Disabled Children Negotiating School Life: Agency, Difference and Teaching Practice

This paper explores the school experiences of seven 11–14 year old disabled children, and focuses on their agency as they negotiated a complex, changing, and often challenging social world at school where “difference” was experienced in negative ways. The paper draws on ethnographic data from a wider three-year study that explores the influence of school experiences on both disabled and non-disabled children’s identity as they make the transition from primary to secondary school in regular New Zealand schools (although the focus of the present paper is only on the experiences of disabled children). The wider study considers how Maori (indigenous people of Aotearoa/New Zealand) and Pakeha (New Zealanders of NZ European descent) disabled children and their non- disabled matched peers (matched for age, gender and classroom) understand their personal identity, and how factors relating to transition (from primary to secondary school); culture; impairment (in the case of disabled children); social relationships; and school experience impact on children’s identities. Data on Maori children’s school experiences is currently being collected, and is not yet available for inclusion in this paper. On the basis of our observations in schools we will illustrate how disabled children felt and were made to feel different through an array of structural barriers such as separate provision for disabled students, and peer and teacher attitudes to diversity. However, we agree with Davis, Watson, Shakespeare and Corker’s (2003) interpretation that disabled children’s rights and participation at school are also under attack from a “deeper cultural division” (p. 205) in schools based on discourses of difference and normality. While disabled students in our study were trying to actively construct and shape their social and educational worlds, our data also show that teachers and peers have the capacity to either support or supplant these attempts to be part of the group of “all children”. We suggest that finding solutions that support disabled children’s full inclusion and participation at school requires a multi-faceted and systemic approach focused on a pedagogy for diverse learners, and on a consistent and explicitly inclusive policy framework centred on children’s rights.

Introduction: dispersed minorities and non-territorial autonomy

The concept of non-territorial autonomy gives rise to at least two important questions: the range of functional areas over which autonomy extends, and the extent to which this autonomy is indeed non-territorial. A widely used early description significantly labelled this ‘national cultural autonomy’, implying that its focus is mainly on cultural matters, such as language, religion, education and family law. In many of the cases that are commonly cited, ‘autonomy’ may not even extend this far: its most visible expression is the existence of separate electoral registers or quotas for the various groups. Part of the dilemma lies in the difficulty of devolving substantial power on a non-territorial basis: to the extent that devolved institutions are state-like, they ideally require a defined territory. Ethnic groups, however, vary in the extent to which they are territorially concentrated, and therefore in the degree to which any autonomous arrangements for them are territorial or non-territorial. This article explores the dilemma generated by this tension between ethnic geography (pattern of ethnic settlement) and political autonomy (degree of selfrule), and introduces a set of case studies where the relationship between these two features is discussed further: the Ottoman empire and its successor states, the Habsburg monarchy, the Jewish minorities of Europe, interwar Estonia, contemporary Belgium, and two indigenous peoples, the Sa´mi in Norway and the Maori in New Zealand.

Conclusion: patterns of non-territorial autonomy

This article seeks to generalise about the significance of non-territorial autonomy as a mechanism for the management of ethnic conflict on the basis of a set of case studies covering the Ottoman empire and its successor states, the Habsburg monarchy, the Jewish minorities of Europe, interwar Estonia, contemporary Belgium, and two indigenous peoples, the Sami in Norway and Maori in New Zealand. It begins by assessing the extent to which the spatial distribution of ethnonational communities determined the range of autonomy options available—whether these might be territorial or whether only non-territorial autonomy would be realistic. The article continues with an assessment of the significance of ‘autonomy’ in circumstances where the institutions with which it is associated enjoy a non-territorial rather than a territorial writ. It concludes by suggesting that in almost all cases where autonomy is extended to a minority within a state this is exercised on a territorial basis, and that in many cases of non-territorial autonomy, or national–cultural autonomy, the powers assumed by the ‘autonomous’ institutions are substantially symbolic. It argues that notwithstanding the limited empirical evidence for the existence of non-territorial autonomy, this device should not be written off at a normative level.