Leituras 1 - School Psychologists Making Inclusion...

School Psychology
International http://spi.sagepub.com/
School Psychologists : Making Inclusion a Reality for All

Peter Farrell
School Psychology International 2004 25: 5
DOI: 10.1177/0143034304041500
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://spi.sagepub.com/content/25/1/5
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International School Psychology Association
Additional services and information for School Psychology International can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://spi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://spi.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://spi.sagepub.com/content/25/1/5.refs.html
Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com by Helena Mesquita on October 28, 2011

>> Version of Record - Feb 1, 2004
What is This?

School Psychologists
Making Inclusion a Reality for All
PETER FARRELL
Professor of Special Needs and Educational Psychology,
Faculty of Education, University of Manchester and President
Elect of the International School Psychology Association
ABSTRACT Inclusion is now a key part of the development of education

policy and practice around the world. However, there is continued
uncertainty about the definition of inclusion and about how to imple-
ment the policy, and some remain to be convinced about the direction
that it is taking. Inevitably school psychologists are at the heart of
this debate, as, through their work with children, parents, schools
and local authorities, they can have a major role in shaping policy
and practice. This article begins with a discussion of current defini-
tions of inclusion. It then analyses the role of research and considers
some key findings. It ends with a review of some of the different ways
in which school psychologists can support inclusive developments in
their everyday work.
Introduction
In recent years the issue of inclusion has become a key feature of
discussions about the development of education policy and practice
around the world. The movement has been strongly endorsed inter-
nationally by the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) and reflects
the United Nations’ global strategy of ‘Education for All’. Both have
had a major impact on policy developments in many different coun-
tries. This is confirmed by recent accounts of trends in inclusion in
different countries (e.g. Egelund, 2000; Meijer, 1998; Norwich, 2000).
There is also no shortage of books and articles that have extolled the
values of inclusion and which have provided a whole range of accounts
Please address correspondence to: Professor Peter Farrell, Faculty of Education,

University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
School Psychology International Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications (London,

Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi), Vol. 25(1): 5–19.
DOI: 10.1177/0143034304041500
5
School Psychology International (2004), Vol. 25(1)
of ‘good practice’ in inclusive education (e.g. Ainscow, 1999; Ballard,
1999; Mittler, 2000).
Despite these developments, however, inclusion remains a complex
and controversial issue that tends to generate heated debates (e.g.
Brantlinger, 1997). There is a great deal of uncertainty about the
definition of inclusion (Farrell and Ainscow, 2002); there are several
pressure groups in society that seek to maintain separate provision;
and it is often difficult to find research evidence that can provide
definitive guidance as to where policy and practice should be head-
ing. Furthermore, in many countries mainstream schools are under
increasing pressure to raise academic standards and are therefore
reluctant to admit and retain pupils whose presence could have a
negative impact on their overall profile of results. In addition, in the
vast majority of countries, children are selected for different types of
education on the basis of their ability, suggesting that there remains
a continuation of differentiated provision which, it could be argued,
seems incompatible with an inclusive philosophy.
In this potentially confusing context school psychologists can have
a central role in shaping policy and practice. Recent evidence (Farrell
and Kalambouka, 2000) indicates that they are viewed by teachers in
different countries as having a major responsibility for assessing and
recommending resources for pupils who are experiencing difficulties
in learning and behaviour. School psychologists can therefore help to
maintain segregated provision for pupils with special needs or they
can recommend more inclusive arrangements. In addition, through
working with schools and local authorities, they can help to develop
more inclusive policies and practices that affect the education of all
children.
However, it is not always easy for psychologists to work in such a way
so as to promote inclusion. Indeed, there are some who have argued
that the discipline of psychology and the practice of applied psycholo-
gists act in the opposite direction (e.g. Clark et al., 1998; Skrtic, 1995;
Tomlinson, 1985). In addition, uncertainties as to definitions of inclu-
sion can result in there being arguments about whether a particular
way of working is inclusive or not. The aim of this article is to explore
these issues in more depth firstly by discussing different definitions
of inclusion and the impact of research in this area, and, secondly, by
reviewing ways in which school psychologists can work towards sup-
porting the development of inclusive policies and practices.
Defining inclusion
As many readers will be aware, up until the early 1990s the term
‘inclusion’ was hardly used. Instead we used the terms ‘integration’
or ‘mainstreaming’ and these referred exclusively to the placement
6
Farrell: Making Inclusion a Reality for All
of pupils with special needs in mainstream schools. There were, of
course, different degrees of integration that could vary from full time
placement of a child with disabilities in a mainstream class in his/her
local school (functional integration) to the placement of a pupil in
a special class or unit attached to a mainstream school (locational
integration) – see Hegarty (1991). However, there was little difference
between locational integration and a traditional segregated special
school. Furthermore, other arrangements also came under the ban-
ner of integration – notably the occasional visits by children in special
schools into a mainstream school – again, hardly radical in terms of
signalling a major policy shift.
An obvious problem with defining integration solely in terms of
provision (i.e. the setting in which a pupil is placed), is that it tells
us nothing about the quality of the education that is received in this
provision. For example, are pupils placed in units attached to a main-
stream school more ‘integrated’ than if they were taught in a special
school? Jupp (1992) argues that such units can be just as segregating.
Indeed, even pupils placed in a mainstream class may be isolated from
the rest of the class and not truly ‘integrated’ within the group, particu-
larly if they work with a support worker in one-to-one sessions for the
majority of each day. Integrated placements, therefore, may still leave
the pupil ‘segregated’ (Harrower, 1999).
It is partly for these reasons, that the term ‘inclusion’ has become a
more usual way of describing the extent to which a pupil categorized
as having special educational needs (SEN) is truly ‘integrated’. Used in
this way the term refers to the extent to which a school or community
welcomes pupils with SEN as full members of the group and values
them for the contribution which they make. This implies that for inclu-
sion to be seen to be ‘effective’, all pupils must actively belong to, be
welcomed by and participate in a mainstream school and community
– that is they should be fully included. Their diversity of interests,
abilities and attainment should be welcomed and be seen to enrich the
life of the school. In this sense, as Ballard (1999) argues, inclusion is
about valuing diversity rather than assimilation.
Recently definitions of inclusion have broadened still further (e.g.
Booth and Ainscow, 1998). These writers take the view that policies on
inclusion should not be restricted to the education of pupils thought to
have special needs. Inclusion, they argue, is a process in which schools,
communities, local authorities and governments strive to reduce
barriers to the participation and learning for all citizens. Looked at in
this way, inclusive policies and practices should consider ways in which
marginalized groups in society, e.g. people from ethnic minorities and
those who are socially and economically disadvantaged, can partici-
pate fully in the educational process within mainstream contexts.
7
This broader view of inclusion is also reflected in recent guidance
from the UK Government for inspectors of schools in England and
Wales (Ofsted, 2000). In addressing what they refer to as ‘educational
inclusion’, the document focuses attention on a wide range of vulner-
able groups. It states:
An educationally inclusive school is one in which the teaching and learn-

ing, achievements, attitudes and well being of every young person matters.
Effective schools are educationally inclusive schools. This shows, not only in
their performance, but also in their ethos and their willingness to offer new
opportunities to pupils who may have experienced previous difficulties. . . .
The most effective schools do not take educational inclusion for granted.
They constantly monitor and evaluate the progress each pupil makes. They
identify any pupils who may be missing out, difficult to engage, or feeling
in some way apart from what the school seeks to provide.
Here the sentence ‘the most effective schools are inclusive schools’ is
particularly significant. In essence it redefines the way school effective-
ness will be determined, drawing attention to the need for inspectors
to go beyond an analysis of aggregate performance scores in order to
determine the extent a school is supporting the learning of all indi-
viduals within a school.
The UK Government guidance is therefore important for two reasons.
First of all, it reinforces a much broader view of inclusion, in that the
concept is widened to include pupils other than those thought to have
SEN. Secondly, it forces schools to focus on the achievements of all of
their pupils and, indeed, to pay attention to a wider range of outcomes
than those reflected in test or examination results.
In order to bring some coherence to this developing and sometimes
confusing picture, colleagues at Manchester University have begun to
conceptualize the issue around the following pupil outcomes in relation
to inclusion: Presence; Acceptance; Participation and Achievement.
Presence refers to extent to which pupils attend lessons in main-
stream settings in local schools and committees. (This is similar to the
previous notion of ‘integration’)
Acceptance refers to the extent to which other staff and pupils wel-
come all pupils as full and active members of their community.
Participation refers to the extent to which all pupils contribute
actively in all the school’s activities.
Achievement refers to the extent to which pupils learn and develop
positive views of themselves.
It is argued that for a school to be truly inclusive all four conditions
should apply to all children in schools regardless of their abilities and
disabilities and of their ethnic origin, social class or gender. It is not,
for example, sufficient for children to simply be present in a school.
They need to be accepted by their peers and by staff, they need to
8
participate in all the school’s activities and they need to attain good
levels of achievement in their work and behaviour. This formulation is
proactive in the sense that it sets goals for schools, local authorities
and communities and can act as a benchmark against which to judge
the extent to which inclusive policies and practices are working.
There are, of course, considerable pressures in schools that have the
potential to act as a barrier towards inclusion. In the UK schools are
required to raise academic standards at the same time as being asked
to develop more inclusive policies and practices. Many (e.g. Evans and
Lunt, 2002) argue that these competing priorities can make it more
difficult for schools to fully include children with disabilities.
Research and inclusion

