Veera Mookerjee (Ph.D., LMSW)
Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) are global ‘buzz words” used everywhere. However, under the umbrella of these terms, institutions often do the exact opposite of inclusion, which is detrimental to the individuals who are supposed to be ‘being served’. In this article, I share how an incident in a school triggered this thought process.
The incident
During a summer camp programme for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities, a child threw an object at a teacher and other students. The teacher narrowly escaped getting hit on the head and filed an incident report according to camp rules.
However, the school’s response was that the child comes from a distressed immigrant family with a single mother. The camp managers tried to ignore the incident as the camp was nearly over and the child would soon be with another group.
The teacher pushed back, saying that the child’s behaviour was unsafe for other children and proper measures should be taken. The school responded that it gets funding to enable diverse communities to access services, so the child should be allowed in the inclusive environment.
Afterwards, the teachers and other students at the camp started to avoid interaction with the child. The question is, was the child now in an inclusive environment?
Developing an inclusive response?
Factors such as a family’s socio-emotional and socio-economic conditions certainly influence access to services for a child with disabilities. But is it not the responsibility of an inclusive school to respond appropriately to all children’s behaviour?
In an ideal world, parents would see the incident report. Teachers and parents would discuss the situation and develop a plan for understanding and addressing aggressive behaviour. Together, they would enable access to additional and appropriate resources and support. It is important to address aggressive behaviour that can be dangerous for the child and those working with them.
Adapting the pedagogies used by summer camp teachers and in the classroom could avoid aggressive behaviour developing. For example, providing a child with counselling and therapy, supporting parents to develop skills to deal with the behaviour, or indeed supporting teachers to learn from effective behaviour management approaches parents already use.
Unfortunately, in this instance, no appropriate steps were taken to help the child or family to access services. Therefore, was equity in service provision taken under consideration while addressing the concerns with this child?
The situation created a ripple effect of negative outcomes at multiple levels:
- The child missed important learning opportunities to understand the consequences of actions and self-managing behaviour.
- The staff became disappointed with school administration and potentially prejudiced towards the child, their family, and their community – which risked them being racially labelled and affected by stereotypical assumptions.
While the school states that they are obligated to encourage EDI, I ask:
- Did the school really focus on the students’ diverse needs and ensure resources are used efficiently to enable appropriate learning opportunities and development of social and behavioural skills?
- Did the school enable equity by not reaching out to the family, supporting staff, or developing a supportive team for the student?
- Finally, as a community-based educational institution, did the school ensure all students’ and staff safety? In the long run, will this school effectively enable this student to become independent and included in wider society?
What does this mean for EDI?
This is one of many similar incidents that fail to address EDI effectively in educational institutions. While many institutions claim to support EDI, and access the funding provided for inclusion, they often ignore learners’ particular needs and fail to provide helpful resources.
Managers argue that funding opportunities are limited, and the list of ever-changing needs is high. Therefore, it is imperative for community service agencies to promote their inclusion work to address diverse community needs and enable partnerships to develop. It is unfortunate that EDI claims are often limited to promotional purposes, such as poster-friendly words and the faces of vulnerable people on display, with no framework for enabling quality education and learning.
Very often, EDI data only shows the diversity in terms of race, language, culture, and disability. As a result, actual work on effective strategies is missed. EDI is more than checking boxes on a form to seek funding. Data should be generated and shared to expand on effective and real measures towards resolving problems.
Diversity is about accepting that individuals have different needs. Equity means everyone’s needs are addressed appropriately. In our example school, children come with diverse needs, including various special educational needs and disabilities. If, in the name of inclusion, all children are provided with the same education plan, equity is compromised. One size does not fit all.
Inclusion does not mean simply integrating everyone in the group, or under the same roof in a school. Inclusion is about ensuring that every child is provided with a needs-based education plan and appropriate guidance from educators. This also ensures service efficacy and the appropriate use of resources for all children, but especially those with disabilities and special educational needs.
Such change is shown to be effective from the micro to macro level. With every effective step in addressing individual needs (micro level), the system creates accessible spaces for resolving similar problems. New data is generated with each individual case, ultimately informing community approaches, policy amendments, new funding opportunities and policy change at the macro level. Regardless of distance covered, inclusion starts with one effective step in progressive thinking from leadership.
We must advocate for effective EDI in community institutions. It is important that we speak up to funding agencies to ensure funds are channelled to appropriate service delivery rather than attractive promotional stunts. Professional support for agencies is crucial to retain staff and maintain trust. If policies claim no individual should be left behind, then it is essential to ensure services are tailored to learners’ individual needs.
In today’s world, where we often see more educational needs than there are available and accessible resources, should we just remain disability advocates or become more instrumental in creating our own resources? Should we complain about failures or provide effective solutions to existing problems? We should identify and fill the cracks in the foundation of policies, laws, and practice, and seek amendments that ensure more inclusive societies for learners of all abilities?
Veera is the founder of the Resolveera consultancy focusing on disability and inclusion www.resolveera.org.