Debate Related To Scholar Inclusion: A Boethical Approach

Abstract

The objective of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, to approach the topic of School Inclusion of students with Intellectual Disabilities and secondly to measure the axiological variables that intervene in this process, from Bioethics taking into account its principles and theoretical constructs that intervene. As objectives we set ourselves: To know the points of view of the principles of Autonomy, Justice, Beneficence and Not Maleficence, as well as the theoretical constructions of Satisfaction and Evaluation of the Inclusion that three of the groups studied. An applied, descriptive, correlational and transversal study was carried out, as recommended by the research methodology texts. A questionnaire was designed for this research on the ethical evaluation of the school inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities. This questionnaire consists of 27 items on a Likert scale with five possible answers. The questionnaire was applied to a sample of three groups: teachers of students with special educational needs (intellectual disability), parents of these students and co-learners. From the results obtained it can be concluded that there are significant differences in the four bioethical principles (Autonomy, Justice, Beneficence and No Maleficence), and in the constructs (Satisfaction and Assessment of Inclusion) except for the variable Assessment of Inclusion between the Co-learners and Parents groups. The preeminence that in each group studied tends towards one or another principle of bioethics or one of the theoretical bioethical constructs, gives us the measure of the vision that each group has of the inclusive phenomenon in question.

Keywords: Bioethicsinclusionschool

Introduction

In the current panorama of Bioethics there is a very vast space for axiological debate, since it has application in different disiplines, such as Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology and Educational Sciences, among others. Based on the fundamental principles of Autonomy, Justice, Charity and Non-Maleficence, in addition to the theoretical constructs of the Evaluation of Inclusion and Satisfaction of Inclusion, the aim is to provide answers to those questions that in the moral aspect affect man in his very essence, such as being social. Bioethics is not only about the relationships that are established in a health context, between the different actors, with the health professionals and the patients; in this sense, Medical Ethics would be dealt with in a specific way. Bioethics transcends the frontiers of different kinds of knowledge and participates in a cross-border debate, investigating what is or is not morally correct.

Our study approaches different perceptions of this phenomenon from the perspective of different groups: professors of students with special educational needs, parents of these students, and co-learners. A different result is expected in measuring the above principles for each of these three groups. In this research we have tried to look at a recent phenomenon within the educational field: School Inclusion and the repercussions in the social and personal spheres.

This study is based on the theoretical contributions of renowned researchers and academics who both nationally, as well as contributions from prestigious international authors who throughout their academic careers have opted for School Inclusion, which recognize that this is a value in capital letters, an achievement and at the same time a commitment to a right and not just a privilege of a group of people with certain disabilities. These actions transcend the frontiers of pedagogy and claim their social space, demand rights and political and even legislative actions in each nation and progressively countries are responding according to the needs, creating spaces and opportunities for people with special educational needs (Echeíta & Verdugo, 2004; Etxevarría 2013, Ainscow 2005, Booth & Ainscow, 2000), and ensuring that the school accepts each student with educational needs regardless of the aetiology of these; create logistical and real models in each institution, which responds to this task; To create learning spaces of normalization in which all students progress; to promote a true adjustment between resources and specific needs, to adapt an initial and permanent formation of the teaching staff to the specific and collective needs demanded by the different projects of the institution and to revise these Projects starting from and accepting the differences and also to make use of ICT as a resource that facilitates learning and can serve us as a vehicle for exchange that simultaneously enriches and breaks down barriers.

In the axiological plane we have less written on School Inclusion and this is the fundamental reason for our study, which opts for investigating the "Here and Now", after three decades of application of this new paradigm (Cañabate, de la Herán, Izuzquiza, Leal, Rodríguez, 2018).

Among the investigations in inclusive matters, each time an attempt is made to delve deeper into topics related to Didactics, Early Care, also ICTs in the teaching-learning process, the role of the Family has also been abundantly written about, among others, but there is a lack of research within the axiological panorama, where ethical values are at stake (Iacono 2016, Etxebarría & Flores, Amor Pan 2007).

The research group associated with the Department of Didactics of the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), has carried out research in which different groups of actors closely linked and committed to the inclusive process have been studied (Cañabate et al 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018), trying to provide answers to these dilemmas that have emerged in inclusive practice.