The above discussion indicates that the inclusion debate is complex
and at times confusing. Logic would suggest that greater clarity within
the field would lead to better progress in respect to policy and practice.
It is therefore through high quality research that it is possible to gain
a deeper understanding of current arrangements, including the con-
fusions and contradictions that exist. It is also the means by which we
can capture and analyse the best practices.
However, it is also true that major debates exist as to the forms of
research that are most appropriate. Once again these debates reflect
different perspectives as to purpose and method (Brantlinger, 1997;
Clough and Barton, 1995; Farrell and Ainscow, 2002; Hegarty and
Evans, 1985). Some researchers see inclusion as essentially an empiri-
cal issue. Their overall purpose is to develop explanations, focusing
on issues such as does inclusion work and, if so, under what condi-
tions (e.g. Fuchs and Fuchs, 1994; Kauffman and Hallahan, 1995).
Those who take this perspective tend towards the use of experimental
methods that compare different approaches, or large scale surveys
that help us to measure views and opinions across populations (see
Danby and Cullen, 1988; Farrell, 2000; Harrower, 1999; Hegarty, 1993;
Madden and Slavin, 1983; Sebba and Sachdev, 1997, for reviews of
some key studies). However, other researchers are more concerned
with developing deeper explanations of the complex social factors that
bear on issues of inclusion and exclusion. Consequently, they attempt
to get close to particular contexts, often favouring case study accounts
of schools or classrooms (e.g. Allan, 1999; Dyson and Millward, 2000;
Thomas et al., 1998). They also tend to be particularly interested in
using interviews to understand the ways in which stakeholders, such
as teachers, pupils and parents, construct their experiences in schools.
Meanwhile, there are other researchers who adopt what may be seen
as a more committed position, stating their beliefs and assumptions at
9
the outset, and using forms of action research to explore ways of mov-
ing policy and practice forward (e.g. Ainscow, 1999).
All these different forms of research have the potential to contribute
to understandings that can help the field to move forward, providing,
of course, that it is research that has been undertaken in a systematic
and self critical manner. Inevitably, however, given the complexities
of the issues involved, research findings are sometimes contradictory
and it is not always easy to detect clear themes that can inform policy
and practice.
Despite these complexities a key theme running through many stud-
ies is that the success of inclusion depends to a great extent on the
availability and quality of the support that is offered in the mainstream
school. There are several examples where so called ‘inclusive’ placements
have been made with no additional support being provided and, as a
result, the placement fails and the pupil is placed in a special school.
However, there are also examples where pupils with quite marked dis-
abilities manage to do well in a mainstream school mainly because of
the quality of support that has been available (e.g. Davis and Hopwood,
2002; Hollanders, 2002; Lynas, 2002; Parkinson, 2002). There is also
evidence that the behaviour and levels of social interaction are more
age appropriate within a mainstream context although evidence about
gains in academic achievement in such contexts is less clear cut (e.g.
Karsten et al., 2001; Norwich, 2000). Other research evidence indicates
that, on the whole, pupils in mainstream schools have positive attitudes
towards their peers with disabilities. In addition, despite expressing
several reservations, mainstream teachers are increasingly willing to
respond to the challenge of teaching pupils with a range of disabilities
provided that sufficient support and additional resources are made
available (e.g. Avramidis and Norwich, 2002; Croll and Moses, 2001;
Glaubman and Lifshitz, 2001; Heiman, 2001). Finally, in a survey of
principal educational psychologists in England and Wales, Evans and
Lunt (2002), found that although there was general support for inclusion,
many barriers existed that would result in progress being slow.
Can school psychologists promote the development of

