1

New Frontiers of the Capability Approach

F. Comim, S, Fennel and P. B. Anand (Eds.) (2018). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

23

Other People’s Adaptations Teaching Children with Special Educational Needs to Adapt and to Aspire

CristinaDevecchiandMichaelWatts

Introduction

BothSenandNussbaumvieweducationasabasiccapability.Ithasinstrumentaland

intrinsicvaluebecauseitcanbevaluableandcanalsobeaninstrumentforthe

developmentandbroadeningofothercapabilities.Itisthereforepivotaltothe

achievementofsociallyacceptedvaluablefunctioningsandfunctioningsthattheindividual

hasreasontovalue.Education,initsinstrumentalsense,affordstheindividualboththe

basictoolsofliteracyandnumeracy,andthehigherorderskillsofmakinginformed

decisionsthroughtheabilityofthinkingcriticallyaboutone’ssituation.Inthislattersense,

2

educationformsthebasisforself-determinationandthefulfilmentofwhateachindividual

hasreasontovalueinthelifetheywanttolead.

Yeteducationcanalsobeabarriertothebroadeningofcapabilitiesandthe

achievementoffunctionings.Barrierscantakemanyforms:theycanbeofacurricular

nature;theycanbeingrainedinthestructureofschoolingandthewaysinwhichsettingby

abilityandassessmentproceduresmarginalisestudents;theycanbedeterminedby

changesinpolicy;andfinally,throughtheprocessofeducation,studentscanlearntoadapt

theirpreferencesandrationaliseandjustifytheverybarrierstotheirownwell-being.

Theadaptivepreferenceproblemiscentraltothecritiquesofutilitarianapproaches

towell-beingputforwardbySenandNussbaumintheirjustificationsofthecapability

approach(Sen,1992,1999;Nussbaum,2000).Theyarguethatpeopletendtoadapttheir

preferencesunderunfavourablecircumstancesandthattheutilitarianconcernwith

preferencesatisfactionthereforefailstoaccountforthedistortedinterpretationsofwell-

beingframedbydeprivation.Inthissense,adaptivepreferencescanbeseenasthesalience

ofwhatpeoplearemadetopreferoverwhattheyactuallyprefer.Thecapabilityliterature

typicallyconsidersadaptivepreferencesasself-abnegation(Sen,1992,1999;Nussbaum,

2000)andresignation(TeschlandComim,2005)ratherthanthesourgrapesphenomenon

describedbyElster(1983).Educationalstructurescangenerateadaptations,leadingyoung

peopletoacceptandinternaliseexternalconstraintsthatlimittheirpotentialtochooseand

leadtheeducationalgoodlife(Walker,2006;UnterhalterandWalker,2007;Watts,2007,

2013).Thecapabilityapproachengageswiththisproblembyaddressingnotonlywhat

individualsvaluebutwhattheyhavereasontovalue.Nevertheless,althougheducationcan

3

playacriticalpartinchallengingadaptations,theprocessesofschoolingcandiscipline

studentsintoself-denialandtherenunciationofaspirationsforabetterlife.

Respectforhumandiversityisfundamentaltothecapabilityapproachandsocare

mustbetakenwhenconsideringadaptivepreferences(Nussbaum,2000;Wattsand

Bridges,2006;Clark,2009;Watts,2009).Werecognisethatmanyteachersstrivetoraise

theaspirationsoftheirstudents,ofteninthefaceofconsiderabledifficulties(nottheleast

ofwhichmaybetheindifferenceofthosestudentstotheireducation).However,thepart

thatteacherscanplayinproducingandreproducingenvironmentsinwhichstudentsadapt

theirpreferencesaregenerallywell-recognised.Think,forexample,oftheteacherwho,

directlyorindirectly,constantlyunderminesthestudent,perhaps(usingaphrasecommon

inschoolsinEngland)bytellingherthatshe,theteacher,haslowexpectationsofher.

Undersuchcircumstances,thestudentmaywellcometoadapthereducational

preferences,internalisingtherestrictiveexternalitiesandresigningherselftothose

structurallimitations.Inthischapter,weseektoextendthisargumentbysuggestingthat

suchcircumstancesnotonlyleadtotheadaptationofthestudent’seducationalpreferences

buttothoseofherteachersaswell.Wepresumethatraisingtheaspirationsoftheir

studentsisacentralaspectofteachers’professionalidentities.Thatis,itissomethingthey

shouldvalueandhavereasontovalueor,inthelanguageofthecapabilityapproach,a

professionalcapability.Itfollowsfromthisthatresignationtocircumstancesinhibitingthat

professionalcapabilitytoencouragetheeducationalflourishingofstudentsconstitutesan

adaptivepreferencethatdetractsfromthewell-beingoftheteachersaswell.

Weconsiderthisargumenthereinthecontextofeducationalprovisionforchildren

andyoungpeoplewithdisabilitiesand/orspecialeducationalneeds(SEN)inEngland.

4

Nussbaumobservesthatprejudiceagainstchildrenwithdisabilitiescanpreventan

accurateunderstandingofwhattheycanachieve(2006:189)andisunequivocalinher

defenceofhumanflourishingasthemetricforallpeople,including–or,perhaps,especially

–thosewithdisabilities:

usingadifferentlistofcapabilitiesorevenadifferentthresholdof

capabilityastheappropriatesocialgoalforpeoplewithimpairmentsis

practicallydangerous,becauseitisaneasywayofgettingoffthehook,by

assumingfromthestartthatwecannotorshouldnotmeetagoalthatwould

bedifficultandexpensivetomeet…Treatmentsandprogramsshouldindeed

beindividualised,asindeedtheyoughttobeforallchildren.Butforpolitical

purposesitisgenerallyreasonabletoinsistthatthecentralcapabilitiesare

veryimportantforallcitizens(2006:190).

Elsewhere(2000)shesuggeststhatacertainwarinessisrequiredwhendealingwith

children’scapabilitiesandarguesthatwell-beingassessmentsshouldbeconcernedwith

theachievementofthosefunctionings–includingeducationalfunctionings–thatwill

enablethematureindividualtomakeherownchoices.Nevertheless,itisreasonableto

positacounterfactualquestionatthispoint:Wouldchildrenwithdisabilitiesand/orSEN

optforareducededucationiftheyhadthefreedomtochooseamorecompleteone?

Deneulinnotesthat‘humanfreedomandchoicecannotbeseparatedfromhistory

andcommunity’andsoattentionmustbepaidtothe‘collectiveandhistoricalprocesses

whichunderpinallhumanchoicesandaffecttheconditionsinwhichhumanwell-beingcan

bepromoted’(2006:209,originalemphases).Wethereforebeginthischapterwithan

overviewoftheSENagenda,notingthatittendstoreifythedistinctionsitwasintendedto

5

negate,andaddressthepartthatpedagogicstructuresplayinproducingandreproducing

potentialadaptations.WethenconsiderhowtheconstructionofSENprovidesaframeof

referencefortraineeteachersandaddressthewaysinwhichtheycanbecomeresignedto

operatingwithinsuchrestrictivestructuresandsocontributetotheadaptivepreferences

oftheirstudents.Thethirdpartofthechapterextendsthisargumentbyconsideringhow

theexpectationsofteacherscaninhibittheirowncapabilities.Thatis,wequestionhowthe

teachers’resignationtothereducedcapabilitiesoftheirstudentscanleadtoprocessesof

adaptationthatreducestheirownqualityoflifeastheycometotermswithan

impoverishedinterpretationofteaching.

The Bumpy Road towards Inclusion as Fertile Grounds for Sowing The Seeds of Adaptive Preferences

Attheinternationallevel,theconceptofinclusionisenshrinedintheSalamancaStatement

whichstatesthat‘allchildrenshouldlearntogether,wheneverpossible,regardlessofany

difficultiesordifferencesthattheymighthave’(UNESCO,1994:11).TheStatementdoes

notreferspecificallytodisabilities,specialeducationalneedsoranyotherformof

classificationandlabelling.Instead,itmakesauniversalappealtotherightofeverychildto

haveaccesstoandtoparticipateineducation.However,thevalidityoftheStatement

presumesadistinctionbetweenthosechildrenwhohavedifficultiesinlearningandwho

aretherefore,forwhateverreason,‘different’andthosewhoarenot.Theunderlying

discourse–whichwearguebelowisattheheartofhowteachersadapttheirpreferences

6

andrationalisetheirchoices–isoneofnormaldistributionofability(Gould,1981)which,

asFlorianandRouseargue,‘isinformedbyahegemonicbeliefinbio-determinism’(2009:

595)andwhichhasbeensupportedbyprofessionalandmedicalinterests(Tomlinson,

1982;ThomasandLoxley,2007).

