CC BY
77
LIFELONG LEARNING AND DISABILITY: ADULT EDUCATION FOR PEOPLE WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES IN BERLIN
E. J. Fawcett
The ratification of the United Nation Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has ushered in a shift in thinking surrounding the accessibility of education in Germany. Here, conceptual and practical consequences of this shift are discussed with reference to an inclusive adult education project in Berlin.
Key words: adult education, inclusion, disability, UN Convention, Germany.
Why do they need English?!. As a teacher offering English courses for adults with learning difficulties, this is a sentence I hear on a regular basis. It expresses surprise, often genuine interest, and most probably deep-seated and unconscious ideas about the position of adults with disabilities as learners. As a university researcher, I have the opportunity to explore the questions that surround such utterances on a theoretical level. Drawing on my involvement in an inclusive adult education project in Berlin, this short paper sheds light firstly on the conceptual background, secondly on the practical reality of lifelong learning opportunities for adults with learning difficulties1 in Germany. It becomes clear that lifelong learning and continuous education are certainly available for people with special needs, but that many questions remain as to the way in which formal courses can be offered. The trend suggests a welcome move away from a segregated model of educational provision for adults, but there is a lack of clarity about how to proceed in an “inclusive” fashion.
Inclusion and inclusive education. Inclusion can be defined broadly as “the action or state of including or of being included within a group or structure.”2 The dualism exclusion/inclusion can be traced back to French sociological debates about social cohesion in the 1970s (von Kuchler 2010). In current discourses in the German context, the concept of inclusion rests on the positive “vision and objective of a society for all” (Heinrich 2007, p. 27). This marks a break from the idea of “integrating” marginalised social groups. As Kronauer states: “[...] integration assumes the existence of a society into which people can and should be integrated; inclusion, on the other hand, demands that societal relations that exclude people must be overcome.” (Kronauer 2010, p. 56) Applied to education systems, the concept of inclusion “implies a shift from seeing the child [or the adult; EF] as the problem to seeing the education system as the problem” (UNESCO, 2009, S. 14) and thus requires that systems change in order to provide for the needs of all learners.
1 A learning difficulty (or learning disability) is “a reduced intellectual ability and difficulty with everyday activities which affects someone for their whole life. People with a learning disability tend to take longer to learn and may need support to develop new skills, understand complex information and interact with other people.” (Mencap 2015) Such a label draws attention to one aspect of someone's life and being, but cannot possibly do justice to the whole person. (cf. British Institute of Learning Disabilities 2015)
2 Oxford dictionaries: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/inclusion
19
In the context of disability, the relocation of responsibility from the individual to society as a whole stems from an understanding of disability that has been developed in the academic and practical work of disabled people and their networks and advocacy groups (cf. Oliver 1999). The ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in Germany in 2009 marks a key moment in the history of disability rights precisely because it recognises a shift towards an inclusive perspective. The CRPD places states under obligation to protect existing rights and empowers people with disabilities by raising awareness of their entitlement to full participation in society1.
Disability as “an evolving concept”. In its definition of disability, the CRPD clearly recognises the disabling effect that the social environment can have on individuals: “Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.” (CRPD, art. 1, my emphasis).
This is also emphasised in the theoretical background to the document, which states that the points of the Convention have been agreed upon in recognition of the fact “[...] that disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.” (ibid., point ‘e’ of preamble).
The traditional, medical model viewed disability and individual impairment as synonymous, and as a problem to be cured or alleviated where possible. In contrast to this, the social model differentiates the terms “impairment” and “disability”: individuals may have physical impairments, but disability is social in nature. Society disables people by ignoring their needs (cf. Shakespeare 2013 for a detailed discussion of the social model). Based on the social model, the CRPD focuses on societal barriers to participation and makes it clear that demand is on society to change and be inclusive, not on the “disabled” individual to adapt him or herself to the non-disabled majority norm. Over and above stating that disability is not an acceptable justification for excluding a person from education, the CRPD also states that “reasonable accommodation of the individual’s requirements” must be made to support participation (CRPD, art. 24. para 2). Moreover, it is clear that this is by no means limited to compulsory school education: “States Parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities are able to access general tertiary education, vocational training, adult education and lifelong learning without discrimination and on an equal basis with others” (ibid., para 5).
With this declaration in mind, the remainder of this paper will focus on an example of inclusive provision of lifelong learning opportunities, namely adult education courses for people with learning difficulties.
