Abstract

There is on-going debate about whether mainstream education is desirable for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD). Whilst some hold that ‘inclusion’ is a human right, and that interaction with mainstream peers leads to socio-cognitive gains, others argue that profoundly disabled learners require developmental curricular provided by special schools. Despite such claims, there is little evidence to support either view. This paper contributes to the debate by presenting research that examined how mainstream schools and special schools, across nursery, primary, and secondary settings, provided alternative social spaces for children with PMLD. It applies a Lefebvrian lens to illuminate how social engagement depended on the extent to which prescribed practices (‘abstract spaces’) dominated the interaction (‘spatial practices’), and the conditions which allowed novel forms of engagement to emerge (‘lived spaces’). Novel forms of engagement correlated with positive social development. The conclusion challenges the ‘mainstream-special’ binary presupposed in inclusion debates.

摘要

关于有深度和多重学习困难 (PMLD) 的儿童是否需要主流教育的争论正在进行中。虽然有些人认为“包容”是一项人权，与主流同龄人的互动会带来社会认知方面的收益，但其他人则认为，严重残疾的学习者需要特殊学校提供的发展课程。尽管有这样的说法，但几乎没有证据支持这两种观点。本文通过介绍研究主流学校和特殊学校如何跨越托儿所、小学和中学环境为患有 PMLD 的儿童提供替代社交空间的研究，为辩论做出了贡献。它应用列斐伏尔镜头来阐明社会参与如何取决于规定实践（“抽象空间”）主导交互（“空间实践”）的程度，以及允许新形式参与（“生活空间”）出现的条件）。新的参与形式与积极的社会发展相关。该结论挑战了包容性辩论中预设的“主流-特殊”二元论。