Making Special Education Inclusive

From Research to Practice

Peter Farrell, Mel Ainscow

• Publisher: David Fulton Publishers
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781138152786
• eBook ISBN: 9781136609473
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The aim of this book is to consider how schools and LEAs can develop inclusive policies and practices for students who experience a range of difficulties in learning or behavior. It highlights debates and contradictions about the realities of inclusion and suggests ways in which practice can move forward. The contributors look at key areas of development in special and inclusive education and considers ways in which the latest research can inform practice.

Areas covered include promoting inclusion for all; how to make sense of the Code of Practice SEN Thresholds; working with Teaching Assistants; new approaches to counseling and pastoral care in schools; including pupils with EBD; how nurture groups are helping inclusive practice; making education inclusive for pupils with sensory disabilities; including pupils with specific learning difficulties; and preparing students for an inclusive society.

The book will be of particular interest to teachers, LEA support staff, educational psychologists and related professionals who face the challenge of meeting the needs of a diverse population within an inclusive framework. it will also be of relevance for students in further and higher education, and their tutors.

Chapter 1

Making Special Education Inclusive: Mapping the Issues

Peter Farrell and Mel Ainscow

In recent years the issue of inclusion has become more of a feature of discussions about the development of education policy and practice around the world. These developments have in part been informed by ongoing debates in the field of special education that have focused on questions about what forms of provision should be made for children with disabilities and others who experience difficulties. In the United Kingdom the Government’s discussion paper ‘Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs’ (DfEE 1997) and the subsequent ‘Programme for Action’ (DfEE 1998) referred to the right of all pupils to be educated in a mainstream school, wherever possible. And, more recently, the revised Code of Practice on Special Educational Needs (DfES 2001) and the Special Needs and Disability Act provide yet further impetus towards the idea of a more inclusive education system.

Such movements are strongly endorsed internationally by the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO 1994) and reflect the United Nations’ global strategy of ‘Education for All’. Both have had a major impact on policy debates in many different countries. Meanwhile there is no shortage of books and articles that have extolled the values of inclusion and which have provided a whole range of accounts of ‘good practice’ in inclusive education (see, for example, Ainscow 1999; Ballard 1999; Dyson and Millward 2000).

Despite these developments, however, inclusion remains a complex and controversial issue which tends to generate heated debates (e.g. Brantlinger 1997). For example, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the definition of inclusion (Ainscow, Farrell and Tweddle 2000); there are several pressure groups in society that seek to maintain separate provision; and it is difficult to find research evidence that can provide definitive guidance as to where policy and practice should be heading. Meanwhile in the United Kingdom, alongside policies that are promoting notions of inclusion, schools are under even more pressure than ever to raise academic standards. In this climate some schools are expressing increasing reluctance to admit and retain pupils whose presence could have a negative impact on their overall profile of results. In addition, the recent emphasis on beacon and specialist schools, and the evidence of an increase in the use of various forms of selection, suggests that there is a growing movement in education towards differentiated provision – a trend that seems incompatible with an inclusive philosophy.

Set within this potentially confusing context, this book reports on research being carried out by a team of researchers, mainly at the University of Manchester. In particular it explores the contributions that educational research can make in throwing light on the factors that lead to these confusions in order to suggest ways of moving policy and practice forward. It also illustrates the variety of forms that such research can take, recognising that different types of questions require different methodologies.

The aim of this introductory chapter is to map out the key themes that are reflected in the rest of the book. We start by providing a brief historical review of definitions of inclusion and follow this with a critical discussion of the inclusion debate in relation to pupils with disabilities in order to reflect upon the implications for the special education field. We then consider the crucial role of research in helping governments, local authorities and schools to develop and improve their practice. Finally, we conclude by providing a brief overview of the contents of the book and show how each of the chapters has made a unique contribution to the debate by drawing on contrasting research methodologies to illustrate the impact of inclusion in respect to different groups of learners.

