EDUCATION
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Series Editor: Chris Forlin
Recent Volumes:
Volume 1:
Volume 2:
MEASURING INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION
SERIES EDITOR
CHRIS FORLIN
Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong
VOLUME EDITORS
CHRIS FORLIN
Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong
TIM LOREMAN
Concordia University, Canada
Japan
ISOQAR certified
Management System,
awarded to Emerald
for adherence to
Environmental
standard
ISO 14001:2004.
Certificate Number 1985
ISO 14001
CONTENTS
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
ix
SERIES INTRODUCTION
xiii
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 3
xv
19
37
53
75
vi
CONTENTS
93
115
133
165
189
205
227
Contents
vii
247
263
279
303
INDEX
307
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Joseph S. Agbenyega
Donna Barrett
Jessica Bucholz
Suzanne Carrington
Dianne Chambers
Sarah Copfer
Meng Deng
Joanne Deppeler
Mary Doveston
University of Northampton,
Northampton, UK
Kymberly Drawdy
Jennie Duke
ix
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Serge Ebersold
Lani Florian
Chris Forlin
Janet I. Goodman
Michael Hazelkorn
Catherine Howerter
Johnson Jament
Anne Jordan
Agnes Gajewski
Julie Lancaster
Andras Lenart
Donna Lene
Tim Loreman
Donna McGhieRichmond
Laisiasa Merumeru
xi
List of Contributors
Susie Miles
Jayashree Rajanahally
Richard Rose
University of Northampton,
Northampton, UK
Umesh Sharma
Jacqueline Specht
Jennifer Spratt
Amanda Watkins
SERIES INTRODUCTION
The adoption internationally of inclusive practice as the most equitable and
all-encompassing approach to education and its relation to compliance
with various international Declarations and Conventions underpins the
importance of this series for people working at all levels of education and
schooling in both the developed and developing worlds. There is little
doubt that inclusive education is complex and diverse and that there are
enormous disparities in understanding and application at both inter- and
intra-country levels. A broad perspective on inclusive education throughout
this series is taken, encompassing a wide range of contemporary viewpoints, ideas, and research for enabling the development of more inclusive
schools, education systems, and communities.
Volumes in this series on International Perspectives on Inclusive Education
contribute to the academic and professional discourse by providing a collection of philosophies and practices that can be reviewed in light of local
contextual and cultural situations in order to assist educators, peripatetic
staffs, and other professionals provide the best education for all children.
Each volume in the series focuses on a key aspect of inclusive education and
provides critical chapters by contributing leaders in the field who discuss
theoretical positions, empirical findings, and impacts on school and classroom practice. Different volumes address issues relating to the diversity
of student need within heterogeneous classrooms and the preparation of
teachers and other staffs to work in inclusive schools. Systemic changes
and practice in schools encompass a wide perspective of learners in order to
provide ideas on reframing education so as to ensure that it is inclusive of
all. Evidence-based research practices offer a plethora of suggestions for
decision-makers and practitioners incorporating current ways of thinking
about and implementing inclusive education.
While many barriers have been identified that may potentially inhibit
the implementation of effective inclusive practices, this series intends to
identify such key concerns and offer practical and best practice approaches
to overcoming them. Adopting a thematic approach for each volume,
readers will be able to quickly locate a collection of current research and
practice related to a particular topic of interest. By transforming schools
xiii
xiv
SERIES INTRODUCTION
into inclusive communities of practice all children should have the opportunity to access and participate in quality education in order to obtain the
skills to become contributory global citizens. This series, therefore, is highly
recommended to support education decision-makers, practitioners,
researchers, and academics, who have a professional interest in the inclusion of children and youth who are marginalizing in inclusive schools and
classrooms.
Chris Forlin
Series Editor
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 3
This volume provides a focus on measuring inclusive education from a
range of differing perspectives. It is grounded on a review of international
conceptualizations of inclusive education and ways in which different
systems are measuring, or can measure, its impact and effectiveness. It considers the complex issues associated with measuring inclusive education and
provides examples of practice and models of effective measures. This is
important for two reasons. First, there is a growing international focus on
how inclusive education might be measured. As school systems increasingly
adopt an inclusive approach, they want to know how effective their practice
is. This helps to meet requirements of public accountability for the education provided to children, along with providing internal markers for
ongoing improvement. Second, efforts at measuring inclusive education are
important from the perspective of providing targets. School systems need
specific indicators in order to provide a focus on what they should be doing
so as to provide an equitable, fair, and effective education for all children.
By looking towards outcomes, school systems can work backwards from
them and govern their practice with the end firmly in mind.
This volume is divided into two sections. Section I addresses broad issues
in measuring inclusive education. The chapter Conceptualising and
Measuring Inclusive Education serves as an introduction to the rest of the
book, outlining how inclusive education can be conceptualized and
described. This provides a common understanding of what inclusive education is and acts as a foundation for the chapters that follow. Other chapters
in this section discuss the range of complex issues that educators and educational administrators are faced with when engaging in measuring inclusive
education. These include ethical dilemmas, problems with applying measurement models in different cultural contexts, issues concerned with policy
development and implementation, models of inclusive education resourcing,
measuring effective teacher preparation, teacher traits, and practices used
by teachers to promote inclusion, and how leadership for inclusive
education might be viewed. This is a conceptual and theoretical section, but
with the implications for practice always retained at the forefront of the
discussion.
xv
xvi
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 3
Section II addresses measuring inclusive education in practice. It commences with a current and in-depth review of the literature on the development of international indicators for measuring inclusive education, and
provides thematic areas for consideration in indicator development.
Subsequent chapters offer examples of some of the models presently
employed to frame an evaluation of inclusive practice. These provide illustrations of effective measurement strategies to evaluate inclusive educational
practice at all levels, including the use of previously developed and widely
available instruments, and how areas such as school and classroom practice,
teacher competency, and inclusive pedagogy might be examined. This
volume concludes with discussion on how inclusive education might be measured from a system perspective through indicators such as graduation rates
and school retention.
A number of experienced researchers and practitioners were invited to
contribute chapters to this book, all of whom have been internationally
recognized for their work in this area. Many of them have worked
collaboratively with the partners they worked with to produce their prior
work. The strength of this volume relies on the considered perspectives and
deep expertise of these authors, and we are grateful to all of them for their
thoughtful and research-informed evidence-based contributions.
As we write this introduction we are engaged in some work on developing indicators for inclusive education in the Pacific region led by one of our
authors, Umesh Sharma, and colleagues. We are reminded of the importance of basing this work on strong theoretical and practical foundations
that recognize the issues involved, the research previously completed, and
the necessity to be consistently aware of the unique needs of various
cultural contexts. Along with informing educators at all levels, education
administrators, and academics, we trust that this book will be of value to
those engaged in similar endeavors around the globe.
Chris Forlin
Tim Loreman
Editors
SECTION I
ISSUES IN MEASURING
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
CONCEPTUALISING AND
MEASURING INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION
Tim Loreman, Chris Forlin, Dianne Chambers,
Umesh Sharma and Joanne Deppeler
ABSTRACT
This chapter provides an overview of inclusive education, specifically
examining conceptualisations of inclusive education and some of the
models used to frame an evaluation of the practice. While international
human rights agreements, covenants and legislation provide definitions
that focus on equity, access, opportunity and rights, inclusive education
continues to lack a tight conceptual focus that may contribute to its
misconception and often confused practices. In the absence of a unified
definition of what inclusion is, attempts to measure or compare such a
complex equity issue are challenging. Some promising models do,
however, exist and are explored in this chapter.
Keywords: Inclusive education; equity; access; disability;
measurement
INTRODUCTION
This chapter explores the philosophical underpinnings of what constitutes
inclusive education. It commences with an overview of inclusive education,
which subsequently informs the discussion regarding how to measure inclusive education. Specifically, this chapter examines conceptualisations of
inclusive education and some of the models used to frame an evaluation of
the practice.
Inclusive education is a contentious term that lacks a tight conceptual
focus, which may contribute to its misconception and confused practice
(Berlach & Chambers, 2011). International human rights agreements,
covenants and legislation provide definitions of inclusion that focus on
equity, access, opportunity and rights. These features are interpreted into
practice with definitions that theorise inclusion into two broad categories,
namely, (i) conceptualising inclusive education based on its key features
and (ii) conceptualising inclusive education as the removal of that which
excludes and marginalises. In the absence of a unified definition of what
inclusion is, attempts to measure or compare such a complex equity issue
are, unsurprisingly, challenging.
Attempts to define inclusive education by what it is, however, are problematic because such definitions can be impacted by shifts in educational
practice, context, culture and circumstance that can quickly render these
features irrelevant and outdated. Such definitions tend to assume that
educational practice is subject to a set of commonalities that are static
across time and place, but this is not the case. For example, in many rural
areas of the world where the one room schoolhouse still exists, the criteria
of children being educated with their same-age peers might not factor into
a definition of inclusion.
Lack of time.
Difficulty in individualising within a group.
Inadequate training and resources.
Lack of school support.
Their view that adjusting for some students (a) compromises the learning
of others; (b) draws negative attention to student differences; and/or
(c) fails to prepare students for the real world.
A further challenge that continues to create significant barriers to inclusion
is the attitude of society (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2009;
Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008, 2011). Many nations nowadays consist
of diverse cultures and ethnic groups with diverse understandings of
disability that may inform attitudes towards inclusion.
It may, therefore, be that neither of these two categories related to identifying key features or removing barriers in isolation is adequate in providing a good conceptual definition of inclusive education. Attempts to define
what inclusive education is are problematic because they may fail to take
into account a variety of context-dependent features. Attempts to conceptualise inclusion as the removal of that which excludes and marginalises are
problematic because barriers may vary enormously between jurisdictions,
cultures and contexts, and this description fails to adequately describe what
an inclusive setting might actually be. Consequently, it is not surprising
that there is difficulty picturing what inclusion looks like in practice.
such can work against inclusive practice, with certain individuals and
groups of children becoming pathologised in the eyes of educators (Slee,
2011). An expanded view of inclusive education allows it to be seen as a
human rights issue, with marginalised and excluded groups being discriminated against and denied what is readily available to others in the mainstream. Inclusion, thus, requires a focus on all policies and processes
within an education system, and indeed, all pupils who may experience
exclusionary pressures (Ainscow, Farrell, & Tweddle, 2000, p. 228).
Ainscow et al. (2006, p. 15), in advocating a broader understanding of
inclusion write, We question the usefulness of an approach to inclusion
that, in attempting to increase the participation of students, focuses on the
disabled or special needs part of them and ignores all the other ways
in which participation for any student may be impeded or enhanced (italics
added).
Ultimately, a definition of inclusive education that would broadly seem
to satisfy the criteria of most in the field comes from UNESCO. This is
proposed as the most defensible definition on which this chapter and indeed
this book is grounded as it is consistent with conceptualisations in the literature, and has broad international agreement:
Education is not simply about making schools available for those who are already able
to access them. It is about being proactive in identifying the barriers and obstacles learners encounter in attempting to access opportunities for quality education, as well as in
removing those barriers and obstacles that lead to exclusion. (UNESCO, 2012, para. 1)
10
provision of information,
physical features,
inclusive school policies,
the Individual Education Plan (IEP),
student interactions,
staffing and personnel,
external links,
assessment of achievement,
curriculum and
teaching strategies.
11
Inputs
Processes
Outcomes
Fig. 1.
12
Inputs
Policy
Staff professional
development and teacher
education
Resources and finance
Leadership
Curriculum
Processes
Outcomes
Climate
School practices
Participation
Student achievement
Classroom practices
Collaboration and shared
responsibility
Supports to individuals
Post-school outcomes
13
14
CONCLUSION
According to Slee (2003), the term and conceptualisation of inclusive
education show all the signs of jetlag (p. 62). While a myriad of definitions
and conceptual discussions exist in various agreements, covenants and
legislation, inclusive education continues to lack a tight conceptual focus.
This may contribute to its misconception and often confused practices.
Inclusion is interpreted into practice with definitions that conceptualise
inclusion from two broad categories, namely, (i) conceptualising inclusive
education based on key features and (ii) conceptualising inclusive education
as the removal of that which excludes and marginalises. Definitions often
assume a set of commonalities that are static. In reality, however, these are
continually impacted by changing educational practice, context, culture
and situations. Therefore, in the absence of a unified definition of what
inclusion is, attempts to measure or compare such a complex equity issue
are challenging. It is possible that to date inclusive education scholars and
educators have largely avoided the task of trying to measure inclusive
education due to the complex nature of the endeavour and the high likelihood of encountering a lack of contextual sensitivity in measurement
instruments, no matter what the method or criteria chosen.
Some promising models do, however, exist. The widely used Index for
Inclusion has been in existence for nearly 15 years. Measures in Europe are
being developed that take inclusive education into consideration at three
levels: macro (government and state), meso (schools and communities) and
micro (individual classrooms and people) (Kyriazopoulou & Weber, 2009).
Most systems adopt a whole school approach with instruments designed to
15
measure areas associated with access, support, policy, curriculum, pedagogy, quality teaching and assessment of achievement.
The remaining chapters in this book will attempt to untangle some of
the various strands that are important to the effective implementation of
inclusive education, and in doing so they will provide clear mechanisms for
measuring the various essential aspects of the practice. They will focus on
inclusive education as being concerned with what is good practice for all
students, and what reduces the barriers to participation for marginalised
groups. Unless we are able to formulate processes for the evaluation of
inclusive education it will be difficult to move schools and school systems
into an era of evidence-informed reflection on their progress in this area.
REFERENCES
Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. (2011). Developing equitable education
systems. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Ainscow, M., Farrell, P., & Tweddle, D. (2000). Developing policies for inclusive education:
A study of the role of local education authorities. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 4(3), 211 229.
Ballard, K. (1995). Inclusion paradigms, power, and participation. In C. Clark, A. Dyson, &
A. Millward (Eds.), Towards inclusive schools. London: David Fulton.
Berlach, R. G., & Chambers, D. J. (2011). Inclusivity imperatives and the Australian national
curriculum. The Educational Forum, 75, 52 65.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in
schools. London: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education.
Carrington, S., & Duke, J. (2014). Learning about inclusion from developing countries: Using
the Index for inclusion. In C. Forlin & T. Loreman (Eds.), Measuring inclusive education (Vol. 3). International Perspectives on Inclusive Education. Bingley, UK: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Clark, C., Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (1995). Towards inclusive schools? London: David
Fulton.
Donnelly, V., & Watkins, A. (2011). Teacher education for inclusion in Europe. Prospects:
Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 41(3), 341 353. doi:10.1007/s11125-0119199-1
Duke, J. (2009). The use of the Index for Inclusion in a regional educational learning community.
Unpublished. QUT Digital Repository. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/
EENET. (n.d.). Newsletters and resources (index for inclusion). Retrieved from http://www.
eenet.org.uk/resources/index.php. Accessed on May 16, 2013.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2012). The inclusive education
in action project. Retrieved from https://www.european-agency.org/agency-projects/iea.
Accessed on May 23, 2013
16
Florian, L. (2005). Inclusive practice: What, why, and how? In K. Topping & S. Maloney
(Eds.), The Routledge Falmer reader in inclusive education (pp. 29 30). UK: Routledge.
Forlin, C. (2013). Issues of inclusive education in the 21st century. Journal of Learning Science,
6, 67 81.
Foreman, P., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2008). Social justice principles, the law and research, as
bases for inclusion. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 109 124.
Forest, M., & Pearpoint, E. (1992). Putting all kids on the MAP. Educational Leadership,
50(2), 26 31.
Forlin, C. (2004). Promoting inclusivity in Western Australian schools. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 8, 185 202.
Forlin, C. (2012). Responding to the need for inclusive teacher education: Rhetoric or reality?
In C. Forlin (Ed.), Future directions for inclusive teacher education (pp. 3 12).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Earle, C. (2009). Demographic differences in changing
pre-service teachers attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive education.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(2), 195 209.
Government of Alberta. (1997). Teaching quality standard applicable to the provision of basic
education in Alberta. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Government Printer.
Graham, L. J., & Jahnukainen, M. (2011). Wherefore art thou, inclusion? Analysing the development of inclusive education in New South Wales, Alberta and Finland. Journal of
Education Policy, 26(2), 263 288.
Graham, L. J., & Slee, R. (2008). An illusory interiority: Interrogating the discourse/s of inclusion.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(2), 247 260.
Grima-Farrell, C. R., Bain, A., & McDonagh, S. H. (2011). Bridging the research-to-practice
gap: A review of the literature focusing on inclusive education. Australasian Journal of
Special Education, 35(2), 117 136. doi:10.1375/ajse.35.2.117
Hall, J. (1996). Integration, inclusion: What does it all mean? In J. Coupe OKane &
J. Goldbart (Eds.), Whose choice: Contentious issues for those working with people with
learning difficulties? London: David Fulton.
Heung, V. (2006). Can the introduction of an inclusion index move a system forward?
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(4 5), 309 322.
Kyriazopoulou, M., & Weber, H. (Eds.). (2009). Development of a set of indicators for inclusive education in Europe. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in
Special Needs Education.
Loreman, T. (2009). Straight talk about inclusive education. CASS Connections (Spring).
Loreman, T. (2013). Measuring inclusive education outcomes in Alberta, Canada. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(5), 459 483. doi:10.1080/13603116.2013.788223
Loreman, T., Forlin, C., & Sharma, U. (2014). Measuring indicators of inclusive education:
A systematic review of the literature. In C. Forlin & T. Loreman (Eds.), Measuring
inclusive education (Vol. 3). International Perspectives on Inclusive Education. Bingley,
UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Macedo, E. (2013). Equity and difference in centralized policy. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
45(1), 28 38. doi:10.1080/00220272.2012.754947
Mittler, P. (2012). Overcoming exclusion: Social justice through education. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Nes, K. (2009). The role of the Index for inclusion in supporting school development in
Norway: A comparative perspective. Research in Comparative and International
Education, 4(3), 305 320.
17
19
20
AGNES GAJEWSKI
INTRODUCTION
Susan is a special education teacher at an elementary school that practices
inclusion. As a part of her role, she supports general education teachers with
programming and planning to ensure that students with special needs have
meaningful learning experiences in the general education classroom. Susan
believes that students should be full and active participants in their regular
classrooms, rather than being withdrawn by her for additional support.
One of the greatest challenges for Susan is the willingness of some teachers
to fully include students with special needs into their general education
classrooms:
You walk into the room and they are like, Can you just take Mary and John and work
with them somewhere else? The teachers just do not want anything to do with you. Some
of the teachers at the school are just harder to work with than others. Some just dont
believe that the kids with special needs should be included in the regular classroom. Theyll
say things like; I dont know why they put Johnny in here. Theres no way! He is only at
the grade 2 level and I am teaching grade 6. Why is he here? Its very hard to convince
them that there are still things that Johnny can learn in their classroom When other teachers make disparaging remarks about your students, thats hurtful! Other teachers dont
want your kids to come in, even when it is music or it is art, you know. [They say] Your
kids were in again and they made a noise, they did this, they did that. And ethically, you
just want to say, Cant you just handle my kids? Cant you just rise to the occasion?
(Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012, pp. 108 109)
Susan has made an attempt to gently encourage these teachers and she has
offered extra support to help them feel successful. Nevertheless, their level
of resistance has not diminished. She considered discussing her concerns with
the principal, but she has reservations about how her concerns will be received.
Susan does not want to jeopardize her relationships and create animosity
with colleagues; she worries that they will be intimidated, uncooperative, and
perhaps unreceptive when she comes into their classrooms to support students.
She frets about negatively impacting the classroom and school community,
which in turn will affect the supports and learning opportunities students receive.
21
At the same time, Susan feels strongly about advocating for the students and
she believes that it is the responsibility of teachers to meet the students individual learning needs.
Teachers, like Susan, are troubled by situations in which they must make
difficult choices, especially those that are believed to be problematic on
ethical grounds. They agonize, considering alternatives and consequences,
all the while taking into account their professional obligations and responsibilities to students and colleagues. Given that there are no evident or
ready solutions, matters that are ethical in nature weigh heavily on teachers.
In keeping with the themes of this volume, valid identification and measurement of the effectiveness of inclusive practices must be premised on
teachers being able to implement the practices that make inclusion successful. This chapter explores ethical challenges and dilemmas that occur in
teaching and considers the ways in which such issues may impact the
effective implementation and successful measurement of inclusion. It is
contended that ethical problems can serve as a barrier to the realization of
inclusion and impede measurement tools. Emphasis is placed on issues
surrounding collegial loyalty and associated consequences for teaching
practice and student learning. Accounts and experiences of teachers, from a
study investigating ethical challenges and dilemmas in inclusive classrooms,
will be used as the basis of this discussion (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012).
22
AGNES GAJEWSKI
Given the inherent ethical nature of inclusion, challenges and dilemmas are
bound to occur (Berkeley & Ludlow, 2008; Rude & Whetstone, 2008). An
ethical dilemma involves a trying situation in which the teacher must make
a choice between two or more alternatives. While a dilemma requires the
existence of choice, ethical problems in which a choice is not apparent are
also a source of angst for teachers (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012). Such challenges and dilemmas occur frequently because the nature of the profession
necessitates that teachers fulfill numerous roles, possess an array of knowledge and skills, and adhere to regulations, policies, and institutional
demands, some of which are competing. Consequently, teachers are continuously torn in many directions, having to make important decisions
(Colnerud, 2006; Courtade & Ludlow, 2008). From the curriculum materials they select, the pedagogies they apply, the classroom management
techniques they use, to the seating arrangement they implement they are
accountable to students, other teachers, administrators, and parents
(Campbell, 2003).
In fact, some scholars claim that in special and inclusive education, ethical problems are exacerbated (Courtade & Ludlow, 2008; Fiedler & Van
Haren, 2009). A reason for this, proposed by Howe and Miramontes
(1992), is that the obligation to be equitable and the necessity of specialization place a strain on resources, practices, and the professional knowledge
and skills of teachers. Fiedler and Van Haren (2009) assert that it is the
accountability teachers maintain toward students that provokes ethical tensions. In their professional role, teachers have a responsibility to protect
the interests of their students and ensure that they are not disadvantaged
a task that becomes exceedingly difficult when individual cases and unique
circumstances need to be taken into account. Moreover, students with
special needs may be more at risk given their minority status, potential
vulnerability, and possible inability to advocate for themselves (Fiedler &
Van Haren, 2009).
23
24
AGNES GAJEWSKI
25
26
AGNES GAJEWSKI
needs of their students. Inclusion focused on presence as opposed to participation, results in the sustainment of exclusionary practices and culture at
the school level, leaving teachers on their own to deal with the repercussions. Support and professional development are not seen as necessary
because there is an assumption that inclusion is occurring. Consequently,
as was the experience of this intermediate teacher, those who seek support
are often denied:
I dont think thats so much to ask I kept saying, I dont know how to meet her
needs. And the principal kept saying, Oh youre fine. She loves you. She works
hard. And she did, she worked really hard, whatever I gave her. But I wanted more
for her and I wanted help. I was reaching out for help. And all I got was a pat on the
back. (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012, p. 133)
27
placement, lines of distinction are maintained. Subtle or not, the segregation may not be distinguished by all teachers and administrators, thus
attempts to evaluate the presence and success of inclusion may be misrepresented. More so, exclusionary practices at the school level can infiltrate
into the classroom.
Inclusion comes to fruition at the classroom level (Loreman, 2013).
Classroom practices that foster equity and fairness and support students
with different needs and abilities are fundamental to its realization. The
basis of learning occurs within the classroom and the individual who
possesses primary responsibility over its functioning is the teacher. It is the
teacher who establishes the classroom community and culture, makes decisions about instructional and assessment practices, promotes principles and
expectations, and serves to ensure the well-being of each student under his
or her care.
The global shift toward inclusion has resulted in changes to the roles
and responsibilities of general educators. Within the inclusive education
approach, the general educator is predominantly accountable for the teaching and learning of students with special needs (Bunch, Lupart, & Brown,
1997; Bunch & Valeo, 2004). While the fundamentals of inclusion are
dependent on access, its effectiveness is contingent upon the degree of
ownership that teachers assume over their students (Bunch & Valeo,
2004, p. 61). Respectively, classroom teachers are vital to the success of
inclusion (Stanovich & Jordan, 2004). Jordan et al. (2009) argued that the
achievement of full inclusion is determined by teachers conceptions about
disability and the role they assume in supporting students with special
needs. Likewise, Stanovich and Jordan (2002), based on an empirical study
which measured student outcomes, identified four variables which are critical to the attainment of inclusion: teacher beliefs about disability and the
inclusion of students with special needs into general education classrooms;
teacher efficacy; teaching practices; and school norm/culture pertaining to
disability (p. 175). It is important to acknowledge that three of the four
variables focus on the classroom teacher. Consequently, teachers who hold
a positive attitude about disability possess and employ an array of instructional and assessment strategies which address individual needs and
abilities. Such practices are used to benefit all students, not only those with
special needs. In turn, these teachers feel confident and successful at including students with diverse learning needs into their classrooms, thus they
maintain a positive attitude about disability and support inclusive education (Campbell, Gilmore, & Cuskelly, 2003; Forlin et al., 2011).
Regrettably, this cycle can also be negative and, in turn, exclusionary
28
AGNES GAJEWSKI
(Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008; Stanovich & Jordan, 2002), as exemplified by this secondary school special educator who describes the antagonistic attitudes and exclusionary behaviors of some of her colleagues:
They were like, Oh okay. What are you going to be teaching? And I said, I am starting the Asperger program. They asked, What does that mean? Are we getting the
really stupid kids? And I said, No. I am teaching students who have been diagnosed
with high functioning autism. And he asked, Are they being shipped in? And I said,
No. Believe it or not, but some of them are already in your school. You have probably
taught them. You will probably continue to teach them . So, I knew right from the
start then that I would have resistance from colleagues where I worked. Some of that
had manifested in colleagues flat-out refusing to accept my students in their classrooms,
where I have had to go to admin and say, Look, this is what the student wants to
take, there is room in the class, how do I get the student in this program? The most
common phrase I hear when I ask about integrating my students is that my student is
making the learning environment poisonous. (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012, p. 257)
29
will never learn it, so we might as well get it done for them I would sit there and try
to explain the work to the students and she would laugh at me and tell me that I was
wasting my time. (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012, p. 258)
30
AGNES GAJEWSKI
gym teacher]
outside. We
de-integrated
So I just
31
decided to miss my prep, which sucks for me but what can you do? (Kieltyka-Gajewski,
2012, p. 112)
Campbell (1996, 2003) argues that fear is the driving factor that prevents
teachers from intervening. The fear of personal or professional consequences, or collegial ostracism, for criticizing a colleague is so intense that
the teacher would prefer to make personal sacrifices in order to evade associated risks. Colnerud (1994, 1997) agrees. She attributes this social norm
of loyalty to the apprehensions teachers feel of being identified as whistle
blowers. Colnerud (1997) states:
One of the most striking conflicts described is between protecting pupils and the social
norm of loyalty to colleagues. Teachers sometimes witness, or are informed by others,
that a colleague is treating the pupils in a harmful way . Although the teacher
regards the colleagues treatment as harmful, although he or she cares about the pupil,
it is difficult to confront the colleague . Criticism of each other within the teacher
group seems to be taboo. (p. 631)
32
AGNES GAJEWSKI
There are, however, grave costs associated with ignoring and avoiding
collegial issues, both personal and professional. Despite their refusal to
confront colleagues, the teacher participants were aware of their obligation
to address issues in order to protect the well-being of students. As a result,
many reported feelings of regret and guilt as well as a sense of failure.
Some even contemplated leaving the profession as they felt that they were
not fulfilling their professional responsibilities (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012).
Nevertheless, Campbell (1996, 2003) claims that if offered a chance to
make a different choice and reverse their decision, most would once again
elect to protect colleagues. Additionally, collegial conflicts made it difficult
for teachers to advocate for their students or to collaborate with colleagues
to best meet their needs. Yet, the success of inclusion is contingent on collaboration and shared responsibility (Deppeler, Loreman, & Sharma, 2005;
Loreman, 2013). All stakeholders must work together to meet the needs of
the student and ensure his or her social and academic success. Teachers
must be able to access supports and resources to enhance and improve their
practice in the classroom. Stanovich and Jordan (2004) concur, drawing on
research data they argue that successful inclusion involves teachers accepting responsibility for students with special needs and working with others
to ensure their needs are met:
Accepting responsibility for including students with disabilities does mean: being a
member of a team, being part of a collaborative school culture, collaborating with colleagues, partnering with parents, knowing when and who to ask for help, knowing
where to go for and how to get resources, and knowing the kinds of questions to ask
that will help you be an effective teacher for all your students. (p. 179)
33
really do anything about it, they think that you are a crybaby. Thats really tough .
Especially when you are in special ed and you are working with other teachers in their
classrooms. When you are co-teaching and team teaching. (Kieltyka-Gajewski, 2012,
p. 206)
CONCLUSION
The teacher is integral to the success of inclusion. Yet, it is also the teacher
who experiences numerous ethical predicaments in practice. Ethical issues
34
AGNES GAJEWSKI
REFERENCES
Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change?
Journal of Educational Change, 6(2), 109 124.
Bennett, S. (2009). Including students with exceptionalities. What works? Research into practice.
The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.
edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/Bennett.pdf
Berkeley, T. R., & Ludlow, B. L. (2008). Ethical dilemmas in rural special education: A call
for a conversation about the ethics of practice. Rural Special Education Quarterly,
27(1 2), 3 9.
Bunch, G., Lupart, J., & Brown, M. (1997, April). Resistance and acceptance: Educators
attitudes to inclusion of students with disabilities (ED 410 713). Toronto, ON: York
University.
Bunch, G., & Valeo, A. (2004). Student attitudes towards peers with disabilities in inclusive
and special education schools. Disability and Society, 19(1), 61 76.
Campbell, E. (1996). Ethical implications of collegial loyalty as one view of teacher professionalism. Teachers and Teaching, 2(2), 191 208. doi:10.1080/1354060960020203
Campbell, E. (2003). The ethical teacher. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Campbell, E. (2008). Review of the literature: The ethics of teaching as a moral profession.
Curriculum Inquiry, 38(4), 357 385. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2008.00414.x
35
Campbell, J., Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Changing student teachers attitudes
towards disability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability,
28(4), 369 379. doi:10.1080/13668250310001616407
Colnerud, G. (1994). Loyalty conflicts in teacher ethics. Retrieved from ERIC database: http://
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED392738.pdf
Colnerud, G. (1997). Ethical conflicts in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(6),
627 635.
