3 Embracing uncertainty
There are two overarching ways to frame how we respond to the challenges of inclusion; one is based on a model of certainty and the other on a model of uncertainty (Rix, 2020). The former model is governed by the drive to divide things up into manageable parts (Toulmin, 2001); this is associated with traditional methods and special education where processes and structures seek and construct relative certainties for their systems to function; the latter is associated with inclusive approaches, which embrace ideas of doubt and accept that any position we take is momentary and shifting. The former model builds upon the grammars of schooling, those regular structures and rules that have traditionally organised the work of instruction, such as single teachers, subjects, classes, lessons, age-grades and testing (Tyack & Tobin, 1994); while in contrast the latter model represents an active, continuously incomplete and ongoing process (for example Flem & Keller, 2000; UNESCO IBE, 2008). As it appears in the literature, inclusive education reflects an ontological position which views practice as fundamentally uncertain and knowledge as being emergent and situated (Rix, 2020). From this perspective, understanding is always incomplete, there is no single correct way to support the learning of any child, and our thinking and conclusions must be questioned (Hart, 1996). It can be seen as a commitment to proactively eliminate barriers, to respond flexibly and to create change in the policies, practices and cultures of ‘regular’ schools (CRPD, 2016). It involves a change in the ‘behaviour’ of adults (Ainscow & Sandhill, 2010), adopting a pedagogy underpinned by a principle of transformability (Hart, 2010), evolving and changing continually (Hausstätter, 2014). Individual needs should not be ignored but addressed ‘within a larger framework of ‘we’ as a class’ (Bannink et al, 2019 p. 15). Inclusion can be regarded as a matter of how we define good education, with a beautiful risk at its heart (Biesta, 2010, 2015). This recognition of the uncertain fits with the notion of leadership as distributed across the context (and situation) in which it takes place; it fits with a notion of leadership emerging through interaction with other people and the environment, as a moment of agency which is supported within the context.
Activity 6: In support of doubt?
Read the following extract from:
Kraft, M. A., Papay, J. P., Johnson, S. M., Charner-Laird, M., Ng, M., & Reinhorn, S. (2015) ‘Educating amid uncertainty: The organizational supports teachers need to serve students in high-poverty, urban schools [Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. (Hide tip)] ’ (Read pp. 9–14 from Findings – stop at the reference Johnson et al., 2014).
As you read consider these questions:
- What is the nature of the uncertainty recognised in the study? What other areas of uncertainty do you think might be relevant in schools of which you have experience?
- Do you feel that that there can be greater certainty in some settings? Why or why not?
- In what way can more challenging circumstances open a wider variety of opportunities to take the lead?
- How should an understanding and recognition of uncertainty effect our practice? Spend some time thinking about how you could use uncertainty and doubt as a frame for resolving a school-based challenge.
- For example: How would you approach a problem?
- How would you resolve a problem?
- How would you view people involved within that situation?
Comment
In this paper the uncertainty is situated very much in the lives of the students and their communities, however it is also something which arises for numerous other reasons. Everyday relationships in the classroom are affected by all kinds of inter and intrapersonal factors as well as by issues arising from the physical space. There are also a great many institutional opportunities for uncertainty. An interesting example arises from the profoundly contradictory messages underpinning formal requirement for responding to a diverse classroom. Practitioners for example, have to deal with policy makers, teacher trainers and organisations like UNESCO (2020) saying they need to use methods for planning based on individual educational needs while at the same time calling for them to focus on all children. Allan (2008) identified a range of similar irresolvable contradiction that teachers face around: competencies, ways of working, the classroom focus, understandings about learners and how to support learning. All of these create the space for uncertainty and require teachers to accept that any semblance of certainty is either a mirage or will be short-lived. The teachers in the Kraft paper seemed to feel that there was less challenge in working in better resourced environments; another implication being that these spaces provided greater certainty. This notion of certainty however is not one which equates neatly to the uncertainty at the heart of inclusive practice or the beautiful risk which Biesta refers to.
Drawing on the model of uncertainty outlined by Rix (2020):
- Approaches associated with inclusion often begin with a presumption of uncertainty; perhaps accepting it or recognising it for what it is; perhaps seeking to confront it or thinking through it. This means you arrive wanting to question preconceptions about the situation and the context in which it has arisen. You acknowledge a situation’s uncertain relational nature and the interdependence of people within it. In seeking to explore or confront difficulties, challenges and opportunities you try to critically engage and reflect on the situation. This involves thinking in hypothetical ways, seeing the dilemmas which surround you or seeking pragmatic, proactive, reactive or radical pathways. One can recognise difficulties within a system as an experience for all involved. As Florian (2015) suggests an experience can be individualised but it will be primarily socially-situated.
- To move beyond doubt you need to find possibilities. These possibilities can only arise from the situation in which you are. This requires developing an understanding of the context, accepting its relational nature – both in terms of personal and cultural relationships. This is perhaps why Allan (2008) talks of the unpredictability of learning, the search for something undecidable taking place within an ethically rich drama. It is perhaps why she calls for teachers to create openings for inclusion.
- To enable the creation of these openings, we benefit from the perspectives of others who have an insight into the experience. This develops a collective view of the experience, and it involves us in asking questions of the people and the systems. This is perhaps why approaches associated with inclusion call for collaborative models of teaching and learning, though this comes in many forms (Solis et al, 2012). It is also perhaps why educators and learners need to move from being ‘participators within’ to ‘contributors to’ educational spaces (Veck, 2009).
- Out of this collective focus, a possible way forward will emerge, one that is not defined in a fixed way, but has expectations and recognises the uncertainty of any solution and the need to continue questioning. Conclusions which we may come to will be recognised as momentary positions (Benjamin et al., 2003). Things will not fit neatly. They will be positioned amongst opportunities and risks. Responses will need to be flexible within the possible disorder. We will be dealing with shifting positions with porous boundaries.
It is hopefully clear, why at the heart of such an approach is a constant engagement with risk. ‘Valid’ participation is not situated in a singular or neatly defined space. It is based on continual negotiation, with participants needing to move to where others are. To lead in this situation requires a willingness to embrace the risk inherent in being open to the power of participants, in how one conceives of and delivers support, and in how one recognises the voice of all those within that learning context (Rix, 2021).
The Kraft article also concludes that individual teachers could not single-handedly manage the challenges they faced, but that organisational responses varied greatly. This meant that in some schools teachers’ ideas and expertise was drawn upon to develop solutions, while in others there was a top-down, instrumental approach to their contributions and they had to follow practices identified by senior management. This variability seemed to be another example of uncertainty in practice. You will explore this issue of context a little more.