Althoughcriticsandsupportersalikehavepointedoutthatthereisstillalackof

agreementonwhatthepracticeofinclusionshouldbelike,itisbroadlyconcernedwiththe

ideathatallchildren,regardlessofanydisabilitiesorotherdiscriminatingfactors,havethe

righttoeducation(thatisaccesstoeducationalprovision),buttheyarealsoentitledtoa

meaningfulandsuccessfulparticipationineducation.Thelatternotionofinclusionstresses

boththequalityoftheeducationalofferanditsequityintermsofeducationaloutcomes

(Devecchi,2010).Bothprincipledgoalshavebeenfactorsinthedevelopmentofthe

currentSustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDGs)(UN,2015)andinparticularGoal4,thatis,

‘Ensureinclusiveandequitablequalityeducationandpromotelifelonglearning

opportunitiesforall’.

Yet,theroadtoinclusionhasbeen,andstillis,notasmoothone.Focusedonthe

notionofaccess,inthe1970sthemovementforinclusionintheUKsetitselfinopposition

tothepracticeofeducatingchildrenwithdisabilitiesinspecialschoolsorothersegregated

settings.Rather,itwasargued,allchildrenhadtherighttobeeducatedtogether.Inthe

beginning,then,inclusionwasfoughtonbehalfofchildrenwithdisabilitiesandthe

movementarguedforthechildren’srighttobeeducatedinmainstreamschoolalongside

theirpeers.Alongsidethenotionofaccess,inclusionalsochallengedthequalityofthe

educationalofferingbyarguingthataccesstoeducationwasnecessarybutnotsufficient

becausehavingaccesstoeducationrestedonthenotionofintegration.Whileintegration

7

assumedthatthechildhadtoadjusttothemainstreampractices,inclusionsupportedthe

ideathatitwastheresponsibilityofschoolstoadjustinordertoincludethechild.Asa

corollarytoinclusion,thetwonotionsofparticipationandcelebrationofdiversitybecame

partoftheconceptualbasesofinclusion.

StartingwiththeWarnockCommitteeReport(DES,1978)andfollowinganumber

ofpoliciesandguidelines(DfE,2001;DCFS,2006)allthewaytothemostrecentSpecial

Educationalneedsanddisabilitycodeofpractice:0–25years(DfE,2015),theEnglish

systemhasutilisedamulti-trackapproachtotheprovisionofeducationforchildrenwith

SENanddisabilities(SEND)whichintendstoofferavarietyofservicestobridgethe

polarisedalternativesofthemainstreamandthespecialneedssystems.Althoughthis

multi-trackandmulti-agencyapproachhastheappearanceofaviableandeffective

response,inrealityitismarredbyastrongpositionalcontrapositionbetweenthosewho

believethatinclusionoffersthebestsolutiontothedilemmaandthosewho,ontheother

hand,claimthatchildren’sspecialandindividualneedsarebetterservedinspecialschools

andthroughspecialisedpedagogicalresponses.Thepolarisationisnotanewphenomenon

anditcanbetracedtotheWarnockCommitteeReportwhich,premisedonthecommon

aimsofeducationforallchildren,introducedtheconceptof‘specialeducationalneeds’

(SEN).Radicalforitstime,theconceptaimedtocounteractthenegativeconsequencesof

classificationandlabellingbyassertingthatatanypointintheireducationallifeanychild

mighthaveeducationalneedswhicharedifferentfromthoseofthemajorityofother

children.ThereportalsousedtheconceptofSENtoarguethatchildrenwithdisabilities

wereentitledtobeeducatedinmainstreamschoolsandthatitwastheresponsibilityof

schoolstoadapttotheneedsofeverychild.Yet,whatseemedthenaradicalmoveinfavour

8

ofasocialmodelofdisability–thatis,amodelwhichshiftsthecauseofdifferencefrom

withinthechildtothewayinwhichsocialarrangementcreatesbarriers–preservedthe

statusquobyaddingtwoimportantcaveats,reifiedinthepresentlegislation:childrenwith

disabilitiesandSENareentitledtomainstreameducationonlyif:(i)theireducationdoes

notpreventtheeducationofotherchildren;and(ii)adequatesupportandprovisionis

madeforthepurposeofmeetingthechildren’sneeds.

Currentlegislation(DfE,2011,2015)notonlyfirmlyreassertsthespecialnatureof

somechildren,andthereforetheneedforspecialisededucation,butitalsounderminesthe

projectofinclusionby(mis)-appropriatingitsprincipleswhiledeclaringtheendofthe

‘biastowardinclusion’(DfE,2011).Whilesuchconfusingideologicalback-steppinghas

beencastasprovidingmoreparentalchoiceandbetterprovision,itsconsequenceshave

beenareturntoamoremedicalisedanddiscriminatoryapproach.Anumberoffactors

haveledtothepresentsituation,amongstwhichthesimultaneousandinterrelatedriseof

academies,andthediminishingpowerofthelocalauthorities.However,oneofthemost

problematicturnshasbeenthemajorchangestoteachertraining.Firstcamethedecision

toallowunqualifiedteachersintoacademiesandtoremoveteachertrainingpowersfrom

universitiesbyplacingitintoschools(DfE,2010),followedbythedecisiontoremovethe

needfor‘any’teachertohaveteacherqualifiedstatus(DfE,2016).Theimpactalackof

trainingandopportunitiesforprofessionaldialoguecanhaveonthequalityofthe

provisionandontheinclusionofchildrencanbegreat.

Thus,theroadtowardinclusionhasbeenfoughtalongaseriesofentrenched

dichotomiessuchasability/disability,mainstream/specialeducation,

integration/inclusionandsoon.Centraltothedebateisaseriesofideological

9

contradictionsandpracticalobstacles(Terzi,2005,2007a;Nussbaum,2006;Norwich,

2008a).Predicatedonthebasisofthe‘dilemmaofdifference’(Minow,1990),inclusion,

andtheprovisionwhichhastobemadeavailabletoensureitsviabilityandsuccess,rests

uponhowconceptionsaboutdifferencedeterminetheamount,level,qualityand,according

toWiebe-Berry(2008),theperceivedfairnessoftheprovision.FollowingJudge’s(1981)

analysisofdilemmasineducation,Norwichsummarisesthenatureoftheinclusive

dilemmaasoneinwhich‘thereisnochoicebetweenalternativeswhenneitheris

favourable’(Norwich,2008a:288).Norwich’spreoccupationwiththedilemmaof

differenceisindicativeofmorerecentquestioningofthevalidityandpracticalityof

inclusion.Thedilemmaisonewhichstallsethicaldecisionsaboutappropriatepedagogy:if

neitherinclusionnorspecialeducationisafavourableoption,howareteacherstodecide

onthegoodandrightsupportforallchildren?Onwhatbasiswouldtheirdecisionsbe

made?Wecontendthattheunavailabilityoffavourableoption,asNorwichputsit,

challengestheverypremiseofrationalchoicetheoryinwhichrationallyperceived

individualscanmakechoicesconcerningtheirself-interest;or,inthecaseofteachers,what

wouldbetheintheinterestsofthechildren.Wecontend,therefore,thatthedilemmaso

conceivedisfertilegroundforotherformsofpost-ad-hocrationalisationsthatgenerate

adaptivepreferences.

Oneofsuchformofrationalisation,whichcanleadtotheadaptationofchildren’s

andteachers’preferences,isthemannerinwhichtheirneedsarediagnosed,identified,

and,ultimately,classified.Muchhasbeenwrittenontheissueofclassificationofdisability,

theidentificationofspecialeducationalneedsandthelabellingofstudentsingeneral

(Corbett,1996;FlorianandMcLaughlin,2008;Norwich,2008b).Itisimportanttonotethat

10

althoughtheterminologyisproblematic,especiallyinasmuchasitcanframealazy

essentialism,andthatvarioustermsareattimesusedinterchangeably,thethreeissuesof

classification,identificationandlabellingarecloselylinked.Invariousmeasures,and

dependentuponcontextualfactorssuchassocial,schoolorganisationandindividualnorms

andexpectations,allthreemodesofdesignatingindividualability,cognitivecompetence

andpotentialtoperformcanhaveabearingonhowchildrenandteachersstructuretheir

ownidentitiesinrelationtotheirexpectedandassumedrolesandresponsibilities.