Colnerud, G. (2006). Teacher ethics as a research problem: Synthesis achieved and new issues.
Teachers and Teaching, 12(3), 365 385. doi:10.1080/13450600500467704
Connor, D. J., & Ferri, B. A. (2007). The conflict within: Resistance to inclusion and other
paradoxes in special education. Disability and Society, 22(1), 63 77.
Courtade, G. R., & Ludlow, B. L. (2008). Ethical issues and severe disabilities: Programming
for students and preparation for teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(1 2),
36 42.
Deppeler, J. T., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2005). Reconceptualising specialist support services in inclusive classrooms. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 117 127.
Fiedler, C. R., & Van Haren, B. (2009). A comparison of special education administrators
and teachers knowledge and application of ethics and professional standards. The
Journal of Special Education, 43(3), 160 173.
Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2011). The sentiments, attitudes, and
concerns about inclusive education revised (SACIE-R) scale for measuring pre-service
teachers perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 21(3),
50 65.
Howe, K. R., & Miramontes, O. B. (1992). The ethics of special education. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Hutchinson, N. L. (2002). Inclusion and exceptional learners in Canadian schools: A practical
handbook for teachers. Toronto, ON: Prentice Hall.
Jordan, A. (2001). Special education in Ontario, Canada: A case study of market-based
reforms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(3), 349 371. doi:10.1080/030576401200
86602
Jordan, A. (2007). Introduction to inclusive education. Mississauga, ON: John Wiley and Sons
Canada Ltd.
Jordan, A., & Glenn, C., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). The supporting effective teaching
(SET) project: The relationship of inclusive teaching practices to teachers beliefs about
disability and ability, and about their roles as teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26(2), 259 266. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.005
Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive
classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 535 542.
Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2001). Patterns of teacher student interaction in inclusive elementary classrooms and correlates with student self-concept. International Journal of
Disability, Development, and Education, 48(1), 33 52.
Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2003). Teachers personal epistemological beliefs about students
with disabilities as indicators of effective teaching practices. Journal of Research in
Special Educational Needs, 3(1), 1 11. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2003.00184.x
Kieltyka-Gajewski, A. (2012). Ethical challenges and dilemmas in teaching students with
special needs in inclusive classrooms: Exploring the perspectives of Ontario teachers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, Toronto.
36
AGNES GAJEWSKI
Leatherman, J. M. (2007). I just see children as children: Teachers perceptions about inclusion.
The Qualitative Report, 12(4), 594 611.
Loreman, T. (2013). Measuring inclusive education outcomes in Alberta, Canada. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(5), 459 483. doi:10.1080/13603116.2013.788223
Norwich, B. (2013). Addressing tensions and dilemmas in inclusive education: Living with uncertainty. London: Routledge.
Rude, H. A., & Whetstone, P. J. (2008). Ethical considerations for special educators in rural
America. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(1 2), 10 18.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23(7), 773 785. doi:10.1080/09687590802469271
Silverman, J. C. (2007). Epistemological beliefs and attitudes towards inclusion in pre-service
teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(1), 42 51.
Slee, R. (2011). Irregular schooling: Special education, regular education, and inclusive education. London: Routledge.
Stanovich, P. J., & Jordan, A. (2002). Preparing general educators to teach in inclusive classrooms: Some food for thought. The Teacher Educator, 37(3), 173 185.
Stanovich, P. J., & Jordan, A. (2004). Inclusion as professional development. Exceptionality
Education Canada, 14(2), 169 188.
Tirri, K., & Husu, J. (2002). Care and responsibility in the best interest of the child:
Relational voices of ethical dilemmas in teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 8(1), 65 80.
doi:10.1080/13540600120110574
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
Wedell, K. (2008). Confusion about inclusion: Patching up or system change? British Journal
of Special Education, 35(3), 127 135.
37
38
INTRODUCTION
In India as elsewhere, in response to recent moves towards creating more
equitable education systems, policy initiatives have been introduced to
encourage the development of inclusive education. In particular, the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (Ministry of Human
Resource Development India, 2009) commonly referred to as the RTE has
introduced renewed vigour into debates about future provision for previously marginalised populations of children. This legislation, which builds
upon earlier initiatives including Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) (Ministry
of Human Resource Development, 2000) with a stated objective of ensuring universal elementary education for children throughout India, reflects
international trends towards the introduction of policy initiatives for the
promotion of improved access to learning (United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO], 1994, 2000).
The authors of this chapter applaud the attempts made by the Ministry
of Human Resource Development to provide a definition of inclusion that
recognises the close relationship between poverty, caste and special educational needs. Whereas in some legislatures, the focus of inclusive schooling
has been upon the education of pupils with special educational needs
and disabilities, such an approach within the Indian context would fail to
recognise the significance of potent factors that have led to the marginalisation of children within the education system. Inclusive education will not be
achieved until such time as the influences of poverty and the challenges
associated with ingrained beliefs about peoples from scheduled tribes or
castes are addressed. A policy of inclusion demands that policy makers and
those working in schools address the socio-economic as well as cultural and
educational inequalities that characterise much of Indian educational
provision.
The legislation in India has undoubtedly been significant in raising
awareness and placing a focus upon special educational needs issues in a
country where universal access to schooling remains a challenge (UNESCO,
2014). RTE places an emphasis upon achieving greater access to education
for girls, children from scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, those
described as being from economically weaker sections of society (EWS),
and others with disabilities or special educational needs. Indian initiatives in
this area can be seen to have had some success through the encouragement
of provision of new schools and classrooms and the training of additional
teachers in several parts of the country, though this is inconsistent across
states (Singh Kainth, 2006). Furthermore, there is some indication that
39
40
41
In order to address this shortcoming, it is necessary to establish more holistic approaches by which we may interpret the effectiveness of schooling and
through which we may make observations about its inclusiveness. In several
western countries efforts have been made to develop instruments that may
assist teachers and others in assessing the state of schools in relation to
their inclusiveness and these have generally adopted a much broader view of
what might constitute success. Instruments such as the Index for Inclusion
(Booth & Ainscow, 2011) and Inclusion Quality Mark (Coles & Hancock,
2002) developed in England and the Inclusive Education Framework
(National Council for Special Education, 2011) in Ireland have provided an
effective aid to schools self-evaluation and a means of scaffolding development in order for schools to become more welcoming and supportive of
pupils with diverse needs. One of the strengths of these instruments is the way
in which they have attempted to look at a broad range of issues that impact
upon school effectiveness, including the management of the school, the fostering of positive attitudes, the development of relationships both within schools
and the wider community, and the recognition of a broad spectrum of learning needs. In the case of at least one of these instruments, the Index for
Inclusion, translation into other languages has made the document accessible
to schools internationally, though challenges with regard to cultural validity
of all these documents remain largely unaddressed (Jament, 2013).
In providing a framework for the assessment of inclusion each of the
aforementioned instruments have a common advantage in the efforts that
their authors have made to evaluate the suitability of schools for inclusion,
whilst also considering the purpose of inclusive schooling and the way that
principles might be applied in inclusive classrooms. These afford a more
relevant means of considering the relative success of provision than the
more simplistic and narrow assessment of learning outcomes to define
effective schools. However, where these are implemented it is essential that
they are not simply used as a checklist whereby schools can claim to have
become inclusive, but rather as a means of fostering discussion and debate
and providing developmental opportunities for addressing inclusion in a
holistic manner.
42
43
44
45
46
47
Provision in Classrooms
Hammers view of the need to examine infrastructure and output variables
has particular significance as we consider how provision in classrooms
might be assessed. Modification of the curriculum and planning to address a
range of needs in the classroom has been identified as a critical factor in the
promotion of inclusive classrooms (Thurlow, 2014; Watkins & Meijer,
2010). Singal (2010) suggests that in India many teachers working in mainstream schools do not feel confident in addressing children with special educational needs and that as attempts have been made to introduce greater
inclusion, many of these teachers feel themselves to be de-skilled. This view
would appear to be reinforced by the work of Ojha Seema (2013) who in a
study conducted in Haryana reported limited awareness amongst teachers
of either the need, or the knowledge of how to make significant accommodations to address a range of teaching needs and abilities. Most of the teaching observed by Ojha Seema was based around textbook exercises and
demanded a certain level of literacy competence. With regards to assessment
of learning, much of this was summative and dependent upon formal testing
and examination procedures, which excluded the effective participation of
some learners and where results were obtained, these were seldom used in a
formative manner.
48
CONCLUSION
The assessment of inclusion in India is complex and the direct application
of approaches used in other societies is likely to fall short of being satisfactory. Hammers work is useful in identifying the different dimensions
requiring attention by those who wish to understand the development and
impact of inclusive practices. What is apparent is that there is a need to
consider the evaluation of inclusion at a range of levels.
At national level, a strengthening of the authority invested in the NCPCR
and the State Council of Protection of Child Rights, along with a clear statement of expectations on the part of state administrators and schools is essential. Whilst there will always be significant variations between states, there is
a need to develop a monitoring infrastructure that can oversee the interpretation of the RTE Act and its interpretation in schools at all levels. Support
must also be provided for teacher training, including provision to ensure that
those who are responsible for the training of teachers are themselves competent and confident in respect of inclusive teaching practices.
At school level, Hammers concerns regarding infrastructure and resourcing remain as a core issue. Teacher attitudes and expectations are unlikely
to be changed until such time as the conditions in which they are expected
to work are improved. This requires that not only additional resources
should be supplied but also teachers are given the confidence to use these
for the benefit of pupils with a wider range of needs and abilities.
The legislation for the support of inclusion in India is strong. The key
to its successful implementation lies in both the monitoring of its interpretation and the provision of support to those professionals responsible
for its delivery.
REFERENCES
Alkazi, R. M., & Rajasree, V. (2012). Second annual report on the status of children with disabilities under The Right to Education Act. New Delhi: Aarth Astha.
Alur, M., & Bach, M. (2010). The journey for inclusive education in the Indian sub-continent.
London: Routledge.
Armstrong, D. (1998). Changing faces, changing places: Policy routes to inclusion. In
P. Clough (Ed.), Managing inclusive education: From policy to experience (pp. 31 47).
London: Paul Chapman.
Ashman, A. (2012). Facilitating inclusion through responsive teaching. In C. Boyle &
K. Topping (Eds.), What works in inclusion? (pp. 81 97). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
49
Bjarnason, D. (2003). School inclusion in Iceland: The cloak of invisibility. New York, NY:
Nova.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). The index for inclusion (3rd ed.). Bristol: Centre for Studies
on Inclusive Education.
Coles, C., & Hancock, R. (2002). The inclusion quality mark. Bristol: Public Sector Matters.
Das, A. (2001). Perceived training needs of regular primary and secondary school teachers to
implement inclusive education programs in Delhi, India. Unpublished doctoral thesis.
University of Melbourne.
Dreze, J., & Kingdon, G. G. (2003). School participation in rural India. Review of
Development Economics, 5(1), 1 24.
Dyer, C. (2005). Decentralisation to improve teacher quality? District institutes of education
and training in India. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education,
35(2), 139 152.
Feng, Y. (2010). Teacher career motivation and professional development in special and inclusive
education in China. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Feng Y. (2012). Teacher career motivation and professional development in special and inclusive education: Perspectives from Chinese teachers. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 16(3), 331 351.
Forlin, C. (2008). Education reform for inclusion in the Asia Pacific region: What about teacher
education? In C. Forlin & J. L. Ming-Gon (Eds.), Reform, inclusion and teacher education:
Towards a new era of special education in the Asia-Pacific region. Oxford: Routledge.
Government of India. (1996). Persons with disabilities (Equal opportunities, protection and full
participation Act). New Delhi: Government of India.
Govmda, R., & Josephine, Y. (2005). Para-teachers in India: A review. Contemporary
Education Dialogue, 2(2), 193 224.
Hammer, J. (2013). Lessons in learning: An analysis of outcomes in Indias implementation of
the Right to Education Act. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Hernandez, V. T. (2008). Making good on the promise of international law: The convention
on the rights of persons with disabilities and inclusive education in China and India.
Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, 17(2), 497 527.
Hodkinson, A., & Devarakonda, C. (2009). Conceptions of inclusion and inclusive education:
A critical examination of the perspectives and practices of teachers in India. Research in
Education, 82(1), 85 99.
Hoyland, A., Dye, L., & Lawton, C. (2009). A systematic review of the effect of breakfast on
the cognitive performance of children and adolescents. Nutrition Research Reviews,
22(2), 220 243.
Jament, J. (2013). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Indian education:
Identification, interpretation and management of ADHD characteristics. Saarbrucken,
Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Jha, J., Ghatak, N., Mahendiran, S., & Bakshi, S. (2013). Implementing the Right to
Education Act 2009: The real challenges. Bangalore: Centre for Budget and Policy
Studies.
Kershner, R. (2014). What do classroom teachers need to know about meeting special educational needs? In. L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education. London:
Sage.
Kingdon, G. G. (2007a). The progress of school education in India. London: ESRC Global
Policy Research Group.
50
51
Singh Kainth, G. (2006). A mission approach to Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. Economic and
Political Weekly, 41(30), 3288 3291.
Soni, R. B. L., & Rahman, A. (2013). Status of implementation of RTE Act
2009 in the
context of disadvantaged children at elementary stage. New Delhi: National Council of
Educational Research and Training.
The Hindu. (2012). Supreme Court says no to review of Right to Education verdict (September
20th). Retrieved from http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3915647.ece.
Accessed on October 7, 2012.
Thirumurthya, V., & Thirumurthya, V. (2007). Special education in India at the crossroads.
Childhood Education, 83(6), 380 384.
Thurlow, M. L. (2014). Instructional and assessment accommodations in the 21st century. In
L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (Vol. 2, pp. 597 612).
London: Sage.
Times of India. (2012). Supreme Court declines review of Right to Education verdict
(September 20th). Retrieved from http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-0920/news/33975994_1_unaided-schools-minority-institutions-weaker-sections. Accessed
on October 7, 2012.
Tooley, J., Dixon, P., & Gomathi, S. V. (2007). Private schools and the millennium development goal of universal primary education: A census and comparative survey in
Hyderabad, India. Oxford Review of Education, 33(5), 539 560.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (1994). The Salamanca
statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2000). The Dakar framework for action, education for all: Meeting our collective commitments. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2009). Education for all:
Global monitoring report. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2014). Education for all:
Global monitoring report. Paris: UNESCO.
Unnikrishnan, P. (2010). Inclusive education in India
Challenges and implications for
persons with special needs. Educational Quest, 1(1), 21 25.
Watkins, A., & Meijer, C. (2010). The development of inclusive teaching and learning:
A European perspective. In R. Rose (Ed.), Confronting obstacles to inclusion. International
responses to developing inclusive education (pp. 227 244). London: Routledge.
53
54
INTRODUCTION
The pressures on policy-makers to demonstrate how policies are leading
towards greater educational inclusion results in the need for the systematic
collection of qualitative and quantitative information that answers key
questions and can be used longitudinally within countries to map national
developments, as well as internationally across countries to compare
relative developments.
55
56
Table 1.
Austria
Belgium (Flemish-speaking
community)
Belgium (French-speaking
community)
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
(England)
United Kingdom
(Scotland)
United Kingdom (Wales)
Disability
Categories
Only
Disability
Categories Plus
Disadvantaged
Learners
Xa
Disability
Categories
Plus Gifted
and Talented
Learners
Disability
Categories Plus
Disadvantaged
Learners and
Talented Learners
Non-categorical
Systems
X
Xb
Xc
X
X
X
X
X
Xd
X
X
Xc
Xc
X
X
X
X
X
Xc
X
X
Xc
Xe
Xf
X
X
57
While it can be argued that by describing parallel approaches in education, the proposed definition can be seen to perpetuate the concept of separate systems of provision for different learners, this perspective does
highlight the need for data collection in different settings that may exist in
countries, that is, mainstream and separate special settings. This definition
may also overcome the potential discrepancies of disability definitions by
shifting to an approach focusing on resources delivered by countries at
national level and implemented at school level. Such an approach concentrates on the impact of legal frameworks in encouraging policies towards
inclusion and refers to the educational restrictions learners have to face, to
funding rules and to the capacity to create equitable education systems.
This approach further relates the need for additional resources to address
a lack of adaptability within the schools curriculum and to the need for additional human or material resources to stimulate effective and efficient learning
for learners. It therefore links the whole concept of SEN to a changed system
that emphasises the need to monitor policies in order to promote strategies
that lead to change (Ebersold & Evans, 2008; OECD, 2004, 2005, 2007).
Such an approach has been adopted in the resource-based classification system developed by the OECD since the 1990s to provide international comparable data on special needs education (OECD 2007). The
categories used in this system for data collection are: Cross-national
58
59
Table 2.
0 2%
Luxembourg
Sweden
4.1 6%
6.1 10%
Austria
Greece
Italy
Poland
Portugal
Spain
UK (England)
UK (Wales)
Belgium (Fr.)
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Switzerland
UK (Northern Ireland)
Belgium (Fl.)
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Finland
Norway
Slovakia
Slovenia
Iceland
Lithuania
UK (Scotland)
60
Table 3.
Up to 1.0%
1.01 2.0%
2.01 4.0%
Italy
Luxembourg
Malta
Norway
Portugal
Spain
UK (Wales)
Austria
Cyprus
Iceland
Ireland
Lithuania
Poland
Sweden
UK (England)
UK (Northern Ireland)
UK (Scotland)
Czech Republic
Finland
France
Greece
Hungary
Netherlands
Slovenia
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Denmark
Estonia
Germany
Latvia
Slovakia
Switzerland
Note: Percentages are calculated using the raw data totals of learners in compulsory education
and learners placed in segregated settings.
61
62
Issues emerging as a result of multiple and often widely differing methodologies for data collected at national levels and then used at
European or international levels remain.
Challenges are apparent in relation to definitions, data collection
methods and inclusive education policies. These challenges must be overcome if data is to be collected that can use fully information policy issues
surrounding inclusive education.
The Agency report exploring a framework for developing indicators for
participation in inclusive education states: Because children dont count if
they are not counted, the capacity building of education systems to
improve their data on children at risk of exclusion and marginalisation is
an important policy issue internationally (Agency, 2011b, p. 19). Two specific assertions can be further posed:
1. Country systems for educational data collection do not cover all the
issues that may arise in relation to inclusive education at international,
European as well as national levels;
2. Quantitative data alone is not enough to map developments in inclusive
education; qualitative information must be collected and made available.
63
64
65
66
Academic attainments;
Social relationships and achievements;
Quality of life issues including self-reliance/autonomy and employment;
Such long-term systematic and detailed data collection would, potentially, provide insights into the crucial question of how inclusive education supports inclusive societies.
Policy-makers need qualitative and quantitative data that informs them
about the quality of education of learners with SEN. This includes comparable data on the outcomes and effectiveness of different approaches
specifically including:
Data on learners experiences and achievements;
Data that demonstrates learners rights to inclusive education are being
met.
67
68
Limiting the data on the right to education to physical access to mainstream schooling makes access an aim in itself. This may lead to issues
around learning, academic achievement and the different dimensions
leading towards the full development of a learners human potential; as
outlined in Article 24 of the convention, being overlooked.
Such a limitation of data prevents a questioning of the organisational,
pedagogical and social conditions within schools. It establishes a utilitarian
vision of social belonging that is limited to placement in general schooling
and perpetuates a normative concept of the school that is mainly based on
the learners ability to adapt to formal or non-formal school rules.
69
70
concerned, giving them the opportunity to consider that they have a future
in which they are the key actors or, conversely, that may have a disabling
effect by depriving learners with disabilities of the capacity to gain social
and/or professional recognition.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
This chapter has presented a number of key international level policy issues
for data collection linked to inclusive education. It has raised a range of
questions and highlighted various data requirements, without being able to
give specific answers or responses. At the present time, there are more questions than clear answers the provision of data that can effectively inform
policy-making for inclusive education is an area presenting a myriad of
challenges with some small step solutions only beginning to now emerge.
71
Nationally and internationally, there are increasing demands, at international, European and national levels, for accountability and betweenschool and between nation comparisons are rising. The emergence of big
data (meta analyses of combined data-sets and sources) presents both
opportunities, but also real challenges for inclusive education.
The calls for evidence-based policy and resource allocation highlight the
need for meaningful data related to all learners. It is necessary to know
which learners are receiving what services, when and where (counting all
learners). It is also necessary to have data on the quality of services and the
outcomes they lead to (consider practice).
A major challenge for data collection is linked to the avoidance of classifying, categorising and labelling learners in order to provide information
on the provision they receive. The pluralities of definitions applied to learners and the politics of labelling systems cannot be ignored; neither can the
effects these labelling systems and definitions lead to.
Developing meaningful quality indicators for inclusive education is still
a challenge and developing comprehensive data collection methods requires
a long-term commitment. The limitations of purely statistical information
must be acknowledged and understood; numerical data is not a panacea
for educational issues countries are facing.
Inclusive education must be seen as an evolving concept with issues
relating to diversity and democracy as increasingly being important.
Measuring the implementation of inclusive education, as well as commitments to inclusive education will be a challenge for the short- and long
term. This will require the integration of data from a variety of sources
including sources that capture the experiences of learners and their families.
Asking the right policy questions is the starting point for collecting data
that will in the long term inform policy in significant ways.
REFERENCES
Bickenbach, J. E. (2012). Ethics, law and policy. London: Sage.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in
schools. Bristol: CSIE.
Council of the European Union. (2007). Council conclusions on a coherent framework of indicators and benchmarks for monitoring progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education
and training. 2802nd Education, Youth and Culture Council meeting, Brussels, 24 25.
Retrieved from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/
educ/94290.pdf. Accessed on May 2007.
72
Council of the European Union. (2009). Council conclusions of 12 may 2009 on a strategic
framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET2020) (2009/C
119/02).
Ebersold, S. (2011). Inclusion of students with disabilities in tertiary education and to employment. Paris: OECD.
Ebersold, S. (2012). Les transitions vers lenseignement tertiaire et vers lemploi des jeunes
adultes handicapes. [Transitions to tertiary education and employment of young adults
with disabilities.] Paris: OECD.
Ebersold, S. (2014). Accessibilite, politiques inclusives et droit a` leducation: Considerations
conceptuelles et methodologiques. Alter, 8(4). [Accessibility, inclusive policies and the
right to education: Conceptual and methodological considerations].
Ebersold, S., & Evans, P. (2008). A supply side approach for a resource based classification
system. In M. McLaughlin & L. Florian (Eds.), Disability classification in education:
Issues and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CL: Corwin Press.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2010). Special needs education country data 2010. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in
Special Needs Education. Retrieved from http://www.european-agency.org/publications/
ereports/special-needs-education-country-data-2010/SNE-Country-Data-2010.pdf
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2011a). Mapping the implementation of policy for inclusive education: An exploration of challenges and opportunities
for developing indicators. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in
Special Needs Education.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2011b). Participation in inclusive education
A framework for developing indicators. Odense, Denmark: European
Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2012). Special needs education country data 2012. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in
Special Needs Education. Retrieved from https://www.european-agency.org/publications/
ereports/sne-country-data-2012
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, Kyriazopoulou, K., &
Weber, H. (Eds.). (2009). Development of a set of indicators For inclusive education in
Europe. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in Special Needs
Education. Retrieved from http://www.european-agency.org/agency-projects/indicatorsfor-inclusive-education/indicators-documents/Indicators-EN.pdf
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, & Meijer, C. J. W. (Eds.).
(2003). Special education across Europe in 2003: Trends in provision in 18 European
countries. Middelfart, Denmark: European Agency for Development in Special Needs
Education.
European Commission. (2009). Strategic framework for education and training. Brussels:
European Commission.
European Union. (2007). Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (2007/C 303/01).
Eurostat. (2011). Country data published on. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/
portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
Eurydice. (2011). Country data published on. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/
eurydice/index_en.php
Ewing, K. M., & Jones, T. W. (2003). An educational rationale for deaf students with multiple
disabilities. American Annals of the Deaf, 148, 267 271.
73
74
transition study and the national transition study 2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI
international.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. (2005). Changes over time in the early
post school outcomes of youth with disabilities A report of findings from the NTLS
and the NLTS-2. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
World Health Organisation. (2011). World report on disability. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
RESOURCING INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION
Donna Barrett
ABSTRACT
This chapter will address four key areas related to resourcing inclusive
education. Consideration will be given first to an international perspective
on models of funding, reviewing direct or student-based approaches, and
decentralized versus local organization of funding. The relationships
between funding and implementation of inclusive education will then be
explored, looking at ways of measuring these using indicators or protocols.
Third, continuous improvement, planning, and accountability will be
reviewed for their role in setting priorities, targets, and benchmarking
progress while addressing competing resource needs. Finally, approaches
to building capacity to support inclusive practice through a range of
approaches will be proffered.
Keywords: Inclusive education; resourcing; funding; indicators;
improvement planning
75
76
DONNA BARRETT
INTRODUCTION
The intent of this chapter is to bring together key ideas related to strengthening inclusive education practice in public school systems. For the purposes of this chapter inclusive practice occurs in the students community
school, in a classroom with similar age peers, addressing key learning
experiences that are planned for the others in the class. Within this context
there may be choice, differential performance expectations, and levels of
support provided for students in the classroom. Clarity in describing the
key attributes of inclusive education is a necessary first step in developing
systems of measurement to determine the extent to which public education
systems, schools, and classrooms are inclusive.
77
of individuals, those who are able and those who are disabled. It also
requires that all educators assume full responsibility for the entire student
population within a given community (p. 30). The reframing acknowledges
that lack of optimal success of individuals and groups of students is a reflection of shortcomings in an educational system that does not adequately
respond to their needs. Lupart and Webber suggest that a unified system
must direct all of its resources to achieving both excellence and equity.
78
DONNA BARRETT
79
80
DONNA BARRETT
opportunities with their peers. They must be aware of and have easy access
to teaching and learning materials to meet a range of learning needs.
Paraprofessionals need to play a supportive role that encourages learning
and social inclusion. Principals must understand what it means to be an
inclusive school in order to provide leadership to realize this goal. They
need to help others become aware of and support this direction, to set
expectations and support staff to create inclusive learning environments for
all students, organize their schools, hire, support and supervise staff, work
with their parents and communities, allocate resources, and monitor progress to achieve this end.
School divisions and schools need to become increasingly precise in identifying where focus should be placed to improve, given the scarcity of dollars available for that purpose. Initiatives and practices need to be selected
on the basis of their demonstrated potential to strengthen the learning
environment for all students. Priorities need to be set at the division,
school, and classroom levels. There should be alignment and connection
between priorities at all levels. However, schools and classroom teachers
require some flexibility in determining how priorities can be attained. The
litmus test being the potential benefit through an inclusive lens.
What binds school and school divisions together are common priorities.
A limited number of important priorities should be the drivers for a school
system. The goals themselves should be inclusive in nature in that they
apply to all students. Frequent measurement of progress towards goals provides a vehicle for reviewing and adjusting practice so that all students are
included and achieving success, more parents and families are satisfied with
their level of involvement and influence, and staff indicate that they are
supported to deepen their practice.
Speaking of this process in generalities provides a process or framework
for moving forward. However, when dealing with specific situations there
will be times when developing more inclusive learning opportunities
requires a shift in resourcing that will result in a situation where clear
choices may have to be made. Decisions in these incidents will likely be
contested. Gable (2014) proposes a critical realist framework that she suggests can serve as a means to consider and challenge school practices that
have become entrenched in conventions of thought and consider the contributions of alternative understandings (p. 97). It will be important for
those engaged in this process to facilitate dialogue so that reasonable solutions may be attained. These situations can also result in innovative ways
of addressing challenges and using already existing resources in a more
inclusive way. Booth and Ainscow (2002) provide a detailed, value-based
81
process to guide school communities to work together in identifying priorities to become more inclusive. A particular strength of this approach is that
the processes are inclusive and serve to deepen understanding of what it
means to be an inclusive school.
82
DONNA BARRETT
QUALITY LEADERSHIP
The direction and quality of leadership provided by school principals are
positively correlated with student success (Leithwood & Seashore-Louis,
2011). Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2007) conducted interviews
with preservice principals to identify their perceived needs to support
school-based inclusive leadership. Respondents saw the benefits for inclusion but indicated they required additional support to create inclusive
environments including the ability to lead teachers in best practices such
as differentiation, collaboration and behaviour supports (p. 128). They
also indicated a need for training to assist them with organization strategies that enable effective use of classroom teachers and special education
supports. Fullan (2014) suggests that a key role for principals is the ability to promote collective learning of staff and that principals need to be
actively involved themselves as learners with their staff in the process.
Waldron, McLeskey, and Redd (2011) reviewed the practices of a principal of a school that was both highly effective and inclusive. They found
that the principal had unrelenting focus on success for all students and
was resilient, positive, and optimistic. She made important staffing decisions to build capacity, worked to improve working conditions for staff,
celebrated successes, used teacher-generated data to monitor student
growth, and used a tiered model to provide effective instruction either in
the general classroom or in an alternate setting if students were not
experiencing success.
83
84
DONNA BARRETT
REPURPOSING RESOURCES
If people resources are the key to the realizing an inclusive education system, the roles of special education specialists and teachers, teacher assistants, and students themselves will need to be examined to determine how
each can contribute. All will need to understand the goals of an inclusive
education system. They will need to work collaboratively with teachers,
principals, and others to clarify their roles so that everyone is practicing in
a manner that contributes to the realization of the common goal.
Specialists have knowledge that can be of value to classroom teachers in
helping them to meet the needs of all students. They will need to be able to
provide this support in a timely way. They will need to develop a deep
understanding of the classroom context in order to work with teachers to
support workable classroom and instructional improvements. They will
have to assess their own expertise and recommendations in light of the
demands of the inclusive classroom. In complex situations, specialists need
to coordinate with each other and classroom teachers.
The role of paraprofessionals also needs to be examined within the framework of inclusive classrooms. Teachers are ultimately responsible for the
learning growth of the students in their classes. This is not a job that can
be delegated to a teacher assistant. Takala (2007) suggested that teachers
do often not receive training in how to work with another adult in the
classroom. She suggests that teacher assistants need to work collaboratively
with teachers in the planning and delivery process otherwise they often
spend their time waiting for the lesson to unfold before they know how to
assist students.
