Violations of integrity in inclusive education: INTES evidence collection and overview of findings

Transcript

1. Violations of integrity in inclusive education: INTES evidence collection and overview of findings Evidence from Armenia, Kazakhstan, Serbia and Ukraine Tinde Kovac-Cerovic University of Belgrade 1
2. Overview • Rationale, inspirations and research questions • Methodological considerations and solutions • Findings • Conclusions & implications 2
3. Rationale Two sensitive areas • Education Inclusion: global policy priority, but multiple change areas that can face different barriers • Integrity/Corruption in Education: global priority, but politically sensitive and methodologically underdeveloped • Battlefield for equity & social justice
4. Research questions and tasks • What is the interaction between IE and corruption? • corrosive practices are barriers to IE? • new risks for integrity violations emerging in the process of implementation of IE? • Find methodological solutions that capture the anatomy and physiology of corruption and are also empowering
5. Inspirations and background • Seminal work on multiple faces of corruption in education – Hallak & Poisson, 2001, 2007 • Policy context as relevant frame for corrosive practices in education – INTES, OECD 2018; Milovanovitch, 2019; Kovacs Cerovic, Milovanovitch & Jovanovic, 2018 • Social‐psychological aspects of corruption as socially situated action and socially constructed meanings ‐ Zaloznaya, 2014 • IE as a policy that is enacted at every local setting a new – Ainscow & Cesar, 2006 • Action oriented inquiry ‐ Engestrom & Sannino 2010; Daiute & Kovacs Cerovic, 2017 • OSF mission in education – aiming towards social justice, equity and sustainability
6. Methodological considerations
7. Conceptual framework Education participant Adverse circumstances in education Motivation Opportunity Integrity violation Micro-macro Psychological-social-economic Static-dynamic Rational-emotional
8. Methodological considerations Search for methodological solutions that • provide deep understanding about shared meanings, motives and contexts • Involve perspectives of multiple stakeholders in a variety of challenging situations; • focused on violations at social niches where they actually happen, capture processes and acts of corruption in full human and institutional detail; • culturally appropriate to be used in different countries; • robust enough to yield quantification and meet scientific requirements • empowering for stakeholders and oriented to the development of policy and practice
9. Methodological solutions • Qualitative situated research with elements of participatory action-oriented research • Multi-stakeholders and cross-national study • Multiple stages of inquiry • A variety of techniques to elicit participants’ relevant narratives (survey, FG, dynamic storytelling) • Multiple stages of qualitative analysis yielding quantitative results • Leading to locally developed recommendations and action plan
10. Stakeholders’ sample • Purposive sampling (Krueger & Casey, 2015) • Participants differing in their position in the educational system, field of expertise and attitudes toward inclusive education. • Sample was constructed through snowball method based on consultations with local experts. Total Country Stakeholder group Ukraine Serbia Kazakhstan Armenia 14 2 4 6 2 Parents 16 7 4 2 2 Regular education 4 1 2 / 1 Special education 18 4 7 2 5 Civil society organisation 8 / 3 / 5 International organisation 5 1 1 2 1 National government 2 / 1 / 1 Local or regional government 3 1 1 1 1 Assessment bodies 7 2 / 3 2 Academia and research institutes 77 18 23 16 20 Total
11. Multiple stages & objectives of inquiry Scoping study (1h) • Establish equivalence of meanings in IE • Translate INTES categories into IE In depth exploration (4h) • Gather participants’ accounts on manifestations of IVs in IE • Explore problems/ topics in the most frequent areas Workshop (2,5d) • Constructing & negotiating joint meanings among participants • Gather participants’ relevant interpretations of mechanisms and human experiences • Explore change scenarios • Action planning
