Quality Education

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Pinar Gökcin Özuyar, Tony Wall

Inclusive and Exclusive Education for Diverse Learning Needs

  • Satine WinterEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69902-8_24-1

Synonyms

Definitions

Inclusive education refers to the education of all students, regardless of ability, in mainstream classrooms and involves the use of appropriate supports, adjustments, and resource delivery to ensure the successful inclusion of students at a whole-school level, which is supported by inclusive education policy and/or legislation. A key aspect of inclusive education is the philosophical approach underpinning the inclusion of all students in the education environment based on inclusive attitudes, beliefs, and values of all stakeholders and founded on principles of social justice and human rights.

Exclusive education refers to the education of students by selective merit or exclusion and may or may not involve discrimination by educational authorities, representatives, or other stakeholders. Exclusive education involves attitudes, beliefs, and values that may be viewed as positive or negative, and the presence of exclusion may signal the presence of power within an education system.

Introduction

Traditionally, inclusive education was associated with special education services and related to the educating of students who were identified as other, had additional or special needs, or did not fit into the category of normal as deemed by society (Armstrong et al. 2010). More recently, the field of special education has expanded and transformed into inclusive education and involves the inclusion in education students who identify as having a disability, type of exceptionality, or belonging to a minority group. This includes students with:
  • A disability

  • Learning difficulties

  • Different socioeconomic backgrounds

  • Gifted and talented or twice-exceptional

  • Indigenous

  • Gender (including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex)

  • Refugees

  • Religion

  • Race

Other potential student groups encompass disadvantaged youth, including those who are homeless, in foster care or living in poverty, pregnant, in juvenile detention/facilities, or students disengaged from the education system. Armstrong et al. (2010) noted that to discuss inclusion in the context of inclusive education required discussing their potential exclusion.

Exclusive education refers to the exclusion of students from mainstream education, on the basis of labelling, ability, or diagnosis and may involve placement in special educational services or selective entry schools (Ho 2017). Florian (2008) noted that previously special education was viewed as a mechanism where students were both “included in and excluded from the forms of schooling that are otherwise available to children of similar ages” (p. 203). Similarly, selective entry schools include or exclude students from schooling although entry to a selective school is on the basis of academic ability or gender (Ho 2017).

Inclusive education is identified as a divisive and highly debated area of education (Slee 2011). The topic of inclusive or exclusive education evokes strong arguments and concerns from all sides about the inclusion or exclusion of students. Some of the concerns raised by key stakeholders in the field include the practical application and implementation of inclusion in classrooms, teachers’ versus parents’ rights and responsibilities, children’s rights to an education, the cost of inclusion, disruptive or violent behavior, and the overall purpose of education (Slee 2011).

An Overview of Inclusive/Exclusive Education

At the heart of inclusion and inclusive education are key tenets of social inclusion, social justice, and human rights (Armstrong et al. 2010). Inclusive education has its early beginnings in special education and transformed over decades at varying rates of progress across the world (Ashman 2019). Inclusive education emerged from the field of special education as a result of students [and their families] experiencing injustice in education, particularly related to issues of access and equity (Florian 2008).

In many countries, special education is seen as the provision of additional support to learners whose needs extend outside of those of a majority of learners (Florian 2008). Typically, special education focused on a diagnostic-prescriptive approach in contrast to inclusive education which focused on accepting learner differences as a natural part of human diversity and development (Florian 2008).

Exclusive education is associated with the exclusion of individuals or cohorts on the basis of specific attributes and resulting from direct or indirect discrimination, either of which could be oppressive or empowering, depending on the viewpoint taken. The inclusion or exclusion of students in education is a human rights issue (Degener 2016) and is interwoven with the history of the civil and disability rights movement.

Advocacy through political and policy reforms for change in education have been affected by arguments about the technicality of how to implement inclusive education, what inclusive education looks like in practice, how to measure inclusive education, and ongoing debates and differences in defining the concept of inclusive education (Shyman 2015). Countries in the South (e.g., Africa, Asia, Latin America) tend to have stronger conceptualizations of inclusion and inclusive education which address challenges of poverty, gender inequality, and social and economic advances (Armstrong et al. 2010). In contrast, countries in the North tend to advance and develop inclusive policy and then expand these policies through implementation to countries in the South (Armstrong et al. 2010).

Conducting comparative research on the inclusion and the progress of inclusive education at an international level is difficult and contentious due to the following three main reasons:
  1. 1.

    Education systems are context specific and different across those contexts.

     
  2. 2.

    Inclusive education is practiced in general and special education settings.

     
  3. 3.

    Lack of agreement across different settings about meaning and interpretation of inclusion and inclusive education (D’Alessio and Watkins 2009).

     

Jahnukainen (2011) further highlighted that international research on special and inclusive education primarily focused on a single country at a time with limited research on comparisons with other countries. Often, this research explored either educational policy or practices for students with disabilities.

