• Reference Manager
  • Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Conceptual analysis article, research about inclusive education: are the scope, reach and limits empirical and methodological and/or conceptual and evaluative.

inclusive education research paper pdf

  • Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, Exeter, England

This paper argues for a broader conception about research into inclusive education, one that extends beyond a focus on empirical factors associated with inclusive education and the effects of inclusive education. It starts with a recent summary of international research into the effects of inclusive education on students with SEN/disabilities and those without. On the basis of this review, it examines a model showing the complexity of factors involved in asking questions about the effects of inclusive education. This complexity reflects the ambiguity and complexity of inclusive education, which is discussed in terms of varied contemporary positions about inclusive education. The analysis illustrates how there has been more focus on thin concepts of inclusion (as setting placement or in general terms) rather than its normative and value basis, which reflects a thick concept of inclusion. The paper concludes by illustrating with the use of a version of the capability approach how there are value tensions implicit in inclusion about difference and about personal vs. public choice. This requires value clarification and some settlement about the balance of values, which is where deliberative democratic principles and processes have a crucial role. The proposed answer to the paper’s question about the scope, reach and limits of research in inclusive education is that such research involves both empirical, methodological, and evaluative matters. Educational research about inclusive education is not just empirical, it also involves value and norm clarification, a process which has been too often ignored.

Introduction

In asking about the scope, reach and limits of research in inclusive education in this paper, the aim is to examine some contemporary findings in one area of research in inclusive education and how value positions are implicated. Policy makers are interested in the effects of inclusive education and researchers are keen to provide evidence that bears on policy making. The paper will start off with a research review which was conducted as a specific response to a policy maker’s request. However, this kind of research, which can be described as treating inclusion as a technical matter, has been widely criticized. For example, Slee and Weiner (2001) identify two groups of researchers; (i) those who work within, what they call the “positivist paradigm,” accept the way things are, attempt to make marginal reforms and who criticize “full inclusion” as ideological and (ii) those who see inclusive education as cultural politics and call for educational reconstruction. Though these authors align with the second group, it is interesting that the first author subsequently uses research which treats inclusive education as a technical matter to support a position about inclusive education. Subsequently, Slee (2018) has referred to a review by Hehir et al. (2016) that depends on a systematic review of technical style studies to support his claims about how: “adjustments made to classrooms, to curriculum and to pedagogy to render classrooms more inclusive and enabling also benefit students without disabilities” (p. 69).

In discussing what this review of Inclusive Education Effects (IE) can tell us and what it cannot, the paper will examine a model showing the complexity of factors involved in asking questions about the effects of inclusive education. It then moves on to consider what other kinds of questions might be asked in research about inclusive education that cannot be addressed through effects-focussed methodologies. At this point in the paper, the issue arises about how the results from empirical studies relate to what is called inclusion or inclusive education. So, varied perspectives on inclusive education are summarized, including those of some parents, based on a recent study of parents’ experiences of deciding to opt for special schooling. These perspectives reflect the ambiguity and complexity of inclusive education, illustrating how the concept is often used in a thin way in empirical studies by focusing more on its empirical identification and causal relationships than its more expanded normative and value basis, a thick concept of inclusion. The paper concludes by using a version of the capability approach to examine issues about “full inclusion” and what can be called a more balanced or reasoned inclusion. This reveals two key dilemmas about difference and about personal vs. public choice that are relevant to providing inclusion with a well-founded value basis. The paper concludes with the claim that research into inclusive education involves technical, methodological, and evaluative matters. It proposes a role for public deliberation in clarifying and settling these value and norm clarification, process which have been largely ignored.

Review of inclusive education effects

The aims of this review were to (i) identify and summarize contemporary international research on IE effects and (ii) draw implications for policy, practice and future research in IE field. The context of this review was that it was undertaken in 2019 by three members of the Lead Group of the SEN Policy Research Forum (SENPRF) 1 following informal communications with the Government Department for Education (DfE) about national SEN and inclusion policy. The Forum was asked to summarize relevant research which was then presented as well to the national SEN Review ( Gray et al., 2020 ).

Ten sources were identified coming from a 2 stage process. Firstly, the authors identified relevant papers already known to them (4 papers). This was then supplemented, secondly, by a data base search using ERIC and ERC databases for the period 2009–2019. Search terms involved all variations of inclusion/inclusive education/mainstreaming × achievement/social emotional X effects. For the ERIC database 630 articles were retrieved with only 5 identified as relevant; for the ERC database 544 articles were retrieved with only one identified as relevant. In this way 10 papers were identified (see Gray et al., 2020 for more details). Five of the papers were reviews of international studies ( Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ; Dyssegaard and Larsen, 2013 ; Oh-Young and Filler, 2015 ; Hehir et al., 2016 ; Szumski et al., 2017 ). Some of these reviews included studies conducted before the 2009 cut-off date used for this review. Three involved a quasi-experimental designs, two with collected data and one using national administrative data. Four involved multi-variate statistical analyses of longitudinal data; with 2 using cohort studies. The papers were either from the United States or European countries, with none from the United Kingdom. Inclusion was mostly defined in the studies covered in terms of a mainstream class setting compared to a special class/school setting. Few gave details about the setting. Where they did, the proportion of time in the mainstream class was reported (e.g., greater or less than 80% of time). In one example, an inclusive setting was defined as being in general classrooms with several hours support per week and receiving therapy support too. Special school was described as small classes (5–8 children) taught by a specialist teacher with an assistant and therapy support ( Sermier Dessemontet et al., 2012 ).

The review was organized into four broad areas: (i) academic effects on students with SEN/disabilities and (ii) social-emotional effects on students with SEN/disabilities, (iii) academic effects on students without SEN/disabilities, and (iv) social-emotional effects on students without SEN/disabilities. For the first area, five sources were used with the balance of findings showing more academic gains of students with a range of SEN in ordinary rather than separate settings. These students were broadly characterized as having mild to moderate SEN/disabilities with the gains being in mostly literacy, but some in maths. One of the review papers reminded readers that this evidence did not show that “full” or “complete” inclusion had higher gains to special education settings for students with mild disabilities.

For the review area, academic effects for non-disabled students, the reviews of older studies, done before 2010 presented a mixed overall picture. However, on balance most studies showed more neutral or positive than negative effects for non-disabled students. However, some more recent individual studies rather than reviews indicated specific weak to moderate negative academic effects on non-disabled students, e.g., having classmates with emotional/behavior difficulties ( Fletcher, 2010 ) or special school returners ( Gottfried and Harven, 2015 ). Other studies indicated some small positive effects, associated with positive teacher attitudes, their training, strategies geared to diverse needs and problem-solving oriented schools ( Hehir et al., 2016 ). In addition, reviews were mixed about the negative academic effects of students with emotional and behavior difficulties on students without SEN/disabilities.

For the review area about social-emotional effects on SEN/disabled students, there were fewer studies than for academic effects. Here the sources showed mixed results. While one review referred to mostly positive outcomes ( Hehir et al., 2016 ), the other significant review reported that no conclusions can be drawn ( Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ). One specific recent study found no adaptive behavior differences across settings ( Sermier Dessemontet et al., 2012 ). For the fourth review area about social emotional effects for non-disabled students, there were also relatively few studies. These were recorded in review papers and showed some positive effects, e.g., less discriminating attitudes, increased acceptance, and understanding.

Research limitations and some relevant conclusion

As in other educational research focussed on effects, there are various design limitations to these inclusion effect studies. These studies use a range of approaches from quasi-experimental designs (QED) to multi-variate statistical analyses of longitudinal data and administrative data sets. With QED, as there is no randomized group allocation, there can be some “participant bias,” e.g., students in inclusive settings might have higher starting levels of functioning. Many of these papers refer to a series of limitations. Studies often use differing definitions of the compared settings. Comparisons are also often defined in terms of placements, e.g., special school v. ordinary school or special class/unit vs. ordinary class, not in terms of school-level (e.g., school ethos), or class level factors (e.g., quality of teaching). Findings relate to specific student age groups and areas of SEN/disability and not others. There is also the risk that other areas of SEN/impairment may not be controlled for in comparisons. Sometimes SEN/disability is also used generically to cover a range of areas and so the comparison becomes between SEN v non-SEN or disabled vs. non-disabled. How these terms are used can also vary internationally. In terms of statistical analyses, sample sizes may be under-powered to draw confident conclusions. Some effect measures, especially for the social-emotional effects could have improved measurement characteristics (e.g., reliability and validity).