inclusive policies and practices?
So far in this article I have reviewed the definitions and rationale for
inclusion and I have referred to the importance of research in this
area. All of this indicates that there is a growing international move-
ment in favour of inclusion and that, despite some of the difficulties,
on balance, there is evidence suggesting that inclusion leads to positive
benefits for all concerned.
As psychologists play such a central role in the assessment of children
10
with special educational needs, they have the potential to influence
policy and practice in this complex area. It is therefore not surprising
that recent documents in the UK and USA strongly encourage school
psychologists to promote inclusion in their daily work. In England, the
Association of Educational Psychologists (AEP), one of the professional
associations that advises the Government, local authorities and school
psychologists about the development of the profession, has provided
written guidance for its members on ways to foster inclusion in their
areas (AEP, 1999). Two other Government reports, one that focuses
explicitly on the developing role of school psychologists (DfEE, 2000)
and one on the implementation of policies for children with special
needs (DfES, 2001) both refer to the vitally important role that school
psychologists have in promoting inclusion.
Similar policy guidance has been issued in the USA by the National
Association of School Psychologists (NASP, 1999). It emphasizes its
continuing support for the development of inclusive programmes for
all children and young people. It also provides guidance for school
psychologists on the development of inclusive programmes for students
with disabilities.
Clearly, therefore, influential bodies in the USA and England are
strongly encouraging school psychologists to promote inclusion. This
movement is reflected in other countries where they are also being urged
to work in a similar way (Mnkandla and Matruse, 2002; Muthukrishna
and Baez, 2002; Papadopoulos, 2002; van Kraayenoord, 2002). In the
remainder of this article, I will review some evidence from research
and practice in school psychology and related professions that has had
an impact on the development of inclusion.
School psychologists: making a difference in inclusion

