The social and political underpinnings of the inclusive education movement

In this chapter we look at inclusive education as part of a number of wider social movements for social justice. Inclusive education is thus understood as a transformation of education systems, rather than simply the addition of new groups of students to schools, or the development of new techniques (Slee, 2006). We illustrate the ways movements for social change can occur at many levels. Resistance to social change also occurs at many levels. Movements for social justice often include a goal of changing what happens in education. This is because education is often seen as one of the important social institutions that can reinforce the status quo. Education is also seen as an important means of changing the status quo, giving more people access to a more meaningful education. It’s not uncommon to hear various political parties criticising each other’s educational policies as ‘social engineering.’ Movements for social justice in education understand that education has always been about social engineering. The questions of interest are thus: Social engineering for what?; Who benefits; and At whose expense?

Wherefore art thou, inclusion? Analysing the development of inclusive education in New South Wales, Finland and Alberta

Over the last two decades, moves toward “inclusion” have prompted change in the formation of education policies, schooling structures and pedagogical practice. Yet, exclusion through the categorisation and segregation of students with diverse abilities has grown; particularly for students with challenging behaviour. This paper considers what has happened to inclusive education by focusing on three educational jurisdictions known to be experiencing different rates of growth in the identification of special educational needs: New South Wales (Australia), Alberta (Canada) and Finland (Europe). In our analysis, we consider the effects of competing policy forces that appear to thwart the development of inclusive schools in two of our case-study regions.

Inclusive education policy, the general allocation model and dilemmas of practice in primary schools

Background: Inclusive education is central to contemporary discourse internationally reflecting societies’ wider commitment to social inclusion. Education has witnessed transforming approaches that have created differing distributions of power, resource allocation and accountability. Multiple actors are being forced to consider changes to how key services and supports are organised. This research constitutes a case study situated within this broader social service dilemma of how to distribute finite resources equitably to meet individual need, while advancing inclusion. It focuses on the national directive with regard to inclusive educational practice for primary schools, Department of Education and Science Special Education Circular 02/05, which introduced the General Allocation Model (GAM) within the legislative context of the Education of Persons with Special Educational Needs (EPSEN) Act (Government of Ireland, 2004). This research could help to inform policy with ‘facts about what is happening on the ground’ (Quinn, 2013). Research Aims: The research set out to unearth the assumptions and definitions embedded within the policy document, to analyse how those who are at the coalface of policy, and who interface with multiple interests in primary schools, understand the GAM and respond to it, and to investigate its effects on students and their education. It examines student outcomes in the primary schools where the GAM was investigated. Methods and Sample The post-structural study acknowledges the importance of policy analysis which explicitly links the ‘bigger worlds’ of global and national policy contexts to the ‘smaller worlds’ of policies and practices within schools and classrooms. This study insists upon taking the detail seriously (Ozga, 1990). A mixed methods approach to data collection and analysis is applied. In order to secure the perspectives of key stakeholders, semi-structured interviews were conducted with primary school principals, class teachers and learning support/resource teachers (n=14) in three distinct mainstream, non-DEIS schools. Data from the schools and their environs provided a profile of students. The researcher then used the Pobal Maps Facility (available at www.pobal.ie) to identify the Small Area (SA) in which each student resides, and to assign values to each address based on the Pobal HP Deprivation Index (Haase and Pratschke, 2012). Analysis of the datasets, guided by the conceptual framework of the policy cycle (Ball, 1994), revealed a number of significant themes. Results: Data illustrate that the main model to support student need is withdrawal from the classroom under policy that espouses inclusion. Quantitative data, in particular, highlighted an association between segregated practice and lower socioeconomic status (LSES) backgrounds of students. Up to 83% of the students in special education programmes are from lower socio-economic status (LSES) backgrounds. In some schools 94% of students from LSES backgrounds are withdrawn from classrooms daily for special education. While the internal processes of schooling are not solely to blame for class inequalities, this study reveals the power of professionals to order children in school, which has implications for segregated special education practice. Such agency on the part of key actors in the context of practice relates to ‘local constructions of dis/ability’, which is influenced by teacher habitus (Bourdieu, 1984). The researcher contends that inclusive education has not resulted in positive outcomes for students from LSES backgrounds because it is built on faulty assumptions that focus on a psycho-medical perspective of dis/ability, that is, placement decisions do not consider the intersectionality of dis/ability with class or culture. This study argues that the student need for support is better understood as ‘home/school discontinuity’ not ‘disability’. Moreover, the study unearths the power of some parents to use social and cultural capital to ensure eligibility to enhanced resources. Therefore, a hierarchical system has developed in mainstream schools as a result of funding models to support need in inclusive settings. Furthermore, all schools in the study are ‘ordinary’ schools yet participants acknowledged that some schools are more ‘advantaged’, which may suggest that ‘ordinary’ schools serve to ‘bury class’ (Reay, 2010) as a key marker in allocating resources. The research suggests that general allocation models of funding to meet the needs of students demands a systematic approach grounded in reallocating funds from where they have less benefit to where they have more. The calculation of the composite Haase Value in respect of the student cohort in receipt of special education support adopted for this study could be usefully applied at a national level to ensure that the greatest level of support is targeted at greatest need. Conclusion: In summary, the study reveals that existing structures constrain and enable agents, whose interactions produce intended and unintended consequences. The study suggests that policy should be viewed as a continuous and evolving cycle (Ball, 1994) where actors in each of the social contexts have a shared responsibility in the evolution of education that is equitable, excellent and inclusive.