However,itisalsoimportanttorecognisethedistinctionbetweenhowchildrenperform

andwhattheyarecompetenttoperform.Forexample,theymaynotperformwellin

examinationsbutthisdoesnotmeantheyarenotcompetentinothereducationalcontexts.

Moreover,theneedtorelyonaneffectivesystemofidentificationispredicatedon

theassumptionthatequaleducationalopportunitiesforallchildrencanbeensured.

However,inpractice,asFlorianetal.(2006)suggest,thesystemofidentificationaimsto

fulfilthefollowingintentions:todiagnosechildreninordertodeviseappropriatemedical,

educationalorsocialinterventionprogrammes;tomeetparentalexpectations;tofulfil

children’slegalrights;toensureequityinthefairdistributionoflimitedresources;andto

ensureaccountability.AsconceivedbytheWarnockCommitteeReport,thelabelofSEN

wassupposedtoeliminatethenegativeconnotationsofthe1944EducationActdisability

categories.Yet,overtime,theverylabelthataimedtoeliminatealllabelshasbecomeaway

ofseparatingchildrenbetweenthosewhohaveneedsandthosewhodonot(Corbett,

1996).TheFoucauldiandisciplinarypoweroftheSENlabelissuchthat,ratherthan

signifyingtheacceptanceofhumandiversityassomethingthatisnormal,itreifiesthe

assumptionsthatsomechildrenareoutsidewhatisexpectedtobenormal,while

11

simultaneously,asGrahamandSleecontend,itprovides‘themeansbywhichwemake

judgementsaboutthecharacter,abilityandfutureofdifferentschoolchildren’(2008:280).

Labels,thus,definesetsofassumptionswhichhaveimplicationsforhowteachersand

childrenadapttospecificregimesoftruth(Foucault,1977,1980)which,togetherwith

howtheNationalCurriculumisstructuredandtheassumptionsaboutage-related

attainmentresults,regulatesbeliefsaboutability,potentialandthecapacitytosucceed.

Althougheducationhasthepotentialtochallengeadaptivepreferences,theway

educationhasbeensystematisedandstandardisedindicateshoweducationalstructures

cangenerateandsustainsuchpreferencesandleadtheindividual,withoutnecessarily

beingawareofit,toacceptandevenappreciatethelimitsofareducedlife.AsRosestates:

Althoughanincreasedunderstandingoftheneedsofindividualpupils

andthecharacteristicsassociatedwithsomeformofdisabilitycanbehelpful,

wherethishasledtostereotypingandaloweringofexpectationssuchan

approachhasdoneconsiderabledisservicetotheveryindividualsthatour

educationsystemhasidentifiedasbeinginneedofsupport(Rose,2010:2).

The‘considerabledisservice’canbeconstruedastheconsequenceofaprocessof

adaptationwhichissimilarheretotheBourdieusiannotionofhabituswhichisconcerned

withtheinternalisationofexternalcircumstancesthatdelimitstheindividual’sworldview.

Socialisationprocessestypicallydelimittherealisationofparticularcapabilitiesasspecific

functionings–suchasvaluingoneformofeducationoveranother(WattsandBridges,

2006;Watts,2009,2013)–anditisimportanttodistinguishbetweenadaptationstoa

particularformofeducationandtoeducationaltogether.Iftheaspirationofthecapability

approachistoenableindividualstoleadatrulyhumanlife,thedangeristhatthe

12

educationalstructureswithinwhichstudentswithdisabilitiesand/orSENarelocated

generateanadaptationtotheintrinsicandinstrumentalaspectsofeducation,reducing

them,inSen’sphrase,to‘happyslaves’(1999:62)contentwiththeirlot.Moreover,basic

capabilitiesareinterrelatedsowhilsttheycanleadtomutualenhancement,theycanalso

leadtomutualadaptations.Beingdifferentmay,forexample,causethosewithdisabilities

and/orSENtoadapttothecapabilityofappearinginpublicwithoutshame,therebyfurther

restrictingtheirfreedomtoenhanceeducationalcapabilities.

TheunintendedconsequenceofSENpolicieshasbeentomarkthechildrenoutas

different;andthishighlightsthecomplexitiesofeducationandeducationalsystemsthat

Sen(inparticular)andNussbaumtendtoglossover.Thecapabilitytobeeducated(Terzi,

2007b)requiresmorethantheinputofeducationalresources.Itrequiresconditionsthat

enabletheconversionofthoseresourcesintofunctioningsandsoenhancecapability.The

failuretoacknowledgetheimportanceofconversionnotonlymeansthattheresources

mayberedundantbutthattheirredundancyreifiesthedisadvantageofdifference(Watts

andRidley,2012;RidleyandWatts,2014).Theintegrationargumentsignalstheproblem

ofconversionfactors;theinclusionagendaseekstoredressthem.Theclassificatorysystem

leadstoseparateeducation(whetherinspecialschoolsorthroughadditionalsupportin

mainstreamschools)and/orthemarkthatthesechildrenaredifferent.Itoffersthe

potentialforenhancededucationalcapabilities–thefreedomtomovebeyondself-

abnegationandtoaspiretothebetterlife–byensuringboththeresourcesandthe

conditionsnecessaryfortheirconversion.Appropriateeducationalstructurescanenhance

aspirationandchallengewhatSenterms‘socialdiscipline’(1992:149).Thissocial

disciplinemaybeexplicit(forexample,theteacherwhoconstantlytellsthechildthatsheis

13

nogood)butitmayalsobeimplicit(assuggestedherewherethesocialstructuresdothe

‘telling’).

Thereis,then,adilemmaintheclassificationofdisabilityandSEN.Although

intendedtopromoteinclusion,itmaysimplyreproducetheconditionsthatrenderedit

necessary.If,asNorwich(2008a)asserts,thereisnogoodoptionwhenitcomesto

educationalprovision,thenthesystemitselfpredicatesresignationtothereduced

educationallife:thebetteroptionsarealloutofreach.Furthermore,theveryneedfor

additionalresourcingmaytaintthoseresourceswiththe‘dirtymark’(Schostak,1993)of

theirneed(Watts,2011;WattsandRidley,2012;RidleyandWatts,2014).Putanother

way,thepresumptionthatthosewithdisabilitiesand/orSENaresecondclassstudents

mayleadtoallattemptstodosomethingaboutitmerelyreifyingthebelief;and,with

educationalstructuresforeclosingbetteralternatives,thosestudentsmaycometoaccept

whattheyhaveasthebesttheyaregoingtoget.Yet,evenwithinsuchlimitedandlimiting

structures,individualscanmakeadifferenceandteacherscanencouragetheirstudentsto

aspirebeyondtheconfinesofsocialdiscipline.

Teacher Expectations and Training

Thecapabilitytobeeducatedisessentialinordertoavoiddisadvantageandimplies

considerationsaboutthedesignofsocialarrangements(Terzi,2007a:30).Challenging

adaptationsmaynotnecessarilyleadtogreaterfreedomsbecausethesocialstructuresthat

generatedtheadaptationsmaywellremaininplace.Nonetheless,theindividual’s

recognitionthatshehasbecomeresignedtoherunjustcircumstancesandherreflection

14

uponthosecircumstancesaretypicallythefirststepstowardstheenhancementof

capabilities;and,giventhenatureofadaptivepreferences,thisislikelytorequiresome

externalprompt.However,Nussbaum(2006)arguesthatwherechildrenareconcerned,

thefocusshouldbeontheachievementoffunctioningsratherthanthecapability–thatis,

thesubstantivefreedom–toachievethem.Ensuringthatminimumthresholdsaremet(in

thesenseofachievedfunctioningsratherthanthepoorproxyof,inthiseducational

context,examinationresults)maythereforebesufficienttoensurethatadaptationsare

challenged.Thisneednotrequirerecognitionofandreflectiononreducedcircumstances

becauseofthechangeinsocialstructures:appropriatechangehasthepotentialtodisrupt

productionandreproductionofthesocialdisciplinethatgeneratesadaptations.Teachers

may,therefore,negotiatetheadaptivepreferencesofchildrenwithdisabilitiesand/orSEN

intheircarebyenablingtheconditionsthatallowthresholdstobereached–althoughwe

contendthatteachersshouldnotstopatthethresholdasthiscanbecomeanother

rationalisationofadaptationssignified,forexample,bytheoft-heardcommentabout

childrenreachingtheirpotential.Thisislikelytoincludetheconversionofappropriate

resourcessuchaspedagogical,technologicalandhumanresources.Asthoseresourcesmay

alreadybeinplace,albeittaintedwiththemarkoftheirneed,thisrequiresbeliefinand

respectforthediversitythatfollowstheinclusion(ratherthantheintegration)agenda.It

thereforerequiresengagementwiththestructuralissuesthatsignifythedifferencesthat

needtobeengagedwithiftheyaretobenullified.Ittouchesupontrainingand,in

particular,howteachersaretaughttoconstructandinterpretdisabilityandSEN.

