This book addresses the tensions of existing theories and practices of inclusive education from an …
At an embryonic level, Miles and Singal (2010) have begun to question Salamanca Statement’s inability to see disability as part of the human condition and to discuss how such a groundbreaking policy failed to take account of intersectionalities and of the multi-dimensionality of discrimination operating with education systems.
— The Future of Inclusive Education by Valentina Migliarini, Brent C. Elder (Page 7)
I struggle with these authors' inability to look deeper than the surface level and to fail to understand how the Salamanca Statement operated. In order to recognise this, a person needs to understand that the people who wrote this were "representatives of governments" that were present at the World Conference on Special Needs Education. The first question that should be asked is this: How many of these people were disabled? How many of them had needs related to their disability that went unmet during school? How many of them would even acknowledge that they were disabled?
And the answer is very few. We can look at our current governments, not even the ones in 1994 (when the statement was drafted), and see that the representation of disabled people remains quite low. Knowing this, it should've prompted the authors to question how this "groundbreaking policy" (which it isn't; I'd argue that …
I struggle with these authors' inability to look deeper than the surface level and to fail to understand how the Salamanca Statement operated. In order to recognise this, a person needs to understand that the people who wrote this were "representatives of governments" that were present at the World Conference on Special Needs Education. The first question that should be asked is this: How many of these people were disabled? How many of them had needs related to their disability that went unmet during school? How many of them would even acknowledge that they were disabled?
And the answer is very few. We can look at our current governments, not even the ones in 1994 (when the statement was drafted), and see that the representation of disabled people remains quite low. Knowing this, it should've prompted the authors to question how this "groundbreaking policy" (which it isn't; I'd argue that it is yet another example of a "saviourist policy," where non-disabled people pat themselves on the back for remembering that disabled people exist) could further miss other intersections of marginalisation with disability.
Granted, they also are questioning the "multi-dimension of discrimination operating within education systems," but they're rarely looking at the education system itself as being the site of that discrimination. When teachers fail to recognise that the system they work in was built to fail most people, we cannot get an accurate picture of how things work. Most of these people are reformists who think we can tweak the schools as they are in order to better meet people's needs rather than demolish them and find better and more inclusive tools for learning. In fact, the latter is almost never a consideration among teachers (I guess because they're afraid of losing something, like position).