Objective

To know the points of view of the principles of Autonomy, Justice, Beneficence and Non-Maleficence as well as the theoretical constructs of Satisfaction and Assessment of Inclusion that three of the groups studied have within the Inclusive Paradigm: professors of students with intellectual disabilities, parents of these students, and co-learners.

Material and Method

An applied, descriptive, correlational, and cross-sectional study was conducted, as recommended in the research methodology texts (Hernández Sampieri, 2010). A questionnaire was designed for this research on the ethical assessment of school inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities. This questionnaire is made up of 27 items on a Likert-type scale with five possible answers. The questionnaire was applied to a sample of three groups: professors of students with special educational needs (intellectual disabilities), parents of these students, and co-learners. The questionnaire was adapted to each of the three groups in a specific way to which it was applied. The participants belong to 12 public schools in the municipalities of Coslada and San Fernando de Henares in the Community of Madrid. Reliability according to Cronbach’s alpha was 0.58 in the group of teachers, 0.17 in the group of parents, and 0.68 in the group of co-learners.

Results

When we cross-referenced variables such as gender with group, we found that women were the most represented, a number of 372 subjects surveyed from all groups for 63.1%, unlike men (see Table 1 ).

Table 1 -
See Full Size >

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, where everything is significant, p<0.001, showed that no variable is distributed according to a normal probability distribution, so it requires a non-parametric study to observe the differences according to the median and not the mean. (See Table 2 ) similar in previous pilot study (Cañabate et al. 2016).

Table 2 -
See Full Size >

In the statistical variables of the Bioethical Principles and the Constructs studied, we observed that the variables Beneficence, Autonomy and Justice presented a high range both in the group of Parents/guardians and in Co-learners and Professors, however, the values for this group were superior in all senses and the Standard Deviation of the group of Co-learners in the case of Beneficence was superior in all senses (See Table 3 ).

Table 3 -
See Full Size >

On the other hand, when statistically significant differences based on different tests are analyzed, it is shown that there are significant differences between the three groups studied in all variables except for the variable Assessment of Inclusion between the Co-learners and Parents groups. First the Kruskal-Wallis test, which is an omnibus test, was applied to study the significant differences between the three groups, which indicated the existence of such significant differences. The U Mann Whitney test was then applied in pairs of groups for all variables. (See Table 4 ).

Table 4 -
See Full Size >

Figure 1 shows the mean scores obtained on the four ethical principles, and on the variables satisfaction and assessment of inclusion. In Autonomy and Justice the group of parents obtained the highest score, followed by the group of co-learners, and the lowest scores corresponded to the group of professors. In Beneficence and No Maleficence the group of co-learners obtains the highest score, followed by the group of parents, and the lowest scores are obtained by the group of professors. In Satisfaction and Assessment of Inclusion the group of professors obtains the highest scores, followed by the group of co-learners, and the lowest scores are obtained by the group of parents.

Figure 1: Bioethics Principles, Satisfaction and Assessment of Inclusion
Bioethics Principles, Satisfaction and Assessment of Inclusion
See Full Size >

Discussion

It is essential to increase the population surveyed, with special emphasis on localities with different social differences and demographic variables. Survey disadvantaged populations, where inclusion/exclusion is also a problem. Also interview families who escape from traditional models, such as single-parent families, mixed families, parents of the same gender, etc.

The need for a non-parametric study in order to be able to observe more precisely the differences on the basis of the medians of each group in question.

Conclusions

From the results obtained it can be concluded that there are significant differences in the four bioethical principles (Autonomy, Justice, Beneficence and No Maleficence), and in the constructs (Satisfaction and Assessment of Inclusion) except for the variable Assessment of Inclusion between the Co-learners and Parents groups.

The preminence that in each group studied tends towards one or another principle of bioethics or one of the theoretical bioethical constructs, gives us the measure of the vision that each group has of the inclusive phenomenon in question.

On the other hand, it is necessary to increase the population surveyed in other areas of Madrid, and even outside the Community of Madrid, in order to compare the results with sites that present different sosiodemographic variables.