Threemainmodels–medical,socialandecological–areinterpretativelensesused

todescribethenatureofdisabilityand/orSEN.Themedicalmodellocatesdisabilitywithin

15

theindividualandthuspromotesrehabilitationasthemainintervention.Thesocialmodel

positsthatimpairment(thatis,adeparturefromhumannormality)causesdisability(a

restrictedabilitytoperformtasks)whichgenerateshandicap(disadvantage)andso

considersdisabilityasthewayinwhichsocietiescreatebarriersthatexcludeindividuals.

Theecologicalmodelviewstheindividualaspartofacomplexstructureofrelationships

betweendifferentprovidersandthuspaysmoreattentiontohowdifferentstakeholders

canworktogethertopreventexclusionandsupportinclusion.Inpractice,allthreemodels

aretypicallyusedincombinationandthisgivesrisetofurthercomplexitiesandtheneedto

reviseoldassumptionsaboutthevalidityofsuchmodels.Nonetheless,theystillserveas

heuristictoolsthatteachersusetorationalisetheirdecision-makingprocesseswhenasked

tovalidatetheirpedagogicalinterventions(JordanandStanovich,2003).

Thisstateofaffairshasledtoconfusion,misinterpretationand,insomecases,the

over-identificationofchildrenwithSEN(OFSTED,2010).Thepresentmoodhasbeenone

ofrevisionandoverhaulofthesystemofidentificationwhichhasseenthecreationofan

Education,HealthandCare(EHC)PlanforeverychildidentifiedashavingSEN(DfE,2015).

AsstatedintheChildrenandFamiliesAct2014andintheSENDCodeofPractice:0–25

Years(DfE,2015),thePlanshouldsimplifytheidentificationofSEN,reducebureaucracy

andempowerparentsinmakingbetterchoicesfortheirchildren.Thejustificationforan

overhaulofthesystemispartlylocatedintheneedtoreducecostsandpartlyinthe

argumentthatthepresentsystemdoesnotseemtobefitforthepurposeofestablishing

effectiveprovision.However,thepurposeofthepresent‘radical’and‘innovative’reform

agenda(DfE,2011)isfarfromclear:ontheonehand,thereistheneedtoensurethe

appropriateandjustifieddistributionofresources;ontheother,thereistheneedtodevise

16

pedagogicalstrategiesthatnotonlyensurechildrenwithSENareabletoaccessand

participateineducationbutthattheyareabletousethateducationtolivewhatNussbaum

callsthe‘trulyhumanlife’(2000).AsFlorianetal.note,‘Forchildrenwhoarethe

recipientsofspecialeducation,classificationcanhavematerialconsequencesintermsof

whereandhowtheyareeducated,whichprofessionalstheyencounter,andwhatlife

coursesaremappedout’(2006:37).Therefore,howteachersmakesenseoftheinterplay

betweenclassificationsofdisabilityandmodelsofdisabilityandhowtraineeteachers,

whetherthroughtraditionaluniversityroutesordirectlyinschools,areeducatedto

understandthecomplexityofclassifyingdisabilitiesandidentifyingSENareatthecoreof

howtheydevisesuitableandappropriateprovision.

Asshownsofar,questionsabouthowbesttosupportchildrenwithSENareatthe

nexusofmultipleandcomplexcontextsandparadigms.Althoughresearchoninclusionand

theefficacyofSENprovisionhasmainlyfocusedonin-schoolresponses,thereisnowa

growinginterestintheroleInitialTeacherEducation(ITE)playsinpreparingnew

teachersforinclusion.AsNorwich(2008a)explains,the‘dilemmaofdifference’offerstwo

possibilitiesforactionandneitherofthemisfavourable.Ifweacceptthisportrayalofwhat

liesatthecoreofprovidingallchildren–and,specificallyhere,childrenwithdisabilities

and/orSEN–withequaleducationalopportunities,howarewetodevisetraining

opportunitiesforwould-be-teachers?Relatedtothis,thereistheproblemofhowweareto

providetrainingthatwilleducatewould-be-teacherstofacethedilemmaandtocometo

termswithit.Inbothcases,providingsuchaneducationrequiresashiftfromthepresent

concerntoensuretheaccomplishmentoftop-downregulatedtargetstoanembraceof

17

PetersandReid’s(2009)callforresistanceanddiscursivepracticethatchallengespre-set

assumptionsandbeliefsaboutabilityanddisability.

Thereareanumberofroutesbywhichstudentscanentertheteachingprofessionin

theUKbutthepredominantmodelconsistsofacombinationofschoolplacementsand

lecturesataHigherEducationInstitution(HEI).Thismodelistheresultofalongstanding

debateastowhetherauniversity-onlybasedprovisiontrulyequipstraineeteachersfor

thecomplexitiesofthejob.However,itisalsoimportanttoacknowledgethatthedebateis

alsolocatedinthedisputeaboutchangingmodesofteachers’professionalpracticeanda

persistentconservativecriticalviewoftheroleofhighereducationineducatingteachers.

Whilebothsidesofthisdebatestemfromtheunderstandingthatteachingisnotjustabout

theory,butalsoaboutexperiencingtheeverydaynuancesofpractice,thepresentpolicy

agenda(DfE,2010,2011)ofmakingteachereducationthesoleresponsibilityofschoolsis

asmuchabouttheneedtotraintheschoolworkforceasittodevolvefundingfromHEIs.

AlltraineeteachersarerequiredtomeettheProfessionalStandardforQualified

TeacherStatus(TDA,2007)whichsetbenchmarksaroundthreeheadings:professional

attributes;professionalknowledgeandunderstanding;andprofessionalskills.Whilesuch

standardsarewiderangingandwritteninapositivelanguagewhichreflectsthenotionsof

inclusion,McIntyrearguesthatcurrentITEprovisionis:

illfittedtopreparestudentteacherstoengagewithinclusive

pedagogy.TheEnglishsystemisobviouslyinadequateforthatpurpose,

beingaimedonlyatpreparingbeginningteacherstothestatusquo,andvery

deliberatelybeingplannedtoavoidthembeingencouragedtothinkcritically

onthatstatusquo(McIntyre,2009:603,originalemphasis).

18

RecentinterestinthedynamicrelationshipbetweenwhatistaughtinHE-basedcourses

andwhatstudentsfaceandhavetocometotermswithduringtheirschoolplacementshas

revealedanumberofkeyissues.Studentsreceivedifferentand,attimes,contrasting

messagesatHEandin-schoolaboutinclusion(OFSTED,2008;FlorianandRouse,2009).

Thepresentfocusofstandard-basedreformonattainmentandbehaviourmanagement

(DfE,2010)leaveslittlespaceinthecrammedITEcurriculumtoexposestudentstothe

complexityofworkingwithchildrenwithSEN,althoughthegovernmenthaspledgedto

‘Giveastrongerfocusonsupportforchildrenwithadditionalneeds,includingthosewith

SEN,inthestandardsforqualifiedteacherstatus’(DfE,2011:59).

Whilethisisawelcomedevelopment,theGreenPaper’spredominantlymedical

modelofdisabilitydoesnotbodewellforinclusion.Themessagesstudentpresently

receiveatHE,andtheonestheymightreceiveastheresultoftheproposedchanges,might

reinforcetheideathatsomechildrenlearndifferentlybecauseoftheirdisabilityorSEN.HE

lecturersandteachersinschoolsmightexplicitlyorunconsciouslyholdthebeliefthat

specialistknowledgeisrequiredtoteachsomechildren,thusunwittinglypassingonthe

messagethatchildrenwithSENaretheclassteacher’sresponsibility.