ACCOUNTABILITY IN AN INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
It should be clear at this point that every aspect of classroom, school, and
system operation may need to be reexamined in terms of its ability to
85
deliver on the promise of meeting the learning needs of all students. The
key players in this self-examination and process for accountability are the
students, parents, school and system staff, and elected officials. Classroom
and school developed assessments can measure growth. They provide
important information to teachers and parents. An analysis of teachergenerated data can also provide information back to teachers to inform
future practice. While the most powerful forms of accountability come
from internal commitment and the increased motivation that comes from
being successful, external accountability measures that provide assurance
of quality is a reality that must be addressed, particularly in the North
American context. Groen (2012) suggests that the evolution of educational
accountability in the United States has created a threat to the very notion
of an inclusive public education system. On a more positive note, Simon
and Black (2011) describe an accountability process that focused on a
review of school improvement plans to determine the extent to which they
identified and provided professional development in practices to support
learning for a range of students in an inclusive context. It is important that
schools, school systems, and governments develop and utilize accountability processes that promote the goals they seek to attain as these processes
can be powerful drivers that influence the allocation of time, energy and fiscal, and professional resources.
CONCLUSION
The development of an inclusive education system is at its heart a valuebased process that will be influenced by the beliefs and desires of the society
that the education community serves. Creating inclusive learning environments is already happening for many students, in many classrooms,
schools, and educational systems. Bringing this process to scale in every
classroom for every student is the challenge. Increasing clarity on what
strong practice looks like is an important first step. Moving forward it will
be important to provide resources in a manner that enables everyone who
is part of the system to build and expand on what we already know about
quality teaching and learning and to monitor progress in a way that provides information about who is benefitting and who continues to experience
barriers to success.
Ultimately, students and parents should expect that the school system
will welcome each child. It will be physically, emotionally, educationally
86
DONNA BARRETT
accessible providing learning opportunities that will encourage and motivate each child to achieve learning outcomes to the best of his or her capability. They should expect that educational equity will extend beyond the
classroom to full participation in the life of the school including extracurricular activities, opportunities to develop friendships, and make plans
for future learning and career opportunities.
Everyone in the education system is accountable to use the resources at
their disposal to achieve these results. This chapter was intended to provide
guidance for system and school leaders in how to direct finite dollars and
resources to build capacity at the classroom, school, and school division
level. In closing it is important to remember that the most powerful
resources are the children and adults who are part of the system. In supporting the shift towards inclusion, Pijl and Frissen (2009) suggest the
only feasible and desirable option is to train, motivate and influence teachers in schools. They note that schools and teachers have to develop
inclusive schools themselves. Schools must be supported to develop responsive practices to societys needs. This can only be done by policy makers
willing to grant professional autonomy to schools and decision making and
purchasing power to parents. This calls for contextual steering that avoids
intense and detailed regulations (p. 374). Booth and Ainscow (2002) note
that if an inclusive education system is our goal, our processes to getting
there must be inclusive as well.
CASE STUDY
Inclusive Education in Alberta
The framing of an inclusive education system recently occurred in the
Alberta context. In 2007, the government of Alberta undertook a severe
disabilities funding profile review. The review was launched to respond to
concerns with regard to the funding of students with severe disabilities. It
served as a way of monitoring how school divisions were using the funds
allocated to meet the needs identified students. The review identified inconsistencies in identification, assessment, coding, and programming practices
in schools and jurisdictions serving students with severe special needs. The
review resulted in a government position described in a publication called
Setting the Direction (Alberta Education, 2009) that envisioned One
inclusive education system where each child is successful (p. 5). The report
87
88
DONNA BARRETT
89
and dropout rates. It also includes information gathered from student, parent, and staff surveys that reflect levels of satisfaction with regard to educational quality, safe and caring environment, preparation for work, school
improvement, and access to a range of programs. School systems and
schools are required to share this information with their publics and to
develop improvement plans related to these measures. These plans identify
how systems set priorities and allocate resources as part of a process of
continuous improvement.
REFERENCES
Alberta Education. (2009). Setting the direction framework 2009. Alberta, Canada: Alberta
Education.
Alberta Education. (2010). Inspiring education: A dialogue with Albertans, April 2010.
Alberta, Canada: Alberta Education.
Alberta Education. (2012). Strategic financial services sector. School finance branch. In
Funding manual for school authorities 2012/2013 school year. Alberta, Canada: Alberta
Education.
90
DONNA BARRETT
91
Skria, L., Scheurich, J. J., Garica, J., & Nolly, G. (2004). Equity audits: A practical leadership
tool for developing equitable and excellent schools. Education Administration Quarterly,
4(1), 133 161.
Takala, M. (2007). The work of classroom assistants in special and mainstream education in
Finland. British Journal of Special Education, 34(1), 50 57.
Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Redd, L. (2011). Setting the direction: The role of the school
principal in an effective inclusive school. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(2),
51 60.
MEASURING EFFECTIVE
TEACHER PREPARATION
FOR INCLUSION
Sarah Copfer and Jacqueline Specht
ABSTRACT
This chapter will provide an overview of the types of concerns that are
evident in the research literature regarding how well teachers are
prepared to teach in inclusive classrooms citing both preservice education
and in-service professional development/learning. It will present an
overview of the measurements that have been used to measure teachers
perceptions of preparedness for inclusive environments and the use of
surveys to assess attitudes, beliefs, and values. The chapter will conclude
with a discussion regarding measuring teachers perceptions to inform/
improve teacher preparation efforts/policies/practices and what needs to
be done to improve teacher preparation for inclusive education.
Keywords: Teacher preparation; inclusive education; professional
development; preservice teachers; measurement
93
94
INTRODUCTION
Although there continue to remain controversies and diversified approaches,
inclusive schooling is now a predominant approach to teaching and learning
around the globe (Florian & Becirevic, 2011; Forlin, 2010a; Vaillant, 2011).
With this approach comes the need to provide professional learning
opportunities for our teachers in their initial training and throughout their
careers. Despite differences in the definition of inclusion, the education
required to become a teacher, and many other contextual factors, there
is consensus that the perception of teachers is that they are not adequately
prepared to teach in the inclusive classroom (Gokdere, 2012).
In a review of the research literature, Loreman (2010) indicates that
there are seven key areas that are critical for the success of beginning
teachers in the inclusive classroom: an understanding of inclusion and
respect for diversity; collaboration with stakeholders; fostering a positive
social climate; instructing in ways conducive to inclusion; engaging in
inclusive instructional planning; engaging in meaningful assessment; and
engaging in lifelong learning. Based on our reading of the research literature, we believe it is fair to say that these are key areas for all teachers to
be successful in the inclusive classroom. Forlin (2010b) advocates that teachers need to gain theoretical and practical knowledge, but also possess the
belief that they are responsible for the education of all of their students
regardless of their diversity. It is no small task, but one that is essential if
our next generations are to be healthy and valued members of society. The
question remains how. How do we structure our initial teacher education
programs to graduate teachers who are prepared to teach in inclusive
classrooms and how do we help them to continue their professional
development as they gain the experience of teaching? There are arguments
over whose job it is to develop inclusive teachers. Pijl (2010) claims that
reforming initial teacher education is not the sole answer. We could not
agree more. We need to reform teacher education from the beginning to
the end of their careers.
Across the globe, research efforts have focused on two broad areas
affecting the implementation of inclusive practice in general education settings: the attitudes, beliefs, and values of practicing teachers, and their
pedagogical knowledge, skills, and perceived efficacy around the implementation of inclusive teaching strategies. Considerable research in the realm
of inclusive education therefore focuses in on the connections between effective inclusion at the classroom level, practicing teachers attitudes and
beliefs toward inclusive education as a pedagogical approach, and teachers
95
96
IN-SERVICE TEACHERS
Attitudes
Overall, research across the world on teacher attitudes toward inclusion
suggests that while teachers are generally supportive of inclusive philosophies and practices, many question the practicality of implementation
(Farrell, Dyson, Polat, Hutcheson, & Gallannaugh, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c;
MacBeath, Galton, Steward, MacBeath, & Page, 2006).
Teachers attitudes and beliefs about inclusion have been linked directly
to the implementation of inclusive practice in the classroom (Avramidis &
Norwich, 2002). It has been suggested that the ambivalent attitudes of educational stakeholders regarding inclusion and the philosophical debates
that come from these have impeded the transition toward more inclusive
approaches in schools (Ross-Hill, 2009). Identifying these attitudes and
beliefs, understanding their cause, and addressing the concerns that stem
from them is therefore a critical aspect in understanding how to develop
more inclusive approaches. A number of different measures have been used
in the literature to assess the attitudes of teachers for inclusive education.
Forlin (2001) developed and used the Teacher Stress and Coping
Questionnaire (TSC) to identify potential stressors associated with inclusive education and a range of coping strategies in-service teachers
employed in inclusive settings in primary (elementary) school classrooms
in Queensland that included students with moderate to severe intellectual
disabilities. An adaptation of this survey was used again by Forlin, Keen,
and Barrett (2008) in Western Australia to understand primary and
secondary school in-service teachers concerns of inclusive education and
coping strategies used in inclusive settings that included an identified
student with an intellectual disability. In a similar research effort, Subban
and Sharma (2006) used the Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education Scale
(ATIES; Wilczenski, 1992, 1995) and the Concerns about Inclusive
Education Scale (CIES; Sharma & Desai, 2002) to determine the attitudes
and concerns around inclusion of primary school teachers across 50
schools in Victoria. The ATIES measures attitudes toward inclusion in
terms of who belongs in the classroom. It asks about four broad classifications of student exceptionality (social, physical, academic, and behavioral).
The CIES assesses the views of the teachers on the practicalities of implementing inclusion. The goal of these research efforts was to identify
in-service teachers concerns and teaching strategies used in order to
improve on inclusive-based efforts.
97
98
Supporting Effective Teaching (SET) project (Jordan, Glenn, & McGhieRichmond, 2010; McGhie-Richmond, Underwood, & Jordan, 2007). Beliefs
about disabilities and teacher responsibility were measured in this project
using the Pathognomonic-Interventionist (P-I) Interview, a narrative interview between the teacher and researchers to measure teacher beliefs through
teacher recollection of working with students with disabilities and the
Beliefs about Learning and Teaching Questionnaire (BLTQ; Glenn, 2007;
Glenn, Schwartz, & Jordan, 2007), which categorized teachers epistemological beliefs about ability into either entity (ability as a fixed trait) or
incremental (ability as malleable) beliefs. Effective inclusionary practice
and instructional behaviors have been measured using the Classroom
Observation Scale (COS) (Stanovich & Jordan, 1998). The COS includes a
total of 27 items that have been common indicators of teaching effectiveness
are rated in terms of three categories: classroom management, time management, and lesson presentation. The COS also measures interactions of the
teacher with the class as a whole, students with disabilities, and students at
risk for academic failure using three scales (Predominant Teaching Style;
Teacher Interaction with students with disabilities; Teacher Interaction with
at-risk students). These items are rated on a 3-point scale (consistent
scored as 2, inconsistent scored as 1, or not in evidence scored as 0) by
a trained observer in the classroom.
Findings from this series of studies have confirmed the relationship
between teacher beliefs and attitudes of inclusion and effective inclusionary
practice, suggesting that teachers beliefs about the nature of disability and
ability impact on their perceptions of their roles and responsibilities to
these students, and also on the way they shape their practice. Inclusionary
practices demonstrated by teachers who adhered to inclusive philosophies
and epistemologies were also found to be effective to all students in the
classroom (Jordan et al., 2010; McGhie-Richmond et al., 2007).
Similar research on teacher practices in the United Kingdom (BlackHawkins, Florian, & Rouse, 2007; Farrell et al., 2007a, 2007b, 2007c;
Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011) has demonstrated that teachers who have
adopted inclusive approaches are able to be highly inclusive and improve
academic standards over time. Inclusive philosophies of learning and
positive attitudes toward inclusion, therefore, have been linked to the development of effective inclusive pedagogies.
Roy, Guay, and Valois (2013) have recently developed and used the
Differentiated Instruction Scale to assess the use of differentiation strategies intended to benefit inclusive classroom environments in their Canadian
study. Measurement areas included differentiated instructional (DI)
99
Professional Development
Studies have examined the impact of specialized training on in-service
practice. Measurement has been used to determine if professional development provided for teachers results in increased knowledge and skills. For
example, teachers in the United States felt confident in their ability to teach
students with disabilities because of adequate in-service training (1 year or
more) provided to them by the school district (Ross-Hill, 2009). In Malta,
teachers also felt they benefitted from ongoing professional development
and support to gain new understandings of teaching and learning
(Borg, 2009). Professional development opportunities from the school level
helped to shape more inclusive philosophies and pedagogical approaches to
learning in this context. In Australia, Hsien, Brown, and Bortoli (2009)
focused their research efforts on investigating the effects of postgraduate
special education training on attitudes toward inclusion and effective
inclusionary practice. The survey measurement used for this study was
researcher-developed and included statements about inclusion and openended questions focusing on teacher attitudes and beliefs, efficacy,
confidence, knowledge, experience, and practice.
From these studies, it is clear that additional teacher training impacts on
in-service teacher attitudes and practices. Teachers need ongoing learning
opportunities to improve their practice in inclusive classrooms, but we
must ensure that we are using tools to confirm that the learning is useful
for them as professionals.
100
Collaboration
Considerable research examining teachers knowledge and skill levels for
effective inclusion has focused in on collaboration. Collaboration can be
examined at the school level and in the broader community. Collaboration
with colleagues is often seen as a critical aspect of successful inclusion in
terms of teacher practice (Boyle, Jindal-Snape, Topping, & Norwich, 2012).
Collaboration has been found to be a key coping strategy for teachers
for many concerns around inclusion (Forlin et al., 2008). Barriers to collaboration include issues around implementation, lack of training in effective
collaboration, communication and problem solving, lack of time, and lack
of willingness of educators to collaborate with outside resources and
programming. Lack of collaboration between teachers (especially between
general and special education teachers) was perceived as being a barrier to
inclusion (Montgomery & Mirenda, 2014).
MacBeath et al. (2006) employed a qualitative method using classroom
observations and interviews in the United Kingdom to investigate collaboration between parents and teachers working in inclusive environments.
While collaboration with parents, overall, was described as being a key
ingredient to effective inclusion, consultation with parents (in different
forms) was often seen as a source of additional stress in terms of time
management and the administrative work that was involved around this
collaboration.
In Canada, Lupart, Whitley, Odishaw, and McDonald (2006) have used
the Diversity, Individual Development, and Differentiation survey
(DIDDs) to assess perceptions of inclusion in terms of school functioning
and inclusive practices in a school district-wide project. Themes of the
DIDDs included school culture, safety and security, school development,
stakeholder attitudes, school and teacher practices, resource availability,
communication efforts, and professional development and were implemented across five surveys to assess school functioning through different
perspectives of stakeholders (students, parents, education assistants, teachers, and administrators). Similarly, McGhie-Richmond, Irvine, Loreman,
Cizman, and Lupart (2013) used a revision of the DIDDs to form the
Teacher Perceptions of Inclusion in Rural Canada Scale in order to assess
inclusive policies, attitudes, and practices of another school district in rural
Western Canada. Components measured included teacher attitudes, essence
of supportive communication and collaboration, developing a supportive
classroom community, and support and training. The researchers added
a qualitative case-study component to deepen their understanding of
101
PRESERVICE TEACHERS
Given the importance of attitudes, knowledge, skills, and practice for the
implementation of inclusive education by practicing teachers, it is important to understand if preservice programs are successful in graduating
teachers who are ready to practice in inclusive classrooms. Within this
body of research, people have investigated the attitudes, skills, and knowledge of preservice teachers as well as the programs in which these students
have been taught. In all of the studies, measurement has been key in assessing the outcomes of interest.
Attitudes
Research in Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America seems to indicate
that we are graduating teachers who feel confident. A number of measures
have been used in these studies. These measures have also been used in
research with practicing teachers and were presented in previous sections.
For the benefit of the reader, a brief explanation of what the questionnaire
measures is given in the Appendix.
The first set of studies has investigated existing programs and the effect
on the preservice teachers. Sharma, Forlin, and Loreman (2008) investigated newly graduated teachers from Canada, Australia, Singapore, and
Hong Kong. They employed the ATIES (Wilczenski, 1992, 1995), the
Interaction with Persons with a Disability Scale (IPD; Gething, 1994), and
the CIES (Sharma & Desai, 2002) to determine the outcomes of being
enrolled in the preservice teacher education program. Forlin, Garc a
102
103
104
majors. What they found lacking across the United States was a course in
collaboration for students not in the special education stream. Historically,
teacher education in the United States has been divided into general
education and special education. Therefore, this result implies that teachers
in the general education classrooms are not equipped to collaborate
with parents or other professionals in the field. Given Loremans (2010)
finding that collaboration with stakeholders is key for success, it is clear
that more should be done to provide this type of knowledge in their
programs.
In England, Nash and Norwich (2010) were interested in the Post
Graduate Certificate in Education. This is a one-year program after a
university degree to qualify to become a teacher. The program has three
components: subject teaching, professional study, and school placement. A
major finding was that their Primary (elementary) programs offered more
coverage of special education topics than secondary. As we know that secondary is a more complicated place for inclusion (McGhie-Richmond,
Irvine, et al., 2013), there should be at least the same amount of coverage,
if not more, for the higher levels of education.
While it is a huge undertaking, these types of studies are necessary to
ensure that the components necessary for success in inclusive classrooms
are being offered at our initial teacher education programs. Such measures
can reform entire systems to ensure better outcomes. At the very least, we
can use these types of gap analysis measures in our own institutions to
determine what we need to do to improve our programs.
Preservice Instructors
Initial teacher education programs have a set course work and we must
ensure that it is conveyed. Measures employed to help instructors reflect on
how they are delivering the curriculum can assist in achieving this goal.
Florian, Young, and Rouse (2010) taped lectures to ensure that courses
were following the Inclusive Practice Project (IPP). The IPP is funded by
Scottish Government to ensure that new teachers have a greater awareness
and understanding of the educational and social problems or issues that
can affect childrens learning and have developed strategies that they can
use to deal with students with difficulties (Florian & Linklater, 2010,
p. 370). They determined that 48% of lecture time was spent attempting to
connect theory to practice and another 30% discussed strategies for working with students, colleagues, and other adults in the school.
105
Kroeger et al. (2012) used photovoice to change how they were working
in the preservice program. Kroeger et al. indicated that in the school of
Education in Cincinnati, Ohio, they were still teaching at the preservice
level as if students were separated into general and special education in
classrooms and needed to change. Faculty from educational leadership, literacy and second language learning, secondary school, middle school, and
special education as well as student teachers and field supervisors came
together to discuss the change. They used photovoice as a way of discussing
the collaboration of the faculty. In photovoice, participants take pictures of
multiple images that reflect the theme of interest. In this study, it was of
objects and people that represented the values of collaboration. Through
many discussions, the group was able to identify that separation perpetuated the deficit model of disability. Additionally they noted that it is a lot
of work to bring all stakeholders together, but believed that it is that work
that will create true change.
Such analyses are a good way to examine our own practices as teacher
educators as well as see the program as a whole in terms of what is being
presented and how it is being delivered.
106
107
REFERENCES
Agbenyega, J. S., & Sharma, U. (2014). Leading inclusive education: Measuring effective
leadership for inclusive education through a Bourdieuian lens. In C. Forlin &
T. Loreman (Eds.), Measuring inclusive education (Vol. 3). International Perspectives on
Inclusive Education. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers attitudes towards integration/inclusion:
A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129 147.
doi:10.1080/08856250210129056
Black-Hawkins, K., Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2007). Achievement and inclusion in schools.
London: Routledge.
Booth, T. (2011). The name of the rose: Inclusive values into action in teacher education.
Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 41, 303 318. doi:10.1007/
s11125-011-9200-z
Borg, F. M. (2009). Schools as contexts for the development of social and emotional learning.
The International Journal of Emotional Education, 1, 55 70.
Boyle, C., Jindal-Snape, D., Topping, K., & Norwich, B. (2012). The importance of peersupport for teaching staff when including children with special educational needs.
School Psychology International, 33, 167 184. doi:10.1177/0143034311415783
108
Boyle, C., Topping, K., & Jindal-Snape, D. (2013). Teachers attitudes towards inclusion in
high schools. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19, 527 542. doi:10.1080/
13540602.2013.827361
Carroll, A., Forlin, C., & Jobling, A. (2003). The impact of teacher training in special education on the attitudes of Australian pre-service general educators towards people with
disabilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30, 65 79.
Ching, C. S., Forlin, C., & Lan, A. M. (2007). The influence of an inclusive education course
on attitude change or pre-service secondary teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher-Education, 35, 161 179.
Cochran, H. (1997). The development and psychometric analysis of the scale of Teachers
Attitudes toward Inclusion (STATIC). Doctoral dissertation, The University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
DeSimone, J. R., & Parmar, R. S. (2006). Middle school mathematics teachers beliefs about
inclusion of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 21, 98 110. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00210.x
Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallannaugh, F. (2007a). Inclusion and
achievement in mainstream schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22,
131 145. doi:10.1080/08856250701267808
Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallannaugh, F. (2007b). SEN inclusion
and pupil achievement in English schools. Journal of Research in Special Educational
Needs, 7, 172 178. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2007.00094.x
Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallannaugh, F. (2007c). The relationship
between inclusion and academic achievement in English mainstream schools. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18, 335 352. doi:10.1080/09243450701442746
Florian, L., & Becirevic, M. (2011). Challenges for teachers professional learning for inclusive
education in central and Eastern Europe and the commonwealth of independent states.
Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 41, 371 384. doi:10.1007/
s11125-011-9208-4
Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational
Research Journal, 37, 813 828.
Florian, L., & Linklater, H. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Using inclusive
pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40,
369 386. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2010.526588
Florian, L., Young, K., & Rouse, M. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive and diverse educational environments: Studying curricular reform in an initial teacher education
course. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 709 722.
Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers.
Educational Research, 43(3), 235 245.
Forlin, C. (2010a). Developing and implementing quality inclusive education in Hong Kong:
Implications for teacher education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,
10, 177 184. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01162.x
Forlin, C. (2010b). Editorial. Teacher education reform for enhancing teachers preparedness
for inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 649 653. doi:10.1080/
13603111003778353
Forlin, C., Garc a Cedillo, I., Romero-Contreras, S., Fletcher, T., & Rodr guez Hernandez, H. J.
(2010). Inclusion in Mexico: Ensuring supportive attitudes by newly graduated
teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 723 739. doi:10.1080/
13603111003778569
109
Forlin, C., Keen, M., & Barrett, E. (2008). The concerns of mainstream teachers: Coping with
inclusivity in an Australian context. International Journal of Disability, Development
and Education, 55, 251 264. doi:10.1080/10349120802268396
Gething, L. (1994). The interactions with disabled persons scale. Journal of Social Behaviour
and Personality, 9, 23 42.
Glenn, C. (2007). The impact of teachers epistemological beliefs and their beliefs about disability
on their teaching practices in inclusive classrooms. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Toronto.
Glenn, C., Schwartz, E., & Jordan, A. (2007, July). Teacher beliefs and inclusive teaching
practices: Who is affected? Paper presented at the meeting of the International Study
Association of Teachers and Teaching, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada.
Gokdere, M. (2012). A comparative study of the attitude, concern, and interaction levels of
elementary school teachers and teacher candidates towards inclusive education.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12, 2800 2807.
Harvey, M. W., Yssel, N., Bauserman, A. D., & Merbler, J. B. (2010). Preservice teacher preparation for inclusion: An exploration of higher education teacher-training institutions.
Remedial and Special Education, 31, 24 33. doi:10.1177/0741932508324397
Hickson, F. (1995). Attitude formation and change towards people with disabilities. Unpublished
doctoral thesis. University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Hsien, M., Brown, P. M., & Bortoli, A. (2009). Teacher qualifications and attitudes toward
inclusion. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 33, 26 41. doi:10.1375/ajse.33.1.26
Jordan, A., Glenn, C., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). The Supporting Effective Teaching
(SET) project: The relationship of inclusive teaching practices to teachers beliefs about
disability and ability, and about their roles as teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26, 259 266. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.005
Kozleski, E. B., Gonzalez, T., Atkinson, L., Mruczek, C., & Lacy, L. (2013). Teacher education in practice: Reconciling practices and theories in the United States context.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28, 156 172. doi:10.1080/08856257.
2013.778114
Kroeger, S., Embury, D., Cooper, A., Brydon-Miller, M., Laine, C., & Johnson, H. (2012).
Stone soup: Using co-teaching and photovoice to support inclusive education.
Educational Action Research, 20, 183 200. doi:10.1080/09650792.2012.676285
Lancaster, J., & Bain, A. (2010). The design of pre-service inclusive education courses and
their effects on self-efficacy: A comparative study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 38, 117 128.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research
1996 2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 177 199.
Loreman, T. (2010). Essential inclusive education-related outcomes for Alberta pre-service
teachers. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56, 124 142.
Loreman, T., Earle, C., Sharma, U., & Forlin, C. (2007). The development of an instrument
for measuring pre-service teachers sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive
education. International Journal of Special Education, 22, 1 16. Retrieved from http://
www.internationaljournalofspecialeducation.com/
Lupart, J., Whitley, J., Odishaw, J., & McDonald, L. (2006). Whole school evaluation and
inclusion: How elementary school participants perceive their learning community.
International Journal of Whole Schooling, 4, 40 65.
MacBeath, J., Galton, M., Steward, S., MacBeath, A., & Page, C. (2006). The costs of
inclusion. Cambridge, UK: Victoria Press.
110
McGhie-Richmond, D., Irvine, A., Loreman, T., Cizman, J. L., & Lupart, J. (2013). Teacher
perspectives on inclusive education in rural Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of
Education, 36(1), 195 239.
McGhie-Richmond, D., Specht, J., Loreman, T., Aylward, L., Bennett, S., Gallagher, T., et al.
(2013, June). New teachers self-efficacy for teaching in diverse and inclusive classrooms: A Canadian snapshot. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian
Society for the Study of Education, Victoria, Canada.
McGhie-Richmond, D., Underwood, K., & Jordan, A. (2007). Developing effective instructional strategies for teaching in inclusive classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada,
17(1), 27 52.
Montgomery, A., & Mirenda, P. (2014). Teachers self-efficacy, sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about the inclusion of students with developmental disabilities. Exceptionality
Education International, 24, 18 32.
Nash, T., & Norwich, B. (2010). The initial training of teachers to teach children with special
education needs: A national survey of English Post Graduate Certificate of Education
programmes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1471 1480. doi:10.1016/j.tate.
2010.06.005
Pijl, S. J. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Some reflections from the
Netherlands. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10, 197 201.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01165.x
Richards, G. (2010). I was confident about teaching but SEN scared me: Preparing new
teachers for including pupils with special educational needs. Support for Learning, 25,
108 115.
Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs
students. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9, 188 198. doi:10.1111/
j.1471-3802.2009.01135.x
Roy, A., Guay, F., & Valois, P. (2013). Teaching to address diverse learning needs:
Development and validation of a Differentiated Instruction Scale. International Journal
of Inclusive Education, 17, 1186 1204. doi:10.1080/13603116.2012.743604
Sharma, U. (2012). Changing pre-service teachers beliefs to teach in inclusive classrooms in
Victoria, Australia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 53 66.
Sharma, U., & Desai, I. (2002). Measuring concerns about integrated education in India. Asia
and Pacific Journal on Disability, 5, 2 14.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers
attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with
disabilities. Disability & Society, 23, 773 785. doi:10.1080/09687590802469271
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2011). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement
inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12, 12 21.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x
Stanovich, P. J., & Jordan, A. (1998). Canadian teachers and principals beliefs about inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms.
Elementary School Journal, 98, 221 238.
Subban, P., & Sharma, U. (2006). Primary school teachers perceptions of inclusive education
in Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Special Education, 21, 42 52.
Su, Y.-L., & Reeve, J. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs
designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 159 188.
111
Theoharis, G., & Causton-Theoharis, J. (2011). Preparing pre-service teachers for inclusive
classrooms: Revising lesson-planning expectations. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 15, 743 761. doi:10.1080/13603110903350321
Vaillant, D. (2011). Preparing teachers for inclusive education in Latin America. Prospects:
Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 41, 385 398. doi:10.1007/s11125-011-9196-4
Wilczenski, F. L. (1992). Measuring attitudes toward inclusive education. Psychology in the
Schools, 29, 306 312.
Wilczenski, F. L. (1995). Development of a scale to measure attitudes toward inclusive education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 291 299.
112
Authors
Forlin (2001),
Forlin et al.
(2008)
Wilczenski
(1992, 1995),
Subban and
Sharma (2006)
Concerns about Inclusive Sharma and
Education Scale (CIES) Desai (2002)
Attitudes Toward
Inclusive Education
Scale (ATIES)
Purpose
Preservice In-service
Scale of Teachers
Attitudes Toward
Inclusive Classrooms
(STATIC)
Diversity, Individual
Development, and
Differentiation survey
(DIDDs)
Lupart et al.
(2006)
Perceptions of inclusion
for instructional strategy
improvement
Teacher Perceptions of
Inclusion in Rural
Canada Scale
McGhieRichmond,
Irvine, et al.
(2013)
Stanovich and
Jordan (1998)
Perceptions of inclusion
for improvement of
policies, attitudes,
practices
Beliefs about disability
and teaching responsibility
Glenn (2007),
Glenn et al.
(2007)
Epistemological beliefs
about ability and disability
Indicators of teaching
effectiveness in terms of
classroom management,
teaching practices,
teaching style, teacher
interaction with students
PathognomonicInterventionist (P-I)
Interview
Beliefs about Learning
and Teaching
Questionnaire (BLTQ)
Stanovich and
The Classroom
Observation Scale (COS) Jordan (1998)
113
Appendix.
Name
Authors
(Continued )
Purpose
Preservice In-service
Researcher-developed
survey
Hsien et al.
(2009)
Differentiated
Instruction Scale (DIS)
Roy et al.
(2013)
Sentiments, Attitudes,
Loreman et al.
Concerns about Inclusive (2007)
Education Scale
(SACIE-R)
Levels of comfort
interacting with students
with disabilities
Harvey, Yssel,
Preservice Teacher
Preparation for Inclusion Bauserman,
and Merbler
Assessment Survey
(2010)
Assessment of preservice
teacher education program
components
Self-efficacy Toward
Future Interactions with
People with Disabilities
Scale (SEIPD)
115
116
INTRODUCTION
A key focus of the chapter is a critical discussion of the socio-critical theory
concepts (capital, habitus and field) introduced by Pierre Bourdieu, to
frame how leadership can be theorised to offer a pragmatic foundation for
developing effective leadership practices in inclusive schools. In doing so,
we introduce the concept of habitus, field and forms of capital and discuss
how these offer cognitive and practical tools for understanding and
measuring what we consider to be effective inclusive leadership. We follow
this by offering practical directions for developing effective inclusive school
leaders through a Bourdieuian analysis. We provide in our conclusion how
effective inclusive school leadership might be perceived and measured
through Bourdieuian critique.