Increase the study with parents of different parental models such as separated parents, homoparental families, adoptive families, immigrant’s parents who can enrich the study.

Acknowledgments

To all persons involved in this work parents, teachers and co-educated persons. Also to the Department of Didactics and Theory of Education.

References

  1. Ainscow, M. (2005): Understanding the development of inclusive education system. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7 (3), 5- 20.
  2. Amor Pan, J.R. (2017). Ética y discapacidad intelectual. Madrid: Edit Universidad de Comillas.
  3. Beauchamp, T. L., & James F. Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2000): Guía para la evaluación y mejora de la Educación Inclusiva. Desarrollando el aprendizaje y la participación en las escuelas. Bristo: Edit. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE) y Consorcio universitario para la Educación Inclusiva.
  5. Cañabate Reyes, E. J. (2015). Valoración ética de la Inclusión Escolar del Discapacitado Intelectual: El Estudio piloto como fase previa en la Investigación. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
  6. Cañabate Reyes, E. J., Herrán Gascón. A., Izuzquiza Gasset, D., Leal Leal, C., & Rodríguez Moreno, D. (2017). Inclusión del alumno con Discapacidad Intelectual 30 años después: Valoración ética de los docentes. In García-Sempere, P., Pinargote, M., Véliz, V., Herrán, A., y Montiano, B. (Eds.) Formación y transformación para la educación inclusiva en la universidad. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.
  7. Cañabate Reyes, E. J., (2016). Inclusión escolar 30 años después: Criterios éticos de las familias de alumno con Discapacidad Intelectual. Estudio Piloto. In E. Soriano 7th International Conference on Intercultural Education. Education, Health and ICTs from Transcultural Perspective. Universidad de Almería, Almería.
  8. Cañabate Reyes, E. J., Herrán Gascón, A., Izuzquiza Gasset. D., Leal Leal, C, & Rodríguez Moreno, D. (2017). Inclusion of Students with Intellectual Disabilities 30 Years Later: Ethics Evaluation of Family Criteria. A Pilot Project. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 1347-1351.
  9. Cañabate Reyes. E. J., Herrán Gascón, A., Izuzquiza Gasset. D., Leal Leal. C., & Rodríguez Moreno. D. (2018) La inclusión escolar de la persona con discapacidad intelectual: Reto y Compromiso. In A. De Herrán & M. J. Salamanca. V Simposio Internacional, Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Universidad Complutense, Madrid.
  10. Echeíta Sarrionandía, G., & Verdugo Alonso, M. A.: La Declaración de Salamanca sobre Necesidades Educativas Especiales 10 años después. Valoración y prospectiva. Publicaciones del INICO. Universidad de Salamanca.
  11. Etxebarría Mauleón, X., Goikoetxea. M., & Martínez, N. (2013). El enfoque ético del maltrato a las personas con Discapacidad Intelectual y del Desarrollo. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.
  12. Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., & Baptista Lucio, P. (2010). Metodología de la Investigación. Bogotá, Colombia: Editorial McGraw Hill.
  13. Iacono, T., & Bigby, C. (2016). The health inequalities of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Strategies for change. In P. Liamuttong (Ed.). Public Health: Local and Global Perspectives (pp. 294-312). London: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-55959-2.
  14. Iacono, T., Evans, E., & David. A., (2016). Family caring of older adults with intellectual disability and coping according to loci of responsibility. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 57, 170-180.

Copyright information

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

About this article

Publication Date

09 April 2019

eBook ISBN

978-1-80296-059-4

Publisher

Future Academy

Volume

60

Print ISBN (optional)

-

Edition Number

1st Edition

Pages

1-1062

Subjects

Multicultural education, education, personal health, public health, social discrimination,social inequality

Cite this article as:

Reyes, E. J. C., Gascón, A. D. L. H., Gasset, D. I., & Moreno, D. C. R. (2019). Debate Related To Scholar Inclusion: A Boethical Approach. In E. Soriano, C. Sleeter, M. Antonia Casanova, R. M. Zapata, & V. C. Cala (Eds.), The Value of Education and Health for a Global, Transcultural World, vol 60. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 1056-1062). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.04.02.130