inclusive-education-in-action.org/ [Accessed 12/01/19].
Florian, L. (2017). Prof. Lani Florian – Inclusive Pedagogy. [YouTube]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeeDwzZwTj8 [Accessed 12/01/19]
HM Inspectors of Schools. (1978). Primary Education in England. [Online]. Available at: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/hmi-primary/hmi-primary.html [Accessed 13/01/19].
International Bureau of Education. (2019). Child-centred approach. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/glossary-curriculum-terminology/c/child-centred-approach [Accessed 12/01/19].
Wood, D. Bruner, J. Ross, G. (1976). THE ROLE OF TUTORING IN PROBLEM SOLVING. [Online]. Available at: https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/topics/scaffolding [Accessed 13/01/19].