117
118
119
120
4)
5)
6)
7)
these leaders ask right questions. They ask, how best we can use existing resources in our school and the community to support inclusion of
Tom. Rather than asking questions such as why is it difficult to include
Tom in our school.
Modifying school policies to support inclusive education: Inclusive leaders
are aware that there are some school policies that may hinder the inclusion of students with disabilities in their schools. They actively participate in the process of modifying such policies and ensure that all school
policies are in line with the schools vision of being inclusive. They also
recognise that quality education to all students cannot be provided
unless school is inclusive of all learners.
Developing a plan of professional development: To lead an inclusive
school is not easy. It requires leaders to acquire new skills on a regular
basis. Inclusive leaders are proactive in identifying suitable professional
development opportunities that will make them better inclusive leaders.
They also identify similar opportunities for their staff and encourage
them to participate in professional developmental activities that will
make their school more inclusive. One area that leaders often tend to
know little about with regard to inclusive education is legislation and
policies that support implementation of inclusive schooling practices for
children with disabilities (Pazey & Cole, 2013). Inclusive leaders make
sure that everyone in their school undertakes professional development
programs about relevant legislation and policies that relates to students
with disabilities and their education.
Monitoring the progress of inclusive education efforts: Leaders who
believe in their schools to be inclusive need to monitor the progress of
their schools on a regular basis to understand how students and
families experience inclusive education in their school. Schools can collect data from all parents about their satisfaction with the schooling of
their child. In this regard, inclusive schools carefully analyse data from
parents of students with and without a disability. Schools can also collect data from students themselves about their belongingness and their
satisfaction with their education and overall schooling experience
(Jones, 2013; Klibthong & Agbenyega, 2013).
Supporting staff in their efforts to implement inclusive education practices:
Including students with a range of learning needs poses new challenges
for schools. Inclusive leaders are aware of this. Rather than denying
challenges that teachers may face in successfully including students with
diverse learning needs, they acknowledge such challenges and ensure
that they support teachers to address the challenges. They provide
121
support to the staff in different forms. This may be in the form of providing support through additional time for planning or in-class support.
Our discussion so far demonstrates that effective inclusive leadership,
what it is and how it might be understood, is complex undertaking in inclusive educational research and practice. We argue that leadership for inclusive education poses particular difficulties in relation to how leaders fully
understand how the leaders self is constituted in inclusive leadership practices (Karol & Gale, 2004). That is, how the leaders dispositions dictate
the practices of inclusive schools. As there is currently limited evidence
of how effective inclusive school leader can be developed to be critically
attentive to personal and systemic issues associated with habitus, field and
capital, we focus the next section of this chapter on the critical social theory
of Bourdieu and introduce the concepts of habitus, field and forms of
capital to explain how these offer cognitive and practical tools for understanding and measuring what we consider as effective inclusive school leadership. We followed this with practical directions as to how to develop
and measure effective inclusive leadership through a Bourdieuian analysis.
We argue in this chapter that Bourdieuian analysis provides unique understanding of how and why some leadership practices still constitute practices
of domination and exploitation of some children and staff in inclusive
schools (Mills & Gale, 2007). In addition we noted that the application of
Bourdieus work to leadership constitutes critical mindfulness into the leaders self, reproductive tendencies , society and culture, which, by extension, reproduce essentially (Karol & Gale, 2004, p. 1) dominant practices.
Habitus
122
Capital
123
Lens 3
Field
The third lens which we applied to the understanding of inclusive leadership is field. According to Bourdieu, a field:
is a structured social space, a field of forces, a force field. It contains people who dominate and people who are dominated. Constant, permanent relationships of inequality
operate inside this space, which at the same time becomes a space in which the various
actors struggle for the transformation or preservation of the field. All the individuals in
this universe bring to the competition all the (relative) power at their disposal. It is this
power that defines their position in the field and, as a result, their strategies. (Bourdieu,
1998, pp. 40 41)
This conceptualisation of Bourdieu sees field as spatial, a network of relations among the objective positions which is different from positivists conceptions of field as social location (Bourdieu, 1998). It is argued that
conceptualising field as social milieu, context and social background one
would fail to highlight sufficiently the conflictual character of social lived
experience which is commonplace in leading inclusive schools (Mills &
Gale, 2007). The concept of field denotes a social arena in which people
interact, manoeuvre and struggle in pursuit of desirable capitals (Bourdieu,
1997). Therefore, all human actions, including inclusive leadership, take
place within social fields, which are arenas for the struggle of acquisition of
124
Habitus
Capital
Field
Inclusive leadership
Fig. 1.
125
126
education. This means inclusive leaders must think and act relationally
(Apple, 2010). In this sense inclusive school leaders recognise that those
whom they work with (students, parents, policy makers and paraprofessionals) are all part of the leadership team and situate their practices in the
unequal power relations of larger society and in the realities of dominance
and subordination and the conflicts that are generated by the relations
(Eacott, 2010). In Leonardos (2010) view,
contradictions and tensions are: not an annoyance to wish away but opportunities
that present the [leader, our own insertion] with a glimpse into the order of things. To
live without contradictions is to exist with one eye closed, missing a full view of the
panorama called education. [Inclusive, our own insertion] Education is full of contradictions, giving way to both complexity and vulnerability. That said, leaving tensions prevents movement and change. Being open to contradictions is not the same as
surrendering to them. Wading through, rather than lingering in, contradictions allows
development and the potential for growth. (p. 157)
Leonardos argument further problematises inclusive educational leadership, and how the leader must engage in the messy field of inclusive school
organisation, where all agents bring differing capitals and habitus and
acknowledging that the effectiveness of inclusive schools is by implication
how the leadership team deals with the field of dominance and subordination. In inclusive leadership both the leader and teams including students
and families occupy distinct positions within the field in which struggles or
manoeuvres take place over specific knowledge or stakes, and access to
them (Bourdieu, 1993). The intellectual distinction, class, prestige and
social class in varying degrees often define the stake of the inclusive leadership and team. Therefore, an effective contemporary inclusive leaders
main task is to minimise the struggles between his/her theoretical leadership
knowledge and the knowledge that families and students who are involved
in the leadership team bring to the leadership practice. To measure an
effective inclusive leader is to view his/her practice because the knowledge
and skills the inclusive leader possesses become visible through how he/she
practices leadership. For example, the only way to determine whether the
inclusive leader respects those that they work with and the rights of all children and families as well as takes their contribution to leadership practice
seriously is not in the ways the leader set the rules and policies on paper
but it is about how the leader consults and values the input of the leadership team.
Less effective inclusion leaders activate their habitus and perceive other
members of the leadership team as simply objects to be manipulated leading to imposing predetermined structures on them. Imposition may lead to
127
128
129
How are my assumptions, dispositions, habits and cultural capital contributing to the success or struggle of this inclusive school?
According to Bourdieu (1993), we form our dispositions, beliefs, values etc.
(habitus) from our historical, cultural and institutional socialisation overtime. As humans we structure our social worlds to produce different forms
of capital (economic, symbolic, cultural, social and knowledge) which in
turn structure us to act in particular ways. This means, effective leadership
can be learnt, transformed and improved. To become effective inclusive leaders and improve education for all, we need to turn a critical attention to
Bourdieus conceptual tools and consider this as a dialogic encounter
through which we give meaning to leadership. Leadership is complex evolving activity; therefore Bourdieu suggests eclectic approach to leadership
practice. Bourdieu argues:
All activity and knowledge is always informed by a relationship between where the
agent has been and how their history has been incorporated, on the one hand, and their
context or circumstances (both in a general sense and of the moment), on the other. In
other words, agency is always the result of a coming together of the habitus and the
specific cultural fields and contexts in which agents find themselves, in both senses of
the expression. (Schirato & Webb, 2003, p. 541)
Becoming Bourdieuian leaders in inclusive schools requires us to understand the role that a particular leadership style can play in reproducing the
theoretical and procedural status quo, limiting certain innovative leadership
practices (Bourdieu, 1998). For example, we need to be aware of how institutional and cultural regulations can render inclusive leadership difficult.
Inclusive leaders need to regularly ask questions of themselves in order to
avoid taking actions that may be domineering and meaningless, particularly to those who may not be part of the official decision-making process
(Eacott, 2010). Leading inclusive schools should not be based exclusively
on leaders protecting their institutions than the rights of students.
Therefore, to become an inclusive leader in Bourdieuian sense, the inclusive
leader must turn a critical eye on himself/herself, and the cognitive and
practical tools being deployed in the leadership practice. The focus should
be on the contribution that the leadership practice is making to the overall
development of the inclusive school community, and not only to the institutional and professional fame.
Furthermore, a Bourdieuian inclusive leader is one who applies critical
mindfulness, which is the awareness that emerges through the leader
attending to the inclusive leadership practice from a non-judgemental
perspective. It is about shifting preoccupation away from the leaders and
130
the leadership teams past and future, in order to locate oneself into the
actuality of the lived experience of the team (Bishop, Lau, Shapiro,
Carlson, & Anderson, 2004; Nagata, 2006). In the absence of critical mindfulness inclusive leadership would become depersonalising, objectifying,
compartmentalising, and treats those in the inclusive school community as
objects, thereby neglecting inclusive leadership as lived experience.
Bourdieu is critical of what he called the intellectualist bias which often
arises, for example, when an inclusive leader is inadequately critical of his/
her leadership style, the field of leadership, the habitus and the presuppositions inscribed in the act of thinking about the world (Bourdieu &
Wacquant, 1992, p. 39). The lack of critical mindfulness on the part of
inclusive leaders could result in their failure to grasp the logic of practice
which emerges from the choice and use of particular inclusive leadership
styles and approaches.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we have illustrated that there is no one particular way
to offer effective leadership in inclusive schools. Bourdieus theory is not
prescriptive but provides conceptual tools for working reflectively with
educational problems. In our view, Bourdieus contribution to effective
inclusive leadership is his attempt to help us deconstruct and reconstruct the
intellectual habitus, a system of dispositions necessary to the constitution
of the craft of the intellectualist in universality (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 271). In
view of Bourdieus argument, we propose that the inclusive leader needs to
possess the attributes of reflexivity and critical mindfulness in order to selfassess their effectiveness by bringing together all the interactive components
of leadership for a holistic understanding of inclusive education. We argue
that inclusive leadership is innovative when it does not yield to a particular
fashion but rather, it is participatory and evolving based on a system of
habitus that celebrates all agents capital (knowledge) and invites them to be
co-designers of the leadership direction and processes of a school (Swart &
Pettipher, 2005). Involving others as co-designers of leadership is building a
network of relations which Bourdieu refers to as field. It is essentially about
respecting the unique knowledge, cultural and symbolic capital, which
accentuates the rights of team members and promotes social justice. This
process is multifaceted and complex, and challenges leaders to both think
and lead inclusive schools with self-questioning (Swart & Agbenyega, 2010).
131
REFERENCES
Agbenyega, J. S. (2014). Beyond alienation: Unpacking the methodological issues in visual
research with children. In M. Fleer & A. Ridgeway (Eds.), Visual methodologies and
digital tools for researching with young children: Transforming visuality (pp. 153 168).
Switzerland: Springer.
Ainscow, M. (2001). Developing inclusive schools: Implications for leadership. Manchester, UK:
National College for School Leadership.
Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. (2011). Developing equitable education systems. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Apple, M. W. (2010). Theory, research, and the critical scholar/activist. Educational
Researcher, 39(1), 152 155.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L., & Anderson, N. D. (2004). Mindfulness: A
proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 230 241.
Blase, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership. London: Cassell.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7, 14 25.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question. London: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. (1997). The forms of capital. In A. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, & A. S. Wells
(Eds.), Education: Culture, economy and society (pp. 46 58). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.).
London: Sage.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Crossley, N. (2003). From reproduction to transformation: Social movement fields and the
radical habitus, Theory, Culture and Society, 20(6), 43 68.
Eacott, S. (2010). Studying school leadership practice: A methodological discussion. Issues in
Educational Research, 20(3), 220 233.
English, F. W. (2006). The unintended consequences of a standardised knowledge base in
advancing educational leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly,
42(3), 461 472.
Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York, NY: The Continuum International
Publishing Group.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second
international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653 696).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Harris, A. (2005). Crossing boundaries and breaking barriers: Distributing leadership in schools.
London: iNET, Specialist Schools Trust.
Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass.
Management in Education, 22(1), 31 34.
Houston, S. (2002). Reflecting on habitus, field and capital: Towards a culturally sensitive
social work. Journal of Social Work, 2(2), 149 167.
Jones, P. (Ed.). (2013). Bringing insider perspectives into inclusive teacher learning: Potentials
and challenges for educational professionals. London: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.
Karol, J., & Gale, T. (2004). Bourdieu and sustainability: Introducing environmental capital.
Paper presented at the AARE, Melbourne.
132
Klibthong, S., & Agbenyega, J. S. (2013). Thai early childhood educators perspectives:
Transforming inclusive teachers to move beyond religiosity. In P. Jones (Ed.), Bringing
insider perspectives into inclusive teacher learning: Potentials and challenges for educational professionals (pp. 121 132). London: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.
Leonardo, Z. (2010). Critical empiricism: Reading data with social theory. Educational
Researcher, 39(1), 155 160.
Lingard, B., & Christie, P. (2003). Leading theory: Bourdieu and the field of educational
leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(4), 317 333.
Mills, C., & Gale, T. (2007). Researching social inequalities in education: Towards a
Bourdieuian methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
20(4), 433 447.
Mittler, P. (2012). Overcoming exclusion: Social justice through education. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Nagata, A. L. (2006). Cultivating researcher self-reflexivity using voice and mindful inquiry in
intercultural education. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 9, 135 154.
Pazey, B. L., & Cole, H. A. (2013). The role of special education training in the development
of socially just leaders: Building an equity consciousness in educational leadership programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 243 271. [Adobe Digital Editions
version]. doi:10.1177/0013161x12463934
Ritzer, G. (1996). The McDonaldization of society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 5(1), 3 17.
Schirato, T., & Webb, J. (2003). Bourdieus concept of reflexivity as metaliteracy. Cultural
Studies, 17(3 4), 539 553.
Sharma, U., & Desai, I. (2008). The changing roles and responsibilities of school principals
relative to inclusive education. In C. Forlin & M. G. J. Lian (Eds.), Reform, inclusion, &
teacher education: Towards a new era of special education in the Asia-Pacific region (pp.
153 168). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30, 23 28.
Swart, E., & Agbenyega, J. S. (2010). Developing researcher self-reflexivity and agency: A
cross-cultural narrative of inclusive education research. Paper presented at the
Australian Association for Research in Education Conference in Melbourne Australia,
29 November 2 December 2010.
Swart, E., & Pettipher, R. (2005). A framework for understanding inclusion. In E. Landsberg,
D. Kruger, & N. Nel (Eds.), Addressing barriers to learning (pp. 3 21). Pretoria: Van
Schaik.
Tomasello, M. (2009). Culture and cognitive development. In L. S. Liben (Ed.), Current
directions in developmental psychology (pp. 207 212). Boston, MA: Pearson.
UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Paris: UNESCO.
Wacquant, L. (1998). The double-edged sword of reason: The scholars predicament and the
sociologists mission. European Journal of Social Theory, 2 3(Spring), 275 281.
Webb, J., Schirato, T., & Danaher, G. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu. London: Sage.
Wilkinson, J., Olin, A., Lund, T., Ahlberg, A., & Nyvaller, M. (2010). Leading praxis:
Exploring educational leadership through the lens of practice architectures. Pedagogy,
Culture & Society, 18(1), 67 79.
IDENTIFYING EFFECTIVE
TEACHING PRACTICES IN
INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS
Anne Jordan and Donna McGhie-Richmond
ABSTRACT
Over nearly two decades the Supporting Effective Teaching project examined the characteristics of teachers that result in successful inclusion of
students with disabilities in Canadian regular education classrooms. These
studies revealed that teachers who rate high in adapting and calibrating
instruction for students who have special needs are the most successful
overall with all their students. In this chapter, we present an adaptation of
the observation scale that we used to rate effective inclusive instructional
practices. The adapted scale can be used both as a self-rating and as a
third-party measurement scale of effective teaching practices. We link
each element of the scale to the Universal Design for Learning framework. We discuss how challenges to effective practices are affected by
teacher beliefs about ability and disability, collegial differences in beliefs
and practices, and the focus set by the leadership in the school.
Keywords: Inclusion; observation; rating; effective instructional
practices; teacher beliefs; universal design for learning
133
134
INTRODUCTION
A student was struggling in her primary class, daydreaming and failing to pay attention to
the lessons. Her mother suggested to the childs teacher that together they could set up a
school-home communication system in which the teacher would check off completed work,
and the mother would give her daughter stickers as a reward at the end of the day for
on-task behaviour. The teacher responded to this idea: I dont have time for this. I have
five others who are worse than her and they take up all my time and energy! You should be
telling her to pay more attention!
135
136
137
Table 1.
Principle
Examples
I. Multiple
Provide options for
Means of
1. perception of information,
Representation 2. symbolic representation of
information,
3. comprehension of information.
II. Multiple
Means of
Action and
Expression
III. Multiple
Means of
Engagement
138
on a flip chart that can be accessed at any time, or sending this information
to students by e-mail, not only assists those who have organizational and
memory difficulties but also those who need a timely reminder. The result
is that students are less likely to be penalized for incorrect spelling or for
not remembering assignment details, and are more likely to be graded on
whether or not their skills meet the learning objectives.
Applied in the classroom environment, the underlying principles and
guidelines of UDL provide access to and support engagement in the activities of learning for all students, acknowledging student variability both
within individual learners and across learners in an inclusive classroom. We
illustrate how the COS aligns with the framework that CAST and others
(Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000) have identified as the key elements of
Universal Design applied in a classroom. These are:
1. Multiple Means of Representation: providing options for the what of
learning where students are able to perceive and comprehend
information;
2. Multiple Means of Action and Expression: providing options for the
how of learning where students can navigate the learning materials,
act on, and express their learning; and
3. Multiple Means of Engagement: providing options for the why of
learning wherein student interest and motivation is optimized.
We emphasize that UDL does not involve simply adding media to a classroom. It is not merely requiring students to solve a problem and then color
the diagram, or to choose between writing a poem and building a diorama.
It is essentially how the teacher applies the principles and guidelines of
UDL to curricular elements (i.e., goals, methods, materials, and assessment) to optimize learning opportunities for all students, many of which
feature ongoing instructional interaction with dialogues between the student and the teacher and peers.
Within this framework, the fears of teachers about inclusion are
reduced. Inclusive practices become a style of teaching that supports all
learners, rather than a supplement to regular classroom practices.
The elements:
A. Classroom management
Objective: To create efficient routines managed by students that frees
the teacher for instruction with individuals and groups
Appendix,
Section A; UDL Principles 2 and 3 Multiple Means of Action and
Expression, and Engagement
139
These items are the familiar routines of good classroom management and are the prerequisite skills that all teachers need to acquire
during their training. Many studies have examined these mechanics
of teaching, especially during the 1970s and 1980s when so-called
process-product studies attempted to identify the correlates of the process of teaching with the outcomes in student achievement (Englert
et al., 1992). The unifying theme of these studies was that the longer
the time students spent engaged in learning, the better their learning
outcomes.
At the beginning of a semester or year, effective teachers establish
rules for routines such as starting and completing lessons, modulating classroom noise levels and student talk, and for retrieving learning materials. They establish rules for behavior and mutual respect,
and provide charts as required to remind students of the classroom
rules and their responsibilities to assist one another. As a result,
these teachers are able to sidestep being the center of control of
classroom and time management by having in place clear expectations about who is to do what, by when, and how. Thus they are
able to delegate some management to students, thus freeing themselves to concentrate on instruction. Delegating does not mean relinquishing control however. Effective teachers arrange the physical
layout of furniture and storage so that they are able to scan the
room frequently and are able to respond quickly to students in all
parts of the room. They ensure all students in the classroom understand and can access the rules. They establish consequences for noncompliance, although their goal is to foster student independence in
learning, and therefore they provide students with choices to make
good decisions in class.
In our studies, effective teachers had well-established classroom
routines for beginning and completing a lesson, handing out and collecting materials and transitions between tasks, expecting students to
help each other before asking for help from the teacher, and taking
some responsibility for managing their behavior and engagement in
learning activities. UDL Principle 3 supports student engagement
and closely connects with classroom management. Guideline 8 provides options for sustaining student effort and persistence by, for
example, expecting students to support each other. Guideline 9 also
contributes to this element, wherein teachers provide options that
encourage and support student self-regulation of behavior and learning strategies.
140
B. Time management
Objective: To establish and maintain routines for individual and group
work and student responsibilities for maintaining their learning.
Appendix, Section B; UDL Principles 1 and 3 Multiple Means of
Representation, Engagement
Having well-established routines and expectations for the class that
allow the teacher to focus on instruction, increasing instructional time
and students time on task become the teachers next priority. Engaged
instructional time has long been viewed as outcomes or products of
teaching techniques, with a direct relationship between time engaged in
learning and achievement (Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012;
Greenwood, Arreaga-Mayer, & Carta, 1994).
The time students spend in learning is in part related to how teachers
manage their instructional time allocations and there were considerable
differences among teachers in our study. Some spent more time on
managing student behaviors and routines than instructional talk, often
where the students were inattentive due to factors such as lack of clear
directions, lack of prepared routines, and inadequate lesson materials.
Others spent minimal time in directing students since they had established the routines and expectations for effective classroom management. These were previewed at the start of an activity and often
displayed on charts on the walls and in closer proximity for a number
of students who required it (e.g., at the front of the students work binder; taped to the top of their desk).
The teachers used and posted rubrics and lesson objectives and provided handouts that were accessible to the learners (e.g., varying formats
with and without pictures to support the text). Thus, teachers used varying ways of representing information that were appropriate and accessible for their students, illustrating how UDLs first principle of Multiple
Means of Representation is evident in time management. It also
supports UDL Principle 3 focused on optimizing student engagement.
Even though interruptions during instruction, such as school
announcements via the intercom and walk-in visitors, were common,
some teachers went to great lengths to minimize noninstructional time
and to maximize the time that their students engaged in learning. As
described below, in one study (Jordan, Lindsay, & Stanovich, 1997) the
most effective teachers generated and used almost twice as much instructional time as the less-effective teachers. This extra time was spent in
lesson-related dialogue with individual students, pairs and small groups,
extending their understanding of the lesson skills and concepts.
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
Teachers often comment that students with special education needs take
up too much of their instructional time, detracting from their time to
instruct students without special education needs. From this study, we concluded that this was not the case (Jordan et al., 1997; Jordan & Stanovich,
2004). It was the case, however, that in the classrooms of those teachers
rated as most effective with inclusive practices, students identified as having
special needs were receiving considerably greater amounts of teacher interaction than in the classrooms of the less-effective teachers.
The typically achieving students, however, were also receiving considerably more instructional interactions. This was simply because the effective
teachers generated more instructional time than their less-effective colleagues and they used it with all their students. Far from being pressured to
allocate their time with the students who were achieving well, these teachers
seemed to have all the time in the world to engage individuals and small
groups in questioning and explanation. We infer from this that teachers
who are effective in including students with special needs are more effective
overall with all their students, including those who are typically achieving
and achieving above the class average.
As a result, we developed a new element for the COS which we termed
the teachers Predominant Teaching Style (Jordan, Glenn, & McGhieRichmond, 2010; McGhie-Richmond et al., 2007) (Table 2). It requires the
observer to listen in on the teachers dialogue with individual pairs and
groups of students during the seatwork and the practice parts of a lesson.
Table 2.
1
3
TRANSMITS
4
ELABORATES
Teacher circulates,
Teacher asks student(s)
transmits directions,
questions about
and comments (tells
lesson material and
students what to work
concepts that require
student responses;
on, how to correct it,
teacher may then
and moves on).
elaborate further,
requiring extended
student
participation.
Note: This is the style that characterizes the majority of the teachers activity during the seatwork and group work portions of the lesson.
149
The observer can gauge the type of interaction taking place as much by
watching as listening to the teacher student turn-taking exchange.
The observers had previously received from the teacher a class list on
which the teacher has identified those students formally designated as having special needs (i.e., according to the provincial Ministry of Education
Special Education guidelines), those who, in the opinion of the teacher,
were at risk of underachieving, those who are working at an average or
typical level in the class, and those who were exceeding the class average. It
should be noted that the classrooms of the participating teachers were
highly diverse in terms of including a range of students. From this list, the
observers selected several students to monitor while the teacher circulated.
The teacher was not aware of who was being monitored. When the teacher
met one of the students, either individually or when working with a small
group, the observer rated the nature of the interaction that ensued, using
the scale above.
If a student on the observers list did not receive direct instructional
time, the observation is scored as 0. When teacher student interactions
occurred, they were scored in terms of level of cognitive extension of the
student: checking (the teacher clarified the task or content but demanded
low or no response from the student); transmission (teacher tells, gives student direction, student acknowledges), and elaboration (teacher explains
and questions student requiring complex student responses, which teacher
follows up). Elaboration is a measure of dialogical turn-taking between the
teacher and student or students in which the teacher uses student responses
to judge the mastery level of the student in order to calibrate further
instruction designed to extend the students current understanding.
Elaboration is characterized by demanding high levels of cognitive engagement from the learner.
The Predominant Teaching Style scores are intended to give the observer a student-eye view of the instruction being received that is designed
to calibrate the lesson to each students current level of understanding, and
to prompt the student to move toward higher levels of cognitive mastery.
In the adapted COS (Appendix), an observer can often gauge the type and
content of individual teacher student interactions by being close to or by
participating in the small group activities with the teacher, by listening during teacher checks of student work and by assessing the extent to which
the teacher questions and then responds to the student, observing the
length of the student teacher interactions, and number of conversational
turns taken.
150
This interaction contrasts with the following less elaborated, more transmissive dialogue:
Josh is reading an assigned novel when the teacher arrives at his desk.
Teacher: Hows it going Josh?
Josh: Good.
Teacher: Have the vampires got them yet?
Josh: I dunno. I havent got that far.
Teacher: What do you think will happen?
Josh: Theyre going to the White House to see the mayor?
Teacher: The White House?
Josh: Uhhuh. I think theyre gonna get the people.
Teacher: Okay. You continue reading. Youre making good progress.
151
152
tend to ignore these students; provide them with tasks that focus on learning facts and skills that are not connected to deeper levels of conceptual
understanding and skill development across domains and subjects. Such
teachers absolve themselves from the responsibility of monitoring and
reporting student progress.
A study examined the changes in teachers attitudes and beliefs about
their roles and responsibilities toward their students with disabilities and
learning difficulties over five years (White, 2007). The school and school
system espoused inclusion as a priority, and we expected to see changes
favoring greater inclusion as the years progressed. Yet, White showed that
the beliefs and attitudes of teachers over the intervening time period were
largely dependent on the beliefs they held at the beginning of the project.
One teacher, the mother of three children with learning disabilities, commenced the project strongly favoring inclusion, and completed the exit
interview and COS observation with considerably more confidence and a
broader repertoire of inclusive instructional skills. The same cannot be said
for three other teachers who, at the outset, expressed doubts about inclusion, were rated as holding beliefs that blamed the students with disabilities
for not working harder, or blamed their parents for not providing more
support. They assigned core learning as homework to be undertaken by
parents at home, and failed to draw upon resources that were readily available in the school to assist them to meet the requirements of the students
Individual Education Plans and their classroom needs. Five years later,
even in a school board with a strong focus on inclusive practices and after
in-service exposure to techniques for diversifying instruction, these three
teachers had barely moved in either their beliefs about inclusion or their
practices as observed on the COS.
The UDL Principles and Guidelines that we have linked to each of the
COS effective teaching elements acknowledge and account for variability in
all learners. Teachers who understand the diverse nature of their students
and the elements in the classroom that can pose barriers to student participation and learning and who incorporate these Principles and Guidelines
set a tone in the classroom that acknowledges and is accepting of student
differences; indeed these teachers expect variability in students and organize
their classrooms and plan their instruction in consideration of learner
variability using whole class instructional approaches and strategies that
are known to be effective, such as Differentiated Instruction (Ministry of
Education of Ontario, 2014; Subban, 2006), Response to Intervention
(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006), and cooperative learning groups (Salend, 2001).
153
Addressing student variability supports all students by providing multiple ways of accessing and engaging in learning. Students feel a sense of
membership and belonging in the classroom. A sense of belonging to a community of learners contributes to student engagement (Anderman, 2003;
Brock, Nishida, Chiong, Grimm, & Rimm-Kaufman, 2008; Christenson
et al., 2012; Hazel, Vazirabadi, & Gallagher, 2013).
154
Jordan et al., 2010). These students were at greatest risk of falling academically behind their peers. If inclusive practices are designed to prevent
failure, these at-risk students need to receive the inclusive instructional
benefits that students with identified disabilities are receiving, and
preferably before they qualify as having special needs.
2. There is a lack of cognitively engaging dialogical interaction between
teachers and students (Neale, 2004). In the most effective inclusive settings,
this was a hallmark of instructional excellence. In order to generate time
for such dialogues effective teachers diligently protect their instructional
time from interruptions of all kinds. This instructional time was then used
for calibrating instruction to individual learners and small groups, in order
to nudge students toward achievement. Teachers need to be encouraged
to engage in instructional dialogue with their students, a skill that few
apply, because it requires rethinking how instructional time is allocated.
3. Finally, there are barriers to effective instructional practices that lie
beyond the classroom. These include contrary attitudes of colleagues
and administrators about students with special needs, and about instructional priorities. Kieltyka-Gajewski describes elsewhere in this volume
the research with teachers who were frustrated in their efforts to include
students with learning disabilities. A main source of frustration was the
restrictive rules of professional practice that effectively prevent a teacher
from interceding when a student is being poorly served. School
administrators are pivotal in supporting inclusion (Horrocks, White, &
Roberts, 2008; Irvine, Lupart, Loreman, & McGhie-Richmond, 2010;
Loreman, 2001; McGhie-Richmond, Barber, Lupart, & Loreman, 2009;
Stanovich & Jordan, 1998, 2004). Stanovich and Jordan (1998, 2004)
showed that principals attitudes to inclusion were the single most
important factor in predicting teachers attitudes about students with
special learning needs, and how teachers instruct in their classrooms.
