Professional Documents
Culture Documents
It is well documented that one of the greatest challenges facing teachers in New Zealand is
improving outcomes for priority learners. With reference to relevant literature and research,
critically discuss how classroom teachers can address this challenge.
Introduction
While New Zealands education system is constructed with the aspiration to provide all students with
an equal opportunity at success (Strathdee, 2013, p. 504), for those students classified as Priority
Learners (hereafter PLs) this opportunity is fictive (ERO, 2012a, p. 4). The persistent challenge for
teachers is to rectify the underachievement of PLs in relation to their non-PL counterparts (Key, 2012,
p. 3). As such this essay will: first, define the term PLs; secondly, delineate some of those strategies
posited as capable of enhancing PL achievement; and finally, critically assess three such strategies, as
they are implemented amongst PL groups.1 This analysis will culminate in presentation of the view
that, while certain strategies contain promise, their implementation cannot be uncareful. Every
strategy, if uncritically advanced, contains the potential to undermine its own aspirations, and thus
those of PLs.
Who are PLs?
PLs are those learners who have typically not experience[ed] success in the New Zealand schooling
system (ERO, 2012a, p. 4). This definition encapsulates: Mori and Pasifika learners, students
originating from low socio-economic circumstances (hereafter low-SES), students with physical or
mental special education needs (hereafter SENs), students that speak English as a second language,
refugee students and gifted and talented students, and any student that requires additional
assistance or differentiated support in their learning (which broadly includes any student struggling
to work at curriculum level for their age) (ERO, 2012a, p. 4; ERO, 2015; Professional Association for
Gifted Education, 2014, p. 1; Ministry of Education, 2014, p. 5).
There are two important points of note, regarding this definition. First, any given PL learner might
subsist across several PL categories - for instance, a significant portion of Mori and Pasifika learners
are also low-SES PLs (Marriot & Sim, 2014, p. 4). Secondly, despite their classification as a whole,
the needs of PLs are diverse some will require no assistance, some short-term assistance, and others
have long-lasting needs (Ministry of Education, 2014, p. 5).Therefore, the circumstance of PLs cannot
be resolved by generic strategy in each instance, teachers must respond to the uniquely calibrated
circumstance of each PL as an individual.
1 While other strategies might also be open to critique, the limitations of this essay necessarily restrict the scope
of critical analysis. As such, those three strategies selected for analysis have been chosen on the basis of their
varied natures, and the unique difficulties which each gives rise to in practice, in order to present a broad sample
of both: techniques to address the needs of PLs, and the issues that arise in the implementation of inclusive
strategies generally. The analysis below should not be understood as exhaustive it is a representative sample
only, intended to act as a microcosmic representation of issues which arise in the teaching of PLs.
More specifically, teachers might enact any number of inclusive strategies (hereafter strategies),
the practice of which implicitly realises these aims, such as:
Cooperative Learning (CL), which requires students to work together in small groups
to produce an outcome (Johnson & Johnson, 1994, pp. 1-3) that maximises both individual
and group learning (Medcalf, 1995, p. 11). CL has been demonstrably shown to remove social
barriers to inclusion developing students social skills (Gillies & Boyle, 2010, p. 933) and
capacity to respond to one anothers needs (Gillies, 2003, p. 146), enhancing the classroom
learning environment. Further, by compelling participation in learning (in service to a group
goal) it lifts the achievement of all students (Marzano, 2003; Marzano et al., 2001);
Reciprocal Teaching (RT), which requires students to engage in dialogue with their teacher,
jointly constructing meaning from a text (see Palincsar & Brown, 1984) by summarising its
content, formulating questions, clarifying ambiguities and predicting its events (see Howard,
2004). RT fosters social inclusion by rendering the classroom a supportive space, in which
students come to value one anothers contributions to learning (Stevens, Slavin and Farni,
1991). Further, it supports the learning of all students by promoting metacognitive strategising
(Cohen, 1994) and reading comprehension (Lysynchuk, Pressley, and Vye, 1990), resulting in
a positive effect on achievement of all students (Westra, 2002, p. 51);
Peer Tutoring (PT) which requires a skilled tutor student to enact a cooperative learning
model with a less-skilled tutee student for a task (TKI, 2015). PT fosters social inclusion by
promoting positive relations between peers as they work together to find common language
2
Appeals to students strengths and interests (as informed by their socio-cultural location and
personal preferences) in other words, rendering learning student-centred (ERO, 2012a, p.
