We went into the Northern Ireland Shared Education schools with an eye to Inclusion in the area of Teacher/Student interaction, and came out with multiple overall findings.

Firstly, the imminent need for an inclusion program push within our own system became blatantly clear. Our education system must universally move toward normalized implementation of inclusion practices across the board if we are to be successful as academic institutions, but more importantly if we wish to live up to the identity we claim; that of being a Catholic school working with a Christian ethos of discipleship and Christlike love. Funding or no… this has to happen if we wish to still call ourselves a Catholic institution. Practically speaking, in order to do this with the funding and material reality in which we exist, we must focus on the students we currently have, not the ones we don’t yet have… do this and they will come.

Further, a vocabulary change ought to be considered, which will help to promote a mindset change. Rather than calling our program goal merely “Inclusion” consideration should be made to renaming this movement “Inclusion for Integration,” or just “Inclusion.” In this change there is a subtle but crucial distinction, and these particular words house a wealth of meaning which will be crucial to ethos building. We do not wish merely to “include these students” in our academic program, for this promotes the idea that these students ought merely to be peripherally accepted or allowed to be involved or present. Instead, the ultimate goal must be to integrate them into the whole, but to do so according to their own timeline of possible growth toward being independent and self-moved learners and citizens.

As a parochial, self-funded school, it is natural to fall prey to the misconception that the publicly funded schools of Ireland run shared education and inclusion programs cannot serve effectively as guiding models for our own system. It is easy to be bogged down with excuses such as, “well, but they receive state funds rather than having to tuition negotiate, enrollment manage, and fundraise… we could never do what they do, because we are not government funded.” However, observations of these schools exposed a completely different mindset, funding is not a golden ticket. Funding does not determine everything. Rather, emphasis needs to be placed on creatively using the funding we do receive, rethinking our staffing and academic structure, noting and implementing strengths of current shareholders, and strengthening partnership opportunities with other schools and local community members. The “publicly funded” Irish schools actually find themselves in financial and budgetary situations very similar to our own tuition based diocesan Catholic schools. The Irish schools do receive funding per pupil, but it is relatively respective to our own per student intake and covers close to the same percentage of their overall budget and needs that our own schools’ budgets do. With staffing and basic running costs covered, these shared education models still find themselves in situations where their funding is not sufficient for success, leaving them with a need to be creative with the resources & talents within the community, find grants, and fundraise in order to have the ability to develop their academic programs, professionals, and upkeep or repair their facilities.

In order to promote a systemized approach to promoting this ethos and program within our own schools, a practical look into common IEP or STEP program, documentation, approaches, and practices must be established for our schools, particularly in a “ready made” fashion in order to better guarantee successful implementation and buy in from the already bogged down administration system of our diocese. These Shared Education schools, especially with their unquestioned socially and academically established acceptance of the unquestioned need for special education and differentiated practices, serve as a fantastic model for our own system to follow and replicate in part.

Another notable element observed in these schools was the very clear, and even unquestioned, teacher ownership of their student’s individualized needs. The Northern Ireland school’s use of the Shared Education IEP program is notably strong and commonly accepted. As such, the teachers take ownership of the differentiating practices and create the IEP (STEP) plans year to year. As each year comes toward a close, the current and upcoming teachers of these children participate in End of year “hand off” processes. The current teacher of special needs students meet with the upcoming teacher and discuss plans for that current school year & its evolution throughout the year. Next the teacher begins forming their service plan, looking to the previous to plan as a guide in making decisions or implementing strategies for upcoming year, such that the student is offered the opportunity to engage in the curriculum in ways that can afford a chance of success for growth, meeting them where they are. Meeting before the school year is out gives the teacher opportunity to be reading, thinking, strategizing, & planning over summer, thus affording a smooth and efficient start to the new year. These plans also need involvement/input from parent, teacher, admin, & STUDENT. It is also incumbent on us to take a practical Look at our IEP/ISP/STEP processes and forms, systemizing this process, while also looking toward offering professional development and streamlining documentation and strategy suggestions toward typical special needs.

Much of what we saw is transferable if we have a belief that we must work towards serving ALL students. To further strengthen our own academic systems for success, social, emotional, and mental health practices must become common place within our systems, and our facilities must support this as a part of the physical plant as well. Noting the success of many of the schools in creating Safe Spaces, nurture rooms, collaborative shared “common room” areas between classes etc, are all elements which can help guarantee success. Further, this focus on mental/emotional needs cannot stop merely with the teacher and their own practices interacting with students. It must also offer parent training/partnership involvement. Many of these practices, specials programs, and locations developments will need to be spelled out, examples given, and strategies promoted, such that when schools ask “How can we integrate CRC, Nurture rooms, safe spaces with a focus on Mental Health & Social Emotional growth?”, they will have a resource and sample guide to look to in order to guide their steps forward.