For the purposes of this paper three main concluding points can be drawn from this review of inclusive education effects. The first point is that the basic typology of effects (academic and socio-emotional inclusion effects for SEN/disabled students and non-SEN/disabled children) needs to take account of other factors. These include the kinds of SEN/disability, phases of schooling, quality of support for learning and structural class and school factors. Some of these factors might moderate the effects. These are illustrated in Table 1 .

www.frontiersin.org

Table 1. Framework of focus and interacting factors relevant to the effects of inclusive education.

What this framework indicates is the multi-dimensionality of inclusive education and the complexity of factors that relate to their varied effects. This implies that there is a need for more nuanced policy and practice questions about inclusive education and consequently more nuanced kinds of studies about inclusive education. This would counter the commonly found preferences that look for simple generalized empirical relationships to confirm pre-existing positions; avoiding what has been called the pervasive confirmation bias ( Wason, 1960 ).

The second main point to make from this review is that the balance of evidence finds neutral or small positive effects as opposed to negative effects. This means that adopting an “on balance” position is the wise way to summarize the review outcome. Both positive and negative effects need to be understood in terms of the complex interaction of individual, class and school factors, on one hand, and what counts as inclusive education and the specific types of effects, on the other. The value of a framework like in Table 1 is that it reflects points from research findings about factors in those interactions that are more or less alterable, with this having policy implications. The third main point of conclusion from this review is that it is useful to develop this kind of mapping of the kinds of interacting factors related to questions about inclusion effects. This is relevant both to the design of further studies and to drawing conclusions for policy.

Unaddressed questions about inclusive education

The kinds of effectiveness research discussed above still leave some crucial questions about inclusive education unaddressed. Although there is scope for more sophisticated research designs to evaluate the effects of inclusive education, the use of multivariate statistical techniques involves large samples which are often not available, especially in some areas of SEN/disability, e.g., severe and profound and multiple learning difficulties SLD/PMLD). So, there are questions still to be asked about the inclusion of students with SLD/PMLD and those with significant emotional and behavior difficulties. These are difficult to address partly because of the relatively low incidence of these areas of difficulties but also the scarcity of practices involving these students in what would be called inclusive settings ( Agran et al., 2020 ). In a rare US quasi-experimental study, for example, 15 pairs of early years and primary aged children with “extensive support needs,” were matched across 12 characteristics based on their first complete Individual Education Program (IEP). One child in each pair was included in general education for 80% or more of their day, while the other was in a separate special education class ( Gee et al., 2020 ). Extensive analyses were shown to indicate more engagement and higher outcomes in general classrooms. But, in terms of what this study implies for inclusive education, there are no details of the students’ level of intellectual disability in these pairs and so we do not know if they had severe/profound intellectual disabilities or in United Kingdom terms SLD or PMLD. Nor does the report indicate details about the type of support and adaptations that were made for those in the general class or whether they spent 20% of their time in a separate class setting.

In the United Kingdom by comparison, reports about inclusive practices are in the form of cases or demonstration models of inclusive practice. For example, an illustration of inclusive practice with students with PMLD involved a common interactive music program for learners with PMLD and those from a mainstream primary school that enabled learning for all involved ( Education Wales, 2020 ). Though this inclusive program took place in a special school setting, it could have also been in an ordinary school setting. Both the primary school and special school children benefitted in their own ways from the joint activities, which seemed to enable its inclusiveness through it focus on the expressive arts.

The implication is that effectiveness research about inclusive education does not bear directly on the basic questions about the future of special classes and schools, settings which have been interpreted as being inconsistent with “full inclusion” ( UNICEF, 2017 ). The uses of terms like “full inclusion” or an “inclusive system at all levels” are unclear about whether they can involve some part-time separate settings (e.g., 20% of class time) or not. They are also unclear about whether fixed term (e.g., 1 year) placements in separate settings are compatible with an inclusive system and whether an “inclusive system at all levels” implies the closure of all special schools in the foreseeable future.

Critiques of “full inclusion” over many years have been about the position representing a “moral absolute” that requires the elimination of any alternative placements or settings to ordinary class placements ( Kauffman et al., 2021 , p. 20). For Kauffman and colleagues, the “full inclusion” focus on place rather than instruction or teaching is deeply problematic. They question those interpretations of Article 24 of the CRPD ( UN, 2006 ) that the Convention implies “full inclusion” without attention to the quality of teaching and alternative placements. However, what both advocates of “full inclusion” and these above critics have in common is that they both use false oppositions or dichotomies; with one pole being favored and the other pole rejected. They mirror each other in this kind of thinking.

There have, however, also been more nuanced arguments about inclusion over the years. Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) , for example, identified strengths and limitations in arguments of both “full inclusionists” and “inclusionists.” They see the former group (full inclusionists) as focussed more on children with more severe disabilities (low incidence needs), prioritizing social attitude and interaction learning, while the latter (inclusionists) are focussed more on children with high incidence needs, prioritizing academic learning and accepting a continuum of provision. Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) raise the question of whether “full inclusionists” are willing to “sacrifice children’s academic or vocational skills” for their social priorities ( Fuchs and Fuchs, 1998 , p. 312). This identifies the differences over inclusive education as one of value priorities, a point to be returned to later in this paper.

One way to take a broader perspective is to consider the practice and theory of a “full inclusive education” commitment. From the practice perspective, we can examine the Canadian New Brunswick system, which is cited as an example of “full inclusion” ( National Council for Special Education [NCSE], 2019 ). In a statement by the Porter et al. (2012) , a core inclusive principle is that:

“… public education is universal—the provincial curriculum is provided equitably to all students and this is done in an inclusive, common learning environment shared among age-appropriate, neighborhood peers” (p. 184).

However, in this publication evidence is given of the use of part-time and full-time “streaming” in primary and secondary schools and some alternative settings (0.4–1.5% across Francophone districts: p. 91). The reference in the above core principle to “common learning environments” is central to the definition of inclusive education. This phrase was introduced as an expansive definition:

“to dispel the misperception that inclusion is having every learner in a regular classroom all the time, no matter what the circumstances” ( AuCoin et al., 2020 , p. 321).

By using this term “common learning environment” in this way and not referring to ordinary/mainstream class environments, the New Brunswick conception of inclusive education is open to use of some alternative settings which is inconsistent with “full inclusion” and compatible with the concept of a flexible continuum of provision.

Inclusive education: concept, theory, and ambiguity

Given these ambiguities, on one hand, and the passions associated with inclusion and inclusive education, on the other hand, the analysis needs to consider the value of inclusion as this might inform some of the applied questions about inclusive education. In this regard, Felder (2018) has identified that inclusion tends to be a thin concept in empirical studies, like those discussed above. This is illustrated in the way the terms inclusion/inclusive are used in these studies. It is also why “what counts as inclusion” is an important part of the framework in Table 1 about the focus and interacting factors relevant to the effects of inclusive education. What these empirical studies do is focus more on matters related to how to realize inclusive education than consider and justify its expanded normative and value basis, what Felder (2018) called a thick concept of inclusion.

For Felder, an important distinction here is between communal inclusion (gemeinschaft) and societal inclusion (gesellschaft), to use the German terms from the social theorist Tonnies. Societal inclusion is about social relationships formed through instrumental rationality, while communal inclusion is about social relationships found in friendships, love relationships and interpersonal ties. In this analysis, the structures of societal inclusion can influence what make communal inclusion possible. However, communal inclusion sets some limits to the extent to which this form of communal inclusion can be secured through human rights. Felder’s analysis implies that human rights are not able to fully secure the social freedom and recognition, esteem or solidarity that are often neglected aspects of inclusion. In Felder’s analysis inclusive education which ultimately depends on social inclusion depends on social intentionality or agents acting collectively. People need to be integrated in a cooperative societal context to use their freedoms and basic rights. This underlines the importance of people having a degree of freedom to decide where they want to be included and be associated with. And, if disabled people are to have similar freedoms as other people in positive terms, they require more goods than others, because of the problem of converting these resources into practical opportunities. This is the basic assumption deriving from the capability approach ( Sen, 1979 ), which will discussed further below.

This thick concept on inclusion can also be contrasted with some current concepts of what inclusion means in inclusive education. Two leading concepts will be discussed and contrasted with a third which relates directly to students with more severe/profound disabilities. The first perspective, proposed by Warnock (2005) emphasizes that inclusion means the entitlement of everyone to learning in a personally relevant way, wherever this takes place. This concept of inclusion can imply and be used to justify separate settings for learning, e.g., special schools and classes in general schools, while overlooking the social effects and significance of separation, especially if it is imposed. Another leading concept of inclusion in inclusive education, associated with the Inclusion Index ( Booth and Ainscow, 2011 ) focuses on increasing student participation and reducing exclusion from “the cultures, curricula and communities of local schools” (p. 6). This concept implies that “all are under same roof,” a phrase used by Warnock (2005) , with the onus on local ordinary schools to accommodate diversity. This concept says little about how much diversity can be accommodated nor whether restructuring local schools could include some internal school separation.