12. Variety of techniques Scoping study •Scoping questionnaire In depth exploration •Focus Group discussions (2 per country) •Funnel approach (Strauss and Corbin, 1998) Workshop •Dynamic storytelling: •Story about event of corruption, •Letter to future peer •Group discussion on unfinished story ending •Joint action planning Broader questions on IE Examples of 9 IV In depth exploration of most common IVs
13. Stages of qualitative analysis Focus group discussions • Conducted in local languages, audio taped, verbatim transcribed, translated into English • The data was analysed in two stages using MAXQDA software.  Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke , 2006), hybrid approach (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006):  Deductive ‘a priori template of codes approach’ thematic analysis (Hayes, 1997) – check for 9 IVs K = .808, p≤ .ooo; Intercoder agreement between 78.9% for Improper private supplementary tutoring and 100.00% for Politicisation, Procurement and Accreditation and Licensing Fraud  Data driven inductive thematic analysis (Patton, 2002) – explore context, vulnerable areas K = .775, p≤ .ooo; Intercoder agreement between 66.7% for Cheating and 100.00% for Problems with use of funds in education.  Values Analysis (Daiute, 2014) – explore meanings, dynamic interpretations and enactments
14. Stages of qualitative analysis Workshops • Dynamic storytelling methodology • Conducted in local languages, • Group discussions audio taped, verbatim transcribed, translated into English • Individual products (written narratives) transcribed, translated into English • Action plan  Values Analysis (Daiute, 2014) – explore meanings, dynamic interpretations, positionalities  Plot analysis – explore scenarios and enactments
15. Findings 1. Examples and frequency of IVs 2. IVs per country 3. IVs per stakeholder group 4. Values analysis examples
16. 1. Integrity violations: examples Illustration Integrity violation No. This is called bribing an official in charge of making a decision. So for a certain monetary award, a parent gets such |needed| referral and medical statement. (Kazakhstan, Parent) Illicit access to education 1. Teacher says that a child needs additional support, but he/she really does not have time during classes. But in his/her own time, teacher can find the opportunity to take care. Parents are ready to do everything for a child with special educational needs, and to pay necessary amount for additional classes. Teacher says that he/she will help and parent are ready for everything. (Ukraine, Parent) Improper private supplementary tutoring 2. IV: Participants’ descriptions of integrity problems, which means intentional, illegal, repetitive behavior of different stakeholders that has corrupt elements
17. 1. Integrity violations: examples Illustration Integrity violation No. There were cases when parents turned to deputies, deputies raised questions at the executive committee of the local council, and already executive committee persuaded the school that the child should be taken for inclusive education. (Ukraine, CSO) Politicization of education 3. Instead of taking the trouble to prepare an IEP for the student with need for additional support, teachers just increase the school marks for these students (Serbia, CSO) Undue recognition of learning 4. Inclusive education gives more opportunities to hire relatives for work because there are more places for work and it means more people can come. (Armenia, CSO) Favoritism in staffing decisions 5.
18. 1. Integrity violations: examples Illustration Integrity violation No. The school got funds to reconstruct wheelchair accessible toilets. Instead, the teachers’ toilets were reconstructed, and the school still does not have a wheelchair accessible toilet (Serbia, Parent) Misappropriation of funds 6. Recently, we held a training in a very famous school… teachers there weren’t very interested. They said that they had to be inclusive because it was one of the requirements for the accreditation of this school. They had to admit several kids to show that their school is inclusive and the teachers had to have certificates that they attended trainings on inclusive education. (Kazakhstan, CSO) Accreditation and licensing fraud 9.