Models of Disability

To a great extent, the evolution of inclusive/exclusive education can be explained through the models of disability and systemic approaches to the education of students with disability or students with diverse learning needs. These models of disability include the medical model of disability, the social model of disability, and the human rights model of disability.

The medical model of disability refers to the disability as being the “problem” of the individual and a condition to be cured. Inclusion is viewed in the context of the student assimilating into the education environment and a focus on changing the student (Mackenzie et al. 2016). This model uses a deficit approach of labelling and deviance, which may contribute to the exclusion of students in educational contexts on the basis of medical diagnosis and demonstration of behavior from the norm.

The social model of disability identifies societal barriers that limit participation of people with disabilities in life, for example, attitudes and beliefs and societal structures. A range of educational settings have contributed to barriers and are examples of the social model of disability where students with additional or special needs were educated in segregated settings of special institutions in the late nineteenth century and special schools and special classes in the early twentieth century (Jahnukainen 2011). Florian (2008) noted that within the field of special education, many researchers have noted its role in being a vehicle for including and excluding students in education.

The human rights model of disability recognizes the rights of all people to access education and seeks to decrease the exclusion experienced by those identified as other. This is upheld by human rights legislation such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations 2006; Degener 2016).

Human Rights to an Education

The rights of students with disabilities or students who belong to minority groups are often upheld in policy and legislation. Specifically, education systems are supported by a regulatory and legal framework of policy and legislation, which may be education specific or include additional areas of jurisdiction, and establish how these systems are to be governed, managed, resourced, funded, and accessed. The main difference between policy and legislation is that policy is not legally binding in comparison to legislation, which can be enforced through legal means. Policy and legislation may be used as drivers of change and reform in promoting an inclusive or exclusive education or act as barriers to the successful implementation of either education system.

Regardless of location in the global North and South, all children have a right to an education, and these rights are upheld through various international human rights instruments facilitated by the United Nations. In 1948, the United Nations introduced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and declared the rights of everyone to an education while noting parents “have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children” (Article 26). While this declaration was not legally binding, it did outline fundamental human rights and an aspiration of common standards across the world.

The focus on Education for All emerged in 1990 with the first world conference on Education for All and highlighted the exclusion of marginalized groups from an education. In 1994, the UN education agency, UNESCO, promoted inclusive education and inclusive schools with The Salamanca Statement on Principles, Policy and Practice in Special Needs Education and a Framework for Action and provided a global framework for acknowledging the rights of children with additional or special needs. The Framework for Action component complemented the Salamanca Statement component and stated “to be effective, it [the framework] must be complemented by national, regional and local plans of action inspired by a political and popular will to achieve education for all” (UNESCO 1994, p. 14). This commitment to Education for All movement continued to focus on the inclusion of marginalized groups in education, and at the World Education Forum in 2000, six main goals were introduced:
  1. 1.

    Expand and improve early childhood care and education.

     
  2. 2.

    Provide free and compulsory primary education for all.

     
  3. 3.

    Provide equitable access to learning and life skills for young people and adults.

     
  4. 4.

    Increase adult literacy by 50%.

     
  5. 5.

    Eliminate gender disparities by 2005 and achieve gender equality by 2015.

     
  6. 6.

    Improve the overall quality of education (UNESCO 2000, pp. 3–4).

     

Each of these goals either supported inclusion or inclusive practices or explored ways of reducing the barriers to inclusion and emphasized inclusive educational environments for all. This commitment to Education for All continued to be affirmed in the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Miles and Singal (2010) raised concerns that UNESCO’s Global Monitoring Reports failed to suitably address how children with disabilities were still experiencing exclusion, discrimination, or disadvantage in education systems. These authors further highlighted that children with disabilities became less of a focus in the MDGs in comparison to the increased focus on gender and girls.

With the ending of the MDG in 2015, a new target was set with the Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the creation of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Goal 4 focused on quality education and affirmed the continued commitment by many countries to inclusive education by identifying seven target areas to achieve by 2030 (VanderDussen Toukan 2017). These target areas focus on learners who have often been excluded from education systems, particularly those experiencing poverty and from minority groups such as different ethnicities, Indigenous people, and people with disabilities or additional needs (UNESCO 2017).

With the focus on sustainable change in education, Hardy and Woodcock (2015) analyzed international inclusive education policies and found that the concept and practice of inclusion in schools was challenged by neoliberal policies, principles, and practices due to a focus on “success” of and by the individual. The authors highlighted discourses of diversity, difference, and deficit in the interpretation of inclusion policies across all countries with what they identified as a diversity-deficit spectrum. Repeatedly, challenges came down to a lack of understanding of difference and diversity and how to manage such in the education environment, while all countries demonstrated a lack of uniformity in their understanding of inclusion and inclusive education in theory and in practice (Selvaraj 2015).