Principals set a tone for the school that carries over considerably to the
attitudes and beliefs of staff, which in turn impacts instructional practice
(Praisner, 2003).
Even when teachers are willing to include students with special needs they
may become overloaded with the numbers of these students in their classrooms. In some cases, teachers who are successful at inclusive instruction
find that a disproportionate number of students with special needs are
assigned to their classrooms. Coupled with sparse resources and assistance
that is temporary, these teachers are at risk being unable to sustain their
efforts and positive beliefs. The potential solutions to this situation are
155
complex, but lie in resource allocation that recognizes and rewards high
levels of instructional effectiveness with a range of students with diverse
learning needs.
CONCLUSION
The strengths of the observation scale described in this chapter lie in enhancing instructional practice so that regular education teachers are better able
to address the diverse learning needs of their students, overall. The scale can
be used both by teachers themselves to self-rate on how their inclusive instructional skills support their goals, and to identify and monitor areas in which
further support and training would be useful. It can also be used as a thirdparty rating scale to measure the inclusive practices that are effective and
supportive of learning not only for students with special education needs but
for all students. When used over time, the scale can indicate areas of growth
and development in teaching that should be recognized and celebrated.
Inclusive instructional practices are not the daunting extras and time
consuming add-ons to regular instruction that many teachers fear. Many of
the instructional elements are already familiar to teachers and educators.
Applying them does not require specialized training beyond using adaptive
technology and communication supplements. Even then, the principles of
Universal Design can be applied to ensure that providing multiple means
of representation, action and expression, and engagement benefits all students. Teachers do need to know, however, that there is a style of teaching
that reaches all students, and that requires rethinking how curriculum is
traditionally delivered. Effective teaching is consistent with inclusive practices and with designing classrooms and lessons that are universally accessible, and therefore of benefit to all learners.
REFERENCES
Anderman, L. H. (2003). Academic and social perceptions as predictors of change in middle
school students sense of school belonging. The Journal of Experimental Education,
72(1), 5 22.
Brock, L. L., Nishida, T. K., Chiong, C., Grimm, K. J., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E.
(2008). Childrens perceptions of the classroom environment and social and academic
performance: A longitudinal analysis of the contribution of the responsive classroom
approach. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 129 149.
156
157
McGhie-Richmond, D., Barber, J., Lupart, J., & Loreman, T. (2009). The development of a
Canadian instrument for measuring teacher views of their inclusive school environment
in a rural context: The Teacher Perceptions of Inclusion in Rural Canada (TPIRC)
scale. International Journal of Special Education, 24(2), 103 108.
McGhie-Richmond, D., & Howery, K. (2014). Program planning and student diversity. In
J. W. Andrews & J. Lupart (Eds.), Diversity education: Understanding and addressing
student diversity. Toronto, ON: Nelson Education Ltd.
McGhie-Richmond, D., Irvine, A., Loreman, T., Cizman, J. L., & Lupart, J. (2013). Teacher
perspectives on inclusive education in rural Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of
Education, 36(1), 195 239. P. 4.
McGhie-Richmond, D., Underwood, K., & Jordan, A. (2007). Developing effective instructional strategies for teaching in inclusive classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada,
17(1 2), 27 52.
Ministry of Education of Ontario. (2014). Professional learning guides: Differentiated instruction. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/studentsuccess/lms/differentiated
instruction.pdf. Accessed on July 10, 2014.
Neale, D. (2004). Teachers perceptions of the needs of their students and their roles in meeting
them. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Toronto.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students
with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Praisner, C. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135 145.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for
learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/. Accessed on July
10, 2014.
Salend, S. J. (2001). Differentiating large and small-group instruction for diverse learners. In
A. A. Davis & G. Marsella (Eds.), Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective
practices (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Stanovich, P., & Jordan, A. (1998). Canadian teachers and principals beliefs about inclusive
education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms. Elementary
School Journal, 98(3), 221 238.
Stanovich, P., & Jordan, A. (2004). Inclusion as professional development. Exceptionality
Education Canada, 14(2 3), 169 188.
Stanovich, P. J. (1994). Teachers sense of efficacy, beliefs about practice, and teaching behaviours as predictors of effective inclusion of exceptional and at risk pupils. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344 364.
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education
Journal, 7(7), 935 947.
White, R. (2007). Characteristics of classroom teachers which contribute to their professional
growth in implementing inclusive practices. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of
Toronto.
158
159
160
161
2
CHECKS
Teacher circulates,
checking work briefly
and moving on (brief
and cursory).
3
TRANSMITS
Teacher circulates,
transmits directions, and
comments (tells students
what to work on, how to
correct it, and moves on).
4
ELABORATES
Teacher asks student(s)
questions about lesson
material and concepts
that require student
responses; teacher may
then elaborate further,
requiring extended
student participation.
1. Using the scale above, identify the predominant teaching style between
the teacher and students overall
Notes:
2. Using the scale above, identify the predominant teaching style between
the teacher and one student who is designated as exceptional
(Exceptional student)
Notes:
3. Using the scale above, identify the predominant teaching style between
the teacher and one student who is at risk of academic failure although
not designated as exceptional (Student at-risk)
Notes:
4. Using the scale above, identify the predominant teaching style of interaction between the teacher and one student who is typically achieving in
the class (typically achieving student)
Notes:
G. Classroom Tone
Objective: Foster respect, invite learning and risking to learn, encourage
taking responsibility for learning, promoting respect, mutual support and
collaboration
1. Is the curriculum delivered to the students with disabilities the same
subject/content as to the students without disabilities?
162
SECTION II
MEASURING INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION IN PRACTICE
MEASURING INDICATORS OF
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION:
A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF
THE LITERATURE
Tim Loreman, Chris Forlin and Umesh Sharma
ABSTRACT
This chapter reviews the international literature in order to support
ongoing international development work on indicators for measuring
inclusive education. Building on previous work in this area, this chapter
outlines 13 themes in the international literature that should be
considered in the development of a set of indicators for measuring
inclusive education and has produced one extra thematic area for
consideration.
Keywords: Inclusive education; indicators; measurement; assessment;
evaluation; testing
165
166
INTRODUCTION
This review of the literature regarding existing indicators of inclusive education was undertaken in order to inform a broader project on developing
and testing indicators designed specifically for measuring inclusive education in the Pacific region. It addresses the international academic and
public sector literature regarding indicators for inclusive education. The
question guiding this review is: What themes are apparent in the international literature for developing indicators of inclusive education? This
review serves as a foundation from which informed discussions can take
place in order to devise the most contextually appropriate set of indicators
for use in other parts of the world.
A number of international documents provide indicators for the presence of inclusive education and some of these (e.g. Booth & Ainscows,
2002, Index for Inclusion) have been used extensively throughout the world.
The Index for Inclusion has been translated into at least 22 different languages and modified according to various international contexts (EENET,
n.d.). There is, therefore, a clearly demonstrated need internationally to
develop mechanisms in the form of indicators to assist those concerned
with education to better understand the inclusivity of their education
systems and to be able to map progress. Of fundamental importance to this
review is a clear understanding of how inclusive education is defined. As
discussed in the first chapter of this volume, a defensible definition of
inclusive education comes from UNESCO. Accordingly,
Education is not simply about making schools available for those who are already able
to access them. It is about being proactive in identifying the barriers and obstacles learners encounter in attempting to access opportunities for quality education, as well as in
removing those barriers and obstacles that lead to exclusion. (UNESCO, 2012, para. 1)
167
168
Themes were presented as part of the Loreman (2014) review and these
were used as an initial loose organizing structure for this study. Additional
articles found for the current review were examined in terms of their
fit with those themes, or to see if the development of new themes were
required. The analysis was conducted in an ongoing manner consistent
with the recommendations of Miles and Huberman (1994) and a theme was
only retained if a number of articles cross-validated one another within
that theme using the constant-comparative method (Glaser & Strauss,
1967). Using this process it was noted that the pre-existing themes were
either further supported or not negated by the additional literature. One
additional theme was identified and labelled as role of special schools.
The number of articles used in this study, therefore, included 51 from
Loreman (2014) as well as an additional 28 from this review, providing a
total of 79 documents. In order to ensure a concise results section, only the
most salient examples relating to each theme are discussed in detail.
Articles retained for the review but not specifically mentioned under each
theme are consistent with the information presented.
169
Everything provided to
the system to achieve
inclusive education
including financial
resources, policy,
staffing, staff training,
curriculum,
infrastructure, support
from other disciplines,
resource centres,
consultants, etc.
Practices in school
jurisdictions, schools,
and classrooms that
transform the inputs
into ways of working
with students that
produce outcomes. This
includes instructional
practices, pragmatics at
the school level, how
funding is distributed
and used, etc.
Inputs
Fig. 1.
Processes
Outcomes
Inputs
Processes
Outcomes
Macro Policy
Staff PD & teacher
education
Resources and finances
Leadership
Climate
School practice
Collaboration and shared
responsibility
Support to individuals
Role of special schools
Participation
Student
achievement
Post-school
options
Policy
Staff PD and teacher
education
Resources and finances
Leadership
Curriculum
Climate
School practice
Classroom practice
Collaboration and shared
responsibility
Role of special schools
Participation
Student
achievement
Post-school
options
Climate
School practice
Classroom practice
Collaboration and shared
responsibility
Support to individuals
Participation
Student
achievement
Post-school
options
Meso
170
171
The literature supports the importance of policy that articulates an inclusive approach based on eliminating barriers and discrimination, and
makes all members of the educational community responsible for attaining the specified ends.
Policy should also be directed at providing appropriate resources to support inclusive education and should articulate the processes, if required,
for the identification of the special needs of children.
Theme Two: Staff Professional Development and Teacher Education
Many evaluative inclusive education tools attempt to measure the extent to
which teachers and school staff are prepared to implement inclusive practices. This governs the success of inclusion at the school and classroom
level. Cushing et al. (2009) include a written plan for staff professional
development as one of their measurement indicators. The Government of
the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh Directorate of Primary Education
(2012) measured the amount and nature of training provided to school
leaders and teachers. Much of the literature included in this review in this
area noted that many teachers did not feel that they had the necessary skills
to implement inclusive education.
With this in mind professional development and teacher education
should reflect the provision of opportunities for staff to learn effective pedagogical approaches. The EADSNE (2012a) provides not only a profile of
the traits and practices of inclusive teachers, intended for use in teacher
education, but also insights in the form of indicators. A values and competencies model was adopted, taking into account attitudes as well as skills
and knowledge.
Helpful staff development reflected in the international literature might
involve:
Deliberate and required participation in teacher education for inclusive
education at pre- and in-service levels;
The provision of training to support staff such as teacher assistants and
other professionals;
Staff development activities supporting collaboration and that have a
direct impact on practice;
The provision of professional development based on data relating to the
needs of the staff and
The impact of subsequent education being measured against this data,
and staff experiencing an improvement in self-efficacy with reference to
engaging in inclusive practices.
172
173
developed a highly effective programme, providing areas in which indicators for inclusive education might be developed. These included considerations in the following areas:
1) How the direction for the school was set (e.g. are staff involved in
setting the overall direction and focus of the school?);
2) How the organization of the school was redesigned (e.g. to what extent
were different models of education considered?);
3) How working conditions were improved;
4) How high-quality instruction could be provided in all settings (pedagogical leadership) and
5) How a data system could be developed and used to monitor the effectiveness of the programme.
Theme Five: Curriculum
Issues around curriculum design and implementation form an important
theme with respect to indicators of inclusive education on an international
level. For curriculum to be inclusive and to allow for adequately scaffolded
instruction it must be designed consistent with the principles of universal
design for learning (UDL) in that it is written to include a diverse range of
learners from the outset. This means engaging in teaching that provides
multiple forms of representation, multiple means of engagement for
students and multiple opportunities and means for expression. In some
instances there is recognition that, where UDL is not apparent, individualized programmes are necessary for some children. This is especially evident
in the more senior grades in school (Bulgren et al., 2006). Cushing et al.
(2009) therefore include the use of Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and
general instructional content in their PQMT instrument.
Notwithstanding the recognition that in some circumstances individualized programmes are necessary, the question as to whether these should be
commonplace and recommended is questionable. Winzer (2008) places
such supports in a historical context as part of the medical model, which is
largely deficit-based and has a therapy or rehabilitative tone. The nature of
indicators devised in this area can certainly influence the approach taken.
In summary, areas for consideration with respect to measuring curriculum design and implementation include:
Adoption of the principles of UDL: Multiple means of representation,
engagement and expression.
Curriculum is seen as needing to be designed to suit learners.
IEPs may still be required in some specific circumstances.
174
175
176
Expert consultants;
Therapists;
Learning coaches and
Other professionals as required.
177
Hong Kong where special schools are being asked to serve as resource hubs
for mainstream schools. They identified key issues that need to be considered in special school mainstream school partnerships in Hong Kong,
which include collaboration, resources, student support, school culture,
school ethos, the government system and human resources. These areas
need to be considered in the development of indicators for measuring inclusive education, with the caveat that transferring special school inclusive
school models of collaboration from one context to another is not always
possible or desirable.
178
179
DISCUSSION
This review provides a contextual framework from which specific indicators
for use in international contexts can be discussed and developed. It has
identified a range of outcomes, strategies, practices and recommendations
180
Inputs
Processes
Outcomes
Macro Policy
Aim is to remove barriers
and inequalities
Policy is articulated at the
highest level (govt), is
consistent with international
standards and is reflected in
subsequent policy at the
school level
Provide guidelines for
practice
Policy is directed at
providing appropriate
resources to support IE
Policy articulates the
processes, if required, for the
identification of need in
children
Staff PD and teacher education
Staff are prepared to
implement IE
Based on competencies
Mandated at all levels
Resources and finances
Adequacy
Availability and conditions
of basic needs (e.g. water,
classrooms, buildings, etc.)
Access to assistive
technologies
Leadership
Government support
Climate
Provincial, district levels
embracing IE
Attitudes towards IE
School practice
Access to quantity and
quality education
Collaboration and shared
responsibility
Coordinated approach
At all levels, district,
school, community,
peripatetic staff, families,
etc.
Shared responsibility
Support to individuals
Access to experts
Role of special schools
Special schools as
regional hubs of expertise
Participation
Include previously
marginalized and
excluded
Overcome local
issues (e.g. poverty,
gender parity)
Ratio boys to girls
Net enrolment ratio
of children with
disabilities
Student achievement
Data for monitoring
at district, region,
country
Grade progress,
passing rates
Repetition rates
Drop outs
School retention
Availability of
assistive technologies
Large-scale testing
(e.g. PISA)
Post-school options
School completion
rates
Literacy rates
Access to careers
Meso
Climate
School levels embracing
IE
All learners are valued
and respected
Attitudes towards IE
School practice
WSA access and
achievement
Participation
Include previously
marginalized and
excluded children
Active involvement
Academic and social
achievement
Acceptance by peers
Policy
District missions
Guidelines for practice
Developed and/or modified
Collaborative with school
community
Discipline policy is positive
and aimed at student safety
181
Table 2.
Level
(Continued )
Inputs
Processes
Outcomes
Overcome local
issues (e.g. poverty,
gender parity)
Net enrolment ratio
of children with
disabilities
Student achievement
Data for monitoring
at school level
Grade progress,
passing rates
Repetition rates
Drop outs
School retention
Social inclusion,
bullying
Availability of
assistive technologies
Post-school options
School completion
rates
Literacy rates
Access to careers
Climate
Embracing IE
All learners are valued
and respected
Attitudes towards IE
Teachers beliefs in own
ability to implement IE
School practice
Scheduling
Peer support
Social and emotional
Parent involvement
Participation
Include previously
marginalized and
excluded children
Active involvement
Academic and social
achievement
Friendships/
relationships
Contacts/
interactions
Acceptance by peers
182
Table 2.
Level
Inputs
Curriculum
UDL
Scaffolded instruction
IEPs as required
Individual focus on needs
(Continued )
Processes
Outcomes
Self-perception
Student achievement
Data for monitoring
at classroom levels
Social inclusion,
bullying
Availability of
assistive technologies
Post-school options
Maximize potential
for employment
Access to careers
from the international literature that are implicitly suitable for forming
indicators to measure inclusive education. The lack of a ready-made, comprehensive list of internationally relevant indicators for inclusive education
that is suitable for all contexts may disappoint those looking for a quick-fix
in this area. To present such a list would be to obscure the complexities
found at the local level with respect to cultural, social, religious and other
contextual differences. Rather, the thematic areas should be viewed as a
basis from which indicators can be drawn following discussion and further
research at the local level.
This would necessarily include a review of local literature, perhaps along
the lines of that conducted in the companion paper to this one (see Forlin,
Sharma, Loreman, & Sprunt, 2014), and extensive consultations and
research involving local stakeholders. This systematic process might help to
183
alleviate some of the scepticism that accompanies the production of indicators of inclusive education, which some suggest might lead to a shallow
evaluation of educational contexts (Loreman, 2014). As the companion
paper to this chapter points out, evaluating inclusive education practice is
not simply a matter of checking off boxes on a list. It involves multiple
means of data gathering and interpretation, both qualitative and quantitative. Employing methods such as participatory action-research (Dymond,
2001) and/or approaching the issues from ecological perspectives may also
contribute to a more robust and credible evaluation of progress in inclusive
education.
This review serves to validate themes identified in the earlier Loreman
(2014) review of the literature, adding new literature that was not available
or located in the previous review. Further, the addition of a search for
terms that might have been considered to be conspicuously absent from the
earlier review, such as disability, were shown to have had no impact, as
relevant documents identified were subsumed under the previous search
terms, producing duplicates. This review did, however, identify an additional theme, designated as Role of special schools. It became increasingly
clear through this review that the role special schools have to play in facilitating the role of inclusive education is one that should not be ignored in
the development of indicators in this area.
This review attests to the complex nature of inclusion, with 14 identified
themes, often interconnected at various levels. The micro-meso-macro framework adopted to present the results of this review attests to the complexity of the issues, as well as their dynamic nature. Measuring inclusive
practice, then, is equally complex and entails use of a dynamic process. Not
only must those attempting to benchmark inclusive education pay attention
to various and diverse areas of practice, policy and relationship, but this
must also be done at levels ranging from large systems to individual student
experiences and how they develop and interact over time. It is clear that
there is no simple solution to the question How are we doing with inclusive
education? and authentic answers will only be evident where the complexity of the construct is taken into account.
CONCLUSION
Building on previous work in this area this study validated 13 themes in the
international literature that should be considered in the development of a
184
set of indicators for measuring inclusive education, and produced one extra
thematic area for consideration. This study involved re-visiting the international literature in this area, and broadening the search both in terms of
extending the time frame and in terms of search terms used.
This review not only highlights areas that school jurisdictions can focus
on when measuring inclusive education, but also provides examples of existing instruments that might be adopted and applied as circumstances dictate.
This can further better practice in inclusive education through a process of
benchmarking progress towards the better inclusion of all learners.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research has been funded by the Australian Government through the
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trades Australian Development
Research Awards Scheme (ADRAS) under an award titled Developing
and testing indicators for the education of children with disability in the
Pacific. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not
necessarily those of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Commonwealth
of Australia accepts no responsibility for any loss, damage or injury resulting from reliance on any of the information or views contained in this
publication.
The assistance and advice of members of the International Inclusive
Teacher Education Research Forum (IITERF) is gratefully acknowledged,
along with the many members of the ADRAS research team who provided
documents and advice.
REFERENCES
Baulch, B. (2011). The medium-term impact of the primary education stipend in rural
Bangladesh. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 3(2), 243 262. doi:10.1080/
19439342.2011.570449
Black-Hawkins, K. (2010). The framework for participation: A research tool for exploring the
relationship between achievement and inclusion in schools. International Journal of
Research & Method in Education, 33(1), 21 40.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in
schools. London: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education.
Bulgren, J. A., Marquis, J. G., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, B., Davis, B., &
Grossen, B. (2006). The instructional context of inclusive secondary general education
185
classes: Teachers instructional roles and practices, curricular demands, and research-based
practices and standards. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 39 65.
Carrington, S., & Robinson, R. (2006). Inclusive school community: Why is it so complex?
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(4 5), 323 334.
Chadha, A. (2007). Evaluation of a pilot project on inclusive education in India. Journal of the
International Association of Special Education, 8(1), 54. Retrieved from http://iase-biz1.
webs.com
Curcic, S. (2009). Inclusion in PK-12: An international perspective. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 13(5), 517 538.
Cushing, L. S., Carter, E. W., Clark, N., Wallis, T., & Kennedy, C. H. (2009). Evaluating
inclusive educational practices for students with severe disabilities using the program
quality measurement tool. The Journal of Special Education, 42(4), 195 208.
doi:10.1177/0022466907313352
Demeris, H., Childs, R. A., & Jordan, A. (2008). The influence of students with special needs
included in grade 3 classrooms on the large-scale achievement scores of students with
special needs. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(3), 609 627.
Deppeler, J., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2005). Reconceptualising specialist support
services in inclusive classrooms. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 29(2),
117 127.
Dymond, S. K. (2001). A participatory action research approach to evaluating inclusive school
programs. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16(1), 54 63.
doi:10.1177/108835760101600113
EENET. (n.d.). Newsletters and resources (Index for Inclusion). Retrieved from http://www.
eenet.org.uk/resources/index.php. Accessed on December 11, 2012.
Engel, J., Cossou, M., & Rose, P. (2011). Benins progress in education: Expanding access and
closing the gender gap. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Engel, J., & Rose, P. (2011). Rebuilding basic education in Cambodia: Establishing a more effective development partnership. London: Overseas Development Institute.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2011a). Mapping the
Implementation of Policy for Inclusive Education (MIPIE)
An exploration of challenges and opportunities for developing indicators. Retrieved from http://www.europeanagency.org
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2011b). Participation in inclusive education
A framework for developing indicators. Retrieved from http://www.
european-agency.org
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2012a). Teacher education
for inclusion
Profiles of inclusive teachers. Retrieved from http://www.europeanagency.org
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2012b). Special needs education country data 2012. Retrieved from http://www.european-agency.org
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2013). Agency data collection
interim report. Retrieved from http://www.european-agency.org
Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive
practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 119 135. doi:10.1080/
08856257.2013.778111
Forlin, C., & Rose, R. (2010). Authentic school partnerships for enabling inclusive education
in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(1), 13 22.
186
Forlin, C., Sharma, U., & Loreman, T. (2013). Predictors of improved teaching efficacy following basic training for inclusion in Hong Kong. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 18(7), 718 730. doi:10.1080/13603116.2013.819941
Forlin, C., Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Sprunt, B. (2014). The first stage of a process for developing indicators for inclusive education in the Pacific Islands. Article submitted for
publication.
Frederickson, N., Simmonds, E., Evans, L., & Soulsby, C. (2007). Assessing the social and
affective outcomes of inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 105 115.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8578.2007.00463.x
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goodman, J. I., Hazelkorn, M., Bucholz, J. L., Duffy, M. L., & Kitta, Y. (2011). Inclusion
and graduation rates: What are the outcomes? Journal of Disability Policy Studies,
21(4), 241 252. doi:10.1177/1044207310394449
Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh Directorate of Primary Education.
(2012). Bangladesh Primary Education Annual Sector Performance Report (ASPR
2012). Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org
Grimes, P. (2010). A quality education for all: A history of the Lao PDR inclusive education
project 1993 2009. Vientiane, Lao PDR: Save the Children.
Irvine, A., Lupart, J., Loreman, T., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). Educational leadership
to create authentic inclusive schools: The experiences of principals in a rural school
district. Exceptionality Education International, 20(2), 70 88.
Kyriazopoulou, M., & Weber, H. (Eds.). (2009). Development of a set of indicators For inclusive education in Europe. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in
Special Needs Education.
Loreman, T. (2014). Measuring inclusive education outcomes in Alberta, Canada.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(5), 459 483. doi:10.1080/13603116.
2013.788223
Lupart, J., & Webber, C. (2012). Canadian schools in transition: Moving from dual education
systems to inclusive schools. Exceptionality Education International, 22(2), 8 37.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roach, A. T., & Elliott, S. N. (2009). Consultation to support inclusive accountability and
standards-based reform: Facilitating access, equity, and empowerment. Journal of
Educational & Psychological Consultation, 19(1), 61 81.
Ryndak, D., Ward, T., Alper, S., Storch, J. F., & Montgomery, J. (2010). Long-term outcomes
of services in inclusive and self-contained settings for siblings with comparable significant disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45(1),
38 53.
UNESCO. (2010). Education for all global monitoring report 2010. Retrieved from http://www.
unesco.org
UNESCO. (2012). Education: Addressing exclusion. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/
new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-systems/inclusive-education/
UNESCO. (2013). Education for all national EFA 2015 reviews guidelines. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Santiago/pdf/guidelines
nationalefa2015reviewsenglish19062013.pdf
187
189
190
INTRODUCTION
The Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2011) is a resource of ideas
informed by a social model of disability and reinforces a suite of values as
a framework for inclusive education. Inclusive values such as respect for
all, equity, compassion and entitlement can guide direction and inform
school culture, policy and practice (Booth, 2011). Inclusive education signifies much more than the presence of students with disabilities in regular
classrooms. It has developed from a long history of educational innovation
and represents school improvement on many levels for all students (Skrtic,
Sailor, & Gee, 1996).
The Index has been used in many countries around the world for
school review and development for inclusive culture, policy and practice
(http://www.csie.org.uk/resources/inclusion-index-explained.shtml). It was
originally developed in 2000 at the Centre for Studies in Inclusive
Education (CSIE) in England and provides a framework for action
research in a school community. The Index can be used to engage stakeholders such as parents, students, teachers and school staff in exploring
what is going well in their school and what are the concerns that need to be
addressed.
We acknowledge that schools exist in specific socio-cultural contexts and
education must be responsive to the lived realities of learners and educators in those contexts (Tikly & Barrett, 2011, p. 5). We believe that
knowledge and meaning are constructed through interaction with people in
socially constructed ways. Therefore we assume that peoples interpretations of what inclusive education means will shift over time and will be
different from place to place (Carrington et al., 2012).
These views influence the approach and research methods that we have
used to record and report the lived realities of our school communities that
have worked to develop inclusion in their schools. The action research cycle
described in the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2011) provides educators in schools responsive ways to represent stages of finding out about
the school, making plans for change, implementing plans and review and
further development across five phases:
Phase 1: Getting started
Phase 2: Finding out together
Phase 3: Producing a plan
Phase 4: Taking action
Phase 5: Reviewing development
191
192
193
194
In the range of school projects using the Index, activities using the
indicators and questions were developed for staff meetings, parent forums,
focus group interviews, class meetings and student councils to provide
195
opportunity for school stakeholders to share values and beliefs and dream
about their ideal school. Creative and imaginative ways were developed to
engage people in talking about the values of inclusion and to seek out
opportunities to challenge the status quo through collective review and
implementation of plans and review of progress.
The most exciting work using the Index engaged students (see
Carrington, Allen, & Osmolowski, 2007; Carrington & Holm, 2005). These
projects involved student forums gathering data from their peers in the
school community and informed future priorities in the school development plan. For example, the students presented ideas to a school committee
involving parents and teachers about ways to improve the relationships
between teachers and students, ways to welcome students to the school
particularly those students who join the school during their secondary
school years, considerations for managing behaviour and supporting students and finally some authentic insights about how it feels for students to
be included and excluded in their school community.
196
197
imperialism. They argue that because the Index provides a tool for thinking
about the western version of inclusion, it carries with it specific western
values of inclusivity. These values if imposed crudely (p. 118) may be far
removed from the wider social, cultural, political and economic context of
that developing country, therefore rendering any school improvement planning ineffective.
When introduced as the guiding principles of education reform, these taken for granted
ideas (developed in the Western philosophical and political traditions over the
centuries) obfuscate the unequal relationship between countries and the dependency
promoting outcomes of change-orientated development interventions. Thus, when
policies on inclusive education are abstracted from the broader social context within
which they are situated it is unlikely that they will be effective. (Armstrong et al., 2010,
p. 118)
Armstrong et al. (2010) also warn that The Index is formulaic in nature
(indicators of inclusive practice) and inclusive education is not formulaic.
Therefore, no matter how flexible or adaptable the tool (the Index) is there
are inevitable risks and preconceptions in its use. The consideration of differing understandings of inclusion in developing countries may not be given
enough weight when implementing review and development. When planning and delivering professional learning and mentoring, we acknowledge
the risks of abstraction from context (p. 118) and formulaic approach to
inclusive education and respond according to each situation.
198
199
200
201
REFERENCES
Armstrong, A. C., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I. (2010). Inclusive education: International
policy and practice. London: Sage.
Booth, T. (2011). Curricula for the common school: What shall we tell our children? Forum,
53(1), 31 44.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in
schools. Bristol, United Kingdom: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in
schools. Bristol, United Kingdom: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Booth, T., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2001). Developing learning and participation in countries of
the south. The role of an Index for Inclusion. UNESCO report, 2001.
Bourke, R., Holden, B., & Dharan, V. (2007). You think youre doing it, but now I question
myself: Using a self review process in New Zealand schools for learning and change.
202
203
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from http://www2.
ohchr.or...ish/law/crc.htm. Accessed on May 6, 2014.
Unites Nations. (1990). World declaration on education for all. Retrieved from http://www.
unesco.org/education/wef/en-conf/Jomtien%20Declaration%20eng.shtm. Accessed on
May 5, 2014.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Retrieved from
https://treaties.un.org. Accessed on May 8, 2014.
USING NETWORKING TO
MEASURE THE PROMOTION OF
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: THE
CASE OF THE PACIFIC REGION
Susie Miles, Laisiasa Merumeru and Donna Lene
ABSTRACT
This chapter reviews the history of an approach to networking between
practitioners which uses inquiry-based methods to document innovative
examples of inclusive education. The networking task is located in the
context of efforts to promote Education for All which have so far failed
to include the economically poorest and most marginalised children. The
case of the Pacific regions efforts to include children with disability in
education is presented as a particular challenge, given its small, multilingual and geographically scattered population. An emerging strategy is
presented as a framework for analysing the context of, and promoting
greater conceptual clarity around, inclusive education in the Pacific
region. Ultimately this networking approach has the potential to measure
205
206
INTRODUCTION
The potential role of regional networking in promoting conceptual clarity,
locally relevant approaches to inclusive education and systems for measuring progress is discussed in this chapter. Inclusive education involves a
highly complex set of social processes which vary enormously according
to cultural context. This is particularly the case in the Pacific Island
Countries as they develop more inclusive approaches to education and
systems for measuring progress towards inclusion across this large and
diverse region.