Inclusive Education Discussion Paper

The literature regarding the historical and international development of inclusive education is extensive. Analysis of the literature has provided some reoccurring themes that are used to frame this discussion paper.

Inclusive Education Statement - policy analysis

This study analyses the Inclusive Education Statement – 2005, Education Queensland. (Appendix 1). The Statement was a product of the Queensland State Government response to Federal Legislation. The Federal Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), 1992 and the subsequent Standards for Education 2005, sought to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities. Under Section 22 of the Act, it became unlawful for an educational authority to discriminate against a person on the grounds of the person’s disability.

Supporting refugee students in schools : what constitutes inclusive education?

The worldwide rise in numbers of refugees and asylum seekers suggests the need to examine the practices of those institutions charged with their resettlement in host countries. In this paper we investigate the role of one important institution – schooling – and its contribution to the successful resettlement of refugee children. We begin with an examination of forced migration and its links with globalisation, and the barriers to inclusion confronting refugees. A discussion of the educational challenges confronting individual refugee youth and schools is followed by case studies of four schools and the approaches they had developed to meet the needs of young people from a refugee background. Using our findings and other research, we outline a model of good practice in refugee education. We conclude by discussing how educational institutions might play a more active role in facilitating transitions to citizenship for refugee youth through an inclusive approach.

Towards an inclusive education for all

Chapter 1: Presents international perspectives and understandings of what inclusion means, and explains why it is necessary for teachers to develop their own deep understanding of the beliefs and values that inform teaching. The chapter introduces the construct of an inclusive school community, which is an important focus of inclusive schooling, and explains how the theoretical framework for inclusion informs our thinking, and the ongoing processes of review and development. This framework also informs the stance we take on preparing teachers to work in more inclusive ways in schools. The chapter aims to encourage an appreciation of what it means to be included and excluded, and invites the reader to consider the challenges ahead.

From vision to reality : views of primary school principals on inclusive education in New South Wales, Australia

This paper discusses the findings of a research study that used semi-structured interviews to explore the views of primary school principals on inclusive education in New South Wales, Australia. Content analysis of the transcript data indicates that principals’ attitudes towards inclusive education and their success in engineering inclusive practices within their school are significantly affected by their own conception of what “inclusion” means, as well as the characteristics of the school community, and the attitudes and capacity of staff. In what follows, we present two parallel conversations that arose from the interview data to illustrate the main conceptual divisions existing between our participants’ conceptions of inclusion. First, we discuss the act of “being inclusive” which was perceived mainly as an issue of culture and pedagogy. Second, we consider the mechanics of “including,” which reflected a more instrumentalist position based on perceptions of individual student deficit, the level of support they may require and the amount of funding they can attract.