The introduction of various international United Nations treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD; United Nations 2006), assisted with advocacy efforts in promoting, upholding, and realizing the rights of children with disabilities to an inclusive education. Policies and legislation vary for each country and affect the degree that Education for All, and inclusive education is implemented at a local level.

The argument for inclusion or exclusion of specific students has often resulted in court litigation between key stakeholders (i.e., parents/carers, teachers, schools) as each side fights for their rights and for the court to mediate in determining a suitable outcome. Key considerations in determining an outcome may include in the best interests of the child, the least restrictive environment, and reasonable adjustments as each stakeholder argues their case and justifies their reasons for the inclusion or exclusion of a student.

Farrell (2000) identified three problem areas with the argument for the right to inclusion and an inclusive education based on the human rights agenda and argument alone. Farrell (2000) suggested that the first problem is not related to the right to an education but that this right might be best met in a special school rather than a mainstream school. This author suggested the second problem is concerned with working out whose rights were being represented – the child, the parents, or the other students? The third problem identified by Farrell (2000) included the rights of parents to choose an educational environment, be it a special school or a mainstream school for their child.

Inclusive/Exclusive Education in Practice

Inclusive Education

Inclusive education as a concept has limited consensus on an exact definition; however, common features include the right of all students to participate in a regular or mainstream school and for their learning needs to be met through the reduction or elimination of barriers, so they can experience a quality education (Hyde 2015; Slee 2018).

Some of the key concepts underlying inclusive education involve defining and describing the difference between inclusion, integration, segregation, and exclusion. Clarifying the difference between these concepts is useful because it assists in developing an understanding of inclusion and inclusive practices and can facilitate a more inclusive school environment (Ainscow and Sandill 2010).

In General Comment 4 (2016), the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities offered the following definitions for these key terms (see Table 1).
Table 1

Key terms and definitions from inclusion to exclusion

Term

Definition

Inclusion

“Involves a process of systemic reform embodying changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures and strategies in education to overcome barriers with a vision serving to provide all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory learning experience and environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences”

Integration

“A process of placing persons with disabilities in existing mainstream educational institutions, as long as the former can adjust to the standardized requirements of such institutions”

Segregation

“Occurs when the education of students with disabilities is provided in separate environments designed or used to respond to a particular or various impairments, in isolation from students without disabilities”

Exclusion

“Occurs when students are directly or indirectly prevented from or denied access to education in any form”

United Nations (2016, para 11)

Policy and legislation lay the foundation and framework for establishing the human rights of everyone to an education. A quality education that includes all learners, as recommended by SDG4, is an inclusive education that is achieved through two key concepts of inclusion and equity (UNESCO 2017). In 2017, UNESCO released A Guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education as a resource for countries on how to promote “child-, disability-, and gender-sensitive” education that promoted “safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all” (UNESCO 2017, p. 3).

The guide referred to inclusion and equity as a process and involved four main areas:
  1. 1.

    Understanding the concepts of inclusion and equity and embedding this within a national education framework and system

     
  2. 2.

    Policy at a national level reflected and articulated inclusion and equity and transferred into education systems at all levels of leadership while challenging non-inclusive, inequitable, and discriminatory practices

     
  3. 3.

    Structures and systems that provide resourcing for inclusion and equity in education

     
  4. 4.

    Practices to support all learners including appropriate training and professional development of education staff in inclusive and equitable education practices (UNESCO 2017)

     

Importantly, this guide still acknowledged resourcing of special provisions such as special schools and units to promote inclusion and equity in education (UNESCO 2017). This statement of resourcing of special schools and units may appear to be in conflict with the inclusive education movement promoting the full inclusion of all students and further contradicting General Comment 4 on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which stated educating students in separate environments from their peers was a form of segregation (United Nations 2006, para 11) and thus exclusion. However, the guide emphasized that countries that have special schools and units played a role in supporting mainstream schools while they work toward more inclusive practices and countries without such services would still work toward inclusion and equity in education (UNESCO 2017).

Planning for Inclusion

Frameworks to Promote Inclusion

One way to cater to the needs of all learners, regardless of setting (early years, primary and secondary schooling, higher education), is through universal design for learning (UDL). UDL is based on research into neuroscience and the nature of learning and attempts to address the barriers that affect the learner when accessing the curriculum (Meo 2008). It is a pedagogical framework supported by research and used as a guide for teachers in planning effective and flexible instruction to be inclusive for all learners (Meyer et al. 2016). There are three principles underpinning this framework:
  • Principle 1. Multiple Means of Engagement

  • Principle 2. Multiple Means of Representation

  • Principle 3. Multiple Means of Action and Expression

Meyer et al. (2016) explained that each principle is associated with a guideline that is underpinned by research into the neuroscience of why, what, and how people learn. Principle 1 focused on the “why” of learning and promoting engaged and motivated learners. Principle 2 focused on the “what” of learning and promoting resourceful and knowledgeable learners, and Principle 3 focused on the “how” of learning and promoting strategic and goal-directed learners.