It is also useful to contrast these two leading concepts with a 40 year old concept of partial inclusion that relates specifically to students with more severe/profound disabilities ( Baumgart et al., 1982 ). The basic premise of the principle of partial participation is that all severely disabled students have “a right to educational services that allow them to be the most that they can be” (p. 4). This implies engaging in as many different activities in as many different environments as instructionally possible. Baumgart et al. (1982) clarify that such partial participation requires individualized adjustments or modifications of typical environmental conditions. They also note that observing severely disabled and non-disabled students will show that they do not participate in activities to the same degree and in the same ways. This concept is characterized by its strong focus on what is pedagogically possible, going beyond the generalities of the two more prominent recent concepts.

Different policy positions

The leading international policy position on inclusive education is in Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD; UNICEF, 2017 ). The CRPD stresses that inclusive education is a fundamental human right for every child with a disability. It defines an inclusive education system as one that “accommodates all students whatever their abilities or requirements, and at all levels.” This position is justified in various terms: the educational case is that all children learn more effectively in an inclusive system; the social case is that this contributes to more inclusive societies and the economic case that it is more cost-effective.

However, not all countries accept Article 24 as shown by the United Kingdom Government having ratified the UNCRPD but stating specific reservations about preserving parents right to choose a special school education. This position has been United Kingdom (England) policy for over a decade. For example, the results of the consultation about the Green Paper that preceded 2014 revised SEN and disability legislation, were interpreted as showing widespread support. The public consultation was interpreted as showing support for parents to have the right to express a preference for any state funded mainstream or special school ( Department for Education [DFE], 2011 ).

It is revealing to compare these policy perspectives on inclusive education with those of parents who have selected special schools for their children with SEN/disabilities. A recent United Kingdom study examined the views of parents of pupils in special schools in the South West of England: their reasons for choosing special school, the extent to which they felt they had an independent choice, their views on alternative provision and their concepts of inclusive education ( Satherley and Norwich, 2021 ). Analysis showed that the top three reported factors as influencing decisions were school atmosphere, caring approach to pupils and class size, a finding that connected with their concepts of inclusive education. Not only does this small-scale study show distinctive parental perspectives on schooling and the dilemmas they experienced in choosing provision for their children, but concepts of inclusive education that depart from some of those discussed above. Over half considered that high quality inclusive education provision meant a sense of belonging to a class and school and social acceptance by peers, on one hand, and a more individualized curriculum, on the other. In addition, for many parents the belonging, social acceptance and Individualized curriculum was found only in special schools. By contrast, quality inclusive education rarely meant a resource base or specialist unit attached to mainstream school (28%), joint placement (21%), co-located schools (19%) or mainstream provision only (8.8%). What characterizes these parents’ perspectives was that they did not refer to placement, where provision is made. The UNCRP assumes that inclusion means placing students with disabilities within mainstream classes with appropriate adaptations ( UNCRPD, 2016 , p. 3). So, these parents mostly held different views from the dominant UNCRPD concept of inclusive education, discussed above.

The capability approach

A thick concept of inclusion in inclusive education, as discussed above, implies the importance of people having a degree of freedom to decide where they want to be included and with whom they associate. It was also suggested above that if disabled people are to have similar freedoms as other people, they require more resources than others, because of the problem of converting these resources into practical opportunities. This is where the capability approach developed by Sen (1979) can act as rich conceptual and value resource for thinking about inclusive education. Its discussion in this paper is not as a complete approach to the field, 2 but as the kind of framework that assists in thinking about what is involved in a just education system.

For Sen (1979) , the capability approach is about evaluating someone’s advantages in terms of his or her actual ability to achieve various valuable functionings as a part of living. Terzi (2014) expresses what a capability represents in terms of the “genuine, effective opportunities that people have to achieve valued functionings” (p. 124). What is distinctive about the capability approach is how it answers the political-ethical question about equality of what? Unlike perspectives which either focus on equality of resources or opportunities, the capability approach focuses on genuine opportunities. For Terzi, capabilities as genuine opportunities are important because they ensure that individuals can choose the kind of life they have reason to value. This also implies a fundamental role for agency in realizing the valued plans in one’s life. This has implications for the balance of choice, especially where it concerns children and young people. It has also been argued that a capability-oriented approach needs to acknowledge children’s agency in determining their own valued functionings and not just be determined by adults ( Dalkilic and Vadeboncoeur, 2016 ). This introduces some nuance into how a capability approach might work in relation to education, but this is not the paper to discuss these matters further. There are also issues about determining the capability set to be equalized. In considering whether there are basic universal capabilities there are also questions about opting for adequacy rather than equality in capabilities and whether some capabilities require equality. These matters will also not be addressed here.

Where the capabilities approach is incomplete is in considering the design questions of how to equalize capabilities; how to organize education to achieve this goal? Two key questions will be considered in relation to this question:

i how are “valuable functionings” identified? This is about the balance between personal preferences (agency) vs. public choice (democracy);

ii how to address the dilemmas of difference? This is about recognition of difference as either enabling vs. stigmatizing ( Norwich, 2013 ).

The second question about differences and differentiation will be dealt with first. In the capability approach thinking about equalizing capabilities is in terms of dignity. In these terms two ways of equalizing dignity can be considered from an educational perspective. One way of equalizing dignity is to respond to the individual functioning of all; this can be seen as about enabling learning for all. Another way is to avoid marking out students as different; this can be seen as avoiding the risk of stigma/humiliation. For example, some parents of children and young people are reluctant to seek out a diagnosis for their children, e.g., autism of ADHD, while others seek them out. These two ways of equalizing dignity can lead to a tension: differentiation as enabling but also risking stigma and devaluation, which can present a dilemma about difference/differentiation.

One way to connect how to address the dilemma of difference to conceptions of inclusion is in terms of the distinction which Cigman (2007) has made between “universal” and “moderate” inclusion. For Cigman, in “universal” inclusion, any marking out through separation of some children is to be avoided—through identification, different curricula, teaching and settings along a continuum of provision. This separation is regarded as a mark of devaluation and stigma; its avoidance is presented as a way of promoting respect. She contrasted this with “moderate” inclusion, that recognizes that promoting respect is also about identifying pupils’ personal strengths, difficulties and circumstances in a way that is enabling and not just stigmatizing. Based on this thinking there can be two broad responses to dilemmas of difference:

• it is possible to respond to the individual functional requirements (enabling route) and to avoid separation (avoid stigmatizing route); there are no dilemmas of difference representing a “universal” inclusion perspective.

• It is possible to some extent to respond to the individual functional requirements (enabling route) and to avoid separation (avoid stigmatizing route), but not fully: there are some dilemmas of difference which can be resolved to some extent. This represents a “moderate” inclusion perspective, what might better be represented as a reasoned and balanced inclusion.

This line of thinking shows how political-ethical questions about equalizing capabilities implicate dilemmas of difference in concepts of inclusion in inclusive education.

Deliberative democracy and citizens’ assemblies: personal vs. public choice

The second question arising from issues linked to the capability approach is how are “valuable functionings” identified? This has been framed as about the balance between personal preferences (agency) and public or social choice (democracy). In the United Kingdom (English) SEN/disability policy context, there has been over several decades a strong adoption of a “parental choice—provision diversity” approach—or what has also been called a neo-liberal approach ( Runswick-Cole, 2011 ). Here the choice is placed firmly with the individual. However, there has also been a persistent concern about United Kingdom (England) policy failure, which has been interpreted as reflecting an over-emphasis on personal preference rather than public choice ( Lehane, 2017 ). This has even been recognized more recently by policy makers, including the contemporary Department for Education Review of SEN/disability policy and practice ( Department for Education [DFE], 2022 ). This is a case of a Government having to confront the results of decades of policy which have not supported inclusive practices in a strategic way:

“…the need to restore families” trust and confidence in an inclusive education system with excellent mainstream provision that puts children and young people first; and the need to create a system that is financially sustainable and built for long-term success ( Department for Education [DFE], 2022 , p. 5).

However, this is not just about persistent policy failure over SEN/disability, it can be seen to also illustrate the democratic deficits in general educational and general social policy-making processes. SEN/disability inclusion cannot be detached from these other systems within the wider education system, such as school accountability, curriculum focus, and design, behavior management etc., because of their strong inter-connections. This is where Crouch’s (2011) Post-Democracy analysis is relevant in identifying how policy-making could better reflect stakeholder’s perspectives. This also connects to Felder’s (2018) examination of the meaning of inclusion, as encompassing communal and societal aspects and as being inherently social in its links to social intentions and actions. Felder goes onto to argue that the inclusion in inclusive education involves all stakeholders at all levels, from individuals to structural levels.