Powering a curriculum for all : a critical ethnographic study of inclusive education

This project makes a contribution to knowledge about the successful leadership practices that enhance education for young people with a disability in a Queensland Secondary School. The project used a critical ethnographic approach with a variety of data collection methods and analysis. For example, the use of work diaries, semi-structured interviews, document analysis and observation. These leadership practices were found to be relevant to the development of inclusive schools for all learners.The most powerful leadership practices found were those used by the leader to challenge, interupt and replace exsisting discourse and processes that led to exclusion of students with a disability.

Early years national curriculum documents : revisiting inclusive education

Early years education encompasses early childhood education and care (ECEC) and the early years of school across the age range birth to eight years. The introduction of two national curriculum documents for early years education – the Early Years Learning Framework (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations DEEWR, 2009) for ECEC programs and the Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority ACARA, 2011a) – indicates a trend towards national coherence, yet highlights a gap between notions of inclusion in the ECEC and school sectors of early years education. These gaps have the potential to impact negatively on school transition experiences through reductions in continuity of pedagogy and partnerships with families. Australian definitions of inclusion have moved beyond integration (i.e., mainstream classroom placement with support services and accommodations to address disability or lack of English), to encompass curricular and pedagogic differentiation catering for the participation rights and sense of belonging of children with a diverse range of abilities and backgrounds. This paper considers improved curriculum alignment and pedagogic continuity through enactment of elements relevant to inclusion.

National Profiles of In-Country Capacity to Support Disability-Inclusive Education; Fiji, Samoa, Soloman Islands and Vanuatu

This publication emanates from the four-country research project entitled “Strengthening capacity for disability-inclusive education development policy formulation, implementation and monitoring in the South Pacific region” funded by the Australian Development Research Award Scheme (ADRAS) and conducted jointly by the academic staff from the Queensland University of Technology and the University of the South Pacific.

Mobilising School and Community Engagement to Implement Disability-Inclusive Education through Action Research: Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu

This publication emanates from the four-country research project entitled “Strengthening capacity for disability-inclusive education development policy formulation, implementation and monitoring in the South Pacific region” funded by the Australian Development Research Award Scheme (ADRAS) and conducted jointly by the academic staff from the Queensland University of Technology and the University of the South Pacific.

Multidimensional classroom support to inclusive education teachers in Beijing, China

Classroom support plays a salient role in successful inclusive education, hence it has been widely debated in the literature. Much extant work has only focused on a particular aspect of classroom support. A comprehensive, systematic discussion of classroom support is sporadic in the literature. Relevant research concerning the Chinese context is even more limited. To address this gap, our study developed and validated a multidimensional classroom support model conducive to teachers’ inclusive education practices. Data were drawn from our large-scale survey with inclusive education teachers in Beijing. Further analyses were conducted to compare different dimensions within the classroom support model. Drawing insights from the results, we provide some recommendations for practice and research.

An enquiry into the professional competence of inclusive education teachers in Beijing: Attitudes, knowledge, skills, and agency

Attitudes, knowledge, and skills are widely recognised as the three pillars of professional competence of inclusive education teachers. Studies emerging from the Chinese context consider these three pillars important for the practice of Learning in Regular Classrooms—an idiosyncratic Chinese form of inclusive education. Our mixed methods study reveals that agency is the fourth pillar of the professional competence for inclusive education teachers in Beijing, China. Results from comparative analysis indicate that the level of teachers’ agency is significantly lower than that of their attitudes, knowledge, and skills. We offer some implications for policy and practice in inclusive education.