Inclusive Education and the tyranny of Developmental Psychology Agathi Argyriadi1, agathiarg@yahoo.gr Alexandros Argyriadis2, alexargiriadis@gmail.com 1.

Lecturer, Technological Institution of kalamata 2. Lecturer, Phd (c)

Introduction

In the present work we describe two dominant models of disability approach, the individual / medical model and the social model. Then, points out reflection on the field of developmental psychology and critical approaches that have been obtained, concerning the effects on children with disabilities, are unable to achieve the specified developmental milestones.

The atomic model approach to disability

Until the 1980's the dominant model in the disability field was the individual / medical. According to the medical model, the problems of disabled people are considered to be the result of an injury, more than the failure of society to meet their needs in terms of adequate assistance and accessibility. Consequently, a compassionate society must invest in health services in an effort to address medical disability, restore or improve function caused by damage to the disabled people to live a more "normal" life. Health professionals have a key role in the medical model of disability. Leading cause of disability, according to this model, is the view of the biological body. (Sideri-Zoniou, 2004). Oliver, in the criticism of individual approaches, emphasizes that the first atomic model of disability locates the 'problem' within the individual and the

other, moreover he believes that the causes of this problem occur due to functional limitations or psychological losses allegedly resulting from disability. These two points are reinforced by the "theory of personal tragedy" in which disability is understood as a terrible unfortunate incident which affects the unfortunate people (Oliver, 1990). Oliver, also emphasizes to the power of people who make diagnoses and classify disabled people according to social standards of the majority.The medical model limits the concept of man as a whole, either directly or indirectly, for a set of causes, based on factors such as the following: The focus on academic medical diagnosis through knowledge. People are treated as medical emergencies. The motor or cognitive impairment is the cause of disability. The labeling, stereotyping and the consequent stigmatization. The prevalence of medical self-centered concepts means the approach to disability as a derogation from the dominant regularity and the focus on the restoration effort, which, for the life of the disabled implies non-acceptance, oppression and marginalization. Individual models of disability emphasize to the difference against the collective, focusing on the defect. What is understood as 'deviant' disparity has historically been used as an ideological tool of legitimation of the social hierarchy generated and maintained in capitalist societies. These approaches assume, that disability is a biological constant, evident in 'nature', located outside the historic contexts of normality. The concept of normal is the defining feature of capitalist society. the experience of disability influenced and shaped from the same disabled person, but also the attitudes of people towards other people. Physical or mental impairment is a consequence of the failure of individuals to meet the norms in the normal healthy body. The concept of normality, according to the social model, the normal man is a social construction (Oliver, 1996).

The approach of the social model of disability Compared to the medical model, which is based on the ideology of normality and is designed to restore the disabled as close as possible to normality, the social model is confirmed by experiences of people with disabilities, challenging the dominant atomic model adopted by people without disabilities . (French & Swain, 1997). The concept of disability is emerging as a socially constructed concept. The basic principles of this model, were formulated in 1976 by UPIAS. (Oliver, 1996, Finkelstein, 1993b). The main characteristic of the proclamation of union UPIAS was the full disclosure of the limitations and emotions caused by injury, so that the roots of the problem were to identify the social structures and not the person. The social model does not deny the problem of disability but locates directly into society. There are many kinds of atomic constraints that cause the problem but it is mainly the failure of society to provide adequate services to meet the needs of the disabled. The society that fails to take account of the social organization of people which is damaged, thus making them disabled (Oliver, 1996).Under the social model, disability is in all those factors that impose restrictions on disabled people, in social life and results in the deprivation of their rights. (Oliver, 1996, Finkelstein, 1993).

The tyranny of developmental psychology

The hegemony of the medical model of disability is obvious that has its roots in the field of developmental psychology. Developmental psychology has led the developing child in an investigation. Its aim is to find global age parameters and to create regulatory models for child development. The developmental model is so prevalent and dominant in cultural beliefs, research, policy and professional practice. However, the dominance of the growth model has been questioned both inside and outside psychology. One criticism of the practices of developmental psychology is the study of children, omitting the context in which they live. Seeking ecumenical laws governing