Byfarthemostinterestingareaofresearchhasfocusedonthenatureofteachers’

andtraineeteachers’beliefs,values,assumptionsandideasaboutdisabilityandSENand

howthesecanimpactonthewaysinwhichtheyviewtheirprofessionalrolesand

responsibilities.Yet,thereisacertaindegreeofepistemologicalconfusionandtherefore

thearrayofissuesaboveareusedinterchangeablytodefinethesetofnotionsusedto

conceptualiseteachers’mentalmaps.Nevertheless,thereiswidespreadagreementthat

traineeteachers‘tendtousetheinformationprovidedincourseworktoconfirmrather

19

thantoconfrontandcorrecttheirpreexistingbeliefs’(Kagan,1992:154).Insodoing,their

pre-existingbeliefsformapowerfulconceptualmapthatcanleadtotheformulationof

rationaljustificationsfortheirfuturechoicesasteachers.

SothedesignoftheITEcurriculuminEngland(whichincludespressuresoftime

andthelimitationsofthetutors)tendstowardsthereificationofthesocialstructuresthat

markoutthosewithdisabilitiesand/orSENasdifferent.Thiscangooneoftwoways:the

orthodoxreproductionofthestatusquo,whichtendstoinhibitcapabilitiesandgenerate

adaptations;oraheterodoxchallengetoitwhichcangivestudentsthesubstantivefreedom

toachievethefunctioningofbeingeducated.SenandNussbaumrepeatedlyemphasisethat

individualsareinfluencedbytheactionsandvaluesofthosearoundthem.Thisistypically

notareflectiveprocess(again,itsharesmuchwiththeBourdieusiannotionofhabitus)and

leadstowhatSenreferstoasputtingidentitybeforereason(Sen,1998).Thatis,tobeing

ratherthanthinkingaboutbeing.Thatbeingismediatedbysocialenvironmentsandthe

widersocialenvironmentstendtolimitopportunitiesforthosewithdisabilitiesand/or

SENtoleadthetrulyhumanlife.Theymayretreatfromappearinginpublic,unabletodoso

withoutasenseofshame.Theinclusionagendaisintendedtochallengethisbutthe

classificatorysystemstendtoactasheuristicshortcuts:thelabelbecomesthelimitationof

theindividual,bypassingopportunitiestohelpraiseheraspirationsbeyondher

adaptations.

Gaspersuggeststhataspirationscanbe‘sociallyfosteredorsociallystifled’andso

thepositivebenefitsofeducationcanbemoreeffectivelyrealisedthroughafocuson

groupsratherthanindividuals(2000:998).Groupaspirationscanenhancecollective

capabilities(Ibrahim,2006)andcollectivecapabilitiesgeneratedbysocialcapitalcanlead

20

totheachievementoffunctioningsthatindividualsmaynotbeabletoreachalone(Balletet

al.,2007:198).Conversely,however,groupadaptationscaninhibitcollectivecapabilities

andthecapabilitiesofindividualswithingroups(Watts,2011).Theinfluenceofotherson

individualstypicallypresumesapowerarrangementwherebythosewithmorepower

influencethosewithless;andourconcernsofarhasbeenwiththewaysinwhichthe

powerfulactoflabellingcanframetheadaptationsofchildrenwithdisabilitiesand/orSEN.

However,wewanttotakethisfurtherandconsiderthepotentialadaptationsoftheir

teachersandtheirresignedacceptanceofthelimitationspressingupontheirprofessional

capabilities.

Other People’s Adaptations

MillsandBallantyne(2009)addresstheconcernwithpreexistingbeliefswithreferenceto

thenotionofthreehierarchical‘dispositionalfactors’:‘openness’intermsofbeing

receptivetootherpeoples’ideasanddiversity;‘self-awarenessandreflectiveness’asthe

abilitytobecriticalandself-criticalaboutbeliefsystems;and‘commitmenttosocial

justice’.TheirresearchconcludesthatpreexistingdispositionsarehardtoshiftunlessITE

lecturersspendmoretimeandcommitmentincreatingthelearningopportunitiesfor

studentstoconfronttheirinitialviews(althoughtheyleaveunansweredthequestionof

whatimpactthedispositionalfactorsoflecturershaveontheirstudents).Anotherwayof

addressingtheconceptualmapsoftraineeteachersisthatofdrawingarelationship

betweenattitudes,pedagogicalbehavioursandvaluesystems.Forexample,Pearson(2007,

2009)appliesasocioculturalmodeltoITEprovisionandarguesthatthelanguageof

21

classificationandidentification‘allowsschoolstopathologisestudents’difficultiesthereby

reducingtheschools’senseofresponsibility’(2009:560).Herfindingsshowthattrainee

teachers’preexistingbeliefsrangefromacategoricalapproachtodisabilitytoan

interactivesocialmodelandthat,whileITEcanhaveanimpactonchangingtheirviews,

suchinitialbeliefsarehardtochallenge.Whilstilluminating,Pearsondoesnotexplain

whatshemeansby‘valuesystems’besidesreproducingthewidelyaccepteddifferences

betweenthemedicalandsocialmodelsofdisability.Yet,whateachindividualhasreasonto

valueiscentraltohowthecapabilityapproachevaluatessocialarrangements.Thus,a

discussionabouttraineeteachers’adaptivepreferencesrequiresustoconsiderwhatsuch

valuesmightbe.

Wiebe-Berry(2008)andJordanetal.(2009)attempttodojustthat.Startingfrom

theprinciplethat‘effectiveinclusionisakintoeffectiveteachingpracticesoverall,andthat

enhancinginclusivepracticeswillbenefitallstudents,’Jordanetal.(2009:536)develop

theirresearchagendaaroundthenotionof‘epistemologicalbeliefs’(seealsoJordanand

Stanovich,2003)anddefinethemas‘beliefsaboutthenatureofability,ofknowingand

knowledge,theprocessofacquiringknowledge,andthereforeabouttherelationship

betweenteachingandlearning’(2009:536).Theirresearchisimportantinasmuchasit

makesexplicittheconnectionbetweenbeliefsandtheprocessoflearning.Whiletheir

researchfocusesonhowtraineeteachersassumechildrenlearn,thesamecanbeapplied

tohowtraineeteacherslearnaboutbecomingteachersofallchildren.

Thislastpointisarejoindertoconcernsthattraineeteachersmightfindthemselves

indifferentepistemologicalcontextsoflearninginHEIsandlearninginschools.Thepoint

isimportantbecausebecomingateacherisnotabouttheacquisitionofknowledgebutalso

22

theapplicationofthatknowledgeinpractice.Suchapplicationsdonotoccurinavacuum

butinthespecificand(asfarasweknow)highlyidiosyncraticenvironmentofschools.

Thisistosaythatbeliefs,valuesystemsandattitudesarebasedonpastandpresent

experiencesofandinpracticeandthatthatpracticeshapesnotonlyepistemologicalbeliefs

aboutthenatureofknowledgeanditsacquisition,butshapesalsotheformationof

personalandprofessionalidentities.

Thenotionof‘figuredworlds’(Hollandetal.,1998;quotedinNaraian,2010)may

beusefulhere.Premisedonthesocioculturalprinciplesofactivitytheory,the‘figured

worlds’constructacknowledgesthatwhilstidentitiesareshapedbythecultural

environment,theycannotbefullydeterminedbyit.Thus,a‘figuredworld’isa:

sociallyandculturallycreatedrealmofinterpretationinwhich

particularcharactersandactorsarerecognised,significanceisattachedto

certainacts,andparticularoutcomesarevaluedoverothers(Naraian,2010:

1678).

Insuchaworld,identitiesarebothimaginedthroughtheinterpretationoftherulesofa

specificculturalenvironmentandpositionalinthattheyareactivelydefinedbythelinesof

powerswithintheenvironment.ForNaraian,thefiguredworldconstructhelpstheanalysis

ofthecollaborationbetweenteachersandspecialeducationteachers.Moreresearch

appliedtohowtraineeteachersmightfiguretheirworldsbetweenHEandschoolsis

neededbut,inthemeantime,Naraian’sworkshowsthatwecannotassumean

existentialistnatureofbeliefs.Thatis,thesystemofvalueswhichunderpintheconceptual

mapstraineeteachersusetonegotiatedisability,inclusionandSENismorecomplexand

dynamicthanpreviousresearchmightargue.