The implication of this analysis is that there needs to be more public deliberation and choice about inclusive education and a better balance between personal preferences and public choice. Following this argument Norwich (2019) has argued for an Educational Framework Commission, as a non-governmental policy initiative that uses representative citizen assemblies and other approaches to seek informed common ground between different stakeholders in policy making. This is one way to consider what is involved in a thick concept of inclusion in its links to democracy and as setting the context for research into inclusive education.

Several conclusions can be drawn from the above analysis about the scope, reach and limits of research on inclusive education. First, inclusive education is multi-dimensional, ambiguous and normative. This is related to the discussion about using inclusion as a thick or thin concept. The thick—thin distinction has been associated with the philosopher Williams (1985) in relation to ethical evaluations. Both thin and thick concepts involve evaluations, but thick concepts also have more complexity and descriptive content, while with thin concepts there is little sense of what is evaluated positively or negatively. In the case of inclusive education, the characteristic qualified by the term inclusive is positive without knowing much about the characteristic. For example, describing some education practice as “inclusive” reflects a thin use of the term, while qualifying the term “inclusive” as in “societal inclusion” or “curriculum inclusion in a separate setting” reflects more content and veers toward a thicker use of the concept. Kirchin (2013) has suggested that this thin-thick distinction is better represented as a continuum from thin to thick, which fits the use of the term “inclusive,” in these three examples, “inclusive practice,” “societal inclusion” to “curriculum inclusion in a separate setting.”

What makes inclusion in inclusive education a thick term is its multi-dimensionality which can also engender value tensions that need to be resolved. As argued above, this requires value clarification and some settlement about the balance of values, which is where deliberative democratic principles and processes have a crucial role. However, these processes can be Informed by empirical research, such as those summarized above. So, the answer in this paper to the question about the scope, reach and limits of research in inclusive education is that such research involves both empirical, methodological and evaluative matters. Educational research about inclusive education is not just empirical, it also involves value and norm clarification, a process which has been too often ignored. However, some empirical research in the field, such as the effects type summarized above, requires thin concepts of inclusion, as this is the only way that systematic empirical metrics can be set up for the kinds of large scale linking of variables. So, there is a place for both thin and thick concepts of inclusion in which they can interact. Thick concepts of inclusion can inform the foci for empirical research, while thin concepts used in empirical conclusions can inform how thick concepts develop through deliberative processes.

Author contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

  • ^ SEN Policy Research Forum, an independent network based in the United Kingdom, that aims to contribute intelligent analysis and the use of knowledge and experience to promote the development of policy and practice for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities.
  • ^ Sen indicated himself that the capability approach is an incomplete approach as it requires local democratic social choice in defining capabilities ( Sen, 2017 ).

Agran, M., Jackson, L., Kurth, J. A., Ryndak, D., Burnette, K., Jameson, M., et al. (2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms: examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Res. Pract. Pers. Sev. Disabil. 45, 4–13. doi: 10.1177/1540796919878134

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

AuCoin, A., Porter, G. L., and BakerKorotkov, K. (2020). New Brunswick’s journey to inclusive education. Prospects 49, 313–328. doi: 10.1007/s11125-020-09508-8

Baumgart, D., Brown, L., Pumpian, I., Nisbet, J., Ford, A., Sweet, M., et al. (1982). Principle of Partial Participation and Individualized Adaptations in Educational Programs for Severely Handicapped Students. Psychol. Res. Pract. Pers. Sev. Disabil. 7, 17–26.

Google Scholar

Booth, T., and Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. 3 rd ed. Bristol: CSIE.

Cigman, R. (2007). A Question of Universality: inclusive Education and the Principle of Respect. J. Philos. Educ. 41, 775–793.

Crouch, C. (2011). The Strange Non-death of Neo-liberalism. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Dalkilic, M., and Vadeboncoeur, J. A. (2016). Re-framing inclusive education through the capability approach: an elaboration of the model of relational inclusion. Glob. Educ. Rev. 3, 122–137.

Department for Education [DFE] (2011). Support and Aspiration: A new Approach to Special Educational needs and Disability. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/support-and-aspiration-a-new-approach-to-special-educational-needs-and-disability-consultation (accessed July 6, 2022).

Department for Education [DFE] (2022). SEND Review: Right Support, Right Place, Right Time Government Consultation on the SEND and Alternative Provision System in England. London: DFE.

Dyssegaard, C. B., and Larsen, M. S. (2013). Evidence on Inclusion. Aarhus: Aarhus University.

Education Wales (2020). Routes for Learning: Guidance document. Available online at: https://hwb.gov.wales/api/storage/f4133444-0b1d-4f66-aa46-8f76edd09199/curriculum-2022-routes-for-learning-guidance-final-web-ready-e-130720.pdf (accessed July 6, 2022).

Felder, F. (2018). The value of Inclusion. J. Philos. Educ. 52, 54–70. doi: 10.1111/1467-9752.12280

Fletcher, J. (2010). Spillover Effects of Inclusion of Classmates with Emotional Problems on Test Scores in Early Elementary School. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 29, 69–83. doi: 10.1002/pam.20479

Fuchs, D., and Fuchs, L. S. (1998). Competing Visions for Educating Students with Disabilities Inclusion versus Full Inclusion. Child. Educ. 74, 309–316. doi: 10.1080/00094056.1998.10521956

Gee, K., Gonzalez, M., and Cooper, C. (2020). Outcomes of Inclusive Versus Separate Placements: A Matched Pairs Comparison Study. Res. Pract. Pers. Sev. Disabil. 45, 223–240. doi: 10.1177/1540796920943469

Gottfried, M. A., and Harven, A. (2015). The Effect of Having Classmates with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders and the Protective Nature of Peer Gender. J. Educ. Res. 108, 45–61. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2013.836468

Gray, P., Norwich, B., and Webster, R. (2020). Review of Research about the Effects of Inclusive Education: (longer version). Available online at: https://senpolicyresearchforum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Inclusion-Review-final-longer-Feb-21.pdf (accessed July 6, 2022).

Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., and Burke, S. (2016). A Summary of The Evidence on Inclusive Education. Cambridge: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Kauffman, J. M., Ahrbeck, B., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., Felder, M., and Hallenbeck, B. A. (2021). Special Education Policy Prospects: Lessons From Social Policies Past. Exceptionality 29, 16–28. doi: 10.1080/09362835.2020.1727326

Kirchin, S. (2013). Thick Concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 9780199672349.001.0001 doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672349.001.0001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lehane, T. (2017). “SEN’s completely different now”: critical discourse analysis of three “Codes of Practice for Special Educational Needs” (1994, 2001, 2015). Educ. Rev. 69, 51–67. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2016.1237478

National Council for Special Education [NCSE] (2019). Policy Advice on Special Schools and Classes An Inclusive Education for an Inclusive Society?. Trim: NCSE.

Norwich, B. (2013). Addressing Tensions and Dilemmas in Inclusive Education: living with Uncertainty. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203118436

Norwich, B. (2019). From the Warnock Report (1978) to an Education Framework Commission: A Novel Contemporary Approach to Educational Policy Making for Pupils With Special Educational Needs/Disabilities. Front. Educ . 4:72. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00072

Oh-Young, C., and Filler, J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Res. Dev. Disabil. 47, 80–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014

Porter, G. L., and AuCoin, A., New Brunswick Department of Education Early Childhood Development (2012). Strengthening Inclusion, Strengthening Schools Report of the Review of Inclusive Education Programs and Practices in New Brunswick Schools. Fredericton, N.B: New Brunswick Dept of Education and Early Childhood Development.

Ruijs, N. M., and Peetsma, T. T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educ. Res. Rev. 4, 67–79. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002

Runswick-Cole, K. (2011). Time to end the bias towards inclusive education? Br. J. Spec. Educ. 38, 113–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8578.2011.00514.x

Satherley, D., and Norwich, B. (2021). Parents’ experiences of choosing a special school for their children. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 1–15. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2021.1967298

Sen, A. (1979). “Equality of What?,” in Tanner Lectures on Human Values , ed. S. McMurrin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Sen, A. (2017). Collective Choice and Social Welfare: An Expanded Edition. London: Penguin. doi: 10.4159/9780674974616

Sermier Dessemontet, R., Bless, G., and Morin, D. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. J. Intellect. Disabil. 56, 579–587. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01497.x

Slee, R. (2018). Inclusive Education isn’t Dead, it Just Smells Funny. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780429486869

Slee, R., and Weiner, G. (2001). Education Reform and Reconstruction as a Challenge to Research Genres: Reconsidering School Effectiveness Research and Inclusive Schooling. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 12, 83–98. doi: 10.1076/sesi.12.1.83.3463

Szumski, G., Smogorzewska, J., and Karwowski, M. (2017). Academic Achievement of Students Without Special Educational needs in Inclusive Classrooms: A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 21, 33–54. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004

Terzi, L. (2014). Reframing Inclusive Education: Educational Equality as Capability Equality. Camb. J. Educ. 44, 479–493. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2014.960911

UN (2006). Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities , 24. Available online at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities.aspx#24 (accessed November 25, 2021).

