Search results

This chapter provides a discussion of Roger Slee and Julie Allan’s 2001 article “Excluding the included: A reconsideration of inclusive education” published in International Studies in Sociology of Education. “Excluding the included” is a salient example of the influential work of these two scholars, threads of which can be found throughout their prior and following work, and in the work of other scholars in the area. The importance of the work and its ongoing impact on the field of inclusive education is discussed.

COVID-19 pandemic deepens structures of division and inequality in a fractured world. Responses to the pandemic demonstrate that fundamental change to time-honoured social organisation and practices is not only possible, but it is also essential for survival. Social distancing has prompted the discovery that connection is essential for good mental health and wellbeing. This chapter suggests that claims of the success of universal schooling not only warrant the critical scrutiny they have attracted, but there is also the case that reforms remain chimeric for excluded population cohorts. A radical rethinking of the purpose and structure of education is overdue. Pandemic tells us that such rethinking is possible.

This chapter explores the contribution of the work of Len Barton to the evolving inclusive education discourse; in particular his 1986 article, The Politics of Special Educational Needs. In this article, he discusses the influence of a sociological lens to problematize the current special education policy, practices, and inquiry. The future directions piece at the end of the article called for teacher awareness of the relationship between the personal and political. I felt I was a living, breathing example of the teacher who Len Barton was talking about. I chose this article because of its particular pertinence to my continuing understandings about the phenomenon of special education and subsequently my research with teachers of students with profound and multiple learning difficulties.

This chapter traces the shift of many progressive educators from a general faith in special education to the more recent push for democratic and ethical inclusive education. This chapter examines the critical scholarship that propelled many educators away from systems of special education and into the inclusive education movement. Two phases in the development of inclusive education are described, an initial failed attempt often described by researchers as “integration,” and the current social movement building toward a more genuine social transformation of classrooms and schools.

This chapter examines the relative absence of critique in inclusive education research, policy and practice, and in education more generally – and consider the consequences of doing without critique. It responds to Bruno Latour's (2004, p. 243) urgent call for progress towards “a fair position” and for the development of “new critical tools” to work positively and constructively towards social change. The potential for criticality is explored in relation to disability studies, disability arts and children's perspectives. Each of these sources is evaluated in terms of their affordance of criticality and for their potential to mobilise political action. They are also considered in relation to the epistemological shifts and altered power relations that are necessary to create an inclusive educational environment.

This chapter discusses the significance of Sally Tomlinson’s article, The Irresistible Rise of Special Education and of her sociological thinking more generally. The paradox highlighted in the Tomlinson’s article, that is, the constantly evolving expansion, globally, of special education, alongside a simultaneous growth in support for the idea of inclusive education, is discussed in this chapter. Tomlinson’s influence on the sociological direction of Julie Allan’s work is traced and exemplified, and the continuing tensions in inclusive education are explored.

Special education for students with severe disabilities depends on advocacy, but for what issues we should advocate is arguable. Prioritizing issues for advocacy also may subject to debate. Some may argue for full inclusion, which is the idea that all children irrespective of impairments or needs should receive all services in general education settings. Full inclusion implies that all decisions about what, how, and where special education is provided must conform to general education contexts. Full inclusion is an absolute imposition and, accordingly, is diametrically opposed to an individualized approach articulated in US special education law. This chapter briefly addresses the incompatibility of inclusion (based on individualization) and full inclusion (based on absolute conformity) for students with severe disabilities, and suggests that special education professionals and leaders should champion meaningful curriculum delivered with effective instruction and behavioral supports. The foundations for this advocacy with and on behalf of students with severe disabilities should be scientific evidence, evidence-based practice, and the continued rights and protections associated with an individualized approach.

Internationally, and more specifically in South Africa, education is regarded as a guiding force to achieve a more humane and inclusive society by ensuring that human rights and social justice principles are embedded and implemented in all educational practices. Inclusive education policies encourage a growth mindset in asserting the belief that all children can learn. However, the implementation of a successful inclusive education system continues to be a challenge. Through an autoethnography, I have identified three main concerns that I believe contests the conceptualisation, philosophical framework and practice of inclusive education. These include understanding inclusion, a fixed mindset and curriculum inflexibility, i.e. stuck in a fixed mindset. I also make some suggestions on how to address these concerns.

This chapter lays out the conceptual foundations for this book. Grounded in the tradition of disability studies, the authors describe their orientation to ‘inclusion’ and the entangled institutions of general and special education. They explain their attachment to the many ‘articulations’ of inclusive practices rather than engage in discourses of ‘implementation’ which inadvertently divide world regions. In doing so, they briefly trace the evolution of inclusion as a global concept and its relation to conditions in different parts of the world. They subsequently offer an introduction to the different chapters in the book.

There is a need for a more critical perspective and reporting about the value of taking a model of inclusion developed in western countries and based upon the human rights ethos applying it in developing countries. This chapter will report firstly on how the Index for Inclusion (hereinafter referred to as the Index) was used in Australia as a tool for review and development; and secondly how the process of using the Index is adjusted for use in the Pacific Islands and other developing nations in collaborative and culturally sensitive ways to support and evaluate progress towards inclusive education. Examples are provided from both contexts to demonstrate the impact of the Index as an effective tool to support a more inclusive response to diversity in schools.