Strategies to Promote Inclusive Practice

Richard Rose, Christina Tilstone

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134576272
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book considers current issues in the development of policies to promote inclusive education for pupils with special educational needs. By examining issues from the perspective of individual pupils, schools, and local education authorities, it raises critical commentary on the ways forward for a co-ordinated approach to inclusion.
Strategies to Promote Inclusive Practice draws upon the experience and expertise of teachers, policy makers, and researchers, who explore the many factors which need to be addressed in the development of a more inclusive education system. The authors explore the link between theoretical perspectives and the production of policy, as well as the potential for translating this into good classroom practice. They provide examples of approaches which have proved successful in enabling pupils to become better equipped to address the needs of a wide range of pupils. In considering the impact of recent policy, legislation, and research, the authors suggest that several models of inclusion may be necessary in order to become an inclusive education system.
This book will be of interest to students, teachers, policy makers, and researchers, who are concerned to advance the debate on inclusion towards a more pragmatic approach to providing for all pupils with special needs. It is a companion text to Promoting Inclusive Practice edited by Christine Tilstone, Lani Florian and Richard Rose (RoutledgeFalmer, 1998), which was the joint winner of the 1999 TES/NASEN Academic Book Award.

Part I
Responding to diversity
The development of policies and strategies

Chapter 1
Ideology, reality and pragmatics
Towards an informed policy for inclusion

Richard Rose

In this chapter Richard Rose considers the current debate on the development of inclusive education. In particular he reviews the ways in which the theoretical and philosophical arguments for inclusion have been developed and how the balance is now shifting towards a greater consideration of how ideals may be translated into policy and ultimately inform school practice.

There are many features of the Utopian Republic which I should like – though I hardly expect – to see adopted in Europe.

Thomas More (1516) Utopia (Book Two)

During the latter half of the twentieth century great strides were made in the UK to provide a more equitable and comprehensive system of education which addressed the needs of all pupils. Milestones, such as the Education (Handicapped Children) Act (1970), which brought a small but significant number of pupils into the education system for the first time, and the Warnock Report (1978), which attempted to provide a blueprint for future educational provision for pupils with special educational needs, whilst never fully realising their ambitious agenda, brought special needs issues to the forefront of education consideration. The desire to provide a fairer society that would enable each individual to play a full part has been a driving force behind many of the developments in special education. At the heart of the recent debate has been the means by which schools may become more inclusive and effective in enabling all pupils to receive a balanced education which recognises individuality whilst overcoming segregation. The attainment of a more inclusive society, whilst not solely the responsibility of teachers in schools, is most likely to be achieved only when we have developed a more equitable education system. Florian (1998) has emphasised the necessity to adopt a definition of inclusion which enables us to clarify our meaning and to ensure that we work together towards a common goal. In a previous book (Tilstone, Florian and Rose, 1998) we adopted the definition of inclusion put forward by Inclusion International:

Inclusion refers to the opportunities for persons with a disability to participate fully in all of the educational, employment, consumer, recreational, community and domestic activities that typify everyday society.

This definition provides a guiding principle which has been adopted throughout the book and places inclusion as an educational concept within the wider context of society. In so doing it emphasises not only the importance of addressing inclusion within schools, but also of working in collaboration with colleagues outside education who have an equally important role to play in making fundamental changes to the ways in which we move towards a fairer society for all.

Mittler, who has invested more time in exploring the means by which we can improve the lives of pupils who have been disadvantaged by the education system than most, in a recent book recognised that the complexities surrounding the provision of an appropriate curriculum for all pupils has inevitably resulted in progress towards inclusion being slower than many would wish. He suggests that generations of researchers and scholars have explored the issue of inclusion and the means by which it can best be achieved, but have been unable to provide either practitioners or policy makers with a clear message.

This is not the fault of the researchers but is a reflection of the immense complexity of the subject and the impossibility of unravelling its many strands in ways that make sense to those who have to make decisions.

Mittler, 2000, p.vii

He suggests that there is no doubting the commitment of the UK Government towards providing a more equitable education system. Recent government policies such as those put forward in the Green Paper, Excellence for All Children (1997) and Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action (1998) have defined an intention to support all schools in developing policies and procedures for more inclusive practices. However, even within these documents there are contradictions and confusions which suggest that an adequate definition of inclusion, such as that proposed above, has not been embraced by everyone.

The complexities of inclusion as recognised by Mittler and Florian may well be a significant factor in the difficulties which both central government and local education authorities (LEAs) have experienced in providing adequate policies. The lack of clear guidance has led to considerable confusion on the part of teachers and has been a significant causal factor in the reluctance of some schools to move towards greater inclusion. Whilst many LEAs have issued statements regarding their intentions to move towards greater inclusion, progress has been slow. Debates continue on the means by which inclusion may be achieved. Whilst there are now a number of examples of successful inclusive practice, which have enabled pupils formerly educated in special schools to take their place in the mainstream (Sebba and Sachdev, 1997; Powers, 2001), concerns remain about the ability of all schools to adapt to meet the requirements of a population of widening needs (Kidd and Hornby, 1993; Hornby, 1999). Similar concerns are expressed about specific groups of pupils such as those described as having emotional and behavioural difficulties, who are widely regarded by teachers as presenting a challenge for which most feel inadequately prepared (O’Brien, 2001).