I will begin by referring to anecdotal evidence that provides a clear
indication that the outcome of an assessment of a child with special
needs can depend on the attitudes of the school psychologist towards
inclusion and special schools. In one local education authority (LEA)
in the North West of England there are large variations in the number
of recommendations made by school psychologists for children to be
placed in special schools for children with moderate learning difficul-
ties (MLD) and emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD). A total
of 15.5 full time equivalent school psychologists in the LEA have been
responsible for referring the current population of 275 children who
attend the four special schools of this type in this LEA (one EBD and
three MLD). Eight of these school psychologists have referred 251 (91
percent) of these children. The remaining 7.5 school psychologists have
only referred 24 children to these schools. Therefore, half the school
11
psychologists in the LEA have been responsible for referring 91.5 per-
cent of the children who currently attend special schools for children
with EBD and MLD.
Further analysis of the data has shown that the figures are not
related to the area of the LEA where the school psychologists work
or to the university where they were trained. There is also no indica-
tion that the school psychologists who referred fewer children were
working with pupils whose learning and behaviour problems were not
so severe. There does, however, appear to be a trend suggesting that
more recently trained school psychologists tend to refer less children
to special schools. These figures are a stark reminder that school
psychologists can make a big difference to the placement of children
with special needs. Further research is needed to determine whether
similar patterns exist in other LEAs and to explore the reasons why
school psychologists in the same LEA act in quite different ways with
respect to recommending special schools for pupils with special needs.
There are a number of possible hypotheses that could be explored. For
example, as implied above, there may be a relationship between the
age of the psychologist and their propensity to refer pupils to special
schools. In addition, they may be drawing on different paradigms in
psychology when carrying out their assessments. Alternatively, their
approach may be related to their former work as teachers or to their
own experience as parents.
The above account refers to the potential impact that school psy-
chologists can have on the development of inclusion in their work with
individual pupils and their families. At a more general level they can
also help to promote inclusion within their areas through keeping
up to date with research literature and disseminating key findings
among relevant colleagues. The NASP guidance on inclusion (NASP,
1999) also makes this point. For example they can advise parents
and teachers on the potential benefits of placing children in inclusive
settings; they can refer to data on national and international trends
and they can refer to key findings on the effectiveness of inclusion.
In particular there is a growing body of literature on ways in which
pupils with disabilities can be supported in mainstream classrooms
(e.g. Balshaw, 1999; Thomas et al., 1998; Tilstone and Florian, 1998).
School psychologists are in an ideal position to advise teachers and
support staff on a whole range of areas that are related to this research
including how to develop effective individual programmes of work, on
different styles of support and on curriculum adaptation.
School psychologists have also made a significant contribution in
relation to the training of teaching assistants (teachers’ aids) and those
who work with them. In recent years there has been a rapid growth in
the number of assistants (TAs) being employed by schools and LEAs
12
to support the inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream
schools. Indeed TAs are frequently seen as a means of providing the
most cost effective way of delivering inclusion in schools. However
for TAs’ work to be effective there is a need for them and their teach-
ing colleagues to receive training and support in how they can work
together effectively for the benefit of all children. There are now several
examples where school psychologists have been involved in developing
training programmes in this area, frequently working alongside other
colleagues in schools and local authorities, (e.g. Balshaw and Farrell,
2002; Fox, 1998; Lorenz, 1998; Nolan and Gersch, 1996).
A further more inclusive approach to the work of school psychologists
that has been advocated for some time is to work at the whole school
level and thus promote organizational change. Some years ago, well
before countries started to become interested in inclusion, Bob Burden
wrote enthusiastically about how psychologists could be more effective
practitioners if they worked with schools at the systems level (Burden,
1978). In many ways Burden was ahead of his time. Through work-
ing at the systems level psychologists could help school staff to reflect
on their practice, plan and implement change and hence bring about
whole school development for the benefit of all children, not just those
with special educational needs. Hence Burden was proposing a way of
working that could help schools to become inclusive using the current
broad definition that is currently accepted today. It is a pity that many
school psychologists in their daily practice have tended to work within
an individual medical model and, with a few notable exceptions, have
not been able to adopt the approaches that Burden advocated.
One of these notable exceptions is the Safe and Friendly Schools
Project, developed by school psychologists in Western Australia. This
has had a major impact in helping schools to become more inclusive
(Griffiths and Weatherilt, 2001). The project initially grew out of a
need to increase schools’ capacities to combat bullying and intimida-
tion in their communities. There was growing evidence of pupils feel-
ing isolated in their schools, excluded from many of their activities and
alienated among their peer group. Those behind the project developed
materials that enabled schools to examine their current systems and
policies and to reflect on their practice so that they could develop
ways of becoming safer. These materials are introduced to schools at a
series of workshops and, following this, staff make changes aimed at
improving the overall ethos and safety of their school. At a prearranged
date senior staff from the Western Australian school district visit the
school and assess the extent to which changes have been made that
result in it becoming a safer, and hence more inclusive, environment.
Provided all the requirements are met the school receives a certificate
acknowledging that it is now a Safe and Friendly School. The aim is
13
for this mark of approval to be given equal weighting, when assessing
the overall quality of the school, to the examination results obtained
by the pupils.
Two further projects based at Manchester University also indicate
