Group 8 — Concept for Creating Inclusion in Inclusive schools
This article talks about the final concept about creating Inclusion in Inclusive schools. Inclusive schools are those where children with disability and abled body children learn together. After the research and reviews of first and second phase, our system-service design concept has been evolved and here is the proposal for the same.
We propose to move this integration forward towards inclusion by sensitizing peer interaction.
Intervention
The intervention we proposed is two-fold as it deals with the provision of the necessary tools to cater to CwD, and an online platform for peer-to-peer interaction and the interaction between teachers and parents. This way there is prolonged interaction for the teacher with the parents. The parents can be informed of their child’s performance so that he can get an optimal education.
Three different stakeholders can possibly execute this intervention:
- We as a group from college can take up this task and execute
- A Start-up
- Enable India — NGO that works for empowerment of Pwd(s)
Journey
The first thing that is done is the NGO will approach integrated or regular schools and propose their service. Interested schools can also approach NGO to know further information about making schools inclusive.
Once the service is accepted, there would be training programs held for the teachers. Here there will also be the introduction of resource teachers as they will be able to train regular teachers. This could be incentivized for the regular teachers by providing them with a certification, which would help them get stronger jobs in the future. Training of both abled children and children with disabilities will also be done to facilitate interaction between both the groups. After the month the NGO goes into the background and is available for questions and feedback. Their role drastically reduces as the intervention is trying to focus self-reliance to execute this. The school cannot rely on NGO for indefinite period of time if it intends to become sustainable in future. After one month of active involvement of NGO is over, the school needs to iterate the process and work towards making the system dynamic. For this reason, web platform can help where teachers and parents of children collaborate together and create dynamic system.
System Map
The system map was generated showcasing what types of interactions occur between two stakeholders, the likely experience they are likely to face due to the intervention. We were able to also map out the activities that occur during the interactions. This system map was necessary for us to be able to understand the interrelations between different stakeholders.
Threats
The system that we have designed is majorly based on secondary research data. However, its implications and whether it will work hundred per cent as expected in future cannot be fully envisaged. The reason for this is that the systems in the real world are dynamic. The stakeholders are dynamic, their responses and behavior may change over a period of time and that leaves an element of unpredictability in the system that is designed. This gap between “what is expected” and “what can happen” poses as a threat which must be acknowledged by designers. These are points where system can probably fail.
This threat matrix shows which two stakeholders are interacting and points at which there may be a perceived threat. We highlighted these as they would be where we would start off from. This way the project stays open ended and has a scope in the future. One of the major threats we considered was the fact that the regular teacher first needs to be brought on-board, otherwise this intervention would never move beyond its nascent stages. One threat, which was recurring, was over-burdening the parents and the teacher. More responsibility doesn’t necessarily convert to improved responses. There can be a negative effect, therefore the balance of activities and feedback needs to be made.
Limitations
Gamification is not the best solution to create a sense of competition in a classroom. Often gamification has the opposite of the desired effect, it may create animosity and high competitiveness at a younger age. We did not want to create a system, which would have an adverse effect on the child.
Web platform — We did not delve deep into the forms of interactions the parents would have with the web platform. We need to create a dynamic environment where the parents can respond on certain events. Open communication is key, which we did not look into detail, as it may be subjective according to the context.
We looked into privately unaided schools; therefore, the resources were in abundance. When it comes to the context public schools, we would have to change the system platform, although the basic intervention we had could be implemented through different mediums like paper or just human interaction. The dynamics of interaction would change when the income group of the child changes.
What we did not consider was the population of CWD in inclusive schools. Since we didn’t consider the population size, we also didn’t consider what would happen in the future if CWD population increases. These considerations don’t have a major impact in the present but are bound to be an important factor.
Above limitations we did consider, but did not understand how to tackle this problem. The idea was not to over-burden the teacher with so many responsibilities, but the problem is training more teachers is not the solution either as schools may not able to afford so much human resources. This dilemma was something we were not able to get part. What we realized was if the teacher now has to also add comments online and respond back to the parents, then the pressure of work also follows the teacher home.
Another aspect we were not completely clear on was how we could motivate the able-bodied children to be part of this system proactively. Since their role is active in the background, their influence can often be secondary but impactful.
Conclusion
As this system does not exist right now in society, so it is difficult to find out the loopholes in it. However if everyone in the system does their job in the process then larger goal of social equity can be accomplished. Here the social equity is not only about giving equal platforms but also the ability to utilize it.
To know more about the process: First Phase, Second phase
This article is co-authored by four group members — Radhika Bhagwat, Kaustubh salunkhe, Manjiri Godbole, Divij Joshi, of this system design project.