Each of these principles is supported by guidelines that recommend various options for how to plan teaching and learning experiences, and all principles are meant to be utilized when planning and implementing instruction (Meyer et al. 2016). Overall, UDL is focused on design and extends beyond good teaching practices to purposely design and deliver learning experiences to increase student performance (Edyburn 2010).

Another way to cater to the diverse learning needs of all students is through culturally responsive reaching (CRT). This approach to educating diverse learners encompasses four main areas of awareness, learning partnerships, information processing, and community of learners and learning environment (Kieran and Anderson 2018). Some of the principles supporting CRT include educational psychology foundations and understandings of child development and how this impacts learning combined with a strong emphasis on student-teacher relationships and building a community of learners while developing learning experiences that are varied, challenging, and meaningful (Kieran and Anderson 2018).

Differentiating the Curriculum

When the curriculum has not been designed at the outset using frameworks such as UDL or CRT or a combination of both, the curriculum is then identified as needing retrofitting through differentiated instruction (Stanford and Reeves 2009) to enable and promote equal access to education for students of varying abilities or individual needs. Stanford and Reeves (2009) explained that differentiated instruction had been used to cater to gifted students for many years prior to its introduction into regular classrooms.

Other terms associated with differentiating the curriculum include modifications, accommodations, adjustments, or reasonable adjustments. Differentiation is described by Fitzgerald (2016) as “not a single strategy or set of strategies” but an “approach that considers individual differences in every task and provides flexibility in the ways that students are permitted to undertake their learning” (p. 18).

Differentiation requires the use of assessment of student learning combined with differentiation of content, process, product, and environment according to three main areas of planning:
  1. 1.

    Students readiness to learning

     
  2. 2.

    Students interests

     
  3. 3.

    Students learning profile including preferences, strengths, and challenges (Tomlinson 2014)

     

This combination of assessment with instruction is important because assessment provides teachers with data on how to improve and modify their instructional practice daily and help students grow as independent learners (Tomlinson 2014). Alchin (2014) identified adjustments as a deficit approach to disability and cautioned that their continued use was a reactionary approach to designing curriculum and did not promote flexibility or reflect an inclusive and proactive approach to teaching and learning.

Individualized Planning Needs

Individualized or personalized planning is used to assist students with disabilities or additional needs to access the curriculum and educational environment. This plan may be in the form of an Individual Education Plan and may be title under a different name, depending on the educational context and global location. The focus of the plan is the student and making reasonable accommodations, adjustments, or modifications to the curriculum to enable their access to the teaching and learning activities within the school. This plan utilizes a strength-based approach and may or may not be legally mandated in each country. Data is gathered on the student throughout the process to help make decision and to inform practices used with the student.

Teaching Strategies and Behavioral Approaches

Instructional Strategies

Inclusive teaching strategies begin with offering students meaningful and challenging learning experiences (Brownell et al. 2012) that use a strength-based approach to the curriculum design and delivery for all learners, regardless of educational setting from the early years to higher education.

One of the strategies used to promote inclusive education is response to intervention (RtI). RtI is a three-tiered level prevention model framework focused on promoting the use of evidence-based instruction by using student data to inform teacher practice (Brownell et al. 2012; Greenwood and Kelly 2017).

A review of the literature on the use of RtI within the United States found the following themes:
  • Increase in teacher professional learning attributed to RtI.

  • Teachers acting as change agents.

  • Acceptance and increased confidence over time.

  • Trusting relationships and active leadership were essential for change.

  • Need for continued professional development.

  • Need to clarify roles among education professionals (Greenwood and Kelly 2017).

A key concern in educational settings is teacher preparedness and the appropriate use of evidence-based practices (EBP) for children and students with additional needs (Smith and Tyler 2011). Implementing EBPs may be difficult due to a lack of access to current knowledge and training by education professionals. Smith and Tyler (2011) suggested time-poor education professionals were sourcing alternative solutions such as information via the Internet; therefore, a suitable solution would be accessing free online web resources and training provided by accredited organizations and research centers.

Another instructional strategy promoted in inclusive settings is the use of collaborative co-teaching between regular and special education teachers in mainstream settings. Co-teaching may include parallel teaching, station teaching, alternative teaching, one-teach-one, and team teaching (Chitiyo and Brinda 2018). Teachers reported understanding the principles of co-teaching but difficulties in its implementation. Chitiyo and Brinda (2018) recommended more training be conducted on co-teaching strategies for beginning teacher education programs.

While overall access to education is improving, barriers to participation in the classroom still exist for a range of diverse learners (Matavire et al. 2013). The exclusion of students through teaching strategies and approaches such as ability streaming in classrooms has been found to promote segregation of students and discriminatory attitudes and preferences in resourcing and attention between the different ability groups (Matavire et al. 2013). In Zimbabwe, research conducted in schools on ability streaming reported negative outcomes of decreased student self-concept and increased social conflict (Matavire et al. 2013).

Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support

An inclusive school environment adopts behavior management strategies such as schoolwide positive behavior support (SWPBS) or positive behavior intervention support (PBIS). SWPBS is a three-tiered behavior support framework (Tier I, Tier II, Tier III) to promote and guide positive behavior in schools (Horner et al. 2010).

Tier I is universal supports provided to all students in all settings using direct instruction procedures. Tier II is secondary prevention designed for students not responding to the first tier of support and is manualized intervention strategies. Tier III is tertiary intervention for students who have not responded to the primary or secondary supports and has individualized supports designed to meet the unique needs of each student. Horner et al. (2010) recommend the use of a functional behavior assessment in combination with the collection of other academic and social data on the student to comprehensively complete a student behavior plan at this level.

The use of restrictive practices and restraint or violence against children or students with disabilities is recognized as an issue, not only in society but also within mainstream settings (Nelson 2017). Article 16 of the CRPD (United Nations 2006) highlights and advocates for the rights of people with disabilities in relation to abuse and violence perpetrated against them and for the need to monitor, regulate, and legislate the protection of their rights.

Measuring Inclusion

Measuring inclusion has been difficult to ascertain, implement, and accurately assess due to differing agreements on what and how to measure inclusive education (Loreman et al. 2014). Initially, the Index for Inclusion was developed by Booth and Ainscow (2002, revised 2011) and used considerably throughout the world. Some of the critiques of this measure included the material being too complex and the tool requiring additional support and professional development to successfully implement in schools (Loreman et al. 2014).

An input-processes-outcomes model was developed by Kyriazopoulou and Weber (2009) to measure inclusive education based on available supports, what occurs during implementation and then the end outcomes of such. Loreman et al. (2014) recommend a “broad varied methodological approach” (p. 12) by “measuring aspects of access, support, policy, curriculum, pedagogy, quality teaching and assessment of achievement” (p. 13) at a whole-school level.

Resourcing Inclusion

Teacher Assistants/Aides

The use of teacher assistants or teacher aides is increasingly used to support students with additional or special needs in mainstream classrooms (Giangreco 2013). Five foundational practices are recommended when using teacher assistants/aides to support instruction in the classroom:
  1. 1.

    Instruction provided by these assistants is to be supplementary.

     
  2. 2.

    Teachers are to develop plans for the assistants using evidence-based practices.

     
  3. 3.

    Teacher assistants/aides need training on implementation of these plans.

     
  4. 4.

    Teacher assistants/aides need training on behavior management strategies.

     
  5. 5.

    Ongoing monitoring and supervision is to be provided by professionals (Giangreco 2013).

     

Family and Professional Collaboration

When working with children or students with diverse learning needs, educators need to be mindful that it is not only the child or student that they are educating and engaging with but also the family. The term “family” or “families” is used to describe a range of family compositions which may or may not include family members with genealogical linkages (Sands et al. 2000). Family system theory promotes the idea of interconnectedness between each family member and how these connections impact external settings outside of the family, such as schools (Christian 2006). Families and their members are important to partnering with schools and professionals as they play a pivotal role in the child’s success in and outside of the school.

Keen (2007) explored the literature on parent/professional relationships and identified four main characteristics of effective partnerships between parents and professionals:
  1. 1.

    Mutual respect

     
  2. 2.

    Trust and honesty

     
  3. 3.

    Mutually agreed-upon goals

     
  4. 4.

    Shared planning and decision-making

     

The role of parents in the parent/professional collaboration changes according to setting. In the early years, high-quality parent-educator relationships are recommended to address and problem-solve challenging behaviors that stem from living in poverty (Kuhn et al. 2016) and to address the exclusion that occurs so early in the education system from children being expelled from preschool or kindergarten (Gilliam and Reyes 2018).

In 2014, the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (2014) Report revealed that school suspension rates in the preschool years were higher for Black children than White children and resulted in the government advocating for clearly articulated guidelines on suspensions and expulsions of preschoolers and for the use of preventative measures including early childhood mental health consultations. Ingólfsdóttir et al. (2018) noted the contradictions between policy-enacted understandings of a holistic and social model of disability approach to inclusive education embracing a family-centered approach, especially in the early years, with the service delivery that was heavily characterized by a medical model understanding of disability.

In developing trusting partnerships with schools, parents of children with and without disabilities identified four main themes of communicating: establishing a sense of belonging, demonstrating professional competency and commitment, and building family leadership as contributing to a strong parent/professional relationship in mainstream schools (Francis et al. 2018). In post-secondary education, parents are encouraged to transition from a caregiver to an advisory role with a key goal of promoting self-determination of the child/adult in this setting (Francis et al. 2016).