13);
Permits students to theorise that curriculum from their socio-cultural location (ERO, 2012b, p.
2);
Positivises differences, promotes acceptance of diversity, and reveals social structures of
power and oppression by deconstructing societal assumptions (see Apple, 1979), thereby
facilitating praxis for social change (Nygreen, 2011, p. 68).
A model of dialogic pedagogy, wherein students theorise their education from their socio-
2006);
Allowing Mori students to express their whanaungatanga by creating communities
in classrooms (and avoiding pepper-potting for the sake of socialisation)(Simon,
1993, p. 31);
A pedagogical approach which values all learning styles (MacFarlane et al, 2007, p. 67). For
instance by;
o Recognising Mori preferences for communal learning consulting with whanau
regarding student learning (Bevan-Brown, 2005, p. 155) or encouraging inter-student
o
While CRP is demonstrably effective (see Bishop et al., 2005; Smith, 2002) its implementation must
not be incautious. When uncritically implemented, CRP can undermine its own aims by alienating the
students it seeks to include.
The key tension of CRP arises in the rendering of culture as a curricular matter. Bringing culture to
the classroom by using multicultural resources (Gay, 2000, p. 29) risks reducing culture to
something teachable rendering a nebulous, diverse social construct to a homogenised parade of
unitary customs and traditions (Britzman et al., 1993, p. 189). For Mori knowledge, for instance,
this is an act of symbolic colonisation (see Penetito, 2001) Mori knowledge is part of a wide,
contextual system and the reduction of such knowledge to bite-sized, curricular-relevant chunks does
violence to its holistic structure (Durie, 1983, p. 22). This very outcome has presented in the Physical
Education Curriculum, where the holistic concept Hauora has been reduced to an aspect of wellbeing (see Salter, 2000). In symbolically colonising knowledge, the risk is that the classroom alienates
4
Demonstrate caring and support for all students, positivise student difference and openly
In general, this strategy enhances students social skills, and promotes students self-esteem and sense
of belonging the impact of which is a significant lift to academic achievement (see Lam et al.,
2015). However, as with responsive curricula, the enactment of this strategy is problematic in context.
As such, the ensuing section will critically assess how this strategy is implemented in relation to
SENs, as a microcosmic study of its difficulties in wider practice.
The Difficulties of Manifesting am Inclusive Culture in Practice: The Example of SENs
Given the unique needs of SENs, the creation of an inclusive classroom designed to meet their needs
will require specific, targeted realisation of the strategy. In order to include SENs socially, teachers
might take such steps as:
Supporting narratives of disability in the classroom that disrupt norms of disabled persons
Encourage positive interactions between SENs and others students (Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012,
p. 170) by setting behavioural standards of civility and respect, such as prohibiting the use of
ableist language (like retarded, crippled and so on) (Shaddock et al., 2007, p. 11);
Viewing SENs as people, rather than by their disability, and valuing their academic
However, as with CRP, the realisation of these aspirations gives rise to a number of tensions in
practice, which threaten to subvert the strategys intentions. When attempting to create an inclusive
classroom, teachers must be alert to these risks.
First, the dismissal of the medical model must be done carefully, and SENs should not be
normalised wholesale. The risk is, where one attempts to render disability inconsequential (too
normal), it propagates the notion disability does not matter (Stiker, 1997, p. 192). This, in turn,
invisibilises the consequences of disability the costs of living with disability in an ableist world
(Campbell, 2009, p. 24). To sanitise the real-life experiences of SENs in this way is to risk alienating
them from the classroom (Shin, 2015, p. 18), circumscribing their ability to participate and theorise
from their social location a key pillar of an inclusive community.
