Page 9: Normality and Ability... What are these themes in education?

 Page 9: Normality and Ability... What are these themes in education?

Normality and ability. These are two broad terms that create a plethora of reasonable explanations. I first started exploring these themes which I have now formed a real passion point and further research into through my critical thinking in context module at university. I decided to choose this theme due to the wide range of factors to delve into and possibilities when exploring these areas. I found it astonishing when reading articles and beginning to delve into policy the diverse explanations and discussions behind these key themes in education. In today's post I will share my thoughts around normality and ability from the perspective of a student teacher.

Normality can not be defined as one set thing. It is a complex term with a number of reasonable explanations. Due to the critical thinking aspect of this unit is is vital to consider a range of perspectives when researching and understanding this topic. I see this as a concept rather than a strict defined term. Before I discuss these perspectives it is vital to take account for the ethical practice of this term in place. Who has the right and ethical position to judge this and the 'normal'? As a society we aim not to judge or discriminate so who are we judge what is normal in the education system . Normality can be viewed as a social construct put in place by society as a result of human interaction as the need to classify and label that today's generation has been forced into rather than a scientific reasoning. I see it as a rhetorical question. A questioning rather than a statement. Who is normal? Who has the right to judge what is normal and what is not. When I began to consider the norm; normality, I first considered the view of the wider society. Google stated normality as, 'the condition of being normal; the state of being usual, typical, or expected.' Personally I found the term 'condition' a perfect way to sum up (when considering a non-academic perspective) as it refers to a range of circumstances built from a variety of things. Children's education and the 'normality' spectrum is indeed made up from a range of factors and learning experiences, so as a simple way to sum it up I found it informative and inoffensive. Following on from this, I explored a journal article, where Moddelmog (2010) states, '"Who said normal? Who's normal? What's normal?" - are the very questions that have motivated the interdisciplinary field of criticism that is starting to be called normalcy or normality studies. This field has emerged out of disparate but related approaches taken by scholars in disability studies'. The quote refers to the many branches of knowledge which is key to consider when discussing the academic capabilities of any pupil. I believe this academic outlook mirrors my personal definition as the fact that it is a synthesised term made from a variety of components and questions.  I lastly decided to review the term through policy. There is multiple relevant school and general policy that can be related here, but it can be simply put down to the fact we have a national curriculum built from age expectations and norms. Schools are pushed by external hierarchy to label and get all students to the same level, implementing a normal standard and expectation in education. 

Echoed similarly to above, I see ability again as a concept rather than a direct term. I personally define this as the standard a pupil is working at. It is key to note that I view this as a spectrum. Education and knowledge is never ending and everybody is learning everyday resulting in no stop to learning even when traditional 'education' has ended, concluding it is indeed a continual spectrum on your own learning path. I arrived at this standpoint from again considering  multiple perspectives. To start, google defines ability as, 'possession of the means or skill to do something / talent, skill, or proficiency in a particular area'. As an enthusiastic and passionate trainee teacher who recognises children's talents, and interests I love the wording of this definition. It places the child at the heart of education (which they always should be!) as draws to all pupils strengths, recognising and supporting these. On the flip side, when considering an academics view through journal articles, Goodley (2014), states that 'Wolbring defines ableism as 'the favouritism for certain abilities for example cognition, competitiveness or consumerism, and the often negative sentiment towards the lack of favoured abilities"' . This viewpoint recognises both the strengths and weaknesses of a pupil in regard to classifying ability. Lastly I determined policy as the reason ability even exists. There is a multitude of key policy such as the National Curriculum, SEND code of practice, OFSTED expectations/requirements and SAT examinations that classify and set ability to what should be expected resultantly forming the norms discussed above.

It is indeed essential to consider the critical issues and themes when discussing the above themes in terms of inclusion and inclusive teaching. Below I have listed some of the key issues when considering labelling in terms of both normality and ability:

- Pressure to be accountable and label

- Abundance of polices that surely contradict the ethics of labelling norms and the ability spectrum

It is also crucial to consider the advantages of labelling pupils when conducting a critical analysis:

- When needs are identified, increased funding/classroom support can be put in place

- Lead to the development of new and improved teaching methods

- Working and forming strong interprofessional relationships

Both of these terms are extremely complex and provide a larger surface for research and discussion. The above investigation into these terms only begins to scratch the service. It is vital to consider my own future professional development and how my teaching will be effected in regard to labels and norms. In reflection to the work I began to explore in my assignment and now this post, in my own classroom and teaching I will introduce a range of key principles to ensure maximum inclusivity at all times. I aim to ensure no labelling is given around pupils so no stigma is created as a result. I understand as a teacher in terms of your planning and support/funding labelling ability has to be done but I strongly believe this should be hidden from pupils. However I do not think there is ever a need to classify normality within both pupils and the education sytem. This is all strongly related and backed up by policy. These areas and in particular policy/practice in regard to normality and ability are topics I would like to further discuss and research in my blog in the future. To end today, I will leave you with this quote regarding policy and the discussed themes in regard to normality and ability through inclusion. With so much pressure and practice put on policy and the need to stick to these strict regulations to standardise teaching, it is vital to recognise that these texts do not explain everything or give explanations to understanding pupils further. Glazzard et al (2015) believes that 'Policy texts fail to interrogate critically why pupils might display behaviour which is constructed as challenging or why pupils might be underachieving' . 'Underachieving' directing linking to the relationship in regard to ability and similarly 'challenging' linking to the relationship in regard to normality, begins to open this thought reflective discussion through this perspective.

- Miss Yeoman