Whilst it is easy to express frustration with the seemingly slow progress in developing inclusive policies which actually impact upon practice, it is important that the debate surrounding how this may best be achieved is continued. There have been times in recent years when some writers and researchers, who have contributed to the inclusion debate, have appeared to become entrenched in their own viewpoint and have been unable to engage in a dialogue which may ultimately move policy forward and promote effective practice. Those who have written about inclusion from a human rights perspective (Young, 1990; Barton, 1999) have undoubtedly assisted policy makers in moving forwards towards establishing clearer statements of intent and have enabled teachers to undertake a more critical view of existing classroom practices although they have at times alienated some teachers who have given many years to the education of pupils with special needs. The problem has come about through a failure to recognise the commitment which many teachers have made to work with pupils who have over time been rejected by others. Similarly, those teachers who have taken an insular standpoint, and who fail to acknowledge the need to find a way of ensuring that all pupils have greater opportunities to fully engage in the education system alongside their peers, are in danger of hindering progress towards a more equitable education system providing improved access to learning for all. It is unlikely that genuine progress towards inclusion will be made until a more constructive form of dialogue is achieved. Those who advocate a move towards fully inclusive schooling need to acknowledge the genuine apprehensions which many teachers currently express regarding their ability to provide effectively for all children within their classrooms. Teachers and researchers must work together to examine the conditions which need to be created to support inclusion and to enable schools to put these into place for the benefit of all pupils. Policies, which consider inadequately the pragmatics of classroom implementation, are quite possibly destined to fail. Recent inclusion literature (Ainscow, 1999; Loxley and Thomas, 2001) has discussed a number of ideological issues and has resulted in a variety of ways in which progress can be made towards a more inclusive schooling system. In order to move forward it is essential that policies are implemented which are founded upon a sound, shared philosophy and that this is supported by a pragmatic analysis of what works in an inclusive classroom.

Farrell (2001), in a provocative review of special education over a twenty year period, suggests that arguments for inclusion based entirely upon a human rights perspective, which fail to question the ability of schools to provide a ‘good education’ fully meeting the needs of the individual pupil, are ‘logically and conceptually naïve’. He further suggests that the placement of some pupils, described as having special educational needs, into mainstream schools, and here he particularly considers those with extremes of disruptive behaviour, may pose a threat to the rights of their mainstream peers to receive a good education.

Many of the arguments put forward by Farrell equate to those of the teachers and head teachers, whose opinions are discussed by Croll and Moses (1998, 2000). These researchers suggest that those who have written about inclusion from a largely humanistic perspective are advocating a ‘Utopian’ model of thinking about a complex issue. Referring to the work of Giddens (1994) they suggest that such thinking may be too idealistic within the current educational climate. An education system which has been driven by market forces, i.e. open competition based upon league tables and examination performance, may be seen to be at odds with a policy which intends to welcome pupils considered by many teachers as ‘challenging’ into schools. They propose that it may be necessary to adopt an approach which aspires to creating an inclusive system but recognises current concerns and begins to address them as a precursor to achieving the ultimate goal of full inclusion. This approach, described by Giddens as ‘Utopian realism’, would certainly find greater favour with the teachers in Croll and Moses’ sample. However, Thomas and Tarr (1999) maintain that the argument which suggests there is a fundamental tension between the principles of inclusion and the evidence to suggest that in practice this will present difficulties for schools, as put forward by Croll and Moses and others (Hornby, 1999; Wilson, 1999, 2000), may be a false one. They suggest that the adoption of policies which are based upon principles generally accepted to be right often bring challenges and difficulties. The fact that these principles are perceived as right should be a driving force to establish their position, whilst accepting a need to examine the means by which undesired effects resulting from their implementation can be eliminated. Thomas and Tarr put forward a strong moral case for inclusion based upon the principle that if an action is deemed right it should be taken. Indeed, Thomas and his colleagues (Thomas and Loxley, 2001) would suggest that the evidence in support of retaining segregated provision is limited and that any theoretical basis for the retention of special education is at best tenuous. It is, they would argue, difficult to defend the status quo in a system which claims to value inclusion and has placed it so high on the political agenda. Deficit models continue to dominate the ways in which we categorise pupils and result in those labelled as ‘special’ being regarded as a source of difficulty. If we are to move towards a more inclusive form of schooling it will be necessary to reform schools as a whole, including the curriculum, the means of assessment and the ways in which we value the performance of pupils.

Thomas and Loxley (2001) further develop this argument by suggesting that evidence to support a notion that segregated schooling, or indeed special education in general, has been effective is at best tenuous. The development of special education, they assert, has been founded upon the methods and findings of psychology which has often placed an emphasis upon deficit models and has led to the perception of pupils as problematic and not suited to the mainstream of education. This in turn has resulted in an inordinate consideration of individual learning difficulties as opposed to the development of an educational system capable of embracing the needs of all pupils. In calling for a deconstruction of special education, Thomas and Loxley (2001) recognise that many of the structures which have been put into place through the legislation of the past twenty years, far from supporting the development of inclusion, have erected further barriers in the path of progress.

The endeavours of teachers to ensure that pupils with special educational needs receive their educational entitlement should never be underestimated. Far too often their efforts have had to be made against a back...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
• FOREWORD
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• PART I: RESPONDING TO DIVERSITY: THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLICIES AND STRATEGIES
• PART II: POLICIES INTO PRACTICE THROUGH TWO CORE SUBJECTS
• PART III: POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: A CONSIDERATION OF THE WIDER CONTEXT