the development, and research findings are considered universally applicable. The child is supposed to operate primarily in personal / individual level, skills and behaviors that are detached from the social world in which they live. These ontological positions, critics argue, are reflected in the scientific discourse and methodological approaches. A fundamental assumption is that context, culture, society, the research environment, the timein history, or relationships, can be "controlled." Those who espouse this view does not consider it necessary to investigate what happens between children and the world around them.Secondly, criticism has accepted the assumption that development is typical and can be set, considering that children behave within specific parameters. Based on the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky, is widely argued that child development is constructed as a progressive sequence of a universal, regular and predictable pattern (Burman 2008). In other words, the development of the child develops / progresses in a linear fashion. The standardization process of development, led to connected use of 'normal' and 'non-normal "while the presence of non-typically developing children, built the" normal "child.Allegations of developmental psychology, are often operated by parents and professionals. The popularity of magazines and books for children, shows that parents are fully aware of developmental milestones set for their children. Parents tend to talk among themselves about the achievements of their children in their transition from one landmark to another. Although psychology focuses on the child as an individual, the key point is the study of the system: mother-child dad. Mothers are the organs through which the development of children can be supported and accelerated. Mother, more than the father and the other family members, is required to be tested and held accountable for the emergence typically developing children. This dominant focus ignores the broader socio-cultural and economic factors. The ability of children to achieve these milestones constructs the image of the mother for her child, but also the image of herself as a successful mother or not. The dominant policy of separation is reinforced by the assumptions of developmental psychology and causes anxiety and guilt feelings in the mother, who is considered the key to child development. Many times parents of a disabled child blame themselves, or they blame their disabled children, experiencing personal tragedy on a daily basis.

These perceptions are imposed.While the concepts of 'normal', 'milestone', 'development', appear as non-problematic in much of the literature in psychology, the dominance of the growth model has been questioned both inside and outside psychology. Burman (2008) challenged the truth of evolutionary psychology after exploring the historical and cultural roots of his claims. For Vurman, the claims of developmental psychology of childhood, must be understood as cultural perceptions, embedded in political and social meanings. Indeed, for Vurman, "the normal child, the ideal type, results from the comparative results of age-weighted population, therefore it is a fiction or a fable (Burman, 2008, p 22). Moreover, according to Billington (2008), developmental psychology can not represent the general diversity and diversity of function for children. It aims at criticized uniformity and diversity. Those children do not spend their developmental stages, the period specified by the developmental psychology become problematic and are unable to participate in society and school so they therefore be excluded. The field of developmental psychology, is the basis for policy implementation in regular kids. A typical example is that of Early Years Foundation Stage (DfES 2007) which is commanded by teachers to assess children under 69 specific educational objectives or milestones, up to 5 years.The Hegemony of developmental psychology, has the role of increasing the scope and influence. The impact of the hegemonic status of developmental psychology is clear and is gaining ground in the children's policy. Children who can not touch the stages and goals, are becoming the "other", different, and as supported by the heterogeneity in this model which can be understood only as inferior as something that is in a lower developmental level. (Walkerdine 1993, p 456). Therefore some disabled children fail to match the child who has developed political reasons and placed in the room more frequently and for longer. He is often excluded from education and care and is committed to poverty. In their article, the Goodley and Runswick-Cole (2011), examining the ways in which the policies of England, based on perceptions of disabled problematic, reproducing the tyranny of developmental psychology and context of the mother who wants the key to social and developmental change. These allegations, bring disabled children and their families in a blocked political context.

In developmental psychology, claims and unfair play tactics are in regard to disability. The daily life and practices, contribute to the construction of an alternative form of politics.The developmental psychology, is focused on the deficit of the child, not the removal of barriers imposed by society. The focus of developmental psychology can be found to the achievement that inevitably puts disabled children on the sidelines. (Goodley, Runswick-Cole, 2011). The developmental psychology in its original form in the public education system, can be regarded as a more complex form of oppression than that defined as directphysical violence. It provided a structure of discourse that acted to discipline the "wild"and "defective" children not to touch them (Baker, 1998b).

Conclusions Zoniou-Sideris (2004, p 49) reports that treatment of disability and disability in its general term is constructed and places the disabled in a marginal position of dependence, poverty, unemployment and frustration equal rights as a citizen is entitled. Also, Bardeau argues that disabilities in today's society are institutional productions of wage-class society and the medical knowledge developed over the repressive function is disabled. It is a knowing party to the institutional production of disability (Zoniou-Sideris, 1998). The developmental psychology, therefore, an extension of exclusion systems. Like the medical model, has an impact on people with disabilities, as converts to "broken bodies" and "defective minds." When the definition or description refers to the "defective" body at the same time refers to the inability to appropriate and adequate social participation. Therefore, the embodiment of disability means the separation of those who have the label. (Hughes, 2002).