23

However,ifthisgoestosomewayinfacilitatinganunderstandingofhowbeliefsare

shapedthroughtheinteractionofdifferentformsofidentityandpractice,itdoesnotgofar

enoughinexplaininghowvaluesystemsareconstructed.Thatistosay,thatifweleaveout

oftheequationthenotionofvalue,wemayfailtorecognisetheinsidiousintrusionof

adaptivepreferences.Morespecifically,wefailtomakealinkbetweenadaptive

preferencesandthepursuitofequalityandjustice(Sen,2009).Wealsoruntheriskof

reifyingthenotionthatteachingisamatterofcraftsmanship,oflearning‘whatworks’and

forgettingthatteachingisaboutmakingmoralandethicaldecisionsaboutwhatisgood

andrightandisfundamentallyconcernedwithwhatisfairandjustforallchildren

(Devecchi,2010).

Inthisrespect,theworkofWiebe-Berry(2008)framesthenotionofbeliefswithina

valuesystembasedonteachers’conceptionsoffairnessandhowtheycanusetheseto

rationalisedecisionsabouttheireducationalpractice.Wiebe-Berryfocusesprincipallyon

fairnessasamatterofjustice;thatis,justiceinthedistributionofresources.Shequotes

Barrow’sdefinitionoffairnessaccordingtowhich:‘itismorallywrong,initself,totreat

individualsdifferentlywithoutprovidingrelevantreasonsforsodoing’(Barrow,2001:

1150).Oneoftherationalesforclassifyingchildren’sneedsas‘special’wastodetermine

theamountanddistributionofresourcessothatallchildrenhaveequalopportunities.Yet

oncechildrenareclassified,thelabeltendstodefineteachers’beliefsaboutchildren’s

abilities,learningneedsandwhetherornotteachersfeeltheycanberesponsibleifthey

lackthe‘special’knowledgerequired.

ForWiebe-Berry,thiscomplexdynamiccanbeexplainedandunderstoodby

workingoutwhetherteachers(andtraineeandnewlyqualifiedteachersinhercase)

24

believeinaneeds-basedprincipleofdistributivejusticeorwhethertheybelieveina

‘decentlevel’ofminimumdistribution.Thedecentlevelargumentisnecessarilybasedona

consensusofwhatistheminimumrequiredtoequaliseopportunities,beyondwhichthe

distributionofsurplusresourcesbecomesunfair.Theneeds-basedargumentis

appropriatewhen,assheargues,the‘wellbeingoftheindividualifofchiefconcern’(2008:

1150).However,thiscanleadtoteachersbecomingfrustratedwhenresourcesarescarce.

ResearchbyDevecchi(2007)showsthattheconstructoffairnessisindeedusedby

teachersastheymakedecisionsaboutthedistributionofresources,includingtheattention

theygive,amongallthechildrenintheclassroom.However,unlikeWiebe-Berry’sfindings,

Devecchi’sinquiryshowsthat,onceagain,teachershavetodealwiththedilemmaof

differenceandinsodoingtheyarecaughtintheimpossibletaskofaccomplishingjustice

foreachindividualchild.

Adaptivepreferencescanbecomemanifestasadelimitationofchoicethatrestricts

theopportunitiesofteacherstothinkdifferentlyandtoexaminetheiractionsinrelation

notjusttotheavailabilityofresources–includingtrainingandtime–butinrelationto

howresourcescanbeuseddifferentlytodevelopthewell-beingoftheirstudents.Assuch,

teachers’beliefsaboutability,disabilityandthenatureofspecialeducationalneedscanbe

barriersnotonlytothewell-beingofthestudentbutalsototheirownprofessional

competencesandprofessionaldevelopment.Seenthus,theycaninhibitthepossibilityof

evenenvisioningthepossibilityofbettereducationallivesforstudentsandbetter

professionallivesforteachers.Thisconsiderationoftheadaptivepreferenceproblemcan

offeranewwayoflookingatteachers’beliefs,attitudesandpedagogicalchoicemaking;

andthatthiscanopenupnewwaysofpreparingteacherstoteachallchildren.

25

Wiebe-Berrynotesthatteacherscanbecomefrustratedwhenresourcesarescarce.

Ourconcernhereiswiththepotentialforthemtoreducethecognitivedissonancethis

generatesbyadaptation.Elster(1983)arguesthatthetensioncausedbyamismatch

betweenwhattheindividualwantstodoandwhatsheisabletodocanbereducedbythe

adaptationofpreferences.Thisisthesourgrapesphenomenonwhichcausestheindividual

tonon-consciouslyconcludethattheobjectofherinitialandunattainabledesireisnot

reallyworthhavingandtoreviseherpreferences.Here,thisdowngradingofthe

inaccessiblemaycauseteacherstorevisetheirprofessionalpreferencefortheinclusion

agendaandfocusinsteadonthemoreaccessiblegoalofsimplygettingthroughtheday

withwhattheyhave.However,Elster’sformulationpresupposesaninitialdesireforthat

whichhasproventobeinaccessible.Thecapabilityapproachextendshisdefinitionof

adaptivepreferencestoincludetheself-abnegationthatarisesfromhabitual

impoverishmentandpost-hocrationalisation.Undersuchcircumstances,theremaynot

havebeenaninitialpreferencetodowngrade.TheconstructionofITEprovisionintheUK

suggeststhatteachersmaybeschooledtohavelowexpectationsofstudentswith

disabilitiesand/orSEN.Moreover,theclassificatorysystem(intendedtopromotethe

inclusionagendabyidentifyingthespecialneedsofstudents)providesaheuristic

frameworkthatenablestherationalisationofthoselowexpectations.Elster’s

interpretationofadaptationdoesnotnecessarilyapplytosuchhabitualcircumstancesbut

theself-abnegatorydefinitionofadaptivepreferencesusedinthecapabilityapproachis

pertinent.

Weaskedattheoutsetwhetherchildrenwithdisabilitiesand/orSENwouldoptfor

areducededucationiftheyhadthefreedomtochooseamorecompleteone.Wenowpose

26

thatsamecounterfactualquestionoftheirteachers:wouldtheyopttodeliverareduced

educationtochildrenwithdisabilitiesand/orSENiftheycoulddeliveramorecomplete

one?Thisframestheissueofteachers’adaptivepreferences.Weassumethatteachers

valueandhavereasontovaluethedeliveryofappropriateeducationtoalltheirstudents

andthatthisisconstitutiveofwhatwemightreferto,incapabilityterms,astheir

professionalwell-being.Asindicatedabove,educationalandsocialstructurestendto

inhibittheinclusionagenda.Severalauthors(Ibrahim,2006;Balletetal.,2007)have

tackledthequestionofcollectivecapabilities,arguingthatindividualsaremorelikelyto

bringaboutsocialchangeiftheyworktogetherforacommoncause.Thecorollarytothisis

collectiveadaptationsandtracescanbeseenintheprovisionofeducationforchildrenwith

disabilitiesand/orSEN:theadaptationsoftheteachers,generatedwithinthesamewider

structuresthatgenerateadaptationsintheirstudents,furtherlimittheaspirationstoa

bettereducationallifeforthosestudents.However,thisshouldnotbeseenasacollective

adaptationasitimpliessharedresponsibilityandsocontributestothepathologisingof

disabilityandSEN.Significantly,addressingtheeducationaladaptationsofanychildor

youngperson(whetherornottheyhavedisabilitiesand/orSEN)withoutacknowledging

thepotentialadaptationsoftheirteacherscancontributetothisprocessofpathologising

differenceandthereforedistortwell-beingassessments.

Itmaythereforebeconsideredappropriatetolocatethisprofessionalisminwhat

Senreferstoastheagencydimensionofcapability:thatis,doingsomethingforothers

whichisnotobviouslyconducivetoone’sownwell-being,doingsomethingextra.For

Balletetal.(2007)thisconceptofagencyisthebasisofresponsibilityforothersand

collectivewell-being.NussbaumrefutesSen’sdistinctionbetweenthewell-beingand

27

agencydimensionsofcapability.Whilstacknowledgingthatthisdistinctioncanbeusefulin

assessingchoicesbetweenequallyvaluablefunctionings(Watts,2011,2013)wesidehere

withNussbaumbecausemakingappropriateeducationalprovisionforchildrenandyoung

peoplewithdisabilitiesand/orSENshouldnotbeseenassomethingextraforteachersto

consider.The‘socialdiscipline’(Sen,1992:149)thatistheunintendedconsequenceofthe

classificatorysystemframesthispotentialforteacherstobecomeresignedtothesocially

constructedlimitationsoftheirstudents.Suchadaptationsmayincorporatethefrustration

attheheartofElster’sinterpretationofadaptivepreferencesbutthesourgrapes

phenomenondoesnotgofarenoughinaccountingfortheresignationtoreduced

circumstancesthatcanpervadetheprovisionofeducationforchildrenandyoungpeople

withdisabilitiesand/orSEN.Theinternalisationofexternalcircumstances,includingthe

heuristicoflabelling,mayleadteacherstopresumethatthebettereducationallifeisoutof

reachforstudentswithdisabilitiesand/orSEN.Acceptingthiscanandshouldbeseenas

adaptationoftheirprofessionalpreferences.Todootherwiseistoriskthecomplacent

acceptanceoftheunjuststatusquoandtodenythesignificanceofteachers’professional

capabilities.