UNCRPD (2016). Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: n Article 24: Right to inclusive education General comment No. 4 (2016) . Available online at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CRPD/GC/RighttoEducation/CRPD-C-GC-4.doc (accessed November 29, 2021).

UNICEF (2017). Inclusive Education: Understanding Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Available online at: https://www.unicef.org/eca/sites/unicef.org.eca/files/IE_summary_accessible_220917_0.pdf (accessed July 6, 2022).

Warnock, M. (2005). Special Educational Needs: A New Look. London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.

Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Q. J. Exp. Physiol. 12, 129–140. doi: 10.1080/17470216008416717

Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London: Fontana.

Keywords : inclusive education, inclusion, research, effects, evaluations, thin and thick concepts

Citation: Norwich B (2022) Research about inclusive education: Are the scope, reach and limits empirical and methodological and/or conceptual and evaluative? Front. Educ. 7:937929. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.937929

Received: 06 May 2022; Accepted: 29 June 2022; Published: 15 July 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Norwich. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Brahm Norwich, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

The role of evidence in developing effective educational inclusion

Advertisement

Advertisement

Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges

  • Open access
  • Published: 17 September 2020
  • Volume 49 , pages 123–134, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

  • Mel Ainscow 1  

33k Accesses

43 Citations

42 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This article provides an introductory commentary to the papers in this Prospects special issue on inclusive education. In so doing, it stresses the need to be cautious as we read accounts of inclusive education from other parts of the world: whilst lessons can undoubtedly be learned from the accounts in this special issue, they must be adopted with care. There is no doubt that evidence of various kinds can help in identifying the barriers facing some learners and the resources that can be used to overcome these difficulties. However, efforts to promote inclusion and equity within education systems should be based on an analysis of particular contexts. To that end, this article outlines a research-based framework that can be used to carry out such contextual analyses. The article concludes by arguing that an emphasis on inclusion and equity can potentially improve the quality of education for all young people within a national education system.

Similar content being viewed by others

inclusive education research paper pdf

Achieving Inclusive Education: Where to Next?

inclusive education research paper pdf

Historical and Theoretical Approaches to Inclusive Education

inclusive education research paper pdf

Global Inclusive Education: Challenges for the Future

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The articles in this special issue of Prospects provide fascinating insights into how the global concern to promote inclusion and equity is influencing education policies and practices around the world. In their accounts, the authors shed light on the challenges involved, as well as suggesting ways of addressing these difficulties.

In this introductory commentary, I reflect on these accounts in light of my own experience of developing research protocols to support inclusive developments in many parts of the world. This leads me to suggest several factors that need to be addressed in order to move policies and practices forward. I also underline the importance of contextual factors in shaping the results of education system reform. I argue that this concern with context should be kept in mind, particularly when reading this special issue.

Contexts and perspectives

Despite 25 years of international debate, consensus on inclusive education remains elusive (Ainscow 2020 ). Internationally, it is increasingly seen as a principle that supports and welcomes diversity amongst all learners (UNESCO 2017 ). This view presumes that the aim is to eliminate social exclusion resulting from discriminatory attitudes about race, social class, ethnicity, religion, gender, and ability. As such, it starts from the belief that education is a basic human right and the foundation for a more just society. An emphasis on equity was recently introduced by the Education 2030 Framework for Action (UNESCO 2015 ), which implies a concern with fairness. In the Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education that I helped develop with a team of international experts, we summed this up as follows: every learner matters and matters equally (UNESCO 2017 ).

Differences of perspective regarding what all of this involves are apparent in the accounts of developments included in this special issue of Prospects . We see, for example, that some of the authors focus mainly on finding ways to serve particular groups of children within general education settings—such as children with disabilities or from minority backgrounds—or on how gender affects inclusion. Similarly, most of the articles address learners from low-income families. On the other hand, some of the authors see inclusion more broadly, as a guiding principle. To varying degrees, their perspectives are informed by the intersectional lens explained by Edvina Bešić in this issue. This focuses attention on how the interconnected nature of social categorisations, such as race, class, and gender, leads to discriminatory processes.

These varied perspectives also remind us, in case we forget, that when it comes to understanding and developing education policies and practices, context matters . This means that it is dangerous to make assumptions about what is happening in another country based on experiences in one’s own country.

Learning from differences

The articles show that there are many sources of inequity in education, related to political, economic, social, cultural, and institutional factors and that these factors vary both within and across countries. This means that whilst lessons can undoubtedly be learned from all the accounts, they must be interpreted and replicated with care. To take a specific example, Fullan ( 2007 ) notes that Finland has no system of national testing but, he argues, this does not mean that the absence of testing is always a good thing.

System change strategies being contextually sensitive is one of the pervading themes in the suggestions I make in this article. To illustrate what this means, I return to a book published over 20 years ago, in which my colleague Tony Booth and I analysed the perspectives on inclusion (and exclusion) revealed by members of a team of researchers, in their accounts of schools in eight countries (Booth and Ainscow 1998 ). The study arose from our dissatisfaction with much of the existing comparative education research, much of which sought findings that would have global significance by oversimplifying educational processes and practices, and by ignoring problems of interpretation and translation. We were also concerned about studies that assumed the existence of a single national perspective, rather than reporting the conflicts of interest and points of view that arise in all countries. In these ways, we argued that important differences between and within countries are too often omitted from study and debate.

Given these concerns, we intended for our study of developments in the eight countries to enhance interest in the shaping effect of national and local policies, as well as cultural and linguistic histories, on educational practice. It would do this, we hoped, by extending existing comparative reviews of inclusion through making their viewpoints explicit and illustrating practice in all its messiness. We also set out to challenge the way notions of inclusive education are often interpreted through the narrow, deficit lens of traditional special education.

Booth and I argued that an awareness of viewpoint diversity would avoid two pitfalls of comparative research: the idea that, in any country, there is a single national perspective on inclusion; and the notion that practice can be generalised across countries without attention to local contexts and meanings. The tendency to present single national perspectives, we explained, is often matched by a failure to describe the way practice is to be understood in its local and national context. This is part of a positivist view of social science, in which research carried out in one country can be amalgamated with that of others in order to support generalisable conclusions.

All of this is in marked contrast to the studies we read in this special issue of Prospects : to varying degrees and in different ways, these studies attempt to draw out nuances of the meaning of policy and practice in particular countries. In some cases, this means listening directly to the voices of those involved, not least those of children and young people. Rather than reducing the potential contribution of research conducted in unfamiliar contexts, careful analysis of these differences in perspective, context, and meaning enhances their value.

Learning from experience

As a consultant to UNESCO over the last 30 years or so, I have had the privilege of working with colleagues in many countries, using research to foster greater inclusion and equity within education systems. I call the approach I have developed in carrying out this work “collaborative inquiry” (Ainscow 1999 ). Put simply, it involves stakeholders in generating and engaging with evidence to inform their efforts.

Based on the adage that the best way to understand an organisation is by trying to change it, my experiences have shed light on the factors that can facilitate or limit the progress of inclusive education. These experiences led me to formulate a framework for thinking about how to promote inclusion and equity within education systems (see Figure  1 ). Amended from an earlier version (Ainscow 2005 ), the framework places schools at the centre of the analysis. This reinforces the point that moves towards inclusion must focus on increasing the capacity of local neighbourhood mainstream schools to support the participation and learning of an increasingly diverse range of learners. This is the paradigm shift that I have previously described as an “inclusive turn” (Ainscow 2007 ). There, I argued that moves towards inclusion are about the development of schools, rather than attempts to integrate vulnerable groups of students into existing arrangements.

figure 1

A framework for contextual analysis in relation to inclusion and equity

At the same time, the framework draws attention to a range of contextual factors that bear on the way schools carry out their work: (1) the principles that guide policy priorities within an education system, (2) the criteria used to evaluate the performance of schools, and (3) the views and actions of others within the local context, including members of the wider community that the schools serve, and the staff of national and local education departments responsible for the coordination of the education system. As I will explain, these influences may provide support and encouragement to those in schools who wish to move in an inclusive direction. However, they can also act as obstacles to progress.