Barriers to Inclusion

One of the main barriers to inclusion is attitudes and beliefs (Farrell 2000; Florian 2008), and this may be aggravated by teachers’ concern about catering to the learning needs of all students. Florian (2008) suggested the answer lies in educating teachers that they can teach “all” students, including students with disabilities, and develop different teaching strategies while adjusting their attitudes and belief systems about what inclusion is and what it can and does look like in the classroom. Some of the other barriers to inclusion and inclusive education included:
  • Insufficient training and resources

  • Lack of time and school support (Farrell 2000; Loreman et al. 2014.

  • Teacher apprehension about teaching inclusively

  • Inadequate pre-service teacher training

  • Support inclusion in theory, less in practice

  • Underfunding, concerns about allocation of funding

  • Release time for planning (Woodcock and Woolfson 2019)

Exclusive Education

Similar to inclusive education, exclusive education is underpinned by social justice and equity. Concerns about the social inclusion or exclusion of all people in society transcend the education systems and extend into communities and wider political spheres. There are two potential types of exclusive education.

The first type of exclusive education is where exclusion occurs in educational settings on the basis of a recognized disability, diversity, or additional need and has a negative connotation. Razer and Friedman (2017) described this cycle of exclusion as encompassing negative experiences felt by both students and educational professionals (teachers and principals). These authors identified how exclusive education was reinforced by “frames of exclusion” and the functioning of education staff within the education environment by either feeling “helpless to change the situation” or “deny the reality of the situation and deny any negative implications of their own action” (Razer and Friedman 2017, p. 147). Other types of exclusion occur when students are denied access to education due to gatekeeping practices at schools (Lilley 2013).

The second type of exclusive education is where inclusion or exclusion of a select group of students occurs in an educational setting. These groups of students may include developing the skills and talents of gifted students in schools of excellence (Al-Shabatat 2014), developing students’ skills in sports through sporting academies (Pope 2002), or the separation of students into different schooling systems through selective entry (Skipper and Douglas 2016).

At a systemic level, Slee (2018) argued exclusion was costly for two reasons. The first reason was the economic cost to governments and to families where providing segregated school systems put an extra burden on government finances in funding divided school systems, when an already existing system could promote inclusive education. This led to the second reason, which had economic, social, and health cost and implications for the government and society where segregation led to exclusion, underachievement, juvenile delinquency, and a pathway to the prison system costing the government in areas of social security, criminal justice, and health.

At a global level, Mukherjee (2017) identified that exclusion in the South was affected by the colonization of different countries and political and geographical tensions such as changing borders of nation-states. These changes resulted in the oppression of local and Indigenous peoples by dominant cultural and ethnic groups by denying them access to education. This author highlighted how different cultural values impact on the success of inclusive education in the region and how these values further marginalize minority groups and work against inclusive education. Mukherjee (2017) argued against viewing inclusive education from a Western and linear historicist approach of “North,” “South,” “East,” “West,” and “First World, Second World, or Third World” countries and instead promoted a contextual and cultural approach to inclusive education.

The Student Voice on Inclusion/Exclusion

Stiefel et al. (2017) attempted to fill the gap in research on whether students feel more included upon receiving inclusive or exclusive forms of education and state that previous quantitative research has primarily focused on academic outcomes of inclusive education. Feeling included was examined across five areas in response to students’ feeling welcome, bullying, harassment, being known, and overall inclusion of students with disabilities in the school environment. The findings from Stiefel et al.’s (2017) study revealed little difference between students with disabilities and students without disability feeling included in regular classroom settings, despite receiving different services. Students indicated they felt only slightly less included with their peers but more included with their teachers.

Transitioning to Society

Inclusive education can be confronting for teachers, parents, and students because it prompts and challenges people to confront stereotypes and preconceived notions about humanity and to reconsider their belief systems, attitudes, and values toward people who demonstrate difference or deviant behavior. Peter (2007) referred to the philosophy of inclusive education as “the right of all individuals to a quality education with equal opportunity – one that develops their potential and respects their human dignity” (p. 99). The next step after the education system is for students with additional or special needs to transition into society.

There are a range of transition strategies and programs on offer for students with additional needs (Richardson et al. 2017) to transition into employment and the community; however, to be truly inclusive, it is advocated that inclusion starts from the beginning and with the hearts and minds of people living alongside each other every day, in the home and wider society.

