Search results

This article presents a conceptual synthesis of the international literature on inclusive education while expanding upon, and incorporating, the articles in this special issue. The authors present their 3P model (philosophy, policy and praxis) and relate each paper in this special issue to different aspects of their model.

This article serves as an epilogue to this special issue of the Journal of Educational Administration as well as a discussion of historical and conceptual distinctions between mainstreaming and inclusion while examining global trends in understanding the move toward inclusive education.

The authors examined the detrimental effects of ableism and a medical model of disability and their effects on the educational system. They conducted an analysis based on examining the philosophy, policy and practice of the inclusive movement, specifically by examining conceptual models and inclusive decisions, conceptual frameworks for describing inclusive policy and a focus of the application to educational administration. The authors examined the global movement from segregation/exclusion to integration and then to inclusionary praxis.

The authors maintain that the inclusion literature lacks a sound positivistic empirical base, and so they present throughout the article possible avenues for such research as well as future directions for comparative research.

Understanding the philosophical underpinnings of the inclusive movement is central to developing viable inclusive educational settings. The authors distinguish between inclusive schools and local educational authorities where stakeholders have moved toward an inclusionary system (the minority) versus locales who are reluctant to move systems to actual change.

This article takes a wider view of inclusionary practices, from one focusing on children with disabilities to one focusing on historical and traditional exclusionary practices. By widening the scope of the inclusion discussion, to one of exclusion, the authors present a viably wider lens to educational administration.

Despite an enormous growth of the literature and research on inclusive education during the last two and a half decades, theory and practice on inclusive education are still inconsistent across the education systems worldwide. It is defined, conceptualised and practised differently across diverse socioeconomic contexts and groups of scholars and practitioners. While some promote educating all students in a mainstream classroom setting irrespective of their abilities and physical, emotional and behavioural challenges, others emphasise improving the overall quality of education for all children from diverse backgrounds. Given that education is a multidimensional social enterprise, promoting a single perspective at the cost of others or merely emphasising the role of schools and teachers may hardly result in improved education outcomes and guarantee equal learning opportunities for all. This chapter will critically review the relevant theory and discuss the different approaches to inclusive education. Then it will discuss the potential challenges to inclusive education across the education systems. Finally, the chapter will offer an inclusive way forward for improving the quality of education for all children, irrespective of their backgrounds, in mainstream schools in multicultural contexts.

The origin of this chapter lies in a presentation by a colleague whose work I admire. Drawing on their extensive experience, they have developed guidance for schools to support children with special educational needs. Their conclusion was that teachers could adopt an eclectic approach, utilizing and combining different interventions as appropriate. The notion of utilizing different teaching approaches to facilitate inclusive education seemed accepted as unproblematic. However, I began to wonder about what happens when teaching approaches are based on conflicting views about the nature of how children learn. This led me to consider a more fundamental question. Do teachers’ own beliefs about how knowledge is created and how children develop (their personal epistemological beliefs) have an impact on their practice and children’s experiences in inclusive classrooms? Answering this question leads to the ethical issue of whether all ways of thinking about how children learn are compatible with teaching in inclusive schools, and the consequences that arise in seeking an answer.

This chapter provides a framework for ethical decision making related to inclusive educational opportunities for secondary students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) based on policies and practices in the United States. Relevant research findings are utilized to explore ethical principles involved in educational decision making for secondary students with I/DD, with discussions on how these are intertwined with U.S. policy. I/DD and inclusion, as described in the research literature and U.S. policy, are defined and the current status of inclusive practices are described. Next, an exploration of the rationale, as supported by empirical evidence, for educating students at the secondary level with I/DD, primarily with their peers who do not have identified disabilities, is shared along with the counter-narrative. Connections of inclusion to post-school outcomes and the lived educational experiences of students with and without disabilities and educators are considered, including ethical dilemmas and conflicts. Finally, factors influencing the application of inclusionary practices are provided.

This chapter reports on how funding is used in general education schools around the world to facilitate inclusive education. While research has established the importance of inclusive education and investigated the diverse funding models employed in different global regions, this narrative review reports on how funding is operationalized at the school and classroom level to achieve the goals of inclusive education. Results indicate funding is commonly allocated to in-service professional learning programmes, resource acquisition, and purposefully tailored supplementary programmes for students with specific educational needs. This chapter outlines recommendations for researchers and policymakers in developing new ways of funding inclusive practices.