Conclusion

Adaptivepreferencessignalthedifferencebetweenwhatpeoplepreferandaremadeto

preferandthepartthatotherpeopleplayingeneratingthecircumstancesunderwhich

individualsadapttheirpreferencesisgenerallywell-recognised.Focusingontheexample

ofchildrenwithSENand/ordisabilities,wehaveshownhowstudentscancometo

28

internaliserestrictiveexternalitiesandaccommodatetheiraspirationstotherealitiesof

thestructurallimitationsoperatinguponthem,includingthosethatmaybeproducedand

reproducedbytheirteachers.However,wehavesoughttoextendthedebateonadaptive

preferencesbyarguingthattheselimitationsdonotonlyinhibitthewell-beingofthe

studentsbutoftheirteachersaswell.Wepursuedthisargumentthroughanexamination

oftheoriginsoftheSENandinclusivityagendas,initialteachereducation(ITE)intheUK

andthenotionofteachers’professionalcapabilities.Thelatter,wesuggested,should

incorporateapedagogicalcommitmenttoprovidingtheopportunitiesfortheirstudentsto

flourisheducationally.However,ITEprovision–orthelackofit–tendstoreifythemarks

ofdifferencetheSENagendainitiallysoughttoerase.Teachersmay,therefore,presume

theirstudentsareincapableofsuchflourishingandsoperpetuatethecircumstancesunder

whichtheyadapttheirpreferences.This,though,deniestheirprofessionalcommitmentto

theeducationofallandsoleadstotheadaptationoftheirpreferences.Thatis,itcanleadto

theirresignationtoanimpoverishedprofessionallife.

Inherdefenceofuniversalhumanvalues,Nussbaum(2000:34–110;2006:9–95)

highlightstheimportanceof‘Beingabletousethesenses,toimagine,think,andreason–

andtodothesethingsina“trulyhuman”way,awayinformedandcultivatedbyan

adequateeducation’(2006:76).Teacherscanencouragetheirstudents–includingand

especiallystudentswithSENand/ordisabilities–toaspirebeyondtheconfinesofsocial

discipline.Yetteachersarealsotaught;and,justastheymayteachtheirstudentsto

becomeresignedtoanimpoverishededucationallife(andso,giventheinterconnectedness

ofcapabilities,tobecomeresignedtotheimpoverishmentoflifemorebroadly)sotheirITE

mayteachthemtoreproducethesedelimitingstructures.Thattheinclusivityagendahas

29

becomewidelyaccepteddoesnotdetractfromthisaslabellingprovidesaheuristic

shortcuttothepedagogicassumptionsandexpectationsthatforeshadowtheexperiences

ofteachingandlearning.Moreover,as‘thereisnochoicebetweenalternativeswhen

neitherisfavourable’(Norwich,2008a:288),teachersmaybefrustratedatthe

circumstancesunderwhichtheyteach.Theymaythenreducethecognitivedissonancethis

generatesbyadaptingtheirpreferencesthroughthesourgrapesphenomenon(theless-

than-consciousmentaladjustmentthatallowstheself-deceptivereassessmentofwhatis

perceivedasdesirable)thatElsterdescribes.Theymayalsorationalisetheircircumstances

andbecomehabituatedtothemthroughthebroaderinterpretationsofpreference

adaptationdescribedbySenandNussbauminthecapabilityliterature.

FocusingontheeducationofchildrenwithSENand/ordisabilitiesillustratesthe

highlysocialnatureofcapabilitiesandadaptivepreferences.Viewedthroughtheutilitarian

lensofself-reportedhappiness,educationcanreducestudentsto‘happyslaves’(Sen,1999:

62)whoarecontentwiththeirimpoverishedlot.Itcandothesametotheirteachers.We

tendtothinkoftheadaptivepreferenceproblemactinguponlesspowerfulmembersof

society.Whilstteachersarenotexactlyempowered,theyaremorepowerfulthantheir

students.Yetthey,too,canadapttheirpreferencesbyinternalisingthesociallyconstructed

limitationsoftheirstudentsanddowngradingthevalueofthebettereducationallifewhich

isoutofreach.Wearenotadvocatingastateofpermanentfrustrationbutcallingattention

tothepervasivenessofadaptivepreferences(Bridges,2006)becauseitcansoeasilybe

overlooked.Ourfocusonotherpeople’sadaptations,particularlyaswehaveconstructedit

throughthedistinctionofSen’sevaluativespaces,highlightstheimportanceofagency:that

one’sownwell-beingextendstoaconcernforothers(especiallywhen,ashere,thereisa

30

professionalcommitmenttothatwell-being).Yetifotherpeople’sadaptationscanreduce

one’sownwell-being,thenenhancingotherpeople’scapabilitiescansurelyenhanceone’s

ownwell-being.Inthemeantime,andfollowingNussbaum,wedonotwanttoofferthe

systemaneasywayofgettingoffthehook(2006:190).

References

Ballet,J.,Dubois,J.-L.andMahieu,F.-R.(2007)‘Responsibilityforeachother’sfreedom:

Agencyasthesourceofcollectivecapability’.JournalofHumanDevelopment,

8(2),185–201.

Barrow,R.(2001)‘Inclusionvs.fairness’.JournalofMoralEducation,30,235–42.

Bridges,D.(2006)‘Adaptivepreference,justiceandidentityinthecontextofwidening

participationinhighereducation’.EthicsandEducation,1(1),15–28.

Clark,D.(2009)‘Adaptation,povertyandwell-being:Someissuesandobservationswith

specialreferencetothecapabilityapproachanddevelopmentstudies’.Journalof

HumanDevelopmentandCapabilities,10(1),21–42.

Corbett,J.(1996)Bad-Mouthing:TheLanguageofSpecialEducation.London:TheFalmer

Press.

Deneulin,S.(2006)TheCapabilityApproachandthePraxisofDevelopment.Basingstoke:

PalgraveMacmillan.

31

DepartmentforEducation(DfE)(2016)EducationExcellenceEverywhere.London:The

StationeryOffice.

DepartmentforEducation(DfE)(2015)SpecialEducationalNeedsandDisabilityCodeof

Practice:0-25Years.London:TheStationeryOffice.

DepartmentforEducation(DfE)(2011)SupportandAspiration:ANewApproachto

SpecialEducationalNeedsandDisability.London:TheStationeryOffice.

DepartmentforEducation(DfE)(2010)TheImportanceofTeaching.London:The

StationeryOffice.

DepartmentforEducationandSkills(DfES)(2001)SpecialEducationalNeed

CodeofPractice.London:HMSO.

DepartmentforEducationandScience(DES)(1978)Specialeducationalneeds.Reportof

theCommitteeofenquiryintotheeducationofhandicappedchildrenandyoung

people(TheWarnockReport).London:HMSO.

Devecchi,M.C.(2007)Teachersandteachingassistantsworkingtogether:Inclusion,

collaboration,andsupportinonesecondaryschool.UnpublishedPhDdissertation.

Cambridge:FacultyofEducation,UniversityofCambridge.

Devecchi,C.(2010)Whichjusticeforchildrenwithspecialeducationalneedsand

disabilities?TheapplicationofSen’scapabilityapproachtotheanalysisofUKschool

workforcereformpolicies.PaperpresentedattheHDCA,HumanRightsandHuman

DevelopmentConference,UniversityofJordan,Amman,21–23September.

32

EADSNE(2003)SpecialEducationacrossEuropein2003.Middlefart,Denmark:European

AgencyforDevelopmentinSpecialNeedsEducation.

Elster,J.(1983)SourGrapes:StudiesintheSubversionofRationality.Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.