Cross-References

References

  1. Ainscow M, Sandill A (2010) Developing inclusive education systems: the role of organisational cultures and leadership. Int J Incl Educ 14(4):401–416.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802504903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alchin G (2014) Is reasonable adjustment a deficit ideology? Spec Educ Perspect 23(1):3–6. http://aase.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/documents/SEP-Contents-Vol-23-No-13.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2019Google Scholar
  3. Al-Shabatat A (2014) Gifted teachers’ stages of concerns for integrating e-learning in the gifted schools in Jordan. Turk Online J Educ Technol 13(2):80–87. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1022908.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2019Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong A, Armstrong D, Spandagou I (2010) Inclusive education: international policy and practice. SAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashman A (2019) Education for inclusion and diversity, 6th edn. Pearson Australia, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  6. Booth T, Ainscow M (2002) Index for inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, BristolGoogle Scholar
  7. Brownell MT, Smith SJ, Crockett JB, Griffin CC (2012) Inclusive instruction: evidence-based practices for teaching students with disabilities. The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Chitiyo J, Brinda W (2018) Teacher preparedness in the use of teaching in inclusive classrooms. Support Learn 33(1):38–51.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christian LG (2006) Understanding families: applying family systems theory to early childhood practice. Young Child 61(1):12–20Google Scholar
  10. D’Alessio S, Watkins A (2009) International comparison of inclusive policy and practice: are we talking about the same thing? Res Comp Int Educ 4(3):233–249. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/rcie.2009.4.3.233. Accessed 15 July 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Degener T (2016) Disability in a human rights context. Laws 5(3):35–59.  https://doi.org/10.3390/laws5030035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edyburn D (2010) Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learn Disabil Q 33:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farrell P (2000) The impact of research on developments in inclusive education. Int J Incl Educ 4(2):153–162.  https://doi.org/10.1080/136031100284867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitzgerald P (2016) Differentiation for all literacy levels in mainstream classrooms. Lit Learn Middle Years 24(2):17–25. https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=041587236073899;res=IELHSS. Accessed 2 Feb 2019Google Scholar
  15. Florian L (2008) Special or inclusive education: future trends. Br J Spec Educ 35(4):202–208.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2008.00402.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Francis GL, Fuchs E, Johnson AD, Gordon S, Grant A (2016) Developing parent-professional partnerships in a postsecondary education program for students with disability. Psychol Sch 53(10):1045–1056.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Francis GL, Blue-Banning M, Haines SJ, Turnbull AP, Gorss J (2018) Building “our school”: parental perspectives for building trusting family-professional partnerships. Prev Sch Fail 60(4):329–336.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1164115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giangreco M (2013) Teacher assistant supports in inclusive schools: research, practices and alternatives. Australas J Spec Educ 37(2):93–106.  https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2013.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilliam WS, Reyes CR (2018) Teacher decision factors that lead to preschool expulsion. Infants Young Child 31(2):93–108.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenwood J, Kelly C (2017) Implementing cycles of assess, plan, do, review: a literature review of practitioner perspectives. Br J Spec Educ 44(4):394–410.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hardy I, Woodcock S (2015) Inclusive education policies: discourses of differences, diversity and deficit. Int J Incl Educ 19(2):141–164.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116/2014.908965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ho C (2017) Angry Anglos and aspirational Asians: everyday multiculturalism in the selective school system in Sydney. Discourse.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2017.1396961Google Scholar
  23. Horner R, Sugai G, Anderson C (2010) Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behaviour support. Focus Except Child 42(8):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hyde M (2015) Creating inclusive schools. In: Hyde M, Carpenter L, Conway R (eds) Diversity, inclusion and engagement, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, pp 353–364Google Scholar
  25. Ingólfsdóttir JG, Egilson ST, Traustadóttir R (2018) Family-centred services for young children with intellectual disabilities and their families: theory, policy and practice. J Intellect Disabil 22(4):361–377.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629517714644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jahnukainen M (2011) Different strategies, different outcomes? The history and trends of the inclusive and special education in Alberta (Canada) and in Finland. Scand J Educ Res 55(5):489–502.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2010537689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keen D (2007) Parents, families, and partnerships: issues and considerations. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 54(3): 339–349.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120701488855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kieran L, Anderson C (2018) Connecting universal design for learning with culturally responsive teaching. Educ Urban Soc 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124518785012
  29. Kuhn M, Marvin CA, Knoche L (2016) In it for the long haul: parent-teacher partnerships for addressing preschool childrens challenging behaviors. Top Early Child Spec Educ 37(2):81–93.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121416659053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kyriazopoulou M, Weber H (eds) (2009) Development of a set of indicators – for inclusive education in Europe. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, OdenseGoogle Scholar