Seeing inclusive education as a process of removing barriers and dis-abilities and to foster participation and learning for all students in educational organizations (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010; Florian & Beaton, 2018), research approaches and perspectives are valuable for sustaining a theoretically, analytically and methodologically consistent perspective on social order and structural barriers as well as on their transformation. This analytical research perspective challenges researchers to reflect on the positionality and normativity of their research as well as the problem of reification of deficit-oriented categories in educational research (Messiou, 2017). The chapter analyses how the problem of normativity and reification is addressed in the practice of international qualitative research and publishing, in regard to inclusive education. It endeavours to provoke critical thinking about how inclusive education research can target these challenges by discussing interpretative and reconstructive research approaches. Hence, the paper explores how to develop ways of analysing processes and practices regarding inclusion and exclusion.

In contrast to the ‘bell-curve thinking’ which can shape many teachers’ assumptions of student ability (Fendler, L., & Muzaffar, I. (2008). The history of the bell curve: Sorting and the idea of normal. Educational Theory, 58(1), 63–82.; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Thomas, G., & Loxley, A. (2007). Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill International.), some researchers have been examining the ways in which teachers can shift their deterministic understandings of student capacities (see, Graham, A. (2014). Embodiment of knowledge and inclusive pedagogy.; Spratt, J., & Florian, L. (2014). Developing and using a framework for gauging the use of inclusive pedagogy by new and experienced teachers. In C. Forlin, T. Loreman (Eds.), Measuring inclusive education (Vol. 3, pp. 263–278). International Perspectives on Inclusive Education. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.). Despite the adverse effects on student self-efficacy and performance (Fraser, S. (1995). The bell curve wars: Race, intelligence, and the future of America. New York, NY: Basic Books.) that can result from teachers’ assumptions about students’ ability, evidence of teachers’ inclusive education practices can be difficult to find (Forlin, C. (2010). Teacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative approaches. London: Routledge.; Jones, P. (2013). Bringing insider perspectives into inclusive teacher learning: Potentials and challenges for educational professionals. London: Routledge.). This chapter begins to address the lack of evidence of inclusive educational practices in some Geography classrooms. The chapter begins by providing an overview of literature which outlines how the development and sharing of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) can enhance effective inclusive practices in Geography classrooms. In contrast to many previous considerations of PCK as a teacher-focussed, individual attribute, this chapter presents an argument that the development of communal or distributed PCK in Geography classrooms can not only enhance creative ways for all students to participate in classroom life but also creates a sense of interdependence between teachers and students to create new knowledge, which in turn links to notions of identity development and inclusive practices. Finally, this chapter presents examples of ways in which Geography teachers can enact inclusive pedagogical approaches in both primary and secondary school contexts.

This chapter explores underlying ethical tensions and dilemmas that arise through assessment practices used by teachers, specialist teachers, and other educators in determining a child’s learning. An ethical dilemma arises when teachers are aware that an assessment is not the narrative that best represents the child, and in doing so, further perpetuates the deficit orientation toward learning. While the policy context may reflect a strong commitment to inclusive classrooms and communities, assessment policies and well-intentioned school practices can marginalize students with high needs, simply because the assessment tools are not suitable. Ethical issues in the day-to-day formal and informal assessment practices used by teachers are explored; practices that serve to reinforce for learners who struggle what they “cannot do” or “do not want to do.” Ethical assessment practices that allow the dignity of the learner to be upheld through a celebration of learning, however incremental, are needed. As outlined in this chapter, some decisions made by teachers are not their own, as pressures from outside their control influence the decisions they make. Policy directions can influence the focus of assessments, and unwittingly create the ethical dilemmas teachers face. When teachers question and challenge assessment policies and practices, they can initiate change for all learners. This might include challenging the status quo and finding other ways to include students, more visibly, in their own assessment. In these ways, ethical dilemmas can be addressed and new understandings of assessment emerge.

This chapter describes the influences that are fundamental to facilitating a system of support for inclusive education for students with low-incidence disabilities. Some of the major factors are values and beliefs, rights, relationships and a sense of belonging, policy, and effective practices (Smith, 2006; Walther-Thomas, Korinek, McLaughlin, & Williams, 2000). Within each of the features, collaboration is inherent and essential. A summary of literature on each feature is provided with examples to support the importance for students with low-incidence disabilities. The effective practices of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), co-teaching, peer supports, and school-based teams are highlighted. In order to move forward, educators and administrators need to take responsibility for all children. Effective leadership models are characterized by collaborative efforts that foster a shared responsibility of the team, emphasize thoughtful planning, and identify and allocate the necessary resources and supports.

This chapter explores a US state-endorsed tool for reviewing district, school, and classroom inclusive practices. The Best Practices for Inclusive Education (BPIE) assessment tool was developed through a collaborative initiative between state personnel, University faculty, and representatives from a federally funded technical assistance project, Florida Inclusion Network. The tool supports a facilitated review and subsequent action planning for greater inclusive practices that includes learners with severe intellectual disabilities. This chapter describes the BPIE process and offers examples of its application in districts across Florida with particular reference to practices that support learners with severe intellectual disabilities.