19. 20 3 5 16 58 29 7 26 203 6 0 1 24 19 22 19 40 62 0 50 100 150 200 Accreditation and licencing Students's cheating Procurements Use funds in education Staffing decisions Recognition of learning and academic achievement Politicisation of education Private supplementary tutoring Access to education IV VA 1. Integrity violation and areas of vulnerability • All IVs except 1 are identified in participants narratives, but with different frequency • More vulnerability areas than IVs (367:131) • Some IVs are embedded in context (illicit access), some are salient and emerge directly (tutoring, misuse of funds)
20. Themes/organizing principles identified in narratives for Illicit Access to Education Representation (%) Themes 4.62 Forging diagnosis that allow access to specific educational services due to transactions (assessment body) Human oriented 7.69 Assigning IEP, when not needed, in order to get additional funds (regular school) 9.23 Limiting access/refusing enrolment of ASN children due to losing other students (regular school) 27.69 Conditioning ASN child enrolment with paying/influence (regular school) 13.85 Directing a child to special school or individual instruction in order to avoid working load (regular school) 20.00 Attracting ASN students with different incentives in order to keep functioning (special school) 7.69 Inadequate assessment procedures Structure oriented 7.69 Limited access due to unadjusted environment/lack of teachers 1.54 Limited number of inclusive schools
21. 2. Integrity violations per country
22. 3. Integrity violations per stakeholder groups 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Illicit access to education Improper private supplementary tutoring Politicisation of education Undue recognition of learning and academic achievement Favouritism in staffing decision Misappropriation of funds in education Procurement fraud Cheating Accreditation and licencing fraud Educational authorities Assessment bodies Regular (pre)school staff Special (pre)school staff Parents Non-governmental organisations
23. 4. Values analysis examples • This analysis is not finished, we are providing only highlights of draft results on cca 15% of material (36 texts, 336 coded units) • 30 values identified, grouped in 4 broad categories • Preliminary findings suggest: • Rich list of possible contexts, settings, situations that can lead to IV • Expression of strong affective reactions, mostly of those whose needs are not met by the education system (stories) • Very explicit description of manipulative and discriminatory activities that constitute IV(stories) • Many recommendations expressed as socially mediated positive experiences (letters)
24. Socially mediated positive experiences Socially mediated negative experiences Individual experiences Situations Cooperation 25 Disregard 7 Lagging behind 10 SN child, slow learning 29 Becoming accepted 12 Rejection 9 Develop/learn 12 Assessment 7 Miracle change 3 Discrimination 11 Personal qualities 10 Start of school 7 Work benefit oths 2 Withdrawal 6 Affective reaction 23 Inclusive school 8 Equal opport. 11 Manipulation 24 School location 11 Inclusion process 17 Obstacle 7 Commissions 6 Action agency 19 Conflict 6 Resources 8 Search solutions 17 Law, inspection 9 Teachers ch, kn 11 Parents resources 2
25. Conclusions and implications
26. Conclusions 1: IE and corruption • Almost all violation from INTES Framework detected in participants’ narratives, although in different frequency indicating areas that need to be focused in policy development • We found clear descriptions of how integrity violations function to create exclusion – these situations call for urgent action • We found some options for IE to create new corruption niches - important to prevent on time • Differences between countries regarding IV are small, although IE policies are distinct and country-specific - indicating similar patterns of integrity violations • Differences between stakeholders were remarkable, parents and CSOs being the partners to be involved in any further action • Picture of IV anatomy and physiology can be enriched:
27. Enriched representation of IV context, anatomy, physiology & experiences Enriched vulnerabilities and actor’s experiences Added construction of shared meanings Can add feedback loop
28. Conclusions 2: Methodology & implications Connect policy analysis and deep human personal experiences Result precisely targeted Understandable and persuasive Connect qualitative and quantitative analysis Documented, replicable, valid, stats Mechanisms and procedures ‘unpacked’ Coding manual Joint meaning making by diverse relevant stakeholders Shared meanings Joint action, de- governmentalized approach Participatory and action oriented approach Locally owned expertize Realistic planning sustainable implementation 28
29. Reframing the story into positive ending Parents of children with special educational needs raised the issue for the principal. The principal knowing that he is receiving additional money for those children and realizing that all‐country inclusive education will be introduced soon was trying to understand the situation. For this purpose he/she: arranged discussion with teachers about the challenges they met; framed the gaps: lack of teachers’ skills, additional workload with no incentives, general unawareness of school/parents on the issue; after the principal wrote a request to state educational agencies, other NGOs dealing with the issue asking for trainings; allocated some funds for teachers who are working with SEN children; made shifts in real assessment and learning needs of the children.