In what follows, each of these five factors is explained, leading to a series of key ideas to consider when analysing a particular context in order to develop future policies. These ideas are guided by a belief that inclusion and equity should not be seen as separate policies. Rather, they should be viewed as principles that inform all national education policies, particularly those that deal with the curriculum, assessment, supervision, school evaluation, teacher education, and budgets. They must also inform all stages of education, from early years through to higher education.

Inclusion and equity as principles

Terms such as “equity” and “inclusion” can be confusing since they may mean different things to different people. This is a particular problem when trying to move forward with others—particularly in schools, where everybody is so busy. Put simply, if there is not a shared understanding of the intended direction of travel, progress will be more difficult. There is, therefore, a need to agree on definitions of these concepts.

In establishing a definition for strategic purposes, our earlier research (Ainscow et al. 2006 ) led us to suggest that inclusion in education should be:

Seen as a process. Inclusion has to be seen as a never-ending search to find better ways of responding to diversity. It is about learning how to live with difference and learning how to learn from difference. In this way, differences come to be seen more positively as a stimulus for fostering learning, amongst both children and adults.

Concerned with the identification and removal of barriers. It involves collecting, collating, and evaluating information from a wide variety of sources within particular contexts, in order to plan for improvements in policy and practice. It is also about using evidence of various kinds to stimulate creativity and problem-solving.

Focused on improving the presence, participation, and achievement of all students. Here, presence is concerned with where children are educated, and with how reliably and punctually they attend; participation relates to the quality of their experiences whilst they are there and thus must incorporate the views of the learners themselves; and achievement is about the outcomes of learning across the curriculum, not merely test or examination results.

Involve a particular emphasis on those groups of learners who may be at risk of marginalisation, exclusion, or underachievement. This indicates the moral responsibility to ensure that those groups that are statistically most at risk are carefully monitored, and that, where necessary, steps are taken to ensure their presence, participation, and achievement within the education system. At the same time, there is a need to keep an eye out for learners who may be overlooked.

My experience is that a well-orchestrated debate about these elements can lead to a wider understanding of the principle of inclusion. Though such debate is by its nature slow and possibly eternal, it can help foster the conditions within which schools can feel encouraged to move in a more inclusive direction. Crucially, this process must seek to involve all stakeholders, including families, communities, political and religious leaders, and the media. It must also involve those within national and local education district offices.

The use of evidence

In order to address concerns about access and equity in education systems, it is important to know who is included, who is segregated, and who is excluded from schooling. Without such evidence, there can be no accountability. However, when data collection efforts are only focused on particular categories of learners, there is a risk of promoting deficit views of students who share certain characteristics or come from similar backgrounds. Put simply, the focus is on what is wrong with the child, rather than more fundamental questions, such as why are we failing some learners or what are the barriers experienced by some of our students .

Engaging with evidence regarding these challenging questions, including the views of children and their families, has the potential to stimulate efforts to find more effective ways of promoting the participation and progress of all learners (Ainscow and Messiou 2017 ). Data on contextual factors are also needed, including resources and facilities, and on attitudes, beliefs, and social relationships. With the growing technological capacity to handle large amounts of different types of data, it is increasingly possible to generate information about the many influences that affect the inclusion, segregation, and exclusion of students within education systems. Focusing on these factors can help create the conditions for promoting inclusion and equity.

With this in mind, I suggest a different way of responding to learner diversity, one that views it in relation to barriers that exist within a given context, and to opportunities to enhance and democratise learning opportunities, processes, and outcomes. This leads me to argue that the extent to which students’ experiences are inclusive and equitable is not only dependent on the educational practices of their schools. Instead, it depends on a whole range of interacting processes that reach into the school from outside. These include the demographics of the areas served by schools, the histories and cultures of the populations who send (or fail to send) their children to a school, and the economic and social realities faced by those populations.

It is therefore helpful to generate evidence that addresses three interlinked sets of factors that impact the participation and learning of students: within - school factors such as existing policies and practices, between - school factors that arise from the characteristics of local school systems, and beyond - school factors , including the demographics, economics, cultures, and histories of local areas—all with a focus on reducing inequalities. We have defined this simple framework as “an ecology of equity” (Ainscow et al. 2012 ).

School development

There is no single model of what an inclusive school looks like. What is common to highly inclusive schools, however, is that they are welcoming and supportive places for all of their students, not least those with disabilities and others who sometimes find learning difficult. This does not prevent these schools from being committed to improving the achievements of all of their students. Indeed, they tend to have a range of strategies for strengthening achievements that are typical of those employed by all effective schools, and an emphasis on supporting vulnerable students does not appear to inhibit these strategies (Dyson et al. 2004 ). A key factor is the emphasis placed on tracking and supporting the progress of all students.

The implication is that schools need to be reformed and practices need to be improved in ways that will lead them to respond positively to student diversity: seeing individual differences not as problems to be fixed but as opportunities for enriching learning. Within such a conceptualisation, considering students’ difficulties can provide an agenda for change and insights into how such changes might be brought about. Moreover, this kind of approach is more likely to be successful in contexts where there is a culture of collaboration that encourages and supports problem-solving (Ainscow 2016b ; Skrtic 1991 ). According to this view, the development of inclusive practices is seen as involving those within a particular context in working together to address barriers to education experienced by some learners.

This means that attempts to develop inclusive schools should pay attention to the building of consensus around inclusive values within school communities. It implies that school leaders should be selected in the light of their commitment to inclusive values and their capacity to lead in a participatory manner (Riehl 2000 ). Finally, the external policy environment should be compatible with inclusive developments, in order to support rather than to undermine schools’ efforts.

Involving the wider community

In order to foster inclusion and equity in education, governments need to mobilise human and financial resources, some of which may not be under their direct control. Forming partnerships amongst key stakeholders who can support the process of change is therefore essential. These stakeholders include: parents/caregivers; teachers and other education professionals; teacher trainers and researchers; national, local, and school-level administrators and managers; policy-makers and service providers in other sectors (e.g., health, child protection, and social services); civic groups in the community; and members of minority groups that are at risk of exclusion.

Family involvement is particularly crucial. In some countries, parents and education authorities already cooperate closely in developing community-based programmes for certain groups of learners, such as those who are excluded because of their gender, social status, or impairments (Miles 2002 ). A logical next step is for families to become involved in supporting change for developing inclusion in schools.

Where parents lack the confidence or skills to participate in such developments, it might be necessary to engage and build capacity and networks. This could include the creation of parent support groups, training parents to work with their children, or building the advocacy skills of parents to negotiate with schools and authorities. Here, it is worth adding that there is evidence that the views of families, including children themselves, can be helpful in energising the efforts of schools to develop more inclusive ways of working.

All of this means changing how families and communities work and enriching what they offer to children. In this respect, there are many encouraging examples of what can happen when what schools do is aligned in a coherent strategy with the efforts of other local players—employers, community groups, universities, and public services (Kerr et al. 2014 ). This does not necessarily mean schools doing more, but it does imply partnerships beyond the school, where partners multiply the impacts of each other’s efforts.

With this argument in mind, my Manchester colleagues Alan Dyson and Kirstin Kerr have explored the idea of area-based initiatives, modelled on the principles underpinning the highly acclaimed Harlem Children’s Zone in the USA (Dyson and Kerr 2013 ). This work involves attempts to improve outcomes for children and young people in areas of disadvantage, through an approach characterised as “doubly holistic”. That is to say, it seeks to develop coordinated efforts to tackle the factors that disadvantage children and enhance the factors which support them, across all aspects of their lives and across their life spans, from conception through to adulthood.

All of this has implications for the various key stakeholders within education systems. In particular teachers, especially those in senior positions, have to see themselves as having a wider responsibility for all children, not just those who attend their own schools. They also have to develop patterns of internal organisation that enable them to have the flexibility to cooperate with other schools and with stakeholders beyond the school gate. It means, too, that those who administer school systems have to adjust their priorities and ways of working, in response to improvement efforts led from within schools.

Education departments

Policy is made at all levels of an education system, not least at the school and classroom levels (Ainscow et al. 2020 ). Furthermore, the promotion of equity and inclusion is not simply a technical or organisational change—it is a movement in a clear philosophical direction. Moving to more inclusive ways of working therefore requires changes across an education system. These span from shifts in policy-makers’ values and ways of thinking, which enable them to provide a vision shaping a culture of inclusion, to significant changes within schools and the communities they serve.