Florian,L.andMcLaughlin,C.(Eds.)(2008)ClassificationinEducation:Issuesand

Perspectives.ThousandsOaks,CA:CorwinPress.

Florian,L.andRouse,M.(2009)‘TheinclusivepracticeprojectinScotland:Teacher

educationforinclusiveeducation’.TeachingandTeacherEducation,25,594–601.

Florian,L.,Hollenweger,J.,Simeonsson,R.J.,Wedell,K.,Riddell,S.,Terzi,L.etal.(2006)

‘Cross-culturalperspectivesontheclassificationofchildrenwithdisabilities:PartI.

Issuesintheclassificationofchildrenwithdisabilities’.JournalofSpecialEducation,

40(1),36–45.

Foucault,M.(1977)DisciplineandPunish.London:Penguin.

Foucault,M.(1980)Power/Knowledge:SelectedInterviewsandOtherWritings,1972–

1977.C.Gordon(Ed).NewYork:Pantheon.

Gasper,D.(2000)‘Developmentasfreedom:Takingeconomicsbeyondcommodities–the

cautiousboldnessofAmartyaSen’.JournalofInternationalDevelopment,9(7),989–

1001.

Gould,S.J.(1981)TheMismeasureofMan.NewYork:W.W.Norton&Co.

Graham,L.andSlee,R.(2008)‘Anillusoryinteriority:Interrogatingthediscourse/sof

inclusion’.EducationalPhilosophyandTheory,40(2),277–93.

33

Ibrahim,S.(2006)‘Fromindividualtocollectivecapabilities:Thecapabilityapproachasa

conceptualframeworkforself-help’.JournalofHumanDevelopment,7(3),397–416.

Jordan,A.andStanovich,P.(2003)‘Teachers’personalepistemologicalbeliefsabout

studentswithdisabilitiesasindicatorsofeffectiveteachingpractices’.Journalof

ResearchonSpecialEducationalNeeds,3(1),1–14.

Jordan,A.,Schwartz,EandMcGhie-Richmond,D.(2009)‘Preparingteachersforinclusive

classrooms’.TeachingandTeacherEducation,25,535–42.

Judge,H.(1981)‘Dilemmasineducation’.JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatry,22,

111–6.

Kagan,D.(1992)‘Implicationsofresearchonteacherbelief’.EducationalPsychologist,

27(1),65–90.

McIntyre,D.(2009)‘Thedifficultiesofinclusivepedagogyforinitialteachereducationand

somethoughtsonthewayforward’.TeachingandTeacherEducation,25,602–8.

Minow,M.(1990)MakingAlltheDifference:Inclusion,ExclusionandtheAmericanLaw.

Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.

Naraian,S.(2010)‘General,specialandinclusive:Refiguringprofessionalidentitiesina

collaborativelytaughtclassroom’.TeachingandTeacherEducation,26,1677–86.

Norwich,B.(2008a)‘Dilemmasofdifference,inclusionanddisability:International

perspectivesonplacement’.EuropeanJournalofSpecialNeedsEducation,23(4),

287–304.

34

Norwich,B.(2008b)Perspectivesandpurposesofdisabilityclassificationsystems:

Implicationsforteachersandcurriculumandpedagogy.InL.FlorianandC.

McLaughlin(Eds.)ClassificationinEducation:IssuesandPerspectives.Thousand

Oaks,CA:CorwinPress.

Nussbaum,M.(2000)WomenandHumanDevelopment:TheCapabilitiesApproach.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Nussbaum,M.(2006)FrontiersofJustice:Disability,Nationality,SpeciesMembership.

Cambridge,MA:BelknapPress.

OFSTED(2008)HowWellNewTeachersarePreparedtoTeachPupilswithLearning

Difficultiesand/orDisabilities.London:OFSTED.

OFSTED(2010)TheSpecialEducationalNeedsandDisabilityReview.AStatementisnot

Enough.London:OFSTED.

Pearson,S.(2007)‘Exploringinclusiveeducation:Earlystepsforprospectivesecondary

schoolteachers’.BritishJournalofSpecialEducation,34(1),25–32.

Pearson,S.(2009)‘Usingactivitytheorytounderstandprospectiveteachers’attitudesto

andconstructionofspecialeducationalneedsand/ordisabilities’.Teachingand

TeacherEducation,25,559–68.

Peters,S.J.andReid,D.K.(2009)‘Resistanceanddiscursivepractice:Promotingadvocacy

inteacherundergraduateandgraduateprogrammes’.TeachingandTeacher

Education,25,551–58.

35

Ridley,B.andWatts,M.(2014)‘Usingcapabilitytoassessthewell-beingofadultlearners

withdis/abilities.’InL.Florian(Ed.)TheSageHandbookofSpecialEducation,2nd

edition.London:Sage.

Rose,R.(2010)‘Understandinginclusion:Interpretations,perspectivesandcultures’.In

R.Rose(Ed.)ConfrontingObstaclestoInclusion:InternationalResponsesto

DevelopingInclusiveEducation.London:DavidFulton.

Schostak,J.(1993)DirtyMarks:TheEducationofSelf,MediaandPopularCulture.London:

PlutoPress.

Sen,A.(1992)InequalityReexamined.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Sen,A.(1998)ReasonbeforeIdentity:TheRomanesLecture.Oxford:OxfordUniversity

Press.

Sen,A.(1999)DevelopmentasFreedom.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Sen,A.(2009)TheIdeaofJustice.London:AllenLane.

TeacherDevelopmentAgency(TDA)(2007)ProfessionalStandardforQualifiedTeacher

Status.Availablefrom:www.tda.gov.uk/teacher/developing-career/professional-

standards-guidance.aspx.

Terzi,L.(2005)‘Beyondthedilemmaofdifference:Thecapabilityapproachtodisability

andspecialeducationalneeds’.JournalofPhilosophyofEducation,39(3),443–59.

Terzi,L.(2007a)‘Capabilityandeducationalequality:Thejustdistributionofresourcesto

studentswithdisabilitiesandspecialeducationalneeds’.JournalofPhilosophyof

Education,41(4),757–73.

36

Terzi,L.(2007b)‘Thecapabilitytobeeducated’.InM.WalkerandE.Unterhalter(Eds.)

AmartyaSen’sCapabilityApproachandSocialJusticeinEducation.NewYork:

PalgraveMacmillan.

Thomas,G.andLoxley,A.(2007)DeconstructingSpecialEducationandConstructing

Inclusion,2ndedition.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.

Tomlinson,S.(1982)ASociologyofSpecialEducation.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.

UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization(UNESCO)(1994)The

SalamancaStatementandFrameworkforAction.Paris:UNESCO.

UnitedNations(2015)SustainableDevelopmentGoals.NewYork:UnitedNations.§

(availableathttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300,accessed5June

2016)

Unterhalter,E.andWalker,M.(2007)‘Conclusion:Capabilities,socialjustice,and

education’.InM.WalkerandE.Unterhalter(Eds.)AmartyaSen’sCapability

ApproachandSocialJusticeinEducation.London:PalgraveMacmillan.

Walker,M.(2006)HigherEducationPedagogies.Maidenhead:OpenUniversityPress.

Watts,M.(2007)‘Capability,identityandaccesstoeliteuniversities’.Prospero,13(3),22–

33.

Watts,M.(2009)‘Senandtheartofmotorcyclemaintenance:Adaptivepreferencesand

highereducationinEngland’.StudiesinPhilosophyandEducation,28(5),425–36.

37

Watts,M.(2011)‘Symboliccapitalandthecapabilitygap’.InH.-U.Otto,H.ZeiglerandO.

Lessmann(Eds.)ClosingtheCapabilityGap:renegotiatingsocialjusticeforthe

young.FarmingtonHills,MI:BarbaraBudrichPublishing.

Watts,M.(2013)‘Thecomplexitiesofadaptivepreferencesinpost-compulsoryeducation:

insightsfromthefableofTheFoxandtheGrapes’.JournalofHumanDevelopment

andCapabilities,14(4),503-19.

Watts,MandBridges,D.(2006)‘Thevalueofnon-participationinhighereducation’.

JournalofEducationPolicy,21(3),267–90.

Watts,M.andRidley,B.(2012)‘Identitiesofdis/abilityandmusic’.BritishEducational

ResearchJournal,38(3),353-72.

Wiebe-Berry,R.A.(2008)‘Noviceteachers’conceptionsoffairnessininclusion

classrooms’.TeachingandTeacherEducation,24,1149–59.