Equally, teachers should be cautious not to impose normalcy upon SENs against their wishes. For
some SENs, their disability may be a point of pride or difference of which they desire
acknowledgment (Chandler, 2013, p. 77). To impose normalcy (in titling) might be taken as a
symbolic valorisation of able-ness insinuating that SENs ought to desire recognition as normal or
to be assimilated to the mainstream. In this sense, disability is symbolically denigrated in the
classroom alienating those students that fall within its terms.
One way around this difficulty is to promote an alternative model, which shifts the focus from
discussion of whether difference ought to be identified to assuming it should be, and rather altering
the meaning which is brought to bear on difference (Stiker, 1997, p. 12). Teachers should
acknowledge difference, and recognise it is ordinary in the natural course, without suggesting that
this nullifies differences between students, and positivise both ordinariness and difference. This
permits SENs to classify themselves as different if they prefer (avoiding nullification of their
identity), and removes the perjorative insinuations that accrue to disabled labelling.
Secondly, teachers should not impose inclusion so enthusiastically so as to prevent SENs selfselected exclusion or constitution of sub-communities. Wolfensberger (1983), for instance,
specifically notes the value of permitting SENs their own space to develop collective consciousness
it allows such students a sanctuary from society which otherwise pressurises assimilation to the
norm (p. 26), and a safe space to share experiences of ableism (see Watt-Jones, 2002). Practically, this
7
Creating an information gap between high ability students (who receive a full curriculum),
and low-ability students, who receive an abrogated curriculum (Westwood, 2001, p. 6); and
Demonstrating lower expectations for low-ability students (in anticipating lesser, or lowerquality, work) which act to supress their achievement (while their peers obtain the benefit of
high expectations) (see Davies, 2000).
The issue is, if DI is implemented in this way, it widens the gap between high and low-ability students
(typically, PLs), suppressing rather than lifting their achievement. While seemingly a misguided
implementation of the strategy, these uses of DI are recommended across the literature (see Janney &
Snell, 2010; Utley & Mortweet, 1999).
One way around this concern is for teachers to implement flexible grouping strategies in their
classrooms (Tomlinson, 2005, p. 2), whereby group composition is regularly shaken up by changing
membership criteria. For instance, grouping students should by readiness should occur in relation to
specific tasks (rather than by general ability). Students should thus find themselves in different groups
constantly a student working at a high level for literature interpretation tasks, for instance, might
find themselves working at a low level for spelling (Tomlinson, 2005, p. 3). Further, teachers should
also act to group students (and instruct accordingly) based on other factors such as interest and
learning style. If grouping occurs flexibly, this should guard against homogenous grouping. Every
student, rather, should find themselves working at different curriculum levels at various points, and
with a variety of classmates (Tomlinson, 2005, p. 3).
However, the difficulty with this approach is that it presumes students will be sufficiently diverse.
However, this may not be the case. Students of similar abilities tend to cluster in peer groups, and peer
groups tend to experience a homogenisation of interests and learning styles over time (Cairns et al.,
1989; Cairns et al., 2005; Berndt & Keefe, 1992). To this end, even flexible grouping might eventuate
in default groups which vary little even when their membership criteria are changed. As such, students
In Summation
As such, while inclusive strategies have demonstrably worked to raise the achievement of learners
that fit PL profiles, the ongoing challenge for teachers is their effective implementation. As the critical
analysis of selected strategies above demonstrates, teachers must always be cautious to tensions that
can arise in realising inclusion which subvert its aspirations, and thus the achievement of PLs.
Although such strategies are useful, they require further critical attention and development before they
become immune to concern. That, in addition to cautious enactment, is the task of the teacher in
providing for PLs in the long-term.
10
11