Defining Inclusion

Within this country, current views of inclusion in respect to pupils with disabilities and others categorised as having special educational needs (SEN) have been influenced by debates on how to provide the most effective education for these groups. Indeed, as many readers will recall, in the 1980s the terms ‘integration’ or ‘mainstreaming’ were used to refer to the placement of ‘pupils with SEN’ in mainstream schools. The Warnock Report suggested there were three main kinds of integration: locational, social and functional (DES 1978). ‘Locational integration’ was seen as being where pupils with SEN were placed in special classes or units located within a mainstream campus, without there necessarily being contact with their mainstream peers. ‘Social integration’ was seen to involve pupils interacting for social activities, such as meal times and school visits, but for the rest of the time the categorised pupils were segregated from their mainstream peers. Finally, ‘functional integration’ was where all pupils, whatever their difficulties or disabilities, were placed in their local mainstream school, in a regular classroom setting alongside their same-age peers.

Developments following the Warnock Report meant that, by the early 1990s, the term ‘integration’ was used to describe a much wider variety of educational provision than the three types outlined in the report. Hegarty (1991) indicates that this could range from occasional visits by a pupil with a disability from a special to a mainstream school, to full-time placement in such schools.

An obvious problem with defining integration solely in terms of provision (i.e. the setting in which a pupil is placed) is that it tells us nothing about the quality of the education that is received in this provision. Are pupils placed in units attached to a mainstream school, for example, more ‘integrated’ than if they were taught in a special school? Jupp (1992) argues that such units can be just as segregating. Indeed, even pupils placed in a mainstream class may be isolated from the rest of the class and not truly ‘integrated’ within the group, particularly if they are supported in one-to-one sessions for the majority of each day. Integrated placements, therefore, may still leave the pupil ‘segregated’.

Partly for these reasons, the term ‘inclusion’ has become a more usual way of describing the extent to which a pupil categorised as having SEN is truly ‘integrated’. Used in this way the term refers to the extent to which a school or community welcomes pupils as full members of the group and values them for the contribution they make. This implies that for inclusion to be seen to be ‘effective’, all pupils must actively belong to, be welcomed by and participate in a mainstream school and community – that is they should be fully included. Their diversity of interests, abilities and attainment should be welcomed and be seen to enrich the life of the school. In this sense, as Ballard (1995) argues, inclusion is about valuing diversity rather than assimilation.

Recently definitions of inclusion have broadened still further (see, for example, Booth and Ainscow 1998). These writers take the view that policies on inclusion should not be restricted to the education of pupils thought to have special needs. Inclusion, they argue, is a process in which schools, communities, local authorities and governments strive to reduce barriers to the participation and learning for all citizens. Looked at in this way inclusive policies and practices should consider ways in which marginalised groups in society, for example people from ethnic minorities and those who are socially and economically disadvantaged, can participate fully in the educational process within mainstream contexts.

This broader view of inclusion is reflected in recent guidance from Ofsted for inspectors and schools (Ofsted 2000). In addressing what is referred to as ‘educational inclusion’, the document focuses attention on a wide range of vulnerable groups. It states:

An educationally inclusive school is one in which the teaching and learning, achievements, attitudes and well-being of every young person matters. Effective schools are educationally inclusive schools. This shows, not only in their performance, but also in their ethos and their willingness to offer new opportunities to pupils who may have experienced previous difficulties … The most effective schools do not take educational inclusion for granted. They constantly monitor and evaluate the progress each pupil makes. They identify any pupils who may be missing out, difficult to engage, or feeling in some way apart from what the school seeks to provide.

Here the sentence ‘Effective schools are educationally inclusive schools’ is particularly significant. In essence it redefines the way school effectiveness will be determined, drawing attention to the need for inspectors to go beyond an analysis of aggregate performance scores in order to determine the extent to which a school is supporting the learning of all individuals.

The Ofsted guidance is important for two reasons. First of all, it reinforces a much broader view of inclusion, in that the concept is widened to include pupils other than those thought to have SEN. Secondly, it forces schools to focus on the achievements of all of their pupils and, indeed, to pay attention to a wider range of outcomes than those reflected in test or examination results.

Nevertheless, as implied above, deep contradictions in national policy continue, and these mean that schools and LEAs are facing challenging dilemmas. In particular, they find themselves under pressure to raise academic standards at the same time as being asked to develop more inclusive policies and practices.

Implications for the Field of Special Education

As the above discussion illustrates, concepts of integration and, more recently, inclusion have been evolving over the last 20 years or more. However, the issues remain controversial, and among academics, policy makers and practitioners there are still different views about the meaning of the terms and about the feasibility of developing more inclusive practice in schools.

