Caught in the net: a Foucaultian interrogation of the incidental effects of limited notions of inclusion

Abstract

The Department of Education in the Australian state of Queensland promotes inclusiveness and states a commitment to all students achieving to their full potential (Inclusive Learning, 2004, p. 17). Paradoxically, comprehensive review of Queensland Government education department policy indicates the vision of inclusive education is subordinate to the problematic of ‘inclusion as calculus’ (Ware, 2002, p.149). Arguably the implications of conceptualising inclusive education via such limited notions of inclusion needs consideration. The question posed in this paper asks what effects the practices involved might have upon those children whose difference remains outside institutionally ‘recognised’ forms of Otherness1. Interestingly the psychiatric category at the foci of this discussion, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, is not deemed eligible for educational support in Queensland. Such avoidance through the non‐recognition of ADHD is remarkable given that diagnosis of ADHD and/or disruptive behaviour disorder is increasing across all states in Australia at an exponential rate (Davis et al., 2001; OECD, 2003; Prosser et al., 2002; Swan, 2000). So too is the prescription rate for stimulant medication (Mackey & Kopras, 2001). It appears then that any role schooling plays in the psycho‐pathologisation of children (Panksepp, 1998; Thomas & Glenny, 2000) is implicit in nature since there is no formal identification process responsible for locating ADHD/behaviour disorder in Queensland schools. Utilising a conceptual framework derived from the work of Foucault, this paper engages with this problematic to question what processes and practices might inform the construction of ‘disorderly’ schooling identities and further, may legitimise the differential treatment of such children within the Queensland context.

Notes

1. Here I am referring to the recognition (and non‐recognition) of modes of dis/ability within Education Queensland Ascertainment Procedures: as stated ‘Ascertainment … occurs once a student has a confirmed written diagnosis of an impairment in a disability category recognized and defined by Education Queensland for ascertainment, i. Autistic spectrum disorder (ASD), speech language impairment (SLI), intellectual impairment (IL), hearing impairment (HI), physical impairment (PI), and vision impairment (VI)’ (Ascertainment Revised Procedures, 2002, p. 4, added emphasis).

2. As this paper is in part derived from a current doctoral study that interrogates institutional and discursive practices within the Queensland context, Education Queensland policy comes under analysis. However, the argument being made can be extrapolated to any educational context using policy that relies on the psychological notion of the ‘norm’ and the identification and spatialization of children according to varying degrees of individual deficit.

3. In Australia, education remains the authority of State Governments. This means each state has a separate educational system and differences in pedagogy, governance and structure can be found between each. Currently, one point of difference relating to the Queensland system is that the compulsory school age does not begin until the year the child turns 6 years of age, at which point children enter Grade 1. Queensland currently offers 12 years of formal schooling, whereas in other states, such as New South Wales, 13 years of formal schooling is offered and children enter Kindergarten around 5 years of age to commence their first compulsory year of schooling. Queensland will be implementing a full‐time Preparatory year in 2007 to bring this state system more into line with other Australian states. However, enrolment in Prep will not be compulsory. In addition, Queensland differs in that the Primary years include Grades 1‐7 and Secondary school includes Grades 8‐12. New South Wales, for example, Primary includes K‐6 and Secondary is from 7‐12. The assessment/assessment practices and final examination schema are also unique to each state.

4. This is a reference to Foucault’s discussion of normalization as an instrument of modern disciplinary power in which normative practice ‘traces the limit that will define difference in relation to all other differences, the external frontier of the abnormal’ (Foucault, 1977, p. 183).

5. Safety is underlined in EQ Form Asc 02. The reason or symbolism of this underlining is not explained.

6. Interestingly, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Davis et al., 2001) observes a trend that lends credence to my assertion that schooling practices are contributing to the increasing rate of ADHD diagnosis. It notes that Australian diagnostic rates peak at age 5 (compulsory school age), remaining steady until decreasing around age 15. The argument that most children ‘grow out of ADHD’ could be used to explain this. However, the Australian Bureau of Statistics discusses the opportunity for lifestyle modification outside schooling to one more suitable for the individual where ‘a condition such as a learning difficulty may not appear to be such a problem and may then be less commonly reported’ (Davis et al., 2001, p. 6). Also, the authors note that outside of schooling, there is ‘no consistent agency such as a school to keep track of these young people’ (p. 6).

7. As Glass & Wegar (2000) elucidate in their study of teacher perceptions of the incidence of ADHD, individual interpretation of ADHD characteristics in school children is highly subjective and can be influenced by external factors such as class size and teaching philosophy.