Urban heritage, development and sustainability: international frameworks, national and local governance

More than half of the world’s population now live in urban areas, and cities provide the setting for contemporary challenges such as population growth, mass tourism and unequal access to socio-economic opportunities. Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability examines the impact of these issues on urban heritage, considering innovative approaches to managing developmental pressures and focusing on how taking an ethical, inclusive and holistic approach to urban planning and heritage conservation may create a stronger basis for the sustainable growth of cities in the future.This volume is a timely analysis of current theories and practises in urban heritage, with particular reference to the conflict between, and potential reconciliation of, conservation and development goals. A global range of case studies detail a number of distinct practical approaches to heritage on international, national and local scales. Chapters reveal the disjunctions between international frameworks and national implementation and assess how internationally agreed concepts can be misused to justify unsustainable practices or to further economic globalisation and political nationalism. The exclusion of many local communities from development policies, and the subsequent erosion of their cultural heritage, is also discussed, with the collection emphasising the importance of ‘grass roots’ heritage and exploring more inclusive and culturally responsive conservation strategies. Contributions from an international group of authors, including practitioners as well as leading academics, deliver a broad and balanced coverage of this topic. Addressing the interests of both urban planners and heritage specialists, Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability is an important addition to the field that will encourage further discourse.

Legitimising children’s evidence: Inclusive participatory research with children with disability

Achieving human rights is at the core of development outcomes, and the achievement of positive development outcomes increasingly relies on evidence-based policy and practice. However, people with disability have been routinely excluded from research evidence and knowledge production, both due to a lack of interest in their issues (Yeo and Moore, 2003) and through an over-reliance on research design that does not address barriers to their participation as research respondents (Wilson et al. 2013). Children with disability are even more marginalised from participation in knowledge production processes and have been passively subjected to research being conducted on or about them, rather than with them (Gray and Winter 2011a). This exclusion is even more evident in developing countries of the global south though with some rare exceptions (Kembhavi and Wirz, 2009; Singal, 2010; Wickenden and Kembhavi- Tam, 2014; Don et al, 2015; Nguyen et al, 2015). This paper reports on the ‘Voices of Pacific Children with Disability’ project (hereafter referred to as the Voices project) which, drawing on the broader field of child participatory research, developed a method for children with disability to competently provide evidence about their needs, aspirations and human rights priorities. Eighty-nine children with disability living in rural and urban areas of Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea (PNG) participated, using a suite of data collection ‘tools’ designed to support children to express their life priorities and human rights’ needs. In this paper we examine a sub-set of this data related to children’s future priorities, the primary one being employment, and explore the utility of such evidence for governments, NGOs and other stakeholders, in shaping policy and service delivery in line with the rights of children with disability. Such data is important when working in an evidence informed way as often these organisations have limited data on the needs and values of the groups they serve.

EXPRESSIVE ARTS – EMBODYING INCLUSIVE TEACHERS

The Declaration of Salamanca proposes a deep reformulation of educational praxis which has as a main goal to create an environment where all students can enjoy learning, improve and grow in confidence, in a perspective of Inclusive Education. In this sense, it is necessary that teachers acquire scientific and educational skills but, also, development of personal and interpersonal competences that are crucial for a flexible and adequate professional praxis. The concept of competences integrates knowledge, skills, personal values and attitudes that are acquired through work experience and learning by doing. On other side, experiential work is lived through a body in movement. Acknowledging these ideas and considering active methods and expressive arts as valorous contributions to the positive model of inclusive education in this paper, the authors propose the training in Expressive Arts to promote Inclusion but mainly to develop personal and interpersonal competences of teachers to the Inclusion

RELATIONSHIPS IN INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS

Climate in the classroom is one of the determining factors in the development of practices in Inclusive Education. Many factors contribute to the climate in the classroom. However, there are predominance on affective-relational factors, with impact on action, norms and values, social interactions and learning processes. In this paper, the authors reflect on four studies which aim to identify and evaluate the relationship between several agents in the teaching–learning process (regular teachers, special education teachers and peer students) and the students with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Disability and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The studies were held in Primary Portuguese schools. The results are presented and discussed in their similarities and differences. The discussion shows that relationships between teachers and children with Special Education Needs (SEN) differ from those between teachers and typical children, but also according to different SEN. In general, there are not significant differences between regular teachers and special education teachers