Adult education “in simple language” in Berlin. While public adult education centres in Germany traditionally have a mandate to provide education for all people
1 For information and the full text of the CRPD see UN Enable http://www.un.org/disabilities/ (English) or http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/disability.shtml (Russian)
20
1
who may wish to take part, they have - with the exception of a few institutions -not viewed adults with learning difficulties as potential participants (Ackermann 2012, p. 27-28). The project “ERW-IN: Erwachsenenbildung inklusive” (“Adult Education - inclusive”) was initiated in 2009 as a cooperation between a support organisation for people with learning difficulties and an adult education centre in Berlin1 2 with the aim of establishing a range of courses in public adult education institutions which would be accessible for people with learning difficulties. Accessibility in this case refers not only to physical aspects such as the building and classrooms, but also to the appropriateness of communication, teaching methods, and the removal of organisational and financial barriers (cf. Papadopolous 2012). Courses are now being offered at six adult education institutions in Berlin. The topics on offer include foreign languages, literacy, numeracy, dealing with money, art and crafts, information technology, sport, dance, first aid, sexuality and relationships, cooking, and political education, and courses take place weekly in the evenings or sometimes as day-seminars. This semester, a total of 73 courses are on offer, with student numbers ranging between 4 and 12 per course (ERW-IN programme3). I would like to point out two fundamental questions that arise from this project on an organisational level. Firstly, a possible contradiction becomes apparent. While this range of courses was initiated in the name of inclusion - a concept which, as outlined above, highlights the importance of institutions being open for all learners - a clear target group strategy was followed. Organisers carried out educational needs analyses in sheltered workshops for disabled people, and the courses and programme brochures were (initially) specifically labelled as being for people with learning difficulties. On the one hand, this approach could be deemed necessary if adult education institutions wish to encourage participation by groups of people currently not taking part in further education (Schiersmann 2010). On the other hand, it has largely resulted in the continuation of separation: courses for adults with learning difficulties take place in the same building as other courses, but nonetheless set apart from them. A change that has been made in reaction to this is to rename the course programme Education in Simple Language, which directs attention to the subject matter and didactic methods rather than to a certain target group, and makes it clear that courses are open for anyone to whom the course description appeals. Indeed, “it makes more sense to initiate something on the basis of common interests than to say: ‘Go because there are disabled people there.’” (Radtke 2003, p.24) This links to the second question about what constitutes an appropriate environment for successful learning. It must be acknowledged that mixed groups can be more conducive to learning than homogenous groups (cf. Siebert 2012, p. 113), and it is my personal belief that more trust could be placed in
1 Some public adult education institutions, such as the Bildungszentrum Nurnberg (Education Centre Nuremberg), VHS Frankfurt (Adult Education Centre Frankfurt) and Theodor-Heckel-Bildungswerk (Theodor-Heckel Education Centre) in Munich, have been offering course for disabled people, including people with learning difficulties, since the 1970s. Their approaches differed considerably.
2 eRw-IN homepage: http://www.erw-in.de/
Adult Education Center (City-VHS) Berlin Mitte homepage: http://www.berlin.de/vhs-mitte/
3 http://www.erw-in.de/images/stories/kurse/2015_Fruehjahr_ERW-IN.pdf
21
this idea, particularly if educational institutions are to be viewed as contributors to societal change1. On the other hand, a perception of inclusion as intrinsically good and exclusion as intrinsically bad is over-simplified, and exclusive groups are surely justified where communication and learning would not otherwise be possible (cf. Lindmeier 2003, p. 34).
Outlook for the conference. The ratification of the CRPD in Germany has altered the context in which lifelong learning is viewed considerably, and many questions remain as to what an inclusive approach entails. The discussion of these issues in an international context will no doubt prove fruitful, particularly where a global declaration - the CRPD - encounters and shapes very different national, regional and institutional realities.
Literature
Ackermann, K.E. (2012): Zwischen den Stuhlen. Erwachsenenbildung fur Menschen mit geistigen Behinderungen. In: DIE Zeitschrift fur Erwachsenenbildung, vol. 2, pp. 26-29.
Heinrich, K. (2007): Auf dem Weg zur Inklusion - Umsetzung der heilpadagogischen Leitidee durch KoKoBes? In: Erwachsenenbildung und Behinderung, vol. 1, pp. 22-31.
Kronauer, M. (ed.) (2010): Inklusion und Weiterbildung. Reflexionen zur gesellschaftlichen Teilhabe in der Gegenwart. Bielefeld: WBV
Lindmeier, C. (2003): Integrative Erwachsenenbildung. Auftrag - Didaktik -
Organisationsformen. In: DIE Zeitschrift fur Erwachsenenbildung, vol. 4, pp. 28-35.
Oliver, M.J. (1999): The Disability Movement and the Professions. The Disability Archive UK. Centre for Disability Studies. University of Leeds [online] http://disability-
studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/
Papadopolous, C. (2012): Barrierefreiheit als didaktische Herausforderung. Auf dem Weg zur inklusiven Erwachsenenbildung, Teil III. In: DIE Zeitschrift, vol. 2, pp. 37-39.
Shakespeare, T. (2013): The social model of disability. In: Davis, Lennard J. (ed.), The Disability Studies Reader. 4th Edition. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 214-221.
Schiersmann, C. (2010): Zielgruppen. In: Arnold, R./Nolda, S./Nuissl, E. (eds.): Worterbuch Erwachsenenbildung. Bad Heilbrunn [online] http://www.wb-erwachsenenbildung.de/online-woerterbuch/
Siebert, H. (2012): Didaktisches Handeln in der Erwachsenenbildung. Didaktik aus konstruktivistischer Sicht. 7. uberarbeitete Auflage. Augsburg: Ziel
UNESCO. (2009). Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education [online] http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0017/001778/177849e.pdf
von Kuchler, F. (2010): Inklusion. In: Arnold, R./Nolda, S./Nuissl, E. (eds.): Worterbuch Erwachsenenbildung. Bad Heilbrunn [online] http://www.wb-erwachsenenbildung.de/online-woerterbuch/
Radtke, Peter/Brandt, Peter (2003): Gesprach: Unser Leben ist immer eine Art Kompromiss Streifzuge durch Erwachsenbildung und andere Grenzregionen mit Peter Radtke. In: DIE Zeitschrift fur Erwachsenenbildung, vol. 4, pp. 24-27.
Webpages
British Institute of Learning Disabilities (BILD) http://www.bild.org.uk/
Mencap UK https://www.mencap.org.uk/definition
‘Quotations that originate from German sources are my own translation.
1 The Salamanca Statement supports this view when it states that “regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building and inclusive society and achieving education for all [...]” (UNESCO 1994, p. ix) This idea can be extended to adult education institutions.
22