30. Official and unofficial scenario 30 Participant AA: The actors are the teachers of the school - Dina, Bota and Alibek. The problem is that teachers are concerned that with the introduction of IE the image of the school will drop, the school rating will decrease, there will be less students and teachers will lose their advantages: their status and the status of the school. What do they want to achieve? Heroes want to solve the problem, for this purpose they turn to colleagues from a special school. What will happen? Regardless of whether they want to accept the idea of IE, the school will become inclusive. How will this happen? We believe that the school administration will hold a pedagogical council, familiarize them with the order to switch to inclusive, raise the issue of training teachers and specialists, and decide on the creation of a team of psychological and pedagogical support for children with SEN, and the decision to conduct preparatory work , both with children, and with their parents. The number of participants will increase. The whole school administration, the PPS team, parents of ordinary children and children with SEN, school specialists, all staff will join. Mihaylo: Can I ask you? It seems that you have presented the official version, everything is like in a textbook. Tell us about the scenario of this situation, how did it develop behind closed doors?
31. Participant AA: Indeed, during the discussion we have had another version of possible scenario. In that, the teacher will be forming a negative portfolio for the child on every day base. Every day the teacher will be writing applications to the principal that the student is slow in learning, disturbing the learning process in the class. In this way the required documents will be ready for the consideration of PP commission to take the child out of school. The commission may not be aware of the real situation with the child but the principal most likely does. Mihaylo: Is the Commission aware of a fake portfolio? Participant AA: Commission does not but the principal knows what’s what for. However, if the principal receives applications from parents of other children, claiming that they are outraged by the presence of the child with SEN in their class, the principal will react accordingly and will be obliged to undertake the actions. Following the procedure, a parent of a child with SEN shall be recommended to apply to PMPC for additional assessment of their child. Then the decision will be formed whether the child will remain in the school or will be withdrawn. This is a loophole, where all kinds of situations might unfold. In some cases a child might be withdrawn or the child parents will be given no choice rather than to take their child file and leave the school
32. Thank you for your attention tkovacs@f.bg.ac.rs @educationintegrity | www.policycenters.org
33. References: Ainscow, M., & César, M. (2006). Inclusive education ten years after Salamanca: Setting the agenda. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 231-238. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101 Daiute, C. (2014). Narrative inquiry: A dynamic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Daiute, C., & Kovacs-Cerovic, T. (2017). Minority Teachers – Roma in Serbia – Narrate Education Reform. Belgrade, Serbia: Institute of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Belgrade and the Association of Pedagogical Assistants. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational research review, 5(1), 1-24. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 80–92. Hallak, J., & Poisson, M. (2001). Ethics and corruption in education. París: iiep-Unesco. Hayes, N. (1997). Theory-led thematic analysis: social identification in small companies. In N. Hayes (Ed.), Doing Qualitative Analysis in Psychology. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Kovač Cerović, T. Milovanovitch, M., Jovanović, O. (2018). Education integrity as a barrier to inclusion: evidence from Armenia, Kazakhstan, Serbia and Ukraine. ECER, Bolzano, Italy, 4-7.09.2018 Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Los Angeles: SAGE. Milovanovitch, M. (2019). Expectations, Distrust and Corruption in Education: Findings on Prevention through Education Improvement. Current Issues in Comparative Education: Volume 21, Issue 1. OECD. (2018). Integrity of Education System (INTES): A Methodology for Sector Assessment. Paris: OECD Publishing. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rose, R., Shevlin, M., Winter, E., O'Raw, P., & Zhao, Y. (2012). Individual Education Plans in the Republic of Ireland: an emerging system. British Journal of Special Education, 39, 110–116. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zaloznaya, M. (2014). The social psychology of corruption: Why it does not exist and why it should. Sociology Compass, 8(2), 187-202.