A culture of inclusion within an education system requires a shared set of assumptions and beliefs amongst senior staff at the national, district, and school level that value differences, believe in collaboration, and are committed to offering educational opportunities to all students. However, changing the cultural norms that exist within an education system is difficult to achieve, particularly within a context that is faced with so many competing pressures and where practitioners tend to work alone in addressing the problems they face. Therefore, leaders at all levels, including those in civil society and other sectors, have to be prepared to analyse their own situations, identify local barriers and facilitators, plan an appropriate development process, and provide support for inclusive practices and effective strategies for monitoring equity in education.

National and district administrators have particularly important roles in promoting inclusive ways of managing schools and education processes. In particular, they need to establish the conditions for challenging non-inclusive, discriminatory educational practices. They also need to build consensus and commitment towards putting the principle of inclusion into practice.

There is also evidence that school-to-school collaboration can strengthen the capacity of individual organisations to respond to learner diversity (Ainscow 2016a ; Muijs et al. 2011 ). Specifically, collaboration between schools can help reduce the polarisation of schools, to the particular benefit of those students who are marginalised at the edges of the system. In addition, when schools seek to develop more collaborative ways of working, this can have an impact on how teachers perceive themselves and their work (Rosenholtz 1989 ). Specifically, comparisons of practices in different schools can lead teachers to view underachieving students in a new light. In this way, learners who cannot easily be educated within the school’s established routines are not seen as “having problems”, but as challenging teachers to re-examine their practices to make them more responsive and flexible.

Local coordination is therefore needed in order to encourage this form of area-based collaboration. Here, it is significant that a recent study found that four of the most successful national education systems—Estonia, Finland, Ontario (Canada), and Singapore—all have well-developed systems for coordinating local school districts, regardless of their differing extents of school autonomy or devolution of decision-making (Bubb et al. 2019 ). In particular, they all have district-level structures that seek to ensure equity as well as excellence.

All of this points to the importance of how financial resources are allocated within education systems. This can be crucial in creating the flexibility within schools to encourage the sorts of experimentation I have described. Alternatively, it can lead to further segregation, with resources used to provide separate attention for some students—within the school or in separate special schools or classes. In this sense, finance is another powerful lever for change (Meijer and Watkins 2019 ).

Drawing the lessons

In summary, then, I have learned five key lessons about promoting equity and inclusion:

Policies should be based on clear and widely understood definitions of what the terms equity and inclusion mean.

Strategies should be informed by evidence regarding the impact of current practices on the presence, participation, and achievement of all students.

There should be an emphasis on whole-school approaches, in which teachers are supported in developing inclusive practices.

Policies should draw on the experience and expertise of everybody who has an involvement in the lives of children, including families and the children themselves.

Education departments, locally and nationally, must provide leadership in the promotion of equity and inclusion as principles that guide the work of teachers in all schools.

It is encouraging that similar ideas are presented in the GEM 2020 Report, which is summarised in this issue of Prospects . They indicate that the promotion of inclusion and equity in education is less about the introduction of particular techniques or new organisational arrangements, and much more about the processes of social learning within particular contexts. As such, it requires a culture of inclusion to permeate the education system. It is, therefore, likely to involved a radical challenge to existing thinking within education systems.

Making this happen will require powerful change strategies. And, as I have stressed throughout this article, such strategies have to be developed in particular contexts by analysing evidence that clarifies the barriers experienced by learners. At the same time, this form of analysis is likely to identify resources—particularly human resources—that can be mobilised to address these difficulties.

All of this has major implications for leadership practice within schools and across educational systems, which must be ethics-based (Harris et al. 2017 ). In particular, it calls for coordinated and sustained efforts around the idea that outcomes for vulnerable groups of students are unlikely to change unless there are changes in the attitudes and behaviours of adults. Consequently, the starting point must be those adults: enlarging their capacity to imagine what might be achieved, then increasing their sense of accountability for bringing it about. This may also involve tackling taken-for-granted assumptions, most often relating to expectations about certain groups of students, their capabilities, and their behaviours.

Reaching out to all learners

Those involved in advancing this radical agenda for change may find it helpful to look at the resource pack Reaching Out to All Learners , which I developed with colleagues at UNESCO’s International Bureau of Education (available free at: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/resources/ibe-crp-inclusiveeducation-2016_eng.pdf ). Drawing on international research evidence of the sort I have mentioned in this article, these materials are intended to influence and support inclusive thinking and practices at all levels of an education system. Consequently, they are designed to be relevant to teachers, school leaders, district-level administrators, teacher educators, and national policy makers.

The resource pack is intended to be used flexibly, in response to contexts that are at different stages of development and where resources vary. With this in mind, it emphasises active learning processes, within which those who use the materials are encouraged to work collaboratively, helping one another to review and develop their thinking and practices. Extensive use is made of examples from different parts of the world, to encourage the development of new ways to reach out to all learners. In this way, inclusion and equity are seen as pathways to the overall improvement of education systems.

This issue of Prospects

As I have argued, policy is made at all levels of an education system. It is appropriate, therefore, that the articles in this special issue on inclusive education probe deeply into the developments and challenges that the authors encountered as they analysed particular contexts around the world.

Starting at a macro level, Maha Khochen-Bagshaw uses her lived experiences as an international consultant to write about progress across the Middle East and North Africa, Umesh Sharma examines developments in the Pacific region, and Ignacio Calderón-Almendros and his colleagues analyse challenges and opportunities in Latin America. Each of these articles throw light on patterns that are evident across countries that share cultural, religious, and linguistic similarities. At the same time, they warn that such similarities should not prevent us from looking more closely at what happens within countries. This reminds us that policies are influenced by national histories.

Some of the articles focus on the role of policy within contexts that are seen as being at the vanguard of progress in relation to inclusion and equity. For example, Dario Ianes and his colleagues explain how the Italian government passed a law in 1977 that closed all special schools, units, and other non-inclusive provisions. Whilst thinking and practice varies from place to place within Italy, the principle of inclusion is widely accepted. The province of New Brunswick in Canada is frequently quoted as an example of a system that has pioneered the concept of inclusive education through legislation, local authority policies, and professional guidelines. In their account, Angela AuCoin, Gordon Porter, and Kimberly Korotkov explain that change has been a difficult process, requiring long periods of sustained effort and collaboration amongst a variety of stakeholders and partners. Meanwhile, the article on Portugal by Ines Alves and her colleagues explains how recent legislation requires that the provision of supports for all students be determined, managed, and provided at the regular school level, developed with local multidisciplinary teams.

Other articles examine how political factors have influenced progress in relation to inclusion and equity. This is particularly evident in Petra Engelbrecht’s analysis of developments in South Africa, which, she explains, have to be understood in relation to broader political, social, and cultural developments since the end of Apartheid. In their account of developments in Australia, Christopher Boyle and Joanna Anderson argue that current reform agendas situate inclusive education against , rather than alongside, other prevailing policies. And in their analysis of current developments in another Canadian province, Nova Scotia, Jess Whitley and Trista Hollweck explain how the inclusion agenda has broadened to focus on all students, particularly those most often marginalised by and within school systems.

Some of the articles take us closer to the action in the field, using accounts of the experiences of individual learners. In discussing the limitations inherent in the policy framework in the USA, Doug Biklen draws on autobiographical accounts of students with disabilities. He concludes that, nationally, inclusion is uneven and is much less available for students of colour, immigrant youth, and students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. In their account of what they call “street-connected young people” in Kenya, Su Corcoran and her colleagues draw attention to a group of learners who are too often overlooked.

Finally, a strength of all of the articles is the way that authors relate their arguments to relevant international literature, whilst at the same time drawing attention to local sources. This provides a rich source of further information for readers. In addition, the article by Anthoula Kefallinou and her colleagues at the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education offers helpful advice on using research evidence to understand the why and how of inclusive education, whilst Edvina Bešić explains the relevance of the idea of intersectionality.

Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools . London: Falmer.

Google Scholar  

Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change , 6 (2), 109–124.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ainscow, M. (2007). Taking an inclusive turn. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7 (1), 3–7.

Ainscow, M. (2016a). Struggles for equity in education: The selected works of Mel Ainscow . London: Routledge World Library of Educationalists Series.

Ainscow, M. (2016b). Collaboration as a strategy for promoting equity in education: Possibilities and barriers. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1 (2), 159–172.

Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. The Nordic Journal of Studies on Educational Policy, 6 (1), 7–16.

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Frankham, J., Gallannaugh, F., et al. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion . London: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Ainscow, M., Chapman, C., & Hadfield, M. (2020). Changing education systems: A research-based approach . London: Routledge.

Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. (2012). Developing equitable education systems . London: Routledge.

Ainscow, M., & Messiou, K. (2017). Engaging with the views of students to promote inclusion in education. Journal of Educational Change, 19 (1), 1–17.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (Eds.). (1998). From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education . London: Routledge.