the potential for school psychologists to work at a systems level to
support the development of inclusion. The first of these is a project in
which the University has linked up with the Universities of Newcastle
and Canterbury to develop a programme of action research and col-
laborative enquiry with 24 schools in three local authorities. A team
of researchers from each university is working with individual schools
to help them to reflect on and develop more inclusive ways of working.
Each school, being a unique organization with its own particular set
of problems, has selected an area to work on that will contribute to
the development of inclusion within their setting. As consultants our
role has been to help them to reflect on the work that they are doing,
to question some of their assumptions and to evaluate progress. There
have also been several opportunities for the staff in the schools to meet
with each other and to share common themes and issues that have
contributed to the development of inclusive practices. There is insuf-
ficient space to describe the work that is taking place in all the schools
in which we are working. However, the following examples provide
contrasting illustrations as to ways in which two primary schools in
this project are facing up the challenge of inclusion and about our role
in supporting this process.
In the first school the staff had expressed concern about the extent to
which pupils with hearing impairments in a specially resourced facil-
ity were being included in the social and academic life of the school.
Inevitably, given the nature of their difficulties, some of their lessons
were provided in a separate room. It was thought that this might have
contributed to a general view that the arrangement was in some ways
‘non-inclusive’. In order to explore this issue further we carried out a
number of different tasks. Some of these involved interviewing a range
of key stake holders, the pupils with hearing impairments, their peers,
teachers and assistants. In addition, we carried out a series of informal
observations in the classroom and the playground. In addition to feed-
ing back our ‘findings’ to the staff and discussing the implications, we
also acted as facilitators at a number of staff meetings at which staff
were encouraged to express their concerns about the situation and to
suggest ways in which they might move forward. Thus our role was
partly one of researcher and also of facilitator/consultant. There were
two main outcomes of this involvement. First, there have been changes
to the daily timetable for the pupils with hearing impairments such
that they have greater opportunities to mix with their peers in a sup-
ported environment. Second, and perhaps more importantly, through
14
the process of discussion and reflection all the staff now feel that they
have a responsibility for ensuring that inclusion for these potentially
marginalized children is successful. Thus they feel a greater sense of
ownership of the inclusion agenda and have begun to think positively
about how they can address inclusion issues in other aspects of school
life.
In the second school the staff had expressed concern about the grow-
ing numbers of Reception and Year 1 children (i.e. five and six year olds)
who were having problems in adjusting to the routine of the school and
in forming positive relationships with staff and pupils. At the time
the LEA had been given some additional funding to establish Nurture
Groups. (These are small ‘units’ or resourced bases in primary schools
that are intended to help young children settle into school before being
returned back to the mainstream classroom.) It was therefore decided
that one way to tackle this issue was to set up a Nurture Group in this
school. The deputy headteacher took on the role of the class teacher
for the Group in which eight children from the Reception and Year
1 classes were placed. As researchers interested in encouraging the
development of inclusive practices, our first response to this initiative
was of alarm as we could see this Group as being the first step towards
segregation! Our role, therefore, was to hold a series of meetings with
key staff in the school in which we discussed the wider implications
associated with the setting up of the Group. In particular we focussed
on the need for all staff to feel part of the new development and for
them to have a key role in supporting the pupils. In addition, we dis-
cussed the need to develop systems that would allow these pupils to
return to their ‘normal’ class as soon as possible and ways of ensuring
that they maintained links with their peers throughout the school. The
initial outcomes of our involvement were extremely positive in that all
staff had a radical re-think about the aims and purposes of the group
and a number of mechanisms – regular meetings, sharing records etc.
– were put in place to ensure the new Group did not become separated
from participating in the activities of the whole school. However, we
probably need to carry out further work with the school to ensure that
their more inclusive orientation is maintained.
Ultimately, through our work in these and the other remaining
schools our aim is for the staff to develop systems for critical self-
review and to feel confident in developing and evaluating projects that
can contribute to their continued efforts to become more inclusive.
Taken as a whole we hope that our findings will help to advance theory
and practice relating to factors that can help schools to become reflec-
tive learning organizations which have the capacity to develop and
maintain sustainable change.
In another project two colleagues and I are working with 18 primary
15
schools each of which has a child with Down syndrome on their roll.
We are particularly interested in exploring the ways in which the
child is supported in the school, the attitudes of the other pupils, staff
and parents towards inclusion and the progress made by the pupils
over a one-year period. Although this study has one more year to run,
preliminary findings suggest that there are clear indicators of suc-
cessful practice in inclusion. These include the extent to which main-
stream class teachers assume overall responsibility for the education
of the child with Down syndrome. In the most inclusive classrooms,
teachers considered that the child with Down syndrome was simply
a member of the whole class. They took responsibility for planning
the programmes of work for the child, they advised and supported the
teaching assistant and they also worked directly with the child. Under
these arrangements our evidence indicates that the pupil with Down
syndrome mixed socially with the other children who accepted him/her
fully as part of their community and that he/she was making progress
in academic learning. In less inclusive classrooms, where the class-
teacher was less involved, the pupils with Down syndrome tended to
work with the assistant for most of the day and hardly interacted with
the teacher or other pupils. They also experienced greater problems in
mixing socially with their peer group.
Summary and conclusions