34. The rest are slides in reserve
35. Themes/organizing principles identified in narratives for Illicit Access to Education Representation (%) Themes 4.62 Forging diagnosis that allow access to specific educational services due to transactions (assessment body) Human oriented 7.69 Assigning IEP, when not needed, in order to get additional funds (regular school) 9.23 Limiting access/refusing enrolment of ASN children due to losing other students (regular school) 27.69 Conditioning ASN child enrolment with paying/influence (regular school) 13.85 Directing a child to special school or individual instruction in order to avoid working load (regular school) 20.00 Attracting ASN students with different incentives in order to keep functioning (special school) 7.69 Inadequate assessment procedures Structure oriented 7.69 Limited access due to unadjusted environment/lack of teachers 1.54 Limited number of inclusive schools
36. Integrity violations 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Illicit access to education Improper private supplementary tutoring Politicisation of education Undue recognition of learning and academic… Favouritism in staffing decision Misappropriation of funds in education Procurement fraud Cheating Accreditation and licencing fraud Ukraine Serbia Armenia Kazakhstan Participants’ descriptions of integrity problems, which means intentional, illegal, repetitive behaviour of different stakeholders that has corrupt elements
37. Intent Incentives Opportunities Integrity violations Shortcomings in policy and practice Shortcomings in policy and practice Adverse circumstances Causal model of integrity violations in education Integrity violation No. Illicit access to education 1 Improper private supplementary tutoring 2 Politicisation of education 3 Undue recognition of learning achievement 4 Favouritism in staffing decisions 5 Misappropriation of funds 6 Procurement fraud 7 Cheating 8 Accreditation and licensing fraud 9
38. Integrity violations per stakeholder groups 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Educational authorities Assessment bodies Regular (pre)school staff Special (pre)school staff Parents Non‐governmental organisations Illicit access to education Improper private supplementary tutoring Politicisation of education Undue recognition of learning and academic achievement Favouritism in staffing decision Misappropriation of funds in education Procurement fraud
39. Integrity violations per stakeholder groups 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Illicit access to education Improper private supplementary tutoring Politicisation of education Undue recognition of learning and academic achievement Favouritism in staffing decision Misappropriation of funds in education Procurement fraud Cheating Accreditation and licencing fraud Educational authorities Assessment bodies Regular (pre)school staff Special (pre)school staff Parents Non‐governmental organisations
40. Example of integrity violation in access to education Moderator: Someone mentioned: “Parents paying for getting diagnose allowing enrolment to inclusive education”. How often does it happen? Parent: This is a quite often case. We have special boarding schools and they work with different nosology. And, as a rule, if the boarding school is close to the children and has a good reputation, then parents ask the PMPC and pay for a diagnose suitable to that special school. Parents can even pay for writing another diagnosis. Down syndrome is very popular in Ukraine due to some very active NGOs dealing with this group of children. We have one girl in the organization that does not have Down syndrome, but, apparently, something similar. And PMPC offered to her parents to buy a certificate that she has Down syndrome. Why? Because it was the only way to get her into inclusive kindergarten as they accepted only children with Down syndrome. There was no other option to get into an inclusive group. Moderator: Parents paid for diagnoses to get into the group? Parent: Yes, they paid to a doctor. Representative of international organisation: Parents pay not for a wrong but for “another” diagnoses. For example, if a child has profound mental disorder, parents can pay for more mild diagnose, e.g. “developmental delay”. To parents’ mind it would help a child in a future. Moderator: And what happens afterward? Are there any consequences for the doctor? Parent: Nothing. Nobody checks it. Regular kindergarten principal: Nobody questions the diagnoses. Representative of international organisation: ... but it is impossible to question the diagnosis of a psychiatrist, there is no procedure. It is impossible to bring to justice the psychiatrist for an incorrectly written diagnosis.
41. Integrity violations per country
42. 4. Integrity violations per stakeholder groups 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Educational authorities Assessment bodies Regular (pre)school staff Special (pre)school staff Parents Non‐governmental organisations Illicit access to education Improper private supplementary tutoring Politicisation of education Undue recognition of learning and academic achievement Favouritism in staffing decision Misappropriation of funds in education Procurement fraud Cheating Accreditation and licencing fraud