The account presented here is based upon two main sources of data: an
autoethnographic study which identified key principles for the development
of an inclusive network, carried out by the first author (Miles, 2013); and
an analysis of material collected when co-researching the viability
of a Pacific regional network, linked to Enabling Education Network
(EENET), and focused on the inclusion of children with disability in
education. The material was collected in two distinct, but related, stages. A
two-week scoping visit to the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati and Samoa,
conducted in 2013 by the first and second authors, was supported by the
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS). The countries were chosen
because they were developing innovative inclusive practice and they each
had a champion who was leading the innovation and who was open to the
potential role of networking to share practice across the region. A series of
consultations were held in each island country with potential stakeholders
in the proposed network. This included, personnel from Ministries of
Education, Internal Affairs and Community Development, womens
groups, teacher educators, head teachers, pre-school and primary school
teachers, and special school staff (Miles, Lene, & Merumeru, 2014, p. 2).
Following the scoping visit, policy documents and field notes were analysed
in relation to relevant literature, and the authors participated in lengthy
online discussions to clarify the emerging themes. The significance of this
chapter is in its contribution to baseline information about the development of networking around inclusive education in the Pacific region.
207
208
(Miles & Singal, 2010), and many large international donors have adopted
a position which regards the education of children with disability as a luxury issue for which donors do not have time (Lei & Myers, 2011, p. 8).
Leaving no-one behind is the current rallying cry, as the international
community faces up to the failure to include the economically poorest and
most marginalised children in education. The Australian governments
approach to supporting disability inclusive development is unusual and
has had an impact in promoting inclusive education in the Pacific.
The second author has held regular discussions since early 2013 with
development partners, such as UNESCAP, Pacific Disability Forum (PDF)
and PIFS, and education stakeholders (e.g. in the Marshall Islands, Tonga
and Tuvalu), and reports that they face considerable difficulties in defining
disability, and determining a form of inclusive education that will work for
the Pacific context. This lack of conceptual clarity has, arguably, resulted
in confusion and inhibited progress. For many of the stakeholders, inclusive education is simply a concept encapsulated in the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which carries little
practical meaning or relevance. Policy makers are therefore making decisions about the development of school policies and practices largely on the
basis of an arguably foreign concept, yet one that has potential synergy
with the inclusive culture of the Pacific region (Miles et al., 2014).
Regional networking has already played a role in facilitating study visits
to countries where promising practice is beginning to emerge, and in sharing ideas and experience of teacher education and policy development. For
example, Ministry of Education representatives from Kiribati have visited
the Cook Islands; and head teachers and policy makers from Fiji have visited schools in Samoa. Although such visits are highly beneficial, they are
not sufficient in sustaining innovative practice
a more consistent
approach to the regular sharing of practice for all stakeholders is desirable.
The model of networking developed by EENET was recognised as having great relevance to the Pacific, with several practitioners having made
use of EENET materials over the past decade or so. This link with EENET
led to the scoping visit and formal consultations referred to earlier.
Established in 1997, with the encouragement of UNESCO, and technical
and financial support from a range of international non-governmental
organisations, EENET promotes contextually relevant approaches to the
inclusion of marginalised groups in education. Its core activities continue
to be focused around the sharing of information through personalised
correspondence, the website, and an annual publication which features
accounts of practice, primarily in countries where material resources are
209
scarce. All publications are carefully edited to ensure that accounts are
both easy-to-read and contextualised, and, where possible, written by education stakeholders who have direct experience of marginalisation. As far
as possible, they are produced in accessible formats, to reinforce the fact
that the medium is also the message (Miles, 2013).
Bold claims are made for the benefit of networking. Yet, Networks are
on the one hand revolutionary technologies for social organisation and on
the other hand simply an enhancement of what ordinary people do (Riles,
2000, pp. 68 69). The information revolution has enabled new forms of
transnational communication, unimaginable a few decades ago, making it
deceptively easy to move information around the world. As Friedman
(2006, p. 8) suggests, this opens up new possibilities: We are now connecting all the knowledge centers on the planet together into a single global network, which could usher in an amazing era of prosperity, innovation
and collaboration.
However such global networking can also be exclusionary. Castells
(2000) is one of the few writers who focuses on the global digital and
communication divide which seems likely to grow, leading to increasing
impatience with people who are digitally illiterate and the further marginalisation of communities whose traditions are predominantly oral, as is the
case in many Pacific Island communities. Conscious of the exclusionary
effects of the digital divide, and the deepening of unequal relationships
between and within countries as a result of technological advances
(Castells, 2000), EENET continues to develop ways of balancing the rapid,
high-tech forms of communication with the information needs of the most
excluded and marginalised groups of people. This involves providing information in hard copy through slow mail, where necessary. The website has
also grown in size and popularity. In the 12 months leading up to May
2014, there were 62,840 unique page views, 17% of whom revisited the site.
The top 10 countries include India (in second place after UK), Brazil,
Philippines, South Africa and Zambia
13 of the top 20 are low- and
middle-income countries
and altogether there were visitors from 207
countries and territories.
210
211
McCullough (2009) suggests that regional networks can raise the visibility
of inclusive education, provide a forum for sharing successes and articulating concerns and asserts that:
Networks are vital to the learning process. They provide opportunities to listen and
learn, to debate and to voice collectively both the celebrations and the challenges. In
addition, networking within the region assists in identifying, developing and supporting
Pacific peoples expertise and experience. The development of regional skills and opportunities for skill-sharing are another aspect of recognising and nurturing the expert at
home. This practice assists in ensuring the acknowledgement and incorporation of
Pacific values and cultures in the process of IE [inclusive education]. (McCullough,
2009, p. 154)
212
213
214
215
access through large-scale curriculum reform and associated teacher education (Ministry of Education, 2012). Although inclusive education is still
just a phrase and does not yet carry much meaning, the Ministry of
Education is developing a policy which will embed inclusion within the
Ministrys work, rather than seeing it as a separate issue.
A national Inclusive Education Working Group was formed in Kiribati
in 2012 to carry out research and promote inter-ministerial collaboration
on this new emerging issue. Its first piece of commissioned research looked
at prospects for the education of all children with disability (Jolley &
Rokete, 2012), and its current research project is focused on absenteeism.
Data has been collected in three school communities in contrasting contexts
within Kiribati (Ministry of Education, 2013). A distinction was made
between those children who have never enrolled (estimated to be approximately 25% of children); drop-outs; and poor attenders. The barriers
identified have been divided into: school-related; and family-based causes
of absenteeism; as well as geographical factors, such as the danger and difficulty of travelling long distances between home and school; and economic
factors. There are particular concerns about the number of sickly children,
those with disability, and the disproportionate number of boys who do not
attend school.
Community-based interventions are already underway, with school committee members ringing a bell at 9 p.m. in one island community to ensure
that all the children go to bed early enough to be able to attend school the
next day. In the morning a community member accompanies the children
to school. This highlights the importance of seeing the issue of disability
alongside other factors such as poverty, safety from abuse, parents lack of
interest and motivation, childrens boredom in school and inadequate
school sanitation. Developing a more child-centred approach to pedagogy
through the creation of a new, more relevant curriculum, alongside
in-service education for all teachers, is an important step in the direction of
making education a more engaging and inclusive experience for all
children, including those with disability (Kiribati Teachers College, 2013).
216
217
218
Fig. 1.
Tangled Wires
group which develops and sustains the values, principles and vision of the
network. The group should be big enough to be sustainable, but not too
big that it becomes expensive and difficult to manage. It should also ideally
have a coordinator to lead and feed the network, preferably a salaried
person who has a clear vision of the networking process. In the example of
the Pacific region, we have begun with a group of nine people, as follows:
a representative of each country (four countries initially, but this will
grow);
two people representing the network hub;
two regional leaders with disability who have complementary regional
roles and are members of related regional networks;
a critical friend, in this case an external person representing EENET in
the UK.
Ideally the core group should have diverse skills and experiences, which
include knowledge of inclusive education and research, but also financial,
administrative and communication skills.
2. Develop conceptual clarity
A shared understanding of the key concepts used in networking and
inclusive education is just as important as speaking the same language.
219
220
members within and between schools; schools and their local communities; and networks concerned with disability and inclusion, as well as
those focusing more broadly on reducing poverty and disadvantage.
5. Analyse potential contributions
Ongoing contextual analysis is closely linked to the analysis of the contributions that network members are able to make to the proposed network.
Church (2005) has argued that the language of need emphasises deficits
rather than possibilities, and that it is the contributions offered by key
players, organisations and networks that are the building blocks of a sustainable networking process. In this way active and sustainable networks
focus on the sharing of wealth, not on meeting needs. A more active
engagement in the networking process, with an emphasis on existing assets
(skills and strengths such as, knowledge of indigenous culture and languages) is implied by this approach. A needs assessment tends to be carried
out by outsiders, and often focuses on what is missing from a context
rather than appreciating existing strengths.
When conducting a networking contributions analysis, it is important to
start with existing networking resources and capacity, by:
reflecting upon the meaning and understanding of networking in the
region;
analysing existing relationships and linkages between key stakeholders
committed to developing more inclusive practices in education;
critiquing existing networking resources in the region;
identifying existing regional networks, from whose experience lessons
could be learnt, and with whom networking alliances could be formed in
order to make the best use of existing resources and forms of communication regionally.
Existing Pacific regional networks focus on disability rights, childrens
issues, womens rights and education, but none are focused on the particular challenge of developing strategies to promote the inclusion of marginalised groups, such as children with disability, in mainstream schools. Yet
the small, scattered and isolated island populations require holistic support
and services. A network focused on inclusion would, therefore, not work in
isolation, but would make links with other related networks, such as those
focused on children, indigenous peoples and womens rights.
6. Ensure minimum resources
A minimum level of dedicated funding is desirable, and arguably
essential, in providing a solid and sustainable base for the network.
221
Funding is needed for the network hub, and should ideally be modest,
so that the cost of networking is shared across the network. Financial
resources are not sufficient in themselves, but are complementary to the
contributions made, in kind, by the key people and organisations
involved in the regional network.
Some of the regional networks linked to EENET have been active for
many years, reliant on volunteers and without any formal funding.
While others have employed people to manage the network, but,
because some of them have not grasped the nature of networking, the
impact and activities of the networking have been negligible, and the
network unsustainable. Ideally there is a balance between financial
security and a complex web of network actors who contribute to the network through their ideas, articles, and time spent meeting virtually and
face to face.
7. Engage critical friends
The process of networking is highly complex. There can be a danger
of working practices becoming hierarchical and less representative, and
so losing sight of the initial vision of a network structure which differs
considerably from that of an organisation. Critical friends are sometimes more able to challenge such tendencies than those who are caught
up in the day to day networking activities. Critical friends can be outsiders to the context, or just to the network. They need to have excellent
facilitation skills and ideally some experience of networking in a professional capacity, and of the issue championed by the network. The role
of the critical friend can also be to help design ways of measuring progress towards inclusive education, based on the experience they bring
from other contexts.
DISCUSSION
A focus on contextual analysis is, arguably, the most important aspect
of the proposed framework for the process of supporting and measuring
progress towards inclusive education. Developing confidence among network members in their capacity to continually analyse their own contexts is
one of the most critical components of facilitating more inclusive practices
and policies in education. There is a tendency in economically poor countries, however, for such analytical processes to be conducted by outside
research teams, often hired by international agencies, and this can further
222
CONCLUSION
This chapter has explored some tried and tested principles for developing
an inclusive form of networking in Southern contexts, as a way of measuring progress towards inclusive education. It has outlined a strategic framework to guide the documentation and measurement of progress towards
223
REFERENCES
Alborz, A., Slee, R., & Miles, S. (2013). Establishing the foundations for an inclusive education system in Iraq: Reflection on findings from a nationwide survey. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(9), 965 987.
224
Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change?
Journal of Educational Change, 6, 109 124.
Artiles, A., & Dyson, A. (2005). Inclusive education in the globalisation age: The promise of a
comparative cultural-historical analysis. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualising inclusive
education. London: Routledge.
Bebbington, A., & Kothari, U. (2006). Transnational development networks. Environment and
Planning, A, 38, 849 866.
Castells, M. (2000). The information age: Economy, society and culture (Vol. 3, 2nd ed.).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Cave, D. (2012). Digital islands: How the Pacifics ICT revolution is transforming the region.
Sydney, Australia: Lowy Institute for International Policy. Retrieved from http://
m.lowyinstitute.org/publications/digital-islands-how-pacifics-ict-revolution-transformingregion
Chambers, R. (2008). Revolutions in development inquiry. London: Earthscan.
Church, M. (2005). Creating an uncompromised place to belong: Why do I find myself in networks? Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bath. Retrieved from http://people.bath.
ac.uk/mnspwr/doc_theses_links/m_church.html. Accessed on July 11, 2014.
Delamont, S. (1992). Fieldwork in educational settings: Methods, pitfalls and perspectives.
London: Falmer Press.
Department for International Development. (2012). Education position paper. Improving learning, expanding opportunities. London: DfID.
Frankham, J. (2006). Network utopias and alternative entanglements for educational research
and practice. Journal of Education Policy, 21(6), 661 677.
Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat. A brief history of the globalized world in the 21st
century. London: Allen Lane.
Jolley, T., & Rokete, T. (2012). Operational Research on Disability and Inclusive Education in
Kiribati. A report by the CBM-Nossal Institute Partnership for Disability Inclusive
Development in Partnership with Te Toa Matoa for Coffey International funded by
AusAID.
Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders. Advocacy networks in international
politics. New York, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kedrayate, A. (2001). Why non-formal education in Fiji? Directions: Journal of Educational
Studies University of the South Pacific, Suva: Fiji, 44, 23(1), 75 96.
Kiribati Teachers College. (2013). Implementing the new curriculum. Developing students literacy and numeracy. Teacher professional development facilitators guide. March 2013.
Kiribati, South Pacific: KTC.
Le Fanu, G. (2013). Reconceptualising inclusive education in international development. In
L. Tikly & A. Barrett (Eds.). Education, quality and social justice in the global South.
London: Routledge.
Lei, P., & Myers, J. (2011). Making the grade? A review of donor commitment and action on
inclusive education for disabled children. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
15(10), 1169 1185.
Lene, D. (2009). Inclusive education: A Samoan case study. In P. Puamau & F. Pene (Eds.),
Inclusive education in the Pacific (pp. 135 145). The PRIDE Project. Pacific Education
Series No. 6. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific.
225
226
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2010). Reaching the marginalised. EFA global monitoring report. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2013). Schooling for millions of children jeopardized by reductions in aid. Policy Paper 09, prepared for
Education For All, Global Monitoring Report. Paris: Education for All Global
Monitoring Report and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
227
228
JULIE LANCASTER
INTRODUCTION
The Importance of Inclusion and Inclusive Teacher Practice in Schools
Australian and international policy requires that students with special needs
receive their education in the least-restrictive setting along a continuum of
available placements. Many teacher graduates will find themselves teaching
students with special needs within mainstream classes in inclusive schools
(Ashman & Elkins, 2012). As a result, all teachers, including new graduates,
are required to teach students who may vary widely in aptitude, learning
history and achievement in regular classroom settings. The successful inclusion of students with different learning needs occurs when there is a confluence of teacher skill (e.g. Carter, Stephenson, & Strnadova, 2011a), broader
school and system capacity (Carter, Stephenson, & Strnadova, 2011b) and
a responsive curriculum (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2012; Harris, 2011). Effective
knowledge, skills and attitudes of practitioners are factors required to help
bridge the gap between guidelines, policy and the actual implementation of
inclusive practices.
In spite of the federal legislation and policy, there is little evidence of
change in the way schools operate (Hueng, 2006). There is clearly a need
for high fidelity implementation of research-based teaching strategies to
provide a unified system of education where all students might be educated
in inclusive settings.
Given the complexity teachers are faced with today, responsiveness to
learner diversity is increasingly viewed as a benchmark of teacher effectiveness in inclusive classroom settings (Ashman & Elkins, 2012). Reaching this
benchmark requires that teachers can successfully deploy well-researched
teaching and collaborative approaches to differentiate classroom instruction. Teacher use of research-based pedagogies and curriculum differentiation of high-quality instruction are required to enhance success with
students in schools. Kretlow and Helf (2013) suggest that when evidencebased instruction is implemented with fidelity; instruction can be eliminated as a reason for students not making adequate progress (p. 168).
The skills required for differentiating classroom instruction include,
among others, advanced knowledge of evidence-based instructional
approaches (e.g. Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2013). Explicit Teaching (ET)
and Cooperative Learning (CL) are consistently identified as essential
pedagogies for successful teaching in inclusive classrooms. As exemplars
of research-based pedagogies, ET and CL are used here as the vehicles
to illustrate the theory to practice intent. These approaches permit
229
EXPLICIT TEACHING
ET is a pedagogy that creates conditions for curriculum and instruction to
be differentiated. It involves systematic teacher demonstration, modelling
and the provision of feedback. It is useful for students who have complex
support needs and require many adaptations to curriculum and instruction
to enable learning to occur. It usually refers to whole class expository
teaching and involves the following features:
Learning outcomes are made clear to students;
The teacher controls the lesson activities and time;
Small steps are devised and successful student practice is required at each
step;
Feedback is given until independent mastery is reached and
Students are carefully monitored throughout the process (Killen, 2007;
Rosenshine, 2012; Ryder, Burton, & Silberg, 2006).
Bloom (1984) reports findings that suggest only 20% of school students
under conventional instruction as well as those who have one-to-one tutoring where many of the above features are present. The remaining 80% do
relatively poorly. This is a direct result of treatment of students in classrooms where the higher achieving students have the majority of the attention and feedback and reinforcement of the teacher. If teachers are taught
to use the mastery learning techniques along with explicit instruction, they
will be treating students much more equitably and therefore enabling
the 80% of those who usually struggle the ability to demonstrate their
potential. Cazden (1993) concurs indirectly by emphasising strongly that
immersion, even in its richest and most authentic form is not always
sufficient (p. 2).
230
JULIE LANCASTER
COOPERATIVE LEARNING
CL consists of a set of instructional methods where students work in small
mixed ability teams for the purpose of learning. Students are responsible
for their own learning and for helping their teammates to learn. Wolford,
Heward, and Alber (2001) define CL as a peer-mediated instructional
arrangement where small groups of students work together to achieve
group success. Students are often assigned roles for completing a range of
tasks (Magnesio & Davis, 2010; McMaster & Fuchs, 2002).
To illustrate the widespread interpretation of CL one is directed to
McMaster and Fuchs (2002). These authors investigated the effectiveness
of research carried out between 1990 and 2000. They identified no less than
seven different approaches or variations to CL, either in combination with
other instructional methods or as a stand-alone. The aim of the review
was to determine the most salient characteristics of CL. In addition to the
characteristics noted above, the results of the review suggest that essential
elements include group goals and group rewards in line with individual
accountability and the careful structuring of the task activities. Across all
the various forms CL may take, the most researched elements that promote
optimal conditions for effectiveness include: positive interdependence
created by group goals, individual accountability and task structure
adaptations.
Many studies have been carried out to determine the effect of CL on
student achievement across every major subject, all grade levels and in
all types of schools (Bain, 2007; Gillies, 2002; Hattie, 2012). In spite of the
success demonstrated in the literature, when considering scale up of the CL
strategy, Slavin et al. (1996) report that 70% of primary school teachers
made some sustained use of CL. However, as noted in earlier discussion,
231
this figure may actually be a misrepresentation and may not include high
fidelity implementation given the wide interpretation of what CL actually
entails. Given the complexity involved in conducting CL effectively, professional development takes on an important focus to enhance and also to
measure implementation fidelity.
232
JULIE LANCASTER
233
was completed on student impact data/progress as well as the implementation process. Multiple measures were considered for both (especially
curriculum-based measures for the student data). Action research was used
as the vehicle for the process.
As a means of sustainability, current participants were able to volunteer
to become trainers and a criteria sheet was developed for considerations
to be taken into account here as well. One year after initial training, 20,000
students had demonstrably benefited from instruction. Mean growth for
students achievement involved substantial effect sizes from .67 to .89. As
noted by Gillies and Ashman (2000) there are inherent difficulties when
using standardised assessments to measure students progress. The assessment should incorporate a curriculum-based assessment (CBA) that is sensitive to the curriculum.
Unlike the route suggested by Denton, Vaughn, and Fletcher (2003) and
Klingner et al. (2004), Little and Houston (2003) suggest starting with a
State-wide approach as a means of achieving scale and sustainability.
Deshler (2003) makes policy recommendations to be considered by funding
sources to assist bridging the gap between research and practice. He especially recommends an atmosphere of research that needs to be evident
across ALL levels of education in order to make a sustained difference
(Loreman, 2007).
Kretlow and Helf (2013) refer to a five-component framework devised
by ODonnell (2008) for defining implementation fidelity. These steps are
comparable to those of Little and Houston (2003). Very few studies exist
that examine any of these five components let alone the combination of
them (ODonnell, 2008). Bethune and Wood (2013) did provide a procedural fidelity checklist to determine teachers use of function-based interventions for students with severe disabilities.
Lopata, Miller, and Miller (2003) reviewed actual versus preferred use of
CL characteristics among exemplar teachers. The actual use of the desired
characteristics of CL fell statistically short of the levels teachers would prefer to be using. Even though teachers were aware of the implementation
fidelity they should be using, various reasons prevented it from occurring.
This seems surprising given the advanced level of understanding and skill
demonstrated by the participants.
The use of coaching was incorporated and the efficacy tested using
multiple baseline design. Results indicated a functional relationship
between coaching and improvement in accurate implementation performance. This resonates with step three offered by Little and Houston
(2003). This improvement was also sustained over a maintenance phase of
234
JULIE LANCASTER
the study and was also reflected in student behaviour results. The coaching
skills employed relied heavily on collaboration skills between participants
and researchers involved.
As noted earlier a more focused set of indicators is called for as opposed
to the broad indexes supplied by Hueng (2006). Cook and Tankersley
(2012) suggest we should identify the practices we wish to use and then
provide a guiding framework for implementation. The structure of steps
provided by Little and Houston (2003) provides such a framework and
involves support from initial professional development right through to
checking implementation fidelity using critical teaching behaviour checklists. Student impact data is collected as the final step and the whole process
is continued through an Action Research paradigm. Lee and Picanco (2013)
suggest a way forward for teachers to stop having the pedagogical fixations
due to philosophical orientations by tying research-based strategies to the
phases of learning the students are assessed to be in. For example, ET
would be required for the acquisition phase, where CL would be more
appropriate in the generalisation phase. This can be supplemented with the
differentiation put forward by Tomlinson (2001) through the areas of content, product and process (Ernest, Heckaman, Thompson, Hull, & Carter,
2011). The combination of these processes has potential to assess current
practices within classrooms as well as guiding the professional development
framework to develop teacher skills. Peer coaching and collaborative
problem-solving of course would naturally form part of this professional
development. Hintze (2005) provides us with essential characteristics to use
during direct observation to ensure reliability and validity when observing
teachers implementation within school settings. As well as the ability to
deploy evidence-based pedagogies, sustain their use and implement them
to scale with integrity; collaboration skills utilising consistent professional
language also need to be investigated as potential factors that mediate successful inclusion.
235
236
JULIE LANCASTER
Table 1.
Code
0
1
2
3
SOLO Level
Blank
Source: Adapted from Biggs and Collis (1982); cited in Lancaster and Auhl (2013).
Collaboration skills involve the ability to engage in effective communities of practice to support the problem-solving in complex learning environments. Over the last 20 years collaboration techniques have become a
cornerstone of inclusive education practice used to develop and review individual education plans, for instructional problem-solving, as a medium
of engagement with parents and by the different professionals who serve
students with inclusive needs (Friend & Cook, 2010; Salend, 2005).
Collaboration is frequently identified as a key to the successful conduct
of inclusive classrooms and schools (Loreman, Deppeler, & Harvey, 2005)
with this positive relationship often well documented in the literature. This
places collaboration and collaborative problem-solving on the agenda of all
schools and higher education courses. More recently, the role and processes
of collaboration have been connected to the related construct of communities of practice (Wenger, 2000).
Communities of practice have been advocated in inclusive education to
tap expertise and bring stakeholders together for problem-solving and the
communication of professional knowledge (Buysse, Sparkman, & Wesley,
2003; Linehan, Muller, & Cashman, 2005). They can be viewed as the
places where the instrumental process of collaboration and collaborative
problem-solving are embedded systemically in a local context. Like
Table 2.
Code
SOLO Level
0
1
Blank
Prestructural
Unistructural
Multistructural
Relational
Extended abstract
237
Source: Adapted from Biggs and Collis (1982); cited in Lancaster and Auhl (2013).
238
JULIE LANCASTER
would ensure the effective acquisition of the skills of collaborative consultation for their support teachers working in schools. The impetus for the
programme development was to assist support teachers transition from a
pull-out role to one of inclusion and collaboration with the classroom
teacher. They effectively had to become agents of change using the collaborative consultation framework to implement the changed roles. Both
support teachers and classroom teachers found the professional development beneficial in supporting student learning and behaviour.
More recently, Thomson (2011) conducted a qualitative study that investigated the service delivery model of collaborative problem-solving in ways
that assisted teachers, support teachers and students working in inclusive
settings. She interviewed 14 teachers about their experiences with the collaboration process that were specific to the contexts and participants themselves. There is no doubt that collaborative consultation requires expertise,
but unless this expertise is actually utilised by classroom teachers, nothing
will change. The only meta-analysis noted was from Allen and Blackston
(2003) who noted an effect size of .95 in favour of consultation over traditional methods, so the benefits of using collaborative consultation were
significant.
The evaluation of collaborative process utilisation has yet to be pinpointed explicitly for the education sector. In Klingner et al. study (2004),
we noted the high implementers of strategies with integrity persisted with
strategies as long as they could problem solve with others and have feedback about their practice. Unfortunately, as Darling-Hammond and
Richardson (2009) note, schools do not provide ongoing collaboration and
assistance necessary to implement such approaches.
Implications from this literature suggest that collaboration is required in
order for educators to problem solve and find novel solutions to difficulties
as they arise (Buysse et al., 2003; Cochran-Smith, 2005; Linehan et al.,
2005). Common shared professional language (pattern language) is
required to deal with change in inclusive learning environments.
Friend and Cook (2010) provide characteristic steps for implementing
collaborative problem-solving that could be used for checking implementation fidelity in situ. Widely utilised steps include problem delineation,
brainstorming solutions in a divergent manner, prioritising solutions in
convergent manner, agreeing on final goal, make a plan and evaluate in
timely fashion (Friend & Cook, 2010). Frequency and sophistication of
pattern language could be measured in the same way that Bain et al. (2009)
employed in their study. Just as reliability and validity of observational
assessments could be checked for use of teaching strategies, these principles
239
could also be employed for the collaboration and pattern language processes (Hintze, 2005).
240
JULIE LANCASTER
Thus researchers are grappling with the notion of different scales being
constructed to measure different tasks in the complex job of teaching.
Banduras scale involved 30 items that covered seven categories of teacher
behaviours. Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy (1998) summarised the areas
into three broader areas: instructional strategies, classroom management
and student engagement. Chan (2008) developed a scale to assess six
domains of teacher self-efficacy: teaching highly able learners; classroom
management; guidance and counselling; student engagement; accommodating diversity and enriching learning. The scales certainly have overlap as
well as discrepancies. Not all are focused on inclusive classrooms and,
indeed, the scale development to measure the construct by Chan (2008) had
only one dimension specifically focused on managing diverse learning needs
in the classroom.
The focus in this chapter is on teachers level of personal self-efficacy for
research-based strategy use. It is thus task specific (very specifically on use
of ET, CL and collaborative problem-solving processes) and context specific as it involves inclusive classroom settings. Teacher efficacy is related to
teacher behaviours in the classroom and is said to affect teacher levels of
effort, planning, organisation, and persistence and resilience. Specifically,
teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy utilise more behaviours that have
the potential to enhance student learning and motivation. Studies on implementation fidelity discussed earlier by Klingner et al. (2004) clearly state
that the high implementers of research-based pedagogies were those who
were concerned about student success. When their students succeeded, their
levels of self-efficacy were in turn improved. This in turn leads them to persist with new strategies and problem solve. Indeed a cycle of success is
created.
After interviewing 54 teachers, Yilmaz (2011) determined that the more
proficient teachers perceived themselves to be with pedagogical content
knowledge (e.g. about ET, CL and collaborative problem-solving), the
more efficacious they felt in implementation instructional strategies and
classroom management. The pedagogical content knowledge that was the
focus in this study was teaching English as a foreign language; one could
supplant knowledge of inclusive pedagogies such as ET or CL and
hypothesise about similar findings. As the authors suggest, studies conducted on the basis of teachers beliefs are important in determining the
way teachers perceive and organise instruction and assessment in their
classrooms. A teachers sense of efficacy directly influences the kind of
environment they create for their students to bring about learning (Yilmaz,
2011). That environment can include the pedagogies employed the amount
241
and depth of collaboration and the extent to which there exists a genuine
community of practice.
Using longitudinal quantitative methods, Holzberger et al. (2013) were
able to determine that a teachers self-efficacy was not only a cause of educational processes being used but also a consequence. In other words, when
teachers successfully used high-quality strategies for their students that
resulted in improved outcomes, their own self-efficacy significantly
improved as a consequence. It appears it is a two-way street when researchbased strategies are used in classrooms to enhance student learning, selfefficacy is enhanced.
The call consistently remains for further investigation into the mediating
variables involved in enhancing self-efficacy to ensure that student outcomes continue to improve with a more dedicated focus on inclusive education. A scale that encompasses the characteristics of research-based ET, CL
and collaborative problem-solving will be beneficial for classroom use.
CONCLUSION
The inclusion of students with special needs remains a challenge for teachers when research-based pedagogies and collaboration are not translated
into practice. We need to attend to measuring school and classroom indicators of inclusive education to enable professional development for teachers
in a more empirical and guided manner. The literature reviewed here provides a starting place for the indicators that are required as part of that
measurement process.
Teacher use of research-based pedagogies and curriculum differentiation
already has well-established characteristics; the need remains for consistent
implementation fidelity measurement and resultant professional development on an ongoing basis. Little and Houstons (2003) framework is readily translated from the research arena to practical settings and could be
useful to this end. Teachers capacity to communicate about learning using
professional language and collaborative problem-solving processes requires
consensus about the characteristics to be included so implementation
fidelity can be monitored in the same way.