Bubb, S., Crossley-Holland, J., Cordiner, J., Cousin, S., & Earley, P. (2019). Understanding the middle tier: Comparative costs of academy and LA-maintained school systems . London: Sara Bubb Associates.

Dyson, A., Howes, A., & Roberts, B. (2004). What do we really know about inclusive schools? A systematic review of the research evidence. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Special educational needs and inclusive education: Major themes in education (pp. 279–294). London: Routledge.

Dyson, A., & Kerr, K. (2013). Developing children’s zones for England. What’s the evidence? . London: Save the Children.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Harris, J., Carrington, S., Ainscow, M., Comber, B., Ehrich, L., Klenowski, V., et al. (2017). Promoting equity in schools: Collaboration, inquiry and ethical leadership . London: Routledge.

Kerr, K., Dyson, A., & Raffo, C. (2014). Education, disadvantage and place: Making the local matter . Bristol: Policy Press.

Meijer, C. J. W., & Watkins, A. (2019). Financing special needs and inclusive education: From Salamanca to the present. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23 (7/8), 705–721.

Miles, S. (2002). Family action for inclusion in education . Manchester: Enabling Education Network.

Muijs, D., Ainscow, M., Chapman, C., & West, M. (2011). Collaboration and networking in education . London: Springer.

Riehl, C. J. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70 (1), 55–81.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools . New York, NY: Longman.

Skrtic, T. (1991). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization . Denver, CO: Love.

UNESCO (2015). Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. Paris: UNESCO. http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-2030-incheon-framework-for-action-implementation-of-sdg4-2016-en_2.pdf .

UNESCO (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education . Paris: UNESCO.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Glasgow, 11 Eldon St, Glasgow, G3 6NH, UK

Mel Ainscow

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mel Ainscow .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team .

About this article

Ainscow, M. Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges. Prospects 49 , 123–134 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09506-w

Download citation

Accepted : 14 August 2020

Published : 17 September 2020

Issue Date : November 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09506-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Contextual analysis
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

IMAGES

  1. (PDF) Inclusive Education for Children with Special Educational Needs

    inclusive education research paper pdf

  2. (PDF) Inclusive Values and Pedagogies Needed by Business Studies

    inclusive education research paper pdf

  3. (PDF) The benefits of inclusive education: new challenges for

    inclusive education research paper pdf

  4. (PDF) What is inclusive education? Key Issues Paper #6 Refugee Student

    inclusive education research paper pdf

  5. (PDF) Inclusive special education: Development of a new theory for the

    inclusive education research paper pdf

  6. (PDF) The implementation of inclusive education in South Africa

    inclusive education research paper pdf

VIDEO

  1. Inclusive Education...2021 question paper......B.Ed 1semester

  2. Education in Plural Society Question Paper BA PROG 3/5 Semester SOL Education in a plural society

  3. +3 2nd Semester exam 2023 Ethics and values Arts/Sc/Com Question pepar #semester2 #collegeexam

  4. How Technology Has Affected Education?

  5. "Creating Inclusive Classrooms with Technology

  6. How Practical Marks are Added ?? Ethics and Environment ...???

COMMENTS

  1. Inclusive Education: A Literature Review on Definitions, Attitudes and Pedagogical Challenges

    This paper on inclusive education explores several diverse viewpoints from various scholars in different contexts on the concepts of inclusive education in an effort to reach the common...

  2. Research about inclusive education in 2020

    107,821 Views 37 CrossRef citations to date 0 Altmetric Listen Articles Research about inclusive education in 2020 - How can we improve our theories in order to change practice? Claes Nilholm Pages 358-370 | Received 24 Jan 2020, Accepted 07 Apr 2020, Published online: 19 Apr 2020 Cite this article https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2020.1754547

  3. PDF A Summary of The Evidence on Inclusive Education

    Introduction Across the globe, students with disabilities are increasingly educated alongside their non- disabled peers in a practice known as inclusion. Inclusion is prominently featured in a number of international declarations, national laws, and education policies.

  4. Full article: Understanding inclusive education

    In this theoretical contribution to understanding inclusive education, we seek to intertwine Luhmann's theory of inclusion and exclusion with the institutional theory of the social construction of reality to discuss how policy, management, teaching, student relationships, and everything within the context of education that involves communication...

  5. PDF Academic and Social Effects of Inclusion on Students without

    Inclusive education is educating students with disabilities in general education classrooms with their peers without disabilities. If inclusive education is spreading, research needs to investigate the effects of inclusion not only for students with special needs but also for typically developing students. However, there is more research on the ...

  6. The social and economic rationale of inclusive education: An ...

    Conceptualising inclusive education 9 1.1 Defining inclusive education 9 1.2 The relationship between education, individuals' life outcomes and societal outcomes 14 1.3 The benefits and costs of inclusive education 16 Effects of exclusion and inclusion in education for diverse student groups 23 2.1 Special education needs 24

  7. PDF Inclusive Education 1

    Inclusive Education 1 Inclusive Education i Table of Contents Acknowledgements iii Executive Summary iv List of Abbreviations v List of Tables vi List of Figures vi 1.0 Introduction: SDG4 and Inclusive Education 1 2.0 Methodology 3 3.0 Distribution by Country 5 4.0 Inclusion Education Policies across Countries 8

  8. Research about inclusive education in 2020

    Research about inclusive education in 2020 - How can we improve our theories in order to change practice? EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION 2021, VOL. 36, NO. 3, 358-370 https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2020.1754547 ARTICLE Research about inclusive education in 2020 How can we improve our theories in order to change practice?

  9. Frontiers

    Volume 7 - 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.937929 This article is part of the Research Topic The role of evidence in developing effective educational inclusion View all 11 Articles Research about inclusive education: Are the scope, reach and limits empirical and methodological and/or conceptual and evaluative? Brahm Norwich *

  10. PDF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE IN INCLUSIVE AND SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION Jorun Buli

    This research paper dealt with the effective practices in Inclusive and Special Needs Education. Inclusive Education means that all students in a school, regardless of their strengths or weaknesses in any area, become part of the school community.

  11. [PDF] Inclusive Education Research & Practice

    Inclusive Education Research & Practice. Xuan Bui, Carol Quirk, +1 author. Michele Valenti. Published 2010. Education. Over 20 years of research has consistently demonstrated that the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms results in favorable outcomes. Positive outcomes have been shown for both students with ...

  12. Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global ...

    This article provides an introductory commentary to the papers in this Prospects special issue on inclusive education. In so doing, it stresses the need to be cautious as we read accounts of inclusive education from other parts of the world: whilst lessons can undoubtedly be learned from the accounts in this special issue, they must be adopted with care. There is no doubt that evidence of ...

  13. Indicators of inclusion in education: a framework for analysis

    policy monitoring, the paper presents va rious areas that could be monitored in regards to inclusive education. Building on existing efforts to adapt this model to inclusive education, the paper mentions the core elements that represent inputs, processes and outcomes of inclusive education system s, spanning from resources and curriculum, to ...

  14. [PDF] Doing Inclusive Education Research

    The papers in this volume show the origin and development of Bernstein's theoretical studies into the relationships between social class, patterns of language use and the primary socialization of the…. Expand. 2,387. Semantic Scholar extracted view of "Doing Inclusive Education Research" by J. Allan et al.

  15. PDF Inclusive Education: A Literature Review on Definitions, Attitudes and

    Abstract: This paper on inclusive education explores several diverse viewpoints from various scholars in different contexts on the concepts of inclusive education in an effort to reach the common understanding of the same this concept.

  16. Full article: Pathways to inclusive and equitable quality education for

    View PDF View EPUB ABSTRACT International commitments continue to focus on the value and promise of providing quality education for all, including for children with disabilities, however there continues to remain little clarity on how best to achieve these goals in practice.

  17. PDF Teacher Attitudes on The Effects of Inclusion on Students Without

    The passage of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act in 1975 increased the amount of debate about the effects that inclusion has on students without disabilities. This was the first Federal Law that required all children to receive a free and appropriate education (L. Laventure, personal communication, February 2005). In 1990,

  18. United for Learning: Embracing Inclusive Classrooms

    Inclusion in education goes beyond physical presence to provide fair learning opportunities for students of varying abilities, ethnicities, and learning styles. Individualized instruction, universal design for learning, and collaborative learning practices are used in an inclusive classroom to accommodate the specific requirements of each student.

  19. PDF Conference Theme: "Education, Power and Empowerment: Changing and

    This research paper discusses about the effect of inclusive education awareness programme, developed to create awareness among preservice teachers. Methodology used was quasi-experimental design-pretest and posttest non-equivalent group along with factorial design to study the interactive effect of moderator variables on treatment.