  31. Lilley R (2013) It’s an absolute nightmare: maternal experiences of enrolling children diagnosed with autism in primary school in Sydney, Australia. Disabil Soc 28(4):514–526.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.717882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loreman T, Forlin C, Chambers D, Sharma U, Deppeler J (2014) Conceptualising and measuring inclusive education. Int Perspect Incl Educ 3:3–17.  https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-363620140000003015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mackenzie M, Cologon K, Fenech M (2016) ‘Embracing everybody’: approaching the inclusive early childhood education of a child labelled with autism from a social relational understanding of disability. Australas J Early Childhood 41(2):4–12.  https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911604100202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matavire M, Mpofu V, Maveneka A (2013) Streaming practices and implications in the education system: a survey of Mazowe district, Zimbabwe. J Soc Sci Policy Implic 1(1):60–70. http://ir.buse.ac.zw/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11196/613/streaming%20practice.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 30 Mar 2019Google Scholar
  35. Meo G (2008) Curriculum planning for all learners: applying universal design for learning (UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Prev Sch Fail 52(2):21–30.  https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.52.2.21-30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meyer A, Rose DH, Gordon D (2016) Universal design for learning: theory and practice. Cast Professional Publishing, WakefieldGoogle Scholar
  37. Miles S, Singal N (2010) The Education for All and inclusive education debate: conflict, contradiction or opportunity? Int J Incl Educ 14(1):1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802265125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mukherjee M (2017) Global design and local histories: culturally embedded meaning-making for inclusive education. Int Educ J Comp Perspect 16(3):32–48. https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/IEJ/article/view/12169/11454. Accessed 15 Nov 2018Google Scholar
  39. Nelson L (2017) Out of the institution, into the classroom: legal challenges to the use of restraint and seclusion in school settings in the United States. Int J Law Psychiatry 53:97–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.05.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peter SJ (2007) Education for All?: A historical analysis of international inclusive education policy and individuals with disabilities. J Disabil Policy Stud 18(2):98–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pope C (2002) Plato makes the team: the arrival of secondary school sport academies. Waikato J Educ 8:89–100.  https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v8il.448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Razer M, Friedman VJ (2017) From exclusion to excellence: building restorative relationships to create inclusive schools. UNESCO International Bureau of Education/Sense PublishersGoogle Scholar
  43. Richardson T, Jindal-Snape D, Hannah E (2017) Impact of legislation on post-school transition practice for young people with additional support needs in Scotland. Br J Spec Educ 44(3):239–256.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sands DJ, Kozleski EB, French NK (2000) Inclusive education for the 21st century. Wadsworth Thomson Learning, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  45. Selvaraj JA (2015) Inclusive education in New Zealand: rhetoric and reality. Hist Educ Rev 45(1):54–68.  https://doi.org/10.1108/HER-04-2014-0029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shyman E (2015) Toward a globally sensitive definition of inclusive education based in social justice. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 62(4):351–362.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2015.1025715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Skipper Y, Douglas KM (2016) The impact of a selective entry examination on children’s feelings as they approach the transition to secondary school. Br Educ Res J 42(6):945–961.  https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Slee R (2011) The irregular school: exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Slee R (2018) Defining the scope of inclusive education. Paper commissioned for the 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report, inclusion and education. http://repositorio.minedu.gob.pe/bitstream/handle/MINEDU/5977/Defining%20the%20scope%20of%20inclusive%20education.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 15 Sept 2018
  50. Smith DD, Tyler NC (2011) Effective inclusive education: equipping education professionals with necessary skills and knowledge. Prospects 41:323–339.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-011-9207-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stanford B, Reeves S (2009) Making it happen: using differentiated instruction, retrofit framework, and universal design for learning. Teach Except Child Plus. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967757.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2019
  52. Stiefel L, Shiferaw M, Schwartz AE, Gottfried M (2017) Who feels included in school? Examining feelings of inclusion among students with disabilities. Educ Res 47(2):105–120.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17738761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tomlinson C (2014) The differentiated classroom: responding to the needs of all learners, 2nd edn. ASCD, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  54. U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2014) Civil rights data collection. Data snapshot: early childhood education. Author, Washington, DC. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-early-learning-snapshot.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2019
  55. United Nations (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html. Accessed 17 Nov 2018
  56. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF. Accessed 17 Nov 2018
  57. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2000) Education for All: meeting our collective commitments. Notes on the Dakar Framework for Action. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001202/120240e.pdf. Accessed 17 Nov 2018
  58. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2017) A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002482/248254e.pdf. Accessed 17 Nov 2018
  59. VanderDussen Toukan E (2017) Expressions of liberal justice? Examining the aims of the UN’s sustainable development goals for education. Interchange 48(3): 293–309. https://eric.ed.gov/?redir=http%3a%2f%2fdx.doi.org%2f10.1007%2fs10780-017-9304-3. Accessed 18 Nov 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Woodcock S, Woolfson L (2019) Are leaders leading the way with inclusion? Teachers’ perceptions of systemic support and barriers towards inclusion. Int J Educ Res 93:232–242.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2016) General comment No. 4. Article 24: Inclusive education. Retrieved from https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD/C/GC/4&Lang=en. Accessed 10 Aug 2019

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1. College of Arts, Society & Education James Cook UniversityCairnsAustralia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Olivia A. M. Freeman
    • 1
  1. 1.Journal of Advanced Cognitive EngineersSociety of Cognitive EngineersMELBOURNEUSA