The SOLO taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982) enables empirical analysis
of professional language being used by teachers whilst collaborating.
Finally, teachers sense of self-efficacy when working with students who
have special needs requires a scale that encompasses these indicators so
242
JULIE LANCASTER
REFERENCES
Allen, S., & Blackston, A. (2003). Training preservice teachers in collaborative problem solving: An investigation of the impact on teacher and student behavior change in realworld settings. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(1), 22 51. doi:10.1521/
scpq.18.1.22.20878
Ashman, A., & Elkins, J. (Eds.). (2012). Education for inclusion and diversity (4th ed.). Frenchs
Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Avery, L., & Meyer, D. (2012). Teaching science as science is practiced: Opportunities and
limits for enhancing preservice elementary teachers self-efficacy for science and science
teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 112(7), 395 409. doi:10.1111/j.19498594.2012.00159.x
Bain, A. (2007). The self-organizing school: Next generation comprehensive school reform.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Bain, A., Lancaster, J., & Zundans, L. (2009). Pattern language development in the preparation of inclusive educators. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education, 20(3), 336 349.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy.
Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729 735.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. Harvard Mental Health Letter, 13(9), 4.
Bethune, K., & Wood, C. (2013). Effects of coaching on teachers use of function-based interventions for students with severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education,
36(2), 97 114.
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy.
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Bloom, B. (1984). The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one
tutoring. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 4 17.
Buysse, V., Sparkman, K. L., & Wesley, P. W. (2003). Communities of practice: Connecting
what we know with what we do. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 263.
Carter, M., Stephenson, J., & Strnadova, I. (2011a). Agreeing to agree: A response to
Dempseys commentary on the reported prevalence by Australian special educators of
evidence-based instructional practices. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 35(2),
226 229.
Carter, M., Stephenson, J., & Strnadova, I. (2011b). Reported prevalence by Australian special
educators of evidence-based instructional practices. Australasian Journal of Special
Education, 35(1), 47 60. doi:10.1375/ajse.35.1.47
Cazden, C. (1993). Immersing, revealing, and telling: A continuum from implicit to explicit
teaching. Paper presented at the International Conference on Teacher Education in
Second Language Teaching, Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED365134&site=ehost-live
243
Chan, D. (2008). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers
in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 28(2), 181 194. doi:10.1080/01443410701491833
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Studying teacher education: What we know and need to know.
Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4), 301 306. doi:10.1177/0022487105280116
Cook, B., & Tankersley, M. (2012). Research-based practices in special education. Boston, MA:
Pearson Higher Ed.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What
matters. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46 53.
Denton, C., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading
intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 201 211.
Deshler, D. (2003). Intervention research and bridging the gap between research and practice.
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 1(1), 1 7.
Ernest, J., Heckaman, K., Thompson, S., Hull, K., & Carter, S. (2011). Increasing the teaching
efficacy of a beginning special education teacher using differentiated instruction: A case
study. International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 191 201.
Fraser, B., Walberg, H., Welch, W., & Hattie, J. (1987). Syntheses of educational productivity
research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 147 252. doi:10.1016/
0883-0355(87)90035-8
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2010). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (4th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1998). Researchers and teachers working together to adapt instruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(3), 126 137.
Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. (2012). Curriculum-based early literacy assessment and differentiated instruction with high-risk preschoolers. Reading Psychology, 33(1 2), 11 46.
doi:10.1080/02702711.2012.630605
Gillies, R. (2002). The residual effects of cooperative-learning experiences: A two-year followup. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 15 20. doi:10.2307/27542408
Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (2000). The effects of cooperative learning on students with learning
difficulties in the lower elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 34, 19 27.
doi:10.1177/002246690003400102
Harris, D. (2011). Curriculum differentiation and comprehensive school reform: Challenges in
providing educational opportunity. Educational Policy, 25(5), 844 884. doi:10.1177/
0895904810386600
Hastings, P. (2012). Early career teachers self-efficacy for balanced reading instruction.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(6), 55 72. doi:10.14221/ajte.2012v37n6.2
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London:
Routledge.
Hintze, J. (2005). Psychometrics of direct observation. School Psychology Review, 34(4),
507 519.
Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers self-efficacy is related to
instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
105(3), 774.
Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of
teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4),
343 356.
Hueng, V. (2006). Can introduction of an inclusion index move a system forward?
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(4 5), 309 322.
244
JULIE LANCASTER
245
Slavin, R. (2005). Evidence-based reform: Advancing the education of students at risk. Retrieved
from http://www.americanprogress.org
Slavin, R., Madden, N., Dolan, L., Wasik, B., Ross, S., Smith, L., & Dianda, M. (1996).
Success for all: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 1, 41 76.
Smethurst, J. B. (1997). Communities of practice and pattern language. Journal of Transition
Management. Retrieved from http://www.mgtaylor.com/mgtaylor/jotm/summer97/
community_of_practice.htm
Thomson, C. (2011). Collaborative consultation to promote inclusion: Voices from the
classroom. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(8), 882 894. doi:10.1080/
13603116.2011.602535
Thomson, C., Brown, D., Jones, L., Walker, J., Moore, D., Anderson, A., & Koegel, R.
(2003). Resource teachers learning and behavior: Collaborative problem solving to
support inclusion. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(2), 101 111.
doi:10.1177/10983007030050020501
Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202.
Viel-Ruma, K., Houchins, D., Jolivette, K., & Benson, G. (2010). Efficacy beliefs of special
educators: The relationships among collective efficacy, teacher self-efficacy, and job
satisfaction. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(3), 225 233.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2),
225 246. doi:10.1177/135050840072002
Wesley, P. W., & Buysse, V. (2001). Communities of practice: Expanding professional roles to
promote reflection and shared inquiry. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
21(2), 114.
Wolford, P. L., Heward, W. L., & Alber, S. R. (2001). Teaching middle school students with
learning disabilities to recruit peer assistance during cooperative learning group activities. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16(3), 161.
Yilmaz, C. (2011). Teachers perceptions of self-efficacy, English proficiency, and instructional
strategies. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39(1), 91 100.
ASSESSING TEACHER
COMPETENCIES FOR INCLUSIVE
SETTINGS: COMPARATIVE
PRE-SERVICE TEACHER
PREPARATION PROGRAMS
Kymberly Drawdy, Meng Deng and
Catherine Howerter
ABSTRACT
The chapter will address comparative teacher preparation programs for
teachers who wish to teach in inclusive settings, including those in the
United States and Peoples Republic of China. Consideration will be
given to developing course objectives and outcomes for teacher preparation programs through the alignment of teacher standards and content
standards. Further, discussion will review assessing pre-service teacher
candidates for inclusive settings. It will conclude with recommendations
for inclusive teacher preparation programs.
Keywords: Pre-service teacher preparation; comparative special
education; inclusion; teacher certification
247
248
INTRODUCTION
Both academic and social outcomes for students with disabilities are
improved when they are exposed to the general education curricula within
the inclusive setting (Obiakor, Harris, Mutua, Rotatori, & Aglozzine,
2012). Instructional models presented in the K-12 classroom to meet the
needs of these students vary throughout the United States (US) and other
countries around the world.
In this chapter, the authors conduct an examination of the history of
teacher preparation programs in the US and Peoples Republic of China
(PRC) designed for teachers who wish to teach in inclusive settings as well
as teachers who are required to have this certification to be considered teachers of record in their classrooms. As the PRC continues to increase the
number, amount and type of special education services, including inclusion
of students with disabilities in the general education curriculum, the US is
also identifying models to address the rise in inclusive practices.
Concurrently, PRC and the US are both addressing and redesigning
their teacher preparation programs and, as such, provide a snapshot of
diverse planning for pre-service teacher programs that may address similar
program revision problems and solutions. The authors also examine the
emergence of the dual certification preparation of pre-service teachers.
249
250
251
and retention of content included on high-stakes tests. The increase of students with disabilities in the general education classroom, and the increased
accountability for both special and general education teachers highlighted
the need to directly prepare both teachers for inclusive environments
(e.g., co-teaching) (Oyler, 2011).
Likewise, change began to occur for Chinese special education instructional practices under the open reform policy of Deng Xiaoping (Deng &
Poon-McBrayer, 2004). In 1982, the newly revised Constitution was the first
legislation to mandate the provision of special education in China. The
Compulsory Education Law of the PRC (The National Peoples Congress,
1986) mandated that all children who have reached the age of six shall be
enrolled in school and receive compulsory education for the prescribed
number of years (p. 41). The PRC requires schools to provide compulsory
education to children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities, and
visual and hearing impairments in primary or middle school (Ministry of
Education of China, 2003). This is a similar practice found in the principle
of Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to all children (Haring,
McCormick, & Haring, 1994) as mandated in the Education of Handicapped
Childrens Act (1975) in the US (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2004).
With the introduction of mainstreaming and inclusion to China in the
late 1980s, China initiated a national movement on inclusive education
called Learning in Regular Classrooms (LRC) in response to both the
domestic need and the international trend (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2004).
The intent was to address similar issues of providing quality education to
students with disabilities within the confines of the general education
setting. The LRC movement happened in conjunction with further teacher
preparation of all teachers in the instruction of students with diverse
learning needs.
The Suggestions on Developing Special Education (State Council of
China, 1989) promoted the idea that the training of teachers should precede
the creation of programs for students with disabilities at the local school
level. The tenets of this mandate were:
1. Various regions should provide special education training for the graduates from the middle teacher-training schools, and in-service teachers of
general secondary schools and childrens welfare institutions a part of
high school graduates and people-run teachers can also be trained to
teach in special education settings.
2. Various areas should adopt different measures to train on-job teachers
so as to enhance their professional potentials.
252
253
254
classrooms. The current efforts to provide substantial, research-based curricula for teacher training at both the pre-service and in-service level continues to address the need for all teachers to have mastery of teaching
practices for a range of diverse learners.
Almost all policy documents relating to special education published by
the Chinese central government have specific chapters or paragraphs on
teacher training. After the passing of the Compulsory Education Law, the
State Council emphasized the importance of teacher training for LRC programs in its document Suggestions on Implementation of the Compulsory
Education Law (The National Peoples Congress of Peoples Republic of
China, 1986) and a follow up document the Suggestions on Developing
Special Education (State Council of China, 1989) declared that teacher
training should go before the development of special education programs.
This edict may have resulted from the fact that no specific teacher training institutions for special education could be found in China before 1980s
(Deng & Harris, 2008). Universities were requested to provide training programs and then the graduates from these new teacher training schools and
universities constituted a team of professionals who were trained according
to prescribed and sequential coursework. This was a change from prior teacher training which consisted of the observation of other teachers and
learning in an on the job model as one taught.
The university-trained teachers were prepared specifically to teach
students with and without disabilities in classrooms that were designated as
LRC, similar to the original practice in the US of schools with dedicated
inclusive classrooms. This type of pre-service teacher preparation
assumed that schools were not following a pure inclusive model where the
school-wide practice would be that all classes available to all students,
regardless of learning needs. Instead, this preparation recognized that some
classes would enroll students with diverse learning needs, while other
classes would contain only children who were identified as nondisabled.
255
256
not include specific course content that addresses the needs of students with
disabilities who may be included in the teachers classroom. Furthermore,
field experiences may or may not provide the opportunity for pre-service
teachers to work with students with diverse learners.
Most traditional teacher preparation programs may not provide coursework that includes content on differentiation for students and collaboration among teacher faculty, which is the foundation for inclusive settings.
In the same study (Harvey et al., 2010), the only item on the survey that
was found to be statistically significant between the special education
faculty and the elementary or secondary faculty survey participants was the
inclusion of a course on collaboration in the program of study. Special education faculty indicated that the course was available to their majors, while
the general education faculty indicated that this course was not a part of
their program of study. Interestingly, no statistically significant differences
were found between the survey participants in whether their program provided field experiences whereby pre-service teachers could collaborate
across content. It appears somewhat counterintuitive, however, that preservice teachers are placed in field experiences that promote collaboration,
but that the general education pre-service teachers, one half of a collaborative pair for inclusive settings, do not receive any specific coursework in
collaboration.
257
inclusive settings (Blanton & Pugach, 2011). In teacher preparation programs that use the traditional model, pre-service teachers take coursework
in their selected area and may take one or two courses outside of that area
(Blanton & Pugach, 2011).
While the traditional model usually included the single mandated introduction to special education course, a pre-service general education teacher
might choose to take additional special education course(s) (Young, 2011).
The programs assume that pre-service teachers will make the link from general to special education and that they will generalize learning to the school
environment (Blanton & Pugach, 2011).
The dual certification program model is designed to overlap curricula
for the preparation of pre-service general and special education teachers.
In this type of pre-service training, special education and general education faculty collaborate to align the curricula for all pre-service teachers,
thus, preparing them to work with students with and without disabilities.
In this model, all courses are intended to provide coursework and field
experiences that provide a solid foundation in working in inclusive
settings.
The US has identified the need for assessment of teacher preparation
programs specific to dual certification and other certification for teachers in
inclusive settings; the PRC is quickly addressing many of the same issues
that are encountered in determining the teacher competencies for programs
that include skills for both traditional general education teacher preparation and special education teacher preparation.
Specific standards that are used to develop course content for general
education and special education programs include the Interstate Teacher
Assessment and Support Consortium Standards (InTASC Standards)
(Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2013) and content
standards (i.e., NCTM, NCSS, CEC, etc.,) and these standards are often
cross-listed throughout a program curricula. As a result, many programs
match particular specific program area (SPA) standards to the overarching
InTASC standards. Similarities are identified within program courses that
illustrate the coverage of required standards. There is a recognition that
perhaps the best way to teach students with varying ability levels is to
prepare all teachers in a dual certification model. The teachers who are
prepared with both content and strategies are best prepared for teaching in
inclusive settings, and a dually certified teacher reduces the need for two
teachers in a single classroom. Since the passage of NCLB, the need for
highly qualified teachers is at an all-time high, especially in the high need
areas (Math, Science). The preparation of a single highly qualified teacher
258
who knows both content and strategies for diversity is cost-effective and
astute.
All teachers in the PRC remain a much needed commodity, and as such,
one-time requirements for certification of teachers have been loosened.
Formerly, a pre-service teacher was required to have either graduated from
an institution that provided teacher preparation program or have participated in some type of teacher preparation program. Since 1999, an applicant can receive a teaching certificate if he or she can pass four qualifying
tests. At this point the pre-service teacher can seek employment and schools
can recruit their own teachers (Ingersoll, 2007). Because of the need for
teachers, especially in the outlying rural areas, teacher preparation may
resemble the earlier emergency certification era in special education fields
that the US encountered in the early 1980s as students with disabilities
were being mainstreamed into general education classrooms (Deng &
Harris, 2008). It is in the interest of the PRC to create a culturally relevant
pre-service teacher preparation model that is inclusive in the premise that
the needs of future generations are being shaped by the teachers of today.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, in order to assure that pre-service teachers are prepared for
inclusive setting it is essential that teacher preparation programs are
assessed based upon the current laws, current research, and national
standards. Teacher preparation programs must provide all pre-service
teachers with some training in inclusive practices. Effective programs base
these inclusive practices upon current research and national standards.
When assessing teacher preparation programs, two main areas should be
reviewed: (a) coursework and (b) field placements. Coursework should
include current research on inclusive practices (e.g., planning, co-teaching,
differentiation, backwards design). There should be specific courses on
addressing the needs of diverse learners, planning, collaboration, and strategy design. This change in how courses present the responsibilities of all
teachers to teach all students may affect teacher perceptions of self-efficacy
and competency in teaching students who learn differently.
Additionally, during coursework pre-service teachers should be provided
demonstration teaching by experts in the field; ideally this would be best
accomplished by co-teaching with university faculty members and with
their own supervising teacher. All teacher preparation programs should
259
REFERENCES
Blanton, L. P., & Pugach, M. C. (2007, June). Collaborative programs in general and special
teacher education: An action guide for higher education and state policy makers.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Blanton, L. P., & Pugach, M. C. (2011). Using a classification system to probe the meaning of
dual licensure in general and special education. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 34, 219 234.
Cooper, J. E., Kurtts, S., Baber, C. R., & Vallecorsa, W. (2008). A model for examining
teacher preparation curricula for inclusion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35, 155 176.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013, April). Model core teaching standards and learning progressions for teachers 1.0: A resource for ongoing teacher development. Interstate
Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium InTASC. Washington, DC: Author.
Coutinho, M. J., & Repp, A. C. (1999). Inclusion: The integration of students with disabilities.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
Deng, M., & Harris, K. (2008). Meeting the needs of students with disabilities in general education classrooms in China. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31(3), 195 207.
Deng, M., & Manset, G. (2000). Analysis of the Learning in Regular Classrooms movement
in China. Mental Retardation, 38(2), 124 130.
Deng, M., & Poon-McBrayer, K. F. (2004). Inclusive education in China: Conceptualisation
and realization. Asia-Pacific Journal of Education, 24(2), 143 157.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. P.L. 94 142.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. P.L. 89 10.
Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1968. P.L. 90 247.
260
Ellsworth, N., & Zhang, C. (2007). Progress and challenges in Chinas special education development: Observations, reflections, and recommendations. Remedial and Special
Education, 28(1), 58 64.
Foreman, P. (1996). Integration and inclusion in action. Sydney: Harcourt Brace.
Garvar, A., & Papania, A. (1982). Team-technology: It works for the student. Academic
Therapy, 18, 191196.
Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for
UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General
Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.k8accesscenter.org/training_resources/udl/
documents/DifferentiatedInstructionUDL_000.pdf. Accessed on November 2, 2006.
Handicapped Childrens Early Education Assistance Act of 1968. P.L. 90 538.
Haring, N. G., McCormick, L., & Haring, T. G. (1994). Exceptional children and youth: An
introduction to special education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Merrill.
Harvey, M. W., Yssel, N., Bauserman, A. D., & Merbler, J. B. (2010). Preservice teacher preparation for inclusion: An exploration of higher education teacher-training institutions.
Remedial and Special Education, 31, 24 33.
Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 77 94.
Idol-Maestas, L. (1983). Special educators consultation handbook. Rockville, MD: Aspen
Publication.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. P.L. 108 446, 118 Stat,
2647.
Ingersoll, R. (2007). A comparative study of teacher preparation and qualifications in 6 nations.
Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Lang, G., & Berberich, C. (1995). All children are special: Creating an inclusive classroom.
York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Liu, S. S. (2001). Zhongguo yitihua jiaoyu yanjiu de lilun yu shijian [Theory and practice for
integrated education in China]. Wuhan, China: Wuhan Publishing Company.
Ludlow, B. (2012). Co-teaching & collaboration: A collection of articles from teaching exceptional children. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
McKleskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2011). Education programs for elementary students with
learning disabilities: Can they be both effective and inclusive? Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 26(1), 48 57.
Ministry of Education of China. (2003). 2003 nian quanguo jiaoyu shiye fazhan tongji gongbao [The major statistics of the national education development in 2003]. Retrieved
from http://www.edu.cn/20040527/3106677.shtml
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011). Digest of education statistics: 2011.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). P.L. 107 110, 115, Stat 1425.
Obiakor, F. E., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Aglozzine, B. (2012). Making inclusion
work in general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 35,
477 490.
Oyler, C. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive and critical (special) education. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 34, 201 218.
Piao, Y. X. (1996). Teshu jiaoyu cidian [Dictionary of special education]. Beijing: Huaxia Press.
261
Pugach, M. C., Blanton, L. P., & Correa, V. I. (2011). A historical perspective on the role of
collaboration in teacher education reform: Making good on the promise of teaching all
students. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 183 200.
Rose, D. H., & Gravel, J. W. (2010). Universal design for learning. In P. Peterson, E. Baker &
B. McGraw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 119 124). Oxford:
Elsevier.
State Council of China. (1994). Can ji ren jiaoyu tiao li [Ordinance of education for persons
with disabilities]. Beijing: The State Council.
State Council of China. (1989). Guanyu fa zhan te shu jiao yu de ruogan yijian [Suggestions
on developing special education]. In Y. Xu & L. Y. Shi (Eds.), (1990), Ruozhi ertong
jiaoyu jingyan jing xuan [Symposia of special education on mentally retarded children]
(pp. 1 9). Zhejiang: Zhejiang Education Press.
The National Peoples Congress of Peoples Republic of China. (1986). Zhong hua renmin
gong he guo yi wu jiaoyu fa [Compulsory education law of the Peoples Republic of
China]. In Ministry of Education in China (Ed.), The laws on education of the Peoples
Republic of China (pp. 40 47). Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
The National Peoples Congress of Peoples Republic of China. (1991). Zhong hua renmin gong
he guo can ji ren baozhang fa [Law of the Peoples Republic of China on protection of
disabled persons]. Beijing: Huaxia Press.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Villa, R. A., & Thousand, J. S. (2000). Restructuring for caring and effective education: Piecing
the puzzle together. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design, expanded (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Will, M. (1986). Educating students with learning problems: A shared responsibility.
Washington, DC: US Office of Education, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
Ye, L. Y., & Piao, Y. X. (1995). Te shu jiaoyu xue [The study of special education]. Fuzhou,
China: Fujian Education Press.
Young, K. S. (2011). Institutional separation in schools of education: Understand the functions of space in general and special education teacher preparation. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 27, 483 493.
263
264
INTRODUCTION
As schools are required to support the learning of increasingly diverse
populations of pupils, concerns have been voiced about the education of
teachers for inclusion at national and international levels (Acedo, 2011;
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2011).
Forlin (2010) argues that teacher education has not kept pace with the
changes taking place in schools, suggesting that most courses on inclusion
and diversity are taught as segregated units for specialist teachers, thereby
sending a message that this is not part of the normal work of teachers. This
chapter reports on work undertaken in the University of Aberdeen,
Scotland, which sought to address this issue, by designing a core course for
pre-service teachers and a masters level course for experienced teachers
which were predicated on the notion of inclusive pedagogy as developed by
Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011).
Inclusive pedagogy is an approach to teaching and learning that seeks to
address the dilemma of difference, originally articulated by Minow (1985)
whereby responses to difficulties in learning often involve targeting support
in ways that highlight and exacerbate the very difference that they aim to
address. Instead, inclusive pedagogy argues for extending the options that
are ordinarily available to everybody rather than differentiating activities
only for some (Florian, 2010). However, whilst inclusive pedagogy is based
on a set of clear underlying principles to inform the choices teachers make,
it does not dictate any particular action. Questions arose, for us, as teacher
educators and researchers, about how teachers committed to inclusive
pedagogy would enact these principles and how we would recognise inclusive pedagogy if we saw it in action.
In this chapter we describe how we developed and used a framework, to
allow us to make robust judgements about the practice of newly qualified
teachers, who had graduated from the University of Aberdeens Professional
Graduate Diploma in Education course. More recently we have introduced
a masters level course entitled Inclusive Pedagogy for experienced teachers,
and later in the chapter we describe how teachers themselves have used the
framework to make judgements about their own work.
265
266
with the ways in which children are supported when they face difficulties in
learning. Inclusive pedagogy suggests that instead of offering one learning
opportunity to most children with something different for some children,
teachers extend the choices ordinarily available to everybody in their classrooms. Thus, when planning, teachers consider the individuality of each
child in the class to ensure that there are options available for all, but they
are offered in ways which do not limit progress for any learner by prejudging what they might, or might not, do. Kershner (2009) suggests that
inclusive pedagogy should adopt strategies based on current psychological
understandings of collective learning such as situated cognition, distributed
intelligence, dialogic teaching and multimodal learning, thereby encouraging a flexible approach to teaching and learning in which children are
encouraged to learn together.
While it is commonly reported that classroom teachers often claim that
they do not have the skills required to teach certain groups of children,
who they deem to be the remit of specialists, it also argued that this
position is a barrier to the development of inclusive education. Inclusive
pedagogy demands that classroom teachers take responsibility for all children and seek support when needed rather than adopt the view that there
are some children who they cannot, or should not be required to, teach.
Findings from a large international study (Rix & Sheehy, 2014) have confirmed the lack of evidence for any special pedagogy being used when
teaching children deemed to have learning difficulties. As Rix and Sheehy
(ibid.) have argued, effective pedagogy for inclusion is based on the skills
that are already available to all teachers. Hence, class teachers need to be
disabused of the idea that they are not qualified to teach all learners.
The inclusive pedagogical approach invites teachers to re-think the traditional silos of professional responsibility, and to work with specialists in
order to find new ways of providing meaningful learning experiences for all
children within the classroom community. As Norwich (2009) points out,
categorising children into sub-groups according to their perceived deficiencies may stigmatise children, but not offering support to those experiencing
difficulty is discriminatory. Inclusive pedagogy does not reject the support
that specialists can provide but encourages new ways of collaborative
working that avoid the unintended negative outcomes associated with the
dilemma of difference.
The brief account above describes the three key theoretical principles
which were foundational to the IPP approach to initial teacher education:
(1) differences are to be expected, (2) class teachers can teach all learners but
(3) doing so requires new ways of working with specialists. In establishing
267
The Relationship between the Principles of Inclusive Pedagogy and the Professional Studies Core
Themes.
Principles/Underlying
Assumptions
Associated Concepts/Actions
Key Challenges
PGDE
Professional
Studies Course
Themes
Outcome (Programme
Graduates)
Reject deterministic
views of ability
Accept that differences
are part of human
condition
Reject idea that the
presence of some will
hold back the
progress of others
Believe that all children
can make progress (if
conditions are right)
Commitment to the
support of all learners.
Belief in own capacity
to promote learning
for all children
Willingness to work
(creatively) with and
through others
1. Difference must be
accounted for as an
essential aspect of human
development in any
conceptualisation of
learning
268
Table 1.
269
270
asking the children to make models of aliens, and then reported that the
stories written about these models were amazing. Following this, she used
a piece of music as a stimulus to writing, and made the following observations about one pupil:
[She] wrote a fantastic story and cant even write very well, she came out with this
amazing story about what she heard from the tune, that she thought it was a little girl
running away from lightening, because at one point when the cymbals crash she
thought that was like the lightening and this girl running and things like that, and this
was all in her head.
However, whilst the music proved to be a fantastic stimulus for one pupil
Mary noted it was less successful for others. Interestingly, the girl who was
normally the best writer in the class drew little stimulus from the music.
From these experiences Mary developed the practice of providing a range
of stimuli for creative writing, to widen the opportunities for all pupils to
be inspired to write.
Marys work clearly met the main principles of inclusive pedagogy, outlined in Table 1 as she based her work on an assumption of diversity in the
way that children would learn, and viewed it as her responsibility to support all learners in their creative writing. She rejected a unidimensional
approach to intelligence and instead sought multiple ways of inviting all
children to participate in the classroom learning. This example also showed
how she developed her pedagogy by working creatively with another professional. Within the example given we can see how no ceilings were placed
on the learning of children, but instead there were opportunities for transformability, where some childrens work was much improved through the
range of options available.
A second example of inclusive pedagogy in action is drawn from the
practice of Dianne, a secondary teacher of French. She discussed at length
how she was developing ways of differentiating work, acknowledging the
difficult balance between ensuring each child had opportunities that were
appropriate, whilst at the same time avoiding coded messages about
expected outcomes. She had begun by using what she called differentiation
by outcome meaning giving all children the same, open-ended, task which
allowed each child to approach it differently. However, in the context of
the secondary French curriculum, she was dissatisfied with this as her main
means of differentiation, so instead was introducing systems whereby various cues were available for all children (e.g. colour coding of key words,
or reminders made visible on the walls) so that help was available for those
who needed it, but the teacher did not make any pre-judgements about
271
who might make use of the additional supports. This was coupled with an
element of choice in the work activities, whereby several activities were
made available to the whole class, and the differences between them were
explained to the pupils, but the choice of who did which task, and in what
order was negotiated between the child and the teacher. At all times
Dianne avoided grouping by ability, but she purposefully selected groups
in which she felt children would support each other in their work. In this
way, developing a positive learning community was an important aspect of
her pedagogy.
Thus Dianne was responding to the diversity of existing knowledge and
skills of the children, by ensuring that all children had access to tasks and
support that they required to make progress in her subject, but she was
careful to avoid doing this in ways that communicated messages about
what any child was expected to achieve. This approach shows how her
understanding of learning was intertwined with her commitment to social
justice, demonstrating how the key themes of inclusive pedagogy are not
discrete issues to be addressed independently, but how they are synergistically intertwined.
Whilst the actual practice of Dianne and Mary that is described in these
examples is quite different, it can be shown that they are underpinned by
the shared principles of inclusive pedagogy. Both teachers took responsibility for all learners, and acted on a belief that all children will learn if the
conditions are right. Neither used ability as a main organiser for grouping
or allocation of work. Both avoided the situation where they provided one
activity for most of the class, with something additional or different for
some, but instead they ensured that the range of opportunities were available to everybody. Ultimately, both created opportunities whereby learning
capacity could be improved for the better.
The exemplification of the principles of inclusive pedagogy, as outlined
here, shows how the choices made by classroom teachers about the
organisation of teaching and learning are vital aspects of inclusion. As Hart
et al. (2004) point out everything that a teacher chooses to do, or not to do,
can have implications for the learning of children. Inclusion is not seen as
the responsibility of additional support staff, or other specialists. It is
notable that the actual practices that the teachers used in these examples,
and across our study data as a whole, were approaches that are widely
known within the repertoire of the teaching profession, echoing Rix
and Sheehys (2014) observation that there is no special set of methods
for children who are having difficulties with learning. The skill lies in
knowing when and how it is appropriate or helpful to use a particular
272
273
For this reason, following the implementation of the PGDE course, and
the development of a robust framework for gauging inclusive pedagogy, we
were very keen to extend the work of the IPP project to include an education programme for experienced teachers. The following section describes
the introduction of a masters level course entitled Inclusive Pedagogy
aimed at practicing teachers. This course can be taken as a stand-alone
option, or together with other modules it can contribute to the qualification
of Certificate in Inclusive Practice, Diploma in Inclusive Practice or
Masters Degree in Inclusive Practice. The course has a number of innovative features which are described below. Currently this course has run
twice, and as yet no formal follow-up research has been undertaken with
participating teachers. Hence this part of the chapter is based upon early
reflections by the teaching team based on discussions with teachers, assessment of assignments and teacher feedback.