Developments in thinking and practice in inclusion indicate that the
issue is now at the heart of policy and planning in education through-
out the world. No longer is the concept solely restricted to discussions
about where to educate pupils with special needs. Inclusion now refers
to ways in which schools can reduce barriers to participation and learn-
ing for all pupils who are at risk of being marginalized and excluded.
This poses challenges for schools who are required to develop high
standards of excellence in traditional academic subjects while still
embracing an inclusive agenda.
Within this context, the number of school psychologists being
employed in different countries continues to grow. Their work is cen-
trally involved in the whole process of providing assessment and advice
to parents of pupils who may have special educational needs. In addi-
tion, they provide advise, support and training that goes beyond the
special needs field. School psychologists therefore have the potential
to influence developments in education policy on inclusion. This is a
challenge facing the profession and one which should be taken up with
enthusiasm in the knowledge that progress in this area should bring
benefits for all children throughout the world.
16
Acknowledgement
This article is based on a key note paper given to the International
School Psychology Colloquium, Denmark, 2002.
References
AEP ( 1999) Increasing Inclusion: AEP Position Paper. Durham: The Association
of Educational Psychologists.
Ainscow, M. (1999) Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools.
London: Falmer Press.
Allan, J. (1999) Actively Seeking Inclusion. London: Falmer Press.
Avramidis, E. and Norwich, B. (2002) ‘Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Integration/
Inclusion: A Review of the Literature’, European Journal of Special Needs
Education 17(2): 129–49.
Ballard, K. (ed.) (1999) Inclusive Education: International Voices on Disability
and Justice. London: Falmer Press.
Balshaw, M.H. (1999) Help in the Classroom, 2nd edn. London: Fulton.
Balshaw, M.H. and Farrell, P. (2002) ‘Can Teaching Assistants Make Special
Education Inclusive?’, in P. Farrell and M. Ainscow (eds) Making Special
Education Inclusive. London: Fulton.
Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (eds) (1998) From Them to Us: An International
Study of Inclusion in Education. London: Routlege.
Brantlinger, E. (1997) ‘Using Ideology: Cases of Non Recognition of the Politics
of Research and Practice in Special Education’, Review of Educational
Research 67(4): 425–59.
Burden, R.L. (1978) ‘Schools Systems Analysis: A Project Centered Approach’,
in B. Gillham (ed.) Reconstructing Educational Psychology. Beckenham:
Croom Helm.
Clark, C., Dyson, A. and Millward, A. (1998) Towards Inclusive Schools?
London: Fulton.
Clough, P and Barton, L. (eds) (1995) Making Difficulties: Research and the
Construction of Special Educational Needs. London: Paul Chapman.
Croll, P. and Moses, D. (2001) ‘Ideologies and Utopias: Education Professionals’
Views of Inclusion’, European Journal of Special Needs Education 15(1):
1–13.
Danby, J. and Cullen, C. (1988) ‘Integration and Mainstreaming: A Review of
the Efficacy of Mainstreaming and Integration for Mentally Handicapped
Pupils’, Educational Psychology 8(3): 177–95.
Davis, P. and Hopwood, V. (2002) ‘The Inclusion of Children With Visual
Impairment in the Mainstream Primary School Classroom’, in P. Farrell
and M. Ainscow (eds) Making Special Education Inclusive. London:
Fulton.
DfEE (2000) Educational Psychology Services (England) Current Role, Good
Practice and Future Directions. Report of the Working Group. London: DfEE
Publications.
DfES (2001) Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. London: DfES
Publications.
Dyson, A. and Millward, A. (2000) Schools and Special Needs. London: Paul
Chapman.
Egelund, N. (2000) ‘Special Education in Denmark’, European Journal of
Special Needs Education 15(1): 88–99.
17
Evans, J. and Lunt, I. (2002) ‘Inclusive Education: Are There Limits?’, European
Journal of Special Needs Education 17(1): 1–14
Farrell, P. and Kalambouka, A. (2000) ‘Teachers’ Views of School Psychologists
in Different Countries’, World Go Round 27(5): 8–9.
Farrell, P. (2000) ‘The Impact of Research on Developments in Inclusive
Education’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 4(2): 153–62.
Farrell, P. and Ainscow, M. (2002) ‘Making Special Education Inclusive:
Mapping The Issues’, in P. Farrell and M. Ainscow (eds) Making Special
Fox, G. (1998) A Handbook for Learning Support Assistants. London: Fulton.
Fuchs, D. and Fuchs, L.S. (1994) ‘Inclusive Schools Movement and the
Radicalisation of Special Education Reform’, Exceptional Children 60(4):
294–309.
Glaubman, R. and Lifshitz, H. (2001) ‘Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Teachers’
Self-efficacy and Willingness for Inclusion of Pupils with Special Needs’,
European Journal of Special Needs Education 16(3): 207–25.
Griffiths C. and Weatherilt, T. (2001) Safe Schools, Friendly Schools: A
Framework for Developing a Safe and Friendly School. Swan Education
District, Perth WA: Department of Education of Western Australia.