The particular focus of this book is on how the field of special education can be made more inclusive. Consequently we focus more specifically on policies for pupils with disabilities and others who are defined as having special educational needs. This does not mean that we are rejecting the broader view of inclusion referred to above. Rather, we are engaging with the debate about policies for those groups of pupils that have traditionally been the concern of special education in the context of this broader definition.

The field of special education has developed relatively recently and unevenly in different parts of the world. Its development has involved a series of stages during which education systems have explored different ways of responding to children with disabilities and others who experience difficulties in learning. As a result, special education has sometimes been provided as a supplement to general education provision, although in other cases it may be totally separate.

An analysis of the history of special education provision in many Western countries suggests certain patterns (Reynolds and Ainscow 1994). Initial provision frequently took the form of separate special schools set up by religious or philanthropic organisations. This was then, eventually, adopted and extended as part of national education arrangements, often leading to a separate, parallel school system for those pupils seen as being in need of special attention. There is also some evidence of similar trends in developing countries (see, for example, various chapters in Mittler, Brouillete and Harris 1993).

In the early 1990s, however, the appropriateness of having such a separate system was challenged both from a human rights perspective and, indeed, from the point of view of effectiveness. This led to an increased emphasis in many countries, in both the developed and developing countries, on the notion of integration (Ainscow 1991; Hegarty 1990; O’Hanlon 1995; Pijl and Meijer 1991; UNESCO 1995). This emphasis, involving attempts to increase flexibility of response within neighbourhood schools, seems sensible for economically poorer countries given the extent of the need and the limitations of resources (UNESCO 1998). It is also important to recognise that in many developing countries substantial ‘casual’ integration of children with disabilities in local schools already occurs, particularly in rural districts (Miles 1989).

The existence of well-established separate provision in special schools and classes creates complex policy dilemmas, leading many countries to operate what Pijl and Meijer (1991) refer to as ‘two tracks’. In other words, these countries have parallel, but separate segregation and integration policies. A rather obvious problem here, of course, is the costing implications of maintaining such parallel arrangements.

In other countries integration/inclusion still largely represents an aspiration for the future. In Germany, for example, while some pilot initiatives based on the idea of integration are underway, students who are declared eligible for special education must be placed in a special school. While in the Netherlands it is reported that almost 4 per cent of all pupils aged 4–18 attend full-time special schools, although the exact proportion varies with age. So, for example, 7.4 per cent of 11-year-olds are in special schools (Reezigt and Pijl 1998). More recent national policy developments are attempting to change this emphasis. Similar developments in other countries, such as Austria, England and New Zealand, have led to major discussions of what might be the future roles of special education facilities and support services within a system driven by a greater emphasis on integration.

Some countries (for example, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Portugal and Spain) have shown considerable progress in implementing the integration principle universally. Here the local community school is often seen as the normal setting for pupils with disabilities, although even in these contexts the situation often exhibits variation from place to place (Booth and Ainscow 1998; Mordal and Stromstad 1998; Pijl and Meijer 1991).

Dissatisfaction with progress towards integration and inclusion has caused demands for more radical changes in many countries (e.g. Ainscow 1991; Ballard 1999; Skrtic 1991; Slee 1996). One of the concerns of those who adopt this view is with the way in which pupils come to be designated as having special needs. They see this as a social process that needs to be continually challenged. More specifically they argue that the continued use of what is sometimes referred to as a ‘medical model’ of assessment, within which educational difficulties are explained solely in terms of child deficits, prevents progress in the field, not least in that it distracts attention from questions about why schools fail to teach so many children successfully. Such arguments lead to proposals for a reconceptualisation of the special needs task. This suggests that progress will be much more likely when it is recognised that difficulties experienced by pupils come about as a result of the ways in which schools are currently organised and the forms of teaching that are provided. In other words, as Skrtic (1991) puts it, pupils with special needs are ‘artifacts of the traditional curriculum’. Consequently, it is argued, the way forward must be to reform schools and improve pedagogy in ways that will lead them to respond positively to pupil diversity, seeing individual differences not as problems to be fixed but a...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• foreword
• Acknowledgements
• About the authors
• Chapter 1 Making special education inclusive: mapping the issues
• Section 1
• Section 2
• Section 3
• Section 4
• Section 5
• Index