Inclusion in Early Childhood: Difference, Disability, and Social Justice

IF 0.4 0 RELIGION Religion & Education Pub Date : 2020-11-24 DOI:10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0265
K. Underwood, Gillian Parekh
{"title":"Inclusion in Early Childhood: Difference, Disability, and Social Justice","authors":"K. Underwood, Gillian Parekh","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Inclusive education as a model of service delivery arose out of disability activism and critiques of special education. To understand inclusive education in early childhood, however, one must also engage with broader questions of difference, diversity, and social justice as they intersect with childhood studies. To that end, this article contains references that include other critical discourses on childhood and inclusivity as well as critiques of inclusive education. Inclusive education has a much deeper body of research in formal school settings than in the early years. School-based research, however, often examines social relationships and academic achievement as outcome measures. This research has established that education situated in a child’s community and home school is generally more effective than special education settings, particularly when classroom educators have access to appropriate training, resources, policies, and leadership. Schools, of course, are part of the education landscape of the early years, but they are not inclusive of the full spectrum or early years settings. The early years literature on inclusion is different in focusing more attention on development, family, and community (as described in the General Overview of Early Childhood Inclusion). A critique of early childhood education research has focused on school readiness and rehabilitation and the efficacy of early identification and early intervention. This research is largely informed by Western medical research, but this approach has led global institutions to set out priorities for early intervention without recognizing how our worldview shapes our understanding of childhood and difference. The dominant research domain, however, has also identified that family and community contexts are important. This recognition creates a fundamental difference between inclusion research in school settings and such research in early childhood education and care. Early childhood education and care has always focused on the child and their family as the recipients of services, while educational interest in the family has been viewed as a setting in which the conditions for learning are established. Support for families is at the center of early childhood inclusive practice, both because families are largely responsible for seeking out early childhood disability services and because families are critical in children’s identity. Inclusion in schools and early childhood education and care can both be understood through theories of disability, ability, and capability. In both settings, education and care have social justice aims linked not only to developmental and academic outcomes for individual children, but also to the ways that these programs reproduce inequality. Disability as a social phenomenon has its historical roots in racist and colonial practices, understood through critical race theory, that are evident today in both early childhood and school settings. Understanding the links between disableism and other forms of discrimination and oppression is critical both for teaching for social justice broadly and for better understanding of how ability, capability, and critical disability theory and childhood studies are established through practices that begin in the early years.","PeriodicalId":43359,"journal":{"name":"Religion & Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religion & Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0265","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Inclusive education as a model of service delivery arose out of disability activism and critiques of special education. To understand inclusive education in early childhood, however, one must also engage with broader questions of difference, diversity, and social justice as they intersect with childhood studies. To that end, this article contains references that include other critical discourses on childhood and inclusivity as well as critiques of inclusive education. Inclusive education has a much deeper body of research in formal school settings than in the early years. School-based research, however, often examines social relationships and academic achievement as outcome measures. This research has established that education situated in a child’s community and home school is generally more effective than special education settings, particularly when classroom educators have access to appropriate training, resources, policies, and leadership. Schools, of course, are part of the education landscape of the early years, but they are not inclusive of the full spectrum or early years settings. The early years literature on inclusion is different in focusing more attention on development, family, and community (as described in the General Overview of Early Childhood Inclusion). A critique of early childhood education research has focused on school readiness and rehabilitation and the efficacy of early identification and early intervention. This research is largely informed by Western medical research, but this approach has led global institutions to set out priorities for early intervention without recognizing how our worldview shapes our understanding of childhood and difference. The dominant research domain, however, has also identified that family and community contexts are important. This recognition creates a fundamental difference between inclusion research in school settings and such research in early childhood education and care. Early childhood education and care has always focused on the child and their family as the recipients of services, while educational interest in the family has been viewed as a setting in which the conditions for learning are established. Support for families is at the center of early childhood inclusive practice, both because families are largely responsible for seeking out early childhood disability services and because families are critical in children’s identity. Inclusion in schools and early childhood education and care can both be understood through theories of disability, ability, and capability. In both settings, education and care have social justice aims linked not only to developmental and academic outcomes for individual children, but also to the ways that these programs reproduce inequality. Disability as a social phenomenon has its historical roots in racist and colonial practices, understood through critical race theory, that are evident today in both early childhood and school settings. Understanding the links between disableism and other forms of discrimination and oppression is critical both for teaching for social justice broadly and for better understanding of how ability, capability, and critical disability theory and childhood studies are established through practices that begin in the early years.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
幼儿包容:差异、残疾和社会正义
全纳教育作为一种服务提供模式产生于残疾人运动和对特殊教育的批评。然而,要理解幼儿期的全纳教育,我们还必须研究与儿童研究相关的更广泛的差异、多样性和社会正义问题。为此,本文包含的参考文献包括其他关于童年和包容性的批判性话语以及对包容性教育的批评。与早期相比,在正规学校环境中,全纳教育的研究要深入得多。然而,以学校为基础的研究往往将社会关系和学业成就作为衡量结果的标准。这项研究表明,儿童社区和家庭学校的教育通常比特殊教育环境更有效,特别是当课堂教育者有机会获得适当的培训、资源、政策和领导时。学校,当然,是早期教育景观的一部分,但他们不包括全谱或早期设置。早期关于包容的文献是不同的,它更关注发展、家庭和社区(如《幼儿包容概览》中所述)。对幼儿教育研究的批评集中在入学准备和康复以及早期识别和早期干预的功效上。这项研究在很大程度上是由西方医学研究提供的信息,但这种方法导致全球机构在没有认识到我们的世界观如何影响我们对童年和差异的理解的情况下,为早期干预制定了优先事项。然而,主要的研究领域也确定了家庭和社区背景的重要性。这种认识使学校环境中的包容性研究与幼儿教育和照料方面的包容性研究之间产生了根本的区别。幼儿教育和照料一向以儿童及其家庭作为服务的接受者为重点,而对家庭的教育兴趣则被视为建立学习条件的环境。对家庭的支持是幼儿包容性实践的核心,这既是因为家庭在很大程度上负责寻求幼儿残疾服务,也是因为家庭对儿童的身份认同至关重要。学校包容和幼儿教育和照料都可以通过残疾、能力和能力理论来理解。在这两种情况下,教育和护理都有社会公正的目标,不仅与个别儿童的发展和学业成绩有关,而且与这些项目再现不平等的方式有关。残疾作为一种社会现象,其历史根源在于种族主义和殖民实践,通过批判的种族理论来理解,这在今天的幼儿和学校环境中都很明显。了解残疾与其他形式的歧视和压迫之间的联系对于广泛的社会正义教学以及更好地理解如何通过早期开始的实践建立能力、能力和关键残疾理论和儿童研究至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
50 Years of Religion & Education: The Origins of the Journal and the Interdisciplinary Study of Religion and Education Religion, Education, and the Future of Democratic Pluralism Review: Spirituality That Makes a Difference, by Charles R. Kniker, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2022; ISBN: 978-1-6667-1789-1 “One More Thing”: Clarifying the Evidence Around Christian Privilege in Higher Education Catholic and Public Schools Compared: Examining Achievement Growth in an Urban Center
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1