In most schools there is a deep cultural and structural divide between
those teachers who are considered to be mainstream or regular education
class teachers and those who have responsibilities towards children deemed
to have additional support needs (or special educational needs) and this
may impede progress towards inclusion even where this is the stated aim of
the school (Pugach & Blanton, 2014). In Scotland, all teachers initially qualify as classroom teachers, and only after a period of time as a classroom
teacher do some elect to become additional support staff. Notably, however, it is rare for teachers to make the opposite move, to change from
being additional support back to becoming classroom teachers. Hence any
new insights on inclusion gained through experience in additional support
are not readily transferred back into the main classroom. For this reason,
the Inclusive Pedagogy course is aimed at both classroom teachers and
additional support needs teachers, in order to provide opportunities for
them to gain new perspectives by working together. During the course there
are multiple opportunities for discussions between the teachers. In particular, when preparing their assignments the teachers support each other in
small groups of critical learning buddies, made up of teachers with contrasting experiences, so that they may discuss their projects in detail
together. This aspect of the course design resonates with one of the key
principles of inclusive pedagogy, to develop new ways of working with and
through others.
The Inclusive Pedagogy course is delivered entirely online, which extends
its potential reach beyond those who can travel to Aberdeen regularly. Its
participants include Scottish and international teachers. Weekly readings
and activities are provided for students whose responses take the form of
274
275
existing ways of thinking and doing. Much of the discussion focussed on the
four key challenges identified in Table 1: Bell-curve thinking and notions
of fixed ability still underpin the structure of schooling; The identification of
difficulties in learning and the associated focus on what the learner cannot
do often puts a ceiling on learning and achievement; Teachers must be disabused of the notion that some children are not their responsibility; and
Changing the way we think about inclusion (from most and some to
everybody). Course participants could find it unsettling to be confronted
with literature suggesting that some of their habitual practices, which they
believed to be inclusive, could be construed as reinforcing difference.
Furthermore, the PGDE students were all preparing to be classroom
teachers, and therefore the challenge of inclusive pedagogy was to ensure
participation of all children in the learning community of the classroom,
and to prevent marginalisation and exclusion, whereas some of the experienced teachers were constrained by working in environments which were
structured for segregation rather than inclusion. In particular, those teachers whose responsibilities lay with educating children who were already
stigmatised and whose school lives had consisted of a history of repeated
exclusions found it difficult to know how to begin to enact inclusive pedagogy. This was, in some cases, exacerbated by a sense that they themselves,
as professionals, were conceptually outside the main body of the school,
having little influence on the staff as a whole. Therefore, when looking at
the choices that the experienced teachers made, in order to enact inclusive
pedagogy, much of the focus lay with working with and through others to
build better relationships between additional support staff and classroom
teachers.
The following are some examples of projects that the teachers undertook
as a result of the course. Across all of these projects it is possible to see
how the teachers were finding ways to make more opportunities available
to everybody instead of making different provision for some children. As
this has not been subject to formal research processes, these suggestions
should be seen as indicative of the kinds of ideas that may emerge from teachers who have engaged with the inclusive pedagogy framework, rather
than as research data. For this reason, these are simply outlines rather than
detailed descriptions or analyses of the projects.
A support teacher replaced the practice of taking a small group out of
class for emotional literacy sessions, but instead took the whole class
for a series of sessions, arguing that this was beneficial to all.
276
277
CONCLUSION
This chapter has described how our approach to developing and applying a
tool can be used to make systematic judgements about inclusive pedagogy.
The framework has been used by researchers seeking to examine the
practice of teachers and by teachers interrogating their own work. It foregrounds some important principles that can inform the choices made by
teachers, whilst leaving the decisions of how to enact those principles to be
made by the practitioners themselves. We hope the framework will be used
by others in a variety of educational contexts. There is a complex intersection between teacher education, practice, school culture and policy
(Pugach & Blanton, 2014) and the framework may be useful in supporting
the development of inclusive education in the many different organisational
levels and contexts in which it occurs.
REFERENCES
Acedo, C. (2011). Preparing teachers for inclusive education. Prospects Quarterly Review of
Comparative Education, 41(3), 301 302.
Alexander, R. (2004). Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary
education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 7 33.
Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary school. London: Routledge.
Black-Hawkins, K., Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2007). Achievement and inclusion in schools.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion. Developing learning and participation in
schools (3rd ed.). Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Daniels, H. (2009). Vygotsky and inclusion. In P. Hick, R. Kershner & P. Farrell (Eds.),
Psychology for inclusive education (pp. 24 37). Abingdon: Routledge.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2011). Teacher education for
inclusion across Europe
Challenges and opportunities. Odense, Denmark: European
Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
Florian, L. (2010). The concept of inclusive pedagogy. In G. Hallett, & F. Hallett (Eds.),
Transforming the role of the SENCO (pp. 61 72). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Florian, L. (2012). Preparing teachers to work in diverse classrooms: Key lessons for the
professional development of teacher educators from Scotlands Inclusive Practice
Project. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 275 285.
Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational
Research Journal, 37(5), 813 828.
Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive
practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 119 135. doi:10.1080/
08856257.2013.778111
278
Forlin, C. (2010). Reframing teacher education for inclusion. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Teacher
education for inclusion. Changing paradigms and innovative approaches (pp. 3 12).
Abingdon: Routledge.
Hart, S. (1998). A sorry tail: Ability, pedagogy and reform. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 46(2), 153 168.
Hart, S., Dixon, A., Drummond, M. J., & McIntyre, D. (2004). Learning without limits.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Kershner, R. (2009). Learning in inclusive classrooms. In P. Hick, R. Kershner & P. Farrell
(Eds.), Psychology for inclusive education. New directions in theory and practice
(pp. 52 65). Abingdon: Routledge.
Lucas, B., & Claxton, G. (2010). New kinds of smart: Teaching young people to be intelligent
for todays world. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 35(3), 357 382.
McIntyre, D. (2009). The difficulties of inclusive pedagogy for initial teacher education and
some thoughts on the way forward. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 602 608.
Minow, M. (1985). Learning to live with the dilemma of difference: Bilingual and special
education. Law and Contemporary Problems, 48(2), 157 221.
Norwich, B. (2009). Dilemmas of difference and the identification of special educational
needs/disability: International perspectives. British Educational Research Journal, 35(3),
447 467.
Opertti, R., & Brady, J. (2011). Developing inclusive teachers from an inclusive curricular
perspective. Prospects Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 41(3), 459 472.
Pugach, M., & Blanton, L. (2014). Inquiry and community: Uncommon opportunities to
enrich professional development for inclusion. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook
of special education (2nd ed., pp. 873 889). London: Sage.
Rix, J., & Sheehy, K. (2014). Nothing special: The everyday pedagogy of teaching. In
L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 460 474).
London: Sage.
Rouse, M. (2010). Reforming initial teacher education: A necessary but not sufficient
condition for developing inclusive practice. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Teacher education for
inclusion. Changing paradigms and innovative approaches (pp. 47 55). Abingdon:
Routledge.
Sachs, J. (2000). The activist professional. Journal of Educational Change, 1, 77 95.
Thomas, G., & Vaughan, M. (2004). Inclusive education: Readings and reflections.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
University of Aberdeen. (2011). Professional graduate diploma in education course handbook
2011/12. Unpublished manuscript.
279
280
The researchers examined the records of 67,749 students with mild disabilities in Georgia during a six-year period to determine the amount of
time spent in general education classrooms and the graduation rates for
each years cohort of students. Results indicated a 62% increase in the
percentage rate in inclusion for students with mild disabilities, while graduation rates for students with mild disabilities remained stable (+0.4%)
at less than 30% during that same period. This chapter will describe the
results of this study, discuss barriers to graduation, and present inclusive
practices that support students with mild disabilities.
Keywords: Inclusion; students with mild disabilities; graduation rate;
special education; inclusive practices
281
282
283
indicate similar results for students with disabilities, less than 60% of students with disabilities exit with a regular diploma (Swanson, 2008).
Students who do not complete high school are at an increased risk for
lower wages, higher rates of incarceration, and less access to postsecondary
education (Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2007; Test, Fowler, White,
Richter, & Walker, 2009). Without a high school diploma, options are
severely limited for postsecondary career success (Ryndak, Alper, Hughes, &
McDonnell, 2012). High school dropouts earn on average just under
$20,000, where high school graduates with no additional training can expect
to earn $10,000 more per year in mean earnings (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).
Here is the critical issue: will the raising of standards for all students,
which includes limiting lower level course options for some students, be
detrimental for those same students in the long run? Will those limitations
cause them to drop out? Would it be better to be allowed to take fewer
classes in the mainstream if it means they are not able to keep up?
Although there are benefits to both students with and without disabilities
when all students are integrated into the general classroom, it is not yet
clear whether the benefits to inclusion outweigh the consequences for
students with mild disabilities who cannot meet the requirements necessary
for a standard high school diploma where the alternative is dropping
out (Sitlington & Neubert, 2004; Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Gallini,
Simmons, & Feggins-Azziz, 2006). Therefore, the purpose of this study was
to determine the impact inclusion has on graduation rates for students with
mild disabilities. Graduation rates in Georgia for the past six years graduating classes were examined for students with mild disabilities who were
seeking standard diplomas. Students with mild disabilities were chosen as
they are the students who are most often placed in inclusive settings, who
more often work toward a standard diploma, and who are assessed using
statewide assessment tools.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Specifically, the following three questions were asked:
1. Has the rate of inclusion changed for students with mild disabilities in
Grade 8 through Grade 12 and for each disability category?
2. How have graduation rates changed when students with mild disabilities
seeking a standard diploma have been served in inclusive settings?
284
3. Are graduation rates different for students with various mild disabilities,
regardless of the diploma options?
METHOD
The authors compared state-reported school district data regarding the
amount of time students spent in general education (rate of inclusion) in
high school to the graduation rate. For this study, inclusion was defined as
students spending 80% or more of their school day in a general education
classroom. High school graduation rate was defined as the number of students in 12th grade who graduated from high school with a standard
diploma. Standard diplomas were defined as a high school completion credential that is fully aligned with state academic standards (34 C.F.R. 200.19
(b)(1)(iv) U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Alternative credentials (e.g.,
certificates of attendance, special education diplomas) were not counted.
By comparing the number of students at the end of eighth grade to the
number of students graduating in that same cohort four years later we were
able to construct, in a very rudimentary way, a picture of how inclusion
impacts graduation rates, when inclusion is required by limited diploma
options. It is unclear from the way the data are reported if it includes
students who graduated outside of their cohort, that is, taking more or less
than the four years expected.
285
STUDY RESULTS
Table 1 represents the percentage of inclusion rates and change in inclusion
rates for all students with mild disabilities in Grade 8 to Grade 12 for each
cohort from 2003 through 2008. The rate of inclusion for all students with
mild disabilities in the eighth grade ranged from 28.0% in 2003 to 32.2% in
2008. For 12th grade students with mild disabilities the inclusion rates went
from 44.5% in 2003 to 62.1% in 2008. The increase in inclusion rate
286
Table 1.
Inclusion/
Total
Disability
1999 2003
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
2000 2004
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
2001 2005
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
2002 2006
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
2003 2007
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
2004 2008
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
Grade 8
Grade 12
Increase in
Inclusion
(%)
SWD in
Inclusion
(n)
SWD
(n)
Inclusion
Rate (%)
SWD in
Inclusion
(n)
SWD
(n)
Inclusion
Rate (%)
2,585
137
467
1,761
220
9,232
2,068
1,928
4,471
765
28.0
6.6
24.2
39.4
28.8
2550
178
324
1,698
350
5,734
1,442
830
2,772
690
44.5
12.3
39.0
61.2
50.7
58.9
86.4
61.2
55.3
76.0
2,491
74
411
1,762
244
10,568
2,201
2,202
5,172
993
23.6
3.4
18.7
34.1
24.6
2,992
230
362
1,956
444
6,505
1,608
882
3,171
844
46.0
14.3
41.0
53.5
52.6
94.9
320.6
119.3
56.9
113.8
3,009
133
488
2,014
374
11,203
2,214
2,208
5,455
1,326
26.9
6.0
22.1
37.0
28.2
3,104
290
369
1,933
512
6,569
1,575
914
3,125
955
47.3
18.4
40.1
61.9
53.6
75.8
206.0
81.4
67.3
90.1
3,173
140
512
2,102
419
11,710
2,279
2,332
5,562
1,537
27.1
6.1
22.0
37.8
27.3
3,768
302
491
2,293
682
7,161
1,590
1,000
3,449
1,122
52.6
19.0
49.1
66.5
60.3
94.1
211.5
123.2
75.9
122.7
4,293
202
677
2,724
690
12,279
2,257
2,385
5,784
1,853
35.0
8.9
28.4
47.1
37.2
3,958
360
517
2336
745
7,392
1,590
1,003
3,506
1,293
53.4
22.6
51.5
66.6
57.6
52.6
153.9
81.3
41.4
54.8
4,873
252
829
2,930
862
12,757
2,181
2,492
5,886
2,198
38.2
11.6
33.3
49.8
39.2
4,754
421
584
2,746
1,003
7,656
1,513
945
3,684
1,514
62.1
27.8
61.8
74.5
66.2
62.6
139.7
85.6
49.6
68.9
SWD = students with mild disabilities; MID = students with mild intellectual disabilities;
EBD = students with emotional/behavioral disorders; SLD = students with specific learning
disabilities; OHI = students with other health impairments.
287
demonstrated concerted efforts by the state to increase inclusion for all students with mild disabilities during this time period. Increases in the rate of
inclusion for each cohort ranged from a low of 52.6% for the class of 2007
to a high of 94.9% for the class of 2004. Table 1 also represents the rate of
inclusion for each disability category from Grade 8 to Grade 12 for the
years 2003 through 2008. For students with MID, the percentage of
increase in inclusion settings from Grade 8 to Grade 12 ranged from a low
of 86.4% in 2003 to a high of 320.6% in 2004. For students with EBD, the
percentage of increase in inclusion ranged from a low of 61.2% in 2003 to
a high of 119.3% in 2004. For students with SLD, the percentage of
increase in inclusion ranged from a low of 41.4% in 2007 to a high of
75.9% in 2006. For students with OHI, the percentage of increase in inclusion ranged from a low of 68.90% in 2008 to a high of 113.8% in 2004.
These percentages were calculated for each disability category for each
graduating class from 2003 through 2008. For each disability category, the
percentage of students who were included increased, with the largest
increases occurring for students with MID in each graduation year and the
smallest increases in inclusion for students with SLD.
Table 2 represents the graduation rate for each cohort from 2003
through 2008 and was calculated by dividing the total number of 12th
graders with disabilities in all settings who received a standard diploma by
the total number of students with mild disabilities at the end of eighth
grade who were entering ninth grade in the fall. For example, in 1999 there
were 9,232 students for all categories of mild disabilities. Four years later
in 2003, a total of 2,428 students with mild disabilities graduated with a
standard diploma for a total graduation rate of 26.3%. During the six years
of the study, the graduation rate for all students with mild disabilities went
from 26.3% in 2003 to 26.7% in 2008. From 2003 to 2008, the graduation
rates for each cohort of students with MID decreased from 4.6% to 3.8%,
students with EBD increased from 15.6% to 16.6%, students with SLD
decreased from 37.1% to 36.1%, and students with OHI decreased from
48.8% to 36.3%.
Graduation rates (Fig. 1) varied for each disability category, with a
decrease of approximately one percentage point in graduation rates from
2003 through 2008 for students with MID and SLD, an increase of one percentage point for students with EBD, and a decrease of 12.5% for students
with OHI. Figs. 2 5 represent the data from the inclusion rate of students
in specific categories in Grade 8 and in Grade 12 (bars) for each graduating
class in 2003 2008, with the graduation rate (line) for students in inclusion
for each graduating class. These figures show that as inclusion increases
288
Table 2.
Graduation Rate of Students with Disabilities from 8th Grade to 12th Grade.
Number of SWD
Graduated in
12th Grade
Graduation
Rate (%)
2002 2006
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
11,710
2,279
2,332
5,562
1,537
2,986
83
349
1,922
542
24.7
3.64
14.97
34.56
35.36
23.8
3.27
13.08
33.22
43.81
2003 2007
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
12,375
2,312
2,397
5,796
1,870
3,032
80
402
1,914
631
24.5
3.46
16.77
33.02
33.73
22.0
3.07
13.50
30.01
34.84
2004 2008
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
12,851
2,237
2,511
5,902
2,201
3,429
85
416
2,130
798
26.7
3.8
16.57
36.09
36.26
Number of SWD
Graduated in
12th Grade
Graduation
Rate (%)
1999 2003
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
9,232
2,068
1,928
4,471
765
2,428
95
300
1,660
373
26.3
4.59
15.56
37.13
48.76
2000 2004
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
10,568
2,201
2,202
5,712
993
2,513
72
288
1,718
435
2001 2005
All SWD
MID
EBD
SLD
OHI
11,203
2,214
2,208
5,455
1,326
2,465
68
298
1,637
426
SWD = students with mild disabilities; MID = students with mild intellectual disabilities; EBD = students with emotional/behavioral disorders; SLD = students with specific learning disabilities; OHI = students with other health impairments.
Number of
SWD in 8th
Grade
Number of
SWD in 8th
Grade
289
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
OHI
SLD
30%
20%
EBD
10%
0%
MID
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Fig. 1. Graduation Rates for Students with Disabilities from Grade 8 to Grade 12.
OHI = students with other health impairments; SLD = students with specific
learning disabilities; EBD = students with emotional/behavioral disorders;
MID = students with mild intellectual disabilities.
from Grade 8 to Grade 12 for all disability categories, the graduation rate
stayed stable (MID, EBD, and SLD) or decreased (OHI). A Pearson r analysis of the data (r = .461875) indicates a weak positive relationship
between inclusion and graduation rates for all students with mild disabilities; a visual examination of Figs. 2 5 shows that relationship is more
clearly in graphic form.
To determine whether 12th grade students with mild disabilities in inclusionary settings were more likely to graduate, rates were calculated to
examine the completion rates for each graduating year from 2003 to 2008.
Fig. 6 represents these completion rates as a calculation of the number of
students with mild disabilities in inclusion who received a standard diploma
divided by the total number of students with mild disabilities in inclusion
in 12th grade for each year. Completion rates for those students with mild
disabilities enrolled in 12th grade inclusive settings were as follows: 65.1%
in 2003; 59.4% in 2004; 56.3% in 2005; 57.7% in 2006; 56.6% in 2007; and
59.3% in 2008.
Completion rates varied for each disability category with a slight percentage decrease from 2003 to 2008 (Fig. 6). Although the overall percentages
290
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
12th
10%
Graduation
rate
8th
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Fig. 2. Inclusion Rates for Students with Mild Disabilities in Grades 8 and 12
(Bars) and Graduation Rates (Line) MID. MID = students with mild intellectual
disabilities.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
12th
40%
Graduation
rate
30%
8th
20%
10%
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Fig. 3. Inclusion Rates for Students with Mild Disabilities in Grades 8 and 12
(Bars) and Graduation Rates (Line)
EBD. EBD = students with emotional/
behavioral disorders.
291
90%
80%
70%
12th
60%
Graduation
rate
50%
40%
8th
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Fig. 4. Inclusion Rates for Students with Mild Disabilities in Grades 8 and 12
(Bars) and Graduation Rates (Line) SLD. SLD = students with specific learning
disabilities.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Graduation rate
12th
50%
40%
30%
8th
20%
10%
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Fig. 5. Inclusion Rates for Students with Mild Disabilities in Grades 8 and 12
(Bars) and Graduation Rates (Line)
OHI. OHI = students with other health
impairments.
292
100%
90%
80%
70%
OHI
SLD
60%
EBD
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
MID
0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
of completion rates for students with mild disabilities in 12th grade were
higher than cohort graduation rates during the six years of the study, completion rates still decreased for each disability category: 3.7% for students
with MID, 0.4% for students with EBD, 4.5% for students with SLD, and
5.6% for students with OHI.
Since 1997, the IDEA has stressed the importance of including students
with special needs in the general education classroom. Both the IDEA (2004)
and the NCLB Act (2002) strengthened the mandate that all students have
access to the general education curriculum. The purpose of this study was to
examine inclusion in the general education classroom and graduation rates
for students with mild disabilities, with an eye toward the effect that increasing inclusion placements works to limit options for most students. As more
students are prescribed a service plan that places them in the general classroom, fewer course or content options are permitted. Future practice and
policy decisions regarding service delivery options for students with mild
disabilities should be based on data analysis of successful student outcomes
(Brigham et al., 2004). One such outcome is graduation rates.
293
294
295
296
abuse, gang affiliations, and juvenile justice issues. These problems often
start early in a students career and are pervasive throughout the grades
(Fries et al., 2012). Schools need to find ways to support students with
external challenges through community outreach and collaboration. Wraparound services provided by professionals in the school and community
help to ensure that students have timely and intensive supports for whatever challenges they may face. If students are supported in their life outside
of school, then they will be able to focus on their own education and learning in order to persevere all the way to graduation (Fries et al., 2012).
Communities and schools with successful high school outcomes, as
evidenced by high graduation rates, work together to provide the necessary
supports and services to families and youth who are at-risk of school
failure (Martin & Halperin, 2006).
297
decrease in graduation rates for students with OHI, this decline requires
that educators examine their practices more closely to best educate these
students and help them graduate.
Spitler, Repetto, and Cavanaugh (2013) explore virtual learning environments as a viable alternative to supporting students with disabilities in
inclusive environments. To ensure that the same supports and services in
traditional schools are provided virtually they have developed a framework
that includes many of the evidence-based practices already mentioned.
Spitler et al. (2013) suggest schools design learning environments that
serve students with disabilities through the 5-Cs framework designed to
increase school completion: Connect, Climate, Control, Curriculum, and
Caring Community (p. 4). Program examples that are part of this framework in a virtual setting include active participation by students and parents in Individualized Educational Program (IEP) meetings and transition
planning; individualized modifications and accommodations; continual
monitoring of student progress; and collaborative partnerships between the
parents, students, and teachers (Spitler et al., 2013). Blended learning
provides opportunities beyond the traditional school setting to meet a variety of student needs for more individualization and options for when and
how students complete graduation requirements. Technology can be used
to support students beyond classroom instruction through flipped learning
opportunities where teachers facilitate what students have learned outside
the classroom. Additionally, alternative opportunities to earn credits can
be provided through virtual courses offered for part or a students entire
educational program.
CONCLUSION
In the almost 40 years since Public Law Number 94 142 (Education for
All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 1975), the data from this study
indicated that students with disabilities are not graduating at the same rates
as students without disabilities. Although laws continue to be written to
ensure that students with disabilities receive an individualized and free and
appropriate public education, data show that they in fact are not receiving
the same opportunities as students without disabilities. As graduation
requirements are standardized and diploma options are limited, individual
options for specialized instruction are being eliminated (Bridgeland et al.,
2006; Brigham et al., 2004). In response, decisions should be made at the
298
299
REFERENCES
Balfanz, R. (2009, June). Putting middle grades students on the graduation path: A policy and
practice brief. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association. Retrieved from
https://www.amle.org/portals/0/pdf/articles/Policy_Brief_Balfanz.pdf
Bost, L. W., & Riccomini, P. J. (2006). Effective instruction: An inconspicuous strategy for
dropout prevention. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 301 311.
Bridgeland, J. M., DiIulio, J. J., Jr., & Morison, K. B. (2006, March). The silent epidemic:
Perspectives of high school dropouts. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.
Brigham, F. J., Gustashaw, W. E., III, Wiley, A. L., & Brigham, M. S. P. (2004). Research in
the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act: Why the controversies will continue and
some suggestions for controversial research. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 300 310.
Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). School dropouts: Prevention, considerations,
interventions, and challenges. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), 36 39.
Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. M. (2007). School characteristics related to high
school dropout rates. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 325 339.
Cook, B. G., Cameron, D. L., & Tankersley, M. (2007). Inclusive teachers attitudinal ratings
of their students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 40, 230 239.
Diamond, L. (2007, April 25). Gwinnett schools to phase out easier academic classes. The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, D5.
Downing, M. (2008, April 8). So much for No Child Left Behind. Houston Press. Retrieved from
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-04-10/news/so-much-for-no-child-left-behind/1
Editorial Projects in Education. (2007, June). Diplomas count 2007. National summary.
Bethesda, MD: Author.
Editorial Projects in Education. (2008). Diplomas count: National summary. Bethesda, MD:
Author.
Education Commission of the States. (2008). Standard high school graduation requirements.
Retrieved from http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=735
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. (1975). Pub. L. No. 94 142, 20 U.S.C.
1401 et seq.
Fries, D., Carney, K. J., Blackman-Urteaga, L., & Savas, S. A. (2012). Wraparound services:
Infusion into secondary schools as a dropout prevention strategy. NASSP Bulletin, 96,
119 136. doi:10.1177/0192636512443282
Georgia Department of Education [GADOE]. (2008). Georgias performance goals and indicators for students with mild disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/ci_
exceptional.aspx?PageReq=CIEXCPerfGoals
Georgia Department of Education [GADOE]. (2009a). Final AYP report: Graduation rate
rises to 78.9%. Retrieved from http://www.gadoe.org/External-Affairs-and-Policy/
communications/Pages/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?PressView=Archive&pid=138
Georgia Department of Education [GADOE]. (2009b). 2007 2008 Report card: Three-year
comparison of graduation rates. Retrieved from http://reportcard2008.gaosa.org/
(S(5s0ivq5wjmroamwrk0bfyy5n))/k12/Indicators.aspX?ID=ALL:ALL&TestKey=
GradRate&TestType=indicators
Georgia Department of Education [GADOE]. (2009c). 2007 2008 Special education annual
report. Retrieved from http://archives.gadoe.org/DMGetDocument.aspx/Georgia_State_
Performance_Plan_2010.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F6A71F37B4552D3085423CD03A8F5
B75A4D8B434F855E6DAAA&Type=D
300
Harvey, M. W. (2001). A vocational-technical education: A logical approach to dropout prevention for secondary special education. Preventing School Failure, 45, 108 121.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments. (1997). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 2004. (2004). Pub. L. No.
108 446, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.
Johnson, D. R., & Thurlow, M. L. (2007). Revisiting graduation requirements and diploma
options for youth with disabilities: A national study (Technical Report). Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Karger, J. (2004). Post IDEA 97 case law and administrative decisions: Access to the general
curriculum. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_idea97.html
Kitmitto, S. (2011). Measuring status and change in NAEP inclusion rates of students with disabilities: Results 2007 2009 (NCES 2011-457). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Kloo, A., & Zigmond, N. (2008). Co-teaching revisited: Redrawing the blueprint. Preventing
School Failure, 52, 12 20.
Martin, N., & Halperin, S. (2006). Whatever it takes: How twelve communities are reconnecting
out-of-school youth. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
McGrath, M. Z., Johns, B. H., & Mathur, S. R. (2004). Is history repeating itself Services
for children with disabilities endangered? Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(1), 70 71.
McLeskey, J., Landers, R., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? Journal of Special Education,
24(3), 131 140.
McNeil, M. (2008, August 13). Exit scramble. Education Week, 27(45), 21 23.
Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary
level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52 58.
National Association of School Boards of Education. (2008). Beginning in the middle: Critical
steps in secondary school reform. The report of the NASBE study group on early secondary education. Arlington, VA: Author.
National Education Association. (2008). Changing the landscape: Including students with disabilities in high school graduation rates (Issue Brief No. 21). Washington, DC: NEA.
Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/PB21_StudentDisabilities.pdf
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., Schwarting,
M. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years
after high school. A report from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2)
(NCSER 2011 3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://ies.
ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113005/pdf/20113005.pdf
Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2012). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Updated analyses with NAEP data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(20).
Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1048/988
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). 20 U.S.C. 70 6301 et seq.
Ripley, S. (1997). Collaboration between general and special education teachers. Retrieved from
ERIC database (ED409317).
Ryndak, D. L., Alper, S., Hughes, C., & McDonnell, J. (2012). Documenting impact of educational contexts on long-term outcomes for students with significant disabilities.
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47(2), 127 138.
301
Sailor, W., & Roger, B. (2005). Rethinking inclusion: Schoolwide applications. Phi Delta
Kappan, 86, 503 509.
Samuels, C. (2014, January 29). Graduation disparities loom large. Education Week, 33(19),
1 8.
Sitlington, P. L., & Neubert, D. A. (2004). Preparing youths with emotional or behavioral disorders for transition to adult life: Can it be done within the standards-based reform
movement? Behavioral Disorders, 29, 279 288.
Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Gallini, S., Simmons, A. B., & Feggins-Azziz, R. (2006).
Disparate access: The disproportionality of African American students with mild disabilities across educational environments. Exceptional Children, 72, 411 424.
Spitler, C., Repetto, J., & Cavanaugh, C. (2013). Investigation of a special education program
in a public cyber charter school. The American Journal of Distance Education, 27(1),
4 15.
Swanson, C. B. (2008). Special education in America: The state of students with mild disabilities
in the nations high schools. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education.
Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., White, J., Richter, S., & Walker, A. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition practices for enhancing school completion. Exceptionality, 17, 16 29.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Current population survey, published data. Retrieved from http://
www.census.gov.population/www/socdemo/euc-attn.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). 28th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008, December 22). No child left behind act: High school graduation rate. Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://
www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/hsgrguidance.pdf
Wagner, M., & Davis, M. (2006). How are we preparing students with emotional disturbances
for the transition to young adulthood? Findings from the national longitudinal study
2. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14, 86 98.
304
305
INDEX
Ability, 5 6, 10, 21, 33, 43, 67 69,
78, 81 82, 84, 97 99, 103,
123, 133, 141 142, 175, 181,
210, 217, 229 232, 234, 236,
253, 255, 257, 265, 268,
271 272, 274 276
Absenteeism, 214 215
Access, 3 4, 9, 11, 13, 15, 21,
25 27, 32, 38 39, 42,
44 46, 58, 62 63, 67 68,
70, 78, 80 83, 87, 89, 126,
137 139, 143, 166, 172,
174 175, 178, 180 182, 207,
210, 215, 248, 250, 255, 271,
274, 280, 283, 292, 294 295,
298
Action research, 189 191,
193 195, 198 200, 213, 216,
232 234
Administration, 44, 81, 107,
115 116
Assessment, 10 11, 13, 15, 25, 27,
40 43, 45 48, 82 83,
86 88, 94, 99, 103, 106,
137 138, 165, 167, 175,
181 182, 199, 220, 233, 240,
257, 273, 281, 283
Attitudes, 4, 8, 28 29, 41 43,
46 48, 93 103, 106 107,
122, 151 152, 154, 171, 174,
180 181, 194, 200, 213, 228,
239, 265
308
INDEX
Index
309
310
INDEX
Index
311
312
INDEX