Harrower, J.K. (1999) ‘Educational Inclusion of Children with Severe Dis-
abilities’, Journal of Positive Behavioural Interventions 1(4): 215–30.
Hegarty, S. (1991) ‘Towards an Agenda for Research in Special Education’,
European Journal of Special Needs Education 6(2): 87–99.
Hegarty, S. (1993) ‘Reviewing the Literature on Intregation’, European Journal
of Special Needs Education 8(3): 194–200.
Hegarty, S. and Evans, P. (1985) Research and Evaluation Methods in Special
Education. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Heiman, T. (2001) ‘Inclusive Schooling – Middle School Teachers’ Perceptions’,
School Psychology International 22(4): 451–63.
Hollanders, H. (2002) ‘Pastoral Care, Inclusion and Counselling’, in P. Farrell
and M. Ainscow (eds) Making Special Education Inclusive. London:
Fulton.
Jupp, K. (1992) Everyone Belongs. London: Souvenir Press.
Karsten, S., Peetsma, T., Roeleveld, J. and Vergeer, M. (2001) ‘The Dutch Policy
of Integration Put to the Test: Differences in Academic and Psychosocial
Development of Pupils in Special and Mainstream Schools’, European
Journal of Special Needs Education 16(3): 193–207.
Kauffman, J.M. and Hallahan, D.P. (eds) (1995) The Illusion of Full Inclusion:
A Comprehensive Critique of a Current Special Education Bandwagon.
Austin: Pro-Ed.
Lorenz, S. (1998) Effective In-Class Support. London: Fulton.
Lynas, W. ( 2002) ‘Specialist Teachers and Inclusion: A Case-Study of Teachers
of the Deaf Working in Mainstream Schools’, in P. Farrell and M. Ainscow
(eds) Making Special Education Inclusive. London: Fulton.
Madden, N.A. and Slavin, R.F. (1983) ‘Mainstreaming Students with Mild
Handicaps: Academic and Social Outcomes’, Review of Educational Research
53(4): 519–89.
Meijer, C. (1998) Integration in Europe: Provision for Pupils with Special
Educational Needs. Trends in 14 European Countries. Middlefart:
EADSNE
Mittler, P. (2000) Working Towards Inclusion: Social Contexts. London: David
Fulton.
18
Mnkandla, M. and Matruse, K. (2002) ‘The Impact of Inclusion Policy on School
Psychology Practices in Zimbabwe’, Educational and Child Psychology
19(2): 12–24.
Muthukrishna, N. and Baez, M. (2002) ‘Building an Inclusive Education and
Training System. What is Next for Educational Psychologists in South
Africa?’, Educational and Child Psychology 19(2): 24–33.
NASP (1999) The Role of the School Psychologist in Inclusive Education. http://
www.naspweb.org/information/misc/inclusion.htm
Nolan, A. and Gersch, I. (1996) ‘More Than an Extra Pair of Hands’, Special
Children, March: 10–15.
Norwich, B. (2000) ‘Inclusion in Education: From Concepts, Values and
Critique to Practice’, in H. Daniels (ed.) Special Education Reformed:
Beyond Rhetoric? London: Falmer Press.
Ofsted (2000) Educational Inclusion: Guidance for Inspectors and Schools.
London: Ofsted.
Papadopoulos, T.C. (2002) ‘The Impact of Inclusion on Educational Psychology
Practices. The Cypriot Reality’, Educational and Child Psychology 19(2):
33–46.
Parkinson, G. (2002) ‘Inter-disciplinary Support for Children With Epilepsy
in Mainstream Schools’, in P. Farrell and M. Ainscow (eds) Making Special
Sebba, J. and Sachdev, D. (1997) What Works in Inclusive Education? Ilford:
Barnardos.
Skrtic, T.M. (ed.) (1995) Disability and Democracy: Reconstructing Special
Education for Post-Modernity. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Thomas, G., Walker, D. and Webb, J. (1998) The Making of the Inclusive
School. London: Routledge.
Thompson, K. (2002) ‘Differentiating Integration: Special Education in the
Russian Federation’, European Journal of Special Needs Education 17(1):
33–49.
Tilstone, C. and Florian, L. (eds) (1998) Promoting Inclusive Practice. London:
Routledge.
Tomlinson, S. (1985) ‘The Expansion of Special Education’, Oxford Review of
Education 11(2): 157–65.
UNESCO (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on
Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO.
van Kraayenoord, C.E. (2002) ‘The Roles of the Educational Psychologist in
Inclusion in Australia’, Educational and Child Psychology 19(2): 46–59.
19

Leituras 1 - School Psychologists Making Inclusion...

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Leituras 1 - School Psychologists Making Inclusion...

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

School Psychology

School Psychologists : Making Inclusion a Reality for All

The online version of this article can be found at:

International School Psychology Association

Email Alerts: http://spi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com by Helena Mesquita on October 28, 2011

Downloaded from spi.sagepub.com by Helena Mesquita on October 28, 2011

ABSTRACT Inclusion is now a key part of the development of education

Please address correspondence to: Professor Peter Farrell, Faculty of Education,

School Psychology International Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications (London,

An educationally inclusive school is one in which the teaching and learn-

Research and inclusion

Can school psychologists promote the development of

School psychologists: making a difference in inclusion

Summary and conclusions